I've not really had the time to review the backlog of reports and commentaries on the CORRECTIO, but Aldo Maria Valli's blog today provides an excellent take-off point.
After the 'Correctio' - what now?
Translated from
October 5, 2017
‘Heresy’ and ‘schism’ – near-archaic words which would seem to have virtually disappeared from the vocabulary of Catholics - are back in the center of numerous analyses and observations on the present situation in the Church. For many Catholics, who are concerned as much about safeguarding the faith as the unity of the Church, these words are a source of disquiet.
Thence, a question which – without ever losing faith in the Spirit of Truth, “assiduous Advocate and Defender of the work of salvation” (in St. John Paul II’s definition) – is laden with anguish: Now what?
Especially after the publication on Sept. 24 of the
«Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis» (Filial correction on the propagation of heresies), the idea that the pope himself, through his magisterium, has fallen into statements with heretical content, is now in the center of a vast and vigorous debate which seems to be getting more passionate every day.
The origin of it all, as we all know, is the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia in which are found, according to the 40 original signatories of the
Correctio (now 216, without counting the thousands who have signed on to it online), seven heretical propositions regarding matrimony, moral life and the reception of the Sacraments.
At the same time, Cardinal Brandmueller, one of the four cardinals who had sent this pope in July 2016 their Five Dubia about AL (the others being Burke, Cafarra and Meisner – though the latter two have recently died), has written an article reproposing the idea of a profession of faith to be made by this pope, an idea that had earlier been proposed by don Nicola Bux, liturgist and a consultant of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, of Divine Worship, and of the Causes of Sainthood under Benedict XVI.
Thus we asked Fr. Bux a number of questions.
In the light of recent declarations by Cardinal Mueller on the need for a public disputatio over AL, and the words of Cardinal Secretary of State Parolin that “within the Church, it is important to dialog”, what can we expect? Is it realistic to think that there may be a response from this pope and that he could agree to his personal profession of faith to dissipate doubts and shadows?
The authentic unity of the Church is achieved in the truth. The Church was established by its founder – he who said “I am the truth” – as “the pillar and foundation of truth”
(1 Tim 3,15). Without truth, unity does not subsist, and charity would be fiction.
The idea that the Church is a federation of ecclesial communities – somewhat like the Protestant communities – would make it difficult for this pope to make a Catholic profession of faith.
In fact, his two ‘family synods’ have made way for a faith and morality which we could define at the very least as a dual-speed
highway – proven by the fact that in some places, it is not possible to give communion to [unqualified] remarried divorcees while in others, it is common practice. Thus, not a few bishops and parish priests are in a position of great embarrassment because of a pastoral situation that has become unstable and confused.
That being the case, I think it is realistic to think of a ‘roundtable discussion’, within the Church,
to understand what is Catholic and what is not – a doctrinal confrontation, about what doctrine must dictate pastoral practice. Doctrinal development always gains with debate, which is won by those who have convincing arguments.
The example comes from Joseph Ratzinger, who, first as Prefect of the CDF and then as Pope, met with various dissenting theologians, confronting their arguments directly.
If there is no such confrontation, then apostasy will deepen and schism will widen. But rational and charitable confrontation within the Church makes a profession of faith by the pope necessary, in order to reaffirm the Catholic faith as the standard to be followed by every Catholic. To make it clear, a profession of faith similar to that which Paul VI made in 1968
[often referred to as Paul VI’s Credo] to reaffirm exactly what is Catholic in the face of errors and heresies which were disseminated soon after Vatican II, especially with the publication of the so-called ‘Dutch Catechism’.
Some have noted that the initiative of the Correctio, as ‘sensational’ as it has seemed to be, is really not a novelty, because even in the time of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and back to Paul VI himself, there had been manifestations and petitions to the pope from theologians, clerics and laymen, individually or in some organized way. These were position papers by scholars who claimed that Vatican-II, through its anti-dogmatism, or rather, a non-homogeneous development of dogma, had caused a rupture with the ‘preceding’ Church, and therefore accused those popes of centralism and closedness to the demands of modernity. Do you think that is analogous at all to what is happening today?
No, because
those protests were an un-Catholic attack against Catholic magisterium. At the same time, other theologians and laymen, out of distrust of Vatican-II, manifested their opposition to every innovation, even healthy ones.
In both cases, they manifested protests, not correction.
Now, the first type of protesters, many of whom have found a niche in the Church establishment, either have chosen to stay quiet or are
defending the pope without ever going into the merits of the heresies that are being questioned, especially with regard to AL. Let us remember that St. Pope pius X, in his encyclical
Pascendi dominici gregis, warned that
it is typical of mdernists to say heresies about the truth of the faith without admitting so.
But why do you think a profession of faith by the pope would be desirable? And if this pope – as everyone seems to think – will not do it, what would happen then?
In the Decree of Gratianus
(pars I, dist. 40, cap.VI) we find this canon:
“No mortal shall presume to speak of an error by the pope, because he, who is charged with judging everything, must not be judged by anyone as long as he does not deviate from the faith”.
Distancing or straying from the faith is called heresy, which comes from the Greek
airesis, which means the choice and absolutization of some truth that minimizes or denies truths which are in the roster of Catholic truths (I recall in this case Hans Urs Von Balthasar's essay entitled “Truth is symphonic”).
Obviously, since the problem [of heresy or probable heresy] exists, the deviati0n(s) [from Catholic truth] must be made public. And St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
[with St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597), the two Jesuits who are Doctors of the Church, both having distinguished themselves during the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation] – wrote that
in a case of manifest heresy, a pope can be judged. Remember that Bellarmine also became Prefect of the Holy Office, charged by his office
to safeguard respect for the orthodoxy of the faith by everyone, including the pope, who is himself dutybound to be the primary guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy.
The pope is called on by the Lord to spread the Catholic faith but in order to do so, he must show himself to be capable of doing that. Orthodox Christians – the Eastern Christians who split off from Rome in the Great Schism of 1054 – are called orthodox precisely because they underscored the primacy of the true faith as a condition of the true Church. Otherwise, the Church ceases to be a pillar and foundation of truth.
Consequently, anyone who does not defend the true faith forfeits every ecclesiastical, patriarchal, eparchial responsibility. In other words, in the case of heresy – just as any Christian heretic ceases to be a member of the Church – even the pope ceases to be pope and head of the ecclesial body, losing every jurisdiction. Heresy damages the faith and the heretic’s condition as a member of the Church, which are the root and foundation of jurisdiction. This was the thinking of the Fathers of the Church, especially Cyprian, in reference to Novatian, anti-pope during the pontificate of Cornelius
(cfr Lib. 4,ep.2).
The pope is himself member and part of the Church because the hierarchy is within the Church not above it, as
Lumen gentium reaffirmed
(No. 18). In the face of such an eventuality [papal heresy or probably heresy], which is very serious for the faith,
some cardinals, even the clergy or a Roman synod, can admonish the pope with a fraternal correction – they can ‘resist him frontally’ as Paul did with Peter in Antioch. They can confute him and, if necessary, interpellate him to the point where he is able to rethink his error(s).
And if the pope persists in his errors, one must part ways with him, as the apostle says (Titus 3,10-11).
[“After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.”] Moreover, his heresy and contumacy must be publicly declared so that he may not cause damage to others and that everyone may be forewarned and prepared.
When such heresy is made public, the pope loses the pontificate ipso facto. In theology and in canon law, a heretic is pertinacious when he places a truth of the faith in doubt, consciously and voluntarily, i.e., in full awareness that such a truth is a dogma requiring full adherence of the will. There may be obstinacy or pertinaciousness in a sin of heresy even if it is committed out of weakness.
Moreover, if the pope does not wish to maintain his unity and communion with the entire body of the Church, as when he would try to excommunicate the entire Church or subvert the liturgical rites based on apostolic tradition, he can also be considered schismatic.
If the pope does not act as Pope and head of the Church, then the Church is not in him and he is not in the Church.
In disobeying the law of Christ, or even ordering anything that is contrary to divine or natural law, or whatever has been universally ordered by Church councils and the Apostolic See, the pope separates himself from Christ who is the principal Head of the Church, and around whom Church unity revolves.
Pope Innocent III said that
one must obey the pope in everything as long as he does not oppose the universal order of the Church. In the latter case, absent any reasonable cause,
he must not be followed because by his opposition, he is no longer subject to Christ and therefore separates himself from the body of the Church.”
Granted that we could now come to such a point, what would be the consequences be for the faith and for the Church?
Whoever is pope cannot oppose Catholic truth. It is very relevant what Joseph Ratzinger wrote years ago when he underscored that
a pope ‘cannot impose his own opinion’, but must ‘always remember that the Church cannot do whatever she pleases, and that even he – or rather, especially he – does not have the faculty to do so”, because ”in matters of the faith and the sacraments, as also about fundamental problems of morality”, the Church “can only acquiesce to the will of Christ”.
In the case of contradiction between the text of a pontifical document and other documented testimony of Tradition, it is right and allowable for a Catholic who is educated in the faith and who has carefully studies the question, to suspend or deny his assent to the questionable document.
In the case of AL, it has been shown that the document is muddled and self-contradictory on many points, and thatm for example, the [truncated and out-of-context] citations of St. Thomas Aquinas were used for propositions that maintain the opposite of what the Angelic Doctor really said.
Thus we undersand what Joseph Ratzinger meant when he wrote:
“On the contrary, a criticism of papal pronouncements is possible and necessary to the degree that they lack coverage in Scriptures and the Creed, in the faith of the universal Church. Where there does not exist either unanimity in the universal Church or a clear testimony from the sources of the faith, no papal pronouncement can be obligatory or binding. If the pronouncement is formally made, it would lack the indispensable conditions [for obedience and obligation] and therefore, the problem of its legitimacy must be raised” (Joseph Ratzinger, Fede, ragione, verita e amore, Lindau 2009, p. 400).
In short, if the pope does not safeguard doctrine, he cannot demand discipline, and if he then loses the Catholic faith, then he forfeits the Chair of Peter.
“The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point where the Supreme Pontiffcan declare that what is sin is ‘not sin’, because that would be, in fact, to call good evil, and evil good, which is and always has been and always will be farthest from whoever is the Head of the Church, pillar and foundation of the truth” (cfr Roberto Bellarmino, “De Romano Pontifice”, lib.IV cap.VI, p. 214; and “Lumen gentium”, n. 25)
Consequently, the pope who, as a private person, identifies himself with a heresy, would no longer be the Supreme Pontiff nor the Vicar of Christ on earth. We must pray that Divine Providence intervenes in favor of the Church so that such an eventuality does not happen, as Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlandis, expressed at the end of an important article in
La Civilta Cattolica (March 2, 2013)
[i.e., just before Bergoglio’s election! How prophetic!]
Then, there's this:
On the moral liceity of
publicly correcting the Pope
by Michael Sirilla
October 5, 2017
There is a good bit of confusion currently among faithful Catholics about whether it was morally licit for the pastors and theologians to make public their filial correction of the Holy Father regarding portions of Amoris Laetitia and his actions that, in their estimation, propagate heresy; or the liceity of Prof. Seifert’s public expression of grave concerns about the same.
It is unfortunate that their actions (and those of others such as Germain Grisez and John Finnis) have been impugned by other theologians and by Catholic pundits (and even some bishops) who have claimed publicly and in Catholic media that
these persons acted immorally and are causing damage to the unity of the Church, even inciting the faithful to disobedience to the Apostolic See. It seems as though
more ink has been spilled over the fact that there is a filial correction than on the content of the correction itself.
My sole intention in this article is to show that
the public expression of these concerns and corrections of the Holy Father is morally licit, prescinding entirely from the question of whether any particular interpretation of AL or of the Holy Father other words and deeds is correct.
St. Thomas Aquinas, drawing from the rich tradition of the Church’s history, specifically from St. Paul’s account of rebuking St. Peter in Galatians 2 as commented upon by St. Augustine, shows quite clearly that
not only is it permissible for a subordinate to correct fraternally his prelate, but that it is also necessary for him to do so publicly in certain circumstances (and this, notwithstanding the alleged prohibition in “Donum Veritatis” art. 30 of theologians expressing their concerns in the mass media; below, it will be made clear that “Donum Veritatis” was not firmly prohibiting every instance of making concerns public).
In his treatise on
the theological virtue of charity, an act of which is “fraternal correction” (a spiritual work of mercy), Aquinas argues that correcting the sinner is an act of love, helping to save one’s brother from sin and for virtue. One may even be bound to correct one’s superior in the Church because he is bound to him by charity; though he must do so “not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, corp.).
Under very specific conditions, this correction may have to be given to a prelate publicly. Aquinas argues:
It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2)
The basis in divine revelation for the proper exercise of the duty of fraternal correction is found in St. Paul’s narrative in Galatians 2:11 (“But when Cephas was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”) and more generally in Christ’s words in Matthew 18:16-17 where
He instructs the disciples to make known to the Church (i.e., publicly) the fraternal correction they gave to an errant brother, failing the first two attempts at private remonstration (“And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”).
While Christ’s words form the basis for the Dominical directive of proper fraternal correction, St. Paul’s narrative constitutes the basis for the divinely-inspired directive of appropriate correction of superiors by subordinates.
The current Code of Canon Law recognizes that at certain times it is a duty, not just a right, for competent persons to make known to the faithful – again, that would be publicly – their opinion on matters pertaining to the good of the Church:
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
– CIC, can. 212, § 3
Whether one agrees with the assessment found in any of the corrections or concerns made public so far (the “filial correction,” Prof. Seifert’s letters, etc.), a fair reading and plain interpretation of those texts – one that avoids groundless conspiracy theories – shows that they meet the criteria mentioned so far:
1) competent, knowledgeable persons;
2) matters pertaining to the good of the Church;
3) maintaining reverence towards their pastors and especially the Holy Father;
4) attentive to the common good and the dignity of persons.
Along these same lines, it should be noted that canonist Dr. Edward Peters recently published an essay on his blog, “On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made,” arguing that the filial correction seems to fall within the boundaries of Canon 212, wherein it is stated that “in regard to persons with special knowledge, competence, and prestige in regard to ecclesiastical matters, that they ‘have the right and even at times the duty‘ to express their views on matters impacting the well-being of the Church”.
The canonical argument that has surfaced recently in the Catholic press against the filial correction is that it serves to incite animosity or malice among the faithful against the Pope. Canon 1373 has been cited to this effect:
A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
The public corrections in question do not incite such odium, unless by “odium” here one means that it would be hateful to say, contrary to some alleged claims in Amoris Laetitia, that it is not permissible for divorced-and-remarried Catholic living in more uxorio to receive Communion. In other words, it would be hateful to say that the Pope is wrong to propose such a solution for those persons and that doing so would incite others to disregard the Pope’s teaching. (What would that say about Paul correcting Peter?)
On the contrary, the authors of all the documents mentioned do not incite hatred but explicitly affirm that they are moved by love of Christ, the Holy Father, and the good of souls in expressing their corrections because, in their estimation, proposing Communion for those living in more uxorio, those “knowing full well” that their situation is a problem (as AL rightly says), is a danger to the faith.
The authors take great pains to demonstrate their love for the doctrine of Christ and the Church, for the current Holy Father himself, and for the good of souls.
