On both occasions one fact appeared clear: the Cardinal tried, in more than one way, to defend the fiction that Amoris Laetitia (and the Pope who excremented it) is not heretical, and the problems lie somewhere else; like for example Cardinals who dare to ask the Pope if he is really a flaming heretic when the man has stated to Argentinian bishops, and more indirectly on countless other occasions, that he clearly is, or bishops giving instructions to their priests to commit sacrilege because a) they are heretics, and b) they read the document for what it says.
In the second blog post I wrote the following:
Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself
It seems the day of reckoning might be coming faster than even I expected, as the Stalinian Francishounds have now been unleashed after this particular (and not terribly smart) German fox.
When Cardinal Mueller is kicked out (which I expect to happen in Summer, after some months of character assassination from various sources who will never mention him directly) he will have achieved the stunning performance, from a V II perspective, of causing maximum damage to the doctrine of the Church (by choosing to just shut up, though with various contortions and some bonus somersaults), his career, the reputation of his office, and his eternal salvation.
A smart man would have understood where the wind blows and, recognising an inevitable final result, would have chosen to defend the Church as stated in his job description, and to suffer the consequences he would have been suffering anyway (not talking of torture here; merely loss of one office). As a Cardinal, wearing that particular red in order to be continuously reminded of the blood many have spilled – and he is also called to spill – for Christ, there should be no better way to wake up in the morning and look at oneself in the mirror.
Instead, one seems to understand Cardinal Mueller will look at himself in the mirror and see the useful idiot of the Evil Clown: the man who was used to cover Amoris Laetitia for months, then to attack the Cardinals who had dared to be Catholic, and finally to still defend Francis whilst he performs his triple somersaults, and finally discarded when the way of his defence of a heretical Pope was not good enough for Joseph Vissarionovich Bergoglio.
The linked article states once removed from the burden of the office, Cardinal Mueller could become a vocal critic. With all due respect, this is nonsense. No one interested in not losing face could say that he has renounced to defend Christ when he was in the most important position to do so, but now feels he has to relieve his conscience when the office and the power have gone. It would look almost as stupid as it would look hypocritical.
The Cardinal is burned. Actually, he has burned himself. He deserved to be discarded, because he is culpable of the gravest dereliction of duty in a time as grave as this one.
Let’s hope the Evil Clown will substitute him with some open revolutionary heretic. It will make our job easier.
Contortion artists like Mueller are the worst that can happen to us.
If you want evidence that Cardinals are not what they used to be, look at the photo above and the linked article from the Eponymous Flower, and reflect on the following:
- Cardinals used not to use the vulgar gesture the Cardinal uses in the photo; and yes, in Germany everyone understands the meaning. It is also very difficult to think that the Cardinal might have done it “by mistake”. Look at how his second finger is carefully held by his thumb.
- Cardinals used to know what they were talking about. A man so confused that he is able to state, in front of journalists, that he “thinks” that “unanimity prevailed” should take the habit of thinking twice before he speaks. It’s not so difficult to see whether a vote was unanimous or not. Plus, it is clearly a lie that it was.
- Cardinals used to be Catholic. This one here clearly isn’t. Beside the other lie (that AL would be in sync with the two Synods) it is just plain Protestant to say that if a document clearly states something at variance with what the Church has always believed, it is fine for any Catholic to believe the lie.
Cardinals are not as they used to be.
This one is, for sure, much nearer to Friedrich Engels than Jesus Christ.
Barely believable, involuntarily comic interview given by Cardinal Mueller, and reported by One Peter Five.
It is as if the entire exercise took place in a parallel universe, in which those parts of reality we don’t like can simply be excluded at leisure and no one has to give any explanation for it.
Cardinal Mueller’s parallel universe is made this way: Pope Francis is orthodox, but for some strange reason we can’t fathom some bishops insists in interpreting him in the wrong way.
This is like the mother of the mass murderer who, as her son is clearly an angel, pretends to not understand the reason for all the police cars and the sirens outside.
Cardinal Mueller does earn a limited amount of brownie points because he reaffirms Catholic teaching in fairly clear words. But honestly, I don’t think he deserves more than a half chocolate cookie, considering that as the head of the CDF his jobs description includes correcting heresy when officially proclaimed, not denying that heresy has been proclaimed and then proceeding to criticise those who follow exactly the heresy that has been officially proclaimed. It makes me smile to think that this one here is supposed to be the heir to the Inquisitors. I can picture them looking at him from heaven, and shaking their heads.
Now, we know Francis is a ruthless scoundrel, and Cardinal Mueller would get his marching order very fast if he dared to be a full-time Catholic rather than go on mini-break every time Francis is involved in the discussion. Still, the man is deluded if he thinks he can go on with this kind of somersault for very long.
It is in the logic of heresy – and very much so in the bullying nature of Francis – that error be advanced one step at a time. At some point, Cardinal Mueller will be required to either endorse the heresy of Amoris Laetitia in the terms dictated to him by Francis, or go. Francis will not allow for very long to be contradicted by his own “orthodoxy enforcer” in an indirect way. It will be Francis way, or the highway.
This is what every bully does: he bullies only those he feels strong enough to comfortably intimidate and overcome, and targets his victims one at a time. Francis isn’t following any cunning plan. He is merely being his bullying self.
Francis was initially afraid of his bishops and backpedalled at the time of the first Synod. Then he saw he could get bolder, and proceeded to proclaim Amoris Laetitia. Then he started to whisper to Argentinian bishops that the heretical reading of it is the only possible one. Then he started encouraging bishops (Malta, Germany) to openly proclaim heresy as the new standard of orthodoxy. Only an idiot can think that this evil clown will stop there, and that he will not at some point – when he feels he is strong enough for it – demand that heresy be proclaimed and enforced centrally, from the CDF itself.
Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself.
We live in an age of cowardice, opportunism, and careerism only mildly mitigated by vestiges of fear of the Lord, or perhaps by fear of what would happen if Francis were to suddenly kick the bucket (it is allowed to daydream) and a halfway Catholic pope were to be elected in his stead; but this careerism is ultimately useless.
Triple somersaults will not work. Cardinal Mueller’s blindness is at the same time the reason why his words will remain heedless and more and more bishops will conveniently side with heresy, and the reason why he will land in Francis’ sights at some point. It would be better for him to choose the Church and his own salvation instead.
As it is now, his very willed blindness still makes of him merely the useful idiot of the enemies of the Church.
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.
Francis now adds mockery to the heresy and blasphemy already abundantly exhibited in the Apostolic Excrementation.
Asked about the mess he created, he simply dismissed it out of hand with the usual “there are more important things” kind of waffle, and stated he does not even remember the Footnote.
Not only is the man pulling our leg with astonishing arrogance, he is also stating he does not care a straw for the concerns of faithful Catholics!
Perhaps could he make the effort to, actually, pretend to read the darn thing? Not at all! Announce a note of the Vatican with a clarification or, rather, a substitution? God forbid!
No. The man just mockingly dismisses the suffering of millions of Catholics, ignoring them with unspeakable arrogance, as heresy now advances with his clear complicity.
We are living unbelievable times. And they get more absurd every month.
Catholicism is logical. It is a coherent set of rules which fit into each other. They fit so, that if you try to manipulate one of the rules you soon discover this has a domino effect and other rules are affected, creating greater and greater damage.
The Church has always maintained that one who lives in public sin cannot be admitted to the sacrament of confession. The reason is obvious: the Sacrament is not an automatic dispenser of absolution; on the contrary, repentance and firm purpose of amendment are required.
The Church rules are logical. They are merciful, but not dumb. They aren't made for Jesuits, but for Catholics. It being utterly ridiculous that a public sinner may obtain an absolution presupposing a firm purpose of amendment that goes on for exactly the five seconds necessary to get out of the confessional, and then simply goes home to keep living in public sin the Church has always states that, as they say in Italy, here nobody is stupid: first you put an end to the public scandal, then and only then you approach the confessional to obtain absolution for your still not absolved sins of adultery and public scandal.
Nor can any sensible Catholic think even for one second that a person dead to grace (this is what being in mortal sin is) would need, or have any right to ask, that he be absolved from other mortal sins even as he chooses to remains in mortal sin anyway.
It's not a point system. It's not that a major sinner may think he can “improve his mortal sin score” by getting rid of some as he keeps accepting others. To be in mortal sin is to be dead to grace. Dead is dead, and there is no state of being “less dead” because some of the sins are – in hypothesis – absolved. Therefore, there is not only no need at all to have the public adulterer “confess other sins”, but this would be even counterproductive as there is no way this sinner would not go out of the confessional thinking either “absolved is absolved; therefore, I am now in the state of grace” or “I have my mortal sin counts down to one; hey, it could be much worse”. Then the question would pose itself how can a person dead to grace, and who chooses to remain dead to grace, obtain the grace of sincere repentance. Similarly the other question would pose itself on how the priest could, in hypothesis, absolve such a sinner. “Ego the absolvo”, but no communion? What absolution it is, one that leaves the penitent in mortal sin? How can a priest absolve anyone of any sin, who chooses to remain dead to grace?
A person in mortal sin is separated from Christ. The Chuch has always – charitably, and therefore firmly – maintained that such a person has no business trying to go around the point, and must be reminded at all times that when one is in mortal sin there is no fluffing around, and there only one thing to do: put an end to the state of mortal sin. Every other solution would not help the sinner to abandon his sinfulness in the least; on the contrary, it would reinforce him in his deluded idea that he is “almost all right”.
The public sinner must be excluded from communion. He must actually also be excluded from social life, and treated like a pariah in his own environment. He is a public sinner: not only bent for hell himself, but uncaring of the fact his scandal helps Satan to get other souls, too.
There is no way of making a tip-tap dance around this. Public sinner, in mortal sin, dead to grace, and bent for hell. The enforcement of such basic concepts, both on a sacramental and social level, provides the best chance for the sinner to see the error of his way and repent. Every false “acceptance” (and much more so: tampering with the sacraments in any way, shape or form) makes the work of the devil.
Mortal sin and public scandal? No confession unit the scandal has ceased. This is how the Church has always dealt with the matter when Truth came before niceness.
The second part of the reflections originated by the truly beautiful article appeared on the “Remnant” is to do with the way a sound Catholic reacts to the danger represented by a heretical Pope: by destroying his reputation. This cannot, realistically, be done with polite remarks. Too much is the clout of the white cassock for that, however unworthily worn. Besides, I have never noticed the need to treat evil, mortal enemies with white gloves.
No. A sound Catholic will know that this papacy must be crushed; and he will realise that this can only happen with brutal criticism, and utter mockery.
This is what was always done in the past, and it was done because it works. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Charlie Chaplin were recruited in the service of opposing Nazism. They certainly damaged Nazism, in the eyes of millions, more than any comprehensive, well-structured criticism oozing polite, erudite expressions that you can bother to imagine. If you want to destroy your enemy, it is not enough to politely criticise him: you must expose his evil with great forcefulness even as you ridicule him.
Ridicule works. Father Celatus does this very well, too, coining the beautiful expression Pope on a rope. Again, do not think that this is casual, or the fruit of momentary anger. Righteous anger is supposed to do more than expressing our displeasure. Righteous anger is supposed to cause damage. The heretic is supposed to have the mark of ridicule stamped upon him, for him to carry it to the grave and be remembered by it.
Pope on a rope. Boy, this is beautiful.
Pope on a rope. Evil Clown. Pope Dope. These things work. They work, in fact, infinitely better than many an effeminate blog post expressing “surprise” at the “strange” expressions of the oh so holy father; for whom, however, we must at all times all have the strongest affection blablabla.
I must come back here to a point made in the other post: the way you express yourself without says a lot about your priorities within. Father Celatus coins this wonderful “Pope on a rope” expression because to him Christ comes before the modern religion of “politeness”. His priorities have become language, his language has given witness about his priorities.
We must look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves where our priorities lie: the approval of very tepid but very polite Catholics, or the approval of Christ who, if you haven't noticed, often expressed himself in absolutely brutal terms; if you have forgotten it – probably because your NO priest never mentions the fact – I suggest you give the Gospels a good read again. I say Christ comes first, politeness is way back, Francis is not even on the radar screen.
Brutal language impresses itself in the mind of the listener far more effectively than veiled allusions. Ridicule is an extremely powerful instrument to fight evil.
An evil Pope – any evil Pope; Francis may be only the first of a long series – has deserved all the brutal language, and all the ridicule, we are able to throw at him.
