Follow by Email

samedi 30 juin 2018

Un premier extrait exclusif tiré du film sur PIE XII : SOUS LE CIEL DE ROME


Chers amis,
 
Il y a deux semaines, nous vous avons fait part de notre projet de faire doubler et sous-titrer en Français ce téléfilm en 2 épisodes d'1h30, réalisé par le cinéaste québécois Christian Duguay, pour le compte de la RAI en Italie : PIE XII : SOUS LE CIEL DE ROME.
Vous avez été un certain nombre à réagir positivement à notre demande de financement de ces 3h de doublage puisque nous avons déjà atteint 13% de notre objectif (qui est de 27 000 €). Soyez-en vivement remerciés.
 
Aujourd'hui, j'ai la joie de vous faire part de ce premier extrait, encore en version originale sous-titrée, qui permet de comprendre un certain nombre d'éléments sur le fameux « silence de Pie XII » :
Si vous pensez comme nous qu'il est important que les francophones puissent avoir accès à cette fiction historique très bien documentée, n'hésitez pas à nous soutenir en nous aidant à financer son doublage. Nous avons mis en place pour cela une opération de financement participatif avec deux possibilités : 
 
  • Soit de faire un don directement sur notre page Credofunding (et recevoir en échange un certain nombre de contreparties comme des DVD, des affiches et des places de cinéma).
  • Soit de faire un don sur une Fondation reconnue d'utilité publique, qui a choisi de soutenir notre mission et qui est habilitée à émettre des reçus fiscaux. Pour cette solution, contactez-nous directement en nous écrivant à contact@sajeprod.com

Merci encore pour votre fidélité et votre générosité ! Bon WE à chacun.
 
Hubert de Torcy

SAJE Distribution - 89 boulevard Auguste Blanqui,75013,Paris

vendredi 29 juin 2018

El que vuelve

http://caminante-wanderer.blogspot.com/2018/06/el-que-vuelve.html?m=1

The Wanderer: El que vuelve
En tiempos tumultuosos y desconcertantes como los que estamos viviendo, sirve recurrir a los consuelos que las Escrituras y la misma Iglesia nos indican. Y uno de ellos es la esperanza cierta en la segunda venida en gloria y majestad de Nuestro Señor. A fuerza de visionarios y trastornados, hemos dejado de lado esta verdad de la fe, tan válida como el dogma trinitario, y la hemos convertido en una cuestión individual o mística: "No hay que pensar en la segunda venida ni en el fin de mundo. Eso ocurre cuando llega tu muerte", o bien: "La segunda venida de Cristo es cuando se manifiesta en tu corazón". Y aunque todo esto es cierto, lo es también que Él viene; que Él está viniendo y que en el día que nadie conoce y en la hora que nadie sabe, Él volverá tal como sus apóstoles los vieron alejarse.
Para volver sobre estos temas y hacerlo con la imprescindible cautela que exigen, recomiendo vivamente la lectura de un libro que acaba de editar Vórtice: El que vuelve, y que reúne tres trabajos de autores diversos: uno homónimo al título del libro, de Madeleine Chasles; "La venida del Señor en la liturgia", del P. Johannes Pinsk y "La Parusía o Segunda Venida de Jesucristo al mundo", del P. Juan Rovira.
El primero de los textos es el más extenso y, a mi entender, el más rico de los tres trabajos. Escrito por una mujer francesa que vivió en la primera mitad del siglo XX y que posee numerosas obras, varias de ellas traducidas al español, en las que alienta a los fieles a leer la Sagrada Escritura. En su libro El que vuelve relata al inicio de qué manera cayó en la cuenta, a partir de un versículo bíblico, que los católicos modernos pasamos por alto la Segunda Venida, que ha dejado de ser el punto de tensión de nuestra fe como ocurría durante los primeros siglos. Es así que hace un repaso detallado de lo que significa esta venida gloriosa en tres partes: "Volverá", "Reinará" y "Las señales". 
Pero el suyo no es un estudio bíblico escrito por un biblista -¡Dios nos libre!-, sino que es la lectura hecha por un alma piadosa de los textos de la Escritura que se refieren a la temática. Es una suerte de cadena de textos inspirados, con algunos breves comentarios personales, siempre pertinentes, y que como es lógico que suceda al tratarse de la Palabra de Dios, dejan semilla en el alma y hacen bien al espíritu.
No es sin embargo, un libro piadoso más. Tiene su peso y su valía, y la prueba está que el prólogo lo escribe el famoso dom Fernand Cabrol, abad de Farnborough. Además, según refiere el P. van Rixtel, a fines de la década del '30 se juntaban en casa de Juan Antonio Bourdieu, socio de Gustavo Martínez Zubiría, Mons. Straubinger y el P. Diego de Castro para estudiarlo y debatirlo.
El segundo de los textos pertenece al P. Pinsk, conocido como uno de los representantes más significativos del Movimiento Litúrgico a partir de una serie de trabajos que enriquecieron el conocimiento de la liturgia latina. En este caso, lo que hace es recorrer todos los textos de la liturgia -del Misal y del Breviario Romano-, mostrando el modo diáfano y permanente con el que la verdad de la Segunda Venida se encuentra en ellos. Se trata de un trabajo que solamente puede ser hecho por un erudito como lo fue el Pinsk pero que no escribe un libro de erudición sino más bien un texto breve (originalmente fue publicado como artículo en Revista litúrgica) destinado a la lectura de cualquier católico a fin de alimentar su fe y su intelección de la lex orandi que, por ser también lex credendi, nunca debe ser descuidada.
El último de los textos que integra el libro pertenece al P. Juan Rovira y originalmente fue publicado en la ya legendaria enciclopedia Espasa bajo la voz "Parusía". Y es esto lo que concede mayor valor a este trabajo. En primer lugar, porque las exigencias del espacio le impusieron sintetizar lo que se conoce sobre la Segunda Venida del Señor, y lo hace aportando a los lectores un visión global que resulta muy útil para tener una perspectiva de conjunto de un tema que no es fácil ni sencillo de abordar. Y, en segundo lugar, porque podemos ver en esa síntesis un reflejo de lo que fueran sus obras más importantes: De opere messianico, de 1920 y publicado en español como El Reino mesiánico en 2013, y De consummatione Regni messianici in Terris, monumental obra en cuatro tomos, el primero de los cuales acaba de ser publicado en España como El Reino de Cristo consumado en la tierra.
Como decía al comienzo, para los tiempos de confusión y dolor, el Espíritu Paráclito, el Consolador, nos ha dejado la palabra divina y, a través de ella, nos recuerda y nos instruye en las enseñanzas que el Logos predicó en la tierra. El que vuelve sintetiza muchos de esos consuelos que ayudan a sanar el corazón de los lectores.

Obispos modernistas

Neocardenales Amazónicos

Gestation pour autrui : «En Inde, les mères porteuses sont réduites à l'état d'esclaves» - Décryptage

http://www.libertepolitique.com/Actualite/Decryptage/Gestation-pour-autrui-En-Inde-les-meres-porteuses-sont-reduites-a-l-etat-d-esclaves

Gestation pour autrui : «En Inde, les mères porteuses sont réduites à l'état d'esclaves» - Décryptage - Actualité
Gestation pour autrui : «En Inde, les mères porteuses sont réduites à l'état d'esclaves»

Source [Le Figaro] Après une longue enquête, Sheela Saravanan révèle les conditions dans lesquelles se déroule la gestation pour autrui en Inde : très pauvres, les mères porteuses sont retenues en quasi captivité, sans aucun soutien psychologique. Un récit bouleversant.

Sheela Saravanan est une chercheuse indienne, titulaire d'un doctorat en santé publique , et a travaillé dans plusieurs universités allemandes. Elle appartient notamment à l'Institut d'Éthique et d'Histoire de la médecine, à l'Université de Göttingen. Féministe, elle s'intéresse aux violences faites aux femmes en Inde et dans les pays du Sud, ainsi qu'aux technologies de reproduction, en particulier la PMA.

Elle a mené une longue enquête auprès des mères porteuses en Inde, et a publié à la suite de ses recherches A Transnational Feminist View of Surrogacy Biomarkets in India(Springer, 2018), un document réalisé à partir de nombreux entretiens. Elle y révèle les conditions terribles dans lesquelles les mères porteuses sont étroitement surveillées tout au long de leur grossesse. Entretien exclusif.

FIGAROVOX.- Pour quelles raisons avez-vous choisi de vous intéresser aux mères porteuses en Inde?

Sheela SARAVANAN.- En 2007, L'Inde était la deuxième destination au monde en matière de tourisme médical, grâce à la qualité de son système de santé, de ses équipements et de l'accessibilité des soins. Je pensais donc que les parents d'intention (les personnes qui ont recours à une mère porteuse pour obtenir un enfant) étaient attirés par la modernité des équipements médicaux et le haut degré de qualification des médecins, ainsi que par la permissivité de la législation indienne, la faiblesse des coûts et la disponibilité des mères porteuses.

Mais lorsque je suis venue en Inde et que j'ai discuté avec des parents d'intention, j'ai compris en réalité qu'ils viennent surtout parce qu'en Inde, les mères porteuses n'ont absolument aucun droit sur l'enfant qu'elles portent, ni même sur leur propre corps tout au long de leur grossesse. Elles ne bénéficient d'aucun soutien légal ni psychologique. On leur demande d'allaiter l'enfant qu'elles ont porté, puis on le leur arrache sans leur apporter la moindre assistance psychologique.

C'est tout le contraire de ce que l'on nous montre à la télévision: dans les talk-shows comme celui d'Oprah Winfrey aux États-Unis, on nous vend une image romantique de la gestation pour autrui en Inde, comme si c'était un service rendu, entre sœurs, en quelque sorte. J'ai donc pris conscience qu'en Inde, la gestation pour autrui est une violation flagrante des droits de l'homme, et qu'elle fait encourir d'importants risques pour la santé des femmes.

Vous rapportez les difficultés que vous avez eues pour approcher les mères porteuses. Pourquoi les cliniques étaient-elles si réticentes à vous mettre en contact, si leur activité est légale?

Malgré tout, deux cliniques ont accepté de m'aider dans mes recherches, dont une qui dispose d'un foyer pour mères porteuses, c'est-à-dire des dortoirs dans lesquels les femmes enceintes sont détenues pendant toute leur grossesse. J'ai toutefois appris plus tard que les femmes avaient reçu des consignes très strictes sur ce qu'elles avaient le droit de dire ou non.

On leur demande d'allaiter l'enfant qu'elles ont porté, puis on le leur arrache sans leur apporter la moindre assistance psychologique.

J'ai rapidement compris les raisons de tous ces mystères. Ces cliniques étaient impliquées dans diverses activités illégales: elles ne fournissaient aucune copie de leur contrat aux mères porteuses, elles fabriquaient de faux certificats de naissance, et se servaient même de leur influence pour émettre de faux passeports aux personnes qui souhaitaient ramener un enfant dans un pays où la GPA est illégale. Par ailleurs, de nombreuses médicales y sont contraires à toute forme d'éthique: bien qu'on n'ait pas le droit d'implanter plus de trois embryons à la fois dans l'utérus de la mère, les cliniques en implantent systématiquement cinq, et s'il y en a plus de deux qui sont viables, on procède in-utero à des avortements sélectifs. De plus, les accouchements ne se font que par césarienne. Une des mères m'a confié que même si le travail se fait douloureusement, on les conduit brutalement en salle d'opération pour les accoucher en urgence. Ces pratiques sont toutes, évidemment, illégales. Les cliniques se doutaient certainement que si je restais trop longtemps ou que j'approchais les femmes de trop près, je finirais par avoir vent de leurs pratiques, d'où leur réticence à me mettre en relation avec elles.

Quelles sont les conditions socio-économiques dans lesquelles vivent les femmes qui deviennent mères porteuses? L'argent est leur seule motivation?

Je n'ai rencontré aucune femme qui ait fait des études supérieures. Leurs revenus familiaux sont tous situés entre 3 000 et 6 000 roupies par mois, c'est-à-dire entre 50 et 100 euros. Pour une gestation pour autrui, elles touchent environ 3 500 euros (250 000 roupies), soit l'équivalent de trois ans de salaire. Toutes les femmes que j'ai rencontrées connaissent d'importantes difficultés économiques: de bas revenus, mais aussi des soucis de santé dans leur famille qui nécessitent des soins parfois coûteux. Même si aucune d'entre elles ne vit dans des conditions extrêmes de pauvreté, et bien que ce qu'elles gagnent grâce à la GPA ne représente pas non plus une immense fortune, ce salaire est très important pour elles car il permet à leur famille de ne pas sombrer dans la misère. Toutes sont au bord de la pauvreté: le moindre imprévu (une maladie, mais aussi un mariage ou le décès d'un proche) peut les y plonger durablement, d'autant qu'en Inde, il n'y a pas réellement de sécurité sociale.

