A Theologian of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Flunks the Pope

L'Espresso ^ | June 6, 2019 | Sandro Magister

[ebb tide]

“His Most Egregiously Ambiguous Statement.” A Theologian of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Flunks the Pope

Never would that sentence have gotten through untouched under the scrutiny of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, if only Pope Francis had gotten it checked there.

But that didn’t happen. And in fact, since February 4, in the solemn document on human brotherhood signed jointly in Abu Dhabi by Francis and by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, there appears the following statement:

“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

Nothing objectionable when it comes to color, sex, race, and language. But that the diversity of religion is also intended by the Creator is a new and reckless notion for the Catholic faith. Because that would invalidate what the apostle Peter, the first pope, preached when full of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, which is that “in no other is there salvation” except in Jesus, seeing how his current successor puts every religion on an equal footing with the others.

One month later, at the general audience on April 3, back from another journey on Muslim soil in Morocco, Pope Francis tried to adjust his aim: “We should not be afraid of difference” among the religions, he said. “God willed to permit this reality,” with the “voluntas permissiva” of which “the theologians of Scholasticism” spoke. If anything, “we should be afraid if we do not act in brotherhood, in order to walk together in life.”

But once again, if the text of this general audience had first been submitted for the inspection of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, this patch-up job would not have been approved either.

There is no counting, by now, the times in which Pope Francis has refused to ask for or accept the view of the congregation whose task it is to ensure compliance with dogma.

If he had done this with, for example, “Amoris Laetitia,” that exhortation on marriage and divorce would have come out written in a much less imprident manner, without eliciting those “dubia” - endorsed and made public by four cardinals - to which Francis then refused to respond, also imposing silence on the congregation led at the time by Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller.

And now that the launch of the new arrangement of the Vatican curia is drawing near, what has already leaked out is that the one most heavily penalized will be precisely the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, the organizational structure of which includes, among others, the international theological commission, the crème de la crème of theologians all over the world.

One of the thirty theologians who make up the commission has not, however, agreed to give in and keep quiet. And on June 2 he published an extensive statement of protest against the assertion of the document of Abu Dhabi that attributes to the creative will of God the diversity of religions.

The theologian is Thomas G. Weinandy, a 72-year-old Franciscan from the United States, already known to the readers of Settimo Cielo for his heartfelt and deeply pondered letter addressed to Pope Francis in 2017, which has also gone without a reply:

> A Theologian Writes To the Pope: There Is Chaos in the Church, and You Are a Cause

Here is a link to the full text of his new contribution, this time in the form of a full-fledged theological essay, published in the “Catholic World Report,” the online magazine of Ignatius Press, the publishing house founded and headed by the Jesuit Joseph Fessio, a longtime disciple of Joseph Ratzinger and a member of his “Schulerkreis”:

> Pope Francis, the uniqueness of Christ, and the will of the Father

Fr. Weinandy takes very seriously the gravity of the question, which he introduces as follows:

“Pope Francis is noted for his ambiguous statements, but I find the indeterminate meaning contained in the Abu Dhabi statement the most egregious. By implication, it not only devalues the person of Jesus, but it also, and more so, strikes at the very heart of God the Father’s eternal will. Thus, such studied ambiguity undermines the very Gospel itself. Such implicit doctrinal subversion of so foundational a mystery of the faith on the part of Peter’s successor is for me and for many in the Church, particularly the laity, not simply inexcusable, but it most of all evokes profound sadness, for it imperils the supreme love that Jesus rightly deserves and merits.”

Back in 2000 the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, whose prefect was Ratzinger, had warned about the urgency of dispelling misunderstandings and errors concerning Jesus as the sole savior of the world. It had done so with the declaration “Dominus Iesus,” which according to its author and with the complete agreement of Pope John Paul II, intended to reaffirm precisely this “indispensable element of Christian doctrine,” with respect to any other religion.

But in spite of this, or perhaps precisely for this reason, “Dominus Iesus” was met with a barrage of criticism, not only from outside of but also from within the Church, even on the part of famous theologians and cardinals, from Walter Kasper to Carlo Maria Martini.

