This October 2, the Vatican released the full text of the response that Pope Francis sent to the five dubia presented by five cardinals last July on issues of doctrine and discipline before the celebration of the ordinary general assembly of the Synod of Synodality that begins this week.
The document was published on the Vatican website in pdf format and contains the request that the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Fernández, made to the Holy Father to disseminate this communication, the full text of the dubia presented and the complete answers of the Pontiff.
Pope Francis’ Responses
Dear brothers,
Although it does not always seem prudent to answer the questions addressed directly to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case it seemed appropriate to do so due to the proximity of the Synod.
Question 1
a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret.” If it is understood as “interpret better” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the task of the exegetes – I add the theologians – ” the judgment of the Church matures ” (Second Vat. Ecum. Conc., Dogm. Const. Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable wealth and needs to grow in its understanding .
c) Consequently, she also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify Revelation, but they can stimulate us to better explain some aspects of its overflowing richness that always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact it has happened this way throughout history.
f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of the Scriptures and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that allows their perennial substance to be distinguished from cultural conditioning. . It is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bula Dum Diversas, 1452). It is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts need an interpretation. The same applies to some New Testament considerations about women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that today cannot be physically repeated.
g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (II Vat. Ecum. Conc., Dogm. Const. Dei Verbum , 7). Therefore the Church must constantly discern between that which is essential for salvation and that which is secondary or less directly connected to this objective. In this regard, I am interested in remembering what Saint Thomas Aquinas stated: “the more one descends to the particular, the more indeterminacy increases” ( Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented alone, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of all Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies placing each of them in adequate connection with the most central truths and with the totality of the teaching of the Church. This can ultimately give rise to different ways of exposing the same doctrine, although “to those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances, this may seem like an imperfect dispersion. But the reality is that this variety helps them to manifest and develop.” better the various aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” ( Evangelii gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.
Question 2
a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to begetting children. Only that union she calls “marriage.” Other forms of union only do so “in a partial and analogous way” ( Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”
b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. Without a doubt it is much more than a mere “ideal”.
c) For this reason the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and imply that something is recognized as marriage that is not.
d) However, in dealing with people we must not lose pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of that charity, which is also made of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Consequently, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or several people, that do not transmit a wrong conception of marriage. Because when you ask for a blessing you are expressing a request for help from God, a prayer to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat other people as “sinners” whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that they influence subjective imputability (cf. Saint John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia , 17).
g) Decisions that, in certain circumstances, may form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not convenient for a Diocese, an Episcopal Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rites for all types of matters, since everything “that is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation does not can be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” ( Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, and neither should the Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols, because the life of the Church flows through many channels in addition to the normative ones.
Question 3
a) While you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised, either by the Pope due to his office, or by the college of bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (cf. Vat. Ecum. Conc. II, Dogmatic Const. Lumen Gentium , 22), however with these dubia you yourselves express your need to participate, to express your opinion freely and to collaborate, and thus you are demanding some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.
b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but the entire People of God in different ways and at different levels can make themselves heard . their voice and feel part of the path of the Church. In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. Saint John Paul II has said very beautiful things on this point in Novo millennio ineunte .
c) Another thing is to sacralize or impose a certain synodal methodology that pleases a group, turning it into a norm and obligatory channel for everyone, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal path, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied wealth of the universal Church.
Question 4
a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (II Vat. Ecum. Conc., Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium , 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood illuminate and support each other.
b) When Saint John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “definitively”, he was in no way belittling women and granting supreme power to men. Saint John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, when we talk about priestly power “we find ourselves in the area of function , not of dignity or holiness” (Saint John Paul II, Christifideles laici , 51). These are words that we have not welcomed sufficiently. He also clearly maintained that while only the priest presides over the Eucharist, the tasks ” do not give rise to the superiority of one over another” (Saint John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores , VI). He also stated that if the priestly function is “hierarchical”, it should not be understood as a form of dominion, but rather “is totally ordered to the holiness of the members of Christ” (Saint John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem , 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only for men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.
c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine regarding the exact nature of a “definitive declaration” has not yet been exhaustively developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be followed by everyone. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be an object of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.
Question 5
a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the purpose of not sinning. But there is no math here and once again I must remember that the confessional is not a customs office. We are not owners, but humble administrators of the Sacraments that feed the faithful, because these gifts from the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are help from the Holy Spirit for people’s lives.
b) There are many ways to express regret. Frequently, in people who have a very damaged self-esteem, declaring guilt is cruel torture, but the very fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and seeking divine help.
c) I also want to remember that “sometimes it is very difficult for us to give place in pastoral care to the unconditional love of God” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn it. Following Saint John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful overly precise and certain purposes of amendment, which ultimately end up being abstract or even egotistical, but that even the predictability of a new fall “does not prejudge the authenticity of the purpose.” ” (Saint John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum and to the participants of the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).
d) Finally, it must be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed in the confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychic capacities.
(Translated from ACI Prensa)