Pope Francis called an Argentine woman married to a divorced man and reportedly told her that she could receive the sacrament of Communion, according to the woman’s husband, in an apparent contradiction of Catholic law.
Julio Sabetta, from San Lorenzo in the Pope’s home country, said his wife, Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona, spoke with Francis on Monday.
Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona wrote to the pontiff in September to ask for clarification on the Communion issue, according to her husband, who said his divorced status had prevented her from receiving the sacrament.
“She spoke with the Pope, and he said she was absolved of all sins and she could go and get the Holy Communion because she was not doing anything wrong,” Sabetta told Channel 3 Rosario, a CNN affiliate.
A Vatican spokesman confirmed the telephone call but would not comment on the conversation’s content.
“It’s between the Pope and the woman,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant for the Vatican press office.
Rosica said that any comments made by the Pope should not be construed as a change in church doctrine. “The magisterium of the church is not defined by personal phone calls.”
Is anyone else getting really, really tired of this game?
Pope Francis consistently says things that cause serious concern among Catholics who know what the Church teaches. No sooner have the words left his mouth (and of course, been reported on far and wide) than the spin machine goes into high gear — powered in large part by Catholic bloggers who make a living promoting the status quo within the Church (no conflict of interest there!) — telling us why we should not worry about the obviously controversial thing because of one of the following reasons:
- It’s a translation issue
- It’s a contextual issue
- When he said “X” it’s clear that he probably meant “Y”
- The source is unreliable
- The information is not first-hand
- We must look at the issue through the Argentinian cultural lens
- The media is misrepresenting what he said
- He contradicted himself in another thing that he said during a homily last week
- Fr. Lombardi says it ain’t true
Take your pick. There are probably others. I imagine the Catholic apologists in the tank for this nonsense have a sort of flow chart they pass around every time they add a new option. “Did the Pope speak in Italian? –> IF YES, it’s not his native language. Lost in Translation. IF NO…”
It’s a spin-the-wheel sort of system. Maybe there’s a papal 8-ball out there (in white, of course) where you shake it up and it gives you a series of half-believable reasons why whatever he said wasn’t really heterodox. Across the spectrum of Catholic publications and social media, it’s become a giant excuse-making enterprise. Almost like the Pope Francis edition of whack-a-mole.
You’ll have to excuse my sarcasm. I’m starting to find this all incredibly offensive, and insulting to the collective intelligence of Catholics who see what is really going on.
The Holy Father is, for all intents and purposes, shooting a rail gun into the heart of the faith. He is undeniably causing mass division and confusion, which are not signs of God’s work, and these things are particularly afflicting the faithful Catholics who are in the tiny minority among the world’s self-professed Catholics.
You can’t simply look at each incident as an isolated issue. You have to look at the problem comprehensively. All this build up about divorce and remarriage and communion. The endless goings on about pastoral concerns trumping rubrics. The condemnations of triumphalism and neo-pelagianism. The public praising of Kasper’s dangerous speech on the topic, and of him as a theologian. The constant shaking up of the way things are done and the obvious disregard for the way things are supposed be. The false humility which masks the absolutely unilateral power with which tradition is dispensed with. The insistence on collegiality and delegating papal authority to local bishops, only for the pope to go directly to people and make these kinds of phone calls.
Disruption. Disruption. Disruption.
You have a PR and management team analyzing the media and communications around this pontificate. I once worked for one of the best PR firms in the country. I know what they do. They see the messages, the news stories, the thematic resonance. Things are weighed and measured. Responses are planned. If these people are not doing this, what are they doing? This is their job.
The pope has been made personally aware of the way people receive his comments (with “big eyes” no less.) He has responded directly (by phone!) to some of his critics, thanking them for their criticism (isn’t he MAGNANIMOUS?!). Still, he has not become sensitive to the fallout or changed his approach. He has not, in a word, become responsible.
So this phone call happens. It is reported that the pope tells this woman something that is clearly in contradiction with Church teaching. The Vatican press office is asked about it — and the story is confirmed — thus making the inner circle aware that people want to know, especially leading up to the synod in October, which will address this issue of communion for the divorced and remarried.
And yet, we receive no clarification. We get vagueries from Fr. Lombardi, which some are choosing to interpret as a polite way of saying that lies are being spread:
Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships.
Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities, no information or comments are to be expected from the Holy See Press Office.
That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.
Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences.
This doesn’t mean anything. It also makes no sense.
Why would this woman lie if she got the answer she wanted? Why make something up?
And if she didn’t get the answer she wanted and did lie about it, only the Pope himself can say, “Yes, I spoke to her, but this is not what was said.” Since he knows this is becoming a big story, it behooves him to do this if he cares about preserving doctrinal clarity and avoiding unnecessarily scandalizing the faithful. If he doesn’t want to speak to it directly, the statement that needs to be made by the press office, with his authorization, is astonishingly simple:
“The Holy Father cannot comment on the contents of a personal phone call, but suffice to say that in his discussion he did, in fact, reaffirm the Church’s longstanding teaching on divorce and remarriage, and the conditions for the reception of communion.”
That kills the noise. Instead, this continues to get bigger and spread and affect people’s perceptions of what is really going on. The pope understands by now how fast the media machine works. He should be pretty used to creating controversy at this point, and a man in his position with his obligation to safeguard the sensus fidei would, one would assume, care a great deal about setting the record straight.
And yet…nothing.
This is EXACTLY what someone trying to change Church teaching through public perception rather than doctrinal alteration would want. If this isn’t planned, it’s the most unbelievably devilish luck.
I am forced to conclude that his silence is a form of consent. Which leads to other conclusions:
It is entirely possible that in order to maintain plausible deniability, he is not telling his own press people anything. After all, he’s the only one who could know the contents of the phone call other than Mrs. Sabetta, who has already told her side of the story. If they can only deny this in vagueries, what can come of it?
On the other hand, if he were to confirm he said this, it would send many faithful Catholics over the edge and into the camp with those of who believe we have a serious pope problem. Quite a risk.
So silence is a win/win for him. By not making it clear that he didn’t say this, he is showing that he has no problem with letting everyone believe that he did. Because nothing can be proven, many faithful Catholics will, in charity, assume that he would not say such a heretical thing. Those who ring the bell on this stuff [raises hand] will simply become a greater nuisance and further marginalized because they’re “apoplectic bedwetters” (or whatever unique epithet they’ll spin up) despite not knowing anything for certain.
And the inevitable, slow march toward allowing those living objectively in mortal sin to be admitted to communion will continue. No doubt many of them are already celebrating this story and the conclusions they may draw from it.
This follows the de jure vs. de facto hypothesis of fundamental Church transformation: the pope (and his ideological fellows) changes as much as possible through insinuation and indirect action. Everything is plausibly deniable or can be contextually explained away. But everyone hears that there is a new practice. They begin to act in kind. I have little doubt some divorced and remarried Catholics, seeing the handwriting on the wall, have already taken it upon themselves to present themselves for communion, feeling certain in their hearts that the pope himself is okay with this. What starts as an abuse may become an indult or pastoral discretionary provision, and later, just the norm.
Just like communion in the hand.
And like communion in the hand, this will not only cause a great many sacrilegious acts to occur, but it will erode still further the belief in the Real Presence until such superstitious nonsense (as it will no doubt be looked upon) will be nothing but an unhappy memory.
If I’m right about any of this, you have to give him credit. It’s a remarkably effective end run around the requirements of indefectibility. Change praxis sufficiently and doctrine becomes irrelevant.
This should be framed and in the Louvre. Dead. On.
To change praxis sufficiently IS to change doctrine.
In point of fact, this is substantially more than a change of ‘discipline’…it strikes at the very heart of What (Who) the Holy Eucharist is; what marriage is; and what mortal sin is; and those all involve unchangeable doctrine.
outstanding piece of work Steve!
Wow, talk about great minds thinking alike! Hope you don’t mind; feel free to delete: http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-magisterium-of-telephone.html
You mirror my own frustration. But what’s a “rail gun.”
I share your frustration, Terrye. BTW, a rail gun is a naval gun that recoils on rails and fires a 7lb. projectile at incredibly high speed, 5400 mph. It’s an anti-missile defense weapon,virtually unstoppable because of the speed. And it’s a REALLY BIG HONKIN’ GUN! (I really want one! LOL)
Rail guns shoot nails (usually pneumatically) into lumber. Don’t bother thanking me, I’m just doing my job 🙂
Please disregard my obvious lack of naval experience and see my former comment as humorous. Rails… I’d rather look down the barrel of a framer than to see that turning towards me.
Steve,
I’m taking the Michael Voris (and his groupies) approach on this one i.e. I’ll bury my head in the sand in zombie like deference to Pope Francis. However, let me know if Cardinal Dolan or Cardinal O’Malley pull a stunt like this, then you can watch my head explode!!!!
One of the sad things about all of this is that I used to derive inspiration from MV’s willingness to sniff around the lavender curtain and draw it aside no matter what. Now that he has come to the emerald curtain of the Great and Powerful one himself, he bristles his moustache and yells “No one may speak against the wizard!” Toto turned out to be another lap dog after all.
I don’t know where to start. How about this? Remember in the sixties we were fed the line that until VII, we were treated as children, but now the Church was hip to the times and realized we are adults? Well, we are still treated as children who know not what is best for them.
Frankly, I am sick to death of being jerked around by the Church. And damn tired of it too.
I dismissed this story yesterday when I read it elsewhere as propaganda. Stupid me.
Steve, it is a great post and you have reflected in it my own absolute frustration. Just what the hell is going on in our Church?
“The condemnations of triumphalism and neo-pelagianism.”
THE
ROSE
Took away the bells
Took away the art
Took away the songs
Inspiring our heart.
Took away the missals
Took away the veil
Took away our right to kneel
At Communion rail.
Scourged us with indifference
Whipped with Worship, weak
Crowned us with their humble words,
“It’s just a phone call, geek!”
Now with untuned strings you dance
Pass us on The Way
Carrying our crosses on the path
Of “long defeat”, we stay.
Try to kill us softly
With bashful, blushing, babble
Condescending degrader dogs
Then slap us as we scrabble.
The Way, the Truth and our life
“Is crux of all sedition.”
But we are merely branches
Rooted in Tradition.
Branches weak and branches strong
Branches propagate
Branches full of Sacred Sap
From Vine proliferate.
A branch can bend, a branch can break
Become dead wood to toss
But He Who makes all things new
Made dead wood save…the Cross.
So take away the bells
Take away the art
Take away our Catholic name
Written in His Heart.
For “What is in a name?”
Our Catholicity you cheat
But “By any other name”
Our Christian souls… still sweet!
Brilliant analysis…praying that it goes viral. Thank you and God bless!!
Good job on being the featured story on Pewsitter. This is the best write-ups on the matter.
“I’m starting to find this all incredibly offensive, and insulting to the collective intelligence of Catholics who see what is really going on.”
Yes indeed. It is insulting. Quite.
Bless our Holy Father for giving hope to millions who have been left out in the cold by their fellow “Catholics” for so long.
When people choose sin over faithfulness they remove themselves from the warm embrace of the sacraments.
Olivia, that’s crap. They’ve been “left out” by choosing to sin, and by choosing not to repent. No one made them sin. No one forced them to reject the Truth. And no one is stopping them from repenting. Grow the hell up.
Tnere is no “hope” in smoothing away a state of mortal sin, if that is what the Pope did. The corollary of your “blessing” is a rejection of the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church, all in the name of “feeling good” about yourself.
A pious and Catholic woman (who may be divorced and remarried) receiving the Eucharist. The horror! The horror!
LWC: Really??? She’s a self-professed occasional Mass attender (so much for piety) who’s been living in an objectively adulterous relationship for 19 years – a fact which she was well aware thanks to a priest with real courage, charity, and pastoral concern.
And speaking of her priest, Steve, the excuse he gave for Pope Francis is the one I’m seeing most often on other Catholic blogs; namely, “That’s impossible!”
But when you think about it, they kinda have to. The implications are too grievous otherwise. But in the meantime, everyone brushes off the unanimous testimony of two firsthand witnesses – “this is what the Pope told us!” – and simply declares it to be impossible.
Here’s what her priest said, which other than no being able to swallow the possibility that Francis is a dissenter, is actually remarkably refreshing. The Holy Father should take heed.
“[T]he pastor of San Lorenzo’s church, Father José Ceschi, said late on Wednesday that the alleged “permission” to receive Communion given by the Pope is “absurd.”
Speaking to local radio station La Ocho, Father Ceschi said, “First of all, I am very happy to know that the Pope called someone in San Lorenzo; the Pope surprises with these calls, and people are so surprised, and that makes me happy. I do believe in the call, but what is hard to believe is that he gave her permission to go to Communion.”
“The Pope would never do that, is impossible. If he is coming from a previous sacrament, and they are living together, [it] is absolutely impossible,” Father Ceschi told the radio station.
“What happens is that the Pope, like all bishops and priests, needs to be father, mother and teacher, always with an open heart, while telling things as they are.”
Speaking of his predecessor, who told Jaquelina that she could not receive Communion, the priest noted that “Father Sergio was right: If a previous sacrament of marriage is involved, the Church cannot go beyond what Jesus has taught.”
“If Father Sergio would have given absolution, it would have been like someone writing you a check for an empty bank account: [It] is worthless!” he said.
“Again, I believe that the call happened; I just don’t believe the Pope would go over the head of the [local] bishop — it is absurd,” he reiterated.
It’s quite interesting how you reconcile a confidence placed in this woman’s ‘grave’ state of sin yet ever-so skeptical of Francis’ words and deeds. “Remove the plank in your own eye before attempting to remove the speck in another…” or so I’ve heard.
LWC: Don’t take it from me, dear. Her parish priest, who knows the situation better than you, I, or Pope Francis, is the one who has said her plight makes the reception of Holy Communion impossible; i.e. she is in an objective state of mortal sin. And also, why do you give everyone a pass who thinks that the Holy Father would have never said such a thing? Ironically, those who defend him, by making such an assertion, are implicitly calling this woman and her husband liars; or at least confused little simpletons. So which is more judgmental? Suspecting that Pope Francis would actually do what he praised Cardinal Kasper for suggesting, or calling two people liars?
I’m pretty sure the pope has authority to override the parish priest’s judgement.
The pope doesn’t have any authority to override Christ.
And precisely whom did Jesus reject?
The Pope does not have the ‘right’ to ‘override’ Catholic teaching and established moral practice. He is limited in hie authority to the Revelation and traditional moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
to LWC…
“And precisely whom did Jesus reject?”
Those who walked away from Him and His teachings.
Read John 6…they called themselves ‘disciples’ and walked away because ‘His sayings were too hard.’ Sound familiar?
While you’re at it, give Luke 6:46 and Matt7:21-23.a read.
I’m fairly certain you can make a reasonable distinction of where the rejection lies. It is one thing for Christ to walk away; quite another for the person to walk away. Christ hasn’t walked away from anyone.
The ones who walk away from Him, He rejects. I know you might need to go out and buy one, but seriously lwc, get a Bible and read Matt 7:21-23.
eriously Susan, go purchase yourself an ordinary introduction to logic textbook.
And within your extraordinary wisdom, included in that passage is, “but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Just who are you to fully know “the will of my Father.” Further you may recall Jesus’ interaction with a particular divorced and re-married woman. Did he walk away from her? Perhaps you need Catechesis as much as I.
“divorced and remarried”… are you Catholic? Because a Catholic knows that the real term for that is “living in a state of unrepented mortal sin.”
Someone the other day tried to chastise the Catholics concerned about this by saying, “Well, even Judas received…”
Yes, and he was the first example of what happens when you, receive “unworthily,” as Paul put it, that is, in a state of mortal sin:
“26 Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’ Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
“27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.”
So, encouraging a person in a state of unrepented mortal sin to “eat and drink to his own condemnation”? How, exactly, is that pastoral?
So, “pastoral” now means “letting people do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the eternal consequences.” That’s great. I suppose we also have to chastise parents who refuse to let their toddlers play with electricity and take away fireworks. Your pastoral theology seems to amount to acceding to every wail of “BUT I WANT TO!!!”
“27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.”
Wow! thank you for citing that. I’d forgotten.
EXXXXXXXCELLENT comment Hilary!
The most frightening portion of what the Bishop of Rome is alleged to have said is this:
“A little bread and wine ‘does no harm”
For if this is how he views the Eucharist, it is merely a continuation of his dialogue with his “Fellow Bishop, Tony Palmer” (not a Catholic Bishop) who following his iphone chat with Francis declared “The Protest is Over” and if his goal is a universal ecumenical church, this would be the only acceptable view of many of it’s members…..”Just a little Bread and Wine”
Once while complaining at dinner in the Bronx to a Jesuit professor-priest emeritus from Fordham Univ., after having witnessed the Jesuit president of the Univ. offer the most irreverent Mass I have ever been to, he said, “Well, there is a ‘joke’ that goes like this: What are the two things that DO NOT CHANGE during a Mass celebrated by a Jesuit?….The Bread and the Wine…”
I almost died.
That goes right back to the other words alleged to have been part of this conversation that are attributed to Francis, that speak to the Eucharist as “a little bread and wine” that were originally reported by the Daily Telegraph in the UK. If Pope Francis wants us all to be catholics (little c) as he said to his “fellow bishop” Tony Palmer, (in another infamous iphone photo op) then how would the Eucharist ever be accepted as anything other than “a little bread and wine” to all of those he would have join this new congregation who have never accepted the real presence? Is the “Protest Over”?
Whatever else he may have said, I don’t think he actually said that. I’ve been following this story to the best of my ability, and as far as I know, that was just a headline given to the story by the English ‘Daily Mail’ newspaper in their own misguided attempt to be funny or clever. I haven’t seen anything suggesting it was an actual quote from the Pope himself.
You may be right. I have not seen any additional reference to that comment, although it would be consistent with how he is approaching and promoting ecumenism, just like his predecessors.
This Pope will not ever explicitly attempt to change Church Doctrine. He doesn’t need to change Church Doctrine. He doesn’t care about Church Doctrine. That’s sort of the the point. So when Fr. Lombardi says that the Pope’s words and action don’t change Church Doctrine, the takeaway for many people is NOT that Church Doctrine remains as a steadfast, lovely and wonderful moral bulwark, or whatever, but rather that, well, Church Doctrine doesn’t really matter. Of course the Pope’s frequent endorsement of “mercy” over “rigidity” and “rules” feeds this. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that Ms. Sabetta Lisbona’s account of the conversation is either entirely or for the most part correct. It rings true to me.
Does this mean “Father Bergoglio” is the Anti-Christ? No, it means he’s a fuzzy and shallow thinker. He likes “mercy”. He doesn’t like “rules”. And he’s not really sharp or logical enough to see that saying it’s “okay” to take communion in this case, MUST either contradict the doctrine of the real presence or contradict Jesus’ view that divorce and remarriage is an ongoing sin equivalent to obstinate adultery or Scripture’s clear admonition that taking communion while being an obstinate and unrepentant sinner is an awful sacrilege that offends God and puts the communicant’s salvation at risk. At least that’s the charitable way of looking at it. 🙂
I’ll bet anyone $100 (to be collected in the afterlife, of course) that Francis’ crack about some priests thinking they are “more Papist than the Pope” is exactly what he said. Rephrase the statement to match the old question–do some people think they are “more Catholic than the Pope?”–and the answer, after more than a year of this annoying pontificate, is, “well, duh…and they are right!”
Can we now make that into a t-shirt?
MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE
Perhaps both sides are wrong. Instead of Francis being an anti-Pope or the last Pope or the second to last Pope, or the harbinger of the apocalypse or whatever OR the great liberal crusader who will finally and permanently entrench Vatican II liberalism, etc., etc., he is a somewhat confused and weak leader who (like many 77-year olds) will have gone to his reward in a few years–his brief “popularity” being forgotten in a generation, and becoming merely a trivia answer to the question of which Pope served between Benedict the Wise and Pope Pius the XIII. Why not? God has a habit of foiling our expectations.
And therein is your dilemma. If indeed as a good Catholic you believe the pope stands as ‘Vicar of Christ,’ then can one likewise claim to be ‘more Christian than Christ’?
No, just more Catholic than this particular vicar. It says more about him than it does about any of us, believe me.
The first (and greatest) Pope, Peter, was called Satan by Christ himself. The Borgia Popes were libertines and personally corrupt. All Popes were flawed men and open to criticism as men. Each and every priest is an “alter Christus”, yet each and every priest is a flawed human being. You really need to get beyond a cartoon understanding of Catholicism if you’d like to troll faithful Catholic websites.
And I’d much prefer being a cartoon than Pharisee.
I’ll leave it to you to rewrite the works of Shakespeare. We’d all enjoy your comical PC gloss on the Folios. The “anti-Pharisee” sure likes to project “vulnerabilities”. What other LGBT talking points can you throw out there? Do you charge a hourly or a flat rate for your psychobabble?
Aren’t you just the charitable, ‘c’atholic? Don’t think I mentioned our LGBT brothers and sisters…but since you mentioned it…. they too, are made in the image of and children of God. But I’m altogether certain some dogma or rubric gets in your way of loving them too. I’m given to understand Westboro Baptist Church just had a vacancy become available. You appear to meet one (or several) of their qualifications…and I doubt one need be a Pharisee to apply.
You’re a walking compendium of cant and cliche-a virtual Bill Maher of innuendo and inanity. I doubt the worthies at Westboro would look kindly on my volunteer work with an AIDS clinic during the 80s and 90s. So far you’ve pegged me as mentally defective, a homophobe, a “Pharisee”. Don’t hold anything back- there must be a history of racism in my past? Or I may be a regicide? Perhaps I was in the Hitler Youth in pre war Germany? Come on now, someone as compassionate as you has got to be able to at least convict me of kicking dogs…
And I’m no less a ‘faithful’ Catholic than you. Perhaps my understanding of Jesus Christ may well be more grounded than your Pharisee sophistry. Try again, though.
I don’t doubt that your self-righteousness convinces you of your unbounded virtue. Your use of the “pharisee” canard places you nicely as a pick and choose catholic, as repelled by the Magisterium as a vampire is by garlic.
‘Pick and choose ”c’atholic’? The Lady dost protest too much! That’s Catholic to you, Precious.
Last i checked I had an appendage that put me in the Lad camp. Perhaps the very idea of gender is an oppressive cultural leftover that you’d like to smooth away like the Magistrium.
Perhaps Shakespeare could have penned it to be more inclusive. But okay, since you’re feeling ‘vulnerable’ in that aspect of masculinity, “Methinks, the Lad doth protest too much!” That better?
Perhaps Shakespeare could have penned it to be more inclusive. But okay, since you’re feeling ‘vulnerable’ in that aspect of masculinity, “Methinks, the Lad doth protest too much!” That better?
I’ll leave it to you to rewrite the works of Shakespeare. We’d all enjoy your comical PC gloss on the Folios. The “anti-Pharisee” sure likes to project “vulnerabilities”. What other LGBT talking points can you throw out there? Do you charge a hourly or a flat rate for your psychobabble?
(It’s so nice needs to be posted twice.)
Actually, your trollish highhandedness betrays you as a perfect Pharisee. It is we who are, in your unblinking eyes, ritually (and ideologically) unclean. Yours is a position as sad as it is emblematic.
And I’m no less a ‘faithful’ Catholic than you. Perhaps my understanding of Jesus Christ may well be more grounded than your Pharisee sophistry. Try again, though.
Where’s my fly swatter?
Likely underneath your gauntlets, mozzetta, rochet, simar, ermine and triregno.
THIS IS SIMPLY EXCELLENT—-I WISH IT WAS TERRIBLY OFF BASE…..BUT IT IS NOT. WE ARE LIVING IN THE MIDST OF A DISASTER: I TOLD MANY FRIENDS FROM DAY ONE THAT THIS PONTIFICATE WOULD BE CATACLYSMIC IF THE POPE WAS A STUDY IN AMBIGUITY—AND HE IS. IN FACT, HE’S WAY BEYOND AMBIGUITY: IF HE WAS ANY OTHER PRELATE HIS MEANDERING(BUT STUDIED) UTTERANCES AND SARCASM AND INSULTS WOULD BE SEEN BY ANYONE REMOTELY ORTHODOX AS THE EXHALATIONS OF A “LIBERAL” OR MODERNIST BISHOP—–BUT BECAUSE HE IS THE POPE, THE BANE OF ULTRAMONTANISM IS CAUSING MANY TO TWIST THEMSELVES INTO PRETZELS IN THE FUTILE EFFORT OF TRYING TO APPLY THE “HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY” TO THIS UNFORTUNATE MAN…………FORGET IT; IT WON’T WORK……….WE NEED TO PRAY THAT HE UNDERGOES A MOMENT OF OVERWHELMING GRACE. WE ARE IN FOR A ROUGHER RIDE THAT WE COULD HAVE IMAGINED. THE HOLY FATHER IS THE #1 SERVANT AND TEACHER OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ON THIS EARTH—THE POWER “TO BIND AND LOOSE” DOES NOT APPLY TO “UNDOING” DIVINE POSITIVE LAW OR DOGMAS OF THE FAITH. WE MUST PRAY—FOR HIM PARTICULARLY—AND HANG ON TO THE FAITH…NO MATTER WHAT MADNESS HE OR ANY OTHER POPE OR PRELATE MAY ENGAGE IN. MAY GOD BE WITH US ALL!
Alright everyone. Play nice. I don’t have time to police comments all day today.
And LWC? Stop trolling. You’ve no doubt figured out by my post that our conceptions of what a good Catholic are likely differ. My definition is that of the Church. For example, good Catholics don’t receive communion in a state of mortal sin, full stop.
Steve, I am not trolling. I consider myself to be a devout Catholic who sees an extraordinary hypocrisy of those who self-identify as Catholic, yet speak and behave in ways contrary to Catholic teaching. We may disagree about theology, rubrics, or even worship, but my concern is the overreach by many who wish to marginalize those who do not believe as they do.
troll
trōl
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1. informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
“if people are obviously trolling then I’ll delete your posts and do my best to ban you”
You needn’t worry with ‘banning’ me. I’ll depart on my own accord as hate is more easily recognized than a rattlesnake. And sadly, this appears to be a den of rattlesnake Pharisees. “[I] will strike your head, and you will strike [my] heel.”
That quote was part of the wikipedia definition, not a threat from me.
Although in general, it’s a good idea not to feed trolls.
It’s all good. Felt like a bite. But none the less, Happy Easter.
” I consider myself to be a devout Catholic who sees an extraordinary hypocrisy of those who self-identify as Catholic, yet speak and behave in ways contrary to Catholic teaching.” You mean adulterers and their enablers? This hypocrisy seems to be missing from your mirror.
Now that we’ve established you’re trolling, LWC, let me say this:
You don’t get to redefine what “devout Catholic” means and then use that new definition to re-categorize people who actually are devout.
The great thing about Catholicism — the thing that attracts so many thinking people to it — is that it’s logical, has parameters, clear boundaries, laws, rules, rubrics, things that are written down for easy reference and compliance.
“God is luv” as construed to mean “tolerate everything out of a false sense of compassion” is not, and never has been, the core tenet of Catholicism.
“I came not to bring peace, but the sword.”
Ring a bell?
Love means desiring what is best for the beloved. If that comes to my children, it means not letting them watch 12 hours of TV even though it makes them think they’re happy, or giving them ice cream 3 meals a day.
If it comes to the moral life, it means not letting men be as promiscuous as their little concupiscent natures desire, allowing homosexuals to express disordered affections because they think it licit, or let women murder their babies in the womb because they think they can’t provide a happy enough life for them.
Love always means upholding God’s laws, which include those made by the successors to the apostles to whom he delegated the authority to “loose and bind”.
Christ himself taught that divorce + remarriage = adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin. One who receives communion in a state of mortal sin “eats and drinks condemnation unto himself.”
It’s really, incredibly simple.
Steve,
It’s unfortunate we couldn’t continue our dialogue. I felt that L(luke)W(warm)C(catholic) was on the verge of becoming a TLM Catholic, or perhaps I’m just an eternal optimist?
Well, the blogosphere’s “catholic” apologists have been exposed as utter frauds, so now I know who not to take seriously. There’s a silver lining to everything.
Most of them are converts. And they converted into a post-Vatican II Church, which is known for doctrinal confusion, liturgical experimentation, and undisciplined heresy within the ranks of the clergy.
I feel bad for them, in a way. They were sold a false bill of goods. The Church they came into is not the Church of history, which would no doubt have been a stumbling block to many of them.
I’m not knocking converts. My wife is one. My maternal grandmother, matriarch of a very large and very Catholic family, was one. But context matters. Saying “credo” to something that looks and acts a lot like Protestantism when that’s the religion you’re coming from means that there could be some problems with the transition.
You make such a very good point. I am a convert, and I studied and read a lot leading up to my conversion and have continued to do so. Mine was a very intellectual conversion and not at all liberal or progressive. Though not all of what I read was post-Vatican II, most of it was. I knew there were problems in the Church, and I *thought* I was avoiding the tainted stuff and getting “real Catholicism” –a la the usual conservatives. Now I find myself in a horrible state. It is clear to me intellectually and logically that this is a huge mess we’re in, but I also find myself constantly battling an almost crippling state of confusion and indecision. That state comes directly from what I thought was a good formation over these years. It simply does not match the earlier teachings in so many ways, and it’s almost like I have a mental block about what to do. I can logically see the answer… but then I’m faced with this huge “BUT”. The “BUT” of the neo-con trap that I can’t completely escape from (at least not yet). Almost no one around me sees any problem at all–and they’re the so-called “solid” parishioners. It’s a horrid situation to be in. Everyone thinks it’s the safe zone, but it hasn’t proved so to me.
Converts are actually some of the most knowledgeable Catholics there are. I don’t think the problem is that the the official blogosphere is run by converts, but that they are completely identified with the mainstream Catholic Church, no matter where that stream my wander. In a word, they are interested parties, not honest commentators. If I make my living selling the Pope, I’m hardly going to bite the hand that’s slapping the guy next to me. I want to get fed and patted on the head.
Yes, and get more junkets to Rome
I agree Timothy, I don’t think it’s because the bloggers are converts that their vision is lacking. I was born in 1968: I don’t remember Traditional Latin masses. My CCD was awful, I’d hardly call it “formation”. My husband was born in 1962 and knows less than I do about catholicism even though he went to parochial school!! I have no advantage as a cradle except some awareness with how different Catholicism was for my parents and grandparents.
Probably true, altho Anchoress is not a convert.
and she is head honcho at the egregious Patheticos, I mean Patheos, site.
Obviously, we have a loose cannon occupying the Chair of Peter. I’m still deciding if he is the shepherd or a wolf in a white cassock.
I love born again ultramontinists who reject everything that came before Vatican II except papal infallibility. Which they get wrong.
EXXXXCELLENT comment!
It’s a sad day when someone who presents himself as a Catholic blogger seems to put more faith in hearsay and mainstream media than he does in the Vicar of Christ. First, this was a private communication, perhaps confidential. Not confession, obviously, but any pastor has a serious responsibility to protect the content of confidential conversations, regardless of whatever imagined ‘scandal’ is taking place. Second, I’m not sure why you think what Lombardi said was meaningless. He said a) it was a private conversation, so don’t expect any word from the Press Office; b) the ‘husbands’ comments, as well as its reporting in the media, have caused misunderstanding and confusion – i.e. he doesn’t know what he’s talking about; and c) this has no bearing on the Magisterium. Now you would have a problem with this ONLY if you assume that everything the ‘husband’ says is a true and accurate account what happened. And that the Vatican is NOT truthful. In fact, I would say that we have absolutely NO idea what the Pope’s conversation was about. Nor are we likely to ever know. So deal with it. Trust in God. Trust in the Holy Spirit. Don’t add to the tumult and madness by meaningless rants like this.
“Why do the nations rage, and the peoples imagine a vain thing.” Psalm II
Father, With all due respect, the Pontiff’s words and actions have stirred fear and concern in the hearts and minds of many fine Catholics, who you suggest have no business being concerned. The litany of these words and actions from Francis, followed by the spin and respin coming out of the Vatican, are where the blame should be placed not on those of us who have fear and concern in our hearts. Please don’t turn this into an “us against you” argument unnecessarily. There is plenty of on the record reporting of his words and statements to suggest that these comments attributed to someone whom you call a liar, are 100% consistent with an intentional theme of the Bishop of Rome. Why would pretend or lead others to feel otherwise?
Thanks, Father Kevin McGrath. I for one am grateful for your comment, because it exposes why the Church is in a ditch and has lost almost an entire generation of my massive cradle catholic family.
and in all probability, all generations thereafter.
“Why do the nations rage, and the peoples imagine a vain thing.” Psalm II
Wait, I imagining that? Is there something you know about all my relatives, Father, that I don’t know?
Yes and after this weekend it will be out of the ditch and into deep dark hole.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again, Father. I recommend paying particular intention to this part:
He called a member of the faithful and gave his opinion on a matter of faith and morals. That opinion was made public and is causing confusion among the faithful for good reason. He has a solemn obligation to clarify whether or not he upheld the teaching of the Church. He has no obligation to disclose any personal information discussed in the phone call.
Does this distinction make sense? Because it’s critically important.
“He called a member of the faithful and gave his opinion on a matter of faith and morals.” What is the basis for your affirmation of this statement? The word of her ‘husband?’ The woman herself has said nothing as far as I know. The man’s statement itself is contradictory and not clear. Again, you seem to trust this man and the media’s reports of what he said more than you trust the Pope. The only reason this would cause confusion is because of people who keep stirring the pot and demanding ex cathedra statements every time their nose gets out of joint. I don’t mind the Pope being a bit more media savvy, but to suggest he must submit himself to the 24/7 news/blog cycle is simply wrong. If this was a private, confidential conversation, then the Pope should definitely refrain from even disclosing the topic of discussion. It’s not confession, I know, but even spiritual direction needs to be protected.
“The Holy Father is, for all intents and purposes, shooting a rail gun into the heart of the faith.” Really? This is gross hyperbole. And I am being very kind.
“The only reason this would cause confusion is because of people who keep stirring the pot and demanding ex cathedra statements every time their nose gets out of joint.”
Seriously? Are you serious??? The ONLY reason?
Blessed Mother shouting “you lie!” to God the Father, atheists being saved by their consciences and humanitarian works, Jesus lying to the Apostles in His demeanor to teach some sort of a lesson, telling muslims to hold fast to their korans to find hope within (!!!)), the more than dubious choice of notorious dissenters as his chief advisors and theologians, telling dissenting orders to ignore the CDF, the upcoming co-celebration with the Lutherans of the rebellion, and on and more and on and blah and on….)
I think Michael Voris has found a soul-mate in you. But then again, a bit confused whether he’d find ‘Z’ a man after his own heart as well and be compelled to reconsider that whole marriage equality issue.
Don’t quit your day job for comedy LCW (or anything else that actually requires wit and reason).
Of course almost anything might pay better than trolling, but you really are so very good at it.
And yet I might never achieve the degree piety, righteousness, charity, and intellect as you. Pity.
Your comments add so much.
ahhhh, see there…now you’re finally showing some reason.
Remember how I said it’s a bad idea to feed trolls? Goodbye.
Susan, you left out the caring and sharing being the real miracle with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes.
yeah…that and about 362 other atrocities. Thanks for the reminder though…I’m gonna go take another Tums; and then I guess I’ll go hang upside down in my belfrey.
I’m also being kind about your naivete. I have great respect for priests. But I’ve been studying the Church and theology for 20 years, and I feel confident that what I’m saying isn’t rash.
If you don’t care for what I’m saying, feel free not to participate.
I wouldn’t call it naivete, I’d call it rank arrogance. I guess I’m not as kind as you.
Well, if all you want to hear is people who agree with you, then I will be happy to remove myself from this conversation.
This isn’t about wanting to hear from certain sorts of people. It’s about intellectual honesty, a substantive understanding of scandal, and the ability to see what is going on here.
It doesn’t matter whether you think he’s doing it intentionally or not. The upshot is that he’s giving the impression by actions like this (or, if you want to deny that he did it, by not correcting the huge international news story around his non-action) and his other actions, like praising Kasper’s dangerous “theology”, that he supports offering communion to the divorced and remarried.
If you deny that he is giving that impression, that people will change their behavior (and not for the better) because of it, and that he has the power to put a stop to it by making a simple clarification that directly addresses this issue without divulging confidential information, then I cannot treat you as an honest person.
I will listen to people who disagree with me. I’ll engage with them. If I’m convinced they’re right, I will change my opinion.
But I will not waste time going back and forth with someone telling me that the sky is red when it is clearly blue.
Father Kevin, please, I would be more than willing to hear what you have to say that would help me stay put and to enable me to get through all of this. I mean this very sincerely.
Father,
The reason the testimony of Julio and Jaquelina Sabetta rings true (and, yes, she has spoken on it) is because the Pope has already given a resounding endorsement to the view that divorced and “remarried” Catholics should be admitted to Holy Communion.
To this end, a few month ago the Holy Father invited Cardinal Kasper to address an Extraordinary Consistory on the Family where he made a speech entitled, The Problem of the Divorced and Remarried. Several points in this address are noteworthy here, many of which come from the following articles:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/a-reflection-on-cardinal-kasper-s-speech-on-the-family
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/364-the-francis-effect-a-gathering-storm
First, the Cardinal begins by appealing to Pope Francis’ address to the Apostolic Tribunal – where the Holy Father called for a balance between judicial application and pastoral sensitivity – and in so doing His Eminence makes it clear that, part of what he finds wanting in the Church’s current praxis concerning divorced and “remarried” Catholics, is a disproportionate emphasis on doctrine over and against lived experience:
“Between the Church’s doctrine on marriage and the family and the ‘real life’ convictions of many Christians, an abyss has been created.”
As such, with apparently utter disregard for the Church’s current praxis (namely, the exercise of marriage tribunals and the admonition that those living in a public state of adultery should not make sacrilegious communions) the Cardinal goes on to propose the following new possibilities:
A. Marriage tribunals should be done away with, and the authority to make a determination of nullity should be granted to the local parish priest.
B. Or alternatively, the recommendation that the need for a decree of nullity be dispensed with altogether. Instead, the divorced and remarried would adhere to the following paradigm:
“If a divorced and remarried – 1. Repents of the failure in his first marriage, 2. If he has clarified the obligations of his first marriage, if going back is definitely excluded, 3. If he cannot abandon without other offences to his commitments in the second civil marriage, 4. If however, he makes an effort to live in the second marriage to the best of his possibilities, starting from the faith and bringing his children up in the faith, 5. If he has the desire for the sacraments as the source of strength in his situation, must we or can we deny him, after a time of a new course (metanoia) the sacrament of penance and then Communion?”
In essence, and against Church teaching, the Cardinal is proposing that the first marriage be simply deemed a failure, that the second adulterous union be subsequently approved, and that all of this wanton disregard for doctrine be somehow considered sufficient to readmit an individual to Holy Communion. Nevertheless, in support of this proposition the Cardinal makes a number of specious arguments:
1. Since it is laudatory for the divorced and remarried to attend Mass in order to make a spiritual communion, there should likewise be no impediment to them making a sacramental communion; in short, spiritual communion is altogether analogous to sacramental communion, and therefore if the one is permissible the other ought to be as well.
2. The assertion that the ancient Church affords a number of examples where the divorced and remarried were admitted to Holy Communion. The current praxis of the Orthodox Church is cited as an authority well. Without belaboring this any longer, the first assertion is simply wrong, and the second is based on recourse to schismatics.
Now, in light of all this, what makes me inclined to believe the testimony of Julio and Jaquelina Sabetta (regarding the content of Holy Father’s phone call) is the ringing – even fawning – endorsement that Pope Francis gave to Cardinal Kasper’s address the following day. Read it yourself:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-greets-ukrainian-cardinals-and-praise
“Another thing: yesterday, before sleeping – although not in order to go to sleep! – I read and reread Cardinal Walter Kasper’s document. And I would like to thank him, as I found it to be a work of profound theology, and also a serene theological reflection. It is pleasant to read serene theology. And I also found what St. Ignatius described as the sensus Ecclesiae, love for Holy Mother Church… It did me good, and an idea came to mind – please excuse me, Your Eminence, if I embarrass you – but my idea was that this is what we call ‘doing theology on one’s knees.’ Thank you, thank you.”
To be honest, in consideration of what Cardinal Kasper is actually proposing, I cannot for the life of me understand the Pope’s full throated approval. But there it is. If you would like to hear the reaction of a cleric who actually seems to care about doctrine you can listen to Raymond Arroyo’s interview with Cardinal Burke on 03/20/14 where his Eminence states the following:
“In my estimation as a canonist I do not think it is possible. I trust in coming days the error of his approach will become ever clearer.”
By way of conclusion, then, it simply strikes me as far too coincidental that, what Pope Francis is alleged to have said on the phone (namely, that Church doctrine should be overlooked in favor of pastoral solutions for divorced and “remarried” Catholics), should correspond so precisely with the proposed course of action outlined in an address that the Holy Father has so recently praised to the stars.
This isn’t about mistrusting the Pope, it’s about taking him at his word. The alleged content of the call is no great surprise because the Holy Father has already put his stamp of approval on it.
“The woman herself has said nothing as far as I know.”
I don’t know if since making this comment you have read more, but it has come to light that the man’s FB comment only contained the information that the pope called his wife. The details have all come from the woman herself, who gave two interviews on Argentinian radio programmes, the substance of which made it into the print media, then the internet, and thence to the wide world. It is no longer a shelter to say, “Oh, it was only this random guy’s Facebook post.” All the allegations were made by the woman herself. She has since said that she was surprised by the international interest but does not want to give further interviews, and she confirmed that Francis did say to her what she previously reported. There is no obvious reason to think she is simply a liar.
It is our fault? I’ve heard everything now.
We’re not spiritual enough Lorra. We just don’t get it.
Steve, I just found this and I do not know whether or not you have seen it:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/doubts-increase-over-popes-alleged-phone-call-on-divorce/
This is all the same information, recycled. Dateline is yesterday morning.
But this is flatly false:
Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said today that the Holy See will not officially comment on the alleged phone call Pope Francis made to an Argentinean woman this week, as the pontiff’s “personal pastoral” relationships “do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities.”
When the pontiff takes it upon himself to call a parishioner out of the blue, this is, in and of itself, newsworthy. This is why popes don’t do this sort of thing. The average person doesn’t get to meet with the pope. The minute that person (understandably) divulges the contents of such a phone call, it becomes an issue of public record. And insofar as that individual may have misunderstood the pope, or for some reason has chosen to mislead the press about what he said, it is the prerogative of the pope, and only the pope, to correct it — because ONLY HE CAN.
It’s also worth noting that when a head of state or a celebrity has a private audience with the pope, it’s always reported on.
And you’ll remember that when President Obama met with the pope, there was a dispute about what was discussed:
So what do you know? A private conversation, and the pope decided it needed clarification. Because religious freedom as a discussion point was too important to allow the President of the United States to mislead people on.
It would appear that the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion — despite being a bigger story — does not deserve such a clarification.
Preposterous.
From Spokesman Father Federico “Spinorino” Lombardi (Loose translation: Spinmaster) yesterday. I think the Bishop of Rome has three or 4 of them.
“The magisterium of the church is not defined by personal phone calls.” that’s all the need be said on this matter.
no, it’s really not. We’ve got a very loose cannon steering the Barque. This nonsense has got to stop. And in fact, much more needs to be said if it continues.
More properly said, “The magisterium of the Church is being undermined by personal phone calls.” And that matters very much. Which is why thinking Catholics are speaking up on the matter.
I respect your position Steve, and even more, I respect you writing. No doubt your phrasing is more diplomatic…certainly more respectful, but I respectfully submit, that after all we’ve seen and heard in this past year, the flogging the flock (of bats) in the pews has taken, and all that the future seems to promise, in the realm of accuracy…I’ll stand by my phrasing.
I don’t disagree with your phrasing. That reply was to Alex, but the way comments are nested it looks like it was a response to you. I just wanted to specifically address this nonsense phrase that Lombardi used to try to deflect this.
Apologies in advance if this is something obvious that I should know, but I’ve seen a couple of references to bats that I don’t quite get. It just struck a chord as I remembered a dream I had several weeks ago. Can someone bring me up to speed?
“This is a Christian’s disease. We’re afraid of joy. It’s better to think: Yes, yes, God exists, but He is there. Jesus has risen and He is there. Somewhat distant. We’re afraid of being close to Jesus because this gives us joy. And this is why there are so many ‘funeral’ (mournful) Christians, isn’t it? Those whose lives seem to be a perpetual funeral. They prefer sadness to joy. They move about better in the shadows, not in the light of joy, like those animals who only come out at night, not in the light of day, who can’t see anything. Like bats. And with a little sense of humour we can say that there are Christian bats who prefer the shadows to the light of the presence of the Lord.”
Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/04/24/pope_francis:_there_are_%E2%80%9Cbat-like_christians%E2%80%9D_who_prefer_the_shadows/en1-793448
of the Vatican Radio website
Pope Francis: There are “bat-like Christians” who prefer the shadows to the light of the Lord
Got it. Thank you. Now please tell me why anyone would proudly wear the moniker of “self-absorbed promethean neopelagean” when they could go by “Bat Christian”!
I hope to soon have a full line of “Bat Christian™” merchandise at Cafe Press. (Just kidding. I think.)
Not for nothing, but I haven’t found francis’ pontificate very conducive to joy.
‘ ‘Change praxis enough and doctrine becomes irrelevant.’ Yes, and this is why Archbishop Martin of Dublin is not to be trusted with his assessment of MDM’s loyalty or disloyalty to orthodox Catholic doctrine. These same persons who write here are indignant at Bergoglio’s fast and loose phone call and the relevance of his personal heretical views. However,they held an opposite line of logic regarding Archbishop Martin of Dublin.They are very comfortable with relying on ‘praxis leads to doctrinal irrelevance’ in discussing Bergoglio. Regarding Archbishop Martin, they hold the opposite view, saying that he was to be obeyed and believed although his praxis makes Bergoglio look like a Traditionalist.
Steve, you mentioned that you have ‘studied theology for 20 years’ Perhaps you did not get as thorough an education as you tell yourself.. Two fundamental things that you came up with during the MDM discussion lead me to believe that they were told to you after you wrote your article. First,, that lay people are not qualified to judge private revelations. That is right,and that disqualifies the whole painful debate you created, as well as David’s ‘ Compendium of Errors’ too. You fostered a mocking irrelevant discussion. You do not know whether or not MDM is to be believed. It is not your call to make at all. Had you known that before you wrote the article, perhaps such useless wrangling could have been aborted.
Secondly, you mistakenly wrote that ‘obedience built the Church.’ No, obedience did not ‘build the Church’. Faith did. Obedience is subservient to Faith according to Aquinas and von Hildebrand. And we see now that this,distinction very, very relevant considering the growing awareness of what we have at the top in Rome.
One last point. You praise Hiliary White’s thoughts on the situation. My response to her is, ‘No s….t, Sherlock. Both Aquinas and von Hildebrand have said it much better.
Please do not tell me that this post does not fit the discussion here. Yes it does.
Despite the itchy trigger finger I have when it comes to correcting your errors, I’m not continuing the MDM discussion.
Take it somewhere else.
My point is not the MDM discussion and I certainly do not want to continue it. My point is your lack of coherence in reasoning. Take a look at your own errors, sir.
As far as I’m concerned, it all started going down hill with Roncalli – oh, I’m sorry, Pope St. John XXIII – who frequently made scandalous remarks in public in a radical departure from the dignity and decorum of his predecessors. Francis is bad, but you know, prior to him there were Assisi gatherings, public prayers in synagogues and mosques, the renouncing of the Papal tiara and the very concept of monarchy, the return of the banners captured from the Turks at Lepanto, the implicit rejection of proselytization as “solemn nonsense” before Francis uttered those words himself, etc. So he’s just the culmination of it all, he’s more careless, less tactful but substantively he’s no different than the rest of the post-conciliar popes. The Church militant is finished. This is the Church nonjudgemental.
I think he’s worse than all of them, but you couldn’t get here from there if it weren’t for all of that.
Steve, I must say that while I agree with your main points, what good does this kind of talk do? What does complaining about the current situation do for the church. It is not as if we can some how remove Pope Francis from office if we get enough people to agree that he is making mistakes.
The good is simple: to persuade Catholics who are being scandalized and confused that they have been sold a bill of goods. They do not have to practice the devotion of papolatry to be orthodox. They have been given the gift of intellect and free will for a reason. I encourage them to engage them with gusto during these times. To feel as though they have permission to think critically of a man exercising an office that has been for most of their lifetimes considered off limits from such reasonable actions.