Four Cardinals OFFICIALLY ask Pope Francis to Clarify Amoris Laetitia

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/explosive-4-cardinals-officially-ask.html


EXPLOSIVE! 4 Cardinals OFFICIALLY ask Pope Francis to Clarify Amoris Laetitia - Updated
A Pope has never been publicly questioned for clarification on a most sensitive matter (his own reaching office) of a more sensitive content (his own major document) by his own Cardinals at any moment since the Counter-Reformation. It is astounding: certainly unheard-of in modern times.

The letter containing 5 clarification questions ("dubia") was signed by four Cardinals on September 18 -- Italian Carlo Caffarra, emeritus of Bologna, American Raymond Burke, emeritus of St Louis and former president of the tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and Germans Walter Brandmüller, eminent historian and emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, and Joachim Meisner, emeritus of Cologne. They were sent with an accompanying letter.

[Update - Our Roman Correspondent Fr. Pio Pace sends us the following: "Following Amoris Laetitia, the reaction of the Cardinals who had spoken against the new made-up moral doctrine at the time of the Synods had been expected. Here it is: four among them have chosen to make public the dubia that they had presented, formally, to the Pope a couple of months ago. It's a true earthquake -- of a moral nature. Four members of the Pope's own Senate (I've been told indeed that those who presented, but did not wish to go public, were more numerous) present him questions on Faith and Morals, according to the procedure of the dubia, which must be answered: either positive (yes) or negative (no) -- with modulations, if necessary, but must be answered. And the Pope made known to the Cardinals that HE WOULD NOT ANSWER THEM. In all truth, it's this silence that makes the earth tremble."]

***

The full text is provided below (several sources, including Edward Pentin and Sandro Magister).

Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in "Amoris Laetitia"

1. A Necessary Foreword

The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals derives from a deep pastoral concern.

We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting interpretations of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to resolve those doubts which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.

Ours is therefore an act of justice and charity.

Of justice: with our initiative we profess that the Petrine ministry is the ministry of unity, and that to Peter, to the Pope, belongs the service of confirming in the faith.

Of charity: we want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.

We have also carried out a specific duty. According to the Code of Canon Law (cc. 349) the cardinals, even taken individually, are entrusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

We hope that no one will judge us, unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing derives from the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.

Card. Walter Brandmüller

Card. Raymond L. Burke

Card. Carlo Caffarra

Card. Joachim Meisner

***

2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope

To His Holiness Pope Francis and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller

Most Holy Father,

Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.

Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.

Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, with profound respect, we permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as supreme Teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the Dubia that we attach the present letter.

May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.

Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner


Rome, September 19, 2016

3. The "dubia"

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

***

Con't

 

Con't

4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals

Dubia (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.

Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.

Upon the publication of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around its eighth chapter. Here specifically paragraphs 300-305 have been the object of divergent interpretations.

For many - bishops, priests, faithful - these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of dubia, hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.

The fact that interpreters come to different conclusions is also due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life. In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can - under certain circumstances - be readmitted to the sacraments.

Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.

Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia(nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

Question 1 makes particular reference to Amoris Laetitia n. 305 and to footnote 351. While note 351 specifically speaks of the sacraments of penance and communion, it does not mention the divorced and civilly remarried in this context, nor does the main text.

Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 84 already contemplated the possibility of admitting the divorced and civilly remarried to the sacraments. It mentions three conditions:

• 
  
  
  • The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of their children);
  • They take upon themselves the commitment to live according to the truth of their situation, that is, to cease living together as if they were husband and wife (more uxorio), abstaining from those acts that are proper to spouses;
  • They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the appearance of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).

The conditions mentioned by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and by the subsequent documents recalled will immediately appear reasonable once we remember that the marital union is not just based on mutual affection and that sexual acts are not just one activity among others that couples engage in.

Sexual relations are for marital love. They are something so important, so good and so precious, that they require a particular context, the context of marital love. Hence, not only the divorced living in a new union need to abstain, but also everyone who is not married. For the Church, the sixth commandment “Do not commit adultery” has always covered any exercise of human sexuality that is not marital, i.e., any kind of sexual relations other than those engaged in with one’s rightful spouse.

It would seem that admitting to communion those of the faithful who are separated or divorced from their rightful spouse and who have entered a new union in which they live with someone else as if they were husband and wife would mean for the Church to teach by her practice one of the following affirmations about marriage, human sexuality, and the nature of the sacraments:

• 
  
  
  • A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. However, people who are not married can under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.
  • A divorce dissolves the marriage bond. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts. The divorced and remarried are legitimate spouses and their sexual acts are lawful marital acts.
  • A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts, so that the divorced and civilly remarried live in a situation of habitual, public, objective and grave sin. However, admitting persons to the Eucharist does not mean for the Church to approve their public state of life; the faithful can approach the Eucharistic table even with consciousness of grave sin, and receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance does not always require the purpose of amending one’s life. The sacraments, therefore, are detached from life: Christian rites and worship are on a completely different sphere than the Christian moral life.

After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

The second question regards the existence of so-called intrinsically evil acts. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor 79 claims that one can “qualify as morally evil according to its species … the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”

Thus, the encyclical teaches that there are acts that are always evil, which are forbidden by moral norms that bind without exception (“moral absolutes”). These moral absolutes are always negative, that is, they tell us what we should not do. “Do not kill.” “Do not commit adultery.” Only negative norms can bind without exception.

According to Veritatis Splendor, with intrinsically evil acts no discernment of circumstances or intentions is necessary. Uniting oneself to a woman who is married to another is and remains an act of adultery that as such is never to be done, even if by doing so an agent could possibly extract precious secrets from a villain’s wife so as to save the kingdom (what sounds like an example from a James Bond movie has already been contemplated by St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo, q. 15, a. 1). John Paul II argues that the intention (say, “saving the kingdom”) does not change the species of the act (here: “committing adultery”), and that it is enough to know the species of the act (“adultery”) to know that one must not do it.

Con't

 

Con't

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

In paragraph 301 Amoris Laetitia recalls that: “The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” And it concludes that “hence it 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.”

In its Declaration of June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts seeks to clarify Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” The Pontifical Council’s Declaration argues that this canon is applicable also to faithful who are divorced and civilly remarried. It spells out that “grave sin” has to be understood objectively, given that the minister of the Eucharist has no means of judging another person’s subjective imputability.

Thus, for the Declaration, the question of the admission to the sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at all.

Along the same lines, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 37, Saint John Paul II recalls that “the judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience.” Hence, the distinction referred to by Amoris Laetitia between the subjective situation of mortal sin and the objective situation of grave sin is indeed well established in the Church’s teaching.

John Paul II however continues by insisting that “in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved.” He then reiterates the teaching of Canon 915 mentioned above.

Question 3 of the Dubia hence would like to clarify whether, even after Amoris Laetitia, it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder, or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.

After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendorn. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

In paragraph 302, Amoris Laetitia stresses that on account of mitigating circumstances “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.” The Dubia point to the Church’s teaching as expressed in John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor according to which circumstances or good intentions can never turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.

The question arises whether Amoris Laetitia, too, is agreed that any act that transgresses against God’s commandments, such as adultery, murder, theft, or perjury, can never, on account of circumstances that mitigate personal responsibility, become excusable or even good.

Do these acts, which the Church’s Tradition has called bad in themselves and grave sins, continue to be destructive and harmful for anyone committing them in whatever subjective state of moral responsibility he may be?

Or could these acts, depending on a person’s subjective state and depending on the circumstances and intentions, cease to be injurious and become commendable or at least excusable?

After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

Amoris Laetitia n. 303 states that “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.” The Dubia ask for a clarification of these affirmations, given that they are susceptible to divergent interpretations.

For those proposing the creative idea of conscience, the precepts of God’s law and the norm of the individual conscience can be in tension or even in opposition, while the final word should always go to conscience that ultimately decides about good and evil. According to Veritatis Splendor n. 56, “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.”

In this perspective, it will never be enough for moral conscience to know “this is adultery,” or “this is murder,” in order to know that this is something one cannot and must not do.

Rather, one would also need to look at the circumstances or the intentions to know if this act could not, after all be excusable or even obligatory (cf. question 4 of the Dubia). For these theories, conscience could indeed rightfully decide that in a given case, God’s will for me consists in an act by which I transgress one of his commandments. “Do not commit adultery” is seen as just a general norm. In the here and now, and given my good intentions, committing adultery is what God really requires of me. Under these terms, cases of virtuous adultery, lawful murder and obligatory perjury are at least conceivable.

This would mean to conceive of conscience as a faculty for autonomously deciding about good and evil and of God’s law as a burden that is arbitrarily imposed and that could at times be opposed to our true happiness.

However, conscience does not decide about good and evil. The whole idea of a “decision of conscience” is misleading. The proper act of conscience is to judge and not to decide. It says, “This is good,” “This is bad.” This goodness or badness does not depend on it. It acknowledges and recognizes the goodness or badness of an action, and for doing so, that is, for judging, conscience needs criteria; it is inherently dependent on truth.

God’s commandments are a most welcome help for conscience to get to know the truth and hence to judge verily. God’s commandments are the expression of the truth about our good, about our very being, disclosing something crucial about how to live life well. Pope Francis, too, expresses himself in these terms when in Amoris Laetitia 295: “The law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.”

 

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351414?eng=y

“Seeking Clarity.” The Appeal of Four Cardinals To the Pope
One letter. Five questions on the most controversial points of "Amoris Laetitia.” To which Francis has not replied. One more reason, they say, to “inform the people of God about our initiative”

by Sandro Magister



ROME, November 14, 2016 - The letter and the five questions presented in their entirety further below have no need of much explanation. It is enough to read them. What is new is that the four cardinals who had them delivered to Francis last September 19, without receiving a reply, have decided to make them public with the encouragement of this very silence on the part of the pope, in order to “continue the reflection and the discussion” with “the whole people of God.”

They explain this in the foreword to the publication of the complete text. And one thinks right away of Matthew 18:16-17: “If your brother will not listen to you, take with you two or three witnesses. If then he will not listen even to them, tell it to the assembly.”

The “witness” in this case was Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Because he too, in addition to the pope, had been a recipient of the letter and the questions.

The five questions are in fact formulated as in the classic submissions to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Formulated, that is, in such a way that they can be responded to with a simple yes or no.

As a rule, the responses given by the congregation explicitly mention the approval of the pope. And in the routine audiences that Francis gave to the cardinal prefect after the delivery of the letter and the questions, it is a sure bet that the two talked about them.

But in point of fact the appeal from the four cardinals received no reply, neither from Cardinal Müller nor from the pope, evidently at the behest of the latter.

*

The four cardinals who signed this letter and are now making it public are not among those who a year ago, at the beginning of the second session of the synod on the family, delivered to Francis the famous letter “of the thirteen cardinals”:

> Thirteen Cardinals Have Written to the Pope. Here’s the Letter (12.10.2015)

The thirteen were all members of the synod and in full service in their respective dioceses. Or they held important positions in the curia, like cardinals Robert Sarah, George Pell, and Müller himself.

These four, however, while all are recognized for their authoritativeness, have no operational roles, either for reasons of age or because they have been dismissed.

And that makes them more free. It is no mystery, in fact, that their appeal has been and is shared by not a few other cardinals who are still fully active, as well as high-ranking bishops and archbishops of West and East, who however precisely because of this have decided to remain in the shadows.

In a few days, on November 19 and 20, the whole college of cardinals will meet in Rome, for the consistory convoked by Pope Francis. And inevitably the appeal of the four cardinals will become the subject of animated discussion among them.

The ebb and flow of history. It was at the consistory of February 2014 that Francis gave the go-ahead for the long trek that resulted in the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” when he entrusted to Cardinal Walter Kasper the opening talk, in support of communion for the divorced and remarried.

Right away at that consistory the controversy broke out with the greatest intensity. And it is the same one that divides the Church even more today, including at the highest levels, seeing how the unclear suggestions of “Amoris Laetitia” are being contradictorily interpreted and applied.

Kasper is German and, curiously, two of the cardinals who - on the side opposite his – have published the present appeal are also German, not to mention Cardinal Müller, who signed the letter “of the thirteen” and now has received this other no less explosive letter.

The division in the Church is there. And it conspicuously runs through precisely that Church of Germany which represents for many the most advanced point of change.

And Pope Francis remains silent. Perhaps because he thinks that “oppositions help,” as he explained to his Jesuit confrere Antonio Spadaro in giving over for publication the anthology of his discourses as archbishop of Buenos Aires, which have been in bookstores for a few days.

Adding:

“Human life is structured in oppositional form. And that is also what is happening now in the Church. Tensions need not necessarily be resolved and regulated. They are not like contradictions.”

But that’s just the point. Here it is a matter of contradictions. Yes or no. These and no others are the fitting answers to the five questions of the four cardinals, on the crucial points of Church doctrine and life brought into question by “Amoris Laetitia.”

Now it’s their turn.

In addition to Italian, English, French, and Spanish, the whole document is also available in Portuguese and German translations:

> Criar clareza. Alguns nós por resolver em "Amoris laetitia" - Um apelo

> Klarheit schaffen. Ungelöste Knoten von "Amoris laetitia" - Ein Appell

__________

 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/bombshell-the-four-cardinals-letter-to-pope-francis-seeking-clarity/

BOMBSHELL: The Four Cardinals Letter to Pope Francis – “Seeking Clarity”
Posted on 14 November 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
UPDATE: I’d be willing to bet that The Four are merely the tip of the spear. I’d wager that they represent a large gang of quiet Cardinals who want answers, but because they are presently in curial or diocesan positions they are hesitant to raise their heads too high.

___ ORIGINAL published on: Nov 14, 2016 @ 01:39 ____

Four Cardinals (aka The Four) who presently do not have a curial or diocesan role wrote a letter to Pope Francis in September. The letter also went to Card. Müller, who is Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Four asked five pointed questions in the classic form of “dubia“… “doubts” … that needs only “Yes” or “No” answers. They did not get a response. Therefore, in the spirit of Matthew 18:16-17 (“If your brother will not listen to you, take with you two or three witnesses. If then he will not listen even to them, tell it to the assembly.”), they have gone public.

The questions are about the Pope’s Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris laetitia!

Sandro Magister has it. HERE

The basic structure of what you will read.

• There is a forward, about the status quaestionis.
• There is an introduction from the Cardinals about why they wrote the letter.
• There are the questions themselves.
• There are expansive paragraphs for each question.

It is thick reading, but rewarding.

The Letter from The Four was dated 19 September, which was some 10 days after Pope Francis sent a letter to Argentinian bishops giving his informal approval to a problematic document they wrote about how to implement Amoris laetitia.

The questions, or dubia, concern the concrete issue of sacraments (Penance and Eucharist) for the divorced divorced and civilly remarried who refuse continence as well as about absolute moral norms.

You should go to read the whole thing there…. but here is the introduction:

To His Holiness Pope Francis
and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller

Most Holy Father,

Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia”, theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.

Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.

Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, we, with profound respect, we permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as Supreme Teacher of the Faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the “Dubia” that we attach to the present letter.

May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.

Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner

Rome, September 19, 2016

[…]

3. The “Dubia”
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

The letter of The Four is humble and respectful, but clear. They clearly did not want to be adversarial in tone. The Four merely want some clarity about “grave disorientation and great confusion” which has been provoked by now infamous elements of Amoris laetitia.

In particular, keep in mind that many people have wondered whether there is an ongoing effort to undermine the Magisterium of St. John Paul II.

You know what will happen next.

The Four will be pilloried by the liberal catholic smear machine, who will seek brow-furrowed quotes from their current darlings, their exemplars of pastoral sensitivity, their hopes for sweeping “change”.

The fact that The Four do not presently have curial or diocesan roles means that – short of having their red hats taken away – the Pope can’t remove them from offices that they don’t hold.

This, folks, is a big deal.

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...nals-urgent-plea-for-clarification-so-they-go

BREAKING: Pope fails to reply to 4 cardinals’ urgent plea for clarification, so they go public

Left to right, top then bottom: Cardinals Raymond Burke, Joachim Meisner, Walter Brandmüller and Carlo Caffarra LifeSite
November 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Four Cardinals have released an historic letter to Pope Francis in which they pleaded with him for clarity regarding his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Dated September 19, 2016, the letter asked the pope 5 short questions which call for ‘yes or no’ answers which would immediately clarify the meaning of the confusion-plagued document on precisely those points where theologians, priests and even bishops have offered contradicting interpretations.

After nearly two months of the pope’s refusal to respond, the Cardinals have released their letter with an explanatory note giving the faithful the opportunity to see their grave concerns, which touch directly on the integrity of the Catholic faith.

The timing of the letter to the pope is notable. It comes ten days after the release of the first public indication that Pope Francis approved an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that had been previously described as ‘heretical’ by one of the Cardinal signatories – one that would permit remarried divorcees who could not get an annulment to receive communion without forgoing sexual relations. That public revelation was a letter from Pope Francis to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region in Argentina approving of their interpretation of the controversial eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia as the only valid one.

The questions and an explanatory note about them are reproduced below by LifeSiteNews. Other than the practical question on the availability of confession and communion to divorced and remarried Catholics who refuse continence, the questions concern the constant teaching of the Catholic Church on absolute moral norms, on intrinsically evil acts that are binding without exceptions, on the objective situation of grave habitual sin and on conscience.

Signed by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, the letter tells the Pope of the “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful” stemming from Amoris Laetitia. The cardinals explain that they are “compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility” to call on Pope Francis “with profound respect” to give answer to the questions posed reminding him that as Pope he is “called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith” and to “resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity.”

In a note explaining to the faithful their release of the letter, the cardinals reveal the letter had its “origin in a deep pastoral concern,” about the “grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church.”

As cardinals, they wrote, they “are entrusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.” The four Cardinals interpreted the Pope’s decision not to respond “as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect” and thus chose to inform “the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

They expressed their hope that it would not be interpreted as “any form of politics in the Church” nor lead to their being unjustly accused as “adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy.” Rather, they said, “What we have done and are doing has its origin in the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.”

The gravity of the present situation in the Church is underlined by the rarity of the intervention of the four cardinals now made public.

As the cardinals state in an explanatory note, “the interpretation of (Amoris Laetitia) also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life,” and thus the questions touch “on fundamental issues of the Christian life.”

It is noteworthy that of the four signatories, three are retired cardinals, thus unable to be removed from offices by a pope who has demonstrated a willingness to remove from office those who do not share his vision. Cardinal Burke is the only one not retired.

Moreover, while the cardinals surely undertook the measure to make the letter public for the good of the Church and in the spirit of the pope’s oft repeated call for synodality, the publication of the letter also serves to reveal to the faithful not only the grave disorientation and confusion caused by Pope Francis, but also his knowledge of its gravity and his choice not to end the confusion.

 

Thank you for posting these articles, Brian.

 

The pope's silence is damning.

 

Your posts are damming.

 

It seems appropriate to mention the following with regard to this matter:

Birth Control Commission

Over several years the original members of the commission (which included 7 Cardinals and 9 Bishops) had considered and weighed carefully the relevant theological, sociological and psychological evidence.

Based on this, they offered their decision and report to Paul VI as he requested and emphatically recommended to him that he change the Vatican's teachings to permit contraception.

Paul VI instead issued Humanae Vitae maintaining the Church's ban.
​

 

Oh the irony...


https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/14/dont-listen-prophets-doom-pope-francis-insists/

Don't listen to the 'prophets of doom,' Pope Francis insists

• Inés San Martín VATICAN CORRESPONDENT

Pope Francis is framed by his pastoral staff as he celebrates a mass on the occasion of the homeless jubilee in St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Sunday, Nov. 13, 2016. (Credit: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia.)

People being left behind by economic progress is a "great injustice that should concern us much more than knowing when or how the world will end," Pope Francis said Sunday, at a Mass where 6,000 homeless people had VIP seats.
ROME- Pope Francis on Sunday called for the faithful not to be driven by end-times curiosities or apocalyptic preachers, urging them to focus on what is truly important: “The Lord and our neighbor.”

“Those who follow Jesus pay no heed to prophets of doom, the nonsense of horoscopes, or frightening sermons that distract from the truly important things,” Francis said.

It is important, he continued, to distinguish “the word of wisdom that God speaks to us each day” from the shouting of those who use “God’s name to frighten, to nourish division and fear.”

Francis’s words came as he was celebrating Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, in Rome.

The celebration was one of the events of the Holy Year of Mercy, and it served as the closing point of the Jubilee for the Socially Excluded, which began on Friday, when the pontiff encountered thousands of homeless people from around Europe.

Throughout the weekend, the poor and marginalized had the VIP seats, including at a concert from Oscar-winning composer Ennio Morricone. To guarantee that they could understand the pope’s homily, they had been given small orange radios, from which they could follow the celebration in their own languages.

The pope’s homily turned around the day’s Gospel, in which Jesus speaks about the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and the end of times. As the pontiff put it in his homily, Jesus says that “there will be no lack of conflicts, famine, convulsions on earth and in the heavens” when the time comes.

In the Gospel, Francis said, Jesus’s aim is not to produce fear. Instead, God “asks us to persevere in the good and to place our trust” in him, “who does not disappoint.”

And Sunday’s passage is also Jesus’s way of saying that every earthly thing “will inevitably pass away.”

“Even the strongest kingdoms, the most sacred buildings and the surest realities of this world do not last forever; sooner or later they fall,” the pontiff said.

Francis then said that there are only two riches that won’t disappear, and as such, shouldn’t be excluded: “The Lord and our neighbor,” because everything else, he insisted, including the heavens, the earth and the St. Peter’s Basilica, shall pass.

From here, Francis transitioned to talk about the VIP guests: the poor and marginalized, who came from 22 European countries, many with the help of the charitable France-based charitable organization Fratello, that wants to make this pilgrimage of the homeless to Rome a yearly thing.

When speaking about exclusion, the pope said, “we immediately think of concrete people,” yet the human person, “set by God at the pinnacle of creation,” is often discarded in favor of “ephemeral things,” and this, he added, is “unacceptable.”

Speaking to no particular group, Francis denounced that people are growing used to rejection, saying that these “anesthetized consciences,” which lead to “no longer seeing the brother or sister suffering at our side, or noticing the grave problems in our world,” is something to be worried about.

Being only interested in objects to be produced rather than on persons to be loved, the pope noted, “is a sign of spiritual sclerosis,” and a turning away from God himself.

“This is the origin of the tragic contradiction of our age: as progress and new possibilities increase, which is a good thing, less and less people are able to benefit from them,” Francis said. “This is a great injustice that should concern us much more than knowing when or how the world will end.”

The poor, Francis said closing his homily, belong to the church by evangelical right and duty, “for it is our responsibility to care for the true riches which are the poor. In the light of these reflections, I would like today to be the “day of the poor.”

Having begun on December 8, the Holy Year of Mercy will come to a close on Nov. 20, the day on which the Church marks the Solemnity of Christ the King. However, across the world, the holy doors of mercy, which every diocese was called to open in the local cathedral or other churches of particular relevance, were closed this weekend.

These doors reflected Francis’s desire that the jubilee be celebrated on the local level and not just in Rome. The first such door was opened by the pope himself in the cathedral of Bangui, capital of the Central African Republic, during his visit there last November.

 

Well, as long as we're keeping that "ignore" button it might as well be put to good use. Bye.

 

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/fear.html

14 November 2016
Fr John Hunwicke at 10:58

Fear

Readers will have read the news, at Fr Z and Rorate and Sandro Magister, about the Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Holy Father, seeking clarity on certain aspects of Amoris laetitia.

It must be a matter of sadness to all Catholics, whatever their 'political' complexion, that the Roman Pontiff apparently decided not to reply to their Letter.

It must be a matter of grief that other Cardinals and locorum Ordinarii have felt unable to join this initiative because they still have diocesan or curial responsibilities. I have heard from several sources about the atmosphere of fear that exists in Rome and elsewhere. It reminds me of the cruel attempts at intimidation which followed the publication of the Letter of the 45, of which I felt honoured to have been invited to be a signatory.

Apparently, it is now to be the particular ministry and calling of the elderly or the retired or the sacked, because they have nothing to fear being sacked from, to speak with Parrhesia.

Reliance upon fear is not Christ's way to govern His Church.

If this pontificate was not already in crisis, it most certainly is now.

 

I don't get it. Would you rather we on this forum be unaware of this development in our Church?

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...ope-francis-to-clarify-amoris-laetitia-43614/

These four cardinals asked Pope Francis to clarify 'Amoris laetitia'
Vatican City, Nov 14, 2016 / 01:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Citing conflicting interpretations of Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on love in the family, four prominent cardinals wrote a letter to him in September requesting that he “resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity.”

The full text of the letter was published in an English translation by the National Catholic Register Nov. 14.

“We the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation,” the cardinals wrote in their Sept. 19 letter to the Pope.

The signatories were Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; Raymond Burke, patron of the Order of Malta and prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura; Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna; and Joachim Meisner, Archbishop Emeritus of Cologne.

They noted the fact that “theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations” of Amoris laetitia, especially its eighth chapter on accompanying, discerning, and integrating weakness, which “are not only divergent, but also conflicting.”

The cardinals also noted that “media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.”

“Compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, we, with profound respect … ask you, Holy Father, as Supreme Teacher of the Faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the 'Dubia' that we attach to the present letter,” they wrote.

The cardinals submitted five “dubia”, or doubts, about the interpretation of Amoris laetitia to be clarified by its author, also drawing the dubia to the attention of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A foreword to the text of the letter notes that it arises from “deep pastoral concern” following “disorientation and great confusion of many faithful” and contrasting interpretations of the apostolic exhortation “even within the episcopal college.”

“The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to resolve those doubts which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.”

On this basis, the four cardinals wrote that their submission of dubia is an act of justice because “we profess that the Petrine ministry is the ministry of unity,” and of charity because “we want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.”

The foreword noted that Pope Francis “decided not to respond” to their dubia.

“We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

They expressed hope that their act would not be interpreted “according to a 'progressive/conservative' paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.”

“We hope that no one will judge us, unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing has its origin in the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.”

The five dubia concern the teaching found in Amoris laetitia, and its relation to the teaching of the preceding Magisterium, especially that of St. John Paul II.

(Read the rest at the link above.)

 

This pope has personally blown up the belief that the pope can not err on matters of faith and morals.

 

A foreword to the text of the Cardinal's letter notes that it arises from “deep pastoral concern” following “disorientation and great confusion of many faithful” and contrasting interpretations of the apostolic exhortation “even within the episcopal college.”

I suggest that Pope Francis could respond to this small group of Cardinals with the letter he had earlier sent to the Argentinian bishops who had issued guidelines on the implementation of Amoris Laetitia:

Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ guidelines, Pope Francis insisted “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation.​

 

Which is destroying the very Faith of countless Catholics who can't understand how a pope can do this corresponds with Christ's promise that "the Church" won't error still remaining in effect. I know of many Catholics seriously considering Orthodoxy over this pope's errors, or who have already jumped ship, primed by the epidemic of pederasty scandals in the Church.

 

https://akacatholic.com/breaking-four-cardinals-put-francis-on-public-trial/

BREAKING: Four Cardinals put Francis on public trial
Louie


Sandro Magister at La Repubblica has published a private plea that was sent directly to Francis from four cardinals – Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner.

Citing the “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation” that exists concerning Amoris Laetitia, the plea – which was issued in the form of a dubia or series of questions – was originally sent to Francis in September, but has thus far gone unanswered.

As such, the cardinals have decided to turn up the heat by making the document public along with the addition of a “Forward” explaining their action followed by an “Explanatory Note” to provide additional context.

The public version includes the following:

“Dubia” (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.

NB: The dubia has been addressed to Cardinal Muller at the CDF as well as to Francis – a brilliant move given that he is now compelled to answer publicly as well. Based on Muller’s previous comments concerning the matters under discussion, we have every reason to believe that he will answer in accordance with the true Faith.

I suspect that Cardinal Muller is not being blindsided here, but rather is conspiring with the four cardinals that created the dubia; likely from the start.

In any case, involving the CDF will serve to increase the pressure on Francis considerably.

Below are the yes/no questions that make up the dubia that has now been made public. As the well-informed will immediately recognize, the questions asked have already been answered by Francis in various ways.

So, what’s the point of asking questions that have already been answered?

This dubia represents a challenge for Francis to either publicly confirm or deny – in the form of a “yes” or a “no” – whether or not he holds the Catholic faith on specific fundamental matters that treat of no ambiguity.

In a sense, Francis is being put on trial for all to see.

Confirming the true faith, as is his duty, would rip the carpet out from under his crowning achievement, Amoris Laetitia.

Failing to do so would render him a formal heretic.

What I anticipate is continued silence, which will hopefully lead to demands from these and other cardinals and bishops for clear “yes/no” answers to the dubia.

Should Francis choose to remain silent, this in my view would be tantamount to a formal public rejection of the Faith and proof positive that he is an anti-pope.


The “Dubia”

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(I invite you to read the additional text provided by the cardinals at La Repubblica linked above.)

 

I think it's a good thing that Cardinal Burke and the others questioned and asked for clarifications. I think it's not a good thing that Pope Francis did not answer them.

Try not to obsess over it though, leave it in God's hands and help by praying for our Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and our priests. They need it.

How are your preparations coming along, Brian? And your health? Pray you are doing great on both fronts