The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Analysis: Serious and unserious allegations of papal heresy

The arguments advanced by the 19 authors of an open letter to the bishops of the world, argues Ed Condon of CNA, do not appear to make a legal, or consistent, argument against the Holy Father regarding the specific charge of canonical heresy.

Pope Francis speaks during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican May 1, 2019. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Washington D.C., May 2, 2019 / 04:15 pm (CNA).- On April 30, a group of 19 Catholics released an open letter to the bishops of the world, accusing the pope of heresy and demanding that the college of bishops act to make him “adjure.”

According to the letter’s signers, which include a handful of prominent academics, Pope Francis has committed the canonical crime of heresy, which entails publicly and obstinately doubting or denying credenda teachings – those Catholics are required, according to canon law  “to believe with divine and Catholic faith.”

But despite the letter’s strident claims, the arguments advanced by its authors do not appear to make a legal, or consistent, argument against the Holy Father regarding the specific charge of canonical heresy.

Despite the insistence that the pope has committed the “canonical delict of heresy,” the letter’s authors appear unable to distinguish between the crime of heresy and what their letter actually appears to allege – material heresy.

Material heresy describes a situation in which a person has, in word or deed, manifested an opinion in doubt of or contradiction to a truth to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Such a situation should, of course, be corrected by the Church. But the “evidence” presented in the letter appears, to many initial critics, to amount to little more than inferences open to interpretation.

Committing the canonical crime of heresy requires the obstinate doubt or denial of a credenda teaching, and like any crime, has to be clearly manifested in the external forum and not merely inferred to be a person’s inner disposition.

Legally, the criterion of obstinacy is demonstrated when a legitimate correction or warning is demonstrably rejected. The letter’s authors insist that the pope’s obstinacy – or “pertinacity” as they prefer – is demonstrated ipso facto by statements from the pope which he should, by his education experience and office, know better than to make.

The letter’s most substantive theological critique of the pope centers on the well-known controversies over some of the language in the 2015 Synod on the Family and the subsequent apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia. But the letter’s authors take no account of the number of bishops and theologians, including the pope himself, who contend that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family.

While the letter may be an honest expression of opinion by the 19 signers, few experts have concluded that it serves to demonstrate the obstinate manifestation of heretical beliefs by the pope in law or fact.

Similarly, in their treatment of the pope’s signing of a declaration on interreligious cooperation in Abu Dhabi, which they also insist is heretical, the signers note that while the pope has offered both explanations and context for the document, “none of these explanations offers an unambiguous interpretation that is compatible with the Catholic faith.”.

Canonists commenting on the letter, apart from the single canon lawyer to sign it, have agreed that this does not meet the standards of an obstinate, explicit and external rejection of credenda teaching.

There is no legal requirement that the pope offer the letter’s signers an explanation of his behavior sufficient to meet their own standards, nor does canon law recognize the expression of their own concerns as a canonically meaningful warning.

Given the insistence of the letter that the pope is not only in material heresy, but guilty of the canonical delict, the apparent gap in legal understanding detracts significantly from the letter’s gravity.

Other papal “actions that indicate a rejection of truths of the faith” proposed by the letter consist of a long list of individuals Francis is accused of promoting or associating with. Further supposedly “indicative” proof appears even more tenuous, with the shape of a liturgical staff once used by Francis termed a “satanic stang” by the letter.

If support for the letter’s legal premise has been absent, its reception among theologians has largely been one of disappointment.

Though many have noted that some of the issues raised in it are ongoing sources of concern and confusion for Catholics that would certainly benefit from an unambiguous clarification by the pope, by grounding their complaints in the “canonical crime of heresy,” the letters authors have been seen by many to work from a deeply flawed premise.

The attempt to yoke together serious issues, like the language of parts of Amoris Laetitia, with trivial complaints, like the shape of a staff in a liturgical procession, has largely been met with skepticism.

Many have observed that the letter’s scatter-gun approach to topics as varied as theological language and episcopal appointments lessens the impact of its concerns, even as it attempts to amplify them.

For those with serious, even legitimate concerns about the clarity of teaching in some papal writings, this letter and its invocation of canonical heresy may prove to be an unwelcome distraction.

What is not disputed is that a formal public accusation of heresy against the pope by a group of Catholics, including clerics and academics associated with Catholic universities and institutions, cannot simply be ignored.

Whatever the document’s intentions, it does seem to represent a direct and public appeal to the college of bishops against what is explicitly termed a criminal exercise of the papal teaching office.

While canon lawyers often debate the hypothetical possibility and legal repercussions of an heretical pope, the discussion of what may or should be done about the challenge to papal authority by the letter’s authors may prove to be anything but theoretical.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 207 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

60 Comments

    • JN, Easter Divine Mercy First Friday and Saturday blessings and graces!

      Not sure what the three part case study demonstrates other than it is wrong and sets up/continues straw arguments to persuade for a non-existent reality and victory. There are so many problems with the three that it is way beyond addressing here. AL is logically wrong. For example, it misquotes and misuses GS, VS,viz.:

      AL footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

      AL’s version of GS 51 appears to be this (AL 298/329-GS-51):

      ….. But where the ADULTEROUS intimacy of married life is broken off, its ADULTEROUS faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of ADULTEROUS fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

      Therefore, AL footnote 329 SHOULD, it seems, read:

      In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of the ADULTEROUS intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that the ADULTEROUS faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

      Or further:

      AL footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

      AL footnote 329 should, it seems, read:

      In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of the ADULTEROUS intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that the adulterous faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

      ACTUAL:

      AL Para. 298 Footnote 329: JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

      Or again:

      Someone in another posting which I cannot locate presently, proffered.

      Bottom line.
      Be like Jesus.
      Be merciful and loving.
      Then, “Go and sin no more.”
      Pretty clear to me.
      “Brother and sister,” for the sake of the kids.
      Then, “Go and sin no more.”
      For my eternal salvation.
      Do I understand it correctly?

      So looking at AL, this Teaching of the Holy Spirit before and in Saint John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, AL 298 LOGICALLY changes to this:

      Be like Jesus.
      Be merciful and loving.
      Then, “Go and sin no more.”
      Pretty clear to me.
      “Brother and sister,” FOR THE SAKE OF THE KIDS, NO LONGER.
      Then, THUS, “go and REMAIN IN THE SIN”, for the sake of ADULTEROUS faithfulness and fruitfulness.
      For my eternal salvation.

      Do I understand it correctly?

      There also is, in AL and the author of the blog/study, the general use of straw subjective arguments, id est, of presenting when someone does “x” then “y”, instead of, how does “x” relate to “y” objectively, in all dimensions. Another problem with this is, that the moral reality is not limited to “x”. The morality being proposed in AL and the blog/study author? is ‘subjective/ly’ based – which the Holy Spirit Taught anew in Veritatis Splendor is wrong and sinful.

      For example, Both AL and the writer speak of misunderstanding the nature of sin or culpability because of a person ‘flaunting’ their sin or not. Firstly, whether there is subjective flaunting is irrelevant to the objective flaunting of the Beloved’s holiness and remaining free of sin, especially deadly. But AL and the blog writer logically present morality as simply, if there is no subjective culpability/flaunting there is no evil or sin and thus as long as the sinner does not ‘flaunt’ their sin, they must be accompanied to Holy Communion because they ‘have a true marriage’, ‘are doing the best they can’, they ‘are even doing God’s Will’. Lies, damnable lies, sold by satan and bought by so many.

      Everyone can find something that seems correct, or tickles their ears, viz.:
      From: https://catholicstrength.com/tag/the-controversial-chapter-8-of-amoris-laetitia/

      In his great encyclical on Catholic morality, Veritatis Splendor, Saint Pope John Paul II specifically foresaw and rejected the type of argument put forth in Amoris Laetia (303) quoted above. He stated very clearly that

      “It would be a very serious error … to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man.” (VS 103)

      Still further, Saint John Paul II stated:

      “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.” (VS 81)

      Pope John Paul II explained in Veritatis Splendor the clear Catholic teaching that an intrinsically evil act cannot be creatively transformed into something willed by God under concrete circumstances (the suggestion put forth in AL 303 and 301).

      “The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever.” (Veritatis Splendor 67)

      “The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception.” (VS 52)

      By trying to claim that an intrinsically evil act like adultery, fornication or other “irregular situation” may be the most generous response a person can give to God at a certain moment in his life, Pope Francis has embraced situation ethics and has strayed far from the firm and authentic foundations of Catholic morality. Pope John Paul II had already warned that such an argument is clearly erroneous.

    • oops:

      Bottom line.
      Be like Jesus.
      Be merciful and loving.
      Then, “Go and sin no more.”
      Pretty clear to me.
      “Brother and sister,” for the sake of the kids.
      Then, “Go and sin no more.”
      For my eternal salvation.
      Do I understand it correctly?

      So looking at AL, this Teaching of the Holy Spirit before and in Saint John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, AL 298 LOGICALLY changes to this:

      Be like Jesus.
      Be merciful and loving.
      Then, “Go and sin SOME more.”
      Pretty clear to me.
      “Brother and sister,” FOR THE SAKE OF THE KIDS, NO LONGER.
      Then, THUS, “go and REMAIN IN THE SIN”, for the sake of ADULTEROUS faithfulness and fruitfulness.
      For my eternal salvation.

      Do I understand it correctly

      Easter mercy blessings of First Friday & Saturday!

      • All the defenders of the Pope seem to fall into two camps: they either use ad hominem arguments claiming the signators are light weight academics and shouldn’t be taken seriously, or the they have some respect for the signators, but say these people have gotten it wrong. The first group denigrates the qualifications of the writers without giving us a list of their own stellar academic career; the worst in this camp is EWTN’s Jimmy Aiken, who apparently has autodidact himself into a self conferred degree in theology and canon law. The second group, as the writer of this article, just wave all the arguments away with generalized, unreferenced statements such as “Canonists commenting on the letter, apart from the single canon lawyer to sign it, have agreed that this does not meet the standards of an obstinate, explicit and external rejection of credenda teaching.” So who are these canonists? Name them and give us a link to some of these commentaries, or at least cite them.
        I would like to see a detailed response to this letter, clearly refuting its arguments by referring to Church documents spanning the whole bimillennial teaching of the church. Perhaps someone at the Vatican could take some time away from all the pressing secular issues they seem entranced with; mainly Global Warming/Weather change? and the destruction of communities in Africa and Asia through the importation of their young into Europe. They could lower their carbon footprint by decreasing the number of flights taken around the world to ever diminishing crowds and spend some time explaining to the remaining few who still believe in the faith why these people are wrong.

        • Outstanding comment, Gabriella. I would add only that none of the self-anointed defenders can cite even a single Church document or authority to substantiate their claims that the 19 scholars are wrong. Moreover, none of these defenders seems to realize that the accusation of heresy rests on the earlier Correctio Filialis that goes into detailed and precise explanation of how and why Bergoglio is heretical.

    • Looks like this is utter nonsense. In order to adopt this “hot take,” one must assume that Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP (for example) just doesn’t “understand.”

    • In the “Sarah case,” Sarah has an even more immediate problem than the inability to receive communion: She is in a dangerous home situation with Mohamed (and not because of his adherence of Islam), and needs to flee it *immediately*.

      After which, failing a change of heart by Mohamed, she needs to initiate civil divorce proceedings, and seek canonical regularization of her status in the Church.

      There is not a single previous pope, or Doctor of the Church, who would have granted Sarah communion so long as she remained in this situation.

      • Richard Malcolm:

        It looks like you may have missed some of the nuances mentioned in those blog posts. When you say Sarah ‘needs’ to flee immediately, initiate civil divorce proceedings, etc., you seem to be ignoring or making light of her predicament. Had there been no children involved, she could very well have easily walked away. But she has four children, – two of whose father is Mohammed.
        Fleeing or initiating civil divorce proceedings implies that you are forcing her to take (on) – to quote from that first blog post –
        “the risk of two of her children growing up without their father (Mohammed) at home. (Or leave and risk two of her children growing up without their mother at home {⇒ lesser chances of those children benefiting from a Catholic upbringing} in case the custody of Mohammed’s children is given to him in the event of a divorce.)]

        Wouldn’t you be replacing her conscience if you insist that she has to flee / initiate a divorce?

        This of course does not mean that because of her predicament it is okay for her to have sex with Mohammed. In fact, even saying this would misconstrue the situation, because throughout the blog posts, it is repeatedly made clear that at no point does Sarah want to have sex, but that she wants to remain only as sister and brother with Mohammed.

        The first blog post has some ‘FAQs’ too – which sheds further light on her situation, – do review them.

        • This is nonsense. No one is replacing her conscience. Conscience cannot go against the law of God. I cannot say that my conscience tells me to kill so I can kill.

          Commission of a moral evil cannot be nullified by an appeal to conscience.

          Sarah endangers her kids by remaining in the marriage.

          • ‘Conscience cannot go against the law of God. I cannot say that my conscience tells me to kill so I can kill.’

            Sarah’s conscience is not telling her it is okay to commit adulterous acts. If that had been the position taken by the blog author, it would quite obviously be wrong. What weighs ‘more’ on her conscience is the welfare of the children – material, psychological, and spiritual (in case she loses custody of at least two of her children by Mohammed in the event of a messy divorce).

            ‘Commission of a moral evil cannot be nullified by an appeal to conscience.’

            Of course. But again, there seems to be a misunderstanding. After her conversion experience, when Sarah wishes to act in accordance with what the Church has given as an option (live as sister and brother), but Mohammed forces himself on her, how can *she* be accused of committing a moral evil or deliberately choosing to engage in adulterous acts? As noted already, in line with CCC 1859, without a consent *sufficiently* deliberate to be a personal choice, no *mortal* sin can be attributed to the woman when her partner forces himself on her under threat of a divorce, whose consequences on the children she fears.

            What is the obex preventing absolution?

            ‘Sarah endangers her kids by remaining in the marriage.’

            If she chooses to commit adulterous acts, yes. But that statement does not necessarily hold if she does not so choose, but wishes to remain with Mohammed for the sake of the children’s welfare only as sister and brother. If you say she *has* to leave, then you are saying she *has* to risk imperiling the children’s psychological, spiritual and mental welfare and also risk losing custody of at least two of her children by Mohammed. While you are certainly entitled to take that position, is there any Church document/teaching which says that under such circumstances, a woman *has* to (mandatorily / on pain of mortal sin) take on all of those risks?

            Do you see the point? ‘Weighing’ the risks and choosing to leave or stay falls within the domain of the woman’s conscience. We cannot dictate and replace her conscience in such cases and say that the *only* licit option is for her to leave. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this implies saying that it is okay for her to commit adulterous acts – please read the blog post carefully again: that is NOT what is being stated. Choosing to stay in order to deliberately commit adulterous acts would obviously be wrong. But choosing to stay only as sister and brother for the sake of the children’s welfare with the risk of being forced to reluctantly submit to sex does not constitute a consent for mortal sin *sufficiently* deliberate to be a personal choice.

            Sarah ‘wearily puts up with’ the situation.To quote from the first blog post, “Literally, this involves Sarah not encouraging Mohammed´s sexual advances and simply lying still while he engages in coitus.”

            To repeat, there is no consent for mortal sin *sufficiently* deliberate to be a personal choice because fear and anxiety over her children’s welfare in the event of a divorce places her in a trap.

            What is the obex preventing absolution?

  1. See this November 4th, 2016 National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin on the Dubia submitted to Bergoglio by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, and Cardinal Joachim Meisner.

    Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’

    Bergoglio has refused to clarify the ambiguity he created. An excerpt from the letter accompanying the Dubia of the four Cardinals:

    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.

    Conflicting interpretations cannot all be orthodox in this case, which is why the Dubia were submitted to Bergoglio. The audiences of the theologians and scholars whose proposed interpretations of Amoris Laetitia are heterodox have been taught heresy. Bergoglio is responsible for that.

  2. How much proof is required of some. The ultramontanist is still alive and well, it seems. Six years of this pathetic cleric who disdains the Catholic Faith and the Church gits another free pass. There are just too many Catholics about who know too little about their professed Church. Give the man a Qu’ran to kiss and all will be well.

  3. The fruits of this papacy have been division, confusion and in some cases anger. He set out to make ‘a mess’, he is succeeding. Questions of heresy aside, by his words and actions, his role as teacher, pastor and defender of the received Core of Faith is in suspension.
    We may have a papacy but do we actually have a pope in anything other than title?

  4. We should be more familiar with peronism, which is a source of inspiration to Pope Bergoglio, and we should hear more our Argentinian brothers. Peron was always in agreement with everybody and never gave a definitive answer on anything. Bergoglio has made ALL HIS LIFE confusing and controversial statements and ALWAYS in a revolutionary and heterodox sense. He will never make the mistake to pronounce publicly a clear, conclusive and canonically valid heresy. The shepherds have the responsibility to either wait and contemplate the confusion and loss of the flock, or to take a less than perfect action.
    We should also have in mind the way the devil acts. He is overjoyed with the confusion.

  5. I certainly respect Ed Condon.

    I do NOT agree with the implication in the headline from CNA that these accusations are “unserious.”

    Paragraph 5 is an admission, and one which orthodox faithful who are careful observers certainly agree with: there is already ample evidence that Pope Francis espouses material heresy in multiple matters.

    The disagreement apparently amounts to whether there is evidence that Pope F has manifested an intent to propagate heresy, which would make him liable to an accusation that he is guilty of the canonical crime of heresy. The Open Letter to Bishops clearly uses the Pope’s affirmation of the Buenos Aries Bishops’ heresy regarding divorced and remarried Catholics without annulments, and the Pope’s appointments of openly heretical Bishops, clergy and laity, as evidence of his intent.

    I suppose reasonable, orthodox adult Catholics can disagree about whether the case for the canonical crime of heresy is strong. BUT – it seems very, very “UNSERIOUS” to imply that the evidence in “unserious.”

    • The accusations are “unserious” to those who apparently have never read or prefer to ignore the Correctio Filialis that goes into explicit, detailed, and fully documented explanations of how and why Bergoglio is heretical.

  6. Just as they’ve been using the Constitution here in the US to reshape the nation, So the Pope uses his authority to reshape the Church. The definition of heresy is used to aid the Pope, just as the Constitution is used to fundamentally change the US and what the founders and most sane and intelligent people would never have envisioned our Nation becoming.The Pope is changing the Church into something not founded by Christ. The legal Eagles of the Church and he US click their tongues at the thought that the letter of the law is being challenged in an attempt to save our Nation and Our Church. All the while the devil grins.

  7. ALL of this COULD have been easily avoided. The process of the “dubia” was established for a reason. All Bergogilo had to do was to RESPOND to it! He elected to ignore it! When a teacher ignores the questions of his “students” after attempting to “teach” what else can be expected but confusion?? In paragraph 5 of this article in says, “Material heresy describes a situation in which a person has, in word or deed, manifested an opinion in doubt of or contradiction to a truth to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Such a situation should, of course, be corrected by the Church”. Using the phrase “should, of course, be corrected by the Church” is, sadly, quite laughable to me, a struggling Catholic trying to understand this Papacy. The Vigano Testimony “should, of course, be corrected by the Church” (or at least be addressed) and the McCarrick Mess, “should, of course, be corrected by the Church”, (or at least be addressed). I have NO HOPE that either of these ever will be! No hope at all! I will leave it up to the smart guys to determine if heresy has been committed but I applaud that the question has been, at least, raised. I choose to keep my eyes on the Risen Christ! He is the reason I am Catholic but I will undoubtedly continue struggling to understand. Sad, though, so sad, when I think that all of this could have easily been avoided!

  8. Aside from other issues, it appears people are still in denial about this pontificate and this is unduly impacting their attempts to dismiss the document, e.g., for people to still claim that A. Laetitia is not to be interpreted in the manner the signatories claim. Are we forgetting the Argentine guidelines, which, among other things, clearly permits communion for adulterers, and indicates this is a possibility which did not exist before. How could someone not mention the guidelines, which is the “only” interpretation of A.L.?! Furthermore, if one is going to make recourse to others, why not also mention those bishops and others, including those most close to Francis, who have admitted there is a change and that the latter is now permitted, e.g., Maradiaga- who publicly blasted Gerhard Muller for insisting it be read in continuity, Marx, Kasper, Spadaro, Hernandez, articles in L’osservatore romano, never mind the other guidelines that contain the content the document indicates, which Francis has either tolerated or given some form of approval to- malta, Germany, Braga, Portugal. People are cherry picking sources to maintain the narrative there has been no change. Aside from whether there is any claim of heresy, it is exactly this denial that the signatories wanted to dispel and push people on. It’s also revealing how so many are trying to dismiss this by focusing on a minor thing, while ignoring the big things, indicating they cannot deny what has been said, e.g., focusing on the “stang” while making no comment on other weightier issues.

  9. I have to laugh how the open letter gets bashed as “a scatter gun approach” and yes a “hodgepodge”…but NOT the Bergoglio papacy/parade route to a New World Faith.

    Read the whole letter folks. It’s fairly well-organized, documented. I find the negative characterizations of this letter similar to those a defense attorney might make at the trial of a “someone” (ex. mob boss) who had several businesses, bank accounts and residences, the description of which is presented as itself a cause for reasonable doubt along and yes the possible “bias” against a “fine businessman and family man.” In a similar vein, a full medical report of a patient with various diseases and a complicated history…could that be used as a proof of a bad doctor and also the nurses who provided “rambling” (not really rambling) documentation? No more autopsies too?

    I am NOT referring here to “proving heresy” or anything like that provided in that summary/not provided. This letter is NOT a “mess.” It is a reasonable attempt at documenting a “mess” but not a mess itself…and Canon Law concerns about the letter itself do NOT negate a requirement for a hierarchical pastoral response though Canon Law does not necessitate a response. Does “accompaniment” and the need for “discernment” and “spiritual direction” not apply to these matters? It’s a matter of a “mess” still not clarified… with effects on souls and the life of the Church…a Church with undeniable scandals.

    Just to include additional notes of deserved sarcasm (which will make it more difficult for serious inquirers to get awaited clarifications that are just around the corner) with a nod to the categorical imperative…Bergoglio’s “style”/structure of communication/behavior should be that of every pope and world leader from here on and also that of lay Catholics, at the workplace, in marriages in our neighborhoods: these are of “virtues” which build unity ad trust in relationships, families, organizations. And yes, the “stang” /non-stang should should be made available to ALL Catholics to personally use and venerate and in most if not all parishes…with the first stop of these non-stang commemorative replicas supplied not to Georgetown where they may already have some but the Dominican House of Studies in DC …with perhaps a much larger representation of the non-stang integrated in the rebuilding of Notre Dame.

    Not too long from now saying something has “stang status” will be synonymous with something people make a big deal =/express outrage about but that’s really “unserious.”

    Whatever we are talking about with Bergoglio…it’s all part of (in his own words and he’s quite proud to say ) his willed with full consent “mess.”

    BTW the circumstances of Bergoglio’s election to the papacy? That has “stang status” or however they say that in Switzerland.

  10. Hiding behind the distinction between canonical and material heresy at this point in the Church’s history, when every finely tuned reasoning regarding any theological reality has been trashed by the “Bergoglian element” would be laughable were it not tragic. Pope “Cuddly” with his fraudulent “mercy” substituting for moral license, feigned “humility” masking invincible egoism need respond as an honest man to the perfectly credible charges everyone knows are absolutely on target — otherwise he risks once again confirming himself to be a bag of wind.
    The pontificate of the “wink and the nod” is simply revolting.
    This man is a bad actor and the clergy class is rife with his element. These men have got to go. The “clericalism” they decry they perfectly embody. Divine Revelation ceased with the last apostle. We don’t need or desire this element pushing Marxist social analysis, Jungian psychology, and Darwinian anthropology for the immutable truths of the faith embodied in our Lord, Jesus Christ. Deconstructed Roman Catholicism monikered the “New Paradigm” is useless trash, a lie, an opiate of self-deception and self-consolation.
    The rainbow of moral relativists with which he surrounds himself and supports and augments in the universal Church – if they indeed rise to that level – is sufficient enough to estimate the character of Jorge Mario Bergoglio without amplifying the indictment with his actions, utterances and life history. To persist in supporting this fraudulence is to be complicit in sacrilege.
    “Serious and unserious allegations of heresy?” Mr. Condon of the Catholic News Agency places himself firmly in the nest of journalists constituting the new “Pravda.” The entire media with its support of Bergoglio, and Catholic media this week walking on eggshells in the face of this new development has revealed itself to be nothing more than a crew of lemmings motivated by a salad of fear and a lack of supernatural faith. It is a very sad day in the history of Christ’s Church.
    We are experiencing a bloodless holocaust and but a few heroic men are lifting their voices. Neither temporal history nor Eternity are going to confront this reality gently.

  11. We call Pope Gregory “the great”, or John Paul “the great”. Let’s call Pope Francis “the Liar”–because any man who takes a fundamental and clear teaching and makes it ambiguous is, in the final analysis, a liar. Who cares about Canon Law, it is useless in these matters, since it was never designed to apply to a rebellious pope. Anyway, St Paul didn’t need Canon Law to take on Peter. Regardless of the lack of canonical form of the open letter, the spirit of it is truth, and is obvious to anyone who still believes that christian doctrine on sex and marriage is indefectible. Pope Francis and his team are playing us for fools. All we can do is call them what they are, liars, and pray that God delivers us soon.

  12. Didn’t finish and put this paragraph from my previous post rightly before hitting post,it should read:

    For example, Both AL and the writer speak of misunderstanding the nature of sin or culpability because of a person ‘flaunting’ their sin or not. Firstly, whether there is subjective flaunting is irrelevant to the objective flaunting of the Beloved’s holiness and remaining free of sin, especially deadly. But AL and the blog writer logically present morality as simply, if there is no subjective culpability/flaunting there is no SUBJECTIVE evil or sin and thus as long as the sinner does not ‘flaunt’ their OBJECTIVE sin, they must be accompanied to Holy Communion because they ‘have a true marriage’, ‘are doing the best they can’, they ‘are even doing God’s Will’. Lies, damnable lies, sold by satan and bought by so many.

    Easter Divine Mercy First Friday and Saturday blessings and graces, Padre

    • padregf, the florid prose of the blog posts aside, (there’s more to them than meets the eye), it appears that a valid case has indeed been made out to read AL in an orthodox way. The second blog post shows that no obex actually stands in the way of the grant of absolution when there is no deliberate choice on the woman’s part to engage in sexual relations but that it has been forced on her, and her anxiety over the children’s psychological welfare along with the fear of losing at least two of them prevent her from risking a messy civil divorce. In line with CCC 1859, without a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice, no mortal sin can be attributed to the woman when her partner forces himself on her.

      As for footnote 329, after proferring your reading of the same, you wondered ‘Do I understand it correctly?’. To which, I say: No. The answer would have been ‘Yes’ ONLY if the footnote had read something along the lines of: ‘In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out RIGHTLY / LEGITIMATELY / VALIDLY that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.”‘
      AL is simply pointing out (to pastors) where many people are (coming from). The footnote is not approbating their reasoning – it simply presents that as the concrete stand / attitude of many people.

      You said: “But AL and the blog writer logically present morality as simply, if there is no subjective culpability/flaunting there is no evil or sin and thus as long as the sinner does not ‘flaunt’ their sin, they must be accompanied to Holy Communion because they ‘have a true marriage’, ‘are doing the best they can’, they ‘are even doing God’s Will’.”

      I think that is a misreading of AL and the blog writer. Nowhere, for instance in the blog posts is it asserted that there is a true marriage between the woman and her partner, and nowhere is it asserted that the woman can legitimately engage in sexual acts. The second blog post makes clear that an obex preventing absolution would exist if she deliberately engages in sexual relations – that itself shows your statements above are straw arguments which don’t seem to grasp the true reality of the woman’s situation.

      Your quote of VS 81 is also not applicable to the woman’s situation. VS 81 speaks of ‘an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object’ – but in the woman’s case, there is no ‘act’. Her partner forcing himself on her against her wish to live as sister and brother does not constitute a choice by her to do an intrinsically evil act.

      Your statement: ‘an intrinsically evil act cannot be creatively transformed into something willed by God under concrete circumstances (the suggestion put forth in AL 303 and 301)’ is again a misreading of AL 303 and 301 as well as the situation of the woman mentioned in the blog post. She does *not* choose to engage in sexual relations with her partner but wishes only to live as sister and brother with him. *He* forces himself on her against her wish.

      You said: ‘By trying to claim that an intrinsically evil act like adultery, fornication or other “irregular situation” may be the most generous response a person can give to God at a certain moment in his life, Pope Francis has embraced situation ethics and has strayed far from the firm and authentic foundations of Catholic morality.’

      Another straw man or misunderstanding. See the response to FAQ # 3 in the first blog post, viz., ‘Isn´t situational ethics being promoted?’

      • Your prolix postings ignore the central fact that if the woman is being forced to engage in sexual relations, much less on a routine basis, she is being raped. If she does not take the necessary moral and civil alternative of quitting the relationship and taking the means to report and rectify her position, her partner is not forcing her “against her wish” to engage in sexual relations since she is consenting to remain in an immoral and criminal relationship of sexual abuse. To claim that she lacks moral culpability in such circumstances is disingenuous if not fatuous. Thus the obex.

        • The postings are ‘prolix’ because sound Church teaching is unfortunately being applied across the board and straight-jacketed onto all situations without due discernment.

          ‘If she does not take the necessary moral and civil alternative of quitting the relationship and taking the means to report and rectify her position…’

          That means you are saying she *has* to simultaneously risk the children’s welfare – psychological and material, and risk losing custody of at least her two children by Mohammed in a messy civil divorce. (So add a possible damage to spiritual welfare too when those two children grow up without the benefit of a Catholic upbringing through her.)

          You are entitled to take that view of course, but which Church teaching or document says she *has* to take on those risks under pain of mortal sin?

          To quote from the first blog post:

          AL 302 citing the CCC, the CDF´s Declaration on Euthanasia ´Iura et Bona´ and John Paul II´s Apostolic Exhortation ´Reconciliatio et Paenitentia´:
          ´…Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by fear…
          …Circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility include conditions of anxiety…´

          And CCC 1859: ´Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent…a consent SUFFICIENTLY deliberate to be a personal choice.´

          When fear about the children’s welfare and anxiety over losing their custody in a divorce prevent Sarah from resisting unwelcome sexual advances, how can it be said that there is “complete consent…a consent SUFFICIENTLY deliberate to be a personal choice”?

  13. I’m not ready to approve of the argument of this letter. But:

    “But the letter’s authors take no account of the number of bishops and theologians, including the pope himself, who contend that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family.”

    This passage links to a letter from Pope Francis to Stephen Walford which says that Amoris Laetitia is “always in continuity” with the traditional teaching of the Church, and must be read that way. But this hardly resolves the problem, when Walford himself, and many other defenders of AL, insist – and continues to insist, to this day!! – that a reading of AL that permits admission to the sacraments of the divorced and remarried *is* in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church.

    Moreover, given that the Holy See has gone out of its way to highlight episcopal interpretations like this, such as that of the bishops conference of Malta, in its official publications, it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that the Pope himself shares this view.

    In short, it begs the question of just what the traditional teachings of the Church on marriage and communion really are. What point to insisting on continuity with these teachings, Dr. Condon, when we have considerable evidence that we can’t even agree on just what those teachings actually consist of?

  14. Do you know what’s really “hodgepodge” and “scatter gun’ (besides the Bergoglio papacy?) in all of this? Most report-critiques of Open Letter to The Bishops of the Catholic Church.”

    The Open Letter itself? Must reading! Not must overhearing!

  15. I’m not qualified to comment on the heresy, real or imagined, of Pope Francis. What I can say with confidence is that Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff comments and his formal letters containing rubbery language have been an annoyance and a distraction. That Pope Francis has repeatedly chosen to express himself in a manner that has led to so much unnecessary misunderstanding shows an astonishing lack of prudence on the part of a successor of Saint Peter. The losers have been the lay faithful – and anyone seeking the soul-saving Truth of Jesus Christ clearly stated – who must contend with loose play with the Church’s teaching and who must also sift through the often uncharitable chatter issuing forth from both pro- and anti-Bergoglio forces.

    In the meantime, let’s keep praying for Pope Francis, and, with respect to/for the Papal Office, let’s pray that the next conclave won’t be marred by the machinations of wicked men who seem oblivious to the consequences of their attempts to manipulate the Petrine Ministry to shape it in their own image.

  16. Commentators will close their ears. Nothing less than death is good for Francis in their eyes (actually, hell is better, but the ‘devil is in the details’ after all).
    “B- b- b- but the dubia!” shriek people whose only animating concern is writhing in anger over thinkpiece after thinkpiece of agitprop and insinuation. When you live your life in constant echo of “Pope Francis destroys Church with NEW announcement, says Jesus preferred Gay Disciples” headlines that CWR, NCReg, LifeSite, and other sites spew forth, how can you possibly think straight?

    • Pope Francis has been handled by the faithful and the Catholic media with kid gloves for six years. Would he have managed to grab the Chair in another epoch he would have faired far more poorly, rest assured. What is your personal investment in maintaining his personality cult?
      He remains in my morning offering every day along with all bishops, priests and laity, particularly those most adversely effected, traumatized and scandalized by the present tribulation.
      I think that covers all of us.

  17. To me, it seems that PF deliberately adopts an attitude of insouciance in order to hide his personal lack of clarity in a long, likely history of Confessional advice that derives from a ‘60s style of situational moral theology, one with which he is seemingly all too familiar and well exposed. It cannot withstand the teaching and clarity of his immediate predecessors, but from all the commonly known lineage of his election, he is committed to changing the Church’s reasoning in these matters. Seemingly, his supporters have made no bones about it. So, though I feel inadequate to the task of expressing myself lucidly enough, I am personally persuaded by the currently discussed open letter to the Bishops of the World, as well a number of similar statements from the past. By any measure, he is following his own advice to “make a mess.” Tragically, I have known too many persons in my long life-time who would feel utterly betrayed by the doubletalk of Pope Francis, however sincere he may feel.

  18. So the Pope, selected by the majority of the learned Cardinals with, we are told, guidance from the Holy Spirit brings a softer more forgiving face to a human church and the detractors start a scholastic hunt. Welcome us sinners, forgive and go and do good works instead of defending dogma.

    • Edward Dickson, Ahhh yes, the Holy Spirit. We must not forget his guidance. But we must also NOT forget that while the Holy Spirit guides, he never forces. And when men choose not to listen to His guidance, we get stuck with a Pope Francis.

    • You forgot to add that this Bergoglian “softer, more forgiving face” of the Church spews on virtually a daily basis ugly, nasty, vile, and even scatological insults especially to those traditional Catholics who simply want to practice their faith while kissing the feet of Communist Somalian terrorists, Muslim women, and incarcerated felons, smiling benignly upon and publicly praising the “great Italian” Emma Bonino who personally used a bicycle pump to perform thousands (yes, thousands of abortions), and fawning upon every manner of clerical and lay sodomite, pedophile, ephebophile, and pervert with whom he has filled the dicasteries of the Curia and bishoprics world-wide.

  19. Do we even need to bring up the vexed and very technical issue of heresy at all in the circumstances?

    Isn’t the more material question: “Is the Pope Catholic?”. I am not being flippant here – far from it. I am being deadly serious.

    If a thing looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, 9,999/10,000 times it will indeed be a duck.

    Based on my mathematical theory, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance this pope is actually a Catholic. There are MYRIAD well-documented and publicised examples (including statements he has made which he cannot deny) showing that this pope doesn’t profess the whole of the Catholic faith. It is a case of res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself.

    The rules or constitutions of most organisations / institutions (such as clubs) invariably provide that ONLY its members can be elected President or CEO of the organisation. Needless to say, this rule most definitely applies to the Church. Ergo, the Vicar of Christ who leads the Catholic Church MUST be a fully committed Catholic. Ergo, if a professed pope doesn’t hold the faith (or once held it but then lost it), how can he, as a matter of simple logic, claim to be, or be objectively regarded by the Catholic community at large, as pope?

    Now, it is way beyond my pay grade as a mere Catholic layman to do anything about this fact – i.e. that it is almost certain that a non-Catholic is currently occupying the Seat of Peter. It seems to me that only a significant number of Cardinals (inspired by the Holy Spirit) would have the practical power and authority to resolve this situation.

    But what I do understand, in my heart of hearts, is that what we are now undergoing is exactly what God wills and is no less than we deserve. And God will, in His own good time, and in His own good way (demonstrating His divine Justice and incomprehensible Mercy in a combination that only His unfathomable Wisdom is capable of understanding) eventually resolve our current problems – probably by again working supernatural for us, the New Israel, as He once worked for the Israelites of the Old Testament.

    “Be not afraid”, Our Lord told the apostles at the Ascension, “I will be with you always, even until the end of time”.

      • “Many committed Catholics and even outside observers have the impression that the Pope — while certainly affirming some Catholic doctrines — deep down isn’t really Catholic. It’s interesting that Reuters, at the end of its article on our letter, in speaking about this subject, states: “Conservatives say the Roman Catholic Church is the only true one and that members are called to convert others to it.” Evidently Reuters doesn’t classify Francis as a “conservative,” so it agrees with us in saying that the Pope rejects this doctrine.”
        – Scholar [Prof. Claudio Pierantoni] defends letter accusing Pope of heresy: Church is facing ‘most serious crisis’ in history | Diane Montagna, Tue May 7, 2019 – 4:12 am EST | LifeSiteNews

    • “Exactly what God wills” – no way. God has a permissive will. If we or the Cardinals want to be stupid despite his design for us, He will permit it. BXVI was quite explicit about this when asked.

  20. The excellent essay written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently on Rorate Caeli regarding the hypothetical possibility of a heretical Pope would be helpful in this debate. I highly recommend it.

  21. I keep a bottle of champagne chilled for when I I hear that Francis is no longer Pope. I will say Mass for him and then pop the cork and celebrate.

  22. <I….who contend that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family.

    Th heretical claims of Francis are directly opposed to the truths taught in encyclical of Pope Saint John Paul II, Familaris Comnsortio, and so it is literally impossible to read A.L. as being in continuity with what came before his heresies unless the definition of continuity is so elastic it can mean rupture.

  23. As a simple lay faithful, appears to me that padregf and many other faithful and orthodox commenters above have demonstrated beyond a doubt that Condon and other PF defenders are afraid to call “a spade, a spade.”

    Thank you padregf and others for your clarifications that a simple pew sitter can understand, and retain hope for a better future for the Church as falsehoods and confusion are challenged.

    Viva Christo Rey

  24. Pope Saint John Paul II, Fimilaris Consortio # 84

    However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

    Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.

    Pope Francis , Amoris Laetitia #297-301 represents a rupture with ecclesiastical praxis and Traditional Catholic Doctrine.

    I will only cite the infamous #301

    301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is 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.  (There it is in all of its malevolent and mendacious maliciousness. Francis is claiming that both mortal sin and sanctifying grace can co-exist. The is complete and utter heresy). More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values” (I know I ought not kill my neighbor but he has been really getting on my nerves…) or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. (If I stop engaging in the mortal sin of adultery I could end up sinning, or something…) As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision

    The praxis and theology of this Pope is a radical rupture with the constant Magisterium and it represents a rejection of the praxis and Theology of all of the Popes – every singe one of them – who preceded them.

    One can not claim these noxious novelties are in continuity with the praxis and theology of all of the Popes from Peter right up until Francis was elected.

    Behold, Francis makes all things new?

    • All you state is true. What is the only conclusion to be drawn? That Pope Bergoglio is a heretic. Do you see a different one?

  25. Examining Count I. of VII Accusing Pope Francis of Heresy with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

    2.a) God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the divine commandments. [De fide.]

    … De fide …

    To hold a position contrary to 2.a) above is to hold a heretical proposition. Therefore Count I. is a heretical proposition (propositio haeretica) or a proposition opposed to a formal dogma [2.a) above].

  26. Examining Count II. of VII Accusing Pope Francis of Heresy with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

    3.a)Loss of Grace

    The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost through every mortal sin. [De fide.]

    … De fide …

    To hold a position contrary to 3.a) above is to hold a heretical proposition. Therefore Count II. is a heretical proposition (propositio haeretica) or a proposition opposed to a formal dogma [3.a) above].

    ***

    Now,

    395. When does one commit a mortal sin?

    1855-1861
    1874

    One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation. [Cf. CCC 1857]

    Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

    Therefore, not only is count II. a heretical proposition opposed to a formal dogma 3.a) above, but it is also a false proposition (propositio falsa), a proposition contrary to a dogmatic fact which in this case is ‘what committing a mortal sin is’.

  27. Examining Count III. of VII Accusing Pope Francis of Heresy with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

    392. What is sin?

    1849-1851
    1871-1872

    Sin is “a word, an act, or a desire contrary to the eternal Law” (Saint Augustine). It is an offense against God in disobedience to his love. It wounds human nature and injures human solidarity. Christ in his passion fully revealed the seriousness of sin and overcame it with his mercy. [Cf. CCC 1850 & 1871]

    Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

    Therefore count III is a false proposition (propositio falsa), a proposition contrary to a dogmatic fact which in this case is ‘what sin is’.

  28. Examining Count IV. of VII Accusing Pope Francis of Heresy with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

    In FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA | VII. THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY, the couple De fide dogmas are not relevant to this count.

    Now,

    What is adultery?

    CCC 2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations – even transient ones – they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

    With this definition, count IV can, therefore, read:

    IV. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that [adultery], can sometimes be morally right, or requested or even commanded by God.

    Conscience can truly judge right what is wrong?!

    Count IV is a proposition that is nonsensical, contradictory, erroneous and wrong [as opposed to right], false [as opposed to true], and an intrinsic impossibility.

  29. a href=”https://wp.me/p8RVwU-kO”>Examining Count V. of VII Accusing Pope Francis of Heresy with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

    In FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, there are no De fide dogmas that are not relevant to this count.

    Now,

    CCC 2349 “People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.” Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

    There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

    Therefore, Count V. is a false proposition (propositio falsa), a proposition contrary to a dogmatic fact which in this case is ‘others [other than married couples] practice chastity in continence’.

  30. Perhaps the Bergoglio Imbroglio draws its inspiration from one Pope Honorius I…
    Honorius in 423 A.D. failed to respond clearly to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople on the EXPLICIT HERESY of Monothelitism. The pope’s actual record was not a heretical ACTION, but an INACTION (a reminder of Arthur Conan Doyle’s murder-clue of a dog that didn’t bark).

    Honorius rolled over; he pronounced nothing. Papal infallibility, as later defined, was not endangered by any “pronouncement,” and in his tormented case he likely was not even a willing enabler. (Four decades after his death a Church council issued an anathema against Honorius NOT for having actually taught heresy, BUT for the non-heresy of inaction—for failing to repress it.)

    Is inaction a heresy? The dichotomy today is that the Faith is one thing, while morals now become quite another—-to be offloaded in a shell-game to synods and yet without setting off any trigger warnings. A non-response to the dubia? A non-response to the Vigano letters? And a Rome summit on the sexual abuse crisis with silent non-recognition of the elephant in the bedroom or the beach house(not only the vulnerable youth, but “consenting adults”) and a summit which also baits-and-switches the agenda now toward a decentralized (deconstructed?) Church that not only DOES synods, but that IS only synodal?

    Many changes can be needed and even good, but an elephant with its nose under the tent . . .some field hospital!

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. When Creeping Normalcy Bias Protects a Chaotic Pope - OnePeterFive
  2. When Creeping Normalcy Bias Protects a Chaotic Pope | Catholicism Pure & Simple

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*