March 18, 2024

This is a guest post from Catholic theologian, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. He holds the Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Christology, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. Dr. Fastiggi received an M.A. in Theology from Fordham University in 1976; and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fordham in 1987. At Sacred Heart, he has taught courses on Ecclesiology, Christian Anthropology, Christology, Mariology, Moral Theology, and the Sacramental Life of the Church. He is a member of the Society for Catholic Liturgy and has been president of the Mariological Society of America.

Dr. Fastiggi has served as the executive editor of the 2009-2013 supplements to the New Catholic Encyclopedia and as co-editor and translator of the English translation of the 43rd edition of the Denzinger-Hünermann Enchiridion Symbolorum (Ignatius Press: 2012): the standard compendium of Catholic doctrines and dogmas. He has also translated and updated the German revised edition of Ludwig Ott’s well-known reference work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Baronius Press, 2018). He has written many articles for Catholic websites / magazines such as Where Peter IsThe Catholic World Report, and my own blog.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right, above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and a bit more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

[Full title: “Mary Mother of the Church highlights Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood”]

Introduction

In a Decree dated Feb. 11, 2018 (but released March 3), Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, announced that “Pope Francis has decreed that the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, should be inscribed in the Roman calendar on the Monday after Pentecost and be celebrated every year.” This means that in the Latin Rite, the celebration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church—as an obligatory Memorial—will have precedence over any other memorial of a Saint or Blessed on the Monday following Pentecost.

The foundation for the new obligatory memorial

In the Feb. 11, 2018 Decree, Cardinal Sarah points to St. Paul VI’s Nov. 21, 1964 Address at the conclusion of the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council as the clear foundation for the memorial of Mary, Mother of the Church. During this address, Paul VI declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be “Mother of the Church that is to say of all Christian people, the faithful as well as the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother.” He also established that “the Mother of God should be further honored and invoked by the entire Christian people by this most tender of titles”. Because of Paul VI’s 1964 proclamation, a votive Mass in honor of “Blessed Mary Mother of the Church” (Beata Maria Ecclesiæ Matre) was proposed during the 1975 “Holy Year of Reconciliation” and later inserted into the Roman Missal. In 1980, the title of Mary as “Mother of the Church” was added to the Litany of Loreto with papal approval. In the 1986 “Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary” three formularies for the celebration of “the Blessed Virgin Mary, Image and Mother of the Church” were included. Some countries, dioceses, and religious families have already been celebrating the memorial of Mary, Mother of the Church, with approval from the Holy See.

Scriptural and theological foundations

The recognition of Mary as “Mother of the Church” has deep biblical roots. As the New Eve and “mother of the living’ (Gen 3:20), Mary takes on a maternal role toward all humanity, especially the faithful. As Mother of the Incarnate Word, Mary is the Mother of all the faithful who are joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church (cf. Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:16–17; 12:12–31; Eph 1:22–23, 5:23 –30; and Col 1:18–24). In his Nov. 21, 1964 address, Blessed Paul VI notes that, as soon as Christ took on a human nature in Mary’s virginal womb, He united to himself, as its head, his Mystical Body, which is the Church.” Therefore, “Mary, as the Mother of Christ, must be regarded as the Mother of all the faithful and pastors, which means the Church.”

In his Feb. 11, 2018 Decree, Cardinal Sarah points to John 19:25–27 for understanding Mary as Mother of the Church:

… the Mother standing beneath the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), accepted her Son’s testament of love and welcomed all people in the person of the beloved disciple as sons and daughters to be reborn unto life eternal. She thus became the tender Mother of the Church which Christ begot on the cross handing on the Spirit.

St. John Paul II likewise sees John 19:25–27 as instrumental for understanding Mary as Mother of the Church. In his General Audience of Sept. 17, 1997, he observes: “On Calvary, Mary united herself to the sacrifice of her Son and made her own maternal contribution to the work of salvation, which took the form of labor pains, the birth of the new humanity.” He goes on to say that “in addressing the words ‘Woman, behold your son’ to Mary, the Crucified One proclaims her motherhood not only in relation to the Apostle John but also to every disciple.”

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven also manifests Mary as the spiritual Mother of the Church. After being assumed into heaven, Mary, “by her constant intercession” continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation, and “by her maternal charity,” she cares for us “who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties” until we are led into the happiness of our “true home” (Lumen Gentium, 62).

Mary, therefore, is Mother of the Church because she is the Mother of Christ, who is the head of the Mystical Body, the Church. Given to us as our Mother by the dying Lord on the Cross, Mary continues to intercede for us with maternal love from heaven. In a special way Mary’s spiritual motherhood is linked to Pentecost because, as the mystical Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mary joins with the Church in prayer, and she is “the perfect image of what it means to be a disciple of Christ,” the “mirror of all the virtues,” and “the definitive model for the perfect imitation of Christ” (Paul VI, Nov. 21, 1964). As the Mother of the faithful, Mary is the exalted “type” or exemplar of the Church because “in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle” (Lumen Gentium, 65).

Historical witness to the title, “Mother of the Church”

The title “Mother of the Church” has roots in Fathers of the Church. St. Augustine (354–430) sees Mary as “the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity so the faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head” (De sancta Virginitate, 6; cited in LG, 53). St. Leo the Great (c. 400–461) states that “Christ’s generation is the origin of the Christian people; and Christ’s birth as head is also the birth of his Mystical Body” (Sermon 6 on the Nativity of the Lord). In the Middle Ages, St. Anselm (1033–1109) speaks of Mary as “the Mother of justification and the justified; the Mother of reconciliation and the reconciled; the Mother of salvation and of the saved (Or 52, 8). Pope Benedict XIV, in his Sept. 27, 1748 bull, Gloriosae Dominae, states that Mary on Calvary is “in the proper sense Mother of the Church, a gift the Church received from lips of her dying Bridegroom” (Bullararium 2, 428). Pope Leo XIII, in his Sept. 5, 1895 encyclical, Adiutricem, extols Mary as “the Mother of the Church, the Teacher and Queen of the Apostles” (no. 6).

After Leo XIII, popes refer to Mary as Mother of the Church explicitly or in equivalent terms. In his address of Dec. 4, 1963, at the close of the Second Session of Vatican II, Paul VI expressed his hope that Mary would be honored with the title, “Mother of the Church” in the Constitution of the Church (cf. no. 21 in the address). An earlier title of what would be chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium was: “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.” This title, though, was changed to its present one, “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” About 200 bishops asked that the earlier title be restored, but the Theological Commission responded by noting that the revised title better corresponded to the contents of the chapter. Moreover, Mary, as Mother of the Church, is expressed in equivalent terms in LG, 53, which states that “The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors [Mary] with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.” Some Council fathers also had ecumenical concerns that referring to Mary as “Mother of the Church” might imply that the Church owes its existence to her and not to Christ. A good number of bishops—most notably Cardinal Wyszynski and the bishops of Poland—appealed to Pope Paul VI to proclaim Mary as Mother of the Church on his own authority. The Holy Father responded to this request favorably, and he solemnly proclaimed Mary as “Mother of the Church” in his address of Nov. 21, 1964.

The hoped-for fruits of the Memorial of Mary, Mother of the Church

In his Commentary on the Feb. 11, 2018 Decree, Cardinal Sarah states that Pope Francis believes this new obligatory memorial will highlight “the mystery of Mary’s spiritual motherhood, which from the awaiting of the Spirit at Pentecost has never ceased to take motherly care of the pilgrim Church on earth.” The Holy Father also hopes that the memorial will help us root our spiritual lives “firmly on three great realities: the Cross, the Eucharist, and the Mother of God.” Celebrating Mary as Mother of the Church on the Monday after Pentecost will help us all realize how important Mary, the mystical spouse of the Holy Spirit, is to our lives as Christian. She is truly “our Mother in the order of grace” (Lumen Gentium, 61), She is united to Christ, the Head of the Church “by a close and indissoluble bond” (Lumen Gentium, 53), and she is united to us as our spiritual Mother, the Mother of the Church.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: The Virgin, the Child Jesus, and St John the Baptist (1881), by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Catholic theologian Robert Fastiggi summarizes the background of this description of the Blessed Virgin, which was highlighted (not introduced!) at Vatican II.

 

March 11, 2024

This is a guest post from Catholic theologian, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. He holds the Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Christology, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. Dr. Fastiggi received an M.A. in Theology from Fordham University in 1976; and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fordham in 1987. At Sacred Heart, he has taught courses on Ecclesiology, Christian Anthropology, Christology, Mariology, Moral Theology, and the Sacramental Life of the Church. He is a member of the Society for Catholic Liturgy and has been president of the Mariological Society of America.

Dr. Fastiggi has served as the executive editor of the 2009-2013 supplements to the New Catholic Encyclopedia and as co-editor and translator of the English translation of the 43rd edition of the Denzinger-Hünermann Enchiridion Symbolorum (Ignatius Press: 2012): the standard compendium of Catholic doctrines and dogmas. He has also translated and updated the German revised edition of Ludwig Ott’s well-known reference work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Baronius Press, 2018). He has written many articles for Catholic websites / magazines such as Where Peter Is, The Catholic World Report, and my own blog.

*****

[Dr. Fastiggi was responding to a private letter from Catholic apologist John Martignoni, at someone else’s request (not mine)]

***

NOTE Michael Lofton devoted a 28-minute show on his webcast, Reason & Theology, to this article (dated 3-11-24).

***

Thank you for sharing Mr. Martignoni’s response, which I understand is one held by many Catholics today. Martignoni is correct that my opinion is not infallible, but neither is his. I never claimed that Vatican I defined the indefectibility of the Roman Pontiff. I believe, though, that it affirms this teaching in Pastor Aeternus, chapter IV, when it teaches that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored” (Denz.-H, 3066). In the same chapter of Vatican I, it is likewise stated that “this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of the disciples: ‘But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ (Lk 22:32)” [Denz.-H. 3070]. The possibility of a heretical pope is likewise rejected by Vatican I, when it affirms that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they may perform their supreme office for the salvation of all” [Denz.-H, 3071]. (emphasis [blue] added).
*
What seemed true to Suárez and Bellarmine has been affirmed by an ecumenical council. How can these words of Vatican I be reconciled with a Pope teaching heresy? Some claim the pope is protected from heresy only when he teaches ex cathedra. But this is not what Vatican I says. I know and respect Fr. Brian Harrison, but in his article that Mr. Martignoni shared, Fr. Harrison seems to assume what I believe Vatican I denies, viz., that a pope can teach heresy. There’s a difference between teaching something that is later considered wrong and teaching heresy. Heresy is the denial or calling into doubt a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. This is one reason why Pope Honorius I cannot be justly accused of heresy. He died in 638 before monothelitism had been condemned as a heresy (and it’s not clear that Honorius actually taught monothelitism).
*
Ecumenical councils like Constantinople III can teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Constantinople III’s condemnation of Pope Honorius was not on a matter of faith and morals but on a matter of historical fact. Moreover, as Martignoni knows, Pope Leo II censured Honorius I for negligence rather than heresy. There is also the added complicated fact that Constantinople III affirmed a letter of Pope Agatho in session 4 (before its condemnation of Honorius in session 13), which teaches that the  Apostolic See of Rome has always been immune from error. There seems to be an internal contradiction at Constantinople III. This contradiction, though, can be resolved if we understand that its condemnation of Honorius I relies upon a matter of historical interpretation, and is, therefore, not infallible. Moreover, Leo II qualifies the condemnation, and he censures Honorius I for negligence rather than heresy.
*
I respect Martignoni, but he has not at all convinced me that my understanding of Vatican I’s affirmation of papal indefectibility is wrong.  I do agree with him that we need to give a benevolent interpretation of what Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke have said. They seem to assume that a pope can teach heresy. Well, that is their opinion, and their opinion is not infallible, and I argue that their opinion and that of Martignoni is not that of Vatican I. Unfortunately, the affirmation of papal indefectibility and the divine protection of popes from teaching heresy does not seem to be adequately understood today.
*
I (together with some other theologians) wrote to Cardinal Ladaria about this a few years back. We received a reply from the CDF’s undersecretary encouraging us to continue our work. This correspondence is confidential, but perhaps there will be some public intervention in the future. The Holy See is aware of the problems with Catholics accusing popes of heresy and has encouraged theologians to respond to these accusations. From the response I received, it seems that the CDF/DDF would prefer this problem be handled by Catholic theologians for now. There might be a clarification in the future, but I think Vatican I already is quite clear on the matter. The simple fact remains that the Magisterium has never affirmed that popes can teach heresy, and the letter of Pope Agatho and Vatican I  seem to rule out that possibility. The case of Honorius does not argue against my position as I explain above and in the attached notes.
*
The indefectibility of the Roman Pontiff in teaching on faith and morals is at least a doctrine of the Church that requires religious submission of will and intellect (see Canon 752, which is based on Lumen Gentium, 25). I think a case could be made that it is a dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Ron Conte, Jr. has argued that position. The indefectibility of the Pope in teaching does not preclude him from making judgments that can later be qualified or changed. It does, however, preclude grave error or heresy. Otherwise, the teaching authority of the Pope, established by Christ, is not reliable.
*
There might be errors in the sense that popes have taken positions that were later qualified or abandoned. There is a difference, though, between such “errors” and heresy. Unfortunately, some Catholic writers seem to think that believing divine providence protects popes from teaching heresy is equivalent to saying that every teaching of the pope is infallible. They then dismiss those of us who defend papal indefectibility as “hyperpapalists” or “ultramontanists.” In doing so, they show they don’t understand the difference between papal indefectibility and papal infallibility. Well, we can only try to explain what the Church teaches.
*
I don’t wish to engage in a discussion with Mr. Martignoni on this matter. I encourage him, though, to study these matters in greater depth.
*
On this the 750th anniversary of the death of St. Thomas Aquinas, we ask for his prayers.
*
APPENDIX ONE
*
Bellarmine, Suárez, and Liguori on Divine Providence’s Protection of the Church from Heretical Popes
*
Bellarmine (1542–1621) and Suárez (1548–1617) expressed their confidence in the protection of divine providence from there ever being a heretical pope. In fact they both came to believe there cannot be (non posse) such a heretical pope.
*
In Book 4, chapter 3 of De Summo Pontifice, Bellarmine states that “without doubt” (sine dubio) the privilege has been handed down to Peter’s successors, which insures that “in his chair there would never be found someone who would teach contrary to the true faith” (in sede ejus numquam inveniretur qui doceret contra verum Fidem).
*
In Book 4, chapter 6, when speaking of the Pope as a particular person, Bellarmine maintains that “it is probable and can piously be believed that the Supreme Pontiff not only cannot err as a Pontiff, but also that as a particular person he cannot be a heretic, by obstinately believing something false contrary to the faith.”
*
Bellarmine then provides two proofs for this position. First, “because the gracious disposition of divine providence seems to require it. For the Pontiff not only should not but cannot preach heresy, but also should always teach the truth, and without doubt he will do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brothers” (Nam Pontifex non solum non debet nec potest haeresim praedicare, sed etiam debet semper veritatem docere et sine dubio id faciet, cum Dominum illi juserit confirmare fratres suos). The second proof is from the events of the past (ab eventu): “Because there has never been a heretical pope up till now, or certainly it cannot be proved that any Pontiff was a heretic. Therefore, this is a sign that it cannot happen.” (ergo signum est, non posse esse).
*
Note: In the official relatio of Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser specifically says that the Council is endorsing the position of Bellarmine in Book 4, chapter VI of De Summo Pontifice (see Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, trans. Rev. James T, O’Connor, Ignatius Press, 2008, p. 59).
*
The Jesuit theologian Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) argues that not only could God prevent a heretical pope from harming the Church, but by His divine providence it seems more likely that He would also insure that there would never be such a heretical pope. On whether a pope could fall into heresy, Suárez says: “Even though many affirm this as more probable, nevertheless to me (in brief) it seems more pious and more probable that a Pope could indeed err as a private person out of ignorance but not out of contumacy. For although God is able to prevent a heretical Pope from harming the Church, nevertheless it is more agreeable to the way of divine providence that—since God has promised that the Pope would never err in his definitions—He would insure that there would never be such a heretical Pope. And since up till now there has never been one in the Church, it should consequently be thought that, by the ordination and providence of God, there cannot be one.” De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10: Opera Omina, Vivès ed. Vol. XII, 319.
*
(Quod licet multi verisimiliter affirment, mihi tamen breviter et magis pium et probabilius videtur, posse quidem Papam, ut privatam personam, errare ex ignorantia, non tamen ex contumacia. Quamvis enim efficere Deus possit ut haereticus Papa non noceat Ecclesiae, suavior tamen modus divinae providentiae est, ut, quia Deus promisit Papam definientem numquam erraturum, consequentur provideat ne umquam ille haereticus sit. Adde, quod hactenus in Ecclesia numquam accidit, censendum ex Dei ordinatione et providentia accidere non posse).
*
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787) agreed with Bellarmine, and he writes: “We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic.” (Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (Turin, 1848) Vol. VIII, p. 720).
*
What Bellarmine, Suárez, and Liguori believed could not happen seems to be confirmed by Vatican I’s affirmation of the “charism of truth and of never-failing faith” conferred upon Peter and his successors” (Denz.-H, 3071). How could a charism of “truth and never-failing faith” coexist with heresy?
*
Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4 (Denz.-H, 3070–3071):
*
For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose a new doctrine by his revelation, but rather that, with his assistance, they might reverently guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles.. Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced, fully realizing that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of the disciples: “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
*
Now this charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they may perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”
Possibility of error in ordinary papal teachings?
*
Teachings of the extraordinary papal Magisterium are infallible as well as definitive judgments by the Pope. The question of the possibility of error in ordinary papal teachings is a delicate matter. Vatican I stated that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored” (Denz.-H, 3066) and the “See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error” (Denz.-H, 3070). Ordinary teachings of the papal magisterium are not definitive and they are subject to revision or reform. This is why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its 1990 instruction, Donum Veritatis, speaks of such magisterial teachings as pertaining to matters “per se not irreformable.”
*
If a papal teaching is not irreformable, it is subject to revision or change. For example, Pope Innocent I in 405 allowed for the use of judical torture by Christian magistrates. Nicholas I, however, in 866 taught that neither divine nor human law allows such torture (cf. Denz.-H, 648). Innocent IV, however, approved the use of torture by the Inquisition in 1252. In 1993, though, John Paul II included torture among the acts which are intrinsically evil (Veritatis Splendor, no. 80). We can look back and say that Popes Innocent I and Innocent IV were in error about torture, but they were not opposing any definitive teaching on the subject at the times when they made their judgments. Their judgments were not irreformable; and when they made these judgments they were not opposing any settled truths of the faith.
*
APPENDIX TWO
*
Bishop Gasser on Bellarmine and Vatican I
*

Bishop Gasser on Bellarmine and Vatican I Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser was the Bishop of Brixen in Austria. He was the author of the official Relatio of Vatican I.

Here is a key passage of that Relatio, which can be found on pages 58–59 of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, translated with a commentary by Rev. James T. O’Conner (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008):

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft is concerned, the deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in BOOK 4, CHAPTER VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.”

From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, “the most common and certain opinion.”

Bishop Gasser make it clear that the position (‘the fourth place”) of Bellarmine that the Council is endorsing is that of De Summo Pontifice, book IV, chapter VI, where Bellarmine refers to “the fourth proposition.” Here is what Bellarmine says in that chapter:

De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chapter VI: On the Pope as a Particular Person:

The fourth proposition: It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. It is proved, first of all, because the sweet disposition of the providence of God seems to require it. For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always teach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,” that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne. How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith? Certainly God can wrench the confession of the true faith out of the heart of a heretic just as he placed the words in the mouth of Balaam’s ass. Still, this will be a great violence, and not in keeping with the providence of God that sweetly disposes all things.

Secondly, it is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore this is a sign that it [i.e. a heretical pope] cannot happen. For more on this see Pighius.

What Bellarmine teaches in book IV, chapter 6 of De Summo Pontifice is clearly affirmed by Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus, chapter IV.

APPENDIX THREE

Alleged Papal Heresies Outline

*

Heresy is defined as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (1983 CIC, canon 751; 1917 CIC, canon 1325.2; CCC, 2089)

1) The case of Pope Liberius (in office 352-366)

Pope Liberius is sometimes criticized as an Arian or a Semi-Arian because of an ambiguous Christological formula he signed when under captivity by the emperor, Constantius, who favored Arianism. St. Athanasius, the greatest opponent of the Arian heresy, however, defended the personal orthodoxy of Liberius. In his History of the Arians, Part V, n. 41, St. Athanasius testifies to Liberius’ “hatred” of the Arian heresy as well as the pope’s support for him [Athanasius] as long as he was able “to exercise a free choice.” After the death of Constantius in 361, Liberius was a vigorous defender of Nicene Christology.

2) The Case of Pope Honorius I (in office 625-638)

1) From Fr. Ludwig Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma trans. Patrick Lynch (St. Louis: Herder, 1958), p. 150 (p. 162 in the revised 2018 Baronius Press edition):

There is no doubt that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation he unwittingly favored the Monothelite error. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematization but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error. cf. DH 563.

The subsequent repetitions of the condemnations of Honorius I by Nicaea II and Constantinople IV, therefore, must be understood as condemnations for negligence rather than for heresy.

Pope John IV (r. 640–642) defended the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius I in his Letter Dominus quid dixit to the Emperor Constantine III in the spring of 641 (Denz- H. 43 th ed. 2012: 496-498):

[D-H 496] The Patriarch Sergius, of venerable memory, indicated to the aforesaid Pontiff of the city of Rome, [Honorius] of holy memory, that certain people were saying that there were two wills in our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. After having learned this, the aforesaid Pope wrote back to him that our Savior, as a total unity, was thus conceived and born in a miraculous way beyond any human order. Likewise, from the holy dispensation of his in the flesh, he taught that our Savior, as he was perfect God and perfect man, was born without sin so that he might restore the noble original state, which the first man lost through his transgression. Therefore, the second Adam was born, without having any sin, either by birth or by contact with men; and, in fact, the incarnate Word, in likeness to sinful flesh, assumed all that is ours without bearing any guilt of the sin arising from the inheritance of the transgression [etenim Verbum caro factum in similitudine carnis peccati omnia nostra suscepit nullum reatus vitium ferens ex traduce praevaricationis exortum].

[D-H 497] It was in this way, therefore, that …[Pope Honorius] evidently wrote [to Sergius], that, in our Savior, two contrary wills do not exist at all, that is, in his members [cf. Rom. 7:23], since he contracted no defect from the transgression of the first man….

But in order that no one, devoid of understanding, might reprove [Honorius] for seeming to speak only of a human nature and not also of a divine nature, … whoever disputes this should understand that the response was already made to the inquiry of the above-mentioned Patriarch. Furthermore, of course, the help of medicine is usually applied to the place where the wound is located For the blessed Apostle likewise is known to have done this often, adapting himself to the custom of his hearers; sometimes indeed when teaching about the supreme nature (of Christ), he is completely silent about the human nature; but sometimes when speaking of his human economy, he does not touch on the mystery of his divinity…

[D-H 498] Therefore, my aforementioned predecessor, while teaching on the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, said that there were not in him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh. Because certain people have transformed this to their own way of thinking, they have supposed that he taught one will of [Christ’s] humanity and divinity, which is completely contrary to the truth

The great opponent of the Monothelite heresy, St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), agreed with John IV’s defense of Honorius in his letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus (see the 1911 article on St. Maximus in the Catholic Encyclopedia by Abbot Chapman).  While it is true that Constantinople III (680–681) included Honorius in its anathema against supporters of the Monothelite (one-will) heresy, we must remember that ecumenical councils can only pronounce infallibly on matters of faith and morals. What was infallibly condemned by Constantinople III was the Monothelite heresy.

Whether Pope Honorius I actually adhered to this heresy is a historical question and not a matter on which the council could infallibly pronounce. St. Robert Bellarmine maintained that that “no error is contained” in the letters of Honorius. Moreover, Bellarmine notes that nothing had been defined about the two wills at the time of Honorius I (De Summo Pontifice, Book 4, chapter XI). Because the dogma of the two wills had yet to be defined, it is anachronistic to accuse Pope Honorius I of heresy.

3) The case of John XXII (r. 1316–1334)

The controversy was over John XXII’s claim that the souls of the departed did not enjoy the fullness of the beatific vision until after the general judgment. (see Introduction to Denz.-H, 990–991). John XXII was not teaching something heretical at the time because the Holy See had yet to offer a definitive judgment on the issue (see J.P. Hirsch’s 1910 article on John XXII in the Catholic Encyclopedia). A definitive judgment on this issue would only come two years after John XXII’s death when Benedict XII settled the matter by his 1336 constitution, Benedictus Deus (Denz.-H, 1000–1002).

To call John XXII a heretic would be as anachronistic as calling St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic for stating that “the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin” (ST III q. 27 a. 2 ad 2).  It’s worth noting that Pope John XXII was the pope who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas in 1323. Following the logic of the critics of John XXII it would have been the case of one heretic canonizing another!

St. Robert Bellarmine states that John XXII expressed his opinions “without the danger of heresy, because at the time no definition of the Church had been made on this matter” (De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chap. XIV; see St. Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Kenneth Baker, S.J. [Keep the Faith, 2016], p. 1012). Prior to his three homilies of 1331–1332, John XXII had affirmed all that the Church taught about the status of the departed souls in heaven. His Nov. 21, 1321 Letter to the Armenians (Denz.-H, 925–926) repeated almost verbatim what had been stated in the Profession of Faith read out at the 1274 Second Council of Lyon (cf. Denz.-H., 857).

This Profession stated that the purified souls of the faithful departed “are received immediately into heaven” (Denz.-H, 857), but it took no position on whether the blessed souls experience the full beatific vision. By the 13th century, however, the general theological consensus was that the souls in heaven do enjoy the full beatific vision prior to the general judgment.

This opinion was upheld in 1241 by the University of Paris and later 3 by St. Thomas Aquinas (ST Suppl. q. 92, a. 1–2), but it could not claim the status of a definitive magisterial judgment. It should also be noted that John XXII himself affirmed the position of the full beatific vision in his bulls of canonization of 1317, 1320, and 1323 (cf. X. Le Bachelet, “Benoit XII” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [DTC] 2:659). John XXII’s subsequent study of Scripture (Rev. 6: 9–11), the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Augustine), and theologians such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux led him, however, to a different position, which he presented in three homilies of 1331–1332.

As Joseph Ratzinger writes: “In the texts of the fathers he [John XXII] discovered the doctrine of waiting for heaven which, as we have seen, dominated the entire patristic period and could still be found, in living continuity with that period, at more than one point in the works of Bernard of Clairvaux [c.1090–1153]” (J. Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, 2nd Ed., trans. M. Waldstein, CUA Press, 2006, pp. 136–137).

After John XXII’s homilies of 1331–1332 became known, there was considerable controversy. This controversy ranged from a polite request from the King of France to clarify the matter (DTC 2: 666–667) to accusations of heresy by William of Ockham and other enemies of the Pope such as the Spiritual Franciscans who were angry at John XXII for his 1318 condemnation of their errors (Denz.-H, 910–916; cf. DTC 2:667). The controversy, moreover, was exploited by supporters of the Holy Roman Emperor, Louis IV the Bavarian, who had previously accused John XXII of heresy for his decisions against the Spiritual Franciscans. In 1328, Louis IV illegitimately deposed John XXII and forced the election of the anti-pope Nicholas V (cf. J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes [1986], p. 215).

Because of the controversy over his homilies, John XXII appointed a commission of Cardinals to study the matter, and, on their recommendation, he decided to reverse the position he expressed in his homilies of 1331–1332 and a short treatise of 1333 on the subject. As is well-known, he offered a clarification by means of the bull, Ne super his, issued on Dec. 3, 1334 the day before his death. (Denz.-H, 990–991). John XXII, however, had only presented his opinions in the homilies as a private theologian, and he recognized the matter as open to discussion (cf. DTC 2: 662).

According to Bellarmine, John XXII did not need to retract any error on the day before his death “since he had not fallen into any error [cum in errorem nullam incidisset] (De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chap. XIV; Controversies of the Christian Faith, p. 1013). John XXII merely retracted “his opinion” (sententiam suam) at the urging of his advisors (ibid.). Bellarmine was convinced that “the mind of Pope John was always good and Catholic” (Joannis Papae mentem semper bonam et Catholicam fuisse; cf. De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chap. XIV; Controversies, p. 1012).

Some statements of the Jesuits, Suárez and Bellarmine, on heretical popes

Francisco Suárez, De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10: Opera Omina, Vivès ed. Vol. XII, 319 [De Fide was published posthumously in 1622, five years after Suárez’s death].

On whether a pope could fall into heresy, Suárez says:

Even though many affirm this as more probable, nevertheless to me (in brief) it seems more pious and more probable that a Pope could indeed err as a private person out of ignorance but not out of contumacy. For although God is able to prevent a heretical Pope from harming the Church, nevertheless it is more agreeable to the way of divine providence that—since God has promised that the Pope would never err in his definitions—He would insure that there would never be such a heretical Pope. And since up till now there has never been one in the Church, it 4 should consequently be thought that, by the ordination and providence of God, there cannot be one. De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10: Opera Omina, Vivès ed. Vol. XII, 319.

Quod licet multi verisimiliter affirment, mihi tamen breviter et magis pium et probabilius videtur, posse quidem Papam, ut privatam personam, errare ex ignorantia, non tamen ex contumacia. Quamvis enim efficere Deus possit ut haereticus Papa non noceat Ecclesiae, suavior tamen modus divinae providentiae est, ut, quia Deus promisit Papam definientem numquam erraturum, consequentur provideat ne umquam ille haereticus sit. Adde, quod hactenus in Ecclesia numquam accidit, censendum ex Dei ordinatione et providentia accidere non posse.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) considers the possibility of there being a heretical pope. He rejects the idea that a general council is above the pope because the Roman Pontiff occupies the See that will be judged by no one: “Prima sedes a nemine judicabitur” (De Conciliis Liber Secundus, Caput XVII; Opera Omnia ed. Fèvre [1870] Vol. 2, 270). He argues that Pope Honorius I was not a heretic (De Summo Pontifice Liber IV, Caput XI Opera Omnia ed. Fèvre [1870] Vol. 2, 101–108). For there to be a heretical pope, the heresy would need to be so manifest that the pope could no longer be considered a Christian and thus a member of the Church. In De Summo Pontifice Liber II, Caput XXX Opera Omnia ed. Fèvre [1870] Vol. 1, 610–611, Bellarmine writes:

The fifth true opinion, therefore, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic per se ceases to be Pope and Head, since per se he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church; wherefore the Church is able to judge and punish him. This is the opinion of all the early Fathers … This opinion is based on the fact that a manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church: neither in spirit nor in body, neither by interior union nor by external union.

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, Papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse Papam et Caput, sicut per se desinit esse Christianus et membrum coporis Ecclesiae; quare ab Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum … Fundamentum hujus sententiae est, quonium haereticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, id est, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

Bellarmine here was bringing up a hypothetical question about a Pope falling into manifest heresy. He never says, though, that this hypothetical scenario ever happened or will ever happen. In fact, in the same controversy on the Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine refutes all the alleged examples of heretical popes. St. Robert also argues that it is pious and probable that the Roman Pontiff “can in no way be a heretic.” Some argue that this latter opinion of Bellarmine was affirmed implicitly at Vatican I when it taught the “See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error” and that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors” (Denz.-H, 3070-3071).

Popes, of course, can sin and make mistakes in their prudential judgments. According to the teaching of Vatican I, however, the successors of St. Peter have the “charism of truth and never-failing faith.” The prevenient grace of God prevents Popes from ever leading the Church into heresy. According to the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I, the Council affirmed the position of Bellarmine in De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chapter VI in which the Jesuit saint states:

It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith.

It is proved: 1) because the sweet disposition of the providence of God seems to require it. For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always 5 preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne. How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith? Certainly God can wrench the confession of the true faith out of the heart of a heretic just as he placed the words in the mouth of Balaam’s ass. Still, this will be a great violence, and not in keeping with the providence of God that sweetly disposes all things. 2) It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore this is a sign that it [i.e. a heretical pope] cannot happen. For more on this see Pighius.

See Bellarmine, Third General ControversyOn the Roman Pontiff, Book IV, chapter VI and Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, trans. Rev. James T. O’Connor (Ignatius Press, 2008), pages 58–59. Ultimately, Bellarmine and Suárez agree that God, in His divine providence, will prevent a pope from ever imposing heresy on the whole Church. As Bellarmine writes in De Summo Pontifice 4.2: “the Pope cannot in any way define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church” (non posse ullo modo definire aliquid haereticum a tota Ecclesia credendum).

In De Summo Pontifice 4.6, Bellarmine further states that “the Pontiff not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but also that he should always teach the truth, and without doubt, he will do that (sed etiam debet veritatem semper docere et sine dubio id faciet), since the Lord commanded him to strengthen his brethren, and therefore He added, ‘I have prayed for you that your faith many not fail,’ that is, that at least the teaching of the true faith on your throne will not fail.” Ultimately, Bellarmine believed that God will protect popes from either defining or teaching something that is heretical.

Who will judge the Roman Pontiff?

In his Letter to Emperor Michael of September 28, 865, Pope St. Nicholas I, when speaking of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, said: “neither by the emperor, nor by all the clergy nor by kings nor by the people will the judge be judged … The first See will not be judged by anyone” (Denz.-H. 638). The teaching that “the first See ( i.e. the Roman See of the Pope) will not be judged by anyone” was repeated in canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and canon 1404 of the 1983 Code in this way: “The First See is judged by no one” (Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur).

Vatican I in 1870 declared “that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisions” (Denz.-H, 3063). Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen gentium, taught that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The Pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power” (Lumen gentium, 22).

APPENDIX FOUR

The Letter of Pope Agatho to the Emperors March 27, 680, which, along with another letter of his, was read out in session 4 of Constantinople III and approved by the council fathers. The council fathers approved these two letters again in session 18 and sent them to the emperor with the words “Peter has spoken through Agatho” (see Introduction to Denz.- H. 542–545)

This letter of Pope Agatho is found in Migne, Pat. Lat., 87:1161 ff; In the highlighted section on p. 4 [in blue rather than bolding], Pope Agatho affirms that the Apostolic Church of Rome “has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error” and “has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition.” The acceptance of this letter by the bishops at Constantinople III shows that the condemnation of Pope Honorius I (in session 13) was one of negligence and not heresy or grave doctrinal error. [Dave: I have added many paragraph breaks and an indentation of a long quotation from St. Augustine]

***

Agatho a bishop and servant of the servants of God to the most devout and serene victors and conquerors, our most beloved sons and lovers of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine the Great, and to Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses.

While contemplating the various anxieties of human life, and while groaning with vehement weeping before the one true God, in prayer that he might impart to my wavering soul the comfort of his divine mercy, and might lift me by his right hand out of the depths of grief and anxiety, I most gratefully recognize, my most illustrious lords and sons, that your purpose [i.e. of holding a Council] afforded me deep and wonderful consolation. For it was most pious and emanated from your most meek tranquility, taught by the divine benignity for the benefit of the Christian commonwealth divinely entrusted to your keeping, that your imperial power and clemency might have a care to enquire diligently concerning the things of God (through whom Kings do reign, who is himself King of Kings and Lord of Lords) and might seek after the truth of his spotless faith as it has been handed down by the Apostles and by the Apostolic Fathers, and be zealously affected to command that in all the churches the pure tradition be held.

And that no one may be ignorant of this pious intention of yours, or suspect that we have been compelled by force, and have not freely consented to the carrying into effect of the imperial decrees touching the preaching of our evangelical faith which was addressed to our predecessor Donus, a pontiff of Apostolic memory, they have through our ministry been sent to and entirely approved by all nations and peoples; for these decrees the Holy Spirit by his grace dictated to the tongue of the imperial pen, out of the treasure of a pure heart, as the words of an adviser not of an oppressor, defending himself, not looking with contempt upon others; not afflicting, but exhorting; and inviting to those things which are of God in godly wise, because he, the Maker and Redeemer of all men, who had he come in the majesty of his Godhead into the world, might have terrified mortals, preferred to descend through his inestimable clemency and humility to the estate of us whom he had created and thus to redeem us, who also expects from us a willing confession of the true faith.

And this it is that the blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, teaches: “Feed the flock of Christ which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, exhorting it according to God.” Therefore, encouraged by these imperial decrees, O most meek lords of all things, and relieved from the depths of affliction and raised to the hope of consolation, I have begun, refreshed somewhat by a better confidence, to comply with promptness with the things which were sometime ago bidden by the Sacra of your gentlest fortitude, and am endeavouring in obedience therewith to find persons, such as our deficient times and the quality of this obedient province permit, and taking advice with my fellow-servant bishops, as well concerning the approaching synod of this Apostolic See, as concerning our own clergy, the lovers of the Christian Empire, and, afterwards concerning the religious servants of God, that I might exhort them to follow in haste the footsteps of your most pious Tranquility.

And, were it not that the great compass of the provinces, in which our humility’s council is situated had caused so great a loss of time, our servitude a while ago could have fulfilled with studious obedience what even now has scarcely been done. For while from the various provinces a council has been gathering about us, and while we have been able to select some persons of those from this very Roman city immediately subject to your most serene power, or from those near by, others again we have been obliged to wait for from far distant provinces, in which the word of Christian faith was preached by those sent by the predecessors of my littleness; and thus quite a space of time has elapsed: and I pass over my bodily pains in consequence of which life to a perpetually suffering person is neither possible nor pleasant.

Therefore, most Christian lords and sons, in accordance with the most pious jussio of your God-protected clemency, we have had a care to send, with the devotion of a prayerful heart (from the obedience we owe you, not because we relied on the [superabundant] knowledge of those whom we send to you), our fellow-servants here present, Abundantius, John, and John, our most reverend brother bishops, Theodore and George our most beloved sons and presbyters, with our most beloved son John, a deacon, and with Constantine, a subdeacon of this holy spiritual mother, the Apostolic See, as well as Theodore, the presbyter legate of the holy Church of Ravenna and the religious servants of God the monks.

For, among men placed amid the Gentiles, and earning their daily bread by bodily labour with considerable distraction, how could a knowledge of the Scriptures, in its fulness, be found unless what has been canonically defined by our holy and apostolic predecessors, and by the venerable five councils, we preserve in simplicity of heart, and without any distorting keep the faith come to us from the Fathers, always desirous and endeavouring to possess that one and chiefest good, viz.: that nothing be diminished from the things canonically defined, and that nothing be changed nor added thereto, but that those same things, both in words and sense, be guarded untouched?

To these same commissioners we also have given the witness of some of the holy Fathers, whom this Apostolic Church of Christ receives, together with their books, so that, having obtained from the power of your most benign Christianity the privilege of suggesting, they might out of these endeavour to give satisfaction, (when your imperial Meekness shall have so commanded) as to what this Apostolic Church of Christ, their spiritual mother and the mother of your God-sprung empire, believes and preaches, not in words of worldly eloquence, which are not at the command of ordinary men, but in the integrity of the apostolic faith, in which having been taught from the cradle, we pray that we may serve and obey the Lord of heaven, the Propagator of your Christian empire, even unto the end. Consequently, we have granted them faculty or authority with your most tranquil mightiness, to afford satisfaction with simplicity whenever your clemency shall command, it being enjoined on them as a limitation that they presume not to add to, take away, or to change anything; but that they set forth this tradition of the Apostolic See in all sincerity as it has been taught by the apostolic pontiffs, who were our predecessors.

For these delegates we most humbly implore with bent knees of the mind your clemency ever full of condescension, that agreeably to the most benign and most august promise of the imperial Sacra, your Christlike Tranquillity may deem them worthy of acceptance and may deign to give a favourable hearing to their most humble suggestions. Thus may your meekest Piety find the ears of Almighty God open to your prayers, and may you order that they return to their own unharmed in their rectitude of our Apostolic faith, as well as in the integrity of their bodies. And thus may the supernal Majesty restore to the benign rule of your government through the most heroic and unconquerable labours of your God-strengthened clemency, the whole Christian commonwealth, and may he subdue hostile nations to your mighty sceptre, that there may be satisfaction from this time forth to every soul and to all nations, because what you deigned to promise solemnly by your most august letters about the immunity and safety of those who came to the Council, you have fulfilled in all respects.

It is not their wisdom that gave us confidence to make bold to send them to your pious presence; but our littleness obediently complied with what your imperial benignity, with a gracious order, exhorted to. And briefly we shall intimate to your divinely instructed Piety, what the strength of our Apostolic faith contains, which we have received through Apostolic tradition and through the tradition of the Apostolical pontiffs, and that of the five holy general synods, through which the foundations of Christ’s Catholic Church have been strengthened and established; this then is the status [and the regular tradition] of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith, to wit, that as we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and substance or essence, so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory.

And whatever is said of the same Holy Trinity essentially in singular number we understand to refer to the one nature of the three consubstantial Persons, having been so taught by canonical logic. But when we make a confession concerning one of the same three Persons of that Holy Trinity, of the Son of God, or God the Word, and of the mystery of his adorable dispensation according to the flesh, we assert that all things are double in the one and the same our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Evangelical tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the divine and the human, of which and in which he, even after the wonderful and inseparable union, subsists. And we confess that each of his natures has its own natural propriety, and that the divine, has all things that are divine, without any sin. And we recognize that each one (of the two natures) of the one and the same incarnated, that is, humanated (humanati) Word of God is in him unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence alone discerning a unity, to avoid the error of confusion. For we equally detest the blasphemy of division and of commixture.

For when we confess two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we do not assert that they are contrary or opposed one to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the apostolic tradition of doing. Far be this impiety from the hearts of the faithful!), nor as though separated (per se separated) in two persons or subsistences, but we say that as the same our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures so also he has two natural wills and operations, to wit, the divine and the human: the divine will and operation he has in common with the coessential Father from all eternity: the human, he has received from us, taken with our nature in time. This is the apostolic and evangelic tradition, which the spiritual mother of your most felicitous empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, holds. This is the pure expression of piety.

This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles. This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquility in the Christian commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness. Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons, that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and exultation [in Greek exaltation]. And these things I (although unworthy and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquility is our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness.

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received? Who, then, my most clement and most pious lords and sons, (I speak trembling and prostrate in spirit) would not be stirred by that admirable promise, which is made to the faithful: “Whoever shall confess me before men, him also will I confess before my Father, who is in heaven”? And which one even of the infidels shall not be terrified by that most severe threat, in which he protests that he will be full of wrath, and declares that “Whoever shall deny me before men, him also will I deny before my Father, who is in heaven”? Whence also blessed Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, gives warning and says: “But though we, or an angel from the heaven should preach to you any other Gospel from what we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema.”

Since, therefore, such an extremity of punishment overhangs the corruptors, or suppressors of truth by silence, would not any one flee from an attempt at curtailing the truth of the Lord’s faith? Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitæ taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ. Those that confound the mystery of the holy Incarnation, inasmuch as they say that there is one nature of the deity and humanity of Christ, contend that he has one will, as of one, and (one) personal operation. But they who divide, on the other hand, the inseparable union, unite the two natures which they acknowledge that the Saviour possesses, not however in an union which is recognized to be hypostatic; but blasphemously join them by concord, through the affection of the will, like two subsistences, i.e., two somebodies.

Moreover, the Apostolic Church of Christ, the spiritual mother of your God-founded empire, confesses one Jesus Christ our Lord existing of and in two natures, and she maintains that his two natures, to wit, the divine and the human, exist in him unconfused even after their inseparable union, and she acknowledges that each of these natures of Christ is perfect in the proprieties of its nature, and she confesses that all things belonging to the proprieties of the natures are double, because the same our Lord Jesus Christ himself is both perfect God and perfect man, of two and in two natures: and after his wonderful Incarnation, his deity cannot be thought of without his humanity, nor his humanity without his deity. Consequently, therefore, according to the rule of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, she also confesses and preaches that there are in him two natural wills and two natural operations. For if anybody should mean a personal will, when in the holy Trinity there are said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there should be asserted three personal wills, and three personal operations (which is absurd and truly profane).

Since, as the truth of the Christian faith holds, the will is natural, where the one nature of the holy and inseparable Trinity is spoken of, it must be consistently understood that there is one natural will, and one natural operation. But when in truth we confess that in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ the mediator between God and men, there are two natures (that is to say the divine and the human), even after his admirable union, just as we canonically confess the two natures of one and the same person, so too we confess his two natural wills and two natural operations. But that the understanding of this truthful confession may become clear to your Piety’s mind from the God-inspired doctrine of the Old and the New Testament, (for your Clemency is incomparably more able to penetrate the meaning of the sacred Scriptures, than our littleness to set it forth in flowing words), our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who is true and perfect God, and true and perfect man, in his holy Gospels shews forth in some instances human things, in others, divine, and still in others both together, making a manifestation concerning himself in order that he might instruct his faithful to believe and preach that he is both true God and true man.

Thus as man he prays to the Father to take away the cup of suffering, because in him our human nature was complete, sin only excepted, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” And in another passage: “Not my will, but thine be done.” If we wish to know the meaning of which testimony as explained by the holy and approved Fathers, and truly to understand what “my will,” what “thine” signify, the blessed Ambrose in his second book to the Emperor Gratian, of blessed memory, teaches us the meaning of this passage in these words, saying: “He then, receives my will, he takes my sorrow, I confidently call it sorrow as I am speaking of the cross, mine is the will, which he calls his, because he bears my sorrow as man, he spoke as a man, and therefore he says: Not as I will but as thou wilt.” Mine is the sadness which he has received according to my affection. See, most pious of princes, how clearly here this holy Father sets forth that the words our Lord used in his prayer, “Not my will,” pertain to his humanity; through which also he is said, according to the teaching of Blessed Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, to have “become obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.”

Wherefore also it is taught us that he was obedient to his parents, which must piously be understood to refer to his voluntary obedience, not according to his divinity (by which he governs all things), but according to his humanity, by which he spontaneously submitted himself to his parents. St. Luke the Evangelist likewise bears witness to the same thing, telling how the same our Lord Jesus Christ prayed according to his humanity to his Father, and said, “Father, if it be possible let the cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will but thine be done,” — which passage Athanasius, the Confessor of Christ, and Archbishop of the Church of Alexandria, in his book against Apollinaris the heretic, concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, also understanding the wills to be two, thus explains: And when he says, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will but thine be done,” and again, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak;” he shews that there are two wills, the one human which is the will of the flesh, but the other divine.

For his human will, out of the weakness of the flesh was fleeing away from the passion, but his divine will was ready for it. What truer explanation could be found? For how is it possible not to acknowledge in him two wills, to wit, a human and a divine, when in him, even after the inseparable union, there are two natures according to the definitions of the synods? For John also, who leaned upon the Lord’s breast, his beloved disciple, shews forth the same self-restraint in these words: “I came down from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of the Father that sent me.” And again: “This is the will of him that sent me, that of all that he gave me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Again he introduces the Lord as disputing with the Jews, and saying among other things: “I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” On the meaning of which divine words blessed Augustine, a most illustrious doctor, thus writes in his book against Maximinus the Arian. He says,

When the Son says to the Father ‘Not what I will, but what thou wilt,’ what doth it profit thee, that thou broughtest thy words into subjection and sayest, It shews truly that his will was subject to his Father, as though we would deny that the will of man should be subject to the will of God? For that the Lord said this in his human nature, anyone will quickly see who studies attentively this place of the Gospel. For therein he says, ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.’ Can this possibly be said of the nature of the One Word? But, O man, who thinkest to make the nature of the Holy Ghost to groan, why do you say that the nature of the Only-begotten Word of God cannot be sad? But to prevent anyone arguing in this way, he does not say ‘I am sad’ (and even if he had so said, it could properly only have been understood of his human nature) but he says ‘My soul is sad,’ which soul he has as man; however in this also which he said, ‘Not what I will’ he shewed that he willed something different from what the Father did, which he could not have done except in his human nature, since he did not introduce our infirmity into his divine nature, but would transfigure human affection. For had he not been made man, the Only Word could in no way have said to the Father, ‘Not what I will.’ For it could never be possible for that immutable nature to will anything different from what the Father willed. If you would but make this distinction, O ye Arians, ye would not be heretics.’

In this disputation this venerable Father shews that when the Lord says “his own” he means the will of his humanity, and when he says not to do “his own will,” he teaches us not chiefly to seek our own wills but that through obedience we should submit our wills to the Divine Will. From all which it is evident that he had a human will by which he obeyed his Father, and that he had in himself this same human will immaculate from all sin, as true God and man. Which thing St. Ambrose also thus treats of in his explanation of St. Luke the Evangelist. [After this follows a catena of Patristic quotations which I have not thought worth while to produce in full. After St. Ambrose he cites St. Leo, then St. Gregory Nazianzen, then St. Augustine. (L. & C., col. 647.)] From which testimonies it is clear that each of those natures which the spiritual Doctor has here enumerated has its own natural property, and that to each one a will ought to be assigned. For an angelic nature cannot have a divine or a human will, neither can a human nature have a divine or an angelic will. For no nature can have anything or any motion which pertains to another nature but only that which is naturally given by creation.

And as this is the truth of the matter it is most certainly clear that we must needs confess that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are two natures and substances, to wit, the Divine and human, united in his one subsistence or person, and that we further confess that there are in him two natural wills, viz.: the divine and the human, for his divinity so far as its nature is concerned could not be said to possess a human will, nor should his humanity be believed to have naturally a divine will: And again, neither of these two substances of Christ must be confessed as being without a natural will; but his human will was lifted up by the omnipotency of his divinity, and his divine will was revealed to men through his humanity. Therefore it is necessary to refer to him as God such things as are divine, and as man such things as are human; and each must be truly recognized through the hypostatic union of the one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, which the most true decree of the Council of Chalcedon sets forth — [Here follows citation.]

This same thing also the holy synod which was gathered together in Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Justinian of august memory, teaches in the seventh chapter of its definitions. [Here follows the citation.] Moreover it is necessary that we should faithfully keep what those Venerable Synods taught, so that we never take away the difference of natures as a result of the union, but confess one Christ, true and perfect God and also true and perfect man, the propriety of each nature being kept intact. Wherefore, if in no respect the difference of the natures of our Lord Jesus Christ has been taken away, it is necessary that we preserve this same difference in all its proprieties. For whoso teaches that the difference is in no respect to be taken away, declares that it must be preserved in all things. But when the heretics and the followers of heretics say that there is but one will and one operation, how is this difference recognized? Or where is the difference which has been defined by this holy Synod preserved? While if it is asserted that there is but one will in him (which is absurd), those who make this assertion must needs say that that will is either human or divine, or else composite from both, mixed and confused, or (according to the teaching of all heretics) that Christ has one will and one operation, proceeding from his one composite nature (as they hold).

And thus, without any doubt, the difference of nature is destroyed, which the holy synods declared to be preserved in all respects even after the admirable union. Because, though they taught that Christ was one, his person and substance one, yet on account of the union of the natures which was made hypostatically, they likewise decreed that we should clearly acknowledge and teach the difference of those natures which were united in him, after the admirable union. Therefore if the proprieties of the natures in the same our one Lord Jesus Christ were preserved on account of the difference [of the natures], it is congruous that we should with full faith confess also the difference of his natural wills and operations, in order that we may be shown to have followed in all respects their doctrine, and may admit into the Church of Christ no heretical novelty. And although there exist numerous works of the other holy Fathers, nevertheless we subjoin to this our humble exposition a few testimonies out of the books which are in Greek, for the sake of fastidiousness. [Here follows a catena of passages from the Greek fathers, viz.: St. Gregory Theologus, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. John bishop of Constantinople, St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. (L. & C., col. 654.)]

From these truthful testimonies it is also demonstrated that these venerable fathers predicated in the one and the same Lord Jesus Christ two natural wills, viz.: a divine and a human, for when St. Gregory Nazianzen says, “The willing of that man who is understood to be the Saviour,” he shows that the human will of the Saviour was deified through its union with the Word, and therefore it is not contrary to God. So likewise he proves that he had a human, although deified will, and this same he had (as he teaches in what follows) as well as his divine will, which was one and the same with that of the Father. If therefore he had a divine and a deified will, he had also two wills. For what is divine by nature has no need of being deified; and what is deified is not truly divine by nature. And when St. Gregory Nyssen, a great bishop, says that the true confession of the mystery is, that there should be understood one human will and another a divine will in Christ, what does he bid us understand when he says one and another will, except that there are manifestly two wills? [He next proceeds to comment upon the passage cited from St. John, then upon that from St. Cyril of Alexandria. After this follow quotations from St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Denys the Areopagite, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, which are next commented on in their order. He then proceeds: (L. & C., col. 662.)]

There are not lacking most telling passages in other of the venerable fathers, who speak clearly of the two natural operations in Christ, not to mention St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Constantinople, or those who afterwards conducted the laborious conflicts in defence of the venerable council of Chalcedon and of the Tome of St. Leo against the heretics from whose error the assertion of this new dogma has arisen: that is to say, John, bishop of Scythopolis, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, Euphræmius and Anastasius the elder, most worthy rulers of the church of Theopolis, and above all that emulator of the true and apostolic faith, the Emperor Justinian of pious memory, whose uprightness of faith exalted the Christian State as much as his sincere confession pleased God. And his pious memory is esteemed worthy of veneration by all nations, whose uprightness of faith was disseminated with praise throughout the whole world by his most august edicts: one of these, to wit, that addressed to Zoilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, against the heresy of the Acephali to satisfy them of the rectitude of the apostolic faith, we offer to your most tranquil Christianity, sending it together with this paper of our lowliness through the same carriers.

But lest this declaration should be thought burdensome on account of its length, we have inserted in this declaration of our humility only a few of the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, especially [when writing to those] on whom the care and arrangement of the whole world as on a firm foundation are recognized to rest; since this is altogether incomparable and great, that the care of the whole Christian State being laid aside for a little out of love and zeal for true religion, your august and most religious clemency should desire to understand more clearly the doctrine of apostolical preaching. For from the different approved fathers the truth of the Orthodox faith has become clear although the treatment is short. For the approved fathers thought it to be superfluous to discourse at length upon what was evident and clear to all; for who, even if he be dull of wit, does not perceive what is evident to all?

For it is impossible and contrary to the order of nature that there should be a nature without a natural operation: and even the heretics did not dare to say this, although they were, all of them, hunting for human craftiness and cunning questions against the orthodoxy of the faith, and arguments agreeable to their depravities. How then can that now be asserted which never was said by the holy orthodox fathers, nor even was presumptuously invented by the profane heretics, viz.: that of the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, the proprieties of each of which are recognized as being preserved in Christ, that anyone in sound mind should declare there was but one operation? Since if there is one, let them say whether it be temporal or eternal, divine or human, uncreated or created: the same as that of the Father or different from that of the Father. If therefore it is one, that one and the same must be common to the divinity and to the humanity (which is absurd), therefore while the Son of God, who is both God and man, wrought human things on earth, likewise also the Father worked with him according to his nature (naturaliter, phusikos); for what things the Father doeth these the Son also doeth likewise.

But if (as is the truth) the human acts which Christ did are to be referred to his person alone as the Son, which is not the same as that of the Father; in one nature Christ worked one set of works, and in the other another, so that according to his divinity the Son does the same things that the Father does; and likewise according to his humanity, what things are proper to the manhood, those same, he as man, did because he is truly both God and man. For which reason we rightly believe that that same person, since he is one, has two natural operations, to wit, the divine and the human, one uncreated, and the other created, as true and perfect God and as true and perfect man, the one and the same, the mediator between God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore from the quality of the operations there is recognized a difference void of offence (aproskopos) of the natures which are joined in Christ through the hypostatic union.

We now proceed to cite some passages from the execrable writings of the heretics hated of God, whose words and sayings we equally abominate, for the demonstration of those things which our inventors of new dogma have followed teaching that in Christ there is but one will and one operation.  [Then follow quotations from Apollinaris, Severus, Theodosius of Alexandria. (L. & C., col. 667.)] Behold, most pious lords and sons, by the testimonies of the holy Fathers, as by spiritual rays, the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church has been illustrated and the darkness of heretical blindness, which is offering error to men for imitation, has been revealed. Now it is necessary that the new doctrine should follow somebody, and by whose authority it is supported, we shall note. [Here follow quotations from Cyrus of Alexandria, Theodore of Pharon, Sergius of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, Paulus his successor, Peter his successor. (L. & C., col.670.)]

Let then your God-founded clemency with the internal eye of discrimination, which for the guidance of the Christian people you have been deemed worthy to receive by the Grace of God, take heed which one of such doctors you think the Christian people should follow, the doctrine of which one of these they should embrace so as to be saved; for they condemn all, and each one of them the other, according as the various and unstable definitions in their writings assert sometimes that there is one will and one operation, sometimes that there is neither one nor two operations, sometimes one will and operation, and again two wills and two operations, likewise one will and one operation, and again neither one, nor two, and somebody else one and two. Who does not hate, and rage against, and avoid such blind errors, if he have any desire to be saved and seek to offer to the Lord at his coming a right faith?

Therefore the Holy Church of God, the mother of your most Christian power, should be delivered and liberated with all your might (through the help of God) from the errors of such teachers, and the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [that faith I say] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the Apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls. And these things we have taken pains to insert in the tractate of our humility, for we have been afflicted and have groaned without ceasing that such grievous errors should be entertained by bishops of the Church, who are zealous to establish their own peculiar views rather than the truth of the faith, and think that our sincere fraternal admonition has its spring in a contempt for them.

And indeed the apostolic predecessors of my humility admonished, begged, upbraided, besought, reproved, and exercised every kind of exhortation that the recent wound might receive a remedy, moved thereto not by a mind filled with hatred (God is my witness) nor through the elation of boasting, nor through the opposition of contention, nor through an inane desire to find some fault with their teachings, nor through anything akin to the love of arrogance, but out of zeal for the uprightness of the truth, and for the rule of the confession of the pure Gospel, and for the salvation of souls, and for the stability of the Christian state, and for the safety of those who rule the Roman Empire.

Nor did they cease from their admonitions after the long duration of this domesticated error, but always exhorted and bore record, and that with fraternal charity, not through malice or pertinacious hatred (far be it from the Christian heart to rejoice at another’s fall, when the Lord of all teaches, “I desire not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and  live” and who rejoiceth over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety-and-nine just persons: who came down from heaven to earth to deliver the lost sheep, inclining the power of his majesty), but desiring them with outstretched spiritual arms, and exhorting to embrace them returning to the unity of the orthodox faith, and awaiting their conversion to the full rectitude of the orthodox faith: that they might not make themselves aliens from our communion, that is from the communion of blessed Peter the Apostle, whose ministry, we (though unworthy) exercise, and preach the faith he has handed down, but that they should together with us pray Christ the Lord, the spotless sacrifice, for the stability of your most strong and serene Empire.

We believe, most pious lords [singular in the Latin] of all things, that there has been left no possible ambiguity which can prevent the recognizing of those who have followed the inventors of new dogma. For the sweetness of spiritual understanding with which the sayings of the Fathers are full has become evident to the eyes of all; and the stench of the heretics, to be avoided by all the faithful, has been made notorious. Nor has it remained unknown that the inventors of new dogma have been shewn to be the followers of heretics, and not the walkers in the footsteps of the holy Fathers: therefore whoever wishes to colour any error of his whatever, is condemned by the light of truth, as the Apostle of the Gentiles says, “For everything that doth make manifest is light,” for the truth ever remains constant and the same, but falsehood is ever varying, and in its wanderings adopting things mutually contradictory. On this account the inventors of the new dogma have been shewn to have taught things mutually contradictory, because they were not willing to be followers of the Evangelical and Apostolic faith.

Wherefore since the truth has shone forth by the observations of your God-inspired piety, and falsity which has been exposed has attained the contempt which it deserved, it remains that the crowned truth may shine forth victoriously through the pious favours of your God-crowned clemency; and that the error of novelty with its inventors and with those who follow their doctrine, may receive the punishment due their presumption, and be cast forth from the midst of the orthodox prelates for the heretical pravity of their innovation, which into the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ they have endeavoured to introduce, and to stain with the contagion of heretical pravity the indivisible and unspotted body of the Church [of Christ]. For it is not just that the injurious should injure the innocent, nor that the offences of some should be visited upon the inoffensive, for even if in this world to the condemned mercy is extended, yet they who are thus spared reap for that sparing no benefit in the judgment of God, and by those thus sparing them there is incurred no little danger for their unlawful compassion.

But we believe that Almighty God has reserved for the happy days of your gentleness the amending of these things, that filling on earth the place and zeal of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who has vouchsafed to crown your rule, ye may judge just judgment for his Evangelical and Apostolical truth: for although he be the Redeemer and Saviour of the human race yet he suffered injury, and bore it even until now, and inspired the empire of your fortitude, so that you should be worthy to follow the cause of his faith (as equity demanded, and as the determination of the Holy Fathers and of the Five General Synods decreed), and that you should avenge, through his guardianship, on the spurners of his faith, the injury done your Redeemer and Colleague in reigning, thus fulfilling magnanimously with imperial clemency that prophetic utterance with which David the King and Prophet, spake to God, saying, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” Wherefore having been extolled for so God-pleasing a zeal, he was deemed fit to hear that blessed word spoken by the Creator of all men, “I have found David, a man after my heart, who will do all my will.”

And to him also it was promised in the Psalms, “I have found David, my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him: My hand shall aid him and my arm shall comfort him,” so that the most pious majesty of your Christian clemency may work to further the cause of Christ with burning zeal for the sake of remuneration, and may he make all the acts of your most powerful empire both happy and prosperous, who hath stored up his promise in the Holy Gospels, saying, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you.” For all, to whom has come the knowledge of the sacred heads, have been offering innumerable thanksgivings and unceasing praises to the defender of your most powerful dominion, being filled with admiration for the greatness of your clemency, in that you have so benignly set forth the kind intention of your august magnanimity; for in truth, as most pious and most just princes, you have deigned to treat divine things with the fear of God, having promised every immunity to those persons sent to you from our littleness. And we are confident that what your pious clemency has promised, you are powerful to carry out, in order that what has been vowed and promised to God by the religious philanthropy beyond your Christian power, may nevertheless be fulfilled by the aid of his omnipotency.

Wherefore let praise by all Christian nations, and eternal memory, and frequent prayer be poured forth before the Lord Christ, whose is the cause, for your safety, and your triumphs, and your complete victory, that the nations of the Gentiles, being impressed by the terror of the supernal majesty, may lay down most humbly their necks beneath the sceptre of your most powerful rule, that the power of your most pious kingdom may continue until the ceaseless joy of the eternal kingdom succeeds to this temporal reign. Nor could anything be found more likely to commend the clemency of your unconquerable fortitude to the divine majesty, than that those who err from the rule of truth should be repelled and the integrity of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith should be everywhere set forth and preached.

Moreover, most pious and God-instructed sons and lords, if the Archbishop of the Church of Constantinople shall choose to hold and to preach with us this most unblameable rule of Apostolic doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, of the venerable synods, of the spiritual Fathers, according to their evangelical understanding, through which the form of the truth has been set forth by us through the assistance of the Spirit, there will ensue great peace to them that love the name of God, and there will remain no scandal of dissension, and that will come to pass which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, when through the grace of the Holy Spirit the people had come to the acknowledging of Christianity, all of us will be of one heart and of one mind.

But if (which God forbid!) he shall prefer to embrace the novelty but lately introduced by others; and shall ensnare himself with doctrines which are alien to the rule of orthodox truth and of our Apostolic faith, to decline which as injurious to souls these have put off, despite the exhortation and admonitions of our predecessors in the Apostolic See, down to this day, he himself should know what kind of an answer he will have to give for such contempt in the divine examination of Christ before the judge of all, who is in heaven, to whom when he cometh to judgment also we ourselves are about to give an account of the ministry of preaching the truth which has been committed to us, or for the toleration of things contrary to the Christian religion: and may we (as I humbly pray) preserve unconfusedly and freely, with simplicity and purity, whole and undefiled, the Apostolic and Evangelical rule of the right faith as we have received it from the beginning.

And may your most august serenity, for the affection and reverence which you bear to the Catholic and Apostolic right faith, receive the perfect reward of your pious labours from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the ruler with you of your Christian empire, whose true confession you desire to preserve undefiled, because nothing in any respect has been neglected or omitted by your God-crowned clemency, which could minister to the peace of the churches, provided always that the integrity of the true faith was maintained: since God, the Judge of all, who disposes the ending of all matters as he deems most expedient, seeks out the intent of the heart, and will accept a zeal for piety.

Therefore I exhort you, O most pious and clement Emperor, and together with my littleness every Christian man exhorts you on bended knee with all humility, that to all the God-pleasing goodnesses and admirable imperial benefits which the heavenly condescension has vouchsafed to grant to the human race through your God-accepted care, this also you would order, for the redintegration of perfect piety, to offer an acceptable sacrifice to Christ the Lord your fellow-ruler, granting entire impunity, and free faculty of speech to each one wishing to speak, and to urge a word in defence of the faith which he believes and holds, so that it may most manifestly be recognized by all that by no terror, by no force, by no threat or aversion any one wishing to speak for the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, has been prohibited or repulsed, and that all unanimously may glorify your imperial (divinam) majesty, throughout the whole space of their lives for so great and so inestimable a good, and may pour forth unceasing prayers to Christ the Lord that your most strong empire may be preserved untouched and exalted. The Subscription. May the grace from above keep your empire, most pious lords, and place beneath its feet the neck of all the nations.

Footnotes:

[327] Only in the Latin.

[328] Meo affectu: kat’ emen diathesin.

[329] Propter fastidium; what this may mean I have no idea; the Greek is still more extraordinary: rhathumias (vel. baruthumias) charin.

[330] The meaning of this passage is clear enough but the text is slightly corrupt.

[331] I.e., the imperial edicts.

***

NOTE Michael Lofton devoted a 28-minute show on his webcast, Reason & Theology, to this article (dated 3-11-24).

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: contemporary painting of the First Vatican Council (1870) [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Dogmatic theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi explains and defends the doctrine of papal indefectibility (not infallibility), as taught in Pastor Aeternus (First Vatican Council).

September 27, 2021

It Was Also Answered (with the Same Answers) by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2019

This is one of the standard objections that Francis-critics have against Pope Francis: “why hasn’t he answered the dubia?” I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that. The dubia are five questions asked of Pope Francis, by Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, and recently deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra: dated 9 September 2016.

My friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, has argued that Pope Francis already in effect answered them in Amoris Laetitia itself:

Responding to the Five Dubia from Amoris Laetitia Itself (Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Vatican Insider / La Stampa, 3-9-18)

Dr. Fastiggi, commenting on my blog, has suggested a second way that Pope Francis has replied:

In the 2020 book, Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, Pope Francis offers some reflections in conversation with Austen Ivereigh. On pages 87-89 of this book, Pope Francis explains the reasoning behind the approach he took in chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. He says this approach was suggested by Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna, and it is based on “the true moral doctrine of the authentic scholastic tradition of Saint Thomas.” Pope Francis explains: “There was no need to change Church law, only how it was applied” (p. 88). “Because of the immense variety of situations and circumstances people find themselves in,” the Synod agreed “on the need for a case-by-case discernment” (ibid.) Pope Francis makes it clear that the approach taken by the Synod and Amoris Laetitia does not involve any change in “law or doctrine.” Instead, it enables pastors “to walk with people who are living together or divorced, to help them see where God’s grace is operating in their lives, and to help them embrace the fullness of Church teaching” (ibid.).

Pope Francis explicitly states that Amoris Laetitia introduces no change in Church law or doctrine. This is a sufficient response to the dubia. Pope Francis does, though, highlight the need for pastors to discern whether people in irregular situations have sufficient knowledge and full culpability and to what extent they can receive the assistance of the sacraments in accordance with footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia. These pages in Let Us Dream help us understand that chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia involves no change in Catholic law or doctrine. Pope Francis simply highlights the need for pastors to deal with difficult cases on a case-by-case basis with proper pastoral discernment. This type of discernment is nothing new. Any good priest will tell you that he applies this type of discernment on a regular basis, especially in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Moreover, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also answered the dubia in his essay, “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse.” (10 April 2019). And he answered in the same way that Pope Francis did (namely, no, yes, yes, yes, and yes). This is explained in the article, “The Dubia Were Answered,” by Elizabeth A. Mitchell (The Catholic Thing, 5-11-19).

