May 18, 2016, Wednesday — Francis, His Interviews, and the “Re-Branding” of the Church

Francis Interviewed Again, This Time by La Croix, a French Paper…

“We need to speak of ‘roots’ in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones.” —Pope Francis, in a new interview with the Catholic newspaper La Croix, released two day ago, speaking about the extent to which European culture is (or is not) “rooted” in Christianity and the Christian faith

“It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.” —Pope Francis, in the same interview, speaking about the fear of some in Europe of the consequences of millions of Muslim immigrants entering the continent

“Pope Bergoglio surprises always. He wishes to open in the Church some ways of discerning, some processes of study on the most delicate and controversial themes. Christianity is an ever-new event that requires surprises, requires new reflections. In this sense, yes, the Pope astonishes us greatly because he doesn’t stop at the already known, at prejudices (pre-conceived opinions), at what one thinks one knows a priori about a question. Rather, he asks us to look beyond, so that the Spirit of God may be the guide of His Church in an ever-new way.” —Cardinal Walter Kasper, in a May 13 interview in La Repubblica, speaking after the Pope on May 12 said he would open a new study of the question of deaconesses (link for the original Italian and link for excerpts in English translation)

“This time (in calling for a study of deaconesses) the pontiff surprised even me.” —Kasper, in the same interview

“Prior to Pope Francis, when many people on the street were asked: ‘What is the Catholic Church all about? What does the Pope stand for?’ The response would often be, ‘Catholics, well they are against abortion, gay marriage and birth control.’” —Father Thomas Rosica of Toronto, Canada, Founder and CEO of the Salt and Light TV and the English-language spokesman for the Vatican Press Office in a talk in Brooklyn, New York, on May 11 (link)

“Today (since the election of Pope Francis) I dare say that the response is somewhat different. What do they say about us now? What do they say about the Pope? People are speaking about our leader who is unafraid to confront the sins and evils that have marred us. We have a Pope who is concerned about the environment, about mercy, compassion and love, and a deep passion, care and concern for the poor and for displaced peoples roaming the face of this earth. Pope Francis has won over a great part of the media…. He has changed the image of the Church so much that prestigious graduate schools of business and management are now using him as a case study in rebranding.—Father Rosica, Ibid.

“Ultimately, I don’t expect much movement on female deacons. What will happen, though, is the continued battering down of any certainty that the Catholic faith is divinely revealed and immutable.” —American Catholic writer and editor Steven Skojec, in a May 13 article on his website,, entitled “Female Deacons and The Hermeneutic of Perpetual Innovation”

“The sense of constant change, perpetual flux, in something that is supposed to be unyieldingly stable is a huge problem… The upshot of never-ending upheaval is nothing less than the crushing of faith and hope, the subsequent diminution of charity, and the loss of countless souls to despair. I wonder if Pope Francis and his friends, always excited about novelty, ever contemplate that fact.” —Skojec, in the same article

“We must help the Pope. He is ‘nostro papa‘ (our Dad). We must stand with him just as we would stand with our own father.” —Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in a conversation with me in Washington, D.C., on Monday evening, May 16. Sarah is regarded as one of a group of more conservative cardinals who have at times seemed critical of certain dispositions of the Pope. On May 17, Sarah gave the keynote address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington (more on that speech in a later letter)

Image, Or Substance?

Pope Francis “has changed the image of the Church so much that prestigious graduate schools of business and management are now using him as a case study in rebranding.”

With these words, Father Thomas Rosica, the Vatican spokesman for the English-language press for the past few years, offers an opportunity to raise the central question of this pontificate.

Rosica is saying that Francis is changing — has changed — the “image” of the Church.

He is praising Pope Francis for doing this with such remarkable flair and intelligence during his three years and two months as Pope that business professionals are now studying his methods in changing the image of such a vast, venerable institution as the Catholic Church.

Rosica is, in essence, saying that Francis is the greatest “salesman” of the Christian faith in the modern history of the Church.

So here is the question: Is Francis changing the image only, or, in changing the image, is he also changing, or beginning to change, the actual substance of the Church — the very substance of the faith itself?

And, a corollary question: if such changes are not occurring, but there is a risk that they could occur, does Francis understand this?

Of course, the answers we give to these questions have profound consequences.

To try to express it more clearly, I’ll rephrase the question, the dilemma.

If people outside the Church now think the Church is something “different” than they did before Pope Francis, is this because Francis has presented the same, unchanging truth in a more understandable way, or has something of this unchanging truth been altered to make the Church more attractive to her former detractors and critics?

Are we a “different” Church today than the Roman Catholic Church of Pius XII, of Pius X, of St. Thomas More, of St. Thomas Aquinas, of St. Francis, of St. Gregory the Great, of St. Augustine, of St. Paul?

Clearly, we are different in externals, in many ways — in superficial things, in appearances, in contingent things, in externals.

Are there any differences in profound things, in substantial things, in things that we must sacrifice everything to preserve?

If the answer is that all the differences are in superficial, contingent, not fundamental, substantial things — the correct answer, since, by our faith, the essential doctrines of the Church are immutable, unchanging, eternal — then what we are dealing with in this pontificate is, yes, a breathtakingly brilliant effort to “rebrand” the Church, but the “item” in question is still essentially the same old “product” — the once-handed down, ever-true Christian faith.

But if this is so, then those outside the Church, and inside the Church as well, who see the “rebranding” that is happening and regard it as revolutionary, as a rejection of foundational aspects of the deposit of the faith, are… mistaken.

If this is so, then the cereal has a new box, the vacuum cleaner a new package, but it is still the identical cereal, the identical vacuum cleaner.

There has been a “rebranding” of historic dimensions — but no revolution in doctrine.

The Petrine Office

Except, in one area. An area on the borderline between accident and subtance, between what is marginal and what is essential.

That area is in the exercise of the Petrine office itself, the magisterial teaching office of the Pope.

Pope Francis throughout his pontificate has spoken freely to journalists, and audiences, in an unprecedented way.

He has, in fact, just done it again in a new, and, it must be said, very interesting and illuminating but also in some ways perplexing and even disturbing interview. (The entire text is posted below.)

Speaking so freely over the past three years and two months has resulted in a series of “unguarded” remarks which have defined this pontificate.

“Who am I to judge?” is the chief of these remarks, during the airplane interview on the way back from Brazil in the summer of 2013.

Another such remark came on his flight back from the Phillipines when Francis spoke about Christians not needing to “breed like rabbits.”

In this latest interview (below), Francis suggests that to speak of the Christian roots of Europe “can seem triumphalist” and that “it is possible to interpret the objective” of Jesus’ telling his disciples to go forth “to the ends of the earth” to convert the world to faith in the Blessed Trinity “in terms of the same idea of conquest” that is “inherent in the soul of Islam.”

These various statements cane be examined, and turned upside down, and eventually one may find a way to understand them that preserves the traditional understanding of the Church. So the words are not necessarily “wrong.”

But, whether right or wrong, these words are not “Magisterial,” binding the conscience of anyone to assent to them, even though it is the “Magister” (the teacher, the Pope) who speaks them.

They are opinions on non-doctrinal matters, judgments about history (the conversion of Europe and its effects) and about how Christians and Muslims may have understood “Jihad” and “missionary activity.”

These opinions may be interesting. They may give us an insight into the Pope’s mind. One can intuit influences on his thinking, which is useful. So these words are genuine, fresh, authentic, not pre-scripted, not read on a teleprompter, and, speaking them, Francis rises in the estimation of many, as a person. Many applaud a Pope who speaks with such candor, light years distant from old manuals, uncircumscribed by traditional doctrinal definitions. But these opinions are not “Catholic teaching.”

Here is the issue. The Pope, the final arbiter of doctrine in the Church, is on all other matters only one more voice among many. This means that, if he speaks a great deal publicly about matters which do not involve his Petrine doctrinal authority, there is a risk of confusion and even that the authoritativeness of his doctrinal declarations might in some way be diminished.

And, since the doctrinal authority of the Petrine office is a part of Catholic doctrine, the emphasis on non-doctrinal declarations and interviews could, arguably, present a potential risk to the long-term integrity of the Petrine office.

The Pope’s Style

The Pope’s style has provoked the question: Should Francis speak so often, at such length, and so unguardedly?

It is his style, he likes to do it, but could there be reasons to change this style?

The “Old Guard” in the Church, in the Vatican and in the hierarchy throughout the world, still remembers a time when the communications of the Pope were “guarded,” literally.

The “guards” were his associates, the theologians and other officials of the Roman Curia, and others around the world whom the Curia might consult.

A papal text would be read and re-read. Passages which might be confusing were noted, adjusted, sometimes cut out entirely — better, it was believed, to “cut the problem” than to leave room for possible confusion.

A Vatican monsignor once put it to me this way: “My job is to save the Pope from himself.” (!!!)

That is, to serve the Pope so well that the Pope’s very virtues — in this case, his spontaneity, his authenticity, his love for the poor, his simplicity — did not, by some diabolical twist, end up harming the central message that he himself, in virtue of his office, wished to communicate. (In the case of Pope Benedict, the problem was a different one: to attempt, at times, to keep his message down to earth and understandable in a different way.)

The “mind of the Curia” was a “group” mind. Curial officials thought “with the Pope,” and “with the Church,” and brought everything they had learned in their long years of study and their own personal gifts of character and background to the service of the Successor of Peter.

When a magisterial document appeared, it had been through the hands — and minds, and even hearts — of a dozen, or several dozen, Curial advisors, sometimes from a dozen different countries.

When the Pope signed such a document, he could feel certain that the “mind of the Church” had assisted him up to that final moment.

No leader of any nation had such a well-trained and broadly-based group of potential assistants to help him in his writing. It was unique in the world.

Now, when the Pope grants a wide-ranging interview, and ranges over a dozen complicated matters in a few minutes, from whether there should be no limit on the Church’s prosecution of sex abuse by priests to how to reconcile the principle of religious freedom with that of the secular state, he is “going it alone.”

In such circumstances, he inevitably will be unable to provide the most complete, consistent, measured reponse to every question.

And yet the world, including the Catholic world, then applauds or criticizes, instantly.

Of course, these are new times, and there are new means of communication — unprecedented means — and these means are almost instantaneous.

So it is perhaps necessary to use a new “media strategy” in this “new media” age to “rebrand” the Church. It is perhaps necessary to speak daily, almost hourly, on matters of great importance to the world, to attract the world’s attention, to give the impression of being more than a “museum” of once meangful but no longer relevant ideas and rituals.

But there is a danger, too, of superficiality and of confusion.

And it is perhaps at this intersection between Petrine magisterial discourse and personal opinion, at a moment in time when profound thought is needed by society as well as by the Church, where a slight adjustment in the style of the pontificate might be made.

The world has heard enough to know that this “rebranded” Church is merciful toward the sinful and charitable toward the miserable and impoverished.

The “branding” on the outside of the cereal box of the Church before Francis was largely made up of what the Church opposed, the sins she condemned because of the wretchedness they cause.

The “rebranded” Church in Francis’ pontificate still condemns those misery-causing sins, bu the outside of the box is now covered with images and words of mercy and tenderness toward the weak and wounded.

In truth, the Church inside the box was never the old, condemnatory Church that it was “branded” as being.

Francis could “rebrand” the Church because the mercy and tenderness was there, and always had been. He only needed to emphasize it, to put on his used black shoes and rise in his simple Ford Focus.

So what is missing? What is missing is the affirmation that this Church, this body of believers stretching over space and time, is the very same Church that Francis has for three years been “rebranding” as merciful and tender toward the weak.

And in this “rebranded” Church, we can recuperate all that was good and holy and beautiful in the old Church, from the solemnity of her liturgy, to the grandeur of her discipline, to the tenderness of her love for a confused and diseased humanity (hence all of the school and hospitals and clinics and universities of our Church).

In a sense, this may be the significance of the opening toward the Society of St. Pius X, which the Pope speaks of in the interview below. The Pius X Society is Catholic, and on the way to full reunion, the Pope says.

What can this mean other than that all the treasures of the Church that have been preserved by the Pius X Society in the general post-Vatican II “desolation” regarding all that is old, all her grand traditions and pieties, will find a home in this “rebranded” Church of mercy, even as this “rebranded” Church pursues her perennial course of seeking out the lost sheep and binding up the wounds of the broken-hearted, until a “common home” and a “common hearth” can be established, a home and hearth to which all mankind may be invited, as opposed to the alternative, chaos and old night, and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So the most important moments of this pontificate still lie directly ahead.

The Text of the Latest Interview, From May 16

Pope Francis has given an exclusive interview to the French Catholic La Croix newspaper.

In the broad-ranging conversation with journalists Guillaume Goubert and Sébastien Maillard for La Croix, Pope Francis discussed matters ranging from healthy secularism and the right way to understand and live according to the Church’s universal missionary mandate, to the idea of Europe in relation to the migration crisis and the possibility of peaceful coexistence among Muslims and Christians.

He also addressed the clergy sexual abuse crisis, offering considerations about an ongoing investigation – widely covered in France – involving the Archbishop of Lyon, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, whose handling of the case of one pedophile priest in particular has been subject to scrutiny and criticism.

La Croix has now published an English translation of the interview, available here.

