Vatican City, Apr 16, 2017 / 03:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a lengthy interview with EWTN’s German television branch, Benedict XVI’s closest aide describes how the retired pontiff is doing as he turns the milestone age of 90, giving a rare look into what life is like for the Pope Emeritus.
Archbishop Gänswein has been Benedict’s personal secretary since 2003, while the latter was still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has remained close at Benedict’s side throughout his papacy, resignation and his life of retirement.
In anticipation of Benedict XVI’s 90th birthday, which this year falls on Easter Sunday, April 16, Gänswein gave a lengthy interview to EWTN.TV in German, sharing insights into how the Pope Emeritus plans to celebrate his birthday and highlights and personal memories of his pontificate.
Among other things, the archbishop recalls how Benedict handled his election, the frequently negative media-firestorm that enveloped much of his pontificate, his hope for what people take from his papacy as well as how he spends his days in retirement.
Please read below for the full interview with Archbishop Gänswein, conducted by the head of EWTN.TV Martin Rothweiler, and translated from the original German by EWTN’s Silvia Kritzenberger:
EWTN.TV: The question everyone’s interested in is, of course: How is Pope Benedict? The Psalm says: “Our lives last seventy years or, if we are strong, eighty years.” That happens to be psalm 90. And now on the 16th of April, Pope Benedict will celebrate his 90th birthday! How is he?
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, on Easter Sunday he will turn 90! Considering his age, he is remarkably well. He is also in good spirits, very clear in his head and still has a good sense of humor. What bothers him are his legs, so he uses a walker for help, and he gets along very well. And this walker guarantees him freedom of movement and autonomy. So, for a 90-year old, he is doing pretty well – even though, from time to time, he complains of this or that minor ailment.
EWTN.TV: How will he celebrate his birthday?
Gänswein: On Easter Sunday, priority will of course be given to liturgy. On Easter Monday, in the afternoon, we will hold a small celebration. He wanted something not too exhausting, appropriate to his strengths. He didn’t want to have a big celebration. That was never an option for him. A small delegation from Bavaria will come, the Mountain troops will come… The Bavarian Prime Minister will come to the monastery, and there we will hold a small birthday party in true Bavarian style!
EWTN.TV: Have you any idea if Pope Francis will come to see him?
Gänswein: That is quite likely. He will surely do so.
EWTN.TV: No one knows Pope Benedict better than you – apart from his brother Georg Ratzinger. How did you get to know Pope Benedict?
Gänswein: Actually, through literature. Back in the day, when I was just about to finish gymnasium, my parish priest gave me Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity, urging me: “You absolutely have to read this! That’s the future!” I said: “Okay, but have you read it?” “No,” he replied, “but you have to read it!” And I did. Later, when I started to study theology in Freiburg, and then in Rome, and then again back in Freiburg, I had practically read everything the then-professor and cardinal had written. But it was only 21, or maybe 22 years ago, that I finally met him in person here in Rome, when I was asked to become a collaborator of the Roman Curia … More concretely, I met him in the Teutonic College, that is, in the chapel, where Cardinal Ratzinger used to celebrate Mass for the German pilgrims every Thursday, joining us for breakfast. That was how the first personal contact with Cardinal Ratzinger came about, and since then we never lost that contact.
EWTN.TV: At some point, he decided to call you to his side. Why did his choice fall on you?
Gänswein: Well, you must know that I didn’t come directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; my first employment was at the Congregation for Divine Worship. But when, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a German priest left after a certain period of time in order to go back to Germany, Ratzinger asked me to come. “I think you are suitable for the post, and I would like you to come,” he said to me. “If you agree, I would like to speak with the respective authorities.” And he did. That was how it came about that, in 1996, I entered the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post I held until 2003. Afterwards, he made me his Personal Secretary – which I still am, to this very day.
EWTN.TV: What was your first impression of him? What did you think when he called you to work closely with him?
Gänswein: My first thought was: Have I done something wrong? Don’t I have a clean record? So I examined my conscience, but my conscience was clear. And then he said: “No, it is something that concerns your future. Something I think might be a good task for you. Consider it carefully!” Of course, I was very pleased that he thought I was capable of working in his entourage. It is indeed a very demanding task, one that requires all your strength.
EWTN.TV: Which personality traits and characteristics did you discover in him?
Gänswein: The same I had already discovered in his writings: a sharp intellect, a clear diction. And then, in his personal relations, a great clemency, quite the contrary of what he has always been associated with and still is, of what has always been said about him, when he was described as a “Panzerkardinal” (army tank Cardinal), someone rough – which he is not. On the contrary, he is very confident when dealing with others, but also when he has to deal with problems, when he has to solve problems, and, above all, in the presentation of the faith, the defense of the faith. But what moved me most, was to see how this man managed to proclaim our faith with simple, but profound words, against all odds and despite all hostilities.
EWTN.TV: What were the main issues on his agenda when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Gänswein: When I joined the Congregation, he was dealing with the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio, and then with Dominus Jesus, documents which date back to years when I was already part of the Congregation. Later, of course, it was also about religious dialogue – a subject he revisited and deepened also after he’d become Pope. And then the big issue of faith and reason. A whole chain of subjects, so to say, I could witness in person. And it was all highly interesting, and a great challenge, too.
EWTN.TV: It was Pope John Paul II who nominated Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. What kind of relationship did they have? What kind of relationship did Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, have with the Pope who was, as we now know, a holy man?
Gänswein: Cardinal Ratzinger, that is to say, Pope Benedict, had contributed with a relatively long essay to a small, but beautiful little book that was published on the occasion of the canonization of John Paul II. An essay, in which he describes his relationship with the holy Pope John Paul II – after all, they had worked closely together for 23 years – and the great admiration he has for him. He spoke of him very often. It is of course a great gift, an immense grace, to work for so long, and so intensely, side by side with a man like John Paul II, facing also many a storm together! And the then Cardinal Ratzinger had to take many blows for John Paul II, since the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly cannot be everybody’s darling: He has to offer his back, so that he can take the blows that are actually meant for the Pope.
EWTN.TV: How strong was his influence on the pontificate of John Paul II?
Gänswein: I am convinced of the fact that the pontificate of John Paul II was strongly influenced and supported not only by the person of the then Prefect of the Congregation of Faith, but also by his thoughts and his actions.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict once said that he had learned and understood much of John Paul II when he watched him celebrate Mass; when he saw how he prayed, how very united he was with God, far beyond his philosophical and mental capacities. What do you think when you watch Pope Benedict celebrate Mass, when you might be present while he is praying?
Gänswein: In fact, that is something I see every day, but especially since the moment I became secretary to Pope Benedict. Before, I was already his secretary, but we didn’t live together. It did happen that we celebrated Mass together, of course. But from the very moment of his election, it was no longer a work communion, but also a communion of life. And the daily Mass has become part of this life, then and today. It is moving to watch Pope Benedict during Mass simply abandon himself to what is happening, even now, in his old days, with all the physical handicaps that come with it; to see how intensely he enters the depths of prayer, but also afterwards, during the thanksgiving in front of the tabernacle, in front of the Most Blessed Sacrament. As far as I am concerned, it makes me enter the depths of prayer. That is highly motivating, and I am very thankful that I was given the chance to have an experience like this.
