Posted on 06/27/2017 6:23:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
Most Eminent Cardinals,
I have decided to write an open letter to you, in response to your continued attempts to approach our Holy Father, Pope Francis with the issues you originally raised in the five dubia. I do so in a spirit of love for the Church, and above all, for its unity under the care and protection of our beloved Pope. I also wish to state that in relation to the question of access to the Sacraments for some divorced and remarried, I have no vested interest; I have been blessed with a twenty year marriage and five children, and I do not have family or friends who fall into this very delicate category. My sole concern lies in the spiritual welfare of these particular souls whom the Lord has placed alongside me as brothers and sisters in the Faith.
I would like to begin by addressing your concerns expressed in the dubia. It seems that in relation to the first dubia, you have trouble accepting the two authentic interventions of Pope Francis in which he has already affirmed that in certain cases, sacramental discipline has been changed: firstly, in answer to Francis Rocca’s question on the flight from Lesvos to Rome on April 16, 2016, and secondly, on September 5, 2016, when he praised the Argentine Bishops’ draft guidelines stating there is: “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia Ch. 8. In relation to your other four dubia, I am confused as to why you have felt the need to ask them. Pope Francis at no stage in Amoris Laetitia changes any of these teachings; permit me to give a few examples. In AL no 295, the Holy Father repeats St. John Paul II’s teaching on the “law of gradualness” as opposed to the “gradualness of the law” and further states: “For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.” At no 311, Pope Francis states: “it is quite true that concern must be shown for the integrity of the Church’s moral teaching”; he also refers to divorce as an evil (no 246). It should also be noted that the Holy Father reaffirms Humanae Vitae; “Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning [being open to life].
In regards to conscience, at no 37, the Pope affirms consciences must be “formed”, and later teaches that the more couples listen to God and follow his commandments with spiritual accompaniment, “the more their decision will be profoundly free of subjective caprice and accommodation to prevailing social mores” (no 222). At no 303 we read: “Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience.” If there is a doctrinal development in terms of conscience, it relates to the Pope’s magisterial teaching (no 303) that a person may have a “certain moral security” in regards to the “most generous response” they can give to God at that moment in their lives, when they may not be able to reach the “overall demands of the Gospel.” Yet even here, the Holy Father twice makes reference that the “most generous response” must not be seen as the objective ideal. At no 305, Pope Francis affirms the existence of objective grave sin—calling it an “objective situation of sin”— yet chooses to deal with it in relation to the more important aspect of subjective guilt— just as The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had done under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I would draw your attention to several key documents where this is explained: The Moral norm of Humanae Vitae and Pastoral Duty, Homosexualitatis problema, and Persona humana. At any rate, we can affirm that Pope Francis has not changed the teaching on objective grave sin. Your Eminences, a careful reading of Amoris Laetitia reveals everything you have asked in the dubia:
1) The teachings on the indissolubility of marriage remains 2) Each person must strive to follow the moral teachings of the Church 3) Divorce is an evil, and adultery is always evil—even if guilt can be reduced or erased altogether 4) Consciences must be formed. Nowhere does the text allow anyone to come to the conclusion they can do as they please 5) In no way does Pope Francis suggest that irregular unions are a “good” alternative option to the original marriage. However, it cannot be denied that grace is at work in some of these unions
So what we are left with is a disagreement of the Pope’s change in sacramental discipline. Has he changed the doctrine? No. He is quite clear that those who flaunt their irregular situation must be converted; and although he doesn’t say it, the assumption is that these souls are possibly in mortal sin. If the Pope was preaching a false mercy, he would have welcomed each and every divorced and remarried person to receive the Lord, regardless of their spiritual state. On the contrary, the Pope’s interest and pastoral concern is for those souls who love the Lord very much, yet find themselves in an extremely difficult situation; and because of this, I would say this is a very courageous Pope, sent by the Holy Spirit for these times, and who has confronted the reality of a wounded Church, and a wounded world that must not be abandoned. In relation to St. John Paul II’s requirement to live as brother and sister, that is an ideal that realism tells us is not always possible. We may recall Pope Gregory II’s magnorum est —that this is possible only in the case of great moral virtue. However, even in the case of complete failure in this regard, authentic moral theology tells us that guilt may be minimal or even non- existent: “Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart” (Sam. 16: 7).
Your Eminences, I would like to draw your attention to the teachings found in several magisterial documents of great importance. In Donum Veritatis (no 17) we read: “It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.” Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum stated: “This metaphorical expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed by it. Thus it is supreme and absolutely independent, so that, having no other power on earth as its superior, it embraces the whole Church and all things committed to the Church.” I would humbly suggest that we cannot come to any other conclusion than Pope Francis– as the beneficiary of the Holy Spirit’s charism of assistance even in his ordinary magisterium— (as taught by St. John Paul II) has legitimately made possible the reception of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried in certain carefully considered cases where grace is working in their souls, and a sincere desire to strive for holiness is present. If we cannot accept this premise, then we are not accepting the teachings of previous popes. If Tradition teaches us one thing, there is a hermeneutic of continuity in understanding the spiritual authority of the papacy in matters of faith and morals, and as the First Vatican Council pointed out: “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.” Pope Innocent III stated: “The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant” (Apostolicae Sedis Primatus), while Pope Benedict XVI taught: “the Petrine ministry is a guarantee of freedom in the sense of full adherence to the truth, to the authentic tradition, so that the People of God may be preserved from errors concerning faith and morals”(Homily for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, 2010).
You stated in your Letter of April 25, 2017 that you reject those claims that Pope Francis is not the true successor to St. Peter—an admission that suggests you know well the attitude of many who look to you for leadership—and thus bearing in mind the teachings explained above, there is no possibility of a formal correction. In terms of personal actions such as St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter, whose behaviour was contrary to what he taught as Pope, or the sinfulness of medieval popes, then yes, a correction is possible, but in relation to matters of faith or morals taught as part of the magisterium then no. Your Eminences, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you several questions that may help you see the charism of Pope Francis in a new way: Was it scandalous that God used an unrepentant pagan prostitute in the form of Rahab to aid salvation history? Was it scandalous that Jesus waited for an adulterous woman at Jacob’s Well and granted her the grace of evangelization immediately? Was it scandalous that he didn’t tell her to leave the man she was with or to live as brother and sister? Was it scandalous that Jesus inserted a new canon into the law of Moses in order to save an adulterous woman from the sentence she deserved? Did the spirit of the law override the letter of the law in order to bring her to salvation? What do we gain spiritually by fighting against those grace filled divorced and remarried souls who truly desire Sacramental union with Jesus? Do we believe nothing can be gained for them? Do these words of Jesus not apply to them: “and I will not reject anyone who comes to me”? (Jn. 6:37) Considering Bl. Pius IX’s assertion that civil remarriages for Catholics are: “nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage” (Allocution Acerbissimum vobiscum), what changed allowing Pope Benedict XVI to state that the sufferings of these people were a “gift to the Church”? (Evening of Witness, World Meeting of Families, June 2, 2012)
We must realize that in the real world–where most of us laypeople live and work–the old ways of converting no longer work. People need witnesses of love and mercy who present them with a reason to believe. We have no choice but to meet people where they are and work from there. We cannot preach hell to people who consider an eternity of heaven as dull and pointless. Love and compassion are the keys the Lord used to unlock hearts, and that is what Pope Francis understands. Doctrines are useless unless the souls are touched by God’s grace first. I see no reason to fear for the truthfulness of any doctrine. What I see is a Pope of true Christian realism; one who has taken to heart the words recounted in the Parable of the Wedding Feast: “The master then ordered the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedgerows and make people come in that my home may be filled’” (Lk. 14: 23). This is a time of mercy that requires special measures; yes, even risks. But I firmly believe the Lord demands this of us because in doing so we are affirming: “Lord, we will do whatever we can to help weak and sinful souls fill your House.” And let us never forget we are all nothing without divine mercy.
I will end by humbly asking you to reconsider your position on this issue. You may or may not be aware that there is a growing section of traditionalists and even some conservative Catholics who see you as the standard bearers for the rejection of this papacy. I know from experience that some of it is deeply troubling. The abuse from many, including those who run websites and Traditionalist blogs aimed at the Holy Father and those who are loyal to him, is nothing short of satanic. You are their role models and that is an intolerable situation. In reality, there is no confusion but only outright rejection and defiance towards the legitimate Pope and his magisterial teachings. If all the Cardinals had accepted and defended Pope Francis’ clear teaching, there would have been no fuel for the dissenting fire. In the desire for the Unity of the Church around Peter, it is essential to affirm the Pope has the authority— ratified in heaven—to make disciplinary changes for the good of some divorced and remarried souls, and so I ask you to bring to an end this situation by accepting the constant Most Eminent Cardinals,
I have decided to write an open letter to you, in response to your continued attempts to approach our Holy Father, Pope Francis with the issues you originally raised in the five dubia. I do so in a spirit of love for the Church, and above all, for its unity under the care and protection of our beloved Pope. I also wish to state that in relation to the question of access to the Sacraments for some divorced and remarried, I have no vested interest; I have been blessed with a twenty year marriage and five children, and I do not have family or friends who fall into this very delicate category. My sole concern lies in the spiritual welfare of these particular souls whom the Lord has placed alongside me as brothers and sisters in the Faith.
I would like to begin by addressing your concerns expressed in the dubia. It seems that in relation to the first dubia, you have trouble accepting the two authentic interventions of Pope Francis in which he has already affirmed that in certain cases, sacramental discipline has been changed: firstly, in answer to Francis Rocca’s question on the flight from Lesvos to Rome on April 16, 2016, and secondly, on September 5, 2016, when he praised the Argentine Bishops’ draft guidelines stating there is: “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia Ch. 8. In relation to your other four dubia, I am confused as to why you have felt the need to ask them. Pope Francis at no stage in Amoris Laetitia changes any of these teachings; permit me to give a few examples. In AL no 295, the Holy Father repeats St. John Paul II’s teaching on the “law of gradualness” as opposed to the “gradualness of the law” and further states: “For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.” At no 311, Pope Francis states: “it is quite true that concern must be shown for the integrity of the Church’s moral teaching”; he also refers to divorce as an evil (no 246). It should also be noted that the Holy Father reaffirms Humanae Vitae; “Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning [being open to life].
In regards to conscience, at no 37, the Pope affirms consciences must be “formed”, and later teaches that the more couples listen to God and follow his commandments with spiritual accompaniment, “the more their decision will be profoundly free of subjective caprice and accommodation to prevailing social mores” (no 222). At no 303 we read: “Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience.” If there is a doctrinal development in terms of conscience, it relates to the Pope’s magisterial teaching (no 303) that a person may have a “certain moral security” in regards to the “most generous response” they can give to God at that moment in their lives, when they may not be able to reach the “overall demands of the Gospel.” Yet even here, the Holy Father twice makes reference that the “most generous response” must not be seen as the objective ideal. At no 305, Pope Francis affirms the existence of objective grave sin—calling it an “objective situation of sin”— yet chooses to deal with it in relation to the more important aspect of subjective guilt— just as The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had done under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I would draw your attention to several key documents where this is explained: The Moral norm of Humanae Vitae and Pastoral Duty, Homosexualitatis problema, and Persona humana. At any rate, we can affirm that Pope Francis has not changed the teaching on objective grave sin. Your Eminences, a careful reading of Amoris Laetitia reveals everything you have asked in the dubia:
1) The teachings on the indissolubility of marriage remains 2) Each person must strive to follow the moral teachings of the Church 3) Divorce is an evil, and adultery is always evil—even if guilt can be reduced or erased altogether 4) Consciences must be formed. Nowhere does the text allow anyone to come to the conclusion they can do as they please 5) In no way does Pope Francis suggest that irregular unions are a “good” alternative option to the original marriage. However, it cannot be denied that grace is at work in some of these unions
So what we are left with is a disagreement of the Pope’s change in sacramental discipline. Has he changed the doctrine? No. He is quite clear that those who flaunt their irregular situation must be converted; and although he doesn’t say it, the assumption is that these souls are possibly in mortal sin. If the Pope was preaching a false mercy, he would have welcomed each and every divorced and remarried person to receive the Lord, regardless of their spiritual state. On the contrary, the Pope’s interest and pastoral concern is for those souls who love the Lord very much, yet find themselves in an extremely difficult situation; and because of this, I would say this is a very courageous Pope, sent by the Holy Spirit for these times, and who has confronted the reality of a wounded Church, and a wounded world that must not be abandoned. In relation to St. John Paul II’s requirement to live as brother and sister, that is an ideal that realism tells us is not always possible. We may recall Pope Gregory II’s magnorum est —that this is possible only in the case of great moral virtue. However, even in the case of complete failure in this regard, authentic moral theology tells us that guilt may be minimal or even non- existent: “Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart” (Sam. 16: 7).
Your Eminences, I would like to draw your attention to the teachings found in several magisterial documents of great importance. In Donum Veritatis (no 17) we read: “It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.” Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum stated: “This metaphorical expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed by it. Thus it is supreme and absolutely independent, so that, having no other power on earth as its superior, it embraces the whole Church and all things committed to the Church.” I would humbly suggest that we cannot come to any other conclusion than Pope Francis– as the beneficiary of the Holy Spirit’s charism of assistance even in his ordinary magisterium— (as taught by St. John Paul II) has legitimately made possible the reception of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried in certain carefully considered cases where grace is working in their souls, and a sincere desire to strive for holiness is present. If we cannot accept this premise, then we are not accepting the teachings of previous popes. If Tradition teaches us one thing, there is a hermeneutic of continuity in understanding the spiritual authority of the papacy in matters of faith and morals, and as the First Vatican Council pointed out: “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.” Pope Innocent III stated: “The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant” (Apostolicae Sedis Primatus), while Pope Benedict XVI taught: “the Petrine ministry is a guarantee of freedom in the sense of full adherence to the truth, to the authentic tradition, so that the People of God may be preserved from errors concerning faith and morals”(Homily for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, 2010).
You stated in your Letter of April 25, 2017 that you reject those claims that Pope Francis is not the true successor to St. Peter—an admission that suggests you know well the attitude of many who look to you for leadership—and thus bearing in mind the teachings explained above, there is no possibility of a formal correction. In terms of personal actions such as St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter, whose behaviour was contrary to what he taught as Pope, or the sinfulness of medieval popes, then yes, a correction is possible, but in relation to matters of faith or morals taught as part of the magisterium then no. Your Eminences, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you several questions that may help you see the charism of Pope Francis in a new way: Was it scandalous that God used an unrepentant pagan prostitute in the form of Rahab to aid salvation history? Was it scandalous that Jesus waited for an adulterous woman at Jacob’s Well and granted her the grace of evangelization immediately? Was it scandalous that he didn’t tell her to leave the man she was with or to live as brother and sister? Was it scandalous that Jesus inserted a new canon into the law of Moses in order to save an adulterous woman from the sentence she deserved? Did the spirit of the law override the letter of the law in order to bring her to salvation? What do we gain spiritually by fighting against those grace filled divorced and remarried souls who truly desire Sacramental union with Jesus? Do we believe nothing can be gained for them? Do these words of Jesus not apply to them: “and I will not reject anyone who comes to me”? (Jn. 6:37) Considering Bl. Pius IX’s assertion that civil remarriages for Catholics are: “nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage” (Allocution Acerbissimum vobiscum), what changed allowing Pope Benedict XVI to state that the sufferings of these people were a “gift to the Church”? (Evening of Witness, World Meeting of Families, June 2, 2012)
We must realize that in the real world–where most of us laypeople live and work–the old ways of converting no longer work. People need witnesses of love and mercy who present them with a reason to believe. We have no choice but to meet people where they are and work from there. We cannot preach hell to people who consider an eternity of heaven as dull and pointless. Love and compassion are the keys the Lord used to unlock hearts, and that is what Pope Francis understands. Doctrines are useless unless the souls are touched by God’s grace first. I see no reason to fear for the truthfulness of any doctrine. What I see is a Pope of true Christian realism; one who has taken to heart the words recounted in the Parable of the Wedding Feast: “The master then ordered the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedgerows and make people come in that my home may be filled’” (Lk. 14: 23). This is a time of mercy that requires special measures; yes, even risks. But I firmly believe the Lord demands this of us because in doing so we are affirming: “Lord, we will do whatever we can to help weak and sinful souls fill your House.” And let us never forget we are all nothing without divine mercy.
