Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

It is a sad time when dubia which should be so easily answered instead trigger such aggressive criticism. Just wait, because my script says we are in for a lot more.

[KnightofChrist]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well. Whether the King is wise or unwise to respond, I will leave up to the King. How many times did Jesus respond to a question with a question himself, or a parable?

Popes may not answer questions presented by Cardinals all the time. We have no idea. We would never know about them unless they are made public.

The point here is that if the Pope has decided not to answer them, I am not sure how releasing them to the public benefits anyone. It comes across as more of a public protest more than anything. To me it makes the Church look dis-unified.

There are many of the faithful that want these questions answered. I am thankful the questions are being asked even after going unanswered in private by other cardinals also. The confusion exist, the confusion is great, the confusion is public. It is not something that can continue to go unanswered and unclarified anyway. So at some point the questions will have to be answered by the Pope anyway and the longer they go unanswered the longer the confusion exist, expands and takes root.

[Nihil Obstat]

As stated, they consider this to be an act of charity and justice. They gave their reasons for believing so. One should not read between the lines to construct a narrative of dissent and rebellion.

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

And the letter they wrote indicates with pristine clarity why the Holy Father's silence compels them to present the dubia more forcefully. It is a manner on which silence is simply not sufficient, according to them. You are asking questions which have already been answered,

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.

All of this could have been avoided very easily if you had simply chosen to answer the question instead of responding with "That question has already been answered. You are being intentionally obtuse." If you had enlightened us all with the answer that is so obvious to you, then perhaps one of us may have answered "Thank you for answering the question, Nihil."

Or you could have answered "I do not want to answer that question." Perfectly fine by me.

Quote

and it seems to me on a personal level that you are doing so in order that further extraneous answers give you more reason to impugn the motives of those who are involved. I hope I am wrong, but you are not exactly friendly when such topics come up.  

I do not know what their motives for making the letter public are, nor do I have any particular problem with them writing the letter.
I think that the effect of making the letter public could be negative, despite whatever good intentions they may have.

31 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It is a sad time when dubia which should be so easily answered instead trigger such aggressive criticism. Just wait, because my script says we are in for a lot more.

Perhaps the Pope should have just answered the dubia by saying "The answers to those questions can be found in my encyclical. I think that you are being intentionally obtuse and trying to impugn my motives by asking the questions."

That would not get anyone anywhere, now would it?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Peace

[Luigi]

53 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It is a sad time when dubia which should be so easily answered instead trigger such aggressive criticism. Just wait, because my script says we are in for a lot more.

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. 

[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.