Rome Newsroom, Jan 30, 2021 / 06:00 am (CNA).- Cardinal Pietro Parolin has said that he does not consider the Vatican’s financial scandals to be “a crisis,” but pointed to the recent headlines as a sign of the Vatican’s transparency.
In a television interview aired by French Catholic network KTO on Jan. 29, the Vatican Secretary of State downplayed the reports of financial mismanagement that led to the conviction of the former president of the Vatican bank, the forced resignation of Cardinal Angelo Becciu, and the dismissal of several employees from the Secretariat of State.
“Perhaps talking about a crisis is a bit excessive in my opinion,” Parolin said.
“If we look at history, there have always been difficult times. There have always been situations, how to put it … not entirely transparent. … We can even refer to the recent past as well.”
Pope Francis issued a new law transferring financial responsibilities away from the Vatican’s Secretariat of State to the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) one month ago. This shake up was first announced in an Aug. 25 letter to Cardinal Parolin that was made public on Nov. 5 after the Secretariat of State was engulfed in accusations of financial mismanagement, particularly regarding an investment in a London property.
The Vatican official said in the French interview that Pope Francis wanted to “directly face these problems which have arisen precisely to make the Roman Curia as transparent as possible, precisely so that she can … really exercise the service to which she is called … the service of the Gospel.”
“You know very well that people today will not accept the Gospel except from a totally transparent Church,” Parolin said, according to a transcript of the interview provided by KTO.
The cardinal said he believed that “considerable progress” had already been made in the pope’s reform of the Roman Curia, particularly with regard to Vatican finances, pointing to the creation of the Council for the Economy, the Secretariat for the Economy, and the Office of the Revisor General.
He said that further reforms might entail the merger of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples with the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization and the combination of the Congregation for Catholic Education with the Pontifical Council for Culture.
“But these are minor actions compared to what has already been done,” he said. “Now it is a question of giving homogeneity to all the reforms which have been made, by means of the new apostolic constitution which has for at least provisional title: ‘Predicate Evangelii.’”
The apostolic constitution overhauling the Roman Curia — entitled “Praedicate evangelium,” which means “Preach the Gospel” — is largely finished, according to Parolin, who said that the text should be published “before the end of this year.”
During the 30-minute sit-down interview conducted before Parolin’s trip to Cameroon, the cardinal was also asked about the Vatican’s provisional agreement with China on the appointment of bishops, a diplomatic effort in which Parolin himself has played a leading role.
“First of all, I would say that I deeply respect anyone who has a different opinion and who criticizes, say, criticizes the Holy See’s policy on China. And it is a right to do so, because it is an extremely complex and difficult situation. There can be different points of view,” he said.
The Vatican Secretary of State said that the agreement signed with the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party was “a small step from which to start to seek to improve the situation of the Church,” comparing it to the Gospel parable of the sower who plants a seed hoping that it will grow and bear fruit.
“This agreement was not intended to be, and could not, be an agreement to solve all the problems that the Church faces in China,” he said.
Parolin was also asked if Pope Francis intends to visit France to which he said: “I think that there is an availability and a desire of the pope to come and visit France, but don’t ask me for the date!”
Pope Francis’ next scheduled international trip is to Iraq on March 5-8. The cardinal said that interreligious dialogue will “certainly be one of the themes that the pope will address,” in addition to encouraging “the political stability of the country.”
“But the pope wants to go to Iraq above all to encourage Christians. Today Iraq, and all the countries in the region, have suffered a hemorrhage of Christians, due to the situation of war, conflict, due to which the Christian community has been reduced to the strict minimum. The Pope feels the need to go there, to give courage to these Christians, to invite them to continue to bear witness in these circumstances which are not easy,” Parolin said.
[…]
With the lead-in picture of the ring hand, reminds me of the “diamonds are forever” jingle; often seems more of a fantasy with earthly marriages.
“We cannot reduce a human situation to a prescriptive one” [Francis] translates the Roman Pontiff does not want the Church to be constricted by [to adhere to] doctrine. Whether Benedict XVI expressed an opinion [neither is an opinion a proscription] that a given number of marriages are invalid due to lack of faith that cannot be made an assumption that every divorced and remarried outside the Church falls into that category. If we accept that assumption on invalidity [Benedict’s alleged opinion] as a standard for judgment then that doubt must be presumed for all.
Pope Francis immediately after publication of Amoris Laetitia announced that most presumed sacramental marriages are invalid. Then walked it back following the expected uproar. That has been his gradual process of seeking to modify doctrine. Timing is essential.
A person unless retarded knows what an affirmation is [when exchanging vows]. If they don’t [due to lack of faith] they will likely remain as oblivious even if after a similar process of instruction they’re conferred the Holy Eucharist. Based on these premises this new document on divorced and remarried may well be footnote 351 on steroids.
Card Kevin Farrell, McCarrick associate when assigned to DC is one of the fast rising stars selected by His Holiness to complete the large tent Church renovation. Numbers versus quality, secular religiosity versus adherence to revelation. Unless I’m wrong and happily surprised.
“…without an annulment.” The easy-annulment mentality of the last fifty years has in effect amounted to being a Church endorsement for divorce. Oh, but annulments are NOT Catholic divorce, said Bishop James Conley in the Denver Catholic newspaper a decade ago or so. Sorry, bishop. they really are, in every way but officially. And every time the Church grants an annulment, it guarantees that there will be many more — the annulment mentality is part of the Church now. Thank you, New Springtime of Vatican II.
