Fernandez, “Without the gaze of faith, the Pope is reduced to a character” Interview with the archbishop - rector of the Catholic University of Argentina - on Francis’ five years of pontificate: there is a risk of reducing the Pope's messages to slogans Pubblicato il 12/03/2018 ANDREA TORNIELLI VATICAN CITY How do you assess these first five years of pontificate? What has characterized it most? I would rather not dwell on the results obtained in international politics, nor on the results that may have been achieved in the reform of the Curia or Vatican finances. Because this would imply a somewhat worldly vision. Let us leave it to the media to engage in these analyses. As Catholics, we believe in the mystery of the Spirit that loosens the knots and transforms reality in its own way and pace. If you ask me what Gandhi did, I could tell you that I can no longer remember exactly what he did and what he achieved. But I know beyond doubt that he has left a very important mark in history and that he has provoked changes that have changed humanity. What is the most popular message inside and outside the Church? In the case of Francis, I believe that his constant invitation, with words and gestures, to return to the Gospel‘s original freshness and to its heart made of mercy and justice for the weakest, will not be forgotten. At the same time, the call for a stripped Church, more joyful and able to open up to dialogue and service, will not end. Even if somebody in the future will try to go back in this regard, I believe that Francis' great and irreversible reform, which has already been achieved, consists in the fact that a reversal will hardly be accepted. Who would ever think that after Francis, a papacy of condemnations parading power and wealth, that is not willing to dialogue with everyone, that ignores the weak of this world, could ever flourish? What is the most important reform that Pope Francis wishes for the Church? The deepening of what I have just mentioned. There are still many members of the Church who speak little about Jesus Christ, who do not show affection and admiration when they nominate Him, who prefer to judge the faults of others and present ethical norms as rock solid in order not to accept that vertigo one feels when proclaiming God's unconditional love for each person, of transmitting Jesus Christ’s salvific and close love. At the same time, there are still many resistances to leave the comforting structures that give us security, but that ever more so attract less faithful. Do you think there is a risk of reducing the Pope's messages to slogans, which like all slogans end up becoming empty, that is to say to be used according to convenience, but without real change? The great saints and reformers, those who provoked real changes in the Church and in history, did not love slogans but gestures along with the gift of self. For some time now, however, we have been used to living with slogans in the Church. For example, there are those who say that they are "pro life", but prefer not to talk about immigrants, about the commitment to the poorest, the struggle for justice so that fewer people die because of malnutrition or illnesses that could be cured. That is a slogan. In the same way, others repeat phrases by Francis as slogans, and even speak of the "springtime of the Church", perhaps not to come off as opponents or to secure some place in the Church, but if you look at their habits, their actions, their insistence and choices, they do not seem to correspond to the spirit of this Pope. It is a way of closing oneself to the transforming wind of the Spirit by being "politically correct". The media (but not only) have much-emphasized Pope Francis’s human and likable characteristics, which have made him a popular and beloved character. Do you not see the risk that he becomes too much of a "character”? And that, therefore, too much attention is focused on him and his person? It is true. And yet with no doubt, he has never been fond of personality cult. When he appreciates someone very much, he says, "Humiliate yourself". His being very close to people has to do with his recognition of the value of popular religiosity, and he wants his papacy to be an embodied sign of Jesus' tender and merciful closeness. But whoever does not see all this from the point of view of the most authentic Catholic faith, ends up forgetting the purpose of everything, which is Jesus, and remains stuck on the character. It is like "being stuck looking at the finger pointing at the moon" like the ancient Zen proverb says. This implies a serious danger, because it produces the opposite effect: if they see an error or a weak point, or if one day the Pope does not smile because he feels weak or sick, his character breaks. Anyway, I see that within the Catholic sphere, Francis' style is producing an irreversible de-idealization of the papacy. Until now, only few Catholics have been able to criticize the Popes, but now there is enormous freedom to do so without anyone being punished for it. This strip the figure of the Pope from that excessively sacred halo of a superior and untouchable being. There are those who often speak - sometimes magnifying their importance - of the so-called "internal resistances”, phenomena that Francis' predecessors have also known: how much do they count and how much do they affect the daily life of the Church? They are much more damaging than before because of the enormous attention of the media