ZENIT in Roswell, Georgia, United States for Tuesday, 21 June 2016 "Pope Francis: ‘Death Penalty Is Unacceptable’..."
Pope Francis has reaffirmed that the death penalty is unjustifiable today.
In a video-message transmitted tonight to the participants of the VI World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Oslo, Norway, underway through June 23, the Pontiff stressed, “Nowadays, the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person.”
The Congress opens today and was organized by the French NGO Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, which includes about 140 organizations from around the world.
“It is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person,”the Pope continued, pointing out, “It likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice. Nor is it consonant with any just purpose of punishment.”
Noting this sentence does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance, Francis reminded those watching, “The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.”
The Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, the Pope told them, is a proper occasion for the world to better respect the life and dignity of each person.
“It must not be forgotten that the inviolable and God-given right to life also belongs to the criminal,” he said.
The Pope also encouraged all to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, but also for the improvement of prison conditions, so that they fully respect the human dignity of those incarcerated.
“‘Rendering justice,’” he highlighted, “does not mean seeking punishment for its own sake, but ensuring that the basic purpose of all punishment is the rehabilitation of the offender. The question must be dealt with within the larger framework of a system of penal justice open to the possibility of the guilty party’s reinsertion in society.”
Before concluding, assuring the participants of his prayers, Pope Francis said, “There is no fitting punishment without hope! Punishment for its own sake, without room for hope, is a form of torture, not of punishment.”
“I trust that this Congress can give new impulse to the effort to abolish capital punishment.”
***
On ZENIT’s Webpage:
For full text: http://zenit.org/articles/popes-video-message-for-world-congress-against-death-penalty-in-oslo
Distribution of Communion Through the Ages by Fr. Edward McNamara
Q: Your mention in one of your columns [October 20, 2015] that “Until relatively recent times Communion was generally not distributed to the faithful during the celebration of Mass itself” caught my eye and made me realize how little I know of the history of the Church’s discipline in regard to Communion. Perhaps it would be too complex to address here, but could you give your readers a brief outline of this history? – K.T., Houston, Texas
A: I think that to answer this question we need to distinguish the doctrinal principles from the historical practice, as both have influenced how the rites have developed. We will also limit ourselves to the basic rite itself, leaving for some other time the history of reception under both kinds and the posture of the faithful.
Doctrinally, the Church has always considered the reception of Communion as the logical and necessary conclusion of the sacrificial celebration. Logical, because any sacrifice that has the offering of food as its object implies the idea of consumption. Necessary, because this was the express will of Christ who invites to take and eat. Therefore, in ancient times, any member of the faithful whose personal offering of bread and wine was received by the priest would naturally become a communicant. Even if no member of the faithful received Communion, ecclesial liturgical discipline has always demanded that at least the priest’s Communion was necessary so as to complete and perfect the sacrifice. This was declared, for example, by the Twelfth Council of Toledo in 681 in a text later cited by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica:
“I answer that, As stated above (79, 5,7), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): ‘What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?’ But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:18): ‘Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?’ Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity. (III, q82 art. 4 resp.)”
The principles regarding reception of Communion were later summed up in a solemn way by the Council of Trent in its XIII session in October 1551:
“Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.”
With respect to practice, however, things developed in a different way. Practically all early documents attest to the practice of Communion during Mass. St. Justin (100-165) mentions that the deacons even brought Communion to those absent after the celebration was over. However, over time the discipline slackened and less and less faithful received Communion. This happened with surprising rapidity as even St. John Chrysostom (349-407) complained, “In vain we stand before the altar, there is no one to partake.” The Church had to recall the importance of receiving Communion even to clerics. From the fourth century on we find decrees making it obligatory for clerics who attend a solemn Mass to receive Communion. The situation reached such a point that in 1123 the First Lateran Council found it necessary to prescribe confession and Communion at least once a year for all Catholics as an absolute minimum. This law remains in force today although actual practice varies widely.
The reasons for the faithful’s refraining from receiving Communion are complex, and some reasons are specific to certain epochs. One example is the reaction to Arianism in the earlier period which gave rise to a highly exalted vision of the Eucharist as the “awesome table of the Lord,” which one feared to approach. Later during the medieval period a more restricted practice of penance before Communion, detailed rules regarding extended fasting, and recommendations regarding abstention from marital acts before Communion produced an overall cumulative falling away from reception even though Mass attendance remained constant and religious fervor remarkably high. Even the increase in Eucharistic adoration in the 12th century led some to consider that gazing upon the host could in some way replace the sacramental reception.
