Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Hoosier_Daddy]

IF we are entering a time in which these things would actually happen and I don’t believe we are. Then things are going to get real scary real fast. If questioning and even disagreement is handled with rigid punishment then things are not right.

Honestly I think this is being blown out of proportion. A strong arm move while in the pope’s power, would be disastrous for the next conclave.

Besides, pope Francis is all about reaching out to those who are not in the fold. If kasper is on the left and Burke the right, both will be steered through the goalposts of the church.

It’s a big tent people. It fits charismatics and traditionalists.

 

[Lumen_Pro_Via]

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.

I would hope that the pope would not make such a move. Reprisal when asking for clarification on matters of Church teaching would seem to go against the Pope’s position on synodality and collegiality. They are appealing to the Pope’s authority as supreme teacher and pastor of souls, which is why they are approaching him to settle the matter.

 

[Paganus]

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

This is about as shocking as it gets.

Pure speculation. It used to be that things had to actually happen before they were news. Now the news media enjoy reporting things that someone imagines might potentially happen. I find the practice silly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes we do. He is the Vicar of Christ. And we owe him our prayers and respect. But is every sentence of AL to be understood as being infallible? Or is it wrong to think that the Church needs him to affirm that adulterous acts are intrinsically evil, and that one must be willing to avoid to avoid them if they want absolution and Communion? (Of course there may be great difficulties and falls, which can in turn be confessed and absolved, as one continues to will to keep the moral law.)

Why do you frame it as though the only paradigm is infallible or non-infallible?

That which is proposed, protected by the charism of infallibility, requires obsequium fidei. When I am carrying out the various directives that derive from the Pope, actually on a daily basis, the issue of infallibility is totally a non-sequitur.

What is bound by the virtue of obedience and the submission owed the Petrine Office far exceeds simply such elements as those protected by the charism of infallibility. That is simply fundamental ecclesiology.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

On the other hand, perhaps Pinto, given his position, is the *last *person who should be making … “prejudicial” comments such as these.

Dan

 

[Don_Ruggero]

On the other hand, perhaps Pinto, given his position, is the *last *person who should be making … “prejudicial” comments such as these.

Dan

Your comment, Dan, of prejudicing the matter is an interesting one …but I think there is little concern about a prospect of the matter coming to him.

While I could imagine the Holy Father choosing not to handle such personally, ad normam c.1405, but rather choosing to delegate, I can’t envision His Holiness remanding such to the Rota but instead to make other provision.

But for all that, you did conjure a particular image in my mind with your post – one that provoked a light-hearted instant that was appreciated…if you were right, it certainly wouldn’t be just another day for the monsignori. My goodness.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is simply not correct Father

Schismatic bishops have always retained the ability to vaildly ordain. Schismatic priests retain the ability to validly confect the Eucharist. The whole Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have valid Sacraments, despite rejecting Papal authority many centuries ago. Bishops and priests have authority inherent in their holy offices

I am gravely troubled by the idea that the Pope should be viewed as an absolute monarch who can rule by whim. Popes are not impeccable. They are only infallible under very limited circumstances when teaching on faith and morals in accord with what has always been held by the Church

If a Pope was to act unjustly and dictatorially, against the Laws and Traditions of the Church, I believe he should be opposed, by bishops, clergy, and laypeople alike

We have the precedent of Pope John XXII, who needed to be corrected in a matter of doctrine by a conference of theologians summoned by the French King, and accepted said correction, repenting of his heretical views before his deaths

/…/

In what way – expressed please in a manner clearly articulated theologically – are you accusing me of being “simply not correct” in a field in which I taught for years?

Firstly, that there are those who left or broke communion with the Church but retain valid sacraments, by virtue of an ordination that is not invalid, is distinct in ecclesiology from how governance and jurisdiction within the Church is ordered and derived

I wrote:
*No person in the Church – no one – has any authority whatsoever except by the gracious leave of the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Ultimately, the authority of His Holiness trumps every other office and every other premise of jurisdiction or governance *
Authority exercised in the Church derives from jurisdiction and governance

Thus, the fact that a priest (or bishop) who has been laicised retains the ontological character by which he could validly confect a sacrament – which, however, does not include all the sacraments in all circumstances – does not negate the fact that such a priest has, in fact, lost all jurisdiction and all governance because the supreme authority has deprived it; the man thus deprived lost this, ultimately, by virtue of a rescript of the Holy See

As a priest, I have the capacity to receive various appointments by my bishop or another bishop to an office or various offices which those who lack the ontological character of the Sacred Order cannot assume

Before I reached the stage of retirement, I thus possessed offices which gave me cura animarum and which gave me jurisdiction. The authority and various faculties that were then properly mine derived from the grant of the law itself, supplemented by additional grants of the bishop. This was essential, actually, in my administration of the sacraments as well as for expression of communion of governance

Now, as a senior priest in retirement, my faculties derive from the grant of my bishop. But because the Pope’s supreme authority is also immediate authority, the Pope, in an instant, if he chose, could strip them or circumscribe them according to his pleasure…or, similarly, he could extend them to privileges and prerogatives I don’t possess and that are utterly beyond anything my bishop could even possibly grant me

In the same way, he could freely intervene to deprive me or any priest of any office or all offices, as he might choose – just as he could personally appoint me to any office in the Church anywhere in the world

For that matter, he could also, in an instant, suspend me a divinis. He could remove me from the clerical state and laicise me, even against my will…and there is no bishop who could overrule or even mitigate such action

I should trust it goes without saying that, after decades of service in the ordained ministry, having the Pope say to me “I take from you every dignity bestowed upon you by my predecessors and your own Ordinary. I strip you of your faculties. I suspend you from the sacred ministry. I remove you from the clerical state and reduce you to the state of the laity” would be a reality too devastating and tragic for words…God forbid it should ever be visited upon me or that I would provoke such a thing

My resolve is actually quite the opposite: To serve the Vicar of Christ in perfect fidelity. My rule of measure in personal fidelity has been what Pope Saint John Paul II declared years ago
It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
We are not in the era of Pope John XXII. We live in the era after Pastor aeternus and different dispositions of the Code of Canon Law

From Pastor aeternus
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
That any Pope is of course not impeccable and the fact that the charism of infallibility is rarely engaged does not affect the breadth and depth of authority that he has by virtue of being the Vicar of Christ. He is far beyond an absolute monarch

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is simply not correct Father

Schismatic bishops have always retained the ability to vaildly ordain. Schismatic priests retain the ability to validly confect the Eucharist. The whole Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have valid Sacraments, despite rejecting Papal authority many centuries ago. Bishops and priests have authority inherent in their holy offices

I am gravely troubled by the idea that the Pope should be viewed as an absolute monarch who can rule by whim. Popes are not impeccable. They are only infallible under very limited circumstances when teaching on faith and morals in accord with what has always been held by the Church

If a Pope was to act unjustly and dictatorially, against the Laws and Traditions of the Church, I believe he should be opposed, by bishops, clergy, and laypeople alike

We have the precedent of Pope John XXII, who needed to be corrected in a matter of doctrine by a conference of theologians summoned by the French King, and accepted said correction, repenting of his heretical views before his deaths

/…/

In what way – expressed please in a manner clearly articulated theologically – are you accusing me of being “simply not correct” in a field in which I taught for years?

Firstly, that there are those who left or broke communion with the Church but retain valid sacraments, by virtue of an ordination that is not invalid, is distinct in ecclesiology from how governance and jurisdiction within the Church is ordered and how it is predicated

I wrote:
*No person in the Church – no one – has any authority whatsoever except by the gracious leave of the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Ultimately, the authority of His Holiness trumps every other office and every other premise of jurisdiction or governance *
Authority exercised in the Church derives from jurisdiction and governance

As a priest, I have the capacity to receive various appointments by my bishop or another bishop to an office or various offices which those who lack the ontological character of the sacrament of Sacred Order cannot assume

Before I reached the stage of retirement, I thus possessed offices which gave me cura animarum and which gave me authority. The scope of authority, faculties and mandates that were then properly mine derived by grant of the law itself, supplemented by additional grants of the bishop. This was essential, actually, in my administration of the sacraments as well as for expression of communion of governance

Now, as a senior priest in retirement, my faculties derive from the grant of my bishop. But because the Pope’s supreme authority is also immediate authority, the Pope, in an instant, if he chose, could strip them, or circumscribe them, according to his pleasure…or, similarly, he could extend them to privileges and prerogatives I don’t possess and that are utterly beyond anything my bishop could even possibly grant me

In the same way, he could freely intervene to deprive me or any priest of any office or all offices, as he might choose – just as he could personally appoint me to any office in the Church anywhere in the world

For that matter, he could also, in an instant, suspend me a divinis. He could remove me from the clerical state and laicise me, even against my will…and there is no bishop who could overrule or even mitigate such action

I should trust it goes without saying that, after decades of service in the ordained ministry, having the Pope say to me “I take from you every dignity bestowed upon you by my predecessors and your own Ordinary. I strip you of your faculties. I suspend you from the sacred ministry. I remove you from the clerical state and reduce you to the state of the laity” would be a reality too devastating and tragic for words…God forbid it should ever be visited upon me or that I would provoke such a thing

My resolve is assuredly quite the opposite: To serve the Vicar of Christ in perfect fidelity. My rule of measure in this personal fidelity has been what Pope Saint John Paul II declared years ago, referring of course to himself
It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
We are not in the era of Pope John XXII. We live in the era after Pastor aeternus and with the contemporary dispositions of the Code of Canon Law

From Pastor aeternus
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
That any Pope is of course not impeccable and the fact that the charism of infallibility is rarely engaged does not affect the breadth and depth of authority that he has by virtue of being the Vicar of Christ. As such, he is far beyond an absolute monarch

 

[twf]

In what way – expressed please in a manner clearly articulated theologically – are you accusing me of being “simply not correct” in a field in which I taught for years?

Firstly, that there are those who left or broke communion with the Church but retain valid sacraments, by virtue of an ordination that is not invalid, is distinct in ecclesiology from how governance and jurisdiction within the Church is ordered and how it is predicated

As a priest, I have the capacity to receive various appointments by my bishop or another bishop to an office or various offices which those who lack the ontological character of the sacrament of Sacred Order cannot assume

Before I reached the stage of retirement, I thus possessed offices which gave me cura animarum and which gave me authority. The scope of authority, faculties and mandates that were then properly mine derived by grant of the law itself, supplemented by additional grants of the bishop. This was essential, actually, in my administration of the sacraments as well as for expression of communion of governance

Now, as a senior priest in retirement, my faculties derive from the grant of my bishop. But because the Pope’s supreme authority is also immediate authority, the Pope, in an instant, if he chose, could strip them, or circumscribe them, according to his pleasure…or, similarly, he could extend them to privileges and prerogatives I don’t possess and that are utterly beyond anything my bishop could even possibly grant me

In the same way, he could freely intervene to deprive me or any priest of any office or all offices, as he might choose – just as he could personally appoint me to any office in the Church anywhere in the world

For that matter, he could also, in an instant, suspend me a divinis. He could remove me from the clerical state and laicise me, even against my will…and there is no bishop who could overrule or even mitigate such action

I should trust it goes without saying that, after decades of service in the ordained ministry, having the Pope say to me “I take from you every dignity bestowed upon you by my predecessors and your own Ordinary. I strip you of your faculties. I suspend you from the sacred ministry. I remove you from the clerical state and reduce you to the state of the laity” would be a reality too devastating and tragic for words…God forbid it should ever be visited upon me or that I would provoke such a thing

My resolve is assuredly quite the opposite: To serve the Vicar of Christ in perfect fidelity. My rule of measure in this personal fidelity has been what Pope Saint John Paul II declared years ago, referring of course to himself
It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
We are not in the era of Pope John XXII. We live in the era after Pastor aeternus and with the contemporary dispositions of the Code of Canon Law

From Pastor aeternus
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
That any Pope is of course not impeccable and the fact that the charism of infallibility is rarely engaged does not affect the breadth and depth of authority that he has by virtue of being the Vicar of Christ. As such, he is far beyond an absolute monarch

“We are not in the era of Pope John XXII”. This is true, but for those of us who are conscious of West-East relations, such emphasis on the more ultramontane developments of the last few centuries make us wonder whether reconciliation with the Eastern and Oriental Churches is even worth contemplating. I personally give intellectual assent to these teachings, but greatly struggle to reconcile them with the history I read in the first millennium of the Church’s existence.On a practical level, I can think of numerous bishops who dissented from the teachings of St. JP II and Benedict on various issues yet were never reprimanded. Why all of the sudden, under Francis, do we have so many cries for blood? Kasper and Ratzinger certainly didn’t always see eye to eye, yet Pope Benedict and his inner circle never contemplated disciplinary action against Cardinal Kasper. Now, it seems, we are hearing cries from all corners for those who question Francis to be punished. The media often portrayed Pope Benedict as a dogmatic dictator, yet it seems to me he was very compassionate and lenient with those among the clergy who disagreed with him.
A century ago or so the Church in Canada placed immense pressure on the Eastern Catholic diaspora to conform to such Latin traditions as priestly celibacy. The end result was a mass exodus and the creation of what is now known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada. Did the bishops, with the sanction of Rome, have the authority to suppress the ancient traditions of Eastern Catholics in Canada? Certainly. Without a doubt. Did they also alienate countless souls by exercising said authority? Certainly. Without a doubt. Could the Holy Father strip these “Four Cardinals” of their offices? Of course he could. Would it further the cause of the salvation of souls? I don’t think that is a given.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“We are not in the era of Pope John XXII”. This is true, but for those of us who are conscious of West-East relations, such emphasis on the more ultramontane developments of the last few centuries make us wonder whether reconciliation with the Eastern and Oriental Churches is even worth contemplating

It’s worth far more than contemplating. I worked on it for many years. The path ahead is crystallizing and is actually not very enigmatic. Most of those who have been involved in the dialogue over the years know the territory to which we are methodically journeying…even if the older of us certainly won’t live to see it

I’m undisturbed by these issues arising. The reality is the events of past centuries, post-Trent, will have to be addressed forthrightly by the one entity in the Church that can address them. They can’t be soft pedaled. After centuries of Christological controversies, those resolutions then were ultimately found as potential solution after solution was eliminated, narrowing each time the range of options

I personally give intellectual assent to these teachings, but greatly struggle to reconcile them with the history I read in the first millennium of the Church’s existence. On a practical level, I can think of numerous bishops who dissented from the teachings of St. JP II and Benedict on various issues yet were never reprimanded

Actually, I remember those who were reprimanded and those remedied by various other means. But the way was decidedly different. I’ve many faces from the recesses of my mind, as I type

Why all of the sudden, under Francis, do we have so many cries for blood? Kasper and Ratzinger certainly didn’t always see eye to eye, yet Pope Benedict and his inner circle never contemplated disciplinary action against Cardinal Kasper

Of the past, it was simple: the dynamic of their interaction. Like that of others then. In the present, it’s the unnecessary argumentative confrontationalism. I lived through a very diverse expression in the College’s composition. In years ahead it will be much more so

There wasn’t always universal meeting of minds or thoughts but those stayed within the College. Members of the College have, since time immemorial, expressed themselves in consistories and in gatherings…behind closed doors. One took there the measure of one’s positions as well as those of others. If one acted outside collegiality, he confronted redress by the other cardinals

If the matter moves from closed doors to a public forum, in a way that indicates any criticism of the Successor of Peter, there will be vociferous response in the public forum. I remember it, on small scales, during the pontificate of other Popes…those cardinals, however, quickly corrected and were much less bold in their expressions

The Pope is at liberty to rebuke anyone or even everyone. No one, though, has any liberty to even criticise or exert pressure upon the Pope. Even the Church’s highest officials, her princes, may only appeal. They may plead. They may implore. They may even warn. But they may not demand. They may not tell the Successor of Peter what he needs to do or must do, from their perspective. They may not engage in a chess game with him

I’m not adjudicated this case in this forum. It’s not my office. I will simply point out

• There were two synods of bishops
• There emerged results from majorities of participants and also from minorities of participants
• The results were for the Pope’s consideration, discernment and use. They were statements of advice, essentially
• The task of preparing a post-synodal apostolic exhortation rests with the Holy Father alone or whomever he tasks to execute it on his behalf. From those interventions or from his own thoughts
• The synod of bishops comes together to be consulted by and advise His Holiness
• His Holiness draws from it what he draws from it…what he discerns aids the universal Church, of which he and he alone is the universal shepherd
• Some interventions he will found more useful than others

The decision of His Holiness is his.

Now, it seems, we are hearing cries from all corners for those who question Francis to be punished. The media often portrayed Pope Benedict as a dogmatic dictator, yet it seems to me he was very compassionate and lenient with those among the clergy who disagreed with him

I think we hear many voices from many corners saying many things. I think most of them, from the perspective of canon law – to say nothing of virtue – serve little. They speak words they have no place to say on topics they have no competence to comment upon and that serve no purpose beyond meaningless rhetoric

Pope Benedict is perhaps the most gentle and introspective of men I ever knew in my life. He is an academic in a league all his own…not simply in terms of his brilliance but as he is at work within the genius of his own mind

He was grossly portrayed as opposed to those who actually knew the man

A century ago or so the Church in Canada placed immense pressure on the Eastern Catholic diaspora to conform to such Latin traditions as priestly celibacy. The end result was a mass exodus and the creation of what is now known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada. Did the bishops, with the sanction of Rome, have the authority to suppress the ancient traditions of Eastern Catholics in Canada? Certainly. Without a doubt. Did they also alienate countless souls by exercising said authority? Certainly. Without a doubt. Could the Holy Father strip these “Four Cardinals” of their offices? Of course he could. /…/

I know the history of that era…and beyond Canada. It’s one of many tragedies of the 19th century, resulting with consequences in the 20th century with which I lived. It’s one of many reasons why Vatican II was a defining moment in my life

 

[patricius79]

Why do you frame it as though the only paradigm is infallible or non-infallible?

That which is proposed, protected by the charism of infallibility, requires obsequium fidei. When I am carrying out the various directives that derive from the Pope, actually on a daily basis, the issue of infallibility is totally a non-sequitur.

What is bound by the virtue of obedience and the submission owed the Petrine Office far exceeds simply such elements as those protected by the charism of infallibility. That is simply fundamental ecclesiology.

I ask about potential fallibility in AL because I want to make sure that I want to make sure I’m assenting to any infallible statements, and because I want to know in what sense one is allowed to think our Holy Father is mistaken in what he says, or fails to say.

As far as obedience: what am I required to obey in this case? Francis says in the document words to the effect that in some situations following the 6th commandment might not be possible without “further sin”? In what sense am I required to obey that?

I certainly do not want to offend Our Lady or my Lord in any of this. I’m just trying to understand and obey what the Church has always believed.

 

[Cactus]

It seems to me that the Cardinals are asking for clarification only. They have done so in a respectful manner. They have not rebelled. People who want to live in a way pleasing to Christ are confused. The only reason the hierarchy would want the faithful to be confused is that it is,at best, trying to bring new innovations to the Faith handed down from the Apostles. A clear answer is needed for the sake of souls.

 

[dans0622]

Your comment, Dan, of prejudicing the matter is an interesting one …but I think there is little concern about a prospect of the matter coming to him.

While I could imagine the Holy Father choosing not to handle such personally, ad normam c.1405, but rather choosing to delegate, I can’t envision His Holiness remanding such to the Rota but instead to make other provision.

…

Certainly. The last thing I would expect is for that decision to have anything to do with a judicial process at the Rota or anywhere else. I can’t imagine why any Pope would ever do that. If he has a reason to modify the membership of the college of Cardinals, he can obviously do so. In my own opinion, he *should *do so … motu proprio, let’s say.

At the same time, I do think there are some “bad optics” for the dean of the Rota to be making comments about these sorts of things when they relate to actual persons and events in the Church.

Dan

 

[bilop]

In what way – expressed please in a manner clearly articulated theologically – are you accusing me of being “simply not correct” in a field in which I taught for years?

That any Pope is of course not impeccable and the fact that the charism of infallibility is rarely engaged does not affect the breadth and depth of authority that he has by virtue of being the Vicar of Christ. As such, he is far beyond an absolute monarch

In this way. In stating the Pope’s power is absolute. I view that as faulty ecclesiology.

I respect your service and holy orders, but I don’t really view appeals to authority as persuasive. Many highly educated professors have taught erroneously on theology and religion. The faculties of American Catholic Universities are littered with them.

If the Pope (or any bishop) acts against Doctrine, against Tradition, against Scripture, or against justice, I believe he should not be obeyed. He has forfeited all authority by abandoning the sacred duty of his office. If he formally teaches heresy, he has actually forfeited the Papacy. Note: I am not saying Pope Francis has done any of this.

Let me use two extreme examples to make my point.

1. If the Pope decreed that the Eucharist was to be confected with rice cakes and grape juice, and the words of institution changed to “this is a symbol of my body” should any bishop or priest obey?

My answer: No. He should be declared mentally unfit, or a heretic, and in either case the see of Rome would be vacant.

1. If a Pope acted to laicize 500 bishops who have done no wrong, because he wanted to replace them with his cronies, should the Church just stand by and let this happen.

My answer: No. His fellow bishops should rebuke him, and demand his resignation. The affected sees should refuse the new bishops. The laity and the Churches around the world should withdraw all financial support to the Holy See.

Our real allegiance is to Christ, and then to the Church and the immutable teachings handed down through that Church, from Christ. Our allegiance to the Pope is conditional on his upholding those teachings.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

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?

This was not mentioned in the document. If I implied the Pope gave this specific, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. He did not give specific categories in the document. That is kind of the point. Notwithstanding, the possibility exists for such a one to seem to be in a state of mortal sin, when subjectively they are not* and *objectively they are not. These situation would be few I would think.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Heck, I am uncomfortable with it and I am have believed much of what is in Amoris Laetitia since I was Catholic. I was uncomfortable with the four that released their dubia and the accompanying statements. Going back to image of a family, which is not an example but one thing the Church is, think of family reunions. Anyone ever been uncomfortable?

 

[dans0622]

But now, we have this “correction” wherein we are told that Msgr. Pinto didn’t say that Pope Francis would do this–he was talking about other Popes.

religionconfidencial.com/vaticano/Rectificacion_0_2829917005.html

Dan

 

[patricius79]

As far as obedience: what am I required to obey in this case? Francis says in the document words to the effect that in some situations following the 6th commandment might not be possible without “further sin”? In what sense am I required to obey that?
.

Just a note: I don’t want to quote the Pope out of context or misinterpret him through pride or malice.

Here is one quotation I don’t understand and am concerned about:
The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself
recognized that someone may possess grace
and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one
of the virtues well…*
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I understand diminished culpability.

But what does our blessed Holy Father mena when he says that someone in an “irregular” situation, and know full well the rule (the rule against adultery?), and yet “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently or decide otherwise without further sin”?

I want to make sure I am interpreting the Vicar of Christ here accurately and justly and obediently.

 

[bilop]

Just a note: I don’t want to quote the Pope out of context or misinterpret him through pride or malice.

Here is one quotation I don’t understand and am concerned about:
The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation* are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself
recognized that someone may possess grace
and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one
of the virtues well…
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I understand diminished culpability.

But what does our blessed Holy Father mena when he says that someone in an “irregular” situation, and know full well the rule (the rule against adultery?), and yet “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently or decide otherwise without further sin”?

I want to make sure I am interpreting the Vicar of Christ here accurately and justly and obediently.

I don’t think anyone is sure what that means. That’s why people are troubled.

It seems impossible to say that a person knows their acts are seriously sinful, but doesn’t stop, and is still in a state of grace. But that’s what it sounds like that passage is saying.

Would the same logic be applied to a drug dealer or a burglar, who says, “that’s is how I support my children”, so won’t stop even though he knows it’s gravely sinful?

This is the source of all the confusion and the dubia.

God Bless

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just a note: I don’t want to quote the Pope out of context or misinterpret him through pride or malice.

Here is one quotation I don’t understand and am concerned about:
The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation* are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself
recognized that someone may possess grace
and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one
of the virtues well…
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I understand diminished culpability.

But what does our blessed Holy Father mena when he says that someone in an “irregular” situation, and know full well the rule (the rule against adultery?), and yet “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently or decide otherwise without further sin”?

I want to make sure I am interpreting the Vicar of Christ here accurately and justly and obediently.

I would like to see how Pope Francis would explain this.