Vatican City, Jun 21, 2018 / 04:29 pm (CNA).- In a June 21 conversation with journalists on the way back from a trip to Geneva, Pope Francis touched on an array of topics, including ecumenism, intercommunion, peace and just war, and refugees.
Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s inflight press conference:
Greg Burke:
Thank you, Your Holiness… we wait a second, here we go… perfect! Thank you in the meantime. To journey, to pray, to work together… we have walked, we have prayed also, at various times, and now we touch on work a little, even to eat after, so that it is seen that to journey together brings fruit.
Today the welcoming- we have seen, after many speeches that it is the mutual respect and it is something more, it is also friendship. However, there is still so much work to do and so many challenges and this interests us normally, the challenges… so, to you journalists… but, if you want to say something first [Holy Father]?
Pope Francis:
Thank you for your work, the day was a little heavy, at least for me… but I am content, I am content [ed. note: or ‘happy’] because the various things that we have done — that is, the prayers to begin, then the speech during lunch it was the most beautiful, then the academic meeting, and then the Mass, they are things that have made me happy… The tiring but beautiful things! Thank you so much! Now I am available to you.
Greg Burke:
Good. We begin with the Swiss. (Arnaud Bedat of L’Illustre magazine)
Bedat:
Holy Father, you have been in Geneva, but also in Switzerland. What are the images and what are the strong, important moments that had an impact on you during this day?
Pope Francis:
Repeat for me.
Bedat:
(repeated)
Pope Francis:
I believe that it is a common word: encounter. It was a day of varied encounters. The right word of the day is ‘encounter,’ and when a person encounters another and feels appreciation for the meeting, this always touches the heart, no? They were positive meetings, good even, beginning with the dialogue with the president at the beginning; it was not a speech of courtesy, as usual… [it was] a deep speech on the profound world debates and [spoken by him] with an intelligence… that I remain astonished, beginning from that.
Then the meetings that you all saw, and that which you did not see is the meeting at lunch, that was very profound [or deep] in the way it touched on many debates, mabe the debate we spent the most time on is “the youth.” Because even all of the churches are concerned, in the good sense, for the youth and the pre-synod that occurred in Rome from March 19 and then attracted enough attention, because there were youth of all [different] beliefs, even agnostics and of all the countries. Think, 315 youth there and 15,000 connected [ed note: via Facebook] that they entered and exited and this perhaps awakened a special interest.
But the word that came to me maybe the whole trip is that it was a voyage of ‘encounter.’ Maybe… I don’t know… an experience of encounter… no rudeness, nothing entirely formal. A human encounter. And this… between Protestants, Catholics and all [people] it says a lot, eh!
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now the German group. Roland Juchem of the German Catholic CIC Agency is here.
Roland Juchem:
Thanks, Holy Father. You speak often of concrete steps toward ecumenism. Today, for example, you again referred to that, saying “Let’s see what is possible to do concretely rather than getting discouraged for what isn’t.”
The German bishops recently have decided to take a step and so we ask ourselves why Archbishop Ladaria wrote a letter that seems like an “emergency brake.” After the meeting May 3, it was affirmed that the German bishops would have had to find a possibly unanimous solution. What will be the next steps? Will an intervention from the Vatican be necessary to clarify or will the German bishops have to find an agreement?
Pope Francis:
Well. This is not a novelty because in the Code of Canon Law, what the German bishops were talking about is foreseen: communion in special cases. And, they were looking at the problem of mixed marriages, no? If it is possible or it isn’t possible. And the Code says that the bishop of the particular Church – this word is important, “particular,” if it is of a diocese – must read that. It’s in his hands. This is in the Code. The German bishops, because they had seen that it wasn’t clear… also some priests did things who weren’t in agreement with the bishop, have wished to study this theme and have made this study that I don’t want to exaggerate, but it was a study of more than a year, and more… it’s more than a year… well done… and the study was restrictive.
What the bishops wanted is to say clearly what is in the Code. And, I read it and said: this is a restrictive document, no? It wasn’t open to everyone. It’s a well thought-out thing, with ecclesial spirit. And they wished to do it for the local Church, not the particular. The thing slid along up until there for the German [bishops’] conference. And there, there is a problem, because the Code does not foresee that. It foresees the bishop of the diocese, but not the conference, because a thing approved by an episcopal conference immediately becomes universal.
