In July 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) received ten dubia (formal questions) from Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, on behalf of the Czech Bishops’ Conference, regarding the proper interpretation of Amoris laetitia on the question of eucharistic communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
On September 25, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, the new prefect of the DDF, published in Italian his reply (hereafter Risposta) to the ten dubia. His Risposta confirms that Amoris laetitia, interpreted according to the will of Pope Francis, teaches that divorced persons who have entered into a second civil union, who do not refrain from sexual intercourse with their new partners, sometimes may be allowed access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. This was confirmed, Fernández says, when Francis replied favorably to a letter in September 2016 by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region to their priests setting forth that precise interpretation.
Francis responded enthusiastically to the Argentine bishops’ letter with his own letter of approval, privately addressed but made public at the time, stating, “The text is very good and thoroughly explains the sense of chapter VIII of ‘Amoris laetitia.’ There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do much good.” Recognizing that the authoritative status for the whole Church of this private letter might be questioned, Francis reprinted both letters in October 2016 in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), the official organ of the Holy See, accompanied by a “rescriptum” that apparently elevated them to the status of magisterial documents. This brief history is rehearsed in Fernández’s Risposta.
On October 13, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, former prefect of the DDF (called CDF at the time—Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) published an open letter to his friend Cardinal Duka criticizing Fernández’s Risposta to the ten dubia. Müller’s reply is sobering and cogent, although not easy reading, and perhaps for that reason it has not garnered much attention. Yet a former prefect’s careful explanation of why he thinks the present prefect is requiring “of the faithful a submission of mind and will to truths contrary to Catholic doctrine” surely deserves our attention.
This matter should be carefully considered and discussed by thoughtful Catholics, not least by those who have questions about the authoritative status of the teaching found in Amoris laetitia. Since a proper discussion is impossible unless we first understand what is at stake, we offer the following summary of Müller’s concerns along with a few of our own observations.
Cardinal Duka’s ten dubia ask in particular whether the above interpretation of Amoris laetitia is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the pope. Duka’s question is not simply theoretical but eminently practical. For if the teaching permitting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics into eucharistic communion is magisterial, then it would seem to require of the faithful, as Lumen gentium 25 teaches, a “religious submission of mind and will.”
In his Risposta, Fernández, after stating that Amoris laetitia is itself a magisterial document “toward which all are called to offer the submission of mind and will,” asserts that Francis’s letter to the Argentine bishops is indeed also a teaching of the authentic papal magisterium, because the pope indicated as much when he included it in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.
Cardinal Müller has deep misgivings about this reply. He says if the interpretation set forward by the Argentine bishops is magisterial, it puts the faithful in an untenable position for at least three reasons.
The first is that both Fernández’s Risposta and the Buenos Aires text are “theologically ambiguous.” The Risposta is ambiguous because it says that Amoris laetitia teaches that the Eucharist may be given to a divorced and remarried person “even when [that person] does not succeed in being faithful to the continence proposed by the Church.” Müller says this can be interpreted in two ways. The first understands the people in question as being unwilling to commit themselves to refraining from sexual intercourse; the second, to people who try to refrain but sometimes sinfully give in out of weakness. The latter interpretation would pose no problem because admitting such persons to the Eucharist after they confess those sins with a firm purpose of amendment is perfectly consistent with previous Church teaching.
But Müller points out that “this ambiguity is resolved in the Buenos Aires text” in favor of the interpretation which understands the remarried divorcees as unwilling to commit themselves to live in continence. For the Argentine bishops speak of admitting to the Eucharist those for whom “it has not been possible to obtain an annulment” and for whom trying to live in continence “may not in fact be feasible.” The text thus suggests that some divorced and remarried people cannot reasonably be expected to refrain from having sexual intercourse with their new partners, and teaches that in some cases they should be admitted to the Eucharist despite their unwillingness to commit themselves to live in continence.
A second ambiguity surrounds the Argentine bishops’ reference to those for whom “it has not been possible to obtain an annulment.” It certainly seems to refer to those who are already validly married, but it does not say that, and some have interpreted it, albeit improbably, as referring to people in a situation in which “although the marriage is not valid for objective reasons, these reasons cannot be proven before the ecclesiastical forum.” And Francis’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Buenos Aires text—“There are no other interpretations”—does little or nothing to erase the ambiguity.
Müller objects that it is problematic to demand submission of mind and will to a text of a “partial episcopal conference (the Buenos Aires region),” that lends itself to contradictory interpretations, and that seems to entail a conclusion “whose coherence with the teaching of Christ (Mk 10:1-12) is in question.”
The second reason Fernández’s Risposta puts the faithful in an untenable position is that affirming that the divorced and civilly remarried who are unwilling to commit themselves to live in continence may sometimes return to Holy Communion contradicts the ordinary magisterial teachings of two recent popes, namely John Paul II (Familiaris consortio 84) and Benedict XVI (Sacramentum caritati 29). Those popes explicitly reaffirm the ancient Church practice—based on Sacred Scripture—of refusing eucharistic communion to persons in this situation. To these teachings, which “bear witness to the Word of God,” the faithful already owe a religious submission of mind and will.
And thirdly, the interpretation apparently defended by the Risposta contradicts at least four propositions definitively taught by the Council of Trent: that the faithful are required to sacramentally confess all grave sins; that living in a sexually active relationship with someone other than one’s valid spouse while that spouse still lives is a grave sin of adultery; that a necessary condition for absolution is the penitent’s sorrow for sin committed and resolution to sin no more; and that it is possible for all the baptized to keep the Commandments. These teachings, Müller says, belong to divine revelation and therefore require of the faithful, not merely a religious submission of mind and will, but divine and Catholic faith.
How then should the faithful respond? Müller states that Catholics who reject the obvious interpretation of Amoris laetitia contained in the text of the Argentine bishops and in Fernández’s Risposta “cannot be accused of dissent.” For they are not exalting private opinion above what the magisterium teaches. Rather, they have found a contradiction between two sets of magisterial teachings and have chosen, quite rightly, to give assent to the one that has already been infallibly affirmed.
This point is worth underlining, not only regarding problems posed by Amoris laetitia, but in approaching Church teaching in general with its differing degrees of authoritativeness. The deposit of faith—the teaching of divine revelation—is always the norm for Catholic faith and practice and for the pronouncements of Church authority. All Catholic life—all teaching and practice—is to be judged in its light. If one suspects some discontinuity between an instance of putatively authoritative teaching and a truth of divine revelation (or a teaching already proposed definitively by the magisterium as pertaining to divine revelation, whether explicitly or as necessary for its articulation), one should first question one’s understanding of the authoritative teaching to see if the discontinuity is only apparent, arising because of some misunderstanding on one’s own part.
Indeed, one should do whatever one reasonably can to see if the apparent discrepancy can be resolved while maintaining continuity between the two teachings. If even after that good faith effort one remains convinced that they cannot be reconciled, then one is warranted in questioning—indeed one ought to question—the Catholic integrity of the non-infallible teaching and should not assent to it. Far from being an expression of “cafeteria Catholicism,” this is a mature expression of commitment to divine and Catholic truth, to which the faithful have a duty to submit themselves and in the light of which they should “take every thought captive” (2 Cor. 10:5).
Müller ends by saying that given the contradictory interpretations to which the Buenos Aires text and the Risposta lend themselves, a clear answer to a very precise dubium is needed. The question that must be answered is whether sacramental absolution may sometimes be given to a validly married person who is unwilling to refrain from having sexual relations with a person with whom he or she lives in a second union. A related dubium also requires an answer: whether sacramental absolution may sometimes be given to a person who is unwilling to refrain from having sexual relations with a person who is validly married to someone else. So long as these dubia are not resolved with clarity, the precise meaning of the Argentine and DDF documents remains in doubt.
All indications seem to indicate that the pope thinks that these questions must be answered in the affirmative, but he has thus far been unwilling to answer them. The problem with a positive response, Müller says, is that “such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine” and therefore one that the faithful “would not be obliged to accept.” One might even say that they would be obliged not to accept it.
We should hope for a negative response, which, as Müller points out, would be helpful primarily to the teaching authority itself by preserving its credibility, “since it would no longer require of the faithful” what cannot rightly be required, namely, “a submission of mind and will to truths contrary to Catholic doctrine.”
(Editor’s note: This essay was edited slightly for clarification after being posted.)
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.
Expect now for Francis to render some kind of humiliation and punishment to Mueller:
Like removing him from his position as head of the CDF. Oh, wait…
Like kicking him out of his Vatican housing. Oh, wait..
Like telling him to get out of Rome and go back to Germany. Oh, wait.
I await the day when the next Pope is Catholic and teaches the fullness of the Faith.
I totally 💯 agree
Can we now say that the Pope is teaching heresy?
If so does he remain Pope?
Great questions! Let’s ask the next Pope. Perhaps he will call a Council to answer these. (Magari!;)
Stay tuned. Stay Catholic.
Agreed, Deacon Edward. It is becoming difficult to identify the (Roman) Catholic Church from the positions of the Anglicans.
I fully agree Deacon. Our current Pope, despite all his talk of “Mercy” and “Accompaniment”, is a very spiteful and vindictive person, as his treatment of Cardinal Burke has also shown.
Thank you Fr. Ryan, SJ, and Dr. Brugger for this. And thanks to Cardinal Mūller for clear teaching.
Christ is love. Love is not sin. Adultery is sinful, and therefore not loving. It is pastoral heresy to tolerate sin, such as concubinage. Sin robs us of the eternal peace of Christ, pulling us outside our interior castle for the finite fool’s gold of worldly peace.
Christ teaches: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; you know Him, for He dwells with you, and will be in you…If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” (John 14)
Sometimes one gets a sense of how Christ grieved in sorrow as people He loved nailed Him to the Cross.
It would seem, then, that the Pope is not “infallible in faith and morals” and can “teach error.”
To insinuate, enable, routinize and exercise strategic silence might not qualify as affirmative and infallible pronouncements under the restricted definition approved by the First Vatican Council.
Papal Infallibility:
“The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines [?] with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals: and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves (and not from the consent of the Church).”
Is what’s going on today more of an evasive divorce of such pronouncements from pastoral practice? But certainly a “crisis.”
Cardinal Newman comments further: “Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sixtus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts” (from a Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in Vincent Blehl, editor, “The Essential Newman,” Mentor Omega, 1963). In early history, Pope Leo II did not reproach the earlier Pope Honorius with actually pronouncing heresy, but rather with negligence in the suppression of heresy (Monophysitism).
Yes….that is Catholic teaching. The Pope is only infallible in faith and morals under very limited circumstances, spelled out clearly in Pastor Aeturnus at Vatican I. The rest of the time, it is possible for him to err.
Why? To be correct you would have to be infallible in your understanding of a divine mystery.
The Pope’s infallibility only applies when various conditions are met. (cf. https://faith.nd.edu/s/1210/faith/interior.aspx?sid=1210&gid=609&pgid=11186&cid=24701&ecid=24701&crid=0&calpgid=11138&calcid=24580#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20an,it%20must%20be%20clear%20that)
What if one spouse is willing while the other is not – and there are little children?
Consequentialism
God knows better than us because God knows we lie to ourselves, a lot. And God knows the repercussions of our decisions and delusions better than our lies tell us they will be. Absolutes exist for a reason.
This is the reason that whenever prelates, especially high prelates talk in terms of “learning” from the “experience of the laity” they are always trading in profound idiocy.
These situations are crucifying, but why do they require adulterous sex?
God’s grace is sufficient for any situation to live according to His Word. We are all tempted to skip purgation. We follow Jesus Christ, the only Way, even to Golgotha. God’s peace to all.
Back in the day before religion books were changed, we were taught the pope alone nor the bishops alone could deem something infallible. It had to be both, together saying a statement was infallible.
As a non-credentialed layman (and because I am unable to log-in to Cardinal Muller’s open letter), here are three questions about the letter:
FIRST, does it specifically reference magisterial teaching contained in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor (repeated below); SECOND, is Pope Francis’ position based implicitly on his early comment that half of current marriages are actually invalid (possibly retracted later); and THIRD, in his orientation possibly toward such “concrete” cases, does Pope Francis choose a broad-brush response because he now decides as insufficient his early action to relocate the final tribunal for marriage annulment appeals, from the Holy See back to the more expeditious national bishops’ conferences (do I recall this correctly?).
Is Pope Francis not only amending sacramental theology, but setting it aside–as too abstract? If so, is this a myopic over-adjustment to sometimes-excessive rigorism, such that even Vatican II and its Catechism now are eclipsed as the work of so-called manualists? Or, is Pope Francis’ mode of thinking not categorical at all, but only horizontal and broad–as across concrete cases (say what)? At the practical level, then, the consequence of “stretching the gray area” (a term coined by Cardinal Grech) would seem catastrophic–even if one is proposing some version of “gradualism.” Are mercy and truth to be mutually quarantined?
Is the foreseeable consequence (or end game?) to then accommodate and bless–within a polyhedral and “pastoral” (c)hurch–so-called “marriages” under the concrete and homosexual lifestyle?
_______________________________________
Sections of Veritatis Splendor (1993) on irreducible moral absolutes, on a false dualism between doctrine and pastoral practice, and (for the first time) on explicitly including the natural law within the Magisterium:
FIRST, “The relationship between faith and morality […] those moral norms which prohibit without exception [!] actions which are intrinsically evil” [!] (n. 90).
SECOND, “A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not a ‘moral judgment’?] about what is good and what is evil […] to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘thou shalt not…!’]” (n. 56).
THIRD, “This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment […] (n. 115).
AND, “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
In the interest of accuracy, and about the blessing of gay “marriages,” part of the contested record is that Pope Francis was party to the 2021 REBUKE sent by the Vatican to what’s left of the Church in Germany.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/25/yes-pope-francis-was-involved-in-the-cdfs-document-on-same-sex-blessings-2/
“Sometimes” is the key ambiguity to which all the possible errors infer as delineated by Christian Brugger. Canonist Edward Peters, at the time of insertion of the exchange of letters in the AAS considered Pope Francis’ Riposta to the Argentine bishops, that there was no other interpretation – not specific, thus not magisterial. As it certainly appeared ambiguous when the letters were examined, and I held the opinion that the papal response did not qualify as magisterial teaching.
Card Gerhard Müller isolates the error implied in the ‘sometimes’ ambiguity as permission to offer the sacraments to those living in manifest adultery, who are unwilling to abide to Church requirement to abstain from sexual relations in contrast to those willing to abide who sin through weakness. If Pope Francis refuses to offer a clear judgment on this key issue, it will be apparent that this is and has been his policy since publication of Amoris Laetitia. The advantage for his doing this, if it were his intention, is to effectively make the sacraments available to divorced and remarried living in manifest adultery without actual change in Church doctrine. The manner in which he is changing Church practice.
Mot sure how saying, “there is no other explanation” is “not specific.”
Crusader. Not specific because he is not directly espousing a doctrine. And as Card Müller points out, there is ambiguity regarding permission to offer the sacraments. 1. to those living in manifest adultery, unwilling to abide to the Church requirement to abstain from sexual relations – 2. in contrast to those remarried outside the Church willing to abide to Church teaching to abstain from sexual relations but who on occasion sin through weakness. Pope Francis must clearly state whether he’s referring to the conditions of 1 or 2.
Father Morello, thank you for the response. I understand what you are saying and what the Cardinal said in this article. But my point is that the typical Sunday Mass going Catholic is going to see “there is no other way to interpret it” as pretty specific. Just as they see things like, “There is no longer any just war,” Life sentences are the same as a death penalty,” God wills a multitude of religions” and on and on as specific. Catholics read these things and either think this is what I should believe, or reject what he says and mistakenly believe they are cafeteria Catholics. Either way great harm is done.
Obviously most Catholics do not have a PhD in theology and cannot parse every papal statement to see if it is a true magisterial statement.
Crusader, unfortunately your right, that the average Catholic will perceive Pope Francis’ words as binding Magisterial doctrine, and likewise, unfortunately only the minority will know that the Vatican is promoting a ruse.
This has been the policy of deception from the beginning of this pontificate. At least we can try to inform those who are misguided, that’s the best you and I can do is witness to the truth and offer prayer and sacrifice.
The Synodaling of this pontificate reminds me of that great classic by St. Teresa of Avila: The Exterior Castle. And her other masterpiece The Way of OK. Or was it The Way of So So? Or Sort of Good? Anywho, the point is that we are called to do the bare minimum to trigger the algorithm of God’s mercy. Blessed are the nice, they shall inherit NGOs, Etc. See you in October. A holy (?) kiss to you all. 💋
It is difficult to take this piece seriously while knowing that Dr. Brugger rejects the death penalty via the same paradigm of innovation used in Amoris Laetitia. In fact, Dr. Brugger suggests that capital punishment is intrinsically evil and something which God permitted only temporarily. Once you admit that God can allow intrinsically evil acts, the Church in its magisterial capacity at very high levels of authority can support and implement intrinsic evil, and the duration of time which passes during which a teaching is taught is irrelevant then all is up for grabs. Hey, maybe Trent was wrong and Amoris Laetitia is right?
The death penalty as routinely used in the States does seem an evil to me and an injustice because the difference between a life sentence and capital punishment is often the ability to retain decent legal representation.
However, if in the rare occasion when there’s no other way to protect society there should be a very small window open for the death penalty. With modern correctional facilities that’s not something that would occur often. In earlier eras that differed.
For over 1900 years the Church’s justification for the death penalty did not have to do with a lack of adequate correction facilities. Even Pope John Paul II in his encyclical on Life said that the primary purpose of punishment was to reestablish right order. In other words, retribution (and not vengeance, as many bishops have called it). So, the punishment should fit the crime. This was the position of previous popes and saints.
A lot of things were uglier and crueler in past centuries Crusader. There’s a long list. I’m not condemning folks in past eras who simply took their cues from the social status quo but reforms have been made in the criminal justice system since then.
MrsCracker – Not to belabor the point, but the Church did not take its cues from the social status quo, but from scripture, the Church Fathers, etc.
Previous CWR articles by Edward Fesser and Joseph Bessette regarding their book “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed” explain this in a much more thorough way that I could not do here.
That’s precisely the thinking that got me dismissed as a potential juror in a death penalty case.
Hopefully it works the same way for me, Palace Guard.
🙂
But you never know. The last time I served on a jury my answers to the defense attorney’s questions should have alerted him I’d not be sympathetic to his client but he was a lousy lawyer and we convicted the drug dealer.
If he’d sold more drugs perhaps he might have been able to retain better legal representation.
Just read a book by Pyotr Wrangel, White Russians against the Reds, he used summary executions to stop the depredations against civilians, very effective. Keeping a human in a cage for life seems a fate worse than death unless the subject is given the spiritual means to effect a metanoia – certainly missing in our system.
A rational objection to the death penalty is political and not moral. A corrupt government, prosecutors, law enforcers, judiciary should not be empowered to execute citizens.
But the Beloved One Himself submitted to an unjust death sentence and took the good thief with Him to paradise. So impending death may have great value to transform the soul as well as defining for society that certain barbarous acts will get you terminated to face your fate at the Hand of God.
The pope would have Charlie Manson walk free.
Is the execution of heretics a bad thing if it does in fact lead to the salvation of many other souls?
If someone is unjustly killed by State authority then what effect has the Grace of God on an innocent death or martyrdom?
The extermination of countless millions of innocent babies in the womb makes the capital punishment argument look like mere window dressing, pathetic virtue signaling.
Yeah, God practiced the death penalty quite frequently in the Old Testament.
Dr. Brugger, did God change His teaching and practice? Was He wrong when Sodom done blew up?
That supposed change in the catechism “inadmitting” the death penalty might be the most distressing “magisterial” development in the last decade..
How often did He practice that in the New Testament?
I don’t know about your level of trust in our government but I personally don’t want to give the state that much power over life & death. If we don’t trust them to run fair elections, enforce quarantines, or properly use our tax dollars do we really want to trust them with our lives or the lives of others? Not me.
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead in Acts 5.
There you go, Greg.
🙂
God is certainly in charge of whom He smites & when but I think we can confuse that with our secular justice system which has a far less perfect record determining innocence & guilt.
I think if we oppose the use of the death penalty outside of exceedingly rare circumstances it’s also on us to make sure life sentences without parole mean just that. Currently parole boards routinely release sociopathic violent felons to prey again on society. It becomes a revolving door.
And in times of war, with no forces available for policing saboteurs, we should leave them to their murderous backstabbing? Or pretend that turn the other cheek was not a metaphor limited to absorbing hate, insult, and minor violence?
Aurhority is Divine. Annoited Kings subservient to a Valid (Non-freemasonic) Pope are its expression on earth. Everything else is of the freemasonic Anti-Church, Anti-City.
To J Skell and others,
I believe you have mischaracterized Dr. Brugger’s position on capital punishment. From one of his own articles, this is his conclusion:
“The 1997 Catechism clearly means to treat the death penalty as a form of self-defense and clearly means that the killing it entails must be outside the intention. The act it justifies using the term capital “punishment”—which is not really punishment at all, but a form of self-defense—does not contradict the norm: no intentional killing whatsoever. And it remains open to say that the death penalty as retributive intentional killing is always wrongful.
The CCC is authoritative for Catholics. Its reasoning on capital punishment, even if non-traditional, is not contrary to any definitive teachings of the Church. Therefore, Catholics may legitimately affirm that the death penalty is per se wrongful.
Since the legitimacy of intentionally killing criminals is not a definitive doctrine of the Catholic Church, and since three pontiffs have now taught that the morality of legitimate killing must be assessed in terms of self-defense, it follows that the Catholic Church can declare that the death penalty as intentional killing is always inadmissible.”
See https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20344/
For a more complete assessment of Dr. Brugger’s position that also takes up God’s actions in the Old Testament that some people wrongly apply in this debate, I recommend that you read in their entirety the following articles:
“Capital Punishment Is Intrinsically Wrong: A Reply to Feser and Bessette” by E. Christian Brugger (2017) at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20341/
“Catholic Tradition, St. John Paul II, and the Death Penalty” by E. Christian Brugger (2017) at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20344/ that I also quoted from above.
Brugger’s overall position that of course remains open for debate is that Capital Punishment used as Intentional Killing for revenge, etc., is intrinsically wrong, but Capital Punishment implemented only as a means of legitimate self-defense is acceptable and not intrinsically wrong.
So argue as one will in favor or opposed to Brugger’s position, it is important to make it clear what he actually states about the use of Capital Punishment and how he reasons that one form of use is intrinsically evil while another form of use is not. It is wrong to generalize his position as many have done and continue to do to make it look like he is opposed to Capital Punishment in and of itself, which he is not.
What you expostulated as Dr. Brugger’s view is precisely the position which I had in mind with my original post.
His position is formally heretical.
See Genesis 9:5 and Exodus 21:23–27 with appropriate patristic glosses.
The important distinctions made by Dr. Brugger are either eluding you or you do not care to look into them more honestly, and so you now accuse his position of being formally heretical, which makes no sense in light of all that he has written on the topic and the references he cites which address and go beyond yours and others in many respects. His position may not be correct, but declaring it to be formally heretical without explicitly pointing out why it is actually heretical (your 2 biblical references and overly broad reference to patristic glosses are woefully inadequate) based on what he has specifically written and not mischaracterized by you and others is simply not justified.
Hopefully others more interested in honestly and fairly engaging Dr. Brugger will thoughtfully and sincerely review the 2 articles cited in my previous comment that lay out Dr. Brugger’s actual position on the topic.
I am not interested in debating this issue with you here. Many others, most notably Dr. Feser, have written numerous articles refuting Dr. Brugger’s heretical and blasphemous views.
Genesis 9 and Exodus 21, the way they were understood by the magisterium, and the patristic doctors are unanimous in rejecting the possibility of Dr. Brugger’s view. This has been documented well in the very book that Dr. Brugger wrote on the topic. See “Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition, Second Edition.”
“Conservatives” on sexual moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from modernist heretics when it comes to other topics.
As I said, I don’t want to argue so this will be my last post on this thread.
Jack Skell must explain why in this case the OT alone would make the outlined position heretical.
Note the ongoing ad hominem attacks on Dr. Brugger, but no depth nor sincere engagement by Jack Skell in his comments. Instead, he pontificates that Dr. Feser’s work has illustrated both heretical and blasphemous views of Dr. Brugger, which are absurd on their face, and strongly suggest that Skell also does not understand the meanings of heretical and blasphemous. Thanks to Elias Galy for also pointing out the shallowness of Jack Skell’s unhelpful comments regarding the debate that has not been definitively settled.
Thank you, Dr. Brugger and Fr. Ryan, for this measured, thoughtful and informative treatment of a very distressing topic.
If Bergoglio fails to direct Tucho and the Dark Vatican to reverse the Holy See’s erroneous teaching on administering Communion to adulterers, would it be a deal-breaker? Would it mean that either the pope is not the true pope, or that the Catholic Church is not the true Church?
Because in that case, it seems to me, that the doctrine of papal infallibility becomes untenable.
Something has to break.
Further consideration on the topic of this essay is the prospect of what effect will a correction have, if indeed the DDF or Francis himself decide to implement one? It’s been close to 8 years since publication of Amoris Laetitia and insertion of the exchange of letters between Argentine hierarchy and His Holiness’ [too oblique as I then referenced it] affirmation entered into the AAS. Implementation has occurred en masse worldwide since.
It was at the time the strategy, I believe it was Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ editor La Civiltà Cattolica, undersecretary for the Dicastery for Culture and Education, and Francis’ consigliere who said their hope was that the expected changes would be sufficiently entrenched in Church practice that correction would not be able to change the momentum away from ‘rigid’ doctrine. Indeed that would seem the case. It would take an extremely effective ‘overhaul’ to quote Chris Altieri led by an extraordinary leader to accomplish that task. As C Brugger and Fr Ryan conclude there’s always hope.
So, if Pope Francis and at his urging/insistence the Magesterium of the Church promotes and makes this a “new teaching” of faith and morals; then what are we to make of the man or woman (or both) who are in illicit relationships outside of their marriage? Should they then not be approved, by the Pope and Church, to simply go to confession and then Eucharist while continuing their illicit relationship outside of marriage. A case could be made for that to be “acceptable” as an appendage to the Pope’s letter and agreement. One could say, well so long as “I am unable to stop my relationship outside of marriage for “love” ” then so long as I confess this sin and “do my best to stop, yet do not” then it is acceptable to this Church to continue. Yes, it seems ludicrous, yet, one could try and make this case. This is not just dangerous but changes the teaching of the Church by many previous Pope’s (some of whom are now Saints) now causing the laity to wonder which Pope the Holy Spirit and God’s Word is actually upon? Which Pope is actually following the Holy Spirit or following their own thinking and leading the Church according to their beliefs, not those of our God? Confusing and dangerous for our Church. God help us all to understand.
David, if Bergoglio were a freemasonic infiltrate seeking to explode the remains of the Post-Post-Conciliar Catholic Church, would he need to change Anything? Nothing at all, what-so-ever would need to be changed. THAT is the problem…
This article is very helpful in making Cardinal Müller’s analysis more accessible and accurately summarising his clear reasoning regarding the need for an answer to the dubia around sacramental absolution.
The dilemma brings to mind being taught that St Thomas made a clarification regarding the purpose of amendment to not sin again, however I have not been able to locate it in his writings, so I am not sure of its accuracy. It related to the term sin as being used properly of mortal sin, so that the purpose of amendment requires the firm intention to not commit mortal sin.
I will see if I can find where Thomas makes this clarification before placing further importance on this clarification for understanding the current “stand-off” between the cardinals.
In other words, as explained by Cardinal Fernandez in various places, if a confessor ascertains that a person in an adulterous second union is in a situation of reduced culpability for that adultery (cf: “causes her to sin” Mt5:32), then the confessor may absolve if the adulterer has a firm purpose to avoid all mortal sin (i.e. sins of grave matter for which they do not have reduced culpability).
This brings to mind the situation of a person whose spouse insists on contracepted sex. Under certain circumstances a person is not obliged to refuse contracepted sex with their spouse, however, the vademecum discussing this makes it clear that the person should not initiate sex if it is likely the spouse will insist on contraception.
What I find lacking in Cardinal Fernandez’s explanations is clarification around the penitent not requesting adulterous acts. There seems to be a difference between adulterous acts that are reluctantly agreed to under seriously coercive circumstances and adulterous acts that are actively requested by the penitent.
If anyone can point to a place where Cardinal Fernandez or another ‘authority!’ distinguishes these that would be helpful.
I forgot to add that in all these situations, the penitent should also commit to taking all appropriate steps towards removing themselves from the coercive situation, for example, gradually winning over the spouse to “brother and sister” continence.
It should also never be forgotten that most sin has some reduced culpability, but not sufficient as to reduce a sin regarding grievous matter to the extent that the sin is only venial. The circumstances would have to be seriously debilitating of a person’s freedom to reduce culpability for adultery so that it is not mortal. Again, this point is obscure in the explanations of Card. Fernandez, if it is made at all.
God does not want them to put themselves through all that torment when they are required to separate completely and purify interior life. Even if there are children, they are giving them the perpetuated scandal not the witness.
Not being able to reunite with the real spouse immediately is not an obstacle.
Casuistry must arrive to the truth not something else approaching the truth later, or, more falsehood, later, while keeping the falsehood now and having the truth as “so revered” it is then said to be “rigid”.
In all things, it is essential to discern God’s will.
With regard to the adulterous arrangement, can it be said in all Truth that what is being permitted is God’s will? The Pope must be able to say that the position he is stating is one he believes “without a shadow of a doubt is God’s will.”
Such a statement should never be made frivolously but with fear and trepidation.
It occurs to me that, in the past, it’s always been the voice of the evil one urging me to rationalize my sins.
Now, it seems, it’s also Bergoglio and his Dark Vatican.
This would appear to be one of history’s more portentous tipping points.
The most important element here that Muller and others who know better are not addressing is that this document is not “merely” one of the DDF but is a papal one, part of Francis’ magisterium. It was approved in what is called “in forma specifica”: when there is indication that a curial document is also approved by the pope, such as by saying that it was granted or approved in an audience with him and/or also signed by the pope- which are both the case here- it ceases to be a doc. only of the curia but is now a papal one. Muller incorrectly describes it as only a document of Fernandez but probably does not want to open the can of worms that we have a pope guilty of objective heresy. It’s hard to imagine Muller doesn’t know this, as it is a well-established, basic canonical institute.
judgment runs amok
Freelance note-board colloquy/excursus/deliberation – Re: AMORIS
Amoris indicates the following bollix / botch up, about itself:
1. corners the subject unrealistically /humanistically
2. into non-catholic corner attempting to catholicize it
3. does not address nature of divorce
a) temporal / natural law
b) supernatural / Divine law
4. deliberate estrangements temptations/pitfalls
5. open wound with potentially no healing until death
6. field day for third party attenuations on sacrament
7. positions SUBSTITUTION (sin) relationship as remedy/consolation
Apparently the justification for all this is that there is a strong current of Pelagian incurvatus rigidism requiring an undating of Thomism? Even if there were such a thing it does not correspond to the problems identified above for FAITH purposes. If there were such a person involved in a putative marriage found to be null, the issues in Amoris would be insubstantial. And Amoris itself isn’t even able to identify this but in fact sets out ideas making it worse trying to justify “substitutions” in over-extenuated/exaggerated reflections, deflecting attention from where it should be.
Thank you, CWR, for this article. It provides the reader with a clarity on the issue that is all too rare.
I wonder what kind of feedback the average Catholic would get if they sent it to their parish priest or the local bishop requesting their thoughts on it.
A compilation of such feedback would reveal much about the state of the Church today.
My debut novel,The LORE of UNSPOKEN, is a new fantasy story that presents aspects of Catholic faith in a hidden and somewhat mysterious way. Not unlike the present doctrinal controversies affecting the Church, at the heart of the novel’s fantasy world lie the caves of light, and for a long time many have wondered whether inscribing truths on those mysterious walls would result in those truths lighting up. Of course, this is not the whole story or plot, but the guardians of those caves came to the view that nothing ambiguous could ever light up on the mysterious walls, owing to the contradictory and damaging interepretations that could result. Perhaps a story for our times.