
VATICAN CITY — Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four cardinals have taken the very rare step of publicizing five questions they have sent Pope Francis in a bid to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” surrounding his summary document on the synod on the family, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).
The cardinals — Italian Carlo Caffarra, American Raymond Burke and Germans Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner — sent the five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”) to the Holy Father and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), on Sept. 19, along with an accompanying letter.
Dubia are formal questions brought before the Pope and the CDF aimed at eliciting a “Yes” or “No” response, “without theological argumentation.” The practice is a long-standing way of addressing the Apostolic See, geared towards achieving clarity on Church teaching.
The cardinals said the aim was to clarify “contrasting interpretations” of Paragraphs 300-305 in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, which are its most controversial passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments, and the Church’s moral teaching.
In a Nov. 14 statement entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia,” they say, for “many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union.”
But they add that others, while “admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.”
To clarify these matters is “extremely important” for the “life of the Church,” the cardinals stressed.
Since the publication of Amoris Laetitia in April, some Church leaders — prominently including Cardinal Walter Kasper and papal adviser Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro — have insisted the document is in continuity with Church doctrine, and yet also opens the door to admission of some remarried divorcees to the sacraments. Others, such as Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, believe it can be read in the light of the Church’s teaching and life and so does not allow such a change in pastoral practice.
As the Pope decided not to respond to the dubia, the four signatories said they read “his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect,” and therefore have decided to inform “the entire people of God about our initiative and offering all of the documentation.”
What the Dubia Reference
The five dubia are short and concise questions on Paragraphs 300-305. The first is a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried; the other four touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.
The first question asks whether it has “now become possible” to admit to the sacraments remarried divorcees, even though they are engaging in sexual relations, without “fulfilling the conditions” provided for by the previous teachings, mostly of Pope St. John Paul II, such as his 1981 apostolic exhortation on the family, Familiaris Consortio. It further asks if the expression “in certain cases” — found in Note 351 (Paragraph 305) of Amoris Laetitia — should be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio (engaging in sexual relations).
The Church teaches that a divorced-and-remarried Catholic can only receive holy Communion if living in continence, as “brother and sister.” This is because, based on Christ’s teaching, a person who remarries without an annulment and engages in sexual relations with another person is committing adultery and in a state of mortal sin.
The second question asks if the teaching of St. John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), in No. 79, “on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions,” is still valid.
The cardinals then ask if, after Amoris Laetitia, it is “still possible to affirm” that a person who “habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery” is living “in an objective situation of grave habitual sin.”
Fourthly, they wish to clarify if, in light of the exhortation, Veritatis Splendor’s teaching that “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice” is still valid.
Lastly, the cardinals hope the Pope will clarify whether Veritatis Splendor, 56, “that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object,” remains valid.
The cardinals make a point in the dubia of repeating three times that Veritatis Splendor is “based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church.”
Act of ‘Justice and Charity’
In their Nov. 14 statement, the four Church leaders stress they are above all acting out of “justice and charity” — justice because they profess through the dubia the Petrine ministry of unity and confirming the faith; and charity because they want to “help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.”
The cardinals also say they are carrying out their duty in accordance with Canon 349 of the Code of Canon Law: to help the Pope “care for the universal Church.” And they stress that their initiative should not be interpreted “according to a progressive/conservative paradigm,” as they say that would be “completely off the mark.”
Rather, they underline that their motives are that they are “deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.”
“We hope that no one will judge us unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy,” they continue. “What we have done and are doing has its origin in the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.”
Letter to the Pope
In their Sept. 19 letter to the Pope, the cardinals explained their reasons for taking such action, insisting that clarification was needed because “theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations” of Amoris Laetitia’s Chapter 8 that are “not only divergent, but also conflicting.”
The cardinals say the media has “emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion and disorientation among many of the faithful.” They also say “many bishops and priests” have received “numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation” of the chapter.
The signatories explain in their letter to the Pope that they felt “compelled in conscience” by their “pastoral responsibility” to act, and because they desire to “implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us.”
They end by calling on the Holy Father “to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the dubia that we attach to the present letter.”
To read the complete text of the dubia, the cardinals’ letter to the Pope and the full Nov. 14 statement including explanatory notes, click here.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
Nicolaas Bellord: Let us examine the so called Kasper proposal according to your definition of it to see if it was 1. Proposed by Cardinal Kasper or 2. Approved of in an underhanded ambiguous way Pope Francis: the admission “of divorced and remarried people to communion without fulfilling the condition of continence laid down by Familiaris Consortio.” Cardinal Kasper spoke in his original proposal of a penitential process that would open the door to the sacraments. John Paul II speaks of the same penitential process, saying that sacramental reconciliation depends on the proposal to overcome the situation of adultery. But Cardinal Kasper never denies that; rather, he takes it for granted. He never says that people will be admitted to the sacraments who have no intention of repentence with regard to adultery. The very term “penitential process” indicates that repentence is assumed. John Paul II specifies the content of repentence. Good for him, but that does not mean everyone has to do that who ever speaks about the same subject. In fact that is an absurd demand. (It is also, according the same logic, absurd to demand that priests be forced by some sort of strangely construed positive rule-giving to trot out the “live as brother and sister” proposal every time that a divorced and remarried person enters the confessional. By saying this I know I will be accused of being soft on adultery; but I am not soft on adultery. It is just that I do not assume the insincerity of my penitents. Before giving them my spiel, I try to listen to them. I do not assume that I know, from beforehand, their sins better than they do. When John Paul II says that reconciliation implies giving up the sin in question he is simply saying what repentence and reconciliation mean; he is not giving a rigid and absurd positive precept about what confessors and pastors must do, obviating the pastoral dimension of the question. Pastors must discern distinct cases: John Paul II says that, Kasper says that and Pope Francis says that. But the Pope Francis critics never admit that: with the divorced and remarried there is nothing to discern, you just have to sock it to them. Just get on your soap-box and lecture them about adultery: just what penitents like to hear. I know I wil be called weak on morality for saying that, but I am not weak on morality. John Paul II speaks about the specificity of repenting from the sin of adultery. Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis speak in a general way. But there are good reasons for speaking in a general way: it keeps you from thinking that all divorced and remarried people are adulterers, and it allows you to think about how God’s grace is or may be influencing the situation; it opens the mind to individual situations. The two approaches are supplementary. The doctrinal problem here is not a problem of Cardinal Kasper or of Pope Francis; it is with the critics of Pope Francis who seem to reject the fundamental dogma that God forgives sinners. They correct the Gospel: God does not forgive sinners, God forgives ex-sinners after they have justified themelves in a process of justification that excludes God. God just gives you the diploma for a victory over sin that you have, in a purely Pelagian fashion, realized. The confessional becomes on one hand, to use Pope Francis’s vivid phrase a torture chamber, and on the other hand, the place where you get to receive your diploma for having—without the grace of God—justified yourself. The critics of Pope Francis are terrified of the idea of a God who forgives sinners. They hold that it undermines “morality.”
