Full text HERE.
The five “Dubia” are brilliantly written. Each question requires a straightforward YES or NO answer (although the news itself is extraordinary because of the subject matter, this is the common format used by local conferences to question the Holy See).
So first of all, THANK YOU, Eminences. It feels like the new new springtime. Deo gratias.
In terms of the yes and the no, for each dubia there is a Catholic answer and a heretical answer. No third way, no nuance, no “graduality”. No jesuitical nonsense, please, just provide a simple yes or no.
It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
So what we have here are five questions to which the Catholic answers are No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. Just as obvious and well-known is the fact that Francis is intentionally subverting orthodox Catholic teaching in these areas. IT’S NOT CONFUSING. He affirmed it on the airplane “Si, punto” and he affirmed it to the heretical South American bishops in his response to their letter.
Francis answers Yes, No, No, No, No.
But of course he did not answer the Cardinals’ letter, so now they have made it public. This isn’t just a signal, this is a beachhead. Francis now knows, beyond a doubt, that his entire pogrom is in peril. He now knows this will schism the Church.
Now we are going to find out how much fun open warfare can be.