Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis
  • stulte
    Posts: 235
    Benedict XVI was the first Pope to resign since the middle ages. Francis is the first Pope to get publicly corrected since the middle ages. What's next?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    well, today was supposed to be the beginning of the end of the world. i guess this ranks.
  • stulte
    Posts: 235
    I'm holding out for the first Pope to crown a Holy Roman Emperor since the middle ages. That would be nice.
  • ...first Pope to crown...

    Hear, hear!
    That would be nice.

    Nice indeed!!!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,309
    Merriam-Webster's third definition of pornography: "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction." Seems to fit the subject of this thread.

    The EWTN-National Catholic Register magisterium has spoken. What will be their next authentic proclamation: the canonization of Mother Angelica?

    Lord, deliver us from every evil. Amen.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,679
    The statement published today is not official at all; from the little I've read so far, the text itself acknowledges that.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,997
    I'm pretty sure the forum's rules of discourse do not allow us to accuse each other of producing pornography. Perhaps that sensational expression should be retracted?
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,309
    Kathy, in case you failed to notice, my application of the Merriam-Webster's third definition of pornography was directed toward the National Catholic Register, not anyone on this Forum.

    The group of clergy and laity certainly have a right and, if they perceive it as such, a duty to write to Pope Francis, but publicizing such in the NCR is both sensational and destructive of the unity of Christ's Church.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,679
    Thank you for clarifying what you meant by the expression, Fr. Krisman. When I saw your line indicating that the definition you cited "Seems to fit this thread", I thought you meant that the definition seemed to fit this thread. Silly me.

    As for a retraction, I won't insist upon it, since the "accusation" seemed too erroneous to have been meant seriously. IMHO, none of the comments above _depict_ acts. Some of them report events (with varying degrees of precision), some make speculations, some give opinions.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,309
    Sorry, Chonak, I should have written "seems to fit the subject of this thread" (which I have updated). So thank you for eliciting this further clarification.

    And I meant quite seriously what I wrote earlier.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • My understanding is this was sent to him in the middle of August as a private communique with maybe a couple dozen signers, but when it was apparent no response was forthcoming, they made it public - much like the original dubia. Other outlets have picked up on it, not just the Register. Doing a quick read of the piece from the Register, it appears to me like they're just reporting a news story, sans opinion.
  • I do have to appreciate that the people who wrote this "filial correction" are doing their best to make this seem bigger than it is. The media (incl. secular media) has bought into it hook, line, and sinker, and since I used to be a journalist, it irritates me quite a bit.

    But this is nothing, and the pope can safely ignore these folks. He is wise to do so.
    Thanked by 1Olivier
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,679
    Also, the Register piece places this in context by mentioning several similar statements and appeals made to Pope Francis in recent yeara.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Hello, Fr. Ron. Always good and enlightening to hear your thoughts. I realize this was your first reaction, but I'm disappointed you took this tack because, usually, an ad hominem attack is a colorful play when you otherwise have no case. If you can't defend against an argument, railing against your opponents' methods is always a useful attempt at distraction.

    Your use of the word "pornography" is astonishing because I can't remember hearing a sermon against pornography in many, many years, (if ever), so now that you've chosen to bring it up, especially to characterize this most respectfully worded correction, I must give you points for original and dramatic presentation!

    However, charging these distinguished signatories with "pornography" is incendiary and ridiculous at the same time.

    But maybe I'm wrong, and so, in a spirit of fairness, now that the dust has settled somewhat, I hope you will take this opportunity to answer the first part of the first point the signers are making.

    The first point that the signers allude to is the fact that our Holy Father has not answered the five dubia raised by the four cardinals one year ago (two of who are now deceased).

    To show us all how absurd both this filial correction and the five original dubia are, would you answer for me in your capacity as a priest the first question that was raised by the four cardinals and the 62 signers:

    1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29.?


    I'm not asking you for reams of explanation, just a "yes" or a "no".

    Father, one last thing: I'm sure you can understand that this is a sincere question, and responding "yes" or "no" to it would go a long way towards dispelling the current confusion and anxiety and would accomplish far more than going on to irrelevant and inflammatory issues. From our experience over the years on this forum going back and forth with you on liturgical matters, I know you are not averse to dialogue in the least and welcome discussion, so I look forward to your reply.

    God bless.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,687
    No, this is not that (an official correction of the Pope).



  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,412
    See here,
    http://www.correctiofilialis.org
    and Fr. Hunwick has again provided us with thoughtful commentary,
    http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/breaking-news.html

    Also on the comment of Fr. Krisman, I understood it as a way of pointing out that this discussion will do little more than fan flames!
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    I'm not speaking for our Francis, but I think what he meant was that this was the first step towards an official correction which must come from members of the College of Cardinals.

