BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

The in-flight news conference
given by Pope Francis after Rio - Part II
Translated from the Vatican Radio transcript
posted on the Italian blogsite
IL SISMOGRAFO
July 30, 2013

FR LOMBARDI: Gianguido Vecchi, of Corriere della Sera, I ask you to come forward, then Madmae Pigozzi and after, Nicole Winfield.

GUIANGUIDO VECCHI: Holy Father, even during this trip, you spoke often about mercy. With regard to remarried divorcees having access to the Sacraments, is there a possibility that the Church will change its discipline on this? That these Sacraments can be an opportunity to bring these persons closer to the Church rather than a barrier that separates them from other faithful? [But he is asking from a wrong premise: Sacraments are denied to remarried divorcees whose Church marriage has not been annulled, because they knowingly entered into a second marriage despite that. Their offense against the sacrament of Matrimony is a continuing one unless the first marriage is annulled. They, not the Church, have separated themselves from other faithful who are not in such a state of continued offense. Why should the Church make an exception to the rule about the sanctity of marriage just to make them feel better? ]
THE POPE: This is something that is always asked. Mercy is greater than the case you raise. I think this ought to be the time of mercy. [Shouldn't any time be a time of mercy???] These epochal changes, even so many problems in the Church - such as the deeds of some priests who are not good - problems of corruption in the Church, the problem of clericalism, to cite an example, have left so many wounded, so many wounded.

The Church is a Mother - she must go and heal the wounded, right? With mercy. If the Lord never tires of pardoning us, we can have no other choice but first of all, to heal the wounded, right? The Church is a Mother, and she should follow this path of mercy. And find mercy for all, right?

I am thinking, when the Prodigal Son came home, his father didn't say to him: "Sit down, make yourself comfortable. Now, tell me, what did you do with all the money?" No, he ordered a feast. Later perhaps, when the son wished to speak, he spoke. The Church should do the same. When someone is hurt, we should not just wait for him to come to us, we should go out and seek him. This is mercy. And I think that this is a kairos, the right time - this time is a kairos of mercy.

This is an intuition that John Paul II had when he instituted the Feast of Divine Mercy, following St. Faustina Kowalska. He sensed that mercy was a necessity in our time. [I think most Catholics know God is merciful, that he is ready to forgive us again and again, but to preach mercy without emphasizing the immense responsibility that the individual must take to avail of divine mercy is like simply telling everyone, "Go ahead, you may sin again and again up to the very last minute, as long as you repent and ask for God's mercy each time you sim, but especially before you die!" Since we are human, we all tend to commit the same venial sins over and over, but mortal sins are something else. If you abort a child, and then repent and seek God's mercy, it means you will not abort again or encourage others to do so. It is not so easy to rectify ending a marriage and starting a new one while the first is still valid in the eyes of God. ]

With respect to Communion for persons in a second marriage - because there is no problem for divorcees to receive communion - but when they are in a second marriage, they cannot [if the first one has not been annulled].

I think one must look at this in the totality of matrimonial ministry. Because it is a problem. But [I also offer] a parenthesis. The Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of economy, as they call it, and allow a second possibility. [For what? for a second marriage??? Must research!!!] But, and I close the parenthesis, I think this problem must be studied within the context of matrimonial ministry.

And in this case, two things: One of the things that will be discussed with the Council of 8 when I meet with them on October 1-3, is how to make progress in matrimonial ministry, and this problem will come up. The second thing: fifteen days ago, I met with the secretary of the Bishops' Synod to discuss the theme of the next Synodal Assembly. It is an anthropological theme. But going back and forth about the theme - how does faith help in personal planning? - we saw that it must start in the family, and this, too, gets into the area of matrimonial ministry.

We are going toward a more profound pastoral approach to matrimony. . But this [communion for remarried divorcees] is a problem for everyone, because there are many who have this problem, right? [Of course, the other issue that seems to be overlooked in all this talk about mercy or consideration for these remarried divorcees who 'suffer' because they cannot receive communion, is the fact that they underwent divorce itself, which is not allowed by the Church. If being 'merciful' to them means allowing them not to suffer any consequences for getting divorced and remarrying, is that not exempting them from the universal rule on the sanctity of marriage? As for how many really have this 'problem' in the Church, I wish someone would do some informed estimates. However significant or insignificant that figure may be in the context of the overall number of Catholics does not justify bending the rules for them. Moreover, among such remarried divorced Catholics, how many are truly 'suffering' because they cannot receive Communion? The fact that they did go through divorce already means that practical considerations far outweighed any compunctions they might have felt as Catholics in deciding to violate the sanctity of marriage, to begin with. That is why I have always thought that there can be no one-size-fits-all rule on this issue. Every remarried Catholic divorcee who truly suffers from not receiving communion must be counselled individually by his pastor or confessor. Meanwhile, since it seems inconceivable that the Church would promulgate a law making it easy to annul the Church marriage of a divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry, nothing stops these 'suffering' remarried divorcees from having spiritual communion, as Benedict XVI has pointed out.]

