Vatican City, Sep 18, 2017 / 01:57 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Nearly four years after the Pope established his Council of Cardinal advisers to help him in the task of reforming the Roman Curia, one member of the group said their work is wrapping up, and that it could take only a few more meetings to finish what they set out to do.
The ongoing process of reform “is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon,” Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay told CNA Sept. 14.
“It will take two or three more meetings more,” he said, adding that “by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.”
Cardinal Gracias is also President of the Asian Bishops Conference and in 2013 was chosen by the Pope along with eight other prelates from around the world to advise him in matters of Church governance and reform.
He spoke to CNA in a lengthy, sit-down interview after the council – also called the “C9” – concluded their latest round of meetings last week.
As far as the reform goes, Cardinal Gracias said “there won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down.” Rather, it will be “a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today.”
He said a key goal of the C9 is to implement the vision of the Second Vatican Council, specifically when it comes to the importance of the role of the laity and women, and incorporating greater synodality and collegiality into the Church’s structures.
From the beginning Pope Francis “had very clear what he wanted this group to do,” the cardinal said. “He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision.”
Cardinal Gracias admitted that in the beginning he had doubts as to whether or not they were going in the right direction, and had started to worry what people on the outside might say, since many fruits of the meetings weren’t and likely won’t be immediately visible. He said he also struggled with doubts about the pace at which they were moving, and believed that things were going “too slow.”
“I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is,” he said, explaining that Pope Francis’ Christmas speech to the Roman Curia last year was a “tipping point” for him.
More than anything, there is a change in mentality that’s needed, which will take longer than simply reforming the Vatican’s structures, he said, but said the group is “rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership.”
In addition to the ongoing curial reform, Cardinal Gracias also spoke about the recent release of Indian priest Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil 18 months after he was abducted in Yemen. He also spoke about the Pope’s upcoming trip to Myanmar and Bangladesh, and when a possible papal trip to India might take place.
Below are excerpts from CNA’s interview with Cardinal Gracias:
You’ve seen Fr. Tom and you were at his meeting with Pope Francis. How is he doing?
I was pleasantly surprised with calmness with which he came out, because he did not know, to my knowledge, that he was being released. But he said I know people have prayed for me, I’m grateful for the people who were praying for me, but he kept on saying ‘Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ And then he told the Holy Father. It was a very moving moment. As soon as the Holy Father came he prostrated in front of the Holy Father and kissed his feet, and he said, ‘thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you Holy Father, but just one message I want to give you: Jesus Christ is great. Jesus was with me right through, I could sense the presence of God with me’…And once I thought the Holy Father had tears in his eyes. When Tom kept on speaking about Jesus, this is what he told the Holy Father: please tell the people that Jesus is great! I would say that he’s come out of it with an experience of the presence of the Lord, and I think at that moment the Holy Father had tears in his eyes…I met the Holy Father later that afternoon, and he was telling me how impressed he was. He was also surprised with the calmness of the man, with Tom…He was a man who is perhaps strengthened in the faith after this experience, and not bitter about anything. Particularly about his captors, he was very understanding. It was a special experience, very edifying. He needs rest, certainly, he’ll have a medical exam and he’ll be with his superiors, but eventually he’ll go back (to India). So thank God really. It was an anxious moment for the whole Church in India. We didn’t know what was happening, but we understood that putting more pressure, in the perspective of the government, could make things more difficult for him. (But) he’s not really stressed in any way you can make out. Physically weak, but spiritually strong. When he met the Holy Father, he was weeping right through it. And the Holy Father was very touched, he kissed his hand and blessed him…He felt the comfort and strength of the entire Church. As he said, there was never a moment when he felt abandoned, either by the Church or by God. He kept saying, ‘Jesus is great.’ So he came out spiritually strengthened in that sense. It was a big relief, a big blessing, and the Holy Father was overjoyed. I think the government of Oman did a very splendid job of helping out…they even brought a Salesian to accompany him on the last plane. It was very human of them, so had the comfort of a spiritual companion.
What role did the Holy See play in working out his release?
They only offered help, they kept the issue open and kept sharing. The Holy See was told he was alive, and the Holy See communicated with the Indian government. In Yemen, the political situation is very fragile, and one doesn’t know who is in charge. There are bombardments and all sorts of groups are taking over, so there was always a risk I suppose, that if you tried to liberate him you could have harmed him. But they were always interested, they kept it alive. Every time I came to Rome somebody from the Secretariat of State updated me. The Vatican made sure there was interest. Any information the Holy See had, they shared it with the Indian government, the Omani government, so that was good.
It’s interesting that there is still no word on who is responsible…
It’s not a terrorist attack, it’s a kidnapping. They wouldn’t glory in taking him. That has not come out. I spent about half an hour with him before the Holy Father, and he was speaking continuously. I did not at any point attempt to ask him questions, because I think that would be a stress for him. He has got to share…he wants to share it and then I imagine you feel lighter. He’s probably just got to rest, and rest and rest, physically and then mentally too, he’s got to get it out of his mind. He’s not come out of it a broken man at all. I was afraid of that, that he would come out a broken man, but no…It’s a moment of grace, a moment of faith, a special experience. The high point was when he told the Holy Father, ‘just tell everybody that Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ Just three simple words. That was like the sum of his whole experience, what he meant and why he meant it…he felt not abandoned, I suppose. I hope recovers. I imagine he needs a couple of months really, or maybe more than a couple of months, to really rest. He needs time with the family also, natural circumstances…I’m not sure about this, but I have a feeling that the Omani government decided to bring him to Rome, because they (wanted) to hand him over to the Vatican. I think it was better for him, because I think if he had gone to India he would have been mobbed by everybody. He just needs space to recover, and for doctors to examine him. Physically to see if he’s alright, and psychologically also, to be investigated. I think it was a wise decision, but I think it was a decision more of the Omani government.
I don’t want to exploit your time, but I wanted to ask a few questions about the process of reform and the C9. You just finished your latest round of meetings…
Yes, we just finished the latest round, the 21st meeting. I can’t imagine we’ve had 21. I didn’t realize it’s 21 already. I think we are working hard. What’s nice is that we’re a cohesive group now. In the beginning we were all (gestures). Now we know each other so well and we work together, and of course trying to implement the Holy Father’s vision of the Church. Also, one of the things we always say, and it’s very clear, before the conclave the cardinals had spoken a lot of their vision of the Church, and we have the texts of what all of the cardinals said, and all the cardinals gave their vision. We picked up from that, the Holy Father picked up from that, his own vision. We’ve focused so far … it’s for a dual purpose that the group was formed: one is to help him help him in the governance of the universal Church, and the second is to revise Pastor bonus, the papal document of St. John Paul II for establishing the Curia and giving the job descriptions and the vision of each dicastery. It’s to revitalize, I suppose that’s what Pope Francis wants us to do, and to have a new mentality which is applying Vatican II also; how to make the Roman Curia at the service of the Holy Father more effectively, but the Churches at the local level, the Churches in the dioceses, how to make the Roman Curia assist the local Churches to be more effective pastorally, so they can be more vibrant in that sense. So I think the holy Father is satisfied with what’s happening. I’m satisfied too with the way we are going ahead. We come for three days and work intensely, we work from 9:00 on the first day to 7:00 (pm) on the last day trying to wrap things up, but lots of work has been done. But it’s coming to the end. I think it will take maybe two or three more meetings until we wrap up our conclusions about the dicasteries. Then of course the Holy Father will study the thing and decide. So we’re going well. The feedback we receive is the Holy Father is happy, he is satisfied, and he has been using the Christmas messages sometimes to give an indication, a little progress report, so this year’s Christmas message (2016). I didn’t realize it, but when I read it I realized it’s practically giving a progress report of what this group has been doing. I hope that it will make an impact. There won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down. But a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today, and also of answering the vision of the Second Vatican Council: the importance of lay people, synodality, collegiality, then concern about women, getting more women involved, then giving importance to the local Churches. Then reflecting on the role of episcopal conferences in all this, because that’s another big issue. So all of this is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon. It will take two or three more meetings more, I foresee at least February, June…by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.
It’s been a long process…
It’s been a really long process, really, but it’s good. I’ve been in other committees of this sort, in which at the beginning we don’t what we’re doing, where to begin, and they you find your way and you find your vision. But here it was very clear, the Holy Father had very clear what he wanted this group to do…we were not clear in why we were called and what he wanted to do, but gradually we understood his mind. He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision and he had his people with him. He’s there with us, he genuinely doesn’t take any other appointments. He’s there except the general audience. There are emergencies of course, this time there were lots of things happening, but he participates and he listens to discussion, and every now and then he raises his hand when he wants to speak. It’s very odd, but now we’re accustomed to it, the Pope raising his hand (laughs) … it’s very valuable, he’s part of the discussion all the way through, completely inserted right in the thick of it. Certainly he doesn’t speak that much, because I think we would feel inhibited and want to go in his direction. So it’s just the right amount and at the right time.