and social networks. Few people previously read a newspaper. Today, however, there are many who follow the news on the Internet, and the media which generally highlights what makes a lot of noise, the negative things, the criticisms. Years ago, a very conservative and negative person would speak only with his wife, because not even his neighbours would listen to him. Now that person can open a blog, and spread even lies and slander, or unfounded suspicions, and he will always have readers. He can also devote himself all day long to commenting on Internet forums and have his voice amplified. The more moderate and serene people, who are the majority, seem to act less in this direction. In Argentina, where in recent years there has been a strong and persistent discrediting campaign in the media and social networks, the Pope has undoubtedly maintained an 80 percent approval according to the most serious enquiries. But that 80 percent makes little noise. Is it true, according to your experience, that in the Church today there is "confusion" after the publication of Amoris laetitia? Amoris laetitia implies a paradigmatic shift in the way complex situations are treated, even if this does not involve the opening of all doors. It certainly goes beyond the possibility for some remarried divorcees to receive communion. This shift, which prevents us from being hard and mathematical in our judgements, is very annoying for some. But the Pope had a note published in the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" as "authentic magisterium". Only the Pope can make such a decision and Francis did so. Therefore, there is no confusion. We already know what the Pope is calling for. Another thing is what you like or not like, whether you think this looks good or not. Therefore, one must not say, “It’s confusing”, rather, “I do not like this”. Or better, "I prefer a Church with more restricted norms. The various reforms of the Roman Curia bodies are still on their way. How important are structural reforms? These reforms are very important, but they are also the most "reversible". Another Pope can come and create a huge Curia. In addition, the people who will be in these bodies will be decisive. But I believe that Francis was able to "de-idealize" the Vatican Curia - as well and forever, which should be seen only as an organization at service of the Pope, that does not replace the Pope or the bishops. Can you tell us how the Pope lives the events linked to the scandals of child abuse committed by the clergy? The rules to combat this phenomenon exist, are there chances to change the mentality as well? I know that he suffers a lot for this issue, because in this case the deep sense of priestly ministry, namely to "take care", is destroyed. In Spanish this sense is emphasized, because the priest is called to "care". The "care" characterizes priesthood and is very dear to Francis. I believe that the mentality is changing in this direction, although sometimes the processes need their time to avoid injustice. http://www.lastampa.it/2018/03/12/v...-character-pZObKFi0LBZv9IrlPfUOhL/pagina.html
I didn't know that a "pro-life" person prefers "not to talk about immigrants, about the commitment to the poorest, the struggle for justice...". Who is he talking about, how did he arrived to such conclusion ? Why is he making this black and white association between "pro life" people and people that don't care about the poor, the immigrants and justice, shouldn't he as an archbishop instead at least attempt to praise the good that pro-life activists do to the Church and the world? And who said that judging the "faults of others and presenting ethical norms" is incompatible with proclaiming "God´s unconditional love for each person" - it is precisely for the love God has for me that my parents or a priest should judge my faults and teach me the true doctrine, and it is up to me to accept it o revel against it. This sacred doctrine and the norms or discipline that allow us to live it out are not something to discredit as "comforting structures that give us security". And there is nothing wrong with 'presenting ethical norms' anyway - they are the necessary condition to any peaceful social coexistence. Doesn't he know the preference for the poor comes precisely from the Church doctrine on charity and the corresponding ethical norms (the spiritual and corporal works of mercy!)? The paradoxical thing is that his answers are actually full of indirect or direct judgments on the faults of "others" that are spoken about as "opponents" that want to be "politically correct" to "secure some place in the Church." Why doesn't he dare to name a few instead of talking about "others"... And then of course the accusation against "others" that are "hard and mathematical in [their] judgements". Is this all AL communion for adulterers, etc, comes down to? So Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict were hard and mathematical in their proclamation of the Church teaching in this respect? Let's just recall how "hard and mathematical" SAINT John Paul II was: 'There was a priest who was telling him that people are leaving because it’s too difficult; they need condoms; they need the pill. What do we do? After a little pause of silence, the Pope said: “Dear Fr. [X], tell me, did I and Paul VI invent the doctrine contained in Humanae Vitae? I cannot change it. No one can change it. No one. Not even the Church, my dear priest. Think about this.”'
