We received the following statement of support for the four cardinals’ dubia this morning. It has been signed by various pastors, theologians, and scholars from around the world.
As Catholic scholars and pastors of souls, we wish to express our profound gratitude and full support for the courageous initiative of four members of the College of Cardinals, Their Eminences Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner. As has been widely publicized, these cardinals have formally submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, asking him to clarify five fundamental points of Catholic doctrine and sacramental discipline, the treatment of which in Chapter 8 of the recent Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) appears to conflict with Scripture and/or Tradition and the teaching of previous papal documents – notably Pope St. John Paul II’s Encyclical Veritatis Splendor and his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. Pope Francis has so far declined to answer the four cardinals; but since they are in effect asking him whether the above weighty magisterial documents still require our full assent, we think that the Holy Father’s continued silence may open him to the charge of negligence in the exercise of the Petrine duty of confirming his brethren in the faith.
Several prominent prelates have been sharply critical of the four cardinals’ submission, but without shedding any light on their pertinent and searching questions. We have read attempts to interpret the apostolic exhortation within a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ by Christoph Cardinal Schӧnborn and Professor Rocco Buttiglione; but we find that they fail to demonstrate their central claim that the novel elements found in AL do not endanger divine law, but merely envisage legitimate changes in pastoral practice and ecclesiastical discipline.
Indeed, a number of commentators, notably Professor Claudio Pierantoni in an extensive new historical-theological study, have argued that as a result of the widespread confusion and disunity following the promulgation of AL, the universal Church is now entering a gravely critical moment in her history that shows alarming similarities with the great Arian crisis of the fourth century. During that catastrophic conflict the great majority of bishops, including even the Successor of Peter, vacillated over the very divinity of Christ. Many did not fully lapse into heresy; however, disarmed by confusion or weakened by timidity, they sought convenient compromise formulae in the interests of “peace” and “unity”. Today we are witnessing a similar metastasizing crisis, this time over fundamental aspects of Christian living. Continued lip service is given to the indissolubility of marriage, the grave objective sinfulness of fornication, adultery and sodomy, the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, and the terrible reality of mortal sin. But in practice, increasing numbers of highly placed prelates and theologians are undermining or effectively denying these dogmas – and indeed, the very existence of exceptionless negative prohibitions in the divine law governing sexual conduct – by virtue of their exaggerated or one-sided emphasis on “mercy”, “pastoral accompaniment”, and “mitigating circumstances”.
With the reigning Pontiff now sounding a very uncertain trumpet in this battle against the ‘principalities and powers’ of the Enemy, the barque of Peter is drifting perilously like a ship without a rudder, and indeed, shows symptoms of incipient disintegration. In such a situation, we believe that all Successors of the Apostles have a grave and pressing duty to speak out clearly and strongly in confirmation of the moral teachings clearly expounded in the magisterial teachings of previous popes and the Council of Trent. Several bishops and another cardinal have already said they find the five dubia opportune and appropriate. We ardently hope, and fervently pray, that many more of them will now endorse publicly not only the four cardinals’ respectful request that Peter’s Successor confirm his brethren in these five points of the faith “delivered once and for all to the saints” (Jude 3), but also Cardinal Burke’s recommendation that if the Holy Father fails to do so, the cardinals then collectively approach him with some form of fraternal correction, in the spirit of Paul’s admonition to his fellow apostle Peter at Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11).
We entrust this grave problem to the care and heavenly intercession of Mary Immaculate, Mother of the Church and Vanquisher of all heresies.
December 8, 2016, Feast of the Immaculate Conception
(Signed):
Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carambula, STD, JD
Chaplain and Faculty Member of the Roman Forum
Rev. Claude Barthe,
France
Dr. Robert Beddard, MA (Oxon et Cantab), D.Phil (Oxon)
Fellow emeritus and former Vice Provost of Oriel College Oxford.
Carlos A. Casanova Guerra
Doctor of Philosophy, Full Professor,
Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago de Chile
Salvatore J. Ciresi MA
Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College
Director of the St. Jerome Biblical Guild
Luke Gormally, PhL
Director Emeritus, The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics (1981-2000)
Sometime Research Professor, Ave Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Michigan (2001-2007)
Ordinary Member, The Pontifical Academy for Life
Rev. Brian W. Harrison OS, MA, STD
Associate Professor of Theology (retired), Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico; Scholar-in-Residence, Oblates of Wisdom Study Center, St. Louis, Missouri
Rev. John Hunwicke, MA (Oxon.)
Former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford; Priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham; Member, Roman Forum
Peter A. Kwasniewski PhD (Philosophy)
Professor, Wyoming Catholic College
Rev. Dr. Stephen Morgan DPhil (Oxon.)
Academies Conversion Project Leader & Oeconomus
Diocese of Portsmouth
Don Alfredo Morselli STL
Parish priest of the Archdiocese of Bologna
Rev. Richard A. Munkelt PhD (Philosophy)
Chaplain and Faculty Member, Roman Forum
Rev. John Osman MA, STL
Parish priest in the archdiocese of Birmingham,
former Catholic chaplain to the University of Cambridge
Dr Paolo Pasqualucci
Professor of Philosophy (retired),
University of Perugia
Dr Claudio Pierantoni
Professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Chile
Former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Faculty of Theology of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Member of the International Association of Patristic Studies
Dr John C. Rao D.Phil (Oxon.)
Associate Professor of History, St. John’s University (NYC)
Chairman, Roman Forum
Dr Nicholas Richardson. MA, DPhil (Oxon.)
Fellow emeritus and Sub-Warden of Merton College, Oxford
and former Warden of Greyfriars, Oxford.
Dr Joseph Shaw MA, DPhil (Oxon.) FRSA
Senior Research Fellow (Philosophy) at St Benet’s Hall,
Oxford University
Dr Anna M. Silvas FAHA,
Adjunct research fellow, University of New England,
Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Michael G. Sirilla PhD
Director of Graduate Theology,
Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio
Professor Dr Thomas Stark
Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Benedikt XVI, Heiligenkreuz
Rev. Glen Tattersall
Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, Archdiocese of Melbourne
Rector, St Aloysius’ Church, Melbourne
Rev. Dr David Watt STL, PhD (Cantab.)
Priest of the Archdiocese of Perth
Chaplain, St Philomena’s chapel, Malaga
Cyrille Dounot JCL
Professor of Law the University of Auvergne, licencié en droit canonique,
Ecclesiastical advocate, archdiocese of Lyon
Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, PhD, STD
Publisher, Newman House Press
Editor & Publisher, The Catholic Response
Rev. Nicholas L. Gregoris, STD
General Manager, The Catholic Response
This post has been updated to add several signatories who were unable to be included at the time of publication, bringing the total to 28.
Wish able to sign it also.
This is an option:
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/pope-francis-i-support-the-4-cardinals-letter-pleading-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia
Is that the same thing? Doesn’t look like it.
No, but it’s a petition in support of the dubia that the laity can sign.
Ok thanks for clarifying. I had already signed it, so good to know.
H and I have as well. We sign EVERYTHING to this effect that we can possibly get our hands on!
Praying for the Holy Father’s conversion.
Mr. Brian Edward Miles, insignificant layman in Dallas, TX
You are not insignificant! Your voice alone may not carry a significant amount of weight, but what if you, along with the other members of your parish, sent a letter? What about organizations you belong to such as RCIA, Teams of Our Lady, Catechetical instructors…….?
The worst thing we can do is Nothing!
I’ll bet there might just be one or two fairly decent writers on this discussion board who could help in drafting a sincere and earnest request.
Steve, Fr. RP?
This is a very good sign. More and more people are finding their voice. Hopefully, letters such as this will reach those who have thus far remained silent. Wouldn’t it be grand if similar efforts from the laity would begin? A letter from the faithful to their Bishop requesting clarification on AL might just force those entrusted with the deposit of the faith to act. It would also show on which side of the fence a particular Bishop sat, since so very many have thus far refused to weigh in.
That is a wonderful idea. I wonder what my Bishop would answer if I sent the Dubia to him and asked him to respond to ME? To comfort ME? To teach ME? All he ever says about ‘the crisis’ is: ” the gates of Hell have not prevailed over The Church!” Well, duh, but in the meantime Bishop, your sheep are falling over the cliff.
Give it a try. It would be interesting to know what you get back. I’d put money on it that you won’t get a clear answer.
I have been pondering the same idea.
Would anyone here at One PeterFive be able to compose such a letter that we as laity, could use and gather signatures to present to our bishop?
Same here.
My silence has gone out into all the earth. Do you not yet understand it?
Dialogue with my sock-puppet apparatchiks in Chicago and San Diego if you want to hear a voice.
Personnel is policy.
I dare say nothing more.
For my sake and the sake of my church.
In that order.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/93ac205765c14ba26802ca1ae2b17a70ab52c045515d65046188e68052396191.jpg
Stop, you’re killing me.
God bless these good and faithful Catholics. I will say a Rosary for them today. The Immaculate Conception is with us in this battle.
Pope Benedict didn’t die, he isn’t even sick. He was forced out in a coup and replaced by a Marxist usurper. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1eb511815922522d5431c096f30e450ac1fa0b40c3d7071e265f6489d16b046.jpg
He still lives at the Vatican and is watching all that goes on but can say nothing.
So now it starts in earnest. O why don’t we listen to Our Lady? May God bless these signatories as they too will feel the lash.
Better late than never.
It’s strange that I’ve never heard Dr. Scott Hahn say anything about events happening in the Church for the past 3 years. Why doesn’t he add his voice to the above statement. I know he is a very good family man and theologian, and I’ve read his conversion story. He has many people who listen to him. I think he should say something, and not remain silent in this time of crisis in the Church.
Scott Hahn is a good man. He’s also in Opus Dei. I’m not a fan of OD – too many notable similarities to the Legionaries of Christ, whom I barely escaped with my faith in tact. But I am told that among their eccentricities, they will never publicly criticize the pope. They are, in fact, sometimes credited with the editorial policy at Church Militant, since allegedly they have some influence there.
I wish I could say for certain. I’m a former student of Dr. Hahn, and I would be surprised if he said he did not share our concerns.
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”(Mk 10:18). At the risk of seeming hyper-critical, Steve, qualifying any man as, “a good man”, does suggest minimally a view into his soul, while at once we human persons do offer those views from time to time, as Trump did from the stump, for instance, when he was asked whether he ever asks God for forgiveness. You, yourself, qualify immediately your proclamation of Hahn as being, “a good man”, as the object of your very next statement, “He’s also in Opus Dei.” Are you therefore actually suggesting that you believe him to be “a good man”, because you’ve been allowed such windows into his soul or are you suggesting that he may not be such “a good man” as he has made his free will assent into the Novus Ordo Missae exclusive, Opus Dei, the mass of a Freemason, a couple Jews, and several Protestants? In caritas.
Where do you people come from? Is there a forum somewhere? Maybe a portal to another dimension where everyone is weird and nitpicky and reads NOW?
Hello again, Steve,
Two word reply—-ad hominem. In caritas.
Yes, I use ad hominem when it comes to someone who is unable to recognize the colloquial expression of “he’s a good man” for what it is, not something unscriptural. When someone accuses me of claiming I can read souls for idiomatically recognizing that a man possesses the outward characteristics of virtue. I was going to comment on your last sentence, but I couldn’t untangle it.
If you’re going to make unserious rebuttals, expect the same in kind.
Even if he meant “ascent” rather than “assent” — who knows? — the resulting pile of words means nothing.
Good evening, Steve,
In an authentic Catholic understanding of caritas, the ad hominem is always and everywhere a movement into the privation of the good that is due the other human person, regardless of the particular circumstance that you may believe that you find yourself in. The ad hominem is an attack directed toward the person himself, antithetical to the command of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ; “Love your neighbor as I have loved you.” The ad hominem, as an attack of the human person in his character, is an intrinsic evil, and therefore the act itself contains no remedy to be found from its immanence that can somehow substantiate its use, ever, nor under any circumstance.
Your comment, “Yes I use the ad hominem when it comes to someone who is unable to recognize the colloquial expression of ‘ “he’s a good man” ‘ for what it is, not something unscriptural.”, is a self-righteous attempt to somehow substantiate that which simply can never be substantiated. I made no accusations of you, rather posed possibilities, as I explained that people indeed give us those looks into their souls from time to time, as did Trump. You chose to read my comment in the very linguistic style that you chose to inflict upon my person as the ad hominem.
My point, after establishing the question of whether you had a reason to believe that you know Scott Hahn in a way that allows you to understand his character deeply, was that your comment about him was internally contradicted. Again, you said, “Scott Hahn is a good man. He’s also in Opus Dei.” You then went on to point out some weaknesses that you are aware of in Opus Dei and upped the anti with comparing them to the “Legionaries of Christ”, which you suggested almost caused you to lose your faith. As you see Opus Dei as being “too” similar to Legionaries of Christ, which you claim almost caused you to lose your faith, while at once you note that Scott Hahn is a member of Opus Dei, after suggesting that he is a “good man”, poses a contradiction on your part. Either you believe him to be a good man or you do not, as you qualify him as a member of an organization that in your words, has “too many notable similarities” to another organization which you claim, almost caused you to lose your very faith. Words are powerful, Steve, and they do impart specific meaning. So in your estimation, is he a “good man” who happens to be a member of Opus Dei and is deceived or is he not a “good man” because he is a member of Opus Dei who chooses to identify himself with an organization, that in your words, “has too many notable similarities” to another, which almost caused you to lose your faith? In caritas.
You’re not helping your case. I recommend stopping here. Word salad should be left to the Jesuits.
No “word salad” in the use of intrinsic evil, Steve. In caritas.
As hominem is not an intrinsic evil. It’s a logical fallacy. Sometimes the latter are fun, though, when there’s no logic to refute in the first place.
The “act” of the ad hominem, as it is an attack of the character of the human person that it is directed at, is an intrinsic evil, as it is an assault levied at the character of the person, not directed at that same person’s intellective argument. Because an act is fallacious, does not somehow compel it not to be an attack of the person toward whom the fallacy is levied. I’m sincerely not your enemy Steve. I love your website. In caritas.
Mark, I’m glad you’re not my enemy. But you are attacking what I’m saying, and you’re basing it on moral principles that appear to be of your own making. If you can find me something in the deposit of faith that says it’s intrinsically evil to take what appears to be an absurd argument and treat it as such, let me know.
Hi Steve,
You are precisely correct when you say that I am, “attacking what I’m saying”. It is your argument that I am approaching, not your person. What I’m “basing it on” is Aristotelian-Thomistic Metaphysics as the basis for understanding the “act”, in this case, the ad hominem approach to argument. I don’t think we are going to find anything specifically about the “ad hominem” approach to argument in our “deposit of Faith”, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
You see, when you believe my argument to be “absurd”, treat my argument “as such” and not my person. Go after my argument, not me personally. Saint Thomas Aquinas gave us the basis for understanding “being”, through his metaphysical framework, such that we, in spite of our miserable human creatureliness, can know God, apart from Divine Revelation, through rightly ordered reason.
The nature of “intrinsic evil” is such that the “act”, under any and all circumstances (read as “situation ethics”), regardless of “circumstance/s” involved, is the “privation of the due good”. In the case of the ad hominem attack of the person, the due good is the respect of the human person, in caritas, and an “assault”, if you will of the person’s argument. I hope this helps. In caritas.
OK, Mark. Whatever you say. If you want to continue this, you’ll have to do it without me.
God bless you and yours’, Steve. We’ll chat again, sometime. In caritas.
He said good man not perfect man
This must explain why whenever I attempt to share an article from OnePeterFive or LifeSiteNews they remove my comment. We are supposed to be faithful Catholic adults discussing with other adults. Their commenters are treated like children in this way and I’d rather have nothing to do with the site anymore. Anyway, my concern is with what Pope Francis is preaching, not so much with what Cardinal Dolan is up to.
Yeah. We get it. The American bishops are bad.
FWIW, I’ve been blocked from commenting on CM for over a year. I asked for an explanation and never got one.
Reason #1,637 why we are fortunate that Opus Dei did not exist during the reign of John XXII.
The editorial policy at Church Militant seems to be undergoing a subtle change. Has anyone else noticed this?
Yes
I talked to a priest this morning about the dubia and Amoris Laetitia and as with most priests and bishops, he didn’t want to think anything against the Pope. Basically he wanted to interpret all of this in the best way possible. He is a conservative priest and seems to believe that this is only stirring up scandal and is harmful to our faith.
When I mentioned bishops in Chicago and San Diego using it as an excuse to let anyone feel okay receiving communion, he merely said that they were confused and interpreted AL incorrectly. I responded that this is EXACTLY WHY the four Cardinals created the Dubia, to get clarity and remove confusion and misinterpretation. So I asked him why Pope Francis wouldn’t answer the Dubia? He had no good answer. He tried for an answer, but in the end you could tell that he knew, the Pope needs to answer the Dubia for the sake of the Church.
Maybe all the housewives who have had multiple c-sections should send in a statement of support, given that the corrupt tribunals nullify their valid marriages and the Pope calls them rabbits.
Not that I’m angry, or anything.
Agreed, Thank God for the C section.
“…by virtue of their exaggerated or one-sided emphasis on “mercy”, “pastoral accompaniment”, and “mitigating circumstances”
I should rather say it is AL’s promotion of a false mercy that threatens to eclipse a true understanding of the Divine Mercy of which we are so much in need, as Jesus said to St Faustina: “Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy” (Diary, 300).
You cannot put too much emphasis on true mercy. It is not a true mercy, but a false mercy that teaches you can be forgiven without repenting, you can be sanctified while holding on to sin, you can enter Heaven without doing the will of God.
I pray the Holy Father heeds this respectful yet firm plea by all these faithful servants of the Church so in order to prevent any further confusion and damage. It pains me to see Bishop going against Bishop, including many men I greatly respect.
This support is great news for faithful Catholics.
Our church has truly been like a ship without a rudder – we have been drifting in the sea of deception and false teaching. We have been praying unceasingly and we know that truth will win under the watchful eye and intercession of our Mother Mary.
The feast of the Immaculate Conception was a great day for this announcement to be made.
May an increasing number of cardinals and bishops speak up in defense of the true gospel.