Roma Locuta Est

October 18, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – With regard to the title of this article, it should not be interpreted as alleging our current Pope is in fact a heretic.  That would require a judgment of the Church, and most particularly for a future pope to make.  In either case, it is well above my pay grade. Yet, it is obvious there are “issues” with what has been going on, and coming out of Rome for the last ten plus years that has cause confusion and consternation among the faithful.

Dubia Palooza

The Pope’s answers to the recent sets of Dubia — that of the Five Cardinals, i.e.,  Cardinal Brandmuller, Cardinal Burke,  Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Zen, (see HERE. HERE, and HERE), and that from Cardinal Duka (see HERE) — are problematic, to say the least.  The problems with these Dubia are outlined in the reworded Dubia again submitted by the five Cardinals, and in Cardinal Müller’s own ‘open letter’ to Cardinal Duka (see Your Eminence, dear brother Dominik Cardinal Duka). In a recent Roma Locuta Est article, I took a look in particular at Cardinal Muller’s excellent response (see Dubium: ‘Are you a heretic, yes or no?’).

As I outlined in my article, Müller near the end of his letter, sums up things, saying that the text and meaning of the Buenos Aires Guidelines and the ‘Risposta’ (The Vatican’s response to Cardinal Duka’s Dubia) “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 texts 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.

I also pointed out in a nota bene that the fact Pope Francis provided a Preface to Stephen Walford’s book on Amoris Laetitia (The Pope, The Family, and Divorce) further complicates the matter; as it makes it more difficult if not impossible to extricate Francis from the sort of ‘questionable’ interpretations – to put it charitably – and sacramental examples offered by Mr. Walford.  The problem of the Preface was something first identified and posed by Roma Locuta Est in our article titled  Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface (Also see reprint on OnePeterFive).

Reflecting on his own “hesitations” about the text and authority of the “Risposta” received by Cardinal Duka, Cardinal Müller posed 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, as pointed out in my last article, 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?”

The key takeaway I’d point out here is that Cardinal Müller states that the faithful “would not be obliged to accept a positive response to the “dubium”, for such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine“[see Cardinal Müller, Letter to Cardinal Duka, (see HERE); emphasis added].  I refer the reader to Cardinal Müller’s ‘open letter’ and my article covering it, as Cardinal Müller demonstrates from the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, and from Sacred Scripture, that no other view is possible.

I find Cardinal Müller’s statement — that the faithful “would not be obliged to accept a positive response to the “dubium”, for such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine” — very significant. It echoes something else he said with regard to the ordination of women. In a commentary from 2019 posted on LifeSiteNews, rejecting the possibility of female deacons, Cardinal Müller wrote the following (emphasis added):

“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid. Independent of this, there is the equality of all baptized in the life of Grace, and in the vocation to all ecclesial offices and functions for which exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself is not necessary.” (On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, text posted by LifeSiteNew, 7/26/2019)

If we assume hypothetically that Pope Francis were to make some sort of declaration on the subject above, there seems to me to be two implications embedded in the Cardinal’s statement. The first — obviously — what the Cardinal says explicitly, i.e., that such a seeming “ex cathedra” declaration, in the Cardinal’s mind, would be invalid, and thus should be disregarded by the Faithful.

It is clear, certainly in the case of Cardinal Müller, that one cardinal is willing to openly state which specific answers to his dubium would be faithful to Catholic doctrine, and which would be “contrary to Catholic doctrine” — and to further state, essentially, should the pope hypothetically give this second answer, that the ‘faithful would not be obliged to accept’ it.

So, the questions related to the Dubia at this point in time are, does Pope Francis:

(1) return to his policy of silence with respect to reworded Dubia put to him, or;

(2) answer them in manner consistent with defined truths of the Catholic Faith, or;

(3) answer them in a way “contrary to Catholic doctrine?“

In the last of these hypothetical cases, at least per Cardinal Müller as I understand him, the ‘faithful would not be obliged to accept‘ such responses because they are “contrary to Catholic doctrine” (i.e., quite clearly, his response would be heretical).  I would assume the other five Dubia Cardinals would be of a similar mind to Cardinal Müller.  This is about as close to ‘throwing down the gauntlet‘ as we have gotten thus far in the controversy.

The Situation in Which We Find Ourselves

Consequently, it does seem to be the case we have cardinals who believe we have or at least may potentially have a heretical pope.  In an interview with Catholic World Report (12/19/2016), CWR put the following question to Cardinal Burke: “Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?” Cardinal Burke replied to this question saying “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.”

In addition, Cardinal Müller seemed to indirectly suggest as much in his aforementioned LifeSiteNews Commentary and in his recent ‘open letter’ to Cardinal Duka, also discussed above and my recent article (see Dubium: ‘Are you a heretic, yes or no?’).  Cardinal Müller was more direct in a video interview with Michael Matt over at the RemnantNewpaper, where he spoke of the case of Pope Honorius[1] being condemned for his lack of clarity, and of the real possibility of a pope falling from his office due to heresy (see from 30:45).

The above said by Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Müller, I don’t think I’ve seen either of them opine as to what would or could actually be done with such a heretical pope, i.e., who if anyone declares him heretical? Or if or how he can be removed? etc.

In his Rorate Caeli article, On the Question of a Heretical Pope, Bishop Schneider put forth his view that there is nothing that can be done in the case of a potentially heretical pope.  So where does this leave us? The views of all three of these prelates might be reconcilable by admitting (1) a pope does lose his office for heresy, that (2) perhaps we cannot judge this question in the moment, but (3) must instead wait until there is a future pope to adjudicate the case and the details.

So, the reality confronting us appears to be the following. The traditional, theoretical or hypothesized response that an “imperfect council” of some kind might be held to address the question of a potentially heretical pope is unworkable in our time.  This is because of one of two reasons; either (1) for the reasons outlined by Bishop Schneider in his article, or (2) if only in consideration of the practical reality, i.e., one cannot realistically expect College of Cardinals, the majority of cardinals of which were created by Pope Francis, would take up any question with regard to Pope Francis.

A Suggestion as to What Might be Done

In his aforementioned article from 2019, Bishop Schneider offered many great suggestions for future cases of a potentially heretical pope.  For example, he suggests in the case of a future heretical pope the following:

“At the same time the Dean of the College of Cardinals should publish a formula of a Profession of Faith, in which there would be rejected the theological errors that the pope teaches or tolerates (without necessarily naming the pope).”

I think this, or something like it, is an excellent idea. However, I do not see why such a suggestion must be restricted for future exigencies….we have one of our own…now. 

In fact, we know various cardinals — and indeed Bishop Schneider himself — have drafted various “manifestos” or “declarations” which seem to be close to what he recommends above related to a “profession of faith.” For example, in February 2019, readers may recall Cardinal Müller issued a Manifesto of Faith. In addition, later that same year, Cardinal Burke and others put together a Declaration of Truths in June 2019, the 40 points of which may be found HERE. Both documents touched upon a number of important issues now the subject of controversy, including the question of communion for the divorced and remarried.

Therefore, given these prelates have already created various “declarations,” I believe they should do so again in a combined effort; this time drafting a single “Profession of Faith” which has as its object the topics being discussed in the current ‘synod on synodality‘ as well as those addressed in the recent Dubia.  So, this Profession of Faith should address ‘synodality’, the ordination of female deacons, blessings of same-sex relationships, communion for the divorced and the remarried, etc.

This new Profession of Faith should certainly affirm the teaching of the Catholic Faith on these questions. Per the suggestion in Bishop Schneider’s article, there is no need for it to either address or even mention Pope Francis specifically.

However, one added suggestion is that this Profession of Faith should go one step further than the preceding ‘manifestos’ or ‘declaration of truths.’  That is, this new Profession of Faith should not only affirmatively state the Catholic Faith on these questions, but it should also explicitly include a section or a list of propositions that are contrary to the Catholic Faith, i.e., beliefs or views to be avoided. For this latter section, for example, I have in mind something like the following:

“We affirm it is contrary to the Catholic Faith to hold, believe or teach there are 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.”

We affirm it is contrary to the Catholic Faith to hold, believe or teach it is possible for the Catholic Church to validly ordain women as bishop, priest, or deacon.

Above, I gave a couple examples built around Cardinal Müller‘s dubium in his open letter to Cardinal Duka, and his 2019 commentary in LifeSiteNews.

Such a Profession of Faith, and its list of ‘contraries to the faith‘ (or anathemas?) would be beneficial for several audiences:

1. Such a document might be an occasion for Pope Francis to reflect upon his prior views, and possibly reverse himself, and to ‘confirm the brethren’.
2. Such a document would be beneficial for the faithful who have been disturbed and confused by the endless ambiguities over the course of the last 10 plus years.
3. Such a document would be beneficial for the College of Cardinals going into the next conclave. The document would serve as an excellent outline of the controversies, and of the truly Catholic response to them. In the pre-conclave meetings Cardinals might be queried by other Cardinals with regard to the Profession of Faith, and thus it may serve as a basis of discussion.

Truth and charity would appear to require that there be at least some sort of Profession of Faith, if not a public correction, both for the benefit of the pope and of the faithful. This formula or profession should be circulated to all Catholic bishops around the world. Those willing to sign it should also be asked to profess it publicly in their own dioceses. This is something a few good bishops, ‘awakened by Divine Providence for this time,’ can do now.

Again, in our own present difficulty, if for no other reason, such a document — signed by as many Catholic bishops as possible from around the world — would be something beneficial for Cardinals at the next conclave to have before them as they gather to elect the next pope. Such a document would be something the next conclave should have before it, as it would frame the debate and their deliberations over who the next pope should be.

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).

Notes:

[1]  Roma Locuta Est touches upon the case of Honorius in articles includes Honorius Redivivus – Addendum and Why the Case of Pope Honorius Matters, Mr. Alt.In addition, my own position and treatment of the case of Pope Honorius can be read in my articles on the topic from This Rock/Catholic Answers which include (1) a rebuttal to Mr. William Webster’s treatment of Pope Honorius from his book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (my rebuttal originally found in This Rock/Catholic Answer may be found here: Guilty Only of a Failure to Teach) and (2) my direct rebuttal to Dr. James White’s attempt to come to Mr. Webster’s defense and reply to my article (see my rebuttal of Dr. White entitled White is Wrong also originally found in This Rock/Catholic Answers). (NB: As an aside, separately, I rebutted Mr. Webster’s attempt in his book to use the False Decretals against the doctrine of papal infallibility. This rebuttal may be found here).