EWTN.TV: 2005 is the year that marked the end of the long and public suffering and death of John Paul II. How does Pope Benedict XVI remember this moment today? After all, with his resignation, he has chosen to let his own pontificate end in a different way…How does he remember the suffering and the death of John Paul II?
Gänswein: I remember very clearly what he said to me when he made me his secretary. He said: “We two are interim arrangements. I will soon retire, and you will accompany me until that moment comes.” That was in 2003. Time passed by…and then came 2005. The interim arrangement lasts and lasts. And he was really looking forward to having some time off in order to be able to finish writing his book about Jesus. But then things turned out differently. And, well, I think that after the death of Pope John Paul II he had other plans, hoping that the new Pope would let him take his leave, entering his well-deserved retirement. But once again, things turned out differently: he became Pope himself, and the Lord took him up on his promise once again. He had plans, but there was another who had different plans for him.
EWTN.TV: Did he expect – or fear – that in any way?
Gänswein: He certainly did not expect it – but, at a certain point, he might have feared it. In this context, I always remember his first press conference (as Pope), where he described the 19th of April, the day of his election when, in the late afternoon, the ballot was so clear that it became obvious that he would be elected. Well, the image he used, the one of the guillotine, was a very strong one, and full of tension. And later, in Munich, referring to the image of the bear of St. Corbinian, he said that the bear was actually supposed to accompany the then-bishop Corbinian to Rome, and then return to where he had come from, whereas he, unlike the bear in the legend, couldn’t go back, but has remained in Rome to this very day.
EWTN.TV: How was your first encounter, after he had become Pope? What did he say to you?
Gänswein: We had our first encounter in the Sistine Chapel, right under the Last Judgement. The cardinals had approached him and sworn obedience to him. And since I had been allowed to be present at the Conclave – Ratzinger, being the Deacon of the Cardinals, had the right to take a priest with him, and his choice had fallen on me – I was the last in the queue. There were others before me, I was the last. And in this very moment…I remember it so well…I can still see him, for the first time all dressed in white: white pileolus, white cassock, white hair – and all white in the face! Practically a whole small cloud of white…He sat there, and in this moment I granted the Holy Father my unconditional availability, promising him that I would always gladly do whatever he might ask of me; that he would always be able to count on me, that I would back him, and that I would gladly do so.
EWTN.TV: What were the joys of this pontificate? Usually, the burden of the Petrine ministry is what first comes to mind. But are there also moments, events, when you could feel the joy Pope Benedict experienced in carrying out his ministry?
Gänswein: There were, without any doubt, moments in which he felt utter joy, and also manifested it. I think, for example, of various encounters, not only during his travels. Encounters with the Successor of Peter are always special encounters; even here, during the General Audiences or the Private Audiences – and, in another, very special way, when he acts as officiant, that is, during the celebration of the Holy Mass or other liturgical celebrations. There were indeed moments full of joy, fulfilled with joy. And afterwards, he never failed to remark on it. It made him really happy.
EWTN.TV: Are there any events you remember particularly well, especially in connection with Pope Benedict’s visits to Germany, which we all remember vividly, for example the first World Youth Day?
Gänswein: Yes, well, the first encounter hadn’t been brought about by Pope Benedict himself, but by John Paul II. And so, in 2005, as we all know, it was Benedict’s turn to travel to Cologne. It was surely something great, something really moving. It was the first time in his life he met such an immense crowd of young people, who were all waiting for him! How will it go? Will the ice break, will the ice melt? Or will it take some time? And how will we get along with one another? But there was no ice at all! It simply worked, right from the start! And I think, he himself was more surprised by it than the young people he met.
EWTN.TV: What are the key messages of his Pontificate? His first encyclical letter was Deus Caritas est, “God Is Love.” The second one was dedicated to hope; his third encyclical, the one on faith, was passed on to his successor who completed it. Don’t you think that especially Deus Caritas est, so full of tenderness and poetic language, was something many didn’t expect?
Gänswein: Yes, one has to say, he published three encyclical letters. And we must not omit Caritas in veritate, which is very important. In fact, the one about the third theological virtue, faith, fides, was then published under his successor: Lumen fidei. But these four encyclicals clearly contain a fundamental message that has moved him his whole life long; a message he wanted to bequeath to men, to the Church.
Another constant of Pope Benedict is a very important word, a very important element: joy, “la gioia,” in Italian. He always spoke of the joy of faith, not of the burden, the hardship, the weight of faith, but of the joy that comes with it. And he said that this joy is an important fruit of faith – and also the one thing that gives men wings; that this is how faith gives human life wings: wings which, otherwise without faith, man would never have.
Another important thing for him is – obviously – liturgy, that is to say the direct encounter with God. Liturgy does not represent something theatrical – it means to be called into a relationship with the living God. And then, in theology, we have the person of Jesus Christ: not a historical “something,” a historical person long lost in the past. No, through the scriptures and liturgy, Jesus Christ comes into this world, here and now, and above all: he also comes into my own life. These are the pearls Pope Benedict has bestowed upon us. And we should treat these pearls very carefully, just as we do with precious jewelry.
EWTN.TV: This joy of faith is something Benedict never lost, despite often even heavy media criticism. He never really was the media’s darling, at least not as far as the German media are concerned. How did he account for that?
Gänswein: Well, I have to say, to me that is still a mystery. Whoever defends the truth of faith – to say it with Saint Paul – be it convenient or not, cannot always trigger joy. That is clear. Some essential things just aren’t for sale, and then there’s always a hail of criticism. But he has never answered to provocation, nor let himself be intimidated by criticism. Wherever the substance of the faith is at stake, he had no doubts, and always reacted explicitly, without any inner conflict whatsoever.
On other points, I have to say, there was a mixture of incomprehension, and also aggression, aggressiveness, that became like a clustered ball that consistently hit at the person of the Pope. The incomprehension of many, and especially the media, is still a mystery to me, something I have to take note of, but cannot sort out. I simply have no answer to it.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict was never shy about talking to journalists. In the introduction you wrote to the book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI. (Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI), published to mark his 90th birthday – above the clouds, because it contains interviews often given during Papal flights – you state that these conversations reveal his particular cordiality, his often not understood or underestimated humanity…
Gänswein: Pope Benedict has never shunned away from personal contact with the media, with the journalists. And one great gift was that everything he says is well-worded, ready for printing. He was never shy about answering questions, even questions that were embarrassing – well, not embarrassing, but difficult. And that made it even more incomprehensible that it was exactly this corner from where the arrows came, where the fire was set – and for no clear reason at all. He, too, took notice of it. Of course, there were also things which offended, hurt him. Especially when it was clear to see that there was no reason at all, when you couldn’t help asking yourself: why this snappish remark, this acrimonious presentation? Things like that would hurt anyone, that’s only normal. But, on the other side, we also know that our measure is not the applause we get; our measure is inner righteousness, the example of the Gospel. That thought has always comforted him; it was the line of reasoning he has always pursued, until the end.
EWTN.TV: But was he also aware of the value of the media in the process of evangelization? After all, he has awarded the Medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice to Mother Angelica, founder of our television network, which means he must really appreciate her! How did he judge the role of the media in the concrete work of evangelization?
