Is Pope Francis being unfairly put to the test?

[Polak]

Today and on previous Sundays we have heard gospel readings about Pharisees trying to put Jesus to the test and cause him to slip up.

It got me thinking whether what happened with the Pope recently could be seen in a similar light.

My thoughts as somebody who supports and listens to the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church, but admittedly sometimes has concerns with some of things he says, is that perhaps in situations like this we ought to try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In this case it was a film director, who as a gay man himself, was looking for a specific answer from the Pope on the issue of homosexual relationships. He wanted something he could use to push his agenda.

The Pope, in his response, wasn’t trying to make gay people feel marginalised, so he answered in the most gentle and kind way he could. He also specifically mentioned in that same interview where he talked about civil unions, that this didn’t encompass a sexual relationship of any kind, but of course, the director purposely took that part of the clip out.

Do I feel the Pope could have worded what he said better? Possibly. Do I think he is often put to the test by others to purposely slip up? Absolutely.

Jesus was able to answer perfectly every time, but the Pope is human, and sometimes he might slip up if enough people with ulterior motives try to trip him up.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Do I feel the Pope could have worded what he said better? Possibly. Do I think he is often put to the test by others to purposely slip up? Absolutely.

I think he answered the way he wanted. It is up to us to open our hearts & receive it with the love God intended it.

Every human being deserves to be treated with the dignity of a child of God.

Marriage is between a man & a woman. Pope Francis did not say anything to the contrary.

 

[lwest]

I can see some parallels there. People have been bashing everything he’s said since the day he was elected. This is from a friend’s Facebook page. Maybe it’ll clear up some things: “Francis’ exact words: “Las personas homosexuales tienen derecho a estar en la familia, son hijos de Dios, tienen derecho a una familia. No se puede echar de la familia a nadie, ni hacer la vida imposible por eso. Lo que tenemos hacer es una ley de Convivencia civil.”
Literal translation. “Homosexual persons have a right to be in a family. They are children of God, they have a right to a family. You can’t throw anyone out of the family, nor make life impossible for that. What we need to create is a law of civil coexistence.”
The word “Convivencia” is important here; it literally means “living together”, but is not used to refer to civil unions. That would be “Unión civil” which he did not say.”

 

[ReaderT]

Do I feel the Pope could have worded what he said better? Possibly. Do I think he is often put to the test by others to purposely slip up? Absolutely.

The problem is that his whole papacy seems to be defined by this vagueness. Objectively, the Pope has a long history of making vague, ambiguous statements that aren’t cleared up afterwards:

1. His statements about communing divorced & remarried Catholics in “Amoris Laetitia”
2. His statements in September that God loves gay children “as they are.”
3. The entire Amazon Synod (was it an idol? a bad Virgin Mary? Sacrilege? Who knows?)
4. His civil unions comment (clearly vague as you can see from the mass confusion here)
5. Etc. etc. etc.

1 Corinthians 14:33: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

[JGD]

Pope Francis' homosexuality comments heavily edited in documentary, Vatican has no comment on civil unions | Catholic News Agency

Shows there was piecing from previous interviews. Also puts a different slant on his words about civil union law.

 

[Polak]

The problem is that his whole papacy seems to be defined by this vagueness.

I understand. That is a fair concern to have.

 

[stpurl]

It could also be that we the laity are being put to the test: To hold fast to the truths that St. Paul spoke of. (Not that I am trying to say that Pope Francis is guilty of anything; it could be indeed a ‘both:and’ type of thing where both Pope Francis’ words are being twisted so that he is being ‘tested’ AND that the laity by being given these twisted words are likewise being ‘tested.’

 

[StudentMI]

The problem is that his whole papacy seems to be defined by this vagueness.

I agree with everything you said.

 

[BornInMarch]

Yes, he is. Ever since he became Pope the traditionalists have complained about nearly everything he did or said.

 

[Feanor2]

Too many “mini”popes” and armchair theologians

Laymen that don’t know their place. I listen and learn from the Pope. It’s not my station to criticize him.

 

[Vico]

…
Shows there was piecing from previous interviews. Also puts a different slant on his words about civil union law.

I think it said the interview was in 2019 and H.H. Pope Francis was referring to the right of gay people to be accepted into their own families.

 

[CrownOfStars]

He is incredibly vague in multiple statements where clarity is needed. It is intentional to be vague or specific. That is not being unfairly put to the test.

 

[Rau]

I think it said the interview was in 2019 and H.H. Pope Francis was referring to the right of gay people to be accepted into their own families.

That’s right - he was not referring to an entitlement of 2 gay persons to “form a family” as do man & woman form a family through marriage.

 

[Rau]

It might be better to say: “How can that be right”? It may well not be right.

 

[umamibella]

Yes and it is unbelievable that Catholics buy into the media and put their trust in the media rather then in the magisterium.

Way to rip the Church apart.

His statements in September that God loves gay children “ as they are. ”

God loves everyone, all His Creations. That is Catholic teaching.

The entire Amazon Synod (was it an idol? a bad Virgin Mary? Sacrilege? Who knows?)

We do know, it was said from the start that it was not the Virgin Mary and obviously it was not a pagan idol or the magisterium would never have allowed it inside a Church

His civil unions comment (clearly vague as you can see from the mass confusion here)

NO, not his comments, the edited mashed up version of a movie producer who should be made accountable for publishing the entire unedited version.

Critical thinking is the key here, rather then running off and believing everything the media prints, what happened to the catch cry of fake news. Does it only stand for certain political parties?

 

[ReaderT]

Yes and it is unbelievable that Catholics buy into the media and put their trust in the media rather then in the magisterium.

You don’t need the media’s statements; you can read the Pope’s own. And the Pope’s statements in Amoris Laetitia were so puzzling that four cardinals (not the media) issued their dubia, which is Latin for “doubts”.

obviously it was not a pagan idol

Father Mitch Pacwa disagrees: “Knock it off. We are not stupid. We are not. This is an idol.”

He then said: “Stop - You’re talking about making an offering to a goddess that the people of the Andes put higher than Jesus and his Blessed Mother.”

The Italian Bishops’ Conference also published a Prayer to Pachamama (!) before the Synod started in their official publication:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(“A Prayer:
Pachamama of these places,
drink and eat this offering at will,
so that this land may be fruitful.
Pachamama, good mother
Be propitious! Be propitious!
Let the oxen walk well,
and let them not be tired.
(Etc.)”

We do know, it was said from the start that it was not the Virgin Mary

Then people should not be prostrating themselves before it.
(You can clearly see the figures in the middle of the circle where people are prostrating at 12:25)

NO, not his comments, the edited mashed up version of a movie producer who should be made accountable for publishing the entire unedited version.

It’s not the mash-up I’m talking about. His exact words (I speak Spanish) were “convivencia civil” - which can refer to same-sex civil unions, can refer to two people in a legal agreement, or can refer to “civil coexistence” of everyone in a society. Once again the Pope was clear as mud.

 

[Freddy]

It’s not the mash-up I’m talking about. His exact words (I speak Spanish) were “convivencia civil” - which can refer to same-sex civil unions, can refer to two people in a legal agreement, or can refer to “civil coexistence” of everyone in a society. Once again the Pope was clear as mud.

It definitely wasn’t the last. You wouldn’t need ‘una ley de convivencia civil’ for that.

And just to point out that he didn’t say ‘we need’ that law. He said it’s a law ‘that we have to make/create’.

 

[umamibella]

You don’t need the media’s statements; you can read the Pope’s own. And the Pope’s statements in Amoris Laetitia were so puzzling that four cardinals (not the media) issued their dubia , which is Latin for “doubts”.

Have you read the entire document, or just gone by what the media and four cardinals are saying?

Father Mitch Pacwa disagrees: “Knock it off. We are not stupid. We are not. This is an idol.”

The Pope disagrees with his priest. I listen to my Pope, not one of his presbyters. The Italian Bishops Conference have an entire statement about what they were about, did you read that because Catholics should, and read it in the context it is meant.

Then people should not be prostrating themselves before it.
(You can clearly see the figures in the middle of the circle where people are prostrating at 12:25)

There was a very clear statement it was not the Virgin Mary from the get go. Pope Francis also explained what the Synod was about and consecrated the Synod to St Francis of Assisi. Hardly a pagan act.

It’s not the mash-up I’m talking about. His exact words (I speak Spanish) were “convivencia civil” - which can refer to same-sex civil unions, can refer to two people in a legal agreement, or can refer to “civil coexistence” of everyone in a society. Once again the Pope was clear as mud.

You and I and no one else has the original unedited unmashed up interview or documentary yet. So what we are both talking about is a mash up. The Pope was edited and mashed up. If you have the original unedited with an unedited and correct translation, post it. Otherwise we all wait for the movie producer to release it.

 

[ReaderT]

Have you read the entire document, or just gone by what the media and four cardinals are saying?

My point was “the things he says are not clear” and that’s true - the cardinals couldn’t make sense of them either, and they’re cardinals. Their dubia, by the way, were not answered.

The Pope disagrees with his priest. I listen to my Pope, not one of his presbyters.

Please show me where the Pope disagreed with Pacwa.

The Italian Bishops Conference have an entire statement about what they were about, did you read that because Catholics should, and read it in the context it is meant.

So you’re okay with them printing a prayer to a pagan deity in their publication? I’m not. Is that sort of thing is just allowed nowadays? Nobody has been admonished for it.

Pope Francis also explained what the Synod was about and consecrated the Synod to St Francis of Assisi. Hardly a pagan act.

He also allowed these idols which look nothing like a typical depiction of the Virgin Mary, were very unclear and concerning to many - which is my point. It’s never clear with him. If he had blessed a traditional icon of the Virgin holding Christ, that would’ve been another story.

Then people should not be prostrating themselves before it.

There was a very clear statement it was not the Virgin Mary from the get go

Then, again, people should not be prostrating before them.

You and I and no one else has the original unedited unmashed up interview or documentary yet. So what we are both talking about is a mash up. The Pope was edited and mashed up. If you have the original unedited with an unedited and correct translation, post it. Otherwise we all wait for the movie producer to release it.

Unless they were editing him down to the level of syllables, then he said the words “convivencia civil”.
— And if it was doctored to say something he absolutely didn’t mean, why hasn’t the Vatican clarified yet?

 

[umamibella]

My point was “the things he says are not clear” and that’s true - the cardinals couldn’t make sense of them either, and they’re cardinals. Their dubia, by the way, were not answered.

4 cardinals,
That is a lovely document on Love in the Family.
Read it.

this Exhortation is especially timely in this Jubilee Year of Mercy. First, because it represents an invitation to Christian families to value the gifts of marriage and the family, and to persevere in a love strengthened by the virtues of generosity, commitment, fidelity and patience. Second, be-cause it seeks to encourage everyone to be a sign of mercy and closeness wherever family life re-mains imperfect or lacks peace and joy

Please show me where the Pope disagreed with Pacwa.

Please show me where Pope Francis agreed

So you’re okay with them printing a prayer to a pagan deity in their publication? I’m not. Is that sort of thing is just allowed nowadays? Nobody has been admonished for it.

Again, read what their intention was, It was not about a pagan deity, please read their intention. You cant say well 4 cardinals couldnt make sense of one article then put the Italian Bishops Conference in the bad books over a prayer. We must exercise critical thinking

He also allowed these idols which look nothing like a typical depiction of the Virgin Mary, were very unclear and concerning to many - which is my point. It’s never clear with him. If he had blessed a traditional icon of the Virgin holding Christ, that would’ve been another story.

They were very clear. It was very clear what the Synod was about and that it was bringing indigenous and the west together in discussing specific indigenous issues.

Then, again, people should not be prostrating before them.

Are you sure thats what they were doing, did they make an announcement that is what they were doing?

Unless they were editing him down to the level of syllables, then he said the words “convivencia civil”.
— And if it was doctored to say something he absolutely didn’t mean, why hasn’t the Vatican clarified yet?

Ok so nope neither of us have the unedited unmashed up version yet. It was clearly doctored, watch it. The vatican should not need to clarify a clear media stunt. Let the movie producer clarify it. The movie producer who is homosexual himself.

Why are we blaming the Pope for being edited and mashed up by a section of the media. He did not edit and mash himself up. Someone else did. That someone else did not even have the dignity to include the question.