Daily Archives: April 28, 2016
I have not written about the US primaries for a while, because the heresies and blasphemies of the Evil Clown logically had to come first. However, today it might be a good time for some additional reflections.
1) Trump is clearly going to make it, and the moment is rapidly approaching when any result other than his nomination would clearly be a theft and a slap in the face of the Republican voters. When Trump had 700+ delegates and an advantage of less than 200 over Cruz it was one thing; but when he is at 900+ and with an advantage of almost 400 delegates things start to look vastly differently.
2) Trump will give Christians a lot of grief. He has come out in the last days in favour of having trannie dongs (actually: every dong) dangling around in women's bathrooms. If this man is a conservative I am a Maoist. Now we are informed a horribly mutilated, hormone-devastated monstrum called Bruce Jenner (yes, he will always be a Bruce. Born that way, you see…) went into one of his buildings, piddled in the women's bathroom and praised the man loudly. The Lord Of The Trannies is running for President. How much better would Cruz have been! A man who has been sharply criticised for occasional PC mistakes, but never even thoughts of monstrosities like Trump's assertions even as he keeps asking for Conservative votes. I smile at all those comments (on my blog and elsewhere) lamenting the man's mistakes around 1066, or saying he is unsuitable because they don't like his father. I am sure they prefer the Lord Of The Trannies….
3) Still, I think on the one side there is a lot of good in Trump's ideas on immigration, tariffs and foreign policy; and on the other I reflect that if the November elections return Republican majorities in both the Senate and the Congress there will be much scope to force the man, volens nolens, on conservative positions on many issues, first of all the crucial appointment of the Supreme Court judge meant to substitute the great Antonino Scalia.
4) Do not believe those who tell you the man is going to lose big against Hillary. Actually, I think the only way he can lose is if his Lord Of The Trannies attitudes causes the Evangelicals to stay home. Unlikely, considering what is at stake in the Supreme Court. Trump will make big inroads among the disaffected (read: unemployed) white voters (many millions), and it appears he is cleaning up even among (largely employed, and not all White) union members. When the Country has come to grips with the fact that it's him or Hillary, it will be the end of the whining and the beginning of the reasoning. The way I see it, Trump is his own biggest enemy, and the only one who can still screw his victory.
I did not wish this solution. If you ask me, Cruz was and his the better candidate by far. But not even I would want Cruz as the nominee at the price of sordid schemes, and headed for a certain and brutal defeat.
The time is rapidly approaching when the party (and all Catholics) will have to choose between the Lord Of The Trannies and the Witch Of The West. I think Trump will still be the by far better choice. And I think it will be far easier to bend him to the will of the Republican majority than to force Hillary to appoint the right judge at the Supreme Court.
Who knows, one day trannies might, even with Trump as President, have to bring their dongs elsewhere.
“We Shall Fight On The Beaches”: “Veri Catholici” Organises An International Conference To Condemn “Amoris Laetitia”!
The news is here. “Veri Catholici” means, of course, “True Catholics”.
My congratulations to these brave men and (one supposes) women.
It goes to show that if our comfortably silent Bishops think they can continue unpunished to hide behind their fingers, the coming years will show them that silence isn't so comfortable after all. They would have gone away with it (more or less) before the Internet. They will certainly not go away with it now.
As to the discomfort after they die, I do not even want to imagine what fate awaits all those who will not repent. Memento mori! Dies irae, dies illa!
One fact is clear: left alone by a disgraceful clergy, the remnant of faithful Catholics will fight alone, but we shall fight.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender
This is what will happen, this is what is beginning to happen already. Go wherever you please in the (real) Catholic blogosphere and you will find anger no end. Smart people (always a minority) understand that the destiny of their souls depends on how they react to Francis' pontificate (and, very possibly, those who will come after the Evil Clown).
We shall fight, and we shall fight with growing confidence. Because if a lewd old Argentinian Commie fond of pacifism and fags thinks he can convert us to his satanical creed, he is very gravely mistaken.
The battle is already won. We are asked to fight so that, one day, we may proudly say we fought on the right side.
The controversy about the “Trannie in the Bathroom” shows once again how adept Conservatives are at losing battles out of fear of appearing “insensitive”. And there can be no doubt that when fundamental issues are avoided in the name of peripheral considerations defeat is already assured.
The problem with the Trannie in the female bathroom is, certainly, also a problem of security. But this is merely an accessory of the main problem. The main problem is the progressive transgenderisation, and therefore deep perversion, of Western civilisation.
Do you think that the Trannie really cares where he piddles? To him – and those who help him – the issue is one of homologation of his perversion within mainstream society.
Therefore, when the opposers avoid to touch the main issue and hide under the issue of “safety” they have already lost, because they have already accepted the perverted frame of their opponents.
And by the way, after this battle is lost I will be very glad for all the wannabe conservative idiots who now have to endure a Trannie in their bathroom, or in their daughters' bathrooms. I am talking of those who weren't opposed to civil partnerships provided it's not marriage, those who must always let you know how much they love perverts (but hey, they hate their sins!), those who cannot talk of perverts in other terms than “gays”, and so on.
It serves you right, you nincompoops. You did not want to appear “insensitive”. How do you like them…Trannies?
We reap what we sowed. We accept the frame of reference of the perverts' lobby, of course we end up in a corner.
A Trannie must not be allowed in the female bathroom because he is a damn male, no matter how much he has amputated or disfigured himself. This, and no other, is the argument.
If a male thinks that he is a female the appropriate place for him is the madhouse, not the female bathroom. Safety is nowhere as important as recovering sanity.
But no: reading around about the controversy, it seems it's already a problem of “safety”.
Let's lose this one, too.
God forbid, we are called “haters”!
I continue today the analysis of Bishop Schneider’s intervention on the Apostolic Excrementation ™
The first part is here. My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red.
The Dangers of the Church’s collaboration in the spread of the “plague of divorce”
In professing Our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching for all times, the Church teaches us: « Faithful to the Lord, the Church cannot recognize as Matrimony the union of the divorced who have remarried civilly. « He who repudiates his wife to marry another commits adultery against her. If a woman repudiates her husband to marry another, she commits adultery » (Mark 10:11-12). [ the Bishop is here showing that the entire Apostolic Excrementation ™ is meant to do one thing and one thing only: to go against the very words of Christ in the Gospel]. In their regard, the Church undertakes an attentive solicitude [the Church never “excludes” anyone who does not choose to exclude himself from Her], by inviting them to a life of Faith, to prayer, to the works of charity and to the christian education of their children. [But] these cannot receive sacramental absolution, nor approach Eucharistic Communion, nor exercise certain ecclesial functions, so long as there endures a situation among them which contracts objectively with the law of God.” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 349).
To live in an invalid marital union, contradicting constantly the Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, does not signify that one lives in the truth [ pace Francis, you can’t live in public scandal and pretend that you live in the truth]. To declare that the deliberate, free and habitual practice of sexual acts in an invalid marital union could be, in a concrete case, no longer a grace sins, is not the truth, but a grave lie, [means “mortal sin”, as both the subjective and objective elements must perforce be there] and, therefore, can never be an authentic joy in love. To permit, therefore, these persons to receive Holy Communion signifies fakery, hypocrisy and mendacity. [Pope Francis is a fakes, a hypocrite, and a liar. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud]. Indeed, the Word of God in Sacred Scripture remains valid: “He who says, « I understand », and does not observe His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.” [ this is Francis](1 John 2:4).
The Magisterium of the Church teaches us that the validity of God’s Ten Commandments is universal: “Since these enunciate the fundamental obligations of man towards God and his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, some grave obligations. These are fundamentally immutable and their obligation prevails always and at all times. No one can dispense from them ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2072). Those who have affirmed that the commandments of God and the particular Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, can have exceptions, in such cases that there is no imputable fault for a divorce, were the Pharisees and then the Gnostic christians (sic) in the second and third centuries (after Christ). [ Francis is a heretic. He is promoting exactly the same heresies that were promoted in the II and III centuries. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The following affirmations of the Magisterium remain always valid because they are part of the infallible Magisterium as part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium: “The negative precepts of the Natural Law are universally valid: these oblige all and each one, always and in every circumstance. In fact, one treats here with prohibitions which forbid a determinate action semper et pro semper (i.e. always and at all times), without exceptions, … there are behaviors which can never be, in any situation, the adequate response…The Church has always taught that one can never choose the behaviors prohibited by the moral Commandments, expressed in the negative form, in the Old and New Testaments. [ Francis is openly going against 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian civilisation. He is simply beyond the pale]. Has has been see [sic], Jesus, Himself, reaffirms the inderogability of these prohibitions: « If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments …: do not kill, do not commit adultery, not do not steal, do not give false testimony » (Mt. 19:17:18). (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor).
The Magisterium of the Church still teaches us, more clearly: “A good and pure conscience is illuminated by sincere faith [ Dear faithful, please realise that Francis has no faith, and a dirty conscience]. In fact, charity wells us, in its pace, “from a pure heart, from a good conscience and from a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5) [Cf. 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 24:16] (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1794).
In the case in which a person commits moral acts objectively grave in full knowledge, with a sane mind, with deliberate decision, with the intent to repeat this act in the future, it is impossible to apply the principle of non-imputability of the fault by reason of attenuating circumstances. [Francis attempts an impossible subversion of the basics of moral law]. The application of the principle of non-imputability to these divorced and remarried couples would represent a hypocrisy and a Gnostic [sophism] [Francis is a heretic, a Gnostic wannabe sophist]. If the Church would admit these persons, even in only one case, to Holy Communion, She would contradict what She professes in doctrine, offering Herself a public contra-testimony to the indissolubility of Matrimony and contributing in this wise to the growth of “the plague of divorce” (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n 47).
So as to avoid such an intolerable and scandalous contradiction, the Church, infallibly interpreting the Divine truth of the moral law and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, has immutably observed throughout 2000 years the practice of admitting to Holy Communion only those divorced who live in perfect continence and “removed from scandal”, without any exception or particular privilege. [I’d love to see example of such lax praxis of “brother and sister”. I do not know a single one. I think the Bishop might be extending the praxis of the last 50 years 2000 years back].
The first pastoral duty which the Lord entrusted to His Church is teaching, doctrine (cf. Mt. 28:20). The observance of God’s commandments is intrinsically connected to doctrine. For this reason the Church has always rebuffed the contradiction of doctrine and life, qualifying such a contradiction as Gnostic or as the heretical Lutheran theory of “simul iustus et peccator”. [dear faith, please realise Francis is a proto-Lutheran wannabe Gnostic sophist, too clever by half. Not buyin’ it]. Between the faith and life of the children of the Church there ought to be no contradictions.
When one treats of the observance of an expressed commandment of God and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, one cannot speak of opposed theological interpretations. If God has said: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, no human authority could say: “in some exceptional cases or for a good purpose, you can commit adultery”. [again! Francis goes explicitly, frontally, against God’s word! Blasphemy! But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The following affirmations of Pope Francis are very important [,]where the Supreme Pontiff speaks to the proposal of integrating divorced and remarried persons into the life of the Church: “this discernment will never be able to prescind from the requirements of truth and charity proposed in the Gospel by the Church … The necessary conditions of humility, modesty, love for the Church and Her teaching are to be guaranteed, … One avoids the risk that a determinate discernment leads one to think that the Church supports a double morality” (AL, 300). These praiseworthy affirmations in «Amoris Laetitia », however, remain without concrete specification in regard to the question of the obligation of the divorced who have remarried to separate from one another or at least live in perfect continence. [Francis is all orthodox in vague theories, and all heretic in the concrete praxis. This is what Modernists do]
When one treats of the life or of the death of the body, no doctor would leave anything in ambiguity. A doctor cannot say to his patient: “You should decide on the application of this medicine according to your own conscience and respecting the laws of medicine”. Such a comportment on the part of a doctor would, without a doubt, be considered irresponsible. And, yet, the life of an immortal soul is more important, since upon the health of the soul depends its destiny for all eternity. [If you follow him, Francis will lead you to eternal death. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The liberating truth of Penance and of the mystery of the Cross.
To affirm that the divorced who have remarried are not public sinners signifies the simulation of a falsehood. Moreover, being sinners is the true condition of all the members of the Church militant on earth. If the divorced who have remarried say that their voluntary and deliberate acts against the Sixth Commandment of God are not in fact sins or grave sins, they fool themselves and the truth is not in them, as St. John says: “If we say that we are without sin, we fool ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He who is Faithful and Just will forgive our sins and purify us from all iniquity. If we say, “We have not sinned”, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8-10).
The acceptance on the part of the divorced who have remarried that they are sinners and even public sinners takes nothing from christian hope. Only the acceptance of reality and truth makes them capable of undertaking the path of fruitful penitence according to the words of Jesus Christ.
It would be very salvific to renew the spirit of the first Christians and of the age of the Fathers of the Church, when there existed a living solidarity of the Faithful with public sinners, and, moreover, a solidarity according to truth. A solidarity which has nothing to do with discrimination; on the contrary, there was in that age a participation of the whole Church in the penitential path of public sinners by means of the prayer of intercession, of tears, and of acts of expiation and charity on their behalf.
The Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, teaches: “Even those who have wandered away from the Commandment of the Lord and continue to live in this condition (divorced and remarried) can obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, if they persevere in prayer, in penitence and in (acts of) charity” (n. 84).
During the first ages, public sinners were integrated into the praying community of the Faithful and had to implore the intercession of the Faithful, on bended knee and with arms raised up. Tertullian gives us a touching testimony: “The body cannot rejoice when one of its members suffers. It is necessary that its whole entire self grieve and work for its healing. When you extend your hands to the knees of your brothers, it is Christ whom you touch. Equally, when they pour out their tears for you, it is Christ who suffers with you” (De paenitentia, bk. 10, ch. 5-6). In the same manner, St. Ambrose of Milan says: “The whole Church has taken upon Herself the yoke of the public sinner, suffering with him by means of Her tears, prayers and sorrows” (De paenitentia, bk. 1, ch. 81). [They weren’t “rigid doctors of the law”. They had true charity].
It is true, that the Church’s forms of penitential disciple have changed, but the spirit of this discipline should remain in the Church for all times. Today, some priests and bishops, basing themselves on some affirmations of AL, are beginning to make the divorced and remarried understand that their condition is not equivalent to the state of an objective public sinner. These tranquilize them by saying that their sexual acts do not constitute a grave sin. Such a mindset does not correspond to the truth. These deprive the divorced and remarried of the possibility of a radical conversion to obedience to the Will of God, by leaving these souls in a deceit. Such a pastoral mindset is very easy, in the open market, it costs nothing. It does not cost tears, prayers and works of intercession and fraternal expiation on behalf of the divorced who have remarried.
In admitting, even in only exceptional cases, the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion without asking them to cease to practice the acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment of God, by declaring presumptuously, moreover, that their acts are not grave sin, one chooses the easy road, one avoids the scandal of the Cross. Such a pastoral practice for the ‘divorced and remarried’ is an ephemeral and deceitful pastoral practice. To all who pedal such an easy path at a cheep price to the ‘divorced and remarried’, Jesus turns, even today, with these words: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a scandal to me, because you think not according to God, but according to men! Then Jesus said to His disciples: « If any wills to follow Me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me. » (Mt. 16:23-25), [this here is against Kasper & Co].
In regard to the pastoral care of the ‘divorced and remarried’, today there is also a need to revive the spirit of following Christ in the truth of the Cross and of penitence, which alone brings a permanent joy, by avoiding the ephemeral joys which serve deceitful reasons. The following words of Pope St. Gregory the Great show themselves to be truly timely and illuminating: “We ought not habituate ourselves to much to our earthly exile, the conveniences of this life ought not make us forget our true Fatherland let our spirit become sleepy in midst of conveniences. For this reason, God unites to His gifts His own visitations or punishments, so that all which is enchanting in this world, becomes bitter for us and there be enkindled in the soul that fire which spurs us always a new towards the desire of heavenly things and makes us progress towards them. That fire wounds us in a pleasant way, it crucifies us sweetly and it saddens us joyously” (In Hex, bk. 2, ch. 4, n. 3).
The Church’s spirit of authentic penitential discipline in the first centuries has perdured in the Church through all ages even unto today. We have the moving example of Bl. Laura del Carmen Vicuna, born in Chile in 1891. Sr. Azocar, who took care of her, narrates: “I remember that when I first explained the Sacrament of Matrimony, Laura fainted, having understood without a doubt my words that her own mother was in a state of mortal sin so long as she remained with that man. At that time, in (the town of) Junin, only 1 family lived in conformity to the will of God”. [and still, God’s laws were exactly the same!] From then on, Laura multiplies her prayers and penances for her mother. On June 2, 1901, she was to make her first Communion, with great fervor; she wrote these following resolutions: “1) I desire, o my Jesus, to love Thee and serve Thee for my entire life; for this, I offer Thee all of my souls, my heart, my entire being. — 2) I prefer to die rather than offend Thee with sin; therefore, I want to distance myself from all which could separate me from Thee. — 3) I promise to do everything possible so that Thou may be always more known and loved, and to repair the offenses which the men who do not love Thee inflict upon Thee every day, especially those who receive (Communion) among those who are near to me. — O my God, grant me a life of love, of mortification and of sacrifice!” But her great joy was overshadowed in seeing her own mother, present at the ceremony, not take communion (on account of having not repented of her sin). In 1902, Laura offered her own life for her mother who was living with a man in an irregular union in Argentina. Laura multiplied her prayers and self-denials to obtain the true conversion of her mother. A few hours before dying, she called her to her self. Understanding that she was at the last moment of live, she exclaimed: “Mommie, I am about to die. I asked Jesus and I have offered my life to Him for the grace of your return. Mommie, will I have the joy to see your repentance before dying? Overcome, her mother promised: “Tomorrow morning I will go to church and I will confess.” Laura, already blind, turned to the priest and said: “Father, my mother in this moment promises to abandon that man; you be witness to this promise!” and she added, “Now I die content!” With these words she breathed her last, on January 22, 1904, at Junin, in the Andes (Argentina), at the age of 13, in the arms of her mother who then refound her faith by putting and end to that irregular union in which she was living.
The admirable life of the young Blessed Laura is a demonstration of how much a True Catholic seriously considers the Sixth Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony [if you are Catholic, you’ll have none of that “social circumstances” rubbish]. Our Lord Jesus Christ recommends to avoid even the appearance of approbation of an irregular union or adultery. [my personal note: which is why the “brother and sister” thingie isn’t a good idea, at all!] That Divine command, the Church has always faithful conserved and transmitted without ambiguity [see above] in Her doctrine and practice. By offering her own young life, Bl. Laura was certainly not representing one of many diverse doctrinal or pastoral interpretations. She did not give her life for a possible doctrinal or pastoral interpretation, but for a divine immutable and universally valid truth. A truth demonstrated with the offer of their life by a great number of Saints, from St. John the Baptist even to the simple faithful of our days, whose names are known to God alone.
The Necessity of a true “veritatis laetitia” (Joy from Truth”) [brilliant irony]
« Amoris Laetitia » contains, surely and fortunately [ I had feared the contrary would be the case!], some theological affirmations and spiritual and pastoral indications of great value. Nevertheless, it is realistically insufficient to affirm that AL should be interpreted according to the doctrine and traditional practice of the Church. When in an ecclesiastical document, which in our case is deprived of a definitive and infallible character, there are found elements of interpretation and application which might have dangerous spiritual consequences, all the members of the Church, and in the first place, the Bishops, as brotherly co-workers with the Sovereign Pontiff in an effective collegiality, have the duty to point out respectfully this fact and to ask for an authentic interpretation.
[Bam! You are betraying your flock, you silent Bishops and Cardinals! All of you!]
When one treats of Divine faith, of the Divine commandments of the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, all the members of the Church, from the simple faithful to the highest representatives of the Magisterium, ought to make a common effort to conserve intact the treasure of the Faith and his practical application. The Second Vatican Council has in effect taught: “The totality of the Faithful, having the anointing which comes from the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20,27), cannot error in believing, and manifests this property by means of the supernatural sense of the faith of the whole People (of God), when « from the bishops even unto the last faithful laymen » (St. Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, bk. 14, ch. 27) shows a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. And, in truth, through this sense of the faith, which is suscitated and guided by the Spirit of truth, and under the guide of the sacred magisterium, Who enables, if He is obeyed faithfully, one to receive no longer the words of men, but truly the word of God. (cf. 1 Titus 2:13), the People of God adheres indefectibly to the Faith transmitted to the Saints once and for all (cf. Judges 3), with right judgement It penetrates into it more deeply and applies it to life more fully.” (Lumen Gentium, 12). The Magisterium, for its own part, ” is not above the Word of God, but is at its service, since it teaches only what has been transmitted (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 10).
It was the Second Vatican Council itself which encouraged all the Faithful and the bishops above all to manifest without fear their worries and observations for the sake of the good of the whole Church. The servile and politically correct are causing a pernicious evil in the life of the Church. The famous bishop and theologian of the Council of Trent, Melchior Cano, O.P., pronounced this memorable phrase: “Peter has not need of our lies and adulations. Those who, with closed eyes and in an indiscriminate manner defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff, are those who compromise most of all the authority of the Holy See. These are destroying Her foundations rather than strengthening them.”
Our Lord taught us, without ambiguity, by explaining in what consists true love and the true joy of love: “He who keeps My commandments and observes them, he is the one who loves Me” (John 14:21). [Francis does not love Christ] In giving men the Sixth Commandment and the observance of the indissolubility of Matrimony, God has given them to all without exception and not only to an elite. Already in the Old Testament, God declared: This commandment which I prescribe to thee today is surely not above your strengths, nor beyond your doing” (Deuteronomy 30:11) and “If you want to, you will observe the Commandments; being faithful will depend upon your goodwill (Sirach 15:15). And Jesus said to all: “If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments. Which ones? And Jesus replied: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery” (Mt. 19:17-18). The teaching of the Apostles has transmitted the same doctrine to us: “Since the love of God consists in the observance of His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). [so let’s cut it off with the idea that marriage fidelity is merely an “ideal”, shall we?]
There is no true, supernatural and eternal life, without the observance of God’s commandments: “I precept you to observe His commandments: I place before you life and death. Choose life!” (Dt. 30:16-19). There is, therefore, no true life nor true joy of authentic love without the truth. “Love consists in living according to His commandments” (2 John 6). The joy of love consists in the joy of truth. The authentic Christian life consists in the life and joy in the truth: “For me there is no greater joy than that which I find in knowing that my sons live obeying the truth” (3 John 4).
St. Augustine explains for us the intimate bond between joy and truth: “I ask all of them if they do prefer the joy of truth to that of the lie. And they do not hesitate here more than for the reply to the question regarding happiness. Because the happy life consists in the joy of truth, all of us want the joy of truth” (Confessions, bk. X, ch. 23).
The danger of widespread confusion in regard to the indissolubility of Matrimony
Already for a time, in the life of the Church, it has been demonstrated that in some places there is a tacit abuse in the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion, without asking them to life in perfect continence. The scarcely clear affirmations in chapter VIII of AL have given new dynamism to the self-declared propagators of this admission to Holy Communion, in single cases, of the ‘divorced and separated’.
We can now establish that the abuse began to spread into practice mostly because it was thought in some manner to be legitimate. Moreover, there is a confusion principally as much as regards the interpretations of the affirmations reported in chapter VIII of AL. The confusion reaches its apex since all, whether the supporters of the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Communion, or those who oppose them, sustain that « The doctrine of the Church in this matter has not been modified. »
With due reckoning of historical and doctrinal differences, our situation shows some similarities and analogies with the situation of general confusion during the Arian crisis of the 4th Century (A.D.). In that epoch, the traditional Apostolic Faith in the Divinity of the Son of God was guaranteed by means of the term, “consubstantial” (homoousios), dogmatically proclaimed by the universal Magisterium of the First Council of Nicea. The profound crisis of faith, with a quasi-universal confusion, was caused principally by refusing, avoiding the use and profession of the word “consubstantial” (homoousios). Instead of using this expression, there was spread about among the clergy and above all the episcopate the use of an alternative formulae which in fine were ambiguous and imprecise, as for example, “similar in substance” (homoiousios) or simply “similar” (homoios). The formula, “homoousios” of the universal Magisterium of that time expressed the full and true Divinity of the Word in such a clear manner as to not leave space for equivocal interpretations.
In the years, 357-360 (A.D.), nearly the entire episcopate had become Arian or semi-Arian on account of the following events: in 357 Pope Liberius [ we did have heretical Popes before] signed one of the ambiguous formulae of (the Council of) Sirmium, in which the term “homoousious” had been eliminated. Moreover, the Pope excommunicated in a scandalous way St. Athanasius. [we did have hugely scandalous heretical Popes before…] St. Hilary of Poiters was the only Bishop to undertake grave remonstrations with Pope Liberius for such ambiguous acts. [we did have scandalous silence of the bishops in front of heresy before] In 359, the parallel Synods of the western episcopacy at Rimini (Italy) and that of the eastern at Seuleukia, accepted expressions which were completely Arian, worse than the ambiguous formula signed by Pope Liberius. Describing the situation of confusion in that epoch, St. Jerome expressed himself thus: « The world groaned and found itself, with shock, to have become Arian » (« Ingemuit totus orbis, et arianum se esse miratus est »: Adversus Luciferianum, 19)
One can affirm that our epoch is characterized by a great confusion in regard to sacramental discipline for the ‘divorced and remarried’. And there exists a real danger that this confusion expands on a vast scale, if we avoid proposing and proclaiming the formula of the universal and infallible Magisterium: « The reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to Eucharistic Communion — can be accorded only to those who, … assume the commitment to live in full continence, that is, to abstain from the acts proper to a married couple.” ( John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, n. 84). This formula is, unfortunately, incomprehensibly [I am kidding here] absent from « Amoris Laetitia ». « Amoris Laetitia », instead, contains, in an all-together inexplicable manner [… and here too], the following declaration: « In these situations (of the ‘divorced and remarried’), many, recognizing and accepting the possibility of cohabitation “as brother and sisters” which the Church offers them, find that, if there are some expressions of intimacy lacking, « it is not rare that fidelity is put in danger and that the good of the children come to be compromised » (Al, 298, footnote 320). Such an affirmation leaves one to think of a contradiction with the perennial teaching of the universal Magisterium, as it has been formulated in the text cited fromFamiliaris Consortio, 84.
It is becoming urgent that the Holy See confirms and proclaims anew, eventually under the form of an authentic interpretation of AL, the cited formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84. This formula could be considered, under certain aspects, as the “homoousios” of our days. [AL introduces elements of heresy sanctioned by the Pope with the complicity or acquiescence of the bishops; a situation so grave as it had not presented itself since the “homoousios” controversy] The lack of a confirmation in an official and explicit manner of the formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84, on the part of the Holy See could contribute to even greater confusion in sacramental discipline with gradual and inevitable repercussions in the field of doctrine. In this manner, one might come to create such a situation to which one in the future could apply the following exclamation: « The whole world groans and finds itself, with shock, to have accepted divorce in practice » («Ingemuit totus orbis, et divortium in praxi se accepisse miratus est »).
A confusion in sacramental disciple in regard to the ‘divorced and separated’, with the consequent doctrinal implications, would contradict the nature of the Catholic church, as She has been described by St. Irenaeus, in the second century (A.D.): « The Church, even though She is spread throughout in the whole world, keeps this preaching and this Faith, which She has received, with the same care as if She lived in one house; and in the same manner, She believes in these truths, as if She had one soul and one heart; She proclaims, teaches and transmits them, with unanimous voice, as if She had only one mouth » (Adversus haereses, Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 2; from the Office of Readings for the Feast of St. Mark, the Apostle, March 25). [ to proclaim that different Countries and social situation may allow priests to bend the truth is heresy].
The See of Peter, that is the Sovereign Pontiff, is the guarantee of the unity of Apostolic faith and sacramental discipline. Considering the confusion which has come to be among priests and bishops in the sacramental practice as much as regards the ‘divorced and remarried’ and as much as regards the interpretation of AL, one can consider legitimate an appeal to our dear Pope, Francis, the Vicar of Christ and « sweet Christ upon earth » (St. Catherine of Sienna), so that He order the publication of an authentic interpretation of « Amoris Laetitia », which should necessarily contain an explicit declaration of the disciplinary principle of the universal and infallible Magisterium in regarding to the admission to the Sacraments (sic) for the ‘divorced and separated’, as it has been formulated in n. 84 of Familiaris Consortio.
During the great Arian confusion of the Fourth Century, St. Basil the Great made an urgent appeal to the Pope of Rome to indicate with his own words the clear direction to obtain finally a unity of thought in faith and charity (cf. Epistle 70).
An authentic interpretation of Al, on the part of the Apostolic See, would bring about a joy in clarity (« claritatis laetitia » for the whole Church. Such a clarity would guarantee a love in joy (« amoris laetitia »), a love and a joy which would not be according to the minds of men, but according to the mind of God (cf. Mt. 16, 23). And this is what counts for the joy, life, and eternal salvation of the divorced who have remarried and for all men.
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan