Regarding a stealthy Pope and a ‘Pope-less’ Consistory [Catholic Caucus]

Roma Locuta Est ^ | June 22, 2017 | Steven O'Reilly

[ebb tide]

In a blog earlier this week, I commented on the publishing of Cardinal Caffara’s letter of April 25, 2017 to Pope Francis, wherein he requested an audience with the pope to discuss the five dubia previously sent to the Pope. The Cardinal went public with the letter earlier this week in June because the pope either ignored or expressly rejected that request made in April.  I speculated in my recent blog that the upcoming consistory might be an opportune moment for the four dubia cardinals, and other cardinals man enough to join with them, to confront the Pope on the dubia and the confusion and division caused by Amoris Laetitia (I have discussed some of the issues here, here and here). However, I also speculated – even if the cardinals were so inclined to confront the Pope at the consistory, that the Pope would probably skip out on any meetings where such a confrontation might conceivably occur. Reporting by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register now suggests the Pope does in fact intend to skip out on the usual pre-consistory meeting with the College of Cardinals.

The thought that a Pope might behave in such a way – avoiding and denying meetings and audiences with his cardinals – is staggering and mind-boggling. I am beginning to picture a stealthy Pope, one who slinks down the hallways of the Vatican and Casa Santa Marta; peeking around corners, ducking in and out of closets and shadows, hiding behind curtains or beneath the linen cart, standing in a corner with a lamp shade on his head –  all at the echoing sound of footsteps which he fears might signal the approach of a dubia cardinal. Good grief. I do not know what the dubia cardinals have planned next – if anything at all. I had assumed at the outset that the cardinals had ‘war gamed’ the various scenarios out and had developed an end-game strategy.  The Pope won’t meet with them. Therefore, they can neither discuss the dubia with him nor issue a private correction or warning.  What do you do now? Hire a plane to circle Vatican City daily with an “Answer the Dubia!” sign in tow?  Maybe the laity should show up in St. Peter’s square at the Angelus with such signs?

At this point, if the Pope avoids potential confrontational settings at the consistory all together and avoids future audiences with cardinals non grata, I would hope the four dubia cardinals take advantage of his absence and conduct their own meeting with like-minded cardinals at the June consistory. To do what? Well, for one, hopefully more than enjoying a fine night out in an Italian ristorante and adding cardinals to their ‘those-who-agree-with-us-but-won’t-say-it-too-loud’ list  I don’t have a red hat. . .but. . .for starters, how about getting as many cardinals as possible to publicly declare what are the specific correct answers expected from any Catholic and why given the Church’s received and unchanging magisterium. In addition, accompanying this, how about an explicit warning that continued papal non-responsiveness –  in the face of repeated reasonable requests and growing confusion and division in the Church – at a minimum, favors heresy (e.g, The Case of Pope Honorius see here and here) and that the cardinals will explore the ‘Bellarmine option’ (i.e., the theoretical deposition of a pope for heresy). How about getting dozens of the attending cardinals (or as many who will) to issue and sign a public declaration requesting all bishops around the world to address a query to the pope asking him to answer the dubia within a specified time period? I don’t know.  Just some thoughts. . .not saying they are the best.  But this crisis has festered for far too long.  At a minimum, the thought of getting cardinals and bishops on the record now with their own dubia answers appeals to me.  The cardinal-electors at the next conclave need to know with moral certainty what future papabili believe on these questions. We don’t need any more St. Gallen surprises in the next conclave. Something needs to be done. Whatever it is. . .I hope it amounts to something more than finding out seven months from now in a news article that Pope Francis has refused persistent Facebook “friend requests” from the four dubia cardinals.

[ebb tide]

I am beginning to picture a stealthy Pope, one who slinks down the hallways of the Vatican and Casa Santa Marta; peeking around corners, ducking in and out of closets and shadows, hiding behind curtains or beneath the linen cart, standing in a corner with a lamp shade on his head

[Arthur McGowan]

I just hang on. He’s 80 years old. He’s 80 years old.

[utahagen]

As I'm sure is obvious to all following this story closely, Pope Francis is neither going to answer the dubia nor meet with the four cardinals alone to discuss the dubia generally. I imagine Burke at al are planning what they will have to do in a few months, when they can tell the world they have given the Pope enough time to respond and he either formally has refused to respond or simply has ignored them. That they have gone public must mean they do not consider letting it all go — i.e., just waiting for Pope Francis to die and hoping for a better replacement Pope — to be an option.

[BlessedBeGod]

...I would hope the four dubia cardinals take advantage of his absence and conduct their own meeting with like-minded cardinals at the June consistory.

Well, that's not going to happen. They are not going to want to be seen in the company of the dubia cardinals. With Francis' spies, two seconds after the meeting the list of attendees is going to be right in Francis' little hands, and he'll be demoting some more good cardinals.

[Jeff Chandler]

This article assumes a large number of Cardinals disagree with the Pope. Heck, this article assumes a large number of Cardinals believe in the Risen Christ.

I know that sounds cynical but based upon what we have witnessed over the past 50 years it makes sense.

[piusv]

the ‘Bellarmine option’ (i.e., the theoretical deposition of a pope for heresy).

I wish Catholics would stop describing Saint Bellarmine's teaching incorrectly. Saint Bellarmine does not teach this. No true pope has a human superior. The so-called "Bellarmine option" (which agrees with the teachings of the Early Fathers) is that a man that is a manifest heretic loses his office ipso facto. Therefore this man, this false pope, is deposed by God Himself. It is only after he is a non-pope that men can judge him and punish him.

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction... -Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church

[piusv]

At this point, Catholics who are not cynical of the last 50 years have buried their heads in the sand.

[Miles the Slasher]

I think the point was it still requires someone (e.g., the college of cardinals, an imperfect council) to declare the fact. It would not be up to you or me to decide.

[Salvation]

One of them died, correct? Only three cardinals who phrased the dubia.

[utahagen]

Yes, one of the four dubia Cardinals has died...and then there were (are) three. Pope Francis will never answer the dubia. I'd say we should just hang on until Pope Francis dies, yet the obvious problem is that the College of Cardinals has been stacked with Cardinals just like Francis. God help us if Francis is followed by someone like him.

Please, God, guide the remaining three Cardinals in what to do next...