The four cardinals
Francis and Antonio Spadaro, S.J.
The four Cardinals who
wrote a letter to anti-pope Francis in September 2016 asking the supposed “pope”
to clarify grave errors in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia have now made the matter public—after waiting for Francis’ response for
about two months, all in vain—by
releasing their letter with an explanatory note giving the faithful the
opportunity to see their grave concerns.
Of course, there have
been responses from the apostate Rome concerning the letter.
Toronto Catholic Witness writes:
“Antonio Spadaro S.J.,
strikes back: The Four Cardinals are "disqualified" - the issue is
now closed...As
predicted by this blog, the dubia questions raised by the Four
Cardinals regarding the permission of accepting Adulterers to Holy Communion
has been soundly rejected by the Roman Authorities.
“Antonio Spadaro., S.J., the Ghost Writer of Francis', and the de
facto "pope" of Rome has rejected out of hand and dismissed
the Four Cardinals. In this, I am not surprised, indeed, I predicted it. In no
way is Francis and his manipulator, Spadaro in any way inconvenienced.
“In an arrogant Tweet from his Twitter feed, Spadaro has reaffirmed
Francis' letter to the South American Bishops, and sent a canon blast (no pun
intended) towards the four Cardinals.
“The issue is now closed.
“The "official" Catholic media will now be strongly onside,
the bishops of the world cowed; the laity - intoxicated with masturbation (well
over 90%, perhaps as high as 95% of the general population), fornication,
adultery, contraception, homosexual perversion, and unnatural oral and anal sex
(actually onanistic sodomy which is being promoted by the Theology of the Body
crowd) - solidly following Spadaro, will blindly accept the
"wink-wink" at adultery from this Jesuit and his underlings in Rome.
“Be assured that The "Four Cardinals" and their dubia
are now a dead issue, and the promotion of adultery is proceeding at full
speed. ...Once again: we have the Pope we deserve.”
Well, Cardinal
Raymond Burke has indicated in a recent interview that the cardinals are contemplating
a “formal correction” should the “pope” fail to address their concerns. (See: Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action).
Now
that the “pope”—massively supported by blind bishops and priests around the world,
INCLUDING ALL THE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IN NIGERIA AND THEIR BLIND “FAITHFUL”, the laity “intoxicated with masturbation
(well over 90%, perhaps as high as 95% of the general population), fornication,
adultery, contraception, homosexual perversion, and unnatural oral and anal sex
(actually onanistic sodomy which is being promoted by the Theology of the Body crowd”—has failed
to respond, we are eagerly awaiting that “formal correction” from the four cardinals. Interesting to see the four cardinals basing most of their objections on the teachings of "St". John Paul II instead of pre-Vatican II teachings. We leave them for now.
Here is the letter:
Seeking
Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in "Amoris Laetitia"
1. A Necessary
Foreword
2. The Letter of the Four
Cardinals to the Pope
3. The “Dubia”
4. Explanatory Note of the Four
Cardinals
CONTEXT
THE QUESTIONS
Doubt number 1:
Doubt number 2:
Doubt number 3:
Doubt number 4:
Doubt number 5:
1. A Necessary Forward
The sending of the letter to
His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals has its origin in 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 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.
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, we, with profound respect, 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?
*
4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals
CONTEXT
"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.
THE QUESTIONS
Doubt number 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"?
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 acts 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 in a completely different sphere than the
Christian moral life.
*
Doubt number 2:
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.
*
Doubt number 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)?
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.
*
Doubt number 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”?
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?
*
Doubt number 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?
"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 to
conceive 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.”
(Translation by Matthew Sherry): LifeSiteNews.com
