Like there’s anything left to clarify…
Four “Cardinals” officially ask “Pope” to Clarify Amoris Laetitia — Francis Refuses to Answer!
[UPDATE 15-NOV-16: Interview with “Cardinal” Burke on Challenge to Francis]
One may say it’s an Ottaviani Intervention for Novus Ordos: “Cardinals” Raymond Burke, Joachim Meisner, Walter Brandmüller, and Carlo Caffarra have taken the formal step of submitting an official set of dubia (“doubts”) to the “Pope”, presenting him with five specific questions pertaining to the disastrous and controversial “Apostolic” Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which he released in April of this year. These five clear questions demand five clear answers: yes or no. The document, which is addressed to Francis and entitled, “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia“, was originally submitted on September 19, 2016 (a carbon copy was sent to CDF head “Cardinal” Gerhard Muller). It has been made public only now because at this point it is clear that, no answering having been received in almost two months, Francis simply refuses to respond to the questions.
The following links give the full text of the dubia submitted, including a foreword and an explanatory note of the “cardinals”, as well as some additional information:
- “Seeking Clarity.” The Appeal of Four Cardinals To the Pope (Sandro Magister)
- Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia (Edward Pentin)
- 4 Cardinals OFFICIALLY ask Pope Francis to Clarify Amoris Laetitia (Rorate Caeli)
- Pope fails to reply to 4 cardinals’ urgent plea for clarification so they go public (Life Site)
Submitting dubia to the Pope or to the Holy Office is nothing unusual in the real Catholic Church. The Magisterium has long clarified Church teaching in this manner, and many such examples of the Holy Office before Vatican II (then headed by the Pope himself) answering in the affirmative or in the negative, sometimes with further elaboration, can be found in the collection of magisterial documents known as “Denzinger” (Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma).
So, in a way, this is standard procedure. The big story here is not that some “cardinals” have asked the “Holy See” for clarification on a specific issue — the big story is that Francis won’t respond. A number of other petitions on Amoris Laetitia had been submitted to Francis before, but never had any Novus Ordo cardinals been involved. Here are some of the previous pleas to the “Pope”, which likewise, of course, fell on deaf ears:
- “Plea to the Pope”: VIPs ask Francis to get his Act together
- 45 Novus Ordo Scholars Condemn Amoris Laetitia as Heretical
Why does Francis refuse to answer not only laymen or lower clerics but even now his very own “cardinals”, when at the same time he writes personal letters to all sorts of people, including an Italian Lesbian educator and hell’s apostle himself, Hans Kung? The reason is simple: He can only lose by answering — he has absolutely nothing to gain. Sound familiar (see Lk 14:6)? His position thrives precisely on ambiguity, on vagueness, on not being clear about what is or isn’t permitted, so as to cause the greatest possible confusion among his adherents and permitting chaos to ensue, while always leaving for himself a convenient loophole of plausible deniability in case he should be challenged on it. Thus, being pinned down on the matter is something he refuses to do — it would undermine his entire modus operandi and tear the mask off his deceptive strategy.
Keep in mind: Francis could very easily have been clear and straightforward in his exhortation to begin with. There was no need to be ambiguous or vague about anything in Amoris Laetitia. But he wrote it in such confusing fashion on purpose, and he didn’t do so only to now give it all up by answering direct questions with a clear yes or no. Not going to happen. These “cardinals” want to spoil his game, and he won’t fall for it. He wants to have it both ways; he wants people to be in doubt about what Amoris Laetitia does and doesn’t permit.
Remember, too, that it is Francis who said that to insist on “yes” or “no” is a black-and-white morality that is “not Christian”, so he is actually being consistent here:
- No More Black and White: Francis’ 50 Shades of Grey
- Francis: Those who say “This or Nothing” are Heretics, not Catholics
Against this mumbo-jumbo, our Blessed Lord had rather straightforward Words: “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Mt 5:37).
But really, all this talk about a “clarification” of Amoris Laetitia still being necessary is silly. Francis has long clarified, more or less explicitly, that his exhortation is meant to grant unrepentant adulterers access to the Novus Ordo sacraments, at least where the local clergy deem it appropriate. Here’s a quick review of where and how Francis has already given that much-sought-after “clarification”:
- Francis confirms: Amoris Laetitia permits Adulterers to receive ‘Communion’
- Francis to “Archbishop” Forte: Communion for Adulterers through the Back Door!
- Francis confirms: “YES”, Sacraments for Adulterers now an Option
It is abundantly clear why Francis, when confronted directly and challenged to give a clear yes-or-no answer, refuses to do so, instead retreating into his corner and pouting, like a little child who says, “I’m not talking to you.” We can only pray that those who have still not woken up to the fact that Francis is an Antipope, will finally figure it out, become real Catholics, and denounce him for the dangerous charlatan and spiritual criminal he is.
Image source: lifesitenews.com
License: fair use
These “Cardinals,” in a very real way are worse than Bergoglio. Their continued membership in the false church of Vatican II, and their steadfast submission to antipope Francis props the whole thing up and gives it a deceptive legitimacy. They are shameless people who value their own careers rather than the Truth who is Our Lord Jesus Christ. How will they fare on Judgement Day?
Thumbs up. So true.
Very true. The whole Novus Ordo membership. from the top down to the pew punter, “props the whole thing up and gives it a deceptive legitimacy.”
Why’d they phrase it as a clarification instead of as an official warning? Heretic (anti-)popes should be officially warned before deposition; this is Salza, Siscoe, et al.’s opinion, at least.
It sounds smoother. And perhaps they realize that if they are true cardinals and Francis is a true Pope, then they cannot issue a canonical warning against him.
Thy couldn’t issue a warning even if they were “true cardinals and Francis is a true Pope”?
Not one that would have any sort of canonical significance. It would just be a “private” warning, so to speak, of no greater authority than if the local janitor issued one.
St. Paul’s rebuking of St. Peter was public, though.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean “private” as meaning “secret” or “not public”, I meant “private” as in, “given by private individuals”, i.e. ecclesiastical authority does not enter into the picture, since EVERYONE — from janitor to cardinal secretary of state — is inferior to the Pope in authority.
Since (1) everyone is inferior to the Pope and yet (2) St. Paul was justified in his rebuke of the Pope of his days, St. Peter, it seems to follow that, in the Church as well as in every society, there exists an informal “political” domain beyond and above the law which sometimes is needed to be invoked as ultima ratio in dire situations that are not covered by the legal framework.
Can we conclude from this that it is permissible for prelates to not only rebuke a deviant Pope with words, but also to use social pressure, intimidation, threats, blackmail, and perhaps even physical violence, in order to force him to remain in line and comply with Church doctrine? What are the limits here?
Since a Pope is capable of sinning, and since we have the general duty to admonish the sinner, it is clear that even a Pope can (and possibly must) be rebuked when he sins. This can be done by anyone, whether it be a cardinal or the guy in charge of the broom closet at a chapel in Siberia.
The same is true for a Pope who, as a private teacher, deviates from the Church’s doctrine (although not to the point of public heresy — that would change everything). But the point is that such rebukes or warnings are entirely of a private nature and per se have no canonical relevance. But people like John Salza act as though cardinals have canonically relevant authority over the Pope. This isn’t true.
I understand. So this is just fraternal correction which itself is always bound to the moral law.
Yes, I think that would be correct.
The end of my story over at Spero News shows a real life example of “Amoris Leatitia” being used as a reason for a diocesan staff person to fail to practice the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. This admonishment could result in protecting children from being given scandal, or could result in reconciliation of a marriage breakup.