Yes!
This document like so many others emanating from this pontificate are DOA.
Excerpt: Pope Francis said. “When young people say ‘forever,’ who knows what they mean [by] ‘forever.’”
It is not just YOUNG people. My new wife and her maniacal first husband were divorced since she could no longer deal with his bipolar disorder. He died before I met Gail. I am a widower who lost my first wife at age 42. For 13 years I was single and alone. Then I met Gail and after a year we decided to get married. We were deeply in love and planned a lifetime together. That was when we experienced the harshness Catholic Church. Our parish priest would not marry us because Gail was divorced without an annulment. The fact that her first husband was now dead meant little. Across from St. Josephs was the Old Dutch Church where my friend Rev Paul Bennis was rector. After several “pre-cana” sessions he married us. We returned to St. Josephs, but were not given the Host. We have settled in and look forward to a long life.
When people get married, they are no longer free to take another partner, in other words, they are “reserved”. When Gail’s husband died, she was no longer “reserved”, and was free to marry for a second man. As for her civil divorce, I don’t know if she incurred any censure or canonical penalty. The remedy would have been a good confession with a knowledgeable priest. How could her parish priest refuse to marry her to a single man, and then refuse her Communion? As recounted by morganD, it seems altogether a bad decision. Another question: where was her bishop?
Marriage ends at death. It is unbelievable that a priest would claim a woman is not free to marry after for the sole reason that she is already married to a dead man.
“Practice continence within their marriage”??? Really?? Excuse me while i roll on the floor laughing. Who on earth does that?? There are a few anecdotal stories of some saintly couples in the long past supposedly doing that. But certainly that is beyond rare. Expect the report to approve of more secular practices for the divorced and remarried. To be kind and merciful of course, which appears to now trump standards if amy kind. And if the Pope assumes most catholic marriages are invalid, dispense with marriage as a sacrament and call in a govt justice of the peace. People are not improved when LESS is expected of them. Is the request for this report the popes way of distracting attention from the results of the recent German synod??? I think the tesults of this report will be sadly predictable.
Marriage is about the procreation and education of children for heaven. But in 1969, Rotal Judge Lucian Anne (accent over the “e”) proclaimed that from then on it was about much more as in a partnership of the whole of life.
But there is no list of how this partnership is defined. Couples can violate it in ignorance; only tribunal judges know how to find evidence that invalidates their marriage under, almost always, canon 1095.2 and 1095.3.
American diocesan marriage tribunals are corrupt. Ask those children who cried themselves to sleep for years, only wanting Mom and Dad back together. And the ” church” let them down again and again.
Using marriage as an indicator of anything relevant to the Church is useless. Casual sex, cohabiting, exploitation of children are rampant, and the wedding ceremony itself is given far more effort than the actual marriage. The truth is that the only one who can police Communion is Christ Himself.
I look forward to the day the Church implements our existing canon law and doctrine about those “having a failed marriage behind them.” The Church, not the government, has competence to decide spouses’ obligations toward each other and their children. No-fault divorce is virtually illegal for Catholics who are bound to follow canon law. For every so-called failed marriage there is one person (or two) who chose to break marriage promises by abandonment, abuse, or adultery. See my blog https://marysadvocates.org/please-stop-saying-those-who-experience-divorce/
Thank you for that post. My wife walked out of our marriage with no effort, no care, no apology, no remorse. She had committed adultery for several years and left for the other man. I would have done anything to save my marriage and took my vows seriously. She did not. Now I suffer as do my adult children.
70 testimonies of adult children of divorce is a must read in Primal Loss by Leila Miller for all clergy and lay Catholic counselors
I have so many questions about this. I was Catholic for almost 20 years, a convert as an adult. My first marriage was not in the church and he was abusive. My priest basically told me to leave him or I might die and he didn’t want to preach my funeral mass. I did, and we divorced. I got married again, once again not in the Church and we were married for 10 years. I had left the Church due to the marriage thing. After the 10 years, he announced he never loved me and he was in love with another woman and basically threw me out. I moved 800 miles away to my sister’s and went to the local church to talk about this and what to do about coming back. That priest told me to go home, throw her out, and tell my husband he had to stay with me. Uh, not happening, and I walked away from the church again.
A year and a half later I met a man who was perfect for me. We were in a whirlwind romance and after doing a handfasting with friends, got the JP ceremony. That was 30 years ago and we’re happier than we’ve ever been. He was divorced too, just getting over it. We worked through the baggage from our pasts and we have grown into a really comfortable, loving marriage.
Now I’m feeling the call to go home to the Church. I keep reading I have to get annulments, I have to live like “brother and sister” with my beloved husband while that’s going on. My first husband is dead, I’ve not had contact with the other one in about six years (at a wedding for our daughter). I don’t know what to do about this whole thing. If I can’t have sacraments, why go back? I can pray at home, I can read on my own. I can watch mass online.
My husband wouldn’t be adverse to conversion, depending on how he finds things. He grew up Methodist, very active since he played piano for the church and his father was a deacon and a lay minister. He has said he will accompany me to mass if I wanted to go.
So, when the Church talks about having to annul a marriage, if you’ve never been married in the Church, is that still valid? I’m very convused.