And this was the difficulty of the discussion: not so much the content, but this. And they sent the document. Then, there were two or three meetings of dialogue or of clarification and Archbishop Ladaria sent that letter, but with my permission. He didn’t do it alone! I told him: ‘Yes, it’s better to make a step ahead and say that the document isn’t yet mature and that the thing needed to be studied more.’ Then, there was another meeting and at the end they will study the thing.
I think that this will be an orientative document so that each of the diocesan bishops can manage what canon law already permits.
It wasn’t a brake … it is reading the thing so that it goes along the right path. When I made a visit to the Lutheran Church of Rome, a question of the kind was posed, and I replied according to the spirit of the Code of Canon Law. It is the spirit that they are seeking now. Maybe it wasn’t the right information in the right moment, a little bit of confusion, but this is the thing: the particular Church, the Code permits it, the local Church [episcopal conference] cannot because it would be universal.
(journalist inaudible)
But the conference can study and give orientative opinions to help the bishops to manage the particular cases. Thanks.
Greg Burke:
Now from the Spanish group there is Eva Fernandez of COPE agency and Spanish radio
Pope Francis:
They are good, these [journalists] of COPE
Eva Fernandez:
Thank you, Holy Father! We have seen that even the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches spoke of help to refugees. Just recently we have seen the incident of the Aquarius ship, also the separation of families in the United States. Do you think that some leaders instrumentalize/use the tragedy of refugees. Do they use them…?
Pope Francis:
I have spoken a lot on refugees, the criteria are those that I have said: to welcome, to accompany, to place, to integrate. This is the criteria for all refugees. Then I have said that every country should do this with the virtue of the rule of prudence, because a country should welcome as many refugees as it can and as many as it can integrate, educate, assimilate, give work to. This I would say is the straightforward/easy, serene plan for refugees. Here we are living [with] a wave of refugees that flee from wars and from hunger. The war and hunger of many countries in Africa, wars and persecution in the Middle East. Italy and Greece were very generous in welcoming [refugees], and for the Middle East, Turkey [was also], in respect to Syria, it has received many… Lebanon many… Lebanon has as many Syrians as Lebanese… and then Jordan… other countries, also Spain has received [them? some?].
There is a problem of trafficking migrants, and also there is the problem when in some cases they return, because they should return if this — I do not know/understand well the terms in agreement — if they are in the Libyan water, they should return… and there, I have seen the photographs of the detention centers controlled by the traffickers. Traffickers immediately separate the women from the men… women and babies go… God knows where! This is what the traffickers do! There is even a case that I know of where the traffickers were close to a ship that had accepted barges and… [they were saying] “give us the women and the babies and take the males.”
These traffickers and the detention centers of the traffickers eh, that have returned, they are terrible… terrible! In the detention camps of the Second World War they saw these things! And also the mutilizations in the torture of [forced?] labor and then they threw them to be in the comunes of the men. For this the leaders are concerned that they [the people] do not return and fall into the hands of these people [the traffickers]. It is a world-wide concern! I know that the leaders speak on this and they want to find an agreement, even to modify the Dublin agreement and all of this.
In Spain you have had the case of this ship that is docked in Valencia, but all of this is a mess… the problem of the wars is difficult to resolve. The problem of the persecution also of Christians in the Middle East, also in Nigeria… but the problem of hunger they can resolve, and many European leaders are thinking of an emergency plan to invest in these countries, to invest intelligently, to give work and education in these two things in the countries from which those people come… because — [I’ll say] one thing, not to offend, but it is the truth — in the collective subconscious, is a bad motto: Africa is exploited. And Africa is to be preyed on… this is in the subconscious… ‘eh, they are Africans.’ Always ‘land of slaves.’
And this should change with this plan of investment, and to increase education, because the African people have many cultural riches, many, and they have a great intelligence. The children are very intelligent and they, with a good education, can go beyond… this will be the road halfway to the goal, but in the moment leaders should make an agreement between themselves to go forward with these emergency fixes… this here in Europe! We go in America: in America there is a great migration problem.
(journalist inaudible)
In Latin America too there is an internal migration problem… in my homeland there is a migration problem from North to South and even these people leave the countryside because there is no work and the go to the big cities and where there are these megacities [or huge cities], the slums and all these things, but it is also an external migration to other countries that have work… and speaking concretely of the United States, I back that which the bishops of the country say. I side with them. Thank you.
