The second day of the first Apostolic Journey of the Holy Father Leo XIV reaches its central moment with a symbolic and theologically dense gesture in Iznik , the ancient Nicea, on the 1700th anniversary of the Council that defined the ontological identity of the Son against any reduction in rank or function. The Pope left the Apostolic Delegation in Istanbul, where he had lunched privately shortly before. The transfer to Atatürk Airport in Istanbul was carried out by car and by helicopter to Iznik in about 15 minutes, from the diplomatic dimension to the ecumenical one.
He was received at the entrance to the visitor center of the archaeological area adjacent to the excavations of the ancient Basilica of San Neófito by His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I , along with the leaders of the Eastern and Western Christian Churches gathered for a joint prayer meeting. Procession to the platform installed next to the excavations. Arranged in a semicircle before the icons of Christ and the effigy of the Council , the Pope and the Patriarch lit a candle , a symbolic gesture that introduced the ecumenical prayer, the reading of the Gospel, and the speech delivered by Leo: «in a dramatic moment in many ways, in which people are subjected to countless threats to their own dignity, the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea is a valuable opportunity to ask ourselves who Jesus Christ is in the life of today's women and men, who He is for each of us».
The warning from Leo XIV immediately raised the debate on the contemporary risk of Christological idealization: «Christians run the risk of reducing Jesus Christ to a kind of charismatic leader or superman, a distortion that, in the end, leads to sadness and confusion». This diagnosis evokes the dynamic of the great ancient heresies: the temptation to adorn Christ with functions in order not to respond to the question about his being. When Christ is perceived as an intermediate role, humanity remains irreparably divided; on the other hand, confessing him as «of the same substance as the Father» establishes the very possibility of a real fraternity, not merely diplomatic. The Pope posed the question that has permeated the 4th century and ours: «But if God did not become man, how can mortals participate in his immortal life?». And immediately afterward, he reiterated the Nicene formula as a principle of encounter, not as a barrier of identity: «By denying the divinity of Christ, Arius reduced him to a simple intermediary between God and human beings, ignoring the reality of the Incarnation, so that the divine and the human remained irreparably separated».
The Pope recalled the doctrine of the Fathers: the participation of the human in the divine is not a moral metaphor, but a real possibility that arises from a God who shares being, not just an agenda: the implicit reference is to the words of Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, where theology does not explain God from above, but safeguards human access to God from below. «Faith in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages […] of the same nature as the Father». Communion not as a diplomatic goal, but as the sacramental origin of the encounter. Upon his return to the Apostolic Delegation he met privately with the bishops of Turkey
There is more news that the trip to Turkey already has some criticisms of the Note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on the value of marriage, which, while substantially coinciding with Catholic doctrine, presents some critical passages on responsible fertility. The extensive Doctrinal Note, Una caro, published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith where the final section is somewhat confusing (probably written with a different handwriting from the previous sections). The wording is influenced, although not particularly significantly, by a somewhat horizontal and experiential approach, typical of Cardinal Fernández and his mentor, Pope Francis, who is widely quoted.
The reference to the virtue of charity in marriage is somewhat weak, as it is not closely linked to the transcendent plane. The second critical point, which we will analyze in greater detail, concerns the theme of responsible fertility. In number 145 we read: «The sexual union […] must remain naturally open to the communication of life, although this does not mean that this must be an explicit purpose of every sexual act. In fact, three legitimate situations may arise». The procreative purpose can be excluded from the conjugal act with the phrase «explicit purpose». The explicit purpose indicates the present consciousness, on the part of each spouse, that the act performed can be fertile.
Let's go with the three situations in which it would be lawful not to seek to achieve the procreative goal . The first: «That a couple cannot have children». In this case, not only is it lawful not to seek to pursue the procreative goal, but it also constitutes a duty. In fact, it would be unreasonable—and the unreasonable is immoral—to want an impossible goal. Therefore, no one is obliged to perform impossible actions ad impossibilia , nor can anyone licitly attempt to perform them. Even in the case of absolute sterility, the conjugal act remains fruitful by nature, that is, essentially fertile, although accidentally infertile due to a pathology, age, surgery, etc.
The second situation : «That a couple does not consciously seek a particular sexual act as a means of procreation». Already Wojtyła also affirms this, holding that « being in itself an act of love that unites two people, it does not necessarily have to be considered by them as a conscious and desired means of procreation » (K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility). But, fundamentally, if the Note today considers the exclusion of the procreative purpose licit, even if only contemplated and not implemented through contraception, tomorrow the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith could logically consider it licit not only at the level of intentions, but also at the practical-contraceptive level.
The third situation in which it would be lawful not to pursue the procreative end in the conjugal act: «That the couple respects the natural periods of infertility. Following this line of reflection, as St. Paul VI affirms, «the Church teaches that it is then lawful to take into account the natural rhythms inherent in the generative functions for the use of marriage only during the infertile periods» ( Humanae Vitae , 16). This can serve not only to «regulate births», but also to choose the most suitable moments to welcome a new life». Paul VI explains it in the immediately preceding passage to the one already quoted: «If, therefore, there are serious reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological conditions of the spouses, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that it is lawful to take into account the natural rhythms inherent in the generative functions for the use of marriage only during the infertile periods and, in this way, to regulate births without offending in the slightest the moral principles we have just recalled». The forms of avoiding the procreative purpose must, of course, be morally permissible: therefore, contraceptive methods are prohibited. Resorting to infertile periods is morally permissible because, as mentioned, it respects the real potentiality of the act; that is, it does not contradict a procreative purpose absent in that specific act.
Nor is the acceptance of the note on the ‘Co-Redemptrix’ peaceful. The title of Co-Redemptrix should no longer be used in liturgical texts or Vatican documents, but only ‘among friends’ after having read and understood the Mater Populi Fidelis. We already have the case of the ‘mutinous’ mariologists. It seems that only the term is prohibited, while the «singular cooperation of Mary in the work of Redemption» can continue to be supported, but nowhere in the document is the nature of this cooperation expressed.
The version that reaches us of the Doctrinal Note indicates that Ratzinger had responded, in his particular vote (it would be interesting to know the other opinions as well), to the question of whether the request of the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici was acceptable , with a view to a definition of the dogma of Mary as Co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces. The response to said question was negative , but not in an absolute sense; so much so that Ratzinger explained that «the precise meaning of the titles is not clear and the doctrine they contain is not mature » and that « it is not yet clear how the doctrine expressed in the titles is present in Scripture and in the apostolic tradition». Expressions that leave the door open to the possibility of maturation and clarification and cannot be used to support a decisive solution like the one presented in the Note.
It continues to cause surprise the ‘little lie’ of the consultation, Fernández responded: «Yes, many, in addition to theologians specialized in Christology». But Father Maurizio Gronchi, consultant to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, chosen to assist the prefect and the secretary in the presentation of the Doctrinal Note, revealed in an interview with CNA that «it was not possible to find any mariologist willing to collaborate». Gronchi pointed out that no professor from the Pontifical Marian Theological Faculty Marianum was present at the presentation of the document, nor any member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy, an institution of the Holy See; an absence that, as Gronchi himself admits, could be interpreted as dissent, it is an incredible rebellion. The absence of experts in Mariology was also confirmed in an interview with Father Salvatore Maria Perrella who stated that «the document needed greater reflection and refinement, but above all, it had to be the fruit of a study carried out by competent people».
We continue with some changes of cards in the Curia: «The Holy Father has appointed Deputy Secretary of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts to the Most Excellent Msgr. Marco Mellino , until now secretary of the Interdicasterial Commission for the revision of the General Regulations of the Roman Curia». He resides in Rome and previously was secretary of the Council of Cardinals and member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Affairs.
The Jesuit university in Munich, Germany, canceled a lecture by a Catholic philosopher after leftist students expressed their indignation. «In view of the circumstances, both inside and outside the university, open academic dialogue no longer seemed possible». Ostritsch is a philosopher, author, and editor of the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost , and adjunct professor at the University of Heidelberg. He was scheduled to give a lecture on the five proofs of the existence of God by St. Thomas Aquinas, titled «Is the existence of God a matter of rational knowledge? Thomas Aquinas vs. Immanuel Kant». The occasion coincided with the publication of his latest book on the subject, titled «Thomas Aquinas's Proofs of God after the Enlightenment». According to the magazine Corrigenda , far-left students would have pressured the university administration, threatening to disrupt the conference if it was not canceled. A far-left student group accused Ostritsch of being a “far-right fundamentalist” on social media and announced that they would protest and disrupt the conference if it took place. They accused Ostritsch of being a “misanthrope”, a “right-wing extremist”, a “Nazi”, and that he worked for “right-wing newspapers”: “Mr. Ostritsch wants to be like Charlie Kirk, but we can assure him: we won't shoot him”. Numerous journalists, publicists, university professors, and Christians from various positions have publicly expressed their support for Ostritsch after the university canceled his conference, in the end Ostritsch's «thought crime» is «simply his adherence to Catholic doctrine». «The Jesuit order has long been considered the left wing of the Catholic Church. That is why what happened in Munich is logical: members of a university that still considers itself a school of philosophical formation behave like superficial thinkers who have graduated in cultural studies, gender studies, or postcolonial studies with more leftist piety than intellectual brilliance… Humanists without spirit, linguists without language, theologians without interest in God and, as has been shown in Munich, philosophers without wisdom or desire to philosophize». “The irony that a Catholic thinker with widely shared opinions is not canceled by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, but by a Catholic institution, is what makes this story so interesting”. The philosopher was able to give his lecture on Thursday in a new location in Munich: the Carlsbad Institute of Social Thought and will be in the United States at the University of Notre Dame on December 5 .
Relations between the Holy See and Israel have never been easy, an article today reminds us of some interesting passages. The death of Pius XII was received with unanimous applause. The Pope of peace is dead! The enemy of Nazism is dead! The savior of thousands and thousands of Jews is dead! Golda Meir, a Zionist from the beginning, Israel's Foreign Minister and self-proclaimed atheist, never misses the opportunity to reiterate it: she publicly wished the pontiff the best on October 6, 1958, and with an unequivocal message during a UN conference on October 9 of the same year: « We share the sorrow of humanity for the death of His Holiness Pope Pius XII. In a generation afflicted by war and discord, he affirmed the noble ideals of peace and compassion. During the decade of Nazi terror, when our people were subjected to terrible martyrdom, the Pope's voice rose in condemnation of the persecutors and in compassion for their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice that expressed great moral truths above the turmoil of daily conflicts. We mourn, great servant of peace » A few years earlier, in 1955, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra had gone “ to Rome for a week to offer a special performance of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony in the Vatican as a sign of gratitude from the State of Israel to Pius XII ”. Pius XII had refused to recognize the State of Israel, but the memory of all that he had done, consecrated also by the conversion of the Grand Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, was too vivid to be denied. It was a few years after his death, in 1961, when the black legend began to emerge , ingeniously created by communist, Protestant, and Zionist circles. In later statements, Golda Meir lashed out against the Church, now also determined to set up the black legend after 1961, in total contrast to the 1958 statements. “ I felt like I was speaking to the Man of the Cross, the head of the Church whose symbol is that Cross at the foot of which Jews were murdered in every generation ”.
«Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?»
Good reading.
Istanbul. Leone XIV: «La logica della piccolezza è la vera forza della Chiesa»
La polizia turca porta via Alì Agca dalla città dove è in visita papa Leone XIV. Non si fidano dell’uomo che nel 1981 cercò di uccidere Giovanni Paolo II
Il nuovo pasticcio di Fernández sull’uso di “Corredentrice”
Jesuit university shuts down Catholic lecture after leftist students smear speaker as ‘Nazi’
Nicea 325: il criterio dell’essere contro il “Dio per approssimazione”
Papa Leone XIV ha nominato monsignor Marco Mellino segretario aggiunto del Dicastero vaticano per i testi legislativi
Fecondità responsabile, i rilievi critici di Una caro
Leone XIV: «Il Papa non va avanti solo, serve collaborazione nella Santa Sede»
La Mezquita Azul acoge al Papa: Un puente entre tradiciones
Il Papa a İznik: un messaggio di pace e fraternità dal luogo del primo concilio di Nicea
Help Infovaticana continue informing