Imagine being in front of Pope Francis.
What would you like to ask him?
He will answer in a book that will be published in the next months.

Type here your question.

  • Questions



    John Connor
    Pekný deň.


    Ak ľudskú dušu bezprostredne stvorí Boh,/KKC 366/je duša zaťažená dedičným hriechom?
    Ako je to možne,že duša môže existovať bez tela po smrti?/jednota duše a tela/
    Prečo čakajú všetky ľudské duše bez tiel po smrti na posledný súd a kde čakajú?/vraj len duša s telom môže sa radovať a trpieť/
    Prečo nenastáva vzkriesenie tiel po smrti ako v prípade Panny Márie?/diskriminácia tiel?/
    Je peklo večné?/apokatastáza/
    Kedy príde Ježiš Kristus vládnuť na Zem 1000 rokov?/zjavenie sv.Jána 20,4-5/


    Je bližšie a je istejšia udalosť úplnej technickej nesmrteľnosti/„zdigitalizovanie osôb a napojenie na vesmírny zdroj“/ alebo udalosť Ježišových zázrakov pri parúzii?

    Ďakujem pekne za odpovede.
    Las personas que se divorcian que son millones en el mundo, por muchas causas son acusadas de adulterio cuando se vuelven a casar y discriminadas por la iglesia. Algunos como yo que se casan por primera vez, con un hombre divorciado porque le fueron infiel no nos importa eso, sin embargo, cuando mi misma tía una de las más cercanas a mi, no fue a mi ceremonia civil y me enteré que es porque como ella es catolica del opus dei y mi matrimonios no es bien visto me generó una gran decepción. Yo soy criada en religión catolica, soy creyente como mi esposo, y vamos a misa de vez en cuando, además estoy segura que de querer puedo comulgar que nadie se va a enterar ni Dios me va a negar ese sacramento. Estoy segura que no estoy viviendo en adulterio porque para mi esa palabra se refiera a tener una relación por fuera de mí matrimonio. En el que soy inmensamente feliz. Como ouede ayudar a que personas como yo que aman a su projimo, que sirve a los dema,s que es fiel y creyente no seamos mas señaladas por catolicos obtusos y retrogrados de adulterio?
    Raphael Lightfoot
    Greetings, Most Holy Father, and may the grace of Christ always lead Your Holiness on the straight path in all things, but especially in the leadership of the flock which has been entrusted to you.
    I am Raphael. I am no one special. I am not a scholar of any sort, though I have earnestly studied several of the philosophical works of the Doctors of the Church (in addition to the catechism) in search of answers. I am not confirmed into the Church, but I am in the process of conversion to the Catholic Faith which will, by the grace of God, culminate in my baptism and confirmation within a year of the date of this letter. Therefore, I must make emphatically clear at the start that I shall willingly conform to and profess the doctrines of the Church, wherever she shall lead me. With that said, perhaps because of my own closeness to my own condition, or perhaps because of a willing self-blindness, or perhaps (I earnestly hope, if I am to continue this letter in honesty) because I see a clear injustice in how the Church rules on the issue, I perceive a problem which I need guidance on that hasn’t been met by people I may speak with in person. I plead with you, that you would consider my position, and provide the appropriate direction.
    The issue of which I speak is the expression of sexuality between members of the same sex. I come to this issue from the perspective of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ formulation of natural law theory, as this is the most defensible position to take for those who consider homosexual expressions of sexuality to be objectively and gravely sinful. Because reason can never truly contradict Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, the fact that I am unable to personally find sound justification for the declaration that homosexual activity is inherently sinful is something which truly disturbs my faith, and it is an anguish I wish to resolve in concord with Church teaching. I hope I am coherent in my letter, which takes the form of an essay for the sake of clarity on my part, and I sincerely hope that, if I am correct in my thinking, that I may succeed in making an impact and, if I am wrong, that the Holy Spirit leads me, through you, to the truth as swiftly as possible. I thank you for your time, and may the Lord bless you in all things.
    I have the honor to profess myself with the most profound respect. Your Holiness’ most obedient and humble servant,


    Much of Catholic morality is grounded in the notion of natural law, that notion that man is capable of attaining objective moral truths through the faculty of reason, without need for special divine revelation. This is the view which the illustrious Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, took when developing his philosophy now known to us as Thomism, a philosophical system which has done wonders for presenting Catholic doctrine in a rational manner. It is because of Saint Thomas that I decided to become Catholic and am, at the time of this letter’s composition, a catechumen of the Church. However, as a gay man attempting to form his conscience in light of the Catholic Church’s teachings on morality, I have remained unconvinced that the Church’s stance on sexual acts within a homosexual relationship are sound and, ironically, it is thanks to Saint Thomas, again, that I have been able to compile a case for the moral permissibility of homosexual sex acts within the framework of Thomistic natural law, despite Saint Thomas’ own views of homosexuality, known in his time as sodomy. The aim of this letter will be to attempt to show a rational case for the moral permissibility of homosexual sex acts within a committed relationship, grounded in natural law as expounded by Saint Thomas, by showing that, in circumstances beyond the control of the person who is affected by physiological defect or inborn proclivity, the dual final ends of human sexuality, the procreative and unitive, are indeed capable of being licitly separated from each other in homosexual persons, and that it would be harmful for the persons affected by such things out of their control, to attempt to pursue both of these ends together when it is not in their individual natures to do so, as well as harmful if they are forbidden from pursuing romance and intimacy from persons they have an inborn proclivity to desire to form romantic and intimate relationships with.
    First, a cursory explanation of sexual morality in natural law theory must be made, for the sake of clarity. Throughout Saint Thomas’ philosophy, the fact that all things in creation are ordered toward a telos or teloi, a final end or ends, is made clear at all times. Man’s final end, for example, is to know and love God. This principle is extended to the faculty of sexuality as well. Human sexuality is ordered toward the ends of procreation and a unitive bond (a bond which is fostered by the pleasure of the sex act) between the people who engage in the sex act with each other. These final ends, says Saint Thomas and later natural law theorists, must not be intentionally frustrated by the people engaged in the sex act in order to be morally good. Because of this, rape is objectively evil, for it frustrates the unitive end of sexuality (among other reasons). Contraception is likewise considered objectively immoral, because it is an intentional frustration of sexuality’s final end of procreation. These two ends must not ever be intentionally separated from each other; they must be, in principle, achievable in each sex act, in order for the sex act to be moral. This is also the reason homosexual sex acts are considered objectively immoral, because sexual acts between two people of the same sex are inherently incapable of generating offspring, thus frustrating the final end of procreation. The Catholic Church takes sexuality further and sanctifies it through the Sacrament of Matrimony. The final ends of procreation and unitive bonding remain, but these, through the sacrament, become channels of grace which the married couple receive from God, and this bond becomes a holy thing, so that the married couple may raise up children and aid each other, and their children, on their journey to Heaven.
    However, it is hard, in my understanding, to retain both of these final ends of sexuality in all instances of human sexual expression without at times becoming crudely reductive, focusing too much on the physical organs of sexuality and not enough on the fact that a human individual is, first and foremost, an individual, an end in himself, who brings unique traits to the table when determining how the broad, general principles of natural law applies to his nature specifically. One must not lose the forest for the trees. This is not to say that the dual final ends of human sexuality should ever be intentionally separated, contrary to the person’s individual human nature, frustrating one and allowing the other to be achieved; such an approach is indeed morally wrong in the light of natural law. But it is not because the final ends have been separated from each other that makes them morally wrong per se, it is the intentional act of separating them, when it is contrary to an individual’s nature to do so.
    This may need to be unpacked some in order for the implications to be shown clearly. Let us imagine a heterosexual, fertile couple who decides to use artificial contraception. Thomistic natural law decries such an action as morally wrong, because it is in the nature of both of these people to be fertile, thus separating the procreative from the unitive in their sexual act, frustrating the final end of procreation, is contrary to their natures as fertile people. Now let us imagine an infertile, heterosexual couple; perhaps the woman lost her uterus to cancer before marrying. The couple is, in principle, infertile, because the woman, through defect, has lost the very thing which makes her fertile. If the couple engages in sexual activity, there is no longer a procreative end in the sexual act that can be fulfilled, because the woman, through no fault of her own, has lost the ability to bear children; it is no longer in her individual nature to be fertile. But surely, if this couple continues to engage in sexual acts for the sake of unitive bonding, they are not committing a moral evil, because they are not intentionally frustrating the procreative end (how could they, when there is no possible, natural way to authentically fulfill the procreative end?), and this is the stance the Church indeed takes on infertile couples.
    But what of a homosexual couple engaging in the sex act? It is argued that a homosexual couple is wholly unlike an infertile couple, because when a homosexual couple engages in a sex act, they are intentionally frustrating the procreative end of sexuality, and thus the sex act is objectively wrong. But is this really so? Let us keep in mind that the Church already acknowledges that homosexuality is not something which can be changed; a gay man will not suddenly become straight. It is an inborn proclivity, one that will remain with the person who experiences it for life. The Church also already makes exceptions for infertile, heterosexual couples who cannot bear children even in principle, such as the hypothetical couple mentioned earlier; this can be taken as nothing more than an acknowledgment on the Church’s part that the procreative end of sexuality can indeed be licitly separated from the unitive end, if the separation is not intentional and authentic to the individual natures of the people involved, and this is not something which prevents the heterosexual couple from sacramentally marrying, either. With this in mind, it needs to be determined whether homosexuals who engage in sex acts with people of the same sex are intentionally frustrating the procreative end of sexuality or not.
    Considering that homosexuals experience their attraction to members of the same sex as a matter of inborn proclivity, and not due to a personal exertion of will, it is not so clear cut whether their sex acts are intentional frustrations of the procreative end. A heterosexual, fertile couple using artificial contraception is clearly making an active choice to prevent the possibility of procreation; a homosexual couple engaging in sex acts with each other in a committed and responsible fashion clearly are not actively attempting to prevent procreation, because the procreative end cannot be fulfilled, in principle, for much the same reason the hypothetical woman mentioned earlier who lost her uterus cannot fulfill the procreative end of sex, in principle; the only difference between them, other than their genders, is the woman was originally fertile but lost the ability to procreate, whereas a homosexual couple is not able to procreate naturally from the start. In neither case are these states intended by the people involved, and in neither case is there an intentional frustration of the procreative faculty taking place. It could be argued that a homosexual couple actually is capable of fulfilling the procreative faculty, if they were to engage in sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. But this places too much of a burden on the homosexual persons; they cannot authentically engage in sexual acts with someone they are not attracted to. By this it is meant, they would not authentically enjoy the sex act with a person of the opposite sex, because it is not aligned with their inborn proclivity, and as pleasure is the means through which the unitive end of sexuality is achieved, they would be sacrificing the unitive end of sexuality for the procreative end, but they do so intentionally, unlike if they behaved in a manner which was in accord with their true, authentic individual human nature, which includes the inborn proclivity to pursue same-sex romantic relationships. The intentional frustration of a final end of sexuality is always morally wrong, precisely because it is a willful act against a thing’s natural end when it need not be so. Unintentional frustration of a final end which occurs as a byproduct of an individual acting in a manner which is authentic to their individual human nature is not the same case; it may not be ideal, but not being ideal and being morally impermissible are not the same thing in all cases of human behavior, and sexuality is one of the areas where this occurs, either due to physical defect or inborn proclivity. Nor should it be the case that homosexuals, who cannot fulfill both the procreative and the unitive ends simultaneously in a homosexual act, should be expected to sacrifice both the procreative and unitive ends of their sexuality simply because they cannot fulfill the procreative; this is, at its core, an unjust discrimination against homosexual relationships, a discrimination which heterosexual couples who cannot in principle procreate naturally (but are still capable of achieving the unitive end) are not subjected to.
    It has been shown, I hope, that the unitive bond can indeed be separated from the procreative bond for valid, if perhaps not ideal, reasons, if the separation is not done intentionally, and the separation occurs as a side-effect of the people involved behaving in a manner authentic to their individual natures. But how can this be so at all? It may be an imperfect explanation, but the unity-in-duality of the human person may explain how, by way of analogy. By that I mean the fact that the human person is a unity composed of a material body and an immaterial soul. The material body is incapable of existing without the soul, which is it’s form, but the soul, immortal by nature, is indeed capable of existing without the body, albeit in a diminished state. Because of this, though man is both spiritual and material, he is ordered more toward the spiritual than he is the material, and so things of a spiritual nature are of more importance than those of a material nature. For instance, if I were given an ultimatum, that I can either have all the food I want but never be allowed to partake of the Eucharist (once I am baptized and confirmed), or I can partake of the Eucharist but never be allowed any other food source, I would be rightly justified in the Catholic view, I think, to choose the Eucharist over the regular food, even if I should starve to death, because the things which are of heaven, things which are spiritual, take precedence over the things which are material. This can be said for sexuality as well, though it is perhaps more nuanced than the former; procreation is the material aspect, the continuation of the species by way of producing more bodies (there is a spiritual aspect to procreation as well, in the creation of the soul by God, but this is beyond the realm of human capabilities). But the unitive end of sexuality is the spiritual aspect (there is, of course, a material aspect as well, that of the physical sexual act, but the spiritual aspect in the case of the unitive bond, unlike with the procreative end, is within the power of the human person to attain), that aspect of sexuality which nourishes the soul with the human goods of intimacy, concord, and love, and it is that end which should never be sacrificed and never has a legitimate reason to be sacrificed, unlike the procreative end (through unintentional defect or inborn proclivity), precisely because it is chiefly spiritual in its nature and thus takes precedence over the procreative end; and when sexuality is elevated to the level of a sacrament in Matrimony, the unitive end becomes a channel through which God’s grace flows, through which the couple may help each other reach Heaven, even if the procreative cannot be achieved for whatever reason. This provides another reason why it would be unjust to deny homosexual intimacy as morally permissible; if the spiritual precedes the physical, and the unitive is the spiritual end of sexuality while the procreative is the material, then even if homosexuals are not able to fulfill the procreative end, they are still able to fulfill the unitive, spiritual end without intentionally frustrating the procreative, material end; sacrificing the unitive end on the part of the homosexual by engaging in heterosexual sex acts is effectively placing the material over the spiritual in magnitude of importance, which is absurd, and it does not follow that simply because the procreative end cannot be achieved that the unitive end should not be pursued at all.
    The Church teaches that it is not sinful to be homosexual, but those who are homosexual must remain chaste. But, if I have succeeded in showing logical reasons why homosexual sexual relations can be morally permissible, if not the ideal state, then it remains to be seen why a mandate of lifelong celibacy must be placed on the shoulders of those who are homosexual, even if they cannot discern a call to a life of celibacy, or even if they require the companionship of a romantic partner for the sake of their wellbeing. It would be doing harm to them, unnecessarily, if indeed they may licitly have sexual relations with a member of the same sex in an ethical, responsible fashion, and through it achieve the unitive end of sexual activity, which may have the effect of making both persons involved better for it.
    Apreciado Papa Francisco

    Le escribo bastante preocupada y hasta un poco molesta por la siguiente situación.

    Vivo en la ciudad de Popayán, una ciudad caracterizada por su fé católica, por la cantidad de personas que nos visitan y visitan nuestras iglesias en semana santa. Una ciudad que fue visitada por el Santo Papa Juan Pablo II.

    Convivo en unión libre hace 12 años, hace mas de dos meses me he congregado y entregado plenamente a Dios Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo, he encontrado en el Santo Rosario y en la coronilla de la misericordia un espacio de oración y de comunicación permanente con Dios que ha hecho que de testimonio e invite a muchas personas que se encuentran afligidas a acercarse a Dios y la Iglesia Catolica.
    Dado lo anterior, Dios ha dispuesto en mi corazón el matrimonio y he querido hacerlo lo más pronto posible, sin embargo me encuentro con que solo dos parroquias en Popayán están autorizadas para hacer los cursillos y en fechas específicas...muy lejanas para mí.
    Considero que no debería ser así, y que todas las personas que se quieran casar deberían encontrar los cursos en cualquier iglesia.

    Le escribo porque he encontrado en usted y sus mensajes que llegan a mi correo a través de píldoras de fe y el libro minutos de amor, una esperanza de mejorar estas trabas que hacen que algunos se alejen de Dios y los sacramentos.

    Dios lo bendiga Papa y le de fuerza para no desfallecer nunca en su Fé. Si el maligno me ha querido molestar bastante, no me imagino cuanto no lo hará en una persona tan santa como usted.
    Papa Francisco.
    Prácticamente e perdido a mi mujer. Aún tengo esperanza de salvar nuestro matrimonio a pesar de sus infidelidades que le voy perdonando, pues creo en la familia y tenemos dos hijos maravillosos, buenos y sanos. Son una bendición de Dios. Yo Amo a mi mujer muchísimo, pero hace unos años, se hizo amiga de ella una mujer marroquí, sin moralidad alguna, y para quien el dinero y los "hombres con dinero, son lo primero" (esa es su manera de pensar). De una forma muy sutil y con los años, a contaminado a mi esposa de esa manera de pensar. Se metieron el las redes de "contactos para encontrar hombres" y estoy viviendo un infierno.
    Mi mujer Se llama Sagrario, Siempre a tenido en su corazón el amor, la humildad, la sensibilidad, el cariño y la ternura por los demás. Es decir, una persona como si el Espiritu Santo habilitara en ella. Hoy día, se ha transformado. Es fría, calculadora, se ha vuelto mentirosa, y no quiero mencionar más. Me reprocha mi fracaso en mis negocios y la deuda de la hipoteca de 260.000€ que tenemos. Que no podemos ya pagar los recibos de cada mes. Yo trabajo con desesperación y apenas podemos sobrellevar el mes con los gastos. No quiere ni dormir a mi lado, en nuestra cama, y cero relaciones intimas, hasta que no pague la hipoteca... hay veces que no deseo ni vivir... rezo a nuestro Señor Jesus con intensidad. Rezo el rosario a nuestra Santa Virgen María, tres y cuatro veces al día con profundo sentimiento, que es lo que más tengo.
    Mi pregunta es, quizás, muy fuerte, pero estoy desesperado:
    Papa Francisco, ¿puede ayudarme, por favor? ¿Vendría a bendecir mi casa y pedirle al Señor un milagro para que el banco no me quite la casa? Pues la tengo ya embargada.
    Se lo suplico.

    Gracias por su tiempo.
    Que Dios le siga Bendiciendo.

    Manuel Juarez
    Tel. +34 698 498 428
    Stavroula Seferli
    Dear father my name is Stavroula Seferli I live in Athens Greece and I have a little son his name is George. He is 5 years old I am 40. Here in athens the situation is not good, young people like me are not able to find a job. The church here dont do anything to help us find a job neither the politicians, people here in greece only have to pay taxes, everyday and an other tax, we dont have money to buy bread we dont have money to pay the taxes. Please do something for the young people here in athens and all over greece we are young we want to find a job to be able to survive, be able to eat, be able to growth our childs. Please find a job to my husband he doesnt work, like my husband there are thousand of men who are not able to find a job, my country suffer from economical crisis. Please talk to our president, to our church, if you visit my country next time dont forget me be my guest. Please pray for me and the rest of young people who want to find a job. Καλησπερα! Και Ευχαριστώ!
    I am a Catholic married to a Hindu. So far everything is fine and we respect both the religions. We both go to the Church and attend mass and also visit and pray at the temple too. But after having a baby, we are confused what religion our child will belong to because although we both want our child to learn, respect and follow the teachings of both the religions and to live as a good human being, we still are confused when it comes to the social pressures and demands of choosing a religion although we both are not bothered. How to deal with such a situation? What is the best thing to do so that our child will not face issues due to the religious demands of our society. Do I need to baptize my child or not or leave him until he is big enough to choose what he wants to follow?
    Thilini Ranaweera
    Dear Pope Francis,please response to me.For a long time I did not pray to God.I have lost my faith of God, because I thought that there is no even a one miracle in my life which is done by God to me. I refuse my God and criticized my religion badly, because I did not get any relief in my need though I prayed to God.But now I realize that I was wrong and I only thought about my desires, I did not thank or praise my God, did not listen to Him.Now I again started to pray.I pray the most holy rosary every day.How can I be a God's pleasant child again?
    Load More
  • Question Map