Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is 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. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

—

Hence it is 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.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

—

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.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M