Roma Locuta Est

October 13, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – In a recent article, Roma Locuta Est took a brief look at the two sets of dubia presented by a group of five cardinals, and the response to them by Cardinal Fernandez (see A New Set of Dubia: This time, a different Outcome?).

As outlined in my prior article, I commended the five cardinals for submitting these new Dubia to Pope Francis, and resubmitting them again in the face of clearly ambiguous answers (see HERE).  At the time I wrote that we had these five new Dubia.  However, since the publication of these aforementioned, an additional ten Dubia related to Amoris Laetitia submitted by Cardinal Duka were made public, as well as the answers to these ten by the Prefect of the DDF, Cardinal Fernandez (see HERE).

Yet, news is developing fast.  Now, we learn via Sandro Magister that Cardinal Müller has published an open letter to Cardinal Duka which critically examines the response or “Riposta” Cardinal Duka received to his Dubia from Cardinal Fernandez (and Pope Francis).  Magister’s article, and the text of Cardinal Muller’s response may be found on Magister’s site (see Your Eminence, dear brother Dominik Cardinal Duka).  I definitely recommend that readers take their own look at Cardinal Müller’s letter, and his excellent analysis of the DDF response received by Cardinal Duka. We do observe that this Cardinal vs. Cardinal dispute erupts in public on October 13, 2023; the anniversary of the the last apparition at Fatima, Portugal in 2017, and the Miracle of the Sun.

First, Müller notes that Cardinal Fernandez’s response (“Risposta“) to one of Cardinal Duka’s Dubium “which allows access to the sacraments of Confession and of the Eucharist to divorced persons who have entered into a second civil union, even when they continue to behave as husband and wife with no intention of changing their lives.” Further, noting Fernandez’s “Risposta” affirms the Buenos Aires Guidelines, entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis,” is owed “religious submission of mind and will” (Lumen Gentium 25:1); Müller explores a proper understanding of “religious submission of mind and will.”

Again, I point the reader to his letter, but note here his statement that “Any form of magisterial positivism is also contrary to the Catholic Faith, since the Magisterium cannot teach what has nothing to do with Revelation, nor what is explicitly contrary to Sacred Scripture (“norma normans non normata”), the Apostolic Tradition, and the previous definitive decisions of the Magisterium itself (“Dei Verbum” 10; cf. DH 3116-3117).”

Müller poses the question “Is it necessary that we adhere with a religious assent to the text of Buenos Aires?” which he answers as follows (emphasis added):

“Formally, it is problematic to demand from the faithful a religious submission of intellect and will to a theologically ambiguous interpretation of a partial episcopal conference (the Buenos Aires region), which in turn interprets an affirmation of “Amoris Laetitia” that requires explanation and whose coherence with the teaching of Christ (Mk 10:1-12) is in question.

Moreover, the text of Buenos Aires is in discontinuity at least with the teachings of John Paul II (“Familiaris Consortio” 84) and Benedict XVI (“Sacramentum Caritatis” 29). Although the “Risposta” does not say so, the documents of the ordinary Magisterium of these two Popes must also be given our religious submission of mind and will.

Now, the “Risposta” affirms that the Buenos Aires text offers an interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” in continuity with previous popes. Is this so?”

Müller then goes into a great analysis about the inaccuracies, ambiguities, and discontinuty involved in the Buenos Aires Guidelines document and the “Risposta.”  But the difficulties with these texts do not end with these problems.  Müller writes (emphasis added):

“But the difficulty with the teaching of the “Risposta” and the text of Buenos Aires is not only the discontinuity with the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. For it happens that the teaching of the “Risposta” is contrary to other teachings of the Church, which are not only affirmations of the ordinary Magisterium, but have been taught in a definitive way as belonging to the deposit of faith.”

Müller the recalls the teaching of the Council of Trent on a number of related truths, which I number below:

1. “That sacramental confession of all grave sins is necessary for salvation (DH 1706-1707);”

2. “That living in a second union as husband and wife while the conjugal bond exists is a grave sin of adultery (DH 1807);”

3. “That a condition of absolution is the penitent’s repentance, which includes sorrow for the sin committed and the resolution to sin no more (DH 1676);”

4. “That it is possible for all the baptized to keep the divine commandments (DH 1536,1568).”

Having reminded the reader that these definitive teachings belong to the deposit of the faith, Müller adds incisively (emphasis added):

All these assertions do not merely require religious submission of the mind and will, but must be believed with firm faith, insofar as they are contained in divine revelation, or at least firmly accepted and held as truths proposed by the Church in a definitive way. In other words, it is no longer a question of choosing between two propositions of the ordinary Magisterium, but of accepting constitutive elements of Catholic doctrine.

In fact, the teachings of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and of the Council of Trent bear witness to the Word of God, to which the Magisterium ministers. All pastoral care for Catholics in second marriages after a civil divorce must be based on this witness, because only obedience to the will of God can serve the salvation of persons. Jesus says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk 10:11f.). And the consequence is: “Neither fornicators nor adulterers […] will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9). Therefore, these divorced and remarried are not worthy to receive Holy Communion until they have received sacramental absolution, which in turn requires repentance for one’s sins, together with the intention to sin no more. There is no lack of mercy here, quite the opposite, because the mercy of the Gospel does not consist in tolerating sin, but in regenerating the heart of the faithful, so that they may live according to the fullness of the love that Christ lived himself and taught us to live.

It follows that those who reject the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” contained in the Buenos Aires text and in the “Risposta” cannot be accused of dissent. For it is not that they see an opposition between what they hold to be true and what the Magisterium teaches, but that they find an opposition between different teachings of the same Magisterium, one of which has already been definitively affirmed. St. Ignatius of Loyola invites us to accept that what we see as white is black if the hierarchical Church says so. But St. Ignatius does not invite us to accept, trusting in the Magisterium, that what the Magisterium itself has previously and definitively told us is black is white.

Again, reader, please see Cardinal Müller’s full letter.  Indeed, when one contrasts the clear thinking and writing of this cardinal with that of Cardinal Fernandez; one can clearly discern what a step down Cardinal Fernandez is as Prefect of the DDF from the former Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Müller.

Müller goes on to make other interesting and salient points, but those noted above are sufficient for the purpose of this article.  Clear, definitive teachings of the Church are to be held De Fide.  The teachings of John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are clear, and in agreement with the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Indeed, John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio 84 taught, that by its discipline (“By acting in this way”), the “Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.”  It therefore follows, to act in any other way it to act contrary to “Christ and to His truth.”  Thus, as Muller notes, “St. Ignatius does not invite us to accept, trusting in the Magisterium, that what the Magisterium itself has previously and definitively told us is black is white.”

So, Müller near the end of his letter, sums up things, saying that text and meaning of the Buenos Aires Guidelines and the ‘Risposta’ “are not precise.”  He adds (emphasis added):

“They do not state clearly what they mean and thus leave open other interpretations, however improbable. This imprecision allows doubts to arise about the interpretation of these documents.”

Cardinal Müller allows that the imprecision of the ‘Risposta‘ and the Buenos Aires Guidelines leaves open the possibility of “other interpretations“.  Here, I take him to mean the “other interpretations” would refer to orthodox interpretations of the document, though he essentially seems to admit that deriving such orthodox interpretations from these text is “improbable.”  In other words, an orthodox interpretation might be possible, but it is improbable this is the intent. Or, at least that is my reading of the Cardinal. [NB: And certainly, the fact Pope Francis provided a Preface to Stephen Walford’s book is problematic to this question; something first identified and posed by Roma Locuta Est (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface or the reprint on OnePeterFive)].

However, if we allow for the more probable unorthodox interpretations of the ‘Risposta’ and the Buenos Aires Guidelines; how then do we account for the signature of Pope Francis affixed to the bottom of the response/”Risposta” to Cardinal Duka’s Dubia?  What level of authority does this document have?

Here, Cardinal Müller notes the oddity of the signature section of the “Risposta” document when compared to other documents of the former CDF.  Exhibit 1 is Francis’s signature appearing by itself at the bottom of the response to the July 10, 2023 Dubia of the five Cardinals.  His responses in that document were more ambiguous, necessitating the five cardinals to repose their Dubia questions. Exhibit 2 includes the dated signatures of Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez at the bottom.

Regarding the signature section in Exhibit 2, related to the response to Cardinal Duka, Cardinal Müller notes the following (emphasis added):

“On the other hand, the way in which the “Risposta” bears the approval of the Holy Father, with a simple dated signature at the bottom of the page, is unusual. The usual formula has been: “The Holy Father approves the text and orders (or allows for) its publication”, but none of this appears in this careless “Appunto”. Here opens another window of doubt on the authority of the “Risposta”.”

Indeed, if we look at the CDF’s response to certain questions raised about Familiaris Consortio during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II — a response which said there were to be no exceptions to the teaching of Familiaris Consortio; the document signed by Pope John Paul II reads at the bottom: “During an audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II gave his approval to this letter, drawn up in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication”  (cf Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994).  

Thus, in sum, aside from the doctrinal problems with the ‘Risposta,’ the lack of the “usual formula” at the bottom of the documents raises “doubt on the authority of the “Risposta.”

Cardinal Müller Poses his Own Dubia

Consequently, Cardinal Müller, reflecting on these “hesitations” about the text and authority of the “Risposta” received by Cardinal Duka, poses his own Dubia for the Pope to answer.  Müller writes (emphasis added):

“We can find support in these hesitations to raise a new “dubium”: are there cases in which, after a period of discernment, it is possible to give sacramental absolution to a baptized person who maintains sexual intercourse with someone with whom he lives in a second civil union, if this baptized person does not want to make the resolution not to continue to have sexual intercourse?”

Now, it should be noted that Cardinal Müller’s Dubia above bears resemblance to one of the recent, reworded Dubia submitted by the five cardinals related to Amoris Laetitia:

We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

Both are excellent Dubia and get to the heart of the debate over Amoris Laetitia.  Regarding his own Dubia, Cardinal Müller makes this interesting final statement (emphasis added):

Dear Brother, as long as this “dubium” is not resolved, the authority of the “Risposta” and of the Buenos Aires’ document remains in doubt, given the imprecision they reflect. This imprecision leaves a little room for hope that there will be a negative answer to this “dubium”. The primary beneficiaries of this negative answer would not be the faithful, who in any case would not be obliged to accept a positive response to the “dubium”, for such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine. The primary beneficiary would be the authority that responds to the “dubium”, which would be preserved intact, since it would no longer require of the faithful a submission of mind and will to truths contrary to Catholic doctrine. (Cardinal Muller, Letter to Cardinal Duka, (see HERE)

The noteworthy thing here is, Cardinal Muller states “a positive response to the Dubium” would be “contrary to the Catholic doctrine.”  I agree.  Catholics should know, of course, the answer to both Dubia above is “no.” But sadly, there are many Catholics out there who argue for the reception of communion in such cases, under certain circumstances (see Book Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia”; Book Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia” – Part II; and The Errors of Mr. Walford’s ‘Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce’ and Summa Contra the Francis-Apologists).

Final Thoughts

Reviewing the above, it beings me back to my question in one of my last articles (see HERE). What is the end game of the “Five Cardinals,” and now with them, Cardinal Müller, in posing these Dubia? Certainly, the Dubia recently submitted relates to issues covered by the current synod (e.g., ordination of women, authority of synods, etc), and or Amoris Laetitia.  So, to some extent, these might be useful for participants in the synod, to firm up their resolves to resist any changes.

What is the next step if there is no reply?  Do the Cardinals keep their powder dry, saving these Dubia as points for discussion and debate for the meetings at the next conclave?  Perhaps the might draw up a confession of faith which includes these disputed doctrinal points for this purpose, as well as to serve as an aid for the faithful.  Or do they press the matter further with Francis?  If they could get a greater number of cardinals to sign on to these Dubia, perhaps Pope Francis could be ‘withstood to his face‘ (cf Galations 2:11-13) on these matters by this (larger?) group of cardinals in a very public manner.  This also would have the benefit of clarifying the issues for the next conclave.

BUT, what if there is a reply from Pope Francis?  If answered forthrightly and unambiguously, there is only one of two answers. A negative or “no” response would be the Catholic answer.  A positive response or “yes” would be “contrary to the faith.” Consequently, in my opinion, boiled down to its essence, at this point in the controversy, what such a dubium (and indeed all of them) is really getting at with Francis is no longer “tell us what the Church teaches”, but rather “Do you affirm Church teaching, yes or no?” — or put another way, “Are you a heretic, yes or no?”

Let’s hope and pray Pope Francis comes back with a negative or “no” response.

Let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).