In letter to newspaper, Pope Francis broadens dialogue with non-believers

Pope Francis’ skills as a communicator were on display today in two very different forms, one that made headlines and one that moved people to tears.

The headline in the Rome newspaper La Repubblica, “Dialogue open with non-believers,” ran above a lengthy papal letter — under the simple byline “Francesco” – addressed to the newspaper’s director, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist who had posed several questions for the new pope earlier in the year.

In effect, Francis laid out a road map for dialogue with all those who do not find themselves in the Christian faith, a dialogue the pope said should be “open and without preconceptions.” After explaining how his own faith was rooted in a personal encounter with Christ, the pope argued that Christ was a figure of openness not exclusion, whose followers should be motivated by a spirit of service and not arrogance. For the believer, he said, dialogue is not secondary but an “indispensable” expression of faith.

Francis then responded directly to some of Scalfari’s questions, including whether God forgives those who do not believe and who do not seek faith. His answer focused on the primacy of the individual conscience.

“Given that – and this is the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart, the issue for the person who does not believe in God is in obeying one’s own conscience. There is sin, even for someone who has no faith, when one goes against the conscience. To listen and to obey it signifies, in fact, making a decision in front of what is perceived as good or as evil. And on this decision the goodness or the wickedness of our actions comes into play,” the pope said.

Francis then turned to the question of absolute versus relative truth, and said the terminology required some fine-tuning. “To begin with, I would not speak, not even for believers, of an ‘absolute’ truth, in the sense that absolute is that which is unbound, freed from every relationship.” For Christians, he said, the essential truth is God’s love for us in Jesus Christ – which is itself a relationship, a path that requires humility and openness.

“That doesn’t mean the truth is variable and subjective, on the contrary. But it means that truth is given to us always and only as a path and a life,” he said. In discussing things like truth, the pope said it was necessary to back away from terminology that closes off dialogue and places everything in opposition.

The pope closed his letter with a pledge to continue dialogue with non-Christians and non-believers, in a way that promotes a clearer understanding of the church’s mission.

“The church, believe me, despite all the slowness, the unfaithfulness, the errors and sins that it may have committed and may still commit in those who constitute it, has no other meaning and goal than that of living and witnessing Jesus.” The church, he said, quoting the Gospel of Luke, aims “to bring glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”

This was a remarkable papal bridge-building effort that, as Francis said in the letter, is inspired by “the Second Vatican Council, desired by John XXIII” and by the actions of succeeding popes. It’s already created a buzz in Italy, and is further evidence that this pope feels as comfortable expressing himself in the columns of a newspaper as in formal papal documents.

The pope’s non-headline encounter took place at the tail end of his weekly general audience, and in a sense was routine: he took about 25 minutes to bless and converse with sick people and their caretakers. I’ve watched other popes do this, too, but Francis seems to have a special feeling for the sick and an ability to make them feel special. Maybe it’s his unhurried pace, his willingness to lean in and listen to them for minutes at a time, his ability to carry out conversations with people who may be partially paralyzed, disabled or, in one case, strapped into a portable respirator. He accepted their gifts with a big smile and comments, and this was clearly a big moment for many of them.

He held one elderly woman’s hand for what seemed like an eternity, listening to her story with patience. Whatever she told him brought a smile to his face.

This, too, is communication Francis-style and it has a deep impact on those who witness it. It seemed like the perfect complement to the pope’s newspaper essay.

As pope meets Curia, new secretary of state makes waves

As Pope Francis presided over a meeting of Roman Curia department heads today, his new pick for Secretary of State was making news on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Archbishop Pietro Parolin, in an interview with the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal, said among other things that the church’s tradition of priestly celibacy was not dogma and was therefore open to discussion. And he said that while the church was not a democracy, it needs to reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.

Neither statement is exactly groundbreaking, but the fact that the new secretary of state feels free to make them says a lot about the current atmosphere in the Vatican.

Parolin said that priestly celibacy, which remains the norm in the Western church, is a tradition that goes back to early Christian times and that has been strengthened through the centuries.

“The effort made by the church to institute ecclesial celibacy must be taken into consideration. One cannot simply say that it belongs to the past,” he said.

The question, he said, represents “a great challenge for the pope,” because the pope’s ministry is one of unity, and any decision on celibacy would have to be made without damaging the communion of the church.

He added that “it is possible to discuss and reflect on these topics that are not defined faith, and consider some modifications, but always in the service of unity and according to God’s will.” One also needs to be attentive to the signs of the times, he said.

The question of priestly celibacy has long been a lightning rod at the Vatican. In 2006, Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes made a similar statement, saying that although celibacy was “part of Catholic history and culture, the church could review this question, because celibacy is not a dogma but a disciplinary question.”

Cardinal Hummes made the comment in an interview in Brazil shortly before assuming his post as head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy. Within a few hours of his arrival in Rome, he was pressed to issue a statement declaring that priestly celibacy was an ancient value in the church and was not up for discussion.

Archbishop Parolin, who is ending his term as papal nuncio in Venezuela before assuming his new post in mid-October, said it is a good thing for the church to implement a “more democratic spirit, in the sense of listening carefully, and I think the pope has indicated this as an aim of his pontificate, a collegial leadership of the church in which all requests can be expressed.”

In Rome, meanwhile, the Vatican had little to say about this morning’s three-hour-long meeting between Pope Francis and about 30 heads of Vatican departments. The pope opened the encounter with words of welcome but then sat back and did more listening than talking, sources said.

It was the first time Francis has presided over a Vatican department head meeting, but a statement issued by Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi took pains to underline that the pope has, over recent months, met personally with each of the top Roman Curia officials.

Father Lombardi also emphasized that suggestions or reflections from today’s meeting will naturally be part of discussions when the papally-appointed group of eight cardinals meets in early October to consider Curia reform and issues of church governance. The point seemed to be that the Roman Curia will be heard in this process of reform, and that the “Group of 8” will not be working on a completely separate track.

Pope rejects pursuit of military solution in Syria as Vatican convenes diplomats

I’m at the Vatican this week, where Syria is the number one topic of discussion and concern.

We just learned that in a letter sent yesterday to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pope Francis urged international leaders to “lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution” in Syria.

It was the latest in a series of Vatican statements signaling opposition to President Obama’s planned attack on Syrian government forces and urging instead a renewed international-backed effort at diplomacy and negotiation.

The pope wrote to Putin because the Russian leader is chairing a G20 summit that Obama is attending, but also perhaps because Russia has been a supporter of the Syrian regime headed by Bashar Hafez al-Assad, and therefore may have some influence with the Syrian leader.

Francis condemned the “senseless massacre now unfolding” in Syria, and said the international community cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of the country’s civilian population. But he said the path to follow was dialogue, because “violence never begets peace.”

The pope’s letter was made public today after a meeting of ambassadors summoned by the Vatican for an urgent discussion of the Syrian situation. Addressing the diplomats, the Vatican’s foreign affairs minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, expressed outrage at the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria that left more than 1,400 people dead and called for clarification in identifying those responsible.

He cited Pope Francis’ recent condemnation of the attack: “There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable!” The Obama administration has blamed the Syrian regime for the attack.

Mamberti said the short-term priority in Syria is to stop the violence, and he warned of “unforeseeable consequences” if the fighting continues. He then listed several essential principles that need to be part of a just solution in Syria:

— Renewal of dialogue between all parties in Syria.

— Preservation of Syria’s unity and territorial integrity.

— Protection of all minorities, including Christians, in the future Syria, as well as respect for religious freedom.

Mamberti also expressed the Vatican’s growing concern about the presence of “extremist groups” in Syria, often from other countries, and said opposition forces should keep their distance from such extremists and openly reject terrorism. This was a point also raised by several of the 71 ambassadors present for the discussion that followed, according to a Vatican spokesman.

When it comes to the issue of a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces, there isn’t much debate going on at the Vatican: everyone here seems to think it would be a very bad idea.

The message from the pope and others is that a U.S. bombing of Syria would not bring peace any closer, would increase suffering in the country, would worsen the flow of refugees, would risk sparking a wider war and could further endanger the Christian community and other religious minorities in Syria.

Pope Francis has called for a universal day of prayer and fasting for peace on Saturday, an appeal that’s struck a chord among other religious leaders, including Muslims in the Middle East.

But it’s clear the pope also wants to make sure the Vatican’s diplomatic voice is heard, and thus his letter to Putin and the convocation of ambassadors.

All this echoes 2003, when Pope John Paul II convened diplomats and strongly warned against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There are important differences, of course – the United States is not planning an invasion of Syria – but many Vatican officials still point to Iraq as proof that military intervention often opens new chapters of suffering instead of resolving conflicts.

When the United States and other Western powers took military action in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, there was significant support at the Vatican for international “humanitarian intervention” aimed at disarming the aggressor in the wake of ethnic cleansing and what Pope John Paul II called “crimes against humanity.”

But Vatican sources said this week that what Obama has in mind in Syria does not fit the definition of “humanitarian intervention.” Nor is a plan for peace being put forward. And that’s why, in this moment, prayer and fasting are seen not just as a symbolic response, but as a way to promote a new vision and a new international approach to Syria. (For a perceptive treatment of this issue, see Drew Christiansen’s piece in the Washington Post yesterday.)

Along with Middle East and U.S. bishops, several Vatican and church officials have weighed in on the Syrian question in recent days.

Bishop Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said armed intervention in Syria could easily extend the fighting to other countries, a situation that “has all the ingredients to explode in a war of global dimensions.”

Religious orders have enthusiastically supported the pope’s initiatives, and the superior general of the Jesuits, Father Alfonso Nicolas, took the unusual step of categorically rejecting the plan to attack Syria. “I have to admit, I don’t understand what right the United States or France has to act against a country in a manner that will undoubtedly increase the suffering of a population that has already suffered enough,” he said.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has raised doubts about the United States’ attribution of the chemical attack to the Syrian government, saying that many find it “difficult to understand” why the Assad regime would cross the so-called “red line” of chemical weapons use when he appeared to be winning against the rebels.