In yet another in-flight press conference, Pope Francis in his return from Madagascar has created more confusion with his ambiguous and seemingly disingenuous remarks to a question asked by Jason Drew Horowitz from The New York Times.
Pope Francis is not a doctor but reading the following interview one is easily reminded of the old idiom “physician heal thyself.” Unfortunately one is hard pressed to see any evidence of the physician taking his own advice especially in response to matters such as the McCarrick scandal, the Vigano allegations, the dubia, the filial correction, and the multitude of other situations that require answers and clarity from the Chair of Peter. The Holy Father states in this interview that fair criticism of the Pope require dialogue and answers – fair enough — yet much of this pontificate has been a barren desert void of answers and clarity. Thus far the successor to Peter apparently is immune to his own advice.
In addition to the troubling hypocritical message in this interview — of equal concern is the almost casual attitude the Pope has concerning schism. Pope Francis tells us he is not afraid of schism — meanwhile the Church is besieged with heretical influences from within the hierarchy with little or no resistance from the Vatican. This begs the question — who is instigating schism and what is being done to prevent it? We should all fear schism, after all, the destiny of souls are at stake.
These conflicting and ambiguous messages emanating from the Pope himself are dividing our Church and affecting it at every level. The toll this pontificate is having on the priesthood is especially hard hitting. It is heartbreaking to read the plea to the Holy Father from a priest like Msgr. Pope who is representative of the many good and faithful priests and prelates who are giving themselves to Christ — doing their best in administering to their flocks only to be attacked by the words from the Vicar of Christ (In a prepared speech to the bishops of Mozambique on September 7) “I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like. . . . Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum” (See Story). These are not the words you would expect from the keeper of the keys to the Kingdom.
There is something very wrong with our Church when priests in good standing that have administered faithfully in their duties are not given directives and clear answers from the Vicar of Christ. Laity and clergy alike have a right to expect from their Pope, words that reflect Christ’s Gospel.One is reminded of the Gospel quote from Matt. 7:9, “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?” There are more stones than bread at the Vatican these days.
+ + +
Look to future issues of The Wanderer for more coverage of this matter.
The following is the complete text of the particular question and answer translated by the Vatican that is causing all of the controversy. The complete interview can be found here.
+ + +
Jason Drew Horowitz from The New York Times, United States:
Q.On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do — a dialogue — to keep it from happening?
A.“First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that persons needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry. . . . But there are advantages.
“Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion.
“This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand. . . . This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism — I think thus and so — is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair.
“To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.
“Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms. After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred.
“Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian.
“Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites. . . .
“An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the Council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people — this is history — were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect. . . . The people of God always correct and help.
“A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it. . . .
“And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. But they say: the Pope is a communist. . . . Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism.
“There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress