Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)

This seems to be an absurd statement, even if you think all religion is equally incorrect and morally wrong. But I'll repeat that this is not really the place for that discussion. This thread is discussing a particular pope and accusations that have been levied against him. If that is meaningless to you perhaps you'll be better off participating in another thread.

Perhaps, but I like this thread. And still, I find it silly that this pope is being singled out for being a heretic, considering that the people who are doing so, have been there for much longer than Francis has been pope, and have not only turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse but covered it up, and been involved in all sorts of financial shenanigans.

As for my statement being absurd, please tell me, what is so absurd about it?
 
Respectfully, this is lazy. They are scholars and leaders in their field, including priests. Also, there's now 81 that have signed on. Josef Seifert, considered by many to be the best Catholic philosopher alive has expressed his support. You might disagree with the letter. But dismissing them as idiots? No way.


It's a letter addressed to the bishops and cardinals.

To understand what's going on we need to take this letter in context. It didn't appear from out of no where. It's a move that was made only after several other efforts to garner clarification have failed. While the letter does a decent job of outlining some of the major problems of ambiguity and/or false teaching of this pope, I do find the effort dangerous and deficient. I don't think it's wise to label the pope as canonically a heretic even if he has allowed his writings and words to be taken in heretical ways. But it does serve a legitimate purpose in my opinion.

To quote Ed Feser ...“The letter, however problematic, is a response to statements and actions of the pope that are also seriously problematic. And if its rashness reflects a kind of exasperation on the part of the signatories, it cannot reasonably be denied that the pope can indeed be exasperating.”

And lest we think it's just this letter that has been submitted for answering, we might recall that a formal dubia was submitted to the pope (by four cardinals) requesting clarification on his teachings in amoris laetitia. It is unthinkable that the questions have gone unanswered. This simply does not happen. And the dubia were in response to private requests for clarification that were also ignored.

There's also several open letters from bishops and cardinals calling for clarification and direction. Most recently, Bishop Athanasius Schneider requested Francis clarify his statements made in the Abu Dhabi text, specifically the assertion that God willed a plurality of religions, which is on its face heresy. He has followed up his personal visit with the pope with a declaration that the text demands a public correction or clarification.



I find this interesting. One of the biggest criticisms of this pope is that he surrounds himself with people who are implicated in sexual and financial scandal, specifically as it pertains to abuse and cover up.

I don't think you can call me lazy respectfully.

And I was using the Newsweek article, which only mentions 19 signatories. I tried to look up some more on this and didn't find anything quickly, so I assumed 19 was correct. I actually didn't call them idiots. Just that you can find a small group of any kind of outrage (or idiotic people), so this small group writing a letter, didn't really make me think much of it. Not because they're idiots, but because a few outspoken critics isn't anything by the usual noise of life.

So, what are your thoughts on this letter? is it fair? Is it not?

Personally, after reading some of the stuff on LifeSite news and their faithful Shepard tracker, I'm kinda disgusted with that group. They're just... mean.
 
To those that are Catholic, is this just a ruse for attention to get the Pope in compliance, or could it actually gain traction?
 
To those that are Catholic, is this just a ruse for attention to get the Pope in compliance, or could it actually gain traction?

I doubt it gets much traction, but I'm biased as a supporter of the Pope. Francis is popular, especially amongst younger Catholics worldwide, Catholic minorites in the US, and most definitely Catholics in Latin America. I would imagine most of his detractors are the more orthodox, conservative faction of the Church.
 
He is not the only one CURRENTLY surrounding himself in sexual and financial scandals... heck, CURRENTLY there are many within the Catholic church who are involved in sexual and financial scandals. Why is no one accusing them of heresy?

Maybe we should. I’ve long had an issue with the Catholic Church and their handling of these scandals. I find it sickening.
 
I would hope that the pope would forgive them all for what they have accused him of and then immediately excommunicate each one of them.
 
I dunno..I’m kinda understanding the church’s position on this one (though clearly I don’t agree with the premise). Where in the Bible or Catholic doctrine is homosexuality ok’d? I’ve always thought there was only so far the Pope could go and he was ‘pushing it’ a bit and would eventually face backlash from the more conservative base.

Not trying to go on a tangent, but It seems like the majority of these issues are either answered or ignored (you could argue homosexuality here) or not specified enough and people insert their own thoughts and act as if it is synonymous with a creator’s intentions. Could the Pope in his position of power be asserting his own personal ‘truths’ because of the position he’s in and platform he’s been given?
 
I dunno..I’m kinda understanding the church’s position on this one (though clearly I don’t agree with the premise). Where in the Bible or Catholic doctrine is homosexuality ok’d? I’ve always thought there was only so far the Pope could go and he was ‘pushing it’ a bit and would eventually face backlash from the more conservative base.

Not trying to go on a tangent, but It seems like the majority of these issues are either answered or ignored (you could argue homosexuality here) or not specified enough and people insert their own thoughts and act as if it is synonymous with a creator’s intentions. Could the Pope in his position of power be asserting his own personal ‘truths’ because of the position he’s in and platform he’s been given?

I'd have to read Amoris Laetitia better, and I'm no theologian. I glanced at it a couple years ago.

But, I always took his comments on homosexuals, divorced persons (with no annulment), etc as just saying, just because they're living in sin, doesn't mean we have to treat them like crap.

We don't just welcome the pure of heart. We don't just welcome the chaste.

I think at most, he suggested consideration of how to better serve those groups and how to better include them? Again, I need to read it better.

Divorce is an interesting one. You're technically in adultery, if you're with anyone else. So, are you constantly sinning, where confession is meaningless? Or is the act of leaving the union of your marriage what is the sin, and the confession isn't meaningless? I'm sure the catechism gets into this, but I'm only just thinking about it on my own.

It's one of those cases, where it seems to be impossible to forgive and move on. It's an odd situation.

If you stole from someone.. confessed.. did your recompense.. your'e forgiven, right?

Then take Abortion, some catholics are so militant about it, it's actually a bit scary. It's one thing to support life, but some make that their only focus in life, and care nothing of the poor, being a good person, etc. It's about ideological purity.
 
I dunno..I’m kinda understanding the church’s position on this one (though clearly I don’t agree with the premise). Where in the Bible or Catholic doctrine is homosexuality ok’d? I’ve always thought there was only so far the Pope could go and he was ‘pushing it’ a bit and would eventually face backlash from the more conservative base.

Not trying to go on a tangent, but It seems like the majority of these issues are either answered or ignored (you could argue homosexuality here) or not specified enough and people insert their own thoughts and act as if it is synonymous with a creator’s intentions. Could the Pope in his position of power be asserting his own personal ‘truths’ because of the position he’s in and platform he’s been given?

I guess that depends on whether one accepts that the pope is indeed Vicarius Christi , the representative of Jesus on Earth. If one accepts that, then the Pope's truths are Jesus' truths as well.
 
I don't think you can call me lazy respectfully.

And I was using the Newsweek article, which only mentions 19 signatories. I tried to look up some more on this and didn't find anything quickly, so I assumed 19 was correct. I actually didn't call them idiots. Just that you can find a small group of any kind of outrage (or idiotic people), so this small group writing a letter, didn't really make me think much of it. Not because they're idiots, but because a few outspoken critics isn't anything by the usual noise of life.

So, what are your thoughts on this letter? is it fair? Is it not?

Personally, after reading some of the stuff on LifeSite news and their faithful Shepard tracker, I'm kinda disgusted with that group. They're just... mean.

I mean, this story is pretty important and you dismissed it with a drive by post. So while I respect you and consider you a friend, I'm telling you your take was lazy. That's different than suggesting you have the general character flaw of laziness, which I do not think is true. It's the difference between this is lazy vs you are lazy. I meant no insult and thought I was replying in a similar tone as your own.

I don't personally like the style of lifesitenews even if they do a decent job of compiling information. Catholic News Agency is probably the best at simply reporting the news. OnePeterFive are pretty focused on returning to the Latin Mass and such, so it's off putting to some. But they have excellent writing and have been all over these theological issues since the beginning. Secular media is absolutely atrocious at reporting on these things. They get it wrong just about 100% of the time and simply do not understand what they are writing about.

My personal thoughts on the letter is that it does a good job summarizing the problematic words, writings, and actions of Francis. And they have been a problem. The faithful have a right to demand clarification and explanation. The pope has an obligation to answer the questions of the dubia. The hubris suggested by silence is unacceptable, disturbing, and unprecedented. But I do not like that the letter uses 'heretical' as an adjective to describe the pope. In charity it should distinguish actions and words that would appear to be heresy from the man himself, allowing for the possibility that he would clarify or renounce seemingly heretical statements. I also find the language of the letter to be canonically confusing. But I'm not a canon lawyer. In short, I think there are serious problems and deficiencies with the letter as it relates to accusations of heresy. But the actual content and documentation of the problems are pretty useful and definitely fair.
 
I mean, this story is pretty important and you dismissed it with a drive by post. So while I respect you and consider you a friend, I'm telling you your take was lazy. That's different than suggesting you have the general character flaw of laziness, which I do not think is true. It's the difference between this is lazy vs you are lazy. I meant no insult and thought I was replying in a similar tone as your own.

I don't personally like the style of lifesitenews even if they do a decent job of compiling information. Catholic News Agency is probably the best at simply reporting the news. OnePeterFive are pretty focused on returning to the Latin Mass and such, so it's off putting to some. But they have excellent writing and have been all over these theological issues since the beginning. Secular media is absolutely atrocious at reporting on these things. They get it wrong just about 100% of the time and simply do not understand what they are writing about.