The recently posted article of Father Celatus on the “Remnant” is the occasion for a couple of reflections I would like to share with you.
The first thing you notice is the language chosen by this faithful man. Do not think for a moment every word was not carefully weighted.
Whilst we generally owe a filial respect to the Pope, it stands to reason that this applies insofar as the Pope respects Christ and His Church. However, it should come perfectly natural to every faithful Catholic to verbally attack a Pope who attacks Christ. It should be part and parcel of his sentire cum ecclesia that he insults a Pope who insults Her. Why? Because if you don't, it means that to you the defence of the Pope comes before the defence of Christ, so that the latter has limits imposed to it by something that is infinitely inferior, namely: the dignity of a heretical Pope.
Father Celatus insults the Pope; but is a single one of these insults not more than abundantly deserved? Obviously, they are all more than deserved.
Is, then, Father Celatus moved by a personal animosity against the Pope? Of course not. His problem is not with Francis' qua Jorge Bergoglio. His problem is with Francis qua blasphemous and heretical Pope, a wolf instead of a shepherd.
Is, finally, Father Celatus insulting the Papacy itself? You know the answer. It is clear that this good priest has a high respect for the sacredness of the office. It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the abuse of it should enrage him even more.
There will be, no doubt, many who read the good father and think his words wildly inappropriate and uncalled for. I wonder how healthy their faith is.
A strong, deep faith naturally leads one to keenly perceive any offence made to God. An offence made to God is then seen, and rightly so, as infinitely grave, because infinite is the Goodness of the One who is offended. It follows from this that no attack to the Pope can be seen as too harsh, when the One Whom the Pope has attacked is so infinitely bigger than the Pope himself. The only boundary to this must, surely, only consist in what the Church commands under pain of mortal sin: the physical inviolability of the Pope himself, obviously as long as he is Pope. I have no doubt the Evil Clown would, once deprived of his office, not only deserve to be kicked in the ass all the way to Termini station, but also burned at the stake after that; then as our Christian forefathers very well knew, the supreme offence should be met with the supreme punishment.
Alas, we live in times of little faith. If faith is weak, substitute values easily overcome it. Life is deified, and no one can conceive capital punishment, much less the burning at the stake of a heretic. Niceness is deified, and any expression of sharp, harsh criticism is condemned for the mere fact of being unkind. The office of the Pope is deified, and Papolatry becomes widespread. The person of Francis is deified, and he can never be called a lewd minion of Satan, no matter how open his siding with the devil is.
If you have faith, your language will end up reflecting it; because if you have faith you will see Francis' open attacks to truth as direct insults to Christ, slaps to His Holy Face, a new Scourging going on by the hand of the very Pope.
How anyone can have any respect whatsoever for this evil clown is beyond me; or better said, it can only be understood with a faith weak enough that the scale of the offence to Christ is very dimly perceived, so that inferior goods – “niceness”, “polite discourse”, “the respect due to the Holy Father” – appear to him to have precedence.
If someone slapped your mother on the street, you would not engage the aggressor in polite conversation. You would – literally – beat the shit out of him.
And when Our Lord is slapped in the face, will you limit yourself to polite disagreement?
God bless this faithful priest, “Father Celatus” (“celatus” in Latin means “hidden”).
He has a beautiful comment on AL (and Francis in general) here at the Remnant.
More on this as time allows.
Please read this short article, and let it sink in.
With Paragraphs 291 to 295 we are in the part of the Apostolic Excrementation where Francis looks at those shacking up and those in not sacramental marriage (which is shacking up, too; only of a more institutionalised sort) from a Presbyterian/Anglican perspective and, like them, tries to be hip, cool, and “relevant”.
Several justifications are made for public sinners, and there is no evidence of Francis feeling that they are, in fact, living in mortal sin and endangering their salvation. On the contrary, the man approves of “commitment” and blabla, again looking at the “relationship” from a purely secular perspective. The paragraphs from 293 on (“gradualness” in pastoral care) are all inspired by the same sentiment: these good men and women are not in danger of hell. Perish the thought! Look at our committed those public sinners are! Who are we to judge?