    As for possible repercussions, It's interesting that Crux Magazine originally reported last year that Fr. Pio Vito Pinto, a judge in the Roman Rota, had warned that Pope Francis might take away the red hats of the four intrepid cardinals if they issued a formal correction. However, Fr. Pinto later issued a rectification:

    “What Church do these cardinals defend? The pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ. What they have done is a very grave scandal.” He added that, nevertheless, Pope Francis is not a pope from the past who could take the red hat away, as Pope Pius XI did with famed Jesuit French theologian Louis Billot. “Francis won’t do it,” he said.

  • Fr. Krisman,

    A priest whom I count as a friend has made the observation that if there is a triumph of the Devil in the modern era, it is in making it possible to oppose the Pope because one wishes to be Catholic, and to accuse those who are loyal in their hearts and minds and souls of disloyalty because they can not reconcile what the Church has always taught with what they are being commanded to do (or not to do).

    I find your choice of the term "pornography" troubling, but at the same time [Francis and Julie, hold your fire just for a moment] understand your critique of the EWTN magisterium, that media outlets seem to agree with the tremendous actions of the pope only so long as He does what They want him to do. "Neo-Cons" who favor the war [whichever war] think the Pope who doesn't support it should limit himself to statements on which he is competent to speak. "Liberals" love Pope Francis for all the reasons a Catholic can't love a Pope: he wants to wreck everything older than his pontificate, and they cut him only so much slack when it comes to the failure to ordain women. "
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Chris, my fire is always "friendly fire". : )

    As far as defending popes goes, the correct Catholic response has always been to assent to ordinary papal teaching insofar as it agrees with what has been taught by the Church semper, ubique et ab omnibus. One cannot help having an emotional response to popes, I suppose, because they are our spiritual fathers, but no matter who the pope is, he is going to have feet of clay and not every word that drops from his mouth is infallible, wise and perfect, and questions are going to arise about ordinary papal teaching.

    As far as Popes Benedict and John Paul's moral condemnation of the Iraq War, I assented to their judgment instantly because it was concerned with morality and was 100% consonant with the Church's teaching on the principles of just war.

    I spent many hours trying to convince my neocon Catholic friends that the papal condemnation of the Iraq War was not just a polite suggestion but should be considered very seriously and deserved their assent. It's above my pay grade to say it was an infallible pronouncement, but I daresay it very well could have been regarding the very serious manner in which it was made, the enormous gravity of the matter, the popes' faithful, careful application of traditional teaching of the Church, and the fact that two popes in a row had come to the same conclusion.

    I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the difficulty with this pontificate is that the line of continuity with the traditional magisterium of the Church appears to have been broken. The 62 signers are merely re-iterating what the Church has taught semper, ubique et ab omnibus and are respectfully pointing out that there are seven distinct propositions of the Catholic faith that Pope Francis has advanced that contradict Church dogma---and they have been callously ignored as were the four (now two) cardinals so they are bringing the matter to the attention of the wider Church which is certainly their prerogative, and I am grateful for their charitable, scholarly and decorous way of seeking dialogue with the Holy Father.

    The much-vaunted parrhesia this pope called for appears to go only one way, and that is most unfortunate.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction


    Actually reading the document does not 'arouse a quick intense emotional reaction.' I would suggest that you read it but urge that you have a cup of java handy so as to remain awake.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    publicizing such in the NCR is both sensational and destructive of the unity of Christ's Church.


    Ah, yes. I was "divisive" to Rembert Weakland, OSB. As I recall, that was the term which was used to (hopefully) shut off any actual discussion centered on such things as "truth", "goodness," etc. it didn't work out well for him.

    I note that it's a favorite term of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Goodell, too.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    I am no defender of this pope, or any pope in general, although I do hold Benedict XVI in the highest esteem. Too bad he wasn't younger and healthier when he took office, since I think he would have accomplished more. But you know we easterners have mixed feelings on popes to begin with.

    I think Francis is a bungler and bumbler who has created chaos everywhere he has been and caused his successors to have to clean up the mess he left. But heresy? I wouldn't accuse him of that. However, both his thinking and the communication of that thinking leaves a lot to be desired.

    He could, if he lives long enough, accomplish splitting the church. That might be his most notable achievement.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    But heresy? I wouldn't accuse him of that.
    It does not accuse HIM of heresey. It asks for clarification on his stance on upholding heretical positions.

    It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.


    PS. I am gathering my thoughts in a well formed post coming soon.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    Francis, either he is a heretic or he is not. I don't think the case is proven that he is.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    He is not, Charles, as Francis has stated. He has bumbled his way (running his yap) into supporting heretical positions--but that's not the same as BEING a heretic.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Will they have to revive the Holy Office of the Inquisition? (Hard to do when the Pope is the one on trial.)

    We're in quite a pickle.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    JulieColl

    Hmmmm.... I used that exact phrase a few months ago on this forum... somewhere.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    Nah. This, too, will pass.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    Now you've done it! Next Peter's Pence I am putting a pickle in the collection basket.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    I am not particularly a fan of the NCR nor of EWTN. However, it was the first site at which I stumbled on an article on this subject. If it is journalistic integrity that is of concern, then I imagine there are other sources that will present the subject more objectively. Then again, read them all for a ‘balanced’ perspective (if that is even possible to find.) I have read that the report on LifeSite news is well written... but that opinion was put forward by a priest whom I trust... you may want to read that one and decide for yourself.

    As to the third definition of pornography on M-W, the particular example cited above (if you read the entire definition) concerns violence. I am not surprised that this article arouses a "quick intense emotional" response from any of us: maybe one of repulsion, or maybe perhaps division and confusion; maybe righteous indignation or as our Holy Father wanted- more "lio" in the church.

    FACT: Four cardinals presented the Dubia ten months ago, asking for clarification on matters concerning a duplicity of doctrine from the pope. The request has still not been addressed. We already know about this matter, and have been waiting for clarification.

    I wasn't surprised by this news, as it just seems a logical continuation of the initial action of the Dubia bishops.

    FACT:
    “A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries”


    How I understand what I have read, is this is just part of a well defined process for addressing these types of issue. I would think the proper disposition from us all is to wait, ponder and deliberate, and most of all (as I have said before on this forum), pray the rosary for our Holy Father, the bishops and priests, and Holy Mother Church.

    Getting back to the concern for this thread being judged as “pornographic”, perhaps what incites such an ‘emotional response’ is the phrase, "the beginning of an official correction" (as JulieCol has pointed out) above. She is correct to clarify that sentence. "First steps toward an official correction" is certainly more accurate. Mea Culpa if I have offended sensibilities.

    However, I would make the point that that one little phrase is not the real (or important) issue that is being addressed. That, my dear brethren, is the ruse of all ruses when the content that may be considered truly "pornographic" are the ACTIONS that prompted this statement (which can be found on the website bearing the URL (http://www.correctiofilialis.org) as tomjaw has noted above.) It has been made available to the public for all to see:

    It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.


    We now live in an age where the most private and personal of thoughts, actions and words are made globally available through the phenomenon of the internet, the media, and our ‘capturing’ devices for putting it all out there. No one is immune. On that point, I can agree partly with ronkrisman that this causes great scandal for the entire church. Absolutely.

    Nonetheless, the pope has been formally asked to clarify matters on two accounts. Both have gone unanswered.

    Now here is where I believe we enter sticky territory.

    1. Is the Pope obliged to answer anything in the nature of Dubia? If so, how and when?

    2. Is the Pope obliged to answer anything in the nature of a document presented to him entitled "Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis" with the respected signatories? If so, how and when?

    3. How does this all play out? In other words, what steps have historically been taken under similar circumstances and what are the instructions concerning such matters subject to canon law?

    I do not know the answer to these questions. I am a simple follower of Jesus and Mary and one who strives to follow the Magisterium with all my heart and soul.

    I imagine (and am quite confident) that the bishops and the theologians who have presented both the Dubia and the “filial correction” have VERY carefully done their homework and followed every jot and tittle of the path they are obliged to follow within the framework of authentic Catholicism and the Magisterium. Otherwise, they would be fools.

    All we simple folk can do is hope and pray. In the end, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph as she promised.



    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • KARU27
    Posts: 101
    Two things:

    1. Fr. Krisman has used a rather inflammatory and, I believe, inaccurate word. I think a better term would be: sensationalism. Although I don't happen to agree with him that the piece is sensationalist.

    2. Could someone please write an opera about all this?
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • ...an opera about all this?

    Ha! This really is no joke! The question is, in writing an opera about the Catholic Church in our day, would it be opera buffa or tragic opera?

    The mention of tectonic cracks (possible schism) in the Church's fabric is not uncommon, and is uttered alarmistically by a variety of factions which might, simplistically, be labeled 'progressive' or 'conservative'. There is no question that HF Francis has succeeded, with tinctures of purposefullness on the one hand and ineptitude on the other, in upsetting one faction or another. It is not altogether inapt to ask whether the holy father is exacerbating our problems or shining a light on them. The matter of orthodoxy goes to the soul of the Church. So do real love and real mercy. Is it 'sensationalism' to take note of this matter of fact? I suppose it depends on motive, and upon the likelihood of genuine reconciliation genuinely sought and genuinely desired by all.

