well, today was supposed to be the beginning of the end of the world. i guess this ranks.

...first Pope to crown...

Hear, hear!

That would be nice.

Nice indeed!!!

The statement published today is not official at all; from the little I've read so far, the text itself acknowledges that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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. "

"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.

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.

Francis, either he is a heretic or he is not. I don't think the case is proven that he is.

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.

Nah. This, too, will pass.

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.

This event doesn't seem to be a story particularly associated with the Register.

It's showing up on websites of Italian Vatican reporters:
http://www.marcotosatti.com/2017/09/23/ecco-la-correzione-filiale-al-papa-i-sette-punti-di-sospetta-eresia-di-amoris-laetitia-firmata-per-ora-da-decine-di-studiosi/

Church news agencies in other countries:
http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/noticias/vaticano/vaticano-clericos-e-academicos-catolicos-escrevem-ao-papa-para-questionar-propagacao-de-heresias/

General news sources:
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/3143220/0/acusan-papa-francisco-difundir-siete-herejias-exhortacion-familia/
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/vatikan-theologen-werfen-papst-franziskus-haeresie-vor-a-1169577.html

And, of course, fringe religious sites run by critics of the Pope:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/09/23/pope-francis-critics-continue-seek-answers-amoris-laetitia-filial-correction
http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Catholicisme/Pape/petition-accuse-pape-sept-heresies-Amoris-laetitia-2017-09-24-1200879287?from_univers=lacroix
(well, not exactly)

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.

The Magic Mute.

@chonak I saw what you did there, lol

I hate opera. However, a cantata or an oratorio is an option.

na... will never write an opera.

and who was the indian?

Subjects are supposed to rise up and kill the king. ;-)

Charles,

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

Liam,

How well did this work, toward the common good?

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.)

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.