Monday, January 9, 2017

WHERE-IN I HAVE TO AGREE WITH CARDINAL MUELLER: THIS DUBIA MESS NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE PUBLIC BUT REMAINED SECRET!

Card. Müller: “a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me to be very remote”

17_01_08_Mueller
I copy this from Fr. Z. Cardinal Mueller expresses my concerns exactly! I don't think this looks good for Cardinal Burke.


Card. Müller: “a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me to be very remote”

In an interesting development, His Eminence Ludwig Card. Müller was interviewed on Italian TV. There is an account of the interview at La Stampa. He spoke about the issue of the Five Dubia respectfully submitted by the Four Cardinals.
Inter alia (my translation):
“Everyone, above all Cardinals, has the right to write a letter to the Pope. However, I am amazed that this became public, essentially constraining the Pope to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I don’t like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me to be very remote, it’s not possible in this moment because it doesn’t concern a danger for the faith as St. Thomas said.”
“We are very distant from a correction and I say that is a loss to the Church to discuss these things publicly. ‘Amoris laetitia’ is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret the whole teaching of Jesus on matrimony, the whole teaching of the Church in 2000 years of history.” He concluded, Pope Francis, “asks to discern the situation of these people who are living in unions that are not regular, that is, not in accord with the teaching of the Church on matrimony, and asks to help these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I don’t see any conflict (contrapposizione): on the one hand we have the clear teaching on matrimony, and on the other hand the obligation of the Church to concern itself with these people in difficulties.”
The video of the interview is HERE.

29 comments:

Dialogue said...

If the Holy Father wants pastors to be patient, personal and creative in leading adulterers back into a state of grace, then I think we can all agree with that pastoral approach. I'm confident Burke would have no problem with it. However, what is at issue is not pastoral care, but the teachings of Christ. If unrepentant adulterers may now receive Holy Communion, then surely a reasonable observer could conclude, without malice, that the Church has altered the teachings of Christ.

Also, the Code of Canon Law states that prominent Christians not only have the right to express a considered opinion to the pope, but also a right "to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful". Müller is on dangerous ground as he challenges both the apostolic truth and established ecclesial law. Christ called His disciples "friends"; modern Catholics are becoming slaves as totalitarianism emerges within the Vatican.

TJM said...

Just like protecting the pedophiles/homosexuals who preyed on young boys? How well did secrecy then work out? Liberals always screech about "transparency" until it is applied to them.

John Nolan said...

But a fraternal correction to Fernandez, who wrote the offending passage, would be quite in order. Francis does not choose his friends wisely - even an ultramontanist like Mark Thomas must surely discern this.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Calling Mark Thomas an ultramontantist is generous and an understatement. MT has descended into Papalotry.

Mark Thomas said...

The Four Cardinals declared the following in regard to the dubia:

"And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation. We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm."

It is mind-boggling that the Four Cardinals, when they went public with their dubia, had hoped that their actions would not have been interpreted along "progressive/conservative" lines.

From the first seconds of its public release, everything associated with Amoris Laetitia had descended into a liberal/conservative battle within the Church.

If anything, Cardinal Burke should have known better as he had been attacked viciously by conservatives/traditionalists when he pronounced Amoris Laetitia orthodox. He was labeled everything from a "Vatican II modernist sellout" to a "homosexual" for having declared that Amoris Laetitia was in line with Church teaching.

The Four Cardinals knew that the Church's right-wing and left-wing factions had gone berserk in regard to Amoris Laetitia. The left-wing refused to tolerate any anybody who, in respectful, charitable, proper Catholic fashion, had expressed concerns in regard to Amoris Laetitia.

The right-wing attacked viciously anybody who had...oh, my...suggested that Amoris Laetita might just be orthodox. How dare anybody believe that Pope Francis and his Exhortation could possibly be orthodox!

The left-wing and right-wing had refused to tolerate any rational discussion related to Pope Francis/Amoris Laetitia.

That is the charged atmosphere within the Church into which the Four Cardinals revealed the dubia's existence.

-- That was massive mistake #1.

Massive mistake #2...when Cardinal Burke issued his absurd and unfortunate comment about correcting formally His Holiness Pope Francis.

The left-wing had denounced viciously the Four Cardinals and dubia. The right-wing had spun to the dubia into a holy war launched by the Four Cardinals against Pope Francis..."ha-ha, Pope Francis, the Four Cardinals just trapped and exposed you as a heretic."

All of that was bad enough. But when he issued his unfortunate comment in question (the formal correction comment), Cardinal Burke had launched traditionalists into an even greater frenzy. Now, they had the pipe-dream notion that the Cardinals would declare unquestionably that Pope Francis was heretical, would depose Pope Francis, then elect a "true" Pope who would return us to the so-called "Vatican II Church."

In turn, the left-wing frenzy reached even greater heights as the Four Cardinals had graduated from supposed "unmerciful" men to outright mutineers...heretics.

Sometime later, Cardinal Burke, via his interview with Catholic World Report, defanged his "formal correction" comment when he made it clear that he didn't associate heresy, not even remotely, with Pope Francis.

But his rational comment, that heresy is not associated even remotely with Pope Francis, had arrived far too late to calm the Four Cardinals/dubia controversy.

The Four Cardinals botched things in monumental fashion when they revealed publicly the dubia's existence. They made an horrific mistake in that regard.

The Four Cardinals could have kept the dubia's existence private while having launched publicly a rational, charitable, discussion — the kind of charitable, frank discussion that Pope Francis has stated time and again is acceptable and even required within the Church — in regard to Amoris Laetitia.

Oh, well...what could've been...what could've been. But not now. The Four Cardinals have painted themselves into a corner. In big-time fashion, they have botched things for themselves.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Dialogue said..."Also, the Code of Canon Law states that prominent Christians not only have the right to express a considered opinion to the pope, but also a right "to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful". Müller is on dangerous ground as he challenges both the apostolic truth and established ecclesial law."

Did Cardinal Müller challenge the canon(s) in question? I thought that he made it clear that Catholics, clergy, religious, and lay, have the right to address their concerns to the Roman Pontiff.

I believe that Cardinal Müller recognized that when he said: "Everyone, above all Cardinals, has the right to write a letter to the Pope."

But Church teaching (example, Canon 223) makes it clear that we must "take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others."

In regard to the dubia, it is the following that has concerned Cardinal Müller: "However, I am amazed that this became public, essentially constraining the Pope to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’."

The question is not whether we, Cardinals included, have the right to express our concerns to the Roman Pontiff and, for that matter, the "rest of the Christian Faithful" (Canon 212).

The question is whether we express our concerns, in particular, when we go public with said concerns — when we address "the rest of the Christian Faithful" (Canon 223) — in proper Catholic fashion to ensure the "common good of the Church" (Canon 223).

Clearly, that is what Cardinal Müller addressed in regard to the dubia. That is, whether the Four Cardinals should have gone public with the dubia. (There is also the issue of the manner in which the dubia were expressed. There are Churchmen who insist that the questions were designed to "trap" Pope Francis akin to the manner in which the Pharisees posed "trap" questions to Jesus Christ.)

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Cardinal Müller will be "Burked."

That is, many "traditionalists" attacked Cardinal Burke viciously — he was labeled a "homosexual," "Novus Ordo sellout," and "foolish" Cardinal who had played Catholics as "fools" — when he refused to march in lockstep with traditionalists who had declared Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia "heretical."

Now, it's Cardinal Müller's turn to be "Burked" for his having dared to question whether the dubia should have been made public. Perhaps even more so, he will be Burked for having dared said the following:

"Amoris laetitia’ is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret the whole teaching of Jesus on matrimony, the whole teaching of the Church in 2000 years of history."

Oh, my! My, my, my. Nobody...but nobody will be permitted by "traditionalists" to get away with having said such an "heretical" thing about "heretical" Amoris Laetitia.

Actually, more than a few traditionalists had "Burked" Cardinal Müller when Pope Benedict XVI had tapped then-Archbishop Müller to lead the CDF. Traditionalists insisted that then-Archbishop Müller was a heretic as he had denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We can be assured that Cardinal Müller is a heretic as, during the past few days on a different thread on Father McDonald's blog, certain folks have insisted that when a Catholic labels another Catholic a "heretic," then said label cannot possibly be wrong.

Therefore, when traditionalists declare person "X" a "heretic," then we can be certain that person "X" is a heretic..yeah, right.

Interestingly, during the Extraordinary and Ordinary Synods on the Family, Cardinal Müller had become the darling of many traditionalists as the Cardinal had defended Catholic marriage.

But just as they "Burked" Cardinal Burke when he declared that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox, traditionalists will turn on Cardinal Müller as it's his turn to be "Burked" for having questioned the public release of the dubia and declaring that Amoris Laetitia "is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret the whole teaching of Jesus on matrimony, the whole teaching of the Church in 2000 years of history."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jusadbellum said...

The problem with AL is not the text but the immediate spin by the usual suspects to mean a rupture from past doctrinal understanding of marriage. The text itself could be MORE clear and less open to misinterpretation certainly, but if one reads the whole document in one sitting rather than ignoring paragraphs 1-300 to focus exclusively on paragraphs 301-308, then you really can't claim it means what the progressives want it to mean.

And yet....99% of the world haven't read the whole document and so we're stuck with reality being the whole debate hinges on 'taken out of context obscure language' and thus the need for the Church to make it crystal clear that these equivocal spins to justify adultery are in fact WRONG.

If the Church doesn't clarify this and lets everyone happily spin the document however they see fit, we're going to end up with a schism because marriage is the building block of society on which everything else is premised. Break the marriage bond and everything else can (and thus will) be put on the chopping block.

Jusadbellum said...

As for Leftwing vs. rightwing in the Church context, I think some definitions are in order.

In the US political space, politics runs from Left to Right. It's a linear progression from "total government" on the Left to "no government" on the far right. In this reading "extreme right wing" is NOT "fascist/Nazi". Because both the Fascists and the Nazis were a species of SOCIALIST which is LEFT.

So the divide is always in reference to the size and scope of Government over and against the local liberty of individuals.

In the Church, the dividing line between Left and Right seems to be along essentially Modernist lines: those who believe dogma/doctrine can "evolve" with "the times" (understood as the moral and intellectual opinions of the elite rulers of society who dictate what is and is not OK) and those who believe dogma/doctrine are REVEALED and thus are not up to the say-so or approval of any elite whether they be socio, economic, political, or ecclesial.

Thus some Liberal/progressives believe that "the times" can change to the degree that sodomy is a-OK....as is masturbation, fornication, abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage etc. etc. etc. it might have been wrong in the 12th century but "the times have changed" and so too must the Church 'get with the times' rather than change the times to get with the Church.

Conservative/traditionalists aren't in love with "the times" inasmuch as they care more about being in step with the original Revelation of God than what the rulers of this world happen to think about it.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, I think you are really Cardinal Wuerl. Inquiring minds want to know. I mean I do know.

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."Calling Mark Thomas an ultramontantist is generous and an understatement. MT has descended into Papalotry."

No. I adhere simply to the True Faith that I was blessed to have received during Pope Saint John XXIII's Pontificate. Holy Mother Church taught me that I was to submit to the Roman Pontiff's teaching authority, which, in turn, he received from God.

I was taught the Faith that I received from my mother and father, who, in turn, had received the Faith during the reign of Pope Pius XI.

As time went on, my parents experienced radical changes within the Church as instituted by Pope Venerable Pius XII. During Pope Venerable Pius XII's Pontificate, my parents witnessed radical changes within the Church in regard to liturgy, fasting practices, and the Ecumenical Movement.

My parents did not trash their Pope. Rather, my mother and father accepted with holy Catholic docility the teaching authority that Pope Venerable Pius XII had receive from on High.

It was unthinkable in my family to trash the Holy Father...to insist that he was a heretic...to call him every name imaginable except that of a child of God. That is the Faith that I hold today.

Sorry, TJM, but I will leave the endless bashing of His Holiness Pope Francis to other folks. They may refer to him daily as the "Evil Clown...heretic...Frank The Hippie...", but I won't.

I will stick to that which I was taught by my parents. I accept the Roman Pontiff's authority to teach, govern, and sanctify me. I accept that he's my spiritual father. Therefore, I will honor Pope Francis.

So be it should that make me an "ultramontantist." So be it should that mark me as one who has "descended into Papalotry."

So be should you feel comfortable in trashing Pope Francis.

But I know that the following is true: My parents did not steer me wrong in that which they handed down to me in regard to the True Religion.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas, I think you are really Cardinal Wuerl. Inquiring minds want to know. I mean I do know."

Cardinal Wuerl and his place within the Church and world are far beyond yours truly. I am the lowest of this world's low-level nobodies...and thankful to be even that.

Please pray for me. Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

I have never referred to Pope Francis in the manner you describe. So if Rodrigo Borgia came back to life, you would remain uncritical. Got it. Newsflash, he's a Pope not God. Unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he remains subject to criticism and/or correction. John XXIII, a first rate diplomat, would be shocked by Pope Francis' intemperate language. If you are a man of God, you should be concerned too, because Pope Francis diminishes the papacy when he rants they way he does.

Anonymous said...

So God said "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and Francis has added unless it's too hard then it's ok. Got it.

rcg said...

John Nolan has a very good idea about the lateral correction. That is an old military trick when a senior officer had issued stupid directions. You pay a visit and dress down the junior staff officer in front of the commander with points the senior would loathe to claim or defend. If there is a trusted person willing to silently take the beating it can serve as a great communication forum.

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."So if Rodrigo Borgia came back to life, you would remain uncritical. Got it."

Yep...you got it. I would accept that any time that he exercised the Church's Magisterium that I, as a Catholic, would be called to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

Anything about his personal life that disturbed me would be offered up to God. I try always to keep in mind my many sins rather than dwell upon the sins of others.

As I'm an unfortunate sinner, I don't imagine that I'd have time to remove splinters from Pope Alexander VI's eyes. I would be too busy each day attempting to remove the beams lodged in my eyes.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."Unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he remains subject to criticism and/or correction."

As noted in canon law, we have the right to address our concerns to the Pope. We have the right to manifest our concerns to our sacred pastors. But as also noted in canon law, when we exercise our rights, we must "take into account the common good of the Church."

But we have the right to present, in proper fashion, to our sacred pastors, our concerns in regard to Church-related issues.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Maybe when Santita treats all Catholics with respect, he might have some credibility. Many times he sounds like a thug. Now answer me a direct question. Can you imagine St. John XXIII speaking of people in the derogatory fashion that Pope Francis has? You just keep talking around the issue and you never address it.

John Nolan said...

Memo to Pope Francis for 2017: Audi, vide, tace. If we never hear a word from you in the coming year, so much the better. And start dressing and acting as befits the office you temporarily hold. The secular media lost interest in you within twelve months of your election, so there is no benefit in pandering to them.

When a priest has to tell his congregation from the pulpit, as I heard two weeks ago: 'We are not rigid, we are not self-absorbed promethean neo-Pelagians' it was clear whose words he was quoting. That is an implied correction, and is well-deserved.

Anonymous said...

"The secular media lost interest in you within twelve months of your election,..."

Oh? A quick Google search turns up the following stories/dates for Pope Francis in the NYTimes in the order in which they came up: Nov 23, Nov 18, Nov 21, Dec 2, Nov 1, 1 day ago, Sept 28...

For that other "Times," you know, in London: Dec 23, Jan 3, 2017, Sept 4, April 16, Jul 18, Oct 26, Nov 21, Nov 18...

Around the globe a bit, another "Times," this time of India. Stories on: Nov 24, 4 days ago, Nov 21, Nov 28, Nov 24...

One wonders where the assertion about the pope and the secular press comes from...

Cheers!

TJM said...

Anonymous, John Nolan's point is well taken. The evil Media is just running the perfunctory stories now that it runs on any Pope. The slobbering love affair has ended.

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."Can you imagine St. John XXIII speaking of people in the derogatory fashion that Pope Francis has?"

Yes.

Have you forgotten that traditionalists were outraged at the following perceived attack against them via Pope Saint John XXIII's opening address at Vatican II?

Pope Saint John XXIII:

"The opportuneness of holding the Council is, moreover, venerable brothers, another subject which it is useful to propose for your consideration. Namely, in order to render our Joy more complete, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.

"In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure.

"In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

"We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand."
====================================================================

Visit today several leading traditionalist Catholic blogs, then apply the following test: Do they reflect the joy and hope that filled Pope Saint John XXIII and, today, His Holiness Pope Francis? Do traditionalists, at least via their blogs, offer the joy and hope that Popes Saint John XXIII and Pope Francis offer/offered to the Church and world?

Or do traditionalists, who, on the one hand and to their credit, burn with zeal, but on the other hand, unfortunately, traffic daily in horrific negativity?

At leading traditionalist Catholic blogs today, do we encounter hopeful, upbeat conversation, or do we encounter people who...

-- "are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure."

-- "see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

-- "prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand."

Anyway, TJM, yes...I can imagine Pope Saint John XXIII speaking in the fashion of His Holiness Pope Francis. He did so. Actually, it is Pope Francis who speaks in the fashion of Pope Saint John XXIII.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Please provide the actual statements where St. John XXIII spoke like a thug and dockside bully like the current Pope . I would hate to think that you would prevaricate to cover for your golden calf.

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

I think it was the liberal Montini (who would have been elected in 1958 had he been a cardinal) who said when he heard of the Council project: 'I wonder if the old boy knows what he's doing?'

We don't know what John XXIII would have made of Vatican II since he died before he could sign off a single decree of it. But there is evidence that he came to regard his earlier facile optimism as having been misplaced. The week the 'northern bishops' were intriguing successfully to take control the Council happened to be the week when the world teetered on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. By this time Pope John was mortally ill.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas should provide should provide "actual statements" when TeeJay provides statements of Francis being a "thug" and "dockside bully."

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, I didn't realize that His Holiness Pope Francis' speech is that of a "thug and dockside bully." Anyway, I quoted Pope Saint John XXIII's denunciation of "prophets of gloom," which right-wingers insist was directed at them.

I thought that that was the type of "attack" (in other words, the truth) that, according to you, Pope Saint John XXIII, "a first rate diplomat" (your words), would not dared to have issued?

Imagine if Pope Francis said the following:

"In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure.

"In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

"We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand."

If Pope Francis uttered the above comments offered by Pope Saint John XXIII, the right-wing of the Church, via their gloomy blogs, would denounce Pope Francis in vile terms.

Anyway, I have great love and respect for Popes Saint John XXIII and Francis. They promoted (Pope Francis continues to do so) Church teaching with joy and optimism despite opposition/negativity that flowed from the Church's two extreme wings.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Joe Potillor said...

I do not agree with His Eminence on this...

The questions only went public after it was clear an answer wasn't going to be given to the dubia. One of the few jobs the Pope actually does have is to answer questions of doctrinal ambiguity, or questions that are brought to him. The first amongst equals, to settle disputes between churches, and doctrinal questions. The dubia falling under the latter of this.

That said, considering how this Pope has opened his mouth on nearly every issue, perhaps it's best he not speak....Such is the paradox of the present pontificate.

When now Cardinal Muller was appointed as head of CDF, there were some questionable things that he wrote without a doubt about that. Fortunately, he has been able to put aside his own theological opinions, and put the Faith of the Church ahead of his own person, which is all that can be asked of anyone (the Pope included) in the hierarchy of the western church.

One of the joys of being Eastern is that the stress that is being caused by Pope Francis' various actions (and inactions) aren't the end all be all of the world. We recognise that primacy that the Pope has, but, realise there's even bigger temptation for him to screw up. (Hence why we pray for him near 3-4-5 times during the Liturgy) The Pope is not God (thank goodness), nor should we treat him as such. It's extremely hard in the age of mass media to keep this perspective, but it's embarrassing to see the mental gymnastics that's done to defend the Pope from his obvious screw ups. It's similar to how the media did everything in their power to cover their tracks for Hilary.

TJM said...

Here's an article all should read about "Mr. Friendly."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/why-more-and-more-priests-cant-stand-pope-francis/

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ, Father. The cardinals had to go public to highlight the fact that what is being promoted by certain bishops and priests and, yes, Francis is contrary to Church teaching. I think Muller is trying to protect his own position because if he goes his place will be taken by a liberal, so I think he has made the right move there.


Jan