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now is the English group: Deborah Castellano Lubov of the Zenit Agency.
Deborah Castellano Lubov (Zenit):
Thanks, Holiness! Holiness, in your address today to the ecumenical encounter you made reference to the enormous strength of the Gospel. We know some of the Churches, now the World Council of Churches, the so-called “pacifist Churches” who believe that a Christian cannot use violence. We remember that two years ago in the Vatican there was as conference organized. Do you think that it would be the case for the Catholic Church to unite to these so-called “Churches of peace” and set aside the doctrine of just war? Thanks.
Pope Francis:
A clarification, why do you say that there are “pacifist Churches?”
Deborah Castellano Lubov:
They are considered as pacifist because they have this way of reasoning that if a person (intuits) a violence, at that point they can no longer be considered Christians.
Pope Francis:
Thanks. I understand. Because you put your finger right in the wound, eh? I think that… today at lunch a pastor said that maybe the first human right is the right to hope and I liked that. And this has to do a bit with this and we spoke about the crisis of human rights today. I think that I have to begin from this to arrive to your question. The crisis of human rights is clearly seen. They speak a bit about human rights but so many groups or some countries take a distance, and “yes, human rights,” but there isn’t the strength, the enthusiasm, the conviction. I don’t say 70 years ago but 20 years ago. And this is grave because we have to see the causes, but what are the causes for which we have arrived to this that today human rights are relative. Also the right to peace is relative. It is a crisis of human rights. This I think that we must think it through to the end, or with certainty.
Then, Churches of peace. I think that all the Churches that have this spirit of peace must reunite and work together as we said in the speeches today, myself and the other people that spoke. And at lunch, unity for peace was spoken of. Peace is an exigency because there is risk of a war that we … some have said this: this third world war, if it is done, we know with which arms it will be done… but if there were a fourth, it would be done with sticks because humanity will be destroyed. The commitment for peace is serious, but when you think of the money that is spent on weapons… for this, the religions of peace… is the mandate of God. Peace, fraternity, human unity. All of the conflicts, don’t resolve them like Cain, resolve them with negotiations, with dialogue, with mediations… for example, we’re in a crisis of mediations. The mediation as a juridical figure (very rich) today is in pure crisis. Hope is in crisis, crisis of human rights, crisis of mediations, crisis of peace.
But then if you say that there are religions of peace, I ask myself, where are the religions of war? It’s tough to understand this. It’s tough. But, some groups, I would say in almost all of the small religious groups, I will say a bit simply fundamentalists, seek wars… Also we Catholics have some. They always seek destruction, no? And this is very important to have our eyes on it. I don’t know if I replied. Thanks.
They say that the population is asking for lunch, eh, dinner, that there is just enough time to arrive with a full stomach. It’s just to tell you… a word that I want to say clearly that today was an ecumenical day, really ecumenical! And at lunch we said a beautiful word, a beautiful thing, that I leave with you so that you think on it and reflect, you make a nice consideration of this. In the ecumenical movement we have to take from the dictionary a word: “proselytism.” Clear? You cannot have ecumenism with proselytism. You have to choose. Either you have an ecumenical spirit or you are a proselytizer.
Thanks! I would continue speaking because I like it… but now let’s make the Substitute [of the Secretariat of State] come because it is the last trip he’ll make with us, because now he’s going to change color, but not for embarrassment! We want to say goodbye to him. It’s a Sardinian cake to celebrate!
Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu (Sardinian-born Substitute of the Holy See Secretariat of State):
Thanks! It is a double surprise of calling me and thanking me in front of you! And then there’s a Sardinian cake. Well, then, we’ll try it with pleasure! I truly thank the Holy Father for this occasion, but for everything, because he has allowed me this magnificent experience of traveling so much with him. At the beginning, he scared me saying, ‘No, I’ve made few trips.’ Do you remember? And then after one, he added another and then another and we said to ourselves, ‘good thing he said there would be few and they’ve been many.’ A magnificent experience of seeing the Holy Father spread the Word of God courageously. My service has been only this: to help him in this. Alright? Thanks to all of you and to those who have helped us! Thanks.
Pope Francis:
Buon appetito, have a good dinner and thanks so much! And pray for me, please. Thanks.
[…]
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