L'argent est donc la motivation première. Elles font souvent le calcul, pour savoir combien de grossesses elles devront réaliser avant d'être complètement à l'abri des difficultés économiques. Les cliniques les encouragent d'ailleurs, après la première GPA, à continuer: souvent, elles savent les persuader en ciblant expressément des femmes qui ont vraiment besoin d'argent. Je n'ai rencontré qu'une seule femme qui a refusé de réaliser une seconde grossesse: sa GPA lui a permis d'acheter la pauvre maison qu'elle louait auparavant avec son mari, et elle s'est remise à vendre des légumes.

Les parents d'intention choisissent-ils les mères porteuses? Vous écrivez dans votre étude que «la GPA est un bazar où même la capacité d'une femme à porter des enfants a un prix». Que voulez-vous dire?

Oui, ce sont principalement les parents qui choisissent la mère porteuse, d'abord sur la base de photos et de quelques informations basiques, puis ensuite en leur faisant passer un entretien. Ils évaluent les candidates en fonction de leur apparence physique, préférant par exemple celles qui sont légèrement en surpoids car c'est un gage de bonne santé selon eux ; mais aussi en fonction de leur disposition à abandonner le bébé sitôt après la naissance. Ils privilégient nettement les plus pauvres, et s'intéressent au taux de mortalité dans leurs familles. Les mères, en revanche, n'ont pas le choix.

Un supplément est versé aux femmes qui allaitent le bébé, et leur salaire est en partie indexé sur le poids de l'enfant à la naissance. En cas de handicap, ou si le sexe n'est pas celui désiré, elles sont en revanche moins payées. D'après un médecin, un tiers environ des parents préfèrent une mère qui a la même religion qu'eux. Une mère m'a confié qu'elle avait touché une prime, car elle appartenait à une caste de propriétaires, les Patel, qui jouissent d'un statut social prestigieux dans le Gujarat. Dans d'autres cliniques, on ne recrute que des femmes à la peau claire, et des critères de beauté ont été introduits.

Les parents doivent débourser environ 1,1 million de roupies (18 000 euros environ), et les prix sont multipliés par le nombre de bébés en cas de jumeaux ou de triplés. Les bébés aussi sont donc une marchandise à vendre. Et en effet, comme je l'ai écrit, ces cliniques ressemblent à de gigantesques bazars, où tout a un prix: le corps des femmes, leur lait maternel, le travail de nounous que certaines font pendant quelque temps après la naissance, le nombre d'enfants, leurs poids, leur sexe, leur santé, et même jusqu'à la caste sociale ou la religion de la mère.

Retrouvez l'intégralité de l'article sur : 

http://premium.lefigaro.fr/vox/societe/2018/06/22/31003-20180622ARTFIG00335-gestation-pour-autrui-en-inde-les-meres-porteuses-sont-reduites-a-l-etat-d-esclaves.php

Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider respond to Pope Francis’ inflight intercommunion comments

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-bishop-schneider-respond-to-pope-francis-inflight-intercommu?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=dfe506d804-Catholic_6_28_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-dfe506d804-402192817

Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider respond to Pope Francis' inflight intercommunion comments | News
Featured Image

ROME, June 27, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — The reception of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church — even in exceptional cases — by a Protestant or other non-Catholic constitutes a "lie" that betrays the Apostolic tradition and the Church's constant practice for over two thousand years. 

According to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, the reception of Holy Communion by a non-Catholic would be a falsehood because Eucharistic Communion is meant to manifest the "perfect union" of the Church's members. Admitting a non-Catholic who does not accept the integrity of the Catholic Faith (e.g. the papacy, the Marian dogmas, etc) and who continues visibly to adhere to his own community's beliefs, therefore contradicts the "visible unity of the Church" and the "interior sacramental reality" of the Eucharist.

Bishop Schneider also said canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law (on the administration of certain sacraments to non-Catholic Christians in situations of emergency or danger of death) contains a "problematic and contradictory principle." He added that the problems being created by the German bishops through their intercommunion proposal are "only the logical consequence of the problematic concessions formulated by canon 844."

His comments were echoed by those of  U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Order of Malta, who told LifeSiteNews: "Receiving Holy Communion means that you accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. That is why it is a contradiction to permit non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion on a general basis."

Burke said canon 844, paragraph 4, "needs to be revised because of its lack of clarity which has led to many contradictory practices in the matter of 'intercommunion.'"

More machinations from the German bishops

Their comments come a day after the German bishops' published their controversial pastoral handout on allowing some Protestant spouses to receive Holy Communion, despite concerns about the text from both within the German episcopate and senior Vatican officials. 

In a statement on Wednesday the permanent council of the German bishops said they discussed the matter this week at a June 25-26 meeting and described the handout as an "orientation" aid to individual bishops rather than an official document of the bishops' conference (despite having its origins in the conference where it was overwhelmingly approved).

In their statement yesterday, the German bishops expressed their wish "to provide spiritual assistance for those facing questions of conscience in individual cases who receive pastoral care for inter-denominational married couples who have a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.

They add that such couples "have a very close mutual bond resulting from baptism, faith and the sacrament of marriage, and they share their entire lives." 

On his return flight from Geneva last week (see video here), Pope Francis said the difficulty he has with the handout is "not so much the content," but that if approved but the bishops' conference, it "immediately becomes universal." He said it falls to the diocesan bishop to ascertain whether a Protestant spouse who is married to a Catholic may receive the Holy Eucharist. 

Francis also said he thought a "guiding document" would be formulated to help diocesan bishops "handle particular cases."

The Pope's comments seem to contradict a May 25 letter sent by Archbishop Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the German bishops. In the letter, Ladaria said the proposed handout is not ready to be published because it "raises a number of significant issues," "touches on the faith of the Church," and effects both ecumenical relations and the interpretation of Church law.

Earlier today, respected Vatican journalist Edward Pentin summed up the machinations of the German bishops over the last month, tweeting:

Here below are the full texts of Cardinal Burke's and Bishop Schneider's comments on  Pope Francis' inflight remarks regarding the German bishops' intercommunion proposal.

Cardinal Raymond Burke  

"The question of giving Holy Communion to a non-Catholic is a question of faith, in fact, a question regarding a central article of the faith. In 1 Cor 27-29, Saint Paul makes clear the gravity of the matter. Canon law safeguards and promotes the reality of faith involved, namely the Eucharistic species which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches us, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation. 

Canon 844, paragraph 4, provides for the giving of Holy Communion to a non-Catholic who has no access to his own minister and who manifests the Catholic faith, if he is in danger of death or, in the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop or Conference of Bishops, another grave necessity warrants it. Both conditions on the part of the person who is to receive Holy Communion must be verified, and there must be a grave necessity such as the danger of death, judged to be present by the Diocesan Bishop or Conference of Bishops. 

In the end, what must be remembered is that the reception of Holy Communion constitutes the fullest expression of the Catholic faith. Apart from some true emergency for a non-Catholic who believes that the Sacred Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, not just an occasion when sentimental considerations would lead one to want to receive Holy Communion, even though he is not in the full communion of the Catholic Church, Holy Communion may not be administered to those who are not in the full communion of the Catholic Church. 

Of course, the person approaching to receive Holy Communion must be properly disposed, that is, must be in the state of grace and must have observed the Eucharistic fast."

 One is only admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Communion, when one is in the full communion of the Catholic faith. Receiving Holy Communion means that you accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. That is why it is a contradiction to permit non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion on a general basis.  The present legislation refers to some emergency situation, for example, the danger of death for a person who has the Catholic faith in the Holy Eucharist and does not have access to the minister of his ecclesial communion. In such a case, once the emergency has passed, the question is why has the person not entered into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Can. 844, paragraph 4, needs to be revised because of its lack of clarity which has led to many contradictory practices in the matter of "intercommunion."

Bishop Athanasius Schneider  

Since the times of the Apostles (cf. Acts 2:42) the integrity of the Faith (doctrina Apostolorum), the Hierarchical Communion (communicatio) and the Eucharistic Communion (fractio panis) are inseparably connected with one another. In admitting a baptized person to Holy Communion, the Church should never dispense him from professing the integrity of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. 

It is insufficient to demand from him only the Catholic belief in the sacrament of the Eucharist (or in the sacrament of Penance and of the Anointing of the sick). Admitting a baptized person to Holy Communion, and not demanding from him as an indispensable prerequisite the acceptance of all other Catholic truths (e.g., the dogmas of the hierarchical and visible character of the Church, the jurisdictional primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the Marian dogmas etc.) signifies a contradiction to the necessarily visible unity of the Church and to the nature of the Eucharistic sacrament itself. 

The proper effect of the Eucharistic Communion is namely the manifestation of the perfect union of the members of the Church in the sacramental sign of the Eucharist. Hence, the very reception of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church – even in exceptional cases –  by a Protestant or by an Orthodox Christian constitutes, ultimately, a lie. It contradicts the sacramental sign and the interior sacramental reality, inasmuch as they, the non-Catholics admitted to Holy Communion, willingly continue to adhere visibly to the other beliefs of their Protestant or respectively Orthodox communities. 

We can discover in this context also the problematic and contradictory principle of canon 844 of the Code of the Canon Law (about the administration of certain sacraments such as the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholic Christians in situations of emergency or danger of death). This principle contradicts the Apostolic Tradition and the constant practice of the Catholic Church throughout two thousand years. Already in the sub-apostolic time of the second century, the Roman Church observed this rule as Saint Justin witnessed it: "This food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true" (Apol. I, 66). 

The problem created recently by the German Bishops' Conference is, – to be honest – only the logical consequence of the problematic concessions formulated by canon 844 of the Code of the Canon Law.


mercredi 27 juin 2018

CULMINA LA FOBIA “ANTILEGALISTA” DE BERGOGLIO (¡y marche un Denzinger para Domus Sanctae Marthae!) | CATAPULTA

MONS. FELLAY E LA CRISI NELLA CHIESA. PERCHÉ NON TORNARE ALLA TRADIZIONE?

http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/06/23/mons-fellay-e-la-crisi-nella-chiesa-perche-non-tornare-alla-tradizione/

MONS. FELLAY E LA CRISI NELLA CHIESA. PERCHÉ NON TORNARE ALLA TRADIZIONE? : STILUM CURIAE

MONS. FELLAY E LA CRISI NELLA CHIESA. PERCHÉ NON TORNARE ALLA TRADIZIONE?

23 giugno 2018 Pubblicato da wp_7512482--

Marco Tosatti

Mons. Bernard Fellay ha fatto giungere un suo messaggio al Convegno in corso a Roma su "Vecchi e nuovi modernismi. Le radici della crisi nella Chiesa". Lo ha letto il prof. Roberto De Mattei. È un testo estremamente interessante; anche alla luce della situazione attuale della Chiesa, in particolare in Europa e nel mondo occidentale, con un calo costante delle vocazioni, e un abbandono altrettanto costante della pratica religiosa. Fenomeni che non risparmiano neanche continenti come l'America Latina, una volta considerati luoghi di una speranza futura, e adesso profondamente feriti dall'abbandono (pensiamo al Brasile) di milioni di fedeli, e dall'avanzata del secolarismo. Di fronte a tutto questo, il messaggio di mons. Fellay è tanto chiaro, quanto certamente fastidioso i vertici attuali della Chiesa. Perché si chiede se non sia opportuno, per cercare di invertire la rotta, risalire a quanto è stato, e si vuole sempre di più abbandonare: cioè la ricchezza della tradizione della Chiesa. Ecco il messaggio, nella sua integralità.

 

La crisi nella Chiesa: quali radici, quali rimedi?

Messaggio di Mons. Bernard Fellay, Superiore Generale della Fraternità San Pio X, alla giornata di studi sulle «radici della crisi nella Chiesa», Roma, 23 giugno 2018.

