Aboard the papal plane, May 7, 2019 / 04:30 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the pope’s May 7 in-flight press conference from Skopje, North Macedonia to Rome:
Alessandro Gisotti:
Good evening Holy Father, thank you after such intense days for being here to share a thought about this journey that was so intense and so beautiful. A short trip, inevitably a short press conference, I will not add words other than these: Holy Father you have already walked in the footsteps of Mother Teresa, a great witness of Christian love, and we have all been struck today, as you know it, by the death of Jean Vanier, another friend, brother of the least of these, another great witness. Here, before the questions I wanted to ask if you wanted to share a thought about Jean Vanier.
Pope Francis:
Yes, I knew of the illness of Jean Vanier. His sister, Geneviève Jeanningros, informed me on a regular basis. One week ago, I called him on the phone, he listened to me, but could hardly speak. I would like to express my gratitude for this testimony. He was a man who knew how to read the Christian existence from the mystery of death on the cross of illness, from the mystery of those who are despised and rejected in the world. He worked, not only for the least of these, but also for those who before birth face the possibility of being sentenced to death. He spent his life like this. I am simply thankful to him and thankful to God for giving us this man with a great witness.
Gisotti:
Thank you, Holy Father, the first question will be from Biljana Zherevska of TV Macedonia.
Biljana Zherevska, MRT: [In English] Your Holiness, it is a great pleasure to have you in our country. We feel honored by your visit. What is interesting for us is to hear from you what is your greatest impression from the two countries, what touched you the most? The persons, objects, atmosphere. What will you remember of these two countries when you go [back] to the Holy See?
Pope Francis: They are two totally diverse nations. Bulgaria is a nation of a tradition from centuries ago. Macedonia, on the other hand, has a tradition from centuries, but not as a country: as a people, that ultimately rose to form as a nation… It is a beautiful fight! For us Christians Macedonia is a symbol of the entrance of Christianity in the East. Christianity entered in the East through you all.. those Macedonians that appeared to Paul in a dream: “come to us, come to us.” He was leaving for Asia, it is a mystery that call… And the Macedonian people are proud of this, they do not lose the opportunity to say that Christianity entered Europe through us, through our door, because Paul was called by a Macedonian.
Bulgaria has had to fight so much for its identity as a nation. The mere fact that in the 1800s, I believe 1823, more or less, 200,000 Russian soldiers died to regain independence from the hands of the Turks … we think of what 200,000 means. So much struggle for independence, so much blood, so much mystique to find consolidation of identity.
Macedonia had the identity and now it has come to consolidate it as a people, with small, big problems, like its name, and this we all know. Both have Christian, Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim communities. The percentage of Orthodox is very strong in both with a small amount of Muslims and even fewer Catholics, in Macedonia more so than Bulgaria. A thing I saw in both nations is the good relationship between the different faiths. In Bulgaria we saw it in the prayer for peace. This is a normal and beautiful thing for Bulgarians, because they have a good relationship, each person has the right to express his own religion and has the right to be respected. This touched me. Then the dialogue with Patriarch Neophyte was a beauty… he is a man of God, a great man of God. In Macedonia I was struck by a phrase the president told me: “Here there is not religious tolerance, there is respect.” They have respect. In a world like this respect is missed very much. Respect for human rights, we miss respect for so many things, respect for children, for the elderly, that the mystique of a country would be respect is striking. I do not know if I answered more or less briefly.
Gisotti:
Holy Father, the next question will be asked by Peter Nanev from Bulgarian television.
Peter Nanev, BTV: Good evening. Peter Nanev, BTV Bulgaria. [In English] It is more of a personal question, as Your Holiness, you’re like a human being, from where do you find strength in your body, in your spirit in cases when you have to give even more strength for a heavily sick child?
Pope Francis: First of all I would like to tell you that I do not go to the witch… [laughs]. I do not know. I do not know, really. It is a gift from the Lord. When I am in a country, I forget everything, but not because I want to forget it, I forget it, and I am only there. And then this gives me perseverance, I don’t know, but [when] I am on the trip I am not tired! Then I am tired! After! But where do I take the strength from? I believe that the Lord gives it to me, there is no explanation. I ask the Lord to be faithful, to serve him in this work of travels, that the trip will not be tourism. I ask. All is his grace. Nothing else comes to me to say. But then I do not do so much work, huh? Thank you.
Gisotti:
He will now address a question. We remain in Eastern Europe, Silvije Tomasevic of Croatian press and television, Vecernij List.
