Over at The Motherlands (blog), Denise Renner wrote this post: Waiting on a response to the dubia. She says:

“If only children asked questions in the form of dubia: well-worded requests for clarification requiring a “Yes” or “No” in response.”

“It has now been more than 100 days since the dubia were made public. There has been no response.”

“The tricky thing about giving them a “yes” or “no,” is that things become very, very clear.”

My rebuttal to the above-quoted claims is as follows. First, many questions cannot be answered correctly with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’. Complex questions of theology or praxis cannot always be reduced to a Yes or a No. And even a question written is in the form of a Dubium, that is to say, it is written so that the answer will be, presumably, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, often neither response will be a true clarification.

See my commentary on the 5 Dubia.

Question 1 of the Dubia is not answerable as Yes or No because it makes assumptions and over-simplifies the situation of the divorced and remarried (which situations vary greatly). The term “more uxorio” (in the manner of a wife) means that the couple are having sexual relations, as if they were validly married. But it may be the case that a couple tries to live chastely, and yet they fall into that sin repeatedly. They can be forgiven, if they are repentant. And even if they continue to fall into the same sin, they can confess again, and may receive Communion again.

A far worse problem in the Church today is that the vast majority of Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics RARELY or NEVER go to Confession. The Dubia treat the divorced and remarried as if they were the only sinners in the Church. It is like the Pharisees accusing the woman caught in adultery. It seems from Jesus’ response that she was repentant. Yet the Pharisees were unrepentant from many grave sins, and still they accused a repentant sinner and wished for her to be condemned by Jesus. I tell you, Pope Francis is not going to condemn any repentant sinners, even if they are divorced and remarried.

Question 2 asks if, since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsically evil acts still needs to be regarded as valid. That is not really a question seeking clarification, as the supporters of the Dubia falsely claim. This question is not a well-worded request for clarification. It is a pride-filled challenge to the holy Pontiff, accusing him of violating the teachings of Veritatis Splendor. And yet, as I understand the situation, many supporters of the Dubia have themselves rejected the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsically evil acts by radical reinterpretation (as I have frequently explained in past posts).

As I read Amoris Laetitia, nothing in Veritatis Splendor is denied. Rather, there is an acknowledgement that objective mortal sin is not always actual mortal sin. A person who sins gravely, might repent, confess, communicate, and then later fall again. The controversial passages, n. 300 to 306, I read as a call to conservatives to reconsider some of their common false assumptions, and to take a more pastoral and forgiving point of view. But the authors and supporters of the Dubia attempt to shake off this teaching, and to reassert the errors of over-simplification and of assuming that the divorced and remarried, who know the rules about marriage, must be in a state of actual mortal sin. The Pontiff rightly cites the CCC on the factors that might make an objective mortal sin not also an actual mortal sin, and this has been widely ignored.

The critics of Amoris Laetitia refuse to accept this teaching. They want the Pope to condemn the divorced and remarried for committing adultery with their second (invalid) spouse, just as if Jesus had condemned the woman caught in adultery in this passage from the Gospel of John:

{8:3} Now the scribes and Pharisees brought forward a woman caught in adultery, and they stood her in front of them.
{8:4} And they said to him: “Teacher, this woman was just now caught in adultery.
{8:5} And in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a one. Therefore, what do you say?”
{8:6} But they were saying this to test him, so that they might be able to accuse him. Then Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the earth.
{8:7} And then, when they persevered in questioning him, he stood upright and said to them, “Let whoever is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”
{8:8} And bending down again, he wrote on the earth.
{8:9} But upon hearing this, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, with the woman standing in front of him.
{8:10} Then Jesus, raising himself up, said to her: “Woman, where are those who accused you? Has no one condemned you?”
{8:11} And she said, “No one, Lord.” Then Jesus said: “Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now do not choose to sin anymore.”

But Jesus didn’t condemn her. He simply counseled her to strive to avoid this grave sin and of course other sins as well. So why don’t the papal critics take up the point of view of their Lord? I suspect that, for some of them, Jesus is not their Lord at all anymore. Their Lord and Savior is the conservative Catholic subculture along with their own over-simplifications and misunderstandings of Catholicism. No matter what Jesus says in the Gospels, they believe whatever they wish.

Question 3 dishonestly asks if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Yes, it is. But the assumption in the question is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” implies actual mortal sin and prohibits from Communion. It does not. A person can repeatedly sin, repeatedly be forgiven in Confession, and repeatedly take Communion again, as long as they are striving to overcome their sins.

And that question is not really asking for a Yes or No. It is again a challenge to the holy Pontiff, accusing him of departing from the teaching against adultery. I imagine that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time had a very similar objection to His refusal to support the Mosaic death penalty for adultery. So the real answer to Question 3 is not Yes or No, but “Let whoever is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone.”

And what was Jesus writing on the earth? He wrote twice, so He was writing the two great commandments: Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself. The Pharisees of today condemn the divorced and remarried without regard for the complexity of different situations. And they are unrepentant from their own sins of pride and of treating the Vicar of Christ with denigration and condescension. They do not put the love of God first, and the love of neighbor second. Rules rule their thinking, not love.

Question 4 is not a request for clarification, it is an argument in the form of a question. The authors of the Dubia propose a false dichotomy, which would make “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with the condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. To the contrary, the commission of a gravely immoral intrinsically evil act might not be also an actual mortal sin due to mitigating factors. And this can be taken into account in the Confessional, if the divorced and remarried are striving to live chastely, but tend to fall into that sin from time to time.

Question 5 has the same fault. It does not allow for a conscience that is sincerely mistaken, or that is affected by mitigating factors, or that is repentant, but frequently falls again. Instead, the Dubium proposes that everyone who commits an objective mortal sin must be condemned, as if it were always an actual mortal sin. And indeed, this is the assumption of many supporters of the Dubia. They say that if the person knows the rule of the Church, and they break that rule, nothing mitigates their act and it must (supposedly) be an actual mortal sin.

Many Catholics today have a certain fault, which is that they oversimplify the faith. They refuse to consider the complexities found in good theology, and prefer to reduce even complex moral situations to a black-and-white or yes-or-no case. As I read Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis is saying that the priest ministering to a divorced and remarried couple must consider the complexities of the situation. Perhaps they are repentant and can receive forgiveness in Confession and then Communion. But then perhaps they fall into grave sin, and must confess again. Is there a limit to how many times a repentant person can go to Confession? No, there is not.

So the main problem we are facing is not that some Catholics are divorced and remarried, but that most Catholics do not go to Confession.

Why No Response?

Why hasn’t Pope Francis responded to the 5 Dubia? I don’t know his specific reasons. But here’s what I do know:

* Historically, many Dubia do not receive an answer.
* It has NEVER been the case that a Pope answers every Dubium.
* Many Popes have issued documents on controversial matters, without responding to the subsequent objections and questions.
* The same is true for Ecumenical Councils.
* This particular Dubia is a blatant challenge to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff, and not really a request for clarification.

The Magisterium does not debate its teachings with its Cardinals and Bishops. At best, the Dubia is a request for a debate. At worse, it is a set of questions worded so as to accuse the Pope of teaching falsehoods. And in any case, it is clear that the authors and supporters of the Dubia will NEVER accept any clarification from Pope Francis or any subsequent Pope, except the answer they already imagine is true. Their own understanding of the Faith has become like a dogma unto itself. And so, no one can teach or correct them.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.

Please take a look at this list of my books and booklets, and see if any topic interests you.