The Filial Correction
of Pope Francis
Heresies in Amoris
Latitiae
With highlighted pertinent
text
Concerning “the Propagation
of Heresies effected by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia
and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness”
[Note: emphases added by the Boston Catholic Journal]
_____________________________
www.correctiofilialis.org
© [all rights
reserved]
Correctio filialis de
haeresibus propagates
(A filial
correction
concerning the propagation of heresies)
July 16th, 2017
Feast of our Lady of Mt Carmel
Most Holy
Father, With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus
Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion
toward yourself,
we are compelled to address a correction
to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected
by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other
words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.
We are permitted to issue this correction
by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law
of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed
by divine providence to guard.
By natural law: for as
subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful
things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore
to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. By the law
of Christ: for His Spirit inspired
the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act
according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas Aquinas
notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit
on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa
Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the gloss of St Augustine’
adds that on this occasion, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that
if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they
should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (ibid.). The law
of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s faithful
. . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their
knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors
their views on matters which concern the good of the Church” (Code
of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches
15:3).
Scandal concerning faith and morals
has been given to the Church and to the world by the publication of
Amoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness
has sufficiently made clear the scope and purpose of this document.
Heresies and other errors have in consequence spread through the Church;
for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the divinely
revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of
the sacraments, others have denied these truths, and have received from
Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those cardinals, by contrast,
who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this time-honoured
method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received
no answer but silence.
Most Holy Father,
the Petrine ministry has not been entrusted
to you that you might impose strange doctrines on the faithful, but
so that you may, as a faithful steward, guard the deposit against the
day of the Lord’s return (Lk. 12; 1 Tim. 6:20).
We adhere wholeheartedly
to the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican
Council, and therefore we adhere to the explanation which that same
council gave of this charism, which includes this declaration:
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to
the successors of Peter that they might, by His revelation, make
known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might
religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit
of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, cap.
4).
For this reason, Your
Predecessor, Blessed Pius IX, praised the collective declaration of
the German bishops, who noted that “the opinion according to which the
pope is ‘an absolute sovereign because of his infallibility’ is based
on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility.”1
Likewise, at the 2nd Vatican Council, the Theological Commission which
oversaw the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium,
noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff are limited in many ways.2
Those
Catholics, however, who do not
clearly grasp the limits of papal infallibility
are liable to be led by the words and
actions of Your Holiness into one of two disastrous errors: either
they will come to embrace the heresies which are now being propagated,
or, aware that these doctrines are contrary to the word of God, they
will doubt or deny the prerogatives of the popes. Others again of the
faithful are led to put in doubt the validity of the renunciation of
the papacy by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Thus,
the Petrine office,
bestowed upon the Church by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of unity
and faith, is so used that a way is opened for heresy
and for schism. Further, noting that
practices now encouraged by Your Holiness’s
words and actions are contrary not only to the perennial faith and
discipline of the Church but also to the magisterial statements of Your
predecessors, the faithful reflect that Your Holiness’s own
statements can enjoy no greater authority than that of former popes;
and thus the authentic papal magisterium suffers a wound of which it
may not soon be healed.
We, however, believe
that Your Holiness possesses the charism of infallibility, and the right
of universal jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful, in the sense defined
by the Church. In our protest against Amoris laetitia and against
other deeds, words and omissions related to it, we do not deny the existence
of this papal charism or Your Holiness's possession of it, since neither
Amoris laetitia nor any of the statements which have served to
propagate the heresies which this exhortation insinuates are protected
by that divine guarantee of truth.
Our correction is indeed required by fidelity to infallible papal teachings
which are incompatible with certain of Your Holiness’s statements.
As subjects, we do not
have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by
which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration
of punishment (cf. Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4).
We issue this correction, rather, to
protect our fellow Catholics - and those outside the Church, from whom
the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) - hoping
to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves
to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law
of God.
* * *
We wish now to show how
several passages of Amoris laetitia,
in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions of Your Holiness, serve
to propagate seven heretical propositions. 3
The passages of
Amoris laetitia to which we refer are the following:
AL
295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness”
in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes
moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness
of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free
acts on the part of subjects who are
not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the
objective demands of the law.’
AL
296: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s
history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time
of the Council of Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way
of mercy and reinstatement. The way
of the Church is not to condemn anyone forever.”
AL
297: ‘No one can be condemned for
ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
AL
298: ‘The divorced who have entered
a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of
situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid
classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral
discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with
new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving,
Christian commitment, a consciousness
of its irregularity and of the
great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one
would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations
“where, for serious reasons, such as
the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation
to separate [footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing
and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which
the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy
are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the
good of the children suffers”.] There are also the cases of those
who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly
abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the
sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain
in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had
never been valid”. Another thing is a new union arising from a recent
divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for
children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently
failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this
is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family.
The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment
of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with
an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy
recipes” exist.'
AL
299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that
“the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more
fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible,
while avoiding any occasion of scandal.
The logic of integration is the key
to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize
that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know
that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They
are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into
their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. …
Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated
members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to
live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes
them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them
along the path of life and the Gospel.”’
AL
300: ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”,
the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be
the same. [footnote 336] This is also the case with regard to sacramental
discipline, since discernment can recognize
that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.’
AL
301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply
be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a
state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More
is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know
full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its
inherent values, or be in a concrete situation
which does not allow him or her to
act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”’
AL
303: ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does
not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It
can also recognize with sincerity and honesty
what for now is the most generous
response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain
moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the
concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective
ideal.’
AL
304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas
Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although
there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to
matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters
of action, truth or practical rectitude
is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the
general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in
matters of detail, it is not equally known to all…
The principle will be found to fail,
according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that
general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected,
but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular
situations.’
AL
305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning
and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation
of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person
can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life
of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.
[footnote 351: In certain cases,
this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want
to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber,
but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out
that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine
and nourishment for the weak.”]'
AL
308: ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which
leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that
Jesus wants a Church attentive to the
goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness,
a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always
does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled
by the mud of the street”.’
AL
311: ‘The teaching of moral theology
should not fail to incorporate these considerations.’
The words, deeds and omissions of Your
Holiness to which we wish to refer, and which
in conjunction with these passages
of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the
Church, are the following:
-
Your Holiness has refused to
give a positive answer to the dubia submitted to you by Cardinals Burke,
Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner, in which you were respectfully
requested to confirm that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia
does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.
- Your Holiness intervened
in the composition of the Relatio post disceptationem
for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.
The Relatio proposed allowing
Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”,
and said pastors should emphasize
the “positive aspects”
of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including
civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation. These
proposals were included in the Relatio at your personal insistence,
despite the fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required
by the Synod rules for a proposal to be included in the Relatio.
- In an interview in
April 2016, a journalist asked Your Holiness if there are any concrete
possibilities for the divorced and remarried that did not exist before
the publication of Amoris laetitia. You replied ‘Io posso
dire, si. Punto’; that is, ‘I can say yes. Period.’ Your Holiness
then stated that the reporter’s question was answered by the presentation
given by Cardinal Schönborn on Amoris laetitia. In this presentation
Cardinal Schönborn stated:
My
great joy as a result of this document
resides in the fact that it coherently
overcomes that artificial, superficial,
clear division between “regular” and “irregular”, and subjects
everyone to the common call of the Gospel, according to the words of
St. Paul: “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have
mercy on all” (Rom. 11, 32). … what does the Pope say in relation to
access to the sacraments for people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Francis
reiterates the need to discern carefully
the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio
(84) (AL 298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding
to God and growing in the midst of limits.
By thinking that everything is black
and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and
discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL
205). He also reminds us of an important phrase from Evangelii gaudium,
44: “A small step, in the midst of
great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which
appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting
great difficulties” (AL 304). In the sense of this “via caritatis”
(AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note
(351) that the help of the sacraments
may also be given “in certain cases”.4
Your Holiness amplified
this statement by asserting that Amoris laetitia endorses the
approach to the divorced and remarried that is practised in Cardinal
Schönborn’s diocese, where they are permitted to receive communion.
- On Sept. 5th 2016 the
bishops of the Buenos Aires region issued a statement on the application
of Amoris laetitia. In it they stated:
6)
En otras circunstancias más complejas, y cuando no se pudo obtener una
declaración de nulidad, la opción mencionada puede no ser de hecho factible.
No obstante, igualmente es posible un camino de discernimiento. Si se
llega a reconocer que, en un caso concreto, hay limitaciones que atenúan
la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularmente
cuando una persona considere que caería en una ulterior falta dañando
a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetítía abre la posibilidad del
acceso a los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas
336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a la persona a seguir madurando
y creciendo con la fuerza de la gracia. …
9) Puede ser conveniente que un eventual acceso a los sacramentos se
realice de manera reservada, sobre todo cuando se prevean situaciones
conflictivas. Pero al mismo tiempo no hay que dejar de acompañar a la
comunidad para que crezca en un espíritu de comprensión y de acogida,
sin que ello implique crear confusiones en la enseñanza de la Iglesia
acerca del matrimonio indisoluble. La comunidad es instrumento de la
misericordia que es «inmerecida, incondicional y gratuita» (297).
10) El discernimiento no se cierra, porque «es dinámico y debe permanecer
siempre abierto a nuevas etapas de crecimiento y a nuevas decisiones
que permitan realizar el ideal de manera más plena» (303), según la
«ley de gradualidad» (295) y confiando en la ayuda de la gracia. ...
[6)
In
other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not
been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible.
Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to
be recognized that, in a specific case,
there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf.
301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent
wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia
offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation
and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments,
in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the
power of grace. … 9) It may be right for eventual access to sacraments
to take place privately, especially where situations of conflict might
arise. But at the same time, we have to accompany our communities in
their growing understanding and welcome, without this implying creating
confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage.
The community is an instrument of mercy,
which is “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” (297).
10)
Discernment is not closed, because
it “is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and
to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized”
(303), according to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence
in the help of grace.]
This asserts that according to Amoris
laetitia confusion is not to be created about the teaching of the
Church on the indissolubility of marriage, that the divorced and remarried
can receive the sacraments, and that persisting in this state is compatible
with receiving the help of grace. Your Holiness wrote an official
letter dated the same day to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel,
a delegate of the Argentina bishops’ Buenos Aires Region, stating that
the bishops of the Buenos Aires region had given the only possible interpretation
of Amoris laetitia:
Querido
hermano:
Recibí el escrito de la Región Pastoral Buenos Aires «Criterios básicos
para la aplicación del capítulo VIII de Amoris laetítia». Muchas gracias
por habérmelo enviado; y los felicito por el trabajo que se han tomado:
un verdadero ejemplo de acompañamiento a los sacerdotes... y todos sabemos
cuánto es necesaria esta cercanía del obíspo con su clero y del clero
con el obispo . El prójimo «más prójimo» del obispo es el sacerdote,
y el mandamiento de amar al prójimo como a sí mismo comienza para nosotros
obispos precisamente con nuestros curas.
El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo
VIII de Amoris Laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.
[Beloved
brother, I received the document from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region,
“Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia.”
Thank you very much for sending it to me. I thank you for the work they
have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests ...
and we all know how necessary is this closeness of the bishop with his
clergy and the clergy with the bishop. The neighbor ‘closest’ to the
bishop is the priest, and the commandment to love one’s neighbor as
one’s self begins for us, the bishops, precisely with our priests. The
document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter
VIII of Amoris laetitia.
There are no other interpretations.]5
-
Your Holiness appointed Archbishop
Vincenzo Paglia as president of the Pontifical Academy for Life
and grand chancellor of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for
Studies on Marriage and Family. As head of the Pontifical Council for
the Family, Archbishop Paglia was responsible
for the publication of a book, Famiglia e Chiesa, un legame indissolubile
(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015), that contains the
lectures given at three seminars promoted by that dicastery on the topics
of ‘Marriage: Faith, Sacrament, Discipline’; ‘Family, Conjugal Love
and Generation’; and ‘The Wounded Family and Irregular Unions: What
Pastoral Attitude’. This book and the
seminars it described were intended to put forward proposals
for the Synod on the Family, and promoted
the granting of communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.
-
Guidelines for the diocese of Rome
were issued under Your Holiness’s authority permitting the reception
of the Eucharist under certain circumstances by civilly divorced and
remarried Catholics living more uxorio with their civil partner.
-
Your Holiness appointed Bishop Kevin
Farrell as prefect of the newly established Dicastery for Laity, Family
and Life, and promoted him to the rank of cardinal. Cardinal Farrell
has expressed support for Cardinal Schönborn’s proposal that the divorced
and remarried should receive communion. He has stated that the reception
of communion by the divorced and remarried is a ‘process of discernment
and of conscience.’ 6
- On January 17th, 2017,
the Osservatore Romano, the
official journal of the Holy See, published the guidelines issued by
the archbishop of Malta and the bishop of Gozo for the reception of
the Eucharist by persons living in an adulterous relationship. These
guidelines permitted the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist
by some persons in this situation, and stated that in some cases
it is impossible for such persons to practise chastity and harmful
for them to attempt to practise chastity. No criticism of these
guidelines was made by the Osservatore Romano, which presented
them as legitimate exercises of episcopal teaching and authority. This
publication was an official act of the Holy See that went uncorrected
by yourself.
Correctio
His verbis, actis, et
omissionibus, et in iis sententiis libri Amoris laetitia quas
supra diximus, Sanctitas Vestra sustentavit recte aut oblique, et in
Ecclesia (quali quantaque intelligentia nescimus nec iudicare audemus)
propositiones has sequentes, cum munere publico tum actu privato, propagavit,
falsas profecto et haereticas:
(1)
“Homo iustificatus iis caret viribus quibus, Dei gratia adiutus, mandata
obiectiva legis divinae impleat; quasi quidvis ex Dei mandatis sit iustificatis
impossibile; seu quasi Dei gratia, cum in homine iustificationem efficit,
non semper et sua natura conversionem efficiat ab omni peccato gravi;
seu quasi non sit sufficiens ut hominem ab omni peccato gravi convertat.”
(2)
Christifidelis qui, divortium civile a sponsa legitima consecutus, matrimonium
civile (sponsa vivente) cum alia contraxit; quique cum ea more uxorio
vivit; quique cum plena intelligentia naturae actus sui et voluntatis
propriae pleno ad actum consensu eligit in hoc rerum statu manere: non
necessarie mortaliter peccare dicendus est, et gratiam sanctificantem
accipere et in caritate crescere potest.”
(3)
“Christifidelis qui alicuius mandati divini plenam scientiam possidet
et deliberata voluntate in re gravi id violare eligit, non semper per
talem actum graviter peccat.”
(4)
“Homo potest, dum divinae prohibitioni obtemperat, contra Deum ea ipsa
obtemperatione peccare.”
(5)
“Conscientia recte ac vere iudicare potest actus venereos aliquando
probos et honestos esse aut licite rogari posse aut etiam a Deo mandari,
inter eos qui matrimonium civile contraxerunt quamquam sponsus cum alia
in matrimonio sacramentali iam coniunctus est.”
(6)
“Principia moralia et veritas moralis quae in divina revelatione et
in lege naturali continentur non comprehendunt prohibitiones qualibus
genera quaedam actionis absolute vetantur utpote quae propter obiectum
suum semper graviter illicita sint.”
(7)
“Haec est voluntas Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut Ecclesia disciplinam
suam perantiquam abiciat negandi Eucharistiam et Absolutionem iis qui,
divortium civile consecuti et matrimonium civile ingressi, contritionem
et propositum firmum sese emendandi ab ea in qua vivunt vitae conditione
noluerunt patefacere.”7
These propositions all contradict truths
that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the
assent of divine faith. They were identified as heresies in the petition
concerning Amoris laetitia that was addressed by 45 Catholic
scholars to the cardinals and Eastern patriarchs of the Church.8
It is necessary for the good of souls that they be once more condemned
by the authority of the Church. In listing these seven propositions
we do not intend to give an exhaustive list of all the heresies and
errors which an unbiased reader, attempting to read Amoris laetitia
in its natural and obvious sense, would plausibly take to be affirmed,
suggested or favoured by this document:
a letter sent to all the cardinals of the Church and to the Eastern
Catholic patriarchs lists 19 such propositions. Rather, we seek to list
the propositions which Your Holiness's words, deeds and omissions, as
already described, have in effect upheld and propagated, to the great
and imminent danger of souls.
At this critical hour,
therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis, the Roman Church,
which has by divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which
we are and intend always to remain loyal children, and
we respectfully insist that Your Holiness
publicly reject these propositions,
thus accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St
Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of the world:
“I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once
converted, confirm thy brethren.”
We respectfully ask for
Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing, with the assurance of our filial
devotion in our Lord and of our prayer for the welfare of the Church.
* * *
Elucidation
In order to elucidate
our Correctio, and to put forward a firmer defence against the
spread of errors, we wish to draw attention
to two general sources of error which appear to us to
be fostering the heresies that we have listed. We speak,
firstly, of that false understanding of divine revelation which generally
receives the name of Modernism, and secondly, of
the teachings of Martin Luther.
A.
The problem of Modernism
The Catholic understanding of divine
revelation is frequently denied by contemporary theologians,
and this denial has led to widespread confusion among Catholics on the
nature of divine revelation and faith. In order to prevent any misunderstanding
that might arise from this confusion, and to justify our claim about
the current propagation of heresies within the Church,
we will describe the Catholic understanding
of divine revelation and faith, which is presumed in this document.
This description is also
necessary in order to respond to the passages in Amoris laetitia
where it is asserted that the teachings of Christ and of the magisterium
of the Church should be followed. These passages include the following:
“Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church”
(AL 3). “Faithful to Christ’s teaching we look to the reality of the
family today in all its complexity” (AL 32). “The teaching of the encyclical
Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio
ought to be taken up anew” (AL 222). “The teaching of the Master (cf.
Mt 22:30) and Saint Paul (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-31) on marriage is set – and
not by chance – in the context of the ultimate and definitive dimension
of our human existence. We urgently need to rediscover the richness
of this teaching” (AL 325). These passages might be seen as ensuring
that nothing in Amoris laetitia serves to propagate errors contrary
to Catholic teaching. A description
of the true nature of adherence to Catholic teaching will clarify our
assertion that Amoris laetitita does indeed serve to propagate
such errors.
We therefore ask Your Holiness to permit
us to recall the following truths, which are taught by Holy Scripture,
Sacred Tradition, the universal consensus of the Fathers, and the magisterium
of the Church, and which summarise Catholic teaching on faith, divine
revelation, infallible magisterial teaching, and heresy:
1.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whose historical character
the Church unhesitatingly asserts,
faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really
did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was
taken up into heaven.9
2.
Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
In consequence, all his teachings are the teachings of God Himself.10
3.
All the propositions that are contained in the Catholic faith are truths
communicated by God.11
4.
In believing these truths with an assent that is an act of the theological
virtue of faith, we are believing the testimony of a speaker. The act
of divine faith is a particular form of the general intellectual activity
of believing a proposition because a speaker asserts it, and because
the speaker is held to be honest and knowledgeable with respect to the
assertion he is making. In an act of divine faith, God is believed when
he says something, and he is believed because he is God and hence is
knowledgeable and truthful.12
5.
Belief in divine testimony differs
from belief in the testimony of human beings who are not divine,
because God is all-knowing and perfectly good. In consequence, he can
neither lie nor be deceived. It is thus impossible for divine testimony
to be mistaken. Because the truths of the Catholic faith are communicated
to us by God, the assent of faith that is given to them is most certain.
A Catholic believer cannot have rational grounds for doubting or disbelieving
any of these truths.13
6.
Human reason by itself can establish the truth of the Catholic faith
based on the publicly available evidence for the divine origin of the
Catholic Church, but such reasoning cannot produce an act of faith.
The theological virtue of faith and
the act of faith can only be produced by divine grace. A person who
has this virtue but then freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve
a truth of the Catholic faith sins mortally and loses eternal life.14
7.
The truth of a proposition consists in its saying of what is, that it
is; scholastically expressed, it consists in adaequatio rei et intellectus.
Every truth is as such true, no matter
by whom or when or in what circumstances it is considered. No truth
can contradict any other truth.15
8.
The Catholic faith does not exhaust all the truth about God, because
only the divine intellect can fully comprehend the divine being. Nonetheless
every truth of the Catholic faith is
entirely and completely true, in that the features of reality that such
a truth describes are exactly as these truths present them to be. There
is no difference between the content of the teachings of the faith and
how things are.16
9.
The divine speech that communicates the truths of the Catholic faith
is expressed in human languages. The
inspired Hebrew and Greek text of the Holy Scriptures is itself uttered
by God in all of its parts. It is not a purely human report or interpretation
of divine revelation, and no part of its meaning is due solely to human
causes. In believing the teaching of the Holy Scriptures we are believing
God directly. We are not believing the statements made by God
on the basis of believing the testimony of some other, non-divine person
or persons.17
10.
When the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that a proposition is a
divinely revealed part of the Catholic faith and
is to be believed with the assent of
faith, Catholics who assent to this teaching are believing what
God has communicated, and are believing it on account of His having
said it.18
11.
The languages in which divine revelation
is expressed, and the cultures and histories that shaped these languages,
do not constrain, distort, or add to the divine revelation that is expressed
in them. No part or aspect of the Holy Scriptures or of the infallible
teaching of the Church concerning the content of divine revelation is
produced only by the languages and historical conditions in which they
are expressed, but not by God's action in communicating truths.
Hence, no part of the content of the teaching of the Church can be revised
or rejected on the grounds that it is produced by historical circumstances
rather than by divine revelation.19
12.
The magisterial teaching of the Church
after the death of the last apostle must be understood and believed
as a single whole. It is not divided into a past magisterium and a contemporary
or living magisterium that can ignore earlier magisterial teaching
or revise it at will.20
13.
The Pope, who has the supreme
authority in the Church, is not himself exempt from the authority of
the Church, in accordance with divine and ecclesiastical law. He
is bound to accept and uphold the definitive
teaching of his predecessors in the papal office.21
14.
A heretical proposition is a proposition
that contradicts a divinely revealed truth that is included in the Catholic
faith.22
15.
The sin of heresy is committed by a
person who possesses the theological virtue of faith, but then freely
and knowingly chooses to disbelieve or doubt a truth of the Catholic
faith. Such a person sins mortally and loses eternal life. The
judgement of the Church upon the personal sin of heresy is exercised
only by a priest in the sacrament of penance.23
16.
The canonical crime of heresy is committed when a Catholic a) publicly
doubts or denies one or more truths of the Catholic faith, or publicly
refuses to give assent to one or more truths of the Catholic faith,
but does not doubt or deny all these truths or deny the existence of
Christian revelation, and b) is pertinacious in this denial. Pertinacity
consists in the person in question continuing to publicly doubt or deny
one or more truths of the Catholic faith after having been warned by
competent ecclesiastical authority that his doubt or denial is a rejection
of a truth of the faith, and that this doubt or denial must be renounced
and the truth in question must be publicly affirmed as divinely revealed
by the person being warned.24
(The above descriptions
of the personal sin of heresy and of the canonical crime of heresy are
given solely in order to be able to exclude them from the subject of
our protest. We are only concerned
with heretical propositions propagated by the words, deeds and omissions
of Your Holiness. We do not have the competence or the intention to
address the canonical issue of heresy.) B.
The influence of Martin Luther
In the second place, we feel compelled by conscience to advert to Your
Holiness’s unprecedented sympathy for Martin Luther, and to the affinity
between Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and marriage, and those
taught or favoured by Your Holiness in Amoris laetitia and elsewhere.25
This is necessary in order that our protest against
the seven heretical propositions listed
in this document may be complete; we wish to show, albeit in summary
form, that these are not unrelated
errors, but rather form part of a heretical system. Catholics
need to be warned not only against these seven errors, but also against
this heretical system as such, not least by reason of
Your Holiness’s praise of the man who
originated it.
Thus, in a press conference
on June 26th, 2016, Your Holiness stated:
I think that Martin Luther’s intentions
were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods
were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history,
for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion
when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we
see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption
and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power.
That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went
ahead, justifying his reasons for it.
Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics,
and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification:
on this very important point he was not mistaken.26
In a homily in the Lutheran
Cathedral in Lund, Sweden, on Oct 31st, 2016, Your Holiness stated:
As
Catholics and Lutherans, we have undertaken a common journey of reconciliation.
Now, in the context of the commemoration
of the Reformation of 1517, we have a new opportunity to accept a common
path, one that has taken shape over the past fifty years in the ecumenical
dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.
Nor can we be resigned to the division and distance that our separation
has created between us. We have the opportunity to mend a critical moment
of our history by moving beyond the controversies and disagreements
that have often prevented us from understanding one another.
Jesus
tells us that the Father is the “vinedresser” (cf. v. 1) who tends and
prunes the vine in order to make it bear more fruit (cf. v. 2). The
Father is constantly concerned for our relationship with Jesus, to see
if we are truly one with him (cf. v. 4). He watches over us, and
his gaze of love inspires us to purify
our past and to work in the present to bring about the future of unity
that he so greatly desires.
We too must look with love and honesty
at our past, recognizing error and seeking forgiveness, for God alone
is our judge. We ought to recognize with the same honesty and
love that our division distanced us from the primordial intuition of
God’s people, who naturally yearn to be one, and that
it was perpetuated historically by
the powerful of this world rather than the faithful people, which always
and everywhere needs to be guided surely and lovingly by its Good Shepherd.
Certainly, there was a sincere will on the part of both sides to profess
and uphold the true faith, but at the same time
we realize that we closed in on ourselves
out of fear or bias with regard to the faith which others profess with
a different accent and language. […]
The
spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that
apart from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?”
This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of
a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives.
As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News
of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen.
With the concept “by grace alone”,
he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human
response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of
justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.
27
In addition to stating
that Martin Luther was correct about justification, and in close accordance
with this view, Your Holiness has declared
more than once that our sins are the place where we encounter
Christ (as in your homilies of September 4th, and September 18th,
2014), justifying this view with St Paul, who in fact glories in his
own “infirmities” (“astheneìais”, cf. 2 Cor. 12:5, 9) and not
in his sins, so that the power of Christ may dwell in him.28
In an address to members of Communion and Liberation on March
7th, 2015 Your Holiness said:
The privileged place of encounter is
the caress of Jesus’ mercy regarding my sin. This is why you may have
heard me say, several times, that the place for this, the privileged
place of the encounter with Jesus Christ is my sin. 29
Furthermore, in addition
to other propositions of Amoris laetitia which have been listed
in the letter sent to all the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs,
and which have been therein qualified as heretical, erroneous, or ambiguous,
we read also this:
We
should not however confuse different levels:
there is no need to lay upon two limited
persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union
existing between Christ and his Church, for marriage as a sign entails
‘a dynamic process..., one which advances gradually with the
progressive integration of the gifts of God’ (AL 122).
While it is true that
the sacramental sign of matrimony entails a dynamic process toward holiness,
it is beyond doubt that by the sacramental
sign the union of Christ with his Church is perfectly reproduced by
grace in the married couple. It is not a question of imposing a tremendous
burden on two limited persons, but rather of acknowledging the work
of the sacrament and of grace (res et sacramentum).
Surprisingly we notice here, as in
several other parts of this Apostolic Exhortation, a close relationship
with Luther’s disparagement of marriage. For the German revolutionary,
the Catholic conception of a sacrament as effective ex opere operato,
in an allegedly ‘mechanical’ way, is unacceptable. Although he
maintains the distinction of signum et res, after 1520, with
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he no longer applies
it to marriage. Luther denies that
marriage has any reference to sacramentality, on the grounds that we
nowhere read in the Bible that the man who marries a woman receives
a grace of God, and that neither do we read anywhere that marriage was
instituted by God to be a sign of anything. He claimed that marriage
is a mere symbol, adding that although it can represent the union
of Christ with the Church, such figures and allegories are not sacraments
in the sense we use the term (cf. Luther’s Works {LW} 36:92).
For this reason, marriage - whose fundamental aim is to conceive children
and to raise them up in the ways of God (cf. LW 44:11-12) - according
to Luther belongs to the order
of creation and not to that of salvation (cf. LW 45:18);
it is given only in order to quench
the fire of concupiscence, and as a bulwark against sin (cf.
LW 3, Gen. 16:4).
Moreover, beginning with
his personal vision about how human nature is corrupted by sin, Luther
is conscious that man is not always anxious to respect God’s law. Therefore,
he is convinced that there is a double manner by which God rules over
mankind, to which corresponds a double
moral vision about marriage and divorce. Thus
divorce is generally admitted by Luther
in the case of adultery, but only for non-spiritual people.
His reasoning is that
there are two forms of divine government in this world: the spiritual
and the temporal. By his spiritual government, the Holy Spirit leads
Christians and righteous people under the Gospel of Christ; by his temporal
government, God restrains non-Christians and the wicked in order to
maintain an outward peace (cf. LW 45:91).
Two also are the laws regulating moral
life: one is spiritual, for those living under the influence of the
Holy Spirit, the other is temporal or worldly, for those who cannot
comply with the spiritual one
(cf. LW 45:88-93). This double moral vision is applied by Luther to
adultery in reference to Mt 5:32: hence, Christians must not divorce
even in the case of adultery (the spiritual law); but divorce exists
and was granted by Moses because of sin (the worldly law). The permission
to divorce is thus seen as a limit put by God upon carnal people to
restrain their misbehaviour and prevent them from doing worse on account
of their wickedness (cf. LW 45:31).
How can we not see here a close similarity
with what has been suggested by Your Holiness in Amoris laetitia?
On the one hand marriage is supposedly safeguarded as a sacrament, while
on the other hand divorce and remarriage are regarded ‘mercifully’ as
a status quo to be – although only ‘pastorally’ – integrated
into the life of the Church, thus openly contradicting the word of our
Lord. Luther was
led to an acceptance of re-marriage by his identification of concupiscence
with sin; for he recognized marriage
as a remedy for concupiscence. In reality, concupiscence is not as
such sinful, just as re-marriage when one has a living spouse is not
a status, but a privation of truth.
However, Luther’s self-contradiction,
generated by his two-fold view of marriage - itself seen as something
that pertains properly to the Law and not to the Gospel – is then supposedly
overcome by the precedence of faith: a “cordial trust” in order to adhere
subjectively to God. He claims that faith justifies man insofar as the
punishing justice withdraws into mercy and is changed permanently into
forgiving love. This is made possible out
of a “joyful bargain” (fröhlicher
Wechseln) by which the sinner can say to Christ: “You are my righteousness
just as I am your sin” (LW 48:12; cf. also 31:351; 25:188). By this
“happy exchange”, Christ becomes the only sinner and we are justified
through the acceptance of the Word in faith.
In Your pilgrimage to
Fatima for the beginning of this providential centenary, Your Holiness
clearly alluded to this Lutheran view about faith and justification,
stating on May 12th, 2017:
Great injustice is done to God’s grace
whenever we say that sins are punished by his judgment,
without first saying – as the Gospel clearly does – that they are forgiven
by his mercy! Mercy has to be put before judgment and, in any case,
God’s judgment will always be rendered in the light of his mercy.
Obviously, God’s mercy does not deny justice, for Jesus took upon himself
the consequences of our sin, together with its due punishment. He did
not deny sin, but redeemed it on the cross. Hence, in the faith that
unites us to the cross of Christ, we are freed of our sins; we put aside
all fear and dread, as unbefitting those who are loved (cf. 1 Jn. 4:18).30
The gospel does not teach that all
sins will in fact be forgiven, nor that Christ alone experienced the
‘judgement’ or justice of God, leaving only mercy for the rest of mankind.
While there is a ‘vicarious suffering’ of our Lord in order to expiate
our sins, there is not a ‘vicarious punishment’, for
Christ was made “sin for us”
(cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) and not a sinner.
Out of divine love, and not as the
object of God’s wrath, Christ offered the supreme sacrifice of salvation
to reconcile us with God, taking upon himself only the consequences
of our sins (cf. Gal. 3:13).
Hence, so that we may be justified and saved, it is not sufficient
to have faith that our sins have been removed by a supposed vicarious
punishment; our justification
lies in a conformity to our Saviour achieved by that faith which works
through charity (cf. Gal.
5:6).
Most Holy Father, permit
us also to express our wonderment and sorrow at two events occurring
in the heart of the Church, which likewise suggest
the favour in which the German heresiarch
is held under Your pontificate. On January 15th
, 2016, a group of Finnish Lutherans
were granted Holy Communion in the course of a celebration of Holy Mass
that took place at St Peter’s basilica. On 13th October, 2016,
Your Holiness presided over a meeting
of Catholics and Lutherans in the Vatican, addressing them from a stage
on which a statue of Martin Luther was erected.
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnotes]
1 Denzinger-Hünermann
{DH} 3117, Apostolic letter Mirabilis illa constantia, March 4th, 1875.
2 Relatio
of the Theological Commission on n. 22 of Lumen gentium, in Acta
Synodalia, III/I, p. 247.
3 This
section therefore contains the Correctio properly speaking, and
is that to which the signatories intend principally and directly to
subscribe.
4
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/04/08/160408a.html
5
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amoris_laetitia/1257635
6
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-cardinal-farrell-amoris-laetitia-holy-spirit-speaking
7 By these
words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of
the document Amoris laetitia,
Your Holiness has upheld, directly
or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to
judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church
the following false and heretical propositions:
1). 'A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry
out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments
of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace,
when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably
and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not
sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.' 2). 'Christians
who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly
married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person
during the lifetime of their spouse,
who live more uxorio with their
civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge
of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act,
are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying
grace and grow in charity.'
3).
'A Christian believer can have full
knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious
matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.'
4).
‘A person is able, while he obeys a
divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’
5).
'Conscience can truly and rightly
judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage
with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married
to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested
or even commanded by God.'
6).
'Moral principles
and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law
do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular
kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account
of their object.'
7).
'Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the
Church abandon her perennial discipline
of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing
absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition
for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard
to it.'
8 Here
are, for these seven propositions, the references that were included
in the letter to the cardinals and patriarchs: [emphasis added]
1. Council of Trent,
session 6, canon 18: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are
impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established
in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568). See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut.
30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29;
1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace,
DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session
5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54,
DH 1954; Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors
of Cornelius Jansen, 1, DH 2001; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus,
On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222;
Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.
2. Mk. 10:11-12: “Whosoever
shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against
her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another,
she committeth adultery”.
See also: Ex. 20:14;
Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of
Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27, DH 1569-71, 1577; Session 24, canons
5 and 7, DH 1805, 1807; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the
‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63; Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy
Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis
splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964- 67).
3. Council of Trent,
session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect
he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the
Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an
absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments
be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570). See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk.
9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons
19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors
of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis
splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.
4. Ps. 18:8: “The law
of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”
See also: Ecclesiasticus
15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution
Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo
XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John
Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
5. Council of Trent,
session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by
God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a
lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema”, DH 1571.
Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful
for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this
is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema”, DH 1802. Council
of Trent, session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage bond
can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or
because of the willful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema”,
DH 1805.
Council of Trent, session
24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is in error for having
taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical
and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because
of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the
two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity,
can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and
that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again
and the wife dismisses an adulterous husband and marries again are both
guilty of adultery, let him be anathema”, DH 1807.
See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps.
18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent
XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63;
Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier
Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum,
ASS 20 (1887-88): 598, DH 3248; Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office
on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor,
54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.
6. John Paul II, Veritatis
splendor 115: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which
represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being
restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can
see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but
also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality
and immutability of the moral commandments,
particularly those which prohibit always
and without exception intrinsically evil acts”, DH 4971.
See also: Rom. 3:8; 1
Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter
22, DH 815; Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14, DH
1254; Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91; John
Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199, DH 4970. 7. 1
Cor. 11:27: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of
the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of
the Lord.” Familiaris consortio, 84: “Reconciliation in the sacrament
of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted
to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and
of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life
that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for
example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy
the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live
in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper
to married couples’.” 2nd Lateran Council, canon 20, DH 717: “Because
there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy
Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate,
and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged
off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false
when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only,
or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does
not renounce another”.
See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt.
22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14,
Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree
on the most holy Eucharist, DH 1646-47; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions
of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63, DH 2160-63; John Paul II, Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490 9 Clement VI, Super quibusdam,
to the Catholicos of the Armenians, question 14, DH 1065: “We
ask whether you have believed and do believe that the New and Old Testament,
in all their books, which the authority of the Roman Church has handed
down to us, contain undoubted truth in all things.” 2nd Vatican Council,
Dei verbum 18-19: “What the Apostles preached in fulfilment of
the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men,
under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing:
the foundation of faith, namely, the
fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Holy Mother
Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to
hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the
Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ,
while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation
until the day He was taken up into heaven.” See also: Lk. 1:1-4;
Jn. 19:35; 2 Pet. 1:16; Pius IX, Syllabus, 7; Leo XIII, Providentissimus
Deus, ASS 26 (1893- 94): 276-77; Pius X, Lamentabili sane,
13-17; Praestantia scripturae, ASS 40 (1907): 724ff.
10 1 Jn. 5:10:
“He that believeth in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself.
He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar.” Council of Chalcedon,
Definition, DH 301: “Following the holy fathers, we all with one voice
teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ:
the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly
God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with
the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with
us as regards his humanity.” 2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum
4: “After speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, ‘now
at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son’. For He sent
His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might
dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God. Jesus Christ,
therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as ‘a man to men’. He ‘speaks
the words of God’.”
See also: Mt. 7:29; Matt.
11:25-27; Mk. 1:22; Luke 4:32; John 1:1-14; Pius X, Lamentabili sane,
27.
111st Vatican
Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of
human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural
virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting
us, we believe to be true what He has revealed.”
Pius X, Lamentabili
sane, 22 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas that the Church holds
out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven.” See also:
1 Thess. 2:13; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 23-26; Pascendi dominici
gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 611; Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538.
12 Jn. 3:11:
“Amen, Amen, I say to thee, that we speak what we know and we testify
what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.”
Jn. 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life”
1 Jn. 5:9-10: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of
God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater,
because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of
God has the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son,
maketh him a liar.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 2: “If anyone says
that divine faith is not distinct from the natural knowledge of God
and of moral truths; that, therefore, for divine faith it is not necessary
that the revealed truth be believed on the authority of God who reveals
it, let him be anathema.”
Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 26 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas
of the faith are to be held only according to their practical sense;
that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.”
Piux X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3542: “I hold
with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination
of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the
impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will,
but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received
from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the
all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to,
and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.”
See also: Jn. 8:46, 10:16; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius IX, Qui
pluribus, Acta (Rome, 1854) 1/1, 6-13; Syllabus, 4-5; Pius X, Lamentabili
sane, 20; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 604ff;
John Paul II, Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific
Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 7.
13 Num. 23:19:
“God is not a man that he should lie.”
Pius IX, Qui pluribus,
DH 2778: “Who is or can be ignorant that all faith is to be given to
God who speaks and that nothing is more suitable to reason itself than
to acquiesce and firmly adhere to what it has determined to be revealed
by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3:
“Faith, which is the beginning of human
salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue,
by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us,
we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive
its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the
authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive
nor be deceived.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 6: “If anyone says
that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained
to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause
for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they
have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have
completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of
their faith: let him be anathema.”
2nd Vatican Council,
Lumen gentium, 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed
as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief.”
Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538:
“All dogmas, since they are divinely
revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith.”
See also: Ap. 3:14; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists”,
20-21, DH 2120-21; Pius IX, Syllabus, 15-18; Pius X, Lamentabili
sane, 25.
14 Mk. 16:20:
“They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and
confirming the word with signs that followed.”
2 Cor. 3: 5: “Not that
we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but
our sufficiency is from God.”
1 Pet. 3:15: “Sanctify
the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy everyone
that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.”
Tit. 3:10-11: “A man
that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing
that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
by his own judgement.”
Apoc. 22:19: “If any
man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy
city.”
1st Vatican Council,
Dei Filius, cap. 3: “In order that the submission of our faith
should be in harmony with reason, it was God's will that there should
be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications
of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost
miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the
omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of
revelation and are suited to the understanding of all people. Hence
Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our Lord himself, worked
many manifest miracles and delivered prophecies […] So that we could
fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly
in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the Church, and endowed
her with clear notes of his institution to the end that she might be
recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.
To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things, so many and so
marvellous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest
credibility of the Christian faith.” 1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius,
cap. 3: “Although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement
of the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that
is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination
of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing
the truth. And so faith in itself, even if it does not work through
charity, is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to
the order of salvation.”
See also: 2nd Council
of Orange, can. 7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists”
20-21; Gregory XVI, Theses subscribed to by Louis-Eugène Bautain, 6,
DH 2756; Pius IX, Syllabus, 15-18; Pius X, Pascendi dominici
gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 596-97; Oath against the errors of Modernism,
DH 3539; Pius XII, Humani generis, AAS 42 (1950): 571.
15 2nd Vatican
Council, Gaudium et spes, 15: “Man judges rightly that by his
intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light
of the divine mind. [. . .] His intelligence is not confined to observable
data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself
as knowable.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 27:
“Every truth, if it is authentic, presents
itself as universal and absolute, even if it is not the whole truth.
If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all
times.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 82: “This prompts a second requirement:
that philosophy verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come
to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio
rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic doctors referred.”
See also: Pius XII,
Humani generis, AAS 42 (1950): 562-63, 571-72, 574-75; John XXIII,
Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 1959 (51): 501-2; John Paul II, Fides
et Ratio, 4-10, 12-14, 49, 54, 83-85, 95-98. 16 1 Cor. 2:9-10: “As
it is written: ‘That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath
it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for
them that love him.’ But to us God hath revealed them, by his Spirit.”
1 Cor. 2:12-13: “We have
received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God;
that we may know the things that are given us from God: which things
also we speak.” Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3882-83: “Some hold
that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts
but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth
is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore
they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology
should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with
the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its
instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths
in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent,
as they say. […] It is evident from what We have already said, that
such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but
that they actually contain it.”
Paul VI, Declaration
Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, 5, DH 4540: “As for the meaning
of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church,
even when it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more
fully understood. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first,
that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify
the truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations
to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; and secondly,
that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way,
and that one must continue to seek this truth by further approximations
of this kind.”
See also: Pius X,
Lamentabili sane, 4.
17 1 Thess.
2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you
had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not
as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”
1 Tim. 3:16: “All scripture,
inspired of God, is profitable to teach.”
2 Pet. 1:20-21:
“No prophecy of scripture is made by
private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of
man at any time; but the holy men spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
Pius XII, Divino afflante
Spiritu AAS 35 (1943): 299-300: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden
‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture,
or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration
‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects
it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself,
the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient
and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor
Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority.”
2nd Vatican Council,
Dei verbum, 11: “Holy mother
Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that the books
of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their
parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed
on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God
chose men, and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and
abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as
true authors, consigned to writing all and only those things which He
wanted.”
See also: Jn. 10:16,
35; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, DH 3291-92;
Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 9-11; Pascendi dominici gregis,
ASS 40 (1907): 612-13; Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, AAS
12 (1920), 393; Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3887.
18 1 Thess.
2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you
had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not
as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”
1st Vatican Council,
Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation,
the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means
of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe
to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic
truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of
God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be
deceived. […] Further, by divine and
Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained
in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are
proposed by the Church as to be believed as divinely revealed, whether
by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
See also: Jn. 10:16;
Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, AAS 35 (1943):
216.
19 Pius XII,
Humani generis, DH 3883: “The
Church cannot be tied to any and every passing philosophical system.
Nevertheless, those notions and terms which have been developed though
common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries
to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on
any such weak foundation. They are based on principles and notions deduced
from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deduction,
this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through
the Church. Hence it is not surprising that some of these notions have
not only been employed by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned
by them, so that it is wicked to depart from them.”
Paul VI, Declaration
Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, 5, DH 4540: “As for the meaning
of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church,
even when it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more
fully understood. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first,
that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify
the truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations
to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; and secondly,
that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way,
and that one must continue to seek this truth by further approximations
of this kind.”
John Paul II, Fides
et Ratio, 87: “One must remember that even if the statement of a
truth is limited to some extent by times and by forms of culture, the
truth or the error with which it deals can nevertheless be recognised
and evaluated as such, however great the distance of space or time.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 95: “The word of God is not addressed
to any one people or to any one period of history. Similarly,
dogmatic statements, while reflecting
at times the culture of the period in which they were defined, formulate
an unchanging and ultimate truth.”
John Paul II, Declaration
Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus
Christ and the Church, 6: “The truth
about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human
language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks
and acts is the Incarnate Son of God.”
See also: Jn. 10:35;
2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Apoc. 22:18-19; Leo XIII, Providentissimus
Deus, DH 3288; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 4; John Paul II,
Fides et Ratio, 84.
20 Gal. 1:9:
“If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received,
let him be anathema.” 1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 4,
can. 3: “If anyone says that it is
possible that at some time, with the progress of knowledge, a sense
should be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different
from that which the Church has understood and does understand: let him
be anathema.”
Pius X, Oath against
the errors of Modernism, DH 3541: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine
of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox
Fathers with the same sense and always with the same meaning. Therefore,
I entirely reject the heretical fiction
that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different
from the meaning which the Church held previously. I also condemn every
error that substitutes for the divine deposit which has been given to
the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, some philosophical
invention or product of human reflection, gradually formed by human
effort and due to be perfected in the future by unlimited progress.”
See also: 1 Tim. 6: 20;
2 Tim. 1:13-14; Heb. 13:7-9; Jude 3; Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,
DH 2802; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 21, 54, 50, 60, 62; Pascendi
dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 616ff.; Pius XII, Humani generis,
DH 3886; Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4540.
21 1st Vatican
Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4:
“The Holy Spirit was promised to the
successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make
known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously
guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted
by the apostles. […] This gift of truth and never-failing faith
was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this
see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation
of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by
them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the
sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
2nd Vatican Council,
Dei verbum¸ 10: “The task of authentically interpreting the word
of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively
to the living magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised
in the name of Jesus Christ. This magisterium
is not above the word of God, but serves it. It teaches only what has
been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and
explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with
the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws from this one deposit of faith
everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
See also: Matt. 16:23;
Gratian, Decretum, Part 1, Distinction 40, Chapter 6; Innocent
III, 2nd sermon ‘On the consecration of the supreme pontiff’,
ML, 656; 4th sermon ‘On the consecration of the supreme pontiff’,
ML 670; Pius IX, letter Mirabilis illa constantia to the bishops
of Germany, DH 3117 (cf. DH 3114).
22 Cf. John
Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, 751; Code of Canons of Oriental
Churches, 1436.
23 Cf. Mk.
16:16; Jn. 3:18; Jn. 20:23; Rom. 14:4; Gal. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Jude
3-6; Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, DH 1351; Council of
Trent, Session 14, can. 9.
24 Cf. Matt.
18:17; Tit. 3:10-11; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 7; John Paul II,
Code of Canon Law, 751, 1364; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches,
1436.
25 The signatories
do not intend in this section principally to describe the thought of
Martin Luther, a subject concerning which all of them do not have the
same expertise, but rather to describe certain false notions of marriage,
justification and law which appear to them to have inspired Amoris
laetitia.
26
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/june/documents/papafrancesco_20160626_armenia-conferenza-stampa.html
27
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2016/documents/papafrancesco_20161031_omelia-svezia-lund.pdf
28
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/04/pope_recognize_your_sins_and_be_transformed_by_ch
rist/1105890 ;
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/18/pope_at_santa_marta_the_courage_to_admit_we_are_sin
ners/1106766
29
http://www.news.va/en/news/the-pope-on-the-sixtieth-anniversary-of-communion
30
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-in-fatima-greetings-at-chapel-of-appa
___________________________
Signatories:
250
Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg
European editor, Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
Fr Claude Barthe
Diocesan Priest
Philip M. Beattie
BA (Leeds), MBA(Glasgow), MSc (Warwick), Dip.Stats (Dublin) Associate
Lecturer, University of Malta (Malta)
Fr Jehan de Belleville
Religious
Fr Robert Brucciani
District superior of the SSPX
in Great Britain
Prof. Mario Caponnetto
University Professor, Mar de la Plata (Argentina)
Mr Robert F. Cassidy
STL
Fr Isio Cecchini
Parish Priest in Tuscany
Salvatore J. Ciresi,
MA
Director of the St. Jerome Biblical Guild, Lecturer at the Notre
Dame Graduate School of Christendom College
Fr. Linus F Clovis,
PhD, JCL, M.Sc., STB, Dip. Ed,
Director of the Secretariat for Family and Life
Fr Paul Cocard
Religious
Fr Thomas Crean
OP STD
Prof. Matteo D’Amico
Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona
Dr. Chiara Dolce
PhD
Research doctor in Moral Philosophy at the University of Cagliari
Deacon Nick Donnelly
MA
Petr Dvorak
Head of Department for the Study of Ancient and Medieval Thought at
the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague; Assistant
Professor of Philosophy at Saints Cyril and Methodius Theological Faculty,
Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
H.E. Mgr Bernard Fellay
Superior General of the SSPX
Christopher Ferrara Esq.
Founding President of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association
Prof. Michele Gaslini
Professor of Public Law at the University of Udine
Prof. Corrado Gnerre
Professor at the Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose of Benevento,
Pontifical Theological University of Southern Italy
Dr. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi
Former President of the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), Professor
of Ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan
Dr. Maria Guarini
STB
Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa
e postconcilio
Prof. Robert Hickson
PhD
Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies
Fr John Hunwicke
Former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
Fr Jozef Hutta
Diocesan Priest
Prof. Isebaert Lambert
Full Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, and at the Flemish
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Dr. John Lamont
STL DPhil (Oxon.)
Fr Serafino M. Lanzetta
STD
Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology, Theological Faculty of Lugano, Switzerland;
Priest in charge of St Mary’s, Gosport, in the diocese of Portsmouth
Prof. Massimo de Leonardis
Professor and Director of the Department of Political Sciences at the
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan
Msgr. Prof. Antonio Livi
Academic of the Holy See
Dean emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University
Vice-rector of the church of Sant’Andrea del Vignola, Rome
Dr. Carlo Manetti
Professor in Private Universities in Italy
Prof. Pietro De Marco
Former Professor at the University of Florence
Prof. Roberto de Mattei
Former Professor of the History of Christianity, European University
of Rome, former Vice President of the National Research Council (CNR)
Fr Cor Mennen
Lecturer in Canon Law at the
Major Seminary of the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). Canon
of the cathedral chapter of the diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
Prof. Stéphane Mercier
Lecturer in Philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain
Don Alfredo Morselli
STL
Parish priest of the archdiocese of Bologna
Martin Mosebach
Writer and essayist
Dr. Claude E. Newbury
M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.O.H., M.F.G.P., D.C.H., D.P.H., D.A., M. Med;
Former Director of Human Life International in Africa south of the Sahara;
former Member of the Human Services Commission of the Catholic Bishops
of South Africa
Prof. Lukas Novak
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Charles University,
Prague
Fr Guy Pagès
Diocesan Priest
Prof. Paolo Pasqualucci
Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia
Prof. Claudio Pierantoni
Professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University
of Chile; Former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Faculty
of Theology of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Father Anthony Pillari,
J.C.L., M.C.L
Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli
Philosopher, editor of the works of Romano Amerio
Dr. John Rao
Associate Professor of History, St. John’s University, NYC; Chairman,
Roman Forum
Dr. Carlo Regazzoni
Licentiate in Philosophy at University of Freiburg
Dr. Giuseppe Reguzzoni
External Researcher at the Catholic University of Milan and former editorial
assistant of Communio, International Catholic Review (Italian edition)
Arkadiusz Robaczewski
MA (Phil.)
Fr Settimio M. Sancioni
STD
Licence in Biblical Science
Prof. Andrea Sandri
Research Associate, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan
Dr. Joseph Shaw
Tutor in Moral philosophy, St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford
Fr Paolo M. Siano
HED (Historiae Ecclesiasticae Doctor)
Dr. Cristina Siccardi
Historian of the Church
Dr. Anna Silvas
Adjunct research fellow, University of New England, NSW, Australia
Prof. Dr Thomas Stark
Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Benedikt XVI, Heiligenkreuz
Rev. Glen Tattersall
Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, archdiocese of Melbourne;
Rector, St Aloysius’ Church
Prof. Giovanni Turco
Associate Professor of Philosophy of Public Law at the University of
Udine, Member Corrispondent of the Pontificia Accademia San Tommaso
d’Aquino
Prof. Piero Vassallo
Former editor of Cardinal Siri’s theological review Renovatio
Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da
Silveira
Former Professor at the Pontifical University of São Paulo, Brazil
Msgr. José Luiz Villac
Former Rector of the Seminary of Jacarezinho
On 24th September 2017:
Leo Darroch
President, Foederatio Internationalis
Una Voce 2007 – 2013
Dr. Mauro Faverzani
Editor of the Magazine “Radici
Cristiane” (Italy)
H.E. Mgr
Rene Henry Gracida D.D.
Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas
Fr Pio Idowu
BA (Phil.)
Religious
Fr Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodríguez
Parish Priest, Parroquia del
Espíritu Santo y N.S. de La Antigua Diocese de Los Teques, Venezuela
Wolfram Schrems
MA (Phil.) MA (Theol.)
Catechist for adults, contributor for Catholic and secular websites,
works in the pro-life-field, Vienna (Austria)
On 25th September 2017:
Dr. Antonio
Aragoni MA (Religious Science)
Dr. Riccardo
Calzavara
Professor
Dr. Riccardo
Cavalli
Professor
Dr. Andrea
Martini, MA (Education Science)
Fr Michel Morille
France
Fr Andrew Pinsent
BA, MA, DPhil, PhB, STB, Phl,
PhD
Director of the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion, Oxford
Priest of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton
Fr Cyrille Perret
France
Patrick Tomeny,
Jr, MD, MPH, DABA
Prof. Leonardo Schwinden
Professor of Philosophy, Universidad
Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Gianpaolo
De Vita PhD (Phil.)
University of Salerno
On 26th September 2017:
Dr. Salvatore Giuseppe Alessi
BA (Phil.), BA (Theol.)
Economist, Italy
Fr Enrique Eduardo Alsamora
Spain
Dr. Winfried Aymans
Professor em. of Canon Law,
University of Munich
Fr William Barrocas
Dr. Johannes Bronish
PhD (Phil.)
Dr. Richard Belleville
PhD
Formerly Chairman of Philosophy Department, Anna Maria College, Paxton
(MA)
Fr Alejo Benitez
Spain
Fr Felix-Maximilian-Marie Bogoridi-Liven
France
Fr Giorgio Bellei
Italy
Sister M. Blaise Chukwu
Religious
Dr. Nicola Bonora
Professor
Fr Nathaniel Brazil
Dr. Isobel Camp
PhD
Professor of Philosophy at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas,
Angelicum (Rome)
Fr José Miguel Marqués Campo
Spain
Prof. Neri Capponi
Former Professor of Canon Law
at the University of Florence,
Judge of the Tuscany Ecclesiastical Matromonial Court
Dr. Fabiano Caso,
Phd (Phil.) Phd (Theol.) BA (Theoretic Phil.)
Psychoanalyst, Italy
Fr Jose Chamakalayil
Dr. Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña
Journalist and Writer, Spain
Richard Dalton
BSc, MA, MBA, MPhil
Knight of Magistral Grace, Order of Malta
Trinity College, Dublin
Dr. Angelo Elli
MA (Phil.)
Italy
Dr. Manuel Fantoni
PhD
Italy
Fr Marazsi Ferenc
Fr Thomas Agustin Gazpocnetti
Lic. Phil.
Dr. Rossana Giannelli
MA (Phil.)
Italy
Fr Alvaro Salvador Gutiérrez Félix
Professor of Philosophy, Diocese
of Mexicali, Mexico
Dr. Christian Hecht
Phd (Phil.), BA (Theol.)
Fr John Houston
Fr Czeslaw Kolasa
Fr Eduardo Guzmán López,
STL
Parish Priest, Spain
Michael Theodor van Laack
BA (Theol.)
Dr. Moisés Gomes de Lima
Professor
Fr Andrea Mancinella
Diocese of Albano
Fr Antonio Mancini
Italy
Dr. Jose Marquez
Lic. Canon Law
Fr Peter Masik
PhD
Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Bratislava
Dr. Martin Mayer
PhD (Theol.)
Fr Fabiano Montanaro
Defensor Vinculi
by the Rota Romana, Rome
Dr. Arroyo Moreno
Lic. Phil.
Professor em. at the University Panamerica and University Anahuac, Spain
Dr. Renata Negri
Professor, Italy
Prof. Hermes Rodrigues Nery
Bioethicist, Journalist and
Writer, Director of Movimento Legislação e Vida, Brazil
Dr. Lucrecia Rego de Planas
University Professor, Mathematician,
Master in Religious Science and Humanities, Doctor in Interdisciplinary
Research
Fr Bernard Pellabeuf
France
Fr Eros Pellizzari
Italy
Thomas Pfeifer
BA (Phil.)
Fr Vidko Podrzaj
Priest of the Chapel of Our
Lady of Good Success
Dr. José Arturo Quarracino
Philosopher, Spain
Dr. Kevin Regan
MD, BA MA (Theol.)
Fr Robert Repenning
Fr Jasson Rodas
Fr Darrell Roman
Fr Giovanni Romani
Italy
Fr Humberto Jordán Sánchez Vázquez
Diocesan Priest
Dr. Alvear Sanìn
Editor, Writer, Columnist
Dr. Mauro Scaringi
MA (Phil.)
RE Professor, Italy
Dr. Nikolaus Staubach
PhD
Professor at the University of Münster
Rev. Prof. Alberto Strumia
MA (Physics), STD
Professor em. of Mathematical Physics, University of Bari (I), Italy
Fr. Tam X. Tran,
STL
Pastor, Archdiocese of Washington, USA
Dr. Andreas Trutzel
BA (Theol.)
Dr. Beata Vertessy
Professor, Hungary
Fr Marcelo Villegas
Spain
Dr. Giorgio Zauli
Professor, Writer, Italy
Dr. Hubert Windisch
Professor em.
Dr. Paul Winske
Professor, Germany
Fr Ernst-Werner Wolff
Germany
On 28th September 2017:
John F. Ambs
Senior Executive Service, US
Intelligence Community
Brother André Marie
M.I.C.M. BA (Humanities), MA (Theol.)
Prior of Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire.
Prof. Denis Crouan
PhD (Theol.)
President of the ‘Association Pro Liturgia’, France
Fr James Duncan
SJ
Professor em. of Theology, Maison St. Michel, Brussels
Fr Giorgio Ghio
STD
Theological Faculty of Lugano (Switzerland)
Artur Paczyna
Former (2007-2016) President
of Silesian Association of the Faithful of the Latin Tradition
Patrick Linbeck
BA, STL
Board Member of the Avila Foundation and Texas Right to Life
Dr. Hon. J.D. Rasnick
Sitting judge, Superior court
probate court and municipal court judge President Una Voce Georgia
Trey Tagert
BA (Phil. University of Dallas) M.T.S. (University of Dallas)
Prof. Giovanni Zenone
PhD
President Fede & Cultura (Italy)
Director Gondolin Institute Press (Colorado, USA)
On 29th September 2017:
Fr Daniel Becker
BS, MS, M.Div., PhD
Parish Priest, Diocese of Worcester (USA)
Fr Remus Mircea Birtz
BA, STL, STD, BA (Christian Architecture)
Church historian, Romania
Prof. Balázs Déri
Professor at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Fr Mark Gantley,
JCL, Judicial Vicar, Diocese of Honolulu (HI, USA)
Dr. Peter Micallef-Eynaud
MD (UCathSCJ), MSc (PH Med), BA (Rel. St.), MA (Theol. Melit.)
Prof. Cesar Félix Sanchez Martínez
Professor of Philosophy of Nature, Philosophy of History and History
of Philosophy (Modern and Contemporary) at the Archdiocesan Seminary
of Saint Jerome, Arequipa-Perú
Prof. Nigel John Morgan
Professor em. of History of Art, University of Cambridge
Fr Alphonsus Maria Krutsinger
C.SS.R.
Religious, Preacher of Parish Missions
Dr. Eric E. Puosi
PhD
Lecturer in Systematic Theology and History of the Reformation, Viareggio,
Italy
Dr. med. Christian Spaemann
MA (Phil.)
Specialist in Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic medicine, Germany
Fr Michael Sauer
MA (Theol.)
Diocese of Eichstätt, Germany
On 30th September 2017:
James Bogle
Esq, TD MA Dip Law
Barrister of the Middle Temple, London, Chairman of the Catholic Union
of Great Britain 2000-2011, Vice-Chairman 2011-2014, President International
Una Voce Federation 2013-2015, former Chairman of the Order of Christian
Unity, Knight of Malta
Fr Carlo Brivio
Diocesan priest, Lombardia (Italy)
Pablo Esteban Camacho
PHB & MSc, BA (Phil.)
Fr Walter Covens
Diocesan priest, Martinica
David Percival C. Flores
Human Resources Professional
Diocese of Malolos, Philippines
Dr. med. Francisco Arturo Cuenca
Flórez
Bogotá, Colombia
Dr. Lee Fratantuono
AB Holy Cross; AM Boston College, PhD Fordham
Professor and Chair of Classics
Ohio Wesleyan University
Delaware, Ohio (USA)
Deacon Franco Gerevini
Diocese of Bergamo (Italy)
Dr. Michael Kakooza
PhD (Wales) in Communication & Ideology,
Consultant, Uganda Technology & Management University, Former Deputy
Vice Chancellor, Research, Innovation & Development, KIM University,
Rwanda
Dr. Robert Lazu
PhD (Phil.)
Writer and Lecturer, Romania
Philip James Maguire
Former Senior Journalist for
the Melbourne Catholic Advocate, Sunday Herald Sun newspaper and Australian
Broadcasting Commission. Former Senior Adviser to the Victorian State
National Party Leader
Neerim East, Victoria (Australia).
Dr. Paul A. Scott
MA, PhD (Dunelm), FRHistS
Associate Professor of French, Co-Director of Undergraduate Studies
in French, General Editor of The Year’s Work in Modern Language Studies
(Brill)
Department of French, Francophone and Italian Studies
School of Languages, Literatures & Cultures
University of Kansas (USA)
Fr Denis Tolardo
Parochial Vicar, Veneto (Italy)
Fr Christian Viña
BA (Theol.)
Parish Priest, Archidiocese de La Plata, Argentina
John-Henry Westen
MA
Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief
LifeSiteNews.com
Elizabeth Yore
JD
Attorney and International Child Advocate
Former General Counsel at the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services and General Counsel at the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children
On 2nd October 2017:
Fr Paul Aulagnier
Institut du Bon Pasteur, France
Noel R. Bagwell,
III, Esq, BA (Phil.)
Attorney, Tennessee (USA)
Dr. Jaspreet Singh Boparai
MA (Oxon.), MA (Courtauld Institute), MA (Warburg Institute), PhD (Cantab.)
Former fellow, Harvard University Institute for Italian Renaissance
Studies (Villa I Tatti)
Dr. Joseph Burke
PhD
Former Chair of Economics at Ave Maria University (USA)
Rev. A. B. Carter
B.Sc. (Hons.) ARCS DipPFS
Leader Marriage & Family Life Commission, Diocese of Portsmouth, England
Dr. Michael Cawley
PhD
Psychologist, Former University Instructor
Pennsylvania, USA
Fr Gregory Charnock
Diocesan Priest, St Bartholomew
Catholic Parish
Western Cape, South Africa.
Gina Connolly
BA (Theol.), MTh, P.G.C.E
Ireland
John Connolly
BA, BA (Theol.), B.Sc, MA
Ireland
Tonny-Leonard Farauanu,
STM, STL
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Fr. Ian Farrell
Parish Priest, St Joseph’s
Salford, UK
Richard Fitzgibbons
MD
Psychiatrist, has served as a consultant to the Congregation for Clergy
at the Vatican and as an adjunct professor at the Pontifical John Paul
II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University
of America.
Dr. Marie I. George
PhD
Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s University, New York (USA)
Dr. Luca Gili
PhD (Leuven)
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Université du Québec à Montréal,
Canada
Philip Gudgeon
MA Cantab Modern & Medieval Languages
BA (London Philosophy and Theology), BA (Theol., Gregorian University,
Rome)
Dr. Colin Harte
PhD (Theol.)
England
Sarah Henderson
DCHS BA MA (Maryvale Institute Birmingham)
Dr. Thomas Klibengajtis
PhD
Former Assistant Professor at the Chair of Systematic Theology,
Institute of Catholic Theology at the Technical University of Dresden
(Germany)
Leo Kronberger,
MD, MSc
Graz, Austria
Dr. Joseph F. McCabe
PhD
University of Ottawa (Canada)
Brian M. McCall
BA (Yale University), MA (University of London), JD (University of Pennsylvania)
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law, University of Oklahoma (USA)
Marilyn Meyer,
MA Economics, George Washington University
MA Semitics, The Catholic University of America
Assisi, Italy
Fr Nicholas Milich
Watsonville, CA, Diocese of Monterey, California (USA)
Michael More,
OCDS MA (Theol.)
Dr. Jacopo Parravicini
PhD
Physicist at University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano (Italy)
Deacon Joe Pasquella
Diocese of Buffalo, NY
Dr. Thomas Pink
Professor of Philosophy at King’s
College, London
Dr. Robert L. Phillips
DPhil (Oxon)
Professor em. of Philosophy, University of Connecticut (USA)
Fr Paolo O. Pirlo
Manila, Philippines
Kim David Poletto
JD MTS (Madonna University)
Civil Attorney and Advocate for the Archdiocese of Denver (USA)
Lance L. Ravella
AB (Phil. University of California), MA (Phil. San Francisco State Univeristy)
John Reid
B.C.L, Dip Eur L., KCHS
Fr. Michael E. Rodríguez
BA (Phil.), STB (Theol.)
Priest of the Diocese of El Paso, Texas (USA)
John Schmude
JD
Presiding Judge, 247th Texas State District Court
Harris County Civil Justice Center
Dr. Carl Winsløw
PhD in Mathematical Sciences,
1994 (U. of Tokyo, Japan)
Full professor at the Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark
On 5th October 2017:
Dr. Peter Adamic
PhD, P.Stat.
Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Laurentian University, Ontario (Canada)
Fr Kenneth Allen
Pastor at St. Jane de Chantal
Parish
Archdiocese of New Orleans
Abita Springs, Louisiana (USA)
Martin Blackshaw
Catholic writer and former Remnant
columnist
Henry von Blumenthal
MA (Theol.) Oxon
Knight of Honour and Devotion, Order of Malta
Prof. Mario Bombaci
Professor of Philosophy and
Bioethics
Fr J. Alejandro Díaz
Parish Priest of Santa Ana, La Plata, Argentina
Auditor of the Platense Ecclesistical Tribunal, Exorcist of the Archidiocese
Fr Francisco José Suárez Fernández
Diocesan Priest, Valencia (Spain)
Patricia McKeever
B.Ed. M.Th.
Editor
Catholic Truth
(Scotland)
Peter R Mackin
BEd (Hons), PGCPS
United Kingdom
Dr. med. Leonardo Lopes
MA, Phd
University of São Paulo, Brazil
Prof. Dominique Millet
University Professor, Sorbonne-Paris
Prof. Giorgio Nicolini
RE Professor, Writer, Director of Tele Maria,
www.telemaria.it
Dr. Patrick M. Owens
PhD
Professor of Patristic literature, Church History, and Classics at Accademia
Vivarium Novum, Calvin College, Frascati (Rome); former Professor at
Wyoming Catholic College (WY, USA)
Giovanni Radhitio Putra Sadewo
M.Ed.
Department of Psychology and Counselling
School of Psychology and Public Health, PhD Candidate in Cross-Cultural
Psychology, La Trobe University Victoria, Australia
Eric Sammons
MA (Theol.), Franciscan University of Steubenville (USA)
Dr. Matt Salyer
PhD
Assistant Professor of English, Department of English and Philosophy
USA
Dr. Brody Smith
PhD (University of California), OCDS
Dr. Scott M. Sullivan
PhD
President of The Aquinas School of Theology and Philosophy (Texas, USA)
Suor Maria Veronica della Passione
Hermit of Saint Francis, Italy
On 9th October 2017:
Prof. Emiliano Cuccia
Professor of Medieval Philosophy at Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza,
Argentina and Postdoctoral Fellow at CONICET (Argentina)
Fr Daniele Nicosia
Priest, hermit of the diocese of Agrigento (Italy)
On
15th October 2017:
Fr Paul Acton
Military Ordinariate of Canada
Barrie, ON (Canada)
Prof. Barbara R. Nicolosi Harrington
PhD
Associate Professor, Honors College
Azusa Pacific University
California (USA)
Fr Maksym Adam Kopiec
STD
Franciscan Priest, Professor of theology at Pontifical University Antonianum,
Rome
Fr Andrew Plishka
BA (Phil.) MA (Theol.)
Illinois (USA)
Edgardo Juan Cruz Ramos
CPMO
President Una Voce, Puerto Rico
Fr John Saward
Diocesan Priest, England
Robert Siscoe
Contributor to The Remnant and
Catholic Family News
Texas (USA)
Fr William J Slattery
PhD, STL
Ireland
Prof. Anthony M. Wachs
PhD
Assistant Professor of Rhetoric, Communication Ethics & The Catholic
Intellectual Tradition Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies
Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit
Pittsburgh, PA (USA)
David Wachs
MD (Theol.), MA
Aberdeen SD in the Diocese of Sioux Falls SD (USA)
On 23rd October 2017:
Prof. Christophe Buffin de Chosal
Historian and Writer, Belgium
Prof. Juan F. Franck
PhD (Phil.) (IAP, Liechtenstein)
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Frà Ugo Ginex
Saint Mary’s Hermitage
❈Dom
Ugo Blog❈
Fr John Rice
Parish Priest, Shaftesbury UK
Fr Scott Settimo
Diocese of Juneau, Alaska (USA)
Fr. Ritchie Vincent
Diocese of Madras-Mylapore, Chennai, India
Christopher Wendt
MA (Theol.)
Cadiz, Ohio (USA)
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
May 6, 2018
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
