Heresy in Amoris Laetitia: 305, Part I

the-archangel-michael-defeating-satan-1635 (1)


The text (as always, all emphases mine): 

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”. 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. 

[to be continued]


One does not even know where to begin. Almost every word here is a slap in the face of Christ. 

it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives, etc.

Unspeakable arrogance. Blasphemy. Our Lord did exactly what Francis condemns. Francis clearly implies the following:

that Our Lord simply did not do enough by applying the moral law to the adulterous woman;

that he threw stones at her;

that he had a closed heart of one used to hide behind’s His Church’s teachings;

that he was “sitting on the chair of Moses” judging with superiority (how could anyone think he is morally superior to an adulteress?) and superficiality the “difficult case” of the woman; 

Then Francis hides behind the finger of an International Commission or other, which insults Our Lord in the following ways: 

Our Lord should not have presented the moral law as something that applies to the woman a priori

rather, the adulteress should have used the moral law merely as a source of objective inspiration;

this objective inspiration should have helped her in her deeply personal process of making decision.

Mind: this process is deeply personal. Our Lord can not simply sit there “on the chair of Moses” and tell the woman “go, and sin no more”? How superior, how superficial is that? Is it not throwing stones at the poor, wounded adulteress?  


You would think this is enough for a heretical paragraph. You would think this is enough blasphemy. It isn’t. 

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,

No. It is not possible. The objective situation of sin (living more uxorio) creates an objective scandal. This scandal is, therefore, objectively a mortal sin. The mortal sin ipso facto excludes from communion. No one gives a Francis whether the woman thinks the Blessed Virgin appeared to her and ordered her to keep living in sin. The situation is objectively scandalous, the sanction is objective impossibility to receive.

This is so much so, that the adulterer is not even allowed to go to confession. This is beautifully coherent with the premise. As long as an objective situation of mortal sin persists, it is unthinkable that anyone may think he can walk to the confessional, repent on the moment and go back to his objective situation of sin immediately thereafter; a situation of sin that was never even interrupted. It is absurd. It is the very negation of what the Sacrament of Confession is there for. Therefore, coherently the Church has prescribed, and still prescribes, that a public adulterer living in scandal cannot receive until the situation of objective scandal ceases.

A person in objective mortal sin is a person objectively dead to grace. There is no grace in him. This is why it is called mortal sin: because it is mortal. The only thing that can restore grace is repentance and contrition in the proper way (perfect or imperfect according to the situation). But until that happens, there is no grace in a person in mortal sin. 

What this evil clown is trying to smuggle to you as Christianity is this: that even in the most evident situations of objective mortal sin, a mortal sin may not exist. The public sphere of the behaviour is completely neglected, washed away as a mere accident. A public situation of adultery is downgraded to a merely “irregular” situation, which might or might not be a mortal sin. Worse still, the assessment of whether this “irregular” situation is or is not, in the concrete case, a mortal sin, is not something that, say, a priest (which would be blasphemy enough) decides. No. This is a situation about which the deeply personal  process of making decisions of the adulterer should decide.

The adulterer becomes his own Christ, who changes Christ’s rules. The new rules decides that he is his own priest, who can assess the matter individually instead of according to objective situations. This new lay priest can then, indeed, decide that his own mortal sin isn’t such.

The public sinner has become judge and jury. Christ has no place in this process. No one else has. It would be “throwing stones at people’s lives”.   

Paragraph 305 goes on with more rubbish, and with the notorious Footnote 351. This paragraph is so full of… Francis that I must break it in at least two parts. God pleasing, the rest of the paragraph will be commented tomorrow. For the moment, I offer this reflection: 

When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks. 

Keep this in mind, and it will do you a lot of good in your path towards salvation. 



Posted on April 12, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. What is it about you that you can see the evil here, but Cardinal Burke cannot? You have a sense of what’s right and wrong? You know that even if something is not declared Ex Cathedra it can still be taken as “Gospel” by almost everyone?

    I can see it too!

    • It’s not even that I am particularly perceptive.
      The scale of the offence is such that everyone who does not scream in anger at it truly has something wrong in him.
      By the way: all those who tell us now to stay calm because the man has not spoken “ex cathedra” would, if he did, tell us to stay calm because… he says he did.
      Burke can eat this shit all the days of his life. I won’t.

  1. Pingback: Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: Footnote 351 | Mundabor's Blog

  2. Pingback: Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Part I | Mundabor's Blog

%d bloggers like this: