Four Cardinals, Card. Walter Brandmüller, Card. Raymond L. Burke, Card. Carlo Caffarra, Card. Joachim Meisner have publicly declared that they have written to Pope Francis, copied to the Cardinal Müller in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a series of "dubia" or doubts, that will force Francis to declare in the simplest of terms, the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.
Since its issuance, bishops and theologians have given conflicting interpretations, some of which border on error in contradiction of scriptural and Church teaching. Bergoglio himself has created this confusion and has supported the bishops of Buenos Aires who have dissented from scripture and tradition. Further, the Vicar of the Diocese of Rome, clearly with Bergoglio's blessing or command, has also dissented.
A "dubia," requires a one word answer; yes, or no. There is no theological argument, no debate. The argument is put forward with the question. It is a long-standing practice.
The dubia was submitted two months ago, the reason the Cardinals have now released it, is because Bergoglio has ignored it.
Well, no more. This is big. This is very, very big and without precedent.
Consider it this way.
Your local police have probable cause that you have committed a crime, they are now questioning you.
You can also think of this as the opening question of a Prosecutor in a trial.
Bergoglio is in trouble. These Cardinals have with wisdom and calmness, put him in trial and have done so publicly on our behalf.
His petulance and arrogance is about to be his undoing, or his conversion.
"So let it be written, so let it be done."
Rorate is now reporting through a Roman contact that the Pope had no intention of answering them.
Here is the release of the Cardinals with my emphasis. It includes a Foreword explaining why they are compelled to release it and that Bergoglio has ignored them.
Why these four? Why no others?
Well, these four have been stripped of all responsibilities by Bergoglio or they have retired. They have no flock to protect, no diocese to lose from the vindictive Bergoglio who has proven himself already to be a man of vengeance. If a Cardinal in a large diocese is removed, what good does that do his flock? It allows a vacancy to be filled by the likes of Blaise Cupich.
Bergoglio and the filthy malefactors around him have done this. They have created this crisis and they will be outed. Every. Single. One.
The Church's Brexit has begun!
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
- After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
- After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
- After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigatemoral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
- After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
- The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of their children);
- They take upon themselves the commitment to live according to the truth of their situation, that is, to cease living together as if they were husband and wife (more uxorio), abstaining from those acts that are proper to spouses;
- They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the appearance of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).
- A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. However, people who are not married can under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.
- A divorce dissolves the marriage bond. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts. The divorced and remarried are legitimate spouses and their sexual acts are lawful marital acts.
- A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts, so that the divorced and civilly remarried live in a situation of habitual, public, objective and grave sin. However, admitting persons to the Eucharist does not mean for the Church to approve their public state of life; the faithful can approach the Eucharistic table even with consciousness of grave sin, and receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance does not always require the purpose of amending one’s life. The sacraments, therefore, are detached from life: Christian rites and worship are on a completely different sphere than the Christian moral life.