The Questions 60 Minutes should have asked Pope Francis

The questions posed by Norah O’Donnell touched on none of the crucial issues raised by the pontificate over the past eleven years, even as they reinforced any number of mainstream media caricatures of the pope, his teaching, and his mode of governance.

(Image: Screenshot / www.cbsnews.com)

Whatever else it managed to accomplish, Norah O’Donnell’s 60 Minutes interview with Pope Francis, aired on May 19, obliterated that much-lauded program’s reputation for hard-hitting investigative journalism. The questions posed touched on none of the crucial issues raised by the pontificate over the past eleven years, even as they reinforced any number of mainstream media caricatures of the pope, his teaching, and his mode of governance.

What questions might Ms. O’Donnell have asked to make for a truly interesting interview on the old Sixty Minutes model? Some possibilities:

+ Your Holiness, you once responded to a reporter’s question about the specific case of a homosexual priest who was trying to lead an upright life by saying that, if a person turns from error and works with grace to live righteously, “Who am I to judge?” The global media immediately and inaccurately universalized this into an all-purpose papal injunction to moral non-judgmentalism about same-sex acts. Have you ever thought it important to correct that misrepresentation?

+ After you decided to live in the Casa Santa Marta, the Vatican guest house, rather than in the papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace, the mainstream media praised this as a refreshing, anti-regal decision. But as you know, the papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace is far more like a middle-class Italian flat than a gilded, Borgia-era boudoir. Wouldn’t correcting this media misrepresentation have been a service to the memory of your predecessors, who are implicitly criticized for inappropriate royalism by their choice to live in the apartment where popes have lived for some time?

+ Pope John Paul II invited guests for breakfast lunch, and dinner virtually every day for more than two decades, including men and women with whom he disagreed on various matters, because he thought he needed to learn from their experience and hear their views to do his job well. Do you ever break bread with those with whom you might disagree, or otherwise seek inputs from outside the circle of your closest associates?

+ You have said that the ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood is not possible, period, and that the Synod on Synodality, the signature initiative of your pontificate, is not an occasion for debating settled matters of doctrine. But Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, of Luxembourg, one of the key Synod leaders, has recently said that these are open questions that should be aired at Synod-2024. Have you instructed him to cease and desist?

+ Have you ever thought it important to correct the false notion that Catholic teaching on the moral life, or on the structure of the Church, is not a matter of “policy” but of settled truths?

+ Why has Father Marko Rupnik, whose sins and crimes of sexual abuse are among the vilest, most satanic on record, not been reduced from the clerical state, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance?

+ Do you think that the world is interested in the Church of Perhaps – the Church that is unsure of what it believes and muddled about what makes for happiness in how we live? Isn’t the world riddled with enough ambiguity? Aren’t the confusions you have identified – such a gender ideology – best dealt with through clarity married to compassion, rather than ambiguous “accompaniment” that does not call anyone to conversion?

+ Why have you removed bishops from their pastoral office without canonical due process?

+ Granted that some ultra-Traditionalist Catholics reject the Second Vatican Council in toto, why should their extremism become the occasion to deprive other Catholics, faithful to the Church and its teaching, of a form of worship they find spiritually nourishing? Couldn’t the errors of the RadTrads have been addressed without wounding those who find worship according to the 1962 Missal a source of grace?

+ Have you seen the widely circulated meme in which you are presented with an expensive white bicycle, to whose donors you say, “I am not blessing a bicycle, I am blessing two separate wheels”? If you have, I expect you laughed. But how, precisely is that meme mistaken?

+ Are there ever circumstances in which an exceptionless moral norm – for example, the prohibition on a childless couple resorting to surrogate pregnancy – can be overridden by the facts of a particular situation and the subjective judgment of the couple’s consciences? Isn’t that the “proportionalism” definitively rejected by John Paul II in the 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, in which the pope taught that some acts are simply wrong in themselves, and cannot be justified by a calculus of intentions and consequences? And if “proportionalism” is an acceptable method of moral reasoning, how would it apply to other exceptionless moral norms, such as the proscription of murder, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, and genocide?

+ You have spoken often and eloquently about peace. How is peace to be achieved when an aggressor has declared his intent to eradicate the object of his aggression, and the attacked party knows that it is facing an existential crisis in which its very survival is at issue?

+ The fate of migrants should touch any sensitive heart. But have you ever addressed the failures of states, ideological systems, and regimes from which migrants flee? Isn’t finding remedies to those failures a service to migrants – and to states that are being overwhelmed by an unregulated flow of refugees, at least some of whom are criminals taking advantage of others’ suffering by masquerading as economic or political refugees?

+ How do you account for the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States, for all the challenges it faces, is the most vital, vibrant local Church in the Western world? How do explain the collapse of Catholic faith and practice in Germany?

+ Vocations to the priesthood have declined in many countries during your pontificate. Do you think this has anything to do with your regular criticism of priests and seminarians?

+ How do you distinguish between an inappropriate clericalism and authentic priestly fraternity?

Granted, these are not the kind of questions that, phrased in this way, fit the pattern of rapid-fire interrogation characteristic of 21st-century television. But they are among the questions that will be on the minds of the cardinal-electors in the next conclave, and if CBS doesn’t grasp that, its viewers will be ill-served when the time comes for the next papal transition.

(Full disclosure: The author is Senior Vatican Analyst for NBC News.)


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About George Weigel 520 Articles
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. He is the author of over twenty books, including Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (1999), The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II—The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy (2010), and The Irony of Modern Catholic History: How the Church Rediscovered Itself and Challenged the Modern World to Reform. His most recent books are The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church in Mission (2020), Not Forgotten: Elegies for, and Reminiscences of, a Diverse Cast of Characters, Most of Them Admirable (Ignatius, 2021), and To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II (Basic Books, 2022).

83 Comments

  1. Good to see George Weigel notice what has been obvious to Catholics who are Catholic for eleven years, except for that first question where there was no misunderstanding. Francis has made it clear continuously that he does not believe there is any moral “error” in the homosexual life nor any other sort of sexual sin. He rejects backwardist beliefs held by Catholics who are Catholic. He does believe chastity is a dirty word and coprophilia is not.

    Self-evident questions that should have topped this hypothetical list for the formerly perceptive Weigel would involve asking Francis if he actually believes in God. And if so, does he believe God to be smart or an idiot who deprived the peoples of the past adequate knowledge of how they need to order their lives together. From there, he can be asked why he rejects unchanging truth, why he believes elite intellectuals are in a unique position to “correct” the rest of humanity, on a progressive path to perfection.
    He can then be asked why elites should “correct” the beliefs that Catholics believe they have been given by God to order their lives together because they believe, through original sin, they are prone to delusions, the sort that affect everyone, even those of high IQ, to believe they know better than God how to save their souls and the entire human condition.

    I can name a hundred more questions that flow from these, but these are self-evident to anyone who has ever given thought to Catholic ideas, which leads to the paramount question to ask Francis: Are you a Catholic?

    • What about the Vatican’s more than great, great wealth, and the great, great need for food for the hungry?

      • Why Mary Helen comes up Short,
        Perhaps Short is referring to the Vatican’s reduction in 1870 to its 109 acres of buildings and art collections? Yours truly recalls that the same kind of expropriation of civilization’s relics was proposed during the Archbishop Marcinkus financial scandals of the mid-1980s.

        The salvaged “great, great wealth” of civilization’s relics was calculated at $12 BILLION—or now $33 billion in inflated $US.

        This vast sum is a mere 1.7% of the ANNUAL deficit ($2 Trillion) in the U.S. federal budget, or 0.8% of the largess expended to offset COVID ($4 Trillion). Or, only 0.1% of the cumulative U.S. NATIONAL DEBT (now $34 Trillion). The imaginary wealth of printed fiat currency…

        And none of this considers the expropriations and destructiveness of the REFORMATION, which today help explain the lucrative church-tax in several European nation-states and especially the well-funded corruption of der Synodal Weg.

        Speaking of expropriations and dilution of currencies, we begin to wonder at the endgame of SYNODALITY and now the expert “study groups” that even now are printing out draft proposals for Synod 2024:

        In step with Short, might we IMAGINE an unimaginable ransacking of the Church?

        …expendable dialogue with the Orthodox Churches, over the retained sorta-blessing of the homosexual lifestyle; evangelization diluted into mongrelized “missionary” sociology; a church within a Church with fiat/invalid female ordinations (deaconesses as a transitional step, as were “civil unions” in the secular domain toward oxymoronic “gay marriages”); redefinition of “ecclesial organization” (Lumen Gentium’s “hierarchical communion”) into a polyhedron of internal sects and even a coagulated “pluralism” of religions; cafeteria ecumenism by intercommunion with sectarian ecclesial communities (which five centuries ago broke from the Apostolic Succession instituted by some religious leader named Jesus Christ).

        Unimaginable! But, speaking of the perennial Catholic Church’s custodianship of “great, great wealth” in artful RELICS, the converted Communist (and inspirational Protestant!) Whittaker Chambers had this to say:

        “It is idle to talk about the wreck of Western civilization. It is already a wreck from within. That is why we can hope to do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the rack or a handful of ashes from the faggots, and bury them secretly in a flowerpot [or a Vatican art collection] against the day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there was once something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth”(Whittaker Chambers, author of “Witness,” 1952; in a letter to William Buckley, August 5, 1954, in the collection “Cold Friday,” 1964).

      • Are you suggesting that the Church should sell all of it’s priceless works of art, which are currently accessible, for free, to anyone who wants to come look at them (as opposed to museums which people pay large sums to enter)? Do you realize that those artworks would then be hidden from the public in private collections? All of that money would feed the hungry for about 2 days. Then what? Recall the disciple (Judas) who admonished Jesus for allowing the woman with the jar of Nard to anoint Him with it. Judas also made the argument you make, that the money should be used to feed the poor. Jesus rebuked Judas and still reminds us that, “The poor will always be with you.” Have you ever noticed that poor people attend Mass more than the wealthy? I speak with many of them regularly. They often mention how being in a beautiful space, with beautiful art, and seeing a golden chalice or monstrance is the one physical place in their lives where they get to be surrounded by beauty. Shall we take that from them to feed them for a few days?

      • Dear Mary Helen,

        Here is a quote for you: “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” (Matthew, 26:11).

        Among the many reasons that we will always have the poor with us–and why your sentiment is very misguided–is that the causes of poverty are not simply material. And neither are the solutions. Your “recommendation” would never solve poverty but it would impoverish the faithful by betraying the fiduciary responsibility of the Church. The art and properties that you would casually divest were, by and large, created by faithful Catholics and bequeathed to the Church for safekeeping–not for sale. Moreover, your materialist ideas would deprive current and future generations of spiritually uplifting art and buildings. Finally, as some other respondents point out well, the calumny that the Church holds “great, great wealth” in opposition to caring for the poor is belied daily and globally. No other institution does more than the Catholic Church in schools, hospitals, hospices, and other insitutions.

    • The main question that was never asked was why did the Pope make Fernandez a Cardinal? He has a tarnished past, and was definitely not elgible for this position!

  2. Thanks. I’ll try a few.

    Could a future Pope annul your papacy and do his best to clean up the mess?

    If you want others to also make a mess, why punish and abuse those who challenge the mess of your pontificate? How are they being disobedient by obeying you? And if they are not, how are your punishments anything other than vengeance?

    Speaking of vengeance, do you believe Hell exists or a perfect God could allow for eternal damnation? If not, what other doctrines do you disbelieve, and why remain Pope if you do not want to confirm the faithful in doctrine?

    If select Sacred Scripture, Tradition and orthodox teachings of previous pontificates can be disobeyed in practice, why should your pontificate be obeyed?

    Have you ever promulgated heteropraxy to teach others to disregard in practice doctrines you no longer believe?

    Have you ever collaborated with or promoted those who have abused or covered up the abuse of minors or vulnerable young adults? If so, how is that Catholic?

    • St. Vincent de Paul to his Brothers:
      “How can we give love to others, if we do not have it among us?..If we do not love each other as Jesus Christ loved us and if we do not act as He did, how can we hope to spread such love throughout the world?”
      (Conference 207)

  3. Good questions, but only part way through his pontificate Pope Francis was quoted to say “I don’t listen to my critics.” Possibly no more serious than an unfortunately self-protective personality type?

    So, hey, TRADITION is alive and well!

    The interview is just a photo-op from one very-ongoing aftermath dating back to the Investiture Crisis—which supposedly untangled Church from State in A.D. 1076 to 1124. The new twist is that, rather than kings, it’s now the modern MEDIA that invests both kings and popes…

    Only yesterday, in 1903, the Catholic and Austrian EMPEROR FRANZ JOSEPH was the last secular ruler to veto a candidate for the papacy (Cardinal Secretary of State Mariano Rampella);
    Then, in 1983, upon arriving at Nicaragua’s Managua Airport, the Catholic POPE JOHN PAUL II correctly wagged his finger at the Marxist Fr. Ernesto Cardenal (the Sandinista Minister of Culture);

    Now, in 2024, the media elevates the crypto-Catholic Biden as an Aztec anti-pope, while the real POPE FRANCIS I—on the same public media—wags his tongue at his constructive critics as “conservative” and “suicidal.”

    Yours truly chose not to eyeball the actual interview, but from a distinctly American “tradition” (!) such an earlier-reported choice of words (eh!) gives an entirely new meaning to President Theodore Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit”!
    ______________________________________________
    Maybe Pope Francis’ envoy to the upcoming Eucharistic Congress, which also kicked-off on May 19, can “walk” this judgmental (!) LABEL back. Synodally, of course! Said the envoy Cardinal TAGLE ten very long years ago:

    “Let me address the journalists. I don’t think it is helpful to label people. Labeling people as progressive, as conservative, as traditionalists, may hinder a full listening to them. If we have decided already in our minds, ‘this person is traditionalist,’ whatever the person says, you or we, will always say, ‘Ah, traditionalist.’ Or if the person says something that does not sound traditionalist, we change the LABEL—’Ah, he’s not a traditionalist, he’s a progressive’” (one of 19 papabili researched in Edward Pentin, editor, “The Next Pope: The Leading Cardinal Candidates,” Sophia Institute Press, 2020, p. 575, citation from October 2014).

  4. If Weigel seriously expects reporters who share this Pope’s worldview to ask him such tough questions, then I have some prime beachfront property in Central Manitoba I would like to sell him.

    Besides, has Weigel considered the distinct possibility that the Vatican had to preview and approve any questions. and that CBS might have had to submit them in advance even to get the interview?

    • I believe that, at least in the era of Murrow and Cronkite, CBS (and all other self-respecting news outlets) would have flatly refused to submit questions for prior approval, even if that meant being refused an interview. But I guess that was then–this is now.

    • I believe that this could be considered “feature journalism “ if so it is should be judged as such , and I believe it successfully accomplished what it set out to do. It doesn’t need to be thorough or balanced. It’s goal is both to entertain and inform.

  5. Pope Francis’ age and position isn’t for cowards who avoid tough questions. It also isn’t for hypocrites. He favors dialogue for tough matters outside the Church but not inside. Shouldn’t his very high regard for dialogue taken precedence with Bishop Strickland instead of removing him without extensive efforts to dialogue with him? Why the double standard?

      • No, that’s not true. I know mature individuals with good self-awareness who do not practice double standards. It’s a pity if you don’t. But more importantly, the pope is supposed to set an example, especially if he rails against clericalism and abuses of authority.

  6. Truly one of the most “disappointing” events in a pontificate which can’t stop providing them. Suicidal faithful Catholics do not exist…why would they engage in self-extermination when they already have a gun pointed at their back?
    The mendacity apparent here is revolting.
    As for extolling “open-borders” … apparently the economic expertise of the Vatican is unaware, or at least unconcerned, that the pivotal economy of the United States is $32 trillion dollars in debt. We can support 10 million+ impoverished people? We can deal with the social and judicial conundrum they present? When we go down everything goes down. That will make for a global sinful social injustice unseen in history. And what will replace the free-market system. Marxism? Is that what is intended by Pope Francis? Apparently the Vatican’s fiscal acumen is right up there with their pharmaceutical acuity. Where is the apology from the Holy See for the the lives lost, the jobs lost, due to its grievously irresponsible perspective regarding the Chinese bioweapon and the Vatican’s promotion of an illegitimate medication which continues, and will continue for years, to result in serious side effects and death.
    But for a few men one would regard the American episcopate as constituted by geldings. Where is their voice?
    While Faithful Catholics are abandoned, they are not suicidal, but the present pontificate is very deliberately setting up the papacy for the self-extinction. After this pontificate will the Holy See have any more potency than vacuous European monarchies?

    • Daniel! Do you live in a place where every fast food place is begging people to work for them? Do you see help wanted job signs everywhere as I do here in Rhode Island? There was room for your ancestors when they came, why not for these people? I’m talking about legally accepting people into our country with love and respect. James Connor

      • James, I’m not anti-immigration. We have a looming demographic implosion & we’ll need more young people in the workforce. Since the West doesn’t seem to want to reproduce itself we need immigrants.
        But part of the reason you see businesses begging for employees is due to our diminished work ethic & the knowledge that there are welfare & disability benefits available. Paying people to stay home during Covid only made it all worse.
        Folks coming to our border largely hail from nations that do not offer those benefits. They have a work ethic because they have to. It worked the same way for our ancestors.
        Social welfare programs are a good thing as long as they are only a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

      • So in order to grant you your moments of moral instruction to us, complete with condescension privileges, we should all become morally indifferent to the human traffickers and their sex slaves, committed terrorists, released prisoners sent north from governments mocking and exploiting the border laxity, and drug cartels, some so brazen as to have built tunnels under the border, complete with lighting, air conditioning, and cocktail refreshment stops?

  7. Question#1: “Your Holiness, you speak like an expert on matters of the climate. How specifically did you come by your expertise on this matter?”

    #2. “Your Holiness you recently critized some in the Church for what you say is their close-mindedness, alikening it to suicide. Why, then, did you refuse to even speak with the four Cardinals who issued a dubia about something you’d written?

    #3. Your Holiness, are you aware that one website sponsored by one of your fellow Catholics is compiling a rather lengthy compendium of all the derogatory things you’ve said publicly about your fellow Catholics?

    #4. Your Holiness, can you explain why a majority of Catholics in the Church of which you are the Chief Shepherd believe that killing babies in their mother’s womb is morally permissible? A follow-up question, if you please: Can you explain why a majority of Catholics do not believe that what they receive at Mass is not the Body and Blood of Christ?

  8. + Why has Father Marko Rupnik, whose sins and crimes of sexual abuse are among the vilest, most satanic on record, not been reduced from the clerical state, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance?

    Has George Weigel ever answered why JPII never reduced Marciel Maciel or Theordore McCarrick from the from the clerical state to live a life of penance?

    • The closest that Weigel ever came (that I am aware of) was in this 2010 essay: “John Paul and [Cardinal Stanislaw] Dziwisz were badly deceived by Maciel. So were many other people, including hundreds of high-ranking churchmen, his own religious community, a lot of very wealthy and presumably astute Mexicans and Americans ­– in fact, people all over the world. Falling prey to this deception constituted a failure in the late pope’s governance, objectively. But this failure was neither willful (he knew something was awry and did nothing about it), nor venal (he was “bought”), nor malicious (he knew what was going on, and didn’t care), and thus doesn’t call into question John Paul II’s heroic virtue.”

      https://www.georgeweigel.com/money-scandal-and-rome/

      In short, a wiley Maciel utterly deceived John Paul II, who was fooled to the very end.

      But it might be worth asking, if that is true, how culpable Papa Wojtyla’s naivete was. Because it was not the first time he was suckered by a psychopathic prelate. And because there was an awful lot of evidence of said psychopathic behavior lying around, readily available and communicated to John Paul II.

      • psychopaths are very smooth talking manipulative individuals. many are sucked in by their charm. harder to believe a prelate of high rank is a psychopath. rare are these personalities of destruction but they do a lot of damage. JP2 may have been sucked in but pope francis is more cunning and certainly could strip Rupnick of priesthood as this is 2024 with very good evidence and not the 1990s ..

  9. I assume that the Vatican would require a list of questions prior to these formal type of interviews so the Pope can prepare. Had the list that Mr Weigel suggests been sent to the Vatican, there would not been an interview. Perhaps even a response that “the Pope has already been clear” on the subject of the question(s).

    • i believe you are correct. pope francis does not like to be cornered to explain his actions and divisive comments as well as what i view as destructive judgements on peoples.

  10. Here’s one:

    Why has Father James Martin, whose sins include misrepresenting and compromising the church’s teaching about sexuality, not been laicized, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance?

    • very good question. my belief is because he is a jesuit and has a higher presence with pope francis as he is a jesuit. this progressive secular Jesuit style seems to envelop this papacy.

  11. Good questions by all the previous commenters. I would add one that they have not asked or at least have not had the courage to ask:

    “Throughout the past 11 years you have surrounded yourself in the Vatican with practicing homosexuals, protected from criminal and canonical prosecution homosexual priests and bishops, routinely praised and supported homosexuals who have identified themselves to you, and even financially supported transsexual and homosexual prostitutes living in Rome. Since no normal heterosexual man would behave in this fashion, it is necessary to ask: ‘Are you a homosexual? Yes or no?’

  12. I am wondering when Francis will retire? He has hinted that he will retire rather than hang on until the end. It is possible that he might retire at the end of 2024. This was once thought impossible, but Benedict paved the way.

  13. Another question: When you assumed the Chair of Peter, you announced that it was your intent to “make a mess.” Have you succeeded?

    • Before Nora would or could ask any of the questions, she would have to have some basic knowledge of the stories that the questions originated from. Ms. Roberts is a new reader not an investigative reporter. She reads and asks the questions that she is given and like most of the secular media, they don’t care or have a clue about the Church. I will also add that if the Pew survey is accurate, (based on Pope Francis approval rating in the survey), neither do a large number of self identified Catholics.

  14. “Is is true that the Vatican Gift Shop will soon be selling Pachamamas made by indigenous craftspeople? If so, will they be made with sustainably harvested materials?”

  15. I am shocked at the level of hatefulness and disrespect “Catholics” in the U.S. exhibit toward the Holy Father. It is quite obvious you have adopted the un-Christlike attitude of far too many in U.S. church leadership, and have doubtless attended too many political rallies.
    I will pray for your souls.

    • And we will pray for yours, which must be in quite a bad state if you are sincerely defending Francis. His conduct is inexcusable.

    • Re “disrespect,”guilty as charged. I respect the Office but not the man who dishonors it. In fact, my “disrespect” for Pope Francis pales in comparison to his disrespect for me and my family whose crimes have been faithfulness to the age-old teaching of the Church, which in the bizarre and twisted world of Francis and his corrupt friends is considered “suicidal rigidity.”

      The man has been a historically bad Pope who has presided over a historically destructive papacy…and the longer it goes on, the more damage it does.

      • this i would have to agree. in the beginning of his papacy i thought him ok.. but then years went by and there were too many ambiguities, confusion, unclear representations of his humbleness, as well the double soeak and the very harsh treatment and judgements without cause to whom he ideologues as “backward”. and “suicidal dogmatically ”. this of course does not comply with his “listening” “dialogue “ church ideology. as well i have recognized him more as a bully dictator than a compassionate listener. pandering to dysfunction is never a therapeutic approach to healing.

    • I think that the motives that many of the posters have for questioning the Holy Father’s words and actions are love and respect, not hatefulness and disrespect.

      Tolerating a loved one’s obvious errors is not love and respect. All of us need people in our lives who will be honest to our faces about our flaws, not out of disrespect for us, but out of respect for who we are capable of being if we work on correcting those areas where we have gone astray.

      I personally think that many of Pope Francis’s viewpoints were developed because he has lived most of his life in South America, where there is a lot of political turmoil in certain countries (especially Argentina, his home!). It’s difficult for many of us in the U.S. to understand his point-of-view and his approach to various issues, as we have witnessed so many wrongs in South America.

      Also, it’s my opinion as someone who earned a B.S. in Biology/Medical Technology and worked in this field for 41 years that the same pseudo-science and propaganda from non-scientists (e.g., journalists and entertainment professionals) that is confusing Americans about so-called “climate change” is also confusing the Holy Father.

  16. Why give an interview to this secular media and not at least attempt to bring others to Christ in the hope of saving souls, unless your desire is to be the leader of a political movement sans Christ?

    • 60 minutes in an election year…At a minimum, the pre-scripted interview was designed to influence our upcoming election by providing Catholics in swing states an argument from authority to vote for Biden, et al. This was cleverly done, so no one left fingerprints. And yet, was there anything in the Pope’s responses that would encourage a vote for Republicans? No. Was there anything in his answers that would encourage a vote for Democrats? Yes. Every bit helps. Margins will be razor thin. The friends of Francis at Georgetown and Fordham must be thrilled.

    • As “The One World Government With The One World Religion In The New World Order Moves Another Step Closer To The Reality “, that, in fact, there is a counterfeit church , that is anti Christ, attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, it seems obvious to the Faithful that denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost is the source of all heresy, including modernism, where errors in the past beget more errors in the present.
      That is why you would give an interview to a secular media organization, with no concern for The Salvation Of Souls, the rest is all the details that deny The Christ, and thus deny Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace And Mercy.

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fr-gerald-murray-slams-pope-francis-comments-on-homosexuality-african-bishops/

      We can know through Faith and reason which acts are Life-affirming and Life-sustaining, and thus acts of authentic Love, and which acts deny authentic Love, such as the destruction of a beloved son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb, or sexual acts that regardless of one’s desires, deny the Sanctity of the marital act ,and thus deny the inherent Dignity of all beloved sons and daughters.

      The essence of authentic Love is simple and yet profound:

      The Sacrifice Of The Cross, The Sacrament Most Holy, Is The Sacrifice Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity; “For God so Loved us that He Sent His Only Son…”
      At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
      “Behold your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross
      “Penance, Penance, Penance.”
      May a Council be called, that will anathema the counterfeit church, from The True Church Of Christ, so that Our Blessed Mother’s Heart Can Triumph and restore Peace to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
      And may the error of Vatican II, which by no longer recognizing the spirit of The Charitable Anathema, allowed for chaos and confusion , leading to the creation of a counterfeit church, which , in denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, denies The Word Of God Incarnate, Our Only Savior, Jesus Christ, be corrected, by affirming The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.
      🙏💕🌹

  17. How is the immigration policy of the Vatican different from the US? Which country is is more welcoming?
    How many immigrants has the Vatican received and assimilated during the pontificate of Pope Francis?
    Why not auction off the profane art at the Vatican Museum, move the sacred art to Churches, and repurpose that half a million square feet to house the poor? Are not the poor the real treasure of the Church? Is the Vatican museum money being wasted to fund bloated bureaucracy and boondoggles?
    Why not charge rent to sycophants and stop subsidizing their apartments? Or is that a punishment for your enemies?

  18. We live in an era where, due to social media, the Pope is constantly exposed, indeed, overexposed in his every move. Everyone comments. Up to this point, there would be nothing wrong. But we stray from the evangelical spirit when these comments foster disaffection because then the foundation upon which the entire Church is built—charity—crumbles. Everything, including criticisms, must be done while preserving charity to remain within the evangelical spirit. Otherwise, they constitute a sin, which sometimes can even be mortal.

    In matters of necessity, as Augustine would say, where freedom of opinion is not permissible, there must be unity. These are the truths concerning faith (de fide) and morals (de moribus). On this point, we know that Jesus has guaranteed to keep Peter from going astray. In doubtful matters, and all the more in matters of opinion, everyone is free to think as they wish. On this ground, it is legitimate to have a different opinion.

    The issue here is whether it is appropriate to make these criticisms the subject of public controversy. I think not, because it is very easy to lose or cause others to lose charity and create disaffection towards the one who stands in the place of Christ in shepherding the sheep.

    • If the ‘one’ in the last sentence refers to Francis, he does not shepherd the sheep when he refers to some as being locked in dogma and therefore suicidal. Francis is in fact the cause of lost charity and disaffection.

      A good father gives food to his children when Christ asks that his Vicar feed his children/sheep. A good father does not feed his children stones. (Luke 11:11)

      By disparaging faithful Catholics TO THE SECULAR WORLD, airing HIS DIRTY LAUNDRY in the PUBLIC SECULAR MEDIA, the pope undercuts his own authority and shows his uncharity, his falsehood, his obstinate blindness, his pride and his error for what they are in truth.

      • Here is what Saint Thomas, my preferred Saint (along with St. Joseph and padre Pio, of course!) says: “Murmuring and gossip coincide in matter and also in form, that is, in verbal expression: since both consist in speaking ill of one’s neighbor without their knowledge. And due to this similarity, they are sometimes confused with each other. Thus, when Ecclesiasticus (Sirach 5:14) says, ‘Do not earn the title of a whisperer,’ the Gloss adds, ‘That is, of a slanderer.’ However, they differ in their aim. The slanderer aims to denigrate the reputation of his neighbor: and thus particularly focuses on presenting those defects that can defame a person or at least diminish their reputation.

        Instead, the whisperer aims to destroy friendship, as is evident from the cited Gloss (in the contrary argument) and from the passage in Proverbs (26:20): ‘Where there is no whisperer, strife ceases.’ Therefore, the whisperer focuses on presenting those defects that can excite the listener’s mind against a person, according to the words of Scripture (Sirach 28:9): ‘A sinful man sows discord among friends and spreads enmity among those who are at peace’ (Summa Theologica, II-II, 74, 2).

        In omnibus caritas: in everything, or in every case, there must always be charity.
        As has been said, if criticisms do not promote charity, one is outside the evangelical spirit.
        And is it permissible to criticize the Pope? And to criticize him publicly?
        Saint Thomas writes: ‘When there is a danger to the faith, subjects are bound to rebuke their superiors even publicly. Therefore, St. Paul, who was a subject of Peter, rebuked him publicly due to the danger of scandal in faith. St. Augustine comments: ‘Peter himself set an example for superiors not to disdain being corrected by their subjects when they happen to stray from the right path’ (Summa Theologica, II-II, 33, 4 ad 2).

        But Saint Thomas also says that ‘one touches the superior culpably when one reproves him without respect, or when one speaks ill of him’ (Ib., ad 1).
        This is what one often reads in the criticisms of the Pope.
        Many of them lack calmness of mind, respect, and charity.

        Christ reacted to the servant of the High Priest who had struck Him by saying without animosity and without ferocity, but with calmness and firmness: ‘If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?’ (John 18:23).
        This is how discussions among Christians should be, so that non-believers or those of other religions might repeat the amazement expressed by Tertullian: ‘See how they love one another!’ (Apologeticum 39,7).

        Therefore, I urge to stay away even from reporting the sharp criticisms made of the Pope in order to remain in God’s grace and to constantly attract His blessings upon us and upon many.

        • Your approach is deeply misguided at best, grossly sinful at worst. Legitimate criticism of a church leader, including the pope, is absolutely necessary and appropriate, particularly when he drifts into demonstrable error. We are not called to stick our heads in the sand in service to a delusion of unity or false obedience. When church leaders demonstrate that they no longer see clearly, believers have a responsibility to call them back to the faith.

          • Here is the translation of the provided Italian text to English:
            Showing not only a different sensitivity from that of the Pope, which is legitimate and reasonable to avoid falling into papolatry, but an aversion to his person, and if not declaring him openly heretical, coming close to it, is a theologically and spiritually incorrect attitude.
            In fact, it is not Christian.

            Saint Catherine of Siena, who is a Doctor of the Church, writes: “And it will not excuse them to complain about the defects of the ministers of the blood (implied: of Christ), saying: we persecute the defects of the bad Shepherds. Because we false Christians have come to the point where we think we are making a sacrifice to God by persecuting his bride. Although the ministers of God were incarnate demons and full of all misery, we must not for this reason become ruffians or executioners of Christ” (Letter 254).

            It should be remembered that Saint Catherine was speaking at a time when there was a Pope with a harsh character and some prelates were tempted by schism, declaring the Pope’s election invalid.

            The Eternal Father, speaking with Saint Catherine, says that this sin is particularly grave: “Therefore I tell you that if on one side all other sins that are committed were placed, and on the other side this one sin alone, I would be more displeased with this one alone than with the others” (Dialogue of Divine Providence, 116).

            He also tells her that “the demons do everything to pervert souls, withdraw them from grace and lead them to mortal sin, so that they suffer the same evil they suffer. These people do the same, no less, because as members of the devil they go about subverting the children of the bride of Christ, unbinding them from the bond of charity to bind them in the miserable bond of sin” (Ib., 117).

            It is not only serious but also does not go unpunished. Saint Catherine writes: “No fault goes unpunished, especially the one committed against the holy Church. This has always been seen” (Letter 313).

        • Excuse me, but my remaining in God’s grace does not in any miniscule way depend upon Pope Fractus. It does not depend upon Francis either.

        • Further, no one here slanders Francis. Neither have we reproved him. We are commenting on the words Francis himself has said. He has slandered faithful believing Catholics, the sheep he should, by the command of Christ, feed.

          Rather than honoring the prayer of Christ and doing his duty toward fulfilling Christ’s prayer in striving for unity among His flock, Francis will make a mess, scattering Christ’s flock and using his rod to berate rather than charitably help God’s children. Francis will denigrate his fellow Catholics, and he will curry favor from the secular world while holding up for secular approval the church-made-in-his-image; this in a totally public forum. He has held up for the world HIS DIRTY LAUNDRY, AND he dishonors the commands of Christ to Peter and Peter’s successors by doing so. Francis dishonors Christ. As sinners, we do nothing but point out our sorrow and our suffering at his words and his actions, but if our pope refuses to see, at least we see in each other a friend and a fellow sufferer.

          Finally, regarding the claim that we murmur in public or “behind Francis’ back” we say nothing we would not want him to hear. He is free to read and likely has access to a computer; does he know how to use one is a different question.

    • I believe you are misguiding the question and answer so that the true things you quote are not applicable as you would have them.

      After St Paul confronted St. Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, he continued to tell other churches about it in subsequent letters. St. Peter had dodged the full matter: at the Council he may have conceded on the question of obligatory circumcision but he was still coddling up with Judaizers allowing them to quietly insinuate and scatter about, disseminate and distribute their strangeness in different places and at various levels.

      Mis-applying Church teaching and applying the teaching where it does not quite relate, are very common phenomena among those resisting faith -those both outside the Church and those among the members.

      But you also say that the Pope should not be publicly challenged. Yes it does rend the heart. But at the same time he elevates in public what can not be sustained, such as “legalize homosexual civil union”, or changing the Our Father, or “discard Redemptrix”. And the list is longer than that. Then having done it he fails to rectify the public record and his personal stances.

  19. Pope Francis’ possible replies to George Weigel

    Reply #1: Yes, I did think of that, but the media will report what it wants to report, and any corrections I make will not enjoy front page status, as do those statements that the media is determined to spin for its own agenda. I did complain once early on that I am a son of the Church, but that was ignored. The good thing here is that people have access to the entire interview online, and so they can consult that and read those comments in their entire context. If they do not do that, then they have far too much trust in the media, which at this point in time is rather foolish. If people have not learned by now that they need to always consult the original, then perhaps they deserve to be deceived.

    Reply #2: Compared to my apartment in Argentina, a middle-class Italian flat is still too opulent for what I am used to. Moreover, if I were to spend my time correcting media misrepresentation, I’d be on the computer all day every day, and I’d have to ignore the faithful. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were also misrepresented in the media, but they wisely paid little attention to it. There are not enough hours in a day. As for inappropriate royalism, we still have a long way to go to correct that, and it will take more than a selection of humbler living quarters, but at least that’s a start.

    Reply #3: Yes I do, for it should be obvious that I believe in synodality and a listening Church. But I have little patience for self-righteous know it alls who think opening a catechism is all we need to deal with the difficult questions that people have today. I’d rather they eat breakfast with others of their ilk.

    Reply #4: Telling someone to cease and desist is not the way I deal with my brother bishops–unless they’ve completely lost their heads, and a few have. Is that how Pope John Paul II spoke to those with whom he shared breakfast, lunch and dinner, “men and women with whom he disagreed on various matters”? Perhaps Cardinal Hollerich sees something that I don’t. If so, I will never discover that unless I choose to listen to him.

    Reply #5: It’s a good thing you are not the pope, because your papacy would be nothing but a futile chasing after media, and you’d be known as the “correcting pope”. A non-stop “correcting pope” is not a pope. A pope is a father, a pastor who listens and teaches and proclaims Christ. We had two great popes before me in John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and so if, after these two great popes, a false notion prevails that Catholic teaching on the moral life is a matter of “policy” that can be changed like a newly elected politician discards former policy to bring in the new, then nothing I say is going to change that. Serious Catholics don’t believe that, but there will always be people in this world who see what they want to see (there are none so blind as those who will not see). I cannot waste my time with people determined not to see.

    + Why has Father Marko Rupnik, whose sins and crimes of sexual abuse are among the vilest, most satanic on record, not been reduced from the clerical state, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance?

    Reply #6: Have no idea on this one.

    Reply #7: People are not interested in a Church that claims to have all the answers to every difficult question, a Church that is unwilling to listen and learn from others. Although there is much of which we can be certain, there is nonetheless a great deal of ambiguity in life, and to pretend otherwise is just dumb. Moreover, there is no such thing as accompaniment that does not have as its goal the profound awakening to the love of Christ, which is what conversion really is.

    + Why have you removed bishops from their pastoral office without canonical due process?

    Reply #8: Certain people need to be removed very quickly, in particular, those who have lost their way and whose words and tweets are poison to the faithful.

    + Granted that some ultra-Traditionalist Catholics reject the Second Vatican Council in toto, why should their extremism become the occasion to deprive other Catholics, faithful to the Church and its teaching, of a form of worship they find spiritually nourishing? Couldn’t the errors of the RadTrads have been addressed without wounding those who find worship according to the 1962 Missal a source of grace?

    Reply #9: It is of the nature of cancer to spread. Let me quote someone who posted this on CWR earlier: “The reason we have the Latin Mass is because by the 5th century the Western half of the Roman Empire didn’t understand Greek. Up until then, the Mass was in Greek, the language of the New Testament, but Pope Damasus decreed that Christians in the West should be able to understand the Mass and to have it in their own language, which was Latin. So having the Mass in the vernacular goes way back in Church history”. People need to focus on the sacrifice of the Mass with real faith and leave silly nostalgia behind.

    + Have you seen the widely circulated meme in which you are presented with an expensive white bicycle, to whose donors you say, “I am not blessing a bicycle, I am blessing two separate wheels”? If you have, I expect you laughed. But how, precisely is that meme mistaken?

    Reply #10: A wheel is a mere part of the whole, not a whole unto itself. A human being is a whole unto itself, even when part of a group. This is a principle that totalitarianism continues to overlook.

    + Are there ever circumstances in which an exceptionless moral norm – for example, the prohibition on a childless couple resorting to surrogate pregnancy – can be overridden by the facts of a particular situation and the subjective judgment of the couple’s consciences?

    Reply #11: If it is truly exceptionless, then no. An intrinsically evil action is intrinsically evil. Surrogate motherhood is a kind of adultery. It is also a misnomer. And as I made clear so often, abortion cannot be justified. Proportionalism is not an acceptable method of moral reasoning.

    + You have spoken often and eloquently about peace. How is peace to be achieved when an aggressor has declared his intent to eradicate the object of his aggression, and the attacked party knows that it is facing an existential crisis in which its very survival is at issue?

    Reply #12: By prayer and fasting.

    + The fate of migrants should touch any sensitive heart. But have you ever addressed the failures of states, ideological systems, and regimes from which migrants flee?

    Reply #13: That’s not my role to be addressing the failures of states. My role as Pope is far more limited.
    + How do you account for the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States, for all the challenges it faces, is the most vital, vibrant local Church in the Western world? How do explain the collapse of Catholic faith and practice in Germany?

    Reply #14: The factors that go into explaining social phenomena like that are far beyond my ability to document–and yours–not to mention Father Peter Stravinskas’.

    + Vocations to the priesthood have declined in many countries during your pontificate. Do you think this has anything to do with your regular criticism of priests and seminarians?

    Reply #15: Sort of reminiscent of Pope Benedict’s “smaller Church” idea. Better to have fewer priests committed to serving the faithful in a spirit of genuine humility, who have the heart of a John the Baptist (“he must increase, I must decrease”), than a plethora of pompous, cassock and lace wearing young adolescents longing for the days when priests were put on a pedestal and fawned all over.

    + How do you distinguish between an inappropriate clericalism and authentic priestly fraternity?

    Reply #16: See reply to #15.

    • Wow, a great 1379-word monologue. If only the 5,000-word Fuducia Supplicans had deleted only half this many words! You make some good half-points, but also this, for example:

      We read of Question #6: “Why has Father Marko Rupnik, whose sins and crimes of sexual abuse are among the vilest, most satanic on record, not been reduced from the clerical state, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance? Reply: Have no idea on this one.” “No idea?” Perhaps that’s the point.

      And of Question #4: “Perhaps Cardinal Hollerich sees something that I don’t. If so, I will never discover that unless I choose to listen to him.” But, perhaps the issue is not whom Pope Francis chooses to listen to, but whom he chooses to NOT listen to.”

      Of Question #12: In this imperfect and fallen world, the 11 million victims of the Shoah, only half of them Jewish, were limited to your “prayer and fasting”….A photo-op outcome–and remembered.

    • Thomas James: Juvenile insult is not the less evil simply because it replicates the juvenile behavior of a sitting pope. Neither are the imperatives of the Eighth Commandment honored by rash judgments of motivation by young priests well aware that liturgy ought to be focused on the worship of God rather than the worship of egos through pandering entertainment.

      You are right about a couple of things though. Just a couple. There are many nominal Catholics who don’t want a Church that claims to have “all the answers.” All of God’s sinful children hate incriminating truth. Characterizations from anti-Catholic bigotry stereotyping are as popular with many Catholics as non-Catholics. They can even come from a pope. The Catholic religion never, not even once, claimed to have “all the answers,” just the important ones. Since the Church holds that God is not an idiot and can not be an idiot, the Church takes seriously the words of Christ that He would be with us to the end of time, and that a non-idiot God can not abandon humanity to a capricious understanding of right and wrong and of how we ought to order our lives together. He cannot condemn us to willful evil. In this way the Church is at odds with Pope Francis. Actually in many ways.

      In your retort, and even that of Weigel, it is claimed that Francis brought clarity to his view of homosexuality early on. The only clarity he has ever brought is his strident beliefs in moral capriciousness, which he explained in Amoris Laetitia in justifying adultery. His belief that we get to choose, “given our concrete life circumstances,” how to conduct our lives in accord to our own judgments and God has to shut up and obey because this must be what God really wants. Morality changes over time Francis has repeated. Even God changes His mind over time he has iterated in the God-in-process theology, popular among theological fools in the seventies, which he has revived during his pontificate.
      Francis never identified homosexual behavior as evil and as anything for which repentance is necessary. Politicians actually believe a lot of the things they say frivolously or to curry favor with population groups, and Francis will be politically correct in calling a sin a sin on one occasion and then call that same sin a non-intrinsic evil on another occasion, thereby contradicting the first statement. A Peronist affirms what he denies and denies what he affirms. Again, for your soul, you really don’t have to believe behavior becomes acceptable when a pope does it.

    • “Why has Father Marko Rupnik, whose sins and crimes of sexual abuse are among the vilest, most satanic on record, not been reduced from the clerical state, forbidden to function as a priest, and ordered to live a life of penance?”

      Reply #6: Have no idea on this one.

      Reply#6

      Clearly because, Jorge Bergoglio believes it is not a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with evil, and in fact, believes that it is a sin to call out such evil, as Jorge Bergoglio has stated on several occasions.
      Thank God, The Catholic Church is Entrusted with The Deposit Of Faith, and The Faithful are able to discern The True Catholic Church from the counterfeit one that is attempting to hijack The Barque Of Peter.

      “I know my sheep and my sheep know Me.” -Jesus The Christ

  20. George, these questions are all well and good, but are they really of interest to the secular world? We, as Catholics, are the ones that are seeking the answers. They are“in house”, family concerns : we should not expose our dirty laundry for all to leer at.

  21. I am deeply disappointed by Mr. Weigel’s article. In my small opinion, the tone of it evinces a disrespect to the Father and Teacher of all Christian that crosses a line. It is true the pope is fair game for some respectful criticism, but this must be done in an evangelical spirit, which the article does not do as it carries with it an overly snarky and inquisitive tone.

    Mr. Weigel, if you are reading this, I feel for you because I once made same or greater mistakes to Pope Francis. I will sincerely keep you in prayers, may the Holy Spirit guide you.

    • Good job, Harold. The article drips with arrogance and condescension. I’m not sure why I bothered to read the article. The smugness of the man has affected the way he sees things, or doesn’t see.

    • With all due respect, prior to his election to The Papacy, Jorge Bergoglio’s heresy became manifest and made public., demonstrating that as a cardinal he had defected from The Catholic Faith.
      Jorge Bergoglio could not have been canonically elected to the Papacy due to the fact that prior to his election as pope, on page 117 of his book, On Heaven And Earth, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly, he stated:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
      From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“
      “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).

      The fact that one can know through both Faith and reason that Jorge Bergoglio could not possibly hold The Office Of The MUNUS, the “forever” Office, because as a cardinal , he had defected from The Catholic Faith, is a defense of The Papacy, not a refutation of The Papacy.

  22. She could have asked about Cardinal Zen feelings betrayed by the secret Vatican agreement with Communist China.
    Also, a response to the criticism of being one-sided in appointments of Cardinal in USA

  23. These are all fair questions, and it is fair IMO to state that for a lightweight like Norah O’Donnell to ask them would have been absurd – she can’t even understand many of them, much less ask them.

  24. This is for the most part nothing but a bunch of rhetorical questions which are actually highly prejudiced statements not true inquires. The few who tried to explain what the Pope actually taught were worthwhile but very little else.

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. What ‘60 Minutes’ should have asked Pope Francis - JP2 Catholic Radio
  2. Джордж Вайґель — про питання, які справді варто було би поставити Папі під час інтерв’ю | CREDO
  3. The Questions 60 Minutes should have asked Pope Francis - George Weigel
  4. Джордж Вайґель — про запитання, які справді варто було би поставити Папі під час інтерв’ю

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*