Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[_Abyssinia]

This is confusing and pretty major. This tweet is basically saying the Dean of Rota did not say that the Pope could remove the status of Cardinals for the four:

#Dubia: Pinto non ha mai detto che il Papa potrebbe togliere la berretta ai quattro cardinali, ha detto il contrario religionconfidencial.com/vaticano/Recti…

#Dubia: Pinto never said that the Pope could remove the biretta with four Cardinals, said the opposite religionconfidencial.com/vaticano/Recti…

twitter.com/tornielli/status/804350774759354368

Bing translation on twitter of tweet.

A google translation of the linked article in tweet says:

Religio Confidencial published on Tuesday a news that put in the mouth of Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, the affirmation that the four cardinals who have written to the Pope “could lose the cardenalato”. The phrase, taken from an interview conducted by RC in which Monsignor Vito responded in Italian, is not correct. After reviewing the recording, it has been proven that what he affirms is that Pope Francis is not a Pope of other times, in which they did take such measures, and that he was not going to withdraw their cardinality dignity. The news is corrected, but we published this rectification in case it was not enough.

religionconfidencial.com/vaticano/Rectificacion_0_2829917005.html

 

[patricius79]

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

My perplexity is especially about the second part, where he says that someone “may know full well the rule…[but] be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”.

How could one sin by keeping the moral rule? (Or am I just misinterpreting something?)

I realize I may be completely misunderstanding our beloved Holy Father and submit myself to his authority from Christ.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My perplexity is especially about the second part, where he says that someone “may know full well the rule…[but] be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”.

How could one sin by keeping the moral rule? (Or am I just misinterpreting something?)

I realize I may be completely misunderstanding our beloved Holy Father and submit myself to his authority from Christ.

What is at stake here is the same thing at stake in almost every aspect of the world today. The idea that the stimulation of ones genitals is a need that cannot be forgone. It’s as sacred to some as water food or shelter. It didn’t used to be this way.

It’s why this needs to be clarified. Because the theological principle behind it could be applied to many other situations. It touches on the very source and summit of our faith and brings up issues if grace, and the actual substance of the Eucharist.

I think those issues are worth clarifying if some brilliant men are confused by them…
But one could say that Burke explaining how a pope could be corrected was as much of a threat as this statement.

I hope that cooler heads prevail, they step back, and discuss and explain this in a United, Catholic front. That means in a clear manner.

 

[gilliam]

UPDATE: Since this article was published, the website carrying Father Pinto’s reported remarks has clarified that the Dean added that Pope Francis, unlike popes of previous eras, would never remove the cardinals’ red hats. In the corrected version of its report of his remarks, described as a ‘rectification’, the website Religión Confidencial writes:

“What Church do these cardinals defend? The pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.
What they have done is a very grave scandal.” He added that, nevertheless, Pope Francis is not a pope from the past who could take the red hat away, as Pope Pius XI did with famed Jesuit French theologian Louis Billot. “Francis won’t do it,” he said.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/29/vatican-judge-says-cardinal-critics-pope-lose-red-hats/

 

[pnewton]

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

That is simply not true. I understand that there are some people, like the poster that gave this quote, that do not understand it. It is unfair to make a generalization to everyone. There are over two hundred Cardinals and five thousand bishops. Four wrote about their doubts. Obviously there are more. But making these four representative of the mainstream Church is disingenuous.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I do not understand you or your positions at all.

You keep repeatedly posting about your need to obey and your need to assent. Obey what? Assent to what? do you understand, theologically, the concept of a post synodal apostolic exhortation in contradistinction to other forms of magisterial documents?

The parameters that the Pope writes about concern pastoral accompaniment for those priests who have a mandate regarding a couple who come to him for pastoral assistance.

Now, I have to assume, based on how you formulate your posts, that you are not a priest…so you do not have cura animarum. Nor are you affected by any need to implement anything. What is it that you have to obey? Do you think the priest is going to ask you to do something? And if so, what?

