DUBIOUS ‘DUBIA’

Recently, five cardinals have sent a letter to Pope Francis expressing dubia to him regarding the upcoming Synod on Synodality. The Holy Father responded to them with detailed comments, but they were not satisfied—why? The form of a dubium requires a simple Yes/No reply. It allows for no explanations, expansions, qualifications, nuances. Why would these cardinals not be satisfied with the Pope’s replies?

Simply put, the dubia were intended to embarrass the Pope and (if possible) derail the process of synodality that has just begun in Rome this past week. Three of the cardinals (at least) have had long-standing personal grudges against Francis, some as far back as his election in 2013. They are angry with Francis’ style of leadership and theology which bases itself on humility and listening and accompanying. These cardinals remind me of some of the high school sophomores I taught—they want all answers in black/white, yes/no, and they want them now! Folks, life doesn’t work like that. Pope Francis knows this, and these cardinals know it, as well. As I said, they have a history of grudges.

These cardinals regard themselves as the “Guardians of the Galaxy” of the Catholic Church’s teaching. They see the concept of ‘development’ (which extends back as far as St Vincent of Lerins in the 5^th century (and, honestly, to Jesus in the “Farewell Discourse” of the Fourth Gospel—Jn 16:13; also Jn 14:15-16), and more recently in the writings of St John Henry Cardinal Newman) as a shell game to justify changes in doctrine. Well, can doctrine change? It depends (there’s another answer the cardinals would be frustrated by with their dubia)…

Let’s take a simple example: death by suicide. Until well into the 20^th century, the Church’s position was that a person who took his/her own life was in full faculties, chose to do so, and did it—the conditions for a mortal sin. Therefore, the person was absolutely consigned to hell, barred from a Catholic funeral Mass and forbidden to be buried in consecrated ground. But we have learned that such actions may well not be “freely chosen,” and in fact most likely are almost never “freely chosen.” This decision is between the person and God, and so in good faith we can preside over the funerals and bury these poor persons. I have done a number of these, especially beginning with the suicides of Michael Labadie (former student and then priest) and Ernie Hyndman (also a priest). What led them to this terrible conclusion? God knows.

If this is what is meant by “change in Church teaching,” then by all means we need to explore how Church teaching was conditioned in the past by knowledge that has now been perfected. Does the earth revolve around the sun? The Roman Inquisition condemned Galileo for saying so; in the pontificate of Pope St John Paul II this condemnation was officially negated.

More importantly, why should these cardinals (and some bishops from the US) be so terrified of a process that began at the grassroots last year and moved from parishes to dioceses to national conferences to the Synod of Bishops itself? Why is consultation and dialogue and listening so terrifying to some folks? My solution to these irrationally dissident voices would be to make them designated participants in the Synod! Please pray—and remember that the Synod will continue until October of 2024. This is only round one. Please pray for the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit in this process. The Spirit will leads us into all truth (Jn 16:13).
-Fr. David