This led to development in the rite of Communion although the possibility of distributing Communion at this moment always remained part of the rite, and it continued to be used whenever there were relatively few communicants. Earlier forms of the Roman rite had a very brief invitation to the faithful to approach Communion after the priest had received. However, this formula disappeared although a bell was rung as a sign of invitation. In the 12th century in some places a kind of introduction returned, inspired by the rite of Communion for the sick, as it became a practice to say a second Confiteor if anyone beside the priest was to receive Communion. And in the 15th century the practice of showing the host to the people with the formula “Behold the Lamb of God …” and the “Lord I am not worthy …” was introduced within the Mass. Officially these formulas were initially accepted in the Ritual of Paul V in 1614 as part of reception of Communion outside of Mass.
In practice, however, since during several centuries the mass of the people would receive their yearly Communion around Easter, this led to many logistical difficulties for distributing it during Mass. This lead in many places to a dissociation between the moment of Communion and Mass. In some places there would be priests distributing the Easter Communion from a side altar throughout Mass as well as before and after Mass. This practice was sometimes extended to other major feasts.
Gradually, however, there was a return to more frequent Communion, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, spurred on by several spiritual associations, the increase in the devotion to the Sacred Heart, and the encouragement of the popes. This led naturally to a return to better liturgical practice and the habitual distribution of Communion within the context of Mass, although in some places other practices continued as customs.
Thus the great liturgist J.A. Jungmann, in his major work on the history of the Roman Mass, wrote before the present liturgical reform:
“As we have already seen, the Communion of the celebrating priest is generally followed by the Communion of the rest of the congregation. This is in accord both with the original plan of the Roman Mass. This pattern, which in our own day has again come to be taken for granted more and more, was subjected during the course of centuries, to several fluctuations and violent upheavals. These fluctuations and upheavals have had their effect upon the liturgical design of the people’s Communion. They also led to the result that in the explanation of the Mass, even down to the present, the Communion of the people was sometimes treated as a foreign element that did not belong to the structure of the Mass-liturgy and could therefore be disregarded.”
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word “Liturgy” in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.
Cardinal Collins’ Response to Legalization of Euthanasia in Canada by ZENIT Staff
Cardinal Thomas Collins, archbishop of Toronto, issued a statement regarding the government’s passage of Bill C-14, which legalized euthanasia/assisted suicide on Friday, June 17.
Watch video version
Here is the text of his statement:
__
Euthanasia comes to Canada
“There are two ways, the way to life and the way to death, and there is a great difference between them.” These wise words from an ancient Christian writer come to mind as we mark Parliament’s enactment of the law implementing the Supreme Court’s decision on euthanasia and assisted suicide, which is a fundamentally misguided decision.
Though I do not question the good intentions of either judges or legislators, their decisions have set our country down a path that leads not simply, and obviously, towards physical death for an increasing number of our fellow citizens, but towards a grim experience for everyone in our society of the coldness of spiritual death. That death is found in a loss of respect for the dignity of the human person, in a deadening pressure upon the vulnerable to be gone, and in an assault upon the sanctuary of conscience to be suffered by good individuals and institutions who seek only to heal.
To those who are grievously suffering in body or spirit and who desperately seek relief: we need to be sure that you receive it, through whatever medical means are available, and through the loving care that you deserve. The question is not whether you need relief; it is how to find it. Suicide is not the answer to the very real question you face.
Some may be consoled by the fact that the law could be worse: there are some “safeguards” protecting the vulnerable, and there is some conscience protection. Any thankfulness for these positive elements must, however, be set against the fact that in other places where euthanasia has been introduced, it has always been cloaked with “safeguards” that lull the citizens into complacency. Over the years those “safeguards” gradually weaken and finally drop away, and then the full hard cold force of euthanasia is felt. Here is a chilling fact: despite the confidence of the Supreme Court justices that Canada is different from those jurisdictions, in only slightly more than a year since their decision, the “safeguards” are already under vigorous attack.
The deepest roots of this malign development in the history of our country are spiritual, and so in the weeks to come I will be suggesting ways to address them through prayer and penance.
Our broader society also needs to engage in the necessary but lengthy process of reflection upon the dire implications for every aspect of our life together when we lose the fundamental ability to distinguish between dying and being killed. We all need to recognize the profound moral significance of that distinction.
We also need to recognize the destructive consequences of reducing the dignity of the human person to a matter of autonomy, when actually it is our loving inter-dependence, not our independence, which sustains our dignity. In addition, we must not reduce worthiness to live to a matter of the ability to function according to some personally acceptable standard of performance. We must address these and the other shaky foundations for the judicial and legislative actions which are taking us down a path to nowhere. That will take time, and a persistent effort to raise and resolve these deeper issues, with clarity and charity. Life, however, is a marathon, not a sprint; our enterprise is begun and, founded upon both reason and faith, it will succeed, in due time.
Meanwhile, we need to take immediate steps.
First, we need to make available for all Canadians (not just 30% of us) real medical assistance in dying: palliative care, where people who are dying are surrounded with love, and where any pain they experience is countered with the most advanced medical care available.
Second, we need to speak forthrightly. When people feel compelled to use language in a way that does not reveal what is actually happening, but instead conceals it, it is a sign that something is radically wrong (and they know it). The now officially accepted terminology, such as “Medical Assistance in Dying” does not describe medical assistance in dying; it describes killing. Let us say what we mean, and mean what we say.
Finally, we need to assure that those individuals who have dedicated their lives to healing will not be pressured into either directly causing the death of their patients, or into arranging for this to happen. Similarly, we must assure that those health care institutions which are havens of hope, in a tradition whose noble roots long predate Confederation, will in no way be forced to violate their conscience (known as their “mission”).
“Lord, teach us the shortness of life, that we may gain wisdom of heart.”
– Psalm 90:12
Thomas Cardinal Collins
Archbishop of Toronto
June 20, 2016
Readers are encouraged to visit CanadiansforConscience.ca and join the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience. The coalition represents more than 110 healthcare facilities (with almost 18,000 care beds and 60,000 staff) and more than 5,000 physicians across Canada. The website will provide information on how you can express your concerns regarding conscience rights respectfully to our elected representatives and/or organizations overseeing health care across the country.
US Bishops Recall That Refugees Aren’t All Syrians by ZENIT Staff
In remarks in advance of World Refugee Day, celebrated Monday, Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary bishop of Seattle, and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration, called upon Catholics to remember that there are many different types of refugees in the world.
Much of the world’s attention in recent years has been drawn to the Syrian refugee crisis and its widespread impact on the Middle East, Europe, and the United States, but Bishop Elizondo pointed out that the increase in migration from Central America of unaccompanied migrant children and families, many of whom would likely qualify as refugees, has been an ongoing concern for the Catholic Church and political leaders here in the United States for years. And these are not the only populations of concern.
“While these are both critical situations, it is crucial that we not forget the millions of other refugees and displaced persons all around the world who have been forced from their homes and been placed in precarious situations,” Bishop Elizondo said.
To further tell the refugee story, USCCB social media has been running a “Refugee Faces” feature on Facebook for the month of June at facebook.com/usccb.
Pope’s Video-Message for World Congress Against Death Penalty in Oslo by ZENIT Staff
Below is the Vatican-provided English transcription of Pope Francis’ words in his video-message, given tonight, for the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Oslo, Norway. The Congress, June 21-23, was organized by the NGO “Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort” and the “World Coalition Against the Death Penalty,” which includes about 140 organizations from around the world.
***
I greet the organizers of this World Congress against the death penalty, the group of countries supporting it, particularly Norway as its host country, and all those representatives of governments, international organizations and civil society taking part in it. I likewise express my personal appreciation, along with that of men and women of goodwill, for your commitment to a world free of the death penalty.
One sign of hope is that public opinion is manifesting a growing opposition to the death penalty, even as a means of legitimate social defense. Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person; it likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice. Nor is it consonant with any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance. The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.
The Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy is an auspicious occasion for promoting worldwide ever more evolved forms of respect for the life and dignity of each person. It must not be forgotten that the inviolable and God-given right to life also belongs to the criminal.
Today I would encourage all to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, but also for the improvement of prison conditions, so that they fully respect the human dignity of those incarcerated. “Rendering justice” does not mean seeking punishment for its own sake, but ensuring that the basic purpose of all punishment is the rehabilitation of the offender. The question must be dealt with within the larger framework of a system of penal justice open to the possibility of the guilty party’s reinsertion in society. There is no fitting punishment without hope! Punishment for its own sake, without room for hope, is a form of torture, not of punishment.
I trust that this Congress can give new impulse to the effort to abolish capital punishment. For this reason, I encourage all taking part to carry on this great initiative and I assure them of my prayers.[Original text: Spanish] [Vatican Provided translation]
Armenia and Its Rich and Troubled Past; Pope Francis’ Next Stop by ZENIT Staff
By Marco Valerio Solia
In the rich and afflicted Armenian history, periods of splendor and tragic events have alternated cyclically. Situated between two Continents, in a strategic area of the Eurasian mass, Armenia can boast a people of millennial identity, whose past intersects and interacts with the principal cultures of the East and the West.
Despite the great number of events that unites Armenia to Europe (suffice it to think that it was the first country in history to decree Christianity as the State religion), to understand the attraction that this region exercised on Europeans, we must turn our eyes in another direction, towards an element at first sight minor but of highly symbolic value.
In fact, during the Middle Ages, in the courts of kings the skin of a small animal was much appreciated, used for the mantles of monarchs and judges: this minute creature was the ermine, whose name derives from the Latin diminutive “armeninus,” which means, in fact, coming from Armenia. The prestige that surrounded this animal stemmed from its white hair and, especially, from the widespread belief that it preferred to end up as food for its predators rather than seek refuge in damp and dirty burrows that would have compromised its lustre. Hence, this creature became a symbol of dignity and purity, especially preferred to make up the mantles of the highest authorities of European kingdoms.
Such dignity and pride in dramatic moments call to mind the innumerable losses that dot the long Armenian history. In more recent times, the memory runs back to the genocide perpetrated by the Turks during World War I, in which about one and a half million Armenians were exterminated, including women and children. From that moment, every hope of shared memory was vain: still today the Authorities of Ankara deny the genocide and “excommunicate” any country that denounces openly those tragic events.
A strong position was taken in this direction by the Bundestag (the German Parliament) last June 2, when the Lower Chamber recognized the genocide perpetrated by the Ottomans to the harm of the Armenian people, unleashing as a total answer the recalling of the Turkish Ambassador in sign of protest. The Bundestag’s vote seemed courageous if one considers the close relations between Turkey and Germany, especially in the light of the migratory crisis of the last years and the agreements on this subject between Ankara and the European Union. Moreover, the German vote was anticipated in the preceding weeks by Pope Francis’ statements on the “first genocide of the 20th century” that, also in this case, spurred the Turkish government to recall its Ambassador to the Holy See.
However, the difficult relations with Turkey do not represent the only knot to undo for the Erevan government, which finds itself having to address numerous snares, the legacy of a bloody past and of a difficult geographic position.
In this context, the relation with Azerbaijan awakens great concern, especially in regard to the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, which since the collapse of the Soviet Union is opposed to the Azerbaijani expansionist sights. After a war against Azerbaijan, which ended formally in May of 1994, the tensions between Baku and Erevan have never ceased altogether (proof of it is the new violence that occurred in past months, which caused hundreds of deaths by the parties in dispute, lighting again the spotlights on this forgotten region), accomplice also of the delicate situation of the area, where Armenia is supported by Russia and Azerbaijan by Turkey and the United States.
Inserted in this context is the realization of the gas pipeline that will connect the Azerbaijani gas fields with Europe, passing through Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Albania and arriving finally in Puglia. The three sections of the gas pipeline – the South Caucasus Pipeline, the Trans-Anatolic Pipeline and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline were projected to diminish European dependence on Russian gas, putting on the markets the gas of Azerbaijani fields in the Caspian Sea. It goes without saying that these imposing infrastructures will in fact avoid Armenia, allied to Moscow and enemy of the Baku government, ousting her from this project.
Moreover, the recent history invites not to be deceived about the stability of the other neighboring countries: it’s difficult to count the number of the crises verified in the last years; suffice it to think of the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008, of the two Russian wars against rebel Chechnya (1994-1996 the first and 1999-2009 the second), of the Jihadist penetration in Russian Daghestan, not to speak of the dramatic reality of the “Siraq” and, although more distant, of Ukraine: all criticality that increases the chronic instability of the Caucasus powder keg.
