Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace, the answer to your question is there, and it is obvious. I simply have trouble believing that you read it and di not catch it.

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.

 

 

So you ask: "why is this important?" They answered "We want to help the Pope prevent divisions, avoid conflict, and care for the universal Church." Divisions and conflict arising from doctrinal questions are serious and harm the unity of the Church, therefore by dispelling ambiguity, the Church and the faithful are protected.

I do not see any more to the question than this. And I think you know all of this.

8 minutes ago, Luigi said:

It was not my intention to be aggressive. I know little about the inner workings of the Vatican - precisely because most of this behind-the-scenes kind of maneuvering stays behind the scenes. I can only suppose that's where it ought to stay, or has traditionally stayed, and I can only assume it has stayed there for good reasons. 

I'm shooting in the dark as much as anyone else here, except those who closely follow the inner workings of the Vatican. We shall see how it plays out. Until then, I'll go to church on Sunday, keep my mouth shut, and my wallet open. 

I appreciate it.

Not always. When conflicts are serious enough they necessarily enter the public sphere. The Avignon papacy, the Arian heresy, the eastern schism, the Gallican heresy, etc. If such things can be contained and dealt with privately then so be it, but when the universal Church is concerned, public statements tend to make themselves inevitable.

This is not something trivial, like a cardinal being demoted or a dicastery being reorganized. These are questions of doctrine and, in some cases, public scandal.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[KnightofChrist]

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

To clarify, I did not ask what their motives were for writing or releasing the letter. I asked why any of us should consider the letter to be important when Pope Francis has indicated that he will not respond to the questions. These are different questions.

Maybe the answer to the question that I asked is pristinely clear to you. If it were pristinely clear to me I would have not asked the question in the first place. I did not ask the question simply to be a thorn in your side, although this seems to be the conclusion that you have reached.

You're trying to divorce why they felt they had the need to publicly ask these questions from why we should consider the importance of those questions. That doesn't seem reasonable. If they are right in their justification in writing the dubia that justification is why it should be important to us. 

We don't really know what the Pope's silence on this means. So that he's silent on it doesn't mean we should not find it important. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Someone wrote a blog post today... I forget whom. But it was a short musing on Thomas More's character from A Man for All Seasons, wherein Thomas More says that if his silence has to be interpreted as a statement, in justice it has to be interpreted as affirmation, not denial.

Excellent movie. I know most of us have seen it, but if you have not, I urge you to watch it immediately.

[Peace]

Nihil:

I think that we may be talking past each other.

Sure, it is obvious why everyone should want to have the questions answered. They are important questions that it would be good to have answers to, for the reasons you stated (having the questions answered would avoid confusion or division, for example).

My question was a bit different, at least as I intended it. I am not sure why the dubia matters if the pope will not respond to it, and if we were already asking the same questions in the dubia before it was written. In other words, I do not see what releasing the letter accomplishes in terms of the ultimate goals, if we are to believe that the Pope has already declined to respond to it. This is why I made the analogy about my question concerning Canon 32 - if I just post a question that has been asked before and that nobody is planning to answer, why should anyone consider my posting of the question to be important? What does it accomplish?

In the case of the cardinals' letter, one answer might be "The letter is important because its public release will put more pressure on Pope Francis to eventually answer the questions at some point." Another answer might be "Some of the questions contained in the letter are written in a new manner that further clarifies the issues and the logical consequences that would follow if they are answered in the negative."

Perhaps answers such as those, or whatever the answer may be, is obvious to you or other people, but I do not think that the question nor the answer is directly addressed within the letter itself. To this question they just seem to say "we decided to release it because Pope Francis decided not to respond to it." But beyond that they don't seem to have much else to say concerning why they chose to go public with it, or what they think going public with it will accomplish. At least not the way that I read it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I believe they addressed that too. The dubia were not answered before, but as far as they are concerned silence on this matter is not acceptable. It is simply a matter of: 1 - this question is important, 2 - we want an answer (for such and such reasons, discussed above), 3 - we do not have an answer, therefore 4 - we will continue to use the avenues available to us given our station and obligations to get an answer.

Also, "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."

I mean, you can disagree with this interpretation if you want, but this is a question of fact. "Why did you publish the dubia?" "We published because we interpret the Pope's silence as an invitation to continue the discussion (and continuing the discussion includes that it enter the public realm."

[Ice_nine]

I agree clarity is needed and these are important questions. I just don't think making it public will do anything. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Just now, Ice_nine said:

I agree clarity is needed and these are important questions. I just don't think making it public will do anything. 

 Luckily such things are the concerns of our betters. And Cardinals Brandmuller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner have determined that this is a prudent course of action.

[Ice_nine]

We'll see then

[Nihil Obstat]

We certainly will. There are two possibilities here: The pope answers, or he does not. And if he answers there are a further two possibilities with regards to the answers to the dubia.

The immediate consequences to any of those outcomes are... all interesting, anyway. None of those outcomes are inconsequential.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

13 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Wat

Traditionalists are the haughty brothers and everyone according to fundamentalist traditionalists and your own views regarding everyone involved in and born after Vatican II, including you, would seem to be the prodigal brother ie. sons of the father.

Fundamentalist traditionalists make alot of time in writing and typing "wat" is right and everything that is wrong with "The Church" and our "Vicar of Christ" and that is all that is done.  

I used to lean towards traditionalism.  That is why I came into this site, and I'm not sorry I found many like-minded thinkers and people who live out Christ's message ie.  "wat" sins He died for  on the Cross .  However, coming across people who know a thing or two about what @Luigi posted about "inner workings in The Church" ie. (intrigue unnecessary and irrevelant to us mere sheople - and I'm glad of it)  like the "traditionalists" I see as radically fundamental and not putting that fierce rigidity to some good and instead using it to generate hatred for " like it or not"  Our Holy Church and Our Vicar of Christ.  

That's wat.

[Nihil Obstat]

How rude. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

sorry

 

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

Traditionalists are the haughty brothers and everyone according to fundamentalist traditionalists and your own views regarding everyone involved in and born after Vatican II, including you, would seem to be the prodigal brother ie. sons of the father.

Fundamentalist traditionalists make alot of time in writing and typing "wat" is right and everything that is wrong with "The Church" and our "Vicar of Christ" and that is all that is done.  

I used to lean towards traditionalism.  That is why I came into this site, and I'm not sorry I found many like-minded thinkers and people who live out Christ's message ie.  "wat" sins He died for  on the Cross .  However, coming across people who know a thing or two about what @Luigi posted about "inner workings in The Church" ie. (intrigue unnecessary and irrevelant to us mere sheople - and I'm glad of it)  like the "traditionalists" I see as radically fundamental and not putting that fierce rigidity to some good and instead using it to generate hatred for " like it or not"  Our Holy Church and Our Vicar of Christ.  

That's wat.

I have seen your apology, and I also know that people might be touchy because they were having a bad day.  Just chiming in to note that nitpicking over typos might also be "haughty", "radically fundamental" and "fierce rigidity". 

[Nihil Obstat]

"Wat" was not a typo.

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

3 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I have seen your apology, and I also know that people might be touchy because they were having a bad day.  Just chiming in to note that nitpicking over typos might also be "haughty", "radically fundamental" and "fierce rigidity". 

I can understand what typos are.  I also understand what sarcasm and being facetious is.

 

9 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

"Wat" was not a typo.

 

I don't think so.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.catholicaction.org/interview_with_cardinal_burke_about_the_dubia?utm_campaign=dubia_sup_1116&utm_medium=email&utm_source=catholicaction

 

November 14, 2016

Catholic Action president, Thomas McKenna, was granted the following interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke to further explain the intentions of the four cardinals and the published documents entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia." 

 

CA: So you are saying that you are publishing a letter that you sent to the Pope privately. This is extraordinary. Isn’t this action objectionable from a Christian point of view? Our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew (18:15) that if we have a problem with a brother, we are supposed to talk with him privately, one-on-one, not publicly.

In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.

There have been many other statements of concern regardingAmoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. No response has been given to these questions either. Therefore, in making public our questions or dubia, we are being faithful to Christ’s mandate to first talk with a person privately, then in a small group, and finally, taking the matter to the Church as a whole.

 

CA: Some Catholics may be concerned that your current publication is an act of disloyalty.

I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions.  These matters affect all of us.

Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.

This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.

 

 

[Peace]

I wonder whether it would be better if he just came out and told us that he thinks the pope is wrong, and explain the reasons why. I suppose the "doubts" do this to a certain extent, but why beat around the bush if you really believe that Pope Francis has taught error? Makes it seem kind of passive-aggressve. 

Maybe they don't really believe that Pope Francis has taught error and are earnestly seeking clarification. That is cool, but does anybody really believe that they don't think the pope is flat out wrong?

Or maybe they felt like putting it out there as questions rather than statements was a more respectful way of making the point. 

Anyway, I am not so sure that Pope Francis would be wrong if he meant that the divorced and remarried can be admitted to communion in cases that go beyond what others have permitted. He would seem to disagree with others before him, of course.

[Nihil Obstat]

Disagreeing with a pope is a risky proposition. And in either case, nobody can disagree with him before knowing exactly what he himself believes. The answering of these dubia allow the Holy Father to definitively refute those interpretations of his recent statements and documents which would be considered erroneous against the body of Catholic moral and sacramental theology.

The dubia are ultimately a gift to the Holy Father. It gives him an opportunity to clarify errors which have arisen. And if, heaven forbid, the Holy Father has through some mistake or misunderstanding taught error, then the dubia give him an excellent opportunity to recant. As, for instance, John XXII did when it was shown definitively to him that he had, perhaps unintentionally, taught error with regards to the immediacy of the beatific vision.

[Jack4]

22 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yes, that is the precise point. There is room neither for ambiguity nor "diverging interpretations". Nor can anyone quibble about ban translations, speaking off the cuff, or being merely personal and inviting to various audiences. 

 

22 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I do like it's in the form of a yes/no. That's the clarity that's needed. 

Dubia are always in the yes/no form. However, it is possible to evade clarity even there. I remember reading dubia on SSPX, which was answered with something to the effect of  "In reply to your question, we redirect you to ....<statement>".

[Socrates]

I think this dubia deals with very real issues concerning the Church's (and Jesus Christ's) teachings on divorce and remarriage that affect the souls of many in the Church - so I think the issue is very important to Catholics.  It's not merely some obscure theological issue.  Amoris has caused a lot confusion on this issue, and this confusion has the potential to do great spiritual harm, so clarification is in order.  

The Cardinals are right to question this publicly.  There's nothing inherently wrong with questioning a pope, nor are popes impeccable, and their actions and decisions above question or concern.  Such "papal-olatry" was never in fact taught by the Church, but is superstition.