Why do the opponents of Pope Francis frequently accuse him of ambiguity, as if this were a grave error or serious sin? They use phrases such as “calculated ambiguity” and “weaponized ambiguity”. Some go so far as to claim that Pope Francis is deliberately using ambiguity in this teachings in order to destroy the true Faith. Such a claim is contrary to the dogma of the papal charism of truth and never-failing faith: Can A Pope intend or plan to harm the Church and the Faith?

But this claim of deliberate malicious ambiguity is also one of the weakest and strangest accusations the papal accusers make. First, your subjective judgment that a particular expression of doctrine or discipline by the Pope is ambiguous does not prove malice or deception on the part of the Pope. And the Pope, any Pope, always has many supporters among the clergy and laity who will explain any point that seems ambiguous to someone. Here is what Pope Saint Paul VI wrote to Bishop Marcel Lefebvre about the latter’s rebellion against Vatican II and the Magisterium:

Pope Saint Paul VI: “Again, you [Lefebvre] cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.”

The same applies to the teaching of Pope Francis. The faithful cannot categorize his teaching as “pastoral”, and thereby refuse that teaching. We must all give religious assent, in “a confident acceptance and a sincere application” to non-infallible decisions of doctrine and discipline by any Pope or Council.

“You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the Church and in particular with the Council of Trent or the affirmations of Our predecessors. These are for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modern world….

If someone does “not always see how to reconcile certain texts” of Pope Francis with their own understanding of Tradition and past magisterial teachings, this does not prove the Pope has gone astray or is speaking with a deceitful and malicious ambiguity. The College of Bishops continues to support Pope Francis, and every Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith. Therefore, the Pope and the body of Bishops cannot have gone astray from the true Faith, neither by teaching heresy, nor by trying (in some alleged clever manner) to destroy or replace the teachings of the Faith.

“It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of its nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties. Absolutely secure counselors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God’s enlightenment, and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.

The Roman Pontiff need not explain every teaching or expression that some find ambiguous. There are many detailed commentaries available from various members of the clergy and laity. One’s own difficulties understanding the expressions of the Pope are “personal difficulties”, and not objective proof that the Pope has gone astray. Any of the faithful who are willing can enquire further into the teaching of the Pope, from any of the many faithful teachers who support Pope Francis, to obtain God’s enlightenment — which comes from both faith and reason, not reason alone.

“But how can an interior personal difficulty — a spiritual drama which We respect — permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal? If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance — and We hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal — they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the pope. It is the ecclesial sense that is at issue.

On the other hand, “an interior personal difficulty” does not justify setting oneself up as a public judge over the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council, in contradiction to decisions of doctrine and discipline accepted by the body of Bishops “practically with unanimity”, so as to lead “a portion of the faithful” into the same type of refusal of Church authority, teaching, and discipline. And notice what Pope Saint Paul VI says about the various justifications that one can find, supporting decisions of Popes and Councils. They are “useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance” but “they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the pope.” God requires the obedience of FAITH. Those who live by reason alone are not among the faithful of the Church. Even if you cannot understand how the teaching of Vatican II or a subsequent Pope can be reconciled with your fallible understanding of Tradition or past magisterial teachings, assent is required — either the full assent of faith, or religious assent, which springs from the same infused theological virtue of faith.

The above words of Pope Saint Paul VI are just as true today, regarding Vatican II and Pope Francis, as they were in the days of Paul VI. And we know that the opponents of Pope Francis actually praise the schismatic bishop Lefebvre and seek to follow him, even though he died separated from the Church.

Now let’s see what Jesus has to say:

[Matthew]
{13:10} And his disciples drew near to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
{13:11} Responding, he said to them: “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but it has not been given to them.
{13:12} For whoever has, it shall be given to him, and he shall have in abundance. But whoever has not, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
{13:13} For this reason, I speak to them in parables: because seeing, they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
{13:14} And so, in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, who said, ‘Hearing, you shall hear, but not understand; and seeing, you shall see, but not perceive.
{13:15} For the heart of this people has grown fat, and with their ears they hear heavily, and they have closed their eyes, lest at any time they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and then I would heal them.’
{13:16} But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.

This teaching of Jesus is fulfilled in the present time (as well as in other times). For certain Catholic Christians have preferred an altered version of the Faith. They put conservatism above truth, and the ideology of a subculture above the Magisterium. They cannot reconcile the true teaching of the Church in Vatican I and II, and the recent Popes, with their own distorted error-ridden ideology. And so, when the Roman Pontiff teaches truth to them, they are unable to understand. The teaching of Pope Francis seems ambiguous and confusing to them, only because they are unwilling to accept his teaching on faith, setting aside their own opinions and misunderstandings. So as long as they cling to the errors found within traditionalism and conservatism, and attempt to understand every magisterial teaching against those errors and the limits of their own opinions, they will not be able to understand many true teachings. For these teaching conflict with erroneous ideas which they have accepted and which have become the distorted lens through which they try to understand all teachings. Thus, they are unable to accept the corrections of those errors offered by Pope Francis, because they refuse to give up their own faulty ideas.

Their rejection of teachings from many different Popes, as well as their rejection of major teachings from both of the most recent Ecumenical Councils proves that the problem is not Pope Francis.

The other problem, which prevents the accusers of Pope Francis from accepting many teachings from Popes and Ecumenical Councils, is their pride. They have decided that they are holier and more faithful than the rest of the Church, due to their adamant adherence to a conservative or traditionalist ideology. The more conservative they are, the holier and more faithful they think themselves to be. So they refuse to be taught by anyone in the Church who they deem to be liberal or to be an opponent to conservative or traditionalist ideology, even if that opponent is a Pope or Ecumenical Council.

It is not possible to see the teaching of Pope Francis as anything other than ambiguity, confusion, and heresy when that teaching is viewed through the perverse lens of pride and the idolatry of ideology. To the heretical mind, true doctrine seems like heresy, as the truth is incompatible with the heretical standards against which it is measured.

[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?
{6:64} It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh does not offer anything of benefit. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
{6:65} But there are some among you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who were unbelieving and which one would betray him.
{6:66} And so he said, “For this reason, I said to you that no one is able to come to me, unless it has been given to him by my Father.”
{6:67} After this, many of his disciples went back, and they no longer walked with him.
{6:68} Therefore, Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
{6:69} Then Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.
{6:70} And we have believed, and we recognize that you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

See what happened when Jesus taught the doctrine of the Eucharist. The apostles and disciples could not understand what He was saying, as the Eucharist and holy Mass had not yet been established. So when the disciples compared this teaching to their own reasonings and understanding, it did not make sense. They therefore said that the teaching was too difficult for them to accept, and some of them no longer walked with Him. They abandoned Christianity because they refused to take the teaching of Jesus on FAITH, and insisted on only accepting what made sense to their own fallen minds and hearts.

And what did Jesus do in response? Did He explain to them, at great length, what this teaching means and try to convince them, with human reasoning, that they should accept it? No. He demanded belief based on faith, not solely on reason. If anyone believes what the Church teaches only because their own mind agrees, they do not have faith and are not saved. Even an atheist believes, among those things the Church says, whatever might be in agreement with their own understanding. But faith is required for salvation. (Now atheists can have implicit faith, but that is another topic.)

When Jesus spoke to the Twelve, He still did not explain, as He has previously explained the parable of the Sower. Instead, the Lord said: “Do you also want to go away?” And though they also did not understand this teaching on the Eucharist, they, led by Peter, accepted it — because Jesus is the Son of God. They accepted it based on faith.

The same requirement is made of Catholics today. You can find many explanations of Church teachings, to assist you in understanding what you believe, but you are not a faithful disciple of Christ if you only believe based on reason or your own understanding. The infused theological virtue of faith, necessary for salvation (with love and hope), must be exercised by Catholics by accepting the teachings of Popes and Councils, both the infallible and the non-infallible teachings. And while the non-infallible teachings only require religious submission of mind and will, rather than the full assent of faith which is due to infallible teachings, this religious submission is related to the full assent of faith and is also an exercise of that infused virtue of faith.

Then the idea is heresy that Pope Francis has weaponized ambiguity, in a deliberate malicious attack on the truths of the Faith. Every Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, and therefore the prevenient grace of God prevents each and every Pope from decisions of doctrine or discipline gravely contrary to the Faith, as well as from any personal grave failings of faith, both exteriorly and interiorly.

How filled with pride do you need to be, to assume that you must be right, and the Pope must be wrong, with malicious intent, just because you find his teachings ambiguous or difficult to understand or accept?

Ronald L Conte Jr