Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Maggyie]

man oh man. When you have a problem in a relationship, you have to confront the person and work it out. This habit of the Holy Father's of talking about people in press interviews is passive aggressive and gossipy. It's like the stereotype of priests being a little "rhymes with witchy" with each other. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

So, after cancelling his meeting with cardinals (of which there is precedent for), Pope Francis proceeded to have an interview with a paper about the Dubia and decried legalism.

I love the Holy Father, but unless anyone can provide a solid insight or missing factor, I'm afraid this is just petty. The cardinals were simply asking for a clarification. There's no need to humiliate them in a paper and essentially call them pharisees after you've refused to speak with them.

What is your source? 

Here appears to be some of the actual quote. 

http://www.onepeterfive.com/francis-references-the-dubia-some-see-only-black-white/

At least from that I do not see how his comments humiliate anyone.

If a group of cardinals can suggest that the pope's teaching is confusing (and I do not particularly think it is), then I do not see why Pope Francis cannot criticize the cardinals for demanding that certain things be black and white. It is all out in the public now, which is exactly what the cardinals asked for by making the letter public in the first place.

It's not even clear that the "legalism" comment was directed towards the 4 cardinals. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace, if you are Pope Francis, how do you answer the dubia?

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Peace, if you are Pope Francis, how do you answer the dubia?

Perhaps I would answer it exactly the same way that you answered my question.

For the first question, no, there has not been any change concerning that matter. In other words, they cannot be admitted to communion. If I had meant to change such a long-standing practice of the Church I would not have done so in a footnote, and I would have at least made one single direct reference to it. If and when I change that practice it will be abundantly clear to you.

I am on cell so will have to get to the others later.

[Nihil Obstat]

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

Perhaps I would answer it exactly the same way that you answered my question.

For the first question, no, there has not been any change concerning that matter. In other words, they cannot be admitted to communion. If I had meant to change such a long-standing practice of the Church I would not have done so in a footnote, and I would have at least made one single direct reference to it. If and when I change that practice it will be abundantly clear to you.

I am on cell so will have to get to the others later.

So assuming you are Pope Francis, and your answer to the first dubium is negative, that implies to me that confusion such as this needs to be addressed immediately and effectively (and there have been a handful of others, some from other bishops and cardinals rather than the Pope itself, which have been also discussed, and which I have not dug back up at this time). Widespread confusion is a major part of the dubia's being addressed in the first place.

Cut and paste from Rorate (navigate to the original article to use the links contained therein):

For the record: Pope Francis confirms Amoris Laetitia allows communion for adulterers

 

 

 

September 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation.

The Spanish original of the letter from the Pope is here

The Spanish original of the bishops’ directive is here

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here

 

The story was first published yesterday by the Spanish-language Catholic news service InfoCatolica and an anonymous Argentinean Catholic blogger whose blog is known as “The Wanderer.” The blogger has published photostatic copies of the original documents, and LifeSite has been informed that the blogger’s source is a priest in Buenos Aires. After consulting with sources, LifeSite believes that the blogger is trustworthy and that the copies of the letters are authentic.

The document by the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires interprets for priests in the region the 8th chapter of Amoris Laetitia on how to deal with couples who are remarried after divorces but have not been granted annulments. It follows closely the language of the most controversial parts of the papal exhortation including the infamous footnote 351, which opens the door to what Cardinal Raymond Burke and other faithful bishops have called “sacrilege.”

The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”

The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”

Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”

The blogger who published the documents writes that the priests of the diocese met Thursday to discuss the matter. At the meeting, some priests were openly critical of both the bishops’ directive and the Pope’s document. The blogger adds that Cardinal Mario Poli was present at the meeting with a canon lawyer and that both contradicted the bishops’ directive, "clarifying that the Eucharist can only be received by those divorced and remarried who live together as brother and sister, maintaining chastity."

The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.

Neither the Vatican spokesman nor the chancery office of Buenos Aires were available for comment on this story.

LifeSite Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits contributed to this report.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

So assuming you are Pope Francis, and your answer to the first dubium is negative, that implies to me that confusion such as this needs to be addressed immediately and effectively (and there have been a handful of others, some from other bishops and cardinals rather than the Pope itself, which have been also discussed, and which I have not dug back up at this time). Widespread confusion is a major part of the dubia's being addressed in the first place.

Cut and paste from Rorate (navigate to the original article to use the links contained therein):

For the record: Pope Francis confirms Amoris Laetitia allows communion for adulterers

 

 

 

September 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation.

The Spanish original of the letter from the Pope is here

The Spanish original of the bishops’ directive is here

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here

LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here

 

The story was first published yesterday by the Spanish-language Catholic news service InfoCatolica and an anonymous Argentinean Catholic blogger whose blog is known as “The Wanderer.” The blogger has published photostatic copies of the original documents, and LifeSite has been informed that the blogger’s source is a priest in Buenos Aires. After consulting with sources, LifeSite believes that the blogger is trustworthy and that the copies of the letters are authentic.

The document by the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires interprets for priests in the region the 8th chapter of Amoris Laetitia on how to deal with couples who are remarried after divorces but have not been granted annulments. It follows closely the language of the most controversial parts of the papal exhortation including the infamous footnote 351, which opens the door to what Cardinal Raymond Burke and other faithful bishops have called “sacrilege.”

The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”

The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”

Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”

The blogger who published the documents writes that the priests of the diocese met Thursday to discuss the matter. At the meeting, some priests were openly critical of both the bishops’ directive and the Pope’s document. The blogger adds that Cardinal Mario Poli was present at the meeting with a canon lawyer and that both contradicted the bishops’ directive, "clarifying that the Eucharist can only be received by those divorced and remarried who live together as brother and sister, maintaining chastity."

The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.

Neither the Vatican spokesman nor the chancery office of Buenos Aires were available for comment on this story.

LifeSite Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits contributed to this report.

Sure. But people in the Church get confused on all kinds of issues all the time. Whether the pope thinks that issue is best addressed directly by way of a formal response to the letter, by doing an interview, by ignoring the dubia and letting people come to the correct conclusion themselves, or calling for an Ecumenical council, is something that I am fine with leaving up to his discretion as pope. It ain't like Jesus gave a crystal clear unambiguous answer to every question. 

Others disagree, and I guess it is fine by me if people truly feel like what they are doing is for the good of the Chuch.

[Nihil Obstat]

But the broader point is that it is the Pope's own writing and statements which are the root cause of the confusion. The point of the dubia is that 1. there is a faithful Catholic response to the confusion, 2. we know what that response is, 3. it is within the Pope's authority to give that response, so 4. ...what is the hold up?

And in fact there is an obvious answer to the reason for the hold up, but we are all avoiding strenuously having to contemplate it.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Anomaly]

Out of mild curiosity, Nihil...

It seems the Pope is saying that only in a narrow set of circumstances, where the parties have tried and are unable (not failed) to get an annulment, and there is pastoral concern for children's upbringing in the Faith, a Bishop may make a local ruling to allow the couple to receive communion.   Is that fairly accurate?

[Nihil Obstat]

14 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Out of mild curiosity, Nihil...

It seems the Pope is saying that only in a narrow set of circumstances, where the parties have tried and are unable (not failed) to get an annulment, and there is pastoral concern for children's upbringing in the Faith, a Bishop may make a local ruling to allow the couple to receive communion.   Is that fairly accurate?

That certainly seems to be one possibility envisaged by Amoris Laetitia. I would hesitate to say that this is the only set of circumstances being contemplated. Pope Francis does not seem to want to bind himself to anything quite so exact.

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

But the broader point is that it is the Pope's own writing and statements which are the root cause of the confusion.

Is the Bible the root cause of the Protestant reformation? The fact that there is confusion about a document does not mean that the document or it's author must be the cause.

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The point of the dubia is that 1. there is a faithful Catholic response to the confusion, 2. we know what that response is, 3. it is within the Pope's authority to give that response, so 4. ...what is the hold up?

Why don't you go to Italy and ask him yourself? 

Perhaps the pope feels that the questions deserve more than a simple yes or no. Perhaps he would like to take more than two months to give them a more nuanced answer. Perhaps he believes that he has already made his position on those issues sufficiently clear and does not want to set a bad precedent by allowing people to nitpick over footnotes. Perhaps he believes that the cardinals are missing the forest through the trees. Perhaps he doesn't care for people questioning his fidelity to Church teaching with a passive-aggressive letter asking for clarity as a facade. 

There could be any number of reasons, and when you or I become pope we will have our own reasons and timing for responding to our cardinals. 

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

And in fact there is an obvious answer to the reason for the hold up, but we are all avoiding strenuously having to contemplate it.

Here we go again. What is the obvious answer?

I am not sure what you are implying, but if we give the cardinals the benefit of the doubt as to their motives, we can do the same for Pope Francis. 

[Nihil Obstat]

One obvious answer, which **none of us want to be true** (insert additional emphasis here), is that Pope Francis himself has written, believes, and wishes to put into practice in the Church, a moral and theological error. 

There are other possibilities, all of which we would prefer to be true. But this is the one that absolutely must be avoided at any cost.

That is why the dubia are a gift to the Holy Father. Our four cardinals have in effect written to Pope Francis saying "please tell us this is not true", for his own sake, for the sake of the Church and us the Church Militant, and for their own sake too, bearing the heavy responsibilities of their episcopal office.

[Anomaly]

30 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

That certainly seems to be one possibility envisaged by Amoris Laetitia. I would hesitate to say that this is the only set of circumstances being contemplated. Pope Francis does not seem to want to bind himself to anything quite so exact.

Is your issue with that set of circumstances and allowing the Eucharist, or others construing other circumstances allowing the Eucharist with this as an example?  

[Nihil Obstat]

26 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Is your issue with that set of circumstances and allowing the Eucharist, or others construing other circumstances allowing the Eucharist with this as an example?  

*My* issue is, in itself, irrelevant. But the submitted dubia are broad enough to cover other foreseeable circumstances.

[Quasar]

30 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

One obvious answer, which **none of us want to be true** (insert additional emphasis here), is that Pope Francis himself has written, believes, and wishes to put into practice in the Church, a moral and theological error. 

If this were true, wouldn't it mean that, against the promises of the Gospel, the Church was not preserved from error?  Wouldn't it basically mean the Church is not the one true Faith?  What other interpretations can there be?

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Quasar said:

If this were true, wouldn't it mean that, against the promises of the Gospel, the Church was not preserved from error?  Wouldn't it basically mean the Church is not the one true Faith?  What other interpretations can there be?

No, it would not necessarily mean that. Nothing has been proposed infallibly.