So now it's truly official:
Bergoglio's letter to Argentine bishops that
'there are no other interpretations'of AL but
to allow communion to some adulterers is now
part of the 'acta' of his pontificate
by Andrew Guernsey
December 3, 2017
This week, the Vatican's organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), published its October 2016 issue, containing Pope Francis's infamous Letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops.
AAS not only published this letter, declaring that there are "no other interpretations" ("
No hay otras interpretaciones") of Amoris Laetitia other than those of the Buenos Aires bishops, but it also published
the full Buenos Aires guidelines themselves, which permit Holy Communion in some cases for couples in a state of permanent and public adultery who are not committed to living in complete continence.
Most significantly,
AAS upgrades Pope Francis's private letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the official magisterial status of an "Apostolic Letter" ("Epistula Apostolica") -
AND it includes a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State.
This rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends that BOTH documents - the pope's letter and the Buenos Aires guidelines themselves- bear the character of his "authentic Magisterium", and that the pope personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website.
Rescript: "From an Audience with His Holiness"
The Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two preceding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium.
From the Vatican Palace, on the day of June 5 in the year 2017
Pietro Card. Parolin
Secretary of State
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a papal rescript as follows: "Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favours; others the administration of justice, e.g. the interpretation of a law, the appointment of a judge."
Rescipts generally have the force of particular law, however, as in this case, only "when they interpret or promulgate a general law, are they of universal application."
Since papal rescripts answer an inquiry - could this rescript be a direct reply to the DUBIA of the Four Cardinals? [To the first dubium, directly, Yes, and logically and by implication, NO to the other four. The wrong answers to the DUBIA obviously. Does Bergoglio's cunning way of promulgating anti-Catholic teaching by rescript spare him from the accusation of material heresy?]
Under Canon 8 § 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the AAS is the regular method by which "universal ecclesiastical laws" are to be promulgated:
“Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless some other manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases.”
While most papal documents appearing in AAS lack canonical or disciplinary force, the Pope's rescript at the hand of Cardinal Parolin is clearly intended to give the Buenos Aires Guidelines a significant level of Magisterial authority in the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.
The pope's use of the term "authentic magisterium" is especially troubling because it appears intended to trigger Canon 752, to purportedly require "religious submission of the intellect and will" to the Buenos Aires guidelines' overturning of the traditional teaching of the Church:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
In paragraph 6 of the Buenos Aires guidelines, now explicitly to be treated as belonging to Pope FrancisS' "authentic magisterium", the allowance for communion in cases of couples in a state of adultery without living in complete continence is made explicit:
6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option [living in continence] may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
Pope Francis'S once private letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops, but now to be considered an Apostolic Letter belonging to his "authentic magisterium", confirms these guidelines:
"The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good."
The problem with Amoris Laetitia, it is clear, is not merely with "liberal bishops" who interpret it, but with the pope whose manifest interpretation of his own document is impossible to square with the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Catholic faith.
BTW, what does Cardinal Burke now say about this development? If the pope has decreed that both the letter of the Argentine bishops and his reply supporting their position (both of them private letters to begin with) are his 'authentic magisterium', how can Amoris laetitia, which is a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation and therefore by definition, part of this pope's Magisterium - it automatically went into the Acta Apostolis Sedae - not be considered as such?
I understand the cardinal's point that any papal teaching that is contrary to the deposit of faith may not be considered part of the Magisterium of the Church, but that is a technical point that does not concern the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.2-billion-plus Catholics who still believe that when it is reported that "the pope says...', then that is the word of the Vicar of Christ on earth and must be 'accepted'.
Pope’s letter on Argentinian communion guidelines
for remarried divorcees now has official status
by Steve Skojec
December 2, 2017
A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes in the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.
Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open
“the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that
“The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”
In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.
Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as
the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”
As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:
The “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, with the bishops' directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father].
[Can we all stop already with this 'confusion and uncertainty' charade? The only reason Bergoglio has refused to answer the DUBIA is that to do so, whether he answers the five questions in the right way, or answers them honestly according to what he really thinks - of which no one can be in doubt, so what confusion and uncertainty could there be? - he would place himself in estoppel [the legal term for a bar or impediment preventing a party from asserting a fact or a claim inconsistent with a position that party previously took, either by conduct or words, especially where that representation has been relied or acted upon by others].
More simply said, if he answers the DUBIA in the only correct way they can be answered, it would mean renouncing his propositions in AL - which he has spent the better part of the past three years seeking to consolidate and institutionalize unilaterally. But if he answers the DUBIA honestly, consistent with his real intentions as well as his words and actions, then he gives his accusers ground for accusing him of material heresy, when the whole point of all that calculated casuistry in AL was to avoid giving anyone a reason to do so. Now this rescript seems to be Bergoglio defying his accusers and the Catholic faith by boldly promulgating a relativistic morality! I can already shudder to think of the 'charitable' and inexplicably forbearing light in which Cardinal Burke et al will choose to cast this latest diabolical defiance!]
He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.
To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.]/dim]
You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)
Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure.
We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority.
“It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals. Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.
Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by
potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:
And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.”
News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.
It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March,
The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.
Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book,
The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”
It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it has become an official act of the Apostolic See.
As reported in
The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist [and Bergoglio hagiographer] Paul Vallely in 2013,
“Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 04/12/2017 17:00]