Well he’s very much about the process, isn’t he? He doesn’t want to interrupt the process that’s happening…
Yes, absolutely. And he’s happy. And everybody speaks their mind. We know each other so well, and we know that the Holy Father wants us to speak our minds, so no one is at any stage (overly) conscious that the Pope is there with us, no…but it’s going well, I think it’s going well. I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is. He’s a man of deep faith, the Pope. I remember having spoken to him once about the synod, I was sharing him my anxieties on whether the synods were going well, and he told me, ‘Cardinal, I am not worried.’ He told me that. I told him I was worried, I don’t know what direction we’re taking, whether we’ll be able in two synods to give your vision. (He said) ‘I’m not worried. It’ll work out.’ He knows what he wants, he’s a good Jesuit, and the Jesuits know exactly what they want.
At what point were you convinced that things were going in the right direction?
After about seven or eight or nine meetings, I was beginning to wonder. My worry was what will the world say? Everybody knows we’re meeting over here, but we are very limited in what we say are the fruits. What are these eight men – nine, we became nine after the Secretary (of State) joined – the nine cardinals are coming and discussing here, what’s happening? They’re not just coming here for debate. I was worried about the fruits not being seen, and the process being too slow. But then, especially after I heard the Holy Father’s speech (at Christmas 2016), for me that was it. I was like, wow, there has been a lot done. That was absolutely…this past Christmas, it was like a progress report of this group. I’m in the group, right, but I never realized the number of things we had really discussed. Besides modifying the document, the protection of minors, the economy, updates on these things, general principles of collegiality, synodality, we’re thinking about these things. Care of the Curia personnel. It’s everything that the Holy Father…he isn’t like us, who when we go back home we’re fully in the diocese, he has this in mind and he keeps working on this fully afterwards. We go back to our dioceses and are concerned about the local Church, but he certainly follows up with what we say. I’ve seen it several times. He takes the group very seriously. Every now and then he would ask us to take up some point on the agenda to discuss it a bit, which he wants advice on. I think it’s a new system he has started in which he gets feedback from all over the world, and he gets it from the grassroots. I think, anyway, I hope. We come from different continents and we bring in our own experiences. But it is going well. In fact I really, really think there has been a contribution to the Holy Father, and then the Holy Father takes decisions. I have a feeling this is shared by all now. I have no doubt, this would be the general feeling of all about it. The tipping point was really his speech, but already before that, say about six or seven months before that, we began to see really when we reflected that…perhaps the Holy Father knew that that was in our minds. It was in my mind, and maybe I expressed it indirectly. And the Holy Father once commented also, he said ‘we have done this much, so don’t get discouraged.’ So at one stage he sort of answered that doubt in my mind.
You mentioned that there’s also a change of mentality needed. Other than the structural shifts, it seems that the change of mentality will be the more challenging task…
That will take longer. But we hope it will percolate down, because once you have a certain mentality you generally don’t change unless the circumstances change, the ambiance changes. And in a certain sense not changing dramatically. That will I think take longer. But I’m positive that it will happen. We’re very, very hopeful. We’re rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership, and every now and then there is a clear message from him. But it will come about and suddenly we’ll realize, oh there has been a change! That’s how it will happen. It won’t come overnight, but at a certain point we’ll realize things have changed. He knows what he wants. And he’s happy. Certainly the indication I can see is this way; the relationship he has with the group and the joy he has in being with the group. He says he feels that it has helped him. Thank God. We do what we can. I don’t know how or why he chose us, but he’s happy. I was very surprised when I got a call from him. I said ‘why me? What have I done?’ I suppose he knows. I don’t know why. I did not know the Holy Father before, we’ve never been in any other committee before. Only at the conclave. I don’t even remember having chatted with him at the conclave, or before the conclave. After the conclave it was true that I was with him. It’s true that after I was with the Pope at Santa Marta for a few days. Then we were having meals together – breakfast, lunch and dinner for four or five days. That’s the time we came to know each other. So we were thrown together for about a week. It struck me that after his election I was at Santa Marta, because there were five or six cardinals. All the American cardinals were there, the European cardinals, all the ones from close by left and came back (for the installation). I stayed for the installation and then went back to India. And then you share, when you speak. He was very comfortable with us, very comfortable with me. But still, he had to make a choice.