Questa giornata di studi è molto utile, perché è assolutamente necessario oggi risalire alle radici della crisi nella Chiesa. Lo scorso settembre, al momento della pubblicazione della Correctio filialis, che ho firmato, mi auguravo che «il dibattito su queste questioni fondamentali si amplifichi, perché la verità sia ristabilita e l'errore condannato» (FSSPX.News 26/09/2017), e in questo senso aderisco pienamente all'obiettivo che vi siete prefissati: «il rifiuto di questi errori e il ritorno, con l'aiuto di Dio, alla Verità cattolica completa e vissuta, è la condizione necessaria della rinascita nella Chiesa» (presentazione del Congresso del 23 giugno 2018).

 

Corrispondenza tra il Card. Ottaviani e Mons. Lefebvre

La vostra iniziativa si iscrive nel solco di uno scambio di corrispondenza poco conosciuto tra il Cardinal Ottaviani e Mons. Lefebvre, che può fornirci un lume prezioso. Questo scambio ebbe luogo meno di un anno dopo il Concilio, nel 1966.

In effetti il 24 luglio 1966, il Card. Alfredo Ottaviani, allora Pro-Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, faceva giungere ai Vescovi una lettera che elencava i dieci errori che si erano manifestati dopo il Concilio Vaticano II. Vi si possono leggere le affermazioni seguenti, che dopo cinquant'anni mantengono tutta la loro attualità:

«Alcuni quasi non riconoscono una verità oggettiva assoluta, stabile ed immutabile, e tutto sottopongono ad un certo relativismo, col pretesto che ogni verità segue necessariamente il ritmo evolutivo della coscienza e della storia». (n. 4)

«Né minori sono gli errori che si vanno propagando nel campo della teologia morale. Non pochi, infatti, osano rigettare il criterio oggettivo di moralità; altri non ammettono la legge naturale, affermando invece la legittimità della cosiddetta etica della situazione. Opinioni deleterie vanno propagandosi circa la moralità e la responsabilità in materia sessuale e matrimoniale». (n. 9)

[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660724_epistula_it.html]

La contestazione della «verità oggettiva assoluta» e della «regola oggettiva della moralità», la promozione di un «relativismo» la legittimazione della «morale di situazione», tali sono le radici della crisi nella Chiesa.

Il 20 dicembre 1966 Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, all'epoca Superiore Generale dei Padri dello Spirito Santo, rispose al Card. Ottaviani con una lista di dubbi. Questi dubianon erano i suoi propri, ma quelli che vedeva introdursi nell'insegnamento ufficiale, in seguito al Concilio:

–     «Sulla trasmissione della giurisdizione dei vescovi,

  • le due fonti della Rivelazione,
  • l'ispirazione della Scrittura,
  • la necessità della grazia per la giustificazione,
  • la necessità del battesimo cattolico,
  • la vita della grazia tra gli eretici, gli scismatici e i pagani,
  • i fini del matrimonio,
  • la libertà religiosa,
  • i fini ultimi, ecc.

su tutti questi punti fondamentali la dottrina tradizionale era chiara ed era unanimemente insegnata nelle università cattoliche. Da ora in poi, numerosi testi del Concilio su queste verità, permetteranno di dubitare di esse».

Riguardo a questa chiarezza della dottrina tradizionale resa torbida a partire dal Concilio, la confessione – ventiquattro anni dopo – del Padre Henrici S.J., nel suo articolo «La maturation di Concile» (in Communion°92, nov.-dic. 1990, p. 85 e ss.), conferma il fondamento dell'inquietudine di Mons. Lefebvre. Il teologo svizzero non esita a vedere nel Concilio «l'affrontarsi di due tradizioni differenti della dottrina teologica, che non potevano, in fondo comprendersi a vicenda!».

 

Conseguenze pratiche dei dubbi e degli errori

Ma Mons. Lefebvre non si accontentava di enumerare e di denunciare i dubbi recentemente apparsi, ma aggiungeva subito al Cardinal Ottaviani: «Le conseguenze di tutto questo sono state rapidamente elaborate e applicate nella vita della Chiesa». Seguono allora, sotto la penna di Mons. Lefebvre, le conseguenze pratiche, pastorali, di questi dubbi:

  • I dubbi sulla necessità della Chiesa e dei sacramenti, hanno portato alla scomparsa delle vocazioni sacerdotali;
  • I dubbi sulla necessità e la natura della "conversione" delle anime, hanno portato alla scomparsa delle vocazioni religiose, alla distruzione della spiritualità tradizionale nei noviziati e all'inutilità delle missioni;
  • I dubbi sulla legittimità dell'autorità e sulla necessità dell'obbedienza, hanno causato l'esaltazione della dignità umana, l'autonomia della coscienza e della libertà, che stanno sconvolgendo tutti gli ambiti fondati sulla Chiesa -congregazioni religiose, diocesi, società secolare, famiglia (…)
  • I dubbi sulla necessità della grazia per essere salvati, fanno sì che il battesimo scada alla più bassa considerazione, così che in futuro esso sarà rimandato a più tardi, occasionando la negligenza del Sacramento della Penitenza (…)
  • I dubbi sulla necessità della Chiesa come unica fonte di salvezza, sulla Chiesa cattolica come l'unica vera religione, che derivano dalle dichiarazioni sull'ecumenismo e sulla libertà religiosa, stanno distruggendo l'autorità del Magistero della Chiesa. Infatti, Roma non è più l'unica e necessaria "Magistra Veritatis". [https://fsspx.news/fr/scambio-di-corrispondenza-tra-il-cardinal-ottaviani-e-monsignor-lefebvre-1966-38676]

 

Proposta di rimedi concreti

Di fronte a questi mali, Mons. Lefebvre propone rispettosamente al Sommo Pontefice dei rimedi concreti: «Il Santo Padre (…) proclami la verità con dei documenti dall'importanza straordinaria, scartando l'errore senza il timore di contraddizioni, senza il timore di scismi, senza il timore di mettere in discussione le disposizioni pastorali del Concilio».

Domanda al Papa di sostenere efficacemente i Vescovi fedeli: «Che il Santo Padre si degni:

–     di incoraggiare i vescovi a correggere la fede e la morale, ciascuno nella rispettiva diocesi come si conviene ad ogni buon pastore;

  • di sostenere i vescovi coraggiosi, esortandoli a riformare i loro seminari e a ripristinare lo studio di San Tommaso;
  • di incoraggiare i Superiori Generali a mantenere nei noviziati e nelle comunità i principi fondamentali dell'ascetismo cristiano e, soprattutto, l'obbedienza;
  • di incoraggiare lo sviluppo delle scuole cattoliche, di una stampa informata dalla sana dottrina, di associazioni di famiglie cristiane;

–     infine di redarguire gli istigatori di errori e ridurli al silenzio».

Al suo umile livello, nella Fraternità San Pio X, che fondò nel 1970, Mons. Lefebvre si è sforzato di mettere in atto questi rimedi: insegnamento tomista nei seminari, ascesi cristiana e obbedienza inculcata ai seminaristi; e intorno ai priorati scuole cattoliche, stampa cattolica, associazioni di famiglie cristiane.

Questa applicazione pratica era essenziale per il Fondatore della Fraternità: fare quello che era possibile al suo livello, con le grazie del suo stato, ma non dimenticando mai – come scrive al Cardinal Ottaviani –  che «è il Successore di Pietro, e solo lui, che può salvare la Chiesa».

 

Dall'esclusivo all'inclusivo… e ritorno

Conviene aggiungere qui che, agli occhi di Mons. Lefebvre, questa applicazione pratica è un rimedio efficace al relativismo. Vuole rispondere sul piano dottrinale ma anche su quello pastorale, perché ha coscienza della dimensione ideologicadelle novità postconciliari. Ora non si può rispondere in maniera puramente speculativa a un'ideologia, perché questa vedrà altrimenti davanti a sé solo un'ideologia contraria e non il contrario di un'ideologia. Tale è il modo di ragionare di questo relativismo soggettivista che diluisce «la verità oggettiva e assoluta» e «la regola oggettiva della moralità».

Infatti i «dubbi» denunciati sopra hanno per conseguenza la messa in discussione dell'essenziale, cioè della missione salvifica della Chiesa, con la promozione di quel «cristianesimo secondario» analizzato così bene da Romano Amerio. Questo perdere di vista l'essenziale annebbia l'insegnamento dottrinale e morale che fino ad allora era chiaro. Quando la missione salvifica della Chiesa non è più centrale, né prioritaria, niente più è gerarchico, né strutturato armoniosamente, e si ha tendenza a giustificare le contraddizioni, le incoerenze – che sono molto peggio dei «dubbi»!

Da qui, si fa in modo che ciò nella bocca di Nostro Signore era esclusivo: o uno o l'altro(«Nessuno può servire due padroni: o infatti odierà l'uno e amerà l'altro, o si affezionerà all'uno e disprezzerà l'altro» Mt 6, 24), divenga conciliabile o inclusivo, come si dice oggi. Si sostituirà o l'uno o l'altrocon la formula e l'uno e l'altro«che combina il cielo e la terra in un composto di cui la parte predominante che dà al composto il suo carattere è il mondo» (Romano Amerio, Iota unum, Studio delle variazioni della Chiesa cattolica nel secolo XX, edizioni Riccardo Ricciardi 1985, pag. 427). – Questo in nome di una misericordia pastorale che ingloba immigrazione, diritti dell'uomo ed ecologia…

Ecco perché Mons. Lefebvre ha insistito tanto affinché fosse lasciata alla Fraternità San Pio X un'intera libertà per «fare l'esperienza della Tradizione». Di fronte all'ideologia relativista e alle sue conseguenze che rendono sterile la Chiesa (vocazioni in declino, pratica religiosa in discesa costante…) sapeva che era necessario contrapporre in modo sperimentalei frutti della Tradizione bimillenaria. Si augurava che questo ritorno alla Tradizione permettesse un giorno alla Chiesa di riappropriarsi della medesima. Risalire alle radici della crisi è, al tempo stesso, risalire alla Tradizione: dagli effetti alle cause, dai frutti all'albero, come ci dice Nostro Signore. E in tal caso le ideologie non resistono, perché i fatti e le cifre non sono "tradizionalisti", e ancor meno "lefebvriani", ma sono buoni o cattivi, come l'albero che li produce.

Possa la Chiesa, a partire da questa esperienza modesta ma inconfutabile, riappropriarsi della sua Tradizione: tale era lo scopo di Mons. Lefebvre e della sua opera. E noi possiamo solo far nostra la conclusione della lettera al Cardinal Ottaviani: «Senza dubbio è temerario che io mi esprima in questo modo! Ma è con amore ardente che redigo queste righe, l'amore per la gloria di Dio, l'amore per Gesù, l'amore per Maria, per la Chiesa, per il Successore di Pietro, Vescovo di Roma, Vicario di Gesù Cristo».







Questo blog è il seguito naturale di San Pietro e Dintorni, presente su "La Stampa".  Per chi fosse interessato al lavoro già svolto, ecco il link a San Pietro e Dintorni.

Se volete ricevere i nuovi articoli del blog, scrivete la vostra mail nella finestra a fianco.

L'articolo vi ha interessato? Condividetelo, se volete, sui social network, usando gli strumenti qui sotto.

Se invece volete aiutare sacerdoti "scomodi" in difficoltà, qui trovate il sito della Società di San Martino di Tours e di San Pio di Pietrelcina.




Se siete interessati a un libro, cliccate sul titolo.



UNO STILUM NELLA CARNE. 2017: DIARIO IMPIETOSO DI UNA CHIESA IN USCITA (E CADUTA) LIBERA

FATIMA, IL SEGRETO NON SVELATO E IL FUTURO DELLA CHIESA

SANTI INDEMONIATI: CASI STRAORDINARI DI POSSESSIONE

PADRE PIO CONTRO SATANA. LA BATTAGLIA FINALE

Opposition Mounts to Intercommunion; Canonist Says Pope Has Made a “Complete Mess”

https://onepeterfive.com/opposition-mounts-to-intercommunion-canonist-says-pope-has-made-a-complete-mess/


Opposition Mounts to Intercommunion; Canonist Says Pope Has Made a "Complete Mess"

The 21 June papal remarks concerning the German bishops' handout allowing some Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion have caused a strong reaction from several parties, including a German canonist/ Professor Thomas Schüller, a professor of canon law at the University of Münster, says that the Pope and his dicasteries have created a "pastoral patchwork" and a "complete mess."

As we reported earlier this month, Pope Francis, on his flight back from Geneva to Rome, claimed that the German handout is problematic, not due to its content, but because it is not in accord with current canon law (can. 844). This canon does not permit a bishops' conference to rule over matters such as the question of what constitutes the "emergency situation" which this canon indicates would allow some Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion. (Here, we remind our readers that Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and others have shown that the Pope is wrong in this claim.) Pope Francis also said that were a bishops' conference to rule over such a question it would immediately become "universal." Pope Francis nevertheless praised the German document as being "well done."

As the German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau reported on 22 June, Professor Schüller is now "astonished at the flying messages of the Pope." According to Schüller, who teaches canon law at the University of Münster, the papal words are "ambiguous and partially cryptic." He also told the newspaper that the papal claim that each decision of a bishops' conference would become "immediately universal" is not only false, according to canon law, but it is also contrary to the Pope's own intention to delegate competences to the national level. Schüller comments as follows:

…obviously, Francis wants to appease the conflict of the German bishops by letting everybody do what he wishes. For the progressives, about whom the Pope said that they have "done" their job "well," there remains much scope with regard to the content.

Schüller appears to have grave reservations about this papal laxity with regard to Holy Communion for Protestant spouses. He says that, should it come to solutions in individual cases which differ from diocese to diocese, there would then be created in Germany a "pastoral patchwork – which is an absurd situation, because the ecumenical situation with mixed marriages is, after all, pretty much the same everywhere." The German professor can only shake his head that, in order to reach such a result, the Pope and his dicasteries have "created" such a "complete mess."

Professor Schüller is not the only one who opposes a liberalizing interpretation of canon 844 CIC and of a laxer approach to Communion for non-Catholics as the German bishops have now taken it.

Another German canon lawyer and priest, Professor Christoph Ohly of Trier, said in a 21 May interview with the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost that the Pope has a limited authority in this matter because his authority "is submitted to Divine Law." He cannot, Ohly adds, go beyond it or change it. "The conviction that ecclesial unity and sacramental unity belong together" makes, in Ohly's view, "any such change impossible." Only in light of grave emergency situations or in immediate danger of death, he explains with reference to can. 844§4 CIC, may a Protestant Christian receive Holy Communion. "Faith, Church Law, and pastoral care are inseparable," as Ohly explains earlier in his interview. He insists, too, that this question of Communion for Protestant spouses belongs in the hands of the Universal Church and not of any national bishops' conference.

Marianne Schlosser, Professor of Theology at the University of Vienna, Austria, and a member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission, warns against the danger of "relativism" with regard to this current sacramental debate. In an interviewwith Domradio.de, the radio station of the Diocese of Cologne, Schlosser points to the danger of an increased pressure toward intercommunion, once Protestant spouses of Catholics are permitted to receive Holy Communion. "Will a moral pressure not be created to take the last supper at the Protestant service," she asks, referring to the long-existing invitation to the last supper for Catholics as openly stated by Protestants. Additionally, Schlosser also wonders why those Protestants who desire to receive Holy Communion would not also have "an urgent desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction."

Professor Schlosser also stresses that the expression "emergency situation" as mentioned in can 844 CIC refers to situations that are caused by "external circumstances," such as the impossibility to reach one's own minister. "The principal connection between Church membership and licit participation in the Sacraments is thereby not removed," she explains.

Professor Schlosser is the second member of the International Theological Commission to raise objections against the German pastoral handout concerning Communion for Protestant spouses, a handout which has just recently been praised by Pope Francis. The first objecting member was Professor Karl-Heinz Menke. Menke had called this handout both "theologically defective" and "unwise," and he even claimed that the two-thirds approval of this document by the German bishops was "unlawful."

Thus, these two members are acting in accord with the International Theological Commission's task which is "that of helping the Holy See and primarily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in examining doctrinal questions of major importance."

It would be good if the Pope himself were attentively to heed such advice.

Pope Francis would also do well to listen to the more high-ranking voices of opposition to the German intercommunion handout. Not only did Cardinal Willem Eijk strongly object, but also Cardinal Walter Brandmüllerand Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, Archbishop Charles Chaput, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, to name but a few. Cardinal Cordes said in April of 2018, for example, that the German intercommunion handout is "not theologically backed."

Cardinal Müller, in a new statement written for the July issue of the German journal Herder Korrespondenz, also opposed the German pastoral innovation with regard to Protestant spouses and Holy Communion. He regrets the "anti-dogmatic climate" in the Catholic Church as well as the "sick word battles" concerning the German pastoral handout. He also calls the initial advice of the Pope, namely that the German bishops should somehow come to a "unanimous decision," a "diffuse intervention." Cardinal Müller reminds us that "the Pope is not a mediator in the struggle between parties," but, rather, "a witness of the truth which unites the Church in Christ."

Moreover, the German cardinal and former Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine warns that "that which is dogmatically wrong will become destructive for the salvation of souls when it is to be found in a pastoral care which is led by principles that are opposed to the faith." One may not, explains the prelate, purportedly "leave the teaching externally untouched [i.e., not change its words]," but, at the same time, actually give it "a completely different or even contradictory meaning."

Importantly, Cardinal Müller quotes in his intervention several texts from the early history of the Church – such as St. Justin and St. Ignatius of Antioch – which make it clear that the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and the full acceptance of the Church's teaching, as well as a life according to Christ's laws, are preconditions for the reception of Holy Communion. The link between the Holy Eucharist and the acceptance of the authority of the Catholic bishop is also to be stressed. Thus, says the cardinal, the Holy Eucharist is a "means unto eternal life" and not "a medicine against psychological distress and difficulties in the life of a married couple." The Holy Eucharist thus "cannot restore the lost ecclesial community" in a physical way, without that "the supernatural unity is first being reached with the help of a common Creed, the Seven Sacraments, and the visible unity with the Pope and the bishops." To call non-Catholics to Holy Communion is in his eyes only a "seeming generosity" and such an act "reveals, in reality, a disdain for the revealed Faith, which has been only entrusted to the Catholic Church." [emphasis added]

Even the Cardinal-designate Archbishop Luis Ladaria, Cardinal Müller's successor at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said just today at a press conference in Rome that, for the German bishops to make a decision on its own about a point so central to the Faith "can create a bit of confusion." "It concerns the Universal Church," he added. A solution should be found "for the whole Church."

It is to be hoped that Pope Francis himself will be attentive to his own Prefect, to his own theological counselors, to his cardinals, as well as to the voice of a well-formed conscience.

