www.correctiofilialis.org

 Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagates

 July 16th, 2017

Feast of our Lady of Mt Carmel

Most Holy Father,

With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and

for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to

Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation

Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.

We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of

the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard.

By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so

they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their

superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter

in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas

Aquinas notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit on account of the

imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the

gloss of St Augustine’ adds that on this occasion, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at

any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved

by their subjects” (ibid.). The law of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s

faithful . . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence,

and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of

the Church” (Code of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches 15:3).

Scandal concerning faith and morals has been given to the Church and to the world by the

publication of Amoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness has sufficiently made

clear the scope and purpose of this document. Heresies and other errors have in consequence

spread through the Church; for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the

divinely revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of the sacraments, others

have denied these truths, and have received from Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those

cardinals, by contrast, who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this timehonoured

method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received no answer but

silence.

 

Most Holy Father, the Petrine ministry has not been entrusted to you that you might impose

strange doctrines on the faithful, but so that you may, as a faithful steward, guard the deposit

against the day of the Lord’s return (Lk. 12; 1 Tim. 6:20). We adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrine

of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, and therefore we adhere to the

www.correctiofilialis.org explanation which that same council gave of this charism, which includes this declaration: “TheHoly Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by His revelation, make

known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully

expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, cap. 4). For

this reason, Your Predecessor, Blessed Pius IX, praised the collective declaration of the German

bishops, who noted that “the opinion according to which the pope is ‘an absolute sovereign

because of his infallibility’ is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal

infallibility.”1 Likewise, at the 2nd Vatican Council, the Theological Commission which oversaw the

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff

are limited in many ways.2

Those Catholics, however, who do not clearly grasp the limits of papal infallibility are liable to be

led by the words and actions of Your Holiness into one of two disastrous errors: either they will

come to embrace the heresies which are now being propagated, or, aware that these doctrines are

contrary to the word of God, they will doubt or deny the prerogatives of the popes. Others again

of the faithful are led to put in doubt the validity of the renunciation of the papacy by Pope

Emeritus Benedict XVI. Thus, the Petrine office, bestowed upon the Church by our Lord Jesus

Christ for the sake of unity and faith, is so used that a way is opened for heresy and for schism.

Further, noting that practices now encouraged by Your Holiness’s words and actions are contrary

not only to the perennial faith and discipline of the Church but also to the magisterial statements

of Your predecessors, the faithful reflect that Your Holiness’s own statements can enjoy no greater

authority than that of former popes; and thus the authentic papal magisterium suffers a wound of

which it may not soon be healed.

 

We, however, believe that Your Holiness possesses the charism of infallibility, and the right of

universal jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful, in the sense defined by the Church. In our protest

against Amoris laetitia and against other deeds, words and omissions related to it, we do not deny

the existence of this papal charism or Your Holiness’s possession of it, since neither Amoris laetitia

nor any of the statements which have served to propagate the heresies which this exhortation

insinuates are protected by that divine guarantee of truth. Our correction is indeed required by

fidelity to infallible papal teachings which are incompatible with certain of Your Holiness’s

statements.

As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which

a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment (cf. Summa

Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4). We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics – and those

outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) –

hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of

all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God.

* * *

We wish now to show how several passages of Amoris laetitia, in conjunction with acts, words, and

omissions of Your Holiness, serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.3

The passages of Amoris laetitia to which we refer are the following:

AL 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the

knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by

different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness

in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position

to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’

AL 296: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history:

casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of

Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The

way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.”

AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the

Gospel!’

AL 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find

themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into

overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral

discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children,

proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its

irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that

one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious

reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the

obligation to separate [footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and

accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers

them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens

that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.] There are also

the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly

abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the

children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their

previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. Another thing is a

new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which

this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has

consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not

the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers

stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately

distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that

no “easy recipes” exist.’

AL 299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the

baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into

Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of

scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would

allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ,

but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are

baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and

talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated

members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the

Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care

of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel.”’

AL 300: ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences

or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [footnote 336] This is also

the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in

a particular situation no grave fault exists.’

AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation

are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is

involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule,

yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values, or be in a concrete

situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise

without further sin.”’

AL 303: ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not

correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize

with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be

given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself

is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective

ideal.’

AL 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and

learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the

general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we

encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same

for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is

the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle

will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general

rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their

formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’

AL 305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that

in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such

– a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace

and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [footnote 351: In certain

cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests

that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the

Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect,

but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”]’

AL 308: ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no

room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the

goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who,

while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even

if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’

AL 311: ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these

considerations.’

The words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness to which we wish to refer, and which in

conjunction with these passages of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the

Church, are the following:

– Your Holiness has refused to give a positive answer to the dubia submitted to you by Cardinals

Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner, in which you were respectfully requested to confirm

that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.

– Your Holiness intervened in the composition of the Relatio post disceptationem for the Extraordinary

Synod on the Family. The Relatio proposed allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried

Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”, and said pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of

lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital

cohabitation. These proposals were included in the Relatio at your personal insistence, despite the

fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to

be included in the Relatio.

– In an interview in April 2016, a journalist asked Your Holiness if there are any concrete

possibilities for the divorced and remarried that did not exist before the publication of Amoris

laetitia. You replied ‘Io posso dire, si. Punto’; that is, ‘I can say yes. Period.’ Your Holiness then

stated that the reporter’s question was answered by the presentation given by Cardinal Schönborn

on Amoris laetitia. In this presentation Cardinal Schönborn stated:

My great joy as a result of this document resides in the fact that it coherently

overcomes that artificial, superficial, clear division between “regular” and “irregular”,

and subjects everyone to the common call of the Gospel, according to the words of St.

Paul: “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all”

(Rom. 11, 32). … what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for

people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy

recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern

carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL

298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and

growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we

sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of

sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important

phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human

limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order

but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 304). In the

sense of this “via caritatis” (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple

manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain

cases”.4

Your Holiness amplified this statement by asserting that Amoris laetitia endorses the approach to

the divorced and remarried that is practised in Cardinal Schönborn’s diocese, where they are

permitted to receive communion.