Has he mentioned anything about when a visit to India might take place?
He’s very interested. We’re working it out, and I’m very hopeful. He would like to come and we would like to have him, and the government would like to have him. But now we must see his program, the government’s program, but I’m certain he will come. There are no details at all for the moment. I’m rather certainly positive that we will be able to get the Holy Father, he’s interested and I think he’s getting more interested. And the people will be excited…we are looking forward. In the beginning, as soon as he was elected, I asked him, ‘when are you coming to India?’ And he was sort of (disinterested), but gradually he began to like the idea. He’s never been to India before. As a Jesuit I think he was supposed to go to Japan, that’s what he was telling me. He’s going now to Bangladesh and Myanmar. It will be very sensitive. Bangladesh has it’s own problems, I believe they have elections next year, and Myanmar has problems to solve, also the refugee problem at the moment. Of late it is continuously on, I believe yesterday or this morning I saw it on CNN, and BBC is reporting on it. It’s an issue for the world. I’ve been there (Bangladesh) a few times. It’s a nice Church, concentrated mostly in Dhaka, a living faith. I’ve been to Myanmar also, I went as a papal legate there some years back, and I found the Church very vibrant. A simple faith, but I’m happy. I think it will mean a lot to the people. It will also strengthen the people. I think the Church is also very vibrant, it’s not have any specific difficulty, in my impression as a papal legate about two or three years back, but I was very impressed by the faith and the organization. It was vibrant. The Church was small, but strong and alive. It will make a difference for the Churches, and for the governments I expect.
Will you be there?
I plan to go to both places yes. In all of these trips in Asian I’ve come along: Sri Lanka, Korea, the Philippines. At the moment I’m president of the Asian Bishops Conference, so I suppose in that capacity I’ll have to go.
[…]
I wonder if those words “Before being believers, we are called to be human” are of Pope Leo’s or of an editor because it is a false counter positioning.
Indeed, a formal faith i.e. a faith without empathy (most often coupled with pride) can be cruel to others; often is – a typical case is a neophyte who is being completely inconsiderate of his family in his zeal to fulfill all the forms. Or someone who cruelly presses what he thinks are “the norms” of his faith onto others, without compassion and without giving them freedom.
However, a true compassion/empathy has its source only in God, in a living connection with Christ. Because of this, to say “Before being believers, we are called to be human” is wrong. A human being cannot become fully human = Christ-like without first believing in Christ and allowing Him to make him truly human. Faith and being human go together. Our Lord says “love your God with all your strength” and only then “love your neighbor as yourself”. I read it as only our total love for God Who is our Life can give us strength to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I would say that a parable of Samaritan represents not a dichotomy between faith and humanity but between a frozen deathly self-seeking “faith” without empathy and an alive (in God) faith which is a source of empathy.
PS I will add here that people who endured much atrocities early in life often find themselves becoming believers first and only then slowly recovering their true humanity which was abused. Christ teaches them how to be fully human, via granting them an intimate relationship with them, giving to them what their parents failed to give. Those are extreme cases but from my experience we are all impaired as humans and it is our relationship with Our Lord that makes us fully human.
Maybe the expression is simply a variation on the truth that grace builds on nature, or that one must first be a man before he can be a holy man, or that Christian virtue perfects natural virtues….it wouldn’t hurt if some men in high places really were men.
@ Anna
Am in complete agreement. Humanism absent of God is antithetical to true humanism.
In our humanity, we are Called to Holiness, and thus to be Believers in The Power And The Glory Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.
“Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word That Comes Forth From The Word Of God.”
Our humanity comes from God, thus only in Loving God, can man’s humanity be fully realized.in Loving God, we desire Salvation not only for ourselves, but also for our beloved.
Christ Has Revealed Through His Life, His Passion, And His Death On The Cross, that no Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “He Is Risen.”
I think, when the Pope said: “Indeed, before being a religious matter, compassion is a question of humanity! Before being believers, we are called to be human.” that he was not using “before” as an indicator of what we must perfect first, but rather as a question of what is most fundamental. I.e., natural law has as its most fundamental principle that of loving good and hating evil, the next level requires acting in accord with our bodies, and the last includes the obligation to seek the truth.
I entirely agree that many (probably most) have some sort of obstacles in their life that cannot be approached strictly at its own level, but which requires religious faith to overcome, such that belief must invariably precede, in time, the acquisition of various natural virtues. But I don’t think that is what the Pope was trying to say. He’s discussing the building up of obligations from the most fundamental (natural law) to the highest (religious) rather than giving a temporal order requiring the fulfillment of the natural law before one may “graduate” to religion.
This bears a certain amusing resemblance to objections to JD Vance’s statements on ordo amoris, which is an order of priority, not of time. Many languages are ambiguous on what kind of progression is being moved through with “before”, “then”, etc., and expect us to pick it up from the context.
Amanda,
Thank you. It is unfortunate that the pope was not more clear. It is entirely likely that he intended to speak of a naturally human inclination to do compassionate good.
If we consider the attainment of an ‘age of reason’ (and/or the conversion to practice virtue in accordance with the Catholic faith), the natural inclination to good actually often does temporally precede the profession and practice of perfecting our belief.
“Before being believers, we are called to be human” – Well said. Human beings cannot afford to behave like robots. To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer – Mahatma Gandhi
Actually Dr Coelho, we’re not called to be human. We’re created human. We’re called to be Christians.
Here is Gandhi, on a Catholic web site, talking about pleasure, which he does not define.
I know a few people who would adamantly agree, having spent large portions of their lives giving pleasure. Jesus would not classify all acts (which give pleasure) as Christian.
It’s better to give pleasure to a single human heart than to give a thousand pleasures to the Divine Heart?
This is certainly one way to remember that Ghandi was a pagan.
There is plenty of evidence that catchy quotes and incessant hagiographies aside, the Ghandi public image conceals a very dark individual. One biography said he slept in the nude with his niece and other young women and the same source suggests he left his wife for a German bodybuilder. Even if this more salacious claims are true, there is enough well documented things that should put his character into question.
I’m not so sure Christians should affirmingly quote him so approvingly, adding to a mystique that maybe would be shattered if the entirety of his life was well known.
Great Soul by Joseph Lelyveld
While we may presume, with some degree of legitimacy as does Leo XIV, that our humanness should precede our faith in Christ Jesus [here Leo likely alludes to clericalism] – that proposition is acceptable insofar it is a man, Leo XIV, who is already a follower of Christ and is knowledgeable of Christ’s commandments.
Otherwise, the proposition is a fallacy.
That’s because not all out yonder are believers, and who have their own fallible positions. Insofar as Leo is Roman pontiff he speaks to the world at large. Consequently, his proposal will be interpreted as identical with secular humanism. Which is why I fully agree with Anna’s take on the issue.
I think one thing you can’t do is to co-operate with evil act because you are first meant to show compassion.
I am not referring to double effect situations.
Also by evil act I mean both the singular moment type as well as the practice or way of life en vivant.
What I am seeing is that this would apply immediately to both converted and unconverted according to each in his given setting; and it can apply at times to both converted and unconverted in the same setting at the same time over the same issue.
In addition, I believe, a wrong reading of and meaning to compassion are already in the root of Pelagianism. It has suggested to me (a long time) that even when you are not converted, the teaching of the faith speaks you in and with authentic and motivating sense.
Pelagianism speaks about the many errors people have been claiming as faith through the 20th Century and then using VATICAN II to say it is what the Church teaches. People who are caught in heresy like Pelagianism -any heresy- are easy prey to Modernism.
Converted and non-converted co-operating in evil occurs as well in the deployment of the deceptions of Modernism. In Modernism, the fact that you are not converted does not make you immune or clean of deception; and the fact you are converted makes you a poison at the level of faith.
Elias insofar as Modernism is a wide spread mentality/ideology, it’s become the norm for conveying Church doctrine as a fusion, the apposition of two diverse elements faith and secularism. An example:
“The future Pope replied: Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way to dress, or whatever. Doctrine hasn’t changed, and people haven’t said yet, you know, we’re looking for that kind of change. But we are looking to be more welcoming and more open, and to say all people are welcome in the church” (Cdl Prevost interview by Francis X. Rocca, senior Vatican analyst for Ewtn News 2023 in NCReg).
Pope Leo to date appears to be practicing this outlook seen in his appointments, responses to queries. I don’t believe he intends the worst scenario, rather that he’s self assured things will work out, as Francis once said by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, it’s the mirror perspective of Pope Francis’ dual messaging. It’s a seductive position reconciling all while claiming to retain the essence of the faith. The scenario occurring in Charlotte NC and Bishop Martin, the leak of details, was said by some to be a ‘test case’.
Personally, I can only express my opinion as a priest with long history that if the present policy, including the contentious actions of local ordinaries like Martin continue, we will not achieve unity. Division is assured. I hope Pope Leo XIV realizes this or will come to realize it.
Fr., the insight is just there and I put it here. And I must say, it is what the Church will teach. God be praised.
Borrowing once more the grammar of JPII, this “approach about teaching” is the “point of departure” of VATICAN II.
Which is to say it is meant to be THE point of departure. Nothing substitutes.
Thus we have to be noticing too how much there is littered all about the place and staggered along the timeline, trying out as substitutions and not hearing.
Yes. Agreed Elias the true doctrines will be preached. Although there will be the dilemma of interpretation for the faithful because two propositions are placed before them, one is to enter the Church with access to all the sacraments exactly as you are regardless of lifestyle.
The other is penance for the remission of sins, which requires conversion and change of manners. Weak Mankind fallen from grace is apt to choose the less demanding option.This is the new paradigm of mercy rather than rules.
If one were to invent a fundamental option that removed all concerns for attaining salvation I cannot conceive anything more alluring.
Christ Open Arms On The Cross are an Invitation to all who desire Holiness And Conversion, they are not a call to remain in our sins.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.” “Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.” “For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
We read: “Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way to dress, or whatever [2023].”
Today and for some, “lifestyle” is code language for the homosexual lifestyle as an accepted subculture, and “way of dress” is anything from a rainbow banner to—in historical Revolutionary France—a prostitute dancing nude on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral.
For the near future, might we remain confident that the Church and Pope Leo XIV will in time clarify the difference between a “welcome” mat and a doormat? As in Leo’s parsing of the unambiguous St. Augustine: “For you I am a pope [!], and with you I am a Christian.”
And, about the conceptually promiscuous term “whatever,” yours truly feels invited to link an author interview for his book entitled “A Generation Abandoned: Why ‘whatever’ [!] is not enough” (Hamilton Books, 2017).https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/29/a-generation-abandoned-why-whatever-is-not-enough/
Indeed, we hope so. As of now the first two appointments leave that questionable.
As to your book I’ve read years past, per gratis tuo and recall the important point you make about whatever. I do hope, although he appears to have that openness edge that can lead to a contained sense of tolerance [let’s say homosexual behavior] or laissez faire. A blessing in terms of a measured exception with conversion the end, or the curse of accommodation.
Also needed, a corrective to “progress theology” which looks ever more like the Islamic principle of “abrogation.”
A good SIGN would be a clear understanding of the difference between an “ecclesial assembly” and an adulterated synodality…Cardinal Grech’s dangling proposition for a “2028 Ecclesial Assembly” need not be further confused with the “hierarchical communion” of the Church (Lumen Gentium). Nor should it usurp the role of any “synod of bishops” or even ecumenical councils.
ABOUT legitimate and needed sense of ecclesial assembly, here’s something positive that Ratzinger had to say over forty years ago about the partial loss of the “ecclesial assembly”—or “communio”— probably at Trent…
In necessary response to Protestantism, a restored understanding of the distinct difference between the baptized and the sacrament of Holy Orders with the priest as more than a seeming “cult-minister” (Ratzinger’s term). This clarification led to too much of a separation of the laity from the clergy—the loss of communio—”the problem of the laity, which arose at this time and still haunts us today.” The “original meaning of the word ‘ecclesia’—that is, a ‘coming together’” (“Successio Apostolica,” as Chapter 2 in Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” Ignatius, 1982/Ignatius 1987).
Three years later, and again fully in step with Vatican II, Ratzinger added that “A Council [or a synod] is something that the Church DOES, but not what the Church IS” (“The Ratzinger Report,” 1985). The process isn’t the message.
SO, how to do—without recent distortion—both the ecclesial assembly/communio and distinct synods of bishops and future councils? Why not recognize the dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the- Faith as more than one voice in a flat roundtable/synod of dicasteries? Maybe even reinstituted as a Congregation? As if the Apostolic Succession has something foundational to offer our 21st-century experiment in global chaos theory?
With not much concentration, we might even surmise a good appointment as Prefect…
I have to agree that Pope Leo’s believers/human statement is troubling.
Theoretically if we lived perfectly by the interior rules of natural law we exhibit a divinely ordained degree of true humanness, which would substantiate Amanda’s comments on Natural Law. Natural Law is a reflexion of the Eternal Law. Although fallen man, meaning fallen human nature lacking the gifts of grace does not, cannot live out the natural law within as he should.
As such prior to embracing Christianity and the graces conferred by the sacraments Mankind, living an imperfect reflexion of the Eternal Law due to lack of grace, obscured attentiveness to the Natural Law Within – he develops his own form of humanism called secular. If we understand humanness to be a fulfillment of the Natural Law it’s requisite that he embrace Christianity to exhibit a natural law motivated humanness.
Nevertheless, there have been exceptions in human history of men who were not Christian and exhibited features of true humanness. Cicero, Aristotle, Cyrus are examples of those rarities.
A final note. It needs be kept in mind that the positive response of the secular non believer to Christianity is the work of grace, rather than their meritorious sense of humanness.
Also his passive “noticing of it”, I say. Doctrine itself is (already)pastoral.
That sometimes requires firmness. Hence the reductio in “rigidity” etc. also now left unattended.
God will correct it.
Same for believer.
Thanks to Fr. for kind attention. As we are wont to share around here: Bless.
Yes. It comes down to “The pope pointed out that haste, so present in our lives, very often impedes us from feeling compassion. One who thinks his or her journey must be the priority is not willing to stop for another”. Which is quite true.
However, he juxtaposed religion with humanness, as if the latter precedes the former, whereas that is true only when we make religion our priority to the extent of excluding the demands of charity. Although it’s our Christianity that emphasizes natural law and charity whenever and wherever it’s required.
We should by nature be disposed to charity, but the existential reality is original sin, and those without faith in Christ may not be so attentively disposed to the natural law and charity.
Addendum: However, he juxtaposed religion with humanness, as if the latter [supersedes] the former.
I have appreciated most of the homilies by Pope Leo that I have read so far, but this one, not so much. He falls into a popular sentimental reading of the parable which contrasts the “humanity” of tbe Samaritan with the insensitive, uncaring behavior of the priest and the Levite, with the implication being that religion doesn’t prevent believers fron lacking human compassion. But the issue set up in the parable is not whether these religious leaders are failing to practice compassion. Instead, they are failing to follow the part of the First Commandment about loving their neighbor as themselves. In other words, they are failing to practice what their religion requires. (I’m not sure who first pointed this out to me but it transformed my understanding if the parable.)
This is more apparent when you look at the framing of the parable. The questioner is seeking to test Jesus on his understanding of the Law, so when he asks Jesus ““And who is my neighbor?” , that is a challenge. When Jesus responds withe the parable and asks “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”, the questioner has to admit that the Samaritan is the one treating the injured man as a neighbor and thus following the Commandment.
Mary, Thank you. The lesson then, seems to be that people without formal religion are capable of neighborly love, empathy, and compassion. People professing a religion does not guarantee they will act upon their religious beliefs. The road to acting like a pharisee is broad, and many travel there.
One final post on this OP:
Aquinas’ Catena Commentary on Luke contains thoughts of many Fathers. Lectio 8 and 9 on Luke Chapter 10 has Chrystotom, Bede, Augustine, Cyril, Basil, Theophyllus, Ambrose, among others.
Augustine’s analysis is most interesting. He sees:
the wounded man as fallen mankind, Adam and his descendents;
the thieves and robbers as the bad angels or demons;
the Levite and the priest (the Law and the Prophets), not willing/able to help;
the Samaritan, the man from the land estranged to man was the only one who could help, represents Christ, come down from Jerusalem (heaven) to Jericho (one of the oldest known inhabited cities on earth);
the inn-keeper, an apostle who continues Christ’s work;
Christ will ‘return’ to repay (reward) the inn-keeper for further debt he accrued in caring for the man’s wound.
Ambrose ends the section: “For relationship does not make a neighbor, but compassion, for compassion is according to nature. For nothing is so natural as to assist one who shares our nature.”