Silvije Tomasevic, Vecernij List: The national Orthodox Churches are not always in agreement among them, for example, they have not recognized the Macedonian Church. But when they have to criticise the Catholic Church they are always in unison, for example the Serbian Church does not want Cardinal Stepinac to be canonized. Your comment on this situation?
Pope Francis: In general, the relationships are good, they are good and there is good will. I can tell you sincerely that I have met men of God among the patriarchs. Neophyte is a man of God, and then him that I carry in my heart, a favorite, Ilia II of Georgia is a man of God, that has been good to me, Bartholomew is a man of God, Kirill is a man of God. They are great patriarchs that give witness. You can tell me. But everyone, we have defects. Everyone. But in the patriarchs I have found brothers and some… I do not want to exaggerate, but I would like to say the word ‘saints’ and this is important.
Then there are historic things between our Churches, some old things, for example today the president was saying to me that the Eastern schism began here in Macedonia.
Now the pope comes for the first time, to mend the schism I do not know, but to say we are brothers, because we cannot adore the Holy Trinity without hands united as brothers. This is not only my conviction, also the patriarchs’, everyone.
Then there is a historic world… you are Croatian? It was seeming to me I sensed the aroma of Croatia. The canonization of Stepinac is a historic case. He is a virtuous man for this Church, which has proclaimed him Blessed, you can pray [through his intercession]. But at a certain moment of the canonization process there are unclear points, historic points, and I should sign the canonization, it is my responsibility, I prayed, I reflected, I asked advice, and I saw that I should ask Irenej, a great patriarch, for help. We made a historic commission together and we worked together, and both Irenej and I are interested in the truth. Who is helped by a declaration of sanctity if the truth is not clear? We know that [Stepinac] was a good man, but to make this step I looked for the help of Irenej and they are studying. First of all the commission was set up and gave its opinion. They are studying other sources, deepening some points so that the truth is clear. I am not afraid of the truth, I am not afraid. I am afraid of the judgment of God.
Gisotti: There is time for another question. Joshua McElwee.
Josh McElwee, National Catholic Reporter: Thank you so much, Holy Father. In Bulgaria you visited an Orthodox community that has continued a long tradition of ordaining women deacons. In a few days you will meet with the International Union of Superiors General*, that three years ago requested a commision for women deacons. Can you tell us something you have learned from the report of the commission on the ministry of women in the early years of the Church? Have you made some decision?
Pope Francis: I did not hear the first part of your question.
McElwee: [repeats a part of the question.]
Pope Francis: The commission was made, it worked for almost two years. They were all different, all toads from different wells, all thinking differently, but they worked together and were in agreement until a certain point. But each of them then has her own view that does not agree with that of the others. And there they stopped as a commission and each is studying [how] to go forward.
For the female diaconate, there is a way to imagine it with a different view from the male diaconate. For example, the formulas of female deacon ordination found until now, according to the commission, are not the same for the ordination of a male deacon and are more similar to what today would be the abbatial blessing of an abbess. This is the answer of some of them. I’m speaking a little from the ear, from memory.
Others say that it is a female deacon formula, but they argue that it is not clear. There were female deacons, but was it a sacramental ordination or not? And that is discussed, it is not clear. That they helped in liturgy, in Baptisms by immersion, when the woman was baptized the deaconesses helped, also for [unclear] the woman’s body. Then a document came out where diaconesses were called by the bishop when there was a matrimonial argument for the dissolution of the marriage or divorce or separation. When the woman accused her husband of beating her and the bishop called the deaconesses to look at the woman’s body for the bruises and so they testified in the judgment. These are the things I remember.
But fundamentally, there is no certainty that it was an ordination with the same form, in the same purpose as male ordination. Some say there is doubt, let’s go ahead and study. I am not afraid of studying, but up to this moment it does not proceed.
Then it is curious that where there were deaconesses it was almost always a geographic zone, especially in Syria. And then in another part, it does not touch or nothing. All these things I received from the commission. Each one continues to study, and [they have] done a good job, because up to a certain point [they were] in agreement. And this can be an impetus to go ahead and study and give a definitive answer, yes or no, according to the characteristics of that time.
An interesting thing. Some theologians of a few years ago, 30 years ago for example, said that there were no deaconesses because women were in the background in the Church, not only in the Church. Always women… But it is a curious thing: in that period there were so many pagan priestesses, the female priesthood in pagan cults was ordinary in that day. As it is understood as a female priesthood, a pagan priesthood in women, it was not done in Christianity. This is being studied also. They have arrived at a point, now each of the members is studying according to her theory. This is good. Varietas delectat.