Gänswein: The media are an important means; a means that will become ever more important, especially in our time. He has never failed to recognize the value of the media, of the work done by the media and those who are behind it. Because media work is done by people, not by “something.” Behind every camera, every written word, every book, there is a person, there are people he appreciated, whose work he appreciated, regardless of what sometimes had been used or said against him.
EWTN.TV: One cannot think of Pope Benedict without rekindling the memory of his resignation. That is not about to change, and will continue to be a subject that stirs people’s interest. So I would like to ask you again: Did you see it coming? Was it clear to him that he would go down that road one day?
Gänswein: Well, as far as I’m concerned, I didn’t see it coming. If and since when he started to nurture this thought, is something I don’t know. The only thing I know is that he told me about it when the decision was already made. But I definitely didn’t see it coming – and that made the shock for me even greater.
EWTN.TV: In his latest memoirs – I refer to the interview-book Last conversations with Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI makes it very clear that external pressure or adversities would never have made him resign. So this cannot have been the case…
Gänswein: That’s right.
EWTN.TV: …So this is the final word that puts an end to the discussion on possible motives…
Gänswein: In another book – the penultimate project carried out with Peter Seewald in Castel Gandolfo – he had already answered the question whether or not a Pope could resign, in the affirmative. I don’t know in how far he had, already then, considered resignation, stepping back from his office, an option for himself. When you start to have thoughts like that, you do it for a reason. And he has named these reasons very openly…and very honestly, too, one has to say: the waning of his forces, spiritual and physical. The Church needs a strong navigator, and he didn’t have the feeling that he could be that strong navigator. That’s why he wanted to put the faculty bestowed upon him by Jesus back into His hands, so that the College of Cardinals could elect his successor. So obviously, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will also go down in history because of his resignation, that is clear, inevitable…
EWTN.TV: I found it really moving to watch him deliver his last speech to the priests of the diocese of Rome, the one on the Second Vatican Council. In that moment, I couldn’t help asking myself: Why does this man resign? There was clearly a spiritual force! It was an extemporaneous speech in which he exposed one more time his whole legacy, so to say, on the Second Vatican Council, expressing his wish it might one day be fulfilled…
Gänswein: In fact, that was in the Audience Hall. There was this traditional encounter, established many years ago, where the Pope, every Thursday after Ash Wednesday, met with the clergy of Rome, the clergy of his diocese. There were questions and answers, or even other forms of encounter. And in 2013, he was asked to talk about the Second Vatican Council, which he did. He delivered an extemporaneous speech in which he described, one more time and from his point of view, the whole situation and development of the Council, giving also his evaluation. It is something that will remain; something very important for the comprehension of the Second Vatican Council and Ratzinger’s interpretation of it. As far as I know, up to this day there is no other theologian who has defended the documents of the Second Vatican Council on so many levels, and so intensely and cogently as he did. And that is very important also for the inner life of the Church and the people of God!
EWTN.TV: And I think it is safe to say that he contributed to the shaping of the Council…
Gänswein: In fact, being the consultor, the advisor of Cardinal Frings, he did have a part in it. Many of the theological contributions of the Cardinal of Cologne had actually been written by Professor Ratzinger. There are lots of documents where you can clearly see that. And there are also dissertations on this subject which investigate into the possible influence of the then-Professor Ratzinger.
EWTN.TV: Let’s come back to the moment of his resignation, the very last hours. Whoever watched it on TV, was surely moved to see the helicopter departing for Castel Gandolfo. You, too, were visibly moved…And then, the final moment, when the doors in Castel Gandolfo closed. That was the moment when I – and I guess, many others – thought that we might never see Pope Benedict again. But then things turned out quite differently…
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, the farewell: the transfer to the heliport, the flight in the helicopter over the city of Rome to Castel Gandolfo, the arrival at the Papal Villa. And indeed, at 8 p.m. the closing of the doors. Before, Pope Benedict had delivered a short speech from the balcony, his farewell speech. And then? Well, the works in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae hadn’t been finished yet, so the question was: where could he stay? And the decision was quickly taken: the best option would be Castel Gandolfo. There he will have everything he needs, since no one knows how long the works will last; so he can stay there as long as necessary.
And so two months later, he returned to Rome, and has been living in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae ever since. He himself had said that he would withdraw, going up to the mountain in order to pray. He didn’t mean a withdrawal into private life, but into a life of prayer, meditation and contemplation, in order to serve the Church and his successor. His successor often told him that he shouldn’t hide. He invites him often to important public liturgies, consistories like – I remember it well – the inauguration ceremony of the Holy Year on the 8th of December 2015.
He is present, even when no one sees him. But often he has been seen. He simply wants to be present, as much as possible, while remaining all the same invisible.
EWTN.TV: Many people wish to meet him, and he allows them to. Does he enjoy these encounters? I myself had the chance of a brief encounter with him. There are still many people who ask to see him.
Gänswein: Yes, there are many people who ask to meet him; and many are sad when this is not possible. But those who come, are all very happy, very glad. And the same goes for him. Every encounter is also a sign of affection, a sign, so to say, of approval. And human encounters always do us good.
EWTN.TV: Do some of these people also ask him for advice?
Gänswein: Definitely. I’m convinced of that. I’m never there, though; these encounters are private. Of course, he sometimes talks about it, we talk about those visits. There are indeed people who seek his advice on personal matters. And I’m convinced that the advice they receive is indeed good…
EWTN.TV: Does he still receive many letters? Who writes to him?
Gänswein: People he has known in the past. And also people I don’t know, and he doesn’t know, but who have clearly re-discovered him through literature. They express their gratitude, their happiness, but also their worries: people from all around the world. The people who write to him are very different; they do not belong to the same category, no: it’s people of different ages, of different positions, from all walks of life, a complete mixture.
EWTN.TV: We have talked about “seeking advice:” Pope Francis, who is of a certain age himself, has always said that we should ask our grandparents for advice. Has Pope Francis ever asked Benedict for advice? What kind of relationship do they have?
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, in one of his interviews, Pope Francis is said to be happy about having a grandfather like Benedict – a “wise” grandfather: an adjective not to be omitted! And I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, one thing or another will come up, or come out, from their contacts and encounters.
EWTN.TV: Your relationship with Benedict is a very close, very personal one. I don’t know if it would be appropriate to talk about a relationship between father and son. Have you ever talked with him about your future?
Gänswein: No.
EWTN.TV: It is known that you would love to engage in pastoral care, that you already do engage in pastoral care.
Gänswein: It was always like that: we didn’t talk about it. Only the very moment he said that he would resign, he asked me to accept the office I still hold. It was his decision, and he hadn’t talked with me about it beforehand. I was very skeptical, and remarked: “Holy Father, that might not be my thing. But if you think it is right for me, I will gladly and obediently accept it.” And he replied: “I do think so, and I ask you to accept.” That was the only time we talked about me and my future career.
EWTN.TV: What are the subjects you talk about? What are the issues that concern him in our world full of crises; what worries him about the situation of the Church?
Gänswein: Well, of course, Pope Benedict takes an interest in what happens in this world, in the Church. Every day, as the conclusion to the day, we watch the news on Italian TV. And he reads the newspapers, the Vatican press review. That is a large range of information. Often we also talk about actual issues that concern our world, about the latest developments here in the Vatican, and beyond the Vatican, or simply common memories regarding things happened in the past.
EWTN.TV: Is he very worried about the Church?
Gänswein: Of course, he has noted that the faith, the substance of the faith, is about to crumble, above all in his homeland, and that inevitably worries, troubles him. But he is not the kind of man – he never was and never will be – who will have the joy taken away from him! On the contrary: he brings his worries to his prayers, hoping that his prayers will help to put things right.
EWTN.TV: He brings them to his prayers and surely also to Holy Mass. On Sundays, he delivers homilies, and is also keeping notes. What happens to these notes?
Gänswein: Well, it is true that Pope Benedict comments on the Gospel. He does so every Sunday, and most of the time only in the presence of the (consecrated laywomen of) “Memores Domini” and myself. Sometimes there might also be a visitor, or – should I not be there – a fellow priest who will then concelebrate. His homilies are always extemporaneous. It is true, he has a sermon notebook, and he takes notes. And I have been asking myself the same question: what happens to these notes? Of course we will keep a record of them. I would like to ask him one day if he could take a look at the notes we have, in order to approve them. I don’t know, though, if that day will ever come.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict is undoubtedly one of the greatest theologians…as far as of our century is concerned, he surely is! He has been referred to as the “Mozart of theology.” In your introduction to the already mentioned book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI (Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI) you wrote: “Pope Benedict XVI is a Doctor of the Church. And he has been my teacher up to this day.” What have you learned from him, maybe even in the last weeks?
Gänswein: As I already said, my theological thinking started with the reading of Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. The theological teacher who accompanied my theological studies, and the time that followed, has always been the theologian Ratzinger, and still is. Being given the chance to meet him in person, to learn from his personal example, is of course an additional gift, something unexpected, and I am very grateful for that. I know it is a grace – a grace for which I will thank the Lord every single day.
EWTN.TV: So what could be, in your opinion, the lesson Pope Benedict would like us to learn from his pontificate?
Gänswein: His great concern was that the faith could evaporate. And it is surely his greatest wish that every man be in direct relationship with God, the Lord, with Christ, and that we might dedicate to this relationship our time, strength and affection. Whoever does that, will prove the same sentiment Benedict has in mind when he talks about “joy.” I think the greatest gift would be, if men allowed his proposal or what moved him, to become part of their lives.
EWTN.TV: Our wish to you: could you please assure Pope Benedict also in the name of our viewers, of our thankfulness, our sentiments of appreciation, and convey him our heartfelt best wishes for his 90th birthday! And thank you so much for this conversation!
Gänswein: Thank you. I will gladly convey your wishes, and thank you for having me!
[…]
I am speechless.
Yet, dear ‘logboom’, senior Catholics have not been speechless but have been rebuking PF for years & years. E.G. –
April 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Prominent clergymen and scholars including Fr. Aidan Nichols, one of the best-known theologians in the English-speaking world, have issued an open letter accusing Pope Francis of committing heresy. They ask the bishops of the Catholic Church, to whom the open letter is addressed, to: “take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation” of a pope committing this crime.
The authors base their charge of heresy on the manifold manifestations of Pope Francis’ embrace of positions contrary to the faith and his dubious support of prelates who in their lives have shown themselves to have a clear disrespect for the Church’s faith and morals.
“We take this measure as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years, which have given rise to one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church,” the authors state. The open letter is available in Dutch, Italian, German, French, and Spanish.
Among the signatories are well-respected scholars such as Father Thomas Crean, Fr. John Hunwicke, Professor John Rist, Dr. Anna Silvas, Professor Claudio Pierantoni, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, and Dr. John Lamont. The text is dated “Easter Week” and appears on the traditional Feast Day of St. Catherine of Siena, a saint who counseled and admonished several popes in her time.
The 20-page document is a follow-up to the 2017 Filial Correction of Pope Francis that was signed originally by 62 scholars and which stated that the Pope has “effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church,” especially in light of his 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The authors of the open letter state in a summary of their letter (read below) that it has now become clear that Pope Francis is aware of his own positions contrary to the faith and that the time has come to go a “stage further” by claiming that Pope Francis is “guilty of the crime of heresy.”
“We limit ourselves to accusing him of heresy on occasions where he has publicly denied truths of the faith, and then consistently acted in a way that demonstrates that he disbelieves these truths that he has publicly denied,” the authors state.
They clarify that they are not claiming Pope Francis has: “denied truths of the faith in pronouncements that satisfy the conditions for an infallible papal teaching.”
“We assert that this would be impossible, since it would be incompatible with the guidance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit,” they state.
In light of this situation, the authors call upon the bishops of the Church to take action since a: “heretical papacy may not be tolerated or dissimulated to avoid a worse evil.”
For this reason, the authors: “respectfully request the bishops of the Church to investigate the accusations contained in the letter, so that if they judge them to be well founded they may free the Church from her present distress, in accordance with the hallowed adage, Salus animarum prima lex (‘the salvation of souls is the highest law’). The bishops can do this, the writers suggest: “by admonishing Pope Francis to reject these heresies, and if he should persistently refuse, by declaring that he has freely deprived himself of the papacy.”
May 1, 2019 update: 12 more names of leading Catholics have been added to list of signers of the open letter, bringing total up to 31.
Very dangerous, evil and demonic decision! 😰 He proclaim not the gospel of Jesus Christ, instead he introduces another Christ, another Gospel, another spirit, another Church!! Read 2 Cori 11.4. That is what is happening through him..
Spot on with II Corinthians 11:4 –
A different Jesus who we have never heard of . . .
A different spirit who we have not received . . .
A different gospel that none of us accepted . . .
Out of the darkness comes this new-fangled, Bergoglian Anti-Apostolic Church, in short: the BAAL church; intended to overturn & evict our venerable Holy Catholic Apostlic Church.
It’s very dangerous… we have to pray hard. To recite the holy rosary many times.
Spot on with II Corinthians 11:4 –
A different Jesus who we have never heard of . . .
A different spirit who we have not received . . .
A different gospel that none of us accepted . . .
Undeceived by PF’s smoke-screen of: “Now you see me, now you don’t!” Catholics everywhere are waking up to the deviousness of this new-fangled, ‘Bergoglian Anti-Apostolic [BAAL] Church’, clearly intended to overturn & evict the godly tennets of our venerable Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
Keep praying everybody.
Where in the gospel are non practicing homosexual oriented people barred from positions in the Church. Paul makes references to moral requirements but says nothing about one living as chaste homosexual. Ones orientation is not a sin and it doesn’t bar one from exemplary moral conduct or preclude one from being a saint. If this is so, why not a priest?
For the same reason we don’t allow pedophiles who aren’t acting out to be around children. It’s simply too risky and dangerous. Leaders should be above reproach.
When an “orientation” is acquired behavior as the result of habitualized sin, secular mythology of innocence notwithstanding, it says a lot about weaknesses of character that would warrant serious negative consideration.
Many people still completely miss the boat on this- it’s because SSA is a disorder of the person, regardless of whether they act on it or not. This is to say that it’s very difficult for such a person to be chaste, in what that technically means, which is not abstinence, which seems to be meaning in the question and is most often meant. Thus the issue is also not really whether they can be celibate or have “mastered their predisposition,” in the words of Mr. Beaulieu below. (How could one truly “master” disorder, which would arguably require healing from it, in which case they may no longer have SSA. Otherwise it may be largely physical abstention, which still always provides a struggle within the person.) If one also holds that SSA is more specifically a psychic disorder/mental illness- which all the evidence still points to- this is even more crucial. (There is still zero indication people are “born that way,” and this is now openly contradicted by transgender nonsense, which says there is no biological basis for our sexuality & that someone can change it through will power and thought.) Why would you even risk making someone a priest who may have a psychic disorder? Furthermore, it is well attested that those with SSA, even if one would argue they are born that way, most often suffer from various other psycho-emotional problems and disorders- depression, narcissism, tend to have high rates of substance abuse, suicide, etc. Again, why take a risk? One can also highlight some possible causes of SSA, with having been sexually abused/encroached upon while young as one of the most common. Such a person will have serious trauma, while this often leads them to commit such behavior themselves. This is one reason why homosexual men, including abusive clergy, comprise a very disproportionate amount of those who prey upon minors. Bishops especially who think ordaining those with SSA is not necessarily a problem, seem to have no clue that such factors need to be considered.
The lack of masculinity of men with SSA is also an issue, making them unsuitable to act in persona cristi. It also makes them of weak character, providing difficulty to speak and act forcibly about Church teaching or enact discipline. There is perhaps little doubt one reason behind the failure of some bishops and priests to defend Church teaching- especially about sexuality- or enact discipline, fail to reign in abusive priests, is because they have SSA. It may also actively lead them to propagate error, to rationalize their own SSA. One can think of the likes of Fr. James Martin or Bishop John Stowe here.
Is there any line in the questionnaire for admission that asks, “are you attracted to male or female”?
Unless one acts out on it or declares it publicly, how is a (chaste) homosexual (merely by orientation) determined and then barred from the seminary? Doesn’t make sense.
they ask
Candidates for seminary routinely participate in a ‘discernment’ that continues during seminary years. A spiritual director typically assists the candidate in assessing his suitability.
Church teaching is that homosexual orientation (even if in thought rather than act) is a DISORDERED INCLINATION. A man who would withhold his thoughts or inclinations in truthful open manifest discussion with his spiritual director hides the truth of his very self in the discernment process. He is presenting a false picture to the director, to the Church, and his very self. Such a man has no true ‘call’ from the Lord to the priesthood. As such, he is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood.
http://www.scborromeo.org/docs/on_priesthood_and_those_with_homosexual_tendencies.pdf
So when a young man comes to get a priest’s advice on his sexuality confusion, would not the priest be biased?
A question, a quote, and an observation…
First, if Caruso’s long letter to Pope Francis disclosed that he (himself) is entirely celibate and has mastered his predisposition, then none of this is really news. But such does not seem to be the case; the exchange almost sounds staged or at least predictably and cleverly timed. It’s hard to tell, again.
Second, a recent reminiscence on the longer trend, from Benedict XVI:
“Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was broadly founded on natural law, with Sacred Scripture cited only for background or substantiation. In the council’s struggle for a new understanding of revelation, the natural law option was almost completely set aside, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded” (“The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse,” in “What is Christianity [?]: The Last Writings,” Ignatius, 2023, p. 180).
Third, Benedict adds elsewhere about the Bible, that in the Lutheran bible the word for the universal and Eucharistic “Church” is almost completely replaced by the local “community”—as reduced from the sacramental to simply an office for bottoms-up reading clubs. So, what does it mean, now, when such ecclesial “communities” share the same terminology as the politicized new religion of the LGBTQ “community?” And with the language of gesture, signaling and private notes being passed in school?
In small half-steps, rather than the Church being welcoming, is the Church being annexed?
The pope’s informal, spontaneous, and handwritten note lends itself to a “plausible deniability” of sorts—a very familiar technique imported from corporate boardrooms (the old secular equivalent to the new clericalism!)—the same as informal and spontaneous semi-blessings of “couples” under Fiducia Supplicans.
Just some surely random stuff, here; and who am I to judge?
So what is the cart and what the horse- natural law philosophy or the Bible?
God is the source of both natural law (because He is the author of all of creation) and the Bible. Therefore they will not contradict… if we understand them both correctly.
The first as confirmed and elevated by the latter. Almost as if were are made to be receptive to the truth in Person.
It doesn’t matter. The scriptures clearly teach that actively gay people cannot and will not inherit the kingdom. It’s quite clear.
The key word being “actively” gay. Is this any different than being actively sexual outside of one’s marriage?
There are differences. The homosexual disorder whether innate in the person or cultivated, is not to be preferred in the person but must actively be displaced. Whereas the natural sexual constitution is meant to be preserved in stable disposition.
Second “differentiation” is to do with dimension. Stop trying to justify anything homosexual whether as it stands on its own or by “comparisons” and “contrasts” with other conditions or disorders.
Yes, it’s different but there are similarities. Every sin resembles another in a certain way.
Not sure how your meaning might be misinterpreted by some…
So, yes and no. “Yes,” there is no difference, in that heterosexual immorality, like much else, also violates human nature and moral absolutes (as explained in the Catechism and more explicitly in Veritatis Splendor). But, “no,” if the misinterpretation–by some readers–might be that binary sexual intercourse (“outside of one’s marriage”) and homosexual mechanics (even redefining “marriage”) are indifferently equivalent….
Instead, there’s this address from Cardinal Erdo as the relator to the 1995 session on the Synod on the Family:
“‘There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’….” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4, Instrumentum Laboris 130). See Section III.3: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/32772/full-text-of-cardinal-erdos-introductory-report-for-the-synod-on-the-family
An address well worth reading again. And, perhaps, in the decade or two ahead, we might even see an inspired uptick in single-hearted vocations to the celibate priesthood and restoration of equally single-hearted vocations to faithful marriage and families, both.
And now the appointment of three blind trapeze artists to the swinging Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
https://onepeterfive.com/francis-appoints-homosexualists-to-shape-doctrine/
Out with nuptial, sacramental imagery and traditional Church wisdom.
In with inner conflict, imprecise speech (“all” as in women, e.g.?), misplaced ecclesial “clericalism” and the “tenderness” that “leads to the gas chamber” (Flannery O’Connor).
How great is this? That whole repentance thing is so backwardist!
No more sin any more! We are free from our suicidal boxes!
So eat, drink and be merry! (Or Mary, if that’s the way you play.)
Jesus calls all! All!
You, your neighbor’s wife, your German Shepherd Giselle, and even your Electrolux washer when it’s on the spin cycle!
Oh yeah! It’s open season on anything that moves! Bergoglio says so!
And Bergoglio knows his O’s!
Let’s face it. Bergoglio’s right. Christianity just isn’t that much fun.
Daft!
Obviously the Pontiff still hasn’t gotten around to reading
Religiosorum Institutio Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders
from February of 1961 which reads in part:
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives:
Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
It is in that same stack of reading material with the dubia. I’m sure he will get to in soon.
I actually proposed betting odds with several very orthodox Catholic friends of mine regarding how long the other side of his Peronism would take to show up after his crude but appropriate comment on the condition of Italian seminaries. I won. They thought it would take a couple of months. I said less than one month. They owe me a beer.
Ridiculous.
Wake me up when it’s over.
Confusion is the consistent product of the words of pope Francis. He beats the drum of anti-clericalism to placate the desire for a host of other sins. There is the pose of humility and holiness, but it is tarnished by the support for those behaviors God has condemned from the beginning.
I pray for him.
Any time soon to call an Imperfect Council?!
Bishops, Cardinals?
Any?!
Once again we confront Jorge Mario Bergoglio performing what has become a wearisome spectacle that some have called his “Peronist” maneuver; namely, saying one thing which is Catholic and actually doing its opposite which is not only non-Catholic but also morally evil. What surprises me after all this time is that those in the Church observing this resolutely wish it away and refuse to answer the unavoidable questions: “Is Bergoglio a homosexual?”, “Is Bergoglio a heretic?”, and “Is Bergoglio an apostate?”
He has reportedly used gutter language for gays frequently, and always has been keen for gossip on moral failings of other churchmen, where he then surrounds himself with these failures, them afraid of exposure, while he protects them as long as possible, which pattern has repeated numerous times in this pontificate….he uses others for power…his latest word games only more of same, from which he has drawn support from both sides…while always plausible deniability either direction, only his official acts pointing the way of his true agenda, which ain’t good.
IS he Pope? If not WHO?
Dear Paul – a heartfelt question, so many good Catholics want answered.
Yet, those in authority [cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc.] have long known that PF is of the anti-Apostolic, anything goes, worldly libertine faction in our Church.
Sadly, most of them are mesmerized and reduced to a zombi-like state of aquiescence. This is because by years of managerial prioritizing they have separated themselves from the faithful flock of Catholics who are following our LORD Jesus Christ.
Lets keep praying for Pope Francis and all the leaders to have a life-changing ‘Damascus Road’ encounter with King Jesus Christ.
Always in the love of The Lamb of GOD; blessings from marty
I don’t believe this is correct: …said: “Jesus calls all, all.”
at least not for a vocation
I wonder how the clergy who as Bishop of Burnie Airies in Argentina witnessed the Eucharist Miracle cd dare to contempt the teaching of the Bible. Very soon we shall hear another un-Godly preaching like saying “A poor person can steal from the rich to have his expenses fulfilled!” We should pray to the Catholic church as it has become a laughingstock from the Moslems and other Abrahamic religions.
Cold and hot. Just to let people more confused. The Word of God is the Truth, the Path and the Life.
Is it just me, or is that a decidedly evil grin Bergoglio is sporting in the St. Peter’s Square photo, above?
It’s not just you, brineyman, it is anyone who would project their own fears and shame onto a person smiling. The abyss may be looking back at you.
Dear ‘brineyman’ & dear ‘DanM’ – on this occasion it seems you both miss the target.
God in Christ Jesus instructs us to avoid judging by a person’s appearance and to focus on the fruits of their life.
As amply demonstrated in this & many other articles over the last 6 years and in the current string of learned comments, our current pope looks good, speaks good, and has produced an unprecedented crop of toxic fruit.
No one who cares about the salavtion of souls should be embarassed to openly rebuke him for his bad fruit. It is responsible love not pride to render that service.
Being one in The Body of Christ & one in the Holy Spirit of GOD, it is our meritorious duty to humbly proclaim the truth, without fear or favor.
Catholics who remain silent in the face of anti-Apostolic teachings & actions are sinning because they are passive accomplices of wrong.
Always seeking to hear & lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
The problem is language or misuse of it.
A man isn’t called a philanderer if he has an inclination to look at another woman not his wife, but fights it and resists.
The same should be for Lorenzo he shouldn’t be barred from the priesthood in the same way if he can bridle his instincts and look to God.
The Pope is right, the priesthood should be open to all dispositions of sin, the challenge surely then for all is to double down on the narrow path.
Where it’s unclear is if Lorenzo has professed his rejection of sin, vs. the culture’s language (which is completely wrong and the church and all should stand against) that “I was born this way”. Again, a man might be born in such a way as to have feelings towards another woman not his wife, but the church and Christ set a higher standard for all.
Homosexual inclinations are not an instinct. They are intrinsically disordered desires that result from deep and unhealed wounds, quite distinct from the wound of original sin that we all share. Those wounds have wide-ranging effects well beyond disordered sexual desires, which make it a bad idea to put such people into the more difficult life of a priest (more difficult in part because demons target priests more than laity) and also to expect them to be capable of behaving like a father to so many different people.
The idea that they were “born this way” is nonsense. What is not nonsense is that their brains are distinctly, physically different. Unhealed childhood trauma or neglect will do that.
Thanks for these illuminating facts, dear Amanda.
In consequence it would be highly irresponsible to encourage such people to become seminarians.
This might have legs if the church weren’t full of f…gt priests, no?
I’m sharing the thoughts of a theologian I highly respect, which I believe summarize what we should consider about the papal office (even though expressed five years ago, I still consider these considerations valid)
“The Pope is surrounded by impostors – those whom Cardinal Mueller calls the ‘magic circle’ – and who are more traditionally called ‘courtiers,’ partly because he seeks them out and partly because they attempt the mad endeavor of establishing modernism in the Holy See, in accordance with the wishes of the famous modernist Ernesto Buonaiuti at the beginning of the last century.
However, despite the machinations of the modernists, the Pope, when moved by the Spirit to infallibly teach some Catholic truth, cannot resist the sweet and strong impulse of the Spirit, which keeps him from error, because the Spirit itself infallibly moves the Pope’s will to desire to speak the truth. No Pope ever intends to deceive the faithful in matters of faith. It is blasphemy to even think so.
Therefore, no Pope, thanks to the gift of the Petrine ministry, can ever wish to renounce, at the appropriate time, his infallibility, not out of negligence or false humility, but precisely in obedience to his duty to confirm the brethren in the truth of faith. The Holy Spirit prevents him from sinning in faith without forcing him, but for the good of the Church. A Pope can have all the vices, but not that of unbelief, heresy, or apostasy. Pope Francis is not without sins, but in matters of faith, he cannot be wrong. Let us trust him and try to understand him even when he is unclear or ambiguous. Let us criticize him on everything, but not on matters of faith. Above all, let us help him in guiding the Church and pray for him.”
That “theologian” is absurdly wrong. A pope can even be an atheist, although, like most atheists, not likely with a conscious awareness that his beliefs are atheistic.
In truth, among the traditionalists, there are some honest but confused or scandalized souls who listen to this theologian when he shows them that the Pope does not contradict Tradition at all, but rather may be lacking in pastoral care or moral conduct. Meanwhile, there are other rancorous, stubborn, and presumptuous spirits who, seeing that this theologian criticizes the Pope, want to drag him into their extremism or want him to consent to their insults against the Pope. To this, he responds with reproaches, even to the point of breaking off the conversation if necessary, while I only know how to pray (and obviously not even very well!).
As usual, you are defending the indefensible and committing a grave sin in the process. You should not be professing faith and simultaneously defending the pope’s error here. A gay man should be firmly discouraged from seeking the priesthood and any application to seminary should be rejected on that basis.
Paolo,
One key distinction is between the pope’s adherence to doctrine versus his errors or worse in governance, which only enable or surely aid and abet the prevailing agenda of the LGBTQ religion.
Another key distinction in “papal infallibility” is that this term refers broadly to the Church indwelled by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, to papal definitions–and not to the pope as a person. The pope is not a prophet in receipt of a blank check for his private use. A fine line, here, subject to convenient day-to-day ambiguity. Here’s the definition as precisely stated at the First Vatican Council:
“The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines [!] with his supreme authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church [!] to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals: and therefore such definitions [!] of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves (and not from the consent of the Church).”
So, the exact meaning of “papal infallibility” where there’s nothing about photo-ops, or non-verbal signaling, or appointments, disappointments and exiles, or name calling, or a long pattern of seemingly off-the-wall memes floated on airplanes, or attributed and uncorrected and broadcast by atheist journalists, secularist nomads, and media talking heads, or about Vatican Garden parties for Pachamama idols. . . .or about popolatry.
A somewhat artless track record!
The constructive criticism is not about “faith;” instead maybe this: “Art is like morals [and governance?], a line has to be drawn somewhere” (G.K. Chesterton).
Exactly, right! Thank you.
A large number of comments reveal an acceptance of homosexuality usually conditioned by willingness to live a chaste life, others make no mention. Although the Pope’s response for an admitted homosexual to continue toward the priesthood is a message with far reaching implications. It affirms that to be, to consider, to choose to be homosexual is acceptable for the Church whether priest or layman. Not that it is simply tolerable, but that it is now universally accepted as a moral good.
That informal position by Pope Francis gives license to everyone to follow disordered thoughts regarding their sexual behavior at least insofar as preference. It informally [as distinct from a formal ex cathedra pronouncement] declares what the Church formally declares a moral disorder is not a moral disorder. It affirms the positions of Cardinals McElroy, Hollerich, and Fr James Martin. Although informal it’s the most sweeping repudiation of perennial Church doctrine on moral behavior in the history of Catholicism.
Fr. they also impute and sometimes make it explicit that those who stand against their disordered inclinations/appetites, etc., are the disordered category. That that standing against is a disorder. It adds to their error yet they try to make it seem a virtue.
Thank you. Excellent point Elias. Some argue only an inclination. An inclination is a natural appetite or desire directed by the will. Sin is the willful privation of direction to a due end. We can redirect our natural desires to a sinful end.
To give further account to “We can redirect our natural desires to a sinful end”, the Catechism states that the same sex inclination is not, of itself sinful. Although that may be true in some instances. Not all [based on God’s formation of the human person male and female with natural desires consistent with their sex]. We can willfully direct our desires toward a disordered end as in what’s vaguely described same sex attraction. As if that sensual desire is natural. That is putatively true in rare cases, when there is an ‘accident’ in nature, some physical impediment. Otherwise the same sex inclination is elective, an acquired behavior. There often are socio psychological dynamics that influence the attraction, which to degrees may mitigate culpability for the attraction. However, the same sex act in each and every instance as the Catechism teaches is sinful.
Fr. just found your note. Your points speak to James Connor and David among others. We know that the baptized can suffer the lingering effects of Original Sin. This is getting lost everywhere as simultaneous argumentation from all sides baptized and not baptized swamps the issues; where even the baptized add confusion. I don’t mean to be “over-critical” on them.
Don’t mean to lecture to Fr. only try to express what appears to be involved. Briefly with 2 points. 1. All kinds of motions can be mixed into or mixed up with Original Sin and its consequent impact before the will acts and after the will has acted. 2. The monopolizing of the topic by unbelievers, secularity, disbelief and false justice, is the work of Satan.
Arn’t we all born with moral disorders having original sin? We all have to deal with it differently.
No James Connor, we have to respond to the grace of God.
But incidentally, your adverbial “differently” confounds your question on Original Sin. You landed your frisbee into electrical wires there expecting me to run into them and get it for you; high tension, but I didn’t.
No James, original sin does not imply predestination for sin. And the intrinsic willful moral corruption of homosexuality is made clear by how the behavior correlates with affectations of a refusal to fully grow up, an obsessive pursuit of comfort, the retaining of children’s toys and attire, etc. And an evil mindset creates a near unanimous support for abortion among gays despite not deriving any personal convenience.
No. Don’t defend the indefensible. The call is the same to all – repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near. Jesus’s own words.
We are all born with original sin & because of that are more vulnerable to moral disorders.
The point is that homosexuals do not accept it or speak of it as a “moral disorder.” Quite the contrary, they embrace it as a “gift,” a God-given “identity.” Just imagine a serial adulterer talking about his moral failings as an “identity.” Complete nonsense.
“Moral disorders”? Or, rather only an “inclination” to possibly choose and act upon such disorders.
So, none of us is totally depraved (the false premise of Martin Luther), but our created-good human nature is now marred by an inclination. A critical distinction, this, leaving room for free will…
And, a distinction that still required clarification (in defense of human nature) even after the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration of Justification (1999). Readers can notice that the brief Preface reads in part, “The solemn confirmation of this Joint Declaration on 31 October 1999 in Augsburg, by means of the Official Common Statement with its ANNEX [!], represents an ecumenical event of historical significance.”
The integral ANNEX provides the cleverly-blurred and yet irreducible distinction between salvation by grace alone (elsewhere verbalized, in words attributed to Luther, that we remain as “dung covered with snow”), versus the Catholic doctrine that fallen man is not totally depraved, but rather suffers only from concupiscence—the tendency toward sin—and is free. The five-page Annex reads in part:
“The concept of ‘concupiscence’ is used in different senses on the Catholic and Lutheran sides. In the Lutheran Confessional writings ‘concupiscence’ is understood as the self-seeking desire of the human being, which in light of the law, spiritually understood, is regarded as sin [!]. In the Catholic understanding concupiscence is an inclination [!], remaining in human beings even after baptism, which comes from sin and presses toward sin [….]”
The Preface explains that the Declaration is to be read in conjunction with this clarification, and not without it (omitted in Lutheran versions and by aligned gender-theory ideology). This distinction in defense of the human person refutes the sloppy thinking of der Synodal Weg, holding instead that the homosexual inclination by itself (like all such inclinations) is not a sin, but that it is an objective evil to be resisted with the aid of grace from beyond ourselves—as are all other temptations of whatever stripe.
Summary: don’t eat yellow snow.
Then they wonder why we have good people leaving the Catholic Faith… Homosexuals are on the move and want every possible way they can to get into the church and all areas of society–look at all the Gay Pride parades and Drag Queen events. No knowing homosexual should be allowed to become clergy. Period!
You are right, dear Darlene. It is like a tidal wave.
Many in the Church will be swept away as flotsam & jetsum.
Some strong trees will be left standing, giving glory to God, once its all past.
Read Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13. If this man has renounced his homosexuality, then he should become a seminarian. Apparently, he has not.
Same as above post, Francis fancies himself an unpredictable Machiavellian/Peronist who knows the way to maintain power is to be unpredictable to friends and foes alike. Folk trying to shoehorn him into rational or even Catholic patterns will always be disappointed. He has reversed decisions dear to him, purely because the decisions leaked and spoiled his suprise. The only thing predictable was his about-face.
Gays don’t belong in the priesthood. The church sex abuse issue was overwhelmingly male priest to male seminarian or male child. These actions have served to bankrupt several dioceses and seriously impacted the ability of the church to function. Encouraging men with a serious emotional problem such as homosexuality to enter the priesthood seems like an obviously poor decision. It is clear by now that this pope has a conflicted idea of this issue. Lets hope the next Pope has appropriate priorities where homosexuality is concerned.
The mere fact that this young man prattles on and on about “sexual orientation” (which does not exist), instead of recognizing temptation to sin and the need to resist it, demonstrates clearly that he has no vocation. He would be a disaster in many functions a priest must exercise.
I suggest to Lorenzo Michele Noè Caruso, knock any jesuit organization door. They will welcome him with open arms. He is recommended by the higest jusuit at this right moment.
The logic of our current pontiff that allows for a homosexual to enter a seminary would seem also to allow for a straight male to join a monastery of straight females, or for a straight female to join a monastery of straight males. I suspect that our pontiff doesn’t seem to think that sexual lust or behavior–whether it be sodomy, fornication, or masturbation—would interfere with the formation in the Spirit, let alone thinking they are serious sins. It is better to believe his predecessor, St Peter, in his second letter (2Peter 2) who strongly warns against lust and the sins of the flesh.
I really think Pope Francis is right when he decries clericalism within the Church because what he actually means when he criticizes it as “worldly” is that it’s the “cliquish” nature of clericalism that is worldly as it’s built on an exclusivistic snobbery which is at loggerheads with the central message of the Gospel anyhow. I’m simply calling Pope Francis right for condemning clericalism or “the snobbery of officialdom”.
As regards him encouraging Lorenzo Carouso in discerning his vocation, Pope Francis’ position is more along the lines of guiding this man to continue to pray into the issue of his discipleship irrespective of the fact Lorenzo is struggling with sexual orientation issues. And it is obvious that many are offended here by Pope Francis choosing this approach. However, perhaps it is better to see such an approach in light of it being more of a sensitive acknowledgement of Lorenzo’s difficulties as someone who obviously “has issues” for it would be uncomely and unreflective of genuine Christ-centered love should Pope Francis react to him in a manner that is harsh and unkind, absconding from the conventions of human communicative decency. A good Biblical example to keep in mind here is the situation where Jesus was talking to the Woman at the Well. This woman was no “saint” in her moral life either for she was co-habiting with her partner instead of being married. This, however, did not stop Jesus from enaging in a long, no-doubt tender, unabashed conversation with her which in due time produced transformational results in her life on multiple levels both spiritual and temporal. So, when considering this approach then, we really have no place insofar as “pointing the finger” of negative judgement on Pope Francis for approaching the complex junctures of Lorenzo Carouso’s life-circumstances with the kind of sensitivity and objectivity he asserted into the midst of the situation since I think, like Jesus re: the Woman at the Well, he was way more concerned about the holistic nature of this man’s circumstances, and more particularly so in view of his prayer life and need for deep discernment in order to gain much more clarity about the nature of a God-given call, than he was about being negatively “nit-picky” over this & that. See, even Jesus would have not come down with a sledge-hammer on the Woman at the Well upon discoursing about her life, even those parts of it that needed changing in order to become more open and conformed to the work of sanctifying grace…He would rather, speak the truth to her in love – and that would be coupled too with a miraculous outworking of inner transformation for her and this because He is God. But it should be remembered and understood that, Pope Francis, although He is appointed as Vicar of Christ, is not God, and so cannot simply work miracles at will in the lives of those he meets. That said, I think his tact in the way he approached the tenuous complexity of this man’s situation reflects the desire to be as much as possible, likened unto Christ in the way he engages interpersonally with those he ministers to.
You make a good case in defense of the words and behavior of Francis. That “…Pope Francis [should] react to him in a manner that is harsh and unkind, absconding from the conventions of human communicative decency….” is to deflect and ignore Church teaching.
We choose: The teaching of Christ and His church OR Francis’ subscribing to ‘conventions of human communicative decency.’ The teaching of the Church and of Christ assures and is conducive to eternal happiness. Human constructs such as “conventions of human communicative decency” are conducive to disordered thinking, sin, and wasted lives when God and His Church are seen as ‘harsh and unkind.’ Simple truth: God is not harsh and unkind in pointing men to their eternal beatitude. Francis is derelict in not pointing this young man the way to his own well-being and that of the Church.
I often think of Pope Francis’ pastoral approach as Christ-like, and he deserves our respect. This story has not been confirmed, but like the ‘who am I to judge’ comment seems to imply an approach toward sinners which first appeals to their vulnerability and struggle, rather than immediate judgement.
Dear Sueiyin Ho & dear Angela Malek.
Your comments, both, feature the sort of rationalizing, humanistic dialogue that New Age universalist unitarian pagans major on. Totally in contrast to the way of Jesus Christ & His Catholic Church, in which not one jot or triffle of God’s Law is to be set aside.
Recall, please: Jesus rebuked the woman-at-the-well by asking her to fetch her husband and then exposing her sinful sexual relationships. Her salvation came from her humble acceptance of God’s rebuke and honoring Him as The Messiah.
In both cases, Sueiyin & Angels, you are presenting a non-Catholic point of view; ignoring the fact that CWR is a website devoted to Catholic teaching and life.
It is a key part of God’s love for us that these rules are graciously given to protect us from evil and from an eternity in hell. Please do read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you desire to know what rules have been set by nearly 2,000 years of Catholic divine inspiration, prayer, & godly thinking.
Jesus Christ [the one & only Authority over the heavens & the earth forever] also says: “Repent & believe The Good News!”; “Go and sin no more!”
His beloved Apostle John teaches that the reason Christ, The Eternal Word, became a human being was: “To destroy the works of the devil!” As with everything that Jesus said & did it was for our benefit & for our eternal happiness.
It is decidely not for the benefit of a man to toy with the devil by persisting in imagining he is sexually attracted to other men; it is definitely not for the benefit of a woman to toy with the devil by persisting in entertaining thoughts that she is sexually attracted to other women.
What IS for their everlasting benefit is: 1. saving faith in Christ and His teachings; 2. repentance from all that is not of Christ; 3. water baptism in the name of The Holy Trinity; 4. Holy Spirit baptism and a new life of metanoia and spiritual maturing in The Body of Jesus Christ, that is the Church; 5. regular prayer & receipt of the Sacraments; 6. a life of loving obedience to God’s commands; 7. humble perseverance in grateful dependence on the undeserved mercy of God.
Jesus Christ is THE way, THE truth, THE life, & THE light of this world.
No one will enter God’s glorious eternity but through Jesus Christ.
In John 10:27-30, we read that Jesus made plain THE way –
“My sheep listen to My Voice, I know them, they follow Me. I give them eternal life, they will never perish; no one can snatch them from My Hand.”
In many places in the Gospels, Jesus firmly instructs us that God’s promises apply to those who surrender themselves to obeying His commands and who are unashamed to lovingly tell the world of His very good news. It is not only SSA people who have to repent & reform; EVERY Christian knows they have to repent & carry their cross of self-denial, every day. It’s part of the deal! Heaven is worth the pain!
Do you believe this dear Sueiyin and dear Angela?
Men with unresolved SSA are not suitable candidates for priesthood or other ministries that require close work with vulnerable adults and children. In addition, until their SSA is properly resolved, they are in a state of mortal sin and can not become a communicating member of a Catholic parish, let alone a seminary.
Please don’t give credence to the discombobulating nonsense currently emerging from Rome. It is decidely not Catholic, not Christian, and not salvific.
Recall, please, Jesus warned us to beware imposters who come in His name.
Always under the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
If this is true….. For sure the African Catholic Church will break away…. 100% sure