Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Brendan]

This is an argument from silence. The synods did not** mention** living in continence at all. That was not their task. Here is what was said:

Moreover, one cannot deny that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (CCC, 1735) due to several constraints. Accordingly, the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on “subjective imputability” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of 24 June 2000, 2a). Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while supporting a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. **Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, **must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases.

Which, of course, means that such a conscience cannot violate the precepts of the moral law, else it is not, by definition, properly formed

In their desire to emphasize the “creative” character of conscience, certain authors no longer call its actions “judgments” but “decisions” : only by making these decisions “autonomously” would man be able to attain moral maturity. Some even hold that this process of maturing is inhibited by the excessively categorical position adopted by the Church’s Magisterium in many moral questions; for them, the Church’s interventions are the cause of unnecessary conflicts of conscience

1. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

Veritas Splendor 55-56

 

[gilliam]

Pope Francis associate: Controversial questions on communion already answered

Editor’s note: Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ is the editor-in-chief of La Civilta’ Cattolica, an authoritative Jesuit journal at the Vatican. Close to Pope Francis, Fr. Spadaro conducted the first interview with the Pope upon his election in 2013 and is considered a trusted interpreter of the Pope’s thought.

In the following op-ed, Fr. Spadaro addresses the controversy in the Catholic Church raised by Pope Francis’ document on the family, Amoris Laetitia. In it, he defends Pope Francis from criticism that he has not addressed concerns raised by his document, and says that the conclusions reached in the document were based on a consensus of voices from the bishops’ Synod meeting, which Francis held in 2015. Fr. Spadaro suggests that those who criticize the Pope’s document may be trying to create division rather than sincerely seek answers.

…

The interesting questions of the four cardinals, in reality, were already raised during the Synod, where the dialogue was deep, extensive and most of all, frank. Amoris Laetitia is only the mature fruit of Francis’ reflection after listening to everyone and reading the Synod’s final document.

It is the result of a Synod and not just a personal idea of the Pontiff, as some might think.

During the Synod, all of the necessary responses were given and more than once. Since then, many other pastors, among them many bishops and cardinals, carried on and deepened the discussion, including recently. The Pope even indicated Cardinal Schönborn as a faithful interpreter of the document.

Thus I believe that a doubtful conscience can easily find all of the answers it seeks, if it seeks them with sincerity.

In this case, however, as in others, everything which touches the lives of people should not be resolved in the abstract, but must be dealt with – as the four cardinals themselves affirmed – continuing, “the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect.”

edition.cnn.com/2016/11/28/opinions/pope-associate-controversial-questions-already-answered-spadaro/index.html

 

[pnewton]

Which, of course, means that such a conscience cannot violate the precepts of the moral law, else it is not, by definition, properly formed

Yes, the conscience is not always properly form. I would not say mine is perfect. Contraction to the moral law is an indicator of an area where one needs to work on forming that conscience. That is precisely what the Pope is suggesting. The pastor and the penitent work on this. Yet we are still bound to our conscience, even though it is obvious that we are all sinners. As long as one is not being deliberately obtuse (choosing ignorance), then there may be sin in going against one’s conscience.

I mentioned earlier my own issue with this topic and the need for doctrine to fit all the data. So, what is the gist, the core, the fundamental of moral law that meets all the data of divine revelation, from the Ten Commandments (including the rest of the Mosaic Law that God gave), to David, to Jesus, to the Church, to Heaven? Then we have other moral issues, like a responsibility to children.

Let us remember that Pope Francis suggested a pilgrimage with one’s pastor, not a short-cut to communion. It may well be that one may not ever receive communion, or that the two will decide that continence is needed, or even that the current marriage is the current valid one. In any case, if someone disagrees that such a process is doctrinally sound, simple refrain from it.

 

[TCEL]

I think too much is being read into this. It would be opposite the message if this papacy to rigidly prevent questioning and unmercifully castigating those who disagree.

Perhaps some on both sides need to honestly look at the themes of this papacy and apply them until the next.

I agree, with the addition that we have no idea what went on behind closed doors. I thought transparency was also supposed to be a theme. There are a lot of conflicting signals.

On another note, from the article:

Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, told a conference in Spain that Cardinal Burke and the three cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis “could lose their Cardinalate”** for causing “grave scandal”** by making the dubia public.

Archbishop, I respectfully think scandal was already afoot before the dubia. At least my heart has been troubled long before now.