For example, my predecedssor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Quarracino, often said that for him, half of all Catholic marriages are invalid. Why did he say that? Because many get married immaturely, without realizing that marriage is for life, or they are only getting married because it is the socially acceptable thing to do.

This too is part of what must be considered in matrimonial ministry. Even the judicial problem of annulling marriages - that too must be reviewed. Because the ecclesiastic tribunals do not suffice for this. It is complex - them problem of matrimonial ministry. Thank you.

FR. LOMBARDI: Now we have Madame Caroline Pigozzi of Paris Match...

CAROLINE PIGOZZI: Good evening, Holy Father. I would like to know if you, since you became Pope, still feel Jesuit...
THE POPE: That is a theological question because Jesuits make a vow to obey the Pope. But if the Pope himself is Jesuit, perhaps I should vow to obey the Superior General of the Jesuits... I don't know if that resolves it...

I feel Jesuit in my spirituality, the spirituality of the exercises [St. Ignatius Loyola famously prescribed Spiritual Exercises for the members of the order he founded], in the spirituality that I have at heart. I feel so Jesuit that in three days, I shall go and celebrate with the Jesuits the feast of St. Ignatius - I will say Mass in the morning [at the Church of Gesu which is the seat of the Jesuits in Rome]. I have not changed my spirituality, No.

Being Francis, and be Franciscan, no. I feel I am a Jesuit and I think like a Jesuit. Not hypocritically. But I think like a Jesuit. Thank you.

FR LOMBARDI: Now, Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press... Then, I had a list, and now... Then, all right, Elisabetta, put yourself on the list...

NICOLE WINFIELD: Holiness, thanks again for having come 'into the lions' den'. Holiness, after four months of your Pontificate, I wished to ask you to make a small assessment - can you tell us what has been the best thing about being Pope, the worst thing, and what surprised you the msot during this time?
THE POPE: I don't know how to answer this, really. Big things, big things - there have not been. Beautiful things, yes. For example, my meeting with the Italian bishops was so beautiful, so beasutiful. As Bishop of the Italian capital [Also Primate of Italy!], I felt at home with them, yes? That was beautiful, but I do not know if it was 'the best'.

But a painful event, and one that has considerably entered my heart was the visit to Lampedusa. It is something to weep for, and it was good for me to make the trip. When they [refugees from North Africa] arrive in these boats, they leave them a few miles offshore, and then come on land singly. I find this painful because these persons are victims of a worldwide socio-economic system...

But the worst thing that has happened to me, excuse me for saying so, was an attack of sciatica, really, which I had during the first month. To talk to people, I had to sit in a special chair and I felt bad about this. It is a most painful sciatica, most painful! Not something I would wish on anyone!

But things like speaking to people... The meeting with seminarians and religious was very beautiful. It was very beautiful. Also the meeting with the students of Jesuit schools in Italy was most beautiful. These are the good things... {Not a single liturgy stood out????]

And what surprised you most?
People, people. The good persons that I found, I have found so many good people in the Vatican. [So, you see, it's not as Mons. Vigano, Paolo Gabriele and the media make it out to be! Nut how could anyone have thought otherwise? There are good people everywhere among the bad.] I have thought what to say .... but that is true. I am rendering justice, saying this. So many good persons, so many. But truly good, good, good! [Quod erat demonstrandum! Now, if only all the sanctimonious souls could be magnanimous enough to share the Pope's 'rendering of justice' to all the good people maligned daily by blanket denunciations of the Curia as 'corrupt and evil'!

But what about all those touchy-feely moments with individuals picked out of the crowds that have been showing up for him? It is significant that to illustrate what he means by 'people. people' as being among the 'beautiful' things about being Pope, he illustrates it by the 'good, good, good' people he has met at the Vatican = that most-vilified den of hell - (or his meeting with Italian bishops and Jesuit schoolchildren) rather than any of the mega-celebrated moments of his interaction with the faithful!]

FR LOMBARDI: Elisabetta, you know her, and also Sergio Rubini - the Argentinians...

