ugg factory outlet Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger rules for faithful theological discourse
Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the signers of the Correctio filialis, recently wrote: is not that we saying that the text of Amoris cannot be bent into some kind of orthodoxy. What we are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there. This does not seem to be a very strong foundation for accusing the Roman Pontiff of promoting false teachings and heresies.
The supporters of the Correctio and other critics of Amoris laetitia often try to contrast what Pope Francis says in this exhortation to teachings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is interesting, therefore, to note that many of these same critics fail to follow the guidelines for theologians published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990 when John Paul II was pope and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, was prefect of the CDF. These guidelines are contained in the instruction, Donum veritatis (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian) (3) a document that traditionalist opponents of Amoris laetitia, such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (4), ironically claim to hold in high esteem.
Donum veritatis was issued to explain the need for Catholic theologians to maintain communion with the Magisterium of the Church. Building upon Vatican II Lumen gentium and Canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Donum veritatis does recognize that theologians might have problems with certain magisterial teachings (5). The theologian, however, do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties (7).
Critics of Amoris laetitia might argue that, in making their petitions to the Pope and signing the Correctio filialis, they are doing exactly what Donum veritatis charges them to do. In what follows, we hope to show that the critics of Amoris laetitia have not properly followed the guidelines set forth in that document. The Correctio filialis fails to do this. It also cites statements by papal associates and appointees. They therefore make no mention of numerous unambiguously orthodox papal statements that are of a far higher level of magisterium than those that they cite. For example, the Correctio ignores the Pope January 2016 address to the Roman Rota, in which he affirmed the indissolubility of marriage and ruled out Walter Cardinal Kasper proposal to readmit the divorced and civilly remarried to Communion without requiring continence: Church with a renewed sense of responsibility continues to propound marriage in its essential elements offspring, the good of the spouses, unity, indissolubility and sacramentality not as an ideal meant only for the few, notwithstanding modern models fixated on the ephemeral and the passing, but rather as a reality that in Christ grace can be lived out by all baptized faithful (11).
Donum veritatis admonishes theologians to safeguard not only the of truth (unitas veritatis) but also the of charity (unitas caritatis). Many prominent critics of Amoris laetitia, however, are quite transparent in their intent to give the worst possible interpretations to statements and actions of Pope Francis (12). This tendency violates not only the unity of charity but also goes against the need to avoid rash judgment. Such commentators would do well to recall the teaching of St. Ignatius of Loyola cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another statement than to condemn it (CCC 2478) (13).
In Donum veritatis we find this instruction: theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non arguable conclusions. They boldly declare that words, deeds and omissions of Pope Francis, in conjunction with certain passages of Amoris laetitia serving to propagate heresies within the Church (14).
Donum veritatis also warns theologians against giving public expression to their opinions. This admonition is concerned about the effect of such expressions on the Catholic faithful (15). This is why the theologians are warned against turning to the media (16).
But supporters of the Correctio filialis have set up internet sites seeking signatures in support of the of Pope Francis for heresies (18). Donum veritatis recognizes the danger of such a magisterium of theologians, which cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct.
Donum veritatis has strong words for those who promote public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a among theologians, [or] maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth ( this, it says, a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church.
Yet is this not precisely what the Correctio signatories are doing? They are presenting themselves as the spokesmen of an autonomous community that pits itself against an orthodox reading of Pope Francis words in a document of high magisterial level. Donum veritatis statement that such actions indicate grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church, should serve as an admonition to these signatories: they are operating outside the habitus of theology.
Some commentators say that they have a right to speak out against Amoris laetitia because the Pope has not made his opinion clear enough to them. Such an attitude, however, stands in opposition to Donum veritatis which says that disagreement with the Magisterium not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable.
Critics of Amoris laetitia, however, often claim that they are only expressing their difficulties with reconciling certain statements of the exhortation with previous Church teaching. To help overcome such difficulties, Donum veritatis provides this instruction: theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
Sending petitions that accuse the Holy Father of directly or indirectly promoting heresies, however, does not seem to reflect such an attitude of and patient reflection which is open to correction from theological colleagues. The critics of Amoris laetitia don often seem to welcome constructive criticisms of their assertions. Instead, they appear resolved to discredit any effort to challenge their position (20).
In making these observations, we do not wish to impugn the sincerity of the critics of Amoris laetitia. Perhaps in their own way they believe they are acting for the good of the Church. However, if they are to voice their concerns about Pope Francis apostolic exhortation in a manner that is truly Catholic, it is their responsibility to do so in conformity with the instructions of Donum veritatis, which even they agree form a vital part of the tradition they claim to value.(11) of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Officials of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the Inauguration of the Judicial Year,(12) See the October 1, 2017 article in The Remnant by Christopher Ferrara, one of the signers of the Correctio:(13) St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises
(15) We only need to consider the effect on the faithful of the article by the philosopher, Josef Seifert, who claims that Amoris laetitia 303 the logical consequence of destroying the entire Catholic moral teaching. The excessive language of Seifert article prompted us to write our previous article, which was published on Sept. 26,