This is, of course, heretical mentality through and through. Denial of Christ and his laws. Willful, insisted, burying of Christian morality under a wave of easy, fully secular emotionalism. The language matches the mentality: nothing is condemned, and every mortal sin is an “imperfection” of people who really, really care, but just don’t know it or, you know, can’t spend the money for a church marriage because the great party with 200 people invited comes before the sacrament. Already the fact that “irregular” is always written in inverted commas speaks volumes about the man’s forma mentis.
You can read the paragraphs (if you really want to; not something I am advocating) and immediately become aware of the diffused, ever-present faithlessness that transpires from it. JP II is also abundantly misquoted, abusing him for the edification of a system of systematic avoidance of every sanction, and of every censure, which is the exact contrary of the stated intention of the man (see Familiaris Consortio, par. 84).
The big heretical bomb, however, comes in paragraph 297, where Francis starts by fluffing about in that usual Fag Dalai Lama-way of his, but then piddles outside of the potty-chair in the most tragic of ways, leaving a stinking pool of heresy and blasphemy he insists all the world sees and celebrates:
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Satan is speaking to us very clearly here. Francis, his Number One minion on earth, is expressing to us the following concept:
No one can ever go to hell. Hell is contrary to the logic of the Gospel. And in case you think this only applies to adulterers, well no, hell does not apply to anyone. Christianity is contrary to the logic of the Gospel, you see.
When has a Pope in the history of Christianity spoken a blasphemy the like of this one!? When has a Pope dared to insult Christ in such a way!?
Any Bishop and Cardinal who does not openly condemn this blasphemous attack to Christ’s Infinite Goodness and Justice is a very obvious, very public accessory, through silence, of this heresy and blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you can have no doubt he will rot in hell unless he repents. Yes, this applies to Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Schneider, & Co.
After this absolute peak of satanical blasphemy, Francis goes on explaining to us how to deal with those who not only live in sin, but even think they are right, Christ is wrong, and say so very publicly around them.
How to deal with them? Simple, says the Evil Clown. Allow them to become part of the community. Make them pray together with the others. Make them do some “good deed”. Confuse the faithful even more by having in their midst open enemies of the Church. Destroy in the faithful any sense of sin by showing them how “good” a person dead to grace is, because he is involved in “social work”. Obliterate any consciousness in them that if one dies in mortal sin, no kind of “good work” will ever save them from hell. Allow the bad apple to corrupt the good ones every day of their lives! No one must remain out. No matter how much they are in open enmity with Christ, there will always be some way of inflicting them on the faithful Catholic, that they may be corrupted buy the faithless, the adulterers, the dissenters of all kind!
When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.
There is only way to understand Francis:
Reading Francis through Satan
We live in depressing times. But this does not mean that we have any business being demoralised.
Christ has already won. That stupid, vulgar, ignorant, boorish, lewd clown sitting on the chair of Peter has already lost. You are not only on the right side of history but, more importantly, on the right side of truth.
Obviously, the situation is not exactly exhilarating. But again, it's a matter of perspective. If you think how massively the deception is being promoted, how many – culpably, in various degrees – fall for it, and that you are standing firm in the faith, you should actually feel rather proud (in the good sense) of yourself. You should feel quietly but solidly confident that you are, sinner as we all are, headed in the right direction.
No, I am not demoralised, and neither should you. The stink of heresy – and sycophancy – does make me want to vomit; but this is rather natural given the circumstances. Also, I cannot deny that – however much I try to think of the providential aspect of all this – the astonishing events unfolding in my lifetime make me suffer, and painfully long for the same environment my parents and grandparents grew in. Alas, it's not going to happen. Our generation has been given Francis. Not that haven't deserved him.
Every mother, every soldier will tell you that suffering for someone or something we love has a sweet side to it. Suffering for our betrayed faith also has a redeeming quality, and will encourage us to react by being stronger in our resolve to pray, and do penance, more.
There is truly no reason to be demoralised, and I invite all my readers to not give in, not in the least, to any thought of defeat or surrender. Victory is already won. Our duty consists merely in this: that we are required to fight for this already won battle for the rest of our lives. If the tomb meets us as faithful warriors, what does it matter how long or painful the battle was?
I have no illusions that the rest of our lives will bring more suffering, probably – and particularly for those looking to many decades in front of them – of a much more evident and brutal kind than today's. I see all the signs.
When even open heresy is met by most with nothing more than “puzzlement”, when it is not even openly ignored, you can be pretty sure of this: more and more blatant heresy, more heretical and perverted priests and bishops, more horrid Cardinals and, in the end, more Evil Clowns as Popes. This is what our polite disagreement will bring us, and this is what we have – collectively – fully deserved.
It is only when the Catholic world, or at least a substantial part of it, rises and cries “enough!”, and threatens the Pope with deposition, that things will at least start to change. Up to that point, the “I can't understand the Pope” (thought they do full well) crowd will continue to be the useful idiots of the heretics, and will continue to be led by the nose like the dumb oxes they are.
We know that. We can see decades of suffering coming. But we must not be demoralised.
Our generation has been given the opportunity to do battle for Christ like few others.
Let us feel energised by it. Let us resolve to be faithful soldiers to the end.
This is the war the Lord in His goodness allotted to us. Abandoned by our Bishops and Cardinals, insulted and openly attacked b our very Pope, we can still hear the trumpet calling us to war.
I hear the trumpet loud and clear. Everyone who isn't deaf must at this point react to it. And the trumpet is calling my name, and your name too…
I have only one answer:
The text of the rest of paragraph 305. Emphases, as always, mine.
Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.
This explosive paragraph, that will be condemned by orthodox Catholics as long as this world exists, ends with the usual mixture of platitudes, exaggerations, and implicit attacks to good Catholics.
Even a superficial reading of the Gospel teaches a child that the Gospel isn’t very nuanced. Dozens, hundreds of quotes can be brought as support to this claim, so I won’t insult your intelligence with quotes. If the Gospel is one thing, it is black and white in its uncompromising call to choose between sin and virtue, heaven and hell, this world or the next, Christ or Satan.
However, Francis here also uses his usual method of kindergarten exaggeration, which is very fitting to his kindergarten – if satanical – brain. No, whilst we all must live the fundamental dichotomy between black and white, not everything is black and white. It is Francis who says so i order to let you appear a life in the light of the Gospel as an impossible feat. Which, by the way, is a leimotiv of this entire Apostolic Excrementation.
Francis lets this follow with another of his favourite acts: the attack to faithful Catholics. It is true that the second phrase evidenced in bold could be read in an orthodox way. It is also true that, say, the Hail Mary painfully, perhaps even tentatively said by an atheist as if in the birth pains of a nascent conversion is far more pleasing to Mary than the Hail Mary recited by a devout Catholic, of whom she is sure. However, in Francis the subtext is always the same and is always extremely clear: “You, devout Catholic who live ordered lives and follow the rules: who are you to judge?” Read this in FrancisMode and you will see just this: Francis sees the public sinner who makes some little effort, however insignificant, as just as worthy of receiving communion as the Pharisees who are guilty of having renounced to exactly those sins who now make the sinner, in the eyes of Francis, oh so virtuous.
One wonders whether Jesus, confronted with the adulterous woman, told her: “go, and try to make some small step. This would be far more pleasing to me than the life of someone solidly anchored in the truth”. Francis’ gospel was evidently printed by Satan.
The paragraph concludes with the usual invitation to unhinge Catholic truth by substituting it for a heathenish praxis that is its exact negation. Negation of truth in practice is ipso facto negation of truth. Francis is either too stupid to see this or, far more probably, too evil to care.
Let us continue with our reading (painful as reading this rubbish is) of paragraph 306:
306. In every situation, when dealing with those who have difficulties in living God’s law to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the first law of Christians (cf. Jn 15:12; Gal 5:14). Let us not forget the reassuring words of Scripture: “Maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8); “Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged” (Dan 4:24); “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sins” (Sir 3:30). This is also what Saint Augustine teaches: “Just as, at the threat of a fire, we would run for water to extinguish it… so too, if the flame of sin rises from our chaff and we are troubled, if the chance to perform a work of mercy is offered us, let us rejoice in it, as if it were a fountain offered us to extinguish the blaze”.
The devil can quote from Scripture. Twenty Jesuits, gathered by Francis around a heretical table, can, with much effort, do that too. This is, again, unhinged Chritianity, and a new religion of utter stupidity.
You see this first in the choice of words: an adulterer living in mortal sin receives a massive upgrade to “person dealing with difficulties in living God’s law to the full”, as if his sins consisted in, saying, being too near to the cookie jar. He who thinks in this way has renounced Christianity.
That Francis even dares to quote Saint Augustine is truly hilarious. Saint Augustine lived, at some point, more uxorio with his concubine, and there is not one single word of him that authorises one to think the great Saint saw this as mere “difficulty in living God’s law”.
Furthermore, St Augustine attributes his conversion largely to the reading of the following Bible verse:
Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof
“Make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof”, not “make full provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof, and know that every little step will be greatly praised”.
I am astonished at the continued comments on the blogosphere, according to which this heretical text is either orthodox, or “ambiguous”. It is neither.
It is an open, sustained invitation not only to heretical praxis, but to heretical thinking.
You may refuse any form of heretical praxis. But if you see the preceding statement otherwise, I must question how heretical your thinking has become.
Remember the beautiful reaction of the Bishops at the 2014 Synod? That was the day the pussycat roared.
The indignation was strong, and justified. It was, in fact, obligatory, as many bishops started on that day and in the following ones that they would betray their flock if they just let the abominations of the relatio post disceptationem without denouncing the error.
Do you get that? The bishops felt that they had the duty to denounce error, lest their silence confuses the faithful.
Eighteenth months have passed, and in between another Synod in which, again, thirteen Cardinals had the guts to warn Francis about the consequences of allowing heresy to be proclaimed. It worked again, and whilst the wording of the second relation was weak, it certainly did not contain heresy.
It is, therefore, simply unconscionable that only eighteen (and respectively six) months after these two events a papal document should be released which has every bit of the devastating heresy and blasphemy of the relatio post disceptationem, and the following should happen:
– Most bishops just shut up
– Some talk, and ask us to look the other way, as
– They accuse the faithful and rightly scandalised Catholics of being the ones who confuse the faithful.
It is a u-turn that exposes the weakness and hypocrisy of the same people who, only months ago, were proposing themselves as the guardian of orthodoxy, which btw is pretty much their job description.
Go to aka Catholic and read (twice, actually) the wonderful further analysis (there was a first blog post yesterday) of Louie Verrecchio about Cardinal Burke's (and the others') betrayal of their flock. The analysis is so well-structured and so cogent that I do not need to add anything to it. However, let me add some observations of my own about these days:
1) I must, with sadness, realise that 50 years of V II and three years of Francis have desensitised even faithful Catholics so much, that they consider heresy coming from a Pope something that can be simply swept under the carpet; or which in any way, shape or form can be considered the ground for tactical manoeuvres and “cunning plans”. Ladies and gentlemen, this rubbish is what gave us 50 years of Catholic decline – and, in time, Francis – in the first place. Let us continue this way and our measured reactions to blatant heresy and blasphemy will bring more heresy, more blasphemy, an entirely perverted college of Cardinals, and almost unlimited disgrace for who knows how long.
2) We must recover the very concept of sin. Every sin is an offence to God. Heresy is one of the gravest offences imaginable. Heresy officially proclaimed from a Pope is a disgrace that was, until three years ago, even beyond imaginable. And what should the reaction of our shepherds be? Measured response and polite remarks that this is not – if it is not, and it's a huge '”if” anyway – an instrument of the Ordinary Magisterium?
Who cares a straw how this document ranks! Wake up! The Pope is proclaiming heresy and blasphemy from an official document! What's wrong with you?
Every sin is an offence to God.
Heresy proclaimed from a papal document is like a repeated scourging and spitting of Our Lord' face.
I feel as if Christ were scourged again, none of the apostles were around, and some praised the “intelligent” and “prudent” work of those apostles trying to divert the attention from the scourging, and asking the faithful to focus on the beautiful parables of Jesus instead. Madness. Insanity.
We are living moments of untold gravity. Moment that have only a handful – if any – of precedents in the history of the Church.
If you think that this is the time to play for time and play tactical games, simply ignoring the reality of heresy and blasphemy, in black on white, for all the world to see, V II has damaged you far more than you think.
When was an age in Christianity when an attack of such a scale would have met with such effeminacy? Where was a time in Christianity when heresy was countered by the Bishops with the invitation to ignore it and focus on the rules instead? What the heck is that? Christ is being spit in the face, