Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Sandoval Íñiguez, Sarah and Zen Zekiun asked the Pope five questions asking for clarification on some issues related to the interpretation of divine revelation, the blessing of unions between people of the same sex and synodality as constitutive Dimension of the Church, the ordination of women and repentance as a necessary prerequisite for sacramental absolution
News from the Vatican
Pope Francis responded to five dubia sent to him last July by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Raymond Leo Burke, with the support of three other cardinals, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Sarah and Joseph Zen Zekiun. The cardinals’ questions in Italian and the Pope’s answers in Spanish were published this Monday, October 2nd in the Website of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Below is the text with our translation of the Pope’s answers:
1) Dubium on the claim that divine revelation needs to be reinterpreted in accordance with current cultural and anthropological changes.
According to the statements of some bishops, which have not been corrected or withdrawn, the question arises whether divine revelation in the Church can be reinterpreted in accordance with the cultural changes of our time and in accordance with the new anthropological vision that these changes promote should ; or when divine revelation is forever binding and unchangeable and therefore cannot be contradicted, according to what the Second Vatican Council dictated that the revealing God deserves “the obedience of faith” (Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “forever intact” and alive and “passed on to all generations” (7) and that the progress of understanding brings no change in the truth of things and words, for that Faith was “passed on once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium does not stand above the Word of God, but teaches only what was passed on (10).
Pope Francis’ answers
Dear brothers,
Although it does not always seem advisable to respond directly to the questions put to me, and it would be impossible to answer all of them, in this case, given the proximity of the Synod, I considered it appropriate to do so.
Answer to the first question
a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret”. If it is understood as “better interpret,” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council declared that it was necessary that through the work of exegetes and I would add, theologians “the judgment of the Church matures” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).
b) So if it is true that divine revelation is unchanging and always binding, the Church must be humble and realize that it never exhausts its unfathomable riches and must grow in its understanding.
c) Consequently, her understanding of what she herself explained in her teaching also grows.
d) Cultural changes and new challenges in history do not alter Revelation, but they can encourage us to better express certain aspects of its abundant richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this will lead to a better expression of some of the earlier statements of the Magisterium, and indeed this has happened throughout history.
f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium does not stand above the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Sacred Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition require an interpretation that makes it possible to derive their eternal substance from it distinguish cultural conditioning. This is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Exodus 21:2021) and in some judicial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a secondary argument, as it is closely linked to the enduring truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts require interpretation. The same applies to some New Testament reflections on women (1 Corinthians 11:310; 1 Timothy 2:1114) and to other texts of Holy Scripture and testimonies of tradition that cannot be repeated even today.
g) It is important to emphasize that what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” cannot change (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). Therefore, the Church must continually distinguish what is essential to salvation and what is secondary or less directly related to that goal. I would like to remember what St. Thomas Aquinas said: “The more one concentrates on details, the more uncertainty increases” (Summa Theologiae 11 1, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the entire revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also means placing each truth in its proper context with more central truths and with the teaching of the Church as a whole. This can lead to the same doctrine being presented in different ways, although this may seem like an imperfect diversion to those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by everyone without nuance. However, the reality is that such diversity contributes to better manifesting and developing the various aspects of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel (Evangelii gaudium, 40). Each theological current has its risks, but also its opportunities.
2) Dubium on the claim that the widespread practice of blessing samesex unions is consistent with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).
According to the divine revelation, attested in the Holy Scripture, which the Church “by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit piously hears, holy preserves and faithfully expounds” (Dei Verbum IO): “In the beginning” God created as man and As a woman he created them in his own image and blessed them so that they would be fruitful (cf. Gen 1:2728). The apostle Paul teaches that the denial of gender differences is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Romans 1:2728). 1, 2432). The question arises: Can the Church deviate from this “principle” by considering it as a mere ideal, contrary to what Veritatis splendor 103 teaches, and accepting objectively sinful situations such as relationships between people of the same as “entirely possible”? Sex without ceasing to respect the revealed teaching?
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 achieve this only “in a partial and analogous manner” (Amoris laetitia 292), so they cannot strictly speaking be called “marriage.”
b) It’s not just about names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name that is not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than just an “ideal.”
c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that could contradict this belief and lead to the understanding that something is not recognized as marriage.
d) In our relationships with people, however, we must not lose pastoral charity, 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 is why we cannot be judges who simply deny, reject, exclude.
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing desired by one or more persons that do not convey a false idea of marriage. For when we ask for a blessing, we are expressing a request for help from God, a request to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires that we do not treat other people simply as “sinners” whose guilt or responsibility can be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective imputability influence (cf. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral wisdom in certain circumstances do not necessarily become the norm. In other words, it is not convenient for a diocese, a bishops’ conference or any other ecclesiastical structure to constantly and officially approve procedures or rites for every kind of matter, since it is all “part of a practical discernment in the face of a particular situation.” “The situation cannot be raised to the level of the norm” because this would “lead to intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon law does not and cannot cover everything, nor should the bishops’ conferences, with their various documents and protocols, intend to do so, since the life of the Church passes through many other channels besides the normative ones.
3) Dubium regarding the statement that synodality is “a constitutive dimension of the church” (Cost.Ap. Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the church is synodal in nature.
Since the Synod of Bishops is not a representative of the college of bishops, but a mere advisory body to the Pope, and since the bishops, as witnesses to the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, the question arises as to whether synodality can be the supreme criterion for the permanent government status of the Church without changing its constituent regime desired by its founder, the supreme and full authority of the Church being exercised either by the Pope by virtue of his office or by the college of bishops together with his head, the Pope of Rome (Lumen Gentium 22).
Pope Francis’ answer to the third question
a) They recognize, however, that the highest and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope by virtue of his position or by the college of bishops with the Pope at the head (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution). Lumen gentium, 22 ), with the same questions you express your need for participation, freedom of expression and collaboration, thus calling for a form of “synodality” in the exercise of my office.
b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily presupposes real participation: not only the hierarchy, but the entire People of God can hear in different ways and at different levels Your own voice and feel part of the church’s journey. In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamic, represents an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point, John Paul II said a number of very nice things in Novo Millennio.
c) Another thing is to sacralize or impose a certain synodal methodology that pleases a group and transform it into a norm and an obligatory path for everyone, because this would only result in “freezing” the synodal path and ignoring the different characteristics of different individual churches and the diverse wealth of the universal church.
4) Dubium regarding the support of pastors and theologians for the theory that “the theology of the church has changed” and that therefore women can be ordained priests.
After the statements of some prelates, neither corrected nor revoked, that the Second Vatican Council changed the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass, the question arises whether the statement of the Second Vatican Council is still valid. that “the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially and not merely in degree” (Lumen Gentium IO) and that the presbyters act by virtue of the “holy power of the order to offer sacrifices and to forgive sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2). they in the name and person of the Mediator Christ, through whom the spiritual sacrifice of the believers was perfected. It is also questioned whether the teaching of the Apostolic Exhortation of Saint John Paul II “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is still valid, which teaches the impossibility of ordination of women to the priesthood, which is to be regarded as the final truth, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change to the free one Discussion by pastors or theologians.
Pope Francis’ answer to the fourth question
a) “The common priesthood of believers and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not appropriate to support a difference in degree that implies that the common priesthood of believers is viewed as something of the “second category” or of lesser value (“lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood illuminate and support one another.
b) When St. John Paul II taught that it was necessary to affirm “definitely” that it was impossible to ordain women, he did not mean to denigrate women and to give supreme power to men. Saint John Paul II said other things too. For example, when we talk about the power of the priest, “we are within the framework of function, not of dignity and holiness.” (Saint John Paul II, Christifideles laici, 51). These are words we don’t collect enough. He also clearly stated that, although only the priest presides over the Eucharist, these duties “provide no justification for the superiority of one over the other” (John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ). the Faith, International Declaration of Insignia, VI). He also explained that the priestly function, when “hierarchical,” should not be understood as a form of domination, but rather “entirely oriented toward 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 the rights of women or the need for their participation . in various ways in the leadership of the church. .
c) On the other hand, for the sake of accuracy, we must recognize that a clear and binding doctrine as to the precise nature of a “definitive declaration” has not yet been fully developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be accepted by everyone. No one can contradict it publicly and yet it can be the subject of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.
5) Dubium regarding the statement that “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to free everyone and always, where repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
The question is whether the teaching of the Council of Trent is still in force, according to which the validity of sacramental confession requires the penitent’s repentance, which consists in abhorring the sin committed with the aim of not sinning again ( Paragraph XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), so that the priest must postpone absolution if it is clear that this condition is not met.
Pope Francis’ answer to the fifth question
a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no math here and I must remind you again that the confessional is not a customs office. We are not the owners, but humble stewards of the sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord are more than relics to be preserved, but an aid of the Holy Spirit to the lives of people.
b) There are many ways to express regret. For people whose selfesteem has been severely damaged, pleading guilty is often a cruel torture, but the very approach of confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and the search for divine help.
c) I would also like to remember that “it is sometimes difficult for us to give space to God’s unconditional love in pastoral care” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn. Following John Paul II, I argue that we should not ask believers for too many corrections. Detailed and firm corrections that end up being abstract or even narcissistic, but even the foreseeability of a new fall “does not affect the authenticity of the goal” (John Paul II. Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum and the participants of the Annual Course of Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).
d) Finally, it must be clear that all the conditions normally imposed on a confession are generally not applicable if the person is in a situation of torment or has very limited mental and psychological capabilities.