The Extraordinary Homily That Benedict XVI Dedicated to the Synod on the Family. A Homily That Went Unknown for Ten Years

(s.m.) From October 7 to 14, Leo XIV sum­mo­ned to the Vatican the heads of the Eastern Churches and the pre­si­den­ts of the epi­sco­pal con­fe­ren­ces from all over the world, for a mee­ting on the occa­sion of the tenth anni­ver­sa­ry of “Amoris Laetitia,” the apo­sto­lic exhor­ta­tion with which his pre­de­ces­sor Francis con­clu­ded the 2014 – 2015 synod on the fami­ly.

That synod was a very hard-fought one. Above all on an issue that ver­ti­cal­ly divi­ded the Catholic hie­rar­chy : whe­ther or not to allow Eucharistic com­mu­nion for the divor­ced and remar­ried, until then always pro­hi­bi­ted by the magi­ste­rium of the Church.

Francis sho­wed, right from the pre­li­mi­na­ry con­si­sto­ry of car­di­nals in February 2014, a clear incli­na­tion toward the “yes.” But the oppo­si­tion of many car­di­nals and bishops was such that, in sum­ming up the synod in “Amoris Laetitia,” he limi­ted him­self to for­mu­la­ting an allu­si­ve “yes” in just two foot­no­tes, no. 336 and no. 351, in which he hypo­the­si­zed for the divor­ced and remar­ried “also the help of the sacra­men­ts,” and in par­ti­cu­lar of the Eucharist, which “is not a pri­ze for the per­fect, but a power­ful medi­ci­ne and nou­rish­ment for

the weak.”

With the result that the con­flict bet­ween the two camps of yes and no did not sub­si­de, until Francis deci­ded to end it in his own way, in September 2016, with a let­ter of prai­se for the Argentine bishops and their inter­pre­ta­tion of Amoris Laetitia in favor of com­mu­nion for the divor­ced and remar­ried, which Francis cal­led the only cor­rect inter­pre­ta­tion, becau­se “no hay otras,” the­re are no others : a let­ter ulti­ma­te­ly publi­shed in the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" with the qua­li­fi­ca­tion of “authen­tic magi­ste­rium.”

On that synod on the fami­ly and the hea­ted deba­te that enli­ve­ned it, the­re is exten­si­ve docu­men­ta­tion, both offi­cial and jour­na­li­stic, avai­la­ble to eve­ryo­ne.

To which, howe­ver, should be added a con­tri­bu­tion of great depth and the highe­st autho­ri­ty, yet until now never taken into con­si­de­ra­tion, in part becau­se it went unk­no­wn for a deca­de : the homi­ly given by Benedict XVI – who resi­gned as pope in 2013 but was still acti­ve in speech and wri­ting – on the ope­ning Sunday of the second and final ses­sion of the synod on the fami­ly, October 4, 2015.

That Sunday, the Roman Missal – by for­tui­tous but per­fect coin­ci­den­ce – had as its Gospel pas­sa­ge the begin­ning of chap­ter 10 of the Gospel of Mark, the very one in which Jesus “was asked by some Pharisees if it is law­ful for a husband to repu­dia­te his wife.” And Jesus answe­red them, “Let not man divi­de what God has joi­ned.”

Well, in the homi­ly deli­ve­red that day at his Vatican her­mi­ta­ge, in the pre­sen­ce of no more than a dozen peo­ple – unpu­bli­shed until December 2025 – Benedict XVI began by noting that “the litur­gy offers us this Gospel on the very day the synod opens,” but imme­dia­te­ly added that he did not wish to touch on “issues much deba­ted today,” but rather their "foun­da­tion," name­ly, “what man is,” crea­ted by God as male and fema­le, as a “being in rela­tion­ship,” and pre­ci­se­ly for this rea­son “ima­ge of God.” Moreover, in the final sec­tion of the same homi­ly, an ori­gi­nal reflec­tion on the pro­found mea­ning of eccle­sia­sti­cal celi­ba­cy.

It should be noted that on that same Sunday in October, the ope­ning day of the second ses­sion of the synod, Pope Francis also deli­ve­red his homi­ly. He too avoi­ded allu­ding to com­mu­nion for the divor­ced and remar­ried, which in effect found no sup­port in the day’s Gospel pas­sa­ge (unless God’s lenien­cy toward his people’s “hard­ness of heart,” on account of which divor­ce was per­mit­ted in the time of Moses, be exten­ded to the time of the Church, as argued, for exam­ple, by the patro­lo­gi­st and bibli­ci­st Innocenzo Gargano, a Camaldolese Benedictine of the mona­ste­ry of San Gregorio al Celio and pro­fes­sor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute).

The fact is that no one heard of the homi­ly given that day by Benedict XVI at his her­mi­ta­ge on the Vatican hills, to medi­ta­te on and pro­fit from it in the syno­dal deba­te.

And so here it is pre­sen­ted below by Settimo Cielo, on the eve of the “sum­mit” con­ve­ned by Pope Leo on the tenth anni­ver­sa­ry of “Amoris Laetitia,” repro­du­ced in its enti­re­ty with the autho­ri­za­tion of the dica­ste­ry for com­mu­ni­ca­tion and the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, which hold the copy­right.

The homi­ly is taken from pages 310 – 315 of the volu­me “God is the True Reality. Unpublished Homilies 2005 – 2017,” Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2025.

*

Man, image of God. Man and woman He created them

by Benedict XVI

October 4, 2015 – XXVII Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B

Readings : Genesis 2:18 – 24, Psalm 128, Hebrews 2:9 – 11, Mark 10:2 – 16

Dear friends,

on the very day the Synod opens, the litur­gy pro­po­ses to us this Gospel, in which the Lord cla­ri­fies the Creator’s will for man, a will that must mat­ter once again in the world of the Redemption. But I do not wish to speak now about issues that are much discus­sed today, but rather about the foun­da­tion of all this, which appears in the fir­st rea­ding and also in the Gospel : that is, about what man is.

This ima­ge of Creation seems to me very beau­ti­ful, so can­did and pro­found, which appears at the begin­ning of the second chap­ter of Genesis, whe­re the text says that God for­med man from the dust of the earth and with a puff of His breath gave him life, and so he beca­me a living being (cf. Gen 2:7). This sha­ping of man’s body from the dust of the earth implies the who­le pro­cess of evo­lu­tion, makes us under­stand how God, lit­tle by lit­tle – in the cour­se of nascent life – sha­pes man, forms man, goes toward man, and then, at the right moment, puffs a breath of life into his nostrils. It is also a mar­ve­lous ima­ge. At the right moment, God gives a new breath of life, not only bio­lo­gi­cal life as such, but His own life, in which He makes Himself pre­sent, so that this new being – this living being – bears in him­self the breath of God.

Thus man is the being capa­ble of kno­wing God. The huma­ni­za­tion, the birth of the crea­tu­re man, is pre­sen­ted at the moment in which the being is capa­ble of under­stan­ding, of kno­wing God. God does not only offer use­ful things to do, but moreo­ver offers the ori­gin, offers Himself. And so also the­re emer­ges won­der­ful­ly the mis­sion of man, who is the epi­to­me of Creation, who bears in him­self the who­le mate­rial jour­ney, from the being of mat­ter to the highe­st point of life, whe­re God final­ly mee­ts man. Man bears this breath in him­self and is pre­ci­se­ly the epi­to­me of Creation ; it is also man’s mis­sion to bear the world in him­self toward God, toward the resur­rec­tion ; to give, let us say, to mat­ter the rea­li­ty of the Creator’s pre­sen­ce and to the Spirit all the rea­li­ty of Creation.

Second con­si­de­ra­tion. In the other text on Creation, that of the fir­st chap­ter of Genesis, God says, “Let us make man!” (Gen 1:26). This is indeed ano­ther detail of an action that seems sim­ple. God does not only say, “Let the­re be man,” but He has a soli­lo­quy with Himself ; God speaks with Himself, He wills this crea­tu­re as a crea­tu­re wil­led in a spe­cial way, clo­se to Him in a spe­cial way, and He crea­ted him – it says – “accor­ding to his ima­ge, his like­ness.” What does “ima­ge of God, like­ness of God” mean ? It is a great que­stion, never defi­ni­ti­ve­ly cla­ri­fied, becau­se it is too rich, too pro­found. Here I would like to men­tion just two ele­men­ts.

The fir­st is that the essen­ce of an ima­ge is to lead toward ano­ther. The ima­ge is not a thing to itself, but indeed repre­sen­ts a per­son, goes toward the per­son, bears in itself the rela­tion to this per­son. This is the pri­ma­ry essen­ce of the ima­ge, which is rela­tion, which goes beyond itself toward ano­ther, and bears in itself this rela­tio­na­li­ty. So for man, pre­ci­se­ly this is essen­tial : that he does not remain in him­self, is not clo­sed in on him­self, but is on a jour­ney toward the other, is in rela­tion to the other, must seek the other.

Then a second ele­ment, which rein­for­ces the fir­st. The text says, “As man and woman he crea­ted them.” Man never exists only as man in the abstract ; he is man and woman, the­re­fo­re he exists only in this rela­tio­na­li­ty bet­ween man and woman. Here too it appears once again that man is crea­ted as a being in rela­tion­ship, one for the other, never as alo­ne in him­self.

The Fathers, spea­king of man as ima­ge, also con­si­de­red that in the Letter to the Colossians, Christ is cal­led the “icon of God” (Col 1:15): the­re­fo­re, in for­ming and sha­ping man, the Creator alrea­dy has Christ Jesus in mind. So man is made accor­ding to the model of the futu­re Jesus Christ. And the essen­tial thing about Jesus Christ is that He is Son, who is not self-contained but is in per­ma­nent rela­tion­ship with the Father ; thus in Jesus Christ it is essen­tial that He is pro­jec­ted outsi­de of Himself, is toward the Other, toward God. Now if man is crea­ted accor­ding to the ima­ge of Christ, he is crea­ted as son and daughter, as one who lives only by coming out of him­self toward the Father, being always child, son. Therefore we say that man is crea­ted in dif­fe­rent sen­ses as a rela­tio­nal being, like God Himself, who is not a sub­stan­ce fixed in itself, but is rela­tion­ship : the supre­me rea­li­ty itself exists only as rela­tion­ship. Man, a being in rela­tion­ship, is ima­ge of God.

The cen­tral name of being is Love ; rela­tio­nal man is crea­ted abo­ve all for love, crea­ted to come out of him­self. And we say that the essen­ce of sexua­li­ty is pre­ci­se­ly that of the supre­me gift, of brin­ging man out of him­self, of crea­ting attrac­tion toward the other, open­ness to the other, and thus man real­ly beco­mes co-creator with God. In other words, love inte­gra­tes man in him­self, and sexua­li­ty beco­mes human if it is per­so­na­li­zed, if it ser­ves love.

If we now look at the situa­tion today, we see that pre­ci­se­ly this vision of man is fun­da­men­tal­ly denied. Let’s obser­ve a socio­lo­gi­cal fact : in a big city like Munich, it is esti­ma­ted that appro­xi­ma­te­ly 40 per­cent are sin­gle, that is, peo­ple who do not mar­ry, who tend to go on only for them­sel­ves and thus end up deny­ing this vision. And gen­der theo­ries pro­vi­de a foun­da­tion for this denial : man is not man and woman, he is what he makes him­self ; man, the crea­tor, makes him­self ; man is no lon­ger a crea­tu­re of God, but a pro­duct of him­self and deci­des who he wan­ts to be. Man is no lon­ger open in rela­tion­ship ; he lives for him­self, no lon­ger reco­gni­zing and accep­ting a per­ma­nent bond. A bond would go again­st his free­dom, and in the end love must be denoun­ced, becau­se in rea­li­ty it would be a bond again­st his free­dom ; a defi­ni­ti­ve deci­sion would be incom­pa­ti­ble with man’s free­dom, which always remains unbound. Sexuality, the­re­fo­re, no lon­ger ser­ves to open one to the other, but from ear­ly chil­d­hood edu­ca­tion it is under­stood as a way to enjoy a bit of plea­su­re with one­self, that is, it is no lon­ger open­ness, but clo­su­re in one­self, in which man lives only for him­self. But in this way man denies his divi­ne splen­dor, denies the very essen­ce of his crea­ti­vi­ty with a con­cept of free­dom that is fal­se : that is, the free­dom to always be able to do what one wan­ts, to never be bound to anyo­ne, to any­thing. This seems to be the cry of man’s true divi­ni­za­tion, whe­re­by man makes him­self, is abso­lu­te­ly free, in per­ma­nent auto­no­my.

I do not want to enter into the discus­sion now, but the­re remains a que­stion that we must answer. The Church did not, with celi­ba­cy, crea­te the sin­gle. Celibacy is not exac­tly this ; it does not mean that man does not give him­self to this bond of love. No ! It is the oppo­si­te.

First of all, celi­ba­cy is not a denial of defi­ni­ti­ve deci­sion, in which man reser­ves the right to be fore­ver free. Celibacy means, in the fir­st pla­ce, the bold­ness, the cou­ra­ge of defi­ni­ti­ve­ness : once and for all I deci­de, I give myself fore­ver to the Lord and remain at His dispo­sal. I reco­gni­ze that I am free, but only in God’s will do I find myself and fore­ver, and only in this bond, which is fore­ver, can I tru­ly grow and matu­re.

Second point. Celibacy is not the renun­cia­tion of love, it is not the renun­cia­tion of bonds, of ties, on the con­tra­ry : it is the avai­la­bi­li­ty, throu­gh the Lord, to be for eve­ryo­ne and to enter into this “being-for” throu­gh the Lord, in this exi­sting not for one­self, but for others, always, in com­ple­te avai­la­bi­li­ty. And this is how the­se great gif­ts for the world have matu­red, peo­ple like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, like many others in many cen­tu­ries, begin­ning with Saint Paul, many who real­ly live by giving them­sel­ves to others in com­ple­te avai­la­bi­li­ty. All the work for the poor, for the exclu­ded, for the hel­pless, all this effort for evan­ge­li­za­tion, for giving one­self and losing one­self, began pre­ci­se­ly in this way, and pre­ci­se­ly in this way this true love, this uni­ver­sal gift, was born, and it is true what the Lord says : “In giving you recei­ve, not only in hea­ven but alrea­dy on earth, a hun­dre­d­fold” (cf. Mt 19:27 – 29).

Dear friends, this is very impor­tant, to see that celi­ba­cy is not clo­sing in on one­self, but the oppo­si­te ; it is pre­ci­se­ly the defi­ni­ti­ve­ness of put­ting one­self in His hands and thus being free, so that He may use us as He wishes. We see the histo­ry of Christian love, of Christian mis­sio­na­ries, how they left eve­ry­thing, giving them­sel­ves for others in Africa, America, Australia, Asia ; only in this way was this union of love, faith, and truth crea­ted, which in all the dar­k­ness of the world remains as a light that encou­ra­ges us to go for­ward.

At this moment, we can only pray to the Lord that He may open men to this mis­sion of love, one toward ano­ther ; that He may help us to be stea­d­fa­st in our dona­tion to the Lord’s will ; that He may help us to tru­ly be love, to ser­ve, and thus, by giving our­sel­ves, we recei­ve true life. “Help us, Lord, to live in this hour of histo­ry!” Amen !

(Translated by Matthew Sherry : traduttore@​hotmail.​com)

— —  — —

Sandro Magister is past “vati­ca­ni­sta” of the Italian wee­kly L’Espresso.
The late­st arti­cles in English of his blog Settimo Cielo are on this page.
But the full archi­ve of Settimo Cielo in English, from 2017 to today, is acces­si­ble.
As is the com­ple­te index of the blog www.chiesa, which pre­ce­ded it.