Allow me to pose this statement, in regards to the meaning of words:
I never said you stole money.
Do you know what the statement means? Are you sure? Are you really sure? It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. However, it can be taken at least 6 different ways. Is it possible you could be taking his meaning in a way that suits your notions, preconceived or otherwise, of the Pope?
When you speak of the motives of the Holy Father, your are walking a fine line between mind reading and opinion.
I think it is reasonable to suggest he has his own meaning for words.... However, it is not reasonable to claim he means to pacify. Neither of us can know what he is truly thinking, unless he tells us.
In my opinion, Pope Francis is great fodder for the 24-hour news cycle. Any number of articles can be written about him, regardless of the truth. Articles full of innuendo, half-truths, and out-right distortions might “tickle the ears” of readers, but ultimately stand to discredit him.
People make any number of assumptions about him because he is Jesuit, he is an Argentine, he lives Santa Marta, etc. However, those are assumptions (you know what happens when you assume). What matters is the preaching of the Gospel, the continuity of Church teaching, and a greater understanding of God.
The Pope is expected to lead the Church, not make vague statements or entertain heresies. When JP II died and there was conjecture about who would be the succeed him, one pundits said he wouldn’t take the name John Paul III; when asked why, he asked, “Could the Church survive 25 more years like this?”
I was hoping for Pius XIII, but Benedict XVI was fine.
The point is that you have to read his words in their context, and not just as a sound bite, because very often his next words will contradict what seems to be meant by his first words...unless, of course, he didn’t mean the first words as they sounded. He’s not a very clear thinker, or perhaps not a very clear speaker, so sometimes it’s very hard to decipher his real meaning.
I think he does say things with the intention of pacifying people who have gotten upset about some alarming thing that he has said, or that it seems he has said. But he’s rather Obama-like in all this, and never really says he’s sorry for the confusion, and sometimes doesn’t even address the issue that upset people in the first place but sort of makes a parallel statement. In fact, he often comes out with one of his famous claims that people who would like a little precision and clarity are just “Pharisees” and don’t understand that he is all love and “mercy,” whatever that means.
Like most other people, I went through the “bad translation” excuse (although I speak Spanish and read Italian, and I could see that it was not a case of mistranslation) and then the malicious journalists excuse, and then the “he means well but just doesn’t formulate his thoughts very precisely or word his statements well” excuse. Now I’m at the point where I have to think that he is intentionally being duplicitous in some statements and that he or others at the Vatican manipulate statements after the fact; either that, or his cognitive capacities are impaired and he shouldn’t be pope. But I think he knows very well what he’s doing and saying, as well as the alarm it is causing.