Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Their Eminences petitioned the Vicar of Christ, as is their prerogative.

If His Holiness chooses not to look with favour upon the petition, that is his prerogative and the matter is finished.
No, it is not finished. They can continue to petition. And while it is the prerogative of the pope (or the CDF) to not respond, that would not seem to reflect well considering that this is one of the chief responsibilities of the Vicar of Christ as universal pastor - to teach. And if he continues to refuse, they can petition his successor, so the matter is far from finished.
 
No, it is not finished. They can continue to petition. And while it is the prerogative of the pope (or the CDF) to not respond, that would not seem to reflect well considering that this is one of the chief responsibilities of the Vicar of Christ as universal pastor - to teach. And if he continues to refuse, they can petition his successor, so the matter is far from finished.
Whether something “reflects well” is meaningless. It is the Pope’s decision. The four Cardinals have submitted their dubia – but meanwhile the dioceses and the conferences execute what needs to be enacted and that is happening apace.

The dicasteries, including the CDF, are completely at the service of the Pope and indeed function only by the Pope’s leave; apart from him, they would have no authority or opportunity to respond.

Petitioning the CDF is fruitless if the Pope himself decides a petition to the Holy See is without merit and undeserving of advertence, which is of course his prerogative.

As it is written “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.”

And, of course, there is no recourse concerning the Pope’s decision. When the answer is no, the answer is no. The judgement of the Pope is without appeal.

We are very fortunate that God has blessed us with an outstanding successor of Saint Peter.
 
Indeed.

Dubia are presented all the time…and all the time dubia presented as a petition for clarity can receive the response of not being answered. It is a very legitimate response.
 
Why do we need to know this? Unless you are divorced and remarried with no possibility of an annulment, it really has nothing to do with us or our salvation. If you are in this situation then you need to speak to your priest.

Whatever the “great sifting” is, I can assure you I don’t believe in it. Sounds like a Protestant end-times prophecy.
👍
 
Clarity is always good.
It is. Yet, I don’t think there will ever be a response. At least not the well-defined response requested.

IMO, the Pope’s friend and confidant, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro gives an indication why. Pope Francis does not view ‘reform’ within the frame of rules and institutions. He has a vision of people discerning, talking and arguing about important issues.

Father Antonio Spadaro’s blog sharing five traits of this pontificate.
A pontificate of discernment and “incomplete thought”, of tension between spirit and institution, of frontier and challenges, the Church as a field hospital, of geopolitical impact.
I may not be drawn to this style of leadership. Yet, it is the style we should try and properly understand. I doubt it’s an attempt to muddy the waters. It seems more an attempt to influence people to communicate. (shrugs)
 
It is. Yet, I don’t think there will ever be a response. At least not the well-defined response requested.

IMO, the Pope’s friend and confidant, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro gives an indication why. Pope Francis does not view ‘reform’ within the frame of rules and institutions. He has a vision of people discerning, talking and arguing about important issues.

Father Antonio Spadaro’s blog sharing five traits of this pontificate.

I may not be drawn to this style of leadership. Yet, it is the style we should try and properly understand. I doubt it’s an attempt to muddy the waters. It seems more an attempt to influence people to communicate. (shrugs)
Then it is exactly the same style as his predecessor of happy memory Pope St. John XXIII:
“…All men, then, should …] be joined in mutual and just regard for one another’s opinions…For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark…”
- Pope St. John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959
 
How do you justify not clarifying what is clearly a very significant issue?

Ender
Perhaps he has learned what I have learned here. Some questions are not really question, but arguments and an invitation to debate, and as we have learned from our history (Jesus and the Pharisees), a trap. Jesus teaches that when someone tries to corner us into a “yes or no”, you can legitimately refuse to answer.

I know, because most of the time answers to questions get followed by another question, usually the same thing re-phrased.
 
And, of course, there is no recourse concerning the Pope’s decision. When the answer is no, the answer is no. The judgement of the Pope is without appeal.
That, too, is not exactly true. Papal successors have corrected and clarified their predecessors comments before. I suspect that this is what will happen again if the current pope refuses to respond. Pope Francis’ successor will have to then respond to the Dubia.
 
Perhaps he has learned what I have learned here. Some questions are not really question, but arguments and an invitation to debate, …
And Pope Francis invited this to occur, did he not?
 
meanwhile the dioceses and the conferences execute what needs to be enacted and that is happening apace.
Given that no one is quite sure what needs to be enacted, and therefore what is enacted will differ from one diocese to another, this claim is more optimistic than the situation merits. Whether “do whatever you think best” is the direction given the bishops, it will surely be the direction taken by them. They have nothing else to guide them.

There is a real danger here. At some point this question will be clarified by a subsequent pope. Suppose that clarification involves (essentially) saying yes to the questions just presented - what then? How will that affect the people who could not receive in the past, are allowed to receive in the present, and will again be disallowed in the future? Beyond that, what will that say about a church which gives the impression not only that it can’t understand its own doctrines, but that right and wrong can change with the times?

I don’t see anything good coming from allowing this confusion to continue.

Ender
 
Indeed.

Dubia are presented all the time…and all the time dubia presented as a petition for clarity can receive the response of not being answered. It is a very legitimate response.
Hi, Father. But if the Pope declines to answer, should we (meaning the Church and it’s Bishops) at least assume until told otherwise that the answers to questions 2 through 5 are yes?

Edit: I had the yes/no direction of the questions reversed in my head. Corrected now.

It seems that in the absence of clarity, particularly when a chance to offer clarity is declined, that the more conservative interpretation be favored.

I just want to add that I have defended AL at various turns here on these boards (not that it needs MY defense), but I find it disheartening that the Pope would decline this opportunity given how much even upper members of the Church have spoken of it being vague or unclear. I understand that this is probably more routine than I’m imagining, though.
 
It is. Yet, I don’t think there will ever be a response. At least not the well-defined response requested.

IMO, the Pope’s friend and confidant, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro gives an indication why. Pope Francis does not view ‘reform’ within the frame of rules and institutions. He has a vision of **people discerning, talking and arguing **about important issues.

I may not be drawn to this style of leadership. Yet, it is the style we should try and properly understand. I doubt it’s an attempt to muddy the waters. It seems more an attempt to influence people to communicate. (shrugs)
At the end of the day, I agree with Chesterton’s description of open-mindedness, that the point of open-mindedness is to shut it again on something solid, like eating. Whiffs of concern seem to be shut down as vitriolic attacks against Pope Francis himself. Yet, this is why I believe so-called conservatives have the right to keep voicing their concerns, because Pope Francis has very much invited this kind of communication. To imply otherwise, I think, is to overlook Pope Francis’ own models of communication.
 
Object lesson complete. Loaded questions may cause confusion when answered yes or know. In your case, it is possible to reject the premise that there is more confusion, making “yes” a possible answer.

So if this lead you to say, “You’ve stumped me,” then perhaps you can see where questions worded as yes/no can possibly lead to confusion. The questions asked if you read them, were not simple and did include (as did yours) facts and assumptions that require more discussion.
If the questions are loaded, or are based on a faulty presumption, the Holy Father is free to point out how the question is loaded or why the presumption is faulty. He is free to respond with as many words as he sees fit and isn’t required to answer in a particular way.

His lack of response can in itself be taken in measure and weighed.
 
Whether something “reflects well” is meaningless. It is the Pope’s decision. The four Cardinals have submitted their dubia – but meanwhile the dioceses and the conferences execute what needs to be enacted and that is happening apace.
This assumes that dioceses and conferences understand and comprehend what the Pope has taught and what needs to happen. This is not the case, as we have wildly divergent and mutually exclusive understandings of AL, even among Cardinals.

The whole purpose of the letter was for clarity and guidance so that dioceses and conferences could have a clear picture of what the Pope taught so they could, with one accord, institute what needs to be done.
And, of course, there is no recourse concerning the Pope’s decision. When the answer is no, the answer is no. The judgement of the Pope is without appeal.
Well that’s the issue. There was no answer. So they questions will continue, and hopefully this Pope or a successor will answer them so that we have clarity.
We are very fortunate that God has blessed us with an outstanding successor of Saint Peter.
For hypothetical sake, what should be the response from the faithful if we have a bad successor of St. Peter? The Church has had bad popes in the past, so what would be a proper response from the faithful if such were to happen again?
 
Perhaps he has learned what I have learned here. Some questions are not really question, but arguments and an invitation to debate, and as we have learned from our history (Jesus and the Pharisees), a trap. Jesus teaches that when someone tries to corner us into a “yes or no”, you can legitimately refuse to answer.

I know, because most of the time answers to questions get followed by another question, usually the same thing re-phrased.
And some questions are really questions. I wouldn’t dream of second-guessing Pope Francis, God bless him, but I also wouldn’t like to impugn the motives of other prelates either. . .
 
It might be only me thinking this but I find it highly ironic that we look at the numbers in the increment of 100 being of being some importance. With the Protestant reformation at 500 years next year with the introduction of the 95 theses. The additional 5 questions in this letter form the number 100. It might be nothing but I had to mention it.
 
And some questions are really questions. I wouldn’t dream of second-guessing Pope Francis, God bless him, but I also wouldn’t like to impugn the motives of other prelates either. . .
I have no doubt that the motives of the four cardinals for asking these questions was sincere love of the Church. I also do not doubt they were following their conscience when they decided to publicize their request.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top