Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 12:34pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Full text of Pope’s address to the Roman Curia

By on Friday, 21 December 2012

Benedict XVI addresses the Curia in the Clementine Hall at the Vatican (Photo: CNS)

Benedict XVI addresses the Curia in the Clementine Hall at the Vatican (Photo: CNS)

Dear Cardinals, Brother Bishops and Priests, Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is with great joy that I meet you today, dear Members of the College of Cardinals, Representatives of the Roman Curia and the Governorate, for this traditional event in the days leading up to the feast of Christmas. I greet each one of you cordially, beginning with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, whom I thank for his kind words and for the warm good wishes that he extended to me on behalf of all present. The Dean of the College of Cardinals reminded us of an expression that appears frequently during these days in the Latin liturgy: Prope est iam Dominus, venite, adoremus! The Lord is already near, come, let us adore him! We too, as one family, prepare ourselves to adore the Child in the stable at Bethlehem who is God himself and has come so close as to become a man like us. I willingly reciprocate your good wishes and I thank all of you from my heart, including the Papal Representatives all over the world, for the generous and competent assistance that each of you offers me in my ministry.

Once again we find ourselves at the end of a year that has seen all kinds of difficult situations, important questions and challenges, but also signs of hope, both in the Church and in the world. I shall mention just a few key elements regarding the life of the Church and my Petrine ministry. First of all, there were the journeys to Mexico and Cuba – unforgettable encounters with the power of faith, so deeply rooted in human hearts, and with the joie de vivre that issues from faith. I recall how, on my arrival in Mexico, there were endless crowds of people lining the long route, cheering and waving flags and handkerchiefs. I recall how, on the journey to the attractive provincial capital Guanajuato, there were young people respectfully kneeling by the side of the road to receive the blessing of Peter’s Successor; I recall how the great liturgy beside the statue of Christ the King made Christ’s kingship present among us – his peace, his justice, his truth. All this took place against the backdrop of the country’s problems, afflicted as it is by many different forms of violence and the hardships of economic dependence. While these problems cannot be solved simply by religious fervour, neither can they be solved without the inner purification of hearts that issues from the power of faith, from the encounter with Jesus Christ. And then there was Cuba – here too there were great liturgical celebrations, in which the singing, the praying and the silence made tangibly present the One that the country’s authorities had tried for so long to exclude. That country’s search for a proper balancing of the relationship between obligations and freedom cannot succeed without reference to the basic criteria that mankind has discovered through encounter with the God of Jesus Christ.

As further key moments in the course of the year, I should like to single out the great Meeting of Families in Milan and the visit to Lebanon, where I consigned the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation that is intended to offer signposts for the life of churches and society in the Middle East along the difficult paths of unity and peace. The last major event of the year was the Synod on the New Evangelization, which also served as a collective inauguration of the Year of Faith, in which we commemorate the opening of the Second Vatican Council fifty years ago, seeking to understand it anew and appropriate it anew in the changed circumstances of today.

All these occasions spoke to fundamental themes of this moment in history: the family (Milan), serving peace in the world and dialogue among religions (Lebanon) and proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ in our day to those who have yet to encounter him and to the many who know him only externally and hence do not actually recognize him. Among these broad themes, I should like to focus particularly on the theme of the family and the nature of dialogue, and then to add a brief observation on the question of the new evangelization.

The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today. But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world. It was noticeable that the Synod repeatedly emphasized the significance of the family as the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence. This is something we learn by living it with others and suffering it with others. So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human. The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man’s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for? Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

At this point I would like to address the second major theme, which runs through the whole of the past year from Assisi to the Synod on the New Evangelization: the question of dialogue and proclamation. Let us speak firstly of dialogue. For the Church in our day I see three principal areas of dialogue, in which she must be present in the struggle for man and his humanity: dialogue with states, dialogue with society – which includes dialogue with cultures and with science – and finally dialogue with religions. In all these dialogues the Church speaks on the basis of the light given her by faith. But at the same time she incorporates the memory of mankind, which is a memory of man’s experiences and sufferings from the beginnings and down the centuries, in which she has learned about the human condition, she has experienced its boundaries and its grandeur, its opportunities and its limitations. Human culture, of which she is a guarantee, has developed from the encounter between divine revelation and human existence. The Church represents the memory of what it means to be human in the face of a civilization of forgetfulness, which knows only itself and its own criteria. Yet just as an individual without memory has lost his identity, so too a human race without memory would lose its identity. What the Church has learned from the encounter between revelation and human experience does indeed extend beyond the realm of pure reason, but it is not a separate world that has nothing to say to unbelievers. By entering into the thinking and understanding of mankind, this knowledge broadens the horizon of reason and thus it speaks also to those who are unable to share the faith of the Church. In her dialogue with the state and with society, the Church does not, of course, have ready answers for individual questions. Along with other forces in society, she will wrestle for the answers that best correspond to the truth of the human condition. The values that she recognizes as fundamental and non-negotiable for the human condition she must propose with all clarity. She must do all she can to convince, and this can then stimulate political action.

In man’s present situation, the dialogue of religions is a necessary condition for peace in the world and it is therefore a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities. This dialogue of religions has various dimensions. In the first place it is simply a dialogue of life, a dialogue of being together. This will not involve discussing the great themes of faith – whether God is Trinitarian or how the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures is to be understood, and so on. It is about the concrete problems of coexistence and shared responsibility for society, for the state, for humanity. In the process, it is necessary to learn to accept the other in his otherness and the otherness of his thinking. To this end, the shared responsibility for justice and peace must become the guiding principle of the conversation. A dialogue about peace and justice is bound to pass beyond the purely pragmatic to an ethical quest for the values that come before everything. In this way what began as a purely practical dialogue becomes a quest for the right way to live as a human being. Even if the fundamental choices themselves are not under discussion, the search for an answer to a specific question becomes a process in which, through listening to the other, both sides can obtain purification and enrichment. Thus this search can also mean taking common steps towards the one truth, even if the fundamental choices remain unaltered. If both sides set out from a hermeneutic of justice and peace, the fundamental difference will not disappear, but a deeper closeness will emerge nevertheless.

Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:

1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;
2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

These rules are correct, but in the way they are formulated here I still find them too superficial. True, dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at better mutual understanding – that is correct. But all the same, the search for knowledge and understanding always has to involve drawing closer to the truth. Both sides in this piece-by-piece approach to truth are therefore on the path that leads forward and towards greater commonality, brought about by the oneness of the truth. As far as preserving identity is concerned, it would be too little for the Christian, so to speak, to assert his identity in a such a way that he effectively blocks the path to truth. Then his Christianity would appear as something arbitrary, merely propositional. He would seem not to reckon with the possibility that religion has to do with truth. On the contrary, I would say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us: Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest for knowledge. Being inwardly held by the hand of Christ makes us free and keeps us safe: free – because if we are held by him, we can enter openly and fearlessly into any dialogue; safe – because he does not let go of us, unless we cut ourselves off from him. At one with him, we stand in the light of truth.

Finally, at least a brief word should be added on the subject of proclamation, or evangelization, on which the post-synodal document will speak in depth, on the basis of the Synod Fathers’ propositions. I find that the essential elements of the process of evangelizing appear most eloquently in Saint John’s account of the calling of two of John the Baptist’s disciples, who become disciples of Jesus Christ (1:35-39). First of all, we have the simple act of proclamation. John the Baptist points towards Jesus and says: “Behold the Lamb of God!” A similar act is recounted a few verses later. This time it is Andrew, who says to his brother Simon “We have found the Messiah” (1:41). The first and fundamental element is the straightforward proclamation, the kerygma, which draws its strength from the inner conviction of the one proclaiming. In the account of the two disciples, the next stage is that of listening and following behind Jesus, which is not yet discipleship, but rather a holy curiosity, a movement of seeking. Both of them, after all, are seekers, men who live over and above everyday affairs in the expectation of God – in the expectation that he exists and will reveal himself. Stimulated by the proclamation, their seeking becomes concrete. They want to come to know better the man described as the Lamb of God by John the Baptist. The third act is set in motion when Jesus turns round, approaches them and asks: “What do you seek?” They respond with a further question, which demonstrates the openness of their expectation, their readiness to take new steps. They ask: “Rabbi, where are you staying?” Jesus’ answer “Come and see!” is an invitation to walk with him and thereby to have their eyes opened with him.

The word of proclamation is effective in situations where man is listening in readiness for God to draw near, where man is inwardly searching and thus on the way towards the Lord. His heart is touched when Jesus turns towards him, and then his encounter with the proclamation becomes a holy curiosity to come to know Jesus better. As he walks with Jesus, he is led to the place where Jesus lives, to the community of the Church, which is his body. That means entering into the journeying community of catechumens, a community of both learning and living, in which our eyes are opened as we walk.

“Come and see!” This saying, addressed by Jesus to the two seeker-disciples, he also addresses to the seekers of today. At the end of the year, we pray to the Lord that the Church, despite all her shortcomings, may be increasingly recognizable as his dwelling-place. We ask him to open our eyes ever wider as we make our way to his house, so that we can say ever more clearly, ever more convincingly: “we have found him for whom the whole world is waiting, Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and true man”. With these sentiments, I wish you all from my heart a blessed Christmas and a happy New Year.

  • crash2parties

    Um, Mr. Your Excellence?  Did you really just call people with intersex conditions and by extension anyone with physical sex variances (such as transsexuals and gays, both shown to have sex-dimorphic neural structures opposite the sex expected)…not human?

    How have even you, the Pope,  forgotten God’s Will as put forth in Isaiah 56:3-5, Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8:26-40?  You know, those lengthy, cross referenced passages about how that single mention in Deut. was wrong about crushed testicles and that ‘eunuchs’ whether ‘born’, ‘man-made’ or ‘self made’ shall have a “special place in My Kingdom forever”?

  • Dirk Baeten

    No he did not. The Pope is referring to the new gender ideology which ignores the biological difference between man and woman. It’s such ideology which takes away human identity from men and women. For a better understanding, please read the article Gender Mainstreaming by Gabriele Kuby and the Psychopathology of Sex Reassignment Surgery by Richard P. Fitzgibbons and others.

  • Tim MacGeorge

    With all due respect, an understanding of gender (and sexual orientation) actually starts with the given-ness — including the biology — of the individual.  The pope’s error is in taking a generalized, abstract notion of what it means to be human and making that into a cookie-cutter mold that all individual persons are expected to conform to. He stretches and contorts ‘natural law’ philosophy in ways that make it unrecognizable.

    The basic question is this:  Is one’s sexual orientation a given or a choice? Ask any human adult on the face of this earth, “when did you choose your sexual orientation? what factors went into your deciding to be attracted to men/women? how old were you when you said to yourself, ‘I think I’ll be heterosexual (or homosexual, etc)’?” 

    Clearly, if they are honest, will say: “I never did such a thing; I never made such a choice. It’s simply something I came to know about myself; it’s my nature and part of who I am.”

    Benedict seems not to understand this basic reality of individual human experience.

  • Dirk Baeten

    The Catechism of the Church clearly alludes to the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, because an inclination or a tendency is obviously not a choice but something that is being experienced. “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual
    tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered,
    constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion,
    and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” I am therefore sure Benedict understands very well that sexual orientation is not a choice. What he refers to is the idea of making abstraction of the biological reality of being a man or a woman and its connection to our identity, so that only the inner experience (or social construction) decides if you are a man or a woman. This ideology makes the concept of being a man or a woman open to individual reinvention, completely disconnected from any given reality. Gender ideology in fact tells people that they can choose themselves to be a man or a woman. Please read the article Gender Mainstreaming by Gabriele Kuby.

  • Tim MacGeorge

     I have read her article and it is unconvincing.  What the pope is experiencing and now preaching is rooted in the conflict between the Church’s rightful recognition that sexual orientation is a God-given reality (i.e. not a choice, as you correctly point out that the CCC states) and subsequent positions that claim the that the sexual orientation of a homosexual person is “disordered.” 

    You can’t have it both ways and not attribute to God the creation of “disordered” persons — either orientation is a God-given reality (which leads to a recognition of its inherent goodness) or it is not a God-given reality (i.e. a choice). Being created “in the image and likeness of God” means that we start with the individual — and not some abstract understanding of what “male” or “female” is.  It is the pope who is advocating for the imposition of a “social construct” … imposing his notion of “maleness” on every human person with a penis and his notion of “femaleness” on every human person with a vagina.  Forgive my being crass, but that’s what it boils down to.

  • QuentindelaB

    This subject, and the question of gay marriage, is being thoroughly discussed on At the time of writing there have been 44 responses, reflecting various points of view. The following scientific note has been posted:

    “A recently published study has indicated that a homosexual
    temperament, while not genetic, is epigenetic. Epigenetic marks
    constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes’
    backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the
    instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out –
    when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. While
    these marks are not normally passed on to the next generation, this can
    sometimes happen. The result may be that a male foetus can get hormones
    related to the female, and vice versa.
    A summary of this study is at

    This reinforces the claim that, at least in many cases. a homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice.

  • Gina Blazewing

    The pope should leave well enough alone. 

  • Dirk Baeten

    According to Church teaching, originally Gods plan of creation was perfect, however when mankind committed sin, this perfection was disrupted, leading to suffering, death, hard labor etc (see Genesis). We didn’t choose all these things but they are not an inherent good God given reality either. Human imperfection, which is apparent on all levels (physical, mental, social, emotional), is not a God given reality but a weakening of our original goodness. Our choice in this is only how we deal with that. If I understand you correctly, you say that a disorder can only be the result of a choice, but then why do we acknowledge the existence of congenital disorders? How about so called vices? For example, is being jealous a choice? Isn’t it that we experience it first and then decide how to deal with it, whether to control ourselves or give in to it? To respect the male and female biological reality has social implications and thus influences a social view or construction of maleness or femaleness, in that sense I guess you could say that there’s social construction also here, which is not necessarily wrong I think, unless it limits the development of people’s talents. For example if it would imply that women always have to be fulltime housewives. I think the pope criticizes the construction of a human identity which makes complete abstraction of the biological reality of man and woman.

  • G Nearing

    Good for you your holiness stand up for catholic moral teaching against secular west.

  • G Nearing

     I used to be a revisionist to friend and trust me it doesn’t get anywhere. Here is a question for you where in the new testament does Jesus support gay marriage because last i checked  Jesus was a torah observing Jew and most traditionalist Jews prohibited homosexuality.

  • Thomas Hancock

    Wouldn’t pass muster in a freshman philosophy class. But since the Church has the Truth, truths can be constructed and dialogue is not necessary.

  • Michael

    why do we make our simple God so complex ? He is there for ALL those who believe in HIM and ALL those yet to believe in HIM ! HE gave us choice and life ! HE knows that when we chose not to remain child-like that our bodies and minds may not work as HE intended …… But please rememer HE is there for everyone whatever their gender !! We are in the end days and the gates of Heaven will soon be here. I am just one of his ‘lambs’ waiting for HIM to arrive !!!

  • andHarry

     Exactly. The consequences of  the ‘Fall of man’ explain many of the problems which we face. If evolution is presented, Bronowski-like, as ‘The Ascent Of Man’ then we are going in the wrong direction.

  • Sweetjae

    Nicely put.

  • Sweetjae

    Because He also said the goats exist and they can’t pass to the gates of Heaven.

  • Sweetjae

    A really good question.

  • Sweetjae

    The Pope said they are humans, don’t worry. Read the posts below by Tim and Dirk.

  • crash2parties

    Actually what Mr. Ratzinger is ignoring is that the sex differentiation between ‘male’ and ‘female’ is not binary. Every aspect is a semi-independent continuum and a person can be anywhere along each spectrum. So far it’s been found to be true for every sex-dimorphic body part of system, including: skeletal system, neurology, endocrine system, and of course primary and secondary sex characteristics. What this means is that every human is an unique mix of male and female; no one has been found yet to be at either extreme on *every* spectrum. In short, the Pope is wrong. But the male dominance of the post-Nicene Church *depends* on a binary and so assumes that is the only viable “human identity”. Luckily, biology and history prove that ‘human identity’ is much more than the misogynistic political and social power offered by the Church.

  • cullenD

    A weak pope hitting the “soft targets”, homosexuality and secularism. Who are killing and displacing christians? Oh yes gay people, and their secular supporters in the West. It seems that he learned to appease muslims, after a wrist-slap, when he picked a powerful enemy.   

    And again he failed to “pick his enemies”. He didn’t choose where all religion is suppressed, N. Korea, Laos, Vietnam or China. Places where an enforced ideology is used to shackle people. No homosexuaulity is the biggest threat to peace. 

  • Parasum

    What the Pope is referring to, and what the CCC is saying about gay people, are different issues entirely.

    There is all the difference in the world having a sexual orientation, and sahing it is in the power of the human person to become what he wants. The Pope is rejecting – surely rightly – the myth of the self-made man who is master of everything about himself. He can hardly do otherwise, ass from a Christian POV it is a deeply anti-Christian & blasphemous myth.

    That is a very long way indeed from attacking gay people, and the press do no-one any favours by spreading fictions about the Pope, which in their reporting of this speech is what they are doing. This is not professional journalism, but a failure to check the facts. to criticise someone is one thing – to propagate fiction about them is something else again.

    A link to the speech to the Curia:

    See the paragraph beginning: “The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim…” about half-way down the page.

  • Parasum

    That gets us nowhere fast: Jesus does not suggest that the Levitical priesthood will end, either. It would be very easy to read what He does say as expressing a vision like that of some OT Prophets, in which the religion of all nations would be Judaism. What Jesus founded can be seen as a universalised Judaism, with some modifications by Him; not a religion based around Him.

    If Jesus had been a Torah-observant Jew *and no more*, He would not have made a habit of “doing the wrong thing” all the time, as (for instance) by mixing with “the wrong crowd” He did: with people “outside the Law” because of being unclean for various reasons. A Torah-observant Jew would not have allowed himself to be crucified. 

    Most Jews made a point of getting married, for sound OT reasons – Jesus rather conspicuously did not. Instead, He had a lot to say about leaving all such ties for the Kingdom of Heaven; the Kingdom which He preached. He was “obsessed” (so to put it) with that; it colours everything He said and did. STM that He cared for nothing else.  An apocalyptic Prophet Who is possessed by the thought of the Kingdom of God  is not likely to be concerned with “family values” – He had no time for them: He said:  “Follow Me” – not “Follow Me once you have said goodbye to your family, or buried your father”. Nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus say anything about the family – St. Paul, in a very different setting, does.

  • Inquisator

    ‘Benedict seems not to understand this basic reality of individual human experience.’ 

    Or chooses not to for fear of what he might find ( or has found) about his very self. 

  • Joe Zammit

    God has created humanity male and female.

    God has created humanity in grace.

    Humanity disobeyed God and fell into sin. The consequences: loss of grace, concupiscence, suffering and death.

    So now we all have some evil inclination. This evil inclination does in no way change our sex: if we are male, we must remain male under pain of mortal sin; if we are female, we must remain female under pain of mortal sin.

    God has not created us heterosexual or homosexual; he has created us human beings. The inclination in us does in no way give us the right to live in sin. We live in sin whenever we indulge in sexual acts outside of marriage, marriage to be understood ONLY as a union between one man and one woman for ever.

    That’s why fornication, homosexuality, adultery, sodomy, maturbation, etc are all grievous sins that separate the sinner from God and put them on the path to hell.

    What God has ordered in his Ten Commandments cannot be changed by any philosophy, media, opinion or false conscience. If one has a false conscience one is obliged before God to ignore it. Follow the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. That is the truth. Discern your conscience through the teachings of the Catholic Church.  

  • Arden Forester

    The new doctrinaires are now talking about “gender and sex” which just about sums up their ignorance. Gender apparently now means any one of a hundred different sexual inclinations and sex now means “having sex”. As the late Lord Hailsham said in a letter to the hapless health secretary of the time, Norman Fowler, about the health department’s AIDS publicity, “there is no such thing as having sex. Sex is what you are, male or female!”.

  • Samuel

    Wonderful and very articulate discourse.

  • Pingback: Pope Lays The Foundation For Our Murders, Again. | Planet Transgender