Posted on 04/23/2014 6:42:51 PM PDT by marshmallow
(RNS) Did Pope Francis tell a divorced and remarried woman that it was okay to take Communion even though her parish priest denied her the host?
That’s the latest kerfuffle created by the “cold-call” pope who on Monday, the day after Easter, called an Argentine woman who had written to him about whether she should receive communion at Mass even though she was divorced and remarried.
“There are priests who are more papist than the pope,” the pope himself reportedly told Jacquelina Lisbona.
Great line, great story — but is any of it true? The details have been shifting.
The story first ran in Argentine media, was picked up by Italian outlets, made its way to the British press, and in the course of those peregrinations lost — and gained — a few details in the process.
This is potentially a big deal, as Damian Thompson of the Daily Telegraph put it, because Catholics who have divorced and remarried without an annulment are not supposed to take Communion — though Francis himself has asked the hierarchy to debate the topic, which they are, quite intensely.
“Has Pope Francis just thrown a hand grenade into traditional teaching on divorcees and Communion?” Thompson tweeted. “The Vatican MUST clarify this or the Catholic world will divide into celebration and panic.”
Kudos to CNN, which UPDATES the story with reporting from three continents (literally): CNN has a Vatican spokesman confirming that the call did indeed take place, but the Rev. Thomas Rosica provided no details.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidgibson.religionnews.com ...
We don’t need no stinkin’ Canon law, we got annul-o-matic.
Thank you for the update. We’ll have to wait to see what was said. I don’t believe the priest/papist/pope comment however. It smells of the, “Carnival is over, you wear it” comment supposedly made by His Holiness and subsequently turned out to be not true.
Lisbona said the pope told her she should go to Communion, though she did not provide many other details. She seems put off by all the fuss.Unfortunately this story has the ring of authenticity. I see no reason at present to doubt the veracity of the woman's claims as they simply reiterate what Cardinal Kasper has been spouting with the blessing of this Pope.
“This received too much public attention. He told me to go and take Communion in a different parish, but now I won’t be able to go anywhere,” she told the radio. The pope said he was “dealing with the issue” of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and she added:
“Then he told me there are some priests who are more papist that the pope. He was completely normal with me on the phone and I tried to speak to him with the utmost respect. Now I am overwhelmed by the enormous effect this story has had and I feel moved by the fact that I spoke to Francis. I told him I would write to him again when I take Communion again.”
Very unfortunate. Thank you.
Is there any convincing argument which could explain why disregard for Church law might be confined to Holy Thursday liturgies and not spread to others matters ecclesiastical?
No.
He is making a fool out of all those loyal Catholics who have bent over backwards to try to put a good spin on all his statements and deeds over the past year.
A couple weeks ago I was visiting my parents, and there was a picture of Pope Francis on the news channel. My 79 yo mom said to me, "What do you think of this Pope?"
I simply responded, "I don't trust him."
She thought that was a shame. Indeed it is.
I suppose his idea of making a mess of things includes giving scandal. Thanks Holy Father! /s
My 80 year old Roman Catholic mother just shakes her head and says “Never trust a Jesuit”.
Well, those people were fools - blinded and willfully refused to see what this Pope is.
Pope Francis is a socialist, South American Jesuit who is going to align the church with the left, particularly on economic issues, and do great damage to traditional conservative values and free market advocates. Maybe he'll break out the Buddy Jesus next if the media will adore him even more.
Are we latter day Pharisees who don't see the spiritual enlightenment in the ministry of this latter day Francis of Assisi, or is there a real problem gradually revealing itself here?
The jury is still out. After the Synod on the Family I honestly doubt there will be any further room for debate.
+1 for the "anti-Catholic" Protestants who pointed out the unwarranted spin.
Racing away to find a photo op or a phone.
Only if "spiritual enlightenment" consists of sidelining the Sixth Commandment and Mark 10:9.
BN:Only if "spiritual enlightenment" consists of sidelining the Sixth Commandment and Mark 10:9.
Would you criticize Jesus too?
John 8:2-11 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
The woman was never divorced and hence has not remarried; this actually concerned her husband, who had had an earlier civil marriage.
I don’t know what the other circumstances were, that is, whether they were at some point married in the Church, or whether this is a situation of two people who are technically unmarried just living together, or what. They’ve “been together” for almost 20 years and have several children.
Very puzzling, but she is apparently not “divorced and remarried.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.