    That a good deal of HF Francis' agenda would result in a more genuinely Christian Catholicism is overshadowed by the danger that he may pose to orthodox Faith and Morals by a different good deal of his acts and words. Still, there is no question that vested interests and the absolutely corrupt groups in 'the Vatican', and especially the curia, do and will resist to the last man the reform (the house cleaning, actually!) that they so desperately need, have more than earned, and fully deserve. Then, there is the unmitigated contempt on the part of some (quite a few, actually) for the very souls whom our holy father rightly and justly singles out as in need of mercy and love. Is it 'sensationalism' to recognise that we do have a problem with regard to these matters? What we do not need is to continue sweeping them under the rug - as was done with the paedophile scandal for hundreds of years (and it still isn't over!) - and pretend that everything is a garden of lilies so long as there is no scandal, no mention of it.

    Similar alarums were heard during HF Benedict's reign. He was shamefully castigated by the essentially adolescent harping and petulant disobedience of those who viewed him as a stumbling block to the realisation of their own warped vision.

    I think that when it comes to KARU27's opera - it seems more tragic than buffa.
    Thanked by 2NihilNominis Elmar
  • On the other hand, there is so much good in the Church.
    Much more good than bad.
    The good is what counts.
    Perhaps the tale of the wheat and the tares is pertinent here.
    The opera will, after all is said and done, have a happy ending -
    - happy ever-after, in fact......
    For it is ordained that good will triumph
    eternally.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891

    2. Could someone please write an opera about all this?


    The Magic Hoot?
    Thanked by 1Cantus67
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,687
    The Magic Mute.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    "Hoot" was referring to the magical California smokeable turf grass which is well known for inducing forgetfulness and euphoria. ;-)
  • @chonak I saw what you did there, lol
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • >>> most of all [...] pray the rosary for our Holy Father, the bishops and priests, and Holy Mother Church.

    This !!!
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    I hate opera. However, a cantata or an oratorio is an option.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Be careful.
    An Indian holy man once said 'we become what we hate'.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,139
    na... will never write an opera.

    and who was the indian?
  • [Steering the conversation back to the original topic}

    I think the filial correction raises an important question: when a king acts to the detriment of his own subjects, what are said subjects supposed to do? To put the question another way, could Everyman have written the Magna Carta?

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    Subjects are supposed to rise up and kill the king. ;-)
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,687
    Medieval polities involved triangulation (or quadragulation if one treats the church as a separated power base, which was not always the real case): first a conquering or usurping king would typically ally with select aristos to take control, and then prefer those aristos for a couple of generations or more, but eventually, the king's heirs would triangulate opportunistically with the commons against overpowerful aristos.
  • Charles,

    Ok, but if the king is the Vicar of Christ?

    Liam,

    How well did this work, toward the common good?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    It might be interesting to contrast the highly sensational publication of Fr. Charlie Curran's famous statement of dissent to Humanae Vitae with the careful, restrained manner of publication of the current Filial Correction of Pope Francis.

    Fr. Curran was able to obtain a copy of the encyclical before it was published which made it possible for him and his confreres to coordinate a battle plan to attack the encyclical and destroy its credibility from the beginning. They wrote a detailed critique and were calling late in the night to gather the signatures of 77 theologians so that the day after Humanae Vitae was presented to the media, their statement of dissent was made available to the American public.

    Fr. Curran had no regrets for pulling such a dramatic stunt and in later years proudly reaffirmed his rationale for it:

    Our quick, purposeful response supported by so many theologians, accomplished its purpose. The day after the encyclical was promulgated, Catholics could read in the morning papers about their right to dissent and the fact that in theory Catholics could disagree with the papal teaching.


    N.B. A major Australian newspaper says the FilialCorrection "is moderate, restrained and respectful."

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/sex-money-spies-and-the-vatican/news-story/6cd9f87837a61de64f211be6e0594bd6
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,687
    CGZ

    Results varied. The key thing to avoid is an anachronistic understanding of medieval sovereigns of Western and Central Europe (not just kings but other sovereigns). Unlike their successors in the early modern era, their governance was necessarily collegial - albeit hierarchical, of course. (I've come to believe that Pope Francis' purpose here is not the propagation of heresies, but to stir around a relatively modern (in historical terms) culture that treats papal and curial statements as so oracular as to ossify collegial governance) - in a sense, some of his opponents are doing his work for him, which is why he's not straining to stop it. YMMV.)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,891
    Charles,

    Ok, but if the king is the Vicar of Christ?


    And how has that been working out for you?
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,687
    Julie

    That's the personal opinion of Tess Livingstone, not the paper. She's got a particular opinion beat, as is common in many papers these days.