Catholic Monitor vs. ChatGPT: "I cannot responsibly name a pre-Francis pope as having taught Francis's Buenos Aires position as magisterial teaching on the basis of the Leo evidence...If John Paul II's prohibition was grounded in divine law, Christ's teaching, and the objective Eucharistic meaning of marriage—as he explicitly said—then Francis cannot be defended merely by labeling the earlier prohibition 'disciplinary'... stronger question is whether Francis's new sacramental principle is incompatible with a doctrine that the preceding magisterium itself presented as belonging to divine law"
vs.
The Catholic Monitor vs. ChatGPT:
Yes. That is an important correction to my previous answer. I should not have presented Leo the Great as though he were a straightforward papal precedent for Francis's magisterial teaching.
The key distinction is between:
- a particular pastoral action or accommodation by an individual Father, and
- an authoritative teaching of the papal magisterium establishing a doctrine or universal sacramental discipline.
Joseph Ratzinger's 1998 CDF text makes precisely this distinction. He says that some Fathers, including Leo the Great, apparently sought pastoral solutions in rare borderline cases. But he immediately says that the Fathers had a clear consensus concerning the indissolubility of marriage, and that the Church of the Fathers did not officially admit divorced-and-remarried Christians to Communion after penance.
Even more directly, the 1994 CDF document says that analogous pastoral solutions proposed or practiced by some Fathers never achieved the consensus of the Fathers and never became the common doctrine or discipline of the Church. It says that the universal Magisterium is responsible for authentically interpreting the deposit of faith.
So your objection is exactly right:
Leo's reported pastoral handling of an exceptional case cannot simply be presented as Leo's magisterial teaching that would support Francis's later interpretation.
And that substantially changes my earlier answer to your question, “name one pope who could possibly agree with Francis.”
I cannot responsibly name a pre-Francis pope as having taught Francis's Buenos Aires position as magisterial teaching on the basis of the Leo evidence.
In fact, the evidence we just examined points in the opposite direction: the pre-Francis authorities I cited—especially John Paul II and Benedict XVI/Ratzinger—explicitly distinguish exceptional pastoral situations from a change in the Church's doctrine and discipline. John Paul II said that the Church does not have the power to contravene divine wisdom and reaffirmed the exclusion from Eucharistic Communion.
That leaves the genuinely difficult historical question:
Did Francis merely exercise a pastoral judgment within the existing doctrine, or did he introduce a new principle concerning access to the sacraments that conflicts with the previous magisterium?
That is much more precise than my earlier “perhaps it's merely a disciplinary rule” formulation. The pre-Francis documents themselves characterize the relevant norms as rooted in Christ's teaching and divine law, not simply as alterable ecclesiastical regulations.
Yes. That is the more defensible formulation.
And it leads to an important further distinction: showing that Francis's position lacks a clear pre-Francis papal precedent is not, by itself, identical to proving heresy. But it does make a simple “Francis merely developed an existing pastoral discipline” explanation much harder to sustain.
The historical questions should therefore be separated:
- What did the pre-Francis magisterium teach?
- What exactly did Francis authorize in Amoris Laetitia and the Buenos Aires criteria?
- Are the two propositions compatible?
- If they are incompatible, what kind of proposition was contradicted—disciplinary, doctrinal, or divinely revealed?
- Does Francis's position satisfy the theological requirements for formal heresy, particularly pertinacity?
On #1 and #2, there is unusually strong documentary material on both sides. The interesting work is #3–5.
And I would now put the central issue more sharply than I did earlier:
If John Paul II's prohibition was grounded in divine law, Christ's teaching, and the objective Eucharistic meaning of marriage—as he explicitly said—then Francis cannot be defended merely by labeling the earlier prohibition “disciplinary.” The defender of Francis has to explain how his Buenos Aires criteria are compatible with those theological claims.
That is where a serious comparison with John Rist becomes worthwhile. Rist's case shouldn't be reduced to “Francis changed a rule.” The much stronger question is whether Francis's new sacramental principle is incompatible with a doctrine that the preceding magisterium itself presented as belonging to divine law.
And that is a substantially more formidable argument than the one I initially attributed to Rist.
I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo
|
Conclave Notes:
-- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]
-- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy? [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]
-- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
Francis Notes:
l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Comments