Pope Francis sent a message to apostolic nuncios Thursday informing his ambassadors that they have a responsibility as papal representatives not to criticize the pope or to join groups hostile to the Roman curia.
“It is therefore irreconcilable to be a pontifical representative criticizing the pope behind his back, having blogs or even joining groups hostile to him, to the curia and to the Church of Rome,” Pope Francis said June 13 in remarks distributed to more than 100 nuncios meeting in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace.
Pope Francis said that he desired to share some simple precepts to help the papal diplomats live out their mission, calling the 4,000 word document a “Ten Commandments” of sorts for nuncios and their co-workers throughout the world.
One of the ten precepts outlined in the document is titled, “The Nuncio is a man of the Pope.” The section states that “certainly every person could have reservations, likes and dislikes, but a good nuncio cannot be hypocritical.”
Other exhortations included in the document are to be merciful, obedient, prayerful, charitable, humble, and to have initiative and apostolic zeal.
“The man of God does not deceive nor deceive his neighbor; he does not let himself go into gossip and slander; it preserves the pure mind and heart, preserving eyes and ears from the filth of the world. He does not let himself be deceived by worldly values, but looks to the Word of God to judge what is wise and good,” he said.
Some have pointed to Pope Francis’ comments about “having a blog” as alluding to the apostolic nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, because he has a blog, which was linked to a Twitter account in which he shared articles critical of some of Pope Francis’ comments.
In 2015, the nuncio tweeted a National Review article entitled, “The Pope Got It Completely and Utterly Wrong,” which called Pope Francis’ comments in an in-flight press conference “imprecise, poorly judged.” The nuncio’s Twitter account has since been deleted.
Former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Vigano, set off a flurry of debate last August by penning a public letter alleging that some Vatican officials knew of Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct for years yet restored McCarrick’s place as a papal advisor to Pope Francis.
From a June 13 story on the Catholic News Agency website.
Francis is his own worst enemy. The problem is not with the Church leaders who are “against” him, the problem is he himself, and not in the least it lies in his dictatorial tendencies and in his inability to face constructive criticism and to take everything as personal attack. And now, it seems, he is starting to believe that he is the Church and any correction of his mistakes is an attack on the Church. Sorely lacking in humility.
This is all a red-herring: Danijela Brekalo’s arguments here. Therefore, it’s all groundless. Firstly, the Pope, any pope, is “dictatorial??” Were you thinking that the Church is a democracy? Folks, the Church has never made claims that it is. So, quit erroneously applying categories from the political sciences and then judging the Church, or this Pope, erroneously on it. Secondly, this Pope doesn’t take criticism constructively? Do you really believe that?? This is a man who has not laid a finger on Vigano, his more ardent critic. Yet this nuncio-in-hiding seems to be bold enough to give interviews and throw shots from a distance. Thirdly, Francis is lacking in humility?? Right. Depends on whose optics you’re looking…
Through the optics of those who arrogate to themselves what should be the only proper liturgical style of the Church (namely the TLM), yes to them belongs the erroneous impression that Francis is “lacking in humility”.
Pope Francis doesn’t lay a finger on Archbishop Vigano’, because if he did without first factually disproving the Archbishop’s claims, the Pope would face a revolution of the entire Catholic populace. And Francis is smart enough to realize it. Best to stick your head back in the sand, jon.
Dan Brown, is that you?
“JUST”–to someone without the proper eyes to see and ears to hear, it may seem that the Holy Father’s actions are merely political: to those whose head are immersed in the “ways of this world,” that’s the only way to interpret it: as you are interpreting it. However, to the rest of us who have the words of Our Lord in our ears and in our eyes, what the Holy Father is exhibiting here is an obedience to Our Lord’s own commandment: “When someone strikes you on one cheek offer the other one as well.” The indisputable fact remains that the Holy Father has NOT laid a finger on this former nuncio who has never stopped undermining the work of Christ’s Vicar. God bless Pope Francis.
jon— if Pope Francis truly exhibited the “turn the other cheek” manner you say he does, why did he forbid nuncios to criticize/differ with him? can’t have it both ways, jon.
