Pope Francis is currently at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital receiving treatment for double pneumonia. Rumors about his health and the exercise of his ministry are on the rise. How is the Roman Curia experiencing this moment? How does the Vatican see the Church in the United States? How should we interpret the letter that Francis himself recently sent to the American bishops? What can these moments teach us about the meaning of “being Pope”?

To help answer these questions, Where Peter Is interviewed Rodrigo Guerra, a Doctor of Philosophy by the International Academy of the Principality of Liechtenstein; a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences; an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy for Life; the founder of the Center for Advanced Social Research (CISAV-Mexico); and Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America at the Holy See.

---

What is it like working in the Vatican during the pope’s illness and hospitalization?

RG: We are all paying very close attention to the developments in the Holy Father’s health, but we continue to do our usual work in each of the Dicasteries. In the evenings, nearly all of us who collaborate in the service of the pope gather in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Rosary, which is led by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Cardinal Tagle, and others. These moments are a beautiful opportunity to express our love and fidelity to the Successor of Peter. The expression of the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel immediately comes to mind: “To love is to say: you shall not die!” The gift of life is a mystery of gratuitousness. We are always to be grateful for this gift and to pray that the Pope will continue to give us the gift of his presence, his word, and his providential ministry, which corrects and educates us so much.

What do you think of those who have indicated that they would like to see a change in the head of the governance of the Church sooner rather than later?

RG: Vultures, when they fly in circles, announce death or death wishes. The gospel of life does not go in that direction. Vultures, sometimes disguised as doves, publicly exhibit a perverse contradiction.

How limited will Pope Francis be in his ability to lead the Church following such a major illness?

RG: Limitations are a constitutive dimension of the human condition. Nevertheless, God gives special graces to the Successor of Peter to exercise his ministry in a constant way. The Pope, even in the hospital, continues to work in the governance of the Church and remains attentive to the world scene. His recent statements on the martyred Ukrainian people or on the challenge faced by the bishops in the United States are examples of this.

How do you, from your perspective in the Pontifical Commission for Latin America (CAL), view Catholicism of Latin American origin in the United States?

RG: The United States is a very complicated country. It has a population of approximately 335 million inhabitants, of whom nearly 70 million are Catholic. 45 percent of Catholics in the United States are of Hispanic origin. Moreover, 60 percent of Catholics under the age of 18 are Hispanic. This means that the demographic transformation of the Catholic Church in the United States is significant. Latin Americans are conspicuously prominent in the pastoral life of the US Church, and they bring with them hope, joy, and elements of the community spirit of the Church in Latin America.

Why do you think this demographic change is not reflected in the composition of the episcopate and pastoral leadership in the United States?

RG: My impression is that we are at an understandable moment: the structures of governance and pastoral organization in the United States are still mostly led by Anglo Catholics. However, it is foreseeable that little by little, Hispanic leadership will become more relevant in the structures of ecclesial government. Synodality invites us, among other things, to make decisions to open spaces, break down walls, and overcome any barriers that prevent groups as significant as the Hispanic community from playing a decisive role in the present and future of the Church in the United States.

Does the Pontifical Commission for Latin America also keep an eye on the United States, even if it is not — officially speaking — under its scope of responsibility?

RG: Pope Francis has encouraged the CAL to accompany and encourage Catholic communities of Latin American origin in the United States and to foster North-South dialogue and collaboration. In the context of our ongoing global political and social reconfiguration, this will be increasingly relevant.

How should we understand and interpret Pope Francis’s recent letter to the American bishops in the context of the deportations announced by the new administration?

RG: My opinion is that Pope Francis wished, first of all, to manifest his fatherhood over the bishops and the Catholic Church through this important letter. The pope is the Universal Pastor, the principal sign of ecclesial unity, and the guarantor of the correct interpretation of the Gospel. Secondly, the Pope’s letter will go down in history as a courageous proclamation of an often “forgotten” aspect of the truth of the human being revealed in Jesus Christ: we all have equal dignity and we are all called to live together as brothers and sisters. Any response to a social challenge that needs to be faced cannot ignore this fact, which is the fundamental legitimizing factor of any rule of law and of every authentically solidarian and democratic society.

Many have discussed how Pope Francis speaks in his letter on the true “ordo amoris” that we must promote when dealing with the current challenge of migration. Some critics have sought to discredit him by contrasting his words with those of St. Augustine or St. Bernard. What do you think of these criticisms?

RG: I am very grateful for this question. First of all, it is necessary to say that the notion of ordo amoris is analogous, not univocal. One can speak of the ordo amoris on various planes and levels. It immediately brought the wonderful book Metaphysics of Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand to mind, in which there are valuable reflections on this topic. Secondly, when speaking of the ordo amoris, it is necessary that we avoid opposing the Magisterium of the Holy Father, isolating phrases or quotations from a comprehensive understanding of how the doctrine of love was taught by St. Augustine or St. Bernard. Both saints, intellectual references in the Church, made valuable contributions to a “personalistic” understanding of love. Love unfolds in many ways. However, in its most eminent and archetypal aspects, love consists in doing good to the other for the sake of the other. In other words, the foundational ordo amoris is the benevolent love that God dispenses to all of us and which we are all called to live as the supreme norm of life. From this point of view, Pope Francis could not have been more clear, forceful, and pedagogical: in the parable of the “Good Samaritan” we can find an incredibly transformative way to understand a little of the heart of Jesus Christ in dying on the cross for the salvation of all. It is by loving in extremis — not in an individualistic but in a communitarian perspective — that makes it possible to rethink our response to today’s immense challenges on the issue of immigration.

Is it not true that when it comes to love, we must first begin with those closest to us and then care for those farthest away, as the Vice President of the United States has said?

RG: In his letter to the US bishops, Pope Francis dispels and discards a formalistic interpretation of “love of neighbor” that easily leads to a type of expansive individualism. In fact, in the letter, the Pope affirms in a very concise way, something that he has explained many times in other places, faithfully in continuity with the Gospel, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and earlier papal Magisterium: we must love our neighbor!

But who is our “neighbor”? This question is fundamental.

Vice President Vance attempted to answer it through a model of concentric circles that is incomplete, to say the least. The question about the essence of the notion of “neighbor” was posed to Jesus Christ by a Teacher of the Law, as we can see in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10. Christ’s answer was precisely the parable of the Good Samaritan. In his exegesis of the Good Samaritan in the extraordinary Chapter II of Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis explains at length the supreme criterion at the root of any legitimate understanding of the ordo amoris.

Would St. John Paul II agree with this?

RG: In my opinion, St. John Paul II would agree completely with Pope Francis. In fact, in his 1982 Lenten message, he deals directly with this very question. Moreover, as a philosopher, Karol Wojtyla, in a way, addressed the same issue by formulating the universal validity of the personalist norm of action: “Persona est affirmanda propter seipsam!” — one must love the person for his own sake and never use him as a mere means! This moral principle admits no exceptions and is at the basis of the current pontifical critique of the “throwaway culture.”

How should we apply this principle to the situation of the millions of undocumented migrants in the United States?

RG: In any state governed by the rule of law, a person must always have legal protection, even if he or she entered the country irregularly. This is very important. The positive norm is not the foundation of human dignity. On the contrary, dignity is the foundation of human rights. And human rights are prior, in nature, to the laws of the State. Every human being, in whatever circumstances he may find himself, is a person, and therefore the subject of inalienable rights. Laws must recognize this as a principle in order to be considered just. This is why migration specialists usually recognize that there are no “illegal persons.” Every person is “legal” — that is, a legally protected good by the mere fact of “being a person.” The irregular legal situation of a migrant who has entered a country surreptitiously must be regulated in accordance with the law. If an irregular migrant commits a crime, he or she must be afforded “due process.” If an irregular migrant does not commit a crime, he or she should be treated with respect and with understanding of this person’s particularly vulnerable condition. The Social Doctrine of the Church, moreover, has always of course pointed out that it is necessary to address the structural causes that are at the origin of the need to migrate or to search for refuge. This implies the necessity to promote integral human development in the countries from which migrants are departing — both on their part and on the part of the international community.

Some critics of Pope Francis have argued that he went too far in claiming that Jesus Christ was a migrant similar to today’s migrants. Is this correct?

RG: Pope Francis, with great acuity, quoted Pius XII, who maintained in his Apostolic Constitution on these themes that the family of Nazareth is the model, example, and consolation of the migrants and refugees of every age. I was pleased that, at the bottom of the page, the Holy Father also placed the original Latin quotation of Pope Pacelli, so that its meaning and content would be very clear. This doctrine has been constantly ratified by the Church’s Magisterium ever since.

Those in the traditionalist sectors of the Church constantly remind us that the Pope is not infallible in his social teaching or in his disciplinary and governance decisions. They argue that there is a legitimate right to dissent in these areas. How should a Catholic welcome the teachings that Pope Francis promulgates in documents such as the letter addressed to the US bishops?

RG: The topic of obedience to the Magisterium would require an extensive explanation, which we cannot give in the scope of this interview. Briefly, however, I will note three things. First, the letter Pope Francis sent to the bishops of the United States is true ordinary Magisterium. Second, canon 752 is fully in force. This canon teaches: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

What was your third point?

RG: There are, in fact, some ecclesial sectors that consider themselves “more faithful to Tradition.” The true Tradition in the Church is the apostolic Tradition, and not what this or that “traditionalist” sensibility defines as such. Any form of “traditionalism” that does not take this into account quickly reaches dead ends, denying, for example, the authority of the Second Vatican Council or of the post-conciliar popes.

In other words, the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church is decisive for an adequate interpretation of the authentic apostolic Tradition. Without it, the constitution of a kind of “new Protestantism” — conservative, pseudo-traditionalist, alien to the true Church — is encouraged. This is why, on occasion, it seems to me pertinent and pedagogical to remind those who adhere to these notions of a brief text of an author particularly cited by them:

“When one loves the Pope, one does not argue about what He disposes or demands, or how far obedience should go, and in what things one should obey; when one loves the Pope, one does not say that He has not spoken clearly enough, as if He were obliged to repeat in everyone’s ear that will clearly expressed so many times not only by voice, but by letters and other public documents; one does not question His orders, giving the easy pretext of those who do not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands, but those around Him; one does not limit the field in which He can and should exercise His authority; one does not put before the authority of the Pope that of other persons however learned who dissent from the Pope.” (Address of the Holy Father St. Pius X to the priests of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912).

That text is very incisive.

RG: It is. It is very easy to be faithful to the pope when I think he agrees with my ideas, with my prejudices, and with my subjective way of understanding the faith. However, the Successor of Peter is a guardian of the objectivity of the faith. He educates and corrects us. The Pope — whoever he may be — is the providential help that God gives to lead the Church at every moment of history. Just as we are grateful for the gift of St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, today we are called to embrace the person and teaching of Pope Francis, who has had the enormous merit of inviting us all to a deeper reception of the Gospel and the Second Vatican Council.

Would you describe Francis as a “providential” Pope? What do you think the future holds?

RG: Pope Francis is, without a doubt, a “providential” Successor of Peter. Providence — says St. Thomas Aquinas — is the “prudentia Dei,” the prudence of God. And God’s prudence always has surprises in store for us.

---

Image: Pope Francis and Rodrigo Guerra.