Gisotti: Holy Father, thank you for your availability. The press conference finishes here, at this point, because in a little while they will serve the dinner. And so, thank you to you all. Especially during this trip when we woke up at night to move [from place to place].
Pope Francis: I would like to say one thing about the trip: Something I found much consolation in and which has touched me profoundly during the trip. Two extreme experiences. The experience with the poor today here in Macedonia at the Mother Teresa Memorial. There were so many poor people, but to see the meekness of those sisters: they were caring for the poor without paternalism, but as children. But a meekness, the ability to caress the poor, the tenderness of these sisters. Today, we are used to insulting each other. One politician insults the other, one neighbor insults the other, even in families they insult each other. I cannot say that it is a culture of insult, but the insult is a weapon in the hand, even to speak ill of others, slander, defamation, and to see these sisters that care for every person as Jesus. It hit me, a good young man approached and the superior told me, ‘this is a good boy’ and caressed him and she said it with the tenderness of a mom and made me feel the Church a mother. It is one of the most beautiful things to feel the maternity of the Church. Today I felt it there.
I thank Macedonia for having this [inaudible]. Another extreme experience was the First Communion in Bulgaria. I was moved because my memory went back to October 8, 1944, to my First Communion, when they sang [the hymn] ‘O santo altare custodito dagli angeli’ (who here remembers it?), I saw those children that open themselves to life with a sacramental decision. The Church guards the children, they are limited, they have to grow, I am promised, and I lived it very strongly, I felt in that moment those 249 children were the future of the Church, they were the future of Bulgaria. These are two things that I lived with much intensity I wanted to communicate. Thank you very much, pray for me. I do not want to leave without speaking about these days, the centenary of trips. They are roses from Bulgaria, a small thought to mark the 100th trip.
They tell us that now there will be whiskey.
[…]
What a journey. All have gathered to sow what was planted. To share the harvest of what grew. To remind us that allare called to go together, Synodaling into the future, following Franciscus. We have style, an attitude, etc., and so on, and so forth.
While time did not permit Leo to stay for the entire afternoon session, it’s grand that they got a few photos before the Pope had to press on…
Synodaling is like a flash mob, eating Tide pods, wearing baggy bell bottoms, sporting a mullet, bowl cut or rat tail. Synodaling is similar to collecting Pet Rocks, Silly Bandz, Pokémon Cards, Chia Pets, Cabbage Patch Kids or Beanie Babies. Synodaling looks like planking or gatherings to each try and solve Rubin’s Cube.
A style and attitude, Holy Father? With respect, did not the Church discover that originally at it’s birth, so what is need for synodality?
Are we witnessing the maturation of Synodality, the finessed articulation of the premises advanced in Amoris Laetitia? Or are we not?
We read of synodality “as a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church.”
Surely, too, as Pope Benedict explained in 1985 (The Ratzinger Report), that even “a Council [or synod] is what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS [as in “TO BE Church”]. So, not a radical deconstruction of governance as with an “inverted-pyramid.”
A subtle memo, here, to post-synodal study groups #9, #14 and #15 on the “hot button issues,” to possibly edit their recent homework (#9: “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues;” #14: “the synodal method;” and #15: “the ‘place’ of the synodal Church in mission.”)
Instead, yes, a valued but clearly defined attitude or style “…promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” But not a process to displace the accountable Apostolic Succession with a town-hall non-structure of governance. The distinct “Synod of Bishops… naturally retains its institutional physiognomy.” Likewise the “local Churches.”
What’s not to like about Leo’s succinct and papal style of “walking together” within the acknowledged “hierarchical communion” of the Council (Lumen Gentium)?
It’s prudent and virtuously hopeful to interpret Leo XIV as you have. Some of the wisest say give the man some time. Although on the other hand it’s surprising as you allude to saying ‘What’s not to like’ that so many here who were hoping for a new pontificate and return to clarity and fidelity are roundly disappointed.
Yes, indeed! There’s a very troubling phenomena occurring with Leo, in which people are claiming he’s very different from Francis but they read things into what he says or look at some singular thing he did 10 years ago to justify their view. If Leo was trying to somehow dismiss synodality, he should actually be doing something to dismantle it, but he’s only been encouraging it, including using the same fluffy, vagueness. We’re at a very dangerous point of now accepting the bad things Francis put in place, because we don’t have the nastiness and such that accompanied it, while Leo has resumed some traditional aspects of the papacy. We just want to breathe a sigh of relief and be satisfied with the absence of the outright hostility Francis gave us. As far as substantial actions of Leo go, they’re mostly problematic, e.g., the kind of people he’s been appointing as bishops or officials at the holy see. Even more, we must look at what’s not being done, which is any reversal from Francis. We can’t continue to say “give him time” much longer, as he’s had plenty already to do negative things, e.g., he took time to assign various heterodox cardinals/bishops as advisors to a vatican dicastery this past week, so he could just as well have done something about other vatican posts/people, but he didn’t. And obviously if those are the types he’s appointing, it’s even more doubtful he’ll be replacing Fernandez, Grech, hollerich, Roche(he was one of the above mentioned appointments!) This is even more so as there was no pressing need to do the former.
“Indeed, you are here because the assembly has recognized you as credible interpreters of synodality.”
I can only conclude that I have not only missed this train, but I have bought the wrong ticket at the wrong station for the wrong destination.
I understand that the definition of synodality is that it is a “journey.”
I have missed the critical connections of this “journey” in regard to its starting point, its destination and most important of all, how this synodal journey connects to Jesus Christ, who is the ONLY Way, Truth and Life.
Since Jesus Christ, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium have given us the fullness of Divine revelation, I am at a loss to understand what the purpose of this “synodal journey” is, and what it is supposed to give the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that it must have been sorely lacking up until the pontificate of Francis I.
The unfathomable ambiguity of synodality frightens me, and my instincts tell me to flee from this.
The people who support synodality make me feel uneasy.
For now, I can do nothing but to keep my distance and watch to see what unfolds. My faith and trust is in Christ.
The synodalists have much to do in order to win me over.
“Helps us to be Church.”
That is bureaucrat-speak.
The same phrase jumped out at me as well, Chris — “Helps us be Church.”
Because somehow I didn’t realize the word, “Church,” was an adjective.
I thought it was a verb.
Which would mean, “Helps us to be Church,” becomes, “Helps us to Church.”
And so we become “Churchers,” or, perhaps, “people who Church.”
The Dark Vatican remains dusky, even months after Bergoglio’s departure.
Yes.
It all sends a message “We’re not serious people.”
Exactly. It is the tone used by effeminate men trying to be “hip.”
Modernist double speak.
Well, if it’s a style and an attitude, it isn’t a binding structure, so I’d call Leo’s description an improvement.
Bingo!
“… the current pontiff said. “And the legacy he [Pope Francis ] has left us seems to me to be above all this: that synodality is a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church, promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.””
It is quite self-descriptive. A style, especially in our time of post-modernism, has no life in itself; give me a bunch of flowers and I can arrange them in many different styles, from baroque to minimalism. Alternatively, I can just trim their stems and put them, unadorned, into the plane glass jar. They still will be the flowers, with their unique life or “flower-substance”, as God designed them. The best style of arranging them is the one which considers that peculiar “flower-substance” and highlights it.
This is why a style is always subordinate to the essence of the phenomenon; a style without the substance (meaning) is meaningless and empty.
As I see it, this principal is true for the Church as well. If it is so, before defining any “style” of whatever the Church does, one must define the core of the Church first, especially its Head, Christ. What “style” would be appropriate for Christ and his Church?
However, the reference to Christ and His Church (not just “church” but “Christ’s Church”) immediately shows that the word “style” does not go well with Christ somehow, probably because it lacks the substance and also because Our Lord never thought and thought in terms of “style”. Pope Leo adds to the word “style” the word “attitude”. It improves the situation a bit, but then he says that the attitude is for “promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” The ultimate purpose of “experiences of participation and communion” seems to be a promotion of so-called “synodality” that is “a style”. Or is it that “a style’s = synodality’s” ultimate purpose is to promote “authentic experiences of participation and communion”? I think so; I think I have just come up the most “coherent” explanation of what synodality is. It is an attitude which promotes some “experiences of communion”. There is probably some style in it but no substance whatsoever.