Any other questions, Your Eminence Cardinal Burke and Your Eminence Cardinal Brandmüller (or the legions of folks still wondering about this along with you)? Is there any part of “no” and “yes” that you don’t understand in this instance? I’m not trying to be “cute” or disrespectful; it’s a direct question, just as your dubia were. You wrote in your “Explanatory Note” for the dubia the following:

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “Yes” or “No” answer, without theological argumentation.

Very well, then, those yes and no answers have indeed been given: by this pope (twice) and (with full agreement) by the previous one (though not writing as pope). The answers are:

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) Yes

***

Related Reading

Taylor Marshall Lies About Pope Francis & Divorce [6-8-19]

Pope Francis: Indissoluble Marriage & No Divorce (+ Analysis of Ed Feser’s “Doctrinally Problematic” Criticisms) [6-1-21]

Ed Feser, Pope Francis, Divorce, “Ambiguity”, & Implosion [6-3-21]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #4: Communion / Buenos Aires Letter [1-3-18]

Pope Francis: Pro-Marriage & Contra “Marital Skepticism” [1-29-18]

Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis Shatters Reformers’ Dreams with ‘Modern Family’ Document (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, 4-8-16)

Interpreting Amoris Laetitia ‘through the lens of Catholic tradition’ (Andrea Gagliarducci, Catholic News Agency, 4-8-16)

First Thoughts on “Amoris Laetitia” (Bishop Robert Barron, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

 “True Innovations but Not Ruptures”: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Presents “Amoris Laetitia” (Diane Montagna, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage (Bill Donohue, Newsmax, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis’s revolution has been cancelled (Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis on love in the family (Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 4-14-16)

Pope Francis is a social conservative (Tim Stanley, The Telegraph, 4-18-16)

Amoris Laetitia and the Progressive Pope Myth (Anthony S. Layne, Catholic Stand, 4-23-16)

Cardinal Müller: Magisterium on Remarried Divorcees Unchanged by Amoris Laetitia [cites precedent in both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI] (Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, 5-4-16)

Cardinal Müller: Amoris Laetitia is in line with previous teaching on Communion (Catholic Herald, 5-4-16)

Pope okays Argentine doc on Communion for divorced and remarried (Inés San Martín, Crux, 9-12-16)

What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)

Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)

Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis follows John Paul II’s teaching on communion (Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)

Amoris Laetitia – An Apologia for its Orthodoxy (Scott Smith, Reduced Culpability, 1-19-17)

Vatican’s Muller: No Communion For Divorced, Remarried — Not Even a Pope Can Change This (Michael W. Chapman, CNS News, 2-1-17)

Cardinal Müller, German bishops clash on interpretation of Amoris Laetitia (Catholic World News, 2-1-17)

Cardinal Müller: Communion for the remarried is against God’s law (Catholic Herald, 2-1-17)

Does Amoris Laetitia 303 Really Undermine Catholic Moral Teaching? (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 9-26-17)

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics (hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 10-3-17)

Defending Pope Francis (Amoris Laetitia) [+ Part Two] (Tim Staples, unknown date)

Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein,  La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 10-4-17)

Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Brugger Regarding Amoris Laetitia (hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 10-12-17)

Pastoral Charity is the Key to Pope Francis’s Endorsement of the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Document (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

***

Photo credit: Pope Francis & Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, April 2019 (New York Times / Vatican Media)

***

Summary: The question is always asked: “why hasn’t Pope Francis answered the dubia?” These are five questions asked by four Cardinals (requiring only a yes or no answer). The pope has answered twice, so has the previous pope.

***

March 11, 2021

Fr. Z, a radical Catholic reactionary, who appears to take the position (among many other strange and scandalous things) — or at the very least has seriously considered the notion — that Pope Benedict is still the pope, mentioned my friend, Catholic theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, in a recent post (3-8-21).  I’ll cite Dr. Fastiggi’s words below in regular black font color and Fr. Z’s words in blue henceforth:

*****

It’s interesting that defenders of “tradition” like Fr. Zuhlsdorf and others don’t realize that they are departing from some very traditional sources by endorsing a book that claims that Pope Francis (and therefore other popes) can teach heresy. In Book 4, chapter 3 of De Summo Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine states that “without doubt” (sine dubio) the privilege has been handed down to Peter’s successors, which insures that “in his chair there would never be found someone who would teach contrary to the true faith” (in sede ejus numquam inveniretur qui doceret contra verum Fidem).

Bellarmine’s position was endorsed by Vatican I in chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus, which states:

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose a new doctrine by his revelation, but rather that, with his assistance, they might reverently guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles.. Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced, FULLY REALIZING THAT THE SEE OF PETER REMAINS ALWAYS UNTAINED BY ANY ERROR, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of the disciples: “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).” Now THIS CHARISM OF TRUTH AND NEVER-FAILING FAITH was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they may perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell. (Denz.-H, 3070-3071; emphasis mine).

The question that Fr. Zuhlsdorf needs to answer is this: how does he reconcile endorsing a book that claims a pope can teach heresy with the clear teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I? Does he believe that Peter and his successors were given the “charism of truth and never-failing faith” or not? If not, then he’s claiming that Vatican I taught error, and he’s in deep theological trouble. (3-6-21)

***

Commenting on that site in the combox is also Robert Fastiggi, a pretty smart guy who teaches at Sacred Heart in Detroit.

Fastiggi says a) I embrace “tradition” (why he added scare quotes, I’m not quite sure) but b) I did an un-trad thing by “departing from some very traditional sources by endorsing a book that claims that Pope Francis (and therefore other popes) can teach heresy.”

very traditional sources as opposed to … what?… merely traditional?

Anyway, Fastiggi brings up a position St. Robert Bellarmine takes in De Summo Pontifice about Popes which was endorsed by Vatican I.   Prof Fastiggi wonders how I can “reconcile endorsing a book that claims a pope can teach heresy [mentioned at the top, etc.] with the clear teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I?”

Did I?  No, on both counts.

Firstly, I didn’t “endorse” the book in the sense Prof Fastiggi intended to convey: eagerness, etc. , as in “Wow, what a great book, surely it’s right.”  I wrote about it because it is useful.  Someone who is really into the question will find this a useful book.  Frankly, I think the fact that books like this are coming out at all is pretty darn sad.   But this is the deck we’ve been dealt.  These are our times.  Maranatha.

Second, Prof Fastiggi seems to have confused, conflated Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility with the notion that a Pope can never get anything wrong about faith or morals, or anything else, either in private thoughts or public statements, a kind of ultramontanism on piety steroids.

Vatican I didn’t say that Popes can’t err at all.  Popes can be wrong, about a lot of things.  They can even say in public things that are wrong about faith and morals.  While St. Robert Bellarmine personally believed that a Pope cannot publicly teach heresy (he was in the minority on this point), he also admitted that his opinion was not certain.  On the other hand, Bellarmine did hold as certain that a Pope cannot define a heretical teaching that the faithful are bound to believe.   That is what the Church teaches.  That is what Vatican I endorsed.  Vatican I didn’t endorse Bellarmine’s (minority) belief that a Pope can’t ever be wrong. Vatican I endorsed Bellarmine’s correct position that Popes cannot err when they define doctrine that must be accepted on faith and morals.

There is a good post with quotes from Bellarmine on this at Eric Giunta’s Laboravi Sustinens.   That would be a good starting place to untangle what Bellarmine thought.  Ironically, the post is entitled “Where Peter Isn’t”. (3-8-21)

***

I read what Fr. Z said in reply to my citations of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I. He ignores the passages of Bellarmine that I quote as well as the passages of Vatican I that I highlight. Then he cites a post by the lawyer Eric Giunta who has stated he believes Pope Francis is a heretic. He also calls me an “Ultramontanist” which seems to be a name some traditional-minded Catholics use when someone manifests the proper reverence and obedience to the Roman Pontiff according to Vatican I and Vatican II. I don’t believe either Fr. Z or Eric Giunta have come to grips with what Bellarmine says in book IV of De Summo Pontifice or what Vatican I actually teaches about the divine protection of the Roman Pontiff from error. (3-9-21)

***

Fr. Z has called me an “utltramontanist.” I’m not sure what he means by this term. I am simply trying to understand papal authority according to ecumenical councils such as Florence, Vatican I, and Vatican II. I’ve ordered the “Compendium” that Fr. Z mentions. If time permits, I’ll write a review of the book, . . . (3-9-21)

***

Fr. Z wishes to appeal to his followers and put his own spin and commentary on what he selectively provides. We wish no ill towards him, and we pray for him. (3-10-21)

***

Whether or not Fr. Z is endorsing the book in question or merely encouraging its usefulness can be debated. The book edited by John Lamont and Claudio Pierantoni, though, promotes the thesis that Pope Francis is guilty of heresy, which assumes that Popes can formally teach heresy. If Fr. Z believes that Popes cannot teach formal heresy, let him make that clear. If he believes that Popes can teach formal heresy, let him make that clear.

As can be seen, my comments on Where Peter Is were on the question whether Popes can teach heresy. I wasn’t dealing with the question whether Popes can never err. Fr. Z, though, brings up this issue as if that was my point. The quotes I supplied by Bellarmine and Vatican I provide evidence that the Popes will never formally teach heresy. Vatican I’s affirmation of the charism of truth and never-failing faith conferred upon Peter and his successors is incompatible with the belief that Popes can teach formal heresy. That was my point, but Fr. Z chose to obscure the issue. Moreover, Vatican I does not teach that Popes are only immune from the possibility of heresy when they are defining a doctrine ex cathedra. The article by Eric Giunta (that Fr. Z links) fails to take this point into consideration. These are topics, though, that would require a long article to explain.

This pamphlet by Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi brings out the general points that I hold (even though there are a few points in the pamphlet that need qualification).

This article by Emmett O’Regan might be helpful.

These articles by Ronald Conte, Jr are likewise helpful.

I’ve ordered the book edited by John Lamont and Claudio Pierantoni with a foreword by Archbishop Viganò. When time permits, I’ll read through it and offer a critique.

Let’s continue to pray trusting in the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Roman Pontiff from heresy. (3-10-21)

***

Photo credit: anonymous portrait of St. Robert Bellarmine (1623) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Dr. Robert Fastiggi (under criticism from Fr. Z) explains his view on papal indefectibility (i.e., the view that popes cannot fall into heresy: dogmatically promulgated by Vatican I in 1870).

***

February 1, 2021

This came about when radical Catholic reactionary Steven O’Reilly (who thinks the pope is a heretic) made a reply to me, in an effort to press me to comment further on Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ encyclical from 3-19-16. Previously, yucking it up with fellow pope-basher and advocate of ecclesial defectibility Steve Skojec (who opined that I was “intentionally stupid”) on Twitter, O’Reilly had referred to me  as a purveyor of “crazy labels” and “in denial” and an “apologist” only in quotation marks (that is, not at all) and (my favorite) a member of the club of “Francis toadies”. Can I be a “Jesus toady” too? Sounds about right to me!

Merriam-Webster online defines “toady” as “one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors.” The synonym provided is “sycophant”: defined as “a servile self-seeking flatterer.” The obvious problem with this is that I have gotten back only misery and no end of problems, by defending Pope Francis (in everyday terms, I have “caught hell”), because the fashionable and chic myth and fairy tale today is this false notion that he is a flaming liberal, subversive against the Church, enemy of Catholic moral and theological tradition, and indeed, a heretic.

So by opposing all these lies (and they assuredly, undoubtedly are lies, and I can back my assertions up), I somehow gain “favors” or have any remote “hope” of gaining same? My advocacy of what is the plain dogmatic teaching of Vatican I — not II — (that the pope can never even fall into heresy, let alone promulgate it) has certainly harmed my apostolate, in terms of followers, contributors, online visibility, etc. I clearly gain nothing by this. I’ve paid a big price. But that’s fine with me. I’m happy to do so. It’s my duty and privilege to do it.

If anyone is gaining favors and self-seeking (and I don’t assert this; only rhetorically state it), it is the legion of reactionary pope-bashers like Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec and One Peter Five, The Remnant, Lifesite, Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski et al, ad nauseam, who get tons of attention (hits, shares, book sales), and sometimes, tons of money as well (book royalties), for their despicable and harmful efforts. I am simply defending the Holy Father and the institution of the papacy, which I have always thought — in my 30 + years of Catholic apologetics –, was part and parcel of my field; in fact, obligatory.

I defended Pope St. John Paul II when he was attacked and bashed (and he assuredly was), Pope Benedict XVI when he was also trashed (reactionaries now detest him or at least his resignation: feeling a bit like jilted lovers), and I defend Pope Francis when he is lied about and slandered as well. And I will defend the next pope who will also (mark my words) be lied about. The devil is very active in this respect. He knows who to go after.

But now all of a sudden doing that is a “controversial” thing. I’ve been told in a gossipy, cowardly fashion that “many” people (of course not mentioned by name) have a “lower” opinion of me because I defend the Holy Father and the papacy. That’s how low we have sunk in our pathetic time. So insult away! We’ll see in the end (including on Judgment Day itself) who was on the right side of this. I’m happy to let God be my judge, rather than hundreds of thousands of fawning “fans.” Mere filthy lucre or fame and accolades have never been my motivation, and never will be.

Thanks, dear reader, for indulging me and letting me get that off of my chest! Despite these rank insults, a few days ago O’Reilly decided he would become serious and try to engage in actual dialogue (albeit of an obsessive and “one-note tune” nature) with me. The problem was that I had already reiterated over and over (in my counter-reply) that:

I leave those fine-tuned questions mostly to theologians. . . . Fine points are for moral theologians, and neither you nor I are that. . . . I stand by everything he [Dr. Fastiggi] argues. He’s a personal friend of mine, and of unimpeachable orthodoxy. . . . Dr. Fastiggi is editor of the revised Denzinger and Ott both. He’s the man for systematic theology, in my opinion.

In other words, he picked the wrong topic to engage with me. I then linked Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s articles defending the theological and moral orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia: (one / two / three / four). Undaunted, O’Reilly kept trying to goad me all the more in his combox underneath it:

[Y]our ‘go read Dr. Fastiggi’ is not a sufficient answer. Anyone with common sense can see that. After all, if one were to ask you, a professional apologist, about your opinion of the Petrine Office and the views opposed to it, I assume (and hope) your answer would go beyond simply telling one to ‘go read Karl Keating’ or ‘go look at Matthew 16:18, that is all I need to say.’ If that is your approach to honest, good-faith, apologetical questions; my surprise is not that you have written “2,800 papers and 50 books,” it is that you have written any.

These juvenile tactics don’t work with me. I gave my answer: deferring to a respected theologian. It wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly. That’s his problem, not mine. I have no qualms in expressing that I am not sufficiently qualified to delve into the depths of a particular controversial and complex issue, and that it is best left to the expertise of theologians, canonists, and bishops gathered in synod, as it were. But Amoris Laetitia happens to be a virtual obsession with O’Reilly, by his own report:

I contented myself with wearing out my local archbishop, pastor, friends and family with my screeds over developments in the Church, especially during these past few years following the issuance of Amoris Laetitia. (his “About” page)

Note how he even wore out his own “family.” This is the mark of a fanatic, for sure. But apart from his own overly aggressive shortcomings, we understand that there are a lot of folks out there like O’Reilly who think that Amoris Laetitia is a terrible, heretical document, that sought to overthrow constant Catholic moral and theological tradition. They’re confused and disheartened, yet they need not be at all. We totally disagree with their assessment. There is plenty of clarifying material out there.

In my own effort to soothe fears and hysteria, I have collected many substantive articles from others, who defend the orthodoxy of the document. A search of my collection of 266 pro-Francis articles yields fifteen with “Amoris” in their titles. And there are others in the same collection that deal with the same topic (without “Amoris” in their titles), such as:

Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis Shatters Reformers’ Dreams with ‘Modern Family’ Document (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, 4-8-16)

Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage (Bill Donohue, Newsmax, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis’s revolution has been cancelled (Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis on love in the family (Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 4-14-16)

Pope Francis is a social conservative (Tim Stanley, The Telegraph, 4-18-16)

Pope okays Argentine doc on Communion for divorced and remarried (Inés San Martín, Crux, 9-12-16)

What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)

Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)

Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis follows John Paul II’s teaching on communion (Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)

Recent Comments of Pope Francis Should Help to Quiet Papal Critics (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

Pastoral Charity is the Key to Pope Francis’s Endorsement of the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Document (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

So that is at least 27 in-depth articles regarding Amoris Laetitia and closely related issues, that I have provided for my readers. But it’s not good enough for Steven O’Reilly. All he appears to care about is my opinion. Well, just because I appealed to others more knowledgeable than myself on the issue (which is what I always do as an apologist if I feel that others have points to make that are above my pay grade), it doesn’t mean I have completely ignored it, either. A perusal of my own collection of my own 184 defenses of Pope Francis yields eight relevant articles:

Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” [4-8-16]

Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]

Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]

Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia [5-6-16]

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals [11-16-16]

So now we’re up to 35 articles about Amoris Laetitia, hosted or prominently linked on my site, including eight of my own, and Steven O’Reilly is still trying to figure out what I believe on the issue, and why? It is a very odd thing. But this is what people do when they are obsessed. Nevertheless, in a sincere and charitable attempt to deliver Mr. O’Reilly from his existential misery (and others, too, who are of the same opinion, and read this article), I did contact my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and he was kind enough to clarify his opinions (and the pope’s as an extra bonus). What follows are his letter to me last night, and accompanying material from then-Cardinal Ratzinger that he sent with it.

*****

I thought that I would offer some brief thoughts.
*
Steven O’Reilly seems to be on a crusade to show that defenders of Amoris Laetitia hold contradictory positions and, therefore, the Pope cannot be defended. I can only offer my own understanding, and it seems that Mr. O’Reilly is familiar with my articles on the subject. The best interpreter of Amoris Laetitia, however, is Pope Francis himself. In his recent book, Let Us Dream, The Path to A Better Future (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020)—written in conversation with Austen Ivereigh–Pope Francis explains how he decided to deal with the question of whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics could receive Communion ([see] pp. 87-89 in which he discusses his approach).
*
He notes that the media tried to make this question the focal point of the Synod on the Family, and it led to some unfortunate divisions among the Synod fathers, which Pope Francis believes manifested the influence of the “bad spirit.”  The Holy Father then states that “the Spirit saved us in the end, in a breakthrough at the close of the second (October 2015) meeting of the Synod on the Family. The breakthrough came from those with a deep knowledge of the true moral doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, especially Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.
*
The teaching of Aquinas was his insight that, “because of the immense variety of situations and circumstances people found themselves in …no general rule could apply in every situation.” This Thomistic insight “allowed the synod to agree on the need for a case-by-case discernment.” As Pope  Francis explains “there was no need to change Church law, only how it was applied.” It was a matter of discerning how “God’s grace was operating in the nitty-gritty of people’s lives.” Thus, there was “neither a tightening nor a loosening of the ‘rules’ but an application of them that left room for circumstances that didn’t fit neatly into categories.”
*
The key texts of Aquinas are cited in the footnotes to AL, 304. I had noticed the importance of AL, 304 and the citations of Aquinas before. This is why in my Vatican Insider article on answering the dubia, I stated that “in principle” divorced and civilly remarried Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion unless they are living in continence. Pope Francis is also aware of the need for “general principles” since  they are mentioned by Aquinas in the passage cited, viz. Summa theologiae  I-II, q. 94, art. 4. Pope Francis is also aware that discernment “can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church” (AL, 300). He also insists on the need to avoid “every occasion of scandal” (AL, 299).
*
The approach taken by Pope Francis is very traditional and in perfect harmony with Catholic moral teaching. There must be adherence to the general principles and rules but also discernment of how these rules apply in particular cases. I’ve attached a file showing possible cases that might apply to footnote 351 of AL noted by three Cardinals: Ratzinger, Müller, and Vallini. [Dave: see “attachment” below]
*
There are other documents of the Magisterium that note the need for discernment of culpability. For example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1975 Declaration on Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana), states that with regard to homosexuals, “their culpability will be judged with prudence” (no. 8). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, when addressing the sin of masturbation, takes note of various factors “that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability” (CCC, 2352).
*
In light of what the Holy Father says in “Let US Dream,” it’s clear that in Amoris Laetiia there is no change in Catholic moral teaching. Pope Francis simply wishes pastors to handle difficult cases with discernment, which priests do all the time as confessors.  He also wishes “every occasion of scandal” to be avoided.
*
To my mind, Catholics who accuse Pope Francis of heresy are guilty of objective grave sin and scandal because they are contradicting the teaching of Vatican I about the charism of truth and never failing faith enjoyed by the successors of Peter.  The Catholics who accuse Pope Francis of heresy, however, might be misled or misinformed. Their culpability must be judged with prudence, discernment, and charity.
*
I hope these reflections help.
*
***
*
Attachment: Difficult cases possibly intended by Amoris Laetitia, footnote 351
*

1). From Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 essay, “CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL”

3 c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law.

This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions

This essay is found in the third part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Volume 17 of the series produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, LEV, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29. It’s posted on the Vatican website after the 1994 letter of the CDF on this matter.

2). This same difficult case is mentioned by Cardinal Gerhard Müller in his introductory essay (Saggio introduttivo) to Rocco Buttiglione’s book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia (Milano: Edizioni Ares, 2017), 23–25. With respect to cases in which the nullity of the prior bond is impossible to prove, Cardinal Müller writes:

If the second bond were valid before God, the marital relations of the two partners would not constitute a grave sin but instead a transgression against the public ecclesiastical order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a light sin. This does not obscure the truth that relations more uxorio with a person of the other sex, who is not the legitimate spouse before God, constitute a grave fault against chastity and against the justice owed to the proper spouse.

3). Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura under St. John Paul II and the Vicar of the Archdiocese of Rome, issued some guidelines on Amoris Laetitia on Sept. 19. 2016, as the Vicar of Pope Francis for the Archdiocese of Rome. These guidelines were by means of a relazione (relation or report) entitled “La letizia dell’amore”: il cammino delle famiglie a Roma” (“The joy of love”: the way of families in Rome”). In his guidelines, Cardinal Vallini refers to footnote 351, and he notes that the footnote (in Italian) uses the conditional and reads: “In certain cases there could (potrebbe) also be the help of the sacraments.”

The use of the conditional shows that Pope Francis is not saying that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must be admitted to the sacraments. The Holy Father is only noting that they are not excluded from the sacraments in some cases and under certain conditions. What are these conditions? Cardinal Vallini mentions the case in which there is moral certitude that the first marriage was null but there are no proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting. In such a case, the only opening to the sacraments would be with a confessor who, at a certain point—in his conscience and after much reflection and prayer—must assume responsibility before God and to the penitent and request that access to the sacraments take place in a reserved manner (in maniera riservata).

4).The philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, in his 2017 book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia [Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia], notes that Pope Francis is not admitting the divorced and remarried to communion but to confession (p. 68). The confessor must use discernment to decide whether to give absolution, which allows the penitent to receive communion.

Buttiglione—who was a friend of St. John Paul II and an expert on the late Pontiff’s thought—recognizes that absolution can only be given when there a resolve not to commit a sin that is materially grave (pp. 180–181). The confessor, though, must be aware of mitigating factors that might limit the responsibility of the penitent for committing acts that are gravely sinful. Buttiglione gives the example of a woman who is in a condition of total economic and psychological dependence on her civil partner, and this man imposes sexual relations on her against her will (p. 171).

Here it’s not a matter of judging a sinful act not to be sinful but of discerning whether the penitent is fully culpable for the sin. Buttiglione notes: “This does not imply that the unmarried can legitimately engage in sexual acts. The acts are illegitimate, but persons (in some cases)—through the absence of full awareness and deliberate consent—can be free from incurring mortal sin” (p. 172). For absolution to be given there must be the resolve to leave the situation of sin even if the penitent (in the case mentioned) cannot promise to avoid immediately the objective act of sin because she’s living in a situation that exposes her to the irresistible temptation to commit the act (p. 172).

***
Photo credit: cover of book by Pope Francis [GoodReads.com]
***
March 4, 2020

Introduction: the present state of legal marijuana in the USA and the world

As of July, 2018 there are 31 states in the USA plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico that have legal marijuana (cannabis sativa) at least for medical reasons. [1] Nine of these states plus the District of Columbia also permit recreational marijuana. [2] Another fifteen states allow for limited use of products derived from cannabis or synthetic versions of these derivatives. [3] Only four states completely prohibit marijuana or its derivatives. Laws regarding marijuana worldwide vary widely. In Uruguay and Canada marijuana is now fully legal. [4] Other countries, such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, have stringent laws against the sale, distribution,or possession of the drug. [5] Some countries, such as Costa Rica, legally permit small amounts of marijuana. [6] Other countries, such as the Netherlands, generally tolerate recreational marijuana even though it is technically illegal. [7] Still other countries,such as Israel and Italy, permit marijuana for medical reasons but not for recreational use. [8]

Catholic principles

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human life and health. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.” [9] Marijuana is a drug that can inflict harm on the body, which is a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 6:19). Some people argue that marijuana is a harmless drug, but this is not true. The World Health Organization notes that cannabis contains a “major psychoactive constituent” known as “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)” which impairs “cognitive development,” “psychomotor performance,” and can “exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals.” [10] The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institutes of Health have substantiated numerous bad effects of marijuana use including “the risk of addiction, the symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and fatal and non-fatal motor vehicle accidents.” [11]

After Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2014, numerous negative effects have been documented: traffic deaths related to marijuana have increased 66%; there “has been an increase in youths going to rehab for addiction to marijuana … an increase in workplace incidence related to marijuana … a decrease in productivity, and … an increase in robberies.” [12] In their June 25, 2018 statement on recreational marijuana, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops cite the findings of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and the Canadian Paediatric Society showing that “the use of cannabis is linked to addictions, depression, anxiety, psychosis, damage to brain development, and lung problems such as asthma and emphysema.” [13] The Canadian bishops also mention other health risks associated with marijuana including “the heightened risk of heart attack, stroke, all of the respiratory and carcinogenic pathologies associated with tobacco smoke, and a multitude of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia.” [14] Moreover, “studies have pointed to marijuana as a ‘gateway drug,’ underscoring the propensity of users to consume it in combination with other licit and illicit drugs, including some which may be ‘harder’.” [15]

Dangers in the legalization of marijuana for medical use

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the use of drugs, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense (emphasis added). [16] In light of this, some Catholics believe that marijuana may be justified for therapeutic reasons—though not for recreational use. [17] Although the use of therapeutic drugs and painkillers is permitted by the Church, [18] it’s important to evaluate the potential benefits of marijuana by medical evidence and to consider the potential dangers of the drug. The benefits of medical marijuana have not been sufficiently substantiated by medical science.There are more than 60 compounds known as cannabinoids in marijuana, and two in particular—tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)—have been studied for medical uses. [19] According to an October 2017 statement of the World Medical Association (WMA), “evidence supporting use of cannabis for medicinal purposes is of low to moderate quality, and inconsistent.” [20] According to the WMA, “more rigorous research is necessary before governments decide whether or not to legalize medical cannabis for medical purposes” because of “the low-quality scientific evidence on the health effects and therapeutic effectiveness of cannabis.” [21]

If the medical evidence for the therapeutic benefits of marijuana is “low-quality” and “inconsistent,” why is there such an effort to make it legal? According to Dr. Ed Gogek, M.D. there are powerful pro-marijuana lobbies behind efforts to legalize medical marijuana:

The idea that smoking pot is medicine didn’t come from doctors or groups representing the seriously ill. Neither the American Cancer Society nor the National Multiple Sclerosis Society supports it, and the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics strongly oppose it.

The idea to call marijuana medicine came from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project. These two organizations are part of a national marijuana lobby that represents drug users, growers and sellers. They’re behind every medical-marijuana law in the country.

They advertise these laws with an impassioned plea to allow suffering, terminally ill people access to medicine. However, once these laws pass, most medical-marijuana patients claim pain, not serious illness. In Arizona, 90 percent get their marijuana for pain. In Colorado and Oregon, it’s 94 percent. Pain is every drug addict’s favorite complaint; it’s easy to fake and impossible to disprove. [22]

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. of the National Catholic Bioethics Center agrees with Dr. Gogek, and he notes that Yale University researchers have “raised concerns around the fact that medical marijuana seems to be receiving ‘special status’ and is being ‘fast-tracked’ for legalization, when it should instead be subject to the standard scientific verifications of the FDA approval process to assure its efficacy and safety.” [23] According to Catholic teaching, “life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God.” [24] We should not, therefore, support laws legalizing marijuana when there is not clear scientific proof that they have any benefits. But even if there were evidence of potential benefits of medicinal marijuana, we need to take into account the potential harms. According to Father Pacholczyk “tobacco and marijuana have other similarities. Marijuana smoke contains harmful chemicals, with ammonia, benzene, toluene, and naphthalene levels in marijuana exceeding those found in tobacco smoke. These chemical components may contribute to emphysema, bronchial irritation and inflammation. [25]

Because of the documented harms of smoking marijuana, those with chronic pain should make use of alternative forms of pain medication that have been medically tested and approved. In this regard, it’s important to note that Marinol (or the generic dronabinol) is a FDA approved “synthetic (chemical) form of THC,” which is the natural component of marijuana. [26] Since this synthetic form of the active medicinal ingredient of marijuana is already FDA approved, why should there be the push for medical marijuana? I think the answer is found in what Dr. Gogek has noted: laws allowing medical marijuana are a part of a larger movement to legalize marijuana entirely. The synthetic forms of the THC, although they do have some medical risks, do not have the dangers of smoked marijuana. They allow patients to avoid the “toxic chemicals” contained in smoked marijuana “by using more purified preparations containing only active ingredients.” [27] The marijuana lobby, however, is not satisfied with having pain medicines derived from cannabis compounds because they want marijuana made legal for even non-medicinal purposes. One reason for this push for legal marijuana is because it has the potential of turning into a multi-billion dollar industry. [28]

Once marijuana becomes legally available for medical purposes, it becomes very difficult to control. Those who feign medical needs to obtain the drug will be able to share it with family and friends. Children will be exposed to marijuana use, and the pro-marijuana lobby will keep pushing to have recreational marijuana either legalized or decriminalized.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church is all in favor of medication for those suffering chronic pain. This should stimulate research into forms of pain medication that do not have the health dangers and social risks of medical marijuana. Catholic leaders should not be tricked into believing the propaganda of the marijuana lobbies. There are alternatives to medical marijuana for controlling pain, and these alternatives should be utilized and pursued.

Footnotes

1 http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/health/canada-legalizes-marijuana/index.html

5 https://www.marijuanabreak.com/how-america-compares-to-other-countries-in-terms-of-cannabis-legality

6 https://www.marijuana.com/news/2017/11/where-in-the-world-is-marijuana-legal/

7 https://www.marijuanabreak.com/how-america-compares-to-other-countries-in-terms-of-cannabis-legality

8 Ibid.

9 Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 2291.

10 http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/

11 https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/6814/6902/7169/MSOB108_Clearing_the_Air_Around_Marijuana_Use.pdf

12 http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/rocky-mountain-low-the-downside-of-legalized-marijuana

13 http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/CCCB_statement_on_Cannabis_-_EN.pdf

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 CCC, 2291.

17 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/25/catholic-bishop-lends-support-medical-marijuana/83507586/

18 See CCC, 2291 and 2229.

19 https://www.goodrx.com/blog/marinol-vs-marijuana-whats-the-difference/

20 https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-medical-cannabis/

21 Ibid.

22 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/05/23/voters-becoming-wise-to-medical-marijuana-ruse.html

23 https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/2915/3192/5398/MSOB156_The_Smoke_over_Medical_Marijuana.pdf

24 CCC, 2288.

25 https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/2915/3192/5398/MSOB156_The_Smoke_over_Medical_Marijuana.pdf

26 https://www.goodrx.com/blog/marinol-vs-marijuana-whats-the-difference/

27 https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/2915/3192/5398/MSOB156_The_Smoke_over_Medical_Marijuana.pdf

***

Related Reading

Marijuana & Ill Health: Scientific / Medical Evidence [3-2-20]

***

Photo credit: [PublicDomainVectors]

***

March 3, 2020

The following exchanges took place on a public discussion combox for The Catholic World Report, between 28 February and 2 March 2020. Words of Dr. Robert Fastiggi will be in black; those of Fr. Peter Morello, PhD in blue, of Leslie, in green, and of Brian Killian in brown.

*****

Yes, we must be concerned about violations of the first and sixth commandments, but we must also be concerned about violations of the eighth commandment. It has never been proven that idolatry took place in the Vatican Gardens on October 4, 2019. Those who claim that it did need to re-read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about rash judgment (nos. 2477-2478). St. John Paul II, in a homily given in Cochabamba, Bolivia on May 11, 1988, referred to “pachamama” as the ancestral name given to creation and the earth, which are the work of God and a reflection of divine Providence. See no. 10 in the homily.

This article by Francisco Figueroa goes into papal perspectives on “pachamama” in more depth:  The Catholic lawyer (and papal critic), Eric Giunta, provides some further insights here.

Pedro Gabriel, M.D. provides some more helpful perspectives in this article.  Perhaps there could have been better communication about the meaning of the symbols used in the Vatican Garden prayer ceremony on Oct. 4, 2019. To simply label what took place as “idolatry” strikes me as rash judgment, which is forbidden by the eighth commandment.

Dr Fastiggi your defense of the Pontiff is virtuous, we should give him the benefit of the doubt when applicable. Although respectful adherence to the Roman Pontiff is not an act of faith in a person rather foremost a faithful recognition of the office [the canonical definition of that authority] instituted by Christ. Matters that are not strictly Magisterially binding are subject to reasoned assessment. You may interpret Pachamama veneration [it was called such by the Vatican] as you wish insofar as the Pope’s intent. Intent as you’re aware does not determine the morality of an act. And neither does an act necessarily determine a benign intent, which I’m inclined to believe was. Right reason however assesses the object of the act, which is veneration [worship] of an Idol.

Whether Pope Francis did not intend idolatry the act itself speaks to idolatry in similar manner that having an affair outside of marriage however well intended between both parties remains immoral. Acts that are objectively manifest as illicit remain illicit despite intent. And certainly you’re aware of the wide scandal caused among the faithful, which is also addressed by canon law and the Catechism. It’s possible to make reference to native ritual, veneration of objects as having some cultural value. It’s entirely another matter to have a ceremonial procession chanting, gesticulating gleefully, offering prayers centered on a widely known Andean goddess of the Earth up to and in front of the main altar of St Peter’s Basilica.

Dear Fr. Morello,

Thank you for your gracious note. All I can ask is that you and others read the articles to which I provided the links. You assume the wooden statues were idols, but that’s not at all certain. In the article by Eric Giunta he explains that “Pachamama” has a different meaning in the Andes than in the Amazon. In his May 11, 1988 homily in Bolivia, St. John Paul II provided a benevolent understanding of “Pachamama.” I agree that a good intention does not change the status of an objectively immoral act like adultery. The question, though, is whether what took place in the Vatican Gardens or in the processions you mention were actual acts of idolatry. I think there are far more benevolent explanations available. Oremus pro invicem.

***

I’ve learned to trust my own understanding of what the Holy Father says and does. I actually believe some of the confusion is generated by certain people and groups who take an overly critical view of Pope Francis.

***

St. John Paul II, in a homily given in Cochabamba, Bolivia on May 11, 1988, referred to “pachamama” as the ancestral name given to creation and the earth, which are the work of God and a reflection of divine Providence.

Mmmm. Can you provide me with video from when Pope John Paul II gave that homily that compares to this [?] 

Did the Italian Bishops’ Conference publish a prayer to Pachamama in 1988? (the bishops’s site has pulled the page by now).

Also, all kinds of pagan religions had names given to creation and the earth, which are the work of God and a reflection of divine Providence. If that’s the best they knew – or know – that’s one thing. It doesn’t follow that Catholics, or even Christians in general, should be participating in ceremonies involving those things.

From one of your links: “I cannot find any scholarly or other documentation that “Pachamama,” an Andean deity, is commonly worshiped by non-Christians in the Amazon.”

Oh, yes? Then why was there a Pachamama statue (and I remind you that Pope Francis called it that) at something that was related to the Pan-Amazonic synod? And my, but Mr. Giunta is snide.

From Dr. Gabriel’s article:

Earlier today, it has been reported on Twitter that Ruffini issued a “definite answer”:

No prostrations or rituals were performed. We must all be rigorous in telling things that have happened in front of the cameras.

No? I just watched the video. Kneeling and then lowering one’s forehead to the ground in a circle around the statue is prostration.

From the same link, Brother Afonso Murad said, “Among them, there were three female silhouettes of an indigenous pregnant woman that symbolized the Earth that takes care of us, and also the indigenous peoples. … Therefore it was simply a religious symbol among many that are present in that church for those who want to see it. Therefore, this act was an act of violence, of disrespect and therefore cannot be approved by any of us. Would you like it if someone went to your church and took any of your religious symbols, be it a candle, or a cloth, would you like it? Of course not.”

Actually, if somebody put a statue that represented, say, Terra (the Roman name for Gaia) and the indigenous peoples of Italy, or Greece, or anywhere else in the world, in my church, I would most definitely salute anybody who took it out of the church. I wouldn’t want it thrown in the river, however; I’d want it burnt.

Someone else said it was “Our Lady of the Amazon.” How very exceedingly odd that they can’t even get their stories straight.

“In other words, at least some of the natives look to this figure and attribute a Marian connotation to it.”

And some of them, in fact possibly many of them, don’t.

“And we know that at least one of those natives was the woman who presided over the St. Francis Day activity in the Vatican Gardens.”

And that brings me to another question: Why was a woman presiding over the “activity?”

“For me, I cannot imagine how Monday’s act of disrespect for indigenous culture by people who proclaim themselves to be the mouthpieces of true Catholicism will open the hearts of the natives who brought that image as a symbol of their values”

Mmmmm, yeah, how dare St. Boniface have cut down that tree? So disrespectful of indigenous culture, of an image that was a symbol of their values.

“Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said the pope used the word as a means to identify the statues because that is the way they have become known in the Italian media and not as a reference to the goddess.”

Yet another example of the necessity of explaining, or explaining away, something that has been said.

Dear Leslie,

The burden of proof is on you to prove that idolatry took place. That you have not done. You assume what you need to prove.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that I said idolatry took place. That you have not done. You assume what you need to prove.

Tell me, will you at a very minimum admit that kneeling around a representation of the planet earth (which is what that painted cloth appears to be) and a statue that very likely (I’m being generous and not saying “almost certainly”) represents an earth goddess, bringing offerings, and bowing to the ground in worship, are actions very open to interpretation as idolatry?

I do not speak whatever language it is in which they were chanting or praying. Can you provide me with a translation?

Dear Leslie,

Thank you for your follow-up comments. Here is the Vatican Press Release from Oct. 1, 2019 explaining the prayer service that would take place in the Vatican Gardens on October 4.

The ceremony was profoundly Catholic. The representative of REPAM recited a prayer of consecration of the Amazon Synod to St. Francis of Assisi. Cardinal Turkson (in Italian) spoke of the shared commitment of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew to the care of the earth, our common home. Cardinal Humes (speaking in Portuguese) highlighted the importance of St. Francis of Assisi as the patron saint of ecology, and he then recited the Canticle of the Creatures by St. Francis of Assisi in Italian. A religious sister gave some reflections in Spanish, and she recited a passage from the prophet, Jeremiah. Another speaker (in Italian) referred to the Canticle of Creatures of St. Francis of Assisi and then recited Psalm 148, which bears a resemblance to St. Francis’s Canticle.

There is an important explanation around 6:13 into the video of the ceremony. A Franciscan friar (in Italian) explains that the instruments displayed on the circular mat are symbols of water, earth, seeds, and martyrs. He then switches into Spanish. The brief bowing to the symbols displayed on the mat can easily be understood as a gesture of prayer asking God to bless the upcoming synod. I could not make out the words of the song they were singing. Those who claim this was a pagan incantation, though, need to provide evidence (which they have not done). When the representatives from the Amazon bestow symbols from the Amazon to Pope Francis they make the sign of the cross. One of the women bows before the Holy Father. (Was she worshipping him as an idol?). The woman who presents the wooden statue to Pope Francis refers to the image as “Our Lady of the Amazon” as Dr. Pedro Gabriel explains.

A large part of the ceremony was bringing portions of soil to the tree being planted with accompanying explanations of what these portions of the earth represent (all of them profoundly Christian). The ceremony ends with the singing of the Canticle of the Creatures by St. Francis of Assisi and the Pope Francis reciting the Lord’s Prayer in Spanish. This was a deeply Catholic prayer service. The claim that a pagan ceremony was somehow inserted into such a Catholic prayer service strains credulity.

The postings above by Brian Killian are well worth reading. Bows and prostrations can take on different meanings. St. John Paul II was known to bow down and kiss the earth when he first set foot in a country on an apostolic visit. Was he worshipping the earth? To accuse the Pope and the Holy See of sponsoring or endorsing a pagan ceremony is so serious that those who make such an accusation better provide evidence. The only “evidence” I’ve seen so far is grounded in subjective impressions motivated it seems by distrust and hostility towards Pope Francis. Referring to what took place on October 4, 2019 as idol worship without any real evidence strikes me as a grave violation of justice, charity, and the eighth commandment. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I believe it’s important to warn people of the serious spiritual implications of such unfounded and grave accusations against the Roman Pontiff.

Thank you for the information.

You didn’t answer this question: “Tell me, will you at a very minimum admit that kneeling around a representation of the planet earth (which is what that painted cloth appears to be) and a statue that very likely (I’m being generous and not saying “almost certainly”) represents an earth goddess, bringing offerings, and bowing to the ground in worship, are actions very open to interpretation as idolatry?”

At best, I consider the whole thing to have been inadvisable.

To accuse the Pope and the Holy See of sponsoring or endorsing a pagan ceremony is so serious that those who make such an accusation better provide evidence.

Or one could be considering them to be innocent dupes.

The only “evidence” I’ve seen so far is grounded in subjective impressions motivated it seems by distrust and hostility towards Pope Francis.

And what would be the grounds for people to have distrust towards Pope Francis?

Dear Dr Fastiggi as you honor the Roman Pontiff others also have deep respect for him and cherish the Chair of Peter instituted by Christ. We also recognize the purview of that sacred authority and its limits. “When the Pope thinks it is God who is thinking in him” (Louis Veuillot). Veuillot a staunch Catholic believed anything said, likely also done by a Roman Pontiff was consequently sacred. That of course as I’m confident you agree is untrue. It’s not necessary to recount history on that matter with you because the evidence of that untruth is clear.

Nevertheless there is a tendency for some of us today to follow what 18th century French journalist Louis Veuillot professed, a form of Ultramontanism that defends anything Pope Francis says or does as inspired by God. For those of us who question the events at the Vatican discussed here you find it “important to warn people of the serious spiritual implications of such unfounded and grave accusations against the Roman Pontiff”. Perhaps some remarks made were untoward. Though not all spoke disrespectfully. Though most were concerned, even distressed by events. I would only ask that you consider that there may be justification for concern.

***

You’re [i.e., Fr. Morello] begging the question. How do you know the “object of the act” was the veneration of an idol? There is no such thing as an intrinsic act of idolatry just as there’s no physical object that is intrinsically an idol. A physical object is not an idol unless the object is believed to be a god or a representation of a god. An action is not idolatrous unless it’s intended to be the veneration of an idol. In both cases, one can’t say what is an idol or what is an act of idolatry until and unless one knows what the belief is about the supposed idol and what the intention is of the supposed idolater. Rituals, gestures, and symbols are all intentional, the “object” is determined by what they are referring to or intending. Intent doesn’t determine the morality of an act, but the morality of a ritual act is not what is disputed. The question is not the morality of an act but what does the act mean and to what does it refer?

In itself, the statue is nothing more than a figure of a pregnant woman. It is a multivalent symbol in the Amazon, it can represent a goddess, it can represent Mother Earth, or it can represent the Virgin Mary. Bowing is also a multivalent gesture, it can mean different things depending on the intention of the person. So how do you prove that the figure is an idol and that the people were engaged in idolatry? Everything depends on knowing what the beliefs and the intentions of the participants were. You must provide evidence of a belief that the figure was a god figure, which would indicate an intention to venerate an idol. So do you have that evidence?

These weren’t pagans that someone found in the middle of the jungle and shipped to Rome to demonstrate their ceremonies, they were Catholics. The woman on the video referred to the figure in her hands as “Our Lady of the Amazon”. That in itself is a refutation of the idolatry theory. We also know that these figures have been used to represent the general notion of Mother Earth. Again, that refutes the idolatry theory. What evidence do you have that anyone at that ceremony or anyone involved with REPAM had a belief that the figure represented a pre-Christian divinized goddess?

On the contrary, the bishop emeritus of San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico relates how he asked a Bolivian indigenous person if Mother Earth (Pachamama) and Father Sun (Inti) were gods. The person replied that “those who have not received evangelization consider them gods; For those of us who have already been evangelized, they are not gods, but the best gifts of God.”

Is that distinction not good enough for you that despite their deep connection to and veneration of “Mother Earth”, that they nevertheless know that they are creations of God and not gods? The concept of mother earth is also not lacking in Christian scripture. One can find it in Job, “naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked I will go back again.” One can find it in the Psalms, “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.”

So if you want to claim that there was idol worship going on at the Vatican you need to provide evidence that demonstrates idolatrous beliefs and intentions, evidence that doesn’t beg the question, evidence that overwhelms and cancels out the evidence to the contrary that the ceremony was indeed an enculturated Christian ceremony.

Brian what an act does determines the object of the act, for example sawing a limb off a tree. You’re reverting back to the intent as if there is some indeterminate object of the act. As someone in their skepticism, actually an unwillingness to accept reality for sake of defending their position continues to say How do you know Father that the man sawing the limb off the tree intended to saw the limb off the tree? There is the internal object of the will [the intent or form] what you’re referring to, and the external object of the will that determines the object of the act [the matter or materia circa quam]. Your quotes which reference cultural interpretation do not address the fact, what the act does. Examples of religious and laity prostrating before Pachamama in the Gardens, enshrinement procession of clergy, laity chanting toting a canoe with Pachamama into Saint Peter’s Basilica up to the main altar clearly makes a definitive statement of intent. We cannot parse reality to suit our disposition.

Suppose a disciple of a syncretistic religion (that worships saints as gods together with other local gods) was in a cathedral kneeling in front of a statue of a saint or lighting a votive candle, or making some other gesture of veneration. You walk into the cathedral and see this person without knowing anything about him. How would you know, just by looking at him, if he was a Catholic venerating a saint or a syncretist worshiping a false god? You wouldn’t.

You wouldn’t be able to tell unless you asked him what he was doing (revealing his intention). There is no externally recognizable act of idolatry because idolatry is necessarily an intention, like love or virtue.

You see a politician give a homeless man twenty dollars. Was it charity or vainglory? Was he moved by pity or was he moved by a desire to look good on camera? We don’t know by observing his actions, we only know by his actual intentions. Yes, the object is indeterminate from the perspective of an outside observer.

So once again, you are going to have to do more work than merely assuming that the pregnant woman was an idol (a pagan god) and that the gestures of the people in the ceremony was idolatry. Everything we know about the ceremony, the people, their intentions, demonstrate the absurdity and the falsity of the “idolatry” hypothesis.

Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant. Example: A state’s law defines battery as “intentional and harmful physical contact with another person.” This terminology makes battery a general intent crime. The intent element is satisfied if the defendant intends to cause harmful physical contact and actually causes it—it doesn’t matter whether the defendant actually intended to hurt or seriously injure the victim (Nolo). Nolo is an assoc of criminal defense attorneys Nolo Latin for I do not intend.

Among the very best analyses of responsibility and or lack is within the legal system reaching back to English criminal law, the Roman Codex. When meeting justice the greatest ethical minds such as Blackstone Britain Scalia US fine tune our perception of justice and responsibility. If you perform an act despite the benevolent intention [he did not intend to practice idolatry rather promote ecological concern] which I grant the Pontiff, guilt can be justly adjudicated on the basis of the consequences of the act. We must be responsible for what we do.

Related Reading

“Pachamama” [?] Statues: Marian Veneration or Blasphemous Idolatry? [11-5-19]

“Pachamama” Fiasco: Hysterical Reactionaryism, as Usual [11-8-19]

“Pachamama” Confusion: Fault of Vatican or Catholic Media? [11-12-19]

Anti-“Pachamama” Doc: “Usual Suspect” Reactionaries Sign [11-14-19]

Vatican II –> Alleged “Pachamama” Idolatry, Sez Fanatics [11-15-19]

Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II [11-22-19]

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

Pope St. John Paul II Respectfully Referred to Pachamama (+ Orthodox Catholic References to “Mother Earth” and Similar Biblical Motifs) [12-13-19]

Is “Mother Earth” a Catholic Concept (Church Fathers)? (guest post by Rosemarie Scott) [12-17-19]

“Pachamama” Redux (vs. Peter Kwasniewski & Janet Smith) [12-17-19]

Dialogue: “Pachamama” (?) Statues & Marian Iconography [12-24-19]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
Photo credit: Gary Todd (7-25-07): Babylonian Clay Idols, Oriental Institute, Chicago [public domain / Flickr]
*
***
February 22, 2020

[Letter to Inside the Vatican: February 11, 2020; published here with the express permission of Dr. Robert Fastiggi]

Dear Editor,

I was happy to see Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò refer to Mary as the “Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces” in his December 19, 2019 letter published in your January 2020 issue.  I was also pleased to see an excerpt of an article by Dr. Mark Miravalle from the National Catholic Register, which emphasizes “the central truth of Mary being the spiritual Mother of the Church and of all peoples.” In contrast to Archbishop Viganò, however, neither Dr. Miravalle nor I believe Pope Francis’ 2019 homily for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe was an expression of an “evident Marian intolerance.” We explain this in an article we co-authored [link] entitled “Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the ‘Woman of salvation’” that appeared in the English and Italian editions of La Stampa’s Vatican Insider (January 8, 2020).  In this article we show that Pope Francis has a profound awareness of Mary’s central role in the work of redemption. In fact, in his January 1, 2020 homily for the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, the Holy Father says, “From her, a woman, salvation came forth and thus there is no salvation without a woman.”  He also refers to Mary as “the woman of salvation” (Donna della salvezza). 

I certainly respect Archbishop Viganò’s episcopal dignity and his many years of service to the Church. His most recent statements, though, come across as hyperbolic, intemperate, and in many cases inaccurate. For example, he claims Pope Francis “deserts the solemn celebration of the Assumption and the recitation of the Rosary with the faithful.” This, though, is not true. The Holy Father faithfully observes the Solemnity of the Assumption, and on August 15, 2014 he celebrated Mass for the Assumption in a large stadium in Korea. Pope Francis also has led multiple public recitations of the Rosary. On August 25, 2016, he led 11,000 pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square in the recitation of the sorrowful mysteries for the victims of the earthquakes in Italy the day before. Archbishop Viganò also accuses Pope Francis of making a “declaration of war” on Our Lady of Guadalupe by enthroning the “Amazonian idol” of the pachamama in St. Peter’s Basilica. He seems unaware that St. John Paul II—in a homily given in Cochabamba, Bolivia on May 11, 1988 [link] —referred to pachamama as the ancestral name given to the earth, which produces food as a reflection of divine providence and the work of God. 

Archbishop Viganò believes that Pope Francis is guilty of “material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry,” and “a false magisterium.” The Archbishop also says the reference to the ‘dew” in Eucharistic Prayer II is “a further step in the direction of regression towards the naturalization and immanentization of Catholic worship, towards a pantheistic and idolatrous Novissimus Ordo”— a sign of “a new globalist and eco-tribal paganism with its demons and perversions.” The ‘dew,” though, is found in the Latin of Eucharistic Prayer II, which reads: Hæc ergo dona, quæsumus, Spíritus tui rore sanctífica, ut nobis Corpus et  Sanguis fiant Dómini nostri Iesu Christi.” “Rore” is from “ros, roris,” the Latin word for dew. The change made in the Italian translation from “sanctifica con l’effusione del tuo Spirito” [sanctify with the effusion of thy Spirit] to “santifica questi doni con la rugiada del tuo Spirito”[sanctify these gifts with the dew of thy Spirit] is hardly a regression to pantheism and idolatry. It is merely a change that seeks to   reflect better the original Latin of Eucharistic Prayer II. 

Archbishop Viganò is to be admired for his deep Marian devotion. The tone and rhetoric of his recent statements are, I believe, a cause for concern. Let’s keep the Archbishop in our prayers.

Sincerely,

Robert Fastiggi

***

Related Reading

Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II [11-22-19]

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Abp. Viganò Descends into Fanatical Reactionary Nuthood (. . . Declares Pope Francis a Heretical Narcissist Who “Desacralized” & “Impugned” & “Attack[ed]” Mary) [12-20-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Pope Francis and Mary Co-Redemptrix (Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 12-27-19)

Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the “Woman of salvation” (Mark Miravalle & Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa, 1-8-20)

***

Photo credit: Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, congratulates [now disgraced] then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington at a gala dinner sponsored by the Pontifical Missions Societies in New York in May 2012. PHOTO: CNS / republished at Catholic Weekly, 8-30-18.

***

February 2, 2018

The debate among equally orthodox Catholics on the death penalty continues . . .

***

Dr. Robert Fastiggi has made a series of replies (in the combox), to Dr. Edward Feser’s article, “Capital punishment and the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium” (Catholic World Report, 1-20-18).  Dr. Feser (who seems to have much more time for this sort of thing than Dr. Fastiggi does) has already responded at length. I have collected Dr. Fastiggi’s comments here:

*****

I commend Prof Feser for his desire to defend his position, and I thank him for taking some of my points seriously even though he doesn’t agree with them. Obviously an article of the length he gives deserves a detailed response. Right now, I don’t have the time to do that, so I’ll make a few points. First, I should note that Feser cites Lumen Gentium, 12 in support of the universal agreement of the faithful on matters of faith and morals. He fails, though, to mention that this universal agreement “is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.” This last sentence underlines the role of the magisterium in determining whether a teaching is definitive and infallible or whether it isn’t.

Prof. Feser and his followers have every right to argue their case that the legitimacy of capital punishment in principle is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. It’s always helpful, though, for the magisterium itself to confirm that a teaching is infallible by means of the ordinary and universal magisterium—as St. John Paul II did in Evangelium Vitae with respect to the grave evil of direct abortion (n. 62) and euthanasia (n. 65).

Trying to determine which teachings are infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium, however, is not any easy task. In his article, it would have been good for Feser to cite Lumen Gentium, 25, which notes that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible when the Catholic bishops “maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” This sets a very high standard, for it’s not so easy to verify whether the bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, have come to an agreement that one position (unam sententiam) on faith or morals must be definitively held.

I’ve been teaching Catholic ecclesiology at the university or seminary level for over 30 years, and I’ve learned to be very careful when giving examples of teachings that are infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium. I try to choose examples in which there can be very little doubt for faithful Catholics. For example, the perpetual virginity of Mary has never been defined by either an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra papal pronouncement. But those who have challenged it have been condemned in no uncertain terms (see canon 3 of the Lateran Synod of 649 in Denz.-H, 503 and Paul IV’s 1555 constitution against the Unitarians in Denz.-H, 1880).

Moreover, the perpetual virginity of Mary is affirmed in the liturgy (e.g. the Roman Canon). Another example I give is the reality of angels and demons as real creatures of intellect and will and not mere abstractions. The 1215 Profession of Faith of Lateran IV affirms their real existence as does the liturgical life of the Church (how could the empty promises of an abstraction be rejected during the Rite of Baptism?). During the late 1960s and early 1970s, though, some Catholics began questioning the real existence of angels and demons. Bl. Paul VI reaffirmed the existence of angels in his 1968 Credo of the People of God and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the existence of demons in its 1975 document, Christian Faith and Demonology.

When compared to dogmas such as the perpetual virginity or Mary or the reality of angels and demons, the dogmatic status of legitimacy of capital punishment comes across as far less certain. This is not to ignore the sources that Feser cites. Rather, it is a simple recognition that these sources do not reach the level of a definitive judgment of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The magisterium itself is usually the best source for determining which teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are infallible and which are not. When subsequent popes show they are not bound by judgments of their predecessors, that’s a good indication that those judgments were not definitive. For example, Pope Innocent I in 405 alludes to Rom 13 is granting permission for the civil authorities of Toulouse to have recourse to judicial torture and capital punishment. Pope Nicholas I, however, in 866 states that such torture is not allowed by either divine or human law (Denz.-H., 648). So it’s clear that Nicholas I in 866 did not feel bound by what Innocent I taught in 405.

St. John Paul II likewise did not feel bound by prior magisterial teachings that seemed to affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty for reasons of retribution. Instead, in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, he limited any possible use of capital punishment to societal self-defense (n. 55). Therefore, he forbade recourse to the death penalty except in cases of absolute necessity “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society;” and he also noted that such cases today “are very rare, if not practical non-existent” (n. 56).

Professor Feser, in his book co-authored with Prof. Bessette, states that St. John Paul II’s position “is a mistake, and a serious one” (p. 197). This, though, means that since 1995 the magisterium has been habitually mistaken on a prudential judgment (and it’s really much more than prudential). Feser, therefore, contradicts the very passage from the CDF’s 1990 instruction, Donum Veritatis, that he cites: namely “It would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission” (n. 24). To suggest that the magisterium has been habitually mistaken for 23 years on the death penalty seems very problematical. Does not Feser believe that the Church’s magisterium has enjoyed divine assistance in the last 23 years with regard to capital punishment?

To my mind, it’s much more likely that Feser is mistaken than St. John Paul II and his successors. This is not a “cheap shot” as Feser claimed when I previously noted that his position stood in contradiction to that of Pope Francis. Since when is it a “cheap shot” to appeal to the authority of the Roman Pontiff over that of a private scholar? Much more can be said, but this will need to suffice for now. I think Feser’s arguments are convincing to those who already favor capital punishment. They are not convincing to me and many others. If the magisterium in the future declares capital punishment—even under certain conditions—to be intrinsically evil, I’ll abide by the magisterium’s judgment. This would be an indication that there was no prior definitive magisterial teaching on the subject. Feser could shout “error” all he wants, but his shouts could never match the authority of the Catholic magisterium.

***

I think it’s inaccurate to say that St. John Paul II’s teaching on captial punishment was only prudential. Both Aquinas (ST II-II, q. 47 a. 3 ad 1) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 1806) understand prudence as the virtue by which “we apply moral primciples to particular cases.” John Paul II and the CCC teach that non-lethal means of punishment are “more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (EV, 56, CCC, 2267). This is a principle not a prudential judgment, and it supports the other principle articulated by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae [EV], 56, viz., that it is not licit (neque … licere) to impose the death penalty “except in cases of absolute necessity (nisi absoluta instante necessitate), namely when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”

Now both EV, 56 and the CCC, 2267 do invoke prudential elements (e.g. “the concrete conditions of the common good”), but a twofold principle is laid out that is meant to inform any prudential judgment regarding the death penalty: 1) that non-lethal means of punishment better correspond to human dignity; and 2) that recourse to the death penalty is not licit except in cases of absolute necessity: namely, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. There might be legitimate debate about what would qualify as cases of absolute necessity, but those who favor the death penalty have the burden of proof to show that recourse to capital punishment is the only possible way of defending society.

Pope Francis has now added more reasons (derived from the Gospel) for rejecting the death penalty. We should, of course, respect tradition, but there are traditions that can be changed or developed and others that cannot. Just as the tradition accepting torture has now been superseded (cf. GS, 27, and the CCC, 2297)so now the tradition accepting capital punishment is being superseded. The fact that Pope Francis and the overwhelming majority of bishops now reject capital punishment is a sign that there never was a definitive magisterial tradition on the matter.

***

I’m very sorry, but I think the 2,000 year tradition is something of a myth. Before Pope Innocent I’s permission in 405 for public officials to use torture and capital punishment there was nothing handed down in prior tradition (as Innocent I himself states). Some of the patristic sources cited by Feser and Bessette do not really show support for capital punishment (not even in principle). The teaching against euthanasia is definitive, and has been confirmed as such. Church tradition in support of capital punishment was never definitive. This is why the last three popes have all called for the end of the practice.

***

I try to follow Scripture according to the mind of the Church. If the recent papal magisterium had not spoken out against capital punishment, we could have a good debate over the subject. I am only trying to follow the mind of the Church. Like Pope Francis, I think we should work for penal reform and better prison conditions. As for deterrence, many studies do not support your findings.

***

[after Dr. Feser’s latest reply] Thank you, Prof. Feser, for taking note of my comments. I tried to post some comments on your blogspot, but I’m not sure if they went through. In any case, I don’t have time to comment in depth right now. Perhaps in the future I’ll be able to write a more thorough review of your book. For now, I’ll say this. Even if one were to concede that capital punishment was not intrinsically evil in the past, that still doesn’t mean one can dissent from the present teaching of the papal magisterium on the subject. You seem to think that, unless capital punishment is declared intrinsically evil, then any teaching about it is only prudential. This, though does not follow.

To make prudential judgments there must be moral principles, and St. John Paul II in EV, 56 and the CCC, 2267 lay out such moral principles. The Church does not regard war as intrinsically evil, but she lays out very strict conditions for any possible engagement in war (e.g. CCC, 2309). War, therefore, can only be justified according to these strict conditions. With regard to the death penalty, I am aware of of all the scriptural and historical examples you give, but I don’t believe they set forth definitive principles for deciding if and when the death penalty may be used today. Because the present magisterial teaching on the death penalty is not contradicting any definitive, infallible teaching of the past, it should be adhered to with religious assent according to Lumen gentium, 25 and the CCC, 892. The magisterium need not declare that capital punishment is intrinsically evil to determine that it is against the Gospel to kill a human being without necessity, i.e. when a person’s ability to do further harm has been neutralized and this person retains human dignity in spite of prior crimes.

***

Photo credit: Image by kai Stachowiak [PublicDomainPictures.Net / CC0 Public Domain license]

***

October 12, 2017

PieFight2

Anyone who boldly ventures out to attempt serious rational discussion with the inimitable Christopher Ferrara, inevitably ends up like this. (I’ve had some firsthand experience, myself). Thanks for the laughs, Chris! If he only knew that the pie was really on his face . . . 

***

Chris Ferrara did his usual mocking hit piece of the article by Dr. Fastiggi and Dr. Goldstein (which defended Pope Francis) at the radical Catholic reactionary Remnant site. Here are some pathetic highlights (his words in blue throughout):

The authors know full well that pursuant to Amoris Laetitia (AL) Francis wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments while continuing their adulterous relations during an ill-defined, open-ended “process of discernment.” 

Knowing all of this full well, Fastiggi and Goldstein dishonestly reduce the incontrovertible evidence that Francis has approved and orchestrated a catastrophic practical break with the Magisterium . . . 

Having stated their patently dishonest premise, which allows them to ignore reality, Fastiggi and Goldstein then proceed to their false conclusion, which also ignores reality: . . . 

. . . Francis . . .  is undeniably promoting the heterodox reading of AL they pretend, for purposes of their dishonest argument, he has not approved.

. . . their shifty polemic . . . 

. . . the Magisterium that Francis is so clearly acting to subvert.

. . . a wayward Roman Pontiff observes the chaotic scene he himself has created, winking and nodding his approval, which they pretend not to see.

Fastiggi and Goldstein are not defending the Faith. They are defending Francis, no matter what he says or does. But this is only in keeping with the neo-Catholic defense of novelty as paramount. That defense requires them to be legalists and latter-day Pharisees, harping on the law while ignoring—or, if necessary, misrepresenting—the facts. And it is precisely the legalism of latter-day Pharisees that has made possible the auto-demolition of the Church over the past fifty years: Obey without question, for authority has spoken (or so it is claimed). Deny the evidence of reason and even the evidence of your senses if what they tell you interferes with your blind obedience. 

Fastiggi and Goldstein are foot soldiers of a Leviathan Church in which the dictates of Hobbes’s “mortal god,” the earthly ruler of the commonwealth, take precedence over the dictates of the Immortal God in heaven and positive law trumps divine law.

Fastiggi and Goldstein do not understand that this is their function in the present state of the Church because the narrative to which they have committed themselves—an unwavering defense of novelty in the name of authority—does not permit them to understand it. They think they are defending the Faith, but in reality they are defending its dissolution.

All classic melodramatic, nearly hysterical reactionary polemics and histrionics, with all the usual catch-phrases (especially the ubiquitous phrases, “auto-demolition” and “neo-Catholic”). Dr. Fastiggi (surely exercising the patience of Job) responded in the combox:

I would like to thank Christopher Ferrara again for calling attention to an article I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein in La Stampa. I give him credit for his colorful style. Unfortunately, Mr. Ferrara provides no real evidence for his claim that Pope Francis “wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers in ‘second marriages’ to the sacraments while continuing their adulterous relations.” He mentions the Holy Father’s letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, but he fails to take into account that the statement of those Argentine bishops can be interpreted in an orthodox way, as Cardinal Müller told Edward Pentin in a Sept. 28 interview published in the National Catholic Register. In fact the statement of the Argentine bishops only speaks of the possibility of “access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” This could reasonably be interpreted as going to confession before receiving Holy Communion. The same applies to statements of Pope Francis and Cardinal Schoenborn mentioned by Ferrara. Pope Francis defers to the exposition of Amoris laetitia by Cardinal Schoenborn given in April 2016 when the exhortation was made public. I have read the Cardinal’s exposition in both Italian and English, and I only find mention of the help of the sacraments in certain cases. Once again, Mr. Ferrara assumes this means access to Holy Communion without prior sacramental confession. With regard to the letter thanking the Bishops of Malta, it should be noted that Edward Pentin mentions a letter of Cardinal Baldiserri not a letter of Pope Francis. Moreover, this letter has not been made public so we don’t know exactly what it says other than an expression of thanks. This seems to be very thin evidence for claiming Pope Francis wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers to the sacraments while continuing in their adulterous relations. As a lawyer, Ferrara should have a better sense of what really counts as evidence. As a Christian, he should also be mindful of the command against bearing false witness.

Beyond these considerations, I wish to express a personal concern I have about Mr. Ferrara’s standing in the Catholic Church. He says that Dr. Goldstein and I are “foot soldiers of a Leviathan Church” because we defend the Roman Pontiff. Does Mr. Ferrara believe that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is a “Leviathan Church” and not the Catholic Church? If this is so, then it would suggest that Mr. Ferrara is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This, though, is the very definition of schism found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089 and the 1983 CIC canon 751. I hope Mr. Ferrara can clarify what he means by the “Leviathan Church” under Pope Francis. A more simple question to him would be this: “Are you refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members subject to him?”

I apologize ahead of time if I misconstrued his words. I believe, though, my question is reasonable in light of his reference to a “Leviathan Church” distinct from “the dictates of the Immortal God in heaven.”

If Dr. Fastiggi wishes to continue to pretend, despite a growing mountain of evidence, that Pope Francis has not in fact approved of the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion–just as he did when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and just as he did with the woman he telephoned in Argentina—then I cannot help him.

As for my metaphorical reference to a “Leviathan Church,” I am afraid Dr. Fastiggi has succumbed to an unfortunate literal-mindedness. To make it clear for him, I am contending that he and his co-author treat the Pope as if he were the absolute ruler of Hobbes’s Leviathan. I do not, as should be obvious, argue that this Leviathan Church actually exists. That it does not and cannot exist is precisely my point.

Dr. Fastiggi’s inapt citation to Canon 751 and his clumsy and insulting questions about my “standing in the Catholic Church” and whether I am “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff” demonstrate a pronounced lack of comprehension of pertinent ecclesiological and theological basics, not mention a rather embarrassing lack of rhetorical finesse. Raising objections to a papal document because it appears to depart from sound orthodoxy is hardly “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff,” who has not, at any rate, actually commanded anyone to “submit” to anything via AL.

I respectfully suggest that Dr. Fastiggi’s comments evince a need for serious study and reflection before he ventures further opinions on this controversy in public.

I am grateful for your clarification about the Leviathan Church. I suspected this was a metaphorical reference, but I was not sure. Invoking such hyperbolic metaphors is always risky, especially when they are inappropriate. I recognize your right to raise concerns about a papal document. Such concerns, however, must be expressed with due reverence to the Roman Pontiff and with justice and charity. I am not persuaded by the “mountain of evidence” you have provided for your accusations against Pope Francis. It seems, therefore, that you cannot help me. Oremus pro invicem.

***

Photo credit: From the Kiwi Report website: “Hardcore Fans of The Three Stooges Need to Know These Facts” (Stephanie Stevens, 1-11-17)

***


Browse Our Archives