One of the thing that a new Pope has to do, is tie up the loose ends left by his predecessor.
There are no ends looser that one can imagine that the DUBIA about Amoris laetitia submitted in 2016 to Francis by the “Four Dubia Cardinals” (Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra+, Meisner+).
There were also dubia submitted in 2023 about synodality by five Cardinals (Brandmüller, Sarah, Sandoval Íñiguez, Burke, and Zen).
Resubmit the dubia Leo when things settle down.
This could be a foundational moment of healing at the beginning of a new Pontificate as well as a gesture of continuity with the last years out of which those sets of – serious! – questions were submitted by serious and highly credentialled men of the Church, Cardinals, fulfilling their duty to advise the Pope.
It might not be the best timing to resubmit these before the ink on Leo’s first signature is dry, but sometime soon when things are settling down, they could ask for the healing gesture of clarifications to their questions.
Responses could be a great consolation for a lot of people who have struggled in confusion about the Church’s teachings on some matters.
Some might argue that resubmitting the dubia would make him defensive. I think it depends on how they are resubmitted and in what moment.
Loading ...
Amen! Will be praying and fasting for this.
May his actions be followed immediately by the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested at Fatima: With all the bishops of the world participating and specifically- Russia.
Or the consecration first, which would give us all great graces.
The media is already reporting that he supported Pope Francis with giving communion to the divorced, which, when properly understood is allowed, but it’s coming across as let the divorced and “remarried” or those who are divorced and living in adulterous relationships receive communion.
I think we also need clear and unambiguous catechesis on what the Church actually teaches on divorce and its laws.
I was watching clips of his first Mass as Pope and noticed he spoke in English for his homily. It’s such an adjustment to actually be able to clearly understand what the Pope says when he speaks. I hope he uses more English so that his words can’t be twisted by the English speaking media in translations.
Let bygones be bygones. Probably better to start fresh and see how things go. Dubia can always be resubmitted if questionable teaching occurs.
Cardinal Burke strikes me as a forthright and prudent man. He could say to Pope Leo XIV in private, “In conscience I need to resubmit the 2016 and 2023 Dubia. When would be an acceptable time for me to do that?” If Pope Leo XIV is serious and reasonable, he’ll give Cardinal Burke a timeframe of not more than 15 months from now.
I would cool it for a bit.
When you take on a new parish as pastor, about the first thirty people who want to talk to you or ask you questions are invariably unhinged or are trying to manipulate you.
I imagine that is tenfold so for a bishop taking on a diocese, and a thousandfold or more for a pope taking on the Universal Church.
Pingback: True Pope? Here is a great way to find out, in short order… – non veni pacem
“Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested at Fatima: With all the bishops of the world participating and specifically- Russia.”
It’s been done. How many times are we going to do this? Are we just going to keep doing it until we get the result we wanted?
The election of Leo XIV: the boomerang effect, the collapse of the anti-Francis bloc, and the role of young cardinals
Vatican expert Alberto Melloni revealed details of Robert Francis Prevost’s unexpected victory. With a conciliatory and pro- synodality profile , the pontiff was seen as an acceptable figure by various political movements.
Guglielmo Mangiapane
On the most decisive day for the Catholic Church, the conclave surprised everyone: what began with a clear advantage for Cardinal Pietro Parolin ended with the surprising election of the American Robert Francis Prevost , now known as Pope Leo XIV .
According to the analysis of Italian church historian Alberto Melloni , Parolin had obtained around 49 votes after the first count, compared to Prevost ‘s 38 , in a conclave where the decisive threshold was 89 votes to reach the necessary two-thirds. But the figures were unstable.
In his column in Corriere Della Sera , the Vaticanist asserts that, as happened in 2013, the conclavarian dynamics They triggered a swift and decisive shift of votes . In just 24 hours and four rounds of voting, the forecasts were shattered .
A significant segment of the cardinals—especially those critical of Francis’s pontificate—were pushing for an election that would “correct” the ecclesiastical course. But that pressure backfired: the campaign against Francis’s legacy ended up uniting the reformist centrist vote around Prevost , perceived as someone capable of continuing the synodal path without replicating the Argentine pope.
This is how the election of the new Pope was experienced in the conclave
The moments after the cardinals elected Prevost as the new Pope
The step back of cardinals over 80 , who could no longer vote but could exert influence, was also key . Melloni says their departure from the scene allowed the most active voters to tip the balance toward a less polarizing , but not a disruptive, approach.
Leo XIV He thus emerged as a consensus figure , not because he was everyone’s first choice, “but because he was the limit of what was acceptable for many sensibilities.”
The anti-Francis front: how it self-sabotaged and paved the way for Prevost
One of the most revealing facts of the recent conclave was not only who won, but who lost and why . The ecclesial bloc pushing for a change in Bergoglian direction failed to articulate a solid candidate or attract enough votes to impose an alternative. Rather, it ended fractured and neutralized. for his insistence on presenting a frontal breakthrough as the only way.
According to the historian, the ” anti-Bergoglio” rhetoric was so pronounced that it undermined the chances of those who could channel it more subtly. Instead of garnering support, this strategy mobilized those who, while not necessarily enthusiastic about Pope Francis, were unwilling to renew a climate of polarization within the Vatican. The reaction was pragmatic: vote for a candidate capable of maintaining essential balances.
The problem wasn’t ideological, but tactical, Melloni points out. The pressure to impose a “turn” was interpreted as an attempt at restoration , and many cardinals—particularly the younger ones—preferred to avoid the risk of doctrinal setbacks or internal clashes. The election of Prevost , a defender of the synodal path and grateful to Francis, sealed that decision.
The gestures of Leo XIV
The election of Robert Francis Prevost sends clear political and symbolic signals , both within and outside the Catholic world. He made this clear from the outset: he chose to speak in Italian and Spanish , deliberately avoiding English, his native language. A gesture that can be interpreted as a distancing from US geopolitics, and at the same time, an affirmation of the Latin American focus that marked Francis’s pontificate.
The election of Leo XIV, a reformist profile emerging from unexpected consensus
It is no small matter that Prevost was critical of JD Vance, a Republican senator allied with Donald Trump , and that he did so in a context in which American Catholicism is experiencing strong internal tensions. In February, when he was still a cardinal, he spoke out firmly against deportation policies in the US, aligning himself with Francis ‘ letter denouncing these practices with a forcefulness not seen since the time of Pius XI .
“That position confirmed that, even if Trump won the Catholic vote , he cannot claim Catholicism,” Melloni emphasizes.
Leo XIV’s career combines academic experience in Rome and pastoral mission in Latin America (Reuters)
Born in Chicago and educated in Trujillo , the new Pope’s career combines academic experience in Rome with a solid pastoral vocation in Latin America . His appointment represents a commitment to a Church that integrates the structural strengths of the North with the missionary vitality of the South.
Known for his conciliatory profile and his defense of social justice, his pontificate is expected to maintain the legacy of Francis, but with his own style and more focused on synodality and episcopal governance .
I agree on re-submitting the Dubia. Having said that, @ariseyedead, I misread that as “not more than 15 minutes from now”.
I like your idea, Fr. Z, with Ariseyedead‘s modification. I’d also ask him to revoke Traditiones Custodes.
Ha ha! Fr. Z., you are a troublemaker. I love it. Put the heat on Leo right away.
“Ver-r-ry inter-r-resting” (those old enough to remember “Laugh-in” will recognize that!)
So – Cardinal Burke hosted a series of pre-conclave meetings with senior cardinals…I can think of four groupings that might have participated: Cardinals resident in Rome, those from the US, those considered palpable, and of course the “conservatives”. Pope Leo XIV belongs to three of those classifications so it’s not impossible that he may have been present at one or more such meeting at which this topic may have in fact been discussed. Not suggesting that any promises were sought or elicited from anyone, simply that +Burke (et al) might well have laid out a list of issues that a critical mass of cardinals believed that the next pope would need to address. As such, this all sounds very possible and would certainly display the Romanità I’d expect from the good Cardinal!
Done with due consideration — really important — it’s a good idea. The single most significant thing the new pope could do to gain good will would be to totally evaporate everything Francis had to say about TLM. Then, reopen the side altars. Good will and movement toward unity with no effort required. Yeah, it would annoy some parish priests, who would face parishioners seeking Latin Mass and figure out when and how to schedule it.
I’d go a step further and specify that it be scheduled so as to meet the weekly obligation, rather than be just a collectors item.
(And to quote Fr. Z from long ago, “Oh, and suppress the Jesuits.”)
Perhaps in this case letting sleeping dogs lie would be more politic.
I was wondering if the dubia would be resubmitted. Whether it is prudent, I don’t know. But doesn’t Canon Law require the Pope to respond?
Also, did not Aiden Nichols get in trouble for signing a letter about an issue that the supposedly laity or clergy are allowed to ask for an explanation. I know that this caused him great difficulty.
It would be a big mistake to push back on a hot button issue right of the box. It is necessary to first consolidate power and good will. Francis was a master in this regard. He moved slowly at first while building up his political capital. (Say what you will about Francis, but he was a master politician. In terms of how he manipulated people, he reminded me in significant ways of Trump. Like Trump, he ruthlessesly employed his popularity as a bludgeon to acheive goals.)
Given that Pope Leo directly mentioned synodality in his first statements, the dubia necessarily must be immediately resubmitted.
The Pope is the one who raised the point immediately without allowing the Church a “honeymoon period”, so he must clarify it.
—-
Coming out of VII there are two possible hypotheses on how to read VII: Ratzinger’s Hermeneutic of Continuity and the Hermeneutic of Rupture (variant A: its a good thing; variant B: it’s a bad thing.) Pope Francis was Hermeneutic of Rupture and it is a good thing. The “Synodal Path” is the outcome of that Hermeneutic. Is Pope Leo taking us down that path? Sure sounds like it.
Must we now consider that the Hermeneutic of Continuity is a false hypothesis and an incorrect reading of VII. That is what Pope Francis taught. Is Pope Leo teaching the same, and that this is what he wishes for theologians and catechesis to teach? Sure sounds like it.
The dubia must be resubmitted.
Pingback: SATVRDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | BIG PULPIT
I think if Pope Leo doesn’t tidy up some nagging things from Francis then those issues will dog his entire pontificate and color people’s responses to anything he hopes to accomplish- such as the dubia, the TLM, etc.
As far as the Synods I think there’s a very small percentage of Catholics who are interested in that. He may continue it but I don’t think in the long run it will cause the changes that Francis hoped for. I suspect it will be just another effort that dies out and no one will miss it.
Pingback: Habemus Problem? – Roma Locuta Est