Why am I so certain? Simply because there is only one way “to experience communion” with each other. It is done via partaking from the Chalice and becoming one via Christ. I have to correct myself here: it is a true communion with the other via Christ, not “an experience” of such. Whether we have subjective experiences of that communion or not is quite irrelevant because it is the objective divine action of Christ in us (he is the guarantor of that communion truly happening). As a response to that action, the next step for everyone is to practice an attitude to the other as to A PERSON. An attitude to a person means respect, seeing, hearing, interacting meaningfully and so on. It is often difficult and this is why we need Christ to act in us. This is it. It is not a “style” but a ground reality. It is not about “experiences”. It is about receiving Christ and treating others as He wants us to: not lying and deceiving, not abusing, not brushing off, not devaluing, not trying to use the other for self-satisfaction and so on. And this is all to that. (NB: this true attitude to each other in truth can be very uncomfortable for the other who used to lies; Christ did it and this is why He was not universally liked.)
I have no doubts that one may experience synodality-related activities as “authentic experiences of participation and communion”. However, what are the fruits of those “communion and participation”? The true fruits should be doing away with all that is against that “communion and participation”, namely doing away with all kinds of abuse within the Church (including liturgical), stopping unjust prosecution of the members of the organization which “communes and participates”, weeding out all that is contrary to its Head, Christ. The problem is that it cannot be done “in style”.
Yes. He’s opening up his mindset with catch or buzzwords. Trivializing slogans as you suggest don’t fit well with Christ. Who is our creator, savior, and treasure.
While still early in his Pontificate, Pope Leo is beginning to sound like cross between Pope Francis and fellow Chicagoan-turned-citizen-of-the-world, Barak Obama.
You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing. “Catholic” Democrat politicians are all breathing a big sigh of relief. Here is a man who speaks their language.
Leo didn’t have time to stay for the whole session?
“… helps us to be Church.” Fabulous. Right out of the 1970s. Francis II is going to be such a terrific pope.
I tend to see attitude and style as less than essential substance. How does Leo define those words? Attitude and style may reflect authentic essence, but they may also screen nothing more than smoke.
Pro-NO liturgist lovers commenting at CWR this past week raged most notably about the attitude and clothing styles of TLM-ers.
Il ne faut pas se fier aux apparences.
I HOPE that Leo’s words about attitude and style simply reflect him biding his time, taking the temperature of those ‘people of God’ around him. He seems a somewhat cautious and prudent character.
Are we hoping against hope or are we seeing into the darkness something truly sinister?
A test of your last sentence may likely be his response to Cdl Raymond Burke’s request for a reversal of Traditionis Custodes and a return to Summorum Pontificum. Progressive Bishops are rapidly prohibiting the TLM in their dioceses.
Leo XIV by calling Synodality a ‘style, an attitude’ attempts to change the actual meaning of Synodality as previously professed as a Synodal Church. He fails in doing so because the manner in which the Synod continues to exercise its function hasn’t changed.
What is Synodality in essence if not a glorified, glorified by universality, parish council? As were the early parish councils, more deliberative than consultative, composed of laity and clergy the former frequently given prominence. Why should it be deemed deliberative when it’s been described as consultative? The end. If we continue to debate permanent doctrine it no longer remains permanent doctrine.
Repeated here is a segment from my comment to the article ‘Synodality is the result of a theological error: Küng vs. Ratzinger 2.0’.
“Essentially, the Church is not a consultative assembly, but rather an assembly around the Word of God and around the Sacrament” (Msgr Grichting). Fr Hans Kung was a close associate of Cdl Carlo Martini Archbishop of Milan who initially devised and promoted the concept of Synodality, a restructuring of the Church as a permanent consultative body formulated at St Gallen Switzerland. Francis I when archbishop of Buenos Aires was mentored by Cdl Martini.
In matters of faith and theological reflection, I am drawn to discourse characterized by lucidity and directness. The use of convoluted or ambiguous language, often termed “word salad,” is not conducive to authentic engagement, as it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the truths being presented. My own disposition, perhaps characterized by a certain theological simplicity, finds such linguistic opacity profoundly unhelpful, bordering on an impediment to spiritual discernment. I would earnestly request a return to the plain and accessible forms of expression found in centuries of English or French theological tradition.
The initial anticipation surrounding the current pontificate is regrettably diminished by the perception of continuity with methodologies that, under the preceding pontiff, ultimately proved to be counterproductive to the Church’s mission. This echo of past strategies evokes a measure of profound disappointment.
Chris in Maryland above – Who is your “bingo” for?
I’m with Rich Leonardi.
I say we give Leo some time. He can’t really come out and say, “You guys are full of hot air. Go home.”
Sure he can. He is the Pope. He just has to have an ounce of common sense and courage.
Any day now, Where Peter Is will be explaining to us that the Pope’s troubling statements are really just faulty translations from his native tongue.