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 9:52 pm
I'm far from an expert on the period covered by Paul VI's Papacy but from what I do know it seems to me that his struggle to come to grips with the issues dealt with in Humanae Vitae, even though finally getting it right, followed by his failure to follow through on it in the face of open opposition in the Episcopacy as well as his failure to even attempt to correct the blatant misapplication of Vatican II leads me to question consideration of his beatification. His inaction on both fronts let the Church slide into a period of decline surpassed only by the reformation. Not until John Paul II and Benedict XVI did we get appropriate action on both fronts but only time will tell if it is too little too late. I fear that the Church is still stuck in what George Weigel called "the shallows of institutional maintenance" with a side order of clericalism.
April 25, 2014 at 10:04 pm
As for me, I'm not worried in the least. 1) The Holy Spirit will not allow the Holy Father to err in matters of the Faith and morals. 2) Whenever the Church has been low to the point of falling apart, God has raised up saints to rebuild her. 3) I'm confident that no pope would even attempt a change in doctrine established by Christ. 4) Despite the poor handling of this situation, and the eagerness with which many inside and outside the Church wish to exploit the fumble to their advantage, doctrine cannot be changed. So saith the canonists.
Just my 2¢ worth.
April 25, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Long ago, the beatification trial of Paul VI was stopped after Franco Bellegrandi (who worked for years inside the Vatican) , Randy Engel, the late Abbé de Nantes and Fr Luigi Villa among many others clearly stated that Paul VI was a homosexual.
Then the trial began again and concluded by the pope to be declared beatus in october.
But since nobody could dismiss the accusations, what if they are brought up again after Paul VI is beatified ?
April 25, 2014 at 11:07 pm
"They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.” Everyone knows what he means, except those who absolutely refuse to believe what they're hearing. It seems to me that those who accuse the pope of being unclear don't mean "he wasn't clear," they mean "I can't believe what he said, so he can't have been clear." The infernal conclave of 2013 begins to look like the Minbari surrendering at the Battle of the Line—on the threshold of victory, the cardinals chose ruin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-pope-in-the-attic/359816/
April 25, 2014 at 11:09 pm
I want to suggest that there is another problem here. Not only does this pope scandalize and jeopardize the souls of those who will be mislead into thinking their marital situation is okay, it also occurs to me that there is a problem at the other end. I know at least one person who is so scandalized by this wretched pontificate that he is flirting with sedevacantism, which, insofar as it cuts one off from the Church, is also fatal in æterno. I think that there are some people out there who cannot reconcile the stupid things that Francis says with their beliefs (often unexamined, ultramontane, and erroneous) about the papacy, and they will reconcile that cognitive dissonance in the most straightforward, painless way, which will never be, of course, to examine and correct their mistaken beliefs about the papacy, it will be to simply declare that Francis is not or cannot be pope, thus lapsing into schism, which is very likely a mortal sin per se.
April 25, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Pope Francis said this morning:
“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” He pointed to the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on marriage and family as a “promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage.”http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/04/bombshell-pope-francis-clarifies-his.html?m=1
April 25, 2014 at 11:35 pm
Pope Francis said today:
“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” He pointed to the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on marriage and family as a “promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage.”
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/04/bombshell-pope-francis-clarifies-his.html?m=1
April 25, 2014 at 11:58 pm
Is this a trick question?
April 26, 2014 at 12:01 am
These are uncharted waters. The closest may be communion in the hand, but that was only a centuries-long proscription that was introduced as an abuse, then an indult, then the normative practice (despite what the GIRM and other documents say). It wasn't a changing of doctrine, and sufficient evidence exists in the early Church that communion in the hand was common.
The Church changed this practice due to desecration, lost consecrated particles, etc. If memory serves, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote passionately against communion in the hand. The Arians were known to receive in the hand, standing, as a symbol of their defiant stance against Christ's divinity. Even the accolytes were compelled to wear gloves when handling patens or, if occasion warranted it, sacred vessels (though if I'm not mistaken, this too was forbidden.)
But again, uncharted waters. This is far worse.
April 26, 2014 at 12:02 am
I'm with Wendell. Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin all thought they push the Church into irrelevance; a bit of gossip about a 'phone call are nothing.
April 26, 2014 at 12:02 am
IS nothing.
Oops.
April 26, 2014 at 12:28 am
Wait a minute. Earlier this month I got an email from Rand Paul saying he would ask the Supreme Court to consider scientific evidence when life begins based on current technology, and overturn Roe v. Wade as out of date. Are you guys claiming Rand changed his mind?
April 26, 2014 at 2:12 pm
What's a little confusion when souls are at risk?
April 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm
What this comes down to is the Church will not change the teaching on marriage but can be and is being so pathetic in explaining and defending it Christ's teaching on marriage becomes meaningless in the lives of most Catholics.
And satan is having a great time!
April 26, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Actually, they are not, because there is a difference between being a bad man, and being a bad Pope. Granted, the two often go together. But not necessarily in lockstep.
Alexander VI, for example, was clearly bad, or at least quite vicious, as a man, and sufficiently so that he presented a deep scandal as Pope. But his predecessor, Innocent VIII was actually not a bad Pope (as Renaissance Popes go), being known for his great generosity, his efforts to unify Christendom against the Turkish threat, his efforts to combat slavery and Waldensian heretics, despite being some thing of a rake (multiple illegitimate children) and nepotist. Not a very good man, but not a terribly bad pope.
Paul VI seems to have been a decent man in his private character, with no obvious vices. But in his public career, he was quite liberal both theologically and politically, and as a prince governing the Church, a disaster, presiding over much of its auto-demolition.
April 26, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Taken as an idividual case we could give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, given that the info the press is reporting is filtered through two people, probably not well versed in Church-speak and doctrine.
BUT
The fact remains that the Holy Father has shown signs and said things that show that a comment about priests being more Catholic than the Pope and allowing communion to those living in adultery are entirely consistent with his past comments and actions.
In a court of law, the evidence is circumstantial, but goes towards establishing character —
I am starting to wonder if perhaps we have an anti-pope on our hands.
Whenever the Church has had two popes, it has never ended well.
April 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Take a deep breath now. Repeat after me: "The Pope is a Modernist. The Pope is a Modernist…"
April 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm
1) The Church is still here, and not exactly moribund, so your "auto-demolition" is a bit exaggerated.
2) Paul VI actually displayed courage in holding the Church's deposit of faith safe from both left and right. He disciplined clerics on the right (Abp Lefebvre, anyone?) and the left (Abbot Franzoni in Italy), to name just a few. In the long haul, however, he showed patience, rathr than simply lopping off heads on all sides. In regard to Humanae Vitae, what exactly would have had him do? Hound every priest and bishop who disagreed with the teaching out of the Church? And at a time when priests were departing in record numbers? Who would he replace them with? And do you think cracking down have diminished the dissent in any way? No, it would have brought about a feeling of victimization, and nothing encourages dissent and makes it feel entitled more than a feeling of victimization. On the other hand, public censure would have created even more strain (and we largely don't know what he told bishops in private). I would say that he did his utmost to urge a pastoral implementation of the encyclical rather than a mere debate about its contents. There's much evidence here I don't have time to go into.
3) Humanae Vitae was the ONLY bright moment in Paul VI's pontificate? Reeeaaaally? I suppose it would be if you have an extremely limited view of what a good Pope is. Paul VI gave us Evangelii Nuntiandi, which many are now beginning to realize is the real charter for the New Evanglization. He was the first Pope to travel the world to spread the Gospel and to address the United Nations, setting the course John Paul II to follow. And if you loosen the chokehold on your imagination enought to actually include the "social justice" issues, Pope Paul VI issued the charter for understanding and combatting poverty in developing nations in Populorum Progressio. And of course, he steered the Council through some very stormy waters and brought it safely to a conclusion. That's just the surface, and itself is quite a lot for one Pope.
4) Pope Paul was not just a "decent" man in private life; the testimonies of many indicate that he was a very holy man. He continually offered up his sufferings for the Church. I would very much recommend what his secretary in the Vatican, Bishop Magee, has to say about this (he has a talk on DVD from Lighthouse Media. You might pay particular attention to the account he gave of his prayers to Fr. Magee, which, he said, started with "Miserere" and ended with "Magnificat." Or his devotion to Our Lady, or many other things.
The only comfort in all this is that the criticism of Pope Paul invariably come from those who don't know anything in depth about him.
April 26, 2014 at 11:06 pm
If the accusations are brought up by the likes of the trash-talking anti-Semite, Fr. Villa (and the rest are scarcely more credible), I think we are pretty safe, because no one in their right mind would believe them.
April 27, 2014 at 2:22 am
Not commenting on Pope Paul VI’s personal holiness (as I really don’t know) I would say the one decision of his which, if it doesn’t mark him as possibly the worst Pope (not the worst man, but the worst Pope) in the history of the Church was his decision to release the Novus Ordo Missae on the entire Catholic world and de facto suppress the traditional Latin Mass. This one stroke helped obliterate Catholic identity in her liturgy, art, architecture, music and catechesis (as liturgy is catechetical as well). And why?
“The distinguished writer Jean Guitton [who was a close friend of Pope Paul VI], when interviewed on the radio [10] about the biography of Pope Paul VI by Yves Chiron, stated that the Pope had done all in his power to bring the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Protestant meal theory, and after twice repeating the allegation, concluded as follows:
‘Paul VI had an ecumenical intention of extinguishing, or at least correcting or diluting, all that was too ‘Catholic’ in the traditional sense of the term in the Mass, and, I repeat, of bringing the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Mass of Calvin.’
Lumière 101/ Radio Courtoisie Sunday 19th Dec. 1993.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/roman-rite-old-and-new-vi-new-mass-and.html
As Cardinal Ottaviani wisely noted at the time (and talk about being prophetic!):
“2. …The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm
And yes, I know all about Cardinal Ottaviani’s alleged retraction, where he does a complete 180 and praises the New Mass to the high heavens even though not one word of the actual liturgy itself was changed (and thus the original criticisms still hold).
Yes, bad men have been Popes in the past, but mistresses eventually die; apparently poor liturgy lives on forever.