Here is the text of the reply of Pope Francis to the 2023 Dubia of 5 Cardinals. Please read it carefully and fully. The Vicar of Christ gives an excellent reply to each Dubium. I’ll review certain points the Pope made in this post, but I don’t need to explain every point, as the Reply of the Pope is largely self-explanatory.

Pope Francis’ reply begins with these remarks:

Dear brothers,
Although I believe it is not always prudent to respond to questions directly addressed to me, and it would be impossible to answer all of them, in this case, given the proximity of the Synod, I have deemed it appropriate to do so.

Here we have an indirect explanation as to why the Pope did not reply to the earlier Dubia, years ago. It is not always prudent. And the Pope does not need to explain himself to the Cardinals or Bishops or faithful, at every turn. He is the Teacher and Ruler over the whole Church. If he judges that something is not prudent, he need not do it. And this is the moral rule for all the faithful. We must consider the prudence of the good actions we consider.

Usually, Dubia are addressed to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), but it was clear in both cases that the Cardinals of each set of Dubia wanted a response from the Pope. Why might it have been imprudent to reply to the previous Dubia? We see clearly one possible reason in the reaction to the Pope’s Reply. The 5 Cardinals were unhappy with the reply of Pope Francis, and so they made the Dubia public at the start of the Synod. This is just as I suspected regarding the previous Dubia from years ago. Dubia are supposed to be sincere doubts as to what one should believe or do regarding the teaching of the Church on faith or morals, or regarding discipline. A response from the DDF or the Pope is suppose to clear a doubt, helping persons live the faith better.

Instead, both Dubia seem to me to be a challenge to the Pope, written with the attitude that the Cardinal authors understand the Faith better than the Apostolic See and the Successor of Peter. Both Dubia seem to present to the Pope the allegedly correct position and/or the position to be condemned, as if there were no doubt (dubium) in the minds cof the authors of the Dubia. And this is the way that these Dubia have been viewed by the opponents of Pope Francis, as a presentation of what the Pope should be teaching and a rejection of what they think is already his position. So we can easily see that answering such a set of “doubts” or, really, challenges to papal authority, might not be prudent.

What happened when the Pope answered the 2023 Dubia from the Cardinals? Not only did they apparently refuse submission to the teaching of the Pope, but they waited to make their Dubia public just before the Synod. They did not initially make the response of the Pope (in July) public. In addition, opponents of the Pope have now begun to use the Pope’s Reply as a false accusation of grave sin.

So now we must talk about this response by LifeSiteNews. LifeSiteNews used to be a praiseworthy organization for defending Church teaching on Life. But somewhere along the way, they took the attitude that they are in charge of deciding what is and is not Church teaching, above the Pope and Bishops. And during the pontificate of Pope Francis, LifeSiteNews turned into an organization promoting opposition to the Roman Pontiff. The website often features articles from Archbishop Vigano, who openly rejects the authority of Pope Francis and Vatican II, and who considers Pope Francis to be a false Pope. The website also features the videos of John-Henry Weston, openly opposing Pope Francis and accusing him of many grave errors. See Weston’s article with an A to Z list of alleged errors. How full of yourself do you have to be to believe that, at every turn where you disagree with a decision of the Pope on doctrine or discipline, you are right again and again, many times over, and the Pope is always wrong? Are these opponents of the Pope themselves infallible on every question?

In reaction to Pope Francis’ reply to the 2023 Dubia, LifeSiteNews had this to say:
“Pope Francis to clergy: Decide for yourselves whether to ‘bless’ homosexual unions
“The letter sent from Pope Francis contains a direct rejection of Scripture and the Church’s Tradition, regarding the impossibility of ‘blessing’ same-sex unions.”

I read the Pope’s reply very carefully, and it contains no such thing. Here is what the Pope wrote on blessings:

“Pope Francis’s Response to the Second Dubium

“a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

“b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”

“c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

“d) However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

“e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.

“f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).

“g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.”

So what the Pope is saying is that the Church should not necessarily, in all cases, exclude a blessing for sinners in an objectively sinful situation, as this may be “expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.” Pope Francis chooses pastoral charity and pastoral prudence in such cases. But he excludes raising such a possibility for a blessing in some cases to the level of a rule at the level of “a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals”. And the Pope clearly states that such blessings must not be given if it “might contradict this conviction [on marriage] and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.”

On the other hand, the claims of LifeSiteNews are not true. The Pope did not simply say “decide for yourselves” to the clergy, and Pope Francis did not state that this decision applies only or particularly to same-sex unions. The Dubium in question asked about blessing same-sex unions, but the Pope gave a broader response, which includes perhaps couples such as the divorced and remarried.

The other claim of LifeSiteNews is a nasty false accusation against the Roman Pontiff: “The letter sent from Pope Francis contains a direct rejection of Scripture and the Church’s Tradition, regarding the impossibility of ‘blessing’ same-sex unions.” This accusation assumes that the understanding of Tradition and Scripture held by persons at LifeSiteNews is certainly true. The assumption implies an infallibility and indefectibility that private organizations do not possess. LifeSiteNews has no authority to exercise the Magisterium, even non-infallibly. They have no authority to declare that a particular position, especially one not directly stated in Tradition or Scripture, definitively decides that blessing same-sex unions is impossible.

Neither did Pope Francis state that the blessing would be upon the union, rather than the persons. See my article On the Blessing of Persons or Unions of Persons. A close reading of the Pope’s reply shows that he is writing on the question of blessing persons, not unions per se. At no time did Pope Francis state that same-sex union could be blessed, and his initial comments in the reply to the second Dubium clearly teach that marriage is between one man and one woman, that other relationships are not true marriage, and that rites and sacramentals of any kind that might confuse or mislead regarding marriage are to be avoided by the Church.

LifeSiteNews falsely accuses Pope Francis of writing a letter containing “a direct rejection of Scripture and the Church’s Tradition.” But this specific topic of blessing same-sex unions is not directly stated in Scripture, even though homosexual acts are condemned, and has not been considered in Tradition, again, with any specificity to the question of blessings and same-sex unions.

We do see in Scripture that Jesus ate and drank with sinners. Jesus proclaimed that the woman of Canaan (a pagan) and the Centurion (a soldier from an occupying army, most likely following the Roman pagan religion) were persons of great faith. Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery; instead, He defended her against a crowd that might have stoned her. Jesus even chided the Pharisees, pointing out that tax collectors and prostitutes were converting at the call of John the Baptist, while the Pharisees refused. What we are seeing in the opponents of Pope Francis is modern-day Pharisaic behavior. They rail against the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, whenever he does not teach, rule, and act as they themselves see fit. These are not followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. They have set themselves up as the sole deciders of every question on religion, not as if each of them were an Apostles or a Roman Pontiff, but as if each of them had usurped the role of Christ, the Son of God. Inwardly, they worship themselves. For Christ taught the following:

[Luke]
{10:16} Whoever hears you, hears me. And whoever despises you, despises me. And whoever despises me, despises him who sent me.”

Those self-exalting Catholic leaders, who refuse to hear the Vicar of Christ and the body of Bishops, thereby refuse to hear Christ. Those self-appointed guardians of Tradition and Scripture, who refuse submission to what the Pope and Bishops teach, are truly refusing submission to Tradition and Scripture. For the Magisterium is the sole authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture — not a website or a private organization, and not small groups of Cardinals or Bishops who break away from the Pope and the body of Bishops. Those who despise Pope Francis, implicitly despise Christ and His Church. They do not submit their minds and hearts to the Pope, to the body of Bishops, to the recent Ecumenical Councils, nor truly even to Tradition or Scripture. And so they do not submit themselves to Christ or Christianity. Instead, they have invented a new religion, which they mistakenly called Catholicism, which has as its head, not the Pope and not Christ, but only themselves and their peers. They have turned a conservative religious ideology into a new false religion.

This is not a Pope Francis problem. For the opponents of Pope Francis reject Vatican II, Vatican I, and the very concept of papal authority over doctrine and discipline.

to be continued

Ronald L Conte Jr