
Vatican City, Aug 25, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After his recent visit to Russia, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said a key message of his overall “positive” trip was the crucial role the country plays in working for peace, which he voiced to President Vladimir Putin.
“I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world,” Cardinal Parolin said Aug. 25.
Because of her role, Russia also has “a particular responsibility regarding peace,” he said, adding that “both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.”
Cardinal Parolin spoke to Alessandro Gisotti from the Secretariat for Communications after returning from his Aug. 21-24 visit to Russia, during which he met with leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and civil authorities.
Having met with the Pope immediately after returning to Rome, Cardinal Parolin said Francis was happy to hear about the “positive result” of the visit to Russia.
Pope Francis, he said, “is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.”
Overall, the cardinal said that for him, “the result of this trip is a very positive result and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these day.”
The meetings “were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters,” he said.
In addition to sharing how he was moved by the faith and religiosity of the Russian people, both Catholic and Orthodox, Cardinal Parolin said many different issues were addressed, including Ukraine and Syria.
Suggestions for future areas of collaboration between not only the Holy See and Russia, but also the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, were also discussed, such as the release of prisoners in Ukraine, the restitution of Church property confiscated during the communist regime, and collaboration in providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine and the Middle East.
However, Cardinal Parolin stressed that the proposals made “must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.”
Given the overall positive result of the visit, “I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.”
Below is CNA’s full English translation of the interview:
Q: Eminence, there was understandably great expectation for your visit to Russia. What sentiments do you have coming back to the Vatican?
I think the balance of this trip is a very positive balance and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these days. We were able to realize the program that was already fixed, to keep the scheduled encounters, and I have to say that these meetings – at the level of civil authority with President Putin and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov, and then with the leaders of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion – were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters. I feel that I have to put a bit of emphasis on this word: “constructive encounters.” Of course, then, there was also the part of the encounter with the Catholic community. Above all thanks to the conversation and dialogue we had with the bishops in the nunciature, it was possible to know from a bit closer the reality, the life, of the Catholic community in Russia, her joys, her hopes, but also her challenges and the difficulties she has to face. For the latter, in part, it was possible to represent them, to expose them to the authorities. I cite one for all: the theme of the restitution of some churches that were confiscated during the time of the communist regime and for which there still has not been any restitution in the face of the need of the Catholic community to have adequate places of worship. So, I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.
Q: Have you already had the chance to speak with the Holy Father about the trip? What can you share about what you said?
Yes, naturally as soon as I returned I went to the Holy Father to give him a short, brief, concise account of both the contents and the results of the trip and naturally I conveyed the greetings that were given on the part of all parties I met, from the affection and closeness of the Catholic community, to the respectful greetings of the authorities. I remember that President Putin – I think it was also recorded in the public part of the meeting – underlined the living memory he keeps of his meetings with Pope Francis in 2013 and 2015. And then also the fraternal greeting of Patriarch Kirill. Of course the Pope was pleased with these impressions, of these positive results which I communicated; the Pope, as we know – he repeated also in this circumstance – is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.
Q: What were the principle themes discussed in the meeting with Patriarch Kirill?
I would say that fundamentally we considered this new climate, this new atmosphere which reings in the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church; this new climate, this new atmosphere which has been established in recent years and which, naturally, has had a particularly significant moment and strong acceleration thanks to the meeting in Havana between the Patriarch and the Pope, which this event followed. Truly, I noted from the part of both Orthodox interlocutors how they were moved by the experience of the visit of the relics of St. Nicholas of Bari to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but in the sense that they were touched by the faith and religiosity of the people. It was highlighted that as many Russians who belong to the Orthodox tradition but don’t practice, drew close to the Church on this occasion. It was truly a great event both in terms of size – there were two and a half million faithful who visited the relics – and in terms of the impact of faith and spirituality that this event produced. We then went through some of the steps that have been taken and those that will be, which ought to be the steps taken in the future. To me it seems that on their part, as naturally also on our part, they do not want to exhaust the potential that this new phase has opened, and naturally the collaboration can take place in various areas, at various levels: from cultural collaboration – academic – to humanitarian…this point was heavily stressed, that in front of the situations of conflict that exist in the world, the two Churches can really carry out an incisive and effective humanitarian work. Also touched on – with respect and at the same time frankness – themes that are a bit prickly in relations between the two Churches; however, we tried to give – at least in my opinion, what I took away – a rather positive sense, that is, to explore shared ways to tackle and to try to solve these problems. And of course even these shared paths, these concrete proposals that emerged must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.
Q: Now, Eminence, regarding more sensitive themes: the question of Ukraine is one of the most delicate in relations between the Holy See and Russia. You visited Ukraine a year ago. Is there some news after your visit?
New, until now, there is none…perhaps it’s premature to think about something new. The Lord – we hope – will make it sprout and bear fruit, if there were those seeds of good that we tried to plant. However, as noted, the question of Ukraine is one of the issues of greatest concern for the Holy See: the Pope has spoken many times about this topic…It’s obvious that this could not be treated, this theme; it could not be forgotten in that circumstance. I would say that above all in the sense of trying to see, to evaluate, whether there were any concrete steps that could be made toward a lasting and just solution to the conflict, which are virtually the agreements reached between the two parties. And it is well known that the Holy See has first of all insisted on the humanitarian aspects starting with the Pope’s great initiative in Ukraine (last year’s collection). In this sense, for example, one of the themes is that of the freeing of prisoners: this is one of the “humanitarian” topics that could really be important in giving some impetus to the entire process, even politically, to get out of this stasis and and to advance – for example – the topic of the truce, the ceasefire, the topic of security conditions in the area, the topic, also, of the political conditions in order to make progress in the global solution. So we hope that something can help to walk in the right direction, taking into account – when we talk of solutions, of humanitarian issues – that we are speaking about people and speaking about suffering. And I think that this is what everyone must have in mind precisely to try to make an extra effort to go in the right direction.
Q: The media naturally gave a lot of attention to the encounter in Sochi with Vladimir Putin. How did the meeting with the Russian president go?
I would say that the meeting with President Putin enters a bit into the evaluation that I have at the beginning: it was a cordial meeting, it was a respectful meeting in which we were able to address the issues that at least we had in our hearts to discuss, such as, for example, the Middle East, the situation of Syria in particular, and in this context also the issue of the presence of Christians: we know that one of the coincidences that there are between Russia and the Holy See is precisely this attention to the situation of Christians, the theme of Christian persecution, which we tend to widen to all religious groups – naturally – and to all minorities, trying to involve even Muslims, as was done for example in that seminar that took place in Geneva last year. Then, on the topic of Ukraine, we have already spoken a bit; the theme of Venezuela: I saw that some media also reported some statements that were made in this sense. So, other than bilateral themes, which I mentioned at the beginning, we presented some situations of difficulty for the Catholic community. I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world. A great role to play. And so it has a particular responsibility regarding peace: both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.
Q: Finally, Eminence, other than the most significant encounters, is there another moment or specific aspect you want to highlight?
Yes, there was the beautiful moment of Mass together with the Catholic community. The cathedral was crowded with people and it was a bit of a surprise, because it was a holiday, so that many people weren’t expected. Then, of course, the faith and devotion of this people always moves me: how the participate in Mass, with such attention, with such reverence, with such silence, they are present there. And I think that they came more than anything to express their attachment to the Pope and the fact of being members of the universal Church. So that was a nice moment. Another beautiful moment was the brief visit to the Sisters of Mother Teresa who work in Moscow. We were able to meet and greet the people they assist, even there it was shown a great affection toward the Pope. And then, the last thing that I want to recall: I was very impressed by the visit we made one evening to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Orthodox cathedral of Moscow; the cathedral that was blown up during the communist regime. So it was also a moment to remember this painful history in the age in which they wanted to completely eradicate the faith from the hearts of believers and eliminate every dream of the presence of God and the Church in that land. Something they weren’t able to do, because God is greater than the projects of men.
[…]
Finally he’s annoyed about something he should be annoyed about. Too bad the stupid term homophobic is used to describe this proper reaction. Stupid because it fails to recognize that it is impossible to fear homosexuals, it is only possible to fear the social damage they do and the damage done by those who refuse to acknowledge the damage they do.
Not the most politic choice of words, but on the other hand “a rose is a rose is a rose,” said writer Gertrude Stein, an open lesbian.
They are using the terms which the LGBT propagandists use, because they belong to them.
Dear Edward J Baker – let’s also remember the spiritual damage they do to themselves and to all of us in our beloved Church.
Active homosexuals are in a known state of sin. Perhaps a less derogatory term could have been used but that would not have changed the substance of what he said. Part of his situation of course is the expectation he has set in place that homosexuality will soon be given the stamp of approval. The question I would have if I were the Pope is, which Bishop in this closed meeting betrayed me to the press? The betrayal ironically only proves the point that there are too many gays in the seminaries, as well as in the ranks of the Bishops. Otherwise why the betrayal? To embarrass him? Gays should be welcomed to Mass as fellow believers. They should not be used as moral role models in the priesthood.
“Gays should be welcomed to Mass as fellow believers.” Really, dear LJ?
Inclusion in our Holy Masses is a form of authentication and of inclusion in the community life of our parish.
It should be obvious to all informed Catholics that we are not permitted by The LORD to authenticate unrepentant sin. We’d also be foolish to expose our families to the immoral proselytizing that always accompanies unrepentant homosexuals & others who have chosen sinfully deviant lifestyles.
Yes! I do love the sinner but, yes! I do know that keeping parish community families spiritually & physically safe is of the highest importance.
How should we think of those who claim to be believers but have chosen to reject key parts of our belief system?
Saint James pointed out that even demons are believers in the one God who we worship (James 2:19).
Love is THE way, but it needs to be wise & discerning. There is such a thing as foolishly irresponsible love.
Ever seeking to obey King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Are you suggesting that people in a state of sin are to be excluded from Christian life or worship until they repent? You will be a long time making converts that way. Unless Catholics go to confession EVERY day, I daresay they are in a state of sin, whether mortal or venial, by time they get to church on Sunday, even if they confess weekly. It is part of the human condition. The question is what would make people think about repenting if they are never exposed to the reason WHY they should? Or exposed to the love of Jesus by hearing the readings at church?. Christ’s critics notably accused him of “eating with sinners”. It didnt appear to bother him. And I would add that while certain gays are flamboyant in their appearance, many sinners in the pews are simply not that obvious: adulterers, thieves, etc. The sinners are there whether we approve of them or not. And we might well count ourselves in their number if we are honest. Current statistics indicate that most Catholics practice abortion and contraception in the same number as non-catholics for example. So again, saying “only non-sinners may apply” is a non-starter. If you expect people to be perfect and adhere to ALL Catholic rules before they show up in church, prepared to worship in an empty church by yourself.
Thanks, dear LJ, for so clearly laying-out this common misunderstanding of our Faith. Effectively this error says: “Since all are sinners there can be no distinctions.”
It’s also commonly said that since Jesus Christ, God-With-Us, ate & drank in the company of sinners, we should open our parish communities to unrepentant sinners.
That deliberately ignores Jesus’ instruction: “Go, & sin no more!” It ignores strong moral examples such as that of Mary of Magdala, Zachaeus, Mathew, and most outstandingly, that of Saul of Tarsus. All serious sinners, led by Jesus to repentance & new, reformed lives of obedience to God’s rules.
It also ignores the clear instructions of The Holy Spirit of God given to us by 9 Apostolic authors in the 27 texts of The New Testament and reiterated by our Magisterium in The Catechism of The Catholic Church.
It is, of course, a logical fallacy to argue that because we ASSUME there’re unrepentant liars, thieves, murderers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. joining undetected in our parish liturgies, we should therefore welcome people living unrepentant homosexual lives into our faith communities.
The Catholic Church teaches that those who are in serious sin (as clearly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are excluded from receiving Holy Communion. If they persist in taking communion, they have committed sacrilege and will go straight to hell if they die unshriven.
The reason for their terrible fate is they’ve obstinately put their own ideas first rather than placing God’s instructions first, no matter what the cost may be.
If some unrepentants do get through that’s no excuse for inviting others to reap the same dreadful judgment.
After living over 80 years and working in countries all around the world, I’m certain that all true Catholic Christians carry their individual crosses of personal self-denial, every day.
Yes, humans are sinful but true Catholics are unfailingly repentant, & all gladly suffer sacrifices for the sake of God’s Kingdom.
Everything about the Catholic Church and everything in our liturgies (if we pay attention to what we all are praying) is about: “YOUR will be done, HOLY GOD, not my will.”
A decision by the Church to embrace unrepentant homosexuals in our parish communities or to bestow a priestly blessing on homosexual couples would be a public statement of: “YOUR will be flouted, HOLY GOD.”
There are many examples of homosexually attracted Catholic men & women who bravely carry their crosses of self-denial, like all the rest of us, and they are respected and warmly welcomed into our parish communities and liturgies.
In street ministry & in healing rooms I’ve lovingly ministered to homosexually attracted people and have no hesitation in saying that every one of them had a spiritual problem that fed their same-sex lust.
As with all slavery to sin, the start of getting free is admission that GOD is right, and we are wrong.
Commonly, with both lay & clergy, addiction to pornography, has first to be totally renounced. After that, ceasing socializing with homosexual people.
A decision to accept openly unrepentant sinners into a Catholic parish community subverts the Christ established foundations of our entire Faith.
As Saint Mark records: “The time has come, said Jesus, and The Kingdom of GOD is close at hand. Repent, and believe the good News!”
Hoping this is of help. Ever in Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Is he annoyed? Is it the old Peronist tactic? Throw a bone to one constituency and the other bone to its adversary. Surely James Martin will be able to iron all this out, given he is a member of the Dicastery of Communications, a recipient of private correspondence from the Holy Father, entitled to private audiences with the Holy Father and among the people specifically invited by Francis to take part in the final phase meetings of the upcoming Synod of Bishops.
Far more sinister if this ‘uncertain’ & ‘accidental’ leak was cunningly planned as a way to try to assuage the anger of so many Catholics over the evidence of unrestricted clergy homosexuality (the ‘lilac mafia cartel’) & PF’s persistent public cherishings of LGBT causes, including profane couple blessings in Catholic churches.
Yet again our very unique pope & his turbocharged pr team seem to have pulled-off yet another: “Now you see me, now you don’t!” illusion for the media. “Truth? What is that?”
“Dear Pope Francis & Co.: ‘You cain’t pin me down’ ain’t agonna work on Judgment Day!”
Jesus Christ self-described as THE TRUTH, not as the truths . . . but the PF coterie will say He is in a box of suicidal conservatism, I suppose.
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
It occurs to me that this Pope doesn’t know what he thinks. The Catholic Church is being put through the wringer with this papacy.
Sadly, the Pope can never get it right or even gets credit for saying the right thing in the wrong way. He is derided when he seems to support gay rights and also when he denounces them. Let’s give the man a break already!
Agree totally!
“Telling the bishops that gay men should not be admitted to priestly formation, the pope argued ‘there is too much frociaggine in seminaries,’ a slur translated as faggotry”. A welcome change of tone on homosexuality in the priesthood however gruff. Nevertheless it didn’t take long to subvert any good intended by adding a list of compromises, including their dignity, blessing the frociaggine. Apparently the same clever word play that says one thing but suggests another. His Holiness is a master tactician. Austen Ivereigh translated correctly, “that the pope’s concern is narrowed to gay men seeing the priesthood as a way of living out their sexuality”.
Similarly the Instruction simply confirms past failed documents on discerning vocations citing men who are openly homosexual, deep seated in their disorder. Whereas all homosexuals who don’t precisely fit that assessment are waived through. More of the same duplicitous farce that is suffocating the priesthood and Church with sexually disordered men and candidates for the episcopate.
At one time during John Paul’s pontificate a candidate with same sex attraction was to be prohibited. That was quickly compromised to where we’re at today. It’s like telling a normal young man that he’s to spend the rest of his life in close proximity with women.
Sure. The problem is that there is “too much” of it. Otherwise it would be ok for him…
As I posted elsewhere, Francis did not apologize, there not one direct quote of him in the press release….
Which press release then said the comments were made behind closed doors and only report upon…
So we have a non-apology apology for a happening which is only rumored.
And far from a hard line, only a blurred line between some homosexual sex in seminaries as opposed to too much homosexual sex in seminaries.
With this PR swan dive, is anyone actually expecting even more firm action when by Francis’ admission and despite own signing off on squelching gay admissions, it still continues? Any true action on this at all? Seminary director and staff sacking? Bishop removal?
No, only an occasion for ribald humor answered with guffaws from bishops.
We read: “’Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual … This is hypocrisy! We must all respect each other. Everyone’, the Holy Father said.”
And, yet, Fiducia Supplicans blesses NOT A homosexual, but homosexuals as “COUPLES.”
Without being judgmental, yours truly has long felt that part of Pope Francis’ difficulty with the Church in America is simply that he does not speak the universal language of English. (His recent interview on 60 Minutes was handled through a Spanish interpreter.) Another part of his difficulty, of course, is the privileged access given to certain of his appointees in the American hierarchy.
On an historic cultural scale, when spoken and written language fails we might be reminded of the magnified Iconoclastic Controversy of the 7th and 8th centuries, and public education through visual stained glass windows in Medieval times, and now the bypassing of language by gestures, signaling, and photo-ops as with poster-child James Martin, SJ and Jeannine Gramick of New Ways Ministries.
All this erosion and replacement of coherent communication is worthy of a doctoral dissertation somewhere! Probably not thoughtfully written, of course, but “aggregated and compiled” (that’s synodal-speak!) soon by AI and stored in the inclusive Cloud.
For amnesiacs and the functionally illiterate, some in red hats, all memes are equal, but some are more equal than others.
If only the current pontiff were as quick to apologize to those he termed pharisaical, rigid, doctors of the Law, backwardists, etc. Then again, those so referred to don’t have what one writer years ago referred to as “approved victim status,” so it’s doubtful that apologies will be forthcoming.
Strange that some ultra trads are applauded when they use such language while condemning the Pope for using the same! Oh what fools we mortals be! 😂
The pope is condemned because of his rank hypocrisy in talking out of both sides of his mouth. He’s the fool for thinking people don’t see through it.
Apologies for deviant lifestyle choices! What would St Paul say?
Call a spade a spade; yeah who ratted him out?
they have no right to be a seminarian if they are gay..its just not right and is against God!
I was amused to see at least one precedent for what would now be called ‘inappropriate’ papal utterances. According to the Wikipedia entry for Benedict XIV (who ruled 1740-58), this pope, though noted for his keen intellect and considered one of the best scholars to have occupied the papal throne, frequently used profane language. According to the writer of the article, he tried to cure this by having a crucifix placed in every room to discourage his colorful language.