The souls of persons who are not instructed of the gravity of their actions, who are told to receive Communion without repentanc,e are imperiled, and the souls of pastors who fail in their regard are more gravely imperiled by committing scandal in the strict sense (i.e., proposing that someone commit a sin; see Matthew 18:6).
The attempt to correct these errors is an act of charity to lead others, including our prelates, to divine truth and to a life of holiness in Christ.
Some intelligent and faithful Catholics think that AL and the Holy Father do not propose this pastoral approach. But others in the Church do, such as those bishops and episcopal conferences (such as Malta and Germany) who propose precisely this and who have the public support of the Pope. The diocese of Rome itself has adopted this policy.
But if those who have publicly corrected the Pope are right, then the danger to the faith that this proposal presents is real and grave and thus their public correction is warranted.
On the other hand,
if the writers and signers misunderstood the Holy Father, it should not be impossible to clear this up and the Holy Father, whose principal duty as holder of the petrine office is to secure the unity of the Church, ought to do so or explain why doing so is not necessary.
He is not bound to do so by any earthly authority since he holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church on earth. Rather, the Lord Himself binds the successors of Peter to instruct the errant in matters of faith and morals as a matter of charity (Jn 21:15ff., “Do you love me?…Feed my sheep”).
It is hard to imagine a graver situation: to very many faithful Catholics it seems that we must choose to disregard either the Pope’s apparent directives in AL or those of Christ and St. Paul, consistently upheld by the Church’s magisterium up to the present.
Christ teaches that divorce and remarriage is adultery
(Mt 5:32) and St. Paul teaches that receiving Communion unworthily is condemnable
(1 Cor 11:29). It is a matter of whether our Lord’s teaching and that of St. Paul and the Church in this regard is being respected or spurned.
The Holy Father seems to affirm Christ’s teaching on divorce in AL; but the apparent pastoral proposal seems to fall afoul of St. Paul’s teaching. And this is not a matter of private judgment regarding Mt 5 and 1 Cor 11 since the Church has publicly and definitively affirmed the interpretation that divorce and unworthy reception of Communion is gravely sinful (e.g., at Trent, at Vatican II, “Familiaris Consortio,” etc.).
Still, serious confusion persists among faithful Catholics about whether or not theologians and other competent persons in the Church are permitted publicly to express their grave concerns about a non-definitive magisterial teaching.
In light of this dilemma and the one precipitated by various interpretations of AL (and whether or not one agrees with the assessment of the “correctors”) there is a way to judge between licit and illicit ways of going to the mass media, and the Church herself has given us at least some guidance on this.
A passage from the 1990 CDF document “Donum Veritatis” has been cited recently and mistakenly in the Catholic press in order to condemn the actions of the signatories of the filial correction. Speaking of situations in which faithful theologians find non-definitive magisterial teachings problematic or erroneous, “Donum Veritatis" (The gift of truth) art. 30, states:
"In cases like these, ,the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth."
Going back a few articles to number 27 we read:
"The theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them."
These two articles make it clear that going public is not licit when the intention is to exert public pressure on the Church to change her teaching (especially teaching that cannot be changed) and when the theologian has not made known their concerns to the “responsible authority” first.
It is also clear in this article that theologians must avoid “untimely” public expression of their concerns. Does this mean that there may be “timely” public expressions of concerns? The document does not give many explicit criteria for determining timeliness, but “exerting public pressure” (DV, art. 30) is certainly one criterion. As it stands, DV is arguably too vague to resolve this.
However, in 1990, during the official press conference on the release of DV, then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself (the co-author of DV) publicly affirmed that there may be licit public expression of grave concerns made by theologians regarding problems in magisterial statements. When questioned about theologians going public with a criticism of non-definitive magisterial teaching, Ratzinger replied: “We have not excluded all kinds of publication, nor have we closed him up in suffering. The Vatican insists, however, that theologians must choose the proper place to expound their ideas.” His comments are published in the July 5, 1990 edition of the journal “Origins” (page 119), a publication of the USCCB documenting official acts of the Church’s prelates and related articles.
Lacking further official guidelines for communicating problems with non-definitive magisterial teachings, the current state of the Church’s directives is summarized as follows:
- Going to the media to put pressure on the Church to change or correct her unchangeable doctrine is clearly illicit.
- Going public with a concern about an error in non-infallible doctrine or praxis put forth by persons in the magisterium may be done licitly as long as charity and prudence are followed.
Due to the constraints of space, it is not possible to cite all the other relevant portions of DV that ground this summary; the reader should consult the entire document, but especially art. 24 through 31 (especially note the section that begins with the words,
“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies”).
But, it is argued, aren’t the “correctors” illicitly expressing merely their “opinion” or “divergent hypotheses” as “non-arguable conclusions” (as prohibited by DV, a. 27, cited above)?
On the contrary, they are reiterating what the Church has publicly, definitively, and consistently taught.
- It is not their private opinion that Christ says that divorce is gravely sinful (Mt 5), the Church publicly and consistently has taught this (Trent, V-II GS, Familiaris Consortio, the CCC, etc.). - It is not their private opinion that Paul teaches that unworthy reception of Communion is gravely sinful (1 Cor 11), but the Church again has publicly and consistently taught this.
- It is also not merely their private opinion that the Holy Father has publicly supported those bishops and episcopal conferences who permit reception of Communion by those divorced and remarried Catholics living in “more uxorio.” He has done so publicly.
Where they may “diverge” at all is when they “diverge” from the implicit liceity of such permission arguably granted in AL and clearly granted by some episcopal conferences (Germany, Malta).
Neither do they fall afoul of the concluding formula of the “Professio Fidei” nor of the last part of the “Oath of Fidelity” since in this matter they are, in fact, assenting to a definitive public teaching of the Church (on divorce and Communion) and at most refusing to assent to the recent pastoral directives to the contrary. Of course, if AL is not giving that pastoral directive, then they are not even refusing to assent to AL.
Surely, the “correctors” have privately discussed and debated their concerns with each other and they first approached the Holy Father privately with their letter before releasing it publicly. They consistently maintain a position of respect and reverence for the Pope. And the matter is timely, as discussed above.
Great damage is already occurring in the Church and dioceses and regions are being balkanized such that “what is permissible in Germany is gravely sinful in Poland.” Thus, regardless of whether one concurs with their assessment, it should be easy to recognize that they acted morally in a licit (allowable) way, if not heroically.
A final point of clarification:
The filial correction does not accuse Pope Francis of heresy. Rather, it claims that Pope Francis has propagated heresy in his public approval and support of those bishops and episcopal conferences who are now permitting divorced and remarried persons not living in more uxorio to receive Communion.
More precisely, the “correctors” are pointing out that they consider the Pope to be failing in his duty to preserve, defend, and explain divinely-revealed truth in the area of marriage and the Eucharist by supporting those bishops who are granting such permissions.
There are ways to propagate heresy other than by teaching heresy; for instance, promoting and approving others who do so. This is not an act of heresy but of negligence.
Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned by Constantinople III for allowing heretical teaching. This is truly distinct from actually teaching heresy.
This is a rather painful issue about which the brightest lights and authorities in the Church disagree.
- Many faithful Catholics hope and pray that the Holy Father, as our loving spiritual Father, would kindly reach out to these individuals and help them and all of us understand better and more clearly the deposit of faith and morals.
- They implore him to secure the supernatural unity of the Church in faith, hope, and charity which is the principal duty of the petrine office.
Those who have made public their concerns and corrections with these intentions have acted uprightly for the good of the Church and the honor of Christ.
Dr. Michael Sirilla is a professor of dogmatic and systematic theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is the author of “The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles“, published by Catholic University of America Press (2017).
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/10/2017 22:48]