The commentary is preceded by a tilda ~ so as to distinguish it from the Dubia text. The full text of the dubia without commentary is here.

D U B I A

1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.

After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith”(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on … once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).

Commentary on Dubium 1

~ The answer is certainly the latter, not the former. Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable, and all the rest that was well said above. Note however, three points. First, the Magisterium is the sole authoritative interpreter of Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture). Second, the Magisterium can clarify and correct the understanding of the faithful and the majority view of theologians, according to that authoritative interpretation. Third, the Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, so that he cannot err gravely on doctrine or discipline, whenever he exercises the Keys of Peter, nor can he personally fail gravely in faith, such as by apostasy, heresy, schism, or idolatry. The body of Bishops, as long as they teach or decide discipline as one with their head the Pope, participate in this same charism of truth and never-failing faith.

~ The tacit assumption of certain opponents of Pope Francis is that their understanding of Tradition, Scripture, and past magisterial teaching is equivalent to Divine Revelation itself and is certainly without error. They also assume that Popes, the body of Bishops, and Ecumenical Councils can err gravely on doctrine and discipline, whenever their decisions are non-infallible. These opponents of the Pope and body of Bishops make themselves and their ideological subculture out to be a replacement for the Magisterium, one that supposedly never errs at all.

~ It is common for opponents of Pope Francis to claim that a certain theological position is infallible due to Tradition, Scripture, or past magisterial teachings, when instead their position is either not established as a dogma, or is contrary to clear magisterial teachings. So when they ask, querulously, whether “Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision,” they are accusing the Pope and Bishops of doing so, or of planning to do so at the Synod. Then at the same time, they are the ones reinterpreting Divine Revelation and past magisterial teachings according to the theological subculture and new theological vision to which they adhere. They judge the Pope based on the pseudo-authoritative teachings of their own ideological subculture in the Church.

~ Instead, the truth is that the Church is indefectible. The truth is that the Pope is protected by the papal charisms from teaching grave error, and from going astray or leading astray. Then the Cardinals and Bishops only share in certain papal charisms, such as the charism of truth and never-failing faith, as a body united to and led by the Pope. But the opponents of Pope Francis and the ideological subculture they represent has no such indefectibility and no such charism of truth and never-failing faith.

2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

~ The above Dubium is not truly asking the Pope for an authoritative decision, from the Keys of Peter, which would be binding on the Church. Rather, the question asserts that a certain principle is divine revelation, and essentially dares the Pope to disagree. This is a provocative dubium which, like the previous one, asserts a claim of what is and is not divine truth in the face of the papal Magisterium.

~ Note that a reading of Romans 1:24-32 does not clearly show that “to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator.” The quoted assertion is an interpretation, and not a traditional one. The passage condemns pagan religions, and can be interpreted as demonstrating that natural law includes not only the moral law, but also certain religious truths, such as that the Creator God exists and should be worshipped. The passage goes on to condemn any “shameful passions”, and gives the example of homosexual acts. Then, in later verses, other sins are also listed as being committed by those who have abandoned the true worship of God.

~ The claim that denying sexual difference is included in “shameful passions” is an interpretation, based on current errors in modern society. It is for the Magisterium to clarify Church teaching in opposition to modern errors, such as on gender and biological sex.

~ This Dubium cites Veritatis Splendor 103. The following is a relevant quote from VS 103: “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”.” Note that this sentence is itself a quote from an address given in 1984 by Pope Saint John Paul II (who also wrote VS). Certainly, VS is correct in rejecting a watering down of Church teaching as only an ideal, or as truths that could be weighed against circumstances or personal desires to supposedly balance goods.

~ However, the Pope is not teaching any such thing. There are some individual Bishops who have erred in some of the ways proposed in these Dubia. But the worry that the Pope and the body of Bishops will adopt serious errors is contrary to faith in the Lord Jesus, who promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, and who promised and prayed that the faith of Peter and his successors would never fail.

~ This second Dubium begins by raising the question of the “practice of the blessing of same-sex unions”. It would have been appropriate and useful if the Cardinals simply asked for a clarification on what can and cannot be blessed by the Church. See my post on the blessing of person or unions of persons.

~ Instead, the subsequent text tries to use an interpretation of Romans 1 in order to accuse some Bishops of contradicting divine revelation. This is a serious problem with these Dubia, that they are written with the attitude of a group of Cardinals who propose that the Pope and Bishops are about to err gravely in the Synod, and who propose their interpretations as equivalent to divine revelation. This displays a lack of faith in the indefectibility of the Church and in the papal charisms.

3 Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.

Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the College of Bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the Pope, since the Bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (Lumen Gentium 22).

~ This third Dubium directly accuses Pope Francis of grave error, falsely. The statement by the Pope that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” does not propose that “synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church”. What a severe distortion! What Pope Francis said in the quote is correct, and the distortion in the third Dubium is a false accusation of grave error.

~ My understanding of the Pope’s teaching on synodality is that the Roman Pontiff, the body of Bishops led by the Roman Pontiff, and the body of the faithful led by the Pope and Bishops each have a role with respect to one another and with respect to the Church as a whole. While only the Pope and the Bishops can exercise the Magisterium, the faithful contribute to magisterial teachings by their understanding, their devout practices, and their theological opinions. The document teaching on the dogma of the Assumption cites the practice of the faithful in praying the Rosary, which has a mystery for the Assumption, as supporting the declaration of the dogma. There is nothing wrong with the Pope and Bishops consulting with the rest of the Church on various questions and concerns of doctrine and discipline.

~ The opponents of the Pope often cite Canon law 212, misinterpreting it as a right to disagree with, correct, or even oppose the teaching of the Pope. But here is what the Canon actually says:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

~ Notice that Canon 212 supports the idea of the faithful making known spiritual needs and desires, as well as opinions on matters pertaining to the good of the Church. The term “pastors” above refers to Bishops. So Canon 212 supports the idea of a synodality in which the Pope and Bishops consult with “the rest of the Christian faithful”, as the faithful have the right and at times the duty to express their opinion on Church matters to the sacred pastors — to the Pope and the Bishops. This Canon is an expression of Synodality, but with each part of the Church given their own role in that synodality. There is nothing that gives the Bishops the role of the Pope, nor the faithful the role of the Pope or Bishops.

~ The common misinterpretation is that Canon 212 supports dissent from papal teaching. To the contrary, the first paragraph of 212 says: “the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.”

~ Therefore, also, synodality does not propose letting the Church be taught, definitively or authoritatively, by persons other than the Pope and the Bishops. Yet the opponents of Pope Francis, at least implicitly, propose that anyone from their ideological subculture can contradict, correct, and openly oppose the teaching of the Pope or the Pope with the body of Bishops.

~ As for the claim that the Synod is not a gathering of the body of Bishops (the Apostolic College), this is true, to the extent that the Synod is not an Ecumenical Council. But the Pope can teach infallibly in his post-synodal exhortation (or at any time). And the Pope can consult with the Bishops and faithful, during the Synod, and later teach infallibly under Papal Infallibility, based on that consultation.

~ The papal opponents do not want Pope Francis to teach and rule the Church. They do not want the body of Bishops — who have consistently supported Pope Francis — to teach and rule the Church. And now they complain that the Pope and Bishops consult “the rest of the Christian faithful” as to what should be decided on doctrine and discipline. Whom do they want to run the Church? The answer is that they will not accept any teachings or decisions of the Church unless it accords with their own understanding of divine revelation, an understanding that is fallible and deeply flawed. Divine Revelation is without error, but a certain ideological subculture in the Church has declared themselves the authoritative interpreters of divine revelation, as if they could never err or go astray, as if they had the role to supervise, correct, judge, and even condemn the Pope and the body of Bishops. And a few Cardinals and Bishops have joined them in this grave error.

4 Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.

After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through Whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.

~ No, the theology of the Church has changed has not changed, there is still the priesthood of all believers, and then also the ministerial priesthood. But it is a false dichotomy to imply that, because the theology of the Church has not changed, women cannot be ordained as deacons.

~ My understanding is that Pope Saint John Paul II’s teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an exercise of papal infallibility. Others opine that the teaching is infallible on one or another basis. In any case, it is widely understood as infallible and is certainly presented as definitive and irreformable. But that document only pertains to ordination to the priesthood, also phrased as priestly ordination. A Bishop is a kind of priest, and a Pope is a kind of Bishop and a kind of priest, and so women cannot be priests, bishops, or pope. But the question of ordained women deacons was left open by John Paul II. And there has been no infallible teaching by the Church on that point anytime in Church history.

~ On “whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid”, the answer is Yes. It is a definitive and irreformable teaching. But this does not imply, as Bishop Strickland and others have claimed, that women cannot be ordained as deacons.

5 Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.

It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.

~ Pope Francis never said that repentance was not necessary for a valid sacramental absolution. The Pope has the authority and right, and has the ability in the prevenient grace of God, to make decisions of both doctrine and discipline. This includes his recent expression that he chooses a discipline for Confession in which generally priests do not decline absolution. Catholics on the far right prefer a priest to more readily decline absolution, based on a judgment that the person might not be repentant, whereas more liberal Catholics prefer a discipline in which priests very seldom decline to give absolution. The Pope has the right and authority to tell confessors to put into practice a lenient and merciful discipline, which gives absolution even when the confessors doubts that the penitent is repentant.

~ This does NOT exclude the priest from denying absolution in very unusual cases. Consider the example of St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on the decision of a Pope to deny to priests the ability to use deadly force in self-defense. Thomas opined that, in certain exigent situations, a priest could still use deadly force in self-defense, as the Pope’s decision was of discipline, which admits of exceptions, not of the eternal moral law, which does not. In such a case, Thomas said, the priest would be breaking a rule, but not acting immorally.

~ Similarly, the general direction of the Pope to give absolution, even when the confessor considers that the penitent is not repentant, is a binding discipline which priests must follow. Some exceptions might occur, for unusual cases. But the Pope rightly wishes any doubt to go in favor of the penitent. The priest cannot know for certain that the penitent does not possess at least imperfect contrition, and person in Confession (esp. who are not devout or not experienced in confessing) might not speak in such a way as to fully reveal their heart, even though they have made a good confession.

~ The error being made by the critics of Pope Francis is the same as for the divorced and remarried. They presume to know the state of the penitent’s soul, just as they presume to know that the divorced and remarried are not in the state of grace, or are continuing to commit objectively grave sins. The Confessor does not know, with certitude, whether a penitent enters the confessional in a state of grace or not, or whether the penitent has at least the bare minimum of imperfect contrition. IF priests throughout the world were too quick to deny absolution, some souls — not in a state of grace but with imperfect contrition — might lose their salvation due to that denial. The Church and the Pope are solicitous for the salvation of souls. So the discipline chosen by the Pope, under his authority from Christ, is for Confessors to give absolution. There may be rare exceptions, but the Pope does not want the confessor deciding that the penitent seems unrepentant and therefore denying him the salvific grace of absolution.

~ In reply to the citation of the Council of Trent by the fifth Dubium, it is never entirely clear and certain that the conditions needed for imperfect contrition are absent. So the lenient merciful discipline chosen by the Roman Pontiff favors the penitent and his salvation, because such a judgment that contrition is lacking is never certain. This is not a denial of the dogma of Trent. It is still true that a person who lacks even imperfect contrition is not forgiven by an attempted absolution. But fallen sinners, on both sides of the confessional screen, can misjudge whether or not the penitent is contrite.

Commentary by Ronald L Conte Jr