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.
[…]
All well and good, but not unlike the half-blessing of irregular “couples,” a platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinusis!) is an irregular half mammal with half marine features (like laying eggs)…
Is the town hall meeting or “assembly” now happily distinct again from hybrid “synodality,” or are synods-of-bishops displaced and no longer functional? Is the ongoing (?) assembly the Germaniac ongoing Trojan Horse, der Synodal Weg, now stabled in Rome?
Would like to see CNA “explain” things apart from Cardinal Grech’s talking points. Recalling, here, two earlier and relevant insights of Singapore’s Cardinal Goh (April 2024): https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/05/03/cardinal-goh-of-singapore-deep-encounter-with-jesus-is-key-to-passing-on-the-faith/
FIRST, “But I don’t believe that we should try to compromise the Gospel. And that is my fear: that, today, even Church leaders are compromising the Gospel. I don’t think Jesus ever compromised the Gospel, even for the adulterous woman. He says, ‘I do not judge you, I do not condemn you, but please sin no more.’ I think that has to be mentioned. This is where the importance of truthfulness, mercy, and compassion [comes in].”
SECOND: “…as has often been said, or some bishops are suggesting, perhaps there should be another level where it is really a Synod of Bishops, after hearing the laypeople, after journeying with them; there should be that level of bishop synods, where the bishops can come together, because that synod [with laity] cannot really be considered a theological dogmatic synod, because not all are theologically trained.”
Very well said. I, too, share the concern that in this Synodal process, the gospel is being watered down and the governance of the Church compromised by considering the professed religious and lay people on an equal footing with bishops. The Synod of Bishops should be just that. They are the only official teachers of the Church, as determined by Jesus Himself. He gave no other body the authority to teach His commands. I am concerned that this Synodal process is a subservient process to water down Church doctrine and moral teachings.
To paraphrase the reported (but probably fictional) words of Henry II concerning St Thomas of Canterbury: Who will rid us of this turbulent process?
This Vatican might be likened to the Tower of Babel where language no longer has meaning or relevance. There is a profusion of “words” that emanates from this Pontificate none of which helps shepherd Christ’s flock. These Synodal Assemblies of “here comes everybody” is like bureaucratic government gone amok. It reminds me of the bad old days of the 60’s and 70’s when parents abdicated their adult roles in the family and children assumed equal status with parents. We’re now seeing the fruits of that madness in the narcissism of our current cohort of adults which is so evident these days in the Church. This won’t turn out well.
In addition, planning these synodaling event aka assemblies into the future might well be an attempt to define the next papacy. In fact, I would NOT be at all surprised to learn that the fix is already in and the next pope has already been decided upon (something like how Karmala Harris became the candidate for the Dems).
Oh come now, DeaconEdPeitler, why so down on the multiplication of words?
But, yes, instead of a “profusion of ‘words'”, all we really need is a concise acronym for a big tent Church whose center post and stakeholders, both, are everywhere! No longer a Eucharistic and therefore “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium), but mostly geographical and global!
Surely, “not a parliament,” but maybe still a [CO]ngress of sorts; that is, maybe a continuous theology-on-tap or permanent [V]atican III]; and surely not exclusive, or doctrinal, or definitive, or even coherent, but maybe only a fluid process [I]n the “style” of mutual-admiration [d]ialogue…
In a word, something both new and catching, and memorable, like COVID-2028?
You’ve outdone yourself here, Peter.
Like little children who do not get their way the first time, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, they will not stop in 2028 either.
Welcome to the Church as the permanent globalist Woodstock Nation, pronouncing its new Jesus. In the words of Niebuhr: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Canon Law has provisions in it for Plenary and Provincial Councils and Diocesan Synods which, at least since the current volume of 1983, provides for the inclusion of “non-clerics” as members. In over 40 years, I think there have been less than a handful of Diocesan Synods, but certainly no Plenary or Provincial Councils. The Conference of Bishops (only) still makes law for the nation at that level. The Annual Meetings of the Bishops of a Province (only) still make law for the Province (for example, changing Ascension Thursday to Sunday without any lay input). Canon Law also provides for Diocesan and Parish Pastoral Councils including lay people as members. Yet, only half the archdioceses and dioceses have them (and not all are active) and only three-fourths of parishes have them. So, even though there have been ways to involved the laity in decision making, it’s been ignored a lot, and they think this “Synod on Synodality” stuff will work? Dream on.
Right on Deacon you got it right. Jesus warned us;“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. Mt 7:15
Samuel, in my reading of the Gospels, I’ve never gotten the impression that our Savior, Jesus Christ, was afflicted with the condition known as logorrhea as so many of our hierarchs are.
I believe I discovered “how the stuff works” during the local ‘S of S’ sessions, months ago. I will describe it here because too many believe that “multiplication of words” while being annoying does not pose a real danger to the life of the Church.
If before the model of managing the Church was “I decided – you have to obey” now it is considered to be old fashioned. Instead, “the masses” must decide – so it is tirelessly proclaimed. Both methods can be good and bad, in my opinion. They can both be good if the absolute measure of all decisions is the Person of Jesus Christ. That means, nothing contrary to our faith will be decided – and also nothing contrary to a normal human psyche. Take a case with Rupnik for example and place Rupnik and others, who keep him in the Church, before Our Lord – the decision is clear. Imagine Christ speaking to the Sisters whom Rupnik violated – again, all is clear: one must not violate human persons and even more so in the Church; the offender must be thrown out/defrocked because via his actions he made himself a filthy person unfit to serve at the altar; the victims must be provided with support and healing. It is both good theology and good psychology (which in the Person of Christ become one).
The most important: in both cases, “I decide” or “we decide” there must be Someone above – Christ, God. As long as He is the objective measure of decisions all is OK. However, Christ was dealt away, He is now out of the scope. Hence, we lost the objective Judge of what is good and what is bad or better to say not the Judge but the Person WHO makes good and bad painfully clear, via His presence.
The people who are now “managing” the Church still believe “I decide – you will obey” in their hearts. But to look “nice” they cover it with “we (masses) will decide” – yet they want to do their own will only. How is it done? – Via saying “Yes, I hear you” and then act as if nothing ever was said.
And so, we have nave the suffocating new scheme: “We have a problem – I want to hear from you – Excellent idea! – I am going on as if nothing has been said but trumpet about “listening””. This is literally what I have encountered, not just during the local ‘S of S’ but also during my personal interactions with the clergy slightly higher than a low level. The showcase of that new phenomenon was me pointing at a blasphemous “installation” in the cathedral saying that it must be removed because it is disrespectful to Christ. “Oh yes, you are right, it is horrible indeed, I will remove it before the Sunday Mass”. It has never been removed. “I hear you – I will do – going on my merry way as if nothing was said” has been repeated on other, similar occasions. The fact that I am a specialist in a liturgical art = qualified to make such corrections did not make any difference. My qualifications propelled a priest to go at length about how lucky he was to have such a specialist around and how much he would like to learn blah blah blah. He tried to flatter me; it was beyond him to understand that I do not care. I cared about Christ and a restoration of a proper liturgical space; he cared about pleasing me thus he was unable to hear me. Speaking as a psychologist, he wanted my approval of him and for that purpose he tried to tickle my ego; he failed to understand that he would get my “approval” only if he corrected the blasphemous installation. In fact if he did correct it he would do it for Christ, not for me and thus would get an incomparably bigger approval. But he does not get it.
I appreciate much of what you say. I’ve always hated to concede anything to Catholic dissidents, but one argument they made in the past for a married priesthood was that ordained men go through their whole lives without anyone willing to say to them that they are capable of being a fool from time to time, and this distorts their entire world view, and personal maturity. They have a point. But it ultimately fails because we owe it to the ordained to tell them when they’re fools. This might help rescue them from their habits of vanity, especially as they move up the ladder and can do real harm.
Anna, excellent, indeed!
Word salad.
Exactly!
We are so blessed with the Word of God in the Sacred Scriptures, with the Sacraments, with the true Magisterium handed down through the ages. Synod,synodal, synodaling. What in the world does it all mean? And who needs it?
What might we expect that differs from what has preceded if not unilateral decisions narrowed to the personal preferences of the chosen few? The blessed Amici Curiae. No need for wild guesses.
