Daily Archives: April 27, 2016

There Is No Excuse For Silence.

There are reports on the Catholic press that Cardinals Sarah and Mueller are refusing to give interviews concerning the Apostolic Excrementation. Clearly, after Bishop Schneider's intervention they are going to have more, not less requests for them.

If silence in the face of heresy is unjustifiable and unacceptable in a bishop, it should be more so in a Cardinal. And the more so when one of these Cardinals is, actually, the formal guardian of orthodoxy within the Church apparatus (after the Pope, of course) and the other is the author of a book called “God or nothing”, and prefers now to do… nothing rather than speak for God.

Let me say this once again: there is no possible excuse for such a behaviour. To try to excuse any bishop or Cardinal for his silence concerning AL is exactly the same as finding excuses for almost all the Apostles leaving Jesus alone on the Cross.

Excuses are always easily found. “If they decided to speak, this would damage the Papacy”, it is reported. If the rumours are true, one can easily imagine that this is the very excuse the two have informally given to try to justify their silence, and which they now want to be discreetly filtered through the press in order to get their “get out of jail” card.

“My shutting up and doing nothing is a very orthodox one”.

Poppycock.

What is more important: to defend God or to, allegedly, damage the Papacy? Who has ever said that the Papacy must be protected in preference to Truth itself? What kind of rubbish is that? Was then, say, right not to say anything against the Nuremberg Laws in order to avoid damaging the German Chancellorship? Or shall we shut up concerning the persecution of Christians lest more persecution follows?

And by the by: how is defending Truth damaging to the Papacy? It is damaging to Francis, not to the Papacy! On the contrary: what damages the Papacy is exactly the allowing that Francis ridicules and debases it, and prostitutes it to his social justice warrior ideology.

This is utter nonsense. No Bishop or Cardinal has any excuse for shutting up, and all those who do so will be exposed as hirelings every time they dare to pretend they are good shepherds in other matters.

My suggestion to Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Mueller is that, if they shut up now, they should as well shut up forever, and never again talk to us about an orthodoxy they were not willing to defend when the trumpet called them to battle. They will not get away with it, nor will anyone who does not speak now.

Ubi honor, ibi onus. One isn't a Bishop or Cardinal in order that he may shut up when it is time to speak. I can't fathom many other times in the entire Church history when it was so necessary that the shepherds speak.

When John XXII threatened to proclaim a false dogma, concern for the Papacy was absolutely nowhere to be found. When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to pagan deities (during the atrocious persecution of Diocletians) no excuses were found for him. Have our Cardinals become so emasculated that they do not think of this? For heaven's sake, one truly has the impression that these people spend their time in splendid palaces, playing with dolls.

If the rumour is confirmed, both Cardinal Sarah and Mueller would confirm thrmselves as not true shepherds, but hirelings. Hirelings now increasingly embarrassed by the public outcry at their silence, and looking for excuses to get away with it. Not going to happen.

Whoever shuts up now has lost face, full stop. Whenever he gives an interview or even publishes a book about the defence of orthodoxy, they will be told what the faithful think of their hypocrisy.

This is not going to go away. We will never forget this treason, nor will the Angels in heaven.

God help the Cardinal who dies in his shameful silence, whatever excuse he might have picked for his dereliction of duty.

M

 

Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Part I

I have, in the meantime, accurately read the beautiful intervention of the Bishop. 

Let me make a couple of preliminary observations: 

  1. Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly call the document heretical, or blasphemous. 
  2. Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly warn Francis about his heretical, blasphemous position. 

If there was a criticism that could be moved to this letter, it would be related to the points above. However, I do not feel I should move this criticism myself. Whilst truth must be proclaimed in season and out of season, I feel no difficulty at all in attributing Bishop Schneider’s choice to a prudent judgment. Clearly, this is not a man afraid of persecution. Please give him your most sincere prayers.

You might not read, in your lifetime, another criticism of a papal document as strong as this one from an “official” bishop. I note here that, to my knowledge, not even the SSPX has officially called the document heretical and blasphemous. I am sure this is a prudential judgment, too; but if you ask me who runs the risk of being too prudent, I would say “the SSPX”. 

Below is the text (first part). My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red. 

——————————————————–

The paradox of contradicting interpretations of «Amoris Laetitia»

The recently published Apostolic Exhortation « Amoris Laetitia » (hereafter abbreviated AL), which contains a great spiritual treasure for Christian life in matrimony and family for our age [heavens, why does everyone praise the cream in a poisoned cake? Bishop Fellay did the same. I think it’s churchspeak for “I am about to punch you in the face”], has unfortunately in short order provoked contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate [the Bishop announces the line of attack: the document is ambiguous. Actually, the document is openly heretical and blasphemous. See above, “prudence”].

There are bishops and priests who have publicly and openly declared that AL has furnished an manifest opening to Communion for the divorced who have remarried, without asking them to live in continence.  Under this aspect of sacramental practice, which according to them would now be significantly changed, would truly consist the revolutionary character of « Amoris Laetitia ».  Interpreting AL in reference to irregular couples, one President of an Episcopal Conference has declared in a text published on the very website of that Conference:  « One treats of a measure of mercy, of an opening of heart, reason and spirit for which no law is necessary, nor is there need to wait for any directive or directions.  One may and one ought to put it immediately into practice ».

Such a view was further confirmed by the recent declarations made by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S. J., who after the Synod of Bishops in 2015 had written that the Synod had laid down « a foundation » for the access to Communion by the divorced who have remarried, « by opening a door », which was left closed in the preceding Synod in 2014.  Now, Father Spadaro in his own commentary on AL, says that his predication has been confirmed.  The same Fr. Spadaro is said to have been a member of the group which redacted « Amoris Laetitia » [the Bishop does not say that 2+2=4 here, as in “if Spadaro says this and he has collaborated to the document, the man has obviously followed Francis’ istructions”. The bishops does not say it; but make no mistake: he wants you to draw the conclusion, or make the addition, yourself].

A way open to abusive interpretations seems to have been indicated by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn himself, who, during the official presentation of « Amoris Laetitia » at Rome, had said in regard to the proposal of irregular unions:  « The great joy that this document gives me rests in the fact that it overcomes in a concrete way the artificial clear external division of “regular” and “irregular”. »  Such an affirmation suggest the idea that there is no clear difference between a valid and sacramental marriage and an irregular union,  between venial sin and mortal sin [ again: both the Bishop and his readers are aware that Schoenborn’s press conference has been explicitly indicated by Francis as the best guidance to interpreting AL. He who has ears to hear, let him hear]. 

On the other hand, there are bishops who affirm that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial Magisterium of the Church and that AL does not authorize Communion for the divorced who have remarried, not even in exceptional cases.  In principle, such an affirmation is the correct one and the one worth of approval.  In effect, every text of the Magisterium ought to be, as a general rule, coherent in its own content with the preceding Magisterium, without any rupture. [To state that a document must be read in light of truth is not wrong, but it is not remotely good enough].

Nevertheless, it is not secret that in diverse places divorced and remarried persons have been admitted to Holy Communion, without the obligation of living in continence.  Some of the affirmations in « Amoris Laetitia » can realistically be utilized to legitimize the abuse already practiced for some time in various places in the life of the Church (sic). [some of the affirmations in AL are, realistically, blasphemous and heretical and meant to legitimise sacrilege. But as the Pope does not officially proclaim it, and prefers to introduce the heresy from the window, I will not expose myself to the accusation of slandering him].

Some affirmations of « Amoris Laetitia » are objectively open to a bad interpretation

Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, has invited all of us to offer our own contribution to the reflection and dialogue on the delicate questions concerning marriage and the family.  « The reflection of pastors and of theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest and creative, will help us to reach a greater clarity » (AL, 2).