ELISABETTA PIQUE (La Nacion, asks her question in Spanish): Pope Francis, before everything, in the name of the 50,000 Argentines who came to Rio who told me, "You will travel with the Pope - please tell him that he was fantastic, stupendous, and ask him when will he come to Argentina", but already you have said that it is not the time... So I will ask a more difficult question. Were you horrified when you saw the report on Vatileaks?
THE POPE: No. I will tell you an anecdote about the report. When I went to see Pope Benedict the first time, after we prayed in the chapel, we went to the Pope's study and I saw a big box with a thick envelop on top of it. {He shifts from Spanish to Italian]

Benedict told me , "In this big box, you will find all the declarations, the testimonies frpm the witnesses (persons interrogated). Everything is there. But the summary and the final conclusions are in the envelope. There, it says ta-ta-ta...." He had everything in his head. What intelligence! He had committed everything to memory - everything. But no, I was not horrified. No, no, no. It is a serious problem, but I was not horrified. [I don't believe a single news story reported this part of the interview at all. It goes against their narrative that Vatileaks represented the utmost in horrifying events at the Vatican!...I am glad this interview gives me something concrete to quote from Pope Francis about 1) the Roman Curia and how there are really good people in it; and 2) that he was not horrified by anything he saw in the Vatileaks files turned over to him by Benedict XVI.]

SERGIO RUBIN (also speaking in Spanish . He is the author of the pre-Conclave book La Jesuita, about Cardinal Bergoglio, which was based a great deal on interviews he did with the future Pope, who says he finds inrterviews 'etiresome'): Holiness, two small things: You have insisted a great deal on stemming the loss of the faithful. It has been very strong in Brazil. Are you hopeful that this trip will contribute so that many will come back to the Church or feel closer? The second question is more familiar: You loved Argentina, you had Buenos Aires very much in your heart. The Argentines want to know if you miss that Buenos Aires, which you trvelled by bus, by metro, walking the streets...Many thanks.
THE POPE: I think that a papal trip always does some good. And I think that this trip will be good for Brazil, not just for the presence of the Pope, but that what they did during this World Youth Day, when they mobilized and did everything so well, perhaps this will help the Church, too, yes?

About the faithful who have left, many of them are not really happy because they still feel they belong to the Church. I think there will be a positive outcome, not just for the trip, but above all for WYD itself, It was marvelous.

About Buenos Aires, yes. Sometimes I miss it. And I feel that. But it is a calm nostalgia, a calm nostalgia. But I think, you, Sergio, know more about me than all the rest - you can answer your own question, yes? With the book you wrote?

FR LOMBARDI: Now, we shall hear from a Russian journalist, and then Valentina, who was the dean of the Vatican press corps...

RUSSIAN JOURNALIST: Good evening, Holy Father. Returning to ecumenism - today, the Orthodox world celebrate the 1025th anniversary of the Christianization of Russia - there is great feasting in many capitals. If you wish to comment ont his, I would be very happ7y. Thank you.
THE POPE: In the Orthodox Churches, they have conserved their pristine liturgy, no?, so beautiful! We have somewhat lost the sense of adoration, while they conserve it - they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time does not matter. The center is God, and that is a treasure that I wish to emphasize on this occasion when you have brought it up.

Once, when speaking to someone about the Western Church, of Western Europe, and of the Church that has grown the most, no?, I was told this saying, "Lux ex oriente, ex occidente luxus'. (Light from the oast, luxury from the west), Consumerism, the idea of wellbeing, has been bad for us. Whereas you [the Orthodox) have kept the beauty of God in the center... When one reads Dostoevsky - I think he is an author whom we must all read and reread - he has the wisdom to perceive the Russian soul. The soul of the east. It is something that would do us a lot of good.

We need this renewal, this fresh air from the east, this light from the east. John Paul II wrote so in his Letter, o? But so many times the 'luxus' of the West has made us lose sight of the horizon...I don't know ...This is what occurs to me to say. Thank you. [For someone reputed to be particularly 'with it' regarding the Orthodox churches, the statements are surprisingly vague and unfocused. Note he does not refer at all to the historic anniversary that was the peg for the journalist's question. Perhaps his aides failed to alert him about it - they should have, press conference or not - but clearly he was not prepared to talk about it at all.]

FR LOMBARDI: Now we shall close with Valentina who spoke first on our trip going to Rio and will now ask the last question on this return trip.

VALENTINA ALASKAZI (Speaking in Spanish, at 1 hour 10 secs]: Thanks for having kept your promise to answer questions during this return trip.
THE POPE: I have delayed your dinner...

ALASKAZI: It does not matter... My question would be, on behalf of all Mexicans, when will you visit Guadalupe? But that's for all Mexicans. My own question is - You will be canonizing two great Popes, John XXIII and John Paul II. I would like to know what, in your opinion, is the model of saintliness represented by each of them, and the impact they have had on the Church and on yourself...
THE POPE: John XXIII is somewhat the figure of 'the country priest', the priest who loves each of his parishioners, who knows how to care for the faithful, which he did even as bishop, as Nuncio. He also approved a lot of false baptismal certificates for Jews in Turkey [to save them from Nazi persecution]. He was a courageous priest, a good 'country priest', with a sense iof humor that was so great, so great, and great holiness.

When he was a Nuncio, some people in tehe Vatican did not look on him well, and when he arrived to visit or to ask things from some offices, they would make him wait. He never complained - he prayed the rosary, he read his breviary, but complain, never... He was a gentle person, a humble man, and also one who was concerned for the poor.

When Cardinal Casaroli [Vatican Secretary of State for much of the Cold War era] came back from one of his missions - I think to Hungary or what was then Czechoslovakia, I don't recall which of the two - he reported to him about the mission and the Vatican diplomacy of 'small steps' [in relation to the Communist countries]. They had an audience - and 20 days later, the Pope died. As Casaroli was leaving, John XXIII stopped him and said, "Ah. Eminence - no, he didn't say 'Eminence', he said 'Excellency' - do you still visit those young people?" - because it was known that Casaroli often visited the juvenile prison in Casal del Marmo to play with the young people. Casaroli answered: "Yes, of course". And the Pope said, "Never abandon them..." This, to a diplomat who had just returned from a diplomatic mission, one that was quite demanding. And John XXIII says, "Never abandon the young people!"- He was great, a great man!

Then there was Vatican II. He was a man obedient to the voice of God, because that inspiration came to him from the Holy Spirit - it came to him, and he obeyed it. Pius XII had thought of it, but the circumstances were not ripe for it. I think John XXIII did not think about the 'circumstances'. He felt what he did, and he did it. [Was this 'comparison' of the two Popes necessary, especially since it sounds critical of Pius XII?] He was a man who allowed himself to be led by the Lord.

Of John Paul II, I would say he was the great missionary of the Church - he was a missionary, a missionary, who preached the Gospel everywhere, you know that better than I do. How many trips did he make? He really travelled, didn't he? He felt this fire to bring forth the Gospel of the Lord, yes? He was a Paul, a Saint Paul - and for me, a man like that is great.

To canonize both Popes together is, I believe, a message to the Church: These were brilliant men, brilliant, two brilliant men. But the causes for Paul VI and John Paul I are also on track. [Also that of Pius XII!]

One more thing that I believe I have said before, but I don't know if it was here or somewhere else: the date of those canonizations. December 8 this year was considered. But there was a great problem with this - those pilgrims coming from Poland, the poor ones. Those who can afford it will come by plane, but the poor pilgrims will travel by bus, and in December, the roads will be icy, so I think that date has to be reconsidered.

I spoke about this with Cardinal Dsiwiwz, and he suggested two possibilities: either the feast of Christ the King this year, or Divine Mercy Sunday next year, I think that Christ the King is too soon, because the consistory on the canonizations will take place September 30, and there is little time between that and the end of October to make all the preparations. I spoke to Cardinal Amato about this, too... But I think that it will not take place on December 8...

ALAZKAZI: But they will be canonized together?
THE POPE: Together yes, Both of them.

FR LOMBARDI: Thank you, Holiness.... Who else is thre? Ilse? Then we will have accommodated everyone, even more than those who had asked to be listed earlier...

ILSE: May I be permitted to ask a rather indelicate question? Another 'image' has also made the rounds of the globe - that of Mons. Ricca and the news about his private life...I want to know, Holiness, what do you intend to do about this issue? How will you face this problem, and how does Your Holiness intend to face the entire issue of a 'gay lobby'?
THE POPE: About Mons. Ricca - I did what Canon Law requires, which is 'investigatio previa' (prior investigation). And this investigation showed nothing of what he is accused of, we found nothing of that. That is my answer.

I would like to add one other thing about this: I see that many times, in the Church, outside this case and even in this case, there is a tendency to seek out 'the sins of youth', for example, right?, and these are then published. I am not referring to crimes - crime is something else, as for instance, abuse of minors is a crime. I am talking about sins [that are not crimes, because abuse of minors is also first a sin!]

But if a person - layman or priest - committed a sin and has since then repented, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, he forgets - and this is very important in life. When we go to confession and we sincerely say, "I have sinned in this...", the Lord forgets, and we do not have the right not to forget, because then we risk that the Lord does not forget our own sins, yes? [?????] This is a danger.

That is important - a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which was to deny Christ, but even with this sin, he was made Pope. We have a lot to think about.

[Probably, Pope Francis will develop a theology of sin, as well as a theology of women, in his future encyclicals, in which he can explain what he said above much better. But I have two practical problems with his statements: 1) He only referred to an 'investigatio previa' of Mons. Ricca. Was no investigation done after the revelations of what he did in Uruguay back in 2000-2001? 2) Those accusations cannot be considered 'sins of youth' - the actions took place while he was serving as a Vatican diplomat, and although they may not be crimes, they certainly fell at least under the category of 'conduct unbecoming a priest', the main burden of it being that he lived in the Nunciature with a male lover he brought with him from Switzerland.

Even assuming that Mons. Ricca has since then 'repented' and 'converted' and has given up his alleged homosexual lifestyle, the very existence of these accusations ought to have been seriously investigated by the Vatican - and from the Pope's words, obviously it was not. And if the Pope is saying he is acting like the Lord in picking out the hated tax collector Matthew, say, to be an Apostle [I don't think the the citation of Peter's denial is a valid analogy to Mons. Ricca's possible offenses], then that is his personal act of mercy towards Mons. Ricca. But was Mons. Wielgus's collaboration with the Communist secret police of Poland any worse than the accusations against Ricca??? - and yet, Benedict XVI was castigated roundly and universally in the media for the Wielgus nomination, that he withdrew as soon as the facts were made known, whereas the media has given Pope Francis a total pass on his decision to stick with Mons. Ricca, who is now acting no less as his 'moral watchdog' at IOR - a watchdog who will be prey to all kinds of blackmail arising from his past.]

But returning to your concrete question: In this case, I carried out the investigatio previa, and we found nothing [wrong]. This was your first question. [If this had been a news conference by any other than the Pope, someone would have asked the obvious follow-up question, :"But what about afterwards, when the apparently well-documented stories emerged about Ricca?"] That was your first question.

Then, you spoke of the gay lobby: But, so much has been said about the gay lobby. I still have not found anyone with a Vatican identity card that says gay. They say there are. [But, Your Holiness, you yourself told the Bishops of Puglia freely and voluntarily, "As for the gay lobby, it is true, there is a gay lobby in the Vatican", though you did not elaborate. Now, you seem to say otherwise..]

I think that if one comes across a person who is like that ['una persona cosi'], one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from that of lobbying [as a gay person], because all lobbies are not good. Lobbying is the evil.

But if a gay person seeks the Lord in good faith, who am I to judge him? [This is, of course, the single line from the entire 90-minute news conference that made such headlines it promptly overshadowed all the reporting on the closing Mass of WYD which reportedly drew three million persons. Compare, on the other hand, the flood of positive commentary that followed Benedict XVI's closing day Mass in Madrid, where the crowd was estimated 'only' at two million.

But with this answer, the Pope deflected the focus from the supposed 'gay lobby' to his own personal atittude towards homosexuals. 'Who am I to judge' has been taken universally as a most admirable expression of humility and openness, as though that were not the attitude of any thinking Catholic who must 'judge' the actions people do, not the persons themselves.]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this so beuatifully... It says One must not marginalize these persons for this [being homosexual], they must be integrated into society. [A more precise quotation of the Catechism, rather than this broad approximation, would have been welcome.]

The problem is not about having this tendency, no. In this, we must be brothers, and this one [the homosexual] is a brother. But if there is another, then another - the problem is making a lobby out of this tendency, like the lobbies of greed, of politics, of masons, so many lobbies. That is the more serious problem as far as I am concerned... And I thank you so much for having posed this question. I thank you so much! [If any Catholic bishop other than the Pope had said the above, the statements would promptly have been taken apart and micro-dissected for every nuance and lack thereof. And it would have been made obvious that while he points out that the problem is not the homosexual tendency, he also should have pointed out that what the Church opposes is the expression of this tendency in sexual actions that contradict natural law, actions that are considered sinful by the Church. Even in the interests of promoting 'good will among all', the Church cannot gloss over the very foundation of her objection to homosexual practice.]

FR LOMBARDI: Thank you, I think that more than this we could not do. We have even abused the Pope who has told us he is tired, and we now we hope that he can rest a bit.

And that completes the translation... i may have to go over it for typographical errors I have been unable to detect...I wish I had the transcript of something similar from John Paul II - I still have to look for it... Perhaps Pope Francis will make a habit of these news conferences, and he will not need a Peter Seewald (or Sergio Rubin, or maybe Andrea Tornielli in his case) to come out soon with a LIGHT OF THE WORLD type book, and will have a whole series of them...

THE POPE: Thanks to you, and good night. I wish you a good trip and a good rest.