Got an English version of this?
Google translate is known for inaccuracies. I would not trust it for accuracy.
You’ll get the general idea.
Heres my idea, this idea, this link, is part of a campaign with an agenda (which by the way the link , the topic, is showing up in english on various suspect sites,) its all about lets rip the church apart from within and then we can get new leadership and get back into the treasury.
Again make the movie producer and the translators accountable for an unedited, unmashed up clip release.
According to this report, which bears close study, The Vatican also posses an unedited copy.
The report also states the following:
"One of Francis’ top communications advisers, the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, insisted Wednesday the pope’s comments were old news, saying they were made during the May 2019 interview with Televisa.
“There’s nothing new because it’s a part of that interview,” Spadaro told The Associated Press as he exited the premiere. “It seems strange that you don’t remember.”
But Televisa didn’t air those comments when it broadcast the interview — nor did the Vatican when it put out its own recordings and a transcript of it."
I listened to a show this weekend.
They were saying these were just the Pope’s personal views, nothing binding.
And who will hold them accountable?
Maybe make the man who spoke the words accountable?
The thing is, do we actually know exactly how many words he spoke, what he was answering, what went before and came after it. Sorry, it is deceitful and dishonest to cut and edit and mash up stuff for hidden agendas and ratings.
I agree with the ‘not being binding’.
What troubles me is that once again there are these questionable remarks.
Whether it’s hearing from an interviewer his ‘memory’ of what Pope Francis spoke of, said things being not in accordance with Catholic teaching, and never receiving clarification from the Vatican about it. . .
Hearing words from an ‘off the cuff’ interview and getting the “it’s his personal opinion’. . .
Reading words in a letter or an encyclical which could with great difficulty be read as perhaps orthodox, but which could with great EASE be read as not orthodox at all, asking for clarification and getting none (the people asking being cardinals with Dubia) but later seeing a letter the pope sent to other prelates saying that the ‘easy interpretation was actually what he meant’ and having dioceses allow one practice that has NEVER been allowed, while others maintain the 2000 year old traditional understanding. . .
And now this with not just one but TWO possible excuses:
A. “He had his words edited and mashed up; therefore he didn’t really say what ‘they’ said he did. . .
B. He said what he did but it’s his personal opinion. . .
It is just too much. Yes, there have been media misunderstandings with Popes. For the little papers it’s usually that their ‘religion’ person isn’t very knowledgeable about Catholicism and just gets it ‘wrong’, and is later corrected by the bishop in the area and prints a tiny and buried retraction; for the big papers there would be a ‘Vatican clarification’. There was a big one when Pope Benedict had to correct the ‘media’ misunderstanding of him with ‘condoms’. But that was swift and clear.
With this pontificate the responses have been muddled, messy, dismissive, and contradictory, when there has been a response or clarification at all!
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.