Vatican City, Dec 5, 2017 / 05:19 pm (CNA).- Despite the recent inclusion of Pope Francis’ 2016 letter to the Buenos Aires bishops on Amoris laetitia in the Holy See’s official text of record, neither the Church’s discipline nor its doctrine have changed.
The move is the latest in the debate over the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Communion. The Second Vatican Council, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI – as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts under them – all firmly opposed proposals to admit to eucharistic communion the divorced-and-remarried who do not observe continence.
The debate has received renewed impetus under Pope Francis. His 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family, Amoris laetitia, has been met with varied reception and interpretation within the Church. Its eighth chapter, entitled “Accompanying, Discerning, and Integrating Weakness,” deals with, among other things, the pastoral care of the divorced-and-remarried, those who may not be admitted to Communion unless they have committed to living in continence, eschewing the acts proper to married couples.
Yet, for many Church leaders and theologians, ambiguous language in that chapter has led to uncertainties about this practice, and about the nature and status of the apostolic exhortation itself. Some have maintained that it is incompatible with Church teaching, and others that it has not changed the Church’s discipline. Still others read Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice, or even as a development in continuity with St. John Paul II.
Some Church leaders have noted that Amoris laetitia has led to the disorientation and great confusion of many of the faithful, and at least one respected theologian has argued that Francis’ pontificate has fostered confusion, diminished the importance of doctrine in the Church’s life, and cause faithful Catholics to lose confidence in the papacy.
Pope Francis has been understood to encourage those who interpret Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice – as he seemed to do in a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region, which is the subject of the latest furor.
His letter approves those bishops’ pastoral response to the divorced-and-remarried, based on Amoris laetitia. The response had said that ministry to the divorced-and-remarried must never create confusion about Church teaching and the indissolubility of marriage, but may also allow access to the sacraments under specific limits. These might include specific situations when a penitent in an irregular union is under attenuated culpability, as when leaving such a union could cause harm to his children, although the circumstances envisioned are not precisely delineated, which, some theologians say, has contributed to the confusion.
The Pope’s Sept. 5, 2016 letter addressed to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel said, “The text is very good and makes fully explicit the meaning of the eighth chapter of ‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do a lot of good. May the Lord reward you for this effort of pastoral charity.”
It was reported this weekend that Pope Francis’ letter, as well as the pastoral response of the Buenos Aires bishops, were promulgated in the October 2016 issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a Vatican publication in which official documents of the Pope and the Roman Curia are published, and through which universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated.
Dr. Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote Dec. 4 that the Buenos Aires document contains assertions “running the gamut from obviously true, through true-but-oddly-or-incompletely phrased, to a few that, while capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, are formulated in ways that lend themselves to heterodox understandings.”
He noted that what prevents the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is canon 915 “and the universal, unanimous interpretation which that legislative text, rooted as it is in divine law, has always received.” The canon states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
In an August 2017 post anticipating the possible publication in AAS of the Buenos Aires letter or the Pope’s commendation of it, Peters had written that “many, nay most, papal documents appearing in the Acta carry no canonical or disciplinary force.”
He wrote that “Unless canon 915 itself is directly revoked, gutted, or neutered, it binds ministers of holy Communion to withhold that most august sacrament from, among others, divorced-and-remarried Catholics except where such couples live as brother-sister and without scandal to the community.”
“Nothing I have seen to date, including the appearance of the pope’s and Argentine bishops’ letters in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, makes me think that Canon 915 has suffered such a fate.”
He added: “Neither the pope’s letter to the Argentines, nor the Argentine bishops’ document, nor even Amoris laetitia so much as mentions Canon 915, let alone do these documents abrogate, obrogate, or authentically interpret this norm out of the Code of Canon Law.”
While the Pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires bishops’ pastoral response do contain ambiguous “disciplinary assertions”, they are insufficient “to revoke, modify, or otherwise obviate” canon 915, Peters wrote.
Aside from the canonical problems with the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is the question of what it means that the Buenos Aires document and the Pope’s letter in support of it are intended to be a part of the Church’s Magisterium.
A rescript from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, in the AAS notes that their promulgation was intended “as authentic Magisterium.”
The Magisterium is a part of teaching office of bishops, by which they are charged with interpreting and preserving the deposit of faith. In its 1990 declaration Donum veritatis, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that the Magisterium “has the task of discerning, by means of judgments normative for the consciences of believers, those acts which in themselves conform to the demands of faith and foster their expression in life and those which, on the contrary, because intrinsically evil, are incompatible with such demands.”
Catholics are bound to assent to divinely revealed teachings with faith; to firmly embrace and retain those things which are required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the deposit of faith; and to give religious submission of intellect and will to doctrines on faith or morals given through the authentic Magisterium.
The critical question regarding Amoris laetitia is what, precisely, it teaches with regard to faith and morals, and what it doesn’t, or even, can’t, teach. On the latter question, especially, the Church’s existent doctrine is helpful.
Even while some bishops, such as those of the Buenos Aires region and those of Malta, have interpreted the apostolic exhortation as allowing a new pastoral practice, many others have maintained that it changes nothing of doctrine or discipline.
For example, while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller said that Amoris laetitia has not eliminated Church discipline on marriage, nor has it has permitted in some cases the divorced-and-remarried “to receive the Eucharist without the need to change their way of life.”
“This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason: the salvific harmony of the sacrament, the heart of the ‘culture of the bond’ that the Church lives.”
The prefect of the CDF said that if Pope Francis’ exhortation “had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons.”
“There is however no affirmation in this sense; nor does the Pope bring into question, at any time, the arguments presented by his predecessors, which are not based on the subjective culpability of our brothers, but rather on their visible, objective way of life, contrary to the words of Christ,” Cardinal Müller stated.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church that marriage is indissoluble, that people not married to each other may not legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy, that the Eucharist may not be received by those conscious of grave sin, and that absolution requires the purpose of amending one’s life, even with a diminished or limited capacity to exercise the will.
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists … Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
St. John Paul II promulgated the Catechism in 1992 by the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, in which he wrote that it “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
“The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church … of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples, as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”
Critical to understanding the character of the Church’s teaching on these issues is a declaration the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts wrote in 2000 that canon 915’s prohibition on admitting to Holy Communion those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin is applicable to the divorced-and-remarried.
“Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading,” it said.
This prohibition, the pontifical council continued, is “by its nature derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.”
This declaration defines a kind of a limit on how the Magisterium can develop; by invoking divine law, the council says that no pastoral approach can transgress the norms of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While considering questions of subjective culpability do not exceed those norms, the council’s directive explains that the Church can not, and will not, redefine the deposit of faith.
The deposit of faith has not been changed, and nor has canon law. Despite a great deal of anxiety and media attention, truth remains unchanged, and unchanging.
While some find the Pope’s writing to be ambiguous, truth is not. Amoris laetitia must be interpreted in a way that does not contravene truth.
Even when such an interpretation is not readily apparent.
[…]
The whole aspect of censors needs to be looked at especially the automatic enactment of excommunication! What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference? What about clergy who are terrified this has happened to them. WHAT ABOUT MERCY? Does discussion about the ssm blessing warrant a similar attack?
For the record, he was wrong about what he said but there should have been a formal warning and if that isn’t hedded then excommunication be enacted. Personally, I feel automatic censors should be scrapped or limited with formal warnings.
“According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
This was not a problem of the bishop not understanding the priest. The priest had moved out to join up with other sedevacantists and left the keys to the Church with a laywoman for the bishop to find. This wasn’t a priest who just let his mouth get the better of him.
Automatic excommunication doesn’t incur a punishment until the local ordinary imposes it. Given the number of heterodox priests we have, there’s probably a shortage of such impositions.
Thanks Amanda for the clarification! I can see that in the light of what you have said, the bishop did reach out only to get rejected! Prayers for all concerned,
Great additional information, Amanda. This needs to be in the original CWR article, because I can see a lot of people getting mislead and getting riled up perhaps unnecessarily.
Thank you, Amanda.
Not an accident or joke. And, about “automatic censors” or censures (?), the article reports that a formal warning was in fact given: “According to a local paper in Livorno, the bishop met with Guidetti before Christmas to discuss his dissent and proceeded with the official excommunication decree after the priest’s public act of schism on Dec. 31.”
Given a presumably honest bind of conscience, rather than silently discerning or even waiting in silence, the pastor then crossed the line by going very public, and to a captive audience within the Church. He knew the consequences. Yes?
The cleverer case is Bishop Batzing & Co. who couch their dissent as still always wanting to be “Catholic but in a different way.” This, for example, after the Magisterium (with foresight!) has spoken clearly about natural law and about moral absolutes. Three extracts from Veritatis Splendor (1993):
“The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT DUE TO THE INSISTENT DEMANDS OF THE PERSONAL DIGNITY OF EVERY MAN [italics], demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit WITHOUT EXCEPTION [caps added] actions which are intrinsically evil” (n. 90).
“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).
What a blessed mess!
Excommunicated by Bergoglio? Two possibilities:
1) Bergoglio is note the pope. If so excommunication is note valid.
2) Francisco is the Pope. If so Bergoglio has declared that you don’t need to be catholic to be saved.
One way or amother, no problema.
This might get sticky but it would be interesting to know what the basis was for this priest’s conclusion.
This is the other kind of scandal committed via Fiducia Supplicans. On the one hand are all the people who read it and decide that sodomy is OK now and gay marriages are around the corner. On the other hand are all the people who read it, are horrified, and flee the Church. Both totally predictable from reading the text with half an ounce of common sense.
I wonder what might happen to a member of the laity who said the same thing?
Juxtapose this against the evil misdeeds of Rev. Rupnick (former S.J) who coerced nuns under his influence to have sex with him and then forgave the penitent nun of her fornication with him in the Sacrament of Penance. What were his consequences? Oh, he became assigned to a bishop in Slovenia when he was kicked out of the Jesuits but reportedly is still working in Rome as a priest and producing “Church art.” But….let anyone say anything about dear old Bergoglio and he or she gets excomnunicated from the Church. George Bergoglio is laughable.
I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: Two wrongs don’t make a right?
I wasn’t excusing either one from culpability. I was simply comparing the consequences of each act. But, since you raised the issue, I’d have to say that Rupnick’s behavior was more egresiously offensive. If you don’t agree, I’d suggest you ask the nun(s) he violated.
Deacon Edward: Both actions are wrong for different reasons. You know that. Please don’t use silly rhetoric.
Andrew, once again I state that I am addressing myself to the CONSEQUENCES of the acts.
Keep making comments like you did and you will find out about being a layperson. If you’re going to call out the Holy Father by his given name (and it’s Jorge, by the way, not George), then you are basically saying he is not the Pope of Rome. If you are a Latin Rite deacon, I suggest you drop the title the next time you post. You give clergy a bad name.
Mr. Moon, that is your opinion. And, for your information, I wholeheartedly agree that Bergoglio is the Pope (and legitimately so). So don’t try to bait me. I just happen to think he’s a lousy Pope.
“What if a priest who accidentally or joking makes a similar reference?” INTENT. If he aknowledges it was a JOKE then the offense is not an actual offense. A priest is in service to the Church and the Church is led by the Pope. You can’t attack the ceo.
The head of the Church is Christ, and nearly everyone in the Church attacks Him on a regular basis without getting kicked out. Jesus is meek and humble of heart.
The early Church Fathers tended to recognize sins, even mortal sins, as not removing you from the Church. But they also recognized heresy and schism as separating you from the Church. Rejecting the Faith by heresy or rejecting the Church by schism makes you no longer Catholic (although obviously this is solved by Confession, not by re-baptism).
Amanda: Sorry to say, but the early Church booted laity and clergy for all sorts of things. Things that today would be considered very small (for example, critiquing a secular ruler could get one excommunicated – Canon 84). Check out the Apostolic Canons from the 3rd century as a very early example of the many rules that could get one deposed and/or excommunicated.
Canon 55 might apply to the above article: If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for you shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.
I’m aware. I was speaking of the sins that the Fathers would consider to put you outside the Church, regardless of whether explicit excommunication followed. A heretic or schismatic is de facto not Catholic, regardless of whether a bishop has declared them excommunicate.
The disciplinary canons of 3rd century councils do not apply in the present day.
I know they don’t apply today. I was commenting on your assertion that the early Church Father’s were more lenient. They weren’t. A whole bunch of things could get you excommunicated or deposed and the penances to get back were long.
I wouldn’t say they were more lenient in terms of dishing out punishment, no. And St. Paul had a man shunned for sleeping with his father’s wife, which makes one wonder what he would do with the likes of Rupnik or McCarrick.
But the Fathers seem to have been pretty settled that, even entirely absent any actual punishment, heresy and schism put you outside the Church. Excommunication was a punishment by removal of the spiritual benefits of Catholicism, treated as a tax collector or sinner. Mortal sin meant you were spiritually dead. Heresy or schism meant you weren’t Catholic, not even a bad Catholic or a severely punished Catholic or a spiritually dead Catholic.
To not speak evil of an evil man who aids and abets crimes against humanity like Francis, is to be a coward of a man. As a material heretic, I submit he has forfeited the papacy. If this excommunicates me, so be it. At my final accounting, I will not be standing before Francis or Fernandez.
Many thanks, dear Edward J Baker. A sizeable proportion of informed, faithful Catholics are with you. Like Fr Ramon Guidetti, our focus is on Jesus, Mary, & Joseph & the mighty assembly of faithful saints & martyrs. It is they who will judge those who have been faithful to The Word of God.
Maybe some resourceful Catholics will initiate a holy order (with scapulae?) – perhaps called NEUA (‘non e un accessorio’) to distance ourselves, like Fr Ramon wanted to, from the errors of the current leaders.
‘NEUA’ might solve the conundrum of how faithful, ordinary Catholics, both clergy & lay, can spiritually distance themselves from the heinous errors currently emanating from Rome.
“We are fully authentically Catholic; but not accessories of bad leaders!”
Ever trying my best to love & follow The Lamb; blessings from marty
Well, at least he did not claim Pope Francis is a lizard person.
Terrible occurrence. Citing canon 751 it seems an excommunication a jure, by the law rather than an ab hominem sentence. Hope it can be resolved. Apparently the timing is related to the issuance of Fiducia supplicans.
Criticism of a Roman Pontiff from the pulpit should not reach the level of repudiating his papacy. Whether some believe Francis is not, the fact is he’s acclaimed by the Church as pontiff. Both Benedict and John Paul would agree with that assessment whether there was a question of an unlawful election. No one has presented indisputable evidence. Even if there were now found it would be a moot issue. Criticism couched in the form of brotherly correction is permissible.
Fr Thomas Weinandy’s OFM Cap letter of correction to Pope Francis was quite harsh and accusatory although it was in the form of an appeal. Clergy are more strictly bound than laity, although no one’s immune.
“Clergy are more strictly bound than laity,”
And this member of the laity wants to know why Theodore McCarrick was never excommunicated.
Canon law and justice is one thing, just application is another. We’ve seen that unjust pattern since 2013.
Many thanks, dear Fr Peter, for your loving of Truth above powerful men.
One now winces every time PF, in bright white robes, mouths Gospel truths that his actions prove he actually despises.
Matthew 23:27-28 – “Alas for you, scribes & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You who are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside . . . you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy & lawlessness.”
Yet, let’s believe the malodors in Rome, by God’s overcoming Grace, will activate millions of normally dormant Catholics to decide to show what it really means to be a sincere lover of & follower of King Jesus Christ.
Ever seeking to love & obey Jesus, our LORD; blessings from marty
The same ‘bully boy’ excommunication tactic was used by Australian Catholic hierarchs against another truth teller – now known as Saint Mary of the Cross Mackillop, who is our ONLY Aussie Saint and, by the grace of Jesus Christ, a mighty intercessor!
Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop, please pray for Father Ramon Guidetti.
Deacon Peitler – I think you would win more support for your views if you ceased your disrespectful naming of Pope Francis.
Just sayin’.
It seems like a concern of yours but I do not live my life motivated by the approval of people I do not even know. I don’t look for “upvotes” in life; I look to say what I believe to be true. I tend to give respect to those who I perceive to live with integrity.
If this priest actually believes these things then he is clearly not in communion with the Universal Pastor of the Church and as such no longer in communion with the Church that the Pope leads. It’s kind of a no brainer that he is automatically excommunicated.
Thank you Andrew, you’re spot-on. Even though Francis is pretty liberal, he’s still our Pope. That fact must be recognized by all bishops and priests who have taken their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as servants of the One True Church.
Tbe German Bishops, along with Fr James Martin, can crawl back into their pathetic hole of heresy, but so can Fr Altman and Fr Ramon Guidetti for that matter.
With the exception that Fr. Martin and those like him will not be excommunicated, eh?
How easy is that dear Andrew . . !
YET: if Fr Ramon Guidetti is a faithful Catholic in every way yet is honestly convinced that the current incumbent of The Chair of Peter is in many ways not a faithful Catholic, and, like so many of us is deeply scandalized by non-Catholic teachings by him & his clique, the good priest is just, before Christ, to question the legitimacy of the papacy of Jeorge Bergoglio.
If, historically, Jeorge proves to have been the prophesied ‘Man of Sin’ – he is by far the best candidate ever – those who supported his papacy & those who excommunicate truth-teller faithful will look pretty silly! Don’t you think?
Ever following King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
If those who are honestly convinced that the Pope isn’t the Pope are to receive sympathy, than I don’t think there’s room to laugh at those who honestly think he is, albeit a bad one, even in a hypothetical future where they are proved wrong.
Thanks, dear Amanda. But no one is laughing at the current debacle.
This article & all our comments hinge on what is meant by ‘a bad pope’. ‘Bad’ covers possibilities ranging from merely tardy to maliciously malfeasant to a Christ-defying demon counterfeiting as an angel of light.
The majority of good Catholics simply can’t believe that the processes of our lovely Church could allow someone really bad to get into leadership. To protect our sanity, too many of us aimlessly repeat: “The pope is the pope!”
Is their hope? YES! Let all the faithful thank God that our obedience to Christ is the rock that cannot be shaken (Matthew 7:24).
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
yet financial and sexual sins merit what?
the Church has bigger problems than what this priest said/proclaimed
Bishop Simone Giusti informed his diocese that Catholics are not to attend any Masses offered by the excommunicated priest or they would also “incur the very serious penalty of excommunication.”
Where in canon law does it hold that the laity would suffer such a penalty under those circumstances?
It doesn’t, unless you take attendance at such a Mass as clear and sufficient evidence of schism rather than, say, misplaced loyalty to one’s priest or anger at the Pope whom you agree is the Pope. Makes you wonder what he’d do with someone regularly attending Protestant services…
I’m pretty sure he’d have to declare those excommunications. You can’t be automatically excommunicated outside of what is specified in canon law, and while schism is specified, attending a non-Catholic Mass, or not attending a Catholic Mass, isn’t.
Fr. James Altman’s bishop has been extraordinary patient and charitable considering the priest’s prolonged behavior compared to this Italian priest’s one homily. Perhaps there is a lot more that we don’t know about. May God bless them all.
So he now has an “irregular” relationship with the Church? Just give him an impromptu blessing a la Fiducia Supplicans and everything is back to a-OK, eh, Tucho?
Bullseye! When you think about it, the Church is inundated with irregular relationships of all sorts. For instance, anyone who associates with and supports Joe Biden is in a very irregular relationship and would deserve a blessing from his parish priest.
(A) Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, with the exception of a few hot-tempered clergy, like Guidetti, all priests, bishops, cardinals, and religious superiors are afraid of Francis—including the Bishop Giusti. You can diddle boys or girls, and Francis will look the other way, but call out Francis, and it is off with your head, and they’ll label you schismatic. (B) That being said, I disagree with Guidetti on one point: I think Francis is pope. (C) But it’s hard to disagree with Guidetti on his other complaints: that Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.
Well put, dear Richard Cross: “Francis is a Jesuit, who talks like a Freemason, and who is in some ways attempting to usurp the traditions of the Church. Seems all rather obvious to me.”
Only, Catholics au fait with The New Testament & The Catechism of the Catholic Church consider Francis’ usurping of our traditions to include flagrant anti-Apostolic disobedience to the clear instructions of our LORD Jesus Christ. Hence, the conclusion that he is not qualified to run a Sunday School class let alone Christ’s Church.
Ever striving to hear & follow The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
Deacon Peitler again – I agree that popularity and support for our viewpoints are not, in themselves, worthy motives. But respect and charity toward others (even when we think they deserve them) are.
Again, there is no disrespect or lack of charity in his responses. That is a false accusation. In supporting Francis, you are defending the indefensible.
Correction – even when we think they don’t deserve them.
He said Francis is not the Pope and meant it. Thus he is refusing submission and communion with the Chair of Peter.
He got what he deserved. Granted it is fair to complain Fr. Martin should get what he deserves too but that is neither here nor there.
But one still must ask whether Francis is in communion with his predecessors and the constant teachings that they’ve upheld. He is indeed the Pope, he simply doesn’t conduct himself as one.
Dear ‘Jim the Scott’: “He got what he deserved.”
What he deserved was an open & charitable mind on the part of his superiors – in the same spirit as synodality! Fr Ramon deserved to be listened to and to have his major objections addressed in detail by PF, as Jesus Christ himself has taught us.
Fr Ramon, with millions of other faithful Catholics, is deeply troubled by PF’s betrayal of our beloved Chinese Catholic brothers & sisters, by his erecting pagan idols in Rome, by his laxity in prosecuting clergy who have sexually abused children & vulnerable adults, by his unwillingness to speak clearly about events in Ukraine and Palestine, by his giving Holy Communion to public advocates of infanticide, by his fraternizing with producers of pornography, by his malice towards those who see matters differently to him, by his manipulation of the college of cardinals & the curial offices in Rome, by his promoting of friends to positions far above their talent or experience, by his obstinate & subtle advocacy for homosexuality & adultery, by his swinging incompetence in so many areas, AND by the evidence-based suspicion that his election to the papacy was engineered in ways that should, in all justice, automatically bar him from that office. And there’s a lot more!
As the leader of our enormous Church, PF should have set an example in transparency and accountability not in lashing out at those who are legitimately making their complaints known. His is an atrocious example. May there never be such a pope again.
This was likely not a wise move by this priest. On the other hand I was not aware that commenting about the legitimacy of a pope was an offense for which a priest could be excommunicated.
Imagine being a priest who was ordained promising blind obedience to their church superiors. Then imagine you see a pope going off the rails on a consistent basis saying and doing things in direct contradiction of everything you have been taught or known about church theology and law. Where, as a priest, does that leave you?? How do you square your vow to obey upper churchmen with unknown intent, and what your own conscience tells you is wrong?? Maybe you do what this priest did and express yourself to the sheep YOU are responsible for shepherding. Perhaps not a smart tactical move but one which you feel morally obligated to express.
Let us all pray the next pope is more orthodox, has a better grasp of Catholic theology, and ALSO has thicker skin. What would Jesus do? Probably NOT excommunicate a priest who is making his distress at the direction of the church publicly known.
Good points, and He knew Judas was an actual betrayer, not just a talker and yet he was allowed at the last Supper, right?
Judas was allowed at the Last Supper, and given Holy Communion, because his sin was not manifest. Only Jesus knew.
Even present canon law requires that a person in mortal sin be given Holy Communion even if the priest is aware of it – if the sin is not manifest or public. Canon law requires that the person be denied if it is manifest. You’ll notice Jesus didn’t invite the Sanhedrin to the Last Supper.
No priest promises blind obedience to his superior. Even religious, who take actual vows of obedience, do not agree to blind obedience. All obedience to a superior is ordered toward obedience to Christ, and where the superior orders things contrary to Christ, you obey Christ. That doesn’t mean your superior is automatically deposed or must have been invalidly elected, or that you are henceforth relieved of obedience.
The Pope going off the rails doesn’t mean he isn’t Pope. The office would be useless if we had to be forever ascertaining whether a Pope was validly elected based on whether his behavior was atrocious, or whether his non-infallible statements were clear, cogent, and orthodox.
I don’t know of any way in which this priest was being ordered to do something contrary to his conscience, unless you count acknowledging Francis as Pope while offering Mass. He wasn’t excommunicated for giving an explainer on FS that rejected it, or for refusing to bless a same-sex couple.
I have a lot of sympathy for this priest being scandalized by the Pope and the cardinals, but he was wrong, schismatic, and scandalous. And now no Pope or bishop, no matter how gentle and generous, can lift his excommunication without his repentance.
Dear Amanda, well-argued but divorced from two realities.
First, that many lower order clerics live in terror of hierarchs who can abolish their Church positions & reduce them to impoverished, homeless, unskilled has-beens. Only very courageous persons (such as Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop) can exercise the freedom to dissent that you say is theirs.
Second: Fr Ramon Guidetti was making public his refusal to be an ACCOMPLICE of the grievous offences of PF & entourage against Christ Jesus, His Blessed Mother Mary, and numerous faithful saints & martyrs (i.e. THE CHURCH sensu strictum). His ‘excommunication’ is unarguably null & voided by those circumstances (even on your own criteria).
Incidentally, when excommunicated & thrown out on the street by the Catholic hierarchy, Saint Mary Mackillop and her wonderful Catholic nuns were cared for by Jewish and by Presbyterian Australians.
Plenty for us Catholics to think about, if we truly face the injustices of these situations.
Always striving to hear & follow Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
They do indeed promise total obedience. I will assume the proper response at their ordination to the question of their obedience is “YES”.Yes is not a conditional response. Men being ordained do not respond that they will obey, “In so far as conscience allows me”. They say yes. Period.
If you follow the Catholic press at all you must be aware that Francis has given any number of statements which have been of major concern to the Catholic public. It is exactly because he has wandered far from Catholic orthodoxy that many catholics view the pope with concern.. The recent firing of conservative catholic clerics and his recent paper giving an “OK” to blessing those in gay relationships are but two among MANY reasons why this Pope has lost credibility.
Well put, dear ‘LJ”.
At ordination, I heard 2 new priests questioned by our Archbishop: “Will you respect & obey me and my successors?” I couldn’t hear their replies. Was praying that they would say: “I will respect & obey you, dear Archbishop, in accord with the instructions of our King Jesus Christ in The New Testament and in accord with the wisdom of our Catholic Saints & Elders in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Commenters are losing focus. Those who question this Pope’s legitimacy do not do so based on their view of his performance. I believe it harkens back to the resignation of Pope Benedict–the messiness and lack of clarity behind it. The fact that the papal approach and Vatican leadership took a major left turn with Pope Francis feeds the fuel for those who question whether Pope Benedict was pushed out.
Mom of 3,
I think there’s been a lot of unanswered questions ever since Pope Benedict resigned and conspiracy theories often have a grain of truth behind them. It’s the conflation of that which becomes a problem and a tool to cause division.
The Body of Christ needs to stick together and we should be faithful and vigilant, watching for any attempt to break us apart.
Mr. Ramon Guidetti is correct, so far as his words are concerned. But he is an advocate of Benevacantism. I know that Benevacantism is incorrect.
What is most important to any Catholic is making sure that he is following the pope, and not an antipope. It is a fact that at one point there were three people claiming to be the pope.