I will end by humbly asking you to reconsider your position on this issue. You may or may not be aware that there is a growing section of traditionalists and even some conservative Catholics who see you as the standard bearers for the rejection of this papacy. I know from experience that some of it is deeply troubling. The abuse from many, including those who run websites and Traditionalist blogs aimed at the Holy Father and those who are loyal to him, is nothing short of satanic. You are their role models and that is an intolerable situation. In reality, there is no confusion but only outright rejection and defiance towards the legitimate Pope and his magisterial teachings. If all the Cardinals had accepted and defended Pope Francis’ clear teaching, there would have been no fuel for the dissenting fire. In the desire for the Unity of the Church around Peter, it is essential to affirm the Pope has the authority— ratified in heaven—to make disciplinary changes for the good of some divorced and remarried souls, and so I ask you to bring to an end this situation by accepting the constant Tradition of the Church that Popes are free from error in matters of faith and morals and that derives from the specific prayer of Jesus himself: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22: 32).
Stephen Walford,
Stephen Walford
Idiot.
Dubia cardinals to dubious Pope.
From your post, I don’t believe you know what “dubia” means.
And here's the crux of the matter:
Archbishop Bruno Forte, who wrote the infamous paragraph, said in an interview. that Francis told him to write that paragraph as ambiguously as possible. Here is the author himself, bragging that he wrote it to be as vague as he could. So, Stephen: exactly how is that "clear teaching?"
“...The old ways of converting no longer work.”
I wonder who wrote this for Mrs. Walford and how much she was paid.
The four questions from the five Cardinals are simply questions that can be reviewed over coffee. However, Pope Francis refuses to have coffee with the Cardinals which is not a mortal sin but is a mistake of public relations.
The OP seems not to understand that this NOT merely a matter of discipline. Deciding that it's okay for divorced-and-remarrieds to take the Eucharist means either (a) civil remarriage following divorce w/o annulment is a valid marriage; or (b) adultery is not a sin anymore; or (c) receiving the Eucharist in a state of objective mortal sin isn't the sin of sacrilege anymore.
Any of those three is a change in moral doctrine, not just a change in discipline. A change in discipline is changing the words used to bless holy water, or prescribing a particular color of chasuble on a specific day. Those things are within the power of church authority. Rendering Jesus' own words in teaching the moral law concerning marriage null and void (!!) is not.
Is this the official responder?
Another massive cloud of fog. Sand in the eyes. Bafflegab.
Bergoglio is a heretic and liar.
You stated in your Letter of April 25, 2017 that you reject those claims that Pope Francis is not the true successor to St. Peter—an admission that suggests you know well the attitude of many who look to you for leadership—and thus bearing in mind the teachings explained above, there is no possibility of a formal correction. In terms of personal actions such as St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter, whose behaviour was contrary to what he taught as Pope, or the sinfulness of medieval popes, then yes, a correction is possible, but in relation to matters of faith or morals taught as part of the magisterium then no.
Although I completely disagree with the author's defense of Francis' teachings, he is correct in describing the difference between St Paul's correction of St. Peter and that which is currently happening with Francis.
Of course, if Francis isn't a true pope, then that changes everything. Perhaps the Dubia Cardinals should revisit their position on Francis' "papacy".
The author is also wrong, though, in supposing that the Pope — even a true Pope — can, on his own authority, negate moral law asserted by the Church for all of its history and prescribed by the words of Our Lord. “The power of making laws” described by Pope Leo does not include the power of abrogating Divine moral law.
Yes, he is wrong that a true pope can do that. But Francis is doing that. My previous post stands.
Just to clarify: the author believes that Francis isn’t negating divine law, but he is.
I’m not convinced the author even knows the difference between e.g., divine law and human law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.