Some words about the "paradigmatic shift" from the former the dean of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for studies on marriage and family. THOSE WHO MANIPULATE PAUL VI by Livio Melina Today one hears ambiguous talk of an epochal “paradigm shift,” which it is alleged must be applied to Catholic sexual morality. In order to impose it there is also underway a questionable attempt at historical reinterpretation, which contrasts the figures of Paul VI and John Paul II, seeing in the second an intransigent and rigid traditionalist who is thought to have compromised the open and flexible attitude of the former. In reality, this crude and arbitrary falsification is made only to serve an ideological manipulation of the magisterium of Pope Paul VI. Putting between parentheses the teaching of Saint John Paul II on the theology of the body and on the foundations of morality, his catecheses and “Veritatis Splendor,” in the name of the new pastoral paradigm of “case by case” discernment, does not bring us a step forward, but only a step backward toward casuistry, with the disadvantage that at least that was sustained by a solid ecclesial and cultural context of Christian life, while today it could not help but result in the total subjectivization of morality. Pope Francis recently approved the publication, by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, of the letter “Placuit Deo,” which among other things warns against a resurgent neo-Gnosticism. Is not this perhaps the poison that is hidden in these self-proclaimed reinterpretations and implementations of “Humanae Vitae,” which beyond the outmoded letter would like to grasp the spirit, or which, presumptuously denying its normative pertinence (“The problem of ‘Humanae Vitae’ is not pill yes or pill no”), extol it for a vague and empty anthropological propheticalness, an affirmation of values that are then left to subjective interpretation, according to the circumstances? Against these tendencies, the book by Pawel Galuszka is a potent medicine, which allows us to breathe the good moral theology of Karol Wojtyła, a devoted and faithful son of Paul VI first and then his great successor on the see of Peter. (English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.) http://magister.blogautore.espresso...r-siege-two-new-assaults-and-a-counterattack/
Posting items suggesting the Pope is about to ditch Humane Vitae in response to this interview seems a little premature! We all know the usual anti Francis websites are predicting this but how about waiting for it to happen before condemning the Pope for this particular possibility! The Pope is certainly not going to to change the the teaching in any way although he may well clarify certain situations which will cause the above mentioned websites to go into free fall ....
FYI, it is no longer a secret that there is a commission headed by Msgr. Marengo to revise Humanae Vitae. Certainly let's not anticipate the results of the commission, though things are not looking good. "The first is the revelation that Pope Francis has established a new birth-control commission on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. The commission’s charge is to “reinterpret” the encyclical’s teaching “in the light of Amoris Laetitia.” Heading the four-man commission is Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo, a bitter critic of Paul VI’s great encyclical." http://m.ncregister.com/56036/b#.Wqa1wGbMwWp
Yes, thank you Jarg, I was aware of all that. As I said all the anti-Francis websites have been having a field day with the information. It is just that without ANY indication of what the commission might come up with, it seems to be a little irrelevant to make 3 responses about the matter in response to an interview which has nothing to do with the topic.
La Stampa seems to be a fan of Archbishop Fernandez, ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia. Here's a sample of his literary skills which no doubt prompted Pope Francis to fast track his rise to the hierarchy: https://medium.com/@artofkissing/heal-me-with-your-mouth-the-art-of-kissing-c5300a81bb93 Life is too short for wasting time on either his books or his opinions.
'I would rather not dwell on the results obtained in international politics, nor on the results that may have been achieved in the reform of the Curia or Vatican finances. Because this would imply a somewhat worldly vision' I would rather not dwell on these things either. You would end up taking Valium. Talk about a walking disaster area. From insulting the President of the USA and selling out the Chinese Church, the list of melt downs is endless. Vatican Finances. What Vatican finances....?
