3 ms·

There's a bit of imprecision near the beginning of the article of which clarification is only hinted at by the end and might be missed by those not familiar wit

by jonah 9y ago

There's a bit of imprecision near the beginning of the article of which clarification is only hinted at by the end and might be missed by those not familiar with the details. "Last year, one cardinal, backed by a few retired colleagues, raised the possibility of a formal declaration of heresy – the willful rejection of an established doctrine of the church, a sin punishable by excommunication. Last month, 62 disaffected Catholics, ...published an open letter that accused Francis of seven specific counts of heretical teaching. "To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope." Popes write and say a lot of things but only a special few are elevated to the level of doctrine. Pope Francis' footnotes on divorce aren't an official proclamation. (Though the article hints that he's working in that direction.) Infallible[0] statements defining doctrine are made Ex Cathedra - From the Chair of St. Peter[1] which he hasn't done. So, in reality the conservative faction are protesting something which hasn't yet happened. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedr...

gadders 9y ago
There was an interesting podcast on the BBC World Service that covered the letter and whether the Pope is really Catholic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv1c3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv1c3
hydrox24 9y ago
> The conservative faction are protesting something which hasn't yet happened. This is a fact, but not really true in the sense you mean it. The conservative faction were rubbed the wrong way by the footnote. The issue is that while it is not a proclamation of doctrine, it has been pointed to as justification for some German and Latin American bishops' administering of communion to the divorced. The real problem is that Francis has remained silent when asked for clarification on the footnote, and whether or not it changed doctrine. Clarification was first requested officially (though privately) by a couple of bishops, and when no response was given for several months, those bishops published the letter to put further pressure on Francis to issue a clarification one way or the other[0]. The letter reads as a very polite request for clarification. This went without response. In addition, there is some evidence that bishops have been privately directed to interpret the footnote in the 'heretical' sense. The evidence for this is laid out in the filial correction itself (see [1]). The most recent document, referenced in the Guardian article as accusing Francis of spreading heresies, can be read here[1]. I would encourage anyone reading this to do so. The document, along with the rest of the 'protesting' happening across the conservative side of the spectrum, isn't so much in response to a change in doctrine via dictum, but instead a response to the lack of clarification, and Francis' allowing (or even encouraging) a de facto change in doctrine. [0]: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/full-text-cardinals-letter-to-pope-francis-on-amoris-laetitia/ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/full-text-ca... [1]: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/...
- erikb 9y ago
  But then, by implied results, OP is also correct. The reason they are pissed by getting no clarification is because they don't want the "heretical" interpretation to get any foothold. And the reason the pope doesn't answer that request is because he wants the "heretical" interpretation to succeed without himself being excommunicated. If he says "yep, that's what I mean" he starts to have a big problem. But nobody can punish him for not clarifying a footnote. But if there wouldn't be the underlying conflict of interest the request and non-answer for clarification wouldn't be a topic people would think about. The difference between you and OP is merely the question of which layer is discussed. The layer of facts or the layer of meaning.

by jonah 9y ago

gadders 9y ago

There was an interesting podcast on the BBC World Service that covered the letter and whether the Pope is really Catholic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv1c3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv1c3

hydrox24 9y ago

> The conservative faction are protesting something which hasn't yet happened. This is a fact, but not really true in the sense you mean it. The conservative faction were rubbed the wrong way by the footnote. The issue is that while it is not a proclamation of doctrine, it has been pointed to as justification for some German and Latin American bishops' administering of communion to the divorced. The real problem is that Francis has remained silent when asked for clarification on the footnote, and whether or not it changed doctrine. Clarification was first requested officially (though privately) by a couple of bishops, and when no response was given for several months, those bishops published the letter to put further pressure on Francis to issue a clarification one way or the other[0]. The letter reads as a very polite request for clarification. This went without response. In addition, there is some evidence that bishops have been privately directed to interpret the footnote in the 'heretical' sense. The evidence for this is laid out in the filial correction itself (see [1]). The most recent document, referenced in the Guardian article as accusing Francis of spreading heresies, can be read here[1]. I would encourage anyone reading this to do so. The document, along with the rest of the 'protesting' happening across the conservative side of the spectrum, isn't so much in response to a change in doctrine via dictum, but instead a response to the lack of clarification, and Francis' allowing (or even encouraging) a de facto change in doctrine. [0]: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/full-text-cardinals-letter-to-pope-francis-on-amoris-laetitia/ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/full-text-ca... [1]: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/...

erikb 9y ago
But then, by implied results, OP is also correct. The reason they are pissed by getting no clarification is because they don't want the "heretical" interpretation to get any foothold. And the reason the pope doesn't answer that request is because he wants the "heretical" interpretation to succeed without himself being excommunicated. If he says "yep, that's what I mean" he starts to have a big problem. But nobody can punish him for not clarifying a footnote. But if there wouldn't be the underlying conflict of interest the request and non-answer for clarification wouldn't be a topic people would think about. The difference between you and OP is merely the question of which layer is discussed. The layer of facts or the layer of meaning.