Pope Francis recently gave a 40-minute interview to a Mexican TV station, the full transcript of which has not been released in English (full Spanish transcript here). Several English-language outlets have translated portions, including America magazine, CNA, and Vatican News.

Much is covered in the wide-ranging interview, including abortion, immigration, sexual abuse, Amoris Laetitia, homosexuality, China, Theodore McCarrick, and Archbishop Viganò. This interview also contains what appear to be his first public comments on the public letter signed by 19 Catholics, including the once-prominent English Dominican theologian Aidan Nichols, in which he is accused of the “delict of heresy” and where the signatories call on the bishops of the world to remove him from office.

America reported:

In his Mexico television interview the pope was asked how he reacted to the accusation of heresy made against him in a letter to the world’s bishops on April 30 by a small group of clergy and Catholic academics, Pope Francis said, “with a sense of humor.”

“I pray for them because they are wrong,” he said. “I saw [them as] poor people [who are] manipulated by some. I saw who signed it…. Seriously, I looked at it with a sense of humor and, I would say, tenderness, paternal tenderness. That is to say, it did not hurt me at all. What hurts me is the hypocrisy, the lie. That hurts me. But a mistake like that, in which there are people whose heads have been filled…. No please. We have to care for them also, we have to take care for them.”

This is CNA’s report of his reaction:

Pope Francis said he reacted “with a sense of humor” to the accusation of heresy made against him earlier this month.

“It does not hurt me at all. Hypocrisy and lies hurt me, these hurt me. But such a mistake, where there are even people who have filled their heads with … no, please, you have to take care of them too,” Pope Francis said in a Spanish interview published May 28.

Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki asked the pope how he took the accusation that he was a heretic, to which he responded, “With a sense of humor, my daughter.”

“I also pray for them because they are wrong and poor people, some are manipulated. And who are those who signed…?” Pope Francis added, alluding to an open letter signed by a group of 19 Catholics who accused the pope of “the canonical delict of heresy.”

Finally, here is Google Translate’s interpretation of the exchange from the Spanish Transcript [my edits and additions in brackets]:

Q. – Pope Francis, there is a lot of polarization not suddenly in the world in general, in the Church as well, in here, not in this room but, within the Vatican, everywhere. It is not a Vatican prerogative.

R.- Polarization is a destructive temptation.

Q.- But it feels like very strong also within the Church, these groups .

R.- Also, well … you mentioned they accuse me of being a heretic and …..

Q.- What about [being called] a heretic, how did [you] take it?

R. – With a sense of humor, daughter.

P.- [You do] not give much weight …

R. – No, no, I also pray for them because they are wrong and I saw poor people, some are manipulated. I saw who were the ones who signed … No, seriously, sense of humor and I would say tenderness, fatherly tenderness. I mean, it does not hurt me at all. Hypocrisy wounds me, lies, that hurts me. But such a mistake, where there are even people who filled their heads … no please, you have to take care of them too, you have to take care of them.

I wrote earlier this month about Fr. Nichols’s fall from grace, lamenting the fact that a theologian who had garnered so much respect and high esteem had allowed himself to be taken in by reactionary extremists. Pope Francis seems to feel the same regret, but also reminds us that we must pray for those who have fallen astray.

It cannot be pleasant at all to consider oneself a devout Catholic while imagining the pope and the hierarchy are working against the true faith. One can only imagine the anguish they feel, and the desperation to do something about it, even if the result of their efforts is irrational or ridiculous. Yes, they are wrong, but they need prayers.

We’ll have more on this interview in the near future, as well as some commentary on the recently released correspondence by ex-Cardinal McCarrick. Stay tuned.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
81 Shares

61 Responses

  1. Avatar carn says:

    While i appreciate that you note this perspective:

    “It cannot be pleasant at all to consider oneself a devout Catholic while imagining the pope and the hierarchy are working against the true faith.”

    i think that it is still far from the actual situation.

    It is not pleasant at all to consider oneself a devout Catholic while KNOWING that PARTS of the hierarchy are working SINCE DECADES against the true faith.

    Sufficient irrefutable evidence: BXVI’s recent letter stating, that there were (are?) seminaries, in which his books are so to say “anathema”; “seminaries” are part of the hierarchy and therefore if even in a few seminaries BXVI’s books – which are as far as i know all Catholic – were/are “anathema” the above claim that parts of the hierarchy are working against the faith was/is true, and only “since decades” would need further prove (although the words in BXVI’s letter seem to imply that such things were going on for a long time).

    That makes it a lot more unpleasant, if then the Pope seems to be at least of help to those rogue parts of the hierarchy.

    I would be seriously surprised, if you would not agree with the above statement about parts of the hierarchy.

    That does not in anyway prove that Pope Francis is guilty of anything.

    But i think it shows that your statement underestimates how unpleasant one might feel, when one knows for sure that the ones trying to put their poison deep into Catholicism are about and not show any sign of tiring and then one starts to have doubts whether the Holy Father is still trying to fight this (as JPII and BXVI continuously did).

    • Avatar Chris dorf says:

      “When one knows for sure”. That is the same comment I have heard from fundamentalist Born again X Catholics and anti Catholics for decades as they are completely certain that Catholics are going to hell as well as lutherans and anybody not born again according to their credo believe on the name of the Lord Jesus and be saved. they are absolutely certain and as Catholics we are absolutely certain that they have misunderstandings about salvation

      • Avatar carn says:

        “That is the same comment I have heard from fundamentalist Born again X Catholics and anti Catholics for decades as they are completely certain that Catholics are going to hell”

        That comparison is totally ridiculous.

      • Avatar Chris dorf says:

        Why?
        Have you never had a born again Christian come up to you as a Catholic and say are you saved? Do you have absolute certainty that you’re going to go to heaven when you die? Just accept the Lord Jesus as your savior and you will be saved for eternity?

        They have a complete assurance in there feelings about what they were saying and how they feel about those of us who they feel are following us both Christ and the horror of Babylon and the antichrist

    • Avatar Marie says:

      Carn- Regarding “PARTS of the hierarchy are working SINCE DECADES against the true faith.” Yes, parts of the hierarchy that are NOT in union with the pope(or previous popes)…..so as long as we follow the pope, and the bishops in union with him, all is good!!! That’s the only way to know. So we ignore the rogue ones, who today include both the ‘enlightened’ progressives and the so called ‘faithful orthodox’, who sadly are equally misguided.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “So we ignore the rogue ones,”

        To ignore the rogue ones, one must at first individually, mostly on his own determine who the rogue ones might be.

        Cause one should not ignore the non-rogue ones.

        “both the ‘enlightened’ progressives and the so called ‘faithful orthodox’”

        And what would it mean, if one of us determines that some bishop is among the rogues and the other one determines that he isn’t?

        In my opinion, then at least one of us would be wrong and in risk of going astray by trusting a rogue bishops/by not trusting a faithful bishop.

        (And please don’t try “Just listen to the Holy Father”, cause there we also hear different things)

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn

        You must find out by yourself where “your own dissonance” lies in all the things you’ve written so far and the “dichotomies” you always present. (And with “all” I mean all your other comments in the other posts I’ve read so far, and where we have interacted.)

        Remember when we were talking about “simplifying”?
        It was going well, then we started with other posts and that “chain of thoughts” was abandoned.

        Why don’t you take notes by hand and review them from time to time? (The visual dimension is very helpful.)

        You will never understand if you swap “position” continuously and start reasoning from one side then the other, then fighting about who is “right” and who is “wrong” but never reaching a solution by/for yourself – indeed, both sides could possibly be right (or sometimes wrong) too – as there might also be “harmony”, by finding a “missing link”, or where a “bridge” might be built in order to “reconcile” what appears to be irreconcilable.

        Here’s a SYSTEM that might help you making a new algorithm:

        Let’s borrow a concept from Kant: “Das Ding an Sich” (The thing in itself) as “the what”, “the fact”, “the issue” we are analyzing, or “the truth” we are trying to grasp. Let’s name it *X*.

        Then we might use the concepts of “subjective” and “objective” perception. Brian Killian’s latest post on “The Harmony between AL and VS” I read the other day, seems to discuss this based on morality and discernment. (I browsed through the whole, and it seems you commented a lot there. Though I don’t remember right now and I don’t have it in front of me. We might connect it later in case.)

        How would you *reformulate/articulate* what you wrote above (shortest as possible) by using the KEYS of the system above? ILLUSTRATE the complexity with a visual MAP, a DIAGRAM, a PICTURE, a FORMULA, etc., one can follow, so two or more can “see” the same *Thing*unaltered, and then later we may focus on WHY they are perceived differently?

        PS: Be particularly careful when you use “I”, “we”, “us”, “you” and “one of us” (as you did in your comment), because it makes more confusion for the reader in trying to grasp who the *subject* (not the *object*) is, i.e. “Who does the action”, “who” is doing/thinking/believing what. (These could be persons (or camps/sides) A, B, C, etc. all talking about X. NB! DON’T CHANGE X! That’s as fixed, as “Das Ding an Sich” is!

        (BTW, your previous *tweet* on “Memorial Day” was OK as example. Could it be used here as “essence”?)

      • Avatar carn says:

        “You will never understand if you swap “position” continuously and start reasoning from one side then the other,”

        Technically i am not swapping position; it’s mostly going at a contradiction from different directions.

        “Remember when we were talking about “simplifying”?”

        But there is one problem about “simplifying”: the most simplified approach is one side asking questions and the others answering, no matter what; preferably yes/no-questions.

        But in his wisdom Pope Francis has determined, that this is approach is not to be used; hence, the most simplified approach is unavailable.

        “How would you *reformulate/articulate* what you wrote above (shortest as possible) by using the KEYS of the system above?”

        I am not sure, what to formulate differently.

        Numerous theologians, a number of priest and a at least few bishops seem to have a non-Catholic faith and want Catholicism changed to their faith; but it cannot be said for certain who and different people would name different suspects.

    • Avatar Anonoymous says:

      Was Vatican II the will of God? How about Vatican I? Or Trent?

      How do we tell? Old councils cannot be true simply because we already accept them. The Old Catholics insist that papal infallibility is a novelty. How do we know it is a teaching backed by God? How do we know that ecclesial sausage makers didn’t exaggerate history of old councils?

  2. Avatar Chris dorf says:

    Thank you….. If this is the way that brings a purification to the church, boy is it heart-wrenching. the spirits of people in The souls of people in the minds of people are being pulled in so many directions that without absolute discernment given to the Holy Spirit most people are floundering and not knowing what to believe about this whole highly publicized attack against Pope Francis.

  3. Avatar Jane says:

    Christ Jesus our Saviour is in charge of His Church. He is leading Her and guiding Her. He is also very very aware of who it is who reigns as Pope, what he is saying and doing and thinking and how he is acting. If Our Saviour, Who cares about this Church more than we or Father Nichols or LifeSiteNews, or Phil Lawler, or anyone else does, keeps this Holy Father in office, allows for such things to be said and done all over the world, should that not be 100% assurance that we are not indeed being led astray? That we are NOT being led astray and destroyed by the enemy, that the gates of Hell are NOT prevailing against the Catholic Church, that all we need do is TRUST TRUST TRUST Our Saviour and the Holy Spirit Who gave us this Holy Father, listen to him, take his words as coming from Christ Himself, and be full of joy and peace just resting in the Arms of One Who loves us and is caring for us through His Church, through His Vicar!?!?!?!?

    It all seems so simple to me. The only confusion I feel is over those who claim that there is confusion in the first place! 🙂

    God Bless you and THANK YOU for this article, for Where Peter Is, and for the simplicity and peace and joy that you foster through your articles!

    • Avatar ONG says:

      @Jane
      //The only confusion I feel is over those who claim that there is confusion in the first place! 🙂//
      Perfect, Jane! It all seems so simple to me too! But I also strain to find explanatory patterns to illustrate that to persons it may concern.
      Would what I wrote to carn make sense to you? Esp. on simplifying.
      Pax Christ!

      • Avatar Jane says:

        Dear ONG, I just read what you wrote to Carn.

        I agree with you and can follow your argument easily. Thank you for asking me to read it.

        All of our conversations with folks who cannot accept Pope Francis, etc, remind me of the following statement by St. Thomas Aquinas: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

        I have experienced that “brick wall” so to speak from people, and when I do, I realize that I can’t explain anymore, but step back, keep my peace, and just pray for them. Because the God who gave me thoughts, is not giving me any more thoughts because He wants to be the One to convince these good souls in the end.

        What do you think?

        God Bless you 🙂

      • Avatar ONG says:

        Exactly! I’ve learned to step back too…
        rather waiting for another occasion, another opportunity, another association… hoping someone might first digest what has been said — We ought to keep in mind that words are powerful anyway when used right and sparingly… often one falls into the trap of saying more than one should…
        Yes, communication skills are essential basics… Pope Francis has written a lot about it during the yearly Communication Day. I formulated a comment on it in some earlier post here about “filters” a while ago… perhaps it went unnoticed and I might revive it again in another occasion.

        As the old adage goes:
        “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” 😇

      • Avatar Jane says:

        Yes!

        And I have to remember too that if I say something today to try to help a person, it may affect them now, today, or not until 10 years from now. . .

        It doesn’t matter. The result is up to Almighty God and not me.

        And I like the ‘old adage’ too 🙂

    • Avatar carn says:

      “That we are NOT being led astray and destroyed by the enemy, that the gates of Hell are NOT prevailing against the Catholic Church, that all we need do is TRUST TRUST TRUST Our Saviour and the Holy Spirit Who gave us this Holy Father, listen to him, take his words as coming from Christ Himself, and be full of joy and peace just resting in the Arms of One Who loves us and is caring for us through His Church, through His Vicar!?!?!?!?
      It all seems so simple to me.”

      Taken his words as coming from Christ Himself is a bit hard, when I know that some of his words are (probably unintentionally) untrue.

      Why should i take it as “coming from Christ Himself” if someone supposedly said:
      “I don’t know what’s happening with this new culture of defending territories by building walls. We already knew one, that (one) in Berlin, which brought so many headaches and so much suffering,”
      ?

      That is too stupid and wrong to come from Christ, cause fact is, Berlin Wall was not build to defend territory.

      • Avatar Marie says:

        …….but it was built to keep people in. It doesn’t matter why a wall is built, if it’s intention is to control people, either by keeping them in, or keeping them out. I think that was his point.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “It doesn’t matter why a wall is built, if it’s intention is to control people, either by keeping them in, or keeping them out. I think that was his point.”

        If that was his point, that doesn’t improve things. Do you have a door and lock it from the inside sometimes?

        Then you have a wall to keep people out (unless you live somewhere rather rural, where bears might in the garden might be a problem); as walls to keep people out supposedly is like wall to keep people in, you are then you are like the DDR regime; repent and unlock your door at all times.

        (That is meant as an argumentum ad absurdum to show how absurd it were to suggest that a wall to keep somebody out is morally in no way different from a wall to keep people in)

        However you turn it, the quoted statement is far from being a wise one.

        Even if we concede that only border walls are meant and not walls of houses or fences around gardens (or walls around facilities with dangerous materials; that are also the same as Berlin Wall? these facilities have walls to keep untrained people from accidentally entering and endangering themselves and others, so they are to control people and accordingly are like the Berlin Wall):

        Vatican has a wall at its border; and its mean to control people, today namely tourist hordes who otherwise might cause considerable damage to Vatican structures; accordingly, the wall around Vatican is like the Berlin Wall.

        Why do you care about, if the Pope at least once in a while says something stupid?

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn

        Don’t you know how much work St. John Paul II had to do until *that Wall* finally fell?

        Are you inferring that you regret it fell (for whatever reason) and you would like to restore it?

        I hope I didn’t misunderstand you.

      • Avatar carn says:

        I am inferring that it is stupid to claim

        that a wall to keep people out is morally in all relevant aspects as a wall to keep people in; and

        that the Berlin Wall was for defending territories.

        Which one of the two Pope Francis actually meant doesn’t matter much, cause i call both claims stupid.

      • Avatar Jane says:

        Christ our Savior said many ‘stupid’ things too. And that is why the leaders and the ones who knew the law and the prophets saw fit to completely rip Him to shreds and then crucify Him.

        I think if you just give it all up, stop fighting inside, just enjoy the rest of your life free-falling into the Arms of your Savior by trusting His Vicar, you will have a wonderful, carefree, joyful life and at your judgement, you can say to Jesus Our Savior, “This crazy lady and friends told me to just trust Thee and obey Thee, can I be faulted for that?” And I’m pretty sure He will say, “I desire obedience over being right. I was obedient unto death. It doesn’t hurt to be obedient unto death.”

        🙂 Thank you Carn for such deep and thoughtful and helpful comments, comments that keep me/us on our toes learning our Faith and growing in It.

        God Bless you

      • Avatar carn says:

        “Christ our Savior said many ‘stupid’ things too.”

        But not things that were untrue. I said “stupid and wrong” not just “stupid” (i left that out in comment to ONG, but more out of keeping things short; “stupid” in my above reply to ONG is to be read as “stupid and wrong/false”).

        Why is it that so many people claiming we should heed Pope Francis calls to carefully discern individual cases,

        are so often failing at basic discernment regarding texts and e.g. treating a “stupid and wrong” as if there were just written “stupid”?

        I don’t get that.

        “obedience”

        If i would not be mindful in carefully discerning – much more carefully than most folks here seem to discern (did you note that you called me a murderer? Probably not) – Pope Francis words, i might be guilty of disobedience.

        “wonderful, carefree, joyful life”

        “give it all up, stop fighting inside”

        If i would try to live a carefree live – at least as i think you might mean “carefree” in that context – and if i give up what you call “fighting inside” (though of course i am at loss how you might have any remote understanding what is going on in my inside; likely you are not, cause otherwise you would have refrained from claiming that my position is that of murderers, cause if you knew my inside, you would know that that makes it harder for me to be convinced by your words) i might not potentially be guilty of disobedience, i would be fully guilty of disobedience.

        You know what a catch 22 is?

        You calling me to be obedient to the Lord and stop “fighting inside”.

        You do not understand how that could be?

        Maybe that is because you do not understand what is going on inside me.

      • Avatar Jane says:

        I have no idea, Carn, what is going on inside of you; only God does! I’m just saying what I am saying to you because it seems from your comments that you are fighting something. I’m not completely sure what it is.

        I just explained to you what I am doing: deciding to trust that Our Holy Father came from the Holy Spirit, listen to him, not assume I know better or can fill his shoes better than him, be obedient, and enjoy trusting the Holy Spirit Who gave us this Vicar!

        It seems so so simple to me. I wish the very same for YOU! 🙂

        God Bless you, Carn, and thank you for talking with me

      • Avatar carn says:

        “It seems so so simple to me. I wish the very same for YOU!”

        Its not meant to be simple for me; which is fine, though often a bit frustrating (*).

        Different people, different callings.

        God blees you as well

        (*especially the parts, in which someone else instead of telling me in endless words the many things i supposedly do not understand and/or that i ask the wrong questions, could simply include one sentence or even one word, which constitutes an answer to said questions, and thereby save me literally hours of work, in which i usally confirm: a. that all the information i supposedly was not aware about is irrelevant to the questions and/or i was alreready aware about it and the other side failed to understand why the information is irrelevant; b. the other one was wrong to go into this “let me tell you stupid why asking these questions is wrong without ever answering them”-mode, cause if someone is the stupid, its not me;

        but not so much you folks here; you often get around to provide something, which seems to be an answer, although often i do not understand it)

      • Avatar ONG says:

        Hey carn,
        a rough example (if the arrows will show here):

        X→ab…
        a→X←b
        a←X→b
        a←→b
        aX→X←bX1
        X≠X1
        a≠b
        aX←→bX1
        …?

      • Avatar Mary Angelica says:

        The thing that got me about the walls comment by the Pope was that there is nothing at all “new” about defending territories by building walls. It was actually one of the main ways since ancient times to defend your territory. This wasn’t one of the Pope’s better moments.

        To be fair, one doesn’t have to defend statements like this to defend the Pope in general. By the same token, one doesn’t have to take them the most seriously either, if the pope has himself indicated that he has a “thinking out loud” style when it comes to these plane trip interviews. The fact that both his supporters and his detractors are hanging on to his every word like this implies that we have attributed to the Pope a priority that goes beyond even what the Church expects of its flock.

      • Avatar Marie says:

        Mary- You make a very good point, and I am probably guilty of this. The problem isn’t that he can say the wrong thing, it is that some go looking for it when clearly there is another often simpler meaning. What is so troublesome for me is not even the dissent, it is the absolute contempt for him that hurts so much. It is absolutely shocking.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “when clearly there is another often simpler meaning.”

        The simple meaning of his words about walls and a few other statements of his about politics is that he didn’t take care to think what his words mean and check whether there are any contradicting facts.

        That would be fine, if papal fans wouldn’t turn it into heretical dissent, if someone does what is reasonable to do, if the Pope says something about politics not caring and even contradicting facts – ignore it mostly and act according to what oneself discerns from the facts that the Pope anyway ignored.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “To be fair, one doesn’t have to defend statements like this to defend the Pope in general.”

        My reply was to Jane who suggested:

        “take his words as coming from Christ Himself”

        She asked why people cannot simply accept that Pope Francis words are coming from Christ himself.

        I just gave an example of some words of his, which one cannot presume to coming from Christ himself.

        You understood that point (and are also of course correct, that walls for defense are not a novel thing); Jane and potentially others do not understand, why one cannot take Pope Francis words as if coming from Christ himself.

        I would think that even Pope Francis would object to someone taking his words as if coming from Christ himself.

      • Avatar Marie says:

        Carn- We can figure out that Pope Francis was not talking about walls being built as a defence against war. He is talking about walls being built to keep people in or out as far as controlling the society they want to maintain or change. He was speaking in terms of how doing so causes unnecessary suffering, and is often done out of fear, not necessity. Why does one read each sentence of his as if he hasn’t spoken on the topic before? The Berlin Wall did nothing but tear apart families and cause unnecessary suffering, much like the proposed southern border wall. That’s the link between the two. It’s not that difficult. Why complicate it. Why don’t we talk about the materials used to build the walls and criticize him for comparing the two walls when one is built of stone, the other wire fencing, etc.? Please.

      • Avatar carn says:

        @Marie

        “He is talking about walls being built to keep people in or out as far as controlling the society they want to maintain or change.”

        As i said above, there is no alternative interpretation with which the statement is not stupid and false.

        A wall to keep people out is ethically different from a wall keeping in.

        The one who treats them as being equal is someone lacking capability in careful discernment.

        “unnecessary suffering, and is often done out of fear, not necessity”

        Since i probably should explain this:

        “ethically different” does not mean that one is good and the other is bad; just that it is useless or even misleading when discussing the ethics of a certain wall to keep people out to point out that a certain wall to keep people in was unethical.

        In other words:
        Even if Pope Francis is correct that Trump’s border wall is unethical or cruel or whatever, it would be still stupid and wrong to point towards the Berlin Wall to show that Trump’s border wall is unethical.

        Accordingly, if i need to form an opinion upon whether Trump’s wall is unethical or not, Pope Francis is no help, cause he commits stupid errors in discussing whether it is unethical.

      • Avatar Marie says:

        Tell me what the difference between ‘you are not allowed out” or “you are not allowed in”, if the people involved are separated from their families, are unable to support their families, are hungry, unsafe and in need of assistance? The wall is blocking their freedom, and the wall is stripping them of their dignity. The wall is not Christian.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “Tell me what the difference between ‘you are not allowed out” or “you are not allowed in”, if the people involved are separated from their families, are unable to support their families, are hungry, unsafe and in need of assistance?”

        You would have to establish first that every single person hindered by the wall, every single last person is

        due to the wall

        separated from their families, unable to support their families, hungry, unsafe

        AND

        in need of assistance

        before any answer could be meaningful.

        Cause i claim that no single wall exists or has ever existed on earth at any point in time, regarding which for every single person hindered by the wall the above would have been the case.

        Of course, if there were such a wall, it would be injust indifferently of whether it keeps people in or out.

        But in the real world, most border walls keep some people LEGITIMATELY out.

        That is for each and every single border wall designed to keep people out (so not the Berlin Wall), we could – if we had all information – name some people who are hindered by the wall and it is JUST that they are hindered by the wall.

        Accordingly, if we want to make a judgement about some specific border wall designed to keep people out, we would have to look at whether the wall keeps also people out which it should not keep out and compare that to the legitimate interest of keeping some other people out.

        The Berlin Wall on the other hand – at least in my opinion – did not legitimately keep a single person in. So there was no single person in the entire DDR regarding whom it was just, that he/she was or would have been hindered by the Berlin Wall.

        The border wall/fences of US – which by the way exist in some form a little bit longer than Trump is President – are as far as i am aware at least hindering some people justly, namely some criminals on both sides of the border, who would otherwise commit more cross-border criminal activites if the border were (even) less secure.

        Any opinion discussing the US border wall from catholic perspective without at least considering this legitimate aspects of the border wall/fence can in my opinion be dismissed, cause it is a failure to look at all relevant circumstances.

        The increase in crime is by the way no absurd fear; there was after eastern European countries joined the EU an increase in for example Austria and Germany due to organized crime exploiting the new open borders; that problem is still somewhat present and various solutions are still tried and applied. And the eastern European countries were in terms of crime in quite a good shape compared to what as far as i know Mexico is in. So if one reduces border security – and that includes removing fences – an increase in crime is too be expected and if one increases border security – and that might include building fences/walls – a decrease in crime might be possible.

        I prefer to judge the actions/stances/policy proposals of people based on reality and not based on some imaginary world in which absolutely every single person hindered by a border wall is “separated from their families,” “unable to support their families,” “hungry,” “unsafe” AND “in need of assistance”.

        That by the way is all a matter of considering mitigating circumstances for the politicians.

      • Avatar Marie says:

        Carn- I guess then, if I follow your reasoning, you believe in the death penalty, and you must disagree with the legal principle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, because some criminals will pass through the cracks, so it is better for an innocent person to be found guilty.

        The Pope objects to walls, not doors. There is a BIG difference. Fear should not drive policy or actions; logic, kindness and love of our neighbour should. We need not look to Muslims to look for conflict, aggression and war. We have done ‘just fine’ on our own in these atrocities, and continue to . Stop looking for a scapegoat.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @Marie
        The death penalty is approximately abolished in ⅔ of the world’s nations. (Exact numbers with some exception clauses can be provided.)

    • Avatar ONG says:

      Here’s a fresh new video to dislike. They are plotting a new wave of dissention …

      // Cardinals’ new declaration corrects rampant confusion in the Church //

      June 10, 2019

      https://youtu.be/YhwP4UjceR8

      • Avatar Marie says:

        I only watched about 30 seconds, I can’t because it’s like living in a crazy world to see how this is even possible, how some people who claim to be Catholic can actually believe they are on the side of truth here. It really is an example of being able to convince people that 2+2=5, even when they have all 4 pieces in front of them, and count them, one by one. Scary.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        I followed with it all instead… It doesn’t affect me anymore. I just wanted to see how far he/they would go. He certainly sounds like he aspires to be his own “pope”… he also mentioned the “death penalty” even criticising its abolition… Go figure!

      • Avatar Marie says:

        ONG-I don’t know how you do it, it is so upsetting, I just can’t. I feel both sadness and anger, for how dare they undermine the Vicar of Christ who, UNLIKE THEM, is offering hope and mercy for all of us. He is bringing us closer to God, showing the path to a world of peace and harmony.

  4. ToniV ToniV says:

    Yes, but the suffering the Pope’s detractors experience is joyless, whereas the Holy Father’s is Joyful because of He for whom he suffers. Knowing who he is, in his person, in his Office, and in his divinely appointed authority allows Pope Francis to view his detractors misdeeds with humor – he sees them as blindfolded children swinging at a piñata. We pray, with Papa, that the scales fall from their eyes.

  5. Avatar Chris dorf says:

    Today’s Christian tsunami:
    The public argument over which Christians are loyal to Jesus Christ & which Christians are the Judases

  6. Avatar Christopher Lake says:

    Reading the words of Pope Francis here– especially in how he is responding, regarding the people who are either implying or outright saying that he is a heretic!– I am humbled by his Christ-like responses. He shows tenderness, sadness, just a bit of humor, and genuine, heartfelt prayerfulness for these people. He responds, not with defensiveness but rather, with true concern for them. Yes, he’s not a perfect man, he’s a sinner, as are all fallen men and women, but he’s so much closer to the spirit of Christ than I am. I have so much to learn from him, and I thank God for him.

  7. Avatar Marie says:

    Is it just me who is concerned with CNA’s translation of the Pope’s interview, versus America? I for one, felt a pit in my stomach when I first read what the Pope had supposedly said. I’m not sure if I read it from CNA or Crux, but it was the Pope saying ‘Who are they…”, which implied he was saying those who signed the letter where somehow unimportant theologians. I knew at the time I read it that this must be taken out of context, for the Pope would not be so catty, but it bothered me nonetheless that it came across that way. America’s coverage showed an entirely different interview really. It’s troubling, even if there was no bad intention. I really hope we get the full translation, and a correct one.

    • Avatar Jane says:

      Hello Marie, I am beginning to avoid all newssites that make our Holy Father look bad. I am trying to just come here to WPI from now on, and avoid all else. Maybe also vatican.va? Because there they seem to just print what he has said and not anything more.

      God Bless you 🙂

      • Avatar M. says:

        There is a good site called “If I might interject” he has a lot of excellent articles about defending the pope, based on logic. I think you all would like that blog a lot. I have been reading it each day and even subscribed. It is severe temptation to start thinking ill of the pope, for me. But all it takes is the skew a few words ever so slightly, placing them in slightly different context- and suddenly what was said takes on a whole different feeling and meaning. Compare quoted interview with LS and you will be amazed at how differently the whole thing reads. I am not great fan of America magazine. CNA is owned by EWTN which ironically seems to be very anti- pope lately?

      • Avatar M. says:

        I should have said, I think it is owned by EWTN. I am not positive about that.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        M.
        I remember that title from FB (at least three years ago) when I was commenting daily there on various so-called Catholic debate groups. All of these persons have either left in disgust or got banned!
        The level of reasoning and dialogue there is rather low, and mostly of those who end up creating new groups and moderating these sites are only megalomaniac narcissists looking for power and to dictate their own rules on others.
        A real shame for unity, if you ask me, where *evil* increases and the heart of many so-called *true faithful* becomes harder and harder. Not a good and laudable example of Faith and Mercy to the separated brothers, nor to any nonbeliever or outsider who might have considered to discover what Catholic Christianity is about!

        It doesn’t surprise me anymore why there are so many anti-Catholics on social networks accusing Catholics of just being fake religious, not being Christians (and even anti-Christs) and of preaching a different Gospel.

        To “build bridges and not walls,” has deeper implications not only in all human communication, but esp. in the context of the New Evangelization outwards as truthful Christ’s witnesses.

      • Avatar M. says:

        I am not on social media, much. I have twitter account, but never look at it much. So I guess my head is in the sand. But I find social media really depresses me and steals all my joy, all my sense of purpose and drains me of energy and meaning. It has a very strong effect on me so I stay away from it. But this means that I don’t know what people are *really* talking about, and that bothers me somewhat because I don’t love not being aware. It seems like most discussion happens on thsoe sites, facebook and such?

  8. Avatar ONG says:

    NO TO SPIRITUAL WORLDLINESS

    93. Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for: “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). It is a subtle way of seeking one’s “own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It takes on many forms, depending on the kinds of persons and groups into which it seeps. Since it is based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep into the Church, “it would be infinitely more disastrous than any other worldliness which is simply moral”.[71]

    94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

    95. This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. In others, this spiritual worldliness lurks behind a fascination with social and political gain, or pride in their ability to manage practical affairs, or an obsession with programmes of self-help and self-realization. It can also translate into a concern to be seen, into a social life full of appearances, meetings, dinners and receptions. It can also lead to a business mentality, caught up with management, statistics, plans and evaluations whose principal beneficiary is not God’s people but the Church as an institution. The mark of Christ, incarnate, crucified and risen, is not present; closed and elite groups are formed, and no effort is made to go forth and seek out those who are distant or the immense multitudes who thirst for Christ. Evangelical fervour is replaced by the empty pleasure of complacency and self-indulgence.

    96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight. How often we dream up vast apostolic projects, meticulously planned, just like defeated generals! But this is to deny our history as a Church, which is glorious precisely because it is a history of sacrifice, of hopes and daily struggles, of lives spent in service and fidelity to work, tiring as it may be, for all work is “the sweat of our brow”. Instead, we waste time talking about “what needs to be done” – in Spanish we call this the sin of “habriaqueísmo” – like spiritual masters and pastoral experts who give instructions from on high. We indulge in endless fantasies and we lose contact with the real lives and difficulties of our people.

    97. Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances. Their hearts are open only to the limited horizon of their own immanence and interests, and as a consequence they neither learn from their sins nor are they genuinely open to forgiveness. This is a tremendous corruption disguised as a good. We need to avoid it by making the Church constantly go out from herself, keeping her mission focused on Jesus Christ, and her commitment to the poor. God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings! This stifling worldliness can only be healed by breathing in the pure air of the Holy Spirit who frees us from self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the Gospel! [Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013]
    _________________________________________
    [71] H. De Lubac, Méditation sur l’Église, Paris, 1968, 321.

    • Avatar carn says:

      “Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety”

      Great, since i have no appearance of piety worthy to speak of, i can accordingly not be guilty of this spiritual wordliness, cause hiding behing piety is a characteristic prescribed to all forms of this spiritual wordliness. Lacking any relevant appearance of piety means that i cannot fulfill that hiding criteria. (i can of course be still guilty of other things).

      “from without, everything appears as it should be.”

      Ok, so from the outside it is impossible to say whether someone is guilty of this spiritual wordliness or not. And also, someone accussed of this spiritual wordliness can never prove his innocence cause the visible behavior is without fault anyway.

      “In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine”

      Considering that his eminence Cardinal Sarah has a preoccupation for getting the liturgy right and also has an outward appearance of piety (at least far more than i have), is he guilty of spiritual wordliness?

      Considering that his eminence Cardinal Müller has a preoccupation for getting doctrine right and also has an outward appearance of piety (at least far more than i have), is he guilty of spiritual wordliness?

      That is the nice thing about accusations which are explicitely not tied to any definitively provable externally visible behavior, one can never know who is guilty of this and everybody can be a suspect.

      “Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances.”

      Discredit those who raise questions? Well…

      Constantly point out the mistakes of others? Well…

      No need to say anything.

      Memo to myself:

      Don’t read his words, as it does not help increasing my trust in the Vicar of Christ.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn
        //Memo to myself:

        Don’t read his words, as it does not help increasing my trust in the Vicar of Christ.//

        On the contrary. Being from 2013, and covering a multitude of challenging aspects on how to proclaim *The Joy of the Gospel* in Today’s World (and what to avoid), you should rather read the remaining 283 paragraphs, ’cause the few you read were in a subgroup of 33 others divided in 7 themes, all addressing: “Temptations faced by pastoral workers”.

        A tip of an iceberg doesn’t show the whole iceberg, does it?

        It’s in 5 chapters.
        There is also one on the Social Dimension of Evangelization.

        You’ll surely find your own faith and moral duties after you read the various parts, since it’s not only addressed to the bishops, clergy and consecrated, but also to the lay faithful as well.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “On the contrary.”

        I know myself better than you and my bet would be on not increasing trust.

        Remember the exchanges about “barriers” we had, about understanding the same text differently?

        There is also a pattern that people on the same side of a “barrier” understand same texts similarly.

        E.g. if you have two people thinking speeches/texts of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all to be good (however that might be) and both of them do not know about Alexandra Olivia-Cortez, and then one of them reads a text/hears a speech of her and thinks its great, you have a considerable likelihood that the other would also consider the same text/speech to be good. And the same with finding text/speeches bad.

        If that is accurate, i could make a good guess by how good/bad i find some text by Pope Francis by looking at texts i know, how i evaluate them, how i would describe/criticize them, look for people evaluating/criticize the texts similarly and then

        check out how these people find some text of Pope Francis; that would then be a reasonable guess how i would like it.

        And i just link whom i would consider to be my best reference to establish such guesses due to similarities in approaching texts:

        https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

        Which is the reason, why i consider the chances are bad.

        “You’ll surely find your own faith and moral duties after you read the various parts,”

        I know enough of my duties to fill my time; i just need to find the nerve to get going; so i should better try that.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn

        I won’t have the time to go through all of that in detail, but one possible thought came to mind in regard to “barriers”.

        Texts might give you a new perspective if you approach them, say, with two readings:
        1. What it formally says (form)
        2. What it is trying to say (content)

        And of course these two can be expanded in some more.

        Why don’t you try it with previous ones?

      • Avatar ONG says:

        PS: See the later comments…

        “No names” = He that has an ear, let him hear!

      • Avatar carn says:

        @ONG

        Sorry, i missed that question:

        “Why don’t you try it with previous ones?”

        Not sure what you mean exactly with “previous ones”, whether previous texts by Pope Francis or previous Popes.

        As already described elsewhere, reading JPII or BXVI is different from PF; i certainly stick with what the Church taught up to 2013, if i fail to make any sense on something of a later date.

        Reading PF earlier and later texts is no different, they are similar in their capabilities to increase my trust in Pope Francis.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn
        //Sorry, i missed that question:

        “Why don’t you try it with previous ones?”

        Not sure what you mean exactly with “previous ones”…//

        I “probably” meant the remaining 283 paragraphs mentioned on June 4, 2019 at 11:00 am.

        Still one thing is certain:

        “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State.”

        Do you know where that comes from?

      • Avatar ONG says:

        More: (Notice: JUSTICE, MERCY, DIALOGUE)

        […]
        – Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right;

        – Dialogue, understanding and the widespread promotion of a culture of tolerance, acceptance of others and of living together peacefully would contribute significantly to reducing many economic, social, political and environmental problems that weigh so heavily on a large part of humanity;

        – Dialogue among believers means coming together in the vast space of spiritual, human and shared social values and, from here, transmitting the highest moral virtues that religions aim for. It also means avoiding unproductive discussions; […]”

      • Avatar carn says:

        “Do you know where that comes from?”

        Now i know.

        You seem to think that by quoting various things by various Popes the issue i have with how Pope Francis chooses his words would be resolved. You also seem to think that by reading Pope Francis it would be resolved.

        I suggest that this will not be successful.

      • Avatar ONG says:

        @carn

        //You seem to think that by quoting various things by various Popes the issue i have with how Pope Francis chooses his words would be resolved. You also seem to think that by reading Pope Francis it would be resolved.

        I suggest that this will not be successful.//

        I don’t seem to think… I’m stating concepts which, by whose authority they are given, should be the same things you should adhere to as a Catholic.

        Since this website relates to The Church as where the successor of St. Peter is, its task is to clarify RATIONALLY what Pope Francis does, says, writes etc. in light of the Catholic faith.

        Rationality consists in REASONING, as to intellectually explicate (thereof: put in words) that which pertains to the FAITH, and hence ILLUSTRATE it by practical examples.

        Since by your continuous writing you SEEM TO show a GAP between the former and the latter, it’s inevitable to conclude that your comprehension of the Faith might not the same as what the Church intends with it.

        The CCC explains it very well, yet, so far, you have never quoted from it.

        So wherefrom do you get *your* authority to assert the things you assert AGAINST the Holy Father when you cannot even articulate them with words?
        Only by following those who speaks CONTRARY to Pope Francis? How can you EVER find out that they are WRONG in doing that, and, as the title of this article suggests, they need PRAYERS too?

        Therefore again: Build a bridge between Faith and Reason, and there won’t be any contradiction anymore!

        What does 1 Peter 3:15b states???

      • Avatar ONG says:

        Comment of June 13, 2019 at 6:24 am

        “might not the same” should have been:
        “might not be the same”.