Aboard the papal plane, Sep 11, 2017 / 10:10 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In his conversation with journalists on the return flight from Cartagena to Rome on Monday, Pope Francis touched on a variety of topics, notably the US government’s decision to end DACA and the crisis in Venezuela.
He also touched on the peace process in Colombia, Hurricane Irma, climate change, and migration during his Sept. 11 flight.
Please find below CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s in-flight press conference.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holy Father, for the time you are dedicating to us today after an intense, tiring trip; very tiring for some, but also a very fruitful trip. On several occasions you thanked the people for what they taught you. We also learn many things in this culture of encounter and we thank you for it.
Colombia in particular, with its recent past, and not only recent, offered us some strong testimonies, some emotional testimonies of forgiveness and reconciliation. But it also offered us a continuous lesson of joy and hope, two words that you used a lot in this trip. Now perhaps you want to say something, and then we can go to the questions. Thank you.
Pope Francis: Good afternoon and thank you very much for your work. I am moved by the joy, the tenderness, the youth and the goodness of the Colombian people. A noble people that isn’t afraid to express how they feel, isn’t afraid to listen and to make seen how they feel. This is how I perceive it. This is the third time I remember [that I have been in Colombia] – but there is a bishop who told me: no, you have been a fourth time – but only for small meetings. One time in Laceja and the other two in Bogota, or three, but, I did not know Colombia well, what you see on the streets. Well, I appreciate the testimony of joy, of hope, of patience in suffering of this people. It did me a lot of good. Thank you.
Greg Burke: Okay, Holy Father. The first question is from César Moreno of Radio Caracol.
Moreno: Thank you, Your Holiness. Good evening. First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of all the Colombian media that are accompanying us here on this trip, and all of the colleagues and friends for having come to our country, for having given us so many beautiful, profound and affectionate messages, and for such closeness that you demonstrated to the Colombian people. Thank you, Your Holiness.
You arrived, Holy Father, to a divided country. Divided on account of a peace process, between those who accept and those who don’t accept this process. What concretely can be done, what steps can be taken, so that the divided parts grow closer, so that our leaders stop this hate, this grudge? If Your Holiness returns, if you could return to our country in a few years, what do you think, how would you like to see Colombia? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I would like the motto to at least be: “Let us take the second step.” That at least it is this. I thought that there were more. I counted 60, but they told me 54 years of the guerrillas, more or less. And here it accumulates a lot, a lot. A lot of hatred, a lot of resentment, a lot of sickness in the soul. And the sickness isn’t to blame. It comes. The measles grabs and drags you…oh, sorry! I’ll speak in Italian. The sickness is not something to blame, it comes. And in these guerrilla wars – that they really waged, whether they were guerrillas, paramilitaries, or others – and also the corruption in the country, they committed gross sins that lead to this disease of hatred, of…But if they have taken steps that give hope, steps in negotiation, but it has been the last. The ELN ceasefire, and I am very grateful for it, very grateful for this. But there is something else that I perceived. The desire to go forward in this process goes beyond negotiations that they are being done or should be done. It is a spontaneous desire, and this is the strength of the people. This people wants to breathe, but we must help them with the closeness of prayer, and above all with the understanding of how much pain there is inside so many people.
Greg Burke: Now Holy Father, José Mojica, from El Tiempo.
José Mojica: Holy Father, it’s an honor to be here, to be here with you. My name is José Mojica and I am a journalist for El Tiempo, the editorial home of Colombia, and I also greet you in the name of my Colombian colleagues and all communications media in my country.
Colombia has suffered many decades of violence due to the war, the armed conflict and also drug trafficking. However, the ravages of corruption in politics have been just as damaging as the war itself, and although corruption is not new, we have always known that it exists, now it’s more visible because we no longer have news of the war and the armed conflict. What can we do in front of this scourge, up to what point can we stand the corrupt, how do we punish them? And finally, should the corrupt be excommunicated?
Pope Francis: You ask me a question I have asked myself many times. I put it to myself in this way: do the corrupt have forgiveness? I asked myself like this. And I asked myself when there was an act of…in the province of Catamarca, in Argentina, an act of mistreatment, abuse, the rape of a girl. And there were people stuck there, very attached to political and economic powers in this province.
An article published in La Nacion at that time moved me a lot, and I wrote a small book which is called “Sin and Corruption.” …always we are all sinners, and we know that the Lord is close to us, that he never tires of forgiving. But the difference: God never tires of forgiving, the sinner sometimes wakes up and asks for forgiveness. The problem is that the corrupt get tired of asking for forgiveness and forget how to ask for forgiveness, and this is the serious problem. It’s a state of insensitivity before values, before destruction, before the exploitation of people. They are not able to ask forgiveness, it’s like a condemnation, so it’s very hard to help the corrupt, very hard. But God can do it. I pray for that.
