A document of openly Satanic inspiration has now been published by the Bishops of Malta. It goes, if possible, even further than Francis, in that the sacrilege that Francis introduced by way of footnotes and stupid rhetoric is now made explicit, and officially sanctioned, and called being “at peace with God”. As if there existed a Catholic universe in which it is the sinner which decides whether he is worthy of being admitted to Communion, or altogether in mortal sin (notabene: if fornication is unavoidable, then the relevant sin of adultery is clearly not imputable).
Do not, even for a moment, delude yourself that this was not what Francis had in mind from the very start. However, the plan would have been thwarted very soon, if the bishops and cardinals had spoken like, well, Catholics when the time had come.
I needed a number of hours to calm down after reading this – let me say this again – utterly satanical garbage. However, one thing was clear from the very first moment: Cardinal Mueller astonishing affirmation that Amoris Laetitia affirms the traditional Church teaching becomes more absurd every day, as we have entire bishops’ conferences openly embracing heresy and sacrilege.
What will cardinal Mueller now do? Will he swiftly act and rebuke, silence and threaten the Maltese bishops? Surely, nothing else can be expected from him now?
I would suggest that you do not hold your breath.
I would also suggest that you look at reality in the face here, and recognise that cardinal Mueller isn’t really better than these sons of a whore, selling Christ for even much less than pieces of silver, and merely for the comfort of mob approval for the rest of their atheist, very probably accursed lives.
A very dark pit awaits them, unless they repent. Which, by the scale of the cheerleading for Satan, is rather improbable.
I have already written that in this just begun 2017 we will have to get accustomed to a lot of absurd talk. It seems to me the recent interview of the Remnant with Cardinal Burke constitutes another example.
Let us leave aside Burke’s initial triple salto mortale, when he states again (make no mistake: to try to justify five months of shameful inaction) that Amoris Laetitia “is not an exercise of the papal magisterium” – an obvious, blatant contradiction with his actions from September on – . What I would like to focus on today is the following Q&A.
MJM: So what’s next, Your Eminence? If Pope Francis fails to answer your dubia, what’s the next course of action? You’ve spoken of the possibility of elevating this to a formal correction. But what exactly does that look like?
Cardinal Burke: Well, it doesn’t look too much differently than the dubia. In other words, the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected. Does that make sense to you?
No, it does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to me because it does not make sense at all.
A correction is, by definition, the stating of what is wrong together with the affirmation of what is right. My teachers at school did not write the correct spelling alongside the wrong one; they barred the wrong spelling, and put the right one in its place. That was wrong, but this is right.
What the Cardinal is stating now equates to saying – and I do not see any other interpretation of this – that the Cardinals would publish a statement of what is right without even daring to explicitly say what is wrong with Amoris Laetitia.
This is not a correction. This is not even a criticism. This is first-class V II meowing.
Such an exercise does not need to be preceded by Dubia. The Cardinals could have done it anytime. Such a reaction would, actually, justify the criticism that the Dubia were uncalled for in the first place. In short: Cardinal Burke’s answer is utter baloney.
The only logical consequence of the refusal of the Pope to answer the Dubia is the open condemnation of the relevant AL points as heretical, and the rebuke of the Pope who refused to set things right by answering the Dubia.
From this another logical necessity follows: that if the Pope keeps refusing to answer the Dubia and openly set things right, he must be declared a heretic himself.
It’s as simple as that. There is no escape from it. If Cardinal Burke thought he did not have the mettle for this, he was a fool in issuing the Dubia in the first place, much less publishing them.
I have been criticised for being sceptical about Cardinal Burke. But the fact is that I do not have a high degree of confidence in someone who, after an unprecedented attack to the faith, first criticises those who want to defend it and then awaits five months before he does something. This interview is, to me, another demonstration that Cardinal Burke must earn the confidence of faithful Catholics rather than think that, as he is one of the very few prelates meowing, the faithful will stand in awe in front of such magnificence.
No, the Cardinal’s plan does not make sense at all. It is the worst of V II cowardice and betrayal of Truth. It is like a government issuing an ultimatum and then, when the ultimatum is not complied with, proceeding to declare “disagreement” instead of war. It’s a loss of face, and the man is a fool if he thinks he can meow and be hailed as a Catholic lion. If he does what he says he will lose face, big time. Not for the first time.
Do not put your faith in any V II prelate until he has earned it, no matter how long his cappa magna.
These here are fair-weather shepherds.
In a year that will be, I am afraid, rich in absurdities and completely nonsensical statements Cardinal Mueller has made a rather desperate, completely illogical, and ultimately not very intelligent attempt to take Francis’ chestnuts out of the fire without burning him, or himself.
The cardinal manages the astonishing feat of stating both that there is no contradiction between Francis’ Amoris Laetitia and the teaching of the Church, and that it is wrong for the Cardinals to ask him to say so.
If Francis believes that there is no contradiction, then it should be no problem at all for him to answer the dubia in the only possible way. Seriously, this is something that Mueller and Francis (seen the atrocious ignorance of the latter) could settle over breakfast every morning. Three minutes. Five, tops.
Cardinal Mueller also fails to notice the growing number of FrancisBishops, from various parts of Europe and the Americas, who actually openly proclaim that Francis’ excrementation has, actually, changed doctrine, and the great confusion and danger for the faith this causes.
Francis is an ignorant boor unable to see further than his nose, a vulgar peasant completely out of his depth. But there can be no doubt that Cardinal Mueller knows better than this nonsense, and is fully aware of the non-existence of even the pretense of a case for non answering the Dubia.
Finally, the Cardinal avoids a fundamental question: how on earth it is justifiable that a Pope would allow such an open quarrel to happen, without saying – in Mueller’s mind – what he already thinks. If my enemy asks me to confirm that two and two is four, and threatens me with world war unless I confirm this elementary truth, I will not be the one who remains silent about what I myself believe, just in order to show the world that I should not have been asked whether two and two is four in the first place. Such a reasoning would show an arrogance, a contempt for the faithful and the Church, a childishness, an utter lack of any form of adult thinking, that shames the one who should act in this way almost as much as the open proclamation of heresy.
In the end, though, Cardinal Mueller’s message means this: “I have tried to make the old man see reason, but he is stubborn like the Argentinian donkey he is. Therefore, the Dubia will have no answer, and I am the one who must now go in front of the journalists’ block notes and try to justify the unjustifiable (because, clearly, I have no intention of putting my own office on the line)”.
It goes without saying that Mueller has now officially made of himself an accomplice of the Pope. If he thinks he can escape the judgment of both history and his Lord simply by hiding behind his finger, he is not much smarter than Francis.
I hope the Cardinals understand the signals and deliver their private ultimatum to the Evil Clown soon. After which, they will have to prove their mettle, and put an end to this absurd madhouse discussion by stating what every Catholic has the right to be told:
that Francis spreads heresy, and is a heretic himself.
Of all disgusting wannabe Catholics who infest the wannabe “c”atholic press, probably the most disgusting are those who want to appear moderate, or conciliatory, by suggesting that the tones have become too heated, and it is now time to, as they say, turn down the heat on the matter.
Some people really don’t get it, or else they pretend they don’t.
Truth is the most important thing there is on this planet. Compared to it, “niceness” does not even appear on the radar screen. To ask for a verbal truce when a war for our souls is raging is exactly the same as asking for a kinder way to converse with Satan lest the proper manners are forgotten.
It boils down to this: if for you Catholic Truth is sacred, nothing else count in comparison to it. There is literally nothing else that can be seen with a binocular.
If, however, to you it’s not really important whether sacrilege becomes an accepted, officially (albeit heretically) sanctioned part of Church life, or perhaps you even secretly wish that it be so, then certainly priorities will align and a Rodney King moment will emerge: can we all just get along, please? We would like to sanction sacrilege a little piece at a time, and it’s so difficult if you make all this noise.
No, we can’t get along. We won’t get along with heretics inside Holy Mother Church. We will not be stopped by people who don’t care for the Church calling us “nasty”. War is nasty, and it is luxury enough when the war is only verbal.
This is not a time for peace, or niceness. This is a time for war, and for calling a heretic a heretic. And no, there will never be a “both/and” when Christ has said it’s “either / or”. Everything else comes straight from Satan.
The Evil Clown can stop this madness, if he has a brain. Does he have a brain? I don’t know. I suspect him of eating shit, so it’s difficult to gauge the reactions of such a one. But one thing I know: if the man does not back off he deserves the nuclear explosion that will follow, and such an outcome is about one million times preferable than letting widespread, mainstream, everyday sacrilege enter the sacramental life a bit at a time, for the sake of moderate tones.
We will all die one day. I would not want to go to my judgment after having lived worrying about tones, rather than truths.
Only hours after I have written my blog post about some Cardinals’ (far too slow) reaction to Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Burke has doubled down in an interview with Edward Pentin.
The interview is very clear on one point: there is no intention of stopping here, and this matter will be pursued further. I quote:
[Q]What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
[A] Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
A “formal act of correction of a serious error” can only be a formal declaration concerning the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If this happens (it is still a big “if”), then we would have a big step in the right direction, because there is no way Francis can save face when one or more Cardinals declare one of his documents heretical. His pontificate would be in tatters, destroyed for all eternity.
Note here that, the perennial teaching of the Church being easily discernible, this declaration would be much different than, say, a bunch of homo Jesuits declaring a hypothetical Pope Pius XIII a “heretic” because he doesn’t follow the Gospel of Fidel. In both cases every sound Catholic, even of the thicker sort, would immediately recognise who is right and who is wrong.
The question is now whether the Cardinals will let actions follow words. I am healthily sceptical on this, because I can’t but notice that the widespread revolt of the Bishops during the first synod (aka the day the pussycat roared) was followed by the most scandalous silence when Amoris Laetitia was published. However, I must say this is a new situation, and a couple of people are now leaning very far out of the window. We should pray that they have the strength to continue on this path, and that other pussycats (basically all bishops and cardinals, with a handful of exception) find a backbone somewhere and start doing their job.
We shall see how this pans out. We have been betrayed when Amoris Laetitia was published, and I therefore will suspend my judgment until I see real action taken. The real action is what should have happened in April: a formal, official, public denunciation of the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If you look at the recent past, you have The Abbe’ de Nantes’ Liber Accusations in Paulum Sextum, Liber Accusationis Secundus (against JP II) and the third Liber Accusationis against the new Catechism as useful guides.
If you ask me, nothing less will suffice.
We have had a situation of officially proclaimed heresy since April. Finally, timidly, something starts to happen. And once again it was the outrage of the Catholic laity, and the openly proclaimed condemnation of our cowardly clergy, that paved the way for this action.
I’d say we are past the kittens’ meowing. Clearly, there are some angry cats around.
But I still can’t see any serious scratching.
“What is a “Dubia”? Bush 43?”
A comment on another post stated I have misunderstood Cardinal’ Burke’s initial reaction to Amoris Laetitia. However, this is not the case.
As I already wrote here, the Cardinal initially not only proposed an absurd reading of the document, but he also criticised those who criticise it. It is fair to say those who criticised the document (and the Cardinal with it) are now officially vindicated.
These were the very words of the Cardinal. Emphases mine.
The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.
It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, safeguards and fosters by her discipline.
It’s not that I want to rub salt on the wounds, but if we want to understand what is happening now we must understand what did (and did not) happen in April: either silence, or criticism of concerned Catholics.
However, that was Burke 1.0. In the meantime, we appear to have Burke 2.0, or at least Burke 1.5. The man has a good heart and a sincere faith, and I think he was very uncomfortable with his position (and with the criticism it attracted) from the start. It may well be that the famous letter of the Evil Clown to the Argentinian bishop taking a position on the heresy might have persuaded him that silence was no longer compatible with the health of his soul, as the letter to Francis is dated around one week after that event.
It is nothing short of amazing that a Pope writes 200 pages of heresies, and all Cardinals to one man stubbornly refuse to see the omnipresent heretical manure; but one additional letter (merely stating, and very rightly so, that a heretical interpretation of a heretical document is the only correct one) triggers what is, up to now, a kitten’s revolt of sort.
We are, now, in a very simple situation: those who have barked will have to bite (or to stay with the metaphor: those who have meowed will have to scratch), or lose face twice.
The Evil Clown has four choices:
- do nothing (my pint is on this)
- answer “no” and refute heresy
- answer “yes” and confirm heresy
- answer with some Franciswaffle
What the “rules” are is irrelevant. If the Pope does not want to answer he will simply not answer, end of story. If he wants to waffle, he will waffle. This is one who does not kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Canon Law is nothing to him.
Now the kitten have meowed. Consequently, anything but a clear refutation of the heresies contained in Amoris Laetitia must lead to an official proclamation of the heresy of both the document and the Pope. Everything else will make of this little more than an exercise in meowing.
This is the way of things with the defence of orthodoxy. It is difficult to do it by half. Many journalists and bloggers got that a long time ago.
One dares to hope at least four Cardinals have come to the same conclusion.
You read it correctly. This is what the man said.
This is, of course, part of the evil plan to destroy Sacraments in which he does not believe, and damage the Church he hates.
This is, plainly, Pope Francis The Atheist speaking.
The attack to Communion and Marriage goes through the attack to the sacramental life of every Catholic.
According to the Evil Clown, your marriage is likely invalid. Means your “divorce” and “remarriage” are ok. Not ok for Catholicism, of course, because for Catholicism you are still a concubine living in public sin. But ok for Francis because, if you are “committed”, who is he to judge? Therefore, you can receive communion anyway, and also go to confession, which is not made for the saints but for sinners.
Bam. Three sacraments torpedoed in one go. I suspect this is the usual childish, stupid reaction to the continued criticism of Amoris Laetitia. “Why do you keep blabbering about marriage?” – asks the man – “it's all rubbish anyway!”.
Please, Lord, rid us of this tool soon!
The last Pussycat Cardinal who has (almost) meowed against Amoris Laetitia is Cardinal Caffarra; one, I must say, of those from which faithful Catholics were most entitled to expect morew than meowing, seen that he co-author books about the matter.
Caffarra is somewhat more critical than Burke, who asks you to just neglect what the Pope says because hey, it’s not magisterial. He even (put here some cries of surprise) criticises the text as “objectively unclear”. But this is a very, very poor show when a Cardinal is called to express his opinion on a text that is openly blasphemous and heretical.
I can’t avoid imagining Luther has been elected Pope, and issues an apostolic exhortation with a clear subtext in many of his paragraphs (say: 298, and 301 to 305; and many others reflecting the heretical spirit of the work) stating that scripture only is the supreme authority in matter of theology. This, of course, mixed with some other parts (because remember: Luther is the Pope now!) which seem more orthodox when taken in isolation. Then Pope Luther adds a footnote stating that, in certain circumstances, faith alone saves.
After that, imagine the following reactions:
Most Cardinals just shut up.
Cardinal Burcus, once believed a fine Catholic theologian, says this is not a problem, because the document is not magisterial. You are bad if you make a ruckus.
Cardinal Caffarrus says that hey, there are some parts that are “unclear”, but no worries: where Pope Luther says that faith alone saves you just read the contrary of what he said; because you see, we must read heresy in the light of truth. Come on, a footnote is not enough to proclaim heresy. When the Pope proclaims heresy from a footnote, you just ignore the footnote. And all the rest, by the way.
Only Cardinal Sartor*, episcopus auxiliarius out of a very far away diocese, has the guts to say that the work has to be re-written.
Only one bishop, out of very probably more than 10,000 among diocesan and auxiliary (if memory serves, only the diocesan bishops exceed 8,000), had the guts to talk. This is the situation we are in.
Like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Caffarra can keep his criticism for himself. If he can’t call a spade a spade and a heresy a heresy he has no business being a bishop, much less a cardinal.
These people (bar Schneider) are dancing with Luther. All of them.
* (hint: “Schneider” in German means “tailor”)
I read around considerations about modifying Amoris Laetitia, perhaps getting rid altogether of the worst of the worst (footnote 351). Whilst something is better than nothing, and a modification is better than doing nothing, I do not think it can be said that such a view would be the best one; much less that the other view (withdrawal) should not be pursued or is impracticable.
It may well be that never an official papal document has been withdrawn. However, never was a papal document as horribly wrong, sacrilegious and blasphemous as this one is. New ailments require new medicines. Besides, as far as I know entire councils have been withdrawn. We aren't, therefore, so much into uncharted territory here.
The decision or the evaluation whether a document should be withdrawn does not depend from the factual probability of this happening. It depends from it being right, or wrong, that such a document be withdrawn. If it is right to withdraw the entire document, then this demand must be made unceasingly.
Nor is it relevant that Pope Francis will never withdraw the document. Again, if the battle is right, the outcome has no bearing on its righteousness. Besides, papal documents are destined to exercise an influence well beyond the Pope who promulgated them. The battle for the withdrawal of Amoris Laetitia will outlive Francis, and possibly all of us, but it will be victorious one day.
It also cannot really be said that if Footnote 351 were to be removed, then the world would be if not right, at least acceptably wrong. Amoris Laetitis is rotten at its core, in the very secular thinking which inspired it. The rejection of AL must be just as total as the secular principles behind it are totally wrong. This blog and many others have shown that the problem isn't the footnote, it's the document as a whole and the mentality that gave birth to it.
Another argument can be made in favour of withdrawal: that seen the number of weaklings within the Vatican, only a robust call for withdrawal can achieve the result of amendment. Asks for amendments, and you'll get either nothing or cosmetic reformulations (insert Pollyannas' little cries of joy here). But let a powerful call for withdrawal rise from the Catholic world, and suddenly robust amendments become a very concrete option, perhaps even in our lifetime.
Finally, there is a broader consideration to be made. The request that the document be modified, (that is: improved), still allows the Evil Clown to, in a way, save face. In sharp contrast, the demand that the document be altogether withdrawn is, unavoidably, an indictment not only of AL, but of Francis' pontificate itself. This element is not to be underestimated, because the ability of the Evil Clown to confuse Catholics is directly linked to his credibility as good, or bad, or obscenely evil, holder of the sacred office entrusted to him.
For all these reasons it is absolutely right that faithful Catholics insist, not only now or as long as the Evil Clown remains in power, but for all generations to come and until victory, that AL be withdrawn.
Over 100 pro-life and pro-family leaders from all over the world leapt to their feet in applause at a meeting in Rome on Saturday after hearing a call for Pope Francis to withdraw his controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
LifeSiteNews reports (please read the rest following the link). Yours truly comments.
It is indicative of our times that not one bishop, not one had the guts to ask for the Apostolic Excrementation to be withdrawn. The strongest words we had from one (1) Bishop asking for it to be rewritten. But this here is the right attitude: Amoris Laetitia is wrong in its deep roots, in the very foundations of its thinking. It must go down the drain.
Once again (as in the case, already reported, of the Veri Catholici conference) the call for orthodoxy comes from the laity whilst the clergy is silent. May the angels look on them, and ask the Lord that they be punished is a fitting way unless they repent.
I receive occasionally links about this or that Cardinal opening his mouth for orthodoxy when it’s comfortable to do so, or when the audience agrees with what he says. Far too easy. Truth cannot be defending only in season. These whitened sepulchres do not impress us. They are silent in the bigger issues, they will not get away with talking in the lesser ones. They are sluts in red or purple, preaching virginity to girls even as they go very publicly publicly fooling around every day. Traitors. Hypocrites. Whitened sepulchres.
The silence of the clergy is deafening. It is up to us, the laity, to defend Truth after the treason of our shepherds.
The laity is acting. Catholics will not be fooled. Those who will be fooled aren’t Catholics, have not deserved to be Catholics, and have no excuses.
I invite all bloggers to publicise all events against Amoris Laetitiae. I also invite them to never mention a supposed “orthodox” interview of some supposed “faithful” Bishop or Cardinal without making clear that this very Bishop or Cardinal has chosen to be silent when he had to speak, and continues to be silent when he has to speak; and that, therefore, no one of them is faithful, not one, but Bishop Schneider.
The clergy has deserted. It is up to us.
I have already written about the sterling work of Veri Catholici.
The announced conference to condemn the Apostolic Excrementation is now officially launched. The hashtag is #ALConf.
It is a mystery to me how there should be people around – people, I mean, who are not certifiably insane or clearly retarded – who do not see the immense damage that this pontificate in general and Amoris Laetitia in particular are causing to the Church and to the Faithful.
The clergy is being silent. The laity will have to speak. It has already happened in the past, in circumstances much harder than today and in which there was no precedence; still, the laity remained strong then, and those of us who are still sane Catholics will remain strong now.
Therefore, there is no reason to be afraid, much less waver in our faith and determination to defend truth no matter who has the temerity and arrogance to attack it.
Wake up, Catholic laity, and let the world hear your voice.
Our stupid clergy can send themselves to hell without us.
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”.
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.
I have, in the meantime, accurately read the beautiful intervention of the Bishop.
Let me make a couple of preliminary observations:
- Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly call the document heretical, or blasphemous.
- 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…)
Wonderful article of Catholic Family News' John Vennari about the heretical “situation ethics” not only contaminating, but constituting the very backbone of Amoris Laetitia.
This is a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental mistake, the all-pervading heresy of this astonishingly evil document. All is explained in concise and precise, but very understandable terms. This article is probably intellectually accessible to anyone past the age of, say, twelve.
Please, dear reader, follow the advice of the article's author, and work as you can within your sphere of influence to warn as many as you can from the poisonous effects of heresy and error shamelessly promoted from the very Successor of Peter. Facebook, Twitter, and email are probably all morally licit means, however obscene Facebook and Twitter may be.
Please post on your blog, on your Facebook “wall” (if it's called that way) , wherever you think it might help. For ten who ignore it, one might be moved to change his life for the better.
We are not asked to defeat the Enemy single-handedly. We are asked to do what we can to to damage him.
When I read this, it took my breath away.
In a sort of repetition of the Miracle of Lanciano (if you are Italian, you have probably heard of it; if you aren’t, I don’t know) a host was proven to have transformed in distressed cardiac heart tissue. The stunning conclusion of the research ordered by the ecclesiastical authorities read thus:
In the histopathological image, the fragments of tissue have been found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. (…) The whole (…) is most similar to the heart muscle with alterations that often appear during the agony. The genetic researches indicate the human origin of the tissue.
As father Z very rightly points out, Not just normal heart tissue, but distressed heart tissue.
Feel free to take some breath before going on.
This is, literally, huge. Not only the miracle in itself is another stunning demonstration to us, of little faith, that Christ is always with us; but the distressed heart tissue adds another layer of breathtaking beauty.
The miracle happened on Christmas Day in 2013, the year that will remain in infamy forever. The official announcement of the miracle happened in 2016, another year that will remain in infamy forever.
The Country blessed with such an astonishing, fully undeserved demonstration of Our Lord’s undying love for us is Poland, a Country that so much suffered for the Faith, and so much gave to it.
A country, too, whose Bishops staged a unanimous insurgency against the Relatio post disceptationem in 2014, very fittingly stating that it was not only a betrayal of the Church, but an offence to JP II.
These very Bishops appear, at least to my knowledge, to remain stubbornly silent after the Pope himself released an official papal document spitting not only in the face of JP II but also, and very evidently, spitting in the face of Christ: openly, insistently, shamelessly.
Pearls to the Bishops.
May they find the courage to speak up, or repent of their cowardice, or pay forever the price of their own arrogance.