Por Que Não Assinar a Correção Filial ao Papa?

Ontem, o jornal The Catholic Herald mostrou uma coleção de justificativas de alguns católicos para não assinar a Correctio Filialis, que denota possíveis heresias nos escritos, atos e palavras do Papa Francisco.

Eu gosto de ler opiniões contrárias daquilo que defendo, o risco que corro é de ver que estou errado ou de fortalecer minha crença que estou certo. Ganho sempre.

Nesse caso, as opiniões contrárias à assinatura do Correção ao Papa só fortalecem minha defesa de que é imperioso assinar a Correção.

Os que são contrários à assinatura dizem:

1)  que o Papa já discursou contra as heresias que estão sendo entendidas da encíclica Amoris Laetitia;

2) Que corrigir o Papa publicamente é um erro pois um filho não faz isso com o pai;

3) Que a assinatura enfraquece o Papado;

4) Que o Papa já desprezou outras correções assinadas por mais gente e até por cardeais então essa correção não importa;

5) Que na coleção de assinaturas consta dois nomes que estão em processo de cisma da Igreja

---
Bom, são posições muito frágeis. Fáceis de serem derrubadas:

1) Se ele já discursou contra as heresias por que ele desprezou os diversos apelos? Apenas um discurso vale para dissipar tamanho risco e confusão que a Igreja atravessa?

2) Corrigir um pai é sim obrigação de um filho, e a depender do erro a melhor correção é pública. E a Bíblia é plena de correções públicas contra líderes religiosos e políticos. Há correções públicas de profetas contra reis e líderes religiosos, há as correções de São Paulo a São Pedro e também há as correções públicas de Cristo contra fariseus, que o próprio Cristo diz que precisam ser respeitados.

O líder da Correção Filial, Dr. Joseph Shaw, expôs os vários exemplos de correções bíblicas em uma entrevista, além de explicar quando um escândalo religioso deve ser corrigido até publicamente. Vejamos abaixo (leiam a entrevista toda clicando no link):

LifeSite: Professor Shaw, Msgr. Fazio has accused the authors and signatories of the “filial correction” — particularly those who are members of Opus Dei — of attacking the Pope and scandalizing the whole Church, saying that “a son should not ‘correct’ his father in public.” In Genesis 9:23, we read about Noah’s sons (Shem and Japheth) “covering the nakedness of their father” out of respect for him, and this was in a private setting. Does Msgr. Fazio have a point? Are the authors and organizers of the “filial correction” scandalizing the Church?

Dr. Shaw: Scandal is a complex concept which should be used with care. Scandal is given when a person’s words or actions cause others to sin. It can be deliberate—‘formal scandal’—or inadvertent—‘material scandal.’ It is also possible for people to ‘take scandal’ without justification, such as the Pharisees who accused Our Lord of blaspheming, when in reality he merely spoke the truth.

As far as ordinary Catholics are concerned, when we see something which is apparently bad happening within the Church, we must be aware that knowledge of this bad thing by a wider audience may cause people to sin: it may undermine their faith, cause them to neglect their religious duties, or, if not Catholic, harden them to the truths of the Gospel. For this reason we can say not only that it is a scandal if, say, a priest is too fond of drink, but also that a person revealing such a thing causes scandal.

However, the situation is complicated by the fact that revealing a private vice is also wrong because it is detraction: it endangers the priest’s good name, which is a very serious matter.

When the bad things happening in the Church are not so much private failings as serious injustices to others, and especially when they begin to be reported, there is an instinct to seek to protect the Church’s reputation by denial, by seeking to explain them away, or by covering them up. What has become very evident in recent decades, however, is that, understandable as this instinct is, it should be resisted. First and foremost, it works against justice. Secondly, it actually causes scandal, because those who become aware of the reality of the situation and of Catholics’ reactions to it are put off the Church because of our apparent indifference to justice. Thirdly, even in the narrowest terms of dealing with bad publicity, it is very often counter-productive, especially in the longer term.

These are hard-learnt lessons of the clerical sex-abuse crisis, perhaps the most expensive education Catholics have had in history.

Non-Catholics, especially serious-minded non-Catholic Christians suspicious of the role of the Pope in the Church, will be scandalised very deeply by the impression that, when a Pope speaks and writes in ways apparently at variance with the Church’s earlier teaching, faithful Catholics remain silent. It will confirm for them the caricature of Catholics as brain-washed slaves of the Pope.

Catholics with respect for the Papal office are vulnerable in a different way, since when they see what appears to be a Pope offering a way out from difficult moral teachings, they will be tempted to ignore those teachings in their own lives: often, indeed, tempted to go much further than anything directly justified by the Pope’s words. These Catholics’ scandal will be deepened by the silence of faithful Catholics, especially pastors and academics known for their earlier defence of these teachings.

There is no question, in this situation, of the signatories ‘revealing their father’s nakedness’: the fact to which they draw attention is evident to all. Indeed, the appearance of a discrepancy between Pope Francis’ indications about the correct interpretation of Amoris laetitia, and the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II and the tradition in general, is something emphasized above all by those who present themselves as supporters of Pope Francis. The only question which remains is whether Catholic pastors and academics would give the impression, in turn, of acting like weather-vanes, and simply change their beliefs to suit the prevailing officially-sanctioned view: keeping ready to change back again under the next pope as necessary. It would certainly cause a scandal if no Catholics were prepared at least to ask some insistent questions about what is going on.

Perhaps critics of the signatories mean, however, that the Correctio causes scandal by revealing divisions in the Church, which would better be covered up. Again, however, these divisions have been emphasised by the Pope’s supposed partisans, who have criticised those still basing their views on the teaching of Pope St John Paul II when, according to them, it has been overturned. What is needed, where there are divisions, is respectful dialogue and a resolution of differences.

If we are to speak of filial obligations, we should remember that the Father to whom ultimate loyalty is due is our heavenly Father. When it comes to popes, we also owe loyalty not only to the current holder of the papal office, but to all the popes who have carried out their office of teaching the faith given to them by that Heavenly Father. The Correctio is an act of loyalty and duty towards our Heavenly Father and our human fathers in the faith, most especially those popes who have transmitted the teaching on marriage and the Eucharist given by Jesus Christ Himself in obedience to His Father.

The “filial correction” has drawn considerable attention in both Catholic and secular media. Why did the authors and organizers of the correction go public with it? And why is it not a “display of disunity,” as the Argentinian Vicar General of Opus Dei suggests? 

Those Catholics concerned about the direction of the debate about remarriage and Communion, and related issues, have made repeated attempts to express these concerns in ways which would not create a public impression of opposition to the person of the Pope. The ‘Filial Appeal’, signed by 800,000 people, was part of a debate called for by Pope Francis before he had composed Amoris. The letter of the ‘13 Cardinals’ and the ‘45 academics and pastors’ appeal to Cardinals’ were, alike, not intended to be public documents. Obviously, in this way these initiatives observed both the letter and the spirit of Matthew 18:15-17 on speaking first to one’s brother in private.

The ‘dubia’ of the four cardinals, like the Correction, was only made public when Pope Francis declined to discuss the matter with the cardinals in any way. This is not the history of a group of Catholics who wish to attack either the person of the present Pope or the Papal office.

It should also be emphasised that Canon 212 permits and encourages lay Catholics not only to manifest their concerns to their superiors, but also to each other. The latter is necessary where there is a danger to the Faith and of scandal to ordinary Catholics which is not being addressed by the proper authorities: in this case, the Holy Father. This is clearly the case where the authorities have declined to respond to a non-public appeal.

Disunity is being displayed in a very public way by Bishops’ Conferences, such as those of Germany and Poland, issuing contrasting guidelines for the application of Amoris, not by those who, concerned about this disunity, appeal for an act of the Magisterium which would bring it to an end.

It is true that the Correction is more strongly worded than previous initiatives: this reflects the escalating seriousness of the situation, and the absence of a response from Pope Francis to the earlier documents.

Can you point to a passage in Scripture, a Doctor or Father of the Church, or perhaps even a famous piece of Literature, that illustrates your point?

Both Testaments of Scripture are replete with examples of subordinates criticising superiors in public. The criticism of the leaders of Israel by prophets and priests, from the public humiliation of King Saul by Samuel, the denunciation of King Ahab by Elijah, and the attack on Herod the Tetrarch by St John the Baptist, are in general the criticism of official, and usually divinely sanctioned, authority, by persons who may have been inspired by God, but who lacked institutional standing. This pattern is taken to its logical extreme by the condemnation of the Elders by the prophet Daniel when only a child (Dan 13:45ff). Our Lord made the situation clear when, while eviscerating the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, he acknowledged nonetheless that they held ‘the seat of Moses’, a position which meant that people should listen to them as speaking with authority, despite all their shortcomings (Matthew 23:2-3).  

Private remonstrations also take place, a notable example being the prophet Nathan’s criticism of King David, but even this was not intended as a way to hush things up. Nathan speaks of God’s coming punishment of David: ‘For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel, and in the sight of the sun.’ (2 Sam 12:12). In the other cases, it is fair to assume that the prophets realised that the time for private discussion had passed (Matthew 18:15-17). We may take it that this was also so in the famous confrontation of St Peter by St Paul (Gal 2:11).

Commenting on that last passage, St Thomas Aquinas wrote: ‘Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly.’ (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galations 2:14)

It should be emphasised that when an inferior criticises a superior, he takes a great risk, as demonstrated in a number of the cases mentioned. He does this not only out of zeal for justice, but out of love of the superior. This is a theme particularly developed by Shakespeare, in the Winters Tale, and even more famously in King Lear. In the latter Lear banishes Cordelia and the Duke of Kent for speaking of truth and justice when he wanted flattery. They alone, however, are later revealed as loyal subjects.

It is not criticism which is most to be feared by those in positions of authority, but flattery. As Pope Francis expressed it: ‘The hypocrite is capable of destroying a community. While speaking gently, he ruinously judges a person. He is a killer.’

Again: ‘The hypocrite always uses language to flatter,’ ‘feeding into one’s vanity.’

---

3) O que enfraquece o papado é a defesa de doutrinas heréticas.

4) A Correção Filial é mais assertiva nas definições das heresias. Em todo caso, o fato de o Papa ter desprezado até cardeais não quer dizer que padres e teólogos devam silenciar.

5) Bom, desprezando as questões da lei canônica sobre isso, o fato de ter dois assinantes que são críticos da Igreja em muitos outros aspectos não invalida uma coleção de centenas de nomes.

---

Clamo para que os ilustres católicos e clérigos assinem. A Correção foi entregue ao Papa com 40 assinaturas, tornada pública mais de um mês depois com 62 assinaturas e hoje já tem quase 250 assinaturas.

Não consigo entender por que gente como Edward Peters, ainda não assinou mesmo tendo escrito a favor.

Interessante também é a opinião contrária assinarura de Rocco Buttiglione.

Eu tive a felicidade de conhecer pesssoalmente Buttiglione nos Estados Unidos e de conversar bastante com ele. Na oportunidade debatemos sobre o Papa Francisco e se mostrou para mim uma pessoa que queria ficar no centro, nem atacar nem aceitar completamente o Papa Francisco. Respeito-o muito, mas em se tratando do Papa Francisco acho que ele está muito errado.

Buttiglione acha que o Papa não precisa de correções e que é possível sim ministrar eucaristia para quem está em pecado matrimonial.

Bom, nada menos que Edward Peters detonou as opiniões de Buttiglione:

A corrective to some of Prof. Buttiglione’s recent assertions about canon law

October 6, 2017

It is simply not possible for me to re-explain, every time I address the latest canonical misstatements proffered by some writer or another, the whole canon law on the reception of holy Communion and the administration of that Sacrament by ministers. Further information on those crucial topics is available elsewhere. Here I comment only to caution others that some of Prof. Rocco Buttiglione’s recent comments on the administration and reception of holy Communion are not canonically sound.

Readers might recall that a year or so ago Buttiglione authored an essay alleging that divorced-and-remarried Catholics had been excommunicated until John Paul II courageously eliminated that supposed sanction from the 1983 Code. I showed that no such excommunication existed in universal law (searching back more than 100 years) and suggested then that Buttiglione was not a reliable historian of canon law. To my knowledge he did not modify his claims. Oh well.

Now Buttiglione has authored another essay, this time against theCorrectio Filialis.  As stated earlier I have no position on theCorrectio itself but I pause to suggest that, once again, Buttiglione has misunderstood and/or misrepresented some important, if this time more subtle, canonical points. Our discussion is hampered by Buttiglione’s failure to specify exactly which disciplinary norms he has in mind at various stages of his essay. Sorry, we’ll proceed as best we can.

For example, Buttiglione writes:

There is an absolute impossibility of giving Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin (and this rule is of Divine law and therefore imperative) but if, due to the lack of full knowledge and full consent, there is no mortal sin, communion can be given, from the point of view of moral theology, also to a remarried-and-divorced. There is also another prohibition, not moral but legal. Extra-marital coexistence clearly contradicts the law of God and generates scandal. In order to protect the faith of the people and strengthen the conscience of the indissolubility of marriage, legitimate authority may decide not to give communion to remarried-and-divorced even if they are not in mortal sin. However, this rule is a human law and the legitimate authority can allow exceptions for good reason.

There are many canonical mistakes in the above passage though I will deal with only three at present. Also I will rephrase some of Buttiglione’s words because I think bad translations might have interfered with his message.

(1) There is an absolute impermissibility of giving the Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin.

This claim is wrong. Setting aside the impossibility of one human being knowing for sure whether any other human being is “in mortal sin”—why do so many people think that reading souls is part of a canon lawyer’s stock-in-trade?—it is quite possible, indeed,canonically required, to administer holy Communion publicly to members of the Christian faithful whom a minister suspects (perhaps on excellent evidence) to be “in mortal sin” unless all five elements of Canon 915 (obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin) are simultaneously satisfied. This is standard sacramental law, yet Buttiglione seems unaware of this norm and unaware that Canon 18 requires its strict interpretation such that, doubtless and sadly, sacrilegious Communions can be made in accord with Church law—something hardly possible if divine law absolutely prohibited it. This botching of a crucial point in his argument does not instill confidence that Buttiglione will handle other points reliably.

(2) Extra-marital cohabitation clearly contradicts the law of God and generates scandal.

Sometimes false. I am aware of no divine law that prohibits “extra-marital cohabitation” per se (let one alone “clearly” prohibiting it) and can imagine situations wherein such “cohabitation” (not extra-marital sex, but cohabitation), strictly speaking, could be prudently countenanced, at least for a time (complex discussion omitted). Rather I suspect that Buttiglione is, wittingly or not, confusing “cohabitation” with “divorce-and-remarriage” and thereby substituting what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes as “a situation of public and permanent adultery” for something that mightbe morally acceptable. Again, such an assertion hardly exhibits the level of precision that discussion of these points requires.

(3) To protect the faith of the people and to strengthen the respect for the indissolubility of marriage, legitimate authority may decide not to give communion to remarried-and-divorced even if they are not in mortal sin. However, this rule is a human law and the legitimate authority can allow exceptions for good reason.

Again Buttiglione assumes that ministers and canonists know who is “in mortal sin” and who isn’t. For the last time, that’s balderdash. But more to the point, Buttiglione’s earlier erroneous assertion that divine law always prohibits ministers from giving holy Communion to persons “in mortal sin” (assuming we even know who they are), returns now to create new confusion between canons resting on divine law (as some do) and canons supposedly resting on mere human law (such as, one surmises, Buttiglione believes Canon 915 does when it prohibits administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics) which law, because it is ‘just a law’, and not ‘morals’, can supposedly be changed.

But, as has been explained numerous times, Canon 915, operating in the face of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin (here, the sin of contradicting the permanence of marriage by purporting to marry again while a prior spouse is yet alive), prohibits ministers from giving holy Communion to certain persons when such administration causes scandal to others, scandal being defined by the Catechism as “a grave offense” which is worsened “when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others”. CCC 2284-2287. In other words, Canon 915 rests at least in part on divine law, the divine law that prohibits, among other things, anyone (especially ministers of the Church!) from giving scandal to others. Buttiglione seems unaware of this aspect of Canon 915.

Canon 915 is not about withholding holy Communion from a couple that one thinks is illicitly “doing it”; it is about withholding holy Communion when its administration would lead the community to, here, doubt the gravity of the contradiction that civil divorce-and-remarriage gives to marriage as proclaimed by Christ and his Church. Even the much-invoked and usually misunderstood “brother-sister” accommodation is to be considered only if the couple’s status as divorced-and-remarried outside the Church is not known in the community (and if the couple promises continence which, obviously, ministers cannot monitor). But at this point, I must repeat that these wider matters are explained elsewhere, and my focus now is on Buttiglione’s latest essay, which essay, I think I have shown, is not a reliable guide to the canonistics in question here.