I have waited to comment on this for a few days to let the facts shake out. It seems that they have shaken out to the maximum degree that the Pope will allow.
Is it true that we cannot know for sure what the Pope said on the phone call? Yup, that is true.
Does that mean there is nothing to worry about? Well, let’s see.
So let’s stick with what we do know and see if there is anything to worry about.
We know that the phone call took place and the topic was divorce/remarriage and communion since that is the topic of the letter that prompted the call.
We know what the woman alleges that the Pope said, namely that it is OK for her to return to Communion.
We know that as a result, many many people now think, rightly or wrongly, that the Pope has signaled that it is legitimate for the divorced and remarried to return to communion.
We know that the Holy See knows this and we know that the Holy See refuses to comment, to confirm or deny, the context of the situation thus leaving in place suppositions of many as a result of the call.
We know that the Holy See has done nothing to re-iterate in anyway the Church’s doctrine on this matter in the wake of the scandal caused by the reporting on the call.
We know that at the invitation of the Pope, Cardinal Kasper proposed just such a solution to the consistory.
We know the Pope effusively praised Cardinal Kasper for his proposals.
Is this sufficient to form an opinion or to be a source of worry for a faithful Catholic?
You decide.
April 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm
We know the official statement acknowledges that something occured from which one could infer there would be consequences for Church teaching. And, um, please don't make that inference.
April 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm
So, sad, but in my opinion the worst thing said by our Holy Father, IF what this Argentine woman said was true:
"A Little Bread and Wine Does No Harm…"
Please, Holy Father, deny this!!!!
TWO
TRUTHS
To the Nuclear
Plant I went
With wafered host
I was hell-bent.
Exposed the wafered un-
Consecrated host
To radiation
Now, nuked toast.
Offered heretic
"Taste and see."
"Oh no!" He cried
"That's not for me!"
"But look, " I said,
"Nothings changed…
A still white wafered
Host arranged."
"Though looks the same,
Could do much harm!"
The heretic knew
Exclaimed alarm.
As Catholics know
A spiritual radiation
Daily at Mass
Transubstantiation!
April 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Father Z posted the most sane explanation of this Pope's phone call. Since it appears the sole source of this story is the husband's Facebook page, we should take this story with a grain of salt. Additionally, I don't think any Pope has the authority to invalidate Church teachings.
Father Z did say that it didn't help that the Office of the Holy See didn't reiterate Church teachings concerning marriage and annulments.
April 25, 2014 at 3:45 pm
For one thing, we don't know what he said to the lady. Secondly, the sole source of this Telegraph piece is a Facebook post by the lady's husband. That's it. I wouldn't put much credence in the story in light of the Pope's recent comments about marriage and its mirroring Christ's love for the Church (See his comments from his Wednesday audience from 2 weeks ago).
April 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm
If changing this teaching or discipline (regarding divorce/remarriage & communion) would violate an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, then can we not be assured by our faith that this change will never come to be?
April 25, 2014 at 4:05 pm
My biggest concern when anyone is canonized is the assurance that they in fact are in Heaven. Saints no longer need our prayers like the Poor Souls in Purgatory. In some very old orders in Europe, daily prayers are offered for the deceased superiors – even those who've been dead 500 years. I always believed that was one of the prime reasons the Vatican takes it time.
April 25, 2014 at 4:21 pm
You are missing the point.
April 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm
No. Praxis has no such guarantee. The teaching can stay in tact but the praxis changes. I wish things were that simple.
April 25, 2014 at 4:23 pm
I doesn't matter if we accept the woman's account, there is still plenty to be concerned about. That is the point of my point.
April 25, 2014 at 4:23 pm
It's interesting watching the evolution of the neo-ultramontane spin on this story. First they insisted that the call never happened. Then the Vatican confirmed it and they said that we can't be sure. Then the Vatican gave a second confirmation, and it became futile to deny the obvious. Defeated in spin 1, they next insisted that the call didn't involve the alleged content. But in light of the Vatican's refusal to deny the content of the call, which amounts to confirmation, it's futile to deny the obvious. Maybe you don't see that yet, but just as you eventually had to concede that spin 1 had failed, you will have to concede that spin 2 has failed, so why don't you just cut to the chase and give us spin 3, arguendo? I can't wait to hear it.
April 25, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Analogous precedents?
April 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm
To wit the scandal of the Holy See refusing to affirm the Church's teaching. What the press office should have said is "this rumor is ridiculous, the phone call never happened, and the Holy Father is not a dissenter on the Church's teaching on remarriage and communion. Duh." But they didn't say that, and the obvious inference is that they couldn't say that because it's not true. The rumor isn't ridiculous, the call did happen, and it is becoming ever clearer that the cardinals made a horrifying mistake. I don't know why people are so desperately unwilling to accept the obvious truth in front of their faces.
April 25, 2014 at 4:52 pm
I believe the Vatican press office did definitely say "consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences." Not exactly outspoken, but I'll take it.
More here: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/an-interesting-no-comment-comment-from-the-hspo/
April 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm
Sorry to say, but Francis sows confusion no matter what he does. He blows off the mandatum without explanation nor by simply changing it, which he certainly could do. He criticizes "capitalism" without using the term, and if you read what he wrote, his description was of pure laissez-faire economics, which is practiced NOWHERE. He comments in gay people only to have the Vatican correct him later. Now as more confusion reigns, he goes silent.
He lacks the savvy his predecessors going back to John XXIII had.
April 25, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Infuriating isn't it? I got tired of that spin doctoring after the first interview he did but it will never stop and it's a wonder my head doesn't explode.
April 25, 2014 at 7:55 pm
The news that went out to the world has not been clarified or refuted by the Vatican. Just like the 'who am I to judge' debacle, this also gives a wink to those in an invalid state for Holy Communion. It is most disconcerting.
April 25, 2014 at 9:23 pm
Your bile is palpable.
April 25, 2014 at 9:25 pm
And who made you an expert in heresy? More importantly, who made you capable of judging a person's salvation?
April 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Your 1st and 3rd sentences are a contradiction.
April 25, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Simon D said:
"To wit the scandal of the Holy See refusing to affirm the Church's teaching."
THE
POPE
The Pope
Is the Pope
In cope
Ya dope
But never
Was there
Such a Pope
To cope
I hope
This Pope
Won't have
To grope
When he
Finally comes
To his
End.
The Pope
Has a head
Of argentine
Taupe
But never
Was there
Such a Pope
Oh nope
No trope
Of hope
He makes
Me mope
But he's
Real
And not
Pretend.
The Pope
Is the Pope
Not soap
On-a-rope
But never
Was there
Such a Pope
To lope
His passive
Pride will
Make you
Tope
But he's
Pope
I must
Contend.
The Pope
Throws a rope
Round
Cantelope
Oh nope
The Pope
Eats
Antelope?
With Christ
Elope
From this Pope’s
Scope
And pray
For this
Pope
My friend!