There won’t be mega earthquakes like formal change of doctrine, rather something more subtle, in line of precedence of what Christian Brugger and Fr Ryan described as ‘inclinations’ contrary to divine revelation.
See Father Murray’s column today on The Catholic Thing regarding ecclesial assembly.
I second the “word salad” mishmash open to meaning whatever….however, it clearly is meant to be superior to, and sit in judgement over, even a synod of Bishops, even though it will be muchly a non-clergy assembly.
Who knows? Who cares?
We all should know and care very deeply because this “process” if left unchecked, will drive the Church into irrelevance, indistinguishable from every other Protestant community, with no clear guiding principles and meeting all “where they are” with no regard for the concepts of repentance and holiness. Jess said, “Be holy as My Father is holy.” Who will know what that means anymore?
Dr. Dobbins, It’s the VATICAN that will be driven to irrelevance, The true Catholic CHURCH will never become irrelevant (Matthew 16:18).
Is the intent& purpose, the objective to conform the world to God or to conform God to the world? Traditions favors the former, the progressive, not so much, if at all.
Two items seem to move this synodal path: Evaluation and experimentation. In the use of proper reason, evaluation comes before deciding. For example, in the exercise of the human conscience, the judgment of the practical intellect, one considers the principles of faith and reason to evaluate the action’s rightness and wrongness, and then “decides” on a course of action. Only stalwart progressives put evaluation after deciding because there is never a firm decision in the process, just a process; just a continuous evaluation and a never-ending evolution and development. That is why the contents of every synodal document will always require further experimentation and a continuous synodal way. As I think on this, I still try to consider what the endgame is. While for progressives there is always an agenda and a path in place of a goal, the practical implementation of the synodal way must seek the eventual replacement of orthodox bishops (who are litmus tested through their lack of synodal implementation). They are eventually removed to make way for synodal drainlayers who each support an ecclesial congress of the laity. Yet, if this implementation is successful over time (progressives are very patient once they have stopped crying), they may also succeed in forcing and creating their own underground church. At the ground level, below the “celestial” synod, authentic Catholics are already asking, “If these things happen universally, where will be go?”
The “endgame”?
Rather than simply state it, there are some clericalist operatives who would have the Church simply at back into it.
The “Queer-Church-Bureaucracy” messages its “eternal processes” to pursue the goal of The McCarrick Establishment, The High Church of The Decapitated Body.
From the start, this synodal process has been designed to lead the Church to a place where it will no longer be founded on a Rock but on a hill of sand. The firm doctrine and teachings based on the Gospel and apostolic tradition are being replaced with a muddied “everything goes” approach. If you want to be in a same-sex relationship, “who am I to judge?” governs. Everything appears to be on the table for consideration. That is not what Jesus taught. That is not why He founded His Church. We seem to forget it is still His Church. He did not give it away to Pope Francis to change as His Eminence desires. Jesus’ teachings are quite clear and the Apostolic traditions, inspired by the Holy Spirit, have kept on the right path for 2000 years. It takes an extreme degree of pride and self-focus to think you can do otherwise. We needed fidelity, not synodality.
It is commonly overlooked that early in Francis’ pontificate, when Walter Kasper was frequently called “the Pope’s theologian,” Francis endorsed Kasper’s infamous essay from 1968, of process theology advancing the notion that even God is incomplete and in the process of learning how to be God through history. Therefore, there are no truly immutable truths.
The HRCAC has been around for some 2000+ years and now we are told that it is in error and must be reinvented. What a bunch of fools!
Dr. Robbins above – Translation of “Who know? Who cares?” – I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with this nonsense.
Praying for a pope who has a clue that there is real work that needs doing.
The Church has the responsibility to pass on the One,Holy,Catholic Faith given to her by the apostles. There is little to add after 2000 years. Novelty, from any source, is a sign of unfaithfulness to the mission and betrayal of our Lord.
Sticking to the essentials: When you hear the word “Synod”, think “following in the footsteps of the Anglicans.”
There hardly is any civilized level of conversation taking place in this space. More or less the very same people repeatedly vent out venom against renewal, collegiality and synodality.