Pope Francis: ‘I don’t remember’ controversial footnote in exhortation

Pope Francis: ‘I don’t remember’ controversial footnote in exhortation

To those involved in or following the debate, the fact that Pope Francis himself was apparently unaware of the controversial footnote, let alone the flap that it was almost certain to cause in the media, is bewildering, and provokes any number of uncomfortable questions.

[A “senior moment” or another evasive answer?]

John Jalsevac


April 18, 2016 ( LifeSiteNews.com/news/pope-francis-i-dont-remember-controversial-footnote-in-exhortation ) – It was the footnote heard around the world. Footnote 351, to be precise. The dynamite – or so it seemed to some – quietly buried deep in Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

To journalists pouring over the exhortation hoping to learn how the pope intended to resolve the debate that had pitted cardinal against cardinal and bishop against bishop at the two recent synods at the family, it seemed to provide the key.

“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,” the footnote reads, before making reference to the Eucharist and confession.

Were these the unassuming words with which Pope Francis was changing the long-standing Church practice banning divorced and civilly remarried Catholics from receiving Communion?

To some, the answer was clearly yes. After all, the footnote comes in the middle of a discussion about the Church’s pastoral response to Catholics living in objectively sinful “irregular” unions. What else could the pope be saying, other than that the Church’s former absolute ban on such Catholics receiving Communion – clearly formulated by Pope St. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger – could now admit of some exceptions?

Others, however, urged caution. They argued that the footnote can only accurately be read “in light” of established Church practice and canon law, and that the ambiguous term “in certain cases” needed to be explored and properly understood.

Some expressed hope that the Pope might step in at some point and clarify his meaning. That, however, now seems unlikely.

In his return-flight press conference this past week from the island of Lesbos, Pope Francis told a reporter who asked him about the footnote that he doesn’t even remember it, and lamented that so much attention has been paid in the media to that footnote – and, indeed, the entire issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried. Instead, he said, the media should focus on the current “crisis” in the family.

“Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry?” he said, as translated by the Catholic News Agency. “And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? … Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone?”

“These are the big problems,” he concluded. “I don’t remember the footnote…”

As for why the information was relegated to a footnote, the pope speculated that perhaps it was because it dealt with a “general” matter that he had previously dealt with in his letter Evangelii Gaudium.

However, the media are not the only ones who have focused on the importance of footnote 351. In his presentation at the Vatican on the day of the release of the exhortation, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn himself called attention to the footnote. Speaking of the pope’s treatment of those in “irregular unions,” the cardinal had stated: “In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’ (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given ‘in certain cases’. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes.”

During the same in-flight interview, Pope Francis, in response to another journalist’s question about whether Amoris Laetitia had changed the Church’s approach to divorced and remarried Catholics and the sacraments, urged the reporters to read Cardinal Schonborn’s presentation at the Vatican. “There you will find the answer to your question,” he said.

Footnote 351 also took center stage in the analysis published by Father Antonio Spadaro, the Jesuit priest who edits La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit journal approved by the Vatican prior to publication. Spadaro’s analysis is of vital importance, not only because he is known to be a close personal friend and advisor of Pope Francis’, but also because he is believed to have been personally involved in drafting the exhortation.

Citing footnote 351, Spadaro argued that Amoris Laetitia marks an “evolution” in the way the Church will approach its “accompaniment” of those in irregular unions. Spadaro argues that the exhortation introduces a new form of discernment, one that is “without limits on integration, as appeared in the past.” Speaking of past limits that are no longer in effect, he singles out Pope John Paul II’s requirement that couples in adulterous second unions live in “complete continence” before returning to the Sacraments.

Meanwhile, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, in a statement co-authored with Archbishop Heiner Koch and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, also references the footnote. While veteran Vatican journalist John Allen speculated that footnote 351 may go down as one of two of the “most famous” footnotes in papal history – the second also being found in Amoris Laetitia.

The list goes on and on.

Indeed, to those involved in or following the debate, the fact that Pope Francis himself was apparently unaware of the controversial footnote, let alone the flap that it was almost certain to cause in the media, is bewildering, and provokes any number of uncomfortable questions.

For starters: If not the pope, who, then, was responsible for drafting and inserting that footnote? Were they not aware of its implications? How did the many advisors who undoubtedly read the final draft of the exhortation fail to understand the furor the footnote would undoubtedly provoke? And, finally, why didn’t they warn the pope that the errant footnote would almost certainly take center stage in the media, and distract from what he intended to be his central message?

Get AQ Email Updates

9 comments on “Pope Francis: ‘I don’t remember’ controversial footnote in exhortation

  1. To journalists pouring over the exhortation … It’s “poring”. I’m sorry, but some things just, well … I go OCD.

    So, Jorge pulls a Vinny Barbarino: “What footnote? Where?”

  2. The man’s a horse’s patoot. Not Barberino, I said not a-bar-bar-bar bar-Barberino. He’s cool. He’d tell that horse’s patoot to take that footnote up his nose with a rubber hose.

    The man’s evil. Not Barberino. The other one.

  3. “I don’t remember” won’t be an acceptable response at the Last Judgment on the Day of Visitation, Jorge. Methinks you really need to get your act together,

  4. I think Francis is onto something. Like, I mean, if you can’t remember getting married, can’t remember your wife, then hey!

    …And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful house
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful wife

  5. ERRATUM: Apologia mea, Cyprian Bad info. Byrne did not attend Harvard. A different band member, Jerry Harrison, did, however.

    (And that’s the last time I’ll rely on anything I “thought” I recalled from an MTV “news” source.)

    • Man! I’m horrified. Get your Byrne facts straight. Like, I mean, it’s not like a footnote hiding somewhere in a tome you just wrote and sent out to everyone in the world. TH facts is serious stuff. Seriously!

      • I’m mortified, Cyprian. However could I have so mishandled so vital a cultural treasure? And most particularly so when Byrne actually produced an album titled “Speaking in Tongues” in 1983???

        Woe is me!

        For penance, I’ll head to the UK and plummet meself headlong down a steep cliff, pursuing an elusive disc of Camembert…

  6. In the “Footnote? I don’t remember no stinkin’ footnote” vein, here are some other lines that might help out in a pinch, guys.

    I don’t know who she is.

    She needed help preparing a talk at work.

    Did you see that? I think she was trying to seduce me.

    She was helping me pick out your Christmas gift.

Leave a Reply