Points to Ponder:

Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense. [Ralph Waldo Emerson]

The Titanic's Forgotten Sister

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case. [Rev. James J. McGovern Quoting Abp. John B. Purcell at the First Vatican Council in His Book Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, pg. 241 (circa 1903)]

Throughout the months leading up to and throughout Lent of 2019, a series of postings were made to this site. They each had value on their own merits of course but they were building towards what was eventually posted during Holy Week of 2019: a three part series written in October of 2017{1} responding to a so-called "correctio filialis" published in September of that year. For those who are interested, the aforementioned threads in order from oldest to most recent can be viewed HERE.

Getting back to the recently published material{2}, I could not for more than a year find both the time as well as the motivation to delve into those matters anew. Nonetheless, through a gradual process as well as using the Lenten season as a kind of cudgel,{3} it was possible to get to the point to where those writings were finally published. It now is manifestly evident that my motivation for finally getting around to doing that was truly prescient.

For on Holy Week of 2019, a sequel letter of sorts was put out there by more or less the same pretentious sorts that were behind the original so-called "correctio filalis" and it takes a fair amount of material from the same letter that was addressed in the series I recently published. Only rather than hedge somewhat on the accusation as was the case in the "correctio filialis", this time they have gone further and rather than merely insinuate that Pope Francis is a heretic, they have actually shown the temerity to actually call him one!

As I have already pointed out in reasonable detail why it is not possible for a pope to be an actual heretic{4} as well as how this position was one affirmed by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council{5}, I am therefore not going to retread that ground. Nor am I going to reiterate anew the points already more than adequately refuted in that series except to note that in perusing the new text, I see that there are seven explicit claims of heresy leveled at Pope Francis. Of the seven, five were already addressed in the prior series{6} along with the deficient spiritual formation that permeates the diseased mindset of these folks. (Also dealt in detail with previously and not to be repeated at length here.) However, let us at least touch briefly on one of the problems inherent with these sorts of folks with a very brief reprisal of some material from the earlier series:

It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic spiritual tradition to not rashly presume the worst in others. Before touching on their seven accusations of heresy, let us consider this factor of no small importance. What do the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition have to say about those who are quick to presume the worst possible interpretation of the words and statements of another? Time and space constraints will only allow us to touch quickly on a few so without further ado: 

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst.[...]

St. Francis de Sales also said that we are not "[to] weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate."[...] Does any of this resemble the actions and statements of the folks who authored or signed onto the so-called “fraternal correction”? Hardly!{7}

The same principles outlined in that note apply in spades to the folks involved in the most recent letter. What will be addressed here is the two new points which were not previously dealt with. It bears noting that the format of this Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church is more convoluted than that of the Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which despite its many problems was at least more straightforward in its presentation. Without further ado, onto addressing the two new accusations.

It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife.

What is common to virtually all the areas in the new text that supposedly buttress this claim is they revolve around the subjects of conscience as well as jumping into areas where Pope Francis himself admits are difficult to pastorally navigate. If there was greater humility by these folks, it would be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, that is unfortunately not the case as these folks objectively manifest operative presumptions that are rash and sinful in themselves.

We could say if we were being charitable{8} that at least they seem to have zeal for the salvation of souls. But even granting them that premise, we must still consider many of the pitfalls that can befall such persons quite often without them having any recognition of such. To wit:

1. Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God. 

2. The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.) 

3. Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings. 

4. In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.

5. Some persons are even presumptuous enough in their mistaken zeal to meddle in the domestic affairs of strange families, blaming, counselling, attempting to reform without measure and discretion, thus causing an evil much greater than the one they wish to correct. Let us employ the activity of our zeal in our own reformation, says Saint Bernard, and pray humbly for that of others. It is great presumption on our part thus to assume the role of apostles when we are not as yet faithful disciples. Not that you should be be by any means indifferent to the salvation to souls: on the contrary you must wish it most ardently, but do not undertake to effect it except with great prudence, humility, and diffidence in self.{9}

Once again, if the persons doing these things at least had some manifested semblance of humility, it would be easier to take them somewhat seriously. But that is not what we have here. Or as I have noted elsewhere:

[A]mong the biggest bellyachers on [Amoris Laetitia] are Catholics who in a number of other areas frequently slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, and express contempt and/or profound disrespect for the Roman Pontiff and the last Ecumenical Council. There is no shortage of folks who do these things often (read: multiple times per day!) yet they still judge themselves as "at peace with God" and thus as fit to receive communion. The odds are pretty good that they do not accuse themselves of these sins in the confessional which means they receive unworthily themselves. They are therefore in no position morally or spiritually to judge anyone else yet they do it all the time.{10}

As for the rest, there is a section in the second installment of the recent three part series{11} which goes over in detail the subject of conscience and more than adequately highlights the ethical and theological shortcomings of these sorts of folks with their accusations along these lines. I therefore need not reinvent the wheel here.

God not only permits but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

The source of this claim is the Joint Declaration on Fraternity of Pope Francis and Grand Imam Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb of Egypt. It should go without saying that joint declarations are fundamentally not doctrinal instruments but intended for the formation of common ground among at times widely divergent entities. In diplomatically sensitive circumstances, there are therefore at times uses of terminology that while true are nonetheless incomplete from the standpoints of the various parties in question. In terms of how Pope Francis intends the statement he signed to be understood, there is no better source to ascertain this than his own general audience on the very subject:

Some might ask themselves: but why is the Pope going to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Because there are many religions, and why are there many religions? Along with the Muslims, we are the descendants of the same Father, Abraham: why does God allow many religions? God wanted to allow this: Scolastica theologians used to refer to God’s voluntas permissiva. He wanted to allow this reality: there are many religions. Some are born from culture, but they always look to heaven; they look to God. But what God wants is fraternity among us and in a special way, this was the reason for the trip, with our brothers, Abraham’s children like us, the Muslims. We must not fear differences. God allowed this. We should be afraid were we to fail to work fraternally to walk together in life.{12}

In short, we have another nothing burger from the Usual Suspects on this matter and this claim of heresy as with their other pathetic offerings{13} laughably falls well short of the mark. I note for a third time that it would be easier to feel some sympathy for these folks if they showed even a scintilla of humility. However, they do not. As I explained in a Lenten reflections thread on folks of this mindset:

There is a difference between legitimate difficulties respectfully expressed and brazenly acting as if they are the determiners of orthodoxy or that they are the ones to "formally correct" the pope or whatever rather than actually being willing to be taught by the Vicar of Christ. It is true that not every statement is of equal weight and there is room for divergent views in different areas to certain extents. But the seeming attitude of many is that if the pope has not spoken infallibly on dogma that it means something is up for grabs. I guess that means at Nicaea only the divinity of Christ was required belief and everything for the first 325 years was optional. That is not how it works and the so-called "paragons of faithful orthodoxy" should know that if they are what they claim.{14}

For some reason, I doubt most of these folks will repent of their calumny and slander (to put it mildly) no matter what anyone says. Therefore, they are deserving of no respect whatsoever and only contempt until such time as they start acting like mature Catholics instead of pompous bellyaching brats.

[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them... 

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885)]

Notes:

{1} "I wrote some draft texts eighteen months ago that constituted a preliminary response to the signatories of a then recent so-called "correctio filialis" (filial correction) of Pope Francis. A variety of circumstances prevented me from publishing them at the time or in subsequent months. However, as we are about to enter into Holy Week 2019, it seems appropriate to address this matter but not in precisely the same way I originally planned.

The material below is close to seventy percent different than that original first draft with a different approach taken for the most part compared to my earlier intentions." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{2} To list them in sequence:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{3} "As far as my preparation for the season goes, among the things I am giving up and the things I will be taking up for this season[...], one of the latter is that I am actually considering doing some apologetics during Lent. Why? Because I have for so long had a low opinion of most of what passes for apologetics on the web over the years. While ignoring it most of the time has long been what I have done, this Lent I will don a proverbial digital hairshirt and wade into this matter from time to time during the Lenten season as a form of penance." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 5, 2019)]

{4} "The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has 'always taught' this the same way she has 'always taught' things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{5} "Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."[...]

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{6} The five in question are indicated in the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church by the Roman numerals I, II, III, IV, and VI which correspond to five of the seven heresies insinuated to various degrees in the document Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis and which were numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from that text respectively.

{7} Excerpt from the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{8} If we are being more charitable to them than they are to others.

{9} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on Zeal

{10} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 21, 2019)

{11} See the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. for details.

{12} Pope Francis: From the General Audience Catechesis on the Apostolic Visitation to Morocco (circa April 3, 2019)

{13} Among the doctrinally specious claims made by many of these folks is a denial of the infallibility of papal canonizations.

{14} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2019)

BREAKING. Attorney General Barr Launches Investigation To Determine How The Russia Investigation Started And More

TWITTER DELENDA EST