Greg Burke: Holy Father, now Hernan Reyes, from TELAM.
Hernán Reyes: Holiness, the question is from the Spanish language group of journalists. You spoke of this first step that Colombia has made. Today at the Mass, you said that there hasn’t been enough dialogue between the two parts, but was it necessary to incorporate more actors. Do you think it’s possible to replicate this Colombia model in other conflicts in the world?
Pope Francis: Integrating other people. Also today in the homily I spoke of this, taking a passage from the Gospel. Integrating other people. It’s not the first time, in so many conflicts many people have been involved. It’s a way of moving ahead, a sapiential way of politics. There is the wisdom of asking for help, but I believe that today I wished to note it in the homily – which is a message, more than a homily – I think that these technical, let’s say ‘political’, resources help and interventions of the United Nations are sometimes requested to get out of the crisis. But a peace process will go forward only when the people take it in their hands. If the people don’t take it in hand, it can go a bit forward, they arrive at a compromise. It is what I have tried to make heard during this visit: the protagonist of the peace process either is the people or it arrives to a certain point, but when the people take it in hand, they are capable of doing it well… that is the higher road.
Greg Burke: Now, Elena Pinardi.
Elena Pinardi (EBU): Good evening, Holiness. First of all, we would like to ask how you are doing. We saw that you hit your head… how are you? Did you hurt yourself?
Pope Francis: I turned there to greet children and I didn’t see the glass and boom!
Pinardi: The question is this: while we were flying, we passed close to Hurricane Irma, which after causing … deaths and massive damage in the Caribbean islands and Cuba, it’s feared that broad areas of Florida could end up underwater, and 6 million people have had to leave their homes. After Hurricane Harvey, there have been almost simultaneously three hurricanes in the area. Scientists say that the warming of the oceans is a factor that contributes to making the storms and seasonal hurricanes more intense. Is there a moral responsibility for political leaders who reject collaborating with the other nations to control the emission of greenhouse gas? Why do they deny that climate change is also be the work of man?
Pope Francis: Thanks. For the last part, to not forget, whoever denies this should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The scientists are precise. The other day, when the news of that Russian boat came out, I believe, that went from Norway to Japan or Taipei by way of the North Pole without an icebreaker and the photographs showed pieces of ice. To the North Pole, you could go. It’s very, very clear. When that news came from a university, I don’t remember from where, another came out that said, ‘We only have three years to turn back, otherwise the consequences will be terrible.’ I don’t know if three years is true or not, but if we don’t turn back we’re going down, that’s true. Climate change, you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a responsibility, all… everyone… a little one, a big one, a moral responsibility, and to accept from the opinion or make decisions, and we have to take it seriously. I think it’s something that’s not to joke around with. It’s very serious. And you ask me: what is the moral responsibility. Everyone has his. Politicians have their own. Everyone has their own according to the response he gives.
I would say: everyone has their own moral responsibility, first. Second, if one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then let them decide, and history will judge their decisions. Thanks.
Enzo Romeo (TG2): Good afternoon, Holy Father. I unite myself to the question my colleague made earlier because you frequently in the speeches you gave in Colombia, called again, in some way, to make peace with creation. Respecting the environment as a necessary condition so that a stable social peace may be created. The effects of climate change, here in Italy – I don’t know if you’ve been informed – has caused many deaths in Livorno…
Pope Francis: After three-and-a-half months of drought.
Romeo: … much damage in Rome. We are all concerned by this situation. Why is there a delay in taking awareness, especially by governments, that nevertheless appear to be solicitous perhaps in other areas, for example, in arms trade? We are seeing the crisis in Korea, also about this I would like to have your opinion.
Pope Francis: Why? A phrase comes to me from the Old Testament, I believe from the Psalm: Man is stupid. He is stubborn one who does not see, the only animal of creation that puts his leg in the same hole is man… the horse, no, they don’t do it… There is arrogance, the sufficiency of “it’s not like that,” and then there is the “pocket” God, not only about creation, so many decisions, so many contradictions (…) depend on money. Today, in Cartagena, I started in a part, let’s call it poor, of Cartagena. The other part, the touristic side, luxury, luxury without moral measure… but those who go there don’t realize this, or the socio-political analysts don’t realize… ‘man is stupid,’ the Bible said. It’s like that: when you don’t want to see, you don’t see. You just look in another direction. And of North Korea, I’ll tell the truth, I don’t understand. Truly, I don’t understand that world of geopolitics. It’s very tough for me. But I believe that what I see, there is a struggle of interests that don’t escape me, I truly can’t explain… but the other important thing: we don’t take awareness. Think to Cartagena today. Is this unjust. Can we take awareness? This is what comes to me. Thanks.
Valentina Alazraki, Noticieros Televisa: I’m sorry. Holy Father, every time you meet with youth in any part of the world you always tell them: ‘Don’t let yourselves be robbed of hope, don’t let yourselves be robbed of the future.’ Unfortunately, in the United States they have abolished the law of the “dreamers.” They speak of 800,000 youth: Mexicans, Colombians, from many countries. Do you think that with the abolition of this law the youth lose joy, hope and their future? And, after, abusing your kindness, could you make a small prayer, a small thought, for all the victims of the earthquake in Mexico and of Hurricane Irma? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I have heard of this law. I have not been able to read the articles, how the decision was made. I don’t know it well. Keeping young people away from family is not something that brings good fruit. Every young person has their family. I think that this law, which I think comes not from parliament [sic], but from the executive, if this is the case, which I am not sure, I hope that it will be rethought a little, because I have heard the President of the United States speak as a pro-life man. If he is a good pro-life man, he understands that the family is the cradle of life, and unity must be defended. This is what comes to me. That’s why I’m interested in studying the law well.
Truly, when youth feel, in general, whether in this case or another, exploited, in the end they feel that they have no hope. And who steals it from them? Drugs, other dependencies, suicide…youth suicide is very strong and comes when they are taken out from their roots. Uprooted young people today ask for help, and this is why I insist so much on dialogue between the elderly and the youth. That they talk to their parents, but (also) the elderly. Because the roots are there…[inaudible] to avoid the conflicts that can happen with the nearest roots, with the parents. But today’s youth need to rediscover their roots. Anything that goes against the root robs them of hope. I don’t know if I answered, more or less.
Alazraki: They can be deported from the United States…
Pope Francis: Eh, yes, the lose a root. But truthfully, on this law I don’t want to express myself, because I have not read it and I don’t like to talk about something I don’t understand.
And then, Valentina is Mexican, and Mexico has suffered a lot. I ask everyone for solidarity with the dean (Editor’s note: a reference to the journalist, who is a veteran reporter and on friendly terms with the Pope) and a prayer for the country. Thank you.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holy Father. Now, Fausto Gasparroni from ANSA.
Fausto Gasparroni: Holiness, in the name of the Italian group, I’d like to pose you a question about the issue of immigrants, particularly about what the Italian Church has recently expressed, let’s say, a sort of comprehension about the new policy of the government of restricting the exit from Libya in boats. It has been written also that about this you had a meeting with the President of the Council, Gentiloni. We’d like to know if effectively in this meeting this topic was spoken about and especially what you think of this policy of closing the exits, considering also the fact that after the immigrants that stay in Libya, as has also been documented by investigations, live in inhuman conditions, in very, very precarious conditions. Thanks.
Pope Francis: The meeting with Minister Gentiloni was a personal meeting and not about that topic. It was before this issue, which came out later, some weeks later. Almost a month later. (It was) before this issue. Secondly, I feel the duty and gratitude toward Italy and Greece because they opened their hearts to immigrants, but it’s not enough to open the heart. The problem of the immigrant is: first an ever open heart, it’s also a commandment of God, no? “Receive them, because you have been a slave in Egypt.” But a government must manage that problem with the virtue proper of a governor: prudence. What does that mean? First: How many places do I have? Second: Not only to receive… (but to) integrate, integrate. I’ve seen examples, here in Italy, of precious integrations. I went to Roma Tre University and three students asked me questions. One was the last one. I looked at her and said, “I know that face.” It was one who, less than a year earlier, had come from Lesbos with me in the plane. She learned the language, is studying biology. They validated her classes and she continued. She learned the language. This is called integrating. On another flight, I think when we were coming back from Sweden, I spoke about the policy of integration of Sweden as a model. But also Sweden said prudently: this number I cannot do. Because there exists the danger of no integration. Third: it’s a humanitarian issue. Humanity takes awareness of these concentration camps, the conditions, the desert… I’ve seen photographs. First of the exploiters. The Italian government gives me the impression that it is doing everything, in humanitarian work, to resolve the problem that it cannot assume. Heart always open, prudence, integration, humanitarian closeness.
And there is a final thing that I want to say, above all for Africa There is a motto, a principle in our collective consciousness: Africa must be exploited. Today in Cartagena we saw an example of human exploitation, in any case. A chief of government said a truth about this: those who flee from war are another problem, but there are many who flee from hunger. Let us invest there so that it may grow, but in the collective consciousness there is the issue that when the developed nations go to Africa it’s to exploit it.
Africa is a friend and must be helped to grow. Today, other problems of war go in another direction. I don’t know if I clarified with this.
Xavier Le Normand (iMedia): Holy Father, today you spoke in the Angelus, you asked that all kinds of violence in political life be rejected. Thursday, after Mass in Bogota, you greeted five Venezuelan bishops. We all know that the Holy See is very committed to a dialogue with this country. For many months you have asked for an end to all violence. But President Maduro, on one hand, has many violent words against the bishops, and on the other hand says that he is with Pope Francis. Would it not be possible to have stronger and perhaps clearer words? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I think that the Holy See has spoken strongly and clearly. What President Maduro says, he can explain. I don’t know what he has in his mind, but the Holy See has done a lot, it sent there – with the working group of four ex-presidents there – it has sent a first-level nuncio. After speaking with the people, it spoke publicly. Many times in the Angelus I have spoken about the situation, always looking for an exit, helping, offering help to get out. It seems that it’s a very hard thing, and the most painful is the humanitarian problem, the many people who escape or suffer…we must help to resolve it in anyway (possible). I think the UN must also make itself heard there to help.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holiness. I think we have to go.
Pope Francis: For the turbulence? They say there is some turbulence and we need to go. Many thanks for your work. And once more I’d like to thank the example of the Colombian people. I would like to conclude with an image. What most struck me about the Colombians in the four cities was the people in the streets, greeting me. What must struck me is that the father, mother, raised up their children to help them see the Pope and so the Pope could bless them, as if saying, ‘This is my treasure, this is my hope. This is my future.’ I believe you. This struck me. The tenderness. The eyes of those fathers, of those mothers. Precious, precious. This is a symbol, a symbol of hope, of future. A people that is capable of having children and then shows them to you, make them see as well, as if saying, ‘This is my treasure,’ is a people that has hope and future. Many thanks.
[…]
The whole aspect of censors needs to be looked at especially the automatic enactment of excommunication! What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference? What about clergy who are terrified this has happened to them. WHAT ABOUT MERCY? Does discussion about the ssm blessing warrant a similar attack?
For the record, he was wrong about what he said but there should have been a formal warning and if that isn’t hedded then excommunication be enacted. Personally, I feel automatic censors should be scrapped or limited with formal warnings.
“According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
This was not a problem of the bishop not understanding the priest. The priest had moved out to join up with other sedevacantists and left the keys to the Church with a laywoman for the bishop to find. This wasn’t a priest who just let his mouth get the better of him.
Automatic excommunication doesn’t incur a punishment until the local ordinary imposes it. Given the number of heterodox priests we have, there’s probably a shortage of such impositions.
Thanks Amanda for the clarification! I can see that in the light of what you have said, the bishop did reach out only to get rejected! Prayers for all concerned,
Great additional information, Amanda. This needs to be in the original CWR article, because I can see a lot of people getting mislead and getting riled up perhaps unnecessarily.
Thank you, Amanda.
Not an accident or joke. And, about “automatic censors” or censures (?), the article reports that a formal warning was in fact given: “According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
Given a presumably honest bind of conscience, rather than silently discerning or even waiting in silence, the pastor then crossed the line by going very public, and to a captive audience within the Church. He knew the consequences. Yes?
The cleverer case is Bishop Batzing & Co. who couch their dissent as still always wanting to be “Catholic but in a different way.” This, for example, after the Magisterium (with foresight!) has spoken clearly about natural law and about moral absolutes. Three extracts from Veritatis Splendor (1993):
“The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT DUE TO THE INSISTENT DEMANDS OF THE PERSONAL DIGNITY OF EVERY MAN [italics], demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit WITHOUT EXCEPTION [caps added] actions which are intrinsically evil” (n. 90).
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment…” (n. 115).
And, ““The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
What a blessed mess!
Excommunicated by Bergoglio? Two possibilities:
1) Bergoglio is note the pope. If so excommunication is note valid.
2) Francisco is the Pope. If so Bergoglio has declared that you don’t need to be catholic to be saved.
One way or amother, no problema.
This might get sticky but it would be interesting to know what the basis was for this priest’s conclusion.