Right. “Just” please do think things through before you type. What is at stake here is not so much what is personal to Bergoglio, but what is at stake is the integrity of the Holy See’s diplomatic corps and the integrity of the office of nuncio. It is not good for the oldest diplomatic corps in the world to have its ambassadors/nucios contradicting and criticizing the very person/office that they are meant to represent.
jon, people write their own narratives.
Do not twist my words, and do not imply meaning that is not there. I never said anything about the Church being democracy. And yes, Francis not only does not take criticism, he lashes out at those who dare to point our his mistakes, and shuts them down and/or removes them from their position and replaces them with his “yes men”. That is a fact. A truly humble person does not blow the trumpet of humility before him the way Francis made sure that his “humility” is well advertised and known (just think about he “paying his hotel bill” splashed on the front pages around the world, since in his humility he made sure it is known to everyone.
Danijela Brekalo: All I can say is “listen to what you’re saying.” You have drunk from the Kool Aid of bad PR from the “traddie” blogs, the dissenting clerics, and pseudo-academics who–simply put–do not like the man elected by the cardinals as moved by the Holy Spirit and have acquired a “hatred” for the man who is our spiritual father and universal pastor. Where there is hatred (and there is a lot out there for Francis as there is for Trump), then there is no love; and where there is not love, then you have not God in you.
The now Mister McCarrick was once the spiritual father of Catholics in his diocese, to whom Catholics owed obedience. Look how that went. Same with Wuerl. Same with Marcial Maciel. Same with Argentine bishops who have been ensconced out of the country by Bergoglio to evade criminal prosecution for sex crimes. Ecclesiastical office is not all that, and the laity know it, and especially in cases where the optics don’t quite align with Catholic Faith the laity are right to be skeptical. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Blind and naïve obeisance is over in the Church. Over.
Carmen is not only wrong, but deviates from Scripture and Catholic Tradition. No, the laity has NO RIGHT to be skeptical at the Magisterium when it speaks on matters of faith and morals. To tell your own spiritual shepherd that he is not guiding you the right way is the height of arrogance. Now, if Carmen is talking about how the bishops have “governed”–such as how cases of allegations were dealt with, then that’s in the realm of the temporal order. And in that realm, the laity may not only offer their help in accord with their expertise in the secular world, but may be obliged to do so. But in no way are we to disrespect, dishonor, demean, denigrate those whom God has appointed to lead His People.
And so, “Pope jon”– what say you, regarding the case of former nuncio, Abp. Vigano, exposing the lies, cover-ups, and deceits, regarding the case of the long, evil career, and wrongful Church promotions to top leadership positions– of evil clergy sex predator, Theodore McCarrick?? Was Vigano not a Churchman of rare courage and integrity?? Or do you view him as a “Judas,” “unfaithful” to the Pope???
And so, “Pope jon”– what say you, regarding the case of former nuncio, Abp. Vigano, exposing the lies, cover-ups, and deceits, regarding the case of the long, evil career, and wrongful Church promotions to top leadership positions– of evil clergy sex predator, Theodore McCarrick?? Was Vigano not a Churchman of rare courage and integrity?? Or do you view him as a “Judas,” “unfaithful” to the Pope???
So, can anyone name the last Pope who had to issue such an order? Crickets.
If Nuncios have fundamental disagreement with the Pope, they must resign. Same as a Cabinet Secretary and the US President. The Nuncio should be sophisticated enough to deliver a private comment to the Pope.
If Benedict intended to keep any part of the papacy when he announced his resignation, then he didn’t really resign, and so no conclave was validly called or successor validly elected. ‘Pope Francis’ should therefore be treated as an antipope and the man whom Catholics should recognizes as the Vicar of Christ is Pope Benedict. To continue calling Bergoglio the Pope only sows more confusion, reinforces more scandal, and causes more injustice since we all have a duty to recognize only the Vicar of Christ as Christ’s Vicar, not other men merely wearing white. (At the very least, Catholics should consider Bergoglio’s claim to the Chair of Peter doubtful and, until they arrive at more clarity, withhold credence to his teachings and…
Pope Benedict resigned. Pope Francis was elected. Why the drama?
I see. We should just ignore all the counterevidence to what you’re saying, prefer your mere assertions to arguments, and just move along, no? So much for integrity.
This is a fact: Pope Benedict resigned.
This is a fact: Pope Francis was elected.
There is no counterevidence.
It is not open to argument or interpretation.
We don’t live in a fantasy world.
“This is a fact: Pope Benedict resigned.”
Benedict said that he would be resigning the ministerium, not munus, yet it’s the munus that Benedict would need to abdicate for the Chair of Peter to be vacated and a subsequent conclave to be valid.
“This is a fact: Pope Francis was elected.”
But there was still a validly elected pope laying claim to the papal office at that time, so it’s impossible that Bergoglio was elected validly (you can’t elect a man to an office that isn’t vacant). And Benedict’s ‘emeritus’ distinction at the time of the election proves nothing to the contrary, as there really can be no such thing as a ‘Pope Emeritus’ in the Church in the way that there can be a Bishop Emeritus. Rather…
“There is no counterevidence.”
There are the many words of Benedict and his many deeds. Benedict himself has said, e.g., that his effort to resign “does not revoke this,” i.e., his being Pope. And notice that Benedict insists on retaining the title ‘Holy Father’, wearing papal white, and giving Apostolic Blessings. Why act like this if you don’t think you possess the dignity and authority of the papacy? And if only the Vicar of Christ has this dignity and papacy, then how can Christ’s Vicar be Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
“It is not open to argument or interpretation.”
Why?
CR, I googled it so I see where you are getting it but it is a load of bunk. I hope you don’t attend a schismatic parish.
Ah, the internet. Hope this helps you:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in
Final answer: Pope Benedict resigned. Pope Francis is the Pope.
“Hope this helps you: https…”
Nothing that Montagna’s anonymous source, Gänswein, Burke, or Brandmüller says establishes what you’re saying. Her piece actually helps show why, at a minimum, Catholics should regard Benedict’s renunciation as doubtful, not certain. Ganswein himself is quoted saying, for example, that Benedict “has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.” If even his own secretary thinks he still occupies the office, then why think he is no longer Pope? And if only one man can be Pope, then why think Bergoglio was validly elected?
” it is a load of bunk.”
Rebuttals are out there, it’s true, but they aren’t refutations, so ‘bunk’ is a pretty big stretch.
“I hope you don’t attend a schismatic parish.”
I agree schism is a real threat here, but that’s why Catholics shouldn’t blithely disregard the evidence before us that Pope Benedict never vacated the Chair of Peter, because if we’re wrong that he validly resigned, then it’s precisely schism we fall into by thereby failing to submit to Benedict as the Supreme Pontiff.
CR, well now we know that you are not sincere because what Ganswein said is:
“I have already cleared up the ‘misunderstanding’ several times,” he responded. “It makes no sense at all, no, even more, it is counterproductive to insist on this ‘misunderstanding’ and to quote me again and again. This is absurd and leads to self-harm [Selbstzerfleischung]. I have clearly said that there is only one Pope, one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis. Amen.”
“CR, well now we know that you are not sincere because what Ganswein said is …”
You’re taking my point the wrong way. My point was not that Gänswein thinks Bergoglio is not the Pope, but that even Gänswein recognizes one of the very things that, at a minimum, makes Benedict’s resignation uncertain: Benedict views his acceptance of the papacy as “irrevocable” and “impossible” to abandon. If Benedict thinks the papacy is irrevocable and impossible to abandon, then how is it (as you say) that Benedict is no longer Pope? (That’s the doubt I’m demonstrating arises from the facts that even Gänswein acknowledges.)
You are just playing word (and mind) games.
Canon 332.§2 Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone.
I see online the original speech by Ganswain from which you are trying to cause scandal. He says that Pope Benedict retired and that Pope Francis is his successor.
Stop being an instigator.
It’s an internet hoax.
Pope Francis has the right to expect fidelity and loyalty from the nuncios. They work for him! Undoubtedly other recent popes had to remind the nuncios of their duty to work for the Pope. The difference with Pope Francis is he is transparent about his expectations and requirements.
If Pope Benedict or St Pope John Paul II had issued such an order the conservatives would be writing in support noting his “clear”, “direct” and “authoritative” leadership. The pope is the pope and the faithful should support and follow his lead.
It was not an order. Read the article, not the headline.
What does the Holy Father expect? With the controversies surrounding his pontificate, steadily promoting confusion regarding already established dogmas and doctrines, those who are in the best position to admonish the Holy Father should and must do so.
And the pope is supposed to be faithful to Christ and to Catholic Tradition instead of criticizing those who love tradition, especially the young who love tradition.
What about this situation about the Vatican’s envoy (nuncio) to France:
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2019/06/15/more-charges-of-inappropriate-touching-aimed-at-vatican-envoy-to-france/
When giving any warning, the Holy Father should first look into a mirror when speaking.
You either did not read the article or you did not understand what you read. Or you don’t understand the Church? Or what a nuncio is?
You know very well that a “nuncio” as used in the context of the article is a diplomatic envoy or ambassador. Such ignorance, in this day and age, can only be self-imposed and can not rise to the level of innocent “invincible” ignorance.
Yes, I know what a nuncio is. I thought you might not because of your comment calling this document a warning. I was trying to make sense of it.
“The Nuncio is a man of the Pope.”
First the Nuncio is a man of God then of the Pope, as long as the “pope” is a true man of God. St. Thomas More was a man of God first and then of Henry the 8th. I am sure you know the rest of the story.
The Pope is a true man of God. He was created by God, raised up by God. If you don’t have the faith to believe that, you don’t have much faith.
I assume you are being led astray by some of the internet sites where everybody is an expert on Catholicism but they can’t even obey the 10 Commandments or the precepts of the Gospels.
God speaks in silence. Sin is not lacking where words are many.
It’s the New Omerta.
So let me get this straight… according to the current papacy divorced and invalidly remarried catholics can decide in conscience that they can receive communion while living in sin, not intending to reform their lives, but apostolic nuncios cannot decide in conscience to speak their minds if there is something that justly can be criticized? No wonder Vigano is hiding.
Jon , “But in no way are we to disrespect, dishonor, demean, denigrate those whom God has appointed to lead His People.” no you are wrong ! the trust is gone for the hierarchy . The use of the magisterium has been abused and is no longer effective as as tool of silencing , or obedience. Throwing out magisterium !, as a defense , magic word etc will not work. For proof, look at the attacks open and on video of the faith , and the faithful by politicians and activists, this would never have happened with strong moral leadership. The leadership has disrespected, demeaned , and lied to the faithful, they have lost their moral authority , with continuing investigations see how effective invoking magisterium will work as defense .
Yes, Rick W. You are not far from Protestantism. Congratulations.
contd .. and the innocent . The faith itself is being damaged from within , by the those who are supposed to be examples to the faithful, future religious and those outside the church.State investigations are happening, RICO or federal investigations may soon fallow, if the church is damaged as it would be debate about the magisterium and my faith will be the least of our problems. Do not think the enemies of the church who are out in force and in the open would not seize upon the belief in the magisterium and twist it for an evil purpose, direct your attention to the corrupt clerics who are driving souls out of the church, I trust God in this but that does not mean I am to be silent or inactive.