And those criticisms are the very ones that today are found welcomed and condensed in the passage of the document of Abu Dhabi to which Fr. Weinandy objects.

But there’s more. After referring to “Dominus Iesus” and recognizing its merit, Fr. Weinandy writes that not even that declaration was able to really get to the bottom of the question:

“Because of this inadequacy, missing is the full truth and beauty of who Jesus is; and so, what is not fully appreciated is the manner in which he is the universal Savior and definitive Lord. I want in this essay to make evident what is lacking in ‘Dominus Iesus,’ and in so doing, further nullify any interpretation of the Abu Dhabi document which could affirm, or even suggest , that Jesus and other religious founders are of equal salvific value, and thus that God willed all religions in the same manner as he willed Christianity.”

Nothing remains at this point but to read the essay by Fr. Weinandy. Which concludes as follows:

“What I have articulated here may be obvious to all faithful Christians. Nonetheless, given the ambiguity contained within the Abu Dhabi statement that Pope Francis signed, a strong reaffirmation is now necessary. One would like to think (the forever giving him the benefit of the doubt) that Pope Francis unwittingly, and so not consciously aware of the doctrinal implications of his signature, did not intend what the document seems to declare.

“Regardless, no one, not even a pontiff, can undo or override the will of God the Father concerning Jesus his Son. It is God the Father who ‘has highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name which is above ever name.’ The Father has eternally decreed that at the name of Jesus, and not at the name of Buddha, Mohammed, or the name of any other past, present, or future religious founder, that ‘every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.’ To do so is not simply to glorify Jesus, but also ‘to the glory of God the Father’ (Phil. 2:9-11). In his love the Father has given the world Jesus his Son (Jn. 3:16), and ‘there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). In this supreme truth we are to rejoice in gratitude and praise.”

[ebb tide]

“Pope Francis is noted for his ambiguous statements, but I find the indeterminate meaning contained in the Abu Dhabi statement the most egregious. By implication, it not only devalues the person of Jesus, but it also, and more so, strikes at the very heart of God the Father’s eternal will.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[piusv]

“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” - "Pope" Francis

Absolutely nothing ambiguous there.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Fr. Weinandy is a prudent man who never publishes anything that is not careful and deeply considered.

In other words, his intellectual habits are the exact opposite to those of the madcap, makeshift man who presently occupies the Sede Apostolica.

I am deeply grateful for Weinandy. He has that rare combination: intellect and courage.

[Oscar in Batangas]

A most lively discussion about Bergolio exists on the following thread in case you haven’t seen it.

(People on FreeRepublic.com are some of the top 1% of brilliant opiners in the country):

Pope Francis changes Lord’s Prayer: ... changes ‘lead us not into temptation’ ...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3754821/posts

[Honest Nigerian]

Nancy Pelosi should start talking about impeaching this pope. That should put the Fear of God in him.

[ebb tide]

Thanks for the link.

[Oscar in Batangas]

Maybe not the ‘Fear of God”, but for sure the “Mirth of Moloch”

[I want the USA back]

Hey pope-a-dope! Either you believe it or you don’t.

[ealgeone]

And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830; underlining added.)

https://novusordowatch.org/2016/03/impossibility-judging-deposing-true-pope/

[Marchmain]

This pope is dismantling the faith at break neck speed. Dogma, doctrine, the sacraments, even simple but revered protocols.

From day one I’ve seen he’s a disaster. I don’t extend the benefit of doubt; he has a plan and his mercurial behavior reinforces it. Many bishops are with the program.

Yet, what if his massive deconstruction project really is God’s will? Does God want the Church to radically change? Not adjusting to the times, complete upheaval?

Is that possibly God’s will and we are just blind to it during the transition?

[JoeFromSidney]

This Pope has "poisoned the well." It will be a long time before there will be another "pope from the New World." The College of Cardinals will not, I hope, make that kind of mistake again. Geographical location is far less important than temperament and theological positions.

[dfwgator]

African Cardinals tend to be the most conservative.