A number of people have sent me some version or another of the story on Pope Francis’ meeting with the Chilean bishops last month and asked me to comment on it. According to the bishops of Chile, Francis told them what appear to be some very self-contradictory things. I didn’t have time to commission a human translation of the Spanish, nor do I particularly want to waste any of our translators’ time on it.
Why? Because it’s essentially meaningless. Like listening to static and hoping to find guidance. Google’s translate feature mangles somewhat less than usual, so hopefully you’ll get the gist:
Among the topics discussed between the Pope and the Chilean bishops were the progress of the decriminalization of abortion in the South American country. Mons. Ramos explains this in El Mercurio :” The Pope was very clear; Abortion understood as the quest to eliminate a human being is always a murder, and not to be confused with accepted medical practices to save a life ».And Bishop Silva added:“Abortion is a well-known issue for Francis. Being Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he was very hard on President Mauricio Macri when he regulated “non- punishable abortions ” as governor, and stopped a “medical guide” that Cristina Kirchner tried to spread.So he also raised the Chilean bishops and spoke especially of Catholic politicians who vote in favor of the laws that legalize it:“He insisted that they can not communion and that they must help them not to continue committing sin. The Pope is much stronger than he seems. “As for the possibility of ordaining priests to married men, Bishop Ramos explained the position of the Holy Father and Cardinal Stella. When asked ” Is it true that the Pope was thinking of ordering married men? “, Raised by the repercussion of the interview of the pontiff to the German newspaper” Die Zeit “, the auxiliary bishop of Santiago answered:“No, and in the same interview the Pope says that voluntary celibacy is not on the agenda,
And he explains that he was asked about the possibility that the “viri probati,” married men of proven Christian life, would help in secluded places. The subject was also addressed by the prefect of the clergy, Cardinal Stella, and was blunt: “It is not the way .”Faced with the question of the communion of remarried divorcees, the bishop explains that the Pontiff denied that his goal with the synod he called upon the family was to authorize the communion of the divorced . He told them that there is no “moral situation,” say other sources. “It’s hard for us to see the gray ones,” he would have told them when he told a personal, family affair.“I have a niece married to a divorcee, well, Catholic, Sunday Mass and when she confesses she tells the priest ‘I know she can not absolve me, but give me her blessing. ‘
People are latching on, in particular, to this bit:
Faced with the question of the communion of remarried divorcees, the bishop explains that the Pontiff denied that his goal with the synod he called upon the family was to authorize the communion of the divorced . He told them that there is no “moral situation,” say other sources. “It’s hard for us to see the gray ones,” he would have told them when he told a personal, family affair.
So why do I say it’s meaningless?
First, because — as our papal positivist friends like to say whenever we report a second-hand account of the pope’s words — this is hearsay. Only in this instance, it’s actually out of character for him to say it. It goes against the conduct of the Synods, Amoris Laetitia, the pope’s letter to the Argentinian Bishops, his praise for the German bishops’ guidelines, the policy enforced by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Vatican’s promotion of the Maltese bishops’ guidelines, Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s book (and it’s associated Vatican press conference), and so on. The evidence is piled high and deep that Communion for the divorced and remarried is exactly what he wanted. One little anecdote from a Latin American bishop does not a reversal make.
But the second point — one you probably won’t hear anywhere else — is that self-contradiction is all part of the big, confusing game plan for Francis and company. Hilary White explained this months ago:
What people who have decried these incomprehensible contradictions have failed to understand is that “meaning” is irrelevant. The purpose of these communications has not been to inform the Catholic faithful of the pope’s thought or reflections on Scripture. Content is irrelevant; only submission counts, only power. This means the more ambiguous, the more contradictory, the more vapid, the more illogical, the better.And this is what people are missing. He has been perfectly consistent in all his responses, since he is always saying the same thing: submit. Indeed, we have had a report recently that he knows full well that his work to change the Church’s ancient teaching must rest exclusively on the pure exercise of raw power. When Cardinal Müller of the former Holy Office asked why Francis had demanded the abrupt dismissal of three of his best priests, the pope is reported to have responded as all tyrants do: “I. AM. THE. POPE. I don’t have to answer to anyone.”Positivism, the denial of an objective reality, must lead ultimately to authoritarianism. If there is no objective reality, there is no need for any rules that regard it; any notion of a Rule of Law is meaningless. What have we seen happen throughout history when the Rule of Law breaks down? There can only be Rule of the Strongest, Rule of Power. This is why, now that the make-reality-up-as-you-go-along principle is firmly in place in the papal office, the pope must clamp down so furiously on “dissent,” even the softly diplomatic “dissent” of asking politely for a clarification.What does Amoris Laetitia mean?“It means what I say it means. It means shut up.”
Whether or not he said what he is reported to have said to the Chilean bishops is irrelevant. The Dictatorship of Mercy continues apace.
NOTE: I’ve published an addendum to this piece with another important point of consideration.