Vatican City, Sep 2, 2020 / 05:50 am (CNA).- Tourists in Rome had an unexpected chance to see Pope Francis at his first public audience for almost six months.
People from all over the world expressed their happiness and surprise Wednesday at having the opportunity to be present at Francis’ first in-person audience since the start of the coronavirus outbreak.
“We were surprised because we thought there were no audiences,” Belen and her friend, both from Argentina, told CNA. Belen is visiting Rome from Spain where she lives.
“We love the pope. He’s from Argentina too and we feel very close to him,” she said.
Pope Francis has been livestreaming his Wednesday general audience from his library since March, when the coronavirus pandemic led Italy and other countries to impose lockdown to slow down the virus’ spread.
The Sept. 2 audience was held in the San Damaso Courtyard on the interior of the Vatican’s apostolic palace, with a capacity of around 500 people.
The announcement that Francis would resume public audiences — albeit in a different location than usual and with limited numbers — was made Aug. 26. Many of the people who attended Wednesday said they just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
One family from Poland told CNA they found out about the audience just 20 minutes beforehand. Seven-year-old Franek, whose name is the Polish version of Francis, was excited he got to tell the pope about their common name.
Beaming, Franek said he was “very happy.”
Sandra, a Catholic visiting Rome from India with her parents, sister, and family friend, said “it feels great. We never thought we could see him, now we are going to.”
They found out about the audience two days before, she said, and decided to go. “We just wanted to see him and have his blessings.”
Pope Francis, not wearing a face mask, took the time to greet pilgrims as he entered and exited the courtyard, taking a moment to exchange a few words or to do a traditional zucchetto exchange.
He also stopped to kiss a Lebanese flag brought to the audience by Fr. Georges Breidi, a Lebanese priest studying at the Gregorian University in Rome.
At the end of his catechesis, the pope brought the priest up to the podium with him while he gave an appeal for Lebanon, announcing a day of prayer and fasting for the country on Friday, Sept. 4, after Beirut experienced a devastating blast Aug. 4.
Breidi spoke with CNA immediately after the experience. He said: “I really can’t find the right words to say, however, I thank God for the grace he gave me today.”
Belen also had the chance to exchange a quick greeting with the pope. She said she is part of the Fraternidad de Agrupaciones Santo Tomás de Aquino (FASTA), a lay association which follows the spirituality of the Dominicans.
She said that she introduced herself, and Pope Francis asked her how the founder of FASTA is doing. The pope knew Fr. Aníbal Ernesto Fosbery, O.P., when he was a priest in Argentina.
“We didn’t know what to say in that moment but it was amazing,” Belen said.
An older Italian couple from Turin traveled to Rome specifically to see the pope when they heard about the public audience. “We came and it was a magnificent experience,” they said.
A family visiting from the U.K. was also excited to be at the audience. Parents Chris and Helen Gray, together with their boys, Alphie, 9, and Charles and Leonardo, 6, are three weeks into a 12-month family journey.
Rome was the second stop, Chris said, noting that the chance for their boys to see the pope was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”
Helen is Catholic and they are raising their boys in the Catholic Church, Chris said.
“Fantastic opportunity, how do I describe it?” he added. “Just an opportunity to refocus, especially in times like today with everything so uncertain, it’s great to hear words about certainty and community. It gives you a bit more hope and faith for the future.”
[…]
A welcome report. Next is the mascot.
Time for a clean sweep. Get the jackhammer. Pedestrian derivitive imagery without the genesis of authentic faith need be wiped from our shrines and churches.
Then, consequences for the perpetrator.
Can a child conceived in sin become a saint?
Br. Jacques,
The question of scandal is one additional to the quality of the art. I don’t believe in censoring art or music solely because of the sins of the artist/composer, but certainly when the alleged abuse is this disturbing & recent & when the art is so poor & cartoonish, I believe there’s good enough reason to.
I’m not so certain that censoring art for any reason is a good idea. That said, if I were the owner of any of Rupnick’s art (which the Church in various locales is), then it is fully within my purview to do with it whatever I please – including destroy it – for any reason of my choosing.
I’ve concluded that Rupnick is incapable of feeling shame.
Then is he not human? No possibly of repentance?
Shame and repentance are different phenomena. Shame can lead to repentance but it need not. He has brought dire consequences to his victims and scandal upon the Church of Christ. Given his public persona a public acknowledgement of his guilt by him is required.
Br. Jaques, you have an erroneous notion about the nature of shame. I am not talking about guilt for sin. You should read up on the psychological meaning of shame. You seem very quick to pounce.
Diogenes: my apologies, I was wrong I, lacked knowledge of the clinical meaning of shame. I did not mean to “pounce” , however just the opposite. I meant that we should withhold judgment of the man assuming that we don’t really know his inner makeup. We do know that he has caused much pain and it seems that public acknowledgement of this is certainly in order; but we don’t know why he did what he did. We can’t really walk in another man’s shoes.
I hear you, Br. Jaques. But as members of a Christian community we are expected to take note of a brother or sister’s observable behavior and when we feel it is warranted to provide counsel. How can we ever correct a brother if we don’t take notice of what they’re doing? That is not to say that we can ever judge the state of another’s soul. That alone belongs to God. In the case of Rupnick, his acts have caused a rupture in the Christian community and the rupture in most people is cause for their feeling (a)shamed. There have been no reports to my knowledge that he acknowledged publicly what he’s done. He seems to just move along as if nothing has happened.
Has he repented recently? Has he demonstrated any sense of guilt or shame to date? Has he offered to make restitution to those he harmed? If not, why not?
Welcome news that the artwork was removed but the question is now “removed to where” and for “for what purpose?”
But what is the relationship between art and the one who created it? Is artwork good (intrinsically beautiful, inspiring etc.) as long as the creator is in good standing in society? Most people
agree that Michelangelo‘s Sistine chapel is beautiful and inspiring But what would happen if art historians suddenly found that he was the most reprobate character in history? Would we then paint them over and smash up all of his beautiful sculptures? Or would we refrain from doing so because those harmed were long gone and forgotten? I’m not saying that Rupnik’s art was either beautiful or inspiring ( quite the contrary : the little that I saw of it looked ugly to me). But prior to the public knowledge of his behavior, many Catholics liked and valued his work and placed them in Churches etc. What if Rupnik were the equivalent of a modern Michelangelo? Would we still be calling for the destruction of his work? But you may counter that his work was not as good as Michelangelo‘s, but that’s a matter of opinion and not easily proved. Now we get down to the character of the artist and the question is – can a bad man create good art? Can a non Christian create good Christian art? If Hitler, for instance, really was talented (he painted post cards) would we put his work in our Churches? If he did paint a beautiful painting and it was in a Church for years, much loved and valued and reproduced and insured for millions and we suddenly discovered that he was the artist what would we do?
I do not mean to make judgments here I just asking some questions. Why do we want to destroy the art simply because it was created by a sinful person? Would this art become more acceptable over time? If so why? Can evil create good ?
James, some good points and I partially agree with you, however I don’t think there are answers to your questions.
James Connor, my position is that whoever is the owner of the art has the right to do with it whatever he or she pleases. If I own the Mona Lisa and decide to set it afire, that is my prerogative. To do so would be stupid and an offense against cultural sensibilities but it’s still my prerogative.
Here’s the solution for Rupnik art:
Bury some samples of it inside the tomb of his papal benefactor the Pontiff Francis.
Then jackhammer the rest, and distribute the rubble to the Jesuits.
Now THAT’S a plan!
Thank you.😉