Cardinals’ request for clarification on Church teaching not against Canon Law
By now, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, nuns, lay people and even Protestants are questioning why the Pope has not answered or resolved the dubia (doubts) proceeding from his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).
I am somewhat reluctant to write about this matter, given my profound respect for the Holy Father, and my absolute conviction of his primacy, his supreme power and authority in the Church, and that there can be no appeal against any decision made by him. This is well expressed in the maxim of Canon Law: Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur:“The Pope is judged by no one” (Canon 1404).
The Code of Canon Law of 1917 in Canon 228 §2 stated specifically that a decision made by the Pope could not be appealed to an Ecumenical Council. The revised Code of 1983 has a broader approach (Canon 1372), yet still counts it as a grave offence, punishable by ecclesiastical penalties, to appeal to an Ecumenical Council against a decision of the Pope.
The much publicized letter of four Cardinals is not an appeal to an Ecumenical Council, but something supported by the faith-expressions of the bishops during the two consecutive synods of 2015 and 2016. However, the fundamental principle flowing from the divine law remains that no human power, ecclesiastical or civil, is competent to judge the Pope’s decision. This is a prerogative which, being the Supreme Judge in the Church, even the Pope himself cannot renounce.
What we are dealing with here is not a question of a rejection of a papal pronouncement, but of a number of questions that remain ambiguous and require an explanation from the Supreme Legislator.
From time immemorial we have taught and been taught that one must be “in a state of grace”, that is, free from mortal sin, in order to receive Communion. When a couple is cohabiting without marriage, or married “outside the Church,” or divorced and remarried without the benefit of an ecclesiastical annulment, they are objectively in a state of sin. Therefore, this union is a real adultery that cannot be forgiven in confession if there is no contrition and repentance, and no ceasing to live in a spousal relationship.
While we cannot pass judgment on a couple’s objective conscience, we can affirm with St. John Paul II that “they cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).
When the four Cardinals asked the Holy Father for clarification, they were not showing disrespect or disobedience, but rather concern for the Church’s teaching. However, they did show lack of prudence in sharing their letter with the media. The Cardinals are the Pope’s closest collaborators and advisors, and it is only natural that they should approach him for clarification and direction, but they should have used another modus agendi (a way to act) for expressing their concerns, which, according to canon law and jurisprudence, should have been under “pontifical secret”, directly to the Pope and never to the media.
The scandal today is a product of the media. Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, the Dean of the Roman Rota Tribunal, accused the four Cardinals of giving the Pope “a slap in the face.” Media reported him as saying Francis would punish them by removing them from the College of Cardinals, but the same news agency subsequently retracted. What Msgr. Pinto actually said was he didn’t believe “the Pope would do such a thing” but insisted that the questions created a “very serious scandal”.
Our gentle Pope is not vindictive and will never punish them, even though he has the power to remove even the highest cleric from his title. Pius XI did so with a Jesuit cardinal, rector of the Gregorian University, because he was not happy with his lessons.
If this matter had been dealt with in camera, the Pope would have called the four eminent Cardinals to explain the real sense of the document and in this way nobody would have been aware of all this business.
This is not the first time there have been movements looking for ways to allow admittance to the sacraments for the civilly remarried who have not received a declaration of nullity. Another was the so-called “interior forum”, by which an individual’s conscience convinces him/her that the first marriage was invalid.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, first as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and then as Supreme Pontiff, declared that the “internal forum” does not substitute for the decision of the marriage tribunal.
