Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

[pnewton]

This example question has already been answered by the philosopher (and practicing Catholic) Edward Feser on his blog:

edwardfeser.blogspot.fr/2016/12/denial-flows-into-tiber.html

To quote his response to your example:

The blog posting above explains some of the rationale behind the call for a response to the Five Dubia. It is a somewhat lengthy posting (hence I’ve not copied it all here), but contains some reasonable arguments which we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand.

Okay, I will dismiss them in hand. First, he refers to the questions as “simple yes or no,” when grammatically, they are not. This is quite obvious by the fact they are lengthy with extra notes. There is nothing simple about them and they contain many stipulation, most of which is doctrine, but maybe not all. So, like the question about stop beating your wife, if the question itself contains and implied or stated condition that may or may not be true.

I do not care if he is a community college professor, there is nothing authoritative in what he writes. The problem with posting blogs and opinions of others is that they are not here to engage in discussions. It has always struck me as problematic, unless there is some expertise or authority being exercised.

Of course, there can be more that just a yes or no, or no answer. The clamor about the yes or no formulation are not from those that have defended the Holy Father, but others like this very blogger who want an answer for these “simple” questions.

Would it quieten down the issue if the Pope simply said “no” to the question that he thinks needs a no, and when pushed, just said the nature of the question allowed it? I would not think it would be satisfactory.

 

[pnewton]

There either is or is not an Absolute Truth.

I do believe the existence of absolute truth is a universal given here. No one is saying otherwise. I do not know why this needs to be said.

 

[Tomdstone]

I do believe the existence of absolute truth is a universal given here. No one is saying otherwise. I do not know why this needs to be said.

I thought that the Catholic Church was built on the rock of Peter and that the Pope being the successor of Peter had the power to loose and bind? Since the Pope has this power of loosing and binding as given by God, why should Catholic bishops be issuing “corrections” of what the Vicar of Christ has declared?

 

[pnewton]

Neither, when put that way.

If one had to choose between 2000 years of authentic and repeated Catholic teaching which encompassed not only all those years of experience of human nature, plus Divine Guidance and the words of Jesus Himself (no ‘additions’), and an out of context interpretation/application of a not-approved-by-two-thirds majority addition, ambiguously phrased, of a non-magisterial document, OTOH. . .

I have said this before and I will keep saying this. Begging the question. The Bible records no instance of Jesus ever addressing the reception of communion. For that matter, he never mentioned annulments or pastoral process, or the on-going state of adultery.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Bible records no instance of Jesus ever addressing the reception of communion. For that matter, he never mentioned annulments or pastoral process, or the on-going state of adultery.

AFAIK, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not based solely on Scripture. The teachings are based on Sacred Scripture and on Sacred Tradition.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A simple yes or no answer is all it takes please…

Precisely.

The dubia do not, in fact, conform to traditional formulation. As indeed anyone who has dealt with a dubium would know.

 

[billy15]

"Blue Horizon:

If one had to choose between 60 Catholic years experience of human nature and the out of context interpretation/application of a 500 yr old quote by an idealistic young man…which would you go with?
Tantum Ergo:

Neither, when put that way.

If one had to choose between 2000 years of authentic and repeated Catholic teaching which encompassed not only all those years of experience of human nature, plus Divine Guidance and the words of Jesus Himself (no ‘additions’), and an out of context interpretation/application of a not-approved-by-two-thirds majority addition, ambiguously phrased, of a non-magisterial document, OTOH. . .

I have said this before and I will keep saying this. Begging the question. The Bible records no instance of Jesus ever addressing the reception of communion. For that matter, he never mentioned annulments or pastoral process, or the on-going state of adultery.

He didn’t have to mention it. Have you seriously forgotten?

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16: 12-15)

The Holy Spirit works through the Church always. The Holy Spirit speaks for Jesus. Jesus is Head of the Mystical Body, the Church. Therefore, Jesus as head of the Church has already made declarations, and has already addressed, the reception of Communion. Do the guidelines for reception of the Eucharist and the way annulment procedures are laid out in canon law, and in our doctrine, throughout the centuries not stem from the Holy Spirit then?

This was not begging the question. Tantum Ergo is simply turning the tables on Blue Horizon, who had refused to address the points made by Stat Crux. And instead of telling us how Stat Crux had taken the section from Trent out of context, proceeded in basically saying Stat Crux is a misguided ideologue who is too young. I see more logical fallacies going on there in that question by Blue Horizon than in Tantum Ergo’s post which made a pretty sound point.

I do not care if he is a community college professor, there is nothing authoritative in what he writes. The problem with posting blogs and opinions of others is that they are not here to engage in discussions. It has always struck me as problematic, unless there is some expertise or authority being exercised.

The same about being authoritative could be said for you and anyone else here. So what, are we really supposed to stop posting the opinions of others if they mirror our own and are articulated in a way that is superior to the way we might have? Feser was right; the questions can grammatically be described as simple yes or no questions because they can be answered as such. However, that doesn’t mean that His Holiness cannot answer with further commentary, as we have seen with other dubia in years past, and I don’t see why anyone would mind if he did. The questions were merely formulated in the way they always have been when dubia are presented.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I thought that the Catholic Church was built on the rock of Peter and that the Pope being the successor of Peter had the power to loose and bind? Since the Pope has this power of loosing and binding as given by God, why should Catholic bishops be issuing “corrections” of what the Vicar of Christ has declared?

No Bishop can correct. He is above all of them and could, if he pleased, deprive them of governance if they are governing a diocese or even laicize them against their will, if he chose to do so.

The Code of Canon Law is explicit
*Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. **By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
**
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office,** the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them**. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.*

In sum, the Pope’s power is supreme and there is no power that comes even remotely close to his. Moreover, because it is immediate, he can intervene with any matter and with any person.

As Canon 333 states, the bishops are associated with the Pope…but it is the Pope alone who decides to what extent they may even act. Indeed they are able to render him cooperative assistance only in so far as he allows them.

As Canon 334 states, the working of a Cardinal is to carry out the Pope’s will.

 

[Tomdstone]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A simple yes or no answer is all it takes please…

Yes.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Okay, I will dismiss them in hand. First, he refers to the questions as “simple yes or no,” when grammatically, they are not. This is quite obvious by the fact they are lengthy with extra notes. There is nothing simple about them and they contain many stipulation, most of which is doctrine, but maybe not all. So, like the question about stop beating your wife, if the question itself contains and implied or stated condition that may or may not be true.

I do not care if he is a community college professor, there is nothing authoritative in what he writes. The problem with posting blogs and opinions of others is that they are not here to engage in discussions. It has always struck me as problematic, unless there is some expertise or authority being exercised.

Of course, there can be more that just a yes or no, or no answer. The clamor about the yes or no formulation are not from those that have defended the Holy Father, but others like this very blogger who want an answer for these “simple” questions.

Would it quieten down the issue if the Pope simply said “no” to the question that he thinks needs a no, and when pushed, just said the nature of the question allowed it? I would not think it would be satisfactory.

You are exactly and precisely correct.

The questions, as formulated, did not conform to the actual method of submitting a dubium.

Because of the Holy Father’s supreme authority, he has no need to supply the reason for why he found the questions unworthy of his answering…and, of course, he has no need to say. His mere whim would be sufficient reason.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To dismiss the questions raised by Cardinal Burke and others as legalisms is an evasion. If his position is invalid there should be valid arguments to counter it. Calling it a name and refusing to address it is a long way from refuting it.

Ender

The Pope’s authority is supreme and every other office and every other authority falls before it.

He has need to counter any argument. He has no need to refute.

He has no need to even acknowledge that an argument is being presented.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.

The answer to many dubia submitted to the Holy See is, in fact, silence.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Each Diacastery publishes their received dubia, the are part of the historical record of the Church. So*the Ceardinal’s dubium would be made public anyway.

Those that are answered are published. Those that are not answered are not published.

 

[pnewton]

AFAIK, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not based solely on Scripture. The teachings are based on Sacred Scripture and on Sacred Tradition.

Again, no one is saying otherwise. In fact, this is totally off topic. It would be like me pointing out that God is a Trinity. Sure, but what is your point.

If you follow, another poster state that the words of Jesus addressed this topic. I only pointed out that they did not. While the Church does not rely solely on Scripture. All the words of Jesus are solely in Scripture.

And yes, the Church was founded on Peter.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Because of the Holy Father’s supreme authority, he has no need to supply the reason for why he found the questions unworthy of his answering…and, of course, he has no need to say. His mere whim would be sufficient reason.

Agreed. The Holy Father does not “need” to answer, and cannot be compelled to do so. However, one might suggest that it’s not unreasonable to ask him to intervene formally given the obvious confusion many are currently feeling. So yes, no obligation to respond, but one might think it appropriate or prudent to respectfully ask him to charitably exercise his office in this matter.

This whole situation, to use a somewhat crude metaphor, seems like a game of football in which a foul has been committed. Both sides have appealed to the referee for a ruling on what has occurred so that the game can continue uninterrupted. The decision to answer or not is his alone, but any of the three choices before him (respond one way, the other or no response at all) will have consequences for how we are to interpret the situation and how it might be resolved.

The crux of the matter is that neither “side” of this debate can indisputably claim to be the “official” interpretation of AL, and so until we know it’s clear the disagreement will continue to detriment of all and the Church’s mission. Not just in this forum but in parishes, seminaries, Bishop’s conferences and in Rome.

I suppose an interesting question to ask is how each “side” thinks this situation will be resolved for the greater good of the Church? Clearly nobody could want this uncertainty to continue, and so a solution must be found at some point.

 

[commenter]

The answer to many dubia submitted to the Holy See is, in fact, silence.

Have there been other “dubia” known to have been submitted in recent years? I realize we might not know, if they go unanswered, though it might come out decades later after the source, and the pope, have died, that dubia were submitted decades ago.

I mean, any since 1900? Are cardinals the only persons who can submit “dubia”? I never heard of the term before. When I try to google it, all I get is the country “Dubai”.

Father, your informed comments are helpful on this, and other threads. I have no desire to challenge the pope, and do not agree with the ****publication ****of the dubia. But in this particular case there have been other concerns raised by informed persons other than the cardinals, as well as very different implementations by bishops.

I also have serious reservations about comments made by persons who may, or may not, represent the pope, focusing on the 4 cardinals but ignoring the other responsible persons who also have problems with it. So while “silence” by the pope may be a very good response, the Vatican, or “friends of the pope”, have not been silent. It would be better if there were either a clear, official response, or no response - no hints, no murmuring, no vague warnings, no ominous descriptions of rigidity in the hierarchy, etc.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Have there been other “dubia” known to have been submitted in recent years?

I’m not certain exactly whether it’s common practice that they are kept secret or confidential, or if that’s optional, but here’s an example from 2000 on questions relating to the rubrics during Mass:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWADORI.HTM

 

[Thomas_White]

I do believe the existence of absolute truth is a universal given here. No one is saying otherwise. I do not know why this needs to be said.

Let us follow the thread as it leads to your comment (#219) above:

#181:

The dubia is easily answerable. Five simple Yes/No answers is all it takes.

The problem arises when answering the questions will either uphold Church teaching, or deny Church teaching.

#182:

I agree. If the answer is yes then the exceptions implied by AL must be rejected, but if the answer is no then it represents a change to doctrine, which we have been repeatedly told has not happened. It appears that the desired answer is yes in theory but no in practice.

Ender

#183:

If the answer is indeed yes in theory and no in practice, it would also entail a rejection of the concept of an Absolute Truth in favor of a moral relativism. And with that, a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine and teaching would at once become imperiled.

#194:

I am wondering if the cynicism behind this possibility might be part of the reason the Pope has not answered. The idea that a simple yes or no will do is, well simplistic. There are too many that believe any no answer will change doctrine. Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.

#203:

There either is or is not an Absolute Truth.

This entails an either/or, yes or no, one word answer.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Okay, I will dismiss them in hand. First, he refers to the questions as “simple yes or no,” when grammatically, they are not. This is quite obvious by the fact they are lengthy with extra notes. There is nothing simple about them and they contain many stipulation, most of which is doctrine, but maybe not all. So, like the question about stop beating your wife, if the question itself contains and implied or stated condition that may or may not be true.

I do not care if he is a community college professor, there is nothing authoritative in what he writes. The problem with posting blogs and opinions of others is that they are not here to engage in discussions. It has always struck me as problematic, unless there is some expertise or authority being exercised.

Of course, there can be more that just a yes or no, or no answer. The clamor about the yes or no formulation are not from those that have defended the Holy Father, but others like this very blogger who want an answer for these “simple” questions.

Would it quieten down the issue if the Pope simply said “no” to the question that he thinks needs a no, and when pushed, just said the nature of the question allowed it? I would not think it would be satisfactory.

Are there any rules regarding dubia that they have to be a certain length in terms of character or word count? I don’t think so.

Isn’t it true that Pope Francis could instruct the CDF to respond to the dubia instead of him personally himself responding to the dubia? Presumably the CDF could explain at length in response to the questions.

Do you know for a fact that there haven’t been other dubia that have been put forth that have been similar in terms of length etc.?

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Pope’s authority is supreme and every other office and every other authority falls before it.

He has need to counter any argument. He has no need to refute.

He has no need to even acknowledge that an argument is being presented.

Pope Francis does not have a formal duty to respond, but if he does not respond that also has consequences. It has consequences in terms of different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia containing to occur and the confusion among some in regards to this, and the continuing debate about what exactly the footnote etc. means and also a formal correction may be coming.