Inserted in this difficult picture is Pope Francis’ visit to Armenia, from June 24-26. The Pontiff will find himself grappling with one of the most significant visits of the year, especially in the light of the relation with the Oriental Churches and the tormented Middle East. The hope is that the bases can be laid for an improvement between the countries of the area and the whole of the East.
Pope Receives Former President of Israel by ZENIT Staff
Pope Francis received in audience the former president of Israel, Shimon Peres, yesterday in the Vatican.
The last meeting between the Pope and Peres was Sept. 4, 2014 in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace. During that private audience, Peres presented the Pope with his proposal of a “UN of religions” and informed him of his commitment to peace.
This visit had followed the participation of Peres at the historic invocation for peace desired by the Pope in the Vatican Gardens, June 8, 2014, after his trip to the Holy Land. The president of Israel participated along with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.
FORUM: British Ambassador to Holy See on ‘Disruptive Dialogue’ by Nigel Baker
Below is a reflection of British Ambassador to the Holy See Nigel Baker on ecumenical dialogue, particularly as the Anglican Centre in Rome marked its 50th Anniversary. This reflection, entitled ‘Disruptive Dialogue,’ is from Ambassador Baker’s blog available on the British Embassy to the Holy See Website:
***
An important event I attended this week was a service at Westminster Abbey to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Anglican Centre in Rome. The Dean was joined by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a range of ecumenical guests from Rome and the Catholic Church, from Orthodox and Methodist churches, and including the Pope’s Secretary for Christian Unity, Bishop Brian Farrell.
We are used to such ecumenical occasions. But we should never take them for granted. In a thoughtful speech later that evening at Lambeth Palace, Bishop Farrell – who is of Irish origin – reminded the gathering of just how “new” good relations between Christian churches are. As an 8 year old boy, a few years before the second Vatican Council and the establishment of the Anglican Centre in Rome, he recalled being roundly told off for allowing a friend, who happened to be Protestant, to come in to see his parish Church. I can remember casual anti-Catholic prejudice from my own childhood (I am Anglican). And we still live with sectarian hostility even today in parts of the British isles.
Which is why it is so important not to become complacent. The focus of much attention at state and faith level now is on relations between different religions – Islam, Judaism, Christianity. This is right, reflecting the vital importance for our increasingly multinational and multiethnic societies of understanding across religious boundaries. But given the challenge of Christian unity still remains after 50 years of dialogue, we should approach the inter-religious task with some humility. Bishop Farrell said that dialogue should not be comfortable, but also provocative and disruptive. I think he’s correct. Otherwise, it risks being superficial. Cosy, but achieving little. In the Archbishop of Canterbury’s phrase, it needs at all times to retain “the prophetic edge”.
So if the Anglican Centre in Rome provides a little of the grit in the oyster, that’s all to the good. It’s a useful lesson for all of us involved in dialogue with those of different views, including at the diplomatic level. We can celebrate 50 years. But we must keep talking. Let’s not pretend that discrimination, misunderstanding and prejudice have gone away. In all walks of life, we still need the “disruption” and “prophetic edge” that honest, respectful and robust dialogue provides.
***
On the NET:
Link to the original piece on Ambassador Baker’s Blog: http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/nigelbaker/2016/06/16/disruptive-dialogue/
Q-&-A as Pope Opened Ecclesial Conference for Diocese of Rome by ZENIT Staff
Below is a ZENIT translation of the question and answer session that took place after Pope Francis opened the Ecclesial Conference for the Diocese of Rome on Saturday:
***
Cardinal Vallini: Now, the Holy Father will listen to three questions that arose in the preparatory stage of our Congress. The first is that of Father Giampiero Palmieri, parish priest of San Frumenzio.
Father Giampiero Palmieri: Good evening, Your Holiness. In the Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, you say that today’s great problem is comfortable and greedy individualism and, in Amoris Laetitia you say that it is necessary to create and keep family bonds. You use an expression that in Italian also sounds somewhat bad: “the larger family,” extended family, networks of relations among families, not only in the Church, but also in society, where the littlest, the poorest, women who are alone, and the elderly can be welcomed. A revolution of tenderness, a mystical fraternity is necessary. You see, we also feel the ‘virus’ of individualism in our communities; we are also children of this time. So, we are in need of help to create this network of relations among families, capable of breaking those that are closed and of meeting one another again. Perhaps, this means changing many things in our parishes, many things that perhaps with time are settled: hostility, divisions, old resentments – this is the question.