– On Sept. 5th 2016 the bishops of the Buenos Aires region issued a statement on the application

of Amoris laetitia. In it they stated:

6) En otras circunstancias más complejas, y cuando no se pudo obtener una

declaración de nulidad, la opción mencionada puede no ser de hecho factible. No

obstante, igualmente es posible un camino de discernimiento. Si se llega a reconocer

que, en un caso concreto, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la

culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularmente cuando una persona considere que caería

en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetítía abre la

posibilidad del acceso a los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas

336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a la persona a seguir madurando y creciendo con

la fuerza de la gracia. …

9) Puede ser conveniente que un eventual acceso a los sacramentos se realice de

manera reservada, sobre todo cuando se prevean situaciones conflictivas. Pero al

mismo tiempo no hay que dejar de acompañar a la comunidad para que crezca en un

espíritu de comprensión y de acogida, sin que ello implique crear confusiones en la

enseñanza de la Iglesia acerca del matrimonio indisoluble. La comunidad es

instrumento de la misericordia que es «inmerecida, incondicional y gratuita» (297).

10) El discernimiento no se cierra, porque «es dinámico y debe permanecer siempre

abierto a nuevas etapas de crecimiento y a nuevas decisiones que permitan realizar el

ideal de manera más plena» (303), según la «ley de gradualidad» (295) y confiando en

la ayuda de la gracia.

…

[6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been

obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a

path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific

case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302),

especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming

the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of access to the

sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These

sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the

power of grace. …

9) It may be right for eventual access to sacraments to take place privately, especially

where situations of conflict might arise. But at the same time, we have to accompany

our communities in their growing understanding and welcome, without this implying

creating confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage.

The community is an instrument of mercy, which is “unmerited, unconditional and

gratuitous” (297).

10) Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain ever open to

new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more

fully realized” (303), according to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence

in the help of grace.]

This asserts that according to Amoris laetitia confusion is not to be created about the teaching of

the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, that the divorced and remarried can receive the

sacraments, and that persisting in this state is compatible with receiving the help of grace. Your

Holiness wrote an official letter dated the same day to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel,

a delegate of the Argentina bishops’ Buenos Aires Region, stating that the bishops of the Buenos

Aires region had given the only possible interpretation of Amoris laetitia:

Querido hermano:

Recibí el escrito de la Región Pastoral Buenos Aires «Criterios básicos para la

aplicación del capítulo VIII de Amoris laetítia». Muchas gracias por habérmelo enviado;

y los felicito por el trabajo que se han tomado: un verdadero ejemplo de

acompañamiento a los sacerdotes… y todos sabemos cuánto es necesaria esta cercanía

del obíspo con su clero y del clero con el obispo . El prójimo «más prójimo» del obispo

es el sacerdote, y el mandamiento de amar al prójimo como a sí mismo comienza para

nosotros obispos precisamente con nuestros curas.

El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de

Amoris Laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.

 

[Beloved brother,

I received the document from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, “Basic Criteria

for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia.” Thank you very much for

sending it to me. I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of

accompaniment for the priests … and we all know how necessary is this closeness of

the bishop with his clergy and the clergy with the bishop. The neighbor ‘closest’ to

the bishop is the priest, and the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self

begins for us, the bishops, precisely with our priests. The document is very good and

completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other

interpretations.]5

– Your Holiness appointed Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president of the Pontifical Academy

for Life and grand chancellor of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage

and Family. As head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Archbishop Paglia was responsible

for the publication of a book, Famiglia e Chiesa, un legame indissolubile (Libreria Editrice Vaticana,

2015), that contains the lectures given at three seminars promoted by that dicastery on the topics

of ‘Marriage: Faith, Sacrament, Discipline’; ‘Family, Conjugal Love and Generation’; and ‘The

Wounded Family and Irregular Unions: What Pastoral Attitude’. This book and the seminars it

described were intended to put forward proposals for the Synod on the Family, and promoted the

granting of communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.

– Guidelines for the diocese of Rome were issued under Your Holiness’s authority permitting the

reception of the Eucharist under certain circumstances by civilly divorced and remarried Catholics

living more uxorio with their civil partner.

– Your Holiness appointed Bishop Kevin Farrell as prefect of the newly established Dicastery for

Laity, Family and Life, and promoted him to the rank of cardinal. Cardinal Farrell has expressed

support for Cardinal Schönborn’s proposal that the divorced and remarried should receive

communion. He has stated that the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried is a

‘process of discernment and of conscience.’ 6

– On January 17th, 2017, the Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, published the

guidelines issued by the archbishop of Malta and the bishop of Gozo for the reception of the

Eucharist by persons living in an adulterous relationship. These guidelines permitted the

sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by some persons in this situation, and stated that in some

cases it is impossible for such persons to practise chastity and harmful for them to attempt to

practise chastity. No criticism of these guidelines was made by the Osservatore Romano, which

presented them as legitimate exercises of episcopal teaching and authority. This publication was

an official act of the Holy See that went uncorrected by yourself.

 

Correctio

 

His verbis, actis, et omissionibus, et in iis sententiis libri Amoris laetitia quas supra diximus, Sanctitas

Vestra sustentavit recte aut oblique, et in Ecclesia (quali quantaque intelligentia nescimus nec

iudicare audemus) propositiones has sequentes, cum munere publico tum actu privato, propagavit,

falsas profecto et haereticas:

 

(1) “Homo iustificatus iis caret viribus quibus, Dei gratia adiutus, mandata obiectiva legis divinae

impleat; quasi quidvis ex Dei mandatis sit iustificatis impossibile; seu quasi Dei gratia, cum

in homine iustificationem efficit, non semper et sua natura conversionem efficiat ab omni

peccato gravi; seu quasi non sit sufficiens ut hominem ab omni peccato gravi convertat.”

(2) Christifidelis qui, divortium civile a sponsa legitima consecutus, matrimonium civile (sponsa

vivente) cum alia contraxit; quique cum ea more uxorio vivit; quique cum plena intelligentia

naturae actus sui et voluntatis propriae pleno ad actum consensu eligit in hoc rerum statu

manere: non necessarie mortaliter peccare dicendus est, et gratiam sanctificantem accipere et

in caritate crescere potest.”

(3) “Christifidelis qui alicuius mandati divini plenam scientiam possidet et deliberata voluntate in

re gravi id violare eligit, non semper per talem actum graviter peccat.”

(4) “Homo potest, dum divinae prohibitioni obtemperat, contra Deum ea ipsa obtemperatione

peccare.”

(5) “Conscientia recte ac vere iudicare potest actus venereos aliquando probos et honestos esse

aut licite rogari posse aut etiam a Deo mandari, inter eos qui matrimonium civile contraxerunt

quamquam sponsus cum alia in matrimonio sacramentali iam coniunctus est.”

(6) “Principia moralia et veritas moralis quae in divina revelatione et in lege naturali continentur

non comprehendunt prohibitiones qualibus genera quaedam actionis absolute vetantur

utpote quae propter obiectum suum semper graviter illicita sint.”

(7) “Haec est voluntas Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut Ecclesia disciplinam suam perantiquam

abiciat negandi Eucharistiam et Absolutionem iis qui, divortium civile consecuti et

matrimonium civile ingressi, contritionem et propositum firmum sese emendandi ab ea in

qua vivunt vitae conditione noluerunt patefacere.”7

These propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe

with the assent of divine faith. They were identified as heresies in the petition concerning Amoris

laetitia that was addressed by 45 Catholic scholars to the cardinals and Eastern patriarchs of the

Church.8 It is necessary for the good of souls that they be once more condemned by the authority

of the Church. In listing these seven propositions we do not intend to give an exhaustive list of

all the heresies and errors which an unbiased reader, attempting to read Amoris laetitia in its natural

and obvious sense, would plausibly take to be affirmed, suggested or favoured by this document:

a letter sent to all the cardinals of the Church and to the Eastern Catholic patriarchs lists 19 such

propositions. Rather, we seek to list the propositions which Your Holiness’s words, deeds and

omissions, as already described, have in effect upheld and propagated, to the great and imminent

danger of souls.

At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis, the Roman Church, which has by

divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain

loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus

accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his

successors until the end of the world: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou,

being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing, with the assurance of our filial devotion

in our Lord and of our prayer for the welfare of the Church.

* * *

 

Elucidation

In order to elucidate our Correctio, and to put forward a firmer defence against the spread of errors,

we wish to draw attention to two general sources of error which appear to us to be fostering the

heresies that we have listed. We speak, firstly, of that false understanding of divine revelation which

generally receives the name of Modernism, and secondly, of the teachings of Martin Luther.

 

1. The problem of Modernism

The Catholic understanding of divine revelation is frequently denied by contemporary theologians,

and this denial has led to widespread confusion among Catholics on the nature of divine revelation

and faith. In order to prevent any misunderstanding that might arise from this confusion, and to

justify our claim about the current propagation of heresies within the Church, we will describe the

Catholic understanding of divine revelation and faith, which is presumed in this document.

This description is also necessary in order to respond to the passages in Amoris laetitia where it is

asserted that the teachings of Christ and of the magisterium of the Church should be followed.

These passages include the following: “Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the

Church” (AL 3). “Faithful to Christ’s teaching we look to the reality of the family today in all its

complexity” (AL 32). “The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic

Exhortation Familiaris Consortio ought to be taken up anew” (AL 222). “The teaching of the Master

(cf. Mt 22:30) and Saint Paul (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-31) on marriage is set – and not by chance – in the

context of the ultimate and definitive dimension of our human existence. We urgently need to

rediscover the richness of this teaching” (AL 325). These passages might be seen as ensuring that

nothing in Amoris laetitia serves to propagate errors contrary to Catholic teaching. A description

of the true nature of adherence to Catholic teaching will clarify our assertion that Amoris laetitita

does indeed serve to propagate such errors.

We therefore ask Your Holiness to permit us to recall the following truths, which are taught by

Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the universal consensus of the Fathers, and the magisterium of

the Church, and which summarise Catholic teaching on faith, divine revelation, infallible

magisterial teaching, and heresy:

1. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whose historical character the Church

unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men,

really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into

heaven.9

2. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. In consequence, all his teachings are the

teachings of God Himself.10

3. All the propositions that are contained in the Catholic faith are truths communicated

by God.11

4. In believing these truths with an assent that is an act of the theological virtue of faith,

we are believing the testimony of a speaker. The act of divine faith is a particular form

of the general intellectual activity of believing a proposition because a speaker asserts

it, and because the speaker is held to be honest and knowledgeable with respect to the

assertion he is making. In an act of divine faith, God is believed when he says

something, and he is believed because he is God and hence is knowledgeable and

truthful.12

5. Belief in divine testimony differs from belief in the testimony of human beings who

are not divine, because God is all-knowing and perfectly good. In consequence, he can

neither lie nor be deceived. It is thus impossible for divine testimony to be mistaken.

Because the truths of the Catholic faith are communicated to us by God, the assent

of faith that is given to them is most certain. A Catholic believer cannot have rational

grounds for doubting or disbelieving any of these truths.13

6. Human reason by itself can establish the truth of the Catholic faith based on the

publicly available evidence for the divine origin of the Catholic Church, but such

reasoning cannot produce an act of faith. The theological virtue of faith and the act

of faith can only be produced by divine grace. A person who has this virtue but then

freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve a truth of the Catholic faith sins mortally

and loses eternal life.14

7. The truth of a proposition consists in its saying of what is, that it is; scholastically

expressed, it consists in adaequatio rei et intellectus. Every truth is as such true, no matter

by whom or when or in what circumstances it is considered. No truth can contradict

any other truth.15

8. The Catholic faith does not exhaust all the truth about God, because only the divine

intellect can fully comprehend the divine being. Nonetheless every truth of the

Catholic faith is entirely and completely true, in that the features of reality that such a

truth describes are exactly as these truths present them to be. There is no difference

between the content of the teachings of the faith and how things are.16

9. The divine speech that communicates the truths of the Catholic faith is expressed in

human languages. The inspired Hebrew and Greek text of the Holy Scriptures is itself

uttered by God in all of its parts. It is not a purely human report or interpretation of

divine revelation, and no part of its meaning is due solely to human causes. In believing

the teaching of the Holy Scriptures we are believing God directly. We are not believing

the statements made by God on the basis of believing the testimony of some other,

non-divine person or persons.17

10. When the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that a proposition is a divinely revealed

part of the Catholic faith and is to be believed with the assent of faith, Catholics who

assent to this teaching are believing what God has communicated, and are believing it

on account of His having said it.18

11. The languages in which divine revelation is expressed, and the cultures and histories

that shaped these languages, do not constrain, distort, or add to the divine revelation

that is expressed in them. No part or aspect of the Holy Scriptures or of the infallible

teaching of the Church concerning the content of divine revelation is produced only

by the languages and historical conditions in which they are expressed, but not by

God’s action in communicating truths. Hence, no part of the content of the teaching

of the Church can be revised or rejected on the grounds that it is produced by historical

circumstances rather than by divine revelation.19

12. The magisterial teaching of the Church after the death of the last apostle must be

understood and believed as a single whole. It is not divided into a past magisterium

and a contemporary or living magisterium that can ignore earlier magisterial teaching

or revise it at will.20

13. The Pope, who has the supreme authority in the Church, is not himself exempt from

the authority of the Church, in accordance with divine and ecclesiastical law. He is

bound to accept and uphold the definitive teaching of his predecessors in the papal

office.21

14. A heretical proposition is a proposition that contradicts a divinely revealed truth that

is included in the Catholic faith.22

15. The sin of heresy is committed by a person who possesses the theological virtue of

faith, but then freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve or doubt a truth of the

Catholic faith. Such a person sins mortally and loses eternal life. The judgement of the

Church upon the personal sin of heresy is exercised only by a priest in the sacrament

of penance.23

16. The canonical crime of heresy is committed when a Catholic a) publicly doubts or

denies one or more truths of the Catholic faith, or publicly refuses to give assent to

one or more truths of the Catholic faith, but does not doubt or deny all these truths

or deny the existence of Christian revelation, and b) is pertinacious in this denial.

Pertinacity consists in the person in question continuing to publicly doubt or deny one

or more truths of the Catholic faith after having been warned by competent

ecclesiastical authority that his doubt or denial is a rejection of a truth of the faith, and

that this doubt or denial must be renounced and the truth in question must be publicly

affirmed as divinely revealed by the person being warned.24

(The above descriptions of the personal sin of heresy and of the canonical crime of heresy are

given solely in order to be able to exclude them from the subject of our protest. We are only

concerned with heretical propositions propagated by the words, deeds and omissions of Your

Holiness. We do not have the competence or the intention to address the canonical issue of heresy.)

 

1. The influence of Martin Luther

In the second place, we feel compelled by conscience to advert to Your Holiness’s unprecedented

sympathy for Martin Luther, and to the affinity between Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and

marriage, and those taught or favoured by Your Holiness in Amoris laetitia and elsewhere.25 This is

necessary in order that our protest against the seven heretical propositions listed in this document

may be complete; we wish to show, albeit in summary form, that these are not unrelated errors,

but rather form part of a heretical system. Catholics need to be warned not only against these

seven errors, but also against this heretical system as such, not least by reason of Your Holiness’s

praise of the man who originated it.

Thus, in a press conference on June 26th, 2016, Your Holiness stated:

I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer.

Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read

Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a

conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see

that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and

worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the

basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons

for it. Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on

the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken.26

In a homily in the Lutheran Cathedral in Lund, Sweden, on Oct 31st, 2016, Your Holiness stated:

As Catholics and Lutherans, we have undertaken a common journey of

reconciliation. Now, in the context of the commemoration of the Reformation of

1517, we have a new opportunity to accept a common path, one that has taken

shape over the past fifty years in the ecumenical dialogue between the Lutheran

World Federation and the Catholic Church. Nor can we be resigned to the division

and distance that our separation has created between us. We have the opportunity

to mend a critical moment of our history by moving beyond the controversies and

disagreements that have often prevented us from understanding one another.

Jesus tells us that the Father is the “vinedresser” (cf. v. 1) who tends and prunes the

vine in order to make it bear more fruit (cf. v. 2). The Father is constantly concerned

for our relationship with Jesus, to see if we are truly one with him (cf. v. 4). He

watches over us, and his gaze of love inspires us to purify our past and to work in

the present to bring about the future of unity that he so greatly desires.

We too must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking

forgiveness, for God alone is our judge. We ought to recognize with the same

honesty and love that our division distanced us from the primordial intuition of

God’s people, who naturally yearn to be one, and that it was perpetuated historically

by the powerful of this world rather than the faithful people, which always and

everywhere needs to be guided surely and lovingly by its Good Shepherd. Certainly,

there was a sincere will on the part of both sides to profess and uphold the true

faith, but at the same time we realize that we closed in on ourselves out of fear or

bias with regard to the faith which others profess with a different accent and

language.

[…]

The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart

from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?” This is the

question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with

God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that

propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the

concept “by grace alone”, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to

any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of

justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.27

In addition to stating that Martin Luther was correct about justification, and in close accordance

with this view, Your Holiness has declared more than once that our sins are the place where we

encounter Christ (as in your homilies of September 4th, and September 18th, 2014), justifying this

view with St Paul, who in fact glories in his own “infirmities” (“astheneìais”, cf. 2 Cor. 12:5, 9) and

not in his sins, so that the power of Christ may dwell in him.28 In an address to members of

Communion and Liberation on March 7th, 2015 Your Holiness said:

The privileged place of encounter is the caress of Jesus’ mercy regarding my sin.

This is why you may have heard me say, several times, that the place for this, the

privileged place of the encounter with Jesus Christ is my sin. 29

Furthermore, in addition to other propositions of Amoris laetitia which have been listed in the letter

sent to all the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs, and which have been therein qualified as

heretical, erroneous, or ambiguous, we read also this:

We should not however confuse different levels: there is no need to lay upon two

limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union

existing between Christ and his Church, for marriage as a sign entails ‘a dynamic

process…, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the

gifts of God’ (AL 122).

While it is true that the sacramental sign of matrimony entails a dynamic process toward holiness,

it is beyond doubt that by the sacramental sign the union of Christ with his Church is perfectly

reproduced by grace in the married couple. It is not a question of imposing a tremendous burden

on two limited persons, but rather of acknowledging the work of the sacrament and of grace (res

et sacramentum).

Surprisingly we notice here, as in several other parts of this Apostolic Exhortation, a close

relationship with Luther’s disparagement of marriage. For the German revolutionary, the Catholic

conception of a sacrament as effective ex opere operato, in an allegedly ‘mechanical’ way, is

unacceptable. Although he maintains the distinction of signum et res, after 1520, with The Babylonian

Captivity of the Church, he no longer applies it to marriage. Luther denies that marriage has any

reference to sacramentality, on the grounds that we nowhere read in the Bible that the man who

marries a woman receives a grace of God, and that neither do we read anywhere that marriage was

instituted by God to be a sign of anything. He claimed that marriage is a mere symbol, adding that

although it can represent the union of Christ with the Church, such figures and allegories are not

sacraments in the sense we use the term (cf. Luther’s Works {LW} 36:92). For this reason, marriage

– whose fundamental aim is to conceive children and to raise them up in the ways of God (cf. LW

44:11-12) – according to Luther belongs to the order of creation and not to that of salvation (cf.

LW 45:18); it is given only in order to quench the fire of concupiscence, and as a bulwark against

sin (cf. LW 3, Gen. 16:4).

Moreover, beginning with his personal vision about how human nature is corrupted by sin, Luther

is conscious that man is not always anxious to respect God’s law. Therefore, he is convinced that

there is a double manner by which God rules over mankind, to which corresponds a double moral

vision about marriage and divorce. Thus divorce is generally admitted by Luther in the case of

adultery, but only for non-spiritual people.

His reasoning is that there are two forms of divine government in this world: the spiritual and the

temporal. By his spiritual government, the Holy Spirit leads Christians and righteous people under

the Gospel of Christ; by his temporal government, God restrains non-Christians and the wicked

in order to maintain an outward peace (cf. LW 45:91). Two also are the laws regulating moral life:

one is spiritual, for those living under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the other is temporal or

worldly, for those who cannot comply with the spiritual one (cf. LW 45:88-93). This double moral

vision is applied by Luther to adultery in reference to Mt 5:32: hence, Christians must not divorce

even in the case of adultery (the spiritual law); but divorce exists and was granted by Moses because

of sin (the worldly law). The permission to divorce is thus seen as a limit put by God upon carnal

people to restrain their misbehaviour and prevent them from doing worse on account of their

wickedness (cf. LW 45:31).

How can we not see here a close similarity with what has been suggested by Your Holiness in

Amoris laetitia? On the one hand marriage is supposedly safeguarded as a sacrament, while on the

other hand divorce and remarriage are regarded ‘mercifully’ as a status quo to be – although only

‘pastorally’ – integrated into the life of the Church, thus openly contradicting the word of our

Lord. Luther was led to an acceptance of re-marriage by his identification of concupiscence with

sin; for he recognized marriage as a remedy for concupiscence. In reality, concupiscence is not as

such sinful, just as re-marriage when one has a living spouse is not a status, but a privation of truth.

However, Luther’s self-contradiction, generated by his two-fold view of marriage – itself seen as

something that pertains properly to the Law and not to the Gospel – is then supposedly overcome

by the precedence of faith: a “cordial trust” in order to adhere subjectively to God. He claims that

faith justifies man insofar as the punishing justice withdraws into mercy and is changed

permanently into forgiving love. This is made possible out of a “joyful bargain” (fröhlicher Wechseln)

by which the sinner can say to Christ: “You are my righteousness just as I am your sin” (LW 48:12;

1. also 31:351; 25:188). By this “happy exchange”, Christ becomes the only sinner and we are

justified through the acceptance of the Word in faith.

In Your pilgrimage to Fatima for the beginning of this providential centenary, Your Holiness

clearly alluded to this Lutheran view about faith and justification, stating on May 12th, 2017:

Great injustice is done to God’s grace whenever we say that sins are punished by

his judgment, without first saying – as the Gospel clearly does – that they are

forgiven by his mercy! Mercy has to be put before judgment and, in any case, God’s

judgment will always be rendered in the light of his mercy. Obviously, God’s mercy

does not deny justice, for Jesus took upon himself the consequences of our sin,

together with its due punishment. He did not deny sin, but redeemed it on the

cross. Hence, in the faith that unites us to the cross of Christ, we are freed of our

sins; we put aside all fear and dread, as unbefitting those who are loved (cf. 1

Jn. 4:18).30

The gospel does not teach that all sins will in fact be forgiven, nor that Christ alone experienced

the ‘judgement’ or justice of God, leaving only mercy for the rest of mankind. While there is a

‘vicarious suffering’ of our Lord in order to expiate our sins, there is not a ‘vicarious punishment’,

for Christ was made “sin for us” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) and not a sinner. Out of divine love, and not as

the object of God’s wrath, Christ offered the supreme sacrifice of salvation to reconcile us with

God, taking upon himself only the consequences of our sins (cf. Gal. 3:13). Hence, so that we

may be justified and saved, it is not sufficient to have faith that our sins have been removed by a

supposed vicarious punishment; our justification lies in a conformity to our Saviour achieved by

that faith which works through charity (cf. Gal. 5:6).

Most Holy Father, permit us also to express our wonderment and sorrow at two events occurring

in the heart of the Church, which likewise suggest the favour in which the German heresiarch is

held under Your pontificate. On January 15th, 2016, a group of Finnish Lutherans were granted

Holy Communion in the course of a celebration of Holy Mass that took place at St Peter’s basilica.

On 13th October, 2016, Your Holiness presided over a meeting of Catholics and Lutherans in the

Vatican, addressing them from a stage on which a statue of Martin Luther was erected.

1 Denzinger-Hünermann {DH} 3117, Apostolic letter Mirabilis illa constantia, March 4th, 1875.

2 Relatio of the Theological Commission on n. 22 of Lumen gentium, in Acta Synodalia, III/I, p. 247.

3 This section therefore contains the Correctio properly speaking, and is that to which the signatories intend

principally and directly to subscribe.

4 https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/04/08/160408a.html

5http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amori

s_laetitia/1257635

6 https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-cardinal-farrell-amoris-laetitia-holy-spirit-speaking

7 By these words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris

laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek

to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical

propositions:

1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the

divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning

that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature

produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’

2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have

contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio

with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their

act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive

sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’

3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a

serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’

4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’

5). ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil

marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can

sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’

6). ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include

negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely

unlawful on account of their object.’

7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist

to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express

contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’

8 Here are, for these seven propositions, the references that were included in the letter to the cardinals and

patriarchs:

1. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible

to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).

See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17;

Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH

397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus

afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, DH 1954; Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the

errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1, DH 2001; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier

Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222;

Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.

2. Mk. 10:11-12: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.

See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6,

canons 19-21, 27, DH 1569-71, 1577; Session 24, canons 5 and 7, DH 1805, 1807; Innocent XI,

Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63; Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office

on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-

67).

3. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be,

is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if

the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments

be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27;

Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II,

Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85

(1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.

4. Ps. 18:8: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”

See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus,

On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598

(DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).

5. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a

redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be

anathema”, DH 1571.

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives

at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema”, DH 1802.

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of

heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be

anathema”, DH 1805.

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for

still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be

dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the

innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of

the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who

dismisses an adulterous husband and marries again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema”, DH

1807.

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned

propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of

Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598,

DH 3248; Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral

Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the

Catholic Church, 1786-87.

6. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents

the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor

of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the

whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments,

particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts”, DH 4971.

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22, DH 815;

Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14, DH 1254; Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91;

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199, DH 4970.

7. 1 Cor. 11:27: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty

of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

Familiaris consortio, 84: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the

Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of

fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the

indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the

children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves

the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

2nd Lateran Council, canon 20, DH 717: “Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great

disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not

to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a

penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is

done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another”.

See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance,

cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist, DH 1646-47; Innocent XI, Condemned

propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63, DH 2160-63; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

9 Clement VI, Super quibusdam, to the Catholicos of the Armenians, question 14, DH 1065: “We ask whether

you have believed and do believe that the New and Old Testament, in all their books, which the authority

of the Roman Church has handed down to us, contain undoubted truth in all things.”

2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum 18-19: “What the Apostles preached in fulfilment of the commission of

Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on

to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke

and John. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that

the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand

on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day

He was taken up into heaven.”

See also: Lk. 1:1-4; Jn. 19:35; 2 Pet. 1:16; Pius IX, Syllabus, 7; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, ASS 26 (1893-

94): 276-77; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 13-17; Praestantia scripturae, ASS 40 (1907): 724ff.

10 1 Jn. 5:10: “He that believeth in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth

not the Son, maketh him a liar.”

Council of Chalcedon, Definition, DH 301: “Following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the

confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in

humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father

as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity.”

2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum 4: “After speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, ‘now at

last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son’. For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens

all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God. Jesus Christ,

therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as “a man to men’. He ‘speaks the words of God’.”

See also: Mt. 7:29; Matt. 11:25-27; Mk. 1:22; Luke 4:32; John 1:1-14; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 27.

11 1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic

Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and

assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed.”

Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 22 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas that the Church holds out as revealed

are not truths which have fallen from heaven.”

See also: 1 Thess. 2:13; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 23-26; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 611; Paul VI,

Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538.

12 Jn. 3:11: “Amen, Amen, I say to thee, that we speak what we know and we testify what we have seen, and

you receive not our testimony.”

Jn. 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life”

1 Jn. 5:9-10: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony

of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of God has the

testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 2: “If anyone says that divine faith is not distinct from the natural

knowledge of God and of moral truths; that, therefore, for divine faith it is not necessary that the revealed

truth be believed on the authority of God who reveals it, let him be anathema.”

Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 26 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas of the faith are to be held only

according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of

believing.”

Piux X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3542: “I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith

is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of

the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a

truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God,

we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and

Lord.”

See also: Jn. 8:46, 10:16; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius IX, Qui pluribus, Acta (Rome, 1854) 1/1, 6-13;

Syllabus, 4-5; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 20; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 604ff; John Paul II,

Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 7.

13 Num. 23:19: “God is not a man that he should lie.”

Pius IX, Qui pluribus, DH 2778: “Who is or can be ignorant that all faith is to be given to God who speaks

and that nothing is more suitable to reason itself than to acquiesce and firmly adhere to what it has

determined to be revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic

Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and

assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the

natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can

neither deceive nor be deceived.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 6: “If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those

who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling

in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the

Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let

him be anathema.”

2nd Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy

One, cannot err in matters of belief.”

Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538: “All

dogmas, since they are divinely revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith.”

See also: Ap. 3:14; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists”, 20-21, DH 2120-21; Pius IX, Syllabus,

15-18; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 25.

14 Mk. 16:20: “They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word

with signs that followed.”

2 Cor. 3: 5: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency

is from God.”

1 Pet. 3:15: “Sanctify the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you

a reason of that hope which is in you.”

Tit. 3:10-11: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is

such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.”

Apoc. 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away

his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “In order that the submission of our faith should be in harmony with

reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external

indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which

clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of

revelation and are suited to the understanding of all people. Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially

Christ our Lord himself, worked many manifest miracles and delivered prophecies […] So that we could

fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only

begotten Son, founded the Church, and endowed her with clear notes of his institution to the end that she

might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. To the Catholic Church alone

belong all those things, so many and so marvellous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the

manifest credibility of the Christian faith.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of

the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation

without the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing

the truth. And so faith in itself, even if it does not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation

is a work belonging to the order of salvation.”

See also: 2nd Council of Orange, can. 7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists” 20-21; Gregory

XVI, Theses subscribed to by Louis-Eugène Bautain, 6, DH 2756; Pius IX, Syllabus, 15-18; Pius X, Pascendi

dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 596-97; Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3539; Pius XII, Humani generis,

AAS 42 (1950): 571.

15 2nd Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 15: “Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material

universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. [. . .] His intelligence is not confined to observable

data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.”

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 27: “Every truth, if it is authentic, presents itself as universal and absolute, even

if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times.”

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 82: “This prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human

capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio

rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic doctors referred.”

See also: Pius XII, Humani generis, AAS 42 (1950): 562-63, 571-72, 574-75; John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram,

AAS 1959 (51): 501-2; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 4-10, 12-14, 49, 54, 83-85, 95-98.

16 1 Cor. 2:9-10: “As it is written: ‘That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the

heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.’ But to us God hath revealed them,

by his Spirit.”

1 Cor. 2:12-13: “We have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may

know the things that are given us from God: which things also we speak.”

Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3882-83: “Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly

adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some

extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether

necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various

philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression

to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It

is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic

relativism, but that they actually contain it.”

Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5, DH 4540:

“As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when

it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more fully understood. The faithful therefore must

shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify the truth in

a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or

alter it; and secondly, that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way, and that one

must continue to seek this truth by further approximations of this kind.”

See also: Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 4.

17 1 Thess. 2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the

word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”

1 Tim. 3:16: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach.”

2 Pet. 1:20-21: “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the

will of man at any time; but the holy men spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”

Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu AAS 35 (1943): 299-300: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to

narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since

divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely

and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set

forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority.”

2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum, 11: “Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that

the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical

because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been

handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men, and while

employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through

them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing all and only those things which He wanted.”

See also: Jn. 10:16, 35; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, DH 3291-92; Pius X, Lamentabili sane,

9-11; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 612-13; Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, AAS 12 (1920), 393; Pius

XII, Humani generis, DH 3887.

18 1 Thess. 2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the

word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic

Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and

assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the

natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can

neither deceive nor be deceived. […] Further, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed

which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the

Church as to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and

universal magisterium.

See also: Jn. 10:16; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, AAS 35 (1943): 216.

19 Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3883: “The Church cannot be tied to any and every passing philosophical

system. Nevertheless, those notions and terms which have been developed though common effort by

Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are

certainly not based on any such weak foundation. They are based on principles and notions deduced from

a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deduction, this knowledge, like a star, gave

enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not surprising that some of these

notions have not only been employed by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it

is wicked to depart from them.”

Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5, DH 4540:

“As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when

it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more fully understood. The faithful therefore must

shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify the truth in

a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or

alter it; and secondly, that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way, and that one

must continue to seek this truth by further approximations of this kind.”

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 87: “One must remember that even if the statement of a truth is limited to some

extent by times and by forms of culture, the truth or the error with which it deals can nevertheless be

recognised and evaluated as such, however great the distance of space or time.”

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 95: “The word of God is not addressed to any one people or to any one period

of history. Similarly, dogmatic statements, while reflecting at times the culture of the period in which they

were defined, formulate an unchanging and ultimate truth.”

John Paul II, Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the

Church, 6: “The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather,

it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God.”

See also: Jn. 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Apoc. 22:18-19; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, DH 3288;

Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 4; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 84.

20 Gal. 1:9: “If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 4, can. 3: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, with the

progress of knowledge, a sense should be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is

different from that which the Church has understood and does understand: let him be anathema.”

Pius X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3541: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed

down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers with the same sense and always with the same

meaning. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical fiction that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning

to another, different from the meaning which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error that

substitutes for the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by

her, some philosophical invention or product of human reflection, gradually formed by human effort and

due to be perfected in the future by unlimited progress.”

See also: 1 Tim. 6: 20; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; Heb. 13:7-9; Jude 3; Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; Pius X,

Lamentabili sane, 21, 54, 50, 60, 62; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 616ff.; Pius XII, Humani generis, DH

3886; Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4540.

21 1st Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4: “The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not

so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might

religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. […]

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this

see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of

Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance

of heavenly doctrine.”

2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum¸ 10: “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether

written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living magisterium of the Church, whose

authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This magisterium is not above the word of God, but

serves it. It teaches only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and

explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws

from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

See also: Matt. 16:23; Gratian, Decretum, Part 1, Distinction 40, Chapter 6; Innocent III, 2nd sermon ‘On the

consecration of the supreme pontiff ’, ML, 656; 4th sermon ‘On the consecration of the supreme pontiff ’, ML 670; Pius IX,

letter Mirabilis illa constantia to the bishops of Germany, DH 3117 (cf. DH 3114).

22 Cf. John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, 751; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches, 1436.

23 Cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:18; Jn. 20:23; Rom. 14:4; Gal. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Jude 3-6; Council of Florence,

Cantate Domino, DH 1351; Council of Trent, Session 14, can. 9.

24 Cf. Matt. 18:17; Tit. 3:10-11; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 7; John Paul II, Code of Canon Law, 751, 1364; Code

of Canons of Oriental Churches, 1436.

25 The signatories do not intend in this section principally to describe the thought of Martin Luther, a

subject concerning which all of them do not have the same expertise, but rather to describe certain false

notions of marriage, justification and law which appear to them to have inspired Amoris laetitia.

26 https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/june/documents/papafrancesco_

20160626_armenia-conferenza-stampa.html

27http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2016/documents/papafrancesco_

20161031_omelia-svezia-lund.pdf

28http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/04/pope_recognize_your_sins_and_be_transformed_by_ch

rist/1105890;

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/18/pope_at_santa_marta_the_courage_to_admit_we_are_sin

ners/1106766

29 http://www.news.va/en/news/the-pope-on-the-sixtieth-anniversary-of-communion

30 http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-in-fatima-greetings-at-chapel-of-appa

Firmatari

Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg European editor, Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

Prof. Jean Barbey Historian and Jurist, former Professor at the University of Maine

Fr Claude Barthe Diocesan Priest

Philip M. Beattie BA (Leeds), MBA(Glasgow), MSc (Warwick), Dip.Stats (Dublin) Associate Lecturer, University of Malta (Malta)

Fr Jehan de Belleville Religious

Dr. Philip Blosser Professor of Philosophy, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Archdiocese of Detroit

Fr Robert Brucciani District superior of the SSPX in Great Britain

Prof. Mario Caponnetto University Professor, Mar de la Plata (Argentina)

Mr Robert F. Cassidy STL

Fr Isio Cecchini Parish Priest in Tuscany

Salvatore J. Ciresi, M.A. Director of the St. Jerome Biblical Guild, Lecturer at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College

Fr. Linus F Clovis, Ph.D., JCL, M.Sc., STB, Dip. Ed, Director of the Secretariat for Family and Life

Fr Paul Cocard Religious

Fr Thomas Crean OP STD

Prof. Matteo D’Amico Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona

Dr. Chiara Dolce PhD Research doctor in Moral Philosophy at the University of Cagliari

Deacon Nick Donnelly MA

Petr Dvorak Head of Department for the Study of Ancient and Medieval Thought at the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague; Professor of philosophy at Saints Cyril and Methodius Theological Faculty, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

H.E. Mgr Bernard Fellay Superior General of the SSPX

Christopher Ferrara Esq. Founding President of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association

Prof. Michele Gaslini Professor of Public Law at the University of Udine

Prof. Corrado Gnerre Professor at the Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose of Benevento, Pontifical Theological University of Southern Italy

Dr. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi Former President of the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), Professor of Ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan

Dr. Maria Guarini STB Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio

Prof. Robert Hickson PhD Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies

Fr John Hunwicke Former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford

Fr Jozef Hutta Diocesan Priest

Prof. Isebaert Lambert Full Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, and at the Flemish Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Dr. John Lamont STL DPhil (Oxon.)

Fr Serafino M. Lanzetta STD Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology, Theological Faculty of Lugano, Switzerland; Priest in charge of St Mary’s, Gosport, in the diocese of Portsmouth

Prof. Massimo de Leonardis Professor and Director of the Department of Political Sciences at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan

Msgr. Prof. Antonio Livi Academic of the Holy See Dean emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University Vice-rector of the church of Sant’Andrea del Vignola, Rome

Dr. Carlo Manetti Professor in Private Universities in Italy

Prof. Pietro De Marco Former Professor at the University of Florence

Prof. Roberto de Mattei Former Professor of the History of Christianity, European University of Rome, former Vice President of the National Research Council (CNR)

Fr Cor Mennen Lecturer in Canon Law at the Major Seminary of the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). Canon of the cathedral chapter of the diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Prof. Stéphane Mercier Lecturer in Philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain

Don Alfredo Morselli STL Parish priest of the archdiocese of Bologna

Martin Mosebach Writer and essayist

Dr. Claude E. Newbury M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.O.H., M.F.G.P., D.C.H., D.P.H., D.A., M. Med; Former Director of Human Life International in Africa south of the Sahara; former Member of the Human Services Commission of the Catholic Bishops of South Africa

Prof. Lukas Novak Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Charles University, Prague

Fr Guy Pagès Diocesan Priest

Prof. Paolo Pasqualucci Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia

Prof. Claudio Pierantoni Professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Chile; Former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Faculty of Theology of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

Father Anthony Pillari, J.C.L., M.C.L

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli Philosopher, editor of the works of Romano Amerio

Dr. John Rao Associate Professor of History, St. John’s University, NYC; Chairman, Roman Forum

Dr. Carlo Regazzoni Licentiate in Philosophy at University of Freiburg

Dr. Giuseppe Reguzzoni External Researcher at the Catholic University of Milan and former editorial assistant of Communio, International Catholic Review (Italian edition)

Prof. Arkadiusz Robaczewski Former Professor at the Catholic University of Lublin

Fr Settimio M. Sancioni STD Licence in Biblical Science

Prof. Andrea Sandri Research Associate, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan

Dr. Joseph Shaw Tutor in Moral philosophy, St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford

Fr Paolo M. Siano HED (Historiae Ecclesiasticae Doctor)

Dr. Cristina Siccardi Historian of the Church

Dr Anna Silvas Adjunct research fellow, University of New England, NSW, Australia

Prof. Dr Thomas Stark Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Benedikt XVI, Heiligenkreuz

Rev. Glen Tattersall Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, archdiocese of Melbourne; Rector, St Aloysius’ Church

Prof. Giovanni Turco Associate Professor of Philosophy of Public Law at the University of Udine, Member Corrispondent of the Pontificia Accademia San Tommaso d’Aquino

Prof. Piero Vassallo Former editor of Cardinal Siri’s theological review Renovatio

Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira Former Professor at the Pontifical University of São Paulo, Brazil

Msgr. José Luiz Villac Former Rector of the Seminary of Jacarezinho

On 24th September 2017:

Leo Darroch President, Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce 2007 – 2013

Dott. Mauro Faverzani Editor of the Magazine “Radici Cristiane” (Italy)

H.E. Mgr Rene Henry Gracida D.D. Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi

Fr Pio Idowu BA (Phil.) Religious

Fr Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodríguez Parish Priest, Parroquia del Espíritu Santo y N.S. de La Antigua Diocese de Los Teques, Venezuela

Wolfram Schrems BA (Theol.), BA (Phil.) Catechist for adults, contributor for Catholic and secular websites, works in the pro-life-field, Vienna (Austria)