Analyzing some of the affirmations of AL with an honest understanding [stop kidding yourself, Cardinal Burke!], as they are in their own context, one finds that there is a difficulty in interpreting them according to the traditional doctrine of the Church.  [this part is pivotal: it means that the context of the ambiguous affirmations is itself heretical; it creates a heretical climate, and the explosive blasphemies are correctly interpreted in this heretical context] This fact is explained by the absence of concrete and explicit affirmation of the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, [this is another one of the pivotal points: the Bishop states that if Francis had strongly and unambiguously stated that there is no change whatsoever from Familiaris Consortio, repeating the statements verbatim, this would have factually killed any ambiguous reading. Personally, I trust Francis to be, in fact, as duplicitous as to explicitly state the paragraph written here below and contradict it in the following statement. But undoubtedly, the heretical reading would have been made more difficult. Also, heresy is heresy no matter how many reaffirmations of catholci doctrine are contained in the same document.which is founded upon the Word of God and was reiterated by Pope John Paul II, who said:  « The Church, moreover, reaffirms Her own practice, founded upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion the divorced who have remarried.  These are those who cannot be admitted, from the moment that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, signified and actuated by the Eucharist.  There is moreover another particular pastoral motive:  if these persons would be admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be lead into error and confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of matrimony.  Reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to the Sacrament of the Eucharist — can be accorded only to those who, having repented of violating the sign of the Covenant and their fidelity to Christ, have been sincerely disposed to a form of life which is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage.  That is, which implies, in the concrete, that when a man and wife, for serious motives — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, « assume the obligation of living in full continence, that is of abstaining from the acts proper to married couples » (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

Pope Francis has not established « a new general norm in canonical form, applicable to all cases » (AL, n. 300). However, in footnote 336, he declares:  « Not even as much as regards sacramental discipline, from the moment that discernment can recognize that in a particular situation there is no grave fault » [see above: fist Francis states, then he denies what he has just stated]. By referring himself evidently to the divorced who have remarried, the Pope affirms in AL, n. 305:  « By reason of attenuating conditions or factors, it is possible that, within an objective situation of sin — which is not subjectively culpable or which is is not such in a full manner — one can live in the grace of God, one can love, and one can even grow in the life of grace and charity, receiving for such a purpose the help of the Church ».  In footnote 351, the Pope clarifies his own affirmation, by saying that « in certain cases, there might even been the help of the Sacraments ».

In the same chapter 8 of « Amoris Laetitia », the Pope speaks of « the divorced who live a new union, … with new children, with proven fidelity, generous dedication, christian commitment, conscious of the irregularity of their own situation and of the great difficulty in turing around without feeling in their consciences that one would fall into a new fault.  The Church recognizes situations in which « man and wife, for serious motives, — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation ».  In footnote 329, the Pope cites the document, Gaudium et Spes in an unfortunately incorrect manner, because the Council refers in this case only to a valid Christian marriage. The application of this affirmation to the divorced can provoke the impression that a valid marriage can be assimilated, not in theory, but in practice, with the union of divorced persons. [note here: the Bishop always says “the Pope states”, “the Pope speaks”. He attributes the heresy directly to him. He chooses not to say something like “footnote such and such, certainly misinterpreting the will of the Holy Father, states”… . You are supposed to know who is the culprit.]

The admission to Holy Communion of the divorced who have remarried and its consequences

« Amoris Laetitia » is, unfortunately, deprived of textual citations of the principles of the Church’s moral teaching in the form in which they were enunciated in n. 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, and in the Encyclical, Veritas Splendor, of Pope John Paul II, in particular in regard to the following themes of capital importance:  « the fundamental option » (Veritatis Splendor, nn. 67-68), « mortal sin and venial sin » (ibid. nn. 69-70), « proportionalism, consequentialism » (ibid. n. 75), « martyrdom and the universal and immutable moral norms » (ibid. nn. 91 ff.).  A verbal citation of Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and of the similar more salient affirmations of Veritatis Splendor would certainly make « Amoris Laetitia » unassailable on the part of heterodox interpretations.  [ this is the Leitmotiv again: literal, repeated quotes explicitly stating what is what would have suffocated any attempt to give the document a heretical reading even if ambiguities are present] Some generic allusions to the moral principles and doctrine of the Church are certainly not sufficient in a controversial matter which is of delicate and capital importance. [This is an open indictment of Francis’ modus operandi: generic allusions on one side, concrete emergency exits from the straight and narrow on the other side. This is certainly not sufficient in a matter delicate and capital importance. “What kind of Pope are you?”,”What’s wrong with you?” is here the message].

Some representatives of the clergy and even of the episcopate do affirm that even now, according to the spirit of « Amoris Laetitia »’s chapter VIII it has not been excluded that in exceptional cases the divorced who have remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without it being requested that they live in perfect continence.

By admitting a similar interpretation in the letter and spirit of « Amoris Laetitia », one would have to accept, with an honest understanding and on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction, the following logical conclusions: 

[what follows is the most brutal condemnation of a papal document I have ever read from anyone, in any age. The Bishop veils it only very thinly by stating that this merely the reading of “some representative of the clergy”. However, he has already told you this is, honestly, the reading made possible in the document’s context. He who has ears, etc…].

The divine Sixth Commandment which prohibits every sexual act outside of a valid marriage, would no longer be universally valid if exceptions were to be admitted.  In our case:  the divorced would  be able to practice the sexual act and they are even encouraged to it for the purpose of conserving reciprocal “fidelity”, cf. AL, 298.  One would be able, therefore, to exchange “fidelity”, in a style of life directly contrary to the expressed will of God.  Moreover, to encourage and legitimize acts which are in themselves (in se) and always contrary to the will of God, would be to contradict Divine Revelation.

The divine word of Christ:  « That man not separate what God has untied » (Mt. 19:6), would, therefore no longer be always valid and for all married couples without exception.

It would be possible in a particular case to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion with the intention of continuing to directly violate the Divine commandments:  « Thou shalt not commit adultery » (Exodus 20:14) and « That man not separate what God has united » (Mt. 19:6; Genesis 2:24).

The observance of these commandments and of the Word of God would hold in these cases only in theory and not in practice, inducing thereby the divorced who have remarried « to fool themselves » (James 1:22).  One would, therefore, be able to have faith in the divine character of the Sixth Commandment and in the indissolubility of Matrimony without, however, the corresponding works.

The Divine Word of Christ: « He who repudiates his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if a woman leaves her husband and marries another, she commits adultery » (Mk, 10:12) would, therefore, not longer have a universal validity but would admit exceptions.

The permanent, conscious and free violation of the Sixth Commandment of God and of the sacrality and indissolubility of ones own valid Matrimony (in the case of the divorced who have remarried) would, therefore, no longer be a grave sin, nor in direct opposition to the will of God.

There can (sic) be cases of grave, permanent, conscious and free violation of God’s other commandments (e.g., in the case of a style of life of financial corruption), in which there would be able to granted to a determinate person, on the basis of attenuating circumstances, access to the Sacraments without exacting a sincere resolution to avoid in the future the acts of sin and of scandal.

The perennial and infallible teaching of the Church would no longer be universally valid, in particular the teaching confirmed by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, and by Pope Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum caritatis, n. 29, according to which the condition of the divorced to receive the Sacraments is (the practice of) perfect continence.

The observance of the Sixth Commandment and of the indissolubility of marriage would not be an ideal realizable on the part of all, but in a certain manner only for an elite.

The intransigent words of Christ which intimate to men the observance of God’s commandments, always and in all circumstances, even when accepting some considerable suffering, or the Cross, for this purpose, would not longer be valid in their truth:  « If you hand is an occasion of sin to you, cut it off and throw it away, because it is better for you that one member perish, than that thy whole body be cast into Gehenna » (Mt. 5:30).

To admit couples in an « irregular union » to Holy Communion, by permitting them to practice the acts reserved to married couples in a valid marriage, would be equivalent to the usurpation of a power, which, however, does not belong to any human authority to exercise, because one treats where with a pretense to correct the very Word of God.

[the parts I have evidenced all state the same: this document contains heresy and blasphemy; it spits in the face of Our Lord; it is the attempt to deny His Commandments, it is an insult to God. The Bishop does not say so explicitly. But the logical chain of argument, “if you read the document as it can honestly be read in its context, this is the conclusion you must draw”, does not leave any doubt in the intelligent reader as to what the bishop means]. 

(to be continued…)

M

 

%d bloggers like this: