Editor’s note: The following is an interview conducted by Italian journalist Lorenza Formicola with Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. As former head of the Vatican Bank, Tedeschi is one of the better -known signatories of the recently issued filial correction of Pope Francis.
Lorenza Formicola: It’s been a few months since the “filial correction” was published, and confusion remains. What is this letter, signed by 62 and delivered in August to Pope Francis?
Ettore Gotti Tedeschi: It simply is the natural outcome of all the dubia. It was submitted to the holy father as a filial and devout plea by laypeople who are faithful both to the pope and to the Magisterium of the Church but who are, at the same time, worried for those souls in need of doctrinal certainties. There are many faithful and priests – who have nothing to do with the caricature that depicts them as sinister, pharisaical traditionalists – who are struggling to face the confusion that comes from equivocal and manifold interpretations. Not everyone possesses the needed capacity of discernment. Not everyone has an adequately formed conscience, and many find themselves advised by confused and confusing priests. These priests are also creative, perhaps, in their anxiety to interpret the gospel and eternal truths in an evolutionary fashion, thinking this is the right way to do it according to the will of the Holy Father.
Formicola: You are one of the most well-known signatories. Why did you want to sign?
Tedeschi: Because my sense of responsibility demanded it. My love for the vicar of Christ demanded it. My conscience of what should be the mission of the Church also demanded it, as well as my witnessing – as a layperson – the applicability to the modern world of the Five Wounds of the Holy Church (by Rosmini) and the perception of the need for strong, clear, and absolute values among people, at all levels, conditions, and age. The understanding of what is happening in the world also demanded it.
This is an estimation of the matter I had the privilege of learning from and sharing with Cardinal Ratzinger, later to be Benedict XVI – a vision I also shared with other holy men, such as Cardinal Caffarra, for instance, and Cardinal Sarah. I do not let illusory strategies confuse me – neither those founded on a reality superior to ideas nor those about a different conversion policy to be enforced after having attracted the world to Catholicism by opening up a dialogue. I have strong doubts about the possibility of an easy communication with the “world guided by gnosis.” Who is able to do that?
Formicola: For a long time, there has been talk of “heresy.” But on reading the 25-page letter, it doesn’t seem as though anyone is accusing the pope of heresy. Or am I mistaken?
Tedeschi: On page 13, it is possible to read a specific note that declares the purpose of the letter.
If the pope wanted to understand who the real dangerous enemies of the Church are, it would be enough to read through some of the reactions to the letter – reactions written by people who probably did not even read it, and if they read it, they did not want to understand it. Such an attitude speaks volumes on the value of some non-official “interpreters.”
Formicola: The Vatican has still not answered. Rather, in dealing with its own house, it has raised a wall…
Tedeschi: Sometimes non-answers are clear answers. Clearly, someone thinks it is good to have doubts, to foment them, to create and distribute them. Isn’t this the way to prepare the ground for the proposition of new certainties?
Formicola: After a year since the publication of the dubia, Cardinal Burke recently spoke of an “increasing confusion about the ways of interpreting the apostolic exhortation.” From your point of view, why does such a climate of disorder still survive? Even after the pope asked everyone to “speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn”?
Tedeschi: I can say I share the opinion of Cardinal Burke by direct experience, not by reading about it in newspapers. I can’t say anything about Cardinal Schönborn. I am not able to interpret his thoughts.
Formicola: It almost seems as if the media were looking forward to pillorying you again. Can you explain why your signature has been seen – and still is seen – as an “ironic coincidence”?
Tedeschi: Other things happened after my signature and after the media attack, which focused my name almost as the promoter of the correction. A really good bishop, with whom a conference had already been scheduled for two months, called the meeting off because of inappropriateness; another bishop immediately “discouraged” (and canceled) another conference already scheduled in his dioceses; and a third bishop asked the organizers of a roundtable to postpone it because of my presence. I also received a public correction (which hurt me greatly) by another prelate, who doesn’t know me, who doesn’t know the facts and the circumstances and who didn’t ever care to.
On the other hand, I received multiple expressions of esteem, consensus, and sympathy, not only in the Catholic community, but also in a more secular environment (and this is really remarkable). There are even people worried about the collapse of the Catholic education built on the values of the gospel, which they benefited from, and they’re afraid it may now disappear. …
Never forget that the values of Christian traditions aren’t lived, but they are greatly appreciated if lived by the people around us. Always remember that Voltaire claimed he wanted his servant, his doctor, and his wife to be Catholic to avoid being robbed, killed, and cheated on. And still he despised the Catholic religion.
Formicola: Can a son who asks his father for explanations expect the support of his siblings? Or does he deserve disdain?
Tedeschi: It turned out all the worse for Abel…
Formicola: A year ago, you wrote, “After meditation on the exhortation of Pope Francis, ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ I wonder if this document is not founded on the certainty that the Christian civilization has actually finished collapsing. If this is true, it explains why the exhortation indirectly suggests that the moral laws and the sacraments should be adapted to the practical reality according to different cultures and not according to authoritative ideals to which we were used.” Do you think this is still true?
Tedeschi: I don’t believe this is still true – I believe that this “must” be true. Because now all of this must be imposed, since it is not accepted by those to whom it was addressed.
All through this year, I perceived more of a refusal of doctrinal relativism rather than the wish to opening up to modernity. People with a sound conscience understood the greatness of the risk. All sacraments end up collapsing if we start questioning the sacrament of matrimony (not by denying it, but by relativizing it) and, as a consequence, that of penance and most of all that of the Eucharist.
Here there is a clear contradiction between Lumen Fidei and Amoris Laetitia, and I will confide it to you. Pope Benedict ended Caritas in Veritate essentially explaining that to solve the world’s problems, it is the hearts of men that need to be changed (not the instruments); in Lumen Fidei (signed by Pope Francis), it is said that changing the heart of men is a duty of the Church, which has three instruments to succeed: prayer, the Magisterium, and the sacraments. In order to see if the Church is attending to its mission, it is enough to see if it is accomplishing these three actions and how it is doing it. Most of all, it is enough to see if the Church is reinforcing or weakening the absolute value of the sacraments wanted by Christ himself.
Formicola: Professor Josef Seifert recently claimed that Amoris Laetitia really is a “theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the Ten Commandments and of Catholic moral teaching.” Would you agree with this statement?
Tedeschi: I answer saying that it “could be,” as well as that it could undermine three sacraments, and all of them as a consequence. We hope, however, for an intervention by Pope Francis to prevent all of this – maybe by answering, even indirectly, the dubia.
Lorenza Formicola was born in the year that Poland took the words “communism” and “socialism” out of its constitution. She has always been a writer, but not with the purpose of persuading, because that would lead her to cowardice and dishonesty. Journalism has taught her that it is not possible to stir up emotion with mere emotion, ideas with mere ideas, hope with mere hope. Rather, for all of these to exist it is necessary to provide actual meaning, weight, and tangibility, otherwise they evaporate. She is firmly convinced that “tolerance means indifference” (Domenico Giuliotti).
This is the same Pope who, in an encyclical, scorned those who “craved doctrinal security.” So, no, he is not going to intervene, he is not going to clarify, he is not going to teach the full and unambiguous Catholic Faith.
The ambiguity is entirely his own doing and is consistent with his expressed intent and will. Do not seek solutions from a man who does not believe in solutions – seek rather the will of God and keep it.
E Tedeschi is understandably cautionary. Josef Seifert’s fear that the premises of AL will dismantle Church doctrine is more salient. Catholic priests have practiced furtively as a conscience issue the very premises cited by the Pontiff long before they appeared in his Exhortation. The premises that mitigate responsibility for serious sin include exchange of marriage vows in which he Pontiff perceives numerous possibilities for exceptions. He also proposes D&R “doing their best” in adverse complex conditions which God accepts and confers grace. In both instances possible invalid 1st marriage and valid 2nd marriage conscience and disposition are the criteria for favorable judgment for priests to permit the sacraments. In either instance the priest lacking tangible evidence required by a tribunal must rely on a value judgment, since he cannot determine with certitude culpability based on these premises. Therefore in accord with the criteria delineated by the Pontiff the priest has no recourse but to give the benefit of the doubt in favor of the D&R. If this was intended as a narrow process of discernment it has proved impossible. The reasons are that the Exhortation urges all priests to adopt this policy. And lacking either definitive criteria for initiating a process of discernment and viable evidence to form a decision the inevitable outcome is exactly what Josef Seifert fears. Most important is that the mitigating premises proposed by the Pontiff affect all moral doctrine since no sin can be excluded in accord with these criteria. Conversion to Christ is transformed to accommodation of sin. To add to Seifert’s description the Pontiff has developed the ultimate weapon of mass moral destruction.
The Pope is the creator of weapons of mass moral destruction. Doing so he is the tool of the devil.
If the pope is the tool of Satan ……………..then what is Fr. James Martin S.J. ?
Likewise a tool of Satan.
I’d sooner trust the “log lady” from Twin Peaks.
ALL who embrace ideological theologies that restrict, alter or contradict biblical truth and Magisterial doctrines and teachings are, in some way and to some degree, tools of Satan. It matters not whether they are the pope or a lowly layperson who accepts and adopts these erroneous and heredical statements.
Satan’s chief cook and bottle washer…
Michael to add to the deception in these premises: The exchange of marriage vows are simple and understandable and not subject to the myriad of invalidating exceptions invented by the Pontiff that presumably make a valid marriage virtually impossible. As if to say Christ instituted the impossible. As to mitigating circumstances for D&R they do not absolve from serious sin for a D&R or any other grave sin. And growing evidence of intent on his part is the autonomy granted Nat Bishops Conferences and his silence even encouragement regarding the doctrinal apostasy occurring in Germany, Malta, Argentina, Philippines, Spain, the Diocese of Rome and elsewhere.
Thanks Father. I am afraid the worst is yet to come. Divine intervention may the only–and temporary–answer. Vatican II set the stage for these outrages.
Father, are you adopting Michael Dowd’s opinion that Pope Francis is a tool of Satan? I have to admit to uncertainty about your position based on your reply. I would hope you would administer a filial correction to Mr. Dowd!
My criticisms are of the Pope’s policies. Insofar as a judgment of his conscience I leave that to God.
In his role as adversary to Divine Teaching, whose work is it that you think he’s doing?
Don’t be ridiculous. The Pope has a vision for the Church. The fact that you may disagree with his vision doesn’t make him a tool of the devil. Maybe you are a tool for espousing such a disloyal view of the leader of our Church?
It is you. wingus, who are ridiculous. Your pope’s vision is the destruction of the Catholic Church. If you can’t see that you are willfully blind and also a tool of Satan.
The Pope has the same vision as the devil: encouraging Man to worship himself and forget God.
Sorry to run such a lengthy article here, but I could not seem to find website from Zenit, ( which I do not read).
I heard musings of this and hunted it down.
Here it is, and from my perspective, I am very troubled.
Pope’s Audience with Tribunal of the Roman Rota
Be Missionaries and Witnesses of the Synodal Spirit
NOVEMBER 25, 2017ZENIT STAFFCATHOLIC CHURCH
“As you return to your communities, strive to be missionaries and witnesses of the synodal spirit that is at their origin, as well as of the pastoral consolation that is the purpose of this new matrimonial provision, so as to strengthen the faith of the holy people of God through charity.,” Pope Francis said November 25, 2017, in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace, in audienparticipants in the course promoted by the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the theme The new marriage annulment process and the Super Rato procedure.
Address of the Holy Father .
Dear brothers and sisters,
I am pleased to meet you at the end of the training course for clerics and laity promoted by the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the subject of the new matrimonial process and the Super Rato process. I thank the Dean, Msgr. Pinto, for his words. The course that has taken place here in Rome, and those held in other dioceses, are praiseworthy and encouraging initiatives, as they contribute to gaining a proper knowledge and an exchange of experiences at various ecclesial levels regarding major canonical procedures.
In particular, it is necessary to pay great attention and to adequate analyze to the two recent Motu proprio, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et misericors Iesus, in order to apply the new procedures they establish. These two acts have arisen from a synodal context, they are the expression of a synodal method, and they are the arrival point of a serious synodal path. Faced with the most thorny questions concerning the evangelizing mission and the salvation of souls, it is important for the Church increasingly to recover the synodal practice of the first community in Jerusalem, where Peter together with the other Apostles and with the whole community under the action of the Holy Spirit endeavored to act according to the commandment of the Lord Jesus.
This is what has been done in the synodal assemblies on the family, in which, in the spirit of communion and fraternity, representatives of the episcopate from all over the world gathered in assembly to listen to the voice of the communities to discuss, reflect and carry out the work of discernment. The Synod had the purpose of promoting and defending the Christian family and marriage for the greater good of spouses faithful to the covenant celebrated in Christ. It also had to study the situation and development of the family in today’s world, preparation for marriage, ways to help those who suffer as a result of the failure of their marriage, the education of children, and other issues.
As you return to your communities, strive to be missionaries and witnesses of the synodal spirit that is at their origin, as well as of the pastoral consolation that is the purpose of this new matrimonial provision, so as to strengthen the faith of the holy people of God through charity. May the synodal spirit and pastoral consolation become the form of your action in the Church, especially in field as delicate as that of the family in search of the truth about the conjugal state of spouses. With this attitude, each of you is a sincere collaborator of your bishop, to whom the new norms grant a decisive role, especially in the streamlined briefer process, as he is the natural judge of the particular Church.
In your service, you are called to be close to the solitude and suffering of the faithful who expect from ecclesial justice the competent and factual help to restore peace to their consciences and God’s will on readmission to the Eucharist. Hence, the need and the value of the course you have attended – and I hope that others will be organized – to promote a just approach to the matter and an increasingly wide-ranging and serious study of the new matrimonial process. It is an expression of the Church that is able to welcome and care for those who are wounded in various ways by life and, at the same time, it is an appeal for the defense of the sacredness of the marriage bond.
To make the application of the new law for marriage process, two years after its promulgation, the cause and reason for salvation and peace for the great number of faithful who are wounded in their matrimonial situation, I have decided, in my office as bishop of Rome and Peter’s Successor, to specify some fundamental aspects of the two Motu proprio, especially the figure of the diocesan bishop as personal and single judge in the streamlined process.
The diocesan bishop has always been Iudex unum et idem cum Vicario iudiciali; but since this principle is interpreted as de facto excluding the personal exercise of the diocesan bishop, delegating almost everything to the Tribunals, I establish as follows how I consider to be decisive and exclusive the personal exercise of the role of judge by the diocesan bishop:
The diocesan bishop, by virtue of his pastoral office, is the personal and sole judge in the briefer process.
Therefore, the figure of the diocesan-bishop-judge is the architrave, the constitutive principle and the discriminating element of the entire briefer process, established by the two Motu proprio.
In the briefer process, two indispensable conditions are required, ad validitatem: the episcopate, and the fact of being the head of a diocesan community of faithful (cf. canon 381 § 2). If one of the two conditions is not met, the briefer process cannot be followed. The case must be judged via the ordinary process.
The exclusive and personal jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, set out in the fundamental criteria of the briefer process, refers directly to the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, which reminds us that the bishop alreadyhas by consecration the fullness of all the authority that is ad actum expedita, through the missio canonica.
The streamlined process is not an option that the diocesan bishop can choose, but rather an obligation that derives from his consecration and from the missioreceived. He holds exclusive competence in the three phases of the briefer process:
– the request must always be addressed to the diocesan bishop;
– the preliminary phase, as I have already affirmed in my address at the Course held by the Roman Rota on 12 March last year, will be conducted by the bishop «always assisted by the judicial vicar or other instructor, even a layperson, by the assessor, and always with the presence of the defender of the bond”. Should the bishop not have the assistance of clerical or lay canonists, the charity, which distinguishes episcopal office, of a nearby bishop may come to his aid for the time necessary. Furthermore, I reiterate that the briefer process must typically be concluded in one session, requiring as an indispensable condition the absolute evidence of the facts proving the alleged nullity of the marriage, as well as the consent of both spouses.
the decision to pronounce coram Domino is always and only taken by the diocesan bishop.
To entrust the entire briefer process to the interdiocesan court (either neighboring or multiple dioceses) would lead to a distortion and reduction of the figure of the bishop, from father, head and judge of his faithful to a mere signatory of the judgement.
Mercy, one of the fundamental criteria ensuring the salus, requires that the diocesan bishop implement the briefer process as soon as possible; should he not consider himself ready at present to do so, the case must be addressed via the ordinary process, which must in any case be conducted with the proper solicitude.
Closeness and gratuitousness, as I have repeated several times, are the two pearls most needed by the poor, whom the Church must love more than anything else.
With regard to jurisdiction, in receiving the appeal against the affirmative judgement in the briefer process, on the part of the Metropolitan or of the bishop indicated in the new canon 1687, it is specified that the new law confers to the Dean of the Rota a new and therefore constitutive potestas decidendiregarding the rejection or admission of the appeal.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate clearly that this is to occur without asking for permission or authorization from another Institution or from the Apostolic Signatura.
Dear brothers and sisters, I wish you well for this study and for the ecclesial service of each one of you. May the Lord bless you and Our Lady protect you. And please, do not forget to pray for me. Thank you.
© Libreria Editrice Vatican
Ha! he certainly streamlines the nullity of his papacy in regular fashion…
How easy now, it will surely be to declare a marriage nullified.
What bishop alone shall refuse, especially when so many of his peers are quick to grant nullity?
This man just keeps pushing, and pushing to deny the sanctity of marriage.
Why does the pope and his cronies care so much about doctrine when they don’t follow it?
The Indoctrination of James Martin’s filth will soon be in seminaries.
His book is nothing but heresy. The pope should be ashamed of what this man promotes.
If I was not so angry, I could cry for this priest.
Instead the Pope promotes him. What does that tell you? That’s my bewilderment with those still wanting Bergolio to “clarify” his “teaching”. He is being perfectly clear, as he has said.
James Martin’s “filth” consists mainly of welcoming people into the Church whom the traditionalists in the Church have shunned. What is so filthy about that?
wlgus, you have just outed yourself. Take your homosexual filth elsewhere.
Winslow, I get the distinct impression from your post that you think the Church is only for those people who think and act like you.
You could not be more mistaken.
Jesus distinctly reminded us that he had ‘other flocks’ to tend, and that surely includes those ‘filthy and sinful’ people you are referring to.
You also seem to forget that Jesus did NOT come to save the righteous, but to save sinners. His EXPLICIT words in the NT confirm this unalterable position. Please check it out for yourself.
Being “out’ or ‘in’ has NOTHING to do with the state of your soul and your presence in the Sight of G-d. It has been demonstrated numerous times that what you apparently condemn in others is the VERY sin you yourself must struggle with.
It is G-d’s love that transforms your sin, just like the others, and your judgment of them will put you in a dangerous position with the Lord.
“Judge not. lest YOU YOURSELF are found wanting, and judgment shall come.”
+In His Everlasting Love+
You signed your messages ‘Martin.’ That wouldn’t be James Martin, would it?
I’d thank you for your rather silly lecture to me, but since it’s worthless, I’ll forebear. I am well aware of the teachings of my Lord. Are you? He said, among many other things, “If you love me, keep my Commandments.” To the young man who asked how he can come to eternal life, He said, “You know the commandments. Do not lie, do not steal, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY!”
Your selective quoting of Jesus’s words is not persuasive and is possibly blasphemy since you are using Jesus to support your homosexual agenda.
Jesus came to call sinners, yes. He called them to repent, not to continue in their sins. I am a follower of Christ and a sinner. I try to obey Him. Sometimes I fall short of what He expects of me and I go to confession. I do not look for ways to force Him to accept my sins. In consideration of those facts, I do believe the Church is for people like me, no matter what you think.
“Judge not. lest YOU YOURSELF are found wanting, and judgment shall come.” Try that on yourself.
May He bless you and lead you to the light.
Winslow, I appreciate your zeal and passion. But we did learn something from these responses (at least I DID) . . . .as defensive and sarcastic as they are.
No matter what you think, say, or do, the LGBTQ2 community is NOT going away any century soon, and it is your responsibility to accept them, as I do, as G-d’s children.
I am NOT supporting their ‘agenda’ nor do I support any sexual behavior that is decadent, not mindful of children and minors, and an affront to our public community self. I have grown children, and LGBTQ2 friends, whom I love very much. So I don’t quite fit your definition of a blasphemer. . . .and name calling NEVER works!!!
What any consenting adults do in their bedrooms, that is not harmful to the other, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You have to be adult enough to accept that, and if you don’t, you are no better than the Puritans. You are certainly entitled to love WHOM YOU PLEASE, and you must also grant that right to everyone else. Otherwise, you are holding something out, for yourself, not available to anyone else.
If you truly believe that two same-sex persons who love each other , and do NOT COMMIT ADULTERY are irredeemable, then you need to go back to learning about the current world, because you are decades behind.
If the Church is for ” people like you” that would be a non-sequitur, as greater sinners than you have been redeemed back to the faith. That you believe LGBTQ2 people do not know the same Lord you do is presumptuous and arrogant on your part, and definitely NOT TRUE.
No, I am NOT Fr. James Martin, S.J., but I have read many of his writings. As you, he is entitled to his voice, whether you agree or not.
I will also let you know that HE has blessed me repeatedly, and leads me always to the light. I can only hope that HE does the same for you.
Martin, the great sin of the LBGTQ community is not “what any consenting adults do in their bedrooms” (though that, obviously, may very well be sinful). The great sin is spreading the lie that homosexual relations are not sinful. Even calling oneself LGBT — as if it were an affliction of which to be proud — is an affront to God. And it is a very public affront, and all Catholics are called to correct such public sinners. Christ came to call sinners, absolutely. But those sinners who reject his teachings will be cast into the fire.
Gangee. . . .SO, you are also saying that the head of the Roman Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth is WRONG, because he refuses to make a judgement. . . “Who am I to JUDGE.???””
If you think you are in a better position to LEAD 1.3 BILLION Catholics around the world, who are being led down the garden path to fire and brimstone, why are you not directing your criticism at Pope Francis and his attitude toward the LGBTQ communities. . .ALL AROUND the world. . .and not just Catholics or even Christians!!!!????
You fail to understand a critical point. . .men and women are evolving genetically, AND psychologically into the other gender because they are the FINAL person who decides what they want to be. . . .G-d does NOT say, YOU must be FEMALE. . .YOU must be MALE. .
. .WHERE, please in the OLD or the NEW Testament, do you see this WRITTEN????? If you refer to the prohibition in Leviticus, just remember. . .Jesus came to ABOLISH the OLD LAW. . .I think you may not fully realize what Jesus’ appearance did to the ENTIRE OLD world.
The gender written on Your birth certificate ONLY records what gender you are AT BIRTH. It is NOT a command that you must remain what is written there forever.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand????IF human beings are meant to be TRULY FREE, then the changing of one’s own gender is the LAST frontier that needs to be hurdled. You have NO right WHATSOEVER to determine what gender ANY other human being wants to be. . . .EXCEPT your very own SELF. You cannot say,to another person ‘you must be MALE, or you must be FEMALE, simply because YOU want it to be that way.
Have I been too blunt in attempting to remind you that ALL people are sovereign – they are free in the eyes of G-d to make whatever choices they see as right for themselves, without harming others. The issue is extremely complex-world-wide, given the social implications that have been exposed, and especially with children and young people.
” Let he who is WITHOUT SIN, cast the first stone,” Jesus said to those about to punish the woman caught in adultery.
I would hope that you remember this core Christian principle of forgiveness.
Whoa, Martin, you’ve gone off the rails! Your transgender ideology is not compatible with Catholic teaching. Even Pope Francis would denounce your strange views on gender identity:
“IF human beings are meant to be TRULY FREE, then the changing of one’s own gender is the LAST frontier that needs to be hurdled. You have NO right WHATSOEVER to determine what gender ANY other human being wants to be. . . .EXCEPT your very own SELF. You cannot say,to another person ‘you must be MALE, or you must be FEMALE, simply because YOU want it to be that way.”
You do realize that Pope Francis has condemned such thinking, loudly and often. “The biological and psychical manipulation of sexual difference, which biomedical technology allows us to perceive as completely available to free choice — which it is not! — risks dismantling the source of energy that nurtures the alliance between man and woman and which renders it creative and fruitful.” — Pope Francis (you remember him, right? the Vicar of Christ on Earth). He has also compared it to “nuclear war.” (that’s bad).
Well, Gangee, . .this is my last response.
Let us look at this as scientists. . .looking objectively at the population of the world (over 7.5 BILLION) now. .
.is there not the slightest possibility that nature (it was YOU who invoked the ‘natural law’!!) is telling us . . .you will NOT be able to sustain this kind of population. . .the human specie is devouring the resources of the earth, and we ALREADY know that this is happening at an alarming rate!!!
Is not nature a part of G-d, and is not this ‘natural law’ warning us repeatedly that further procreation, unlimited, is only diminishing our chances of specie survival??? If humans CHOOSE to mitigate this oncoming disaster by choosing non-reproductive unions (there are THOUSANDS of adoptable children) and truly devote themselves to these partnerships, there will still be BILLIONS of straight, heterosexual, faithful relationships in which to raise children.
WHY didn’t Pope Francis include this in his speeches, when he knows DAMN WELL that the scientists already know this to be true?????
Diminishing resources, climate change, toxic chemicals poisoning everything, species dying off catastrophically, disease and pollution at disastrous levels – is this NOT a warning from nature that we have gone past the limit, we have exceeded the boundaries, the earth is NOT a limitless supply of our indulgence and pleasure. . . .DID you ever consider ANY of these things. . .and what is happening to the gender changes in human beings ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!????
This is the greatest amount of change the planet earth, and the human specie has experienced in 10,000 years. And if you think it is going to disappear ANY CENTURY soon, you are mistaken, as the science is now bearing it out.
There is NOTHING happening biologically that is contrary to Jesus commandments – Love G-d with ALL your heart, soul, mind and strength – LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer.. . . .. STRAIGHT!!!!!!
When you get away from all the chaotic and confusing details, and focus solely on JESUS’ words, . . .everything becomes crystal clear!!!!
“Is not nature a part of G-d”? The answer to that question is no. God created the world and nature, but God is separate and distinct from his creation. Your view sounds like Pantheism, which is a heresy.
Gamgee, all arguments and statements herewith submitted, and it sounds like we are about to have a theological discussion.
G-d exists in EVERY particle of his creation – if he did NOT, that ‘part’ would not exist. . Just as you have separated G-d from nature, so too your theology is ‘apart’ from G-d’s true nature- that is, he is omnipresent (EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES) and, in keeping with the unification of this theory :. . . . .he gave his only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth. . .”:his Supreme gift to humanity. It is you who have separated yourself from G-d – if he chose to separate himself from you, you would cease to exist instantly. The same with any other ‘part’ of G-d’s creation.
There is nothing that is, in creation, that is NOT G-d. That is not Pantheism at all, but the universal expression of monotheism, which alone can define the belief in ONE G-d. God can choose to answer your prayer with an iguana lizard, and if he cannot do this, then he is not only NOT omnipresent, but NOT omnipotent, and NOT omniscient.
What illusion you have of being ‘separate’ from G-d is some defect in your own understanding of him. Jesus bluntly said, “I am WITH YOU ALL DAYS, even to the consummation of the World.” If you are challenging this statement then it is you are committing a heresy – please check the Gospel of John for confirmation.
The Catechism of the Catholic church (I have several editions) is a manmade document and, as such, is subject to error, however small or great. Jesus told us who G-d was in the New Testament, so I highly recommend you read it before you start making statements about the nature of G-d.
I am greatly amused by the suggestion that condemning homosexual behavior is “decades behind.” It isn’t decades behind. It’s millennia behind. It’s in Holy Scripture written by God thousands of years ago and in natural law — also written by God, millennia before there was any Holy Scripture. And what do you mean behind? Behind what? Truth isn’t something that can be outrun. Vices don’t evolve into virtues. And right and wrong don’t depend on something we’ve learned in the past few decades.
Gamgee. . . .we seem to be in a marathon here. . . .
“. . .also written by God, millenia before there was any Holy Scripture.”
WHERE, and WHAT are you referring too????
The ‘natural law’ that governs ALL living things, plants and animals, is pregnant with MILLIONS of examples of asexual, transexual, bisexual, hermaphroditic, transgendered specimens, . . .. NEED I remind you that the ‘natural law” you refer to. . .’millenia before there was Holy Scripture” (!!!) was NOT KNOWN to you, or anyone else, until fairly recently, about 500 years ago.Humans had to STUDY the flora and fauna of nature to determine what was the gender and sexual identities of the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
And you also have forgotten one SMALL detail. . . .we are made ” in the image of G-d” . . . .I did not see that privilege given to ANY other specie, animal, vegetable or mineral.
You seem to have this thing about ‘sinners’ when the very reason that Jesus appeared 2,000 years ago was to save sinners from the punishment of the OLD LAW.
And if you cannot tell the difference between the Old Testament and the New, then you cannot call yourself a Christian, . .OR expect Jesus to save you from this irredeemable doubt and confusion.
Yes, vices DO turn into virtues – that is the very CORE reason behind Jesus’ redemption and his death by crucifixion. Otherwise you are in the fog about what Jesus MAIN purpose is – the four major books, and the remaining epistles of the New Testament lay it all out in exquisite detail
I strongly suggest you make it REQUIRED reading as a New Year Resolution.
Leoncefalo (or Martin): You are so far off the reservation that it doesn’t seem worth my time in responding. But I must at least clear up one piece of confusion. Natural law is not “the law of nature” and it has nothing to do with the sexual or asexual habits of plants or animals. Natural law wasn’t discovered 500 years ago with some study of animals.
It has nothing to do with animals. To paraphrase the Catechism, Natural law is the law written in the heart of each man and woman and it is established by right reason. It is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all humanity. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense. So, to sum up, a fish might be transgendered but God doesn’t care and the fish don’t understand right and wrong anyway and lacks an immortal soul. Humans, on the other hand, know the difference between right and wrong and are required to act in accordance with the former.
And, of course, Jesus didn’t come to turn vices into virtues. Vices are still vices, and unrepentant sinners are not saved.
He welcomes sin
There is an organisation called: The Courage Apostolate set-up for that very reason.
What Fr.James Martin is doing IS undermining that established work.
Dear Sincere Convert,
Blessings on you for accepting Jesus Christ into your life. I stress that as the FIRST choice you made – NOT the Roman Catholic Church and its followers.
Being an IMPERFECT reflection of the New Testament teachings, it is bound to consider all phenomena [ ‘catholic’ means all things] and reason out the place that Jesus’ teachings have in them. Fr. Martin’s ‘filth’ is your subjective view of his perspective, and you are certainly entitled to that view.
If you are not aware, Fr. Martin’s teachings were espoused some time ago by none other than John XXIII, convener of the Second Vatican Council. That was the very purpose of Vat2, to tell the world openly that the Church was not asleep in the 16 century anymore. Please do the research on the Council.
If you are condemning someone for their sexuality, you had better be extremely vigilant in what sexuality you yourself practice. Jesus was quite blunt about who was able to cast the first stone at the woman caught in adultery.
I admire your conversion, and wish you all of Christ’s blessings. But your pronunciamentos on heresy remind me of Torquemada, and you know where that got the Church. There will always be evil in the world, and it is your choice to transform it, or not, to G-d’s glory.
+In His Everlasting Love+
“If you are condemning someone for their sexuality, you had better be extremely vigilant in what sexuality you yourself practice. Jesus was quite blunt about who was able to cast the first stone at the woman caught in adultery.”
Our Lord was quite blunt about obstinacy in SIN too and nobody is condemning undesired sexual disorder here as
far as I can see. But the practice of sexual disorder is perverse and evil and must NEVER be tolerated in any form
and it has many forms. Satan hates life and stops at nothing to destroy and make ugly the pro-creative gift.
You know well there is only one normal form of sexuality: Heterosexuality!
All deviations are a tragic result of the FALL and inherited disease in Family Lineage because of SIN and/or
oppression from demonic entities. And it is filth and those who are enslaved in it need rescue and vulnerable
Children need guidance, warning, and protection from predators.
Why does Fr. James Martin not promote chastity and why does he support “New Ways Ministry” which advocates
for “same-sex marriage”.
Julius II. . . .there is an old maxim that says ” rules are made to be broken” . . .as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is ultimately responsible for maintaining the countless inventory of details that support all the teachings espoused by Jesus in the New Testament. Pope Francis, AND his cronies, are human beings, like you and me, subject to all of the desires, temptations, foibles, failures and sins that afflict you and me. Their crosses are much heavier to bear because they must be the examples for us to follow.
How would you like to have his job??? I think not, since by his very living he cares about the Church’s doctrine, and that also his ‘cronies’ are following it as closely as they expect you and me, and millions of others to follow.
Leoncefalo… How about this maxim, “bend but don’t break!”.
“By his very living he cares about the Church’s doctrine”… Ah, yes, perhaps we shall have a 5th mystery of the rosary? (That was a joke and pray that our Lord does not inflict this penance upon us)
As the Vicar of Christ, is he not bound to defend the tradition of the Church and care for our souls? If he is broken and refuses to correct his ways then he needs to step down and allow another to step up.
Ha, the religious cross is a heavier burden! Perhaps you should review the commandments and stop worshiping these men (1st commandment). Does the weight of ones cross determine if we should carry it? If so, where is the scale and at what weight may we put down our cross!
2 Cor 12:9
“My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”
It is commendable that you are able to quote biblical passages, but your two salient points below need to be explained further –
“As the Vicar of Christ, is he not bound to defend the tradition of the Church and care for our souls? If he is broken and refuses to correct his ways then he needs to step down and allow another to step up.
As Vicar, Frances does NOT only defend tradition but opens the church to change, and acts as Final Referee for the cosmic changes the church has been undergoing the past century. FYI, he is NOT broken (PLEASE!!!) and his AMORIS LAETITIA will be seen as one
of the greatest documents to come out of the Vatican. It is not HIS ways that need to be corrected but the way that suffering souls,
esp. the LGLBTQ2 communities, are scorned by the clerics.
Ha, the religious cross is a heavier burden! Perhaps you should review the commandments and stop worshiping these men (1st commandment). Does the weight of ones cross determine if we should carry it? If so, where is the scale and at what weight may we put down our cross!”
As the head of the apostles, Jesus went to his crucifixion as a model for them to follow. They themselves were not able to undergo this devastating punishment. So too, the Vicar of Christ imitates Jesus’ action for us to emulate, since, if he does not do it, no one will.
Your rhetoric about weight and scale is meaningless unless you admit that all of our capacities are not the same, and your quote from Corinthians explains exactly that.
I do not worship any human person, but understand that Francis job is not like yours or mine. In that his soul is committed to Jesus’ teachings, he must explain this push/pull action to 1.4 billion people. That is what keeps the Catholic Church as an earthly institution still in existence.
When was the last time you connected your principles to those of 25% of the world’s population???Maybe you are judging Francis too harshly, which is not your individual responsibility.
Go hand out your modernist coupons somewhere else.
Julius II ., . .really, . . .modernist coupons?????
Your response categorically places you in a position not worthy of further communication or interaction from me or anyone else.
That sort of leaves you “out” hanging on a branch somewhere.
Not a good place to be these days.
I thought it was witty, no? Modernist for your idea’s and coupons kind of reinforces your 25% principles… you know, give them a coupon if they can’t afford it. You think people are weak and can’t rise up, so give them a coupon. Maybe we’ll have the year of coupon in 2018?
Why don’t you just be honest for a change and admit you are here to promote the homosexual agenda and to chastise those of us who condemn it? You have arrived at a dead end.
Now you can tell me I am not worthy of communicating with you, to which I will respond, it’s a pleasure.
Your perception of Bergoglio and his stooges is delusional. He cares so much for the Church’s doctrines he changes them every chance he gets.
I still stand amazed at these demands for clarity. Can these good men not see and hear? Can they not face what this Pope has repeatedly taught. As the Pope has stated, he has been perfectly clear.
As in refusing to answer five simple yes/no questions? That clear?
He answers every day with heretical statements, some that address the dubia and some that are new heresy. He will not give a formal answer because his answer would be formal heresy.
Yes, Tedeschi made good use of the “internal forum” in this instance, so that after “a period of discernment” in which he was “accompanied” by his confessor, he prayerfully signed the correction.
No complaints from Francis or his acolytes, here.
The church is on fire,and the Pope is looking the other way.How I feel about AL;
IF YOU DROP a drop of poison into a pot of stew,even though its only a drop,it will ruin the whole pot, and anyone who eats it will die.The pope,I feel looks on the faithful as a scorn of the church and quite frankly I’m sick of it.Hes watering down and dismantling .AL is a dangerous slippery slope,with many pitt holes and so liberal,that it will end up destroying everything in its path.Lord hear our prayers.
– At one point in the interview, Tedeschi says:
“Sometimes non-answers are clear answers. Clearly, someone thinks it is good to have doubts, to foment them, to create and distribute them. **Isn’t this the way to prepare the ground for the proposition of new certainties?**”
– Then later, there is this question and Tedeschi’s response:
Formicola: A year ago, you wrote, “After meditation on the exhortation of Pope Francis, ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ I wonder if this document is not founded on **the certainty that the Christian civilization has actually finished collapsing**. If this is true, it explains why the exhortation indirectly suggests that the moral laws and the sacraments should be **adapted to the practical reality according to different cultures** and not according to authoritative ideals to which we were used.” Do you think this is still true?
Tedeschi: I don’t believe this is still true – I believe that this “must” be true. Because now **all of this must be imposed**, since it is not accepted by those to whom it was addressed.
The above two citations, whose most essential points I have surrounded with asterisks, seems to indicate the emergence of a worldly Church of Utopia, in which the demands of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are no longer taken literally and definitively, but are seen as a brand-name of spirituality that can be a useful tool in the evolution of the one-world-government and the Transhuman Race — that is, the Antichrist.
Tedeschi makes one other point which, though apparently not intended, strongly suggests the reason why the Church, in her formal apparatus and in much of Her titular leadership, are now prostrate before the Beast…
Tedeschi: Here there is a clear contradiction between Lumen Fidei and Amoris Laetitia, and I will confide it to you. Pope Benedict ended Caritas in Veritate essentially explaining that **to solve the world’s problems**, it is the hearts of men that need to be changed (not the instruments); in Lumen Fidei (signed by Pope Francis), it is said that changing the heart of men is a duty of the Church, which has three instruments to succeed: prayer, the Magisterium, and the sacraments. In order to see if the Church is attending to its mission, it is enough to see if it is accomplishing these three actions and how it is doing it. Most of all, it is enough to see if the Church is reinforcing or weakening the absolute value of the sacraments wanted by Christ himself.
The phrase above that I’ve emphasized between the asterisks is key. It is not the job of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church “to solve the world’s problems”. To be clear, that may not have been what Pope Benedict was even suggesting, and I’m not saying it is. But in a general sense, the phrase is striking, because the temptation to think that the Church will somehow be the vehicle “to solve the world’s problems” is no different that the temptation of Adam and Eve: you will become like God yourself. The temptation to view the Church of Jesus Christ through the lens of Utopian spirituality, will large doses of Gnosticism, Pantheism, etc., is extremely powerful in our time. And our allegiance on this pivotal issue could be the main determinant in the salvation or lose of souls.
Interesting comment with which I mostly agree. The one point upon which I differ is whether it’s the Church’s job to “solve the world’s problems”. Indeed, I say it is. There are no problems of which I can conceive could not be solved by turning toward Christ. We’re not going to be able to have everyone in the world live in a comfortable, American-like middle income earner home. But with hearts turned toward God and Christian charity, we could certainly feed and cloth people. That’s just one problem but, again, I see no issues that are not addressable by turning toward Christ, God incarnate.
Yes, I do very much believe it’s the Church’s job to solve the world’s problems. Where the failure lies is that the Church is trying to partake in the material solution instead of trying to turn hearts to the fullness of God’s truth.
Brian W, if by feeding and clothing the hungry and the naked,you see the Church solving the ‘material solution” then you are ignoring Jesus’ specific commands to do these CORPORAL works of kindness and mercy. You cannot get someone’s attention on their empty stomach, or their privates exposed to the community.
“If you do it for the LEAST of these, my brethren, you do it for Me.”
It is not a failure by any stretch, and please do not forget that Catholic works of charity and mercy are known throughout the non-Christian world. I should think Mother Teresa, and her Indian community, had already erased any thoughts you had about that.
Yes, you are right about the Church’s job to solve the world’s problems, Just try to imagine our 21st century geopolitical arrangements, at present, WITHOUT the Catholic Church. I cannot begin to conceive what will have remained here as being worthy of the name ‘civilization’ without the Church.
Point completely missed, Leon. The Church bleeds members as SJWs focus on becoming a social aid organization instead of a body with a mission to spread the Word of God. Her primary mission is teaching the truth of Christ, not feeding the poor. Feeding the poor comes about as a result of being fully formed, it’s part of the big picture. It is not THE picture. Christ didn’t die on the cross to create a charity, he died on the cross so that we could enter heaven by doing what he taught us.
People who ignore the 10 Commandments and constantly sin aren’t going to heaven by virtue of their charitable works.
Brian W, Sounds like ‘ring around the rosey’ here, I will assume, correctly, that you are NOT a member of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. That decided, it is, by definition, spreading the ‘word of G-d’ by the actual works of faith hope and charity that will fulfill the ‘church’s mission’, Somehow your polarization of ‘constantly sinning and ignoring the Decalogy’ is not quite how it works. YOU are teaching the ‘truth of Christ’ when you do the smallest act of kindness to another. Somehow, it is a point you ‘completely missed.’ Judging from your pontifical tone, you have some catching up to do.
And while we are at ‘missing points’ you might want to know that ‘being fully formed’ is not what St. Francis had in mind, and certainly not Jesus himself. Or did you forget that you can still enter heaven without one eye, or one hand, because you had to cut it off????
“Fully formed??” Or maybe you are totally ignorant of Vatican II and what John XXIII told the pilgrims coming to the Holy Land, ” without shoes, or luggage, or those other unnecessarys.”
No, Leon. Quite the opposite. By the way, I have heard of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Evangelization of
Peoples but not the Congregation for the Propagationnot the Faith.
Whatever the case may be, if faith without works is dead, works without faith are even more dead. To wit, cloistered monks and nuns live lives of prayer and contemplation without interacting with others: is your contention that they are going to hell because the only way to be a Christian is by performing social work whilst an abortuonist who dedicates hours and hours to the homeless is more likely to gain entry?
Again, I say, we are indeed called to look after our brothers. That is our job as Catholics, a command which needn’t be carried out by Church run organizations. The Church exists to spread the news of Christ on Earth. Christ commanded that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, loving your neighbor was second. Whether you like it not, the Church is commanded with spreading the Word of God, we are to live it. And spreading the Word is not clothing and feeding the hungry, it’s telling them about God and the Church. Yes, we feed them where we meet them, we do not condition our charity upon accepting Christ but spreading his truth verbally is more important than anything else.
The Church may seem to be prostrate before the Beast, but that is an appearance. It is her inner spirit that is always triumphant – Jesus plainly said, ‘Begone Satan’ that is necessary and sufficient to dispel this suggestive image. So then, in order to change the world and the hearts of men, EACH of those hearts must individually repeat the words of Jesus – “The Lord your G-d shall you worship, and him alone shall you serve.” If this statement by our Savior is relative, then the word has no further meaning theologically, or even philosophically.
The Church has been through much worse periods[the Reformation, The Inquisition, Galileo, the Scientific Revolution] and that old proverb still holds – “If it does not kill you, it makes you stronger.” The Church has proven that by gathering one of the largest flocks on the planet to expose the teachings of Jesus. Through all of the historical, doctrinal, and scientific hurdles it has been subject too, it has survived, after two millenia, and shows no sign of ‘collapsing’ into the secular muddy soup we see bubbling everywhere.
“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, then ye shall say to the mountain, MOVE, and it shall move into the sea.” Today, we have passed the mustard seed by 2,000 years and have the QUANTUM particles as our bastion of faith [there is NO evidence-ever-of proton decay], and it is to that recently discovered realm that we will look to find the workings of the Divine in our very own bodies, hearts, and souls.
+In His Everlasting Love+