Dominican Sister Suggests Christ Was ‘Flirting’ with Samaritan Woman at the Well at First

At special Vatican meeting on ‘Amoris Laetitia’….

Dominican Sister Suggests Christ Was ‘Flirting’ with Samaritan Woman at the Well

Sr. Helen Alford, O.P., speaks in the presence of Leo XIV on Oct. 7, 2026

The post-synodal ‘apostolic exhortation’ Amoris Laetitia is the ‘gift’ that keeps on giving. Roughly ten years after ‘Pope’ Francis released this blasphemous document on the joy of love in the family, the Vatican under his successor ‘Pope’ Leo XIV is now doing what it does best: It’s holding a week-long meeting!

The assembly began yesterday, Oct. 7, and will conclude on Oct. 14. The Holy See Press Office has published the complete schedule/program here. The participants are trying to assess how the ‘accompaniment’ of families and individuals in ‘irregular situations’ is going a decade after Amoris Laetitia, which was itself the fruit of two synods on the family, one in 2014 and one in 2015 (hence the exhortation is called ‘post-synodal’).

Although dated Mar. 19, 2016, as an obvious affront to St. Joseph, the impious exhortation was not actually released until Apr. 8, 2016. We presented the lowlights of the text here.

Since 2016, we have also had an ‘Amoris Laetitia Chaos Watch’ page on this site that documents the drama the exhortation has unleashed. Most notable perhaps was the episode of the dubia (doubts/questions) which four Novus Ordo cardinals (Burke/Caffara/Brandmuller/Meisner) submitted to Francis to explain the “moral U-turn” of the exhortation. But ‘His Holiness’ responded only with deafening silence and an offhand refusal to grant the audience requested by the four.

Sensing that the dubia weren’t ever going to be answered, ‘Cardinal’ Burke threatened a “formal act of correction”, but of course this never happened. When Francis at the end of 2023 finally did grant Burke an audience, predictably it was Burke who formally left with his tail between his legs, not Francis. What was discussed during the audience was never made known.

Fast-forward to the present, that is, to Oct. 7, 2026.

The opening session of the 10th anniversary meeting on Amoris Laetitia included, of course, an address by ‘Pope’ Leo XIV, but it is not this text we will focus on today. Rather, it is the subsequent meditation offered by Sister Helen Alford, O.P., given in Leo’s presence, that has raised eyebrows across social media.

Here is the video clip showing its controversial portion (or see direct link here). Further down below, we are transcribing her words and providing some commentary:

.
Sr. Helen is the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (appointed by Francis). In her meditation, she spoke about Christ’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (see John 4:5-30). She related that a “Dominican brother”, whose name she did not disclose, considers this incident “the basic model or paradigm of evangelization for the Church” and that it consists of four “stages”.

So far, so good.

But then she continued:

In a somewhat provocative way — but I think it’s a useful provocation — he calls the first stage “flirting”: a conversation between a woman and a man who are both alone. Jesus takes hold of the discussion and transforms it gradually through His questions into a meditation on human happiness and fulfillment.

For a long time, however, ambiguity persists. One gets the impression that the same words mean different things to Jesus and the Samaritan woman. It is only when she seems won over by Jesus — that is, when she says to Him, “Sir, give me some of that water so that I may never get thirsty and never have to come here again to draw water” — only at that point does Jesus initiate stage 2, the Samaritan woman’s confrontation with the truth.

Jesus says, “Go and call your husband and come back here.” And she answers, honestly, “I have no husband”; to which He replies, “You are right to say ‘I have no husband,’ for although you have had five, the one you have now is not your husband.”

Through this painful operation, the Samaritan woman slowly begins to understand that the Man she has met is by no means like the others; that this time, unlike what it might have seemed at the beginning, this man is not just flirting. For now she is saying to Him, “I see that you are a prophet, Sir.”

(Source: Video “Meeting for the 10th anniversary of ‘Amoris Laetitia'”, Vatican News, Oct. 7, 2026; beginning at 56:00.)

This is an outrage!

Of course the Novus Ordo apologists will be quick to ‘explain’ what Sister Helen ‘really meant’ by the word “flirting” — perhaps engaging in small talk? — but let’s look at the big picture for a moment.

This religious is speaking at an official Vatican meeting — in the presence of the ‘Pope’, no less! — that she knew, or should have known, was going to be made available to the public on YouTube; and yet, look at the words she chooses. If she wants to say that her words have been misunderstood, one must ask: Why leave room for misunderstanding? Why even risk giving the appearance of blasphemy when this could easily have been avoided? Why bring the term “flirt” into a conversation which involves the Son of God? She could easily have shared the insights of said Dominican priest without using what she herself calls the “provocative” term he assigned to the first stage.

By the way: In its own report on the opening day of the conference, Vatican News reveals that the Dominican theologian in question is Fr. Michał Paluch, O.P., who teaches at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. No doubt we will be hearing from or about him in the days to come.

In any case, the Oct. 7 opening meditation by Sr. Helen is clearly adding more fuel to the controversy about Amoris Laetitia.

Not surprisingly, also chiming in on the tenth anniversary of Francis’ infernal exhortation is a familiar voice from Kazakhstan: Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana. The most important of the least important Novus Ordo bishops, he was not invited to take part in the Vatican meeting, and it is easy to see why.

In 2016, Schneider had (rightly) accused ‘Pope’ Francis of promoting the “joy of adultery”. Now, in a new interview given to The Catholic Herald, he has doubled down.

In his conversation with Vatican journalist Michael Haynes, the Kazakh auxiliary notes, quite correctly, that “Amoris Laetitia opened the door for communion for divorced people”, by which he means people with a civil divorce who have ‘remarried’, that is, who are now living unchastely with a pseudo-spouse.

That the document indeed permits the reception of the sacraments by unrepentant adulterers is not simply his opinion, it is the official and authoritative interpretation given to it by ‘Pope’ Francis, who ratified this understanding of his text as “the only correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia“, as the auxiliary observes.

Schneider then adds:

Then the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, declared a short time afterwards that these norms and the approval of Pope Francis are the expression of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.  This is still valid – this cannot be accepted and continue, this must be explicitly corrected, because this is against divine law.

(Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider, in Michael Haynes, “EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider says Amoris Laetitia is ‘against divine law’, must be ‘explicitly corrected’”, The Catholic Herald, Oct. 8, 2026.)

Schneider is right to say that what Amoris Laetitia allows is “against divine law”; of that there can be no doubt, even if some have tried, in vain, to justify it.

However, things are actually a bit more serious still. It was not simply a declaration from ‘Cardinal’ Pietro Parolin that assured the world of Francis’ approval of the norms as “authentic Magisterium of the Church”. Rather, it was a canonical rescript issued by Francis via Parolin, which was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (vol. CVIII [2016], n. 10, p. 1074), the official Vatican gazette. Here is a screenshot of the text (in Latin even!):

In English translation, the rescript says:

RESCRIPT “FROM AN AUDIENCE WITH THE HOLY FATHER”

The Supreme Pontiff decrees that the two preceding Documents shall be published on the Vatican website and in the Acts of the Apostolic See, as authentic Magisterium.

From the Vatican, the fifth day of the month of June in the year 2017

Pietro Card. Parolin
Secretary of State

The “two preceding Documents” is a reference to the guidelines issued by the Buenos Aires bishops and Francis’ own letter approving them as the only correct interpretation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. These are likewise found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, immediately preceding the rescript.

In any case, because the Kazakh auxiliary bishop refuses to countenance even the possibility that Francis was a false pope, he has maneuvered himself into a corner from which there is no escaping. For with his words, Schneider has now become guilty of accusing the Roman Catholic magisterium, the official teaching office of the Roman Pontiff, of teaching and legislating blasphemy, heresy, and sacrilege; indeed, of acting “against divine law”.

The fact that Schneider wants to see these evils corrected is irrelevant to the point being made. Either way, he believes that the Bride of Christ, Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the “Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), can teach and legislate contrary to God’s Law and Revelation; else there would be nothing for her to have to correct. (Note that this cannot be excused on the grounds that the Church isn’t infallible in everything.)

Thus Schneider is himself acting against the Divine Law, or at least against clear Catholic doctrine:

…as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, — [this is] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)

Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9)

Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)

Accusing the Catholic Church of blasphemy is itself a blasphemy. The only way out of this dilemma is to recognize that the men who officially impose heresy, blasphemy, and sacrilege on what appears outwardly to be the Catholic Church are not in fact true Popes, because, quite simply, true Popes are divinely prevented from doing such things.

As Pope Pius IX taught, the Pope is the one bishop in the Church who, on account of holding this divinely-protected and established office, can always be relied upon to be the sure guide on Faith and morals:

To preserve forever in his Church the unity and doctrine of this faith, Christ chose one of his apostles, Peter, whom he appointed the Prince of his Apostles, his Vicar on earth, and impregnable foundation and head of his Church. Surpassing all others with every dignity of extraordinary authority, power and jurisdiction, he was to feed the Lord’s flock, strengthen his brothers, rule and govern the universal Church. Christ not only desired that his Church remain as one and immaculate to the end of the world, and that its unity in faith, doctrine and form of government remain inviolate. He also willed that the fullness of dignity, power and jurisdiction, integrity and stability of faith given to Peter be handed down in its entirety to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of this same Peter, who have been placed on this Chair of Peter in Rome, and to whom has been divinely committed the supreme care of the Lord’s entire flock and the supreme rule of the Universal Church.

…There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Amantissimus, nn. 2-3; underlining added.)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic …. “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13)

…[T]he first and greatest criterion of the faith, the ultimate and unassailable test of orthodoxy is obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, which is ever living and infallible, since she was established by Christ to be the columna et firmamentum veritatis, “the pillar and support of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

(Pope St. Pius X, Address Con Vera Soddisfazione, May 10, 1909)

The traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy is quite clear and beautiful, but, ironically, there are few self-styled ‘traditionalists’ who even know about it in our day, thanks to decades of recognize-and-resist propaganda.

Of course Bp. Schneider is not alone in his wish for the errors of Amoris Laetitia to be corrected. Swiss canon lawyer Rev. Martin Grichting has said the same thing.

But correcting it would not restore credibility to the Novus Ordo magisterium at all (not that it would ever happen, anyway). In fact, it would be an implicit admission that the teaching office of the (supposed) Supreme Pontiff is not reliable, not safe to follow. It would declare before the whole world that, evidently, the ‘papal’ magisterium can inculcate and prescribe horrendous evils, not excluding blasphemy, heresy, and sacrilege. It would thus be a testimony to believers and unbelievers alike that its teachings and laws are by no means protected from offending God or harming souls. This, in turn, would make it easy for anyone looking to ignore, relativize, or reject a magisterial decision, for he could simply dismiss it, saying, “This will be rescinded in the future anyway.”

In short, Schneider’s and Grichting’s proposed magisterial correction would tell people that the Papacy is not a sure guide to salvation but a potentially soul-destroying farce — not because it is not always infallible (indeed it isn’t) but because it could teach and legislate what is contrary to God’s very own Will and Law. So much for “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Mt 16:19).

But is this compatible with what the true Popes have taught about the magisterium of the Holy See? Clearly not, as the following examples show:

We congratulate you, therefore, on the fact that although you suffer, doubtless, at the defection of your brothers, separated from you by the breath of perfidious teaching, you are not troubled for all that, and are even being stimulated by their error to receive with greater willingness and to follow with more zeal not only the orders, but even all the directives of the Apostolic See; and by so doing you are certain that you cannot be deceived or betrayed.

(Pope Pius IX, Letter Didicimus Non Sine; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 439.)

…whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, n. 41)

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9)

May no one deprive you of this reputation for sound doctrine and devoted obedience to the Vicar of Christ. May there never be room among you for that proud spirit of “free inquiry” which is more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one, and which does not hesitate to submit to one’s own critical judgment even norms issued by the Apostolic See.

(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Vos Omnes; Sep. 10, 1957; English translation in The Pope Speaks, vol. 4, n. 4 [Spring, 1958], pp. 447-453.)

Even ten years after its publication, the infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia can serve as a useful tool to demonstrate the counterfeit nature of the Vatican II Church and its anti-Catholic religion.

Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use