The Five Dubia of the Four Cardinals

For the convenience of our readership, I am posting here the five dubia submitted to Pope Francis by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner (courtesy of Thomas McKenna).

Note: dubia is the plural of dubium, so we say “duba are,” not “dubia is”! The words means “doubt,” but in this context it is a technical term meaning a type of question, to be answered in the affirmative or negative, addressed to the Holy Father or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The dubia:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

Raymond Leo, Cardinal Burke, Prefect Emeritus of the Supreme Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Prefect Emeritus of the Supreme Apostolic Signatura,
Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

  • M.

    Thank you, Br. André Marie, for this succinct and clear presentation on this rather disturbing event. I do wonder what is transpiring in Rome at this very moment. I suppose the day has come to an end and there is no word from the Holy Father. Prayer, prayer, and more prayer, right? God bless you!

  • Righto! Much prayer is necessary. You’re welcome. Posting it was pretty easy thanks to copy and paste technology. I’m preparing a lengthier piece on the subject for early next week.

  • Andrew Baalman

    I wrote this piece on my own blog, the post is called ‘The Pope and The Heretical Cardinals’ https://cardinalallennephew.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/the-pope-and-the-heretical-cardinals/

  • Andrew Baalman

    Also, I would you all to go to https://www.ordo-militaris.us/donate to donate whatever amount you can afford to help Ordo Militaris.