Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Sandoval Íñiguez, Sarah and Zen Ze-kiun submitted five questions (“dubia”) to the Pope in which they ask for clarification on certain matters.
Being Pope “is not easy”, it is “even a little arduous”. Francis confided this to Vatican visitors this Monday.
Vatican News
The “dubia” (Latin, doubt) concern the interpretation of divine revelation, the blessing of partnerships between people of the same sex, synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church, the ordination of women to the priesthood and repentance as a necessary prerequisite for sacramental absolution.
Unlike a previous occasion, when several cardinals also sent him a series of “dubia”, this time Pope Francis responded. The “dubia” were formulated by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Raymond Leo Burke – with the support of three other cardinals, namely Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Sarah and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun.
The five cardinals sent their “dubia” to the Pope last July. The cardinals’ questions in Italian and the Pope’s answers in his native Spanish were published this Monday on the website of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Here you will find an initial translation of the questions and answers.
Five questions and answers
1) Doubts about the claim that divine revelation needs to be reinterpreted in light of current cultural and anthropological changes.
The statements of some bishops, which were not corrected or retracted, raised the question of whether divine revelation in the Church should be reinterpreted in accordance with the cultural changes of our time and in accordance with the new anthropological perspective that these changes promote; or whether divine revelation is forever obligatory and immutable… in accordance with the words of the Second Vatican Council, that the God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith” (Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “forever intact” and alive and “transmitted to all generations” (7), and that progress in understanding does not bring about a change in the truth of things and words, because faith was “revealed once and for all” (8), and the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but only teaches what has been revealed (10).
Pope Francis’ response
Dear brothers, although it does not always seem advisable to respond directly to the questions addressed to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case, given the proximity of the Synod, I considered it opportune to do so.
“The Church also grows in understanding what she herself stated in her magisterium.”
Answer to the first question
(a) The answer depends on the meaning you attribute to the words “reinterpret”. When understood in the sense of “best interpreted”, the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council stated that it is necessary that through the work of exegetes – and I would add, of theologians in general – “the judgment of the Church matures” (Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, if it is true that divine revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that it never exhausts its unfathomable riches and must grow in its understanding.
c) Consequently, she also grows in understanding what she herself stated in her teaching.
d) Cultural changes and new challenges in history do not alter the revelation, but they can encourage us to better express some aspects of its overflowing richness.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some of the previous statements of the Magisterium, and this has happened throughout history.
f) On the one hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God; but it is equally true that both the texts of Scripture and the evidence of tradition require an interpretation that allows them to distinguish their lasting content from cultural influences. This is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Exodus 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bulle Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a trivial argument, as it is closely related to the enduring truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts require interpretation. The same applies to some New Testament considerations about women (1 Corinthians 11:3-10; 1 Timothy 2:11-14) and other texts of Scripture and testimonies of tradition that cannot be repeated in their current form.
g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what was revealed “for the salvation of all” (Dei Verbum, 7). Therefore, the Church must constantly distinguish between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly related to this goal. I would like to recall that Saint Thomas Aquinas said: “The more one goes into details, the more uncertainty increases” (Summa Theologiae 1-1 1, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be properly understood if it is presented in isolation, disconnected from the rich and harmonious context of the entire revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies that each truth is placed in an appropriate context with more central truths and the teaching of the Church as a whole. This can ultimately lead to different ways of presenting the same doctrine, even if “for those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by everyone without nuances, this may seem like imperfection and fragmentation. But, in reality, this diversity helps to better show and develop the different aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 40). Every theological movement has its risks, but also its opportunities.
“Decisions that may form part of pastoral wisdom in certain circumstances do not necessarily have to become the norm.”
2) Doubts about the claim that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is consistent with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).
According to the divine revelation attested in Holy Scripture, which the Church “piously hears, sacredly preserves and faithfully interprets by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum IO) (is as follows): “In the beginning” God created man in his image, male and female, created them and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Gn 1, 27-28), which is why the apostle Paul teaches that the denial of sexual diversity is a consequence of the denial of Creator is (Rm 1, 24-32). Question: Can the Church deviate from this “principle” by considering it a mere ideal, contrary to what Veritatis splendor 103 teaches, and accepting objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, as a “possible good” without accepting that is the revealed teaching harmful?
Pope Francis’ answer to the second question
a) The Church has a very clear vision of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the procreation of children. Only this union can be called “marriage”. Other forms of union only carry out “partially and in a similar way” (Amoris laetitia 292), so that, strictly speaking, they cannot be called “marriage”.
b) It is not just about naming, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential nature that requires an exclusive name that is not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.
c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that could contradict this belief and give the impression that something that is not the case is recognized as marriage.
d) In our relationships with people, however, we must not neglect pastoral love, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which also consists of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. That’s why we shouldn’t be judges who just deny, reject and exclude.
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must correctly assess whether there are forms of blessing requested by one or more people that do not convey a false idea of marriage. Because when you ask for a blessing, you express a request for help from God, a request to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
f) Even if there are situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view, on the other hand, the same pastoral charity demands that we not simply label other people whose guilt or responsibility can be mitigated by various factors that affect subjective imputability. Sinners” (cf. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions that may form part of pastoral wisdom in certain circumstances do not necessarily have to become the norm. In other words, it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesiastical structure to permanently and officially approve procedures or rites for all types of matters, because everything that “is part of a practical discernment regarding a given situation cannot be used Norm” because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor can episcopal conferences with their various documents and protocols, since the life of the Church flows through from many channels in addition to the normative ones.
“The fact that the Church is a community necessarily implies real participation”
3) Doubts about the statement that synodality is a “constitutive dimension of the Church” (Const.Ap. Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church is synodal in nature.
Considering that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the college of bishops, but is merely an advisory body to the Pope, since bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, the question is whether synodality is really the highest regulatory criterion of the permanent can be the leadership of the Church without distorting its constitutive structure intended by its founder, according to which the highest and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with their boss, the Pope (Lumen Gentium 22).
Pope Francis’ answer to the third question
a) Although you recognize that the highest and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with their head, the Pope (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22), with these questions you bring their express need to participate, to freely express their opinions and to collaborate, and thus they ask for a form of “synodality” in the exercise of my position.
b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not just affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: not only the hierarchy, but the entire People of God must make themselves heard in different ways and at different levels and feel part of the church’s journey. In this sense, we can say that synodality as a style and dynamic is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. Saint John Paul II found very beautiful words about this in the Novo Millennio.
c) Another thing is to sacralize or impose a certain synodal methodology as it suits a group, making it the norm and the obligatory path for everyone, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal path and ignoring the different characteristics of the different particular churches and the diverse riches of the universal church.
“It is not a dogmatic definition”
4) Doubts regarding the fact that pastors and theologians support the thesis according to which “the theology of the Church has changed” and, therefore, priestly ordination can also be conferred on women.
After statements by some prelates, neither corrected nor withdrawn, that the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass changed with the Second Vatican Council, the question arises as to whether the words of the Second Vatican Council are still valid, according to which “ the general priesthood of believers and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium IO) and that the priests, by virtue of the “holy authority of the ‘ordo’ to offer sacrifice and forgive sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2) , in the name and act in the person of Christ, (divine) mediator through whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is perfected? It is also asked whether the teaching of the Apostolic Exhortation Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Saint … John Paul II, the truth to be maintained definitively , teaches that the impossibility of ordination of women to the priesthood is still valid, so this teaching is no longer subject to change or free discussion by pastors or theologians.
Pope Francis’ answer to the fourth question
a) “The general priesthood of believers and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not appropriate to argue with a difference in degree, as this implies that the general priesthood of believers is seen as something of “second class” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood enlighten and support each other.
b) When Saint John Paul II taught that it should be established “definitely” that it was impossible to ordain women, he was in no way discriminating against women and giving supreme power to men. John Paul II also stated other things. For example, when we speak of priestly power we are in the sphere of function, not that of dignity and holiness (cf. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). These are words that we have not yet sufficiently internalized. He also clearly stated that, although only the priest presides over the Eucharist, the duties “do not lead to the superiority of one over the other” (John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, SAW). He also stated that the priestly function, if it is “hierarchical”, should not be understood as a form of domination, but “is entirely oriented towards the holiness of the members of Christ” (John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only for men, and we will not be able to recognize women’s rights or the need for them to participate in church leadership in different ways. .
c) On the other hand, for the sake of accuracy, we recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine regarding the precise nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been fully developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, although it must be accepted by everyone. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the subject of investigation, as in the case of the validity of the orders of the Anglican Communion.
“There are many ways to express regret”
5) Doubts regarding the statement “Forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the obligation to give absolution to everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
The question is whether the teaching of the Council of Trent still applies, according to which, for the validity of sacramental confession, the penitent’s repentance is necessary, which consists of abhorring the sin committed and not wanting to sin again (Session XIV, Chapter IV : DH 1676), so that the priest must postpone absolution if it is evident that this condition is not met.
Pope Francis’ answer to the fifth question
a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution and presupposes the intention not to sin again. But the math doesn’t apply here, and let me remind you again that the confessional is not a customs office. We are not the masters, but we are humble administrators of the sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts from the Lord are not relics to be kept, but help from the Holy Spirit in people’s lives.
b) There are many ways to express regret. For people with severely damaged self-esteem, confessing guilt is often cruel torture, but the very act of confessing is a symbolic expression of remorse and a request for divine help.
c) I would also like to remember that “sometimes it is difficult for us to give space to God’s unconditional love in pastoral care” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn this. Following John Paul II, I argue that we should not ask believers to have overly precise and defined corrective intentions that would eventually become abstract or even narcissistic, but even the predictability of a new case “does not undermine the authenticity of the intention” (John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum and participants in the Apostolic Penitentiary Annual Course, March 22, 1996, 5).
d) Finally, it must be clear that all the conditions usually imposed in confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony or when their mental and psychological capabilities are very limited.
(Vatican news – sk)