The original 2023 Dubia by 5 Cardinals was submitted to the Pope in July of 2023, and received a prompt and full response. The Cardinals were unhappy with that response, so they reformulated the Dubia as Yes-or-No questions. Pope Francis did not reply to the reformulated Dubia. Here is the text of that reformulated Dubia, with my commentary (indicated by a tilda ~)

“To His Holiness
FRANCIS
Supreme Pontiff

“Most Holy Father,

“We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question.

“The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3). We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).

~ The faithful understand the Gospel through the teachings of the Popes, the body of Bishops, and the Ecumenical Councils. This group of Cardinals has set themselves up in opposition to the Pope and the 2023 Synod. Their concern that some pastors are departing from the Gospel is based on their own understanding, which perhaps lacks full submission to the teaching of the Magisterium on the Gospel truths.

“With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

~ “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Not every yes-or-no question is capable of being answered, fairly and truly, with a yes or a no. This is an attempt to compel the Pope to teach what these Cardinals think is Gospel truth, in the exact way that they understand and phrase it. No wonder the Pope replied only to the original July 2023 Dubia and not to the reformulation. You can’t force the Pope to say what you want by cleverly phrasing the questions as yes or no.

~ I’m aware that Dubia are often phrased so as to obtain an answer in the affirmative or in the negative, but a poorly phrased Dubium will not receive a reply, or will receive a qualified reply, that is not yet or no. The Pope already gave a full response to each point, which seems to me to be very insightful and instructive. But it was not the teaching that the Cardinals wished to hear.

[Matthew]
{19:8} He said to them: “Although Moses permitted you to separate from your wives, due to the hardness of your heart, it was not that way from the beginning.
{19:9} And I say to you, that whoever will have separated from his wife, except because of fornication, and who will have married another, commits adultery, and whoever will have married her who has been separated, commits adultery.”
{19:10} His disciples said to him, “If such is the case for a man with a wife, then it is not expedient to marry.”
{19:11} And he said to them: “Not everyone is able to grasp this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

[John]
{6:54} And so, Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.
{6:55} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
{6:56} For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
{6:57} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
{6:58} Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.
{6:59} This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall live forever.”
{6:60} He said these things when he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
{6:61} Therefore, many of his disciples, upon hearing this, said: “This saying is difficult,” and, “Who is able to listen to it?”
{6:62} But Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this offend you?
{6:63} Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

~ The assertion from the 5 Cardinals that the lengthy charitable instructive and insightful Reply of Pope Francis to their Dubia only deepened their doubts is very disturbing. It is clear to me that these Cardinal wish to subjugate the Roman Pontiff to their own understanding on each point. They wish to compel the Pope to teach their own version of the Gospel. And so he did not reply to this reformulation of their Dubia.

“1. Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?

~ No, it is not possible for the Church to teach today what is contrary to past infallible teachings of the Magisterium. But this answer is obvious. It is an accusation to ask the Pope whether he adheres to a blatant heresy. But the main problem with this reformulated question is that the Cardinals are clearly assuming that certain ideas are infallible, which are not. For example, “subjective conditions for access to the sacraments” are a matter of changeable discipline. Even though persons who are not in a state of grace should not take Communion, persons generally do not know if they are in the state of grace or not, and neither does another person observing them know. Saint Joan of Arc was asked if she was in the state of grace. Her reply: “If I am not, may God bring me to it. If I am, may God keep me in it.” So discipline for Communion cannot be based on sure knowledge of whether a person is in the state of grace or not. The Church therefore decides the discipline, within certain limits.

~ This question assumes that the conservative or traditionalist understanding of what the Church has supposedly always taught is infallible, when it is not. Then the behavior of the Cardinals strongly implies that they think the Pope can possibly and might actually teach heresy. The ancient constant teaching of the Church is that the Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith. But the Cardinals do not seem to believe this teaching, even though they claim to be defending what the Church has always taught. These Cardinals speak as if THEY have the charism of truth and never-failing faith, and the Pope does not.

“2. Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?

~ Beginning with the last question above: Yes, this teaching continues to be true, as stated in Veritatis Splendor and the Catechism. But such a question is like the first reformulated Dubium, stating an obvious truth of Catholic teaching and essentially accusing the Pope of disagreeing. It is like asking the Pope if he is a heretic; not a fair question. And the Pope has often taught from Veritatis Splendor, other documents of John Paul II, as well as documents of Vatican II. Then Pope Francis’ reply to the July Dubia clearly states that marriage is only between one man and one woman, and that “there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view” (replying on same-sex unions).

~ The Cardinals claim that the blessing of same-sex couples will always create confusion regardless of circumstances or intention. Such a claim speaks as if the blessing of persons can be intrinsically evil. Jesus died to offer salvation to ALL persons, while we were yet sinners. No one receives any grace except from the Cross. No one is excluded from the offer of salvation (though not all are saved, as some reject the offer definitively). Jesus blessed all human persons with grace from His Cross, including prevenient graces which cannot be refused. So it cannot be intrinsically evil, regardless of intention or circumstances, to bless certain persons, even if they are in an objectively sinful situation or commit objectively grave sins.

~ I should also point out that these 5 Cardinals are committing objectively grave sins of schism, by refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, and by grave scandal, openly opposing the Roman Pontiff and implicitly, but quite clearly, accusing the Pope of heresy. Such sins are perhaps worse than some sexual sins, yet none of these Cardinals thinks himself unworthy to receive a blessing from the Church.

~ “Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God?” Pope Francis already said that blessings that confuse the faithful must be avoided by the Church, and that blessings given to same-sex couples cannot be raised to the level of a rule in a diocese or Bishops’ Conference. If the blessing suggest such a think, the Pope already precluded it. The judgment of the Cardinals that such a blessing will always confuse, is not the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, who is the Supreme Judge of all the faithful.

“3. You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuch as not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?

~ The Pope is not claiming that the Synod “represents the Supreme Authority of the Church”.

~ It is not contrary to synodality to have a consultive body consult on any issues or questions whatever. And the Pope can decide any issue by his sole authority if he chooses. Then the Supreme Authority can be exercised by the Roman Pontiff, alone, after the consultation of the Synod. And the Pope has already previously stated (IIRC) that the Synod is only consultive, not authoritative.

~ The Cardinals are simply concerned that the Synod might prompt the Pope to teach authoritatively and contrary to their own understanding. They clearly are refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and placing themselves above him to correct, judge, and to interfere with him and his authority.

“4. In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?

~ The Cardinals claim “In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis….” But Pope Saint John Paul II did not say in OS that this doctrine on the male priesthood was taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium. Instead, he wrote this: “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”. Neither did John Paul II use the expression “deposit of faith” in OS. Rather, this was stated separately in a Responsum ad Dubium and in a comment by the Pope.

~ The reformulated questions is wickedly deceitful: “could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?” The question begins asking a question already answered by Pope Francis in the recent past: John Paul II decided the question of women priests definitively. And this is repeated in the original reply of the Pope to the Dubia. But the question then deceitfully changes to claim that “the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change”. This is deceitful because it removes the fundamental limit of the teaching as applying specifically to “priestly ordination”. The Cardinals wish to enlarge the teaching, beyond what the Magisterium has EVER taught, to prevent women deacons from being ordained. A “Yes” answer would contradict the teaching of John Paul II on women priests. A “No” answer would seem to extend that teaching in an unprecedented way, to preclude women deacons. Both possible answers, yes or no, are wrong.

~ The Cardinals have decided that women cannot be ordained even as deacons, and they falsely claim that this is a teaching which the Church cannot change. The Church has never decided the question of ordained women deacons, nor has the Church reserved the diaconate exclusively to baptized males.

“5. Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

~ The Pope’s previous answer is sufficient. This reformulation attempts to force the Pope to teach the opinion of the Cardinals, in the wording chosen by the Cardinals. They have rejected the correction and teaching of the Pope on all 5 points.

~ The usual formula for confession and the common prayers of contrition widely used do not always state explicitly “the intention not to commit it again”. These are approved prayers of contrition, used by many Catholics. The requirement of Trent is to have contrition, at least imperfect contrition, and that true contrition includes the various points that Trent taught, including the intention to avoid the same sins in the future. However, Pope Francis correctly stated in his reply to the first Dubia:
“Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution and implies a resolution not to sin.”
“There are many ways to express repentance.”
“Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful overly precise and certain resolutions of amendment, which ultimately become abstract or even narcissistic, but that even the predictability of a new fall “does not prejudice the authenticity of the purpose” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Card. William W. Baum and participants in the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).”

~ Pope Francis and Pope Saint John Paul II are correct, whereas the position of the 5 Cardinals is Pharisaical. In my opinion, these 5 Cardinals are in a state of formal public schism for refusal of submission to the Pope.

~ This reformulated Dubia ends as follows:

“Vatican City, August 21, 2023
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun”