Ilze
Scamparini
I would
like permission to ask a delicate question: another image that has been going
around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his private
life. I would like to know, Your Holiness, what you intend to do about
this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness
intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?
Pope
Francis
About
Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary
investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had
been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the
response. But I wish to add something else: I see that many times in the
Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for
“sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not
crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a
crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a
priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord
forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very
important for our lives.
When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I
have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget,
because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our
sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin.
Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins,
that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We
have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question
more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation
and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question.
Then, you
spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby.
I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with
“gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you
are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a
person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all
lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is
searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The
Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ...
wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these
people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is
not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another,
and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a
lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of
masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank
you so much for asking this question. Many thanks.
Pope Francis, Press
Conference on plane after World Youth Day, 2013
Reflection – So, this happened. And apparently it has
stirred up some controversy or other among some people or other. In my usual
way, I refused to immediately drop whatever I was blogging about (the Sermon on
the Mount) to breathlessly report on the scandal of the Pope following… well,
the Sermon on the Mount, to be precise.
Yes, let the
headlines read ‘Pope Francis says ‘judge not, lest ye be judged.’ Film at 11.
Because that is just about all he is talking about here, and I don’t know how
anyone reading his remarks could come away with anything else from them
We are all
sinners. If someone at least seems to be turning away from sin, ‘searching for
the Lord and has good will’, then we have no right as Christians to do anything
but embrace him or her as our brother, our sister.
It is only by
a criminally dishonest misreading of the quote (hello, New York Times!) that the Pope could be understood as changing any
Church teaching or contradicting Benedict or any such thing. Clearly, he is
quoting the Cathechism and speaking
in the very context of sin and our common struggle with sin. There is no way to
read what he is saying that would suggest the Pope does not see homosexual
intercourse as sinful.
What he is
talking about is a very simple thing: mercy.
And the fact that ‘mercy’ towards gay people is controversial in at least
some quarters of the Catholic Church is really, really pathetic, folks. We are
all sinners; all fall short of the glory of God. I don’t know of any Scriptures
that carve out a special place for homosexuality that only qualifies for mercy
if the gay person in question passing a series of loyalty tests and agrees to
never use the word ‘gay’ again (apparently the Pope’s use of the g-word riled
up some folks) and above all never shows any signs of struggle or faltering or
being tempted ever again because, ick.
The Pope is
calling us all to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful and to not
judge lest we be judged. THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. Or rather, it is
controversial in the exact sense that the Gospel is controversial. Do we
believe it, will we live it, or not? That, my brothers and sisters, is where
the Lord will judge us, not on what particular sin and temptation we struggle
with and just how often we need to cry out the great prayer of faith, “Lord
Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
And that’s
about all the ‘controversy’ I plan to engage in for now. Tomorrow is Our Lady’s
great feast day, and so we’ll talk about her some, and then we’ll see. À demain!
It is just suspect. Frs Hans Kung and Tom Reese are muzzled. Frs Roy Bourgeois and Peter Kennedy are excommunicated. The LCWR are placed under strict administrative supervision. Women priests are excommunicated.
ReplyDeleteThe self loathing, closeted Gay, members of the Catholic hierarchy, only too glad to engage in the worst kind of homophobic rhetoric against out Gays only seeking the same basic civil rights as others, gets a big pass from Francis.
Nonsense, Moe. No one is 'muzzled.' The Church states that if a person writes things that contradict Catholic doctrine, they are no longer a Catholic theologian, and therefore can't teach Catholic theology in a Catholic institution. Um, yeah. Fr. Bourgeois participated in a simulated sacrament, which is a very serious matter of sacrilege, as do the women you mention. The LCWR has hosted speakers who talk about getting 'beyond Jesus' - yes, they do clearly need supervision.
DeletePope Francis is clearly talking about having an attitude of mercy and openness towards everyone - it is only your anger and hatred for the Catholic hierarchy that blinds you to what he is saying. God bless you.
who in this world do we think we are everyone is special to God i pray that our homosexual brothers would recieve
ReplyDeletethe same grace and mercy as a murderer does when he comes to Father and Jesus and seeks forgiveness
Well, my own hope is that God will show me grace and mercy - I kind of agree with Moe here - it's too easy to put all the sinners over in one corner, even implicitly. I AM A SINNER, NEEDING GOD'S MERCY. That's my starting point, and my ending one, too, eh?
Delete"the same grace and mercy as a murderer"
ReplyDeleteClassic trad cat hate speech. Put the Gay over in the corner with murderers. They deserve no better. Better put those feminist nuns with them too.
Will God show such mercy to Benedict and Georg Ganswein, do you think? Cardinals Law and Burke? Cardinal O'Connor and Mayor Ed Koch? When they show up hand in hand?
Will Jesus show you the same grace and mercy as the Pharisee?
Pope Francis, the merciful.
DeleteI really like this guy. Amazing how he has moved people on both extremes to talk about mercy.
Amazing how these comments bring us back from the outsides to the center: deeply rooted in what catholics regard as the most ancient, the most true tradition of all- the gospels and the life, the works of Jesus. Jesus points us all toward mercy- forbids judging the status of another's soul- always drawing us to the mercy of God, and showing how to mercifully encounter each other.
These are age old teachings. I am not sure why they sound so new when Francis points them out. Yes, he used the g word! He identified gays by the name they identify. "who am I to judge?"- how tender is that?
I get where Moe is coming from. I want to embrace the mercy- but at the same time- I am steeped in the reality of my church experience. Not always merciful. Sometimes not just unmercifully, but unjust, and sometimes (as Moe examples) downright cruel.
Somehow, for me, the answer is coming back from the outsides- to the center- back to where the mercy is. Back from the extremes, back from the emotion.
Maybe that is why I like this Pope Francis. The merciful. I mean ordaining John the 23rd and John Paul in the same day? He honors all.
Please keep writing Moe and Father Denis. You help me by your words and your prayers.
My prayer, fervent and sincere, is that God shows me, you, Catherine, 'anonymous', Burke, Law, Dan Savage, the LCWR, Pope Benedict, Lady Gaga, the little old lady praying her rosary, and everyone, everyone, everyone grace and mercy. Because we are all going to Hell if He doesn't. But I have reason to believe (staring at a crucifix as I write this) that He intends to show mercy to us all, and we have only to ask for it.
DeleteAs to whether or not I think this one or that one is going to heaven or hell - I sternly refuse to allow my mind to dwell on that question for even one second, as it is none of my damn business! Not my job, thank you Jesus!
Bless you
DeleteWe all move and live and breath in the grace God gives us- the grace he gives us to know and see and love by... Little by little, or sometimes all at once, we open ourselves to it more and more.
I have read about the concerns about LCWR going beyond Jesus. But isn't that what Jesus asked? Made himself a gate, a way a path, to go thru him and with him to the fullness of God?
Forgive me, if this offensive.. It just comes to me over and again. Bless you.
Well, my best guide on that (besides the Church Herself) is St. Teresa of Avila. She was always clear that we never get beyond the sacred humanity of Jesus - He is always the way, not just temporary way to some other destination, but a way to live on. He is Way, but also Truth and Life - and so yes, He is bringing us to the Father, but always in Him and with Him. That's my understanding of it.
DeleteWell, someone emailed me a copy of sr. Laurie Brinkman's 2007 controversial talk. I read it from beginning to end this morning. As I was reading, I recognized this talk was not really meant for me...and I felt a little uncomfortable that such conversation was exposed so publicly.
ReplyDeleteShe was actually talking about four directions that certain communities could move in the future and she detailed those choice, without judging any. As I read what she had written about the sojourning choice, I understood more than before what this means...and it really was completely different than I expected. I do not think I could go that way. You are right St Teresa or St Catherine are probably better for me.
But, the other thing that really stood out for me is that Sr Laurie really did not advocate the sojourning route. she said something different. She was promoting reconciliation with the Church...and if you read this, you really cannot mistake her desire to reconcile.
Anyway, I learned a lot this morning...felt a little bit better about everything...less disconnected. I am taking my brain out of this particular controversy for awhile ...it is really not mine.
Bless you.
I completely agree that people who have repented of their sin (any sin) and had it forgiven by God should not be labeled as "that kind of sinner" by men. The sin is forgiven and gone. Let all "sins of youth" be forgiven and forgotten by all!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do find some of Pope Francis' words confusing. He says that "if a person, ...[even] a priest..., commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets." Yes, of course. Priests must receive God's mercy too. But it seems that there are some sins, if committed by a priest, that are not solely matters of private repentance and renunciation.
If a priest, already ordained, acts on homosexual tendencies, he is doing something gravely disordered, against the procreative and unitive end of sex, and in violation of his priestly vow of chastity.
This, while not a crime, is hardly a "sin of one's youth" (or, in the words of the 2005 instruction on homosexuals and ordination, a "homosexual tendenc[y] that w[as] only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded... [that] must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate"), but a violation of the priest's own personal permanent and eternal vocation, and a violation against the priesthood as a whole and the whole church. Pius V taught that such a man "be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery." That, at least, is a consequence fitting the act.
I am not discussing whether the accusations against Msgr. Ricca are true or not, but the question of homosexual behaviour among priests. If "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture,'" should she not require the same of her priests? And might this not be something like "passing a series of loyalty tests and agree[ing] to never use the word ‘gay’ again" as a term of self-identification? To call oneself a gay priest is either misleading (the assumption is always far more toward acting-out than not) or a complete contradiction. To fight against temptation is heroic. But to bring one's struggle into such public view that everyone, not just the priests closest family, advisors, and friends, is aware of it, is already a scandal.
I completely agree that people who have repented of their sin (any sin) and had it forgiven by God should not be labeled as "that kind of sinner" by men. The sin is forgiven and gone. Let all "sins of youth" be forgiven and forgotten by all!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do find some of Pope Francis' words confusing. He says that "if a person, ...[even] a priest..., commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets." Yes, of course. Priests must receive God's mercy too. But it seems that there are some sins, if committed by a priest, that are not solely matters of private repentance and renunciation.
If a priest, already ordained, acts on homosexual tendencies, he is doing something gravely disordered, against the procreative and unitive end of sex, and in violation of his priestly vow of chastity.
This, while not a crime, is hardly a "sin of one's youth" (or, in the words of the 2005 instruction on homosexuals and ordination, a "homosexual tendenc[y] that w[as] only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded... [that] must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate"), but a violation of the priest's own personal permanent and eternal vocation, and a violation against the priesthood as a whole and the whole church. Pius V taught that such a man "be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery." That, at least, is a consequence fitting the act.
I am not discussing whether the accusations against Msgr. Ricca are true or not, but the question of homosexual behaviour among priests. If "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture,'" should she not require the same of her priests? And might this not be something like "passing a series of loyalty tests and agree[ing] to never use the word ‘gay’ again" as a term of self-identification? To call oneself a gay priest is either misleading (the assumption is always far more toward acting-out than not) or a complete contradiction. To fight against temptation is heroic. But to bring one's struggle into such public view that everyone, not just the priests closest family, advisors, and friends, is aware of it, is already a scandal.
Annon,
ReplyDeleteYou are wound pretty tightly. Not everybody is you know.
As Catholics we are all called to chastity. Seemsike you are trying to sort which sins are bigger: if a married man fails at chastity- either by sneaking a quickie or getting a vasectomy, is that as big a deal as when a priest does it? Or is it just the fall bigger get bigger according to your sexuality : do gays fall farther than heterosexuals?
Let's say, for the sake of an analogy, that a school bus driver is convicted of driving his bus full of children while stone drunk. He has done something (driving drunk) which is seriously wrong for anyone. However, his "state of life" has made his driving ability for others, not his own. And so, he can't simply apologize, and return to work the next day. His ability to be a bus driver has to be seriously questioned. That is not to say that he couldn't possibly ever return to work as a bus driver, but it would have to follow after some serious rehabilitation. This also isn't to say that someone who had "experimented" with driving under the influence or reckless driving at excessive speeds in their youth could never become a bus driver, but they would have to mature and change their behaviour first.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, if a priest (not a man before he is well on the way to being ordained a priest forever) falls into homosexual behaviour, he has not only done a seriously disordered thing, but because of his state of life, he has compromised his ability to function as a priest. A priest is a father and shepherd of souls; he has to have the emotional and sexual maturity to be a father to all and to give his life for his sheep, not to be thinking about or actually having sex with them.
I was simply questioning whether a priest who engages in homosexual actions and has repented and "is searching for the Lord and has good will" might not be required by honesty and fittingness to be removed from his office. This is entirely consonant with receiving God's mercy. A sin can be forgiven, but the consequences of an action still remain.
By the way, I would say that you can objectively judge actions (NOT hearts, NOT people). Homosexual behaviour is gravely disordered, as it does not correspond to a human being's call to use his or her sexuality to reflect God's unitive and life-giving love. Breaking one's vow is also gravely disordered. Not living chastely according to one's state of life is also gravely disordered. If you add all three of those things together, you have an action that is more (objectively speaking) disordered than an action that goes against only one of these principles.
BUT, the objective action is not all that sin is. Who is to say who falls farther when committing their own personal sins? (I haven't personally broken my vow to married love, but I feel like I've fallen to the very bottom when I am angry and selfish.) I'm not concerned with who falls farther; I'm concerned with each of us being called higher.