The following appeared Mar. 5 on the website of Catholic News Agency.
Holy Father, every once in a while you call those who ask you for help. Sometimes they don’t believe you.
Yes, it has happened. When one calls, it is because he wants to speak, to pose a question, to ask for counsel. As a priest in Buenos Aires it was more simple. And, it has remained a habit for me. A service. I feel it inside. Certainly, now it is not that easy to do due to the quantity of people who write me.
And, is there a contact, an encounter that you remember with particular affection?
A widowed woman, aged 80, who had lost a child. She wrote me. And, now I call her every month. She is happy. I am a priest. I like it.
The relations with your predecessor. Have you ever asked for the counsel of Benedict XVI?
Yes. The Pope emeritus is not a statue in a museum. It is an institution. We weren’t used to it. 60 or 70 years ago, ‘bishop emeritus’ didn’t exist. It came after the (Second Vatican) Council. Today, it is an institution. The same thing must happen for the Pope emeritus. Benedict is the first and perhaps there will be others. We don’t know. He is discreet, humble, and he doesn’t want to disturb. We have spoken about it and we decided together that it would be better that he sees people, gets out and participates in the life of the Church. He once came here for the blessing of the statue of St. Michael the Archangel, then to lunch at Santa Marta and, after Christmas, I sent him an invitation to participate in the consistory and he accepted. His wisdom is a gift of God. Some would have wished that he retire to a Benedictine abbey far from the Vatican. I thought of grandparents and their wisdom. Their counsels give strength to the family and they do not deserve to be in an elderly home.
Your way of governing the Church has seemed to us to be this: you listen to everyone and decide alone. A bit like a general of the Jesuits. Is the Pope a lone man?
Yes and no. I understand what you want to say to me. The Pope is not alone in his work because he is accompanied and counseled by so many. And, he would be a lone man if he decided without listening, or feigned to listen. But, there is a moment, when it is about deciding, placing a signature, in which he is alone with his sense of responsibility.
You have innovated, criticized some attitudes of the clergy, shaken the Curia. With some resistance, some opposition. Has the Church already changed as you would have liked a year ago?
Last March, I didn’t have a project to change the Church. I didn’t expect this transfer of dioceses, let’s put it that way. I began to govern seeking to put into practice that which had emerged in the debate among cardinals in the various congregations. In my way of acting, I wait for the Lord to give me inspiration. I’ll give you an example. We had spoken of the spiritual care of the people who work in the Curia, and they began to make spiritual retreats. We needed to give more importance to the annual spiritual exercises. Everyone has the right to spend five days in silence and meditation, whereas before, in the Curia, they heard three talks a day and then some continued to work.
Kindness and mercy are the essence of your pastoral message…
And of the Gospel. It is the center of the Gospel. Otherwise, one cannot understand Jesus Christ, the kindness of the Father who sent him to listen to us, to heal us, to save us.
But has this message been understood? You have said that the Francis-mania will not last long. Is there something in your public image that you don’t like?
I like being among the people. Together with those who suffer. Going to parishes. I don’t like the ideological interpretations, a certain ‘mythology of Pope Francis’. When it is said, for example, that he goes out of the Vatican at night to walk and to feed the homeless on Via Ottaviano. It has never crossed my mind. If I’m not wrong, Sigmund Freud said that in every idealization there is an aggression. Depicting the Pope to be a sort of superman, a type of star, seems offensive to me. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps calmly and has friends like everyone. A normal person.
(Do you have) nostalgia for your Argentina?
The truth is that I don’t have nostalgia. I would like to go and see my sister, who is sick, the last of us five (siblings). I would like to see her, but this does not justify a trip to Argentina. I call her by phone and this is enough. I’m not thinking of going before 2016 because I was already in Latin America, in Rio. Now I must go to the Holy Land, to Asia, and then to Africa.
You just renewed your Argentinian passport. You are still a head of state.
I renewed it because it was about to expire.
Were you displeased by the accusations of Marxism, mostly American, after the publication of Evangelii Gaudium?
Not at all. I have never shared the Marxist ideology, because it is not true, but I have known many great people who professed Marxism.
The scandals that rocked the life of the Church are fortunately in the past. A public appeal was made to you, on the delicate theme of the abuse of minors, published by (the Italian newspaper) Il Foglio and signed by Besancon and Scruton, among others, that you would raise your voice and make it heard against the fanaticisms and the bad conscience of the secularized world that hardly respects infancy.
I want to say two things. The cases of abuses are terrible because they leave extremely deep wounds. Benedict XVI was very courageous and he cleared a path. The Church has done so much on this path. Perhaps more than anyone. The statistics on the phenomenon of the violence against children are shocking, but they also show clearly that the great majority of abuses take place in the family environment and around it. The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No other has done more. And, the Church is the only one to be attacked.
Holy Father, you say ‘the poor evangelize us.’ The attention to poverty, the strongest stamp of your pastoral message, is held by some observers as a profession of ‘pauperism.’ The Gospel does not condemn well-being. And Zaccheus was rich and charitable.
The Gospel condemns the cult of well-being. ‘Pauperism’ is one of the critical interpretations. In Medieval times, there were a lot of pauperistic currents. St. Francis had the genius of placing the theme of poverty on the evangelical path. Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, God and Wealth. And when we are judged in the final judgement (Matthew 25), our closeness to poverty counts. Poverty distances us from idolatry, it opens the doors to Providence. Zaccheus gave half of his wealth to the poor. And to he who keeps his granary full of his own selfishness, the Lord, in the end, will present him with the bill. I have expressed well in Evangelii Gaudium what I think about poverty.
You have indicated that in globalization, especially financially, there are some evils that accost humanity. But, globalization has ripped millions of people out of indigence. It has given hope, a rare feeling not to be confused with optimism.
It is true, globalization has saved many persons from poverty, but it has condemned many others to die of hunger, because with this economic system it becomes selective. The globalization which the Church supports is similar not to a sphere in which every point is equidistant from the center and in which then one loses the particularity of a people, but a polyhedron, with its diverse faces, in which every people conserves its own culture, language, religion, identity. The current ‘spherical’ economic, and especially financial, globalization produces a single thought, a weak thought. At the center is no longer the human person, just money.
The theme of the family is central in the activity of the Council of eight cardinals. Since the exhortation Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II many things have changed. Two Synods are on the schedule. Great newness is expected. You have said of the divorced: they are not to be condemned but helped.
It is a long path that the Church must complete. A process wanted by the Lord. Three months after my election the themes for the Synod were placed before me. It was proposed that we discuss what is the contribution of Jesus to contemporary man. But in the end with gradual steps – which for me are signs of the will of God – it was chosen to discuss the family, which is going through a very serious crisis. It is difficult to form it. Few young people marry. There are many separated families in which the project of common life has failed. The children suffer greatly. We must give a response. But for this we must reflect very deeply. It is that which the Consistory and the Synod are doing. We need to avoid remaining on the surface. The temptation to resolve every problem with casuistry is an error, a simplification of profound things, as the Pharisees did, a very superficial theology. It is in light of the deep reflection that we will be able to seriously confront particular situations, also those of the divorced, with a pastoral depth.
Why did the speech from Cardinal Walter Kasper during the last consistory (an abyss between doctrine on marriage and the family and the real life of many Christians) so deeply divide the cardinals? How do you think the Church can walk these two years of fatiguing path arriving to a large and serene consensus? If the doctrine is firm, why is debate necessary?
Cardinal Kasper made a beautiful and profound presentation that will soon be published in German, and he confronted five points; the fifth was that of second marriages. I would have been concerned if in the consistory there wasn’t an intense discussion. It wouldn’t have served for anything. The cardinals knew that they could say what they wanted, and they presented many different points of view that are enriching. The fraternal and open comparisons make theological and pastoral thought grow. I am not afraid of this, actually I seek it.
In the recent past, it was normal to appeal to the so-called ‘non-negotiable values’, especially in bio-ethics and sexual morality. You have not picked up on this formula. The doctrinal and moral principles have not changed. Does this choice perhaps wish to show a style less preceptive and more respectful of personal conscience?
I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values. I wrote in the exhortation Evangelii Gaudium what I wanted to say on the theme of life.
Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
How will the role of the woman in the Church be promoted?
Also here, casuistry does not help. It is true that women can and must be more present in the places of decision-making in the Church. But this I would call a promotion of the functional sort. Only in this way you don’t get very far. We must rather think that the Church has a feminine article : La. She is feminine in her origin. The great theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar worked a lot on this theme: the Marian principle guides the Church aside the Petrine. The Virgin Mary is more important than any bishop and any apostle. The theological deepening is in process. Cardinal Rylko, with the Council for the Laity, is working in this direction with many women experts in different areas.
At half a century from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, can the Church take up again the theme of birth control? Cardinal Martini, your confrere, thought that the moment had come.
All of this depends on how Humanae Vitae is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, he had the courage to place himself against the majority, defending the moral discipline, exercising a culture brake, opposing present and future neo-Malthusianism. The question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.
Science evolves and redesigns the frontiers of life. Does it make sense to artificially prolong life in a vegetative state? Can a living will be a solution?
I am not a specialist in bioethical issues. And I fear that every one of my sentences may be wrong. The traditional doctrine of the Church says that no one is obligated to use extraordinary means when it is known that they are in the terminal phase. In my pastoral ministry, in these cases, I have always advised palliative care. In more specific cases it is good to seek, if necessary, the counsel of specialists.
Will the coming trip to the Holy Land bring an agreement of intercommunion with the Orthodox that Paul VI, 50 years ago, nearly signed with Athenagoras?
We are all impatient to obtain ‘closed’ results. But the path of unity with the Orthodox means most of all walking and working together. In Buenos Aires, in the catechism courses, some Orthodox came. I spent Christmas and January 6 together with their bishops, who sometimes also asked advice of our diocesan offices. I don’t know if the episode you are telling me of Athenagoras who would have proposed to Paul VI that they walk together and send all of the theologians to an island to discuss among themselves is true. It is a joke, but it is important that we walk together. Orthodox theology is very rich. And I believe that they have great theologians at this moment. Their vision of the Church and of synodality is marvelous.
In a few years, the biggest world power will be China, with which the Vatican does not have relations. Matteo Ricci was Jesuit like yourself.
We are close to China. I sent a letter to president Xi Jining when he was elected, three days after me. And he answered me. There are relations. They are a great people, whom I love.
Why doesn’t the Holy Father ever speak of Europe? What doesn’t convince you about the European design?
Do you remember the day I spoke of Asia? What did I say? I didn’t speak of Asia, nor of Africa, nor of Europe. Only of Latin America when I was in Brazil and when I had to receive the Commission for Latin America. There hasn’t yet been occasion to speak of Europe. It will come.
What book are you reading these days?
Peter and Magdalene by Damiano Marzotto, on the feminine dimension of the Church. It is a beautiful book.
And are you not able to see any nice films, another of your passions? La Grande Bellezza won an Oscar. Will you see it?
I don’t know. The last film I saw was Life is Beautiful from Benigni. And before, I saw La Strada of Fellini. A masterpiece. I also liked Wajda…
St. Francis had a carefree youth. I ask you, have you ever been in love?
In the book Il Gesuita, I tell the story of when I had a girlfriend at 17 years old. And I speak also of this in “On Heaven and Earth,” the volume I wrote with Abraham Skorka. In the seminary a girl made me lose my head for a week.
And how did it end, if I’m not indiscreet?
They were things of youth. I spoke with my confessor (a big smile).
To read the original story from Catholic News Agency, click here.
To read the entire transcript of the interview (Italian), click here.
At least this time He let those that attend the TLM be, without adding the dreaded epithets Pelagians, Triumphalist, Promethean, Casuistic and so on.
How amusing, Gratias, that you give the Holy Father a capital “h” in “He,” then proceed to talk about him like some condescending anti-Catholic Protestant…
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more, by
reading and meditating on the Scriptures,
studying the Catechism,
steadily approaching the Sacraments.” – Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
Precepts of the Church (obligations of all Catholics) include:
CCC: ” 2042 ……. The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.
The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy. ……..”
I still contend that when speaking about dogma, which can never change, and moral issues, which depending on the circumstance, can be mortal or venial sins, or, no sin at all (if there was no free will involved), one must be specific. The murky waters of Vatican II released a flood of relativism, which has caused so many souls to abandon their faith. If doctrine and beliefs are constantly changing, what can one truly believe. Look at the laws of fast and abstinence. They are seldom obeyed because for so long, the law unclear. Look also at the holy days of obligation. It is so easy to get to Mass, but yet, if the day falls on a Saturday or a Monday, one is excused. That is Mass roulette! Virtue comes from good habits, but if the habits are constantly in flux, how can there be growth when one does not know if it is a holy day or not. Also, logically speaking, how can Ascension Thursday be Ascension Sunday? When it is on Sunday, it is no longer 40 days after Easter. The same thing is true with the feast of the Epiphany, otherwise known as Twelfth Night (or the 12 Days of Christmas). By loosing our traditions, we Catholics have become Protestants, without even knowing it. Abortion, divorce, birth control, and unnatural sex acts will always be mortally sinful. The Church cannot change this, nor can she ever allow female priests. The liberals are always posing ridiculous questions, and the Holy Father should be answering them in a concise manner, but he uses his Jesuit style, and so the liberals have hope that change is just around the bend, and traditionalists are all worried. Chaos comes from the devil. Until the Catholic Church once again teaches profoundly, what is the truth and reality, then relativism will continue to be the order of the day, and confusion will be the norm. In other words, diabolical disorientation, as Sister Lucia of Fatima pointed out, will be commonplace.
Well said Fr. Karl; thank you so very much.
Fredi D’Alessio – Taking Life, Love and Faith Seriously
Go to RECongress.org and notice the dissenters (some are admitted homosexuals) who are speaking on Pope Francis as if “happy days are here again”. Perhaps they know something we are afraid to admit!
May God have Mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Did anyone else spot the glaring lacuna in the questions posed?
At least the Holy Father did say that marriage is between a
man and a woman.
Thank you for the hint DJ.
No question(s) about homosexuality.Example: Ought homosexuality be an
impediment to religious life? Why/why not?If not, and the question of giving scandal is addressed, then could religious priests and nuns share buildings to
cut costs and reduce the burden of their benefactors?
“I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. ” Pope Francis’ 3/5/14 Corriere interview.
For an insight into Francis, in a book by Argentine Bp. Victor Manuel Fernandez hilited by Sandro Magister @ http://www.chiesa.com, “Il progetto di Francesco: Dove vuole portare la Chiesa” (“The project of Francis: Where will he take the Church”), Sandro Magister comments about information given by compatriot Fernandez:
“While [Card. Bergoglio was] in Buenos Aires the ranks of the opposition were led by the former Argentine nuncio Adriano Bernardini, in office from 2003 to 2011…On February 22, 2011, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, Bernardini delivered a homily that was interpreted by almost everyone as a harangue in defense of Benedict XVI, but in reality was a concerted attack on Bergoglio.”
” The nuncio placed under accusation those priests, religious, and above all those bishops who were keeping a “low profile” and leaving the pope alone in the public battle in defense of the truth. “We have to acknowledge,” he said, “that there has increased year after year, among theologians and religious, among sisters and bishops, the group of those who are convinced that belonging to the Church does not entail the recognition of and adherence to an objective doctrine.”
Magister continues: “Because this was exactly the fault charged against Bergoglio: that of not opposing the secularist offensive, of not defending Church teaching on “nonnegotiable” principles.” —Sandro Magister, “Bergoglio, the General Who Wants to Win without Fighting”, 3/10/14, http://www.chiesa.com
So, did PF HAVE to say, “…I have known many great people who have professed Marxism?” Sounds like an endorsement of being a Catholic and a Marxist/socialist/communist (they are all the same) to me.
Cant be squared with: “Has [Socialism] thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion?…Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Pius XI, 1931, Quad. Anno, n. 117).
Or: “No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism.”
John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, 1961, n. 34.
We are in deep trouble with this kind of confused thought of PF.
A letter (excerpted) to Dr. Moynihan, Inside the Vatican Magazine:
The German bishops have devised a pastoral plan to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, whether or not a Church tribunal has granted a decree of nullity of their first marriage. Cardinal-elect Müller, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has not only published a strong article in L’Osservatore Romano reaffirming the perennial Catholic doctrine confirmed by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio; he has also written officially to the German Bishops’ Conference telling them to rectify their heterodox pastoral plan. But the bishops, led by their conference president and by Cardinal Kasper, are openly defying the head of the CDF, and predicting that the existing doctrine and discipline will soon be changed!”
“Think of the appalling ramifications of this. If German Catholics don’t need decrees of nullity, neither will any Catholics anywhere. Won’t the world’s Catholic marriage tribunals then become basically irrelevant? (Will they eventually just close down?) And won’t this reversal of bimillennial Catholic doctrine mean that the Protestants and Orthodox, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have been more docile to the Holy Spirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ? Indeed, how credible, now, will be her claim to be the true Church? On what other controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church been wrong, and the ‘separated brethren’ right? ”
— Fr. Bryan Harrison, O.S., St. Louis MO
“And what of Jesus’ teaching that those who remarry after divorce commit adultery? Admitting them to Communion without a commitment to continence will lead logically to one of three faith-breaking conclusions: (a) Our Lord was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous – in which case He can scarcely have been the Son of God; (b) Adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful – in which case the Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium has always been wrong; or (c) Communion can be given to some who are living in objectively grave sin – in which case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally by always teaching the opposite, but the way will also be opened to Communion for fornicators, practicing homosexuals, pederasts, and who knows who else? ”
“Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue. If anything, the confusion is becoming even graver than that over contraception between 1965 and 1968, when Paul VI’s seeming vacillation allowed Catholics round the world to anticipate a reversal of perennial Church teaching. If the present Successor of Peter now keeps silent about divorce and remarriage, thereby tacitly telling the Church and the world that the teaching of Jesus Christ will be up for open debate at a forthcoming Synod of Bishops, one fears a terrible price will soon have to be paid.”
— Fr. Bryan Harrison, O.S., St. Louis MO
Fr. Harrison seems to have his Faith and his head in the right place!
May God have Mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Fr. Harrison, what you say summarizes the teachings of the church. Is it always black and white? What about context? Must a woman who is brutalized by her husband remain married to him while he hurts her? Even if she has to get out of the house to save herself and/or her children, must she remained married? What about the spouse who commits open adultery? Must the other stay married to him/her? I am wondering how a pastor helps a parishioner without context. If a person divorces a spouse because of one of the above examples, and later wishes to marry another why should that be considered a sin? If a person has same sex attraction, why is that a sin. If a person has same sex attraction and lives with a partner, who is to judge him or her? What about the heterosexual living with another in an unmarried state? Who is to judge him or her and refuse them communion? As our Pope said, you cannot hate someone into loving God and the church. The people in the pew have ignored the ban on contraceptives. The people in the pew have ignored the ban on divorce. The people in the pew consider annulments a sham by large plurality. Too many good Catholics are going to other denominations where the emphasis is on the love of God, knowing that he died for their salvation. That is so much more positive than being in a church that is always condemning people.
The Church has a grave moral crisis that it has ignored for decades. It turns out that Pope Frances has gone down the path of denial and cover up of priest child abuse. This is just the first of many revelations to come.
Pope Francis has been accused of failing to take appropriate action in a number of cases of clerical child abuse that came to light while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. According to the American organisation BishopAccountability.org, the cases all came to Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s attention, but he is accused of defending the perpetrators or declining to meet victims. In the case of Fr Julio Cesar Grassi, who was convicted of abuse in a children’s home after a lengthy trial and appeal, the Argentine Bishops’ Conference commissioned a report after his conviction in 2009 which concluded he was innocent. The website’s main accusation against the Pope is that he was supportive of Fr Grassi and the children’s foundation set up by the priest before the accusations emerged. He also reportedly approved the commissioning of the report into Grassi, who is now in prison. The abuse of five girls by Fr Mario Napoleon Sasso of Zarate Campana diocese between 2002 and 2003 in a community soup kitchen was allegedly covered up by his diocesan bishop. Cardinal Bergolio allegedly failed to respond when the families of the young girls asked to meet him.
Bob One writes:
“…Too many good Catholics are going to other denominations where the emphasis is on the love of God, knowing that he died for their salvation. That is so much more positive than being in a church that is always condemning people.”
It is not the Church per se that is condemning people, Bob One, but those sins that the people, despite hearing the Word, choose to embrace. Sin kills, Bob One. Lying about that fact is not being kind as God is also just.
There is a difference between committing a sin, such as adultery, and committing oneself to a lifetime of sin.
I shudder just to think of all the implications. I will drop on my knees and pray that Our Good Lord helps His faithful to stay faithful no matter what comes down the pike. Sacred Heart of Jesus save us.
On regard to extraordinary measures being used for terminal patients, this is true as far as it goes. However, the provision of food and water, even if administered through a tube, is considered an ordinary measure for terminal patients. It would have been helpful for Francis to point this out, now that doctors pressure families to starve their sick, terminal members to death.
Please show respect to our Holy Pope and refer to him as Pope Francis please!