‘We Must Reach Out’
Pope Francis speaks about the Curia, the Synod on the Family and the year ahead.
Editor’s
note: The following interview, conducted in Spanish, is Pope Francis’
first lengthy interview with a newspaper in Latin America. The original
text was published in three sections in La Nación on Dec. 7, 2014. An
English translation, completed by Vivien Pérez Moran, appeared
simultaneously on La Nación’s website, lanacion.com.ar. One segment of
the original interview, which dealt with Argentine politics, was not
translated by La Nación and is not included here. Gerard O’Connell, America’s Vatican correspondent and Elisabetta Piqué’s husband, was present for the interview.
I met Jorge Bergoglio in February
2001, in Rome, when I had to interview the then archbishop of Buenos
Aires for La Nación. He did not normally grant interviews but would make
an exception with me because he was on the verge of being created
cardinal by John Paul II.
So much has happened since then. The man who had always been Padre Jorge now is Pope Francis, and I, the author of Pope Francis: Life and Revolution.
We sat down in the light green velvet armchairs in the living room at
Casa Santa Marta, and Francis started telling anecdotes, laughing and
even stating on the record that he is still the same Padre Jorge.
The pope confirmed he will not be traveling
to Argentina in July 2016 for the Eucharistic Congress in Tucumán
because it is very close to World Youth Day, to be held in Poland. He
does, however, intend to visit Argentina that same year at another time.
He also revealed that he will be traveling to another three Latin
American countries in 2015 (which he preferred not to mention) and, for
the first time, to Africa.
The first Latin American pope, that is a great honor for all Latin America. What do you expect from Latin America?
Latin America has been on a journey
for some time now, since the first CELAM [Latin American Episcopal
Conference] meeting. Monsignor Larraín, the first CELAM president, gave
it great momentum. First came the Río conference, then Medellín and then
Puebla, Santo Domingo and Aparecida. The Latin American episcopate
paved the way with these milestones. It did so collegially, with
different methodologies. At first it went about it shyly. Now this
50-year path can certainly not be ignored because it means building
awareness in the Latin American church and maturing in faith. Walking
this road has also aroused great interest in studying the Guadalupe
message. The amount of studies of the Virgin of Guadalupe, of her image,
of mixed ancestries, of Nican Mopohua, is amazing, constituting
fundamental theology. This is why, when we celebrate the day of the
Virgin of Guadalupe, patroness of the Americas, on Dec. 12, as well as
the 50th anniversary of Misa Criolla, we are celebrating the road walked
by the Latin American church.
A recent survey [by Pew] confirmed that, despite the “Francis effect,” Catholics still keep leaving the church.
I am familiar with the figures
disclosed at Aparecida; it is the only information I have. There are
evidently several factors of influence, independent of the church. The
theology of prosperity, to quote just one example, has inspired many
religious propositions that people feel attracted to. These people,
however, end up in the middle of the journey. But let’s leave out
factors that are external to the church. I wonder about ourselves, what
is it that we ourselves do, what is within the church that makes the
faithful unhappy? It’s that lack of closeness [to people]; it’s
clericalism. Today, to be close means to reach out to Catholics, to seek
people out and be close to them, to sympathize with their problems,
with their reality. Clericalism, as I told the CELAM bishops in Río de
Janeiro, stopped laypersons from maturing in Latin America. Laypersons
are more mature in Latin America precisely when they express popular
piety. Clericalism was always an issue for lay organizations. I spoke of
it in “The Joy of the Gospel.”
Does the renovation of the
church, which you have been calling for since you were elected, and
precisely in “The Joy of the Gospel,” also target stray sheep and
stopping the faithful from dropping out [Sp. sangria]?
I don’t like the “dropping out”
image because it is all too close to proselytism. I don’t like to use
terms connected with proselytism because that’s not the truth. I like to
use the image of the field hospital: some people are very much injured
and are waiting for us to heal their wounds; they are injured for a
thousand reasons. We must reach out to them and heal their wounds.
Is that, then, the strategy to recover those that have left?
I don’t like the word “strategy.”
I’d much rather speak about the Lord’s pastoral call; otherwise it
sounds like an N.G.O. It’s the Lord’s call, what the church is asking
from us today, not as a strategy, because the church isn’t into
proselytism. The church doesn’t want to engage in proselytism because
the church does not grow by proselytism. It grows by attraction, as
Benedict said. The church needs to be a field hospital and we need to
set out to heal wounds, just as the good Samaritan did. Some people’s
wounds result from neglect, others are wounded because they have been
forsaken by the church itself; some people are suffering terribly.
As a pope you are different
because you speak with utmost clarity, you are completely
straightforward, you don’t use euphemisms and don’t beat about the bush;
the course of your papacy is extremely clear. Why do you think some
sectors are disoriented, why do they say the ship is without a rudder,
especially after the latest Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the
challenges posed by the family?
Those expressions strike me as odd.
I am not aware of anybody using them. The media quote them. But until I
can ask the people involved, “Have you said this?” I will have
brotherly doubts. In general, people don’t read about what is going on.
Somebody did say to me once, “Of course, of course. Discernment is so
good for us, but we need much clearer things.” And I answered: Look, I
wrote an encyclical—true enough, it was by four hands [with Benedict
XVI]—and an apostolic exhortation. I’m constantly making statements,
giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the
media say that I think. Check it out; it’s very clear. “The Joy of the
Gospel” is very clear.
Some of the media have mentioned that the “honeymoon is over” on account of the divisions that surfaced during the synod.
It wasn’t a division against the
pope, nor was it that they didn’t hold the pope as a reference. Because
the pope tried to open the gate and to listen to everybody. The fact
that in the end my address was accepted with such enthusiasm by the
synod fathers shows that the pope was not the issue, but rather the
different pastoral positions.
Whenever the status quo
changes, which is what happened when you were elected pope, it’s normal
to find resistance. Some 20 months later, the resistance seems to have
become more evident.
You said it. Resistance is now
evident. And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into
the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy
to get things out into the open; it’s very healthy.
On the Curia
Do you believe resistance is connected with your cleansing efforts, with the in-house restructuring of the Roman Curia?
To me, resistance means different
points of view, not something dirty. It is connected to some decisions I
may occasionally take, I will concede that. Of course, some decisions
are more of an economic sort, and others are more pastoral.
Are you worried?
No, I am not worried. It all seems normal to me. If there were no difference of opinions, that wouldn’t be normal.
Is the cleansing over, or is it still going on?
I don’t like to speak about
cleansing. I’d rather speak of getting the Curia going in the direction
identified by the general congregations [meetings before the conclave].
No, there’s still a long way to go. A long way, a long way. You see, in
pre-conclave meetings, as cardinals we demanded lots of things, and it
is necessary to continue on this path.
What you found in the cleansing process, is it worse than you expected?
In the first place, I expected
nothing. I expected to go back to Buenos Aires (laughter). And after
that, well, I don’t know. You see, God is good to me, he’s bestowed on
me a healthy dose of unawareness (inconsciencia). I just do what I have to do.
And how are things going at present?
Well, as everybody knows, it’s all
public. The I.O.R. [Vatican Bank] is operating beautifully; we did quite
a good job there. The economy is doing well. And the spiritual reform
is my great concern right now, to change people’s hearts. I’m writing my
Christmas address for the members of the Curia. I’m going to deliver
two Christmas addresses, one for Curia prelates and the other one for
all the Vatican staff, with all our assistants, in the Paul VI room with
their families, because it’s they who keep their noses to the
grindstone. Spiritual exercises for prefects and secretaries are a step
ahead. It is a step ahead to stay six days locked in, praying; just as
we did last year, we’ll do it again the first week of Lent. We’ll be
staying at the same house.
The G9 will be meeting
again next week, the group of nine cardinal consultors who are helping
you with the reform process of the Curia and universal church
governance. Will the famous church reform be ready by 2015?
No, it’s a slow process. The other
day we got together with the dicastery heads and submitted the proposal
of joining the dicasteries for the laity, family and justice and peace.
We discussed it all, each one of us said what he thought. Now it will be
forwarded to the G9. You know, reforming the Curia will take a long
time. This is the most complex part.
That means it won’t be ready by 2015?
No. We’re tackling it step by step.
Is it true that a married
couple might be the head of this new dicastery, that you might combine
the pontifical councils for laypersons, family and justice and peace?
Perhaps. I don’t really know. The
heads of the dicasteries or of the secretariat should be the people best
suited, whether man or woman, or even a married couple.
And not necessarily a cardinal or a bishop.
The head of a dicastery like the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the liturgical dicastery or
the new dicastery encompassing laity and family as well as justice and
peace will always be a cardinal. This is best because of his [a
cardinal’s] closeness to the pope as a collaborator in a given sector.
But dicastery secretaries do not necessarily have to be bishops, because
a problem we have is when we have to change a bishop-secretary, where
do we send him? We need to find a diocese, but sometimes they are not
fit for one, they’re good at the other job. I’ve only appointed two
bishop-secretaries: the Governorate secretary, who thus more or less
became the pastor of all this, and the secretary general of the synod of
bishops, because of what that signifies there.
It was an intense year,
with many significant trips, the extraordinary synod, the prayer for
peace in the Middle East in the Vatican gardens. What stands out as the
best moment, and what as the worst?
I wouldn’t know. Every moment has
something good and something not quite as good, isn’t that so?
(Silence.) For instance, the meeting with the grandparents, the elderly,
there was amazing beauty in that.
Benedict was there as well.
I enjoyed that occasion very much,
but that doesn’t make it the best, because they were all beautiful. I
really don’t know. I wouldn’t know what to say. I never thought of that.
And about being pope, what do you like the most and what least of all?
You know, and this is the absolute
truth, this is something I really want to say. Before I came over here, I
was in the process of retiring. That is to say, I had agreed with the
nuncio that when I got back to Buenos Aires, we would be putting
together a short list of three candidates so that by last year’s end the
new archbishop might take over. That is to say, my mind was focused on
the confessionals of the churches where I would be hearing confessions. I
even had the project of spending two or three days in Luján and the
rest of my time in Buenos Aires, because Luján means so much to me, and
the confessions there are a grace. When I came here, I had to start all
over again. All this was new. From the start, I said to myself, “Jorge,
don’t change, just keep on being yourself, because to change at your age
would be to make a fool of yourself”(hacer el ridiculo). That’s
why I’ve always kept on doing what I used to do in Buenos Aires. Perhaps
even making my old mistakes. But I prefer it like this, to be myself.
That evidently caused some changes in the protocols—not in the official
protocols, because I’m very careful about abiding by them. The thing is
that I am who I am even where protocols are concerned, just as I was
myself in Buenos Aires. You can see why “not changing” suited me so
well.
When you came back from
South Korea, somebody asked you a question and you answered that you
were hoping to “go to the Father’s house.” Many people were worried
about your health; they thought that you might not be well or something
of the sort. How are you? You look so well.
I do have some aches and pains, and
at my age ailments don’t go unnoticed. But I am in God’s hands. Up to
now I have been able to maintain a rhythm of work that is more or less
good.
A “conservative” sector in
the United States thinks that you removed the North American cardinal
Raymond Leo Burke from the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
because he was the leader of a group that resisted changes of any type
in the Synod of Bishops. Is it true?
One day Cardinal Burke asked me
what he would be doing, as he had still not been confirmed in his
position, in the legal sector, but rather had been confirmed donec aliter provideatur [“until
otherwise provided for”]. And I answered, “Give me some time, because
in the G9 we are thinking of a restructuring of the legal sectors.” I
told him nothing had been done about it yet and that it was being
considered. After that the issue of the Order of Malta cropped up and we
needed a smart American who would know how to get around, and I thought
of him for that position. I suggested this to him long before the
synod. I said to him, “This will take place after the synod because I
want you to participate in the synod as dicastery head.” As the chaplain
of the Order of Malta he wouldn’t have been able to be present. He
thanked me in very good terms and accepted my offer; I even think he
liked it. Because he is a man that gets around a lot, he does a lot of
traveling and would surely be kept busy. It is therefore not true that I
removed him because of how he had behaved in the synod.
Do you have plans for your
78th birthday on Dec. 17? Will you celebrate it with the barboni (the
homeless) once again as you did last year?
I did not invite the barboni;
they were brought in by the almoner. And it was a good idea, wasn’t it?
That’s where the myth started that I had had breakfast with the barboni. You see, I had breakfast with all the staff of the house, and the barboni were
present. This is part of all the folklore that people make up about me.
Since it [my birthday] falls on a day when there is no Mass in the
chapel because it’s Wednesday [the day of the general audience], that
day we will all have lunch together, with all the staff. It will be just
another day to me, pretty much like any other one.
On the Swiss Guard
Is it true that you fired the head of the Swiss Guard, [Colonel] Daniel Anrig, for being too strict?
No, that’s not true. Last year, two
months after my election, his five-year term expired. Then I told the
secretary of state—Pietro Parolin wasn’t there yet—that I could neither
appoint him nor dismiss him, because I didn’t know the man. So I decided
to extend his mandate with the typical formula donec aliter provideatur
[“until otherwise provided for”]. It seemed unfair to make a decision
at that time, one way or the other. Then I learned more about all that. I
visited the barracks; I spent an afternoon with the Swiss Guards; I
also stayed for dinner one evening. I got to know the people, and I felt
a renovation would be healthy. It was a mere renewal, because his term
was over, and it is healthy to know that nobody is eternal. So I talked
to him and we agreed that he was leaving by the end of the year. He knew
that since July.
Then it is not true that you fired him because he was too strict?
No, it’s not true. It is a change, a
normal change. He is an excellent person, a very good Catholic, a man
with an excellent family.
It was also said that you fired him because he lived in a luxurious apartment. That’s also false?
Last year, he renovated his
apartments, which are certainly spacious, because he has four children.
He is a believer, a very good man. I have an excellent relationship with
him, so I talked with him face to face and said: “Look, I prefer a
renewal.” There was nothing unusual in it. There’s no fault in him, no
blame.
On the Synod
At the recent Extraordinary
Synod of Bishops on the Family, two different visions of the church
surfaced, one sector open to debate and the other refusing to hear
anything about it. Is this the case? What do you think?
I wouldn’t say that’s quite so....
True enough, if you wish to simplify in order to explain things, we
might say that there were a few more on this side, or on the other side.
What we benefited from was the synodal process, which is not a
parliamentary process but rather a protected space so that the Holy
Spirit can work. Two clear qualities are needed: courage to speak and
humility to listen. And that worked very well. There are, indeed,
positions more inclined this way or that way, but in the pursuit of
truth. You could ask me, “Are there any that are completely obstinate in
their positions?” Yes, there surely are. But that doesn’t worry me.
It’s a question of praying for the Holy Spirit to convert them, if there
are such people. The prevailing feeling was a brotherly one, trying to
find a way together to tackle the family’s pastoral issues.
The family is so beaten up, young people
don’t get married. What’s the problem? Afterwards, when they finally
come to get married, having already moved in together, we think it’s
enough to offer them three talks to get them ready for marriage. But
it’s not enough, because the great majority are unaware of the meaning
of a lifetime commitment. Benedict said it twice in his last year, that
in order to grant nullity, we should take into account each person’s
faith at the time of getting married. Was it a general faith? Did the
person understand perfectly well what marriage is about? Did the person
understand it enough to convey it to another person? That’s something we
need to look into in depth, to analyze how we can help.
A few days ago, a couple who are living
together came to tell me that they were getting married. I said: “Good.
Are you ready for it?” They both answered. “Yes, now we are looking for a
church that suits my dress best,” she said. “Yes, right now we’re in
the middle of all the preparations—the invitations, souvenirs and all
the rest,” he echoed. “There’s also the issue of the party. We cannot
make up our minds because we don’t want the reception to be hosted too
far from the church. And then there’s the other issue. Our best man and
maid of honor are divorced, same as my parents, so we can’t have both of
them.”
All these issues are about the ceremony!
Indeed, getting married should be celebrated, because you need courage
to get married and that should be commended. However, neither of them
made any comment at all on what this meant to them, the fact that it was
a lifetime commitment. What do I mean? That for a great many people
getting married is just a social event. The religious element doesn’t
surface in the least. So how can the church help in this situation? If
they are not ready, do we slam the door in their face? It is no minor
issue.
“Conservative” sectors,
especially in the United States, fear that the traditional doctrine will
collapse. They say the synod caused confusion because it did mention
the “positive nuances” of living together, and gay couples were
mentioned in the draft, although the bishops then backed off.
The synod was a process; the
opinion of a synodal father was just that, the opinion of a synodal
father. And a first draft was merely a first draft meant to record it
all. Nobody mentioned homosexual marriage at the synod; it did not cross
our minds. What we did talk about was of how a family with a homosexual
child, whether a son or a daughter, goes about educating that child,
how the family bears up, how to help that family to deal with that
somewhat unusual situation. That is to say, the synod addressed the
family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because
we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father
and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened
to me several times in Buenos Aires. We have to find a way to help that
father or that mother to stand by (accompanar) their son or
daughter. That’s what the synod addressed. That’s why someone mentioned
positive factors in the first draft. But this was just a relative draft.
Some people fear that the traditional doctrine will collapse.
You know, some people are always
afraid because they don’t read things properly, or they read some news
in a newspaper, an article, and they don’t read what the synod decided,
what was published. What was worthwhile about the synod? The
post-synodal report, the post-synod message and the pope’s address. That
is definitive, but it will eventually become relative and provisional,
turning into a “guideline” for the next synod.
I think some fathers made a mistake when
they talked to the media. We decided that each one of us would grant as
many interviews as he liked, with total freedom, no censorship was
imposed. We chose transparency. Why did we choose briefings and not what
the person said? For two reasons: first, because they sent written
presentations in advance and then they said some things, or nothing at
all, or they changed things and thus it might not be the real thing. And
second, to protect that person. And this is what really matters to me.
If this were a parliament, we would have to account to those who sent
us, i.e., the local church. But this is not a parliament, and this man
must be totally free to say what he feels without having to keep
anything to himself, without people knowing that he said this or that.
Disclosing what was said is O.K.; that’s why in the briefing we
explained that we had said this, that or the other. Different bishops
had different approaches, but we will all move on together. All this to
protect this work, so that the Holy Spirit could move forward. I am not
afraid.
Afraid of what?
Afraid of following this trail, the
road of the synod. I am not afraid because it is the road that God has
asked us to follow. More so, the pope is the ultimate guarantor, the
pope is there to take care of this also. We must move forward. In my
last address I said something interesting; I pointed out that we had not
addressed any part of the doctrine of the church concerning marriage.
In the case of divorced people who have remarried, we posed the
question, what do we do with them? What door can we open for them? This
was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion
alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been
excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godparents at baptism, they
cannot read the readings at Mass, they cannot give Communion, they
cannot be catechists. There are about seven things they cannot do. I
have the list over there. Come on! If I tell all this, it seems that
they are excommunicated de facto!
So let us open the doors a bit more. Why
can’t they be godparents? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be
giving their godchild?” The testimony of a man and a woman saying, “My
dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves
me, I want to follow God, sin will not have victory over me, I want to
move on.” Any more Christian witness than that? And what if one of the
political crooks among us, corrupt people, are chosen to be somebody’s
godfather? If they are properly wedded by the church, would we accept
them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godchild? A
testimony of corruption? We must change things a little; our standards
need to change.
What do you think about the solution put forward by Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany?
Kasper’s address to the cardinals
last February included five chapters. Four of them are a jewel, about
the purpose of marriage, open, profound. The fifth is the question of
what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our
faithful after all. He made a hypothesis; he does not propose anything
of his own. Let’s look into that. What happened? Some theologians got
frightened by this hypothesis, and that is to hide one’s head. What
Kasper did was to say, “Let us look for a hypothesis”—that is, he opened
the field. And some got frightened and went as far as to say: Communion
never. Only spiritual communion. And tell me, don’t we need the grace
of God to receive spiritual communion? That’s why spiritual communion
obtained the fewest votes in the [final] synod report, because nobody
was in agreement, neither the one [group] nor the other. Those for it,
because it was too little, voted against it; and those who are not for
it and would rather go for the other one, because it’s not worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment