アーカイブ

＊「勝手な変更で無効となる秘跡が増えている」

　教理省のヴィクトル・フェルナンデス長官は記者会見で、同文書を発出した理由について、「秘跡が無効であることを認めざるを得ない状況が増加しており、秘跡の内容を勝手に変えることで、洗礼や堅信の秘跡を受け直さなければならない人を見つける必要が生じ、少なくない数の信徒たちが動揺していることが、文書作成のきっかけとなった」と説明。

　秘跡の典礼に変更を加えた例として、洗礼を授ける際、「私は、創造主の名において、あなたに洗礼を授けます」、あるいは「私は、父と母の名によって、あなたに洗礼を授けます」などを挙げ、司祭の中にも、「秘跡の誤った形で洗礼を受け、自身の司祭叙階やその時までに受けた秘跡が無効であることに気付き、苦悩している」例がある、と述べた。

　また、教会の他の司牧活動の分野、創造性のための裁量が広く認められているのに対し、秘跡の司式においては「むしろ、意図的な変更がされている」と指摘した。

＊「神の働きを保証する義務がある」

　　この文書は「緊密につながった儀式と言葉を通して、神はすべての人に対するご自身の救いの計画を啓示される」とする一方で、「典礼、特に秘跡の司式が、教会が定めた儀式に完全に忠実に行われている訳ではないことを認めざるを得ない」状況がある、とし、教会は典礼を通して「神の働きの最重要性を保証し、キリストの体の一致を守る義務がある…　その典礼における行為は、特別聖なるものであるがゆえに、何ものにも似ることのない、唯一のものである」と強調している。

＊秘跡における要素と形式

　さらに、「秘跡の要素は、キリストがそれを通して働かれる人間の行為において成り立っている」とし、「秘跡を形作る要素の中には、物質的なもの（水、パン、ぶどう酒、油など）もあれば、特別な意味を雄弁に表す行為（十字のしるし、按手、水に沈める、口頭による承諾、塗油など）もある」と指摘。

　秘跡の式文は「超越的な意味を与える言葉によって成り立ち、その言葉によって、物的要素が持つ通常の意味と、純粋に人的な行為の意味を変容させる」。そうしたことから、秘跡を構成する要素と式文は、「個人あるいは一共同体の意思によるものでは決してなく、またその意思によってはならない」と言明している。

＊要素と式文は変えられない

　　そして、「あらゆる秘跡にとって、いかなる場合でも、その要素と式文を遵守することは、儀式の有効性のために常に要求される」ことを確認し、「要素と式文に対する独断的な変更は、秘跡の恵みが有効にほどこされたかどうかを危うくし、明らかな被害を信者にもたらす」と注意。「公式に発布された典礼書に書かれていることは、「一切付け加えたり、取り除いたり、変更することなく」、忠実に厳守されねばならない、と強調している。

　論文集は、昨年年5月にイタリア中部トスカーナ州・ルッカで開催された国際会議の成果をまとめ、記録したもの。ルッカ教区は、2023年、地元出身で、日本で殉教した宣教師、福者アンジェロ・オルスッチ神父（1573-1622）の殉教から400年と、生誕から450年を記念し、「Thesaurum Fidei（信仰の宝）、日本の殉教宣教者と潜伏キリシタン、300年のキリストへの英雄的忠実」と題した、日本におけるキリスト教宣教の歴史を振り返るプロジェクトを立ち上げた。

　福者アンジェロ・オルスッチ神父は、トスカーナ・ルッカの貴族の家系に生まれ、若くしてドミニコ会に入会。宣教師を志し、メキシコ、フィリピンで活動後、1618年8月にキリシタン弾圧の日本に渡り、布教活動を始めて間もなく長崎で捕らえられ、大村の牢に入れられた。1622年9月10日、他の司祭、修道士、信者たちと共に長崎・西坂の丘で殉教。1867年、教皇ピオ9世が日本205福者殉教者（江戸時代初期の日本における205人の殉教者）の一人として列福された。

　ルッカ教区の企画では、殉教400年および生誕450年を迎えた福者オルスッチ神父の生涯・霊性と共に、主にキリスト教伝来から禁教時代にかけての日本のキリスト教史・福音宣教史を、展覧会と国際会議という2つのイベントを通して回顧した。

　展覧会は、昨年5月にルッカ市内の聖クリストフォロ教会、国立図書館、国立文書館、ルッカ教区歴史資料館の4カ所で開かれ、日本の宣教殉教者、潜伏キリシタンの様子を伝える貴重な史料の紹介や、日本のキリスト教史をわかりやすくまとめたパネル展示などがされた。

　同じ月に開かれた国際会議は、「日本での福音宣教の始まり」「日本における宣教師と殉教者」「福者アンジェロ・オルスッチ」「欧州に伝えられた日本の殉教者」「潜伏キリシタン」などをテーマに、イタリアはもとより、日本やアメリカなどからの研究者が参加し、2日間にわたり発表された。

このルッカで始められた企画事業「Thesaurum Fidei」は、現在ローマに会場を移して続けられ、展覧会は、1月18日まで、ローマの教皇庁立ウルバニアン大学で開催。さらに、2月19日から教皇庁立グレゴリアン大学でも開かれる予定だ。

　24日のルッカでの国際会議の内容を記録した論文集の発表会には、バチカン図書館のサローネ・システィーノで行われ、出席した千葉明・駐バチカン日本国特命全権大使は挨拶で「プロジェクトThesaurum Fideiが焦点を当てる時代は、痛ましいと同時に、心をとらえる時代。特に地理的・文化的にかけ離れた二国間の関係の歴史の開始となったという意味で重要な時期です。現在その関係は、正義と平和と対話の名のもとに、友情と協力によって強く結ばれるに至っています」と語った。

　続いて、バチカン図書館前図書館長チェーザレ・パシーニ師、福音宣教省歴史文書館館長フラヴィオ・ベッルウオミニ師、パヴィア大学のオリンピア・ニリオ教授らによって、ルッカでの国際会議の成果であるこの論文集を紹介し、日本の潜伏キリシタンとその殉教の歴史、厳しい迫害の様子、キリストに倣う者として苦しみと死をも完全に受け入れる人々の強い信仰の態度などを改めて振り返った。

（編集「カトリック・あい」）

　エスカランテ・モリーナ大司教は、1965年1月29日、ベネズエラのラ・グリタで生まれの58歳。1989年に叙階、教会法を修め、1998年に聖座外交団に入り、スーダン、ガーナ、マルタ、ニカラグア、日本、スロベニアの教皇大使館に勤務したあと、コンゴ共和国、ガボンで教皇大使を務め、2021年から駐ハイチ教皇大使を務めている。

（編集「カトリック・あい」）

　その一方で、副長官は、祈りの年は「特別な取り組みが行われる年ではなく、祈りの価値とキリスト教生活における毎日の祈りの必要性を再発見する機会」であり、「現在のデジタル文化の時代に、祈りが効果的で実りあるものとなるように、祈り方、そして人々に祈りを教える方法を発見する機会」と説明。

　「現代において霊性を深める必要が明確になっている。いつも十字架のしるしをする人から日々の聖体祭儀に参加する人まで、さまざまな人がおり、祈り方も、素早い祈りから、落ち着かない祈り、痛みの涙で満たされた祈り、そして瞑想的な祈りまで多岐にわたります」と指摘。「祈りはあらかじめ確立されたパターンでとらえることはできません。それは、私たちの信仰を特徴づける親密で排他的な、信者と神ご自身との個人的な関係の現れだからです」と述べた。

　また副長官は、 祈り年は、「主との関係を育む方法として、真の精神的な休息の瞬間を提供するもの。祈りは、日々のストレスから守るオアシス、そこで祈りは、キリスト教徒の信仰、希望、慈愛の生活の栄養」であり、それを助けるために、福音宣教省は、個々の信者や共同体が使うことのできる、一連の資料を準備してきた、と説明。

　一連の資料に先立って、副長官はまず、教皇が2020年5月6日から2021年6月16日にかけてなさった水曜の一般謁見での38回の連続講話の再読を勧めた。

　そして、福音宣教省が準備している一連の資料について、ベル次官が「Notes on Prayer」という共通のタイトルで8冊のシリーズの出版、配布を計画しており、23日にその第一冊として、前バチカン市国総代理のアンジェロ・コマストリ枢機卿執筆の”Praying Today. A Challenge to Be Overcome”がバチカン出版から発行。「リジューの聖テレジア、アッシジの聖フランシスコ、カルカッタのマザー・テレサなど、祈りの実りを証しした人物に焦点を当てることで、祈りの必要性と、『異なる視線と異なる心』を持つための教えを思い起させるものとなっている」という。

　この冊子に続く発行予定は、Gianfranco Ravasi” Praying with the Psalms ”(2月)、 Juan López Vergara” The Prayer of Jesus” (同2月)、 Paul Murray” OP, Praying with Saints and Sinners” (3月）、 Antonio Pitta” Parables on Prayer” (3月）、 Carthusian Monks” The Church in Prayer” (3月)、 Catherine Aubin” The Prayer of Mary and the Saints” (4月）、 Ugo Vanni” The Prayer Jesus Taught Us: The ‘Our Father’” (4月)となっている。

　これら8つの冊子の発行に合わせて、福音宣教省は、教会共同体、家庭、司祭、修道院、若者向けに、さまざまな祈りの助けとなる材料を準備する計画だ。

　また副長官は、教皇ご自身が年内に「祈りの学校」を設立されること明らかにし、その役割として、「共に祈り、様々な祈りの形―感謝から執り成し、感想から慰め、崇敬から嘆願まで―をより良く理解するための、特定の人々の集団との出会いの一連の機会となるだろう」と説明。

　最後に、教皇の次の言葉を引用して、会見を締めくくった。「司教、司祭、助祭、そしてカテキスタは、今の困難な時に『2025年の聖年が響き渡らせる希望の宣言の中心に、祈りを置く適切な方法』を見つけるに違いないと確信している」。

（翻訳・編集「カトリック・あい」南條俊二）

Pope Francis has inaugurated a Year of Prayer ahead of the 2025 Jubilee, calling on the faithful “to intensify prayer to prepare us to live well this event of grace and to experience the power of God’s hope.”

In remarks after the Angelus on Sunday, the Holy Father explained that the Year of Prayer is dedicated “to rediscovering the great value and absolute need for prayer, prayer in personal life, in the life of the Church, prayer in the world.”

He added that the Dicastery for Evangelization will be preparing materials to assist in celebrating the Year.

The Pope invited Christians to pray especially for Christian unity, and “to not tire of invoking the Lord for peace in Ukraine, in Israel and Palestine, and in so many other parts of the world,” including Ecuador.

Once again he emphasized that those who suffer most from the lack of peace are the weakest among us. “I think of the little ones,” Pope Francis said, “the many children who are injured and killed, those who are deprived of affection, deprived of their dreams and their future.”

“Let us all be aware of our responsibility to pray and to build peace for them!”

Focusing on the Caribbean nation of Haiti, Pope Francis said, “I have learned with sorrow the news of the kidnapping, in Haiti, of a group of people, including six religious sisters.”

The abduction took place in the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince on Friday, when armed men stopped a minibus and took the passengers hostage.

In his remarks on Sunday, the Pope appealed “earnestly” for the release of all the hostages, while praying for “social harmony” in the country. “I call on everyone to stop the vioence,” he said, “which causes so much suffering to that dear population.”

　教理省のこの宣言は昨年12月18日に発表されたが、それ以来、世界の司教や司教協議会からさまざまな意見が出されている。

4日の長官声明は「いつくかの司教協議会の意見は理解できるものであり、それは長い司牧的考察の期間の必要を浮かび上がらせている。これらの司教協議会が述べる事柄は、教義に反するものとは解釈できない。なぜなら、宣言「Fiducia supplicans」は結婚と性のあり方について、明確で従来どおりの立場をとっているからだ。宣言の中には、疑念の余地を与えない、いくつかの強い言葉がある」と述べている。

また声明は、「Fiducia supplicans」の中で、「結婚の教義は変わらず、カトリック教会には結婚において男性と女性の関係のみが認められている」と明確に示す部分（序文、4節、5節、11節）を列挙。「この宣言から教理的に距離を置くための、あるいは異端的である、教会の伝統に反する、冒涜的であると捉えるための余地は明らかにない」と強調している。

さらに、「Fiducia supplicans」は、短いシンプルな司牧的な祝福（典礼でも、儀式でもない）を、イレギュラーなカップルに（彼らのユニオンにではなく）授ける可能性に開くものだが、「それは典礼の形を伴わない祝福であり、これらの人々の立場における状況を認可したり、正当化するものではない」としている。

そのうえで、声明は、宣言が「その実際面において、地方の状況と各教区の司教の識別に従い、その適用に多少の時間を要する可能性」を認め、「ある場所では、それをすぐに適用するのに問題がないが、別のある場所では、何も変えることなく、文書の熟読と解釈のために可能な限り時間を取る必要がある場合がある」ことを指摘。

世界の現地の司教たちは、「任地における判断、すなわち他者よりも自分が一番よく知っている具体的な場所における判断」を任されており、「現地の教会的・文化的背景への慎重さと注意により、様々な適用のあり方が認められる可能性はある」としつつ、「（「Fiducia supplicans」によって）司祭たちに提示されたこの歩みを、完全、あるいは決定的に否定するものではない」と念を押している。

また、司教協議会全体が取る立場については、「その背景において理解される」と述べ、「いくつかの国は、時間と長期的な司牧戦略を要する文化的、法的な強固な問題を抱えている。『自分は同性愛者だ』と言明するだけで投獄され、拷問や死刑の判決を下すこともあり得る法律のある国において、祝福が、慎重を欠く行為となることは言うまでもない。司教らが同性愛者を暴力にさらしたくない、と考えるのは当然である」としている。

そして、そうした状況にある司教協議会が、「教皇が署名、認可した「Fiducia supplicans」と異なる教義を支持せず、このような背景において司牧的慎重さをもって行動するための、研究と識別の必要を提案することが重要である」と述べている。

また、声明は、すべての司教は自らの教区で「慎重と注意に関するすべての勧告を踏まえ」、こうしたシンプルな祝福を与えることが許可されているが、「典礼儀式に似る可能性のある祝福を提案する、あるいは始めることは、いかなる形においても許可されていない」と言明。

「おそらく、いくつかの場所では、このシンプルな祝福は、それを求める人々がおくる生活を承認することを意味しない、との理解を助けるカテケーシスが必要となるかもしれない」とし、これらの行為は、秘跡あるいは典礼とはかけ離れたものであるがゆえに、ましてこれらは『赦し』であることはない。このシンプルな祝福は、秘跡や正式な儀式と同じ要求を課さない、司牧的な寄り添いのシンプルな表現である」と念を押している。

Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans　4 January 2024

We are writing this Press Release to help clarify the reception of Fiducia supplicans, while recommending at the same time a full and calm reading of the Declaration so as to better understand its meaning and purpose.

1. Doctrine

The understandable statements of some Episcopal Conferences regarding the document Fiducia supplicans have the value of highlighting the need for a more extended period of pastoral reflection. What is expressed by these Episcopal Conferences cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition, because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality. There are several indisputable phrases in the Declaration that leave this in no doubt:

«This Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion». One acts in these situations of couples in irregular situations «without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage» (Presentation).

«Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage – which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” – and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm» (4).

«Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex» (5).

«For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice» (11).

Evidently, there is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this Declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church or blasphemous.

Some Bishops, however, express themselves in particular regarding a practical aspect: the possible blessings of couples in irregular situations. The Declaration contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions), underlining that these are blessings without a liturgical format which neither approve nor justify the situation in which these people find themselves.

Documents of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith such as Fiducia supplicans, in their practical aspects, may require more or less time for their application depending on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan Bishop with his Diocese. In some places no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation.

Some Bishops, for example, have established that each priest must carry out the work of discernment and that he may, however, perform these blessings only in private. None of this is problematic if it is expressed with due respect for a text signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself, while attempting in some way to accommodate the reflection contained in it.

Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests.

3. The delicate situation of some countries

The cases of some Episcopal Conferences must be understood in their contexts. In several countries there are strong cultural and even legal issues that require time and pastoral strategies that go beyond the short term.

If there are laws that condemn the mere act of declaring oneself as a homosexual with prison and in some cases with torture and even death, it goes without saying that a blessing would be imprudent.  It is clear that the Bishops do not wish to expose homosexual persons to violence.  It remains vital that these Episcopal Conferences do not support a doctrine different from that of the Declaration signed by the Pope, given that it is perennial doctrine, but rather that they recommend the need for study and discernment so as to act with pastoral prudence in such a context.

In truth, there are not a few countries that, to varying degrees, condemn, prohibit and criminalize homosexuality.  In these cases, apart from the question of blessings, there exists a great and wide-ranging pastoral responsibility that includes training, the defense of human dignity, the teaching of the Social Doctrine of the Church and various strategies that do not admit of a rushed response.

4. The real novelty of the document

The real novelty of this Declaration, the one that requires a generous effort of reception and from which no one should declare themselves excluded, is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: “liturgical or ritualized” and “spontaneous or pastoral”. The Presentation clearly explains that «the value of this document […] is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective».  This «theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church».

In the background is found the positive evaluation of “popular pastoral care” which appears in many of the Holy Father’s texts. In this context, the Holy Father invites us to value the simple faith of the People of God who, even in the midst of their sins, emerge from their everyday lives and open their hearts to ask for God’s help.

For this reason, rather than the blessing of couples in irregular unions, the text of the Dicastery has adopted the other profile of a “Declaration”, which is much more than a responsum or a letter. The central theme, which invites us especially to a deeper pastoral practice which enriches our pastoral praxis, is to have a broader understanding of blessings and of the proposal that these pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context, flourish.  Consequently, leaving polemics aside, the text requires an effort to reflect serenely, with the heart of shepherds, free from all ideology.

Although some Bishops consider it prudent not to impart these blessings for the moment, we all need to grow equally in the conviction that: non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead. When the Pope asked us to grow in a broader understanding of pastoral blessings, he proposed that we think of a way of blessing that does not require the placing of so many conditions to carry out this simple gesture of pastoral closeness, which is a means of promoting openness to God in the midst of the most diverse circumstances.

5. How do these “pastoral blessings” present themselves in concrete terms?

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, “pastoral blessings” must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable.  Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an “approval” or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help. Therefore, in this case, the pastor does not impose conditions and does not enquire about the intimate lives of these people.

Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: “Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: may God help us!”.

In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help.  Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen”. Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons.

We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny these kinds of blessings to these two people who ask for them? Is it not more appropriate to support their faith, whether it be small or great, to assist them in their weaknesses with a divine blessing, and to channel that openness to transcendence which could lead them to be more faithful to the Gospel?

In order to avoid any doubt, the Declaration adds that, when the blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, «even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple» (n. 39). It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion.

For this reason, every Bishop in his Diocese is authorized by the Declaration Fiducia supplicans to make this type of simple blessing available, bearing in mind the need for prudence and care, but in no way is he authorized to propose or make blessings available that may resemble a liturgical rite.

6. Catechesis

In some places, perhaps, some catechesis will be necessary that can help everyone to understand that these types of blessings are not an endorsement of the life led by those who request them. Even less are they an absolution, as these gestures are far from being a sacrament or a rite. They are simple expressions of pastoral closeness that do not impose the same requirements as a sacrament or a formal rite. We will all have to become accustomed to accepting the fact that, if a priest gives this type of simple blessings, he is not a heretic, he is not ratifying anything nor is he denying Catholic doctrine.

We can help God’s People to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union.  In reality the same happens when individuals are blessed, as the individual who asks for a blessing – not absolution – could be a great sinner, but this does not mean we deny him this paternal gesture in the midst of his struggle to survive.

If this is clarified as a result of good catechesis, we can free ourselves from the fear that these blessings of ours may express something inadequate. We can be freer and perhaps closer and more fruitful ministers, with a ministry that is full of gestures of fatherhood and hospitality, without fear of being misunderstood.

