[Catholic Caucus] De Mattei: The worldwide impact and significance of the Correctio filialis

The “filial correction” addressed to Pope Francis by more than 60 priests and scholars of the Church, has had an extraordinary impact all over the world. There was no lack of those who tried to minimize the initiative, declaring the number of signatories “to be limited and marginal”. Yet if the initiative is irrelevant, why have its repercussions been so widespread in all the media outlets of the five continents, including countries like Russia and China? Steve Skojec on Onepeterfive reports that research on Google News resulted in more than 5,000 news articles, while there were 100,000 visits on the site www.correctiofilialis.org in a space of 48 hours. The adhesion on this site is still open, even if only some signatures will be made visible. It is essential to acknowledge that the reason for this world-wide echo is one only: the truth can be ignored or repressed, but when it is made manifest with clarity it has its own intrinsic power and is destined to spread by itself. The main enemy of truth is not error, but ambiguity. The cause of the diffusion of errors and heresies in the Church is not due to the strength of these errors, but the culpable silence of those who should openly defend the truth of the Gospel.

The truth asserted by the “filial correction” is that Pope Francis, through a long series of words, acts and omissions “has upheld, by direct or indirect means (whether being aware or not, we do not know, neither do we want to judge him ) at least “seven false and heretical propositions, propagated in the Church through his public office as well as through private action.” The signatories insist respectfully that the Pope “condemn these propositions publically, thus carrying out the mandate of Our Lord Jesus Christ given to Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of time: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”.

No reply regarding the correction has yet arrived; only clumsy attempts at disqualifying or singling out the signatories, with particular aim at some of the most well-known, like the former President of the Vatican Bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. In reality, as Gotti Tedeschi himself said in an interview to Marco Tosatti on September 24^th, the authors of the Correctio, have acted out of love for the Church and the Papacy. Gotti Tedeschi and another well-known signatory, the German writer, Martin Mosebach, were both applauded last September 14^th at the Angelicum by a public of over 400 priests and laypeople, comprising three cardinals and several bishops, on the occasion of the convention celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum.

Other two signatories, Professors Claudio Pierantoni and Anna Silva, expressed the same ideas in the Correctio at a meeting on the theme “Let’s Clarify”, organized on April 23^rd of this year by the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, supported by other prelates, among whom was the late Cardinal Carlo Caffara. Many other signatories of the document occupy or have occupied, prominent positions in ecclesiastic institutions. Others again are distinguished university professors. If the authors of the Correctio were isolated in the Catholic world, their document would not have had the resonance it attained.

A Filial Appeal to Pope Francis in 2015 was signed by around 900,000 people from all over the world and a Declaration of fidelity to the unchangeable teaching of the Church on matrimony, presented in 2015 by 80 Catholic personalities, gathered 35,000 signatures. A year ago, four Cardinals formulated their Dubia on the Exhortation Amoris laetitia. In the meantime, scandals of an economic and moral nature are undermining Pope Francis’ pontificate. The American vaticanist, John Allen, certainly not of a traditional bent, revealed on Crux of September 25^th, how difficult his position has become these days.

Among the most ridiculous accusations that are being made about the signatories of the document, is that of being “Lefebvrians” on account of Bishop Bernard Fellay’s signature, the Superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Monsignor Fellay’s adhesion to a document of this type is a historical act, which clarifies without the shadow of a doubt, the Fraternity’s position in regard to the new pontificate. However, “Lefebvrianism” is a verbal locution which has for the progressives the same role the word “fascism” had for the Communists in the 1970s: discredit the adversary, without discussing the reasons. The presence of Monsignor Fellay is moreover, reassuring for all the signatories of the Correctio. How can the Pope not have the same comprehension and benevolence regarding them, that he has shown over the last two years towards the Fraternity of St. Pius X?

The Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte, previously special secretary to the Bishops’ Synod on the Family, declared that the Correctio represents “a prejudicially closed stance towards the spirit of the Second Vatican Council which Pope Francis is incarnating so profoundly” (Avvenire, September 26^th, 2015). The spirit of Vatican II, incarnated by Pope Francis, writes Monsignor Lorizio, in turn, in the same Italian Bishops’ newspaper, consists in the primacy of the pastoral over theology; in other words, in the subordination of the natural law to life experience, since, as he explains, “the pastoral comprises and includes theology” and not vice-versa. Monsignor Lorizio teaches theology at the same Faculty of the Lateran University in which the Dean used to be Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, who died on September 22^nd , on the eve of the Correctio he was unable to sign because of his precarious health conditions.

Now then, we have come to the point of defining Pope Francis a “living God”, forgetting that the Church is founded on Jesus Christ, for Whom the Pope is representative on earth, not the divine owner. As Antonio Socci correctly wrote, the Pope is not a “second Jesus” (Libero, September 24^th 2017) but the 266^th successor to Peter. His mandate is not that of changing or “improving” the words of Our Lord, but of guarding and transmitting them in the most faithful manner. If this doesn’t happen, Catholics have the duty to reprove him in a filial way, following the example of St. Paul in regard to the Prince of the Apostles, Peter. (Gal. II, 11).

Lastly, there are those surprised that Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Raymomd Leo Burke didn’t sign the document, ignoring, as Rorate Caeli underlined, that the Correctio of the Sixty is of a purely theological nature, whereas the one of the Cardinals, when it comes, will have much more authority and importance, also on the canonical level. The correction of a fellowman, foreseen by the Gospel and current Canon Law, in art. 212, par. 3, can have different forms. “This principle of fraternal correction inside the Church – declared Monsignor Athanasius Schneider in a recent interview to Maike Hickson – has been valid for all time, even with regard to the Pope, and so it should be valid also in our times. Unfortunately, these days anyone who dares speak the truth – even if he does so respectfully with regard to the Shepherds of the Church – is classified as an enemy of unity, as happened to St. Paul; when he declared: ‘Am I then become your enemy , because I tell you the truth?’” (Gal. 4, 16).

The Pope should be reminded that Jesus answered questions, even hostile questions:

And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?”* so that they might accuse him. 11* He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable a person is than a sheep. So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” 13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was restored as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees* went out and took counsel against him to put him to death.i Matthew 12

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher,* we wish to see a sign from you.”u 39He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful* generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. 40Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights,* so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. 41* At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here. 42At the judgment the queen of the south will arise with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and there is something greater than Solomon here.v Matthew 12

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. 4They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.* So what do you say?”b 6They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.* 7* But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them,c “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. 10Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”d 11She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”]e
John 8

So if Jesus could answer hostile questions, why does the Pope refuse to answer questions on the teachings of Jesus that the Catholic Church through the Holy Spirit has agreed to always speak the Truth of God?

According to the people at Catholic Answers Forums, merely to ask (viz. both the dubia and the correctio) is impertinent:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/revealed-how-british-cardinal-fixed-vatican-conclave-for-his-friend-pope-francis/448545/7

Never mind that in the past, many dubia have been presented and promptly answered:

“responsa ad proposita dubia”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.