“Amorous Laetitiae” can be discussed forever, but it still will NOT change DIVINE LAW, i.e., the 6th and 9th COMMANDMENTS given to us by GOD Himself in the Old Testament, and re-affirmed by OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, Himself, in the NEW TESTAMENT (Matt 5:32, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18). Alice Von Hildebrand put the matter in the proper context: “....We know with certainty that GOD will have the last word.”
Barbara asks about the Papal Apartments being vacated….There is no Canon LAW that says the Pope HAS to live in the Papal Apartments above St Peter’s Basilica, even though, traditionally, the Pope has lived in those Apartments “in the Vatican.” When Pope Benedict XVI retired—he went to live in the Domus Santae Marthae, behind St. Peter’s Basilica, in the Vatican Gardens. Subsequently, soon after he was elected Pope, Pope Francis decided to leave the Vatican Apartments above St. Peter’s Basilica and go back and “live” in the Domus Sancta Marthae—-where Pope Benedict retired to after his resignation…. Pope Francis, of course, continues to offer Mass and perform all the usual “papal” ministries in St. Peter’s Basilica——and beyond.
Carl Kuss: You state that the Kasper proposal to admit divorced and remarried people to communion without fulfilling the condition of continence laid down by Familiaris Consortio (FC)para 84, never existed. That is a preposterous rewriting of history. I suggest you read paragraphs 122 & 123 of the Instrumentum Laboris (IL)or working document written by Cardinal Baldisseri for the 2015 session of the Synod. The proposal is clearly there as something to be discussed. You then need to look at the final document of the 2015 or Relatio Synodi (RS) which is effectively a revision of the IL. If you look at clauses 85 and 86 you will see that the proposal was cut out by the Bishops. It was revived by Pope Francis in an ambiguous manner in Amoris Laetitia (AL). He has subsequently confirmed that what he has written can only be interpreted on the lines of the Kasper proposal. Many will follow his interpretation of the ambiguity and it is this that the four Cardinals have addressed in their Dubia. If, as you suggest, the Kasper proposal does not exist and there is no ambiguity in AL then why cannot Pope Francis just tell the four Cardinals that there is no change in the teaching as set out in FC 84?
Carl, your drive to make sense of the senseless is heroic. Hopefully they will find a place for you in the machine down at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. You are quite talented at this and deserve recognition.
As for your assault on Mr. Pentin and his credibility—the only thing for which I can fault him is his reverence, discretion and his drive to present things simply as they are. His record speaks for itself. His love for the Church more than apparent, it is lived out without rose colored glasses.
Part of the problem here is revisionism: the rewriting and changing of history. Mr Pentin, wittingly or unwittingly has played a major role. Most of the people in this comments section (as in many others) only know the revisionist Pentinist version of history which goes something like this: Pope Francis wanted to realize certain changes in a pseudo-pastoral direction which have as their upshot the approval of adultery in certain cases and thus he got Cardinal Kasper to repropose what had already been rejected by Cardinal Ratzinger in times of John Paul II: the infamous Kasper Proposal which would (in effect) do away with the age old rule by which communion was withheld from the divorced and remarried and replace it with the New Kasperian/Franciscan Rule: that everyone just do what they like, and what makes them feel good and forget the Rule of the Church and the doctrine of John Paul II that there are moral precepts which always bind. Have I not said it correctly? (I think my summary is a good one.) But the problem is that this is not authentic history. The Kasper/Francis Proposal does not exist. What? I repeat: the Kasper Proposal (=the Francis Proposal) does not exist. The Four Cardinals, following the Pentinian Revisionism are saying to Pope Francis: Okay, Holy Father, be explicit and clear for once about this New Rule which is being created embodying the Kasper Proposal: We demand clarity! But the whole way of setting up the thing is fundamentally wrong, and historically wrong. From the beginning this was not about changing one rule with another. It was not about undermining the sixth commandment. It was about taking concrete reality better into account. It was about the love of truth. It was about taking the working of grace into account. It was about highlighting the work of the Good Shepherd and the good shepherds. It was thus not about rejecting the legacy of St. John Paul II, but continuing in the same line as that great Pope. It was about saving souls. Do not be mislead.
The questions asked by the group of four cardinals have been abundantly answered. The important question is the one we should be asking them: Why don’t you get it at this stage in the game? That is the interesting question. Simple souls can be misled by the rigorists, the wonderful thing is that souls whose task it is to know better and to be guides for the rest can also be mislead. The pages of the Gospel are full of this phenomnenon.
Interesting comment from Carl Kuss (part of the Vatican communication team?)
The current Vatican strategy (I am not making this up) involves what is called in marketing “evangelist” i.e. people paid to write Francis-positive comments on Catholic blogs. Following the publication of Amoris Laetitia, new “readers” began to comment on trad oriented blogs, repeating ad nauseam the current Francis message. One of those “evangelist” appears to have been no other than the Tom Rosica himself!!! This is what I would call “disinformation”.
Carl Kuss: I thought that you were being ironic until I saw that is was indeed you Carl Kuss who wrote this:
“The critics of Pope Francis present themselves as champions of the Decalogue and of Natural Law, but the idea that one has to go on and on repeating things robotically (“Yes, Mr. Grand Inquisitor, I really do hold that adultery is a sin. Really, really, really.”) undermines the very idea of natural and divine law turning the solidity of eternal into something flimsy and subject to constant doubt.”
What on earth do you mean? Apparently you are saying that adultery is not a sin! And if there is constant doubt there is surely the confusion which you appear to want to deny in the first part of your comment??
Carl Kuss has to Defend, Defend for the things are in grey and ambiguous! His twisted intellect is boring and uninspiring! He got wrong audience here at NCR, why bother spending time for all?
.
The hard core liberal journalist from Washington Post said that “the greast thing happendd for the Republican Party is Obama!”
So, we do hope the same thing in the Catholic Kingdom, “the greast thing happended for the Catholic is pope Francis!”
The younger and the faithful of Catholic will wake up to denounce of Modernism which is the delusional hope as like Obama promised 8 yrs ago. We do believe that we are at the Martin (midnight prayer time) before sunrise! We watch and pray!
If the Church would follow this teaching by Pope Bergoglio, and the genius of Cardinal Kasper, it would be contradicting itself in a multitude of ways beyond the issue individuals in second marriages.
It would de facto abandon Christian anthropology as we know it substituting the speculative sciences in its place.
It would de facto be altering entirely its sacramental theology. All seven, not marriage alone.
It would de facto eradicate the priesthood by its corrosive understanding of the sacraments and thus deprive the world of all seven sacraments.
It would de facto alter its understanding of sin and salvation.
It would de facto abandon the role and value of “works” in the salvation of individuals and countermand the value of asceticism.
It would de facto further the deconstruction of religious life and lead ultimately to its abandonment.
It would de facto abandon the veneration of Saints, who would be implication be revealed as a bunch of ignoramuses who submitted to a vacuous ideology without credence.
It would de facto dissolve the Papacy and its role as supreme teaching authority.
It would, in essence, exterminate the Church. Why would anyone of intelligence continue to adhere to an institution which had pronounced itself erroneous in its essential nature?
Pope Bergoglio, the ecclesiastics giving credence to his proposal – spoken and implied – as well as those writing here in support of this aberrance are proclaiming that the Roman Catholic Church is essentially mistaken about its own nature and its role in history. It is thus revealed to be nothing more than a passing counterfeit notion which can no longer to be given any credence.
I don’t believe that, and I am left to wonder why those who do don’t merely absent themselves from Roman Catholicism and find harbor in one of the numberless covens where they would be more comfortable.
That they do not take this course leaves me with the understanding that their primary goal is indeed the eradication of Roman Catholicism.
What does that say about them?
@Don Stewart: In no way does your reference to the Sabbath apply here at all. No, we are speaking of following the direct commandment and teaching of Jesus Himself who unequivocally and very clearly stated the new demand. Christ was addressing the issue of the previous compromise and rejected it, succinctly ELEVATING the demand back to what was intended by God in the first place. Evidently the Pope and his allies have made the decision that Jesus is not merciful enough and needs their correction.
@ Karl Kuss: The same thing applies to your post, tho you have made some additional mistakes. First, as for the Synods, MUCH confusion and complaint was leveled at them by those attending pertaining to how they were run. To suggest otherwise is to promote an untruth, and to suggest that the Synods on the family solved anything is ludicrous. Even the Pope himself wouldn’t say THAT.
Further, Kasper’s proposal was soundly rejected by some 85% of Cardinals queried. He may not be a cartoon character, but his theology would fit nicely in a comic book.
Also, your Pope Francis “cites amply” of Pope JPII actually should read “cites falsely by inadequately quoting” the Great Pontiff, as has been demonstrated over and over by numerous theologians and commentators and can be easily seen in merely comparing the quotes to the original texts.
In addition, if you pick up a copy of Denzinger, you will find with no effort at all the existence of a great and ancient tradition of query built on “Yes/No” answers to doctrinal doubts and questions. Likely built itself on Jesus’ commandment to let one’s “Yea be yea and nay be nay”. In fact, in the past, Popes themselves have clearly used this method to clarify important maters of faith and morals. Your notion here that this is an aberration is nonsense.
As for Pope Francis being clear, now that IS cartoonlike. You stand as a assembly of one in asserting that. The whole world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike denies this. There wouldn’t be the immense crisis in the Church if that were true. CCC 1697 tells us that the joys AND the demands of the Gospel must be presented with clarity. If nothing else, Pope Francis has had nothing to do with this charge since the day he was elected.
Let us remember a little history. 1. Before two sessions of a general synod concerining the family. Pope Francis asked Cardinal Kasper to give an important discourse to talk about the complexities and difficulties of modern families touching the point of the divorced and remarried. He did so. 2. Cardinal Kasper is not a cartoon villain liberal theologian, but a great theologian, in spite of those who have been painting him as a cartoon villain. 3 Cardinal Kasper gave the discourse which was appreciated by many and criticized by some who were very outspoken, and made the same points that the four cardinals make in their letter. 4. The issues raised were discussed at great length before, during and after the two halves of the synod. 5. There is a great body of reflection on the pertinent issues already forming part of the Magisterium. 6. Pope Francis in AL cites amply from the teachings of John Paul II, Vatican II, and St. Thomas. And he shows no sense of being in denial of the teaching of the Catholic tradition. 7. Church doctrine does develop. 8.Pope Francis says at the beginning of AL that we should take our time in absorbing what he is saying. Conclusion: Pope Francis has done everything to be clear and to be careful. That some people think that his teaching is not clear is apparently the case. But that doesn’t mean that it is not clear. Pope Francis has no obligation to respond to mere stubbornness. The critics of Pope Francis present themselves as champions of the Decalogue and of Natural Law, but the idea that one has to go on and on repeating things robotically (“Yes, Mr. Grand Inquisitor, I really do hold that adultery is a sin. Really, really, really.”) undermines the very idea of natural and divine law turning the solidity of eternal into something flimsy and subject to constant doubt.
Finally we have a leader who understands that “the Sabbath was made from man, not man for the Sabbath”. Jesus understood that real human life does not neatly fit into boxes and rules. Thank God the church does give us clear guidance through her teaching but the teaching is only relevant to real life if applied with consideration to the pastoral circumstances of the life it effects. Surely the Cardinals understand that human relationships are extremely complex. Often the Pharisees wanted “yes” and “no” answers to their questions. Jesus would answer with a parable. How frustrating to be asked to engage our minds and hearts and the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Surely the Pope’s words give our highly trained priests and bishops enough guidance to approach and mercifully guide each circumstance. Are our pastors really that afraid of walking this difficult path with the people in their care ?
Joao, given Pope Francis response to Monsignor Sergio Alfredo Fenoy in September, as well as a number of comments made by the Pope’s intimate advisors, it appears likely that the Pope would have to respond to the five “dubia” as follows.
1] Yes
2] No
3] No
4] No
5] No
That he has been placed in a position to officially confirm himself in what is contrary to Catholic faith has left him apparently “boiling with rage.”
We all get that way when found to be up to our necks in duplicity.
Given that predicament it become crystal clear as to why the Holy Father is not going to meet with the College of Cardinals this week.
He would find a great peace if he were simply to correct himself. And so would we.
God willing we will soon see there are more than four Cardinals willing to put all at risk and display Christian fortitude in the face of aberrance. If that does not come to pass, may God provide refuge for them and uphold them in the effort to bring a raking light to this most unpleasant episode.
May He bring their good work to perfection.
Why would Pope Francis refuse to answer these questions? He should be jumping at the chance to provide a clear interpretation of the document, what his intentions were. What is the ‘downside’ of simply answering? The ‘upside’ is that we, the faithful and the priests who must work with this document, will receive clarity that we are begging for.
I long for the days when the Church was able to make clear statements on teaching boldly, even when bucking the culture. It appears those days are gone - ambiguity, mealy-mouthed, half-hearted support are the order of the day. Except in the case of Environmentalism.
i learn from Pope Francis often from the intent of his teachings, yet the Papal apartment remains empty. with respect is Pope Francis a progressive Cardnal as we await the leader of the church
If Pope Francis’ leaked letter to an argentinian bishop has indeed clarified Amoris Laetitia beyond a shadow of a doubt then it will be very easy for the Pope to answer the five questions. A simple yes or no will do.
In fact, will the handful of commenters here who state that Pope Francis has already clarified the meaning of Amoris Laetitia please answer the five questions?
i was just turned from Catholic faith by pornographic art on ewtns A Travel Guide to HEaven, yet pornographic art is no problem at Vatican.
Pope Francis also loosened the door to birth control
This is a very grave situation.
The questions asked by the Cardinals and the others not named among the Big Four do not only pertain to the marriage/remarriage/communion issue. In fact, the questions asked go far deeper than that, and address concerns the Cardinals obviously have with Pope Francis’ personal beliefs on a number of very serious doctrines.
This is not just a friendly bit of correspondence. It is a criminal investigation.
The nature of the questions and Cardinal Burke’s subsequent interviews make clear that these Cardinals are not only concerned about the possibility of Pope Francis’ heresy, but rather of the possibility of Pope Francis’ apostasy.
And for very good reason.
The other day I was the cause of family friction, even though I advised all parties what I was going to do and why. I was favoring one of my children over the other, because I knew as a father that is what I had to do. My words did not resolve the disagreement and did not dissipate the resulting jealousy. Thank God, so far, it has been resolved between the parties.
I would rather that such an argument within the Church was not openly expressed, which the Cardinals know would have dramatic results, most of them harmful to the Church.
Jesus had this problem with the pharisees, who prided themselves on knowing the law, but failed to address issues from a loving heart. Jesus always invites us to view a problem from his own perspective - after we follow the Commandments ourselves. The Pope is likely to answer this attack, probably with patience and maybe in a language we non theologians may understand.
It might be revealing if we hear the answer during the Jubilee year of Mercy.
Finally, some post Vatican II princes of the Church who have a little backbone and a basic grasp of dogmatic/moral theology.
How do you clarify mud?
I should add: NO POPE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, NOR ALLOW A PRACTICE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT IS CONTRARY TO BIBLICAL TEACHING—-specifically, in this case under discussion—-RE. A VALID MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. THANK GOD! “Amourous Laetitia” was simply an “Apostolic Exhortation” or there could be greater problems for Pope Francis…..Also, consider that the Pope does not, normally write these documents. He has a Papal Theologian do this. BUT, he should have read the Document, before he sigb=ned it and caught the serious error.
Sorry, but if we die in the state of mortal sin—-hell is our lot! Read the BIBLE! Read 1Cor. 6:9ff. The Catholic Faith does NOT “evolve!” Just because our US Supreme Court validated “homosexual marriage” does not make it “right and just” before GOD and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Don Fisher: You ask what about the children. Yes indeed what about the children of the first marriage and the abandoned spouse? People tend to look at the partners in the second ‘marriage’ and sympathise with them alone. They forget the bad example they give to others. How many other marriages will be destroyed by those who will now think there is nothing wrong with a second adulterous marriage?
Emmanuel Lutaya Musoke : The controversial theory about a process of discrimination leading to communion for the divorced and remarried was in fact rejected by the Bishops in the final document of the Synod. It was reintroduced in Amoris Laetitia. Please read my analysis of the final relatio of the Synod at:
and earlier. I wrote:
On the question of those in irregular situations whether cohabitation or divorced and remarried the whole of the Art of Accompaniment has been rewritten and the idea of a Way of Penance leading to communion for them has been dropped.
Did I just see someone use the term ‘mainstream Catholic media’ as if it was a positive thing? The level of delusion of the left in the church nearly equals the leftists in us politics who still tout polls form the ‘mainstream media’ as if they mean anything. Lol Dude just tried to pull the condescending name drop. SMH. Haven’t you got the memo those days are over. Long gone. People have woken up, the emperor has no clothes. I’m sorry this is just too ridiculous. Basic logic, as in the law of non-contradiction…is finally coming back…every day more and more people are waking up. How it took this long I’ll never know, but thank God manliness and common sense is making a comeback, and the illogic which was the result of milquetoast effete thinking, is on the run and on the way out.
“Disingenuous minority dissent by four Cardinals who have been retired. The story is getting a lot of spin among uber-right Catholic bloggers ... but is largely ignored by the Pope and mainstream Catholic media.”
p.s. By the way, who is this ‘mainstream Catholic media’ to which you refer? Isn’t the NCR owned by EWTN,the largest religious (not just Catholic) orginization in the world? You must be referring to the other NCR, the heretical leftist paper. Also when did the register get so many leftist readers and commenters? Is this leftover from the Mark Shea era (an era that was unfortunately aided and abetted by the register, he should have been sacked years ago, the cover this gave him, allowing him to still appear orthodox, is truly a shame, the register bears some heavy responsibility there, but I digress) or are they just trolls?
“Disingenuous minority dissent by four Cardinals who have been retired. The story is getting a lot of spin among uber-right Catholic bloggers ... but is largely ignored by the Pope and mainstream Catholic media”
The end of my story over at Spero News shows a real life example of “Amoris Leatitia” being used as a reason for a diocesan staff person to fail to practice the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. This admonishment could result in protecting children from being given scandal, or could result in reconciliation of a marriage breakup.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/YUAHKEULPT21/79314-Pope-Francis-in-hot-seat-over-marriage-statements#.WCvK4qIrIWo
@ Gerald Grosek;
Well if that’s the case the Pope should have no problem handing him an answer, seeings that the Pope is happy as a clam to hobknob with lesbian, fake “bishops” and providing all the correspondence they want, including making platitudes to some day join with their morally degenerate group in “full communion”.
This a document which came out of the deliberations of the Synod. During the Synod enough time was allowed for discussions and this is the synthesis which the Holy Father got out.
It is not intended to be a ready solution to single personal cases but a key for pastoral workers.It is intended to lead/help pastoral workers(bishops and priests)to discern and find out God’s will in individual cases of the faithful keeping in mind that the Merciful God has no dead ends.
Moreover, the interpretation by the Latin American theologians was commended as clear and final.Was it not good enough for the four Cardinals?
Just out of curiosity and for the record, I would like my bishop to also answer those questions.
Citing the Mt 18 passage as they did, these Cardinals have made clear they intend to continue to pursue the matter to the end according to the Scripture. The Matthew passage doesn’t end with making the offender and his offense public.
There’s a fight brewing.
Pope Honorius I.
This issue always gets a passionate response from both sides. The “traditionalist” view seems to allow no compromise based upon their understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Fine, I get it. However, I believe the traditionalists have a moral responsibility to find practical solutions to deal with the consequences of their beliefs. Is “living like brother and sister” realistic for divorced/re-married couples? Should they wear the letter “A” on their clothing a la Hawthorne when attending Church? Does atonement for their adulterous sin really require dissolution of their secon marriage? Is so, what about their children?
Raymond Burke has no credibility——-he has an ego problem and I question if he is a man of God.
Ecclesiastical wannabe’s of the left stripe appear to be emerging in greater numbers these days. The condecension and sanctimonious superiority complex sported by members of team Bergoglio and its press is, to say the least, not edifying. It does, however, serve to unmask the character of a disingenuous “reform,” more honestly referenced as “deconstruction.”
One need wonder what motivates the likes of DeVol and Allen and the fraudulence to which they lend themselves. The love of Christ or simple ego gratification?
It appears they believe we have all been waiting two thousand years for the corrective presently laid upon our shoulders.
I think not.
Today, I believe, a priest tried to use the concept of gradual conversion and the teaching of Vatican II to justify permitting someone in grave sin to receive the sacraments. Actually he said we have come to understand change comes over time and so we don’t seek perfect people because we expect they will need time to integrate the grace received in their lives. He called it a “view” of faith that has evolved. The reality though is that priests and laity who DO NOT see the horror of a particular grave sin or people who KNOW they sin but believe it is unjust to ask them to separate themselves from it, have chosen their ideas and ideals over Christ’s. Do you really expect that the adulterous person will separate at a later date from the adulterous relationship if they are allowed to continue it and receive the sacraments? Do you really believe the same sex couple will separate if they are welcomed as a same sex couple and receive the sacraments? They will die in their sin more likely. They are the rich young man who wants to be with God but doesn’t want to do what it takes to join Him - give away all his father’s riches that he inherited. Christ let him leave (probably giving him many opportunities in his life to change his mind and heed God.) As has been the custom in the Church around here lately, the priest went on to compare those who oppose this new “view” to think about how similar they are to the seven churches that God reprimanded in Revelation. Two wrongs will never make a right and one who is striving to follow Christ but is failing in some respects needs clear direction and encouragement, not envy or spite. They are not the same as the rich young man. They are willing to do what is right but need help to understand the spiritual things that let one achieve the goal or the teachings or example that help one die to self and live each moment in Christ. This new “view” appears to be nothing but a perversion that silences truth by attacking the speaker. We need a lot of prayer. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The great saints followed a view that sought deep conversion only God could give through grace which he bestowed on those who asked for it and showed them their sincerity in their lives. Nothing has changed.
Thank you good Cardinals for knowing and carrying out your sacred responsibilities.
Pray for the bishop of Rome. He is on a vague mission to somewhere known but to him.
No thanks, Francis.
Study - clarifies. The document will be better owned. It’s a practice in deconstruction.
It’s about time the Pope has addressed this matter, and those that kept the faith but not the one that they once married in the church to receive Our Lord in the sacrament. But I believe the remarried or only just divorced but not married have always had Jesus, it is the actions of those laity & clergy (despite Ordination) have left Jesus by their sins of pride.
Some of the news services say Francis has refused to reply!
Disingenuous minority dissent by four Cardinals who have been retired. The story is getting a lot of spin among uber-right Catholic bloggers ... but is largely ignored by the Pope and mainstream Catholic media. We have followed Mr.Pentin’s “Burke Publicity Stunts” with amusement for quite some time.
Following a two year canonical process for doctrinal development, to include a global survey of the Sensus Fidei and recommendation by over two-thirds of the Family Synod Bishops, Pope Francis expressly confined twentieth century innovations in closed-loop “reductionist” neo-Thomistic reasoning to the dustbin of history for a lack of “prudence”.
I can only infer that by ignoring the Burke contingent, Pope Francis affirms that their protest is not going to be given the power to distract from his reforms in pastoral care. Their questions were addressed, the Bishops voted and the Pope made decisions. Get over it.
Recall that following a similar attempt to manipulate media and a threat of schism at the 2014 Family Synod, Cardinal Burke was stripped of all Curial governing authority, passed over for promotion to the Chicago Archdiocese, dis-invited to the 2015 Family Synod and re-assigned to a ceremonial position on a beautiful tiny medieval island far far away in the middle of an ocean.
When question by a reporter about the vocal minority, Pope Francis indicated that no disciplinary action is necessary because many are approaching the age of retirement.
The four retired Cardinals will find their answer here:
Refer to the Pope’s letter to the Argentine Bishops Conference on their Amoris Laetitia implementation plan, which was the first Bishops conference to submit a plan. The Argentine Bishops included a clear path to communion for the divorced-remarried.
The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”
Pope Francis’ immediate response was approval with these words:
“The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity”
And, for serious objective analysis of Vatican news, I suggest dispensing with divisive ideological bloggers’ polemics (the art of telling half-truths) and following responsible Catholic journalists like Vatican correspondent John Allen.
Sorry but I don’t trust Francis to give an honest reply.
It’s time for Pope Francis to clean house of these cardinals and other like-minded prelates who only deal in the bow, kneel, grovel branch of the Church. Priests and Bishops are there to minister to the hurting and heal wounds. If humans were perfect we wouldn’t need ministers of any kind; however, since we are flawed, we need these people who claim to have dedicated their lives to service. We need to welcome back those who have experienced marital difficulties. Give them a path to restoration and make them full participating members of the Church. As to communion, they should start lining up. In fact when I take my non-Catholic Christian friends to mass, I show them how to receive communion and to date no roof has collapsed or wafer burst into flames. It’s time to be Christian Catholics and not Rules & Regulation Catholics. That’s the problem with the Church today, too many clergy and laity know everything about Catholicism and nothing about Christianity. Keep push Pope Francis, the real Catholics are with you.
I think the best thing to do would be to take these four cardinals and assign them for five years to poorest places in Africa, South America, North America or a poor Native American reservation or in a heavily gay parish. I have always felt close to the sisters and the brothers who taught me and who took vows of poverty (and chastity and obedience). Too many cardinals live in nice residences and get driven around in Limo’s (and I don’t mean Fiat 500 limos). After that five years, lets see what questions they have. Until then, stifle thyselves and stop belly aching, you’ve got cush jobs.
God’s laws don’t change and can’t be changed. King Henry 8th discovered that.
They are not complicated but written very simply. Henry 8th persecuted Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church because the answers of such critical questions regarding marriage were against his personal desires.
So Henry started his own illegitimate church, outlawed the legitimate Catholic church and forced everyone to take an oath of allegiance to him.
For the legitimate Church to now go along with ignorance of infallible laws on marriage, and allow some to manipulate them to suit modern day secular cultural activities and/or misinformed consciences, would be to also say that those who died under Henry 8th did so in vain and that the martyrs that came from that persecution of the true Church are not really saints, and that the illegitimate Church founded by King Henry was/is legitimate.
Praise God for these good Cardinals respectfully asking for a clarification on these important questions. I know they are not alone. A generation of priests, many, many bishops and current seminarians are, by and large, deflated and discouraged by our current Pontiff. Other than our mention of him in the Eucharistic Prayer, his is the name that shall not be mentioned. Many follow the policy that it is more charitable to say nothing about someone than something critical, so they remain silent. His critical descriptions about people (especially young people and young clergy) that he seems to have little to no experience with, has caused the great majority of younger priests and seminarians to go about their lives without reference to him. A person who leads a secular institution and treats his employees the way Pope Francis leads the Church and treats the clergy would have been sent off with a generous pension and a fond-farewell a long time ago.
@Odogwu Aganaga: I am often struck by the need certain individuals exhibit to maintain a kind of connection with an institution they believe has been inherently mistaken on fundamental moral questions and ecclesiastical discipline for two thousand years.
There are any number of ports of call they would find ever so hospitable to their erroneous personal interpretations of Holy Scripture – and without the bother to respond to the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium.
One can suppose that clerics of this stripe desire to maintain their job security, as well as the emotional dependence developed perks and prestige – but laymen – why not just go be an Episcopalian?
Odogwu_Aganagwa, I believe you are gravely mistaken because “I came to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous” means those in sin are ready to LEAVE it for Christ. There ARE already exceptions as we know through annulments. What is at issue here is truth. The truth is that if one is seeking to return to God, one is ready to admit their sin. What is being proposed instead is that people be TOLD they can be returned to God while still attached to grave sin. Is that misleading a soul to its destruction? Has one really been brought to Christ if they are validly married and are in a second marriage and they remain in the second marriage? Or has one party been appeased at the cost of another and now two parties souls are in danger - one from the betrayal of the Church and the other for remaining in an adulterous relationship with the Church’s blessing? The same is true of welcoming anyone in grave sin without them clearly understanding they are considered to be presently in grave sin and unable to receive the sacraments (because they harm their soul)but that they are truly welcomed to feed on the Word of God and the teaching of the Church to receive healing. Sadly, many don’t want healing because they don’t recognize the sin and attachment to the flesh or they don’t think God cares. Our faith has always taught He does. When you misuse a quote of the Bible, you muddy the waters. I believe that is what you have done here. What did Jesus call sinners to? for? Repentance. As He said to Zaccheus as he promised to repay 4 times what he may have taken from taxpayers, “NOW salvation has come to this house.” This used to be so clearly and universally understood. The serpent sows confusion and deception. There needs to be a very clear explanation of any change in the teaching, not because we follow LAWS alone, but because the Spirit Christ gave us is a Spirit of TRUTH. There can be no TWO valid marriages. There can be no valid grave sin. Christ cannot say, “Anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery” while the Church says, “No they don’t.” People can be forgiven, but sin remains sin. It doesn’t become accepted or acceptable because a repentant person asks forgiveness. It always leads to more sin. It always harms us.
I’d advise any seeking the truth to read carefully Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei whereby the issue of ambiguity and heresy are discussed at length, bluntly, and thankfully, with clarity that we all can understand.
I am so glad to see/read that some Cardinals and Bishops are finally approaching Pope Francis re. this matter with due respect and charity, but with rightful “collegial concern.” (“What we have done and are doing has its origin in the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.”) The referenced text in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, “Amorous Laetitiae,” is, in fact, contrary to the traditional teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church regarding one of the Seven Sacraments (Matrimony) AND the 6th and 9th Commandments; therefore, pray, Pray, PRAY FOR POPE FRANCIS and FOR THE BISHOPS—-and for the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” re. this very grave matter.
Wow. The comments on this help remind me that knowledgeable Catholics abandoned The Register a while ago.
Thank you, Rene!!
Amoris Laetitia was certainly confusing to me. Whatever it means, it does not and cannot mean that the Pope has the power to change the Church’s traditional teaching on sexual morality, not even if some living in troubled marriages must suffer the consequences of their refusal to abide by God’s own law and the Church’s traditional interpretation of it. So what the Pope really meant is a mystery to me and everyone I know. He definitely needs to clean up the mess. And he needs to stop all the ambiguity in his off hand remarks as well.
“I have come not to call the self-righteous but . . . .” tell those fundamentalists to please leave our beloved pope alone. this exceptionless and compassionless mind-set seems very unChristian to me. Am I right all?
Prayer is in order.
Almighty and Everlasting God, have mercy on Thy servant Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving kindness, in the way of eternal salvation, that with Thy help he may ever desire that which is pleasing to Thee and accomplish it with all his strength. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Es una barbaridad, es peor que ambigua esa parte del documento.Utiliza una dialéctica tan sutil, que acaricia una autorización disfrazada de caridad. Es peor que un mensaje subliminal, ES UN MENSAJE DIRECTO!! Y EL EVANGELIO?? —AH, BIEN, GRACIAS!!
NUESTRO SEÑOR CLARAMENTE NO DIJO QUE POSTURA ADOPTAR: SI SI O NO NO, LO QUE SE AGREGA DEL MALIGNO VIENE.
Veritatis Splendor, este maravilloso documento , lo dice con claridad. LOS ADÚLTEROS, SON ADÚLTEROS Y LISTO!! VIVEN EN PECADO GRAVE, POR PROPIA DECISIÓN. HAN DECIDIDO AGRADARSE A SÍ MISMOS ANTES QUE A DIOS. ¿QUE ESTAN ATRAPADOS EN ESA SITUACIÓN Y NO PUEDEN CAMBIARLA? PURAS MENTIRAS!! A MAYOR EL PECADO MAYOR SACRIFICIO Y REPARACIÓN!! DEJEN DE CONVIVIR, SEPÁRENSE Y HAGAN VIDA CASTA Y DE SOLTEROS HACIENDO SACRIFICIOS DE REPARACION Y ORACION. ASÍ SÍ, PUEDEN RECIBIR A NUESTRO SEÑOR EN LA EUCARISTÍA!!
I have asked a number of Clergy on our Tribunal “Is it possible that the Pope is encouraging his priests to us the Internal Forum method to bring back people to the Sacraments.” Some said no but in reality they would be losing some of there authority to Pastors. The Pope has already instructed the Tribunals to stop charging a fee for an application for an Annulment.
Good that clarification is sought, but it is unbelievable that these Cardinal are as objective as they say. Would they really accept a relaxation of the views on divorce and remarriage generally believed by traditionalists? Don’t they really want permission to continue preaching that divorced and remarried couples should live like brothers and sisters? Don’t they really want to judge!
Where were these four cardinals when Bergolio was raised to the chair of st. Peter?
Bureaucracies are the same all over. We will get an equivocal reply that says little and the whole issue will essentially be pushed over to the next Pope. In the meantime, we will have different local rules, either by definition or by default, in different jurisdictions. Kind of what we have now with contraception. Most places it is never mentioned.
Here we have it. Francis has been deliberately using vague and ambiguous language to cause mischief. He does not grasp his office, its limits and purpose. There is something deeply self willed and capricious about Francis. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ rorate caeli has a very concise analysis about the questions and principles involved. Francis is quite ignorant as is so many formed in the 1960’s. Conscience can only judge where my behavior or situation is in relationship to objective moral truths. Conscience never judges what moral truths are. Conscience cannot judge that.
Pope Francis knows he cannot directly contradict Catholic moral doctrine. He can undermine it, however, by sowing confusion. These courageous cardinals are attempting to force the Pope to clarify this confusion. If the Pope does not clarify this confusion, it is logical to conclude that what he is doing is using this confusion to undermine Catholic moral doctrine. It is then up to bishops of the Church, as successors of the Apostles, to gather courage and confront this Pope, like St. Paul confronted St. Peter regarding the Judaizers at the first Church Council. Clearly, the Church is facing a grave crisis created by Pope Francis and the Modernists. How this crisis is going to be resolved, we do not know. All we can do is pray for the Church, because this crisis is doing a lot of damage to the Body of Christ and will do still greater damage if not resolved promptly.
I think that there is way too much self-congratulatory animus against both our Holy Father and our Cardinals from self-appointed “good” Catholics. It’s time for most of us to shut up, go to Confession, and eat some fish.
WOOPS! I screwed up. I meant to say that I do not agree with Ana Milan. I don’t know how it was that I didn’t include the not. However, the rest of my comment makes more sense with the not than without it.
In September 2016 the publication of Pope Francis’ letter to Monsignor Sergio Alfredo Fenoy clarifies any ambiguity in “Amoris Laetitia.” The entire situation has been illuminated for what it is.
That said there appears, unsurprisingly, to be a further agenda at play within the “Amoris” conundrum. Team Bergoglio surely foresaw the development we learn of this morning and they were prepared for it. We need cast the mantle of trusting naiveté far aside. “Amoris Laetitia” was not a simple statement about marriage, it was a high-impact slug inaugurating the real contest.
Cardinal Maradiaga illuminated the profile of this pontificate clearly in January 2015. “The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.”
We know what we are dealing with, and so do the Cardinals who have now approached the dilemma with the appropriate protocols and procedures. God willing these four courageous men, with a vast number of their confreres in the College of Cardinals, will see this brought to its proper conclusion very soon, no matter what the cost, no matter what the scandal.
Saint Teresa of Jesus who hoped to see her Carmel’s inhabited by virile nuns, said something to the effect that she would give her life to save one soul. Is our hierarchy composed of enough men willing to endure an ecclesiastical martyrdom to forestall the metamorphosis presently underway.
Oremus.
It is said that this process of ‘dubia’ is a long-standing Church practice. Does anyone expert in Church history know what happens if a Pope fails to respond? Is there a next step? It seems to me that if a Pope fails to respond he has abandoned his ministry and has effectively resigned???
poor headline. It should read: Four Cardinals formally asked the Popeto clarify AL.
I have come to fear that this Pope is literally “out of control.” That is to say, that he will not tolerate or even admit the possibility that he is not free to say or do whatever he wishes, that he is constrained by doctrine and tradition and does not have the power to manipulate everything no matter how ancient or how sacred to accommodate his agenda. He absolutely must be opposed. I pray that this is the beginning of the necessary corrective.
What if Pope Francis remains obstinate and he renders a decision contrary to Church teaching? What then? I think this is a dangerous gambit that I hope these four Cardinals have thought through, and have strategies already in place to mitigate one or more wrong answers.
You have to give it to Kasper! his arrogance and conning skills have reached new cosmic, and other-worldly dimensions. To compare the Church to Pilate reminds me of Obama’s world-wide apology tour for America’s alleged sins. Yes, it is Mea Culpa that the terrorist, driven by dispear and injustice, bombed the WTC! In atonement for our sins, we should now make ourselves into a welcoming carpet, like some Europeans, on which the poor Muslim radicals can enter our land and turn it into a caliphate. Same with homosexuals and divorced remarried in new unions. We have been so bad to them, so un- Catholic, uncharitable that we pushed them to do the grave sins they do and we must now welcome them with open and repenting arms. Here! Take my Communion waffle for I’m such a bigot! I say, the Vatican swamp must be drained as well, and the 4 brave cardinals are deep in the mud looking for the plug to be pulled open. Thank God for them. And may God have mercy on the progressive radicals in Vatican, including Pope Francis.
Yes Carol I would think so. Maybe they should leave and start their own church where they can make all the decisions.
Thank you so much for this article!!! I pray Holy Spirit strengthening for these four Cardinals and for all of the ordained who want Pope Francis to genuinely give clarifications, and for Pope Francis to spend time with God and then to formulate his clarifications along with any changes in the way his words are now.
God bless, C-Marie
Well, well, well, it has come to this, that finally Bergoglio is called to say either YES when he means YES or No when he means No! Thank God these are the very words of Jesus! Praise God for these Cardinals. Bergoglio! What a pity!
Traditionally, hasnt the Pope used this capacity to clarify questions, not raise them. To remove uncertainty, not introduce it? Or is this pretty standard? I ask seriously and not provocatively. Because I imagine after the Council of Nicea, things didnt automatically setttle down.
Cardinals, please keep requesting answers to the Dubia.
I have been waiting for the cardinals to do that. The two German ones have a tough battle with their
fellow homeland cardinals. This absolutely has to be clarified not with “if, maybe”, but a clear yes or not
Thank you for your extraordinary courage!
I agree with Dan and Cardinal Arinze, but I do agree with Ana Milan that “the fact that there has been no response from PF must mean guilt.” That there has been no response YET may simply be a result of the fact that there is much more going on in the world,that may call for more immediate concern at the moment eg Catholics being crucified and beheaded in the Holy Land and in other places, and Catholics losing their right to practice their Faith in the Western World and being imprisoned for speaking the Truth, and Catholics in Name Only being indifferent to the suffering of their brothers, and, indeed, even contributing to it, or the Holy Father may be working on a response that will assist these Cardinals and ourselves to understand more fully the Church’s and God’s position on Holy Matrimony. Let us thank the 4 Cardinals for their good will, and let us thank our Holy Father for his good will and thank God for giving us both.
Mathew 5:37: “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”
As one who went through the long, laborious process to obtain a Church annulment, of which I was told by my pastor that I had almost certain grounds, am I now to think I went through it all needlessly? Did the catechism change during the interim? Has that passage in Mark been deleted?
Folks may find useful or at least interesting my “Amoris Laetitia: Mercy Robots & Sinning In Heaven” at the site CatholicStand. I am one of the confused who needs the shepherd’s guidance. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas
Does the fact that only four Cardinals submitted the questions indicate that only four actually wanted to?
the entire purpose of the “science of theology” is to avoid giving a “yes” or “no”
Perhaps what is most troubling lies in the fact that this request to the Holy Father was made necessary by his own lack of initiative. Is the Vatican so out of touch with clergy and laity that they fail to realize the chaos they have created? Do they care? Now we may know.
This Pope makes it extremely difficult for Catholics in the USA to defend our faith by his controversial statements. To be more specific, his statements regarding gays and LGBT. We need a leader that defends our catholic beliefs and does not waver ... he has failed!
It sure would help us all to have clarity on one of the most important issues of our Church.
We have such a sneaky Pope! First, he refuses to answer the question directly in Amoris Laetitia. Then, finally, these four cardinals send him this letter in September. Not wanting to answer the letter, the Pope instead responds to the bishops in Argentina, saying “No other interpretation is possible”. Now, this letter is released and we see that the Pope does not have the simple courage to say what he thinks. Always a big run around with this Pope. Why does he think being sneaky is part of being Pope?
Four serious men defending the Faith and the faithful with serious reasonable questions for the bishop of Rome.
Thanks Mr. Pentin.
I sincerely wish I did not have to say this, but I do not trust Francis. He seems to be on his own mission to somewhere.
Also, the serious, reasonable questions asked by the Cardinals are probably above the theological intellectual level of this pope.
He won’t get it.
I could be wrong, of course.
As Cardinal Arinze once explained, these are simple questions that (if put in 2nd grade language) any second grader preparing for first Holy Communion can answer…
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
“Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.”
Thank you to these 4 Cardinals!!!
Ambiguity is for Protestants.
The great Citizen Philosopher Syd Harris near the end of his life…
“What lesson have you learned later in life that you wish you had learned earlier?”
“To tolerate, learn from, and accept ambiguity.”
One can only say it is about time these clarifications were formally requested by Cardinals. The fact that there has been no response from PF must mean guilt. He knows full well he is trying to change the Ten Commandments & to date has got away with it, but we pray not anymore. If he continues to ignore these four Cardinals then they must take the next step & formally call him out for his blasphemies & heresies & urge him to resign. This action would be entirely in keeping with their consecration as Cardinals in teaching & defending the True Faith.
There is also a question of his mental health & therefore his ability to properly govern the CC, protecting & upholding the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of Christ’s Church on earth.
There seems to be a ruling liberal elite in both America and England and in the West in general that hate ordinary Catholics who hold to Christian teaching. Just like Trump and Brexit through the people have created an uprising against this elite, we need the same in the Catholic Church against the hierarchy who seem to want to control us to hold to their new world order. Let us rise up by prayer and action against the ruling liberal elite in the Catholic Church which seeks to subvert the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am curious which language was the letter sent. Italian? Latin?
Thanks be to God and thank you Mr. Pentin for your service to God and his Church.
Sections
Home
Search