We ask the newly-born Lord to shower a generous and gracious blessing upon everyone so that we can live a holy and happy 2024.

Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández　Prefect

Mons. Armando Matteo　Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

　声明は、2014年6月8日、教皇がイスラエルのペレス大統領（当時）と、パレスチナのアッバス大統領と共に、バチカン庭園で平和を祈願した際の祈りを次のように引用している。

　「平和の神である主よ、私たちの願いを聞き入れてください。私たちに平和を与え、私たちに平和を教え、私たちを平和へと導いてください。私たちの目と心を開き、『もう戦争はたくさんだ』『戦争はすべてを破壊する』と言う勇気をお与えください。平和を築くための具体的な行動への勇気を私たちに植えつけてください。そして、分裂、憎しみ、戦争という、これらの言葉がすべての人の心から追放されますように。主よ、私たちの舌と手の武装を解いてください。心と思いを改め、私たちの出会いの言葉が常に『兄弟』となり、わたしたちの生き方が、シャローム、平和、サラームになりますように」

　「クライェウスキ長官は、世の唯一の希望であるイエスの生誕を祝うため、ラテン典礼エルサレム総大司教、そして現地の全教会と共に、この平和の祈りに一致するでしょう」と声明は述べている。

（編集「カトリック・あい」）

　これは、教理省によって発表され、教皇フランシスコによって承認された、「祝福の司牧的意味をめぐる宣言“Fiducia supplicans” が明言することである。

　同文書は、祝福のテーマを掘り下げ、儀式および典礼としての祝福と、民間的な信心のしるしにより似た自発的な祝福を区別している。この文書で、キリスト教倫理の教義の規範に沿って生活してはいないが、謙虚に祝福されることを願う人々をも温かく迎える可能性が考慮されているのは、まさにこの後者の場合においてである。

　教理省が高い教理的価値をもつ文書を発表するのは、2000年8月に発表された “Dominus Jesus”以来、23年ぶりとなる。

　“Fiducia supplicans” の序文で、教理省長官ヴィクトル・マヌエル・フェルナンデス枢機卿は、この宣言文が「教皇フランシスコの司牧的ビジョンに基づいた」神学的考察を通して「昔からの理解を広げ、豊かに」しながら、「祝福の司牧的意味」の探究を可能にしたと説明している。

　また、この考察は、これまで「祝福をめぐり言われてきたことに対し、真の発展を暗示する」ものであり、「irregularな状態にあるカップルや同性のカップルを、その立場を教会法的に認可することなく、あるいは、結婚をめぐる教会の永遠の教えをいかなる方法でも修正することなく、祝福する」ことの理解を可能にした、と述べている。

（翻訳・バチカン放送、編集「カトリック・あい」）

（翻訳・編集「カトリック・あい」南條俊二・南條衛）

　ブラウン会長との一問一答の概要は以下の通り。（ここまでの翻訳編集は「カトリック・あい」。以下英文のまま）

Joseph Tulloch, Vatican News: What is your initial reaction to the COP final document?

Professor Joachim von Braun, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: COP28 experienced a lot of global attention, so the expectations were high. I must say my expectations were not as high, having been around on the campus in Dubai. But I’m all in all pleasantly surprised about the final outcome document.

I was reading earlier a statement from CAFOD, the UK branch of Caritas, which said that the Pope “may be disappointed” by the outcome, because he had pushed for stronger action. Do you think that’s accurate?

If we look at the statement of Pope Francis that was presented at the beginning of COP28, we see a significant congruence with some key points in the outcome document. Pope Francis had asked for phasing out carbon emissions related to coal, oil, and gas. Well, the formulations there are softer, and that’s why disappointment is appropriate. But for the first time, “phasing down”, that’s a formulation in the outcome document, the so-called ‘stock-taking document’ to be formal, and it’s a breakthrough.

And the focus on transition to Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is also new. We would have wished for an end to coal and an end to gas and an end to oil by 2050, as was also the wish of Pope Francis.

Our interview with Joachim von Braun

Another theme that’s important to the Holy See is help for poorer countries, which are not the leading cause of climate change, but will suffer the majority of the consequences. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about the steps that were taken towards a Loss and Damage fund for poorer countries.

The address by Pope Francis had a call for a focus on poverty, respect for indigenous peoples, a focus on food and agriculture and water, resilience and sustainability. These topics we find in the outcome document. However, not strongly enough.

The idea is that we move to climate justice by transferring more resources to low-income countries where climate change – the climate crisis, I would say – shows the biggest impact. These resources are too small, still too small. There are improvements in climate finance –  90 billion are currently on the table, with the idea to double these climate finance resources in the coming years. The Green Climate Fund also got more resources, 12 billion.

But the problem is the focus on the poor would require a lot more finance for climate adaptation and that’s not yet happening. For instance, in the critical sector of food system and agriculture there’s only 4% of climate finance and that matters most for the poor.

We’re talking about the Pope’s message, and the Holy See’s message, but as we know the Pope wasn’t able to be there in person for health reasons, and I’m wondering what difference you think that made to the Pope’s message and to the Holy See’s diplomacy at this COP?

I think it was properly recognized that Pope Francis couldn’t come for health reasons. He was there in spirit, and the voice of Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State, got a lot of attention. I think that was appropriately recognized.

And, by the way, there was a faith pavilion on the campus right in the middle of it, which I also visited, and interacted with some of the delegates there. So the idea which we had promoted here from the Vatican’s Academy of Sciences, namely the dialogues between science and faith for climate change, does continue, and that process must continue in the future. We will engage in that.

We had on the table here a moment ago a statement produced by your Academy, and I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about that?

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been engaged in climate science matters and climate policy matters for about 10 years already. And in the run up to COP 28, the Academies of Science and Social Sciences came together and, building on a conference which we had last year, drafted a statement of our perspective, what needs to change at COP28.

Let me just highlight three points.

We ask for a new approach, which combines bending the warming curve, accelerating adaptation – so dealing with the acute climate crisis from the perspective of poor people, the bottom three billion – and investing in transforming our economic systems. The transformation includes also a focus on changing our consumption habits.

Secondly, we call for a broader inclusion of local communities. We cannot leave the climate policy agenda to heads of states and the COP process. So we call for a meeting of mayors and governors and local people and civil society and corporate actors for a conference which we plan next year in May here in the Vatican.

And thirdly, we ask for a much stronger focus on science and sharing science, because adaptation and dealing with climate risks also is a problem of climate change and health, and  requires knowledge, science, education. The world scientific communities need to come together to share scientific insights with low-income countries in order to strengthen our capacity to deal with climate problems.

You said something about the Faith Pavilion at COP and some of your experience there. I believe I’m right in saying this is the first time there’s ever been a Faith Pavilion, and I wonder if there’s anything more you wanted to say about that?

In the preparation of this COP, faith communities came together and lobbied for a more significant positioning in the ‘market of opportunities’ of the COP. You can imagine that on the campus of Dubai, there are hundreds of organizations who present their thoughts, their technologies, and their concerns. Since the COP in Glasgow, so two years ago, faith-based communities have come together with science communities.

I think that’s the real novelty. It’s not just faith, it’s not just science, but it’s faith and science, articulating what needs to happen from a perspective of scientific insights and moral and ethical perspectives. The two must go together and there is some progress to be felt in this COP and the previous one.

It’s very impressive how inter-religious it is – there’s representation from many Christian denominations, from the Muslim Council of Elders, and so on …

That’s right. In the faith and science dialogues, we had top representatives of more than 30 world religions, so Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jain and what have you.

Why do they come together? Because they care for Earth – Mother Earth, some of them call it – and they care for the future of humanity.

Is there anything you want to add?

Maybe one more point. It is time to think fundamentally about the need for reform of the COP processes. These COP processes have played an important role, especially since the Paris Agreement, which articulated that we need to try to control global temperature increases at most to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

But we need much more action-oriented communities to come together. That requires local government, more inclusiveness of people who are affected, and forming coalitions of the willing. The complete consensus of 200 plus countries at these COPs makes consensus building too difficult. We have already lost too much time.  And that’s why communities of science, faith, investment, corporate, government at different levels need to come to a governance reform on transforming climate policy.