Sandro Magister brings us an english translation of Cardinal Caffarra’s explanation as to why the Four Cardinals wrote to the PopeL
CAFFARRA: “WHY WE WROTE TO THE POPE”
+
We cardinals have the grave duty of advising the pope in the governance of the Church. It is a duty, and duties are obligatory.
+
Only a blind man could deny that in the Church there is great confusion, uncertainty, insecurity caused by some paragraphs of “Amoris Laetitia.” In recent months it has been happening that on the same fundamental questions concerning the sacramental economy – marriage, confession, and Eucharist – and Christian life, some bishops have said A, and others have said the opposite of A. With the intention of giving a good interpretation of the same texts.
+
There is only one way to get to the bottom of this: to ask the author of the text that has been interpreted in two contradictory ways what is the correct interpretation. There is no other way. Next came the problem of the way in which to approach the pope. We chose a way that is very traditional in the Church, what are called “dubia.” […] This was done in a private manner, and only when we were certain that the Holy Father would not respond did we decide to publish.
+
The problem is precisely this: that on fundamental points there is not a good understanding of what the pope is teaching, as demonstrated by the conflict of interpretations among bishops. We want to be docile to the pope’s magisterium, but the pope’s magisterium must be clear.
+
The division already existing in the Church is the cause of the letter [of the four cardinals to the pope – editor’s note], not its effect.
+
To conceive a pastoral practice not founded and rooted in doctrine means founding and rooting pastoral practice on inclination. A Church that pays little attention to doctrine is not a more pastoral Church, but a more ignorant Church.
+
The evolution of doctrine has always accompanied Christian thought. [But} if there is one clear point, it is that there is no evolution where there is contradiction. If I say that S is P and then I say that S is not P, the second proposition does not develop the first, but contradicts it. Already Aristotle had correctly taught that enunciating a universal affirmative principle (for example: all adultery is wrong) and at the same time a particular negative proposition having the same subject and predicate (for example: some adultery is not wrong), this is not making an exception to the former. It is contradicting it.
+
Can the minister of the Eucharist (usually the priest) give the Eucharist to a person who lives “more uxorio” with a woman or a man who is not the wife or husband, and does not intend to live in continence? […] Has “Amoris Laetitia” taught that, given certain specific circumstances and after going through a certain process, the faithful could receive the Eucharist without resolving to live in continence? There are bishops who have taught that this is possible. By a simple deduction of logic, one must therefore also teach that adultery is not evil in itself and of itself.
+
Conscience is the place where we come up against the central pillar of modernity. […] One who saw this in the most lucid manner imaginable was Blessed John Henry Newman. In the famous letter to the duke of Norfolk, he says: “All through my day there has been a resolute warfare, I had almost said conspiracy against the rights of conscience.” Further ahead he adds that in the name of conscience, true conscience is destroyed.
This is why among the five “dubia” doubt number five [the one on conscience – editor’s note] is the most important. There is a passage in “Amoris Laetitia,” at no. 303, that is not clear; it seems – I repeat: it seems – to admit the possibility that there may be a true judgment of conscience (not invincibly erroneous; this has always been admitted by the Church) in contradiction with that which the Church teaches as having to do with the deposit of divine Revelation. It seems. And that is why we raised the doubt with the pope.
Newman says that “did the Pope speak against Conscience in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet.” These are matters of breathtaking gravity. Private judgment would be raised up as the ultimate criterion of moral truth. Never say to a person: “Always follow your conscience,” without always and immediately adding: “Love and seek the truth about the good.” You would be putting into his hands the weapon most destructive of his humanity.
(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)
Go here to read the rest. The Pope’s silence speaks volumes.
Excellent.
Cardinal Caffarra’s explanation is very lucid. Jorge Bergoglio has to explain.
As David said, Excellent post.
When it comes to Eternity sometimes I think the pontificate can only relate it to perfume.
Smells nice and conjures up “good feelings.”
Unfortunately eternity could become not so nice and very stinky.
If the silence continues from Holy Father we can assume that his senses are probably failing him.
Prayers for his discernment on hearing the promptings of the Holy Spirit are on the way.
Maybe God is finally going to take care of Bergoglio:
.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/18/europe/italy-earthquake-rome-amatrice/index.html
.
Very sad if it has to happen this way. Too many innocent people. But Bergoglio is going to have to repent just as we all have to repent. Luke 13:1-5 – ain’t none of us exempt.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Stamp of approval???
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-gives-stamp-of-approval-to-martin-luther?utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign
Shake and Bake. The entree that will be forever remembered.
Philip, I got nothing against Lutherans per se, but this is ridiculous. If an earthquake swallows upp all of Rome, then I for one will not be surprised. Horrified at the deaths of so many innocent people, but sadly not surprised. Bergoglio, please repent just as the rest of us have to repent!
Lucius.
Agreed. I too do not hold ill feelings towards Lutherans, yet I’m dismayed at the honor attributed to Luther by this pontificate.
Call me a catholic deplorable I guess..but the stamp of Our Lady of Fatima might of been a more suitable choice..but then again..Who am I to Judge?
Peace.
Philip,
.
I too am a Catholic deplorable. I am also partial to Our Lady of Akita, especially after the earthquake and tsunami that so badly impacted Fukushima Daiichi.
I’ve heard it said that Akita is an extension of Fatima. When I ponder her tears of blood and the incredible destruction from the tsunami and earthquake as you mentioned, I can’t help but put the two events in connection.
Humanity is hanging on by a thread.
The attacking seagull and crow to the doves released by the new Papa and the two children, the lightning strike moments after the retirement announcement by Pope Emeritus…these events, of course, do not merit fear from the pews… however they should be noted. They should bring us into a deeper relationship with the Almighty because nature is God’s handiwork.
He knows the fall of the sparrow. He knows the fall of men and women.
If we don’t look upon these visits from Mary and natural disasters we just might be surprised if the curtain comes down on humanity. If we take note we just might help others and ourselves prepare for the event. The return of our Lord.
Pope Francis appears to have a deformed conscience. A well formed and properly functioning conscience is able to confirm the truth of Catholic doctrine. Pope Francis seems to have lost this ability possibly due to demonic possession.