Washington D.C., Sep 29, 2017 / 15:26 pm
After Catholic scholars issued what they termed a “filial correction” of Pope Francis, what exactly were their charges and how should a Catholic receive the letter?
The filial correction “represents the concerns of some among the Catholic faithful at what are being perceived more broadly speaking as the Pope’s intended teachings, but which may not accurately represent the Pope’s actual teachings,” Dr. Jacob Wood, a theology professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, told CNA.
The letter “is the manifestation of the opinion and concerns of those theologians who have signed it,” Wood explained. It is “not an authoritative statement of the meaning of the documents that it discusses,” he added.
More than 60 Catholic clergy and scholars originally sent a letter to Pope Francis on August 11 as a “filial correction” for “heretical positions” that the Pope has “effectively upheld.”
The 25-page “Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagates” by the clergy and scholars, who now number over 100, says that through “Amoris Laetitia” and in “other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness,” there has been a “propagation of heresies” that must be addressed concerning “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments.”
They noted that Pope Francis has not answered the “dubia,” or questions regarding ambiguous or unclear sections of Amoris Laetitia, which were expressed privately to him in a letter from four cardinals in September 2016, and made public in November 2016.
The four cardinals were Cardinal Raymond Burke; Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; and the recently-deceased Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna and Joachim Meisner, Archbishop Emeritus of Cologne.
The “correction,” released to the public this week, charges that bishops are teaching that divorced and remarried couples can sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion, because of the Pope’s actions, and his apparent decision not to publicly respond to the “dubia.”