Pope Francis: It’s true that individualism is like the axis of this culture. And this individualism has so many names, so many names of an egoistic root: they always seek themselves, do not look at the other, do not look at other families. Sometimes, one even arrives at pastoral cruelty. For instance, I speak of an experience that I had when I was in Buenos Aires: in a neighboring diocese, some parish priests didn’t want to baptize the children of unwed mothers. But look! As if they were animals, and this is individualism. “No, we are the perfect, this is the way …” It’s an individualism that also seeks pleasure, it’s hedonist. I was about to say a rather strong word, but I’ll say it between quotation marks: that “accursed wellbeing” that has done us so much evil: wellbeing. Today, Italy has a terrible drop in the birth rate — I believe under zero. But this began with that culture of wellbeing some decades ago … I have known so many families that preferred — but please, don’t accuse me, animal activists, because I don’t wish to offend anyone — that preferred to have two or three cats, a dog, instead of a child. Because to produce a son isn’t easy, and then to lead him forward … But what most becomes a challenge with a child is that you form a person who will become free. The dog, the cat, will give you affection, but a “programmed” affection, up to a certain point, not free. You have one, two, three, four children and they will be free, and they will have to go on in life with life’s risks. This is the challenge that causes fear: freedom. And we turn to individualism: I think we are afraid of freedom, also in pastoral care: “But what will be said if I do this … And can it be done? …” And one is afraid. “But you are afraid: take the risk! The moment you are there, and must decide, risk! If you make a mistake, there is the confessor, the Bishop, but take the risk!” It’s like that Pharisee: the pastoral of clean hands, everything clean, everything in its place, everything good. But outside of this environment, how much misery, how much pain, how much poverty, what a lack of opportunity for development there is! It is a hedonistic individualism; it is a hedonism that is afraid of freedom. It’s an individualism — I don’t know if Italian grammar allows it — I would say “caged”: it cages you, it doesn’t let you fly free. And then, yes, the extended family — it’s true, it’s a word that doesn’t always sound right, but according to the cultures. I wrote the Exhortation in Spanish … For instance, I’ve known families … In fact the other day, one or two weeks ago, the Ambassador of a country came to present his credentials. There was the Ambassador, the family and the lady who did the cleaning of their home for many years: this is an extended family, and this woman was of the family: a woman alone, and not only did they pay her well, paid her regularly, but when they had to come to the Pope to hand the credentials <they said to her>: “you come with us, because you are of the family.” It’s an example. This is to give a place to people. And among simple people, with the simplicity of the Gospel — that good simplicity –, there are such examples, of extending the family …
And then, the other key word that you said, in addition to individualism, fear of freedom and attachment to pleasure, you said another word: tenderness. Tenderness is God’s caress. Once, this was said in a Synod: “We must make the revolution of tenderness.” And some Fathers — years ago — said: “But this can’t be said, it doesn’t sound right.” But today we can say it: tenderness is lacking, tenderness is lacking. Caress not only the children, the sick, caress everyone, sinners … And there are good examples of tenderness … Tenderness is a language that is good for the littlest, for those that have nothing: a child knows its father and mother by their caresses, then their voice, but it’s always tenderness. And I like to hear when a father or mother speaks to a child that is beginning to talk, and the father and mother also makes themselves children [do the reverse] speak like that … We’ve all seen it, it’s true. It’s the way that Jesus followed. Jesus did not count His equality with God but emptied Himself (cf. Philippians 2:6-7). And He spoke our language; He spoke with our gestures, and the way of Jesus is the way of tenderness. See: hedonism, fear of freedom, this is in fact contemporary individualism. It’s necessary to come out of it through the way of tenderness, of listening, of accompanying, without asking … Yes, with this language, with this attitude families grow: there’s the small family, then the large family of friends and of those that come along … I don’t know if I’ve answered you, but it seems to me … it came to me this way.
(Second question)
Good evening, Holiness, I return to an argument you have already referred to. We know that as a Christian community we don’t want to give up the radical demands of the Gospel of the family: marriage as Sacrament, indissolubility, fidelity in marriage and, on the other hand, full acceptance of mercy in all situations, also in the most difficult. How can we avoid having a double morality in our communities, one exacting and another permissive, one rigorist and the other lax?
Pope Francis:
Both are not the truth; neither rigor nor laxity is the truth. The Gospel chooses another way. Hence, those four words — receive, accompany, integrate, discern — without poking one’s nose in people’s moral life. For your tranquillity I must tell you that all that is written in the Exhortation — and I take up the words of a great theologian who was Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Shoenborn, who presented it — everything is Thomist, from the beginning to the end. It’s certain doctrine. However, very often we want certain doctrine to have a mathematical certainty that doesn’t exist, either with laxity, indulgence or with rigidity. We think of Jesus: the story is the same; it’s repeated. When Jesus spoke to the people, the people said: “He doesn’t speak as the scribes, but as one who has authority” (Mark 1:22). Those Doctors knew the Law, and they had a specific law for each case, to arrive at the end to some 600 precepts — everything regulated, everything. And the Lord — I see God’s anger in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, that chapter is terrible. Above all it makes an impression on me when it talks of the Fourth Commandment and says: “You, that instead of giving your elderly parents to eat, say to them: ‘No, I’ve made a promise, the altar is better than you,’ are in contradiction” (cf. Mark 7:1013). Jesus was like that, and He was condemned out of hatred; they always put traps before Him: “Can this be done or not?” We think of the scene of the adulteress (cf.John 8:1-11). It’s written: she must be stoned. It’s the morality, it’s clear, and not rigid, it’s not rigid, it’s a clear morality. She must be stoned. Why? — because of the sacredness of marriage, fidelity. Jesus is clear on this. The word is adultery, it’s clear. And Jesus feigns being somewhat dumb, lets time pass, writes on the ground … and then says: “Begin: let the first one of you who has not sinned, throw the first stone.” In that case, Jesus was lacking in the Law. They went away, beginning with the oldest. “Woman, has no one condemned you? Neither do I.” What is the moral <teaching>? To stone her? But Jesus was lacking, He was lacking in morality. This makes us think that one can’t speak of “rigidity,” of “certainty,” of being mathematical in morality, as the morality of the Gospel.
Then, let us continue with the women: when that Mrs or Miss, the Samaritan, (cf. John 4:1-27], I don’t know what she was, began to be somewhat of a “catechist” and said: “But must we worship God on this or that mountain? …” Jesus had asked her: “And your husband? …” “I don’t have one” – […] And, in fact, she had so many medals of adultery, so many “decorations” … Yet it was she, before being forgiven, who was the “apostle” of Samaria. And then, what should be done? Let’s go to the Gospel; let’s go to Jesus! This doesn’t mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, no, no. This means to seek the truth; and that morality is always an act of love: love of God, love of neighbor. It’s also an act that leaves room for the other’s conversion, doesn’t condemn immediately, leaves room.
Once — there are so many priests here, but excuse me — my predecessor, no, the other, Cardinal Aramburu, who died after my predecessor, when I was appointed Archbishop, gave me this advice: “When you see that a priest vacillates a bit, slides, call him and say to him: ‘Let’s talk a bit; I’ve been told that you’re in this situation, almost a double life, I don’t know …’ and you’ll see that priest begins to say: ‘No, no, it’s not true, no …’. Interrupt him and say to him: Listen to me: go home, think about it, and return in fifteen days and we’ll talk.’ And in those fifteen days that priest — so he said to me — had the time to think, to rethink before Jesus and return: ‘Yes, it’s true. Help me!’” Time is always needed. “But, Father, that priest lived and celebrated Mass in mortal sin in those fifteen days, so says morality, and what do you say?” What is better? What was better? That the Bishop have the generosity to give him fifteen days to rethink things, with the risk of celebrating Mass in <a state> of mortal sin, is this better or the other, rigid morality? And, in connection with rigid morality, I will tell you a fact that I myself witnessed. When we were in Theology, the exam to hear Confessions –“ad audiendas,” it was called – it was done the third year, but we, those of us of the second <year> had permission to attend to prepare ourselves. And once, a case was proposed to one of our companions, of a person who went to Confession, but <it was> a very intricate case, regarding the seventh Commandment, “de justitia et jure”; but it was in fact such an unreal case …; and this companion, who was a normal person, said to the professor: “But, Father, this isn’t found in life” – “yes, but it’s in the books!” I witnessed this myself.
(Third question)
Good evening, Holiness. Wherever we go, we hear today about the crisis of marriage. And so I would like to ask you: what can we point to today to educate young people to love, particularly to Sacramental Marriage, overcoming their resistances, skepticism, disappointments, the fear of the definitive? Thank you.
Pope Francis:
I’ll take up your last word: we also live a culture of the provisional. I heard it said that, a few months ago, a youth who had finished his University studies, a good youth, went to the Bishop and said to him: “I want to become a priest, but for ten years.” It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life — the provisional. And because of this some of our Sacramental Marriages are null, because they [the spouses] say: “Yes, for life,” but they don’t know what they are saying, because they have another culture. They say it, and have the good will, but they don’t have the awareness. Once a lady in Buenos Aires reproached me: “You priests are wily, because to become priests you study for eight years and then, if things don’t go well and a priest finds a girl he likes … in the end you give him permission to get married and have a family. And to us laity, who must fulfill the Sacrament our whole life and indissolubly, we are given four conferences, and this for the whole of life!” In my opinion, one of the problems is this: the preparation for marriage. And then the question is very linked to the social event. I remember, last year, here in Italy, I called a youth that I had met some time ago at Ciampino, who was getting married. I called him and said to him: “Your mother has told me that you will get married next month … Where will it be? …” “But we don’t know, because we are looking for a church that will suit my girl’s dress … And then, we must do so many things: the sweets, and then find a restaurant that’s not far …” These are the concerns! It’s a social event. How can this be changed? I don’t know. A social event in Buenos Aires: I prohibited religious marriages in Buenos Aires in cases that we call “hurried marriages,” marriages “in haste” [reparatory], when the baby is coming. Now things are changing, but there is this: Socially, everything must be as it should be, the baby arrives, we get married. I prohibited this, because they’re not free, they’re not free! Perhaps they love one another. And I’ve seen some lovely cases in which later, after two-three years, they get married, and I’ve seen father, mother and baby by the hand enter the church, but they knew well what they were doing. The crisis of marriage exists because they don’t know what the Sacrament is — the beauty of the Sacrament: it’s not known that it’s indissoluble; it’s not known that it’s for life. It’s difficult. Another experience I had in Buenos Aires: when parish priests did courses of preparation, there were 12-13 couples, not more; it did not reach 30 persons. The first question they asked was: “How many of you are living together?” The majority raised their hand. They prefer to live together, and this is a challenge, it calls for work. One must not say immediately: “Why aren’t you married in the Church?” No. Accompany them: wait and let them mature — and let fidelity mature. In the Argentine countryside, in the Northeast region, there is a superstition: that engaged couples have a child; that they live together. This happens in the countryside. Then, when the child must go to school, they have the civil marriage. And then, as grandparents, they do the religious marriage. It’s a superstition, because they say that to do the religious <marriage> immediately scares the husband! We must also fight against these superstitions. Yet I can truly say that I’ve seen much fidelity in this living together, much fidelity; and I’m sure that this is a true marriage; they have the grace of marriage, precisely because of the fidelity they have. But they are local superstitions. The pastoral of marriage is the most difficult.
And then, peace in the family — not only when they argue between themselves, and the advice is never to end the day without making peace, because the cold war of the next day is worse! It’s worse, yes, it’s worse. However, when relatives meddle, mothers-in-law, it’s because it’s not easy to become a father-in-law or a mother-in-law! It’s not easy. I heard a lovely thing, which will please the women: when a woman hears from the ultrasonography that she is pregnant with a male, from that moment she begins to [realize she’ll] be a mother-in-law!
I return to what is serious: preparation for marriage must be done with closeness, without being frightened, slowly. Often it’s a path of conversion. There are boys and girls who have a purity, a great love and know what they do, but they are few. Today’s culture presents these youngsters to us; they are good and we must approach them and accompany them, accompany them up to the moment of maturity. It’s there that we carry out the Sacrament, but joyful, joyful! — so much patience is necessary, so much patience. It’s the same patience that is necessary for the pastoral of vocations. To listen to the same things, to listen: the apostolate of the ear, to listen, to accompany … without being frightened… I don’t know if I’ve answered, but I speak to you of my experience, of what I’ve lived as a parish priest. Thank you so much and pray for me![Original text: Italian] [Translation by ZENIT]
Innovative Media Inc.
30 Mansell Road, Suite 103
Roswell, Georgia 30076, United States
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment