Hiroshima, mon Amoris? (Updated 12/16)

Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia has been something of a bombshell.  And its critics worry that it will have something like a bombshell’s effect on the Church.  Most readers are no doubt aware of the four cardinals’ now famous dubia (“doubts”), requesting from the pope clarification on certain doctrinal questions raised by the document.  This was preceded earlier this year by a statement from forty-five theologians and clergy asking the pope to repudiate theological errors they take to be apparent in the document.

Some defenders of Amoris have been decidedly heated in their response to these developments.  Fr. Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, alleges that the cardinals have caused “a very grave scandal, which could even lead the Holy Father to take away their red hats.”  Retired Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis accuses the cardinals of “sin,” “apostasy” and “sacrilege.”  Papal advisor Fr. Antonio Spadaro opines that Amoris is “very clear” and that “a questioning conscience can easily find all the responses it is seeking, if it is seeking sincerely” and criticizes those who “pose questions in order to place another in difficulty, provoking divisions.” 

So far, however, the pope himself has not responded, either to the four cardinals or to the forty-five theologians.

But the controversy is evidently just getting started.  This week, twenty-three prominent Catholic academics and clergy have issued a statement in support of the four cardinals.  Philosopher Robert Spaemann, a friend of Pope Benedict XVI, also supports the cardinals and calls on others to join them.

At First Things, “new natural law” theorists John Finnis and Germain Grisez today summarize their own letter to the pope urging him to condemn certain errors being propagated in the name of Amoris.  (E. Christian Brugger, another “new natural law” theorist, has also been critical of Amoris and of the pope’s endorsement of the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of the document.)

At Crisis, Fr. James Schall notes that “to avoid giving answers, when giving answers is your job, seems odd.”

The Catholic Thing warns of “the dangerous road of papal silence.” 

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture notes what the pope cannot say if he does decide to speak.

At Crux, even veteran liberal Catholic journalist John Allen rejects the glib assurances of the critics of the four cardinals that the meaning of Amorisis perfectly clear.

At Catholic World Report, Carl Olson asks: Can Amoris Laetitia be reconciled with Pope St. John Paull II’s Veritatis Splendor? 

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Church’s chief doctrinal officer, refrains from answering the dubia, but does insist that the teaching of John Paul II remains binding.

The Catholic Herald worries about the “intemperate and angry,” “emotive,” and “sentimental” reactions of some of the critics of the four cardinals, about the “anti-intellectualism” and “contempt for rationality and logical discourse” these critics exhibit, and about the “cult of personality” they have built around the pope.

The Herald also marvels that, interpreting Amoris, “a papal adviser has [in effect] said that extramarital sex could be a moral duty.” 

Canon lawyer Edward Peters demonstrates the theological muddleheadedness of some of the remarks made by critics of the four cardinals. 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider compares the abuse the cardinals have received to the treatment of dissidents under the Soviet regime.  He has compared the current situation to the Arian crisis.  Two other bishops also defend the four cardinals.

The National Catholic Register reminds Cardinal Cupich that the synod on the family in fact did not approve communion for the divorced and “remarried.”

Ross Douthat at The New York Times weighs competing interpretations of Amoris Laetitia and warns of “the end of Catholic marriage.”

More dueling interpretations: Philosopher Rocco Buttiglione attempts to answer the dubia and argues that Amoris can be reconciled with past teaching.  In sharp contrast, at Rorate Caeli, philosopher John Lamont argues that we are essentially in a situation like the one which faced the Church in the time of Pope Honorius.

Both defenders and critics of Amoris Laetitia fear that schism will be the sequel. 

Nor is Amoris the only statement from Pope Francis to have raised questions about continuity with traditional teaching on marriage and related matters.  The remarks the pope made this summer about the validity of Catholic marriages and cohabitation are problematic in ways noted by Fr. Gerald Murray, Robert Royal, Ed Peters, and others.  There are also problematic aspects of the pope’s reform of the annulment process.  Brugger, Christopher Tollefsen, and others have noted the problematic character of some of the pope’s remarks about contraception.  And so on.

Whatever happens next, both the pope’s actions and those of the four cardinals and forty-five theologians should be kept in theological and historical perspective.

UPDATE 12/11: Regina interviews influential Vatican-watcher Edward Pentin about what is going on in Rome.  I will add further new links as the occasion arises. 

UPDATE 12/15: An Australian archbishop denounces “absolutism” and the four cardinals’ “false clarity.”  At Crux, Austen Ivereigh accuses defenders of the four cardinals of being “dissenters” comparable to those who argue for “women priests, an end to mandatory celibacy and an opening in areas such as contraception.” 

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, another cardinal comes to the defense of the four.  Bishop Schneider defends Christ’s teaching on marriage.  And at First Things, Prof. Joseph Shaw explains why Catholic academics are supporting the four cardinals.

UPDATE 12/16: Canon lawyer Edward Peters on popes and heresy.  Cardinal Burke is interviewed.  Historical parallels to the four cardinals.

Some commentary of my own forthcoming soon.