Tag Archives: Correctio filialis

To sign the correctio filialis or not…(making everyone mad at you)

lightning vatican holy see st peter

It is said in summary of text of the correctio filialis:

It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.

The words “effectively upheld” constitute a new level of teaching, I guess, below an ex-Cathedra statement, I guess, but effectively, I guess, on par, I guess, with the Ordinary and therefore also infallible Magisterium of the Church… I guess.

Too much guesswork for me. That’s too exhausting. Here’s the deal: all this time, for years now, it seems to me that I’m the only one in the world who happens to notice that in the first paragraphs of Amoris laetitia that what the Holy Father has proffered is merely a volley in dialogue. Period. Nothing more. He actually uses the word. And while that dialogue is not nothing in itself, it actually doesn’t amount to something. Clear? No? And so, therefore, what does it all mean? Well, it all just means nothing. So, whatever.

Am I not upset that ambiguity taken up by bullies, say, in Malta, or Argentina, or Chicago is destroying the salvation of souls? Yes, I’m upset.

But I also think it’s even hurtful effectively to say that the Holy Father has effectively propagated heresies, effectively on the level of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. That kind of language effectively leads to a mistaken ecclesiology which effectively is itself heretical.

Again, does that mean that I think that the Holy Father effectively backing rubbish in Malta and Argentina, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. [and I could go on…], isn’t hurtful? No, it doesn’t mean that. I do in fact think it’s extremely damaging to souls and to the very person of the Successor of Saint Peter. I grieve.

But we have to take great care in the ecclesiological language we use. Right? So, I will not sign. Meanwhile, another priest, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and who has given his life in the “priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls,” the great Father Pinsent has this interview with LifeSiteNews. Here’s a snippet:

“The contradictions now being introduced deny reason, which is contrary to the heart of Catholic theology, the examples of great saint scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas, and the consistent teaching of our two most recent popes. Such divisions of faith and reason are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of the salvation to souls.”

I agree with all that wholeheartedly. And I entirely understand where the framers and signers are coming from. It’s just that “effectively upholds” and “propagates” seems effectively to say that this is all effectively part of the Ordinary Magisterium, when instead a dialogue is not that at all. One must be exact in these things, you know, to be filial about it, and so as not to cancel the very correctio that one attempts to make.

8 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis