Roman Catholic clergy and lay scholars issue "filial correction" of Pope Francis

Confirmation that increasing numbers of Roman Catholics are concerned about the direction taken by Pope Francis comes from this item, as reported by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register, September 23, 2017 (links, bold in original):

A group of clergy and lay scholars from around the world have taken the very rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a formal filial correction, accusing him of propagating heresies concerning marriage, the moral life, and reception of the sacraments.

Entitled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, meaning ‘A Filial Correction Concerning the Propagation of Heresies,’ the 25 page letter was delivered to the Holy Father at his Santa Marta residence on Aug. 11.

The Pope has so far not responded to the initiative, whose 62 signatories include the German intellectual Martin Mosebach, former president of the Vatican Bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, and the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay (he learned of the document only after it had been delivered to the Pope and signed it on behalf of the Society).

The letter begins by saying that 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” the signatories feel “compelled” to take this action “on account of the propagation of heresies.”

They cite in particular Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia, and “other words, deeds and omissions.”

They accuse the Pope of upholding seven heretical positions about “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments” which, they say, has “caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”

The clergy and scholars “respectfully insist” that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.

The filial correction, the first to be made of a reigning Pontiff since Pope John XXII was admonished in 1333, is divided into three main parts.

In the first, the signatories say they have the “right and duty” to issue such a correction. They make clear the doctrine of papal infallibility has not been contradicted as the Pope has not promulgated heretical opinions as dogmatic teachings of the Church, but they maintain that Francis has “upheld and propagated heretical opinions by various direct and indirect means.”

The second part deals with the correction itself. Written in Latin, it lists the passages of Amoris Laetitia in which, they argue, the Pope insinuates or encourages heretical positions. They mention those who claim these texts can be interpreted in an orthodox way, but the correction lists examples of when it is clear “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Pope “wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.” In particular, they say the Pope has advocated the belief that obedience to God’s moral law can be impossible or undesirable, and that Catholics should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a follower of Christ.

In the third part, the signatories highlight two causes of this crisis: modernism and the influence of Martin Luther. They argue that the embrace of modernism, which they define as the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time, means that faith and morals become “provisional and subject to revision.” Such thinking, they point out, was condemned by Pope St Pius X. Regarding Martin Luther, they show how some of the Pope’s ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law correspond to those of the German Reformation monk, and draw attention to the “explicit and unprecedented praise” the Pope has given the 16th century heresiarch.

No accusation of formal heresy

The signatories stress they are not accusing the Pope of formal heresy (when a person departs from the faith by doubting or denying some revealed truth with a full choice of the will), and are making “no judgment about Pope Francis’s culpability in propagating the seven heresies” as it is “not their task to judge about whether the sin of heresy has been committed.”

But they also note that some faithful who have spoken up in defense of the Catholic faith have been subject to reprisals within the Church and Church institutions. They therefore say the signatories “speak for a large number of clergy and lay faithful who lack freedom of speech.”

The addition of Bishop Fellay, as well as the SSPX’s district superior in Britain, Father Robert Brucciani, are notable for the fact that the Society continues to be in talks about returning to full communion with Rome. Pope Francis has been open to reconciliation with the Society, which has had differences with Rome over some teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

See...[links]...for the full text of the correction, and the list of signatories.

This is the sixth major initiative in which both clergy and laity have expressed concerns about the Pope's teaching, particularly emanating from Amoris Laetitia. Despite the repeated pleas and warnings of chaos and confusion, Francis has refused to respond or acknowledge the initiatives which are as follows, in chronological order:

. In September 2015, just ahead of the second Synod on the Family, a petition of nearly 800,000 signatures from individuals and associations around the world including 202 prelates was presented to Pope Francis, calling on him to issue words of clarity on the Church's teaching on marriage and family. The signatories, from 178 countries, expressed concern about “widespread confusion” arising from the possibility that “a breach” had been opened within the Church at the previous synod.

. In July 2016, a group of 45 Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy sent an appeal to the College of Cardinals asking that they petition Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they saw as “erroneous propositions” contained in Amoris Laetitia. They said the apostolic exhortation contains “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”

. On Sept. 19, 2016, four cardinals — Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, and Joachim Meisner — presented the Pope with dubia, five questions on disputed passages of Amoris Laetitia with the aim of obtaining clarification and resolving confusion over diverse interpretations of the controversial passages among various bishops and episcopal conferences. The Pope did not acknowledge the dubia, nor did he respond to the cardinals’ request for an audience in May.

. In February this year, confraternities representing thousands of priests worldwide issued a statement saying a clarification of Amoris Laetitia was “clearly needed” in the wake of “widespread” differing interpretations of the apostolic exhortation. They also thanked the four cardinals for submitting the dubia.

. In April this year, six lay scholars from different parts of the world held a conference in Rome in which they drew attention to the same controversial passages of Amoris Laetitia, showing the extent of concern and unease among the laity over the papal document and its interpretation.

As reported by Dan Hitchens of the British publication Catholic Herald, September 24, 2017 (links in original):

...Most of the document’s first signatories were academics. They include Mgr Prof Antonio Livi, formerly rector of the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome; Prof Thomas Stark, who teaches at the Benedict XVI Academy of Philosophy and Theology in Austria; and Claudio Pierantoni of the University of Chile. Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, is also a signatory, as is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former Vatican bank president.

Another signatory, Prof Stéphane Mercier of the Catholic University of Louvain, has been disciplined by the university for voicing his pro-life views.

Some of the signatories put their names to a letter addressed last year to the College of Cardinals, asking them to request that the Pope condemn certain heresies and errors.

But the new text, which was sent to the Pope a month ago, addresses him in language unprecedented in modern Catholic history: “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.”

The signatories say that they are permitted to address the Pope because of natural law – which allows a subject to correct a superior – and by canon law, which permits the faithful to make known their views to their pastors. They also cite the example of St Paul rebuking St Peter in Galatians 2.

Amoris Laetitia, issued in April last year, has provoked diverse interpretations. Several bishops have said that it is compatible with the Church’s perennial teaching, reaffirmed several times in recent years, that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they resolve to live “as brother and sister”.

However, other bishops have contradicted this teaching. The bishops of Malta said that, since avoiding sex outside marriage might be “impossible”, Communion should not be withheld from those who felt “at peace with God”.

The scholars’ letter notes that these guidelines were published in Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Holy See. Addressing Pope Francis, the letter says: “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.”

The letter lists several other ways in which the Pope has encouraged error. These include his approval – in a leaked letter – of the diocesan guidelines of the Buenos Aires bishops; his silence when asked the dubia, which aimed to clarify that Church teaching on sin, grace and the sacraments was still valid; and several other actions.

The signatories say there is a dual “danger” for Catholics: they will either be led to affirm false doctrines, or they will be led to deny the Pope’s unique prerogatives as Supreme Pontiff. The signatories themselves affirm 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.”

But they observe that Vatican I and Vatican II both “noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff are limited in many ways”, so that some statements – for instance, the most controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia – are not infallible.

The correction, which is in Latin, identifies seven errors which Amoris Laetitia and other papal actions could perpetrate. These include: that those who have divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist without making a firm resolution to avoid sexual relations; that God might permit or even ask someone to have sexual relations outside a valid marriage; and other connected propositions related to the Church’s teaching on marriage, grave sin and the Eucharist.

One signatory, Dr Joseph Shaw, said he “felt an obligation” to sign the letter. He cited canon law, which says the lay faithful have “the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”

Dr Shaw commented: “This right becomes a duty when to remain silent would be to consent to what in your conscience appears clearly wrong.

“That does not mean that I think I am or the petitioners as a group are infallible; it just means that I feel I must manifest my view.”

Asked whether the letter was disloyal to Pope Francis, Dr Shaw pointed out that the Pope “has explicitly, forcefully, and repeatedly called for honest expressions of conflicting opinions. Not only did he call for parrhesia among the participants of the Synod on the Family, but he has personally thanked those who have written or said things critical of him.”

Another signatory, Anna Silvas of the University of New England, said: “Why would I not sign the letter? Almost on a daily basis the news confirms that Pope Francis’s agenda must be resisted. His cancellation and re-invention of the John Paul II Institute so that it serves the very opposite of the entire spiritual and intellectual mandate given it by St John-Paul (and Caffara) is scary. The next item for demolition, in the usual fog of bland, ‘accompanying’, ‘discerning’ language, is the doctrine of Humanae Vitae.

“And already visible, just around the corner from that, is the formal endorsement of widening Eucharistic hospitality to those in sexually active same-sex relationships.”

Silvas predicted that Catholic teaching will be “neutered as so many nice-sounding ‘ideals’, and buried in something called ‘mercy’.”

The signatories are not the first to express concern about Amoris Laetitia and its aftermath. Two scholars, John Finnis and Germain Grisez, have also asked for the Pope to condemn some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia. Last month the theologian Fr Aidan Nichols suggested that a papal correction might be needed because of the Pope’s actions. The cardinals who presented the dubia may also issue a correction of the Pope this year.

And as reported by Life Site News, September 27, 2017 (links in original):

ROME, September 27, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The “Filial Correction” of Pope Francis issued by Catholic clergy and scholars has been top news in Catholic and secular media outlets — including the AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, and Daily Mail.

This correction, charging him with permitting the spread of seven heresies, at least by omission, about “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments,” has clearly been making a massive worldwide impact.

Nevertheless, some articles, such as that which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter, have suggested that the correction is nothing important, made by “really marginal figures” of little standing.

“Since I have given my own life to the priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls, I had to add my name to the Correctio.”
The director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, also seemed to downplay the document’s importance. On Monday, he responded to reports in the Italian press that the Vatican had blocked access to the website of the “filial correction” on its computers.

“You can’t really imagine we would do this [block the website] for a letter with 60 names,” he joked to the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

Even senior officials at the Vatican believe a response is not warranted, the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin reported on September 26, partly because they say it has been signed by only a relatively small number of Catholics they consider not to be major names.

Nevertheless, this story is evolving fast. In the first 72 hours since the correction was made public, the number of signatories has more than doubled, rising from 62 to 146. The rate doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

LifeSite spoke to Father Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University, who has been one of the latest signatories and who is currently lecturing at venues across Latin America.

“I signed the Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis, not due to a lack of filial respect for the Holy Father, but because of the gravity of the situation,” Fr. Pinsent told LifeSiteNews.

Although the number of initial signatures of the original document was quite modest, it must be understood in terms of the wider context of what is happening in the Church.

“The Correctio is a next step, consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ (Matt 18:15-17) and St. Paul confronting St. Peter (Gal 2:11), that follows a series of unanswered petitions since 2015,” Fr. Pinsent said.

He added: “These petitions have included one with nearly 800,000 signatures from 178 countries and including 202 prelates prior to the ludicrously manipulated ‘Synod on the Family’; the appeal of the 45 scholars, prelates, and clergy to the College of Cardinals to repudiate what are widely perceived as erroneous propositions in Amoris Laetitia; the dubia of the four cardinals, whom the Pope did not even have the courtesy to meet; and the statement of the confraternities representing thousands of priests worldwide.”

Commenting on what’s at stake, Fr. Pinsent said: “As Prof. Josef Seifert, friend of St. Pope John Paul II, warned recently, before being sacked for making this warning, we are facing the risk of the total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“I add that the contradictions now being introduced deny reason, which is contrary to the heart of Catholic theology, the examples of great saint scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas, and the consistent teaching of our two most recent popes. Such divisions of faith and reason are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of the salvation to souls.”

“Since I have given my own life to the priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls, I had to add my name to the Correctio.”

The story is evolving in other ways as well. The original correction did not include any bishops in full communion with the Church, a fact that has also been cited as a reason to dismiss its importance. Nevertheless, as LifeSite reported on Monday, Bishop emeritus Rene Henry Gracida, 94, of Corpus Christi, Texas, has also added his name to the signatories.

Bishop Gracida was known to be a close friend of Mother Angelica and an effective communicator of the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

Readers who are interested can go here to see the names of the latest signatories.