 

[Jesus_123]

The cardinals issued an ultimatum. Pretty bold and audacious. This is the response an ultimatum can evoke when the Cardinals flaunt their lack of obedience. [setting a poor example for countless others] …

. . . :bible1: . . .
"Enter ye in at the
narrow gate:
for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way
that leadeth to destruction,
and many there are **
who go in thereat.
How narrow is the gate,
and strait is the way that leadeth to
** life:
and few there are that find it!
- Matthew 7:12-14

+*In all gentleness and peace *. . . we need to be very careful in serious doctrinal situations such as these . . . not . . . to make hasty or rash judgements . . .

These four learned and highly respected cardinals are not lacking in . . . “obedience” . . . to the Holy Father . . . *rather * . . . even as the Pope needs to be respected . . . these cardinals should be respected as concerned Godly priests in the . . . College of Cardinals . . . within the . . . Body of Christ . . . our Holy Mother Catholic Church . . .

These learned priests are expressing what they feel are legitimate concerns about possible . . . very real errors . . . being promulgated by ambiguities in the document in question . . . and they are most certainly well within the church’s legal cannonical rights as cardinals to bring their concerns to the attention of the Pope . . .

Below is EWTN’s comment further clarifying the cannonical rights of the faithful to speak out when a situation appears to be irregular in the matter of the faith and morals . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
EWTN’S Comment

"The Dean of the Roman Rota appears to be overlooking the canonical rights of the faithful, including cardinals, to make their concerns about the state of the Church known to the People of God.

Can. 212 §3 sets out this solemn right and duty:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (Can. 212 §3).

Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller and Meisner expressed due respect to Pope Francis and his “sovereign decision” not to respond to their dubia, while at the same time meeting their right and duty to communicate with the People of God.

For the Dean of the Roman Rota to warn the four cardinals that they could be stripped of their cardinalate for acting in accord with the law of the Church is oppressive."

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/dean-of-roman-rota-warns-pope-could-strip-dubia-cardinals-of-their-cardinalate​

Truly . . . we are all accountable before the LORD to try do that which we believe to be right . . . and accountability within our Holy Mother Church requires . . . upon occassion . . . that we clearly . . . speak the truth . . . when truth is being afflicted and confusion has ensued and God’s truth . . . as clearly revealed in Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . may be in real danger of being discarded in favor of possibly grevious error . . .

Even as a loving holy bride in Christ should. . . always . . . have recourse in complete freedom in a marriage . . . to obediently love the LORD as her . . . first love . . . she should also be able to be honest and above board whenever she is troubled about something her beloved husband . . . her groom . . . is deliberately involving them in as a married couple along with their extended family.

So also members of the . . . Bride of Christ . . .* the Church* . . . should always have recourse to be able to. . . honestly and openly . . . bring to her groom’s attention . . . *in the case of the Church here on earth to the attention of the Vicar of Christ’s (the Pope’s) attention . . . *any . . . concern which she feels to be possibly in very real conflict with . . . her love and obedience to God as her first love . . . and His clearly outlined holy pathways for living a Godly life here on earth . . . as so wonderfully and clearly outlined in the . . . Thoughts of God . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and attested to by centuries of . . . Sacred Tradition . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[patricius79]

Which, of course, means that such a conscience cannot violate the precepts of the moral law, else it is not, by definition, properly formed

Veritas Splendor 55-56

Does Veritatis Splendor 56 or other sections conflict with AL 303?

*Yet conscience can do more than recognize that
a given situation does not correspond objectively
to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can
also recognize with sincerity and honesty what
for now is the most generous response which
can be given to God, and come to see with a certain
moral security that it is what God himself
is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s
limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. *
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Why does our Holy Father say “not fully the objective ideal”? Couldn’t he say that one must be trying to keep the basic moral laws?

Or does he at all affirm that the 6th commandment binds always and everywhere, as the Church teaches?

 

[patricius79]

…
These learned priests are expressing what they feel are legitimate concerns about possible . . . very real errors . . . being promulgated by ambiguities in the document in question . . . and they are most certainly well within the church’s legal cannonical rights as cardinals to bring their concerns to the attention of the Pope . . .
…
Can. 212 §3 sets out this solemn right and duty:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (Can. 212 §3).
…

So also members of the . . . Bride of Christ . . .* the Church* . . . should always have recourse to be able to. . . honestly and openly . . . bring to her groom’s attention . . . in the case of the Church here on earth to the attention of the Vicar of Christ’s (the Pope’s) attention . . . any . . . concern which she feels to be possibly in very real conflict with . . . her love and obedience to God as her first love . . . and His clearly outlined holy pathways for living a Godly life here on earth . . . as so wonderfully and clearly outlined in the . . . Thoughts of God . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and attested to by centuries of . . . Sacred Tradition . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

That is helpful. Thank you. I want to be totally respectful of our Holy Father and Church teaching because anything less would offend Our Lady and Our Lord. As you say, that doesn’t mean being silent when we have substantive concerns about what is being taught by our Holy Father.

 

[tseleehw]

Just curious - has a Pope ever stripped a Cardinal of being a Cardinal before? I have heard of a Cardinal resigning his position before but I am not familiar with one being stripped. I’m not doubting the Popes authority to do so, just looking for a historical example of this happening.

I was actually just wondering this too. I’m assuming with the vast history of the Church that it has happened at least once before, but has it happened in modern times?

Regardless of how irritated Pope Francis is with the four Cardinals (and the list of others that have publicly supported their efforts), I really don’t see this happening. Yes, the Pope has the authority to strip them of their office, but just because he can do it doesn’t mean he should do it, or that it would be a good idea to do it. It would probably do more harm then good, and at worst could possibly lead others to speak up and “carry on the fight” so to speak if these four Cardinals are taken out of the picture. I actually think it would be out of character for Pope Francis to make such a move, and possibly a bit hypocritical considering that he’s the one that has been constantly saying that there should be open and honest debate about issues within the Church. I think this is just an idle threat by the Archbishop made in what will probably be a vain attempt to dissuade the Cardinals from pursuing this course of action.

 

[gilliam]

Just curious - has a Pope ever stripped a Cardinal of being a Cardinal before? I have heard of a Cardinal resigning his position before but I am not familiar with one being stripped. I’m not doubting the Popes authority to do so, just looking for a historical example of this happening.

The short answer is yes. In modern times, though, pressure has been placed on the cardinal to resign instead of being removed by the Pontiff. Being a cardinal is an honor that can be taken away at any time.

 

[patricius79]

The short answer is yes. In modern times, though, pressure has been placed on the cardinal to resign instead of being removed by the Pontiff. Being a cardinal is an honor that can be taken away at any time.

I think that’s true. But it doesn’t seem to me like it would be just. I think that the Church needs our Holy Father to really be fatherly in this matter and really explain what he means in the eighth chapter of a letter which he wrote to the whole Church.

I know I read that the Pope said that Cardinal Shoenborn (sp?) is a good interpreter of the document.

Do you know what he says in response to the questions posed by Burke, et al?

 

[gilliam]

Do you know what he says in response to the questions posed by Burke, et al?

IMHO, the questions proposed in the way they were proposed really can’t be answered in the spirit of LA. Anyway, he hasn’t responded. Many people don’t expect him to, especially now that the cardinals have made them public and used the questions as a basis of editorializing, and that is an answer in itself.

 

[utah_rose]

Well, this is hardly new in the Church. The SSPX started in a similar fashion of a bishop acting contrary to the Pope, and he is a saint. There are a lot of similar cases.

I really think the laity get too worked up over the inner workings of the Church. Read the New Testament and you find conflict from the beginning. We are a family, but we are not the perfect family. We need to maintain our love for all and tolerance in all areas where disagreement is allowable.

When I read something line this, I’m reminded of the story of Napoleon telling a Pope he’d destroy the Church. The Pope only laughed and replied if it hadn’t been destroyed from with in 2000 years, he wouldn’t be able to destroy it. We have to remember that even the hierarchy of the Church aren’t perfect and are sinners just like us. I’d let Jesus sort it out.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Your approach to the foundation of the Faith seems to me somewhat like many Protestants and likewise subject to an attack that could easily undermine it. Many Protestants found their faith so much in the Bible that if some difficulty with Scripture comes along, such as a seemingly contradictory passage, they apostatize. This is what I understood happened to Bart Ehrman.

My faith is founded on a general belief in a personal God. This belief is supported philosophically and is not reliant on the Catholic Faith. I then believe that God choose a people to reveal himself to man. This is supported by history including books that we call Holy Scripture. I believe God incarnated in the man Jesus. This is supported by eye witness testimony some of which was recorded in the Bible and is carried on in the tradition of the Church. The foundations of my faith which refer to Holy Scripture are not reliant on them being in any way considered inspired. Just the straightforward accounts viewed as historical records is sufficient. So for me even if I somehow doubted the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth then I wouldn’t become an atheist. I’d still be a theist and still believe God became man in Jesus.