This is the other kind of scandal committed via Fiducia Supplicans. On the one hand are all the people who read it and decide that sodomy is OK now and gay marriages are around the corner. On the other hand are all the people who read it, are horrified, and flee the Church. Both totally predictable from reading the text with half an ounce of common sense.
I wonder what might happen to a member of the laity who said the same thing?
Juxtapose this against the evil misdeeds of Rev. Rupnick (former S.J) who coerced nuns under his influence to have sex with him and then forgave the penitent nun of her fornication with him in the Sacrament of Penance. What were his consequences? Oh, he became assigned to a bishop in Slovenia when he was kicked out of the Jesuits but reportedly is still working in Rome as a priest and producing “Church art.” But….let anyone say anything about dear old Bergoglio and he or she gets excomnunicated from the Church. George Bergoglio is laughable.
I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: Two wrongs don’t make a right?
I wasn’t excusing either one from culpability. I was simply comparing the consequences of each act. But, since you raised the issue, I’d have to say that Rupnick’s behavior was more egresiously offensive. If you don’t agree, I’d suggest you ask the nun(s) he violated.
Deacon Edward: Both actions are wrong for different reasons. You know that. Please don’t use silly rhetoric.
Andrew, once again I state that I am addressing myself to the CONSEQUENCES of the acts.
Keep making comments like you did and you will find out about being a layperson. If you’re going to call out the Holy Father by his given name (and it’s Jorge, by the way, not George), then you are basically saying he is not the Pope of Rome. If you are a Latin Rite deacon, I suggest you drop the title the next time you post. You give clergy a bad name.
Mr. Moon, that is your opinion. And, for your information, I wholeheartedly agree that Bergoglio is the Pope (and legitimately so). So don’t try to bait me. I just happen to think he’s a lousy Pope.
“What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference?” INTENT. If he aknowledges it was a JOKE then the offense is not an actual offense. A priest is in service to the Church and the Church is led by the Pope. You can’t attack the ceo.
The head of the Church is Christ, and nearly everyone in the Church attacks Him on a regular basis without getting kicked out. Jesus is meek and humble of heart.
The early Church Fathers tended to recognize sins, even mortal sins, as not removing you from the Church. But they also recognized heresy and schism as separating you from the Church. Rejecting the Faith by heresy or rejecting the Church by schism makes you no longer Catholic (although obviously this is solved by Confession, not by re-baptism).
Amanda: Sorry to say, but the early Church booted laity and clergy for all sorts of things. Things that today would be considered very small (for example, critiquing a secular ruler could get one excommunicated – Canon 84). Check out the Apostolic Canons from the 3rd century as a very early example of the many rules that could get one deposed and/or excommunicated.
Canon 55 might apply to the above article: If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for you shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.
I’m aware. I was speaking of the sins that the Fathers would consider to put you outside the Church, regardless of whether explicit excommunication followed. A heretic or schismatic is de facto not Catholic, regardless of whether a bishop has declared them excommunicate.
The disciplinary canons of 3rd century councils do not apply in the present day.
I know they don’t apply today. I was commenting on your assertion that the early Church Father’s were more lenient. They weren’t. A whole bunch of things could get you excommunicated or deposed and the penances to get back were long.
I wouldn’t say they were more lenient in terms of dishing out punishment, no. And St. Paul had a man shunned for sleeping with his father’s wife, which makes one wonder what he would do with the likes of Rupnik or McCarrick.
But the Fathers seem to have been pretty settled that, even entirely absent any actual punishment, heresy and schism put you outside the Church. Excommunication was a punishment by removal of the spiritual benefits of Catholicism, treated as a tax collector or sinner. Mortal sin meant you were spiritually dead. Heresy or schism meant you weren’t Catholic, not even a bad Catholic or a severely punished Catholic or a spiritually dead Catholic.
To not speak evil of an evil man who aids and abets crimes against humanity like Francis, is to be a coward of a man. As a material heretic, I submit he has forfeited the papacy. If this excommunicates me, so be it. At my final accounting, I will not be standing before Francis or Fernandez.
Many thanks, dear Edward J Baker. A sizeable proportion of informed, faithful Catholics are with you. Like Fr Ramon Guidetti, our focus is on Jesus, Mary, & Joseph & the mighty assembly of faithful saints & martyrs. It is they who will judge those who have been faithful to The Word of God.
Maybe some resourceful Catholics will initiate a holy order (with scapulae?) – perhaps called NEUA (‘non e un accessorio’) to distance ourselves, like Fr Ramon wanted to, from the errors of the current leaders.
‘NEUA’ might solve the conundrum of how faithful, ordinary Catholics, both clergy & lay, can spiritually distance themselves from the heinous errors currently emanating from Rome.
“We are fully authentically Catholic; but not accessories of bad leaders!”
Ever trying my best to love & follow The Lamb; blessings from marty
Well, at least he did not claim Pope Francis is a lizard person.
Terrible occurrence. Citing canon 751 it seems an excommunication a jure, by the law rather than an ab hominem sentence. Hope it can be resolved. Apparently the timing is related to the issuance of Fiducia supplicans.
Criticism of a Roman Pontiff from the pulpit should not reach the level of repudiating his papacy. Whether some believe Francis is not, the fact is he’s acclaimed by the Church as pontiff. Both Benedict and John Paul would agree with that assessment whether there was a question of an unlawful election. No one has presented indisputable evidence. Even if there were now found it would be a moot issue. Criticism couched in the form of brotherly correction is permissible.
Fr Thomas Weinandy’s OFM Cap letter of correction to Pope Francis was quite harsh and accusatory although it was in the form of an appeal. Clergy are more strictly bound than laity, although no one’s immune.
“Clergy are more strictly bound than laity,”
And this member of the laity wants to know why Theodore McCarrick was never excommunicated.
Canon law and justice is one thing, just application is another. We’ve seen that unjust pattern since 2013.
Many thanks, dear Fr Peter, for your loving of Truth above powerful men.
One now winces every time PF, in bright white robes, mouths Gospel truths that his actions prove he actually despises.
Matthew 23:27-28 – “Alas for you, scribes & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You who are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside . . . you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy & lawlessness.”
Yet, let’s believe the malodors in Rome, by God’s overcoming Grace, will activate millions of normally dormant Catholics to decide to show what it really means to be a sincere lover of & follower of King Jesus Christ.
Ever seeking to love & obey Jesus, our LORD; blessings from marty
The same ‘bully boy’ excommunication tactic was used by Australian Catholic hierarchs against another truth teller – now known as Saint Mary of the Cross Mackillop, who is our ONLY Aussie Saint and, by the grace of Jesus Christ, a mighty intercessor!
Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop, please pray for Father Ramon Guidetti.
Deacon Peitler – I think you would win more support for your views if you ceased your disrespectful naming of Pope Francis.
Just sayin’.
It seems like a concern of yours but I do not live my life motivated by the approval of people I do not even know. I don’t look for “upvotes” in life; I look to say what I believe to be true. I tend to give respect to those who I perceive to live with integrity.
If this priest actually believes these things then he is clearly not in communion with the Universal Pastor of the Church and as such no longer in communion with the Church that the Pope leads. It’s kind of a no brainer that he is automatically excommunicated.
Thank you Andrew, you’re spot-on. Even though Francis is pretty liberal, he’s still our Pope. That fact must be recognized by all bishops and priests who have taken their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as servants of the One True Church.
Tbe German Bishops, along with Fr James Martin, can crawl back into their pathetic hole of heresy, but so can Fr Altman and Fr Ramon Guidetti for that matter.
With the exception that Fr. Martin and those like him will not be excommunicated, eh?
How easy is that dear Andrew . . !
YET: if Fr Ramon Guidetti is a faithful Catholic in every way yet is honestly convinced that the current incumbent of The Chair of Peter is in many ways not a faithful Catholic, and, like so many of us is deeply scandalized by non-Catholic teachings by him & his clique, the good priest is just, before Christ, to question the legitimacy of the papacy of Jeorge Bergoglio.
If, historically, Jeorge proves to have been the prophesied ‘Man of Sin’ – he is by far the best candidate ever – those who supported his papacy & those who excommunicate truth-teller faithful will look pretty silly! Don’t you think?
Ever following King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
If those who are honestly convinced that the Pope isn’t the Pope are to receive sympathy, than I don’t think there’s room to laugh at those who honestly think he is, albeit a bad one, even in a hypothetical future where they are proved wrong.
Thanks, dear Amanda. But no one is laughing at the current debacle.
This article & all our comments hinge on what is meant by ‘a bad pope’. ‘Bad’ covers possibilities ranging from merely tardy to maliciously malfeasant to a Christ-defying demon counterfeiting as an angel of light.
The majority of good Catholics simply can’t believe that the processes of our lovely Church could allow someone really bad to get into leadership. To protect our sanity, too many of us aimlessly repeat: “The pope is the pope!”
Is their hope? YES! Let all the faithful thank God that our obedience to Christ is the rock that cannot be shaken (Matthew 7:24).
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
yet financial and sexual sins merit what?
the Church has bigger problems than what this priest said/proclaimed
Bishop Simone Giusti informed his diocese that Catholics are not to attend any Masses offered by the excommunicated priest or they would also “incur the very serious penalty of excommunication.”
Where in canon law does it hold that the laity would suffer such a penalty under those circumstances?
It doesn’t, unless you take attendance at such a Mass as clear and sufficient evidence of schism rather than, say, misplaced loyalty to one’s priest or anger at the Pope whom you agree is the Pope. Makes you wonder what he’d do with someone regularly attending Protestant services…
I’m pretty sure he’d have to declare those excommunications. You can’t be automatically excommunicated outside of what is specified in canon law, and while schism is specified, attending a non-Catholic Mass, or not attending a Catholic Mass, isn’t.
Fr. James Altman’s bishop has been extraordinary patient and charitable considering the priest’s prolonged behavior compared to this Italian priest’s one homily. Perhaps there is a lot more that we don’t know about. May God bless them all.
So he now has an “irregular” relationship with the Church? Just give him an impromptu blessing a la Fiducia Supplicans and everything is back to a-OK, eh, Tucho?
Bullseye! When you think about it, the Church is inundated with irregular relationships of all sorts. For instance, anyone who associates with and supports Joe Biden is in a very irregular relationship and would deserve a blessing from his parish priest.
(A) Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, with the exception of a few hot-tempered clergy, like Guidetti, all priests, bishops, cardinals, and religious superiors are afraid of Francis—including the Bishop Giusti. You can diddle boys or girls, and Francis will look the other way, but call out Francis, and it is off with your head, and they’ll label you schismatic. (B) That being said, I disagree with Guidetti on one point: I think Francis is pope. (C) But it’s hard to disagree with Guidetti on his other complaints: that Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.
Well put, dear Richard Cross: “Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.”
Only, Catholics au fait with The New Testament & The Catechism of the Catholic Church consider Francis’ usurping of our traditions to include flagrant anti-Apostolic disobedience to the clear instructions of our LORD Jesus Christ. Hence, the conclusion that he is not qualified to run a Sunday School class let alone Christ’s Church.
Ever striving to hear & follow The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
Deacon Peitler again – I agree that popularity and support for our viewpoints are not, in themselves, worthy motives. But respect and charity toward others (even when we think they deserve them) are.
Again, there is no disrespect or lack of charity in his responses. That is a false accusation. In supporting Francis, you are defending the indefensible.
Correction – even when we think they don’t deserve them.
He said Francis is not the Pope and meant it. Thus he is refusing submission and communion with the Chair of Peter.
He got what he deserved. Granted it is fair to complain Fr. Martin should get what he deserves too but that is neither here nor there.
But one still must ask whether Francis is in communion with his predecessors and the constant teachings that they’ve upheld. He is indeed the Pope, he simply doesn’t conduct himself as one.
Dear ‘Jim the Scott’: “He got what he deserved.”
What he deserved was an open & charitable mind on the part of his superiors – in the same spirit as synodality! Fr Ramon deserved to be listened to and to have his major objections addressed in detail by PF, as Jesus Christ himself has taught us.
Fr Ramon, with millions of other faithful Catholics, is deeply troubled by PF’s betrayal of our beloved Chinese Catholic brothers & sisters, by his erecting pagan idols in Rome, by his laxity in prosecuting clergy who have sexually abused children & vulnerable adults, by his unwillingness to speak clearly about events in Ukraine and Palestine, by his giving Holy Communion to public advocates of infanticide, by his fraternizing with producers of pornography, by his malice towards those who see matters differently to him, by his manipulation of the college of cardinals & the curial offices in Rome, by his promoting of friends to positions far above their talent or experience, by his obstinate & subtle advocacy for homosexuality & adultery, by his swinging incompetence in so many areas, AND by the evidence-based suspicion that his election to the papacy was engineered in ways that should, in all justice, automatically bar him from that office. And there’s a lot more!
As the leader of our enormous Church, PF should have set an example in transparency and accountability not in lashing out at those who are legitimately making their complaints known. His is an atrocious example. May there never be such a pope again.
This was likely not a wise move by this priest. On the other hand I was not aware that commenting about the legitimacy of a pope was an offense for which a priest could be excommunicated.
Imagine being a priest who was ordained promising blind obedience to their church superiors. Then imagine you see a pope going off the rails on a consistent basis saying and doing things in direct contradiction of everything you have been taught or known about church theology and law. Where, as a priest, does that leave you?? How do you square your vow to obey upper churchmen with unknown intent, and what your own conscience tells you is wrong?? Maybe you do what this priest did and express yourself to the sheep YOU are responsible for shepherding. Perhaps not a smart tactical move but one which you feel morally obligated to express.
Let us all pray the next pope is more orthodox, has a better grasp of Catholic theology, and ALSO has thicker skin. What would Jesus do? Probably NOT excommunicate a priest who is making his distress at the direction of the church publicly known.
Good points, and He knew Judas was an actual betrayer, not just a talker and yet he was allowed at the last Supper, right?
Judas was allowed at the Last Supper, and given Holy Communion, because his sin was not manifest. Only Jesus knew.
Even present canon law requires that a person in mortal sin be given Holy Communion even if the priest is aware of it – if the sin is not manifest or public. Canon law requires that the person be denied if it is manifest. You’ll notice Jesus didn’t invite the Sanhedrin to the Last Supper.
No priest promises blind obedience to his superior. Even religious, who take actual vows of obedience, do not agree to blind obedience. All obedience to a superior is ordered toward obedience to Christ, and where the superior orders things contrary to Christ, you obey Christ. That doesn’t mean your superior is automatically deposed or must have been invalidly elected, or that you are henceforth relieved of obedience.
The Pope going off the rails doesn’t mean he isn’t Pope. The office would be useless if we had to be forever ascertaining whether a Pope was validly elected based on whether his behavior was atrocious, or whether his non-infallible statements were clear, cogent, and orthodox.
I don’t know of any way in which this priest was being ordered to do something contrary to his conscience, unless you count acknowledging Francis as Pope while offering Mass. He wasn’t excommunicated for giving an explainer on FS that rejected it, or for refusing to bless a same-sex couple.
I have a lot of sympathy for this priest being scandalized by the Pope and the cardinals, but he was wrong, schismatic, and scandalous. And now no Pope or bishop, no matter how gentle and generous, can lift his excommunication without his repentance.
Dear Amanda, well-argued but divorced from two realities.
First, that many lower order clerics live in terror of hierarchs who can abolish their Church positions & reduce them to impoverished, homeless, unskilled has-beens. Only very courageous persons (such as Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop) can exercise the freedom to dissent that you say is theirs.
Second: Fr Ramon Guidetti was making public his refusal to be an ACCOMPLICE of the grievous offences of PF & entourage against Christ Jesus, His Blessed Mother Mary, and numerous faithful saints & martyrs (i.e. THE CHURCH sensu strictum). His ‘excommunication’ is unarguably null & voided by those circumstances (even on your own criteria).
Incidentally, when excommunicated & thrown out on the street by the Catholic hierarchy, Saint Mary Mackillop and her wonderful Catholic nuns were cared for by Jewish and by Presbyterian Australians.
Plenty for us Catholics to think about, if we truly face the injustices of these situations.
Always striving to hear & follow Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
They do indeed promise total obedience. I will assume the proper response at their ordination to the question of their obedience is “YES”.Yes is not a conditional response. Men being ordained do not respond that they will obey, “In so far as conscience allows me”. They say yes. Period.
If you follow the Catholic press at all you must be aware that Francis has given any number of statements which have been of major concern to the Catholic public. It is exactly because he has wandered far from Catholic orthodoxy that many catholics view the pope with concern.. The recent firing of conservative catholic clerics and his recent paper giving an “OK” to blessing those in gay relationships are but two among MANY reasons why this Pope has lost credibility.
Well put, dear ‘LJ”.
At ordination, I heard 2 new priests questioned by our Archbishop: “Will you respect & obey me and my successors?” I couldn’t hear their replies. Was praying that they would say: “I will respect & obey you, dear Archbishop, in accord with the instructions of our King Jesus Christ in The New Testament and in accord with the wisdom of our Catholic Saints & Elders in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Commenters are losing focus. Those who question this Pope’s legitimacy do not do so based on their view of his performance. I believe it harkens back to the resignation of Pope Benedict–the messiness and lack of clarity behind it. The fact that the papal approach and Vatican leadership took a major left turn with Pope Francis feeds the fuel for those who question whether Pope Benedict was pushed out.
Mom of 3,
I think there’s been a lot of unanswered questions ever since Pope Benedict resigned and conspiracy theories often have a grain of truth behind them. It’s the conflation of that which becomes a problem and a tool to cause division.
The Body of Christ needs to stick together and we should be faithful and vigilant, watching for any attempt to break us apart.
Mr. Ramon Guidetti is correct, so far as his words are concerned. But he is an advocate of Benevacantism. I know that Benevacantism is incorrect.
What is most important to any Catholic is making sure that he is following the pope, and not an antipope. It is a fact that at one point there were three people claiming to be the pope.