The Latest Pope Francis Interview - Any Translations?

I think I found the full text of the pope’s latest interview with Televisa, from March 13, I think. Here’s the link to what I think is the Spanish original:

I am not aware of any translation of the entire document, but the following part has me a bit excited. I think the interviewer asked whether the Synod on the Family has created expectations that divorcees and same-sex couples will be able to marry with the Church’s blessing, and Pope Francis replied, “Creo que hay expectativas desmesuradas, ¿no es cierto? El Sínodo de la Familia no lo quise yo. Lo quiso el Señor.”

I think that means something like, “I think that there are unrealistic expectations, isn’t that so? It was not me who wanted the Synod on the Family. The Lord wanted it.”

I’m very unsure of my attempt to translate this and I’d like someone who knows more to take a look. But it appears that the Holy Father here says that the expectations mentioned by the interviewer are unrealistic, and that seems to imply, at least to me, that the Holy Father thinks it is unrealistic to expect the Synod to accept “marriages” between unannuled divorcees or same-sex couples. Anyone else have any thoughts?

I ask because I think this may be yet another statement from the Holy Father against giving Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. Other examples are listed at #21 here:

Here you go,

Thank you, but I do not think Google Translate is very reliable, at least not in this document. Many of the sentences that I think are key seem unintelligible in that translation. For example, here is the portion I quoted above, with the question, as translated by Google, in bold: Do you think that has created much expectation to couples who suffer the divorced and remarried, homosexuals, believed to have expectations that go beyond what later you will be able to achieve? The divorced and remarried can communicate, how big will the acceptance for the world of homosexuals?

I think you have unrealistic expectations, is not it? The Synod of the family did not want it myself. What would the Lord. Among the problems I sense with this translation, first up is the phrase “expectation to couples who suffer the divorced and remarried.” The image that comes to mind is of men and women enduring couples who are divorced and remarried. I do not think the interviewer was trying to communicate that. It is a bizarre image to me, and typically I think of actions as being endured, not people.

Another problem I sense with this translation is in this phrase: “the divorced and remarried, homosexuals, believed to have expectations that go beyond what later you will be able to achieve?” This phrase appears to need an auxiliary verb that is missing. At first it seems reasonable to supply the auxiliary verb “are” between “homosexuals” and “believed,” but then that breeds a new problem: to me, it makes it sound like homosexuals and the divorced + remarried are believed to have expectations. I don’t think the interviewer was trying to imply that they have expectations, but that others have expectations about them and how they will be treated.

Another problem I have is with this phrase: “The divorced and remarried can communicate.” Is that really what the interviewer said? Because it appears to be a false statement. I would expect that it would at least be phrased hypothetically. Moreover, it appears to use the word “communicate” to mean “take communion,” but I think that is an unusual way to say that in English.

Then there is the phrase “how big will the acceptance for the world of homosexuals?” That is also unusual in English.

In the answer portion, we start out with this sentence: “I think you have unrealistic expectations, is not it?” I do not think the Spanish sentence contains the word “you” or an equivalent, and I think the phrase “is not it?” is unintelligible in English.

The next sentence is translated, “The Synod of the family did not want it myself.” The word “myself” appears to be out of place there, and appears to identify the Synod as himself reflexively. That seems unlikely. I think it is more likely that the sentence is supposed to be translated, “I did not want the Synod on the Family,” using “no lo quise yo” as a simple past tense singular first person phrase. But on the other hand, that translation also seems unlikely, because it seems unlikely that the Holy Father would claim he didn’t want the Synod on the Family. If he didn’t want it, why did it happen? Thus, I am unsure of my translation, and I would like someone else to translate.

Then there is this translation: “What would the Lord.” The Spanish is: “Lo quiso el Senor.” That seems to be a simple past tense third person phrase with “el Senor” (the Lord) as the subject and “lo” (it) as the direct object. I have no idea how Google Translate managed to turn that into “What would the Lord,” which seems incomplete and unintelligible.

So those are some of my problems with that translation, and I hope that helps you see why I don’t think the Google Translate version of the document is acceptable.

First off, I think the transcription and recording both being present is a very good thing.

Second, the Holy Father is taking a rather rose-colored view of pre-colonial Mexico. Cortez was a hard man who had been raised in the hard school of the Reconquista of Spain, and the Spanish did some bad stuff after the conquest. But every tribe that wasn’t Aztec was certain that he was a better bet than getting ritually enslaved and slaughtered by the Aztecs, or having their children sacrificed for rain… because they helped him take over.

A lot of good Marian stuff, though. And “Gatillaje” apparently means either “triggering” or “pulling out with forceps”. So it could be a fancy word for “birth,” I guess.

Third, the Pope wants to make the Archbishop of Morelia, Mexico into a cardinal, “because he’s in the frying pan.” This is a good move - you give the archbishop who is dealing with all the drug gang border problems some extra clout and a sign of the Pope’s approval.

Fourth, a Marian view of Mexico’s troubles. Google translates this pretty badly. What the Pope said is,

"It’s not the first difficult time that this Mexico has gone through. Oh, you know, it’s connected with her holiness, no? Oh, you know, Mexico has gone through times of religious persecution, when she engendered martyrs. I think that the devil castigates Mexico with a lot of harshness. For this reason. I believe that the devil won’t forgive Mexico, because there she [Mary] showed them her Son. That’s my interpretation.

“… I believe that the devil has spent his historic ticket on Mexico, no? And because of this, all these things, you see that focuses of serious conflict have always appeared in history, no?”

Fifth, the Pope discusses the famous Mexicanization remark that he made in a private letter, and compares it to other terms like Balkanization and Colombization. (I don’t think this is going to soothe anybody too much, but it is what it is.) He also said that people will swear to him that they’ll keep letters and phone calls private, but that people from Argentina particularly like to show off that they got contact with the Pope. So this sort of thing is bound to happen.

Sixth, the Pope tells a joke:

"It’s clear that Argentines, when an Argentine Pope came along, forgot about everything, forgot that they were in favor or against an Argentine Pope. And Argentines are not humble; and we are very conceited…

“Do you know how an Argentine commits suicide?”

– No…

“No? He climbs up onto his ego and throws himself off!”

Re: the new evangelization, the Pope says that evangelicals largely offer “proximity”, nearness.

"You worship one day, and next Sunday they wait for you at the door, and they know your name and they greet you. You are a person.

“We Catholics, many times we are for being members of a crowd…”

Then, the Pope criticizes clericalism as “the biggest defect” in Latin America, and says that it creates distance. Meanwhile, lay people have created lots of popular devotions and piety, which are good, but not sufficient to keep things organized.

He discusses various groups that say they are Christian, and he criticizes Prosperity Gospel groups as not really Christian. He also says that some Pentecostal groups are basically a scam or un-Christian, while others are really Christian groups that work together with Catholics. You have to examine each group on its merits.

The Pope then talks about how Catholic priests have to start giving better homilies. He doesn’t want people to be like Luther, regarding the homily as a Sacrament; but he does regard it as a sort of sacramental, and an important part of Mass.

This led him back to talking about how Catholics can work together with other Christians of various flavors.

The interviewer then talked about the Pope’s joke early on, that “The cardinals have fished me out of the end of the world.” This led the Pope to talk about the conclave, including a little talk about the voting, including some rumor-squashing.

I’ll try to hold most of my comments until you are done translating and summarizing, except these two sentences: thanks! You are awesome!

After talking about becoming Pope and the respect and love he feels for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we get to some more controversial material. The Pope notes that in many ways, the Curia is “the last court in Europe,” and says that his personal changes are trying to change that.

(Arguable, but certainly the Pope isn’t a constitutional ruler with all power going to a parliament or government agencies; and the Curia is more like a court than a bunch of executive agencies.)

“There is something about the Pontifical Curia which maintains a tradition a lot (a little atavistic, no? And I don’t say it pejoratively) as a culture. And this has to change; one must cut away that which one could keep of a court in any way; and [it must] be a work group at the Church’s service. At the service of the bishops. Evidently, a personal change [by the Pope] indicates that.”

Google Translate doesn’t do a good job with the joke about the Pope’s examination of conscience speech. It’s not a “rogue cardinal,” but a mischievous, funny cardinal.

There’s a lot about how the Pope wants people to be honest with him, and that he won’t punish anybody in the Curia for telling him the truth to his face.

They also talk about economic stuff. He says he doesn’t hate the rich, and that he’s working on the beatification of an Argentine businessman named Enrique Shaw.

But then he quotes St. Ignatius Loyola as saying that money is one of three ladders to sin, and that the Fathers occasionally called money the devil’s dung. (Hadn’t heard that one.) So yeah, lots of stuff about unfair wages, etc.

Re: Communion for the divorced - He’s against it.

"Because the family is in crisis. Not perhaps the more traditional crisis of infidelity, or like they call it in Mexico, “the little house” and “the big house.” No, no, but it’s a more basic crisis. You see the young people don’t want to get married; or they live together. And they aren’t doing it to protest anything, but they express these things this way. After a long while, some get married, others get married in the Church.

"Oh, you know there is a family crisis inside the family, and from this point of view, I believe that what the Lord wants is that we confront this: marriage preparation coming to those who live together, coming to those who get married; and those who bring their family up well; coming to those who have failed their family and have made a new union. Preparation for the Sacrament of Matrimony; they are not prepared. And how many marriages that are social occasions! They are null! Because of the lack of faith.

…"Well, the family in crisis. How to integrate families in the life of the Church that are “replay families”, no? That is to say, those families of a second union that at times result, the phenomena … that it was a failure. How to reintegrate them, no? For they will come to the Church, then each one… [he trails off].

"They simplify it and they say, “Ah, they’re going to give Communion to the divorced.” With this, one solves nothing. That which the Church wants is that you integrate yourself into the life of the Church.

But there are some that say, “No. I want to take Communion, and soon.” [Like] a ribbon award. A merit badge. No. Oh, you know, re-integrate yourself!

"There are seven things which those who are in a second union cannot do, according to the actual legislation. I do not agree on them all, but one is that they are not to be godparents for Baptism. Why? And what testimony is it going to give to the godchild? “Look, dear one, I messed up in my life, now I am in this situation. I am Catholic. The principles are these. I did this and I accompany you.” A testimony of the truth. But a mafioso comes to you, a delinquent, one that has killed people, but as he was married in the Church, he can be a godparent. Oh, you know, these contradictions.

One thing that – and one has to integrate them in this and not to teach catechesis. Why not? Why not? If they believe, already they are in a situation that dissolves itself, called irregular – and should they recognize it and should they accept it, and should they know what the Church thinks of these things; it is not an impediment. When we speak about integrating, it is to insert all this, after the interior processes to come to them."

There’s a lot more talk about Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ scandal, and then the Pope segues into talking about the child abuse scandal. There’s also some talk about whether the Pope has been to Mexico.

As for how the Pope talks, and whether he will bite his tongue from now on?

“I’m going to keep on doing the same thing. And I will talk like I talk, like a parish priest – how I like to talk; I don’t know. I have always talked this way. Always. That way, is it a defect? I don’t know. But I believe the people understand me.”

That’s the end! Most of the Google Translate is decent enough, but some bits seemed more important to lay out correctly. (And I apologize for the last paragraph of the big quote, but I’m really not sure what the Pope was saying there.)

Thank you so much! What about the part I translated? Was I accurate? Original: “Creo que hay expectativas desmesuradas, ¿no es cierto? El Sínodo de la Familia no lo quise yo. Lo quiso el Señor.”

My translation: “I think that there are unrealistic expectations, isn’t that so? It was not me who wanted the Synod on the Family. The Lord wanted it.” And what about the question, how should that be translated? (Especially the last two sentences.) Original: Papa Francisco un tema prioritario de estos dos años también ha sido el Sínodo de la familia, evidentemente, con todo lo que eso ha generado, digamos. En el Sínodo Usted dio plena libertad para que se dijera lo que cada uno pensaba. Había cardenales que pisaban el acelerador, los otros pisaban el freno, unos decían que Usted quería que se pisara el acelerador, ¿Qué espera de este segundo Sínodo? ¿Cree que se ha creado demasiada expectativa a las parejas que sufren los divorciados vueltos a casar, los homosexuales, cree que tienen unas expectativas que van más allá de lo que luego ustedes van a poder lograr? Los divorciados vueltos a casar podrán comulgar, qué tan grande será la aceptación para el mundo de los homosexuales?

Google’s translation: Pope Francis a priority issue for these two years was also the Synod of the family, obviously, with all that it has generated, say. At the Synod You gave full freedom to be told what everyone thought. There were cardinals who stepped on the accelerator, the other stepped on the brakes, some said that you wanted the accelerator is pressed by mistake, what you expect from this second Synod? Do you think that has created much expectation to couples who suffer the divorced and remarried, homosexuals, believed to have expectations that go beyond what later you will be able to achieve? The divorced and remarried can communicate, how big will the acceptance for the world of homosexuals? Thank you so much, Mintaka!

Frankly, I don’t understand why this is a big talking point.

Its simple and does not require a lot of thought and talk. Anyone in a state of mortal sin is not permitted to receive Communion.

Practising homosexuals are in a state of mortal sin.
Divorcees who remarry without an annulment are in a state of mortal sin.

Its a different story if we are debating how to be more compassionate to such people but this should not be construed as meaning they might be allowed to receive Communion. They will not.

I agree that the teaching is simple and does not require a lot of thought and talk. The reason I think it has become a big talking point is, I think, because of tremendous misunderstanding about whether the Church would or could change this practice. I think the Media sometimes misunderstands simple things and needs to be constantly corrected for as long as they continue to spread misinformation.

It’s not that the teaching needs to be constantly talked about as such, not if I understand it correctly. What I think needs to be constantly answered are frequently-spouted misconceptions, like, Does the pope want to change this? Will the Church change this? Could the Church change this? The Media often seems to portray all those things as Yeses. The teaching is simple, but the Media is spouting misconceptions in order to cause doubt, and I think we need to address it with evidence and keep doing so as long as the Media talks about it incorrectly. Does that make sense?

Dmar198 – Yup, your translation looks good. Sorry I didn’t get back to the thread sooner!

Oh, I forgot that you wanted a translation of the question! Here goes! I’ve separated it into more than one paragraph, because it’s a wall of text!

– Pope Francis, obviously one priority theme of the last two years also has been the Synod of the Family, along with all that it has generated, let’s say. At the Synod, you gave full liberty for everyone to say what he thought. Among the cardinals, some pressed down the accelerator, the others pressed down the brake; some said that you wanted the accelerator pressed down.

– What do you expect from this second Synod? Do you believe that it has created too much expectation for those couples who suffer: the divorced who have remarried [outside the Church] – the homosexuals? Do you believe that they have some expectations which go too far beyond what then they are going to be able to get?

– The divorced who have remarried [outside the Church] - will they be able to receive Communion? How great will the acceptance be for the world of the homosexuals?

What the interviewer said was definitely in the future tense, and in the form of a question.

Google Translate is still no good at translating the gender of pronouns and verbs, or the tense of verbs. It is also bad at understanding sentence structure. So Google Translate is helpful as a sort of summary, but you always have to examine it closely in detail.


So, did Pope Francis just re-affirm that Communion is not for the divorced and remarried!?

I’m trying not to get over excited here, but this seems pretty close to a re-affirmation… :crossrc:

Yes I agree with you.

Thank you so much for your clarity.

Heretic. Next.

Are you calling the pope a heretic? Can you give a specific thing he has said or done that you think is heretical?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit