In a certain way I'm glad this is happening. This problem is another example of what is implicit in what Cardinal/Papa Ratzinger has maintained for some years: The Catholic cult has been seriously injured through the liturgical disaster of the past 40 years, principally, the suppression of Latin liturgy and ad orientem celebration.

cf. John XXIII Veterum Sapientia.

Marriage is a natural institution that is also a Sacrament, thus an intrinsic component of the cult. JPII's Restatement of Church teaching on sexual morals, including the indissolubility of marriage was very important. Now, however, the cult needs to be restored.

You or one of your surrogates have obsessively posted the same message on multiple threads.

Spam is unacceptable. Either add something original to the ongoing discussion or don't post.

Act like an adult.

The denial for the homo claim wasn't immediate.

The Frenchman went to the press with his story at the end of August, 2013. Lombardi didn't issue the denial until a week later.

www.ladepeche.fr/…/1703124-surpris…

and

www.thelocal.fr/20130906/pope-calls-gay-…

By the way: The Sabetta couple are both divorced.

Remember: Previously the Vatican denied claims by a gay Frenchman who said that Francis rang him personally and told him that his homosexuality was not a grave sin.

Now, the Vatican did not deny.

"CNN has a Vatican spokesman confirming that the call did indeed take place, but the Rev. Thomas Rosica provided no details. “It’s between the Pope and the woman,” said Rosica, a consultant for the Vatican press office"

"Today there is another story in the media causing controversy from the Vatican, a private phone call the Holy Father made to a divorcee in Argentina regarding taking communion. The Vatican is not confirming or denying the conversation since it was a private call made directly by the Holy Father. " www.zenit.org/…/francisco-a-una…

This is no about a private phone call or a pastoral care this is about that we can broken God's law that clearly said "You shall not commit adultery"

Luke 16:18
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery

Speculation on my part:

The call was meant to be private. The pope advised Jackie that is was private. She told her husband and her husband is a tortilla flipping jerk. He goes public with the story embellishing it and enjoying the notoriety that it has brought to him. He's relishing his 15 minutes of fame talking to the press who hang on every word since it is contrary to traditional Catholic teaching regarding divorce and remarriage and the more contrary it is the more the secular media encourage him.

If the above is true, the pope was betrayed on several counts and therefore the response has to be carefully measured.

I would have blasted all of them in a heartbeat if I were the pope but then again, I'm not.

Whenever Pope Francis does something (that shows how humble and gracious and loving he is), however small, like a telephone call to a sick critic, the whole wide world learns about it. (What is the point of "modesty", if not to show it off.) Pope Francis has manfiested a consistent "show-off" style, from day one! The comment by Holy Cannoli does hold water in general, but hardly in the context of Francis' repeated modesties being shown to the whole wide world to admire. Since the Pope has apparently helped a confused and troubled woman, it would be totally in coherence with the papal style to have it publicized the world over -- showing how forgiving he is. In this context, however, I find it hard NOT to believe that there is the substance of truth in the rumor, however much I hope it is not true. The refusal to affirm or deny the ascribed effective absolution on the part of the Vatican forces me to believe that there is, indeed, some burning fire where the smoke of the rumor is.

Frankly, Francis has begun to bore me and I tire of hearing about his "bit-over-the-line" comments and deeds of modest goodness. He, alas, reminds me more of Jerry Lewis in his comical days with Dean Martin than of a serious Pope, though I know that he must be taken seriously, deadly seriously. He is dangerous.

Why was there no disclaimer?

The publicity office/public relations dept. for the Vatican has been seriously deficient for as long as I can remember. In the real world, a non-response suggests guilt. In the world of Vatican City, a non-response means they are preoccupied with more important matters, i.e., fettucine, chianti and cannoli.

Julio Sabatta is not trustworthy (he said she (Jackie) was absolved of all sins). Still, I expect a substantive refutation from a spokesman soon.

Personally, I think the Germans are involved. They (see Cardinal Kasper) have been the most vocal in the 'communion for the divorced' scheme and they have the most to gain from a fabrication like this.

This is the answer the Pope's speaker gave to the media. Read The Telegraph:

When asked whether the remarks attributed to the Pope were correct, a Vatican spokesman told The Telegraph: “We would neither confirm nor deny that - this was a private telephone call made by the Holy Father and we would not divulge the details.”

1. He admitted that the phone-call took place ("this was a private telephone call")

2. He did not say that the Pope has never uttered such words although the confusion of the faithful arising from that matter is very big. Why was there no disclaimer?