What effect do you think it will have now that the word “heresy” has been openly used in reference to Pope Francis? What effect did you anticipate it would have before you decided to sign the open letter?
Well, we had foreseen that quite a few people, even among people who are sympathetic to our views and are, so to say, on our side in this wide controversy, would find this accusation overstated. So, many have argued that this was counterproductive, because it makes our own cause more vulnerable to attack. Many good theologians still argue that Francis’s texts, although very problematic, cannot be convicted of heresy because they are too ambiguous.
I challenge this claim: in fact, I maintain that Francis’s texts, in particular those contained in AL chapter VIII, are tortuous and meandering, but their aim is clear: he wanted to permit irregularly married couples to receive Communion in certain cases. And he officially confirmed his intention with his response to the Argentinian bishops, which he ordered to be included in the AAS (Acta Apostolicae Sedis). This is a historical fact and moreover, one that is in perfect consonance with too many elements in his record to be reasonably called into question.
Now, in order to find a justification for this step, he was bound to affirm a contradiction to Catholic teaching: either to the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage, or to the doctrine that some actions are always and in all cases prohibited, because they are intrinsically evil (intrinsece mala). Since he rejected the first path, he was bound to go down the other. It was a logical necessity, and so he ran headlong into a fatal contradiction with the doctrine solemnly confirmed by Veritatis Splendor. This is a position expressed with more than sufficient clarity in AL, as many theologians have already shown in their analyses of the document. The first six of our propositions are necessarily related to this error. (On the seventh we have already commented.) So, it is wholly incorrect to affirm that our case is “overstated.” It is not a rational refutation of our position (which has not been given) but only a psychological fear of the terrible consequences of admitting papal heresy that prevents many good theologians from facing the hard truth.
The signatories allege a link between Pope Francis’s rejection of Catholic teaching and the favor he has shown to bishops and other clergy who have either been guilty of sexual sins and crimes or covered them up. Can you give the most striking example?
Probably the most disturbing case is that of Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga. In the letter it is noted, among other things, that: “Maradiaga refused to investigate complaints made by 48 out of 180 seminarians about homosexual misbehavior at the Honduras seminary, and attacked the complainants. Pope Francis named Maradiaga as a member and coordinator of the council of nine cardinals that he set up in 2013 to advise him in the government of the universal church.” In this single case, the decidedly criminal inclination of a person whom the Pope insists on keeping among his closest collaborators is clear.
But, even more than a single person, what’s disturbing is the number of prelates who, having concealed, or even personally committed, serious crimes, have been promoted by the Pope to positions of the highest responsibility in the Church. As Archbishop Viganò aptly said, only one of these scandalous promotions would suffice to justify the Pope’s resignation. However, in the case of our letter, we use them mainly as evidence that the Pope doesn’t seem to consider these shortcomings particularly serious, and only proceeds to necessary censures when he is obliged to do so by circumstances, especially by pressure from civil authorities.
Continuará
TRADUCCIÓN AL ESPAÑOL
- ¿Qué efecto cree que tendrá ahora que la palabra "herejía" se ha utilizado abiertamente en referencia al Papa Francisco? ¿Qué efecto anticipó que tendría antes de decidir firmar la carta abierta?
Reto esta afirmación: de hecho, sostengo que los textos de Francis, en particular los contenidos en el capítulo VIII de AL, son tortuosos y sinuosos, pero su objetivo es claro: quería permitir que las parejas casadas de manera irregular reciban la Comunión en ciertos casos. Y confirmó oficialmente su intención con su respuesta a los obispos argentinos, que ordenó ser incluido en el AAS (Acta Apostolicae Sedis). Esto es un hecho histórico y, además, está en perfecta consonancia con demasiados elementos en su registro para ser cuestionado razonablemente.
Ahora, para encontrar una justificación para este paso, estaba obligado a afirmar una contradicción con la enseñanza católica: a la doctrina de la indisolubilidad del matrimonio o a la doctrina de que algunas acciones están siempre y en todos los casos prohibidas, porque están prohibidas. intrínsecamente mal (intrinsece mala). Como rechazó el primer camino, estaba obligado a ir por el otro. Era una necesidad lógica, por lo que se topó con una contradicción fatal con la doctrina confirmada solemnemente por Veritatis Splendor. Esta es una posición expresada con claridad más que suficiente en AL, como muchos teólogos ya han demostrado en sus análisis del documento. Las primeras seis de nuestras proposiciones están necesariamente relacionadas con este error. (En la séptima ya lo hemos comentado). Por lo tanto, es totalmente incorrecto afirmar que nuestro caso es "exagerado". No es una refutación racional de nuestra posición (que no se ha dado) sino un temor psicológico de las terribles consecuencias de admitir la herejía papal que impide que muchos buenos teólogos se enfrenten con la dura verdad.
- Los firmantes alegan un vínculo entre el rechazo del Papa Francisco a la enseñanza católica y el favor que ha demostrado a los obispos y otros clérigos que han sido culpables de pecados sexuales y delitos o los han encubierto. ¿Puede dar el ejemplo más llamativo?
Pero, incluso más que una sola persona, lo que es inquietante es el número de prelados que, habiendo ocultado, o incluso cometido personalmente, delitos graves, han sido promovidos por el Papa a cargos de la más alta responsabilidad en la Iglesia.
Como bien dijo el arzobispo Viganò, sólo una de estas promociones escandalosas sería suficiente para justificar la renuncia del Papa. Sin embargo, en el caso de nuestra carta, las usamos principalmente como evidencia de que el Papa no parece considerar estas deficiencias particularmente graves, y sólo procede a las censuras necesarias cuando está obligado a hacerlo por las circunstancias, especialmente por la presión de autoridades civiles.
Continuará