In your speeches in Europe, you refer to the “roots” of the continent without ever describing them as Christian. Rather, you define “European identity” as “dynamic and multicultural.” In your view, is the expression “Christian roots” inappropriate for Europe?

Pope Francis: We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones. John Paul II, however, spoke about it in a tranquil manner.

Yes, Europe has Christian roots and it is Christianity’s responsibility to water those roots. But this must be done in a spirit of service as in the washing of the feet. Christianity’s duty to Europe is one of service. As Erich Przywara, the great master of Romano Guardini and Hans Urs von Balthasar, teaches us, Christianity’s contribution to a culture is that of Christ in the washing of the feet. In other words, service and the gift of life. It must not become a colonial enterprise.

On April 16, you made a powerful gesture by bringing back the refugees from Lesbos to Rome. However, does Europe have the capacity to accept so many migrants?

Pope Francis: That is a fair and responsible question because one cannot open the gates wide unreasonably. However, the deeper question is why there are so many migrants now. When I went to Lampedusa three years ago, this phenomenon had already started.

The initial problems are the wars in the Middle East and in Africa as well as the underdevelopment of the African continent, which causes hunger. If there are wars, it is because there exist arms manufacturers – which can be justified for defensive purposes – and above all arms traffickers. If there is so much unemployment, it is because of a lack of investment capable of providing employment, of which Africa has such a great need.

More generally, this raises the question of a world economic system that has descended into the idolatry of money. The great majority of humanity’s wealth has fallen into the hands of a minority of the population.

A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.

Coming back to the migrant issue, the worst form of welcome is to “ghettoize” them. On the contrary, it’s necessary to integrate them. In Brussels, the terrorists were Belgians, children of migrants, but they grew up in a ghetto. In London, the new mayor (Editor: Sadiq Khan, the son of Muslim Pakistanis) took his oath of office in a cathedral and will undoubtedly meet the queen. This illustrates the need for Europe to rediscover its capacity to integrate.

I am thinking here of Pope Gregory the Great (Editor: Pope from 590 – 604), who negotiated with the people known as barbarians, who were subsequently integrated. This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate. A demographic emptiness is developing. In France, at least, this trend is less marked because of family-oriented policies.

The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?

Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.

In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”

Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms. Muslims come to venerate the Virgin Mary and St George. Similarly, they tell me that for the Jubilee Year Muslims in one African country formed a long queue at the cathedral to enter through the holy door and pray to the Virgin Mary. In Central Africa, before the war, Christians and Muslims used to live together and must learn to do so again. Lebanon also shows that this is possible.

The significance of Islam in France today, like the nation’s Christian historical foundation, raises recurring questions concerning the place of religion in the public arena. How would you characterize a positive form of laicity [sometimes also translated as “secular humanism”] (Editor: “laicity” refers to the French system of separation of Church and state)?

Pope Francis: States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity. However, everyone must have the freedom to externalize his or her own faith. If a Muslim woman wishes to wear a veil, she must be able to do so. Similarly, if a Catholic wishes to wear a cross. People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.

The modest critique that I would address to France in this regard is that it exaggerates laicity. This arises from a way of considering religions as sub-cultures rather than as fully-fledged cultures in their own right. I fear that this approach, which is understandable as part of the heritage of the Enlightenment, continues to exist. France needs to take a step forward on this issue in order to accept that openness to transcendence is a right for everyone.

In a secular setting, how should Catholics defend their concerns on societal issues such as euthanasia or homosexual marriage?

Pope Francis: It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these issues]. That is how a society grows.

However, once a law has been adopted, the state must also respect [people’s] consciences. The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person. The state must also take criticism into account. That would be a genuine form of laicity.

You cannot sweep aside the arguments of Catholics by simply telling them that they “speak like a priest.” No, they base themselves on the kind of Christian thinking that France has so remarkably developed.

What does France mean to you?

Pope Francis: It is the eldest daughter of the Church, but not the most faithful! (Laughs) However, during the 1950s, they also spoke of “France, the mission country.” In that sense, it remains a periphery to be evangelized. However, to be fair to France, the Church there does have a real creative capacity.

France is also a land of great saints, great thinkers such as [Jean] Guitton, [Maurice] Blondel, [Emmanuel] Levinas, who was not Catholic, and [Jacques] Maritain. I am also thinking of the depth of its literature.

I also appreciate how French culture is impregnated with Jesuit spirituality compared to the more ascetic Spanish current. The French current, which began with Pierre Favre, gave it another flavor, while continuing to emphasize discernment of spirits.

There have also been great French spiritual figures such as (Louis) Lallemant, or (Jean-Pierre) de Caussade. And the great French theologians who helped the Society of Jesus so much, namely Henri de Lubac and Michel de Certeau. I really like the last two. Two Jesuits who are creative.

Overall, that’s what fascinates me about France. On one hand, that exaggerated laicity, the heritage of the French Revolution, and on the other hand, so many great saints.

Who is your favorite?

Pope Francis: Saint Therese of Lisieux.

You have promised to come to France. When might such a trip be possible?

Pope Francis: I recently received an invitation from President François Hollande. The episcopal conference has also invited me. But I don’t know when the trip will take place because next year is an election year in France, and in general, the policy of the Holy See is not to organize such trips during these periods.

Last year a few hypotheses emerged regarding such a trip, including a visit to Paris and its suburbs, to Lourdes and to a city that no pope has yet visited, such as Marseille, which represents an open door to the world.

As elsewhere, the Church in France is experiencing a serious crisis of priestly vocations. How is it possible to manage today with so few priests?

Pope Francis: Korea provides a historical example. That country was evangelized by missionaries from China who later left. Then, for two hundred years, Korea was evangelized by lay people. It is a land of saints and martyrs that now has a strong Church.

So there is not necessarily a need for priests in order to evangelize. Baptism provides the strength to evangelize. And the Holy Spirit, received at baptism, prompts one to go out, to take the Christian message with courage and patience. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist of whatever happens in the Church, its motor. Too many Christians are ignorant of this.

On the other hand, the opposite danger for the Church is clericalism. This is a sin committed by two parties, like the tango! The priest wants to clericalize lay people and lay people request to be clericalized because it’s easier.

In Buenos Aires, I knew many good priests who, whenever they saw a capable lay person, immediately exclaimed “let’s make him a deacon!” No, let him remain a lay person.

Clericalism is particularly significant in Latin America. If popular piety is strong, it is precisely because it is the only lay initiative that has not been clericalized. This is not understood by the clergy.

The Church in France, particularly in Lyon, has been shattered recently by historical pedophilia scandals. What should be done about this situation?

Pope Francis: It is true that it is not easy to judge the facts decades later in a different context. Reality is not always so clear. Nevertheless, there can be no statute of limitations for the Church in this field. As a result of these abuses, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him. He disseminates evil, resentment, distress. As Benedict XVI said, there must be zero tolerance.

Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings (Editor: As opposed to canon law proceedings).

So Cardinal Barbarin does not need to resign?

Pope Francis: No, that would be a contradiction, imprudent. We will see after the conclusion of the case. At the moment, however, that would amount to an admission of guilt.

On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists into the Church again under consideration?

Pope Francis: In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.

Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.

During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite Mass. So good dialogue and good work are taking place.

Would you be ready to grant them the status of a personal prelature?

Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently.

You have already convoked two synods on the family. In your view, has this long process changed the Church?

Pope Francis: This process was started by the consistory (Editor: The consistory of February 2014) where it was introduced by Cardinal Kasper, prior to an Extraordinary Synod in October the same year which was followed by a year of reflection and an Ordinary Synod.

I think that we all came out of the various processes different from the way that we entered. Including me.

In the post-synodal exhortation (Editor: Amoris Laetitia, April 2016), I sought to respect the Synod to the maximum. You won’t find canonical prescriptions there about what one may or may not do.

It is a serene, peaceful reflection on the beauty of love, how to educate the children, to prepare for marriage… It emphasizes responsibilities that could be developed by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in the form of guidelines.

Beyond this process, we need to think about genuine synodality, or at least the meaning of Catholic synodality. The bishops are cum Petro, sub Petro (Editor: with Peter and under Peter). This differs from Orthodox synodality or that of the Greek Catholic Churches, where the Patriarch only counts as a single voice.

The Second Vatican Council set out an ideal of synodal and episcopal communion. This still needs to be developed, including at parish level, with respect to what is required. There are parishes that still do not have a pastoral council, nor a council for economic affairs, even though these are obligations under canon law. Synodality is also relevant at this level.

Interviewed by Guillaume Goubert and Sébastien Maillard (in Rome)

Note: The Moynihan Letters go to some 20,000 people around the world. If you would like to subscribe, click here to sign up for free. Also, if you would like to subscribe to our print magazine, Inside the Vatican, please do so! It would support the old technology of print and paper, as well as this newsflash. Click here.

What is the glory of God?

“The glory of God is man alive; but the life of man is the vision of God.” —St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the territory of France, in his great work Against All Heresies, written c. 180 A.D.

Facebook Comments