El modernismo: raíces y consecuencias históricas

Pope Francis says individual bishops can decide on intercommunion for Protestant spouses

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-pope-francis-says-individual-bishops-can-decide-on-intercommunion-for?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=71948baed6-Catholic_6_26_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-71948baed6-402192817


WATCH: Pope Francis says individual bishops can decide on intercommunion for Protestant spouses | News
Featured Image

ROME, June 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — During his inflight press conference on his return from Geneva yesterday, Pope Francis told reporters that it is up to individual bishops, and not bishops' conferences, to determine whether a Protestant spouse who is married to a Catholic may receive the Holy Eucharist.

His comments come less than one month after the head of the Vatican's doctrinal office, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., sent a letter to the German bishops with Pope Francis' approval, rejecting their pastoral guidelines to allow Protestants in mixed marriages with Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist in some cases, without needing to convert to Catholicism.

[Here is a video of the exchange. The question came from a German journalist:]

In the May 25 letter, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith informed Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops' conference, that the text proposed by the German bishops' "raises a number of significant issues," saying the matter "touches on the faith of the Church," effects ecumenical relations and the interpretation of Church law.

In his inflight comments on intercommunion yesterday, Pope Francis appeared to contradict the letter, saying the sticking point in the German bishops' intercommunion proposal was "not so much the content" but only that it falls to the individual bishop of a particular diocese to decide the matter, and not the bishops' conference.

Here too Pope Francis seemed not to recollect properly Canon 844 §4 which speaks of both bishops' conferences and individual bishops. Canon 844 §4 states that if: 

… the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has pointed to weaknesses in Canon 844 in comments to the National Cathoilc Register in March, the main one being a broad interpretation of "grave necessity."

Canon 844, he said, has "several terminological problems" that make it an "urgent candidate for reform." 

During his inflight press conference remarks, Pope Francis also referenced an exchange he had back in November 2015, during a visit to the Lutheran community in Rome, with a German Lutheran woman married to an Italian Roman Catholic. The woman said she and her husband "greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate together in the Lord's Supper" and asked what might be done to "finally achieve communion on this point?"

Recalling the exchange, the Pope said he responded to the woman "in the spirit of the Code of Canon Law, the spirit that they [the bishops] are now seeking." Here is a video (with English subtitles) of their exchange:

At the time, Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, respondedto the Pope's exchange with the Lutheran woman, saying: "Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear." Cardinal Sarah added that he thought opening the doors to intercommunion would "promote profanation."

While the Pope's inflight comments have no magisterial weight, they open up a Pandora's box of confusion and questions, including how a Protestant spouse can receive the Holy Eucharist without first receiving absolution for their sins in sacramental Confession.

Confession was in fact not mentioned in the German bishops' intercommunion proposal. But as Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the CDF, told the National Catholic Register last month: "They don't speak about it because they're not interested in it.

Müller told the Register he believed some proponents of intercommunion "don't understand what the true sense of the Eucharist is, as a sacrament of the altar." For them, he said, "it's only a sign of belonging together, an external sign" and said that "some of our theologians say we're all redeemed by the common will of God, salvation for everyone, and the sacraments don't have instrumental significance. They're only a superficial form of expressing some feelings of friendship and in the end there's no need for them."

But he warned that if you're "undermining the sacramental meaning of the seven fundamental rites of the Catholic Church, you're undermining all the sacramentality of the Church, and so there's no need for the Church" and "no difference" between a human institution and the "holy apostolic Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus Christ as the fundament of the Truth."

Here below is the text of Pope Francis' comments on intercommunion during the inflight press conference.  

***

Greg Burke:

Thank you, Your Holiness. Now from the German group there's Roland Juchem, from the German Catholic agency CIC.

Roland Juchem:

Thank you, Holy Father. You often speak about concrete steps to be taken in ecumenism. Today, for example, you referred to it again, saying: "Let's look at what's possible to do concretely, rather than becoming discouraged over what isn't." The German bishops recently decided to take a step [regarding so-called "inter-Communion"], and so we are wondering why Archbishop Ladaria [Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] wrote a letter that seems a bit like an emergency brake. After the meeting on May 3, it was said that the German bishops should find a solution, possibly unanimously. What are the next steps? Will an intervention by the Vatican be necessary to clarify the matter, or will the German bishops have to find an agreement?

Pope Francis:

Good. This is not a novelty, because what the German bishops were talking about is foreseen in the Code of canon law: Communion in special cases. And they were looking at the issue of mixed marriages: if it is possible or not possible. However, the Code says that the bishop of the particular Church — this word is important, particular, if it is a diocese — has to handle this: it's in his hands. This is in the Code. The German bishops, since they had seen that the case was not clear, and also that some priests were doing things not in accord with the bishop, wanted to study this matter, and they carried out this study which — I don't wish to exaggerate — was more than a year long study, I don't know exactly but more than a year, well done, well done. 

And the study is restricted: what the bishops wanted was to say clearly what is in the Code. And having read it, I say: this is a restrictive document. It was not an "opening to everyone." No. It was well thought out, with an ecclesial spirit. And they wanted to do it for the local Church: not the particular one. They didn't want that. The thing slipped there, that is, saying that it is for the German Episcopal Conference. And there's a problem there, because the Code doesn't provide for that. It provides for the diocesan bishop, but not for the episcopal conference.

Why? Because something approved in an episcopal conference immediately becomes universal. This was the difficulty in the discussion: not so much the content, but this. They sent the document; then there were two or three meetings of dialogue and clarification, and Archbishop Ladaria sent that letter, but with my permission, he did not do it on his own. I said to him: "Yes, it's better to take a step forward and say that the document is not yet mature — that is what the letter said — and that the matter needed to be studied more." Then there was another meeting, and in the end they will study the thing. I believe that this will be a guiding document, so that each of the diocesan bishops can handle what is already permitted under Canon Law. There was no putting the brakes on it, no, no. It was a matter of handling the thing so that it might go down the right path.

When I visited the Lutheran Church in Rome, this sort of question was asked and I responded according to the spirit of the Code of Canon Law, the spirit that they [the bishops] are now seeking. Perhaps the right information wasn't given at the right time, there is some confusion, but that is the thing. In the particular Church, the Code allows it. In the local Church, it cannot, because it would be universal. That is what this is all about.

Roland Juchem:

The local Church is the [Bishops'] Conference?

Pope Francis:

… it is the Conference. But the Conference can study it and provide guidelines for helping the bishops to handle the particular cases. Thank you.