The Pope – Page 3 – Jimmy Akin

Pope Francis on Invalid Marriages

Pope Francis recently made some remarks regarding invalid marriages, and I’ve received a large number of requests for comment, so here goes . . .

1) When did Pope Francis make his remarks?

During a Q & A session on Thursday, June 16. He was answering questions at the opening ceremony for a diocesan congress dealing with his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (i.e., the document that he released after the two synods of bishops).

His remarks were, therefore, unscripted.

2) What did he say?

Unfortunately, the Vatican doesn’t yet seem to have a full transcript available in English. The Italian, however, is here.

Without an English transcript to quote, we switch over to news reporting, according to which:

A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”

The Pope answered from his own experience.

“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

3) Wait. “The great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”? He really said that?

Yes. He really said that. It’s on video (in Italian) on the Vatican’s YouTube channel here.

4) Is this Church teaching?

No. The Church does not have a teaching about what percentage of marriages (ostensibly sacramental or otherwise) are invalid.

Further, Q & A sessions are not the venue in which new magisterial teachings are promulgated.

At most, this would be an expression of pastoral opinion on the part of the pope.

5) Does anyone agree with this opinion?

Not that I am aware of.

I know of no competent expert in canon law, biblical studies, or theology that would hold the opinion that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”

In fact, I don’t know of anybody—expert or not—who would hold this view.

If Pope Francis holds it, he would be the only one I am aware of.

6) Why do you say “if Pope Francis holds it”?

Because I’m not certain that he does.

Experience has shown that Pope Francis is a man who makes dramatic and inexact statements, particularly when speaking off the cuff.

This is related to his “make a mess” philosophy, according to which it is better to get people’s attention and shake things up rather than let the Church slide into cultural irrelevance.

In a fashion, he seems to be trying to imitate Jesus, who frequently used hyperbole to make arresting statements that tweaked the pious sensibilities of his age. Thus Pope Francis sometimes compares those he critiques to Pharisees and doctors of the law—the same groups that opposed Jesus.

On occasion, everybody blurts things out without fully thinking them through, and I can’t rule out the possibility that this was simply a case of hyperbole gone wrong—particularly in light of the problems with the claim in question.

Perhaps the pope meant to say something like “a vast number” and ended up saying “the vast majority” instead.

Even a moment’s thought would reveal that the claim is seriously problematic, suggesting that this is not the pope’s settled opinion but something that he blurted out without giving it serious thought.

7) Why do you say that?

There are multiple problems with the claim. Some emerge from considering the statement from a canonical perspective (see here). However, I would point to two additional considerations, one from a theological perspective and one from a biblical perspective.

8) What’s the theological argument?

From a theological perspective, the claim is extraordinarily sweeping. It’s not just that many Catholic marriages are invalid or even that a majority are (which would already exceed credibility) but that “the vast majority” of such marriages are invalid.

That would mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit have allowed conditions to degenerate so far among the baptized that “the vast majority” of those committed enough to follow the Church’s teachings and practice on marriage nevertheless enter marriage invalidly.

That’s inconceivable.

9) What’s the biblical argument?

From a biblical perspective, we don’t see Jesus taking this line in his day.

It is easy for us today to imagine that attitudes toward divorce were stricter in the ancient world, and particularly among first century Jews, than they are today, but they were not.

Basically everybody in the ancient world—except Christians—held that marriage did not prevent the possibility of getting divorced and remarried.

This was true among the Romans, among the Greeks, and among the Jews. Indeed, a prominent school of Jewish thought held that a man could divorce his wife over nothing more than a burned meal.

Seriously.

And even among Jews who had a more restricted view of divorce—such as the rival school which held a man could divorce his wife if she committed adultery or did something else to bring shame on him—it was always understood that divorce carried with it the right of remarriage.

The culture that Jesus lived in was just as much a “culture of the provisional” with respect to marriage as ours.

And yet Jesus didn’t treat their marriages as invalid but as valid. He stated:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Jesus would not have spoken this way if he viewed “the vast majority” of marriages in his day as invalid. If you were only invalidly married to a woman, you divorced her, and you then attempted marriage with another woman, you wouldn’t be committing adultery against the first wife.

Without a valid first marriage, there would be no adultery.

Jesus thus indicated that one can enter a valid marriage without understanding it as precluding the possibility of divorce and remarriage.

And the Church has understood it likewise. Merely thinking you could, under some circumstances, divorce and remarry is not grounds for an annulment.

10) Have there been any developments since the pope made his remarks?

Yes. According to news reports:

When the Vatican released its official transcript of the encounter the following day, they had changed the comment to say that “a portion of our sacramental marriages are null.”

This is not unexpected. It is common practice, extending back multiple papacies, for the official version of a pope’s remarks to be amended to correct misstatements, sources of potential confusion, etc.

When the matter concerns something of substance, it is normal for the change to be personally approved by the pope, which is what happened in this case:

In the Vatican blog “Il sismografo,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that this change is a revision approved by the Pope himself.

“When they touch on subjects of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the Pope himself,” Father Lombardi said. “This is what happened in this case, so the published text was expressly approved by the Pope.”

11) What should we make of all this?

The fact Pope Francis made the remark in the first place is a source for concern, and it should prompt him to reflect on and re-evaluate the way he answers questions in public, for this is far from the first time something like this has happened when he has answered questions off the cuff.

We may be thankful that there was sufficient presence of mind on the part of those around the pope to propose the change to the official version of the remarks, and we may be thankful that the pope approved the change.

Given the amount of confusion regarding the marriage issue, both in society and in Church circles, I suggest we keep the matter in prayer.

Looking for Something Good to Read?

May I suggest my commentary on the Gospel of Mark?

It goes through the whole text and provides fascinating information that you may have never heard before.

It also comes with a verse-by-verse study guide with questions that you or your study group can use.

And it comes with a lectionary-based study guide, so you can read along with Mark in the liturgy and ponder its meaning before or after Mass.

Right now, this commentary is available exclusively on Verbum Catholic software.

Verbum is an incredibly powerful study tool that I use every day, and I heartily recommend it to others.

I can also save you 10% when you get the commentary or one of the bundles of Verbum software. Just use the code JIMMY1 at checkout.

CLICK HERE TO GET JIMMY AKIN’S STUDIES ON MARK.

Why the Holy See Issues Non-Magisterial Statements

In a recent post, canonist Dr. Edward Peters offers some interesting reflections on a puzzling phenomenon: Why are there statements issued by the pope and by offices at the Vatican that are expressly flagged as being “non-magisterial”?

The Magisterium of the Church is its teaching office, which consists of the pope and the bishops of the world in union with him (CCC 85).

It can be surprising, therefore, when comments made by the pope or by Vatican offices deal with matters of faith and morals and yet are expressly identified as non-magisterial.

How does that work?

Dr. Peters seems skeptical that it does work. In his post, he seems to entertain the idea that such statements are magisterial, even if those who issue them do not recognize them as such. In other words, these acts have a magisterial character even if those making them did not have the intent to issue magisterial statements. He writes:

[T]he relationship between an intention behind, and the nature of, an act is complex; the lawyer in me knows that much. But lately, a rising number of persons seem to think that they can control the characterization of their act simply by declaring an intentionality for their act. That’s a very slippery slope. As a rule, I think an intention to perform an act is relevant to one’s responsibility for the act, but is not dispositive of the characterization of the act.

Consequently, he concludes:

Popes who make deliberate assertions about faith or morals in public remarks are contributing, in a small way, to the ordinary magisterium of the Church; dicasterial prelates who make deliberate assertions about faith or morals in materials published through the Holy See are contributing, in a small way, to the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

The view that Dr. Peters proposes is attractive in that it would make it very easy to determine whether an act is magisterial. It would not settle the question of what level of authority the magisterium was investing in an assertion, but it would make it clear that the assertion is backed by the Church’s teaching authority.

As attractive as the proposal may be, it is evidently not how officials in Rome view the matter. This is made clear by the number of statements we find coming from the relevant figures and documents that particular statements are not magisterial though they fit Dr. Peters’ criteria.

This also is not a new phenomenon. It goes back years. Although I have not done a thorough study of the question, I am aware of non-magisterial interventions (that touch on matters of faith or morals) from offices connected with the Holy See going back at least to the 1960s.

