Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein have
done me the honour of a reply, at some length, to my post, in my comments
box. I want to take this as seriously as possible, so I paste it in below, in full, in
bold, with my replies to each point.
Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I wish to thank you
for your tone of civility. We hope to reply with equal civility regarding your
post: “A Challenge for Fastiggi and Goldstein.”
Thank you.
Our points of response are the following:
1. You are correct that “impressions” are subjective. Our point, however, is that
your subjective impressions regarding papal words and actions are not shared by
all. In justice there is always a need to determine what people mean before
making judgments of potential heresy. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith examines cases of possible heresy, it follows strict norms of
procedure in order to insure justice for the one accused (See CDF, Regulations
for Doctrinal Examination, Ratio Agendi May 30, 1997; AAS 89 [1997] 830–835).
If so much care is given to the examination of individual theologians before
making judgments of heresy, should not the same be extended to the Roman
Pontiff? Canon law tells us: “The First See is judged by no one” (CIC [1983] canon 1404).
Certainly the Pope deserves the chance to clarify what exactly
he means, in the context of disagreement about what that may be. That is why
many people, including the ‘Four Cardinals’, have been respectfully but
urgently asking Pope Francis for such a clarification: as you know they wrote
to him in September 2016, more than a year ago. He has not responded
formally, but meanwhile many of his supporters have been telling us that
various informal responses are clear enough, and have criticised strongly those
unwilling to allow their interpretation of Amoris to be guided by these
informal indications. In any case, other people have been guided by them, and
Pope Francis has not intervened to put them right.
The Correctio makes it very clear that we are not judging the Pope or accusing him of the sin of heresy.
2. You object to the word “mostly” when we say
that your claim of Pope Francis not wanting orthodoxy is derived “mostly [from]
non-authoritative statements of the Pope” and not, as you assert, “entirely
[from] non-authoritative statements.” Mostly is correct because, in addition to
citing references to non-authoritative sources, the Correctio filialis speaks
of “the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris
laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.” As a papal
exhortation, Amoris laetitia would carry the same authority of the ordinary
papal Magisterium as St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio of 1981.
Documents emanating from the Holy See or
General Councils can contain both Magisterial and non-Magisterial statements. Non-Magisterial
statements would include, obviously, those not concerning faith and morals,
such as historical claims. They also include statements which are unclear: there
can be no obligation on Catholics to believe a statement if they cannot
determine what the statement means. Yet another category of non-Magisterial
statements in official documents are those which go beyond or against the
Ordinary Magisterium.
An example of this last case which is not
controversial is the claim of the Council of Florence-Ferrara that the sacramental
‘matter’ in priestly ordination is not the laying-on of hands, but the handing
over of the chalice. We commonly say that statements of General Councils other
than anathemas have non-infallible teaching authority from the Ordinary
Magisterium. In such a case, however, it would be more accurate to say that
this statement is not a statement of the Ordinary Magisterium at all, since it
contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium cannot
contradict itself.
The contention of the Correctio Filialis is
that the statements of Amoris which concern
us are ambiguous: they can be read in accordance with the Ordinary Magisterium,
which we would obviously accept, or they can be read as contradicting the
Ordinary Magisterium. Those who insist on the latter possibility cannot, of
course, simultaneously claim that they are examples
of the Ordinary Magisterium and are therefore binding. You can’t be bound, by the Ordinary Magisterium, to reject the Ordinary Magisterium.
3. You mention the private letter of Pope Francis to the
Bishops of Buenos Aires as an example of something that is “impossible to
square with the constant teaching of the Church.” Cardinal Müller, however, in his Sept. 28 National
Catholic Register interview with Edward Pentin, said: “[If] you look at what
the Argentine bishops wrote in their directive, you can interpret this in an
orthodox way” (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-mller-discusses-the-cdf-the-curia-and-amoris-laetitia).
What you consider “impossible” to square
with orthodoxy, others find possible.
That no-one
disagrees with me is not part of what I am claiming. It would be interesting,
though hardly decisive, to know what Cardinal Müller thinks of the guidelines of
the Bishops of Malta, which seem to go beyond those of the bishops of Buenos
Aires, in clearly contradicting Canon 915.
4. You ask what we would do if we thought the pope of the day
were indicating non-authoritatively that bishops and ordinary Catholics should
act and believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church? This is
something purely hypothetical. Neither of us believe Pope Francis is asking
people to act or believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church. If,
though, we thought we were facing such a situation, we would make our concerns
known to our Ordinary first and then, if need be, to the papal Nuncio or the
Holy See. We would not have recourse to the mass media.
We and many others
who have had concerns over Amoris and
its interpretations have gone to considerable trouble to go through the proper channels.
Grouping together to compose and sign a joint statement is an obvious way to maximise
the ‘knowledge, competence and position’ mentioned in Canon 212 in relation to
appeals by the Faithful; it would also be impractical to expect the Holy See to
response to hundreds of individual petitions. Being an international group
means that we do not have a single Ordinary or indeed a single Papal Nuncio.
There is nothing in Canon Law which prohibits us from appealing directly to the
Pope, but as a matter of fact many of us first appealed to the College of
Cardinals, a year ago. Finally, we did not ‘have recourse to the mass media’
until six weeks had passed, without response, since our petition was given
personally to the Holy Father.
Ruling out ‘recourse
to the mass media’ in all circumstances clearly contradicts Canon 212 which
notes that it can be an obligation to make concerns known to ‘others of
Christ's faithful’, and is therefore ruled out as a sensible reading of Donum veritatis, from which you take the
phrase.
I would suggest
that were you facing that situation, and were you to respond as you suggest,
you could very well find yourselves failing to discharge the duty which Canon
212 mentions, to make your concerns known to other members of the Faithful. For myself, I feel subjectively obliged to act because it seems
clear to me that, given the knowledge, competence and position of my fellow
signatories, and given that bishops and the Holy Father are not (or not all) acting
to defend the Magisterium, we can and must warn the Faithful about a proximate danger
to the Faith.
5. Your point about Donum veritatis referring to theologians
who reject the ordinary Magisterium begs the question because you have not
established that Pope Francis is going against any teaching of the Magisterium.
You cite canon 212§3, but you fail to mention that it also requires manifesting
opinions with reverence toward pastors and attention to “the common advantage
and the dignity of persons.” We question whether accusing Pope Francis of
propagating heresies is really showing reverence, and we question whether this
serves the common advantage of the Church and the dignity of persons. We also
do not believe that the Correctio follows the guidelines of Donum veritatis, as
we explained in our article.
The text of the
Correctio makes the case in detail, and with copious documentation, for the
view that, by his words, deeds, and omissions, Pope Francis is propagating views
contrary to the Magisterium. A bald denial by you is hardly an adequate
response.
We are very
aware of the requirement of Canon 212 (and of common sense) for reverence,
attention to the common advantage, and so on. Again, a bald assertion by you
that we have failed to do this is no argument.
You appear to
be missing what should be obvious, that we
believe that Pope Francis is doing what we claim he is doing. Given our
subjective position, what is it we are obliged to do, in conscience, and how
should we go about it? It is not an act of reverence or affection to fail to point out grave and urgent
problems in a Pope’s government of the Church: to fail in this way is to act as
a timeserving courtier, not a faithful member of the Mystical Body. Those who
love the Pope and respect his office should feel profoundly the duty to make
clear exactly how serious the problem is, however much what they say is
expressed in respectful terms, and however much they may wish to give the Pope
the chance to clarify his position privately and so on. I really cannot see how
the Correctio can be faulted on these grounds.
6. You mention that Matthew 18:15–17 allows for making
problems public when private admonitions fail. This text, though, advises
taking a brother to the Church for correction. It does not advise correcting
the head of the Church.
This seems a most
surprising reading of Matthew 18:15-17, in light of Galatians 2:11, in which St
Paul recalls how he ‘opposed’ St Peter, the Pope, ‘to his face’, and the
tradition of interpretation the latter text has had among the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church. The most famous example of this tradition of
interpretation is St Thomas Aquinas, who notes two other
scriptural passages:
Lev. 19:17: ‘Thou
shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou
incur sin through him.’
We could also
add Ezekial 33:8: ‘If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way:
that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy
hand.’
Aquinas
continues: ‘Apropos
of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as
an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of
authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have
an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain
corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an
example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates,
particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.’
7. Like you, we wish to affirm the teachings of the
infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. We are not questioning your
faith or sincerity; we are only questioning your methods.
Affirming the infallible Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium requires of Catholics that they not only live by it, but as God’s
honour and the good of their neighbours requires, witness to it publicly.
Oremus pro invicem,
Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.
Thank you for responding.
