Rorate Caeli

Aw, sweet!
Wait, does this mean someone else may have gone insane?

When meeting a group of students of Jesuit schools in Italy and Albania today, the new Pope answered questions from the audience, including one from a young lady who wished to know why he chose not to live in the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace:

"It is not just a matter of wealth, it is a matter of personality: I have the need to live among people. If I lived by myself, perhaps somewhat isolated, this would not be good to me. A professor asked me that: why don't you go live there, and I answered him: listen, professor, for psychiatric reasons! But it's my personality. The apartment - the Pope specified - is not so much luxurious, [it is] quiet, but I cannot live by myself.

"And then - he continued - I believe that the times speak to us of so much poverty in the world, this [poverty] is a scandal! In a world in which we have so much wealth, and so many resources to feed all, it cannot be understood how many hungry children there are, so many children without education, so many poor people. Poverty today is a cry, we all must consider if we can become a bit poorer. How can I become a bit poor in order to look like Jesus, Poor Master?"

[Transcript by Italian news agency TM Media, part of it has been edited out by some other news sources.]

22 comments:

blindfella said...

With respect to His Holiness, I think his wishes should have been honored and he should not have become Pope (Or bishop of Rome or whatever we're calling the men in white these days)

JabbaPapa said...

That's a rather horrid comment, blindfella

Jon said...

Well, as his kampaign manager Kardinal Kasper has pointed out, the principle's now established.

He can always retire.

Angelo said...

I don't understand how not living in the Papal apartments is going to solve the problem of world poverty. This decision made by the Holy Father has only caused spiritual poverty. As modernists believe they are now justified in their rejection of all that up to now has been sacred to the Church founded by Christ. The Holy Father should not change the Papacy, its only caused confusion among the faithful. The Holy Father has tried to bring us the message of humility, which is good. But humility is something interior and must never be made a show of.

backtothefuture said...

Spiritual poverty is a bigger horror. Helping the poor is very important. But the most important thing is to help save souls first and foremost.

Athelstane said...

I don't understand how not living in the Papal apartments is going to solve the problem of world poverty.

It won't, and I'm sure he knows it.

But I think he finds the image will be better. And that it will keep him more focused on this question of poverty.

His statement about psychiatric reasons just seems like some self-deprecation to me - I don't read it as anything more than that.

The only difficulty is that this move, and the explanation, may exert pressure on his successor(s) to similarly downscale their living out of the Apostolic Apartments, lest they be measured unfairly against Pope Francis.

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...

"I have the need to live among people. If I lived by myself, perhaps somewhat isolated, this would not be good to me... The apartment ... [is] quiet, but I cannot live by myself."

Hmm.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” — Pascal

Anchorite said...

He is avoiding the real answer. As someone already pointed out - Francis surely understands that living not in Apostolic palace isn't solving anything. In fact, he understands that it actually increases the security and communication budget. Francis also surely understands that if it is only for the "image of papal poverty" than it is all about marketing - a sure sign of hypocrisy - but that never stopped him when he lived in Buenos Aires.
The Danieels-Mahony Axis elected their guy and they are ecstatic.
Bishop Francis of Rome also knows that no popes live "alone" - they are surrounded by people right there in the apartments. C'mon!
The usual deflections.

Marie-Jacqueline said...

One thinks of Cardinal Kung and others who spent years in solitary confinement for the Faith.

Common Sense said...

Good point Marie-Jaqueline. How many of our Chinese catholic brethren were thrown under the bus in the name of VII 'ecumenism'? How many us spare a thought of their suffering and heroic stuggle for Faith? Because we failed to notice the murky clouds on horizone and allowed ourselves to to be decieved, the mother of all storms will soon sweep over us.

Presbyter said...

Most of the poverty in the First and Second Worlds is caused by improvident, immoral, and self-destructive behaviors. In the Third World dysfunctional cultural, religious and political values. As well as the endemic caudillismo of Latin American politics.
People being "poorer" is not the solution.

John Fisher said...

Jesus was not poor. The apostles all had careers or businesses. They had enough town successful fishing businesses and owned boats.
Some of there houses have been excavated and were quite good. They lived off their savings when with Christ.

Angelo said...

Pope Francis says he does not want to live alone. When he made the decision not to live in the Apostolic Palace he made the remark, "300 people could live here". If he lived in the Apostolic Palace he could always have 300 guests and never be alone. The Pope's first reason to not live in the Papal apartments was to follow the poverty of the glorious St. Francis. Now the reason is that he does not want to live alone. With all due respect to His Holiness the Vicar of Christ, sometimes he contradicts himself on some matters. Could he be a liberal? Liberals are freethinkers and constantly contradict themselves.

Archimandrite Gregory said...

Frankly what business is it of ours to dictate where the Pope (or anyone else for that matter) lives? Also I believe his trying to answer that question for a set up for criticism no matter what his answer might be.

D. said...

Wow the comments on this post are unbelievable. Some of them are probably calumnious. You are making judgements about the pope's intentions. And can you not hear how ugly, whiny and petty you sound?

Angelo said...

His Holiness Pope Francis accepted the Petrine office, he didn't have to but he did. In accepting this highest of callings he must glorify the Office of St. Peter. Many Catholics have observed that His Holiness is humbling the Petrine office. Christ said to the first Pope St. Peter that he would be bound and taken where he does not wish to go. We are not talking the office of Bergoglio, we are talking the office of the Supreme Pontiff. Bergoglio exists no more, he has been replaced by Pope Francis the First. There is such a thing as justified criticism. It must always be meant to be constructive. I'm sure Pope Francis does not mind as he as Cardinal Bergoglio many times was critical, and openly opposed to Pope Benedict XVl.

Alexander adulescens said...

"Jesus was not poor. The apostles all had careers or businesses. They had enough town successful fishing businesses and owned boats.
Some of there houses have been excavated and were quite good. They lived off their savings when with Christ."

Pax tecum frater.

What did Christ tell the rich young man to do if he would be perfect?

You err brother. You are attacking one of the Evangelical counsels and the foundation of monasticism.

Christ literally warned someone who claimed to want to follow Him that though the foxes have holes and birds have nests He had no place to lay His Head.

It is written explicitly in the Gospel according to St. Luke that the apostles and Christ Himself were patronized by wealthy widows - they did not live off their own estates. The boats and hired men belonged to their fathers - who they left in the boats along with their financial patrimony at Christ's calling to follow Him.

Christ more than once gave the precept to sell all that we have and give the price to the poor, take up our Cross and follow Him.

He said not to be anxious about tomorrow. He taught us not to worry about what we shall wear or what we shall eat. The birds of the air do not sow or reap but they have food - and we mean more to our Heavenly Father than these.

This in way justifies the unusual refusal of Franciscus to live in the papal apartments. He could just put a bundle of sackcloth under his head and sleep on the floor, have hard furniture, eat frugal meals sparingly, use candles and oil lamps over electricity and ectera - all in the apartments. Or, if he is going to be a lamp on a stand for the world to see - do it really. Like his namesake. Taking the bus, a smaller apartment. That is mediocrity not poverty.

But one ought not to attack holy poverty, a sine qua non if one would be perfect according to the Master Himself, on this account. An extreme reaction to one extreme is often only to exchange one error for another.

- adulescens

Sarah said...

Ultimately, what does it matter what kind of living conditions our new holy father chooses for himself? He may know more about his own spiritual needs than anyone else (other than God, of course, and the Blessed Mother). True, he also has to consider the spiritual needs of those whom he is expected to lead and care for, but that doesn't obligate him to choose a lifestyle that will please the majority, a particular minority or whoever happens to be closest to him. God knows his heart and his needs as well as ours. Do we really have to understand EVERYTHING the man does?

Bizlep said...

Folks

If you're upset by the Pope fleeing the papal 'cloister'... what will you do when the Papacy moves from Rome to other place... may be Jerusalem? - This is not fiction, according to the book of Revelation and some old private revelations to canonized saints (Hildegard, Brigitte), or even Fatima, the ‘babylon’ and city of seven hills will be destroyed...so what do you think will happen geographically to the Papacy...hummm?
Peter was the first to flee the first Papal seat ever: Jerusalem!

Alexander adulescens said...

"If you're upset by the Pope fleeing the papal 'cloister'... what will you do when the Papacy moves from Rome to other place... may be Jerusalem? - This is not fiction, according to the book of Revelation and some old private revelations to canonized saints (Hildegard, Brigitte), or even Fatima, the ‘babylon’ and city of seven hills will be destroyed...so what do you think will happen geographically to the Papacy...hummm?
Peter was the first to flee the first Papal seat ever: Jerusalem!"

First - Apocalypse. It is the holy book of the Apocalypse.

Second - this the hardest book in all of Sacred Scripture. The holy apostle John literally warns readers not to lightly take it upon themselves to interpret it. Now, as I understand it, the destruction of Babylon has traditionally [i.e. this is not my personal, private interpretation) been taken to refer to the conversion of pagan Rome [called Babylon and not Rome] to Christ. The rock not cut by the hand of man smashed the colossus of pagan empire to pieces and grew into a mountain that filled the whole world - the Roman Catholic Church.

Or - it has been read literally and means the world ends when Rome does. In which case the dilemma you attempted to pose collapses. There can be no question of where in the world the Roman Pontiff would live, if there would be no world for him to live in.

Finally, if by force of circumstances the Holy Father was compelled to leave the city where the two greatest of the apostles - Petrus et Paulus - poured out their blood and their teaching, the city of holy martyrs more innumerable than the stars in the night-sky - it would be unspeakably sad and even scandalous, but not unthinkable or even unprecedented. It already happened temporarily with the Avignon popes. But unless the city itself is somehow erased from the face of the earth - it could never be permanent.

Rome is Providence. Rome was elected of God to be the Seat of the Catholic Church and the means, vehicle and guarantee of Her universality.

Looked at your profile as well. What a surprise - anti-Roman, almost-Protestant apocalyptic coming out of South America. Do tell us in "tongues" next time.

- adulescens

Barbara said...

I am not too disturbed now that the Pope doesn't live in the palace. It would be a great relief and blessing though for him to start speaking like the Monarch he is. Only he has the Keys to the Kingdom.

Yes. Bizlep, I remember some references to that - also didn't Benson fictiously in the Lord of the World have the Pope go to Jerusalem with the other religious heads? It has been some years since I read that book...and I don't have my copy anymore...

Angelo said...

The problem with the Pope changing Papal rules is sad, but it is not the main problem. With the Pope doing this, modernists believe this is a stamp of approval of all their errors. Which is why they rejoice at Pope Francis election. They are looking only at his first actions as Pope. If they actually listened to what Pope Francis is saying they would recognize that he sounds much like a hardline Traditionalist. The Pope said as Bergoglio, because of his Orthodoxy got into much trouble with his Jesuit Superiors, but he kept strong in his teaching and defending the true Catholic Faith. He also said that he was asked many times if he was a Traditionalist. I don't like his breaking of Papal custom, but I laud his strong Orthodox statements. I pray he revives Papal custom and follow the example of Pope Benedict XVl who is a man of true humility. Perhaps more humble than the glorious St. Francis of Assisi.