What I’d like to do here is look at some of the factors that, I suspect, are behind the decision to flag certain statements as non-magisterial and why these are more common today.

1) Binding Authority

At the root of the decision to flag statements as non-magisterial is the fact that magisterial statements are authoritative and bind the consciences of believers. This is true even when the Church’s infallibility is not being engaged. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.

To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it (CCC 892).

Even the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has binding authority—it calls for the faithful to adhere to it with “religious assent.”

Knowing that, put yourself in the position of a pope. The responsibilities of the papal office are amazingly daunting—even superhuman—and it is easy to see how a pope would blanch at the prospect of binding the consciences of the faithful every time he says anything about faith or morals in public.

People are going to come to the pope, publicly, with questions, and he’s not going to have the leisure to privately study, pray, meditate, and consult the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about precisely how to formulate every answer.

Even without a question being posed to him, a pope may feel it would be helpful to propose an idea for the consideration of the faithful without binding them to believe it.

A classic example of this is the discussion of the fire of purgatory in Benedict XVI’s encyclical Spe Salvi, where he writes:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves (Spe Salvi 47).

The question of what purgatory’s fire consists of has been a thorny one, with Medieval theologians pondering how what they took to be a physical fire could affect an immaterial soul. More recently, theologians including Fr. Joseph Ratzinger proposed that the fire is better understood as a symbol of a transforming encounter with Christ (see his book Eschatology).

In writing his encyclical, Benedict XVI apparently wanted to give the new proposal official recognition without requiring theologians and the faithful to reject other understandings of purgatorial fire. By proposing it as a theological opinion—rather than a Church teaching—he made it clear that this is a permitted and even a favored view but not the only one possible.

This example represents one way a pope can propose a theological idea without imposing it, but there are others—including making an explicit statement that a particular act is non-magisterial. Benedict XVI also did this in writing his series Jesus of Nazareth. In the introduction to the first volume of that work, he famously wrote:

It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.

In any event, popes—and, by extension, various departments at the Vatican—feel the need to be able to say things connected with faith and morals in public without binding the consciences of believers to accept them.

They want the freedom to be able to propose (even officially propose, as in Spe Salvi) without being forced to impose.

2) Broad Engagement

Magisterial officials could, of course, refrain from engaging on questions where they are not prepared to bind the consciences of the faithful. They could limit their public statements to only those matters where they want the faithful to give religious assent.

This can also be an attractive proposition. It would make it much easier for the faithful to determine what they are required to believe versus where they can have “a legitimate diversity of opinion” (to borrow a phrase from Cardinal Ratzinger).

It would also mean shorter and fewer Vatican documents, and it would mean that the Holy See would not stray as far into questions of economics or ecology as it presently does.

To cite just one example, Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ contains large amounts of material that, properly speaking, are not matters of faith or morals but rather assessments of environmental science, economic matters, and so forth. All of this material would go if the Holy See chose to restrict itself to binding statements of faith and morals.

But this is easier said than done, because there is a fuzzy boundary between matters of faith and morals and those that are related to them (a fact noted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; see section 24 of its 1990 instruction Donum Veritatis).

Further, in order to make statements on faith and morals understood, it is often necessary to set them in a context that refers to related but still distinct topics (e.g., how are you going to talk about the moral principles underlying economic systems without talking about economic systems themselves? Or how are you going to talk about the moral principles involved in reproductive technologies without talking about biology and technology?).

While it could strike a different balance than it has at present, the Magisterium could not fundamentally pull back from such matters without reconceptualizing its mission and sharply limiting its engagement with society.

This it has not chosen to do. In fact, there has never been a time in Church history when the Holy See and the Magisterium did not conduct a form of broad, societal engagement.

The Holy See’s present involvement with the United Nations is one manifestation of that. So were the papal states. So was Pope Leo I’s negotiation with Attila the Hun.

Even in the New Testament itself, we see the Magisterium presiding over charity relief efforts (Acts 6:1-6, 1 Tim. 5:16).

Of course, when the Corinthians wrote St. Paul for advice about marriage, he could have said, “I’m sorry, but I’m only going to tell you the points of faith and morals for which I have a specific command from the Lord,” but he didn’t. He also gave them pastoral advice which was not binding as matters of faith and morals (see 1 Cor. 7:1-40).

In fact, at one point he explicitly notes that he is going beyond what the Lord mandates and is offering his own opinion (1 Cor. 7:10)!

The fact is, officials of the Magisterium have always understood their mission as more than just articulating what the faithful must believe. Since the first century, they have understood it as involving broader engagement, including pastoral advice, theological speculation, and social/political questions (see also the writings of the Apostolic Fathers).

As long as this is the case—and there is no sign that it will change—it can be helpful for Magisterial officials to note when they are and aren’t trying to bind the consciences of the faithful through a magisterial act.

3) Global Awareness

The interconnectedness of the globe in the last few years has added new reason for members of the Magisterium to clarify when they are not invoking their authority.

In the fifth century, when Leo I was giving a daily homily, the only people who heard it were those in attendance. He may have had a scribe keep a copy of it in his personal archives, but it was not covered by global media and flashed around the world at the speed of light.

As a result, in the days before telecommunications, popes had much greater liberty to speak informally to their flock, as a local pastor, without having to engage their authority as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.

Today, nobody who works at the Vatican can say anything without the potential for it to generate world headlines like, “Pope Says This!” or “Pope Condemns That!”—even if the pope had nothing to do with the remark.

Given the intense, global scrutiny of everything said at the Holy See, there is additional reason for clarifications about what is and is not binding on the consciences of believers.

This sheds light on the Holy See’s current practice regarding the fervorinos, or daily homilies, preached by Pope Francis at the Casa Santa Marta. The Holy See Press Office has indicated that these are not magisterial—one reason being that the pope would need to review, edit, and approve the texts after the fact, and he has determined that he has more pressing things to do.

It is easy to understand how Francis could desire the same freedom that every parish priest has—and that all of his pre-telecommunications predecessors had—to simply preach a homily without automatically binding the consciences of the faithful.

Conclusion

There is more that can be said about this fascinating subject, but it seems to me that we have identified three factors prompting the Holy See (and local bishops) to flag certain statements they issue as non-magisterial:

They want to be able to propose ideas without imposing them
They want to engage on a broad array of subjects, including ones that have a fuzzy boundary with matters of faith and morals
They are under greater scrutiny than ever in history, with a correspondingly greater risk of misunderstanding

All of these factors give them reason to make it clear when they are not binding the consciences of the faithful, and often saying “this is not a magisterial statement” is a useful way to do that.

Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans

Pope Francis recently answered a Lutheran woman’s question regarding the possibility of her taking Communion with her Catholic husband at Mass.

His remarks, which he made at an ecumenical meeting in a Lutheran church, have raised eyebrows.

You can read them online here. Another translation is here. You can also watch the exchange in Italian here.

What the woman asked

This is what the Lutheran woman said:

My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I’m married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?

What might the pope have said?

Of course, one response would be, “Become Catholic.” But if popes said that routinely when they were in a Lutheran church, they wouldn’t be invited to Lutheran churches and would lose this form of outreach to other Christians.

Intra-Christian unity proceeds slowly. Being too explicit right up front is a little like saying “Marry me!” on the first date.

So you wouldn’t really expect Pope Francis to explicitly propose swimming the Tiber in this particular context.

He could have said, “Study and pray—especially pray for the day when Christian unity is restored and we can have full sharing at the Lord’s table.”

Or he could have said, “It is a profound sadness that, because of the differences that divide us, we cannot presently share the Eucharist. This does not mean that you and your husband cannot share and celebrate the aspects of the Christian faith that we have in common, and you can work to overcome the obstacles that remain.”

There are all kinds of brief responses the pope might have made.

Presumably, he didn’t have to take the question at all. Papal questions are regularly screened to keep the pope from being put in the position of commenting on something he doesn’t want to address.

Since he took the question, Pope Francis apparently wanted to address this issue—he felt he had something useful to say about it.

What the pope said

The pope’s response is hard to summarize. His answer was somewhat stream-of-consciousness.

After joking that the question of sharing the Lord’s Supper was hard for him to answer—particularly in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper (who, as the former Vatican head of ecumenical affairs, was there)—he reflected on the role of the Lord’s Supper in the Christian life.

He noted that we will all receive it at the eternal banquet in the New Jerusalem, but he had questions about intercommunion here on earth, saying:

To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [provisions] for walking together?

Goal or assistance?

Here he refers to two views of intercommunion. The first would make it the goal of ecumenical dialogues. In other words, we need to restore full unity in faith, and the crowning result of that will be sharing the Eucharist.

The second view would be that sharing the Eucharist is something Christians of different confessions should do now as a way of fostering growth in Christian unity (walking together).

The pope does not decide between these two views, the first of which is the one the Holy See has consistently maintained. Instead, he says:

I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand.

The fact he speculates on this question in public, in an ecumenical setting, could be viewed as a source of concern.

Even if he thought the question of eucharistic sharing needed to be further explored, is this the right context to be discussing that? It seems to carry several risks. One is that the pope could look like he’s not backing the Catholic position.

Apparently, Pope Francis thought such risks were worth taking.

Doctrine and baptism

Pope Francis goes on to say:

It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine—underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand—but I ask myself: but don’t we have the same baptism?

The first part of this acknowledges the principle supporting the Church’s historic position on intercommunion: that sharing in the Eucharist means holding the same doctrine, so that people who disagree with Church teaching, especially its infallibly defined teaching, should not be receiving the Eucharist at Mass.

Pope Francis acknowledges the legitimacy of this principle, but he appears to ask whether it is the only relevant principle and whether the common baptism that we share could affect the situation.

Current intercommunion

It’s surprising the pontiff didn’t take this occasion to refer to something that would make the point that baptism does have an effect on the question of intercommunion.

The Church does permit—and has for some time—intercommunion in limited circumstances, on the basis of our common baptism.

Canon 844 §§2-3 of the Code of Canon Law describes the particular requirements for when baptized non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, confession, and the anointing of the sick.

Did the German-Speaking Bishops Just Endorse the Kasper Proposal?

The German-speaking members of the Synod of Bishops have made a report which some are touting as a breakthrough for the proposal to give Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

What did they really say, and what significance does it have?

Here’s what we know at present . . .

1) What was the report that the German-speaking bishops made?

After the synod opened, the bishops divided up into small groups (known as circuli minores or “smaller circles” in Latin). These were divided based on the language the bishops speak (Italian, English, French, Spanish, or German).

The small groups have produced a number of reports as they worked their way through the synod’s preparatory document.

This week they each turned in their final report, which covered the part of the preparatory document that dealt with the divorced and civilly remarried.

The German-speaking group’s report thus was just one of several reports on this section, which was turned in as a matter of course.

You can read the full text of the report in German here.

And you can read part of it translated into English here.

2) Who is part of the German-speaking group?

The group is headed by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn and Archbishop Heiner Koch.

Members of the group include Cardinals Walter Kasper—who made the proposal to give Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried—and Cardinal Reinhard Marx—who favors the proposal.

The group also includes Cardinal Ludwig Muller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has opposed the plan.

3) How is the German report being portrayed?

It is being portrayed—both by advocates and critics—as suggesting a way in which the Kasper proposal could be implemented using what is known as an “internal forum” solution.

This is particularly striking since the group includes Cardinal Muller and each of the German group’s reports has been unanimously approved.

Since Cardinal Muller has previously and strongly opposed the Kasper proposal, it’s natural to ask what happened here.

Did Cardinal Muller change his view? Did he not change his view? Is someone misrepresenting something?

4) What is an “internal forum” solution?

Canon law draws a distinction between what are known as the external and internal fora.

The external forum deals with actions that can be publicly verified—e.g., this person attempted marriage with such-and-such a person on such-and-such a date, they were later civilly divorced, they later civilly remarried.

The internal forum deals with matters that cannot be publicly verified—e.g., a real but never-expressed intention to refuse to have children, hidden sins, legally unverifiable private convictions.

The discussions held in the sacrament of confession represent one expression of the internal forum.

More on the distinction between the internal and external fora here.

In recent years there have been proposals to allow Catholics who otherwise would not be qualified to receive Communion to do so based on “internal forum solutions.”

The idea is that if a person is convinced in the internal forum that he is qualified to receive Communion, even though this cannot be verified in the external forum, that he should be able to do so.

The so-called internal forum solution is fraught with difficulties and has been the subject of much abuse. See here and here for comments on it by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

5) Did the German-speaking bishops propose an “internal forum solution” in this case?

This is ambiguous. They certainly didn’t come out and say, “We propose that Communion be given to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics based on an internal forum solution.”

Instead, the text reads like a compromise. It is ambiguous—apparently deliberately so—about whether an internal forum solution is being proposed.

6) So what did the German-speaking bishops say?

The relevant section of their report begins by noting:

We have at length discussed the integration of the civilly divorced and remarried into the church community.

This can be important because it frames what follows as a summary of what they discussed. A person can agree, “Yes, that is what we discussed,” without always agreeing with every proposal that came up in the discussion.

They continued:

It is a well-known fact that at both sessions of the Episcopal Synod there was an intensive struggle over the question of whether and in how far divorced and remarried people who want to take part in the life of the Church, may receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist under certain conditions.

The debates have shown that there are no simple or general solutions here. We bishops experienced the tensions connected with this question just as much as many of our faithful whose worries and hopes, warnings and expectations accompanied us throughout our consultations.

The discussions clearly showed that certain clarifications and in-depth study were necessary in order to further deepen the complexity of these issues in the light of the Gospel, of the Church’s teaching and with the gift of discernment.

So they’re saying this is a difficult and complex subject.

They then go on to point to something John Paul II said:

We can, of course, name certain criteria that help to differentiate. Pope St. John Paul II states the first criterion in [his 1981 encyclical] Familiaris Consortio, paragraph 84:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

It has been pointed out that they don’t quote the part of Familiaris Consortio, which followed this, that explicitly rejected the Kasper proposal.

Of course they don’t. You’d hardly expect a group including Cardinal Kasper to quote that part (not and arrive at a unanimous vote—which was apparently important to them—see below). But everyone knows that passage followed this one. It’s the elephant in the room.

They then get to the role of individual pastors:

A pastor’s task is therefore to accompany the person concerned on the path towards this differentiation. In so doing, it will be helpful to proceed together in an honest examination of conscience and undertake steps of reflection and repentance.

Thus the divorced and remarried people should ask themselves how they treated their children during their marriage crisis. Were there attempts at reconciliation? What is the situation of the abandoned partner? What consequences has the new partnership had as far as the extended family and the community of the faithful are concerned? What example is it for the younger members considering marriage?

An honest reflection can strengthen the trust in God’s mercy, which no one who brings his or her failure and need before God is refused.

All of this is non-controversial. People who are divorced and civilly remarried should undertake such examinations of conscience.

Now we get to the important part:

In view of the objective situation in the talks with the confessor, such a path of reflection and repentance can, in the internal forum, contribute towards the formation of conscience and the clarification of whether admission to the Sacraments is possible.

According to the words of St Paul, which apply to all those who approach the Lord’s table, everyone must examine themselves:

“A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (I Corinthians 11, 28-31)

The German-speaking bishops then conclude:

As with the procedures for the first two parts of the Instrumentum laboris [i.e., the synod’s working document], the procedures of [this] third part were handled in a good synodal spirit and unanimously approved.

This is a message that, despite their known differences, they played nice with each other (“good synodal spirit”) and that they agreed on the final report (“unanimously approved”).

7) What should one make of the part of their text about the internal forum?

As noted above, they don’t come out and say, “We propose giving Communion in these cases based on an internal forum solution.” That would state the matter much more strongly than what we’ve got.

In actuality, the text is ambiguous.

For a start, it’s true that talks with one’s confessor in the internal forum can “contribute to the formation of conscience.” In fact, that’s a key things that a confessor should try to accomplish during internal forum discussions with penitents—help them understand the requirements of God’s moral law better.

It’s also true that such discussions can help with “the clarification of whether admission to the Sacraments is possible.”

And therein lies the ambiguity.

For an advocate of the Kasper proposal, this could mean a dialogue like this:

Confessor: Do you feel in conscience that it’s okay for you to receive the sacraments?

Penitent: Yes.

Confessor: Then it’s okay for you to do so.

But the same text can be read another way, envisioning a dialogue more like this:

Confessor: Since you are divorced and civilly remarried, I need to ask if you are living chastely with your present, civil spouse.

Penitent: No, I’m not.

Confessor: I’m sorry to hear that. You need to understand that God loves you but, until such time as you are living chastely, you are not eligible to receive the sacraments.

The text of what the German-speaking bishops wrote can be read either way, but only the first of these scenarios is what would be called an “internal forum solution.” Therefore, it’s ambiguous whether the text calls for such a solution.

Advocates of the Kasper proposal can read it as calling for one; opponents of the Kasper proposal can read it as not calling for one.

Opponents can even point to the warning that follows, quoting St. Paul about eating and drinking judgment on oneself, as evidence that the text is not calling for an internal forum solution.

8) Why would the German-speaking bishops write this kind of text?

Based on the clues in the text itself, my sense is that they very much wanted to present a report that was as unified as possible.

One reason for this is that, if they presented a fractious one, it could undermine their respective positions when it comes time for Pope Francis to decide.

He knows that the German-speaking group includes both some of the strongest advocates of the Kasper proposal (e.g., Kasper and Marx) and some of its strongest opponents (e.g., Muller).

If he got the idea that their group had a big, fractious, uncivil blowup then that could sour Pope Francis on whichever group he blamed for the bad behavior.

To preserve their positions’ credibility with Pope Francis, both groups needed to appear as cordial, flexible, and unified as possible. If anyone was perceived as being hostile or rigid, it would undermine him and his position.

The result was an ambiguous, compromise text that concludes with a formula noting the positive spirit of the German-language discussion and the unanimity it achieved.

With this in view, you can see which elements of the text were likely proposed by which parties.

For example, the Kasper advocates would have wanted the reference to the internal forum and the fact that discussions in it can clarify the extent to which one can receive the sacraments. This could be read as calling for an “internal forum solution.”

Muller would not have been able to oppose this without appearing fractious—because it’s true that internal forum discussions can shed light on this matter.

By contrast, Muller or his associates would have wanted the warning from St. Paul about eating and drinking judgment on oneself if one receives Communion unworthily.

The Kasper advocates would have, in turn, found that difficult to oppose because it is in Scripture and thus is also true.

9) So what is the takeaway from this?

It’s important to recognize the German-speaking bishops’ text for the compromise document that it is.

Somewhat like Schrodinger’s cat (Schrodinger himself being a German-speaker), the document both does and doesn’t call for an internal forum solution.

What role it will have going forward remains to be seen. An early sign of this will be what note is taken of it in the upcoming document that the synod fathers will be voting on and that may or may not be released by Pope Francis.

Stay tuned. And keep praying!

Did Pope Francis Really Say Jesus Was a Failure?

In his recent homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Pope Francis made a comment that some have leapt on as yet another outrage committed by the pope.

Allegedly, Pope Francis said that Jesus was a failure.

I’d provide links, but I don’t want to give the outrage mongers the traffic.

I have, however, received several queries from people saying they are troubled and wonder what to make of the remark.

So for those concerned by the situation, let’s take a look at it.

1) What did Pope Francis actually say?

In his Sept. 24 vespers homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, in which he was addressing a group of priests and religious, Pope Francis said:

We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management and outward success which govern the business world.

Not that these things are unimportant!

We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.

To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.

2) People are really upset about that?

Yes.

3) Really?

Yes. Next question.

4) Why would they be upset about it?

I’m not going to go into the psychology of the outrage mongers, beyond noting that they appear to have an anti-Francis animus that distorts their ability to read straightforward texts.

However, they are objecting to the statement that Jesus’ “life . . . ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”

5) But wait! Didn’t you just omit an important qualifier in what the pope said?

Yes. The ellipsis (i.e., the “ . . . ”) in the above statement replaces the all-important qualifier “humanly speaking.”

It’s only by omitting or ignoring or misunderstanding this qualifier that one could take offense at the pope’s remark.

This qualifier tells the listener (or reader) that the statement is only an apparent, not an actual, description of affairs.

Pope Francis means that from a superficial, human point of view Jesus’ death might make it look like he was a failure, but from God’s perspective, this was not so.

6) How would that human assessment work?

In Jesus’ day, people expected the Messiah to lead a triumphant rebellion against the Romans, restore political independence to Israel, and reign in Jerusalem as a Davidic king.

Jesus didn’t do any of those things.

Instead, the Romans killed him, and they did so in a particularly painful and humiliating way via his death on a cross.

Similarly, his followers were scattered and took to meeting in secret after his crucifixion.

From the perspective of most people of the day, based on their expectations of what the Messiah would do, he looked like a failed political revolutionary.

7) How does that contrast with the true perspective on Jesus?

From God’s perspective, Jesus did exactly what he was supposed to.

He was never meant to lead a political rebellion against the Romans. He expressly told the Roman governor, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Instead, he fulfilled God’s plan precisely by dying on the cross.

And, while his followers may have been scattered and driven to meeting secretly for a time, they later became a massive movement that converted the Roman Empire to the Christian Faith.

Even in the first generation of that process, the early Christians could be described as having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

While, from a human perspective, Jesus and his movement looked like failures at the moment he was killed, from God’s perspective, Jesus was a success, and in time this would be revealed by the fruit his movement bore.

8) How do we know this is what Pope Francis has in mind?

Well, the phrase “humanly speaking” tells the reader that the pope is setting up precisely this kind of contrast between the human and the divine perspective.

So does the surrounding text. Look at the beginning of the quotation above: The pope is telling priests and religious that they should not judge the success of their efforts by purely worldly standards. That kind of evaluation has a role, but it is not the definitive standard. Instead, God’s perspective is.

Thus he stressed:

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes. . . .

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

The pope’s point is that, judged by worldly standards, our efforts might seem to end in failure, when in reality—from God’s perspective—they are actually succeeding!

Thus he reminds us that

if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus

It is at this point that he introduces the merely apparent failure of Jesus’ efforts in human terms and how the apparent “failure of the Cross” was actually a brilliant success that bore fruit according to God’s timetable rather than man’s.

9) Isn’t this contrast between the human and the divine perspective on Jesus’ ministry reflected in the New Testament?

Yes. Multiple times. One example is 1 Corinthians 1, where St. Paul writes:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:18, 22-25).

The fact that Jesus’ death on the cross was scandalous and a mark of failure to people in Paul’s own day (“folly . . . a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Greeks”) is being contrasted with the true perspective, according to which it is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

It is precisely this contrast in perspective that Pope Francis is referring to.

10) Couldn’t Francis have been clearer?

One can always say that someone could have been clearer (even when this isn’t true).

But we, as listeners and readers, have an obligation to devote reasonable efforts to understanding what is being said in the things we hear and read.

Pope Francis is not obliged to speak at all times in public as if he were addressing small children.

When he’s addressing adults, he can reasonably expect them to know what is meant by phrases like “humanly speaking” and to be able to recognize the use of ironic references like “the failure of the cross.”

St. Paul expects the same thing of his readers when he uses phrases like “the foolishness of God.” (Just imagine how the outrage mongers would get the vapors if Pope Francis had uttered that phrase!)

Popes—and this certainly includes Pope Francis—are not always clear, but this is not one of those times. What Pope Francis said is perfectly clear for anyone who reads it attentively and with good will.

In the Foreword to his Jesus of Nazareth series, Pope Benedict XVI made a simple request:

I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.

That is precisely what the outrage mongers are not showing to Pope Francis in this case.

Pope Francis on the Divorced and Remarried: 10 things to know and share

Pope Francis recently gave a general audience in which he discussed the situation of those who have divorced and remarried without an annulment.

His remarks are particularly significant in light of the upcoming Synod on the Family and the proposals to give Holy Communion to those in this situation.

They also attracted attention because he stressed that people in this situation are not excommunicated.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

1) Where did the pope make his remarks and where can I read them?

He made them at his Wednesday general audience on August 5, 2015. They are part of a series of catecheses he has been doing on the family.

You will eventually be able to read them at the Vatican web site here.

However, at the time of this writing there is only a brief summary of his remarks as a placeholder until the Vatican’s English translation can be prepared (usually a delay of a week or more).

Until then, here is the Italian original, and you can read Zenit’s English translation here.

2) What did the pope say about divorced and remarried couples not being excommunicated?

He said:

[I]n fact, these people are not at all excommunicated, they are not excommunicated! And they are absolutely not treated as such: they are always part of the Church.

3) Is he correct?

Yes. The idea of excommunication is commonly misunderstood as not being able to take communion. While the Church does not permit people who have divorced and remarried without an annulment to receive communion (unless they are living as brother and sister), this is not the same thing as excommunication.

Excommunication is a canonical penalty that has various legal effects which are described here.

Excommunication does not cancel one’s membership in the Church, and divorcing and remarrying without an annulment does not incur excommunication.

Therefore, people in this situation are not excommunicated, and even if they were, they would remain part of the Church.

Consequently, they are to be treated as such.

The pope is absolutely correct.

4) How did Pope Francis introduce his remarks on the subject of the divorced and remarried?

He said:

[T]oday I would like to focus our attention on another reality: how to take care of those that, following the irreversible failure of their marital bond, have undertaken a new union.

The Church knows well that such a situation contradicts the Christian Sacrament. However, her look of teacher draws always from her heart of mother; a heart that, animated by the Holy Spirit, always seeks the good and salvation of persons. See why she feels the duty, “for the sake of truth,” to “exercise careful discernment.” Saint John Paul II expressed himself thus in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (n. 84), pointing out, for instance, the difference between one who has suffered the separation and one who has caused it. This discernment must be made.

5) Did John Paul II refer to these things in Familiaris Consortio?

Yes. He said:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

He went on, in the same section, to say:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

6) Did Pope Francis cite any particular reasons, apart from the good of the spouses, why these situations need to be looked at carefully?

Yes. He called attention, in particular, to how children are affected (something also mentioned by John Paul II). Pope Francis said:

If, then, we look at these new bonds with the eyes of little ones – and the little ones are looking – with the eyes of children, we see even more the urgency to develop in our communities a real acceptance of persons that live such situations. Therefore, it is important that the style of the community, its language, its attitudes are always attentive to persons, beginning with the little ones. They are the ones who suffer the most, in these situations. Otherwise, how will we be able to recommend to these parents to do their utmost to educate the children in the Christian life, giving them the example of a convinced and practiced faith, if we hold them at a distance from the life of the community, as if they were excommunicated? We must proceed in such a way as not to add other weights beyond those that the children, in these situations, already have to bear! Unfortunately, the number of these children and youngsters is truly great. It is important that they feel the Church as a mother attentive to all, always willing to listen and to come together.

7) What did Pope Francis say the Church’s response has been?

He said:

In these decades, in truth, the Church has not been either insensitive or slow. Thanks to the reflection carried out by Pastors, guided and confirmed by my Predecessors, the awareness has greatly grown that a fraternal and attentive acceptance is necessary, in love and in truth, of the baptized that have established a new coexistence after the failure of their sacramental marriage; in fact, these people are not at all excommunicated, they are not excommunicated! And they are absolutely not treated as such: they are always part of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI intervened on this question, soliciting careful discernment and wise pastoral support, knowing that “simple recipes” do not exist (Address to the 7th World Meeting of Families, Milan, June 2, 2012, answer n. 5).

8) What did Benedict XVI say in the passage that Pope Francis quotes?

He said:

Indeed the problem of divorced and remarried persons is one of the great sufferings of today’s Church. And we do not have simple solutions. Their suffering is great and yet we can only help parishes and individuals to assist these people to bear the pain of divorce.

He went on to say:

As regards these people – as you have said – the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church. Perhaps, even if it is not possible to receive absolution in Confession, they can nevertheless have ongoing contact with a priest, with a spiritual guide. This is very important, so that they see that they are accompanied and guided. Then it is also very important that they truly realize they are participating in the Eucharist if they enter into a real communion with the Body of Christ. Even without “corporal” reception of the sacrament, they can be spiritually united to Christ in his Body.

9) What did Pope Francis say about how people in these situations should be received?

Building on the remarks of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, he said:

Hence the repeated invitations of Pastors to manifest openly and consistently the community’s willingness to receive and encourage them, so that they live and develop increasingly their belonging to Christ and to the Church with prayer, with listening to the Word of God, with frequenting of the liturgy, with the Christian education of the children, with charity and service to the poor, with commitment to justice and peace.

The biblical icon of the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18) summarizes the mission that Jesus received from the Father: to give his life for the sheep. This attitude is also a model for the Church, which receives her children as a mother that gives her life for them.

He then quotes his own apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium:

“The Church is called to be the House of the Father, with doors always wide open […]”

No closed doors! No closed doors!

“Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community. The Church […] is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, n. 47).

10) What significance do these remarks have for the upcoming Synod on the Family and the proposals to give Holy Communion to people in these situations if they are not living as brother and sister?

They do not appear to have a decisive significance, one way or the other.

On the one hand, Pope Francis does not mention such proposals. In fact, he is frank in saying that “such a situation contradicts the Christian Sacrament.” He also stresses continuity with his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and he quotes from passages where both of these predecessors explicitly reject giving Holy Communion to people in these situations if they are not living as brother and sister.

On the other hand, he does not quote from those parts of the passages, and he also is clear that he wants to find ways to help such people have more involvement with the Church—particularly in light of the effect that their situation has on their children.

There is thus not a decisive indication of what he is likely to do, either way, though on balance the text of this audience seems to favor continuity with the Church’s historic practice more than it indicates any forthcoming change on this point.

Waiting for a Medjugorje Decision: 12 things to know and share

We are now in the period of waiting before the Holy See announces a decision regarding the reported apparitions at Medjugorje.

In recent days, several developments have emerged which people have examined to see what they might reveal about that decision.

One set of stories claims to know the decision reached by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What are the basic facts about Medjugorje?

Medjugorje is a town located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the former Yugoslavia.

In 1981, several young people there began reported receiving apparitions of the Virgin Mary. This led to the development of a global movement around the reported apparitions, which are reported to be still-ongoing today.

INFO HERE.

Over the course of time, the bishops in whose territory Medjugorje lies have made various pronouncements in which they have not supported the authenticity of the apparitions. These can be found online here.

In addition, in 1991, the then-Yugoslavian bishops conference issued a report which concluded:

On the base of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.

This represents a negative judgment on the authenticity of the apparitions.

The report can be read, along with additional background, here.

In 2010, the Holy See formed a commission under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to study the subject.

That commission completed its work and turned over its findings to the CDF for evaluation.

Following the CDF determination, Pope Francis will then make the final determination of what, if anything, is to be done.

2) What are the new developments that have been reported in recent days?

There are several. They include:

A response by Pope Francis to a question put to him during a recent trip to the former Yugoslavia.
Remarks made by Pope Francis in one of his a daily homily.
Remarks that Pope Francis is alleged to have made in private, as reported in a new book.
Reports in the Italian press that the CDF has reached its decision on Medjugorje.

The last of these claims to deal with an official action, so we will look at it first.

3) What is being reported about the CDF and its decision on Medjugorje?

According to Catholic World News:

The CDF reportedly held a feria quarta meeting on June 24, at which the prelates discussed the findings of a special papal commission that had investigated the Medjugorje phenomenon. According to several Italian journalists—notably Vatican-watch Gianluca Barile—the CDF agreed with that commission’s finding that there is no evidence of supernatural activity at Medjugorje. . . .

The CDF, according to the Italian media reports, has essentially supported the judgment rendered in 1991 by the bishops of what was then Yugoslavia. The CDF will reportedly recommend that pastors should not sponsor or support events that presume the reality of the visions claimed by the Medjugorje “seers.”

However, the CDF will reportedly urge recognition of Medjugorje as a special “place of prayer,” in light of the numerous reports of intense spiritual experiences enjoyed by visitors there. Pilgrimages to Medjugorje will not be forbidden, provided that they do not center on the alleged apparitions.

4) How likely are these reports to be accurate?

It is difficult to say. The Vatican is a leaky place, as illustrated both by the VatiLeaks scandal and the recent leaking of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’.

It is certainly possible that Barile and his colleagues in the Italian press got ahold of a genuine and accurate leak from someone with knowledge of the CDF decision.

If so, they got ahold of the information remarkably fast, because the CDF supposedly made the decision on June 24th, and the Italian press was reporting on it within 24 hours.

It could be true.

On the other hand, the Italian media reports a lot of stuff that is inaccurate.

Also, there have been numerous false reports about Medjugorje over the years, including premature reports of a Medjugorje decision that were later retracted.

We may get further clarification on this issue if the Holy See Press Office chooses to comment.

If they do, it will be necessary to read their statement(s) very carefully to see what is and is not being said.

UPDATE: Vatican Insider claims that the CDF has not made a decision on Medjugorje and won’t wor some time. We still have no word from the Vatican Press Office, so we have conflicting accounts in the Italian press.

VATICAN INSIDER STORY IN ORIGINAL ITALIAN.

GOOGLE MACHINE TRANSLATION.

5) What is Pope Francis alleged to have said in private regarding the subject?

According to Te Deum Laudamus:

A pro-Medjugorje website in Brazil is reporting that Pope Francis, while in Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day, made some rather blunt comments concerning Medjugorje, and about activities of the alleged visionaries. The title of the post says a lot: “Pope Francis says those who say they see Our Lady have psychological problems and that the seers of Medjugorje lie to the people.” . . .

The website discusses information revealed in a book by Father Alexander Awi Mello, who interviewed the Holy Father during his trip to Brazil. The book, “She’s my Mother: Encounters of Pope Francis with Mary” is published by Edições Loyola.

You can read the rest at Te Deum Laudamus, but basically the Pope is reported to have made skeptical remarks concerning the reported apparitions themselves without denying that there has been good connected with Medjugorje as well.

6) How accurate is this likely to be?

There is no way to know, but I wouldn’t suggest putting a lot of weight on this one.

There are too many reports of a pope saying something to someone privately (or even publicly) about Medjugorje that have turned out to be false.

It could be true, but the track record for this kind of report is not good.

7) What did the pope say in his recent daily homily?

According to the account on the Vatican web site:

“On this path”, Francis continued, there are also “those who always need newness from the Christian identity: they have forgotten that they were chosen, anointed, that they have the guarantee of the Spirit, and they search: ‘Where are the prophets who tell us today the letter that Our Lady will send us at 4:00 in the afternoon?’, for example, no? They live by this”. But “this is not the Christian identity. The last word of God is called ‘Jesus’ and nothing more”.

Some commentators have seen the dismissive reference to receiving a letter from Our Lady at 4:00 in the afternoon as indicating a dismissive attitude toward the claim of Medjugorje seers to receive messages from the Blessed Virgin on a frequent, even daily, basis at set times.

Thus Medjugorje.com states:

Our Lady usually appears for Her daily apparitions every evening in Medjugorje at 6:40 p.m. or at 5:40 p.m. Daylight Savings Time. Our Lady may appear to certain visionaries at a different time if they are traveling or for certain situations. When Ivan has his prayer groups on Monday and Friday nights, Our Lady appears to him at 10:00 p.m.

8) How significant is this as an indicator of Pope Francis’s attitude toward Medjugorje?

This is not the first time that Pope Francis has made remarks of this nature in his daily homilies.

According to the account on the Vatican web site, he said the following in a daily homily from November 14, 2013:

“Jesus tells us something quite interesting in this regard: this spirit of curiosity, which is worldly, leads us into confusion”. In the Gospel he says: “the days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, ‘Lo, there! or ‘Lo, here!’ … It is curiosity that leads us to listen to these things,” he said. “They tell us: the Lord is here, he is there, and there! But I know a visionary, a visionary who receives messages from Our Lady”. To which the Pope added: “Look, Our Lady is a Mother and she loves us all. But she is not a post woman who sends messages every day”.

In reality, Pope Francis said, “these novelties draw us away from the Gospel, from wisdom, from the glory of God, from the beauty of God”. And he added: “Jesus says that the kingdom of God does not come in a way that attracts attention”; rather, it comes through wisdom. “The kingdom of God is in your midst”, he said, and “the kingdom of God is this work, this action of the Holy Spirit who gives us wisdom, who gives us peace.”

Pope Francis thus seems to have a skeptical attitude toward claims of unusually frequent and predictable Marian apparitions (“messages every day,” “at 4:00 in the afternoon”).

He does not mention Medjugorje in this connection, but it is by far the most prominent Marian phenomenon reporting frequent and predictable apparitions.

At least on the face of things, this suggests a certain skepticism toward the Medjugorje reports.

That’s not to say that, when the final decision is made, Pope Francis will definitely reject the Medjugorje claims. If the CDF came to him with what it considered strong evidence in favor of them, he might accept that finding.

However, it does suggest that he might well approve a finding from the CDF against the reports of apparitions at Medjugorje.

9) What did the Pope say in the interview he gave when he visited the former Yugoslavia?

There has been a question about this because of a translation issue.

In Italian, Pope Francis began his remarks with the words “Sul problema di Medjugorje . . .”

Some commenters (at least in English) seized on the word problema as an indication that Pope Francis takes a negative attitude toward Medjugorje—that he views it as a “problem.”

When I heard this claim, I was immediately skeptical, because the word problema does not necessarily carry a negative connotation. It can, in fact, simply mean “issue.”

SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HERE.

Saying, “Sul problema di Medjugorje . . .” need mean no more than “On the issue of Medjugorje . . . .”

This is, in fact, the interpretation offered in the Vatican web site’s English translation, which is now out.

10) What does the Vatican’s English translation say?

It reads as follows:

[Journalist] Silvije Tomašević:

Good evening, Your Holiness. As one might expect, many Croats came as pilgrims to Sarajevo, and want to know if Your Holiness is coming to Croatia… But since we are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is also great interest concerning a declaration on the phenomenon of Medjugorje…

Pope Francis:

In regard to the issue of Medjugorje, Pope Benedict XVI at the time convened a committee presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini; there were other Cardinals, theologians and specialists on the committee as well. They did an investigation and Cardinal Ruini came to me and gave me the study they did, after many years of labour, I don’t know, maybe three of four years, more or less. They did a fine job, a fine job indeed. Cardinal Müller (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) told me that he would be having a feria quarta (a meeting dedicated to this specific question) at the right time; I think it was done on the last Wednesday of the month. But I am not sure… We are close to coming to a decision. And then the results will be communicated. For the moment, all that is being done is to give guidelines to the bishops, but along the lines that will be taken. Thank you!

[Father Lombardi (i.e., the Vatican press spokesman) notes that the proposed feria quarta has not yet, in fact, taken place.]

11) What does this tell us about what the decision is likely to be?

Pope Francis was deliberately circumspect on the issue and answered by primarily talking about the mechanics of the process rather than what its result will be.

He also was not closely familiar with the present state of the matter, as he was mistaken about whether the meeting of the CDF had taken place.

However, the very end of his comments may be significant. According to the Vatican’s English translation, he said:

For the moment, all that is being done is to give guidelines to the bishops, but along the lines that will be taken.

If this translation is accurate, it would seem to signal the general nature of what the decision is likely to be.

Pope Francis refers first to what is being done “for the moment” and notes that this consists of “giv[ing] guidelines to the bishops.”

This appears to be a reference to a series of recent communiqués from the CDF to various bishops instructing them not to allow gatherings which presuppose the veracity of the Medjugorje apparitions.

These communiqués have been supportive of the 1991 Yugoslavian bishops’ conclusion and have included restrictions on having Medjugorje seers make appearances in parishes.

FOR EXAMPLE, SEE HERE.

AND HERE.

The significant thing is that Pope Francis appears to refer to these directives and then seems to indicate that they are “along the lines that will be taken.”

If this translation is accurate, it suggests that the eventual decision is likely to be at least a general reaffirmation of the position that has been taken in the recent CDF communiqués.

12) What should we do at this point?

Wait. Pray. Consider reports like these serenely and carefully, and be prepared to give open-minded and supportive consideration to the Holy See’s eventual decision—whatever it may be.

Draft of Environmental Encyclical Leaked: 12 Things to Know and Share

With just days to go before the release of Pope Francis’s highly anticipated encyclical on the environment, a draft copy has suddenly appeared on the Internet.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What are the basic facts about this encyclical?

An encyclical is a teaching document issued by the pope. Encyclicals are among the more solemn and thus more authoritative papal documents.

This one is called Laudato Si (“Be praised”)—a line from the Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi.

It is Pope Francis’s second encyclical. His first was Lumen Fidei, which was largely drafted by his predecessor, Benedict XVI. Laudato Si is thus the first encyclical prepared entirely at Pope Francis’s initiative.

It is devoted to ecology and related themes, and it is scheduled to be released on Thursday, June 18th.

2) Who leaked it?

Veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister leaked it on the web page of his newspaper, L’Espresso.

For reasons explained below, we will not be quoting from the document, though since it is already all over the Internet and has now become part of this story, we will link Magister’s original story, which includes a pdf of the document in Italian.

Magister’s original story is here.

3) What was the Vatican’s reaction?

The Holy See Press Office quickly issued a statement that said:

An Italian text of a draft of the Pope’s Encyclical “Laudato Si’” has been published. Please note that it is not the final text, and that the rules of the Embargo remain in place. We ask journalists to respect professional standards, which call for waiting for the official publication of the final text.

4) What is “the Embargo”?

This refers to a journalistic practice in which advance copies of texts are made available to journalists and others to enable them to prepare commentary in advance of the public release of a document.

The practice of letting them see advance copies of texts allows them to read them, digest them, and provide more accurate reporting and commentary than if they got the text at the time of its official release and had to read and report in haste.

Or that’s the theory.

Prior to the official release, such advance copies are said to be “embargoed,” meaning that reporters, etc., are not to publish things based on them until the time the document is officially released, at which point the embargo is lifted.

Movie reviews work the same way: Critics are frequently invited to advance screenings or sent “screener copies” so that they can have their movie reviews prepared by the day the movie is released, as a service to the public. They are not usually supposed to publish their reviews before the day of release, though.

5) Is breaking an embargo considered bad?

You bet. It’s a breech of trust with the people who gave you the embargoed text.

I’ve had embargoed texts of various documents any number of times (even years before the final text was released), and I’ve never broken an embargo.

I was shocked to learn that a respected Vaticanista (i.e., journalist covering the Vatican) like Sandro Magister had leaked this one.

Even if he thought he was leaking a pre-final version of the text (which is not clear from his original story), it’s an astonishing breech of journalistic ethics, and his name will likely be mud at the Vatican for some time.

6) How did Magister get the text?

This is unknown at present. In his article, he refers to the text having a “troubled” history and alludes to the first copies that the Vatican publishing house made having been pulped (destroyed) because of various places where they needed to be corrected.

It is possible that someone rescued one of the copies meant to be pulped and gave it to Magister. If so, he may have gotten it from a lower level person, such as a worker tasked with arranging for the copies to be pulped.

On the other hand, they could have come from someone higher placed.

If Magister’s text came from the batch that was pulped then that could explain why the Vatican Press Office said that it wasn’t the final version.

On the other hand, Magister may have been given a copy from a different batch, after some corrections were made. In any event, the Holy See Press Office says it isn’t the final copy.

7) How different will the final version be?

There is no way to know until Thursday.

Assuming that Magister is correct that a batch was pulped, this may have been due to nothing more than typos that needed to be corrected.

It is not at all uncommon for publishers to pulp runs of a publication that have typos which are caught at the last minute, assuming that the typos are significant enough. In my own experience with publishers, I’ve seen it done.

On the other hand, there may be more than typo fixes. This could happen, for example, if Pope Francis asked for certain editorial changes to be made and then, in the editorial process, these fell through the cracks and their absence was caught only at the last minute.

8) Why was the text leaked?

Without knowing who leaked it, there is no way to tell.

If it was a janitor who plucked a copy from a batch that were on their way to be shredded, it may simply have been that he knew Magister would be interested in a scoop and he wanted to be part of an exciting story (or possibly even be paid for his efforts).

Such an employee may not have read the text and there may be no larger agenda on his part.

On the other hand, if a person of higher stature leaked it—someone who had been entrusted with working on the text and read the content of the document—then there might be a deliberate intention to undermine the encyclical and its message.

9) How could the leak undermine the encyclical?

Part of the point of having an official release, with a press conference and everything, is to create on opportunity to get the document off on the best footing.

The media hops on it all at once, creating something of a saturation effect in different news channels, and the Holy See has the chance—via the press conference and associated materials given out to the press—to frame the story its way.

For a text to appear early can let some of the air out of the official release, and it can allow the text to be framed in ways contrary to the spin that the Holy See wants put on it.

In this case, because we have a pre-final draft, it will also cause attention to zero-in on the changes that were made between this draft and the final one, which may cause people to speculate about why those changes were made and what significance they might have (if they’re just typos or edits that were accidentally omitted and later caught: not much).

Further, this event raises the specter of the VatiLeaks scandal, in which Benedict XVI’s own butler was funneling private Vatican documents to the press as part of his own agenda.

This event raises the question of whether there are additional leakers—or new leakers—who are in some way seeking to undermine Pope Francis.

10) Does the encyclical say anything supporting the idea of manmade global warming?

Yeah, but we knew it would, anyway. Previous statements coming out of the Holy See had made that clear. We didn’t need the leak to tell us that.

I won’t quote from the leaked version, but since it is out there and people are commenting on it, I can report that this isn’t a huge theme in the document.

A machine translation of the Italian original clocks in at around 42,000 English words. Of those, the word “warming” occurs four times, and the phrase “climate change” occurs 14 times.

So it’s not a huge theme. The vast bulk of the document is devoted to other things.

11) Does the encyclical oblige Catholics to believe in manmade global warming?

I’ll have more to say about this once the final, official, English version is out, but the short answer is no.

The idea that the planet is getting warmer and the idea that we are responsible for that are both empirical propositions that belong to the domain of science.

As a result, they are matters of science and not of faith.

There is even a place in the draft (no. 188), where Pope Francis makes the point that the Church does not pretend to settle scientific questions.

The Church has the responsibility to urge appropriate responses to what the best science available has to say on matters impacting mankind and the world under man’s care, and Pope Francis thinks that present science is sufficiently in favor of manmade global warming to urge cuts in greenhouse gasses, but if you think that the best science points in a different direction, you are not bound in faith to believe a particular scientific viewpoint.

12) Is the encyclical critical of the secular environmentalism that we hear so much about in the media today?

Yes. Again, not quoting it and keeping things at the level of general themes, the draft document is expressly critical of aspects of environmental ideologies that are incompatible with the Christian Faith.

This includes ideologies that would reject the unique place of mankind in creation.

The draft criticizes anti-human and pro-abortion ideologies, which often go hand-in-hand with secular environmentalism.

Did Pope Francis say it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are? 9 things to know and share

Recently I’ve received several queries about a video message that Pope Francis sent to an ecumenical gathering in Arizona.

A Zenit news story implied that the pope stated that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are.

But that’s not what he said at all.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

1) What were the circumstances of the video?

An ecumenical gathering was held in Phoenix, Arizona last Saturday (May 23), and the organizers—the John 17 Movement—had invited Pope Francis to attend.

He didn’t, but he did send a video message—mostly in Spanish.

You can read the full text of the message (in English) here.

2) What did Zenit say about the message?

The Catholic news agency Zenit did a piece reporting on the video message, which you can read here.

The piece was headlined

Pope to US Christian Unity Event: Jesus Knows All Christians Are One, Doesn’t Care What Type

At one point, the text of the story reads:

Francis pointed out that Jesus knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, and that they are one and brothers.

“He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care!” Francis said. “They are Christians.”

UPDATE: Zenit has issued a corrected version of the story here.

3) Did Pope Francis actually say that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian a person is?

No. The Zenit story is flatly incorrect.

Both the headline and the passage quoted above mistake the pope as speaking about Jesus when he is actually speaking about the devil—that is, he is saying that the devil doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are.

Here is the relevant passage from the pope’s remarks:

Division is the work of the Father of Lies, the Father of Discord, who does everything possible to keep us divided.

Together today, I here in Rome and you over there, we will ask our Father to send the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and to give us the grace to be one, “so that the world may believe”.

I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps.

But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one.

It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom.

He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians.

As you can see, Pope Francis establishes a chain of referents for the pronoun “he” (in “He doesn’t care”) that repeatedly identifies the individual in question as the devil.