My personal thoughts on the letter is that it does a good job summarizing the problematic words, writings, and actions of Francis. And they have been a problem. The faithful have a right to demand clarification and explanation. The pope has an obligation to answer the questions of the dubia. The hubris suggested by silence is unacceptable, disturbing, and unprecedented. But I do not like that the letter uses 'heretical' as an adjective to describe the pope. In charity it should distinguish actions and words that would appear to be heresy from the man himself, allowing for the possibility that he would clarify or renounce seemingly heretical statements. I also find the language of the letter to be canonically confusing. But I'm not a canon lawyer. In short, I think there are serious problems and deficiencies with the letter as it relates to accusations of heresy. But the actual content and documentation of the problems are pretty useful and definitely fair.

I wasn't insulted. Just making a comment. I'm good.


Given the insistence of the letter that the pope is not only in material heresy, but guilty of the canonical delict, the apparent gap in legal understanding detracts significantly from the letter’s gravity.

Other papal “actions that indicate a rejection of truths of the faith” proposed by the letter consist of a long list of individuals Francis is accused of promoting or associating with. Further supposedly “indicative” proof appears even more tenuous, with the shape of a liturgical staff once used by Francis termed a “satanic stang” by the letter.

If support for the letter’s legal premise has been absent, its reception among theologians has largely been one of disappointment.

Though many have noted that some of the issues raised in it are ongoing sources of concern and confusion for Catholics that would certainly benefit from an unambiguous clarification by the pope, by grounding their complaints in the “canonical crime of heresy,” the letters authors have been seen by many to work from a deeply flawed premise.

The attempt to yoke together serious issues, like the language of parts of Amoris Laetitia, with trivial complaints, like the shape of a staff in a liturgical procession, has largely been met with skepticism.

Many have observed that the letter’s scatter-gun approach to topics as varied as theological language and episcopal appointments lessens the impact of its concerns, even as it attempts to amplify them.


This seems like a fair summary.


Robert Corzine, vice president of programs at the St. Paul Center, told CNA that Kwasniewski “definitely does not speak for the St. Paul Center in this regard.”

Corzine noted that the center had previously published an English language version of a handbook for the pastoral care of the family according to Amoris Laetitia.

“While the signatories of that letter clearly have their own particular way of interpreting Amoris Laetitia, if anything can be read in continuity with orthodox teaching and tradition it should be – and Amoris laetitia definitely can be,” Corzine said.

Petri told CNA that the letter is unconvincing in both its arguments and its rationale.

“Apart from the canonical implications this may have for the signers, the letter itself is a hodgepodge of concerns that prevent it being taken very seriously as a whole,” Petri said.

“While I agree there remain questions and concerns about some applications of Amoris laetitia, I cannot see how any of those concerns are necessarily material heresy.”

I still feel like I shouldn't care too much about this letter, or its main claims. And that these 19 may be somewhat on the fringe.

The only idea is that Amoris laetitia has created a few questions that would benefit from clarification.
 
Would that be heresy in itself?
My apologies if an ignorant question. Although my wife was raised Catholic she denounced Catholicism as she grew up. And I was raised southern Baptist. Which I am also not affiliated with anymore.

We believe in God, just not in organized religion.

And as I read Brennan’s post, I don’t mean to digress or thread-jack. As stated I don’t know Catholicism.

Heresy, as defined in the catechism...
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

So it's not heresy in itself to accuse someone of heresy.

Heresy is the denial of a truth of the faith. For example, if I believed that Jesus was just a nice guy and not divine in nature, I'd hold a heretical belief.
 

The pope’s letter emphasized Amoris’ continuity with past teaching, saying there was “no rupture,” and that it should not be considered a handbook for handling particular cases. Francis also wrote that attempts to lift particular sections out of their context left them open to misreading.

“It cannot be considered a vademecum [manual] on different issues. If the Exhortation is not read in its entirety and in the order it is written, it will either not be understood or it will be distorted,” the pope wrote.

Fr. Petri told CNA that this was an important point in the pope’s letter.

“I appreciate the Holy Father’s point that the document has to be read as a whole, and particularly his insistence that it be read in order and in its entirety for its meaning to be understood,” he said.

“I think part of the reason Amoris laetitia has been considered ‘controversial’ by some people is precisely because there have been misguided attempts to read chapter 8, or even specific lines of chapter 8, in isolation and outside of the essential context of the preceding chapters. The necessary context of the wider document clearly does situate Amoris within the Church’s traditional teachings.”

Fr. Petri said that Amoris laetitia’s message of love and support for couples in difficult situations answered a real pastoral need, one that should not be obscured by attempts to make it say something it does not.

“It seems clear to me,” Petri said, “that, for example, chapter 8 is about helping couples in complicated and painful circumstances to move towards a regular situation, for their own benefit. It is not about trying to regularize the irregular.”

Again, I need to read the whole thing, but my overall take seems to be what Fr. Petri is saying at the end here.
 
Heresy, as defined in the catechism...


So it's not heresy in itself to accuse someone of heresy.

Heresy is the denial of a truth of the faith. For example, if I believed that Jesus was just a nice guy and not divine in nature, I'd hold a heretical belief.
@Humperdoo to add a little to this..


The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]
The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.
Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of theschismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

Read the rest in the link in terms of punishments for people found Formally guilty of heresy, apostasy, schism...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom