Whether what's being reported in the phone call as being true or not is not even the point. It's been over a year, and if by now the Pope hasn't learned that what he says and what he does will be under a microscope and more than likely leak out to the media (whether intentionally or unintentionally)...God have mercy on him.
None of us, myself included have any clue as to what was said (and I really don't wish to know what was said it's a private conversation)....some points that need to be said.
- It IS possible someone to proclaim the teachings of the Church in public, but not in private. It applies to everyone in the Church. need a reminder? Pope Honorius' letter was a private letter to a Bishop.
- I'm pretty sure the Pope was NOT expecting this conversation to go public**(see 1st paragraph)
- The fact that this would even be plausible is shown by the fact that he HAS made various phone calls to different people at random (the traditionalist attorney suffering from cancer, nuns in a convent, and back home to Argentina)
- The fact that he talks so ambiguously could mean that he would speak in such a manner as in bullet point one.
Many have cried about the Holy Father being misquoted, or misrepresented...which to be fair, several times has happened, but at what point does he (Pope Francis) take responsibility for the things he says? At what point does he take responsibility for the scandal that is caused by his actions? I most certainly understand the need to give the benefit of the doubt, but this continuous explanation/wussification, whatever you wish to call it is getting beyond tiring, when does it stop?
Also, on Sunday, are the canonizations of Bl JPII and Bl John XXIII...I'll say that I'm not every excited about it. For what it seems the canonizations are more politically motivated than holiness motivated. Certainly in the case of Bl JPII, there hasn't been enough time to objectively measure his life, and much of the cult of personality still remains....(and is returning with Francis). Considering Bl John XXIII is well before my time, I have no comment on him other than, he started Vatican II....and while the council may have been necessary, one could argue it was one of the worst times to call a council...(the time to call it would have been in the 50's or the 40's to address Communism)...as for the abuses of the Liturgy, that could have been stopped via synod and didn't need a council per se to stop them. (Don't misunderstand, Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council of the Church)...Other than that, I know little about him. :p...Let us pray.
Let us pray for some clarity, and charity.