Jesus is not even mentioned except in the phrases “the Spirit of Jesus” and “disciples of Christ.”

4) Would it be a problem if the pope had said that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are?

If intended in the absolute sense, yes. That would be a form of the error of indifferentism—the idea that it doesn’t matter what religion you are.

God is a God of truth, and so the truth of one’s religious beliefs matters to him.

5) Why does the pope describe his remark as something “that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps”?

Presumably because it’s an unfamiliar thought for many.

The idea that the devil stirs up persecution of Christians without respect to their particular affiliation, precisely because he knows that they are all Christians, is not something that one commonly hears—particularly in an age when many people aren’t even comfortable talking about the devil.

I can imagine any number of modernist theologians taking exception to this thought. That, of itself, could result in it sounding controversial.

6) Why did he say it might sound “even heretical, perhaps”?

The most likely explanation is that this is a touch of hyperbole, or exaggeration to make a point.

The pope is speaking informally, and his words have to be understood accordingly.

In Catholic theology, the term “heresy” has a precise, technical meaning: The obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial of a truth that must be believed with divine faith (i.e., God has revealed it) and with Catholic faith (i.e., because the Church has infallibly defined it as such).

Since he is speaking to an ecumenical group that consists largely or principally of non-Catholics, he cannot expect them to interpret the word “heretical” in the technical, Catholic sense.

This is further confirmed by the fact that there would be no grounds on which to criticize his main proposition–that the devil stirs up persecution against Christians because they are Christians–as heretical in the technical sense. God has not revealed that the devil does not persecute Christians of all stripes because they are Christians, and the Church has not infallibly defined that God has revealed this.

As a result, the pope isn’t using the term “heretical” in its technical sense. He’s speaking informally and hyperbolically.

Properly speaking, his proposal not only isn’t heretical, it doesn’t even sound heretical.

In rhetorical terms, the function of including the statement is to draw a line under what he is about to say, to call attention to it and invite people to think about it rather than passing over it quickly.

7) Is there anything problematic about his statement that “despite our differences, we are one”?

No. He acknowledges both that Christians have differences (true) and that, despite these differences, we also are in another sense one (also true).

Elsewhere in his message, he says:

We will search together, we will pray together, for the grace of unity.

The unity that is budding among us is that unity which begins under the seal of the one Baptism we have all received.

It is the unity we are seeking along a common path. It is the spiritual unity of prayer for one another.

The idea that Christian unity is rooted in our common baptism is a commonplace of Catholic theology.

He also acknowledges that, despite being one in a sense he has already alluded to, we are also seeking “the grace of unity” and that this unity is “budding” (meaning: an incomplete reality).

He is thus seeking to acknowledge both the things that unite and divide Christians.

8) Doesn’t the devil hate all human beings?

Yes, but he hates Christians in a special way, because we love and serve Christ.

9) How does the pope see the growth of Christian unity unfolding?

He says:

This [the “ecumenism of blood,” our common persecution by the devil] must encourage us to do what we are doing today: to pray, to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds of brotherhood.

I am convinced it won’t be theologians who bring about unity among us. Theologians help us, the science of the theologians will assist us, but if we hope that theologians will agree with one another, we will reach unity the day after Judgement Day.

The Holy Spirit brings about unity. Theologians are helpful, but most helpful is the goodwill of us all who are on this journey with our hearts open to the Holy Spirit!

The pope thus sees Christians working to grow closer to each other through prayer, dialogue, goodwill, and openness to the Holy Spirit.

He sees theologians as being able to play a helpful role in this, but he does not envision Christian unity being fully restored in this age simply because of Christian theologians getting together to talk.

Instead, Pope Francis is focusing on practical ways that Christians can “strengthen our bonds of brotherhood” and “shorten the distance between us” in the here and now.

Did Pope Francis say animals go to heaven?

The news networks are abuzz with stories saying that Pope Francis has said pets go to heaven.

They’ve even “helpfully” noted how this contrasts with the position of his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

But the thing is . . . the whole story is false.

Here are 7 things to know and share . . .

1) What is being claimed?

Among other things:

Pope Francis has declared that all animals go to heaven during his weekly audience in St. Peter’s Square.

The Pope made these remarks after he received two donkeys as early Christmas presents. During his discussion, Pope Francis quoted the apostle Paul as he comforted a child who was mourning the death of his dog.

Francis quoted Paul’s remarks as, “One day we will see our animals again in eternity of Christ. Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.” [Source.]

Also:

In his weekly audience in St Peter’s Francis quoted the apostle Paul who comforted a child who was crying after his dog died.

“One day we will see our animals again in eternity of Christ’, Francis quoted Paul as saying. The Pope added: “Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.” [Source.]

Right there we have multiple reasons to be suspicious of the story.

2) Why do we have reason to be suspicious?

First, because the common theological opinion for centuries has been that the souls of animals do not survive death.

Second, because this is just the kind of sensationalistic story that the media loves to get wrong.

Third because we have the same words being attributed to two different events: The Wednesday audience at which the remarks were allegedly made occurred on November 26, but the donkey-giving event occurred later.

Fourth, because the Apostle Paul never wrote anything comforting a child who was morning the death of his dog.

Anybody who has read his epistles knows this.

In fact, just do an online search of St. Paul’s epistles, and you’ll see what I mean.

There is only a single passage (Philippians 3:2) where St. Paul refers to dogs, and there he isn’t comforting a boy. He’s using the term as a way of referring to people who do bad stuff.

Fifth, St. Paul certainly never wrote that “One day we will see our animals again in eternity of Christ. Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.”

That’s just not in the New Testament. Anywhere.

3) Do the reasons for suspicion deepen if you look further into the story?

You bet. While many secular news agencies are carrying this story, you know who isn’t?

The Vatican’s own news agencies. You can do searches on News.va for terms like animals or dog and you won’t find any articles about Pope Francis saying that animals go to heaven.

You might even find a story denying this if they get around to posting a denial for the benefit of the world press.

You can also read the entire text of the Wednesday audience where Pope Francis allegedly made the remarks. He doesn’t say anything like what is attributed to him.

And, if that’s not enough, you can watch the video of the entire papal audience, including the stuff before and after it, like where he’s riding around St. Peter’s Square in the popemobile, and you can see for yourself that at no point does Francis make such remarks—nor is a crying child ever brought to him for words of comfort.

4) What did Francis actually say?

Pope Francis’s audience was devoted to the subject of creation and the new heaven and earth. What he said was:

At the same time, Sacred Scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this marvelous plan cannot but involve everything that surrounds us and came from the heart and mind of God.

The Apostle Paul says it explicitly, when he says that “Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).

Other texts utilize the image of a “new heaven” and a “new earth” (cf. 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1), in the sense that the whole universe will be renewed and will be freed once and for all from every trace of evil and from death itself.

What lies ahead is the fulfillment of a transformation that in reality is already happening, beginning with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Hence, it is the new creation; it is not, therefore, the annihilation of the cosmos and of everything around us, but the bringing of all things into the fullness of being, of truth and of beauty.

This is the design that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, willed from eternity to realize and is realizing.

5) Where did the stuff about animals going to heaven come from?

That was an interpretation that put upon Francis’s remarks by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, which then got garbled in translation and picked up by the international news media.

The New York Times, after writing a gushy, slanted, and inaccurate story on the topic, subsequently issued this correction:

Correction: December 12, 2014

An earlier version of this article misstated the circumstances of Pope Francis’ remarks.

He made them in a general audience at the Vatican, not in consoling a distraught boy whose dog had died.

The article also misstated what Francis is known to have said.

According to Vatican Radio, Francis said: “The Holy Scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this wonderful design also affects everything around us,” which was interpreted to mean he believes animals go to heaven.

Francis is not known to have said: “One day, we will see our animals again in the eternity of Christ. Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.”

(Those remarks were once made by Pope Paul VI to a distraught child, and were cited in a Corriere della Sera article that concluded Francis believes animals go to heaven.)

Got that?

Francis didn’t say anything to a grieving boy. Neither did the apostle Paul. It was (allegedly) Pope Paul VI.

Francis didn’t say that animals go to heaven. Corriere della Sera leapt to unjustifiable conclusions because Pope Francis said that God has a plan to renovate the world.