A review of Pope Francis' new book

The Name of God is Mercy: A Conversation with Andrea Tornielli

Translated from Italian by Oonagh Stransky (New York: Random House, 2016)

Reviewed by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, SSPX

---

In the book, the pope says that for him “mercy is Jesus’ most important message” (p. 25).[1] "The Lord never tires of forgiving us; never! So, we must ask for the grace to never tire of asking for forgiveness” (p.11).

The pope does not mean to trivialize sin by saying that. Indeed, recognition of our state of sinfulness is the prerequisite for being able to receive God’s mercy.

Sin is more than a spot. Sin is a wound which must be dressed and treated" (p. 48).

When asked why we are sinners, Pope Francis answers:

Because of original sin... our humanity is wounded (p. 64).

When someone feels God’s mercy, he is ashamed of himself, of his personal sin....

Shame is one of the graces that St. Ignatius [of Loyola] asked for in the confession of sins before Christ Crucified” (p. 30 f.).

Shame is ... something positive, because it makes us humble" (p. 49).

Concerning the Gospel about the adulteress (Jn 8), he says:

He (Jesus) does not say: ‘Adultery is not a sin,’ but he does not condemn her according to the law” (p. 15 f.).

Sacrament of Penance

The Pope gives great importance to the Sacrament of Penance. Indeed, the second chapter of his book is titled “The Gift of Confession.” Bishops and priests “become... instruments of God’s mercy. They act in persona Christi, which means in the place of Christ” (p. 43).

He asks confessors not to make confession difficult for penitents by asking superfluous questions out of curiosity (p. 49) and also requests that they think about their own sins while hearing confessions (p. 50).

Doubtlessly, these are all nice and important considerations to which we can wholeheartedly agree.

However, several critical questions come to mind as we read the work.

Critical questions

The pope admits that there are cases in which the confessor must deny absolution to the penitent, e.g., because the penitent is continuing to live in a sinful relationship and is unwilling to end it.

Pope Francis thinks that the confessor should look for “the slightest ray of light” (Chapter 3) in order to grant absolution, but acknowledges that sometimes there is a duty after all to deny absolution. About this subject he says:

If the confessor cannot grant absolution, he should explain why, and at least give a blessing, even though sacramental absolution is not possible” (p. 38).

It is true that a priest can give a blessing to a person in serious sin, for it does not mean approval of the sin, and it can provide the person with helpful graces that can lead him to conversion.

Nevertheless, was there not a public story in April 2014 about the testimony of a woman, Jakelin Lisboa, who had civilly married a divorced man and consequently did not receive Holy Communion from her pastor? Pope Francis telephoned her and advised her to go to Communion, “no problem”?

This statement is not entirely unreliable, although the Vatican—in the person of its spokesman, the very disconcerted Fr. Federico Lombardi—did not dare to confirm or to deny Francis’ words and was content to declare that a private telephone conversation of the pope should not be exploited in reference to Church doctrine.

Isn’t there a contradiction here, if in theory the pope teaches correct doctrine but then in practice shows a false mercy that does not take sin seriously?

The reader is also astounded by how the pope judges modern relativism:

Relativism also wounds human beings: everything seems to be of equal importance, to all appearances everything is the same” (p. 36).

But doesn’t Pope Francis practice this relativism himself? Doesn’t the video that he released in January give the impression that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism are ultimately only different paths to the same goal?

During his visit to the Lutheran church in Rome last November, did he not speak as though the differences between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant faith were ultimately insignificant? 

Ambiguities

Tornielli explicitly asks the pope about his famous statement about homosexuals: “Who am I to judge? ”

The pope’s explanation on this point is not really clear. He affirms that he only wanted to say that such individuals should be treated sensitively and not marginalized. Verbatim:

I would prefer that homosexuals come to confession, that they stay close to the Lord, that we can pray together. One can advise them to pray, to have good will, show them the way and accompany them” (p. 84).

A Catholic response would not have been difficult to give. A homosexual who is fighting against his inclination and is not living in a “homosexual marriage” or similar relationship can, of course, come to confession and receive absolution, even if at times he falls again into sin.

However, if he is unwilling to give up his homosexual preferences and wants to continue to live in that way, one can only counsel him to continue to pray and to go to Mass, so as not to lose contact with God completely.

The pope’s statements can be understood in this sense, but one gets the impression that he is afraid of clearly indicating that homosexuality [sic; the reviewer means “homosexual acts”] is a sin.

In the Introduction, Tornielli cites a homily that the pope gave on April 7, 2014, concerning the Gospel story of the adulterous woman.

In it the pope said that mercy is “difficult to understand; it does not wipe out sins,” because what wipes out sins is “God’s forgiveness;” however, “mercy goes farther” than forgiveness (cf. p. 16).

It is hard to understand what Francis means by that. That mercy spares us God’s just punishment? Maybe. 

What does our time need?

Pope Francis castigates the attitude of so-called just persons, wo hide their own sins behind a pious facade and look disdainfully at those whose sins are known. This appears to be an important subject for him (cf. for example pp. 66, 91 f.).

Certainly there have always been such Pharisaical Christians and they still exist today. One may wonder, however, whether this really is a critical problem of our time. Is it not rather the case that many Christians today have lost the consciousness of sin altogether?

Aren’t Christians today accused of being hypocrites and Pharisees just because they insist that sin is in fact sin, even when they are not trying at all to condemn or despise sinners?

Francis even mentions Pope Pius XII, who said that the tragedy of our time is that we have lost the sense of sin (p.37).

However, on this point he does not go further, not mentioning the obstacle the lack of faith in the redemption and the remission of sins represents.

That is certainly correct, but the more fundamental problem is still the fact that people no longer want to talk about sin. In Argentina circumstances may be different, but in Europe, in any case, most sinners do not want mercy; rather, they want the Church to stop speaking about sin.

Homosexuals, cohabiting couples, those who do not practice the Faith, etc., do not want to hear the message of mercy, but want the Church to approve and bless their situation.

The pope want us to go out “of the churches and parishes” to seek people “where they live, where they suffer, where they hope,” so as to bind up their wounds and help them to see “the face of a Church which has rediscovered the womb of mercy” (p. 74), but this wish remains just a wish, so much empty air. Without faith, man is indifferent to God’s mercy.

Consequently, the pope must first of all begin to proclaim the faith to people again, because even most Catholics know almost nothing about the great truths of the Faith, about the Holy Trinity, about the Incarnation, about Christ’s sacrifice for man, and about the sacraments.

It is only through the light of faith that man becomes aware of his sins and understands that he need God’s mercy. Unfortunately, as long as this proclamation of the Faith does not occur, initiatives like the “Year of Mercy” will remain ultimately ineffective.

• [1]Page numbers refer to the German edition used by the reviewer