Pope Francis and the five senior cardinals — Zen, Brandmueller, Sarah, Burke and Sandoval Íñiguezwho have asked him five “questions” on the eve of the synod on synodality, which begins in Rome tomorrow, October 4

    “Dear brothers, I believe these answers will be able to satisfy your questions. Do not forget to pray for me. I do so for you. Fraternally, Francis” –The concluding words of Pope Francis’ July 11 response to the five “dubia” or questions raised by five cardinals in a letter to him dated July 10. However, the Pope’s answers (written in Spanish) did not satisfy the five cardinals, and they re-worded their questions and sent them a second time to the Pope, seeking “yes” or “no” answers, on August 21. So far a reply to that second request has not been made. [Note: It does seem strange that the text of the questions from the five cardinals is dated July 10 (link) and the text of the Pope’s answer is dated July 11, meaning that the answers were prepared in less than 24 hours, a seemingly brief time to study and reply to such serious questions, especially if — as one might imagine — several papal theological advisors were consulted. Or were these answers prepared immediately by the Pope himself, without consultation with anyone else? The answer is not made clear… But Italian Vaticanist Sandro Magister wrote on October 2 (yesterday) that “although signed by Francis, the letter displayed the writing style of his trusted theologian, the Argentine Victor Manuel Fernández, who would soon take on the new role of prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith.” link)


    Letter #135, 2023, Tuesday, October 3: The July 11 response of Pope Francis to the five “dubia” sent on July 10 this summer to the Pope by five senior cardinals

    As I wrote earlier today, five Catholic cardinals on July 10 submitted a formal petition to the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asking him to clarify five issues related to the Synod by answering “yes” or “no” to five questions formally known as “dubia” because they express “doubts” regarding the meaning of statements of the Pope and those charged with assisting him.

    Now, below, is the complete text of the Pope’s July 11 response to those “dubia,” a text which was not included in the previous letter earlier today.

    The cardinals who signed the dubia document were:

    1) German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 94, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences;

    2) American Cardinal Raymond Burke, 75, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura;

    3) Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, 90, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong;

    4) Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, 90, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara; and

    5) Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, 78, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

    Of the five, Brandmüller and Burke were also signatories to a previous dubia (link) penned in 2016 by now-deceased Cardinal Carlo Caffara, former archbishop of Bologna and past president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, and also signed by now-deceased Cardinal Joachim Meisner, former archbishop of Cologne, Germany.

    The 2016 dubia never received an answer.

    Pope Francis, on July 11, wrote a response (perhaps with the advice and help of his trusted theological advisors, as Vaticanist Sandro Magister argued yesterday, link) in sentence form (not just “yes” or “no”).

    Here below is the full text of what the Pope wrote.

    The questions touch on:

    1) legitimate doctrinal “development”

    2) the possibility of the ecclesial blessing of “same-sex unions”

    3) the authority of the Synod on Synodality

    4) women’s ordination, and

    5) sacramental absolution.

    One note: in the mainstream press, this papal response is already being depicted as a possible opening by Pope Francis to the approval of blessings of the relationships of same-sex couples.

    In an October 2 Reuters article entitled “Pope Francis hints at slight opening to blessings of same-sex couples,” Vaticanist Phil Pullella writes “Pope Francis has appeared to leave open the possibility of priests blessing same-sex couples, if they are limited, decided on a case-by-case basis and not confused with wedding ceremonies of heterosexuals.”

    And Vaticanist Nicole Winfield writes in an October 2 AP article entitled “Pope suggests blessings for same-sex unions possible in response to 5 conservative cardinals” that “Pope Francis has suggested there could be ways to bless same-sex unions, responding to five conservative cardinals who challenged him to affirm church teaching on homosexuality ahead of a big meeting where LGBTQ+ Catholics are on the agenda.” (link)

    See also link.

    So thus far the outcome of this exchange of letters is to suggest to key voices in the world media that this synod may produce an opening in this direction… —RM

    The Five Questions that the cardinals asked on July 10

    1. Dubium regarding the assertion that the Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted based on current cultural and anthropological changes.

    Following the statements of some bishops, which have neither been corrected nor retracted, we ask whether the Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted in the Church according to the cultural changes of our time, and the new anthropological vision promoted by these changes. Or if, on the contrary, the Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable, and therefore not to be contradicted, in accordance with the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, which states that “the obedience of faith” must be given to God who reveals, (Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all nations must remain “forever whole and alive”, and be “handed on to all generations” (7), and that progress in understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words because faith is “handed on once and for all ” (8), and the Church’s Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but only teaches what has been handed on (10).

    2. Dubium regarding the assertion that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is in accordance with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

    According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “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” (Dei Verbum, 10), “In the beginning,” God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this “principle,” considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?

    3. Dubium regarding the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive dimension of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio, 6), such that the Church is by nature synodal.

    Since the Synod of Bishops does not represent the episcopal college but is merely an advisory body of the Pope, as bishops, witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulatory criterion of the permanent governance of the Church without distorting its constitutive structure desired by its Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with their head, the Roman Pontiff (Lumen gentium, 22).

    4. Dubium regarding the support of pastors and theologians for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed,” and thus, the sacramental ordination of women can be conferred.

    Following the statements of some prelates, which have neither been corrected nor retracted, claiming that with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass have changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, which states that the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially and not only in degree (Lumen gentium, 10), and that priests, by the “sacred power of the order to offer sacrifice and forgive sins” (Presbyterorum ordinis, 2), act in the name and person of Christ the Mediator, through whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect? It is also asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis is still valid, which teaches as a truth to be held definitively the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change or free discussion by pastors or theologians.

    5. Dubium regarding the assertion that “forgiveness is a human right” and the insistence of the Holy Father on the duty to absolve everyone always, so that repentance is not a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.

    It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, which states that contrition of the penitent, consisting of detesting the sin committed with the purpose of not sinning again, is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, such that the priest must defer absolution when it is clear that this condition is not met.

    The five answers that Pope Francis gave on July 11

    Here is the text of Pope Francis’ response to the five questions (link and link (Note: this second link, to Messainlatino.it, claims that the first lines of the Pope’s answer were left out of the text published by the Vatican at the first link).

    Città del Vaticano, Santa Marta, 11 luglio 2023

    Eminenze cardinalizie


    Raymond Leo BURKE

    Dear brothers,

    I write to you in reference to your letter of July 10th last. In it you wanted to bring to my attention some dubia, which, in your opinion, are related, in a certain degree, to the process put in motion in view of the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the theme of Synodality.

    In this regard, I would like to share some very important aspects with you. With the upcoming synod, I have strongly wanted to implement a process that involves the participation of a truly significant part of all the people of God.

    On this journey, with the help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we have been able to gather “the joys and hopes, the sorrows and anxieties of the men of today, above all, of the poor and of all those who suffer” and we have been able, once again, to experience that these joys, these hopes, these sorrows and anxieties “are the joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ. Nothing that is genuinely human fails to find an echo in their hearts.” (Gaudium et spes, 1).

    Precisely to respond fully to all that, in this process – that it is good to recall that will continue until October 2024 – questions and consultations on the structure (participation and communion) and mission of the Church in the time in which it befalls to us to live are also gathered.

    With great sincerity, I tell you that it is not very good to be afraid of these question marks and questions. The Lord Jesus, who promised Peter and his successors indefectible assistance in the task of caring for the holy people of God, will help us, also thanks to this Synod, to keep ourselves always more in constant dialogue with the men and women of our time and in total fidelity to the Holy Gospel.

    However, although it does not always seem prudent to me to respond to the questions addressed directly to me (because it would be impossible to answer them all), in this case I think it is suitable to do so because of the closeness of the Synod.

    In particular:

    Question 1

    (a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret.” If you mean “interpret better,” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council stated that it is necessary that the work of the exegetes – I add of the theologians – “may help the Church to form a firmer judgment” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).

    (b) Therefore, while it is true that Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that it never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in its understanding.

    (c) Consequently, she also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.

    (d) The cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not change Revelation, but they can stimulate us to explain better some aspects of its overflowing richness that always offers more.

    (e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact it has so happened throughout history.

    (f) On the other hand, it is certain that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that allows their perennial substance to be distinguished from cultural influences. It is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Ex 21, 20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue, given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts need an interpretation. The same holds for some New Testament considerations about women (1 Cor 11, 3-10; 1 Tim 2, 11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that cannot be materially repeated today.

    (g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all peoples” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). Therefore the Church must constantly discern between that which is essential for salvation and that which is secondary or less directly related to this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said: “the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).

    (h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth will never be properly understood if it stands alone, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies placing each one of them in proper connection with the more central truths and with the totality of Church teaching. This ultimately can lead to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, although “[f]or those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But in fact such variety serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel.” (Evangelii Gaudium, 40). Each theological line has its risks, but also its opportunities.

    Question 2

    (a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children. She calls “marriage” only such a union. Other forms of union do so only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), which is why they cannot be called “marriage” in the strict sense.

    (b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is certainly much more than a mere “ideal.”

    (c) This is why the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and imply that something which is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

    (d) In dealing with persons, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of the objective truth is not the only expression of this charity which is also made of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot make ourselves into judges who only deny, reject, exclude.

    (e) Pastoral prudence must therefore properly discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more people, that do not convey a misconception of marriage. Because, when a blessing is requested, it is a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.

    (f) On the other hand, even if there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, the same pastoral charity demands that we do not treat as no more than “sinners” other persons whose guilt or responsibility can be mitigated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

    (g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances need not be transformed into a norm. In other words, it is not appropriate for a diocese, a Conference of Bishops, or any other ecclesial structure to authorize constantly and officially procedures or rules for every type of affair, since everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule” since this “would … lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor can Conferences of Bishops pretend to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels besides the normative ones.

    Question 3

    (a) As you well recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope in virtue of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman Pontiff (cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Const. Lumen Gentium, 22), nevertheless, with these dubia, you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give freely your opinion and to collaborate, and thus claim some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.

    (b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion,” but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy, but all the People of God, in different ways and at different levels, can make their voices heard and feel part of the Church’s journey. In this sense we can indeed say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point, St. John Paul II said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.

    (c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that one group likes, to make it the norm and the obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal path, ignoring the different characteristics of the various particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.

    Question 4

    (a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood” “differ essentially” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not a good idea to argue for a difference in degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of a “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood mutually illuminate and support each other.

    (b) When St. John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “in a definitive manner,” he was in no way denigrating women and giving a supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the area of function, not of dignity and holiness” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). They are words we have not sufficiently grasped. He also clearly sustained that while the priest alone presides over the Eucharist, tasks “do not favor the superiority of one over the other” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, V). He equally stated that while the priestly function is “hierarchical,” it is not to be understood as a form of domination, but “is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members.” (St. John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men, and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.

    (c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, we should recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine on the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been fully developed. It is not a dogmatic definition and yet it must be complied with by all. No one can publicly contradict it and nevertheless it can be the object of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.

    Question 5

    (a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here, and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not masters, but humble stewards of the Sacraments that nourish the faithful, for these gifts of the Lord, rather than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for the life of persons.

    (b) There are many ways of expressing repentance. Often, in people with a very wounded self-esteem, to declare themselves guilty is a cruel torture, but the very fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and of the search of divine help.

    (c) I would also like to recall that “[a]t times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity” (Amoris Laetitia, 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I argue that we should not demand of the faithful too precise and certain purposes of amendment, which eventually end up being abstract or even egomaniacal, but also even the predictability of a new fall “does not compromise the authenticity of the intention” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum and Participants in the Annual Course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).

    (d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions usually attached to confession are generally not applicable when the person finds himself in a situation of agony or with his mental and psychic capacities very limited.

    Dear brothers,

    I believe these answers will be able to satisfy your questions.

    Do not forget to pray for me. I do so for you.

    Fraternally, Francis

    The August 21 reply of the five cardinals to Pope Francis’ first answer to their five questions

    Here below is the text of the August 21 reply of the five cardinals to the first answer of Pope Francis to their questions (link): they continue to ask for “yes” or “no” answers to their questions…. They have not yet received any answer…


(Submitted August 21, 2023)

To His Holiness


Supreme Pontiff

    Most Holy Father,

    We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3). We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).

    With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

  1. Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the morallaw. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?
  2. Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?
  3. You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuch as not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?
  4. In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?
  5. Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

    Vatican City, August 21, 2023

    Walter Card. Brandmüller                    

    Raymond Leo Card. Burke

    Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

    Robert Card. Sarah

    Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun

     cc: His Eminence Rev. Luis Francisco Card. LADARIA FERRER, S.I.


    The British Vaticanist Edward Pentin, who writes for the National Catholic Register, has posted all of these documents in a clear way at this link, which is useful for all who wish to follow this matter. –RM    

Facebook Comments