Vatican City, Aug 26, 2018 / 07:05 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s Aug. 26 in-flight press conference from Dublin to Rome:
Greg Burke: Holy Father, thanks for this time you’re dedicating to us after two intense days. Certainly, there were difficult moments. In Ireland, there was the matter of abuses, but also very beautiful moments: the Festival of Families, testimonies from families, the meeting with the young couples and the visit to the Capuchins, but maybe you want to say something else first…
Pope Francis: To say thank you, because if I am tired I think of you who have work, work, work… I thank you so much for your effort and your work. Many thanks.
Greg Burke: The first question, as usual, comes from a journalist of the [host] nation which is Tony Connelly, RTE.
Tony Connelly, RTE: Your Holiness, you spoke on Saturday about the meeting you had with the minister for children. You talked about how moved you were by what she said about the mother and baby homes. What exactly did she tell you? Were you shocked because it was the first time you had heard of these homes?
Pope Francis: The minister first told me something that didn’t have too much to do with mother and children (Editor’s note: mother and baby homes). She told me, and she was brief: “Holy Father, we found mass graves of children, buried children, we’re investigating… and the Church has something to do with this.” But she said it very politely and truly with a lot of respect. I thanked her to the point that this had touched my heart. And, this is why I wanted to repeat it in the speech… and it was not at the airport, I was mistaken, it was at the president’s. At the airport, there was another lady minister and I made the mistake there.
But, she told me, “I’ll send you a memo.” She sent me a memo and I haven’t been able to read it yet. I saw it was a memo, that she sent me a memo. She was very balanced in telling me, “There’s an issue, the investigation has not yet finished.” But, she made me understand that the Church has something to do with this. For me, this was an example of constructive collaboration, but also of, I don’t want to say the word “protest” … of complaint, of complaint for that which at one time maybe the Church was of help to do. That lady had a dignity that touched my heart, and now I have the memo there that I will study when I get home.
Greg Burke: Now, another Irishman, exchanging places, which is Paddy Agnew, who is from the Sunday Independent, a resident in Rome but an Irish journalist.
Paddy Agnew, Sunday Independent: Holy Father, thanks and good evening. Yesterday, Marie Collins, an abuse victim that you know well, said that you are not favorable to a new tribunal for Vatican inquiries on the issue of abuses, new inquiries on the problem of sexual abuse, and in particular on a so-called tribunal of inquiry on bishops, bishop accountability. Why do you think this is not necessary?
Pope Francis: (speaking over the last part of the question) No, no, it is not like this. Marie Collins is a bit fixated on the idea that came up. I esteem Marie Collins so much. At times, we call her to give Vatican conferences. She is fixated on the idea, the idea of the “madre amorevole” (editor’s note: The motu proprio, “As a loving mother”), in which it is said that to judge bishops, that it would be good to have a special tribunal. Then, we saw this wasn’t practical and it also wasn’t convenient for the different cultures of the bishops that had to be judged.
You take the recommendations of “madre amorevole” and you make the “giuria” (Editor’s note: a special commission of bishops) for each bishop, but it’s not the same. This bishop is judged and the Pope makes a “giuria” that is more capable of taking that case. It is a thing that works better and also because not all bishops are able to leave their dioceses. It’s not possible.
In this way, the tribunals, the “giurias” change. And that’s what we’ve done up until now. Rather many bishops have been judged. The latest is that of Guam, the Archbishop of Guam, who appealed. And, I decided – because it’s a very difficult case – to take the privilege that I have of taking on the appeal myself and not sending it to the council of appeal that does its work with all the priests. I took it upon myself. And made a commission of canonists that are helping me and they told me that when I get back, after a maximum of a month, a recommendation will be made so I can make a judgment. It is a complicated case, on one hand, but not difficult because the evidence is clear. I cannot pre-judge, I await the report and then I will judge. I say that the evidence is clear because there is this evidence which led the first tribunal to the condemnation.
This is the latest step. Now, there’s another and we’ll see how it ends. But, of course, I told Marie that the spirit and also the recommendation of “as a loving mother” is being done… a bishop is judged by a tribunal, but it isn’t always the same tribunal, as it is not possible. She did not understand that well. But, when I see her, sometimes she comes to the Vatican, I will explain it more clearly. I love her.
Greg Burke: Now, the Italian group. Holy Father, Stefania Falasca from Avvenire is coming.
Stefania Falasca, Avvenire: Good evening, Father.
Pope Francis: Good evening.
Falasca: You said also today that it is always a challenge to welcome migrants and the foreigner. Well, precisely yesterday a painful matter was resolved, that of the Diciotti ship. Is your hoof behind this solution? What was your involvement?
Pope Francis: The paw of the devil.
Falasca: Yes, then the second question: many in Europe see extortion on the backs of these people. What do you think?
Pope Francis: The welcoming of migrants is something as old as the bible. It’s in Deuteronomy, in the Commandments. God commands welcoming the migrant, the foreigner. It’s so old that it is in the spirit of revelation but also in the spirit of Christianity. It’s a moral principle. I spoke about this. Then, I saw that I needed to bit a bit more explicit because it’s not a welcoming with the “Belle etoile,” no! It should be a reasonable welcoming. That’s why Europe is all in this. And when did I realize how this reasonable welcome must be? When there was the terrorist attack in Zaventem (Editor’s note: the Brussels Airport), that that young men, the guerillas that made the attack on Zaventem were Belgians, but sons of migrants, not integrated, from ghettoes! That is, they were received by the country and left there, and they made a ghetto. They were not integrated. Then I remembered when I went to Sweden, and Franca (Editor’s note: Franca Giansoldati, Vatican correspondent for il Messaggero) in an article mentioned this, of how I explicitly made this though and when I went to Sweden, I knew it, I spoke about integration, as it was, because I knew because during the dictatorship in Argentina, from 1976 to 1983, many, many Argentinians and also many Uruguayans escaped to Sweden and there the government would integrate them immediately. It taught them the language, gave them a job and integrated them. To the point that, this is an interesting anecdote, a Minister who came to bid me farewell at the airport in Lund was the daughter of a Swedish and an African immigrant. This African migrant was so integrated to the extent that his daughter became a minister. Sweden was a model. But in that moment Sweden was beginning to have difficulties, not because it did not have the good will for this, but because it didn’t have the possibility of integration. This was the reason for which Sweden stopped for a bit. (After this step of integration) And then, I spoke during the press conference among you about the virtue of prudence, the virtue of the government. I spoke about the prudence of peoples, about the number or the possibility. A people that can receive but does not have the means to integrate [migrants], it’s better not to receive them. There, there is the issue of prudence. And I believe that this is the real core of the dialogue today in the European Union. We must continue to speak. Solutions will be found.
What happened with the Diciotti? I didn’t put my “paw” there. He who did the work with the minister of the interior was Fr. Aldo (Editor’s note: Fr. Aldo Bonaiuto, member of the Association “Giovanni XXIII”), the good Fr. Aldo that continues the work of Fr. Benzi, who the Italians know well, who work of liberating prostitutes, those that are exploited… The Italian Bishops’ Conference also was part. Cardinal Bassetti was there, but at the telephone, he guided everything by way of one of his two under-secretaries, Fr. Maffeis (Fr. Ivan Maffeis, director of communications) negotiated with the minister. And I believe that he went to Albania. Albania, Ireland took a number. Montenegro, I think not. I’m not sure. The others were picked up by the Conference, I don’t know if under the umbrella of the Vatican or not, I don’t know how it was negotiated there, and they’re going to a better world at Rocca di Papa (Editor’s note: an Italian town near Rome). They will be welcomed there. The number I believe that it is more than 100 and there they will begin to learn the language and to do that work that is done with integrated migrants. I’ve had an experience that was very gratifying for me. When I went to Roma Tre (University), there were students that wanted to ask me questions and I saw a student that “I know this face.” (Nour Essa, see story here, editor note), and it was one that had come with me among the 13 I brought back from Lesbos. And that girl was at the university because Sant’Egidio from the day after at school, to study, had integrated her at a university level. This is the work with migrants. There is an openness of heart for everyone, suffering, then integration as a condition for welcoming and then the prudence of those who govern for doing this. I have seen a clandestinely made film of the things that happen to those who are sent back. They are taken by the traffickers. Painful, the things that they do to the men… the women and the children, out! They sell them. But to the men, they do the most sophisticated torture. There was one there that was capable, a spy, of making that film that I sent to my two under-secretaries for immigration (Editor’s note: Fr. Michael Czerny and Fr. Fabio Baggio, undersecretaries of the Migrants and Refugees Section). For this, to send them back you have to think well. Then, one last thing: there are these migrants that come, but there are also those who are tricked at Fiumicino. They are tricked. “We give you work, they give you documents.” And they end up on the sidewalk enslaved, under threat from traffickers of women. That’s it.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Let’s go to the question from the English-speaking group. Anna Matranga from the American television, CBS.
Anna Matranga, CBS: Good evening, Holy Father. I’ll return to the subject of sex abuse about which you’ve already spoken. This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behavior of and the sexual abuse by former-Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true. I also wanted to ask something else: the Archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church. May I ask you whether these two things are true?
Pope Francis: I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last first we speak about the trip, and then other topics. I was distracted by Stefania, but I will respond.
I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good. (inaudible)
Matranga: Marie Collins said that after she met you during the victims gathering, that she spoke with you precisely about ex-Cardinal McCarrick. She said you were very tough in your condemnation of McCarrick. I want to ask you, when was the first time that you heard talk about the abuses committed the former cardinal?
Pope Francis: This is part of the statement about McCarrick. Study it and then I will say. Yesterday, I had not read it but I permitted myself to speak clearly with Marie Collins and the group, it was really an hour-and-a-half, something which made me suffer a lot. But, I believe it was necessary to listen to these 8 people and from this meeting came the proposal. I made it, the others accepted and they helped me to do it, to ask forgiveness today in the Mass. But, in concrete things. The last thing. I had never heard about those mothers, they called it the women’s laundry, when an unmarried woman got pregnant she went to the hospital, I don’t know what the school was called, and the sisters said that and then they gave the child away in adoption to people. There were two sons from that time, they tried to find their mothers, if they were alive. And they would tell them that it was a mortal sin to do this, and to the mothers who called for their children also it was a mortal sin. For this reason, today I finished by saying that this is not a mortal sin but it’s the fourth commandment. And the things that I said today some I didn’t know (before). It was painful for me but I also had the consolation of being able to help clear these things up. I await your comment on the document, I would like that. Thanks.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holy Father. Now, Cecile Chambraud of Le Monde.
Cecile Chambraud, Le Monde: Good evening, Holy Father. I hope you don’t mind if I pose my question in Spanish. I ask you to reply in Italian for all of the colleagues. In your speech in Ireland, you refer to your recent letter to the people of God. In that letter, you call all Catholics to take part in the fight against abuses in the Church. Can you provide details for us what concretely Catholics can do each in their place to fight against these abuses and on this theme, in France, a priest has started a petition for the removal of Cardinal Barbarin accused by victims. Does this initiative appear adequate to you or not?
Pope Francis: If there are suspicions, proofs or half-proofs, I do not see anything bad in making an investigation, but always that is done according to the fundamental juridical principal of “nemo malus nisi probetur” – No one is evil until it is proven. But many times there is the temptation not just to do the investigation but to publish that there is an investigation and why he’s culpable and so some media – not yours, I don’t know yours – to create a climate of culpability. I will tell you something that happened to me in these days that can help with this… because for me it is important how you proceed, how the media can help. Three years ago, more or less, the problem of the so-called “pedophile priests” started in Granada, involving 7, 8 or 10 priests accused of abuse of minors and of having festival or orgies and this kind of thing.
I received the accusation myself, directly, a letter made by a young 23-year old, according to him he was abused, he gave his name and everything, a young man who was working in a prestigious college of Granada, and the letter was perfect. And he asked me what to do to report this. I told him to go to the archbishop of Granada and tell him this, and the archbishop will know what to do. He did, and the archbishop did all that he should do. Then it also went to the civil tribunal and so there were two processes. But then the local media began to speak and speak (about this), and three days later, they wrote “in the parish, three pedophile priests” and so on, and in this way the consciousness was formed that the priests were criminals.
Seven were interrogated and nothing was found. On three, the investigation went ahead and they stayed in jail, for five days, two of them and one, Fr. Romani, the parish priest, was in for 7 days. For almost three years and more, they suffered hate, slaps from the whole town… “criminals!” They couldn’t go outside. They suffered humiliations made by the “giuria” declared to prove the accusations of the boy, that I don’t dare repeat here. After three years, meanwhile, the “giuria” declares the priests innocent, all innocent, but most of all these three, the others were already out of the case and the accuser was then denounced because it was seen that he had a vivid imagination. He was very intelligent and he worked in a Catholic college, he had this prestige and gave the impression of telling the truth.
He was condemned and had to pay the expenses. These men (the priests) were condemned by the local media before justice was done. For this reason, your work is very important, you must accompany the investigation but there must be the presumption of innocence, not with the legal presumption of culpability. There is a difference between the informer who provides information on a case, who isn’t playing for a foreseen condemnation, and the one who investigates, who acts like Sherlock Holmes and presumes that everyone is guilty, When we read the technique of Hercules Poirot, for him everyone was guilty, but this is the work of the investigator. They are two very different positions: but those who inform must start from the presumption of innocence, but saying their admirations, but this is a bit special, but why, to say doubts, but without making condemnations. This case that happened in Granada for me is an example that it will do us all good in our work.
Greg Burke: In the first part, you asked what could the people of God do about the issue…
Pope Francis: When you see something, speak immediately. I will say another thing that’s a little nasty: many times there are parents that cover up the abuse of a priest. Many times. You see it in the condemnation. “No, but…” they don’t believe… They are convinced that it’s not true and the boy or the girl remain like that. I by method receive every week one or two, but it’s not mathematical. And I’ve received a person, a woman, that for 40 years suffered this scourge of silence because her parents didn’t believe: she was abused at 8 years old. Speak! This is important. It’s true that for a mother to see it is better that it wasn’t, seeks that the child maybe is dreaming… speak! And speak with the right people, speak with those who can start a judgment, at least an preliminary investigation. Speak with a judge, with the bishop and if the parish priest is good speak with the parish priest, this is the first thing the people of God can do, this should not be covered up. A psychiatrist told me time ago, but I don’t want that this be an offense for the women, that for sense of maternity, women are more inclined to cover the things of the child than men. But I don’t know if it’s true, but… speak!
Greg Burke: Holy Father, we’re moving… the Spanish group. There’s Javier Romero, of Rome Reports.
Javier Romero, Rome Reports: Holiness, excuse me but I’d like to pose two questions. The first is the that the Prime Minister of Ireland, who was very direct in his speech, is proud of the new model of family different from that which traditionally the Church has proposed up until now: I mean homosexual marriage. And this is perhaps one of the models that generates more battles, and I thought in the case especially of a Catholic family , when there is a person of this family that declares themselves to be homosexual. Holiness, the first question that I’d like to pose you is: what do you think, what would you say to a father whose son says he is homosexual, that he would like to go live with his… this is the first question. And the second that you also in your speech to the Prime Minister spoke about abortion, and we saw how Ireland has changed so much in recent years and that it seems that the Minister was satisfied at these changes. One of these changes was abortion, and we saw that in recent months, in recent years abortion has come out in many countries, Argentina among others, your country. How do you feel when you see this is an issue of which you speak often and that in many countries it’s put in…
Pope Francis: Alright. I’ll begin from the second, but there are two points. Thanks for this. There are two points that are connected to the matter that we’re speaking about, on abortion you know what is thought. The problem of abortion is not religious. We are not against abortion for religion, no! It’s a human problem and it should be studied anthropologically. To study abortion, beginning with the religious fact is to skip over thought. The problem of abortion should be studied anthropologically. There is always the anthropological problem of the ethics of eliminating a human being to resolve a problem. But this is already to enter into the discussion. I just want to underscore this: I will never allow that the discussion on abortion begins on the religious fact. No, it’s an anthropological problem, it’s a human problem. This is my thinking.
Second. There have always been homosexuals, people with homosexual tendencies. Always. Sociologists say, I don’t know if it’s true, that in times of epochal changes, some social, ethical phenomena increase; one of them would be this. This is an opinion of some sociologists. Your question is clear: what would I say to a father who sees that his son or daughter has that tendency? I would say first to pray, pray! Don’t condemn. Dialogue, understand, make space for son and the daughter. Make space so they can express themselves.
Then, at what age does this restlessness of the child express itself? It’s important. One thing is when it shows itself in a child. There are many things to do with psychiatry, to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests itself after 20 years of age… But I’ll never say that silence is a remedy. To ignore a son or daughter with homosexual tendencies is a lack of paternity and maternity. You are my son, you are my daughter as you are! I’m your father, mother. Let’s talk! And if you, father and mother aren’t up to it, ask for help, but always in dialogue because that son and that daughter have the right to a family and that family of not being chased out of the family. This is a serious challenge, but that makes paternity and maternity. Thank you for the question! Thanks!
Greg Burke: Thanks to you, Holy Father.
Pope Francis: And then I would like to say something for the Irish that are here. I found so much faith in Ireland. So much faith. It’s true, the Irish people have suffered for the scandals. So much. But there is faith in Ireland. It’s strong. And also the Irish people know how to distinguish. And I cite what today I heard from a prelate: the Irish people know how to distinguish well between the truth and half-truths. It is something that they have within. It’s true that it’s in a process of elaboration, of healing from these scandals. It’s true that positions are being opened that seem to distance themselves from any faith. But the Irish people have a deep rooted faith. I want to say it because it’s what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard, of which in these two days I’ve been informed. Thanks for you work. Thanks a lot. And pray for me please.
Greg Burke: Thanks to you. Have a good dinner. Rest well!
[…]
It’s time for a chat across ideological boundaries. And a chat that reaffirms LAW and yet is not burdened by HISTORY? Which law, and what history?
“…one can and must say simply that Marxism failed as an all-embracing interpretation of reality and a directive for action in history [!]. Its promise of freedom, equality and welfare for all was not verified by the empirical facts; it was shown to be false on the basis of political and economic facts. Although these assessments are correct, one would remain on a superficial level if one were to be content with them. Rather, we must take one step farther [today, synodally “walking together”?] and ask: But what is specifically false in this interpretation of the world and in the praxis [Stalinism, etc.] deduced from it? An exact observation of the events leads directly to the heart of the matter: the power of the spirit, the power of convictions, of suffering and hopes, has thrown down the existing structures. This means that the materialism which wanted to reduce the spirit to a mere consequence of material structures [the “law” of history!], to the mere superstructure of the economic system [!], has been brought down. But here we are no longer speaking only of the problem of Marxism and its world of states [now the paradisiacal China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.]—we are speaking about ourselves. For materialism is a problem that affects us all; its breakdown compels all of us to an examination of conscience” (Ratzinger, “Turning Point for History,” Ignatius, 1994).
The FAMILY, too, is only a consequence of economic forces (F. Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, originally Zurich 1884). What, then, of Natural Law?
So now, a dialogue with “concrete” Marxists–in what way distinguishable from Marxism (?)–and this theological riddle in the hands of Prefect Fernandez who seems skilled in only the rhetorical harmonization of contemporary “polarities,” since nothing deeper or more concrete (!) seems to be on the synodal roundtable.
Skilled and skilleted—”from the frying pan [the, yes, imperfect market economy] into the [perfect]fire”?
About any “chat across ideological boundaries,” the presumed “harmonization of polarities” (both my wording), and the fallacy (!) of any third way between Capitalism and Socialism, the Catholic Social Teaching is not a middling third way, but rather the “negation of ideology”.
So, in regard to the noted rule of LAW (Pope Francis), and from a predecessor who lived through the (erased?) HISTORY of Communism and who wrote on the threshold of the 21st Century, the following clarification from St. John Paul II—when asked whether capitalism was the path for a post-Soviet eastern Europe and beyond:
“The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector [papal caricature: “invisible hand”, “finance and market mechanisms”?], then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a STRONG JURIDICAL FRAMEWORK which places it at the service of HUMAN FREEDOM IN ITS TOTALITY, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the CORE OF WHICH IS ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS, then the reply is certainly negative” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, CA n. 44, caps added).
Without diminishing the value of grounded dialogue (more than a flat-table synodal “process”?), what more is the perennial and incarnational Catholic Church bringing to its engagement with Marxists/Marxism, in addition to only a call for “poetry” and “creativity” (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/january/documents/20240110-dialop.html). More than a polarity, the Catholic Social Teaching “belongs to the field . . . of theology and particularly moral theology” (CA n. 55; Rerum Novarum n. 153).
Peter. This may well be, reading with moderately jaundiced eyes an adroit overture by His Holiness to expand the cooperative success of his Vatican China policy to include the universal Church.
Humor aside, admittedly, this pontificate has attracted ranking churchmen who have an affinity with Marxist socialist doctrine. We’re aware of high praise for the China regime being touted as a near perfect assimile of Christianity. Indeed there is that resemblance of communal equanimity inclusive of goods. His Holiness has expressed as much in his social doctrine, we recall his universal salary proposal, also his consistent appeal for the poor which is the perceived good of Marxism, a tenet of the Gospels. The difference is this pontificate minimizes the moral dimension as revealed by Christ in favor of a Marxist type of communal justice.
And it is hard to avoid wondering if his minimalizing of personal moral dimensions and heroic responses of personal virtue to heal fragile human woundedness or combat darkest humanity, inspired in ways only accessible through religion, from divinely endowed graces and sacraments, might be due to a dearth of authentic faith in whatever vestigial religious sense does inspire or fails to inspire his mind and soul. Marxists have never hidden their absolutist faith, and conceits, in elitist ordered social engineering, murderously intolerant of counterrevolutionaries. A faith in an eventual restructuring of the Church and the world to eradicate all evil often seems to govern Francis’ publicly expressed values, no matter how he might use prepared, perfunctory Christian rhetoric in Angelus addresses that would imply the imperfectability of the human condition, short of Our Lord’s return, were he to consider the meaning of the actual words.
Thanks, dear Fr Peter Morello PhD.
Any political or social system that cancels or curtails the freedom of human persons to choose between right & wrong ethics is a system that opposes what God is doing in this Universe & World.
God, the source of all, is the freely choosing Spirit who always autonomously chooses merciful self-giving love, right-ethical holiness, & perfectly just goodness.
Humans are the only living beings that we know of that share the capacity to choose godly right ethics, or devilishly wrong ethics. We are all EChOs – ethically choosing organisms. It is a maximally serious matter to be a person “in God’s image & likeness” – the opportunities are truly spectacular, the dangers really dreadful.
When militia, politicians, and other social managers (including AI) coerce or dictate in such a way as to diminish or remove the possibility for individual ethical choice, they quench the image of God in us.
Regimented societies have a certain appeal to demi-god rulers and even, tragically, to many who simply want to live a simple life according to the ‘rules of the system’.
This is de-humanizing because it suppresses the freely ethically choosing image of God in us, our source of personhood and our resonance with Heaven.
May God preserve us from Marx, Putin, Xi Jin Ping, ‘Pope’ Francis, and all their like.
Ever in the freedom won for us by Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“Pope Francis this week called for cooperation between Christians and Marxists as a way to achieve greater “dialogue” and help in the search for the “common good.”
Yes, because 20th Century history has given us ample evidence that Marxists have people’s best interests in mind 🙄. Francis, please just stop talking.
All sorts of useful idiots were conducting “dialogues” with the Marxists: PAX in Poland, Pacem in Terris in Czechoslovakia, etc. Under Paul VI, Catholic-Marxist dialogue went on steroids under the leadership of Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, a lunacy that did not stop until somebody who had real experience of Marxists — Karol Wojtyla — ended it. By then, the Hungarian hierarchy was largely a branch wing of the Hungarian Communist Party, the Czechoslovak sees were vacant, Uniate Catholics in Russia abandoned, etc. Now, the same mindset pursues this policy vis-a-vis Beijing, even though it is clear it is yielding nothing. One wishes Francis would stop his incessant “dialogues” and get down to doctrine (as it exists, not as he might wish it to be).
A revealing history! Thanks, dear John Grondelski.
Do you think this leopard can change his spots . . ?
I think Fidel Cadtro needs help harvesting his sugar cane crop. I’ve volunteered the name of one Jorge Bergoglio as sumpathetic to the cause.
I was so tempted to quip, when was the last time any Jesuit did an honest day’s work? Then my guardian angel kicked me and reminded me of the good Jesuits I met when I did some amount (not enough) of missionary work in the third world.
It’s great to see the pope getting past “rigid ideologies,” isn’t it? Ideologies that don’t starve millions, put opposing voices in gulags, build iron curtains to keep people from fleeing oppression, suppress religion, on and on. Marxism has such a stellar resume of greater dialogue and search for the greater good.
This pontiff continues to astonish.
O Lord, how long?
I’m getting confused.
Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that you weren’t supposed to sup with the devil?
Yes, but he was referring to other people, not himself 🙄.
(Sigh.)
Why am I not surprised?
One hundred innocents murdered over the past century isn’t enough to show what a bad idea this is?
How could someone this stupid have tied the Church into such knots?
I meant one hundred *million* innocents murdered over the past hundred years.
Sorry.
Actually, historians have now revised the figure closer to 140 million. And this does not include the aborted babies.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Pope Francis is not stupid at all. He and those he elevated to be cardinals know exactly what they are doing. They are working according to the plan worked out by the modernists at Vatican II to make the Church more compatible with the spirit of the modern age. A spirit directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus and they will fail. As Pope Benedict predicted we will become a much smaller Church, as many will decide they don’t need the Church at all. They will not see them selves as sinners in need of salvation.
Mr. Snow,
You get the BINGO prize! The Pope and his cardinals know EXACTLY what they are doing. Just as former president Obama, upon becoming a US President, advised that “America is about to undergo a “fundamental” change”, so to is Francis implementing fundamental changes with the other men who seem to be acting as politicians in the Vatican. Yes, they know exactly what they are doing, and perhaps, Archbishop Vigano has it right that the Swiss Guards at the Vatican should arrest the Pope and his seditious and heretical cohorts and remove them from the Lord’s Holy of Holies here on earth.
JCALAS!
“Dialogue” often leads to compromise. As in, you say 2+2=4; I say 2+2=6; so the correct answer must be that 2+2=5.
Someday, will we have St. Marx, patron of murderous ideologies? Perhaps there will be St. Pollyanna, patroness of dangerously naive dialogue?
As a Jesuit, this meeting is like the Pope talking to himself.
The Christian and Marxist conceptions of the common good are diametrically opposed. We should dismiss the Holy Father’s call for cooperation with groups and governments who have murdered well over 100 million in the last century and are determined to finish the job. The ongoing betrayal of Catholics and others who continue to suffer vicious persecution under Communist regimes like those in China and Nicaragua is one of the many and most serious scandals that will be this papacy’s legacy.
I’m already imagining what the “anti-everything-Francis” squads will say about this. I am personally hoping we can see a rejection of capitalism (state sponsored usury) as well as Marxism and a renewed interest in Solidarism. It is a real shame how most people have no idea that there is another, CATHOLIC way to run an economic system.
The Pontiff Francis is himself “not burdened by the history” of the sadistic, mass-murdering Marxist ideology, because he doesn’t identify with the millions of souls slaughtered in the name of his political hero, the psycho-sexual sociopath Karl Marx.
What’s important to “his purpose in life” is that homicidal, sociopath, anti-Christ tyrants, like General Secretary Xi, are preferred to to ascend to establishment power on every continent.
This is the gruesome reality signified by the two photo-stunts staged by the Pontiff Francis, when he first received his gift of the Hammer-and-Sickle-Crucifix, and subsequently orchestrated the worship of the idol Pachamama: what he reveres is not Christ crucified, but the empire that built the cross used to crucify him.
So the Pontiff Francis now presides over the “marriage-he-made-in-hell,” having collaborated with his longtime friend McCarrick, the sociopath-sodomic-sex-abuser, to sign the Pontiff’s “secret accord” with “their one, true god,” the Communist Party in China.
And now the self-identified progressive church apologists, in alliance with self-identified “moderate” and even “conservative” church apologists, have the opportunity to don the costume of the neo-ultramontanists, and sheepishly bleat out their message of the day, that the Church is not utterly polluted, but instead, it is “indefectible.”
But in battle against those voices is the Lion of Judah, the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, who is the head of the Body of Christ, and supreme Judge of the steward.
Pope Francis can’t quit talking.He has the condition known as compulsive talking. I think it’s a mental and or emotional illness.
It called loggorheia. It’s a chronic condition in his case.
Correct.
Silence is of little value to him. Deep thought, not his strong point, ever. Only the endless nonsense of jesuit-speak.
The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is the source of all heresy including the modernist Marxist heresy of the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists whose end goal is the objectification of the human person, as they designate the State to be their god of tyranny.
Shall we now ask God to Bless this tyranny even though such tyranny is anathema?
Surely if we choose to have that which is not Holy Blessed we become accursed.
Catholicism is Holy while Marxism, which can never be reconciled with Christ, is not.
Didn’t our Immaculate Mother warn us about this at Fatima?
A better world will only come when nations embrace the Catholic faith and proclaim Christ as King. It will not come from atheistic ideologies or compromising with them. Our Lady of Fatima warned us.
This is actually quite terrifying. I think human history gives us a darn pretty good idea of what Marxism does to governments and the people who are governed under Marxism. God help us.
“The common good” is not at all what most people assume it is. The truism, “a rising tide lifts all boats” shows a particular element (in this case water) affecting all that it touches, but just because all boats are lifted doesn’t mean that the water has advanced the common good, rather it has only facilitated a [universal] composite of particular goods.
Moving from boats to people, just because a particular political act has increased prosperity (and of course socialism hasn’t a track record proving anything of the sort) that also would be an amalgam of individual goods—the common good hasn’t been affected in any way. Even the building of a dam or a road or a reservoir for the benefit of those living nearby only multiplies individual goods.
The common good has to do with the ability of individuals to advance towards perfection, and thus economic questions have little to nothing to do with it. Our perfection consists in holiness, a deepening relationship with God, the proliferation of the sacraments, and freedom to choose the good. (Charles de Koninck has a lifetime of work dedicated to explaining this.)
Moreover, the suggestion that this project will allow peace to “grow from below,” beginning on the human level, woefully misunderstands grace as a gift from above, and that peace is “the tranquility of order, (Augustine) which again requires a turning to God and rejection of materialistic solutions to spiritual problems.
You can’t mix oil and water no matter how much you talk about it. Dialogue in this case is only good in clarifying both positions and acknowledging the impossibility of reconciliation. From there mutual agreement on respecting rights of both parties to live separately in peace could POSSIBLY be worked out. But this is highly unlikely long term due to our sinful nature.
Marxism is an ideology of building a perfect world through the murders of millions of innocents. That poor old man who envisions a dialogue with satanic evil is either uneducated or demented.
With a head stuck in the sixties this individual has us doing déjà vu all over again? This is pitiful, pathetic and scandalous. One would ascribe it to geriatric diminishment but he operates with a staff of the equally ideological malcontent who are not quite as advanced in the life journey.
Marxism has a trail of corpses behind it far, far longer than National Socialism and it continues its holocaust at this very moment. Our Chinese brothers and sisters in the Faith have been sold into its slavery by the present Vatican administration. In all honesty, this pronouncement actually makes the recent endorsement of blessings for sodomites look quite tame.
No one is undermining the Bergoglian enterprise with any honest critique. It is doing it to itself and boldly.
One wonders if Francis’ embrace of the road to serfdom stems from his resentment of market economies having to regularly impose sensible terms for bailing out his persistently failed country.
A financial version of the classic definition of insanity is buying Argentine government bonds and expecting it won’t default on them again.
A theological version might be trying to unite Catholicism with Marxism and expecting the combination not to be a betrayal of Catholic principles.
I say let the global Marxists send financial support to the Vatican and the real Cathokics in the Church use their dobations to support well-documented orthodox efforts regarding charity.
Maybe a visit to the iron law of oligarchy is needed in order to understand what went wrong with Marxism and what goes wrong with most human ideologies and what will always go unless one is grounded in humility and under the Lordship of a higher authority. The RCC learned very early in its history that an oligarchic structure was needed. Is the RCC now seriously trying to change that to a more democratic ‘synodality’? Is that the ‘why’ for the new (well more open) attraction to Marxism. Hmm. OK, how about Francis present another document comparing the lives of Christ and Marx. Marx was a horror especially to his own family. By their fruits you shall know them. The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate, the dispensing of which is carried out by his men in black, in order to pacify the masses from an otherwise meaningless existence and from questioning the oligarchs and those who seek to control them. Sometimes, often actually, it has been so. But Jesus, in righteous anger, overturned that mentality (in the temple) – he didn’t flirt with it or try to incorporate it into his teachings. Just a few thoughts.
OK, dialogue and seeking to understand other beliefs is always good but we’ve done this already in relation to Marxism (Liberation Theology???) and it indeed has become the co-foundation for the social justice movement in the Church. The difference between the two (Christ and Marx (besides their whole life example) is the means of achieving justice especially in regard to those who well, don’t cooperate – what do we do with those pests? (We can excommunicate them I suppose both spiritually and physically – cut them off paint them as evil). So, why these headlines? To make the world like the RCC more? Yes, there are sociological similarities between what most perceive as a Marxist approach (distribution of wealth) and the first Christian communities; yes, there’s a similarity there, but really, there’s not a lot more.
Because of my research into clergy sexual abuse, misconduct, activity, crimes, and Francis’s approach to especially adult victims of the likes of Randy Rupnik the Misconductor, which I am quite sure now is founded on some weird perception that these victims simply should not feel like victims and only do so because they have an approach to sex of someone ‘still in diapers’ and, therefore, it is they who are actually in the wrong. I cannot fathom that he does what he does otherwise. I really have come to believe that Francis believes that Catholicism is or should be merely a psycho-social humanism, a philosophy, able to be changed with debate and ‘new discoveries’ – very Jesuit. Nah, not for me or billions of others – makes no sense without a higher divinity beyond the mere wording of concepts God, Trinity, Christ, which I’ve come to think Francis has become a master at (wording), using all his Jesuitical training and prowess. He seems like a nice chap, though, doing all the nice justice things. And I often hear him talking, preaching, and then think it must be me who has it wrong.
We read: “The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate…”
I do disagree, but just for fun, over half century ago and as a student before one doctoral seminar in interdisciplinary urban and regional planning, I pulled the screen down about one foot after chalking atop the green board “planning is the opiate of the intellectuals.”
For writing space and midway through the class the screen was lifted, and was met with a long and blank silence at both the front of the class and among all the students. I realized that no one in the group even recognized what was being parsed. An eraser fixed the cognitive dissonance and we moved collectively into the future, some would say a bit like rhetorically erasing the magisterium.
Well, Peter, I do sort of say that (that Francis probably really does believe that religion is merely an opiate) with a little smile, sort of how I respond when people use that saying, “Is the Pope Catholic”? Hmm…. But my conclusions come from, yes, a very deep cynicism which has developed because of my insights into the minds and politics of the clergy or more so, the hierarchy, and the scales sort of fell away; my naivety was very traumatically dissolved; and all I saw before me where men who weren’t just sinners – I can cope with that – but more so, men who when push came to shove, really didn’t care about those they said they cared for; really didn’t believe in the Gospels, and what they taught us; holiness; prayer; purity; none of it, and for some not even God. But, they had found a lifestyle in which they were so well catered for, so why leave? They don’t really practice poverty in any meaningful way (I do, or have to not the least becasue of the effects of abuse), they in turn have all their needs catered for; obedience has come to mean more or less nothing, but I need to practice ‘obedience’ because of my committment to my wife and family; and as for cchastity, well, the research suyggests its a myth – so easy for clergy to get sex on the side. HOWEVER, when this is exposed, they have a huge institution of other men who when it comes to sex and relationships are for the most, stuck in an adolescent mentality anyway so they just don’t get it, and so are ready to defned them like Francis has done with Rupnik, (this is also clericalism by the way), and who have so much money and power with which to do this. As such, generally, any accusations are dismissed by clergy who have little sense of the damage that has been caused – to have this would be too convicting – as well as a general attitude of the flock that those on the noble journey of celibacy are more readily believed over those who it is too often believed, must have tempted them off that journey.
So, yes, I really have come to believe that the RCC and its leaders are mere politicians and sociologists but fully understand the power of spiritual language not because they actually really do believe what they say but because they believe people need to believe it, so this is what they give them – ‘spiritual’ opioids. The only thing that makes me doubt my conclusion here, is Frank’s fight against the traditional Catholics about whom many might say are fully addicted to a certain type of opiate. And then I came across this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02XoELK1Xo
Dear Stephen, thank you for your insightful analyses of our dire situation.
Thanks for the brilliant Cardinal Sheen clip; I’ve never appreciated a prophet in action as much as by this.
Stay strong in The Love of The LORD; blessings from marty
An act of mutual contradiction! History tells us that such cooperation is an illogical proposition! The Marxist leftists hate the unborn in particular and are at the forefront of ensuring that they perish! Where Is there even a hint of basic logic in what the Pope is asking?
With all the questionable goings on in the Vatican finances, shouldn’t the Vatican be working on its own problems to establish its competency to speak?
How long before even the secular media start to wonder if Francis has rocks in his head?
Marxists cannot be taken lightly. As human beings, Marxists have a lot to contribute in enriching fellow mortals to realize their true and full potential.
And, brain washing camps, are a great marxist tool to do that!
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free!
An absolutely ridiculous and shameful comment. I think the 500 million bodycount argues against that. There is nothing that Marxists say that believers need to hear.