Vatican denies Pope told Italian journalist that ‘all divorced’ will be admitted to Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
The Vatican has said that an interview which quotes the Pope as saying that “all divorced who ask will be admitted” to Communion is “in no way reliable” and “cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking”.

In an article in La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari said the Pope made the comment during a phone interview.

According to a translation by traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli, Pope Francis said: “The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the synod.

He added: “This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”

However, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi told the National Catholic Register : “As has already occurred in the past, Scalfari refers in quotes what the Pope supposedly told him, but many times it does not correspond to reality, since he does not record nor transcribe the exact words of the Pope, as he himself has said many times.

“So it is clear that what is being reported by him in the latest article about the divorced and remarried is in no way a reliable and cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/02/italian-newspaper-pope-says-all-divorced-who-ask-will-be-admitted-to-communion/#.VjdYjk_RcOg.twitter
 
BartholomewB said:
Sandro Magister argues that Francis tried very hard, but ultimately failed, to get the Synod to hand him an explicit endorsement of his wish to rewrite the rules on communion for the divorced:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351168?eng=y
Click to expand...
What does this gossip from an Italian blog about what the Holy Father may have or may not have ‘wanted’ have to do with the fact that a 91 year old reporter got the story wrong? It would be better if we actually talked about the story in the OP and not start more gossip about what someone else thinks Francis may or may not have wanted to come out of the Synod.
 
gilliam said:
The Vatican has said that an interview which quotes the Pope as saying that “all divorced who ask will be admitted” to Communion is “in no way reliable” and “cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking”.

In an article in La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari said the Pope made the comment during a phone interview. …
Click to expand...
Understanding the mystery of God is easy…compared to the mystery of why the Pope keeps giving “interviews” to this man.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Understanding the mystery of God is easy…compared to the mystery of why the Pope keeps giving “interviews” to this man.

Dan
Click to expand...
That’s an easy question to answer. He is part of his ministry. He talks to him because he is working to save souls; even souls of 91 year old atheists.
 
gilliam said:
That’s an easy question to answer. He is part of his ministry. He talks to him because he is working to save souls; even souls of 91 year old atheists.
Click to expand...
“Talking to” is not the same as an interview.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Understanding the mystery of God is easy…compared to the mystery of why the Pope keeps giving “interviews” to this man.
Click to expand...
Jesuits are known for solid theology, but for Machiavellian politicking. So much so that the dictionary even includes an entry for “jesuitic”, and which came to carry an unwholesome meaning.

Through this lens, I’d wager that Francis uses Scalfari to float ideas in order to bait his opponents to react and thus to allow him to jesuitically prepare a counter attack.

But, fear not, through Francis, I hope that the understanding of papal infallibility will be developed to understand that the Holy Spirit does not protect the pope from error as much as He protects the Church from papal errors, as it’s been demonstrated this year and last year, when good bishops came out in defense of the divine doctrine of the Church, in spite of Francis’ efforts on the contrary.

Pax Christi
 
gilliam said:
What does this gossip from an Italian blog about what the Holy Father may have or may not have ‘wanted’ have to do with the fact that a 91 year old reporter got the story wrong? It would be better if we actually talked about the story in the OP and not start more gossip about what someone else thinks Francis may or may not have wanted to come out of the Synod.
Click to expand...
The latest twist in the ongoing drama of the Bergoglio-Scalfari-Lombardi triangle is newsworthy for two reasons.

(1) There is something mysterious in itself about the Pope’s reasons for still consenting to grant on-the-record telephone interviews to “the 91-year-old reporter,” as you describe him, despite the latter’s well-publicized penchant for misreporting the Pope’s words, which Lombardi then has to “clarify” afterwards.

(2) In the present case, there is an additional reason why this latest development has attracted the attention of Catholics around the world, including both you and me. That reason is the subject matter of the telephone conversation that took place between Francis and Scalfari, namely the recently concluded family synod.

Sandro Magister’s “gossip,” as you sneeringly call it, has nothing to do with (1) above but a very great deal to do with (2). He sheds light on the two-year history of the battle that has being going on between those prelates who have been campaigning for a new set of rules and those who want the present rules to remain unchanged.

The battle remains undecided for the time being, but we have every reason to hope that it will soon be settled one way or the other, in the form of the promised Apostolic Exhortation.
 
It does get a little tiring seeing people attempt to twist something said by any authority in the Church. It is all done with the exact same ending in mind. Get sin to be acceptable behavior. If they can get even one foot in the door, it’s all over. They paint divorced persons as victims rather than someone who didn’t adhere to their vows. They use sympathetic phraseology to invoke emotion of people who don’t use reason when they problem solve. They are attempting to get the masses to force the Church to alter something, anything, to create a chink in the armor. Thankfully, it won’t happen.

We all know a divorced person, without an annulment, who is in an adulterous relationship which they chose to enter outside of their marriage, is living in sin. Then, they complain about not being able to receive communion because they are living in mortal sin. Last time I checked, we were supposed to withhold taking communion if we knew we have mortal sin which had been unconfessed, for our own benefit. That is the key, our benefit, for us and our spiritual health, the reason divorced, remarried persons without an annulment are denied communion. It isn’t for the Church.

If the person is that broken up over communion, leave the adulterous relationship, go to confession and live a righteous life. Pretty simple stuff, really.
 
I notice that the Vatican denial does not contain an explicit repudiation of the affirmation by Scalfari that the Pope will permit remarried divorcees who ask for it to receive Communion. I would be surprised if Scalfari got the Pope completely wrong on so simple, major and fundamental an issue. But we’ll know the truth for certain soon enough.
 
The evil spirits will twist and/or skew anything the Pope says trying to cause division in the Catholic community as a whole.

We need to pray that the Holy Spirit guides us in discerning if what we are reading matches Canon Law in Catholic Catechism. If not, just ignore it.
 
The answer to what the Pope said or meant obviously isn’t definitive or black/white, or else there wouldn’t be this much debate. He needs to come right out and state his perspective in a very clear way.
 
Nacho45 said:
It does get a little tiring seeing people attempt to twist something said by any authority in the Church. It is all done with the exact same ending in mind. Get sin to be acceptable behavior. If they can get even one foot in the door, it’s all over. They paint divorced persons as victims rather than someone who didn’t adhere to their vows. They use sympathetic phraseology to invoke emotion of people who don’t use reason when they problem solve. They are attempting to get the masses to force the Church to alter something, anything, to create a chink in the armor. Thankfully, it won’t happen.

We all know a divorced person, without an annulment, who is in an adulterous relationship which they chose to enter outside of their marriage, is living in sin. Then, they complain about not being able to receive communion because they are living in mortal sin. Last time I checked, we were supposed to withhold taking communion if we knew we have mortal sin which had been unconfessed, for our own benefit. That is the key, our benefit, for us and our spiritual health, the reason divorced, remarried persons without an annulment are denied communion. It isn’t for the Church.

If the person is that broken up over communion, leave the adulterous relationship, go to confession and live a righteous life. Pretty simple stuff, really.
Click to expand...
The request for a pastoral pathway concerning these cases is coming from the clergy and not from random ‘adulterers’. The issue has been raised numerous times in the past for theological examination because there is obviously more to understand. We are talking about families that are already participating in the Church life fully apart from this area of exclusion. We aren’t talking about all divorced remarrieds in general especially anyone hostile to the direction of the Church. You’ve described the situation through a skewed lens.
 
It seems best to just ignore everything that people say the Pope says, and wait for full text of his speeches, letters, whatever. In a case where such text doesn’t exist, I at least will not even try to pull out specifics.

I mean, it could even be that the Pope said something along the lines of the “the end goal is to bring all divorced (and otherwise) people to God,” which it is, and that this got confused with talk about sacraments and the like, with any qualifiers about repentance or what have you disappearing or diminishing. With no transcription, and with this particular reporter’s (along with most other reporters’) history of messing things up, I am going to put too much weight on his report. When an official document comes out, then what that says (and not what random reporters say it says) will be worth reading for details.
 
LongingSoul said:
The request for a pastoral pathway concerning these cases is coming from the clergy and not from random ‘adulterers’. The issue has been raised numerous times in the past for theological examination because there is obviously more to understand. We are talking about families that are already participating in the Church life fully apart from this area of exclusion. We aren’t talking about all divorced remarrieds in general especially anyone hostile to the direction of the Church. You’ve described the situation through a skewed lens.
Click to expand...
The fact that a person may be in accord with the Church on many issues does not change the fact that simulating marriage with a person who is not one’s spouse is adultery. No pastoral pathway can change that. Lots of people are in hard situations because of a failure to heed this, and of course we should all do what we can to help and support such people, but trying to act as though what is adultery is not adultery is not ultimately helping.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
The fact that a person may be in accord with the Church on many issues does not change the fact that simulating marriage with a person who is not one’s spouse is adultery. No pastoral pathway can change that. Lots of people are in hard situations because of a failure to heed this, and of course we should all do what we can to help and support such people, but trying to act as though what is adultery is not adultery is not ultimately helping.
Click to expand...
According to the letter of the law you are right.but what is being considered in this issue is the spirit of the law ie. how the law serves the Gospel meaning to people. We know for certain that following the letter of the law only, doesn’t necessarily lead to the Sacred scripture values, as demonstrated by the scribes, lawyers and pharisees of Jesus time. By not addressing a conundrum that is part of many Catholic lives… are we actually damaging the beauty and meaning of Christian marriage some how? That’s what I wonder. If Pope Francis invited theologians and ordinary people to express their thoughts and ideas on the issue, it must mean that it is calling to be examined for Gods further guidance.
 
BartholomewB said:
Sandro Magister argues that Francis tried very hard, but ultimately failed, to get the Synod to hand him an explicit endorsement of his wish to rewrite the rules on communion for the divorced:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351168?eng=y
Click to expand...
A more authoritarian pope would simply have imposed his view on the matter. It is commendable that Francis is committed to synodality and refrains from doing what is in his power to do. Theoretically, he could sidestep the consensus of the bishops entirely but I know he will not do this, irrespective of what his own personal response to the issue.

The bishops left the final document vague enough for the pope to settle the matter himself in his upcoming exhortation. It will be interesting to see what he decides.
 
Vouthon said:
A more authoritarian pope would simply have imposed his view on the matter. It is commendable that Francis is committed to synodality and refrains from doing what is in his power to do. Theoretically, he could sidestep the consensus of the bishops entirely but I know he will not do this, irrespective of what his own personal response to the issue.

The bishops left the final document vague enough for the pope to settle the matter himself in his upcoming exhortation. It will be interesting to see what he decides.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Pope, whatever his personal view (and I think we enough evidence to indicate that he is sympathetic to change), will respect the decision of the majority of the bishops to retain current practice as it has been held by tradition to this point. To do otherwise will cause more harm than good. And I think Francis can see that even if it disappoints him.
 
I have seen Rorate Caeli quoted here so often, perhaps because the name is so churchy, but noticed quite a few journalistic errors, like re-phrasing in a way that is inaccurate, snippet quotes and loaded words. Don’t get me wrong. They are hardly alone in this, as this sort of blog style is becoming more common.

The lesson is never panic over a second-hand report of what the pope says.
 
LongingSoul said:
According to the letter of the law you are right.but what is being considered in this issue is the spirit of the law ie. how the law serves the Gospel meaning to people. We know for certain that following the letter of the law only, doesn’t necessarily lead to the Sacred scripture values, as demonstrated by the scribes, lawyers and pharisees of Jesus time. By not addressing a conundrum that is part of many Catholic lives… are we actually damaging the beauty and meaning of Christian marriage some how? That’s what I wonder. If Pope Francis invited theologians and ordinary people to express their thoughts and ideas on the issue, it must mean that it is calling to be examined for Gods further guidance.
Click to expand...
Invoking the spirit of the law does not make it legitimate to either a) tell people that what Jesus said was sin is not sin, or b) tell people that it does not matter that they are sinning. It is not mercy to lie to a person regarding issues that affect the state of their soul.

This does not mean that the issue shouldn’t be addressed, but it does not have to be addressed by pretending that it is ok when Christ Himself said it was not. Neither is it damaging to the beauty and meaning of Christian marriage to insist that it is a serious thing, and not something that can be taken up and discarded at will.

That so many are affected by the issue is certainly something that demands attention. But that attention can not be of the form of papering over the fact that it is a sin by treating it as perfectly ok, and hoping that God will also ignore His commandments at judgement time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top