Beliefs Culture Institutions International News

Conservative cardinals challenge pope over teachings on family

Pope Francis leads the weekly audience at the Vatican on Aug. 31, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Stefano Rellandini

VATICAN CITY (REUTERS) Four conservative Roman Catholic cardinals on Monday (Nov. 14) made a rare public challenge to Pope Francis over some of his teachings in a major document on the family, accusing him of sowing confusion on important moral issues.

The cardinals — two Germans, an Italian and an American — said they had gone public with their letter to the pope because he had not responded.

The pope has clashed before with conservatives who worry he is weakening Roman Catholic rules on moral issues such as homosexuality and divorce while focusing on social problems such as climate change and economic inequality.

At issue are some of the teachings in a 260-page treatise called “Amoris Laetitia” (The Joy of Love), a cornerstone document of Francis’ attempt to make the 1.2 billion-member church more inclusive and less condemning.

In the document, issued in April, he called for a church that was less strict and more compassionate toward any “imperfect” members, such as those who divorced and remarried, saying “no one can be condemned forever.”

Most critics have focused on what the pope’s letter said about the full reintegration into the church of members who divorce and remarry in civil ceremonies.

Under church law they cannot receive Communion unless they abstain from sex with their new partner, because their first marriage is still valid in the eyes of the church and therefore they are seen as living in an adulterous state of sin.

In the document, the pope appeared to side with progressives who had proposed an “internal forum” in which a priest or bishop decides jointly with the individual on a case-by-case basis if he or she can be fully reintegrated and receive Communion.

Conservatives have contested this and, in their cover letter, the four cardinals asked the pope to “resolve those doubts which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.”

In the letter, sent to several news organizations, they said even bishops were offering “contrasting interpretations” of the rules regarding divorced and remarried Catholics.

The cardinals are Raymond Leo Burke, an American who was demoted from a senior Vatican position in 2014 and who has often criticized the pope; Germans Walter Brandmuller and Joachim Meisner; and Italian Carlo Caffarra.

In their letter, they officially asked the pope to take a stand on five “doubts” they have about some of the pronouncements in his document and declare whether those supersede rulings by previous popes.

About the author

guest

7 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Pope Francis is very clear about homosexuality. He rejected equality for LGBT persons in his encyclical on the environment, Laudato si’ (no. 155), and his exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia (nos. 56, 251, 285-286).
    “These four, while all are recognized for their authoritativeness, have no operational roles, either for reasons of age or because they have been dismissed. And that makes them more free. It is no mystery, in fact, that their appeal has been and is shared by not a few other cardinals who are still fully active, as well as high-ranking bishops and archbishops of West and East, who however precisely because of this have decided to remain in the shadows.” (chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it)

  • No one can be condemned forever?

    But isn’t that the entire point of conservative Christianity? Either believe that Jesus died for our sins, do whatever his local representatives tell you, or burn forever in hell because he loves you so dam’ much.

    No wonder these cardinals disagree with the pope. He’s threatening their true gods.

  • “no one can be condemned forever”. Luke 16:19-31 gives an excellent tour of how the Pope is wrong, again….

  • Again, you are wrong. Jesus allows one to go to Hell. It is a choice. You choose to reject Him here, He’ll allow you to reject Him for eternity. The choice is all yours Ben. You should have learned that by now

  • From a purely intellectual exercise in logical thought processes you are absolutely correct. I questioned that very sentence when I read it. Perhaps he was only being imprecise, or alternatively, he was speaking of only the here and now, though that would be cold comfort to those who had thought they were getting a free pass only to discover their error later. I, for my part, do not dispute the concept or doctrine of eternal condemnation, but it is my express desire to aid anyone in escaping that judgment.

ADVERTISEMENTs