BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Just went through several days of preparing for the dreaded biennial inspection of physician's laboratories by the state of New York (the amount of paperwork required is phenomenal), and cleared the hurdle today, so I hope I can resume regular activity on the Forum soon... But meanwhile, more fallout from the Pope's post-Rio presser, specifically his generic statements on homosexuals, though the following item is one week old...

The Pope's inflight interview after Rio:
Casting pearls before swine
By Rev. Mark A. Pilon, S.T.D.

August 1, 2013

At the recent World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Pope Francis encouraged Catholic youths to “Go out into the whole world and make a mess!” He said he wants to shake up the Church, “to stir things up.”

Of course, he wants to make this mess by proclaiming an unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ. The revolution the pope is calling for is a spiritual revolution, a countercultural movement to combat contemporary materialism and secularism. [Everyone, not just in the media, seems to forget that on every occasion that he could, Benedict XVI urged the faithful, not just the youth, to 'go against the current' in living their lives the Christian way, and thereby proclaiming Christ to the world through their witness - and if I had the software to generate a 'concordance' of everything B16 said about this just during his years as Pope, it would make for quite a compendium. A good beginning would be provided by his various WYD addresses and other discourses to young people which were a part of his apostolic travels within Italy and abroad. But I suppose media only has an appetite for the resonating soundbite ef a statement like Pope Francis's "Make a mess!"]

Unfortunately, this vibrant papacy is already running into problems. So I want to make a little mess by suggesting that it might not be the most fruitful approach to the world for the pope to constantly have these off-the-cuff interviews with the media. In fact, he might borrow a strategy from Benedict. More on that below.

For instance, on his trip home the pope had an extended conversation with reporters in which he stated very briefly his position regarding the problem of homosexuality and homosexual priests.

Nothing the pope said was new or different from what his predecessors have said on this issue. He distinguished clearly between orientation and homosexual acts [I don't know why even the most educated commentators, including someone like Fr. Schall, keep saying this, because he did not say any such thing (unless they are citing from a translation that puts words into the Pope's mouth that he never said)- I certainly wish the Pope had made that distinction, which is the fundamental distinction made by the Church and so stated in the Catechism. He never referred to homosexual acts in the plane interview - and the very parsimoniousness of his response left everyone free to interpret the few words he did say as they please - the orthodox CAtholics to interpret it as Fr. Pilon does, extrapolating generously to make it seem as if the Pope said more than he actually did, and the enemies of the Church and her teachings, to claim that the Pope is on their side and that 'finally' the Church may be coming to its senses in this matter.

In fact, the 'homosexual acts' cited by the Pope and referred to by Fr, Pilon had nothing to do with the practice of homosexuality but of taking part in any lobby that would promote homosexual causes. The secular and non-Catholic world don't have to be told that lobbying of any sort can often be nefarious business, but the world needs to be reminded by the Pope that it is not homosexuality per se - 'the tendency' as Pope Francis referred to it - that is objectionable but the practice of it. But oy veh!, the media itself have not a few active homosexuals - and homosexual activists who ratchet up the offense even more - who are quite influential and strident about their homosexual lifestyles. So was he really going to rile them up with any explicit denunciation of homosexual practices?]

He spoke of confession and repentance, and he repeated the Church's teaching that homosexuals not be marginalized because of their sexual orientation. None of this is revolutionary.

But the press picked up and focused on a single sentence, "Who am I to judge them?” Taken in the context of everything else the pope said in that interview or elsewhere many times, there is absolutely nothing new or surprising.

The press, however, in large part, especially in the United States, chose to interpret that statement not in the context of the pope’s broader comments but in the context of the “non-judgmentalism” and relativistic morality in our society.

In the contemporary world, not judging people translates as not judging their actions, and the press took this as an opening for the Church to reconsider its moral condemnation of homosexual relationships and activity. It doesn't matter what the pope said before or after this statement; the press chose to portray him as opening the door to a new moral attitude.

This is the danger in off-the-cuff interviews today. What the press is interested in are simply sound bites and controversy. Complex issues like homosexuality and homosexuals in the priesthood cannot be discussed with the media “swine” in this manner without constantly having to correct their misinterpretations and reportorial sensationalism. [That is an obvious fact about which Cardinal Bergoglio, in a caustic interview given in 2010 to his now number-one cheerleader, Andrea Tornielli, castigated the media, going so far as to call them 'coprophilic and coprophagic' (shit-loving and shit-eating, to use the coloquial). Yet no one reacted to that - possibly because at the time no one in the media outside Argentina, other than Tornielli, was interested in Bergoglio. Nor is anyone likely to ever bring that up now! Imagine if Cardinal Ratzinger had said any such thing about the media in his time! After March 13, 2013, of course, everything changed in the mutual perception between the now-Pope and the once-indifferent (and worse, hostile to Benedict) media, and the Pope has not stopped thanking them on every occasion for 'doing their job well' - even if in the plane interview, he indirectly reproves them for even referring at all to Mons. Ricca's 'sins of youth'!]

By and large the press is not interested in the Church or her true mission, but only in the scandals and controversies surrounding the hot issues of contemporary culture and how the Church fits into these issues.

No one who has followed this pope and understands his deep faith and the weight of Church teaching and tradition in his approach to any of these hot issues could really think that he is going to make any substantial changes.

But most media types couldn’t care less about the Church and know even less about the binding character of her moral teaching on sexual matters and the definitiveness of her teaching on things like the ordination of women. When the pope stated in this interview that the ordination of women had been “definitively” excluded, he meant absolutely.

But they do not understand the meaning of definitive or absolute in anything. They will not stop pressing for any hint of change.

When the pope spoke of homosexuals seeking forgiveness from sin, it meant he definitively holds that homosexual acts are seriously sinful, but I doubt reporters understand that. [They would not, or choose not to, because the soundbites he gave them could be easily used, as they were used, to flaunt their wishful thinking that this Pope will not stand by the Church and uphold her teachings - Christ's teachings - thereby abdicating his primary duty as Pope.]

They focused on his words that he would not be their (ultimate?) judge, which can mean a lot of things, but it does not mean that he does not judge their acts to be sinful and seriously disordered.

It also tells us nothing concerning his position on homosexuals in the priesthood. [Ah, but volumes have since been written that 'Who am I to judge?' meant that the Church would, under Francis, turn a blind eye to homosexuals in the clergy and in seminaries regardless of whether they are practising homosexuals or not, as long as they are not part of any 'gay lobby'!] Does he differ from his immediate predecessor as to whether homosexuals should be admitted to seminaries, or is he simply speaking about homosexuals already in the priesthood?

I don’t believe Pope Benedict ever called for such priests to be removed when they were not practicing homosexuals or dissenting from Church teaching on homosexual actions. Pope Francis was speaking along this line about the so-called gay lobby. If a priest begins to lobby for change to justify his own behavior, I doubt that the pope would be nonjudgmental about that.

Likewise I am fairly certain that the pope, a prelate who has lived out in the world could be naïve about the problem of such individuals in seminaries. A chaste homosexual would not likely be a man who comes out and asserts his homosexuality as a badge of honor. Such men have an agenda, and when seminaries tolerated this kind of conduct in the last century, they soon became havens for homosexual activists. [But the secular world - and many Catholis doubtless - cannot even begin to grasp the concept of a 'chaste homosexual'. For them, the Church is thereby simply denying homosexuals the right to have sex with partners of the same sex, and therefore violating their individual human rights!]

I suspect the pope knows this and would not differ from Benedict on this matter. Neither pope would want that situation again. So when he said who was he to judge, he was talking about the closeness of any man to God who is trying to live a life of chastity. He would not judge that this was impossible for a man with a homosexual tendency, but that would hardly carry over to a homosexual activist. [But nothing stopped him from saying so explicitly, and he chose not to. Francis is very media-savvy, as his 2010 interview with Tornielli shows, and he was not about to give the media any reason to drown his entire WYD success in Rio - or in any way prick the rose-colored bubble in which the media have enclosed him - by saying anything they could use to turn against him. Instead of which he gave them new reason to celebrate him - except, of course, that in doing so, he did dim out the afterglow of Rio as the media set off in an entirely new direction. He may have cast pearls before swine, but journalists are also adept at making purses out of pig's ears when it suits them.]

In today’s over-sexed, relativistic culture, it is certainly a lot harder for any man to embrace a chaste life, but even harder for a homosexual man living among other men all the time, as in a seminary or rectory.

These kinds of complex issues are surely not the proper subjects for impromptu news interviews. Let’s hope the pope will reformulate his natural generosity and openness to dialogue. And here’s a positive alternative: he could follow Benedict’s example in the lengthy interviews he granted an educated and intelligent interviewer and then published in book form. [Be in no doubt about it, though. We shall get books galore of the Pope-Francis-lets-it-all-hang-out type, in which his informal and colloquial statements will be milked dry of every demagogic possibility that MSM can use to advance their ideological causes in the guise of unconditional hosannas to the Pope.]

It would help avoid misunderstandings – just a suggestion from an old mess maker.


Fr. Mark A. Pilon, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Santa Croce University in Rome. He is a former Chair of Systematic Theology at Mount St. Mary Seminary, a former contributing editor of Triumph magazine, and a retired and visiting professor at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

For the record, here is everything Pope Francis said at that inflight presser about the homosexual issue, which came up in his definitive response to a question posed about his personal nominee for 'prelate' of the IOR. BTW, in itself, this deserved a headline of its own, "Pope sticking by his nominee despite claims he led a homosexual lifestyle" - but because he is Francis, not Benedict XVI, no one in the media thought it was any big deal at all! Or rather, everyone just seemed to gloss over it, because why call attention to anything even remotely 'questionable' about the wonder-Pope's actions! And certainly, because Francis is not Benedict XVI, no one is making a Wielgus or a Williamson out of Mons. Ricca, who it seems, is pure as the driven snow because the Pope has vouched for him, never mind what documented facts there are outside of the official Vatican dossiers on Mons. Ricca.

---

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.

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.

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. 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.

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? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this so beaUtifully... It says One must not marginalize these persons for this, they must be integrated into society.

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!

---

[I have obviously omitted all my previous commentary to the statements made by the Pope, but I will re-post my rejoinder to the last statements: 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.]

So the question remains, where in all of that did the Pope refer to homosexual practices as sinful - he only referred to lobbying for the gay cause as evil! I do not doubt where he stands about the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but for the commentators to ascribe statements explicitly to him that he never said is a bit presumptuous. There is a reason he did not go beyond what he said, and yes, referring to the Catechism (without actually citing anything in it) gives him an omnibus out, but that's still a copout from a silver-platter opportunity for a Pope to explicitly restate Catholic teaching on homosexuality, but he obviously does not wish to stir up any hornet's nest and bring an end in any way to the sweetness and light in which this Pontificate has basked so far!