I’d suggest rethinking how you view the Faith. I certainly understand how one can feel their faith is threatened when the leaders of the Church appear to them to be not upholding the Faith. The bold claims of the Catholic Church open her up to all sorts of avenues of doubt if one perceives her to not be holding fast to Apostolic Faith. But in such circumstances the problem isn’t the constancy of the Church but the individual misunderstanding what that constancy really is. Church history is full, from the start, of bad churchmen and bad laity. At various times in church history leaders supported bad doctrine. But that some or even many did didn’t threaten the truth of the Church because the Church doesn’t claim that every leader will at all times and in all ways support only the truth. It seems to me you are saying you may abandon the Faith because the Faith fails to uphold something she doesn’t say she will. That doesn’t seem like a wise position.

However, Augustine famously said: I would not believe a word of Scripture were it not for the testimony of the Catholic Church. So a “me and Jesus” scenario is not Catholic. I think in this instance, I dare not say to give credence to stalwarts like Cardinal Kasper, that His Holiness will remain silent so Kasper can work his magic in Germany.

 

[patricius79]

IMHO, the questions proposed in the way they were proposed really can’t be answered in the spirit of LA. .

Why is that? I mean, why couldn’t he respond in a way which affirms subjective factors but also affirms that we cannot receive Communion unless we intend to keep the moral law? I guess I still am concerned about a 200-plus page document about marriage and family which addresses irregular marriages but doesn’t affirm that people must aim to live as brother and sister if they intend to receive Communion. There’s so much about subjective factors in chapter 8–and I undertstand subjective factors–but nothing about how pastors must insist on willingness to keep the basic moral law.

 

[Brendan]

Let us remember that Pope Francis suggested a pilgrimage with one’s pastor, not a short-cut to communion. It may well be that one may not ever receive communion, or that the two will decide that continence is needed, or even that the current marriage is the current valid one.

Where was that mentioned in A.L.? I know that Pope Francis changed Canon Law to allow the bishop to rule in place of a Tribunal, but where was this authority given to parish pastors?

 

[kyrie03]

You guys are making me sick. Leave the Pope alone already.

I appreciate your defensiveness of those in authority over us --priests, bishops and especially the pope. You are entirely correct that they are owed the utmost respect. I’m just not seeing the degree of disrespect you are finding. To point out contradictions between prior magisterial teachings or practices directly affecting belief and modern interpretations of doctrine is not a personal attack on anyone.

Charity is the virtue by which we love God above all things, for His sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. The posters you think are being disrespectful probably are only seeking to love God and pass unambiguous truths to their children, to preserve the unity of the Church, and to protect the doctrines that have been taught them by their forefathers. Dissent with established teachings of Holy Mother Church is even more offensive (to some) than disagreements and requests for clarification about non-infallible opinions that originate from some in the hierarchy.

To refrain from judging motivations of posters who do not agree with us is not always easy, but it’s the right attitude. The zeal to find out the truth sometimes pitted canonized saints against each other. May we all become saints, too!:getholy:

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You guys are making me sick. Leave the Pope alone already.

It might be best to take a break from threads that cause you trouble.

 

[commenter]

As is indeed quite proper of the Dean of the Rota to articulate, given the office that is his.

For indeed, the offiicials who surround the Vicar of Christ in the various offices of administration of the Church at her highest level, and above all the curia, should be the ones to speak out with the very greatest of force and above all with the authority which was entrusted to them by the Pope…an authority which they exercise at the favour of as well as in the service of the Church’s visible head.

Even those who fully agree with your posts about the need for obedience to the Pope, by all, including myself, still may be uncomfortable with one official - the Dean of Rota - making a statement in ****public ****about other persons in the Church. He may articulate certain things to those cardinals, in private. Removal of a cardinal is a public act, but warning a cardinal should be private.

 

[commenter]

The short answer is yes. In modern times, though, pressure has been placed on the cardinal to resign instead of being removed by the Pontiff. Being a cardinal is an honor that can be taken away at any time.

Yes, regarding being a cardinal. But Cardinal Burke, and probably the other 3, are also bishops. That is a different kind of status which can’t be taken away.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, regarding being a cardinal. But Cardinal Burke, and probably the other 3, are also bishops. That is a different kind of status which can’t be taken away.

Beyond being expelled from the College of Cardinals, a bishop can be laicised by the Pope, even against their will.

While the ontological character cannot be effaced, bishops can be removed from the clerical state – as I have witnessed happen.