This, frankly, makes as much sense to me as a man coming up to me saying, “Help. I do not know how to apply Canon 844.” My first question would be, “why do you need to know how to apply canon 844? If you are not a priest, you are not in a position to make a determination regarding Canon 844…and even if you were motivated to attempt a decision that such and such person was a candidate for application of Canon 844, you lack the character of Order to realise it…so what are you actually trying to say or do?”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

Oh, I agree with the former. But you do have to admit…it would quite make for a unique day in the office, given the relative routineness of most cases coming for adjudication.

As for the latter, I will only say that when people pass from the realm of private petitions to making public declarations backed up by threat of action, then no one really should be surprised when there is an aggressive reaction, in this case by a highly placed official of our highest court, to clarify that ones who threaten are themselves subject to having action taken against them as a proper redress.

 

[Catholic_Press]

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said that he will not respond to the dubia submitted by four cardinals about the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, unless Pope Francis instructs him to do so.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller explained, in an interview with the Kathpress news service, that the CDF speaks for the Roman Pontiff, and issues judgments “with the authority of the Pope.” The office could respond to the four cardinals if Pope Francis authorized it, he said. But it would be inappropriate for the CDF to intervene in a controversy without the Pope’s approval, he said.

The four cardinals had submitted their dubia to the CDF. But their letter was addressed to the Pontiff.

Cardinal Müller said that reports about a battle inside the Vatican about the interpretation of the papal document were overblown, and reflected the tendency of reporters who see Church affairs in terms of power politics. At the same time, he said that it is important for the faithful to “remain objective and not be drawn into polarization.”

Regarding the most controversial question about Amoris Laetitia—the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics could be admitted to Communion—Cardinal Müller did not answer directly. However, he referred to a 1993 directive from the CDF, in which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger rejected a plan by German bishops to allow divorced couples to receive Communion in some cases.

More…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

My response is very simple: no.

 

[bilop]

My response is very simple: no.

What does that mean?

Does that mean you agree with or disagree with my answers to the two hypotheticals?

Please don’t say such a bad Pope is impossible. God gives us all free will, He can’t deny it to the Pope. We’ve had bad Popes before, including heretical ones. We know that Soviet agents infiltrated the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, probably including the Patriarch. They tried to do the same in the Catholic Church, and turned some bishops into agents.

God Bless

 

[commenter]

UPDATE: Since this article was published, the website carrying Father Pinto’s reported remarks has clarified that the Dean added that Pope Francis, unlike popes of previous eras, would never remove the cardinals’ red hats. In the corrected version of its report of his remarks, described as a ‘rectification’, the website Religión Confidencial writes:

“What Church do these cardinals defend? The pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.
What they have done is a very grave scandal.” He added that, nevertheless, Pope Francis is not a pope from the past who could take the red hat away, as Pope Pius XI did with famed Jesuit French theologian Louis Billot. “Francis won’t do it,” he said.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/29/vatican-judge-says-cardinal-critics-pope-lose-red-hats/

This does not explain why one church official would dare to use the public square to communicate something to 4 cardinals that they would already know. If a reminder were needed, it could be done confidentially.
This is music to the ears of those who oppose Christianity. This in itself is scandalous.

 

[patricius79]

Well, to be perfectly honest, I do not understand you or your positions at all.

You keep repeatedly posting about your need to obey and your need to assent. Obey what? Assent to what? do you understand, theologically, the concept of a post synodal apostolic exhortation in contradistinction to other forms of magisterial documents?

No I don’t.

I also don’t understand what it is saying, for example, when His Holiness says–in the context of discussing irregular marriages-- that sometimes a person may know full well what is the rule, but be unable to follow it without further sin. (Hope that paraphrase is accurate. If not, let me know)

It seems to me that this idea, addressed to the whole Church, is important.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

My perplexity is especially about the second part, where he says that someone “may know full well the rule…[but] be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”.

How could one sin by keeping the moral rule? (Or am I just misinterpreting something?)

I realize I may be completely misunderstanding our beloved Holy Father and submit myself to his authority from Christ.

Let’s say a couple gets married in their early 20’s. They divorce a couple of years later. Over the years they end of living in two different countries, get remarried and have several children with their new spouses and have no idea whatever happened to their former spouses.

An annulment may not be possible due to lack of witnesses or any real way of contacting the former spouse.

Is ripping apart the current families really a moral solution? Is living as brother and sister realistic expectation for them?

We can argue all we want about the theology and such, but these are real people struggling to live their lives in the best way they see possible. The more hoops and burdens we place on them the more they feel pushed away by the Church.

I don’t think Pope Francis is talking about blanket ignoring divorce and remarriage but a realistic recognition that our system falls short at addressing certain situations and we need to find ways to prevent them from falling through the cracks.

 

[gilliam]

This does not explain why one church official would dare to use the public square to communicate something to 4 cardinals that they would already know. If a reminder were needed, it could be done confidentially.
This is music to the ears of those who oppose Christianity. This in itself is scandalous.

My guess is because the cardinals chose to use the public square instead of keeping their questions private.

 

[bilop]

Let’s say a couple gets married in their early 20’s. They divorce a couple of years later. Over the years they end of living in two different countries, get remarried and have several children with their new spouses and have no idea whatever happened to their former spouses.

An annulment may not be possible due to lack of witnesses or any real way of contacting the former spouse.

Is ripping apart the current families really a moral solution? Is living as brother and sister realistic expectation for them?

We can argue all we want about the theology and such, but these are real people struggling to live their lives in the best way they see possible. The more hoops and burdens we place on them the more they feel pushed away by the Church.

I don’t think Pope Francis is talking about blanket ignoring divorce and remarriage but a realistic recognition that our system falls short at addressing certain situations and we need to find ways to prevent them from falling through the cracks.

Father, isn’t the traditional solution to this that these people are welcome in the Church, should attend Mass, but simply should not receive Holy Communion until their marriage situation can be sorted out? I’ve seen several poster on this and other Catholic sites talk about parents and grandparents who entered into what they knew were irregular marriages who did just that. They attended Mass, raised their children as Catholics, but simply abstained from Holy Communion.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

Let’s say a couple gets married in their early 20’s. They divorce a couple of years later. Over the years they end of living in two different countries, get remarried and have several children with their new spouses and have no idea whatever happened to their former spouses.

An annulment may not be possible due to lack of witnesses or any real way of contacting the former spouse.

Is ripping apart the current families really a moral solution? Is living as brother and sister realistic expectation for them?

We can argue all we want about the theology and such, but these are real people struggling to live their lives in the best way they see possible. The more hoops and burdens we place on them the more they feel pushed away by the Church.

I don’t think Pope Francis is talking about blanket ignoring divorce and remarriage but a realistic recognition that our system falls short at addressing certain situations and we need to find ways to prevent them from falling through the cracks.

I don’t understand the scenario, Father, because if the man has no idea what happened to his spouse, he wouldn’t know if she was remarried or not.

But yes, I think they are called to submit their case to the Church, and in the meantime live as brother and sister. They may not receive Communion if they aren’t willing to keep the moral law. If the annulment is denied, then they need to continue to live in continence. I think that is very realistic. Moral absolutes bind always and everywhere. They are the opposite of unrealistic.

I agree there will be difficulties. And in some cases, real agonies. But the answer is to be there for those people. Not to tell them to sin.

Sex is wonderful if it is truly loving and is within the context of a real marriage. Chastity is very possible and very liberating through Mary and Jesus. We need to have supernatural faith. Mary can help us.

 

[bilop]

My guess is because the cardinals chose to use the public square instead of keeping their questions private.

If the Cardinals sincerely feel that people are being led astray by misinterpretations of AL, it is their duty as Cardinals and bishops to say so publicly.

When we talk about the Holy Spirit preserving the Church and the Holy Father from error, the Holy Spirit will likely work through human agents. Maybe this action by the 4 Cardinals is part of God’s way of making sure the Church doesn’t ever stray?

God Bless

 

[goout]

These issues are evidence that instant mass communication is both a blessing and a curse.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Then it should be very easy for Father Spadaro to point to those answers.

 

[KSU]

Finally:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30101