[ad_1]
The climate is not the best and there is no unity of purpose among the Catholic base. The opening of French Pope in civil unions it has had some effects. The question, after the Synod of the Family, seemed closed. In reality, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s opinion on the legal forms of protection of unions between homosexual people had only been left aside. During an afternoon in October, in the middle of the image of the pandemic, a quotation mark contained in a documentary titled “Francesco”, a work that also includes an interview from a few years ago, in fact, which is the one in the center of the case “” – is heard at the Rome Film Festival by experts. So an agency, the Cna, raises the question: it is a historic opening by a bishop of Rome, but it is also the trigger for a storm. Perhaps the biggest storm in the recent history of the Catholic Church: the Pope has opened up to civil unions.
During these seven and a half years of pontificate, even the critics of the Argentine pontiff have recognized that the successor of Pedro, from the point of view bioethical, spoke almost more clearly and decisively than Benedict XVI. Of course, someone has raised the issue of some “ambiguity”, but Bergoglio has even compared “hitmen” to abortion in recent years. On euthanasia, especially during the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, the Pope, although invoked from below in each of the two circumstances, finally took a position. And that “who am I to judge” was actually accompanied by a continuation of the reflection, which some press organs have not fully reported. In short, there was no reason to doubt that Bergoglio wanted to change the doctrine on some issues.
If for the traditionalists the Catholic-Christian doctrine had run the risk of suffering the consequences of a “confusion” produced by the pastoral work of Francis, the same could not be said of some bioethical aspects, which the Catholic Church has always tried to defend with reasons. proper to natural law. But now, even for Bergoglio’s staunch defenders, a new problem has appeared. Because it had never happened that a pontiff expressed himself favorably on the subject of civil unions.
The expression “civil coexistence”, in the laws of the South American nations that have adopted it in their legal system, it has a precise meaning. And the Italian declension is mainly that of “civil union”. There is not much to interpret. There is an element, then, that cannot be ignored: when the media decided to relaunch the news of the historic opening of the former archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Press Office of the Holy See and the media through which St. Peter’s Square Generally, he takes a position that has not denied the interpretation given by the majority. And this is a complex issue to handle for those who have tried to assume that the video had been “tampered with” or that Francesco actually wanted to say something else. The reactions of the conservatives, those that did not, were not lacking.
Conservatives’ Agitations: Why the Pope Can’t “Change” Doctrine
For now, only two or three cardinals have risen: the American Raymond Leo Burke and German Gherard Ludwig Mueller. However, a quick look at the positions taken by other cardinals on the issue of civil unions over the years suggests that the front of the “scandalized”, so to speak, is broader. So answering a pontiff takes a certain amount of courage and freedom of action. It is normal that not all conservatives have felt it. A very precise statement from Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò, who sent us a document that also says the following: But beware: these words constitute one more provocation with which the ultra-progressive part of the hierarchy tries to artistically arouse a schism, as it has already tried to do with the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia, the modification of the doctrine on capital punishment, the Pan-Amazonian Synod and the dirty Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi Declaration later reaffirmed and aggravated by the encyclical Fratelli tutti “. The former apostolic nuncio does not limit himself to a criticism tout court, but identifies a true modernist design, which would have the true purpose of causing, sooner or later, an internal division. Therefore, some traditionalists think that Bergoglio’s sentence (“What we have to do is a law for civil unions. That way they are legally protected. I am in favor of this”) they can also be interpreted as more than an isolated case.
There would be a kind of systemic “ambiguity” fed by modernist doctrinal currents. But there are also those who see it in a much simpler way: Bergoglio is simply the first pope to express himself in these terms about civil unions. Why? Because, without thinking about it later, think like that. And conservatives, who do not call themselves that at home, believe that no pontiff has enough power to change doctrine. Among the Italians, it is worth noting the reaction of the cardinal Camillo Ruini: even the former secretary of the CIS took sides through the last book he wrote against the customs clearance of civil unions that, in the opinion of conservative Catholics, would also constitute a kind of indirect pass for the approval of the practice of the uterus in rental. And here the discussion would be greatly expanded.
The end of the “continuity” thesis with Ratzinger
Until recently, commentators close to Pope Francis strongly asserted the existence of absolute “continuity” between the emeritus and the ruler. A continuity that, despite the communicative differences, was revealed in the doctrinal field. A typical example that has been presented: even Pope Francis – the fanatic journalists of Bergoglio say – often cites the “right not to emigrate.” It is true, but in the context of a pastoral ministry that makes welcoming migrants one of its beating hearts. In any case, after the appearance of Bergoglio’s opinion on civil unions, the assumption of doctrinal continuity between the last two Popes loses, in our opinion, much credibility. After all, Benedict XVI on the “new rights” has always been lapidary. Ratzinger is the inventor of the expression “non-negotiable securities”.
But that’s not all: when Benedict XVI he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that is, during the pontificate of Saint John Paul II, he wrote some considerations on “civil unions.” Reflections that the Polish pontiff decided to approve. Ratzinger, on that occasion, wrote the following: “Faced with the legal recognition of homosexual unions, or the legal equivalence of same to marriage with access to the rights that correspond to the latter, it is necessary to oppose clearly and incisively. We must refrain from any type of formal cooperation to the enactment or application of laws so seriously unjust and, as far as possible, to material cooperation in the field of application … “.
Ratzinger’s on civil unions was a no without buts. It was 2003, and it is not difficult to support two theses: that times have profoundly changed; that the teachings of Pope Francis are progressively differentiating from those of his last two predecessors. And this element, which is not of secondary importance to a Catholic, can affect translation, Church history, doctrine, etc.
Thus, the political and ecclesiastical left sided with the Pope on civil unions.
A part of the consecrated – as explained – decided to criticize Bergoglio for his statements. Furthermore, the Pope is considered infallible only from the throne. But the ecclesiastical institutions, those that today reside in the command center of the church – He did not hesitate too much, siding with the pontiff in a very short time. It was predictable, but the Catholic Church had never been so exposed on civil unions.
Of the bishop of Altamura who even opened in adoptions for homosexual couples to the father “spin doctor” Antonio Spadaro, who said in unequivocal terms that the statements of the Argentine pontiff do not change doctrine. The slogan of the “Bergogliani”, once again, is hospitality. A reaction that inevitably runs the risk of getting stuck in the ambitions of the German episcopate, which wants a renewal of the cultural relationship between Christian-Catholic doctrine and homosexuality and which fights for some changes to go through an “internal council” of two. years.
Beyond the level of internal balance, however, is the level of political sympathies: the progressive Italian hemispheres reacted to the opening with glee. Former minister Maria Elena Boschi he applauded Bergoglio his Twitter: “Four years ago we passed the civil unions law, despite controversy from part of the Catholic world. Today Pope Francis defends the laws of civil unions. Doing politics always means defending the secular character of institutions ”. Something similar had happened when Francis announced that he was about to appoint the Archbishop of Bologna Matteo Maria Zuppi as a cardinal. On that occasion, among others, the approval of the secretary of Pd Nicola Zingaretti and that of a prominent exponent of the same party, the senator Monica Cirinnà. The left likes Bergoglio more and more. Bioethics was one of the problematic fields of absolute agreement on other issues. News about civil unions tends to align progressives.
New cardinals: the Pope blocks the majority for the succession
In this context, which has never been so “polarized” as in this phase of recent history, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has opted for another movement: the creation of 13 additional cardinals who will have the right to vote in the next conclave. Among the names selected, the Archbishop of Washington stands out: Wilton Daniel Gregory is distinguishing himself, in the middle of the electoral campaign, for his strong anti-Trumpian tones. Gregory will be the first African-American cardinal. The Holy Father could already count on a majority of cardinals within the cardinal, but these thirteen additional creations allow conservatives to think about the future of the Catholic Church with little concern. If only because it is quite clear to everyone that the next pontiff will likely be chosen above all to continue the action of the first. Jesuit Pope of history. Basically, a pope who is not a “bergogliano” will hardly be elected.
And this not because of Bergoglio’s strict will, but because each pontiff, in a certain sense, tends to build the future of the Catholic Church “in his image and likeness.” An operation that however failed Joseph Ratzinger.
The Pope, once again, has fished regardless of diocesan origin. The new cardinals, as is tradition, had no idea of the imminence of the appointment. Milan, Turin, Venice, Paris and other ecclesiastical realities will continue without donating a dwelling place to the Ecclesia. The pontiff prefers “street priests” or, in any case, people who have proven to be “extroverted.” Like the Church that Pope Francis is building for both the present and the future. Talk about “schism”, as the former president of the Senate did recently Marcello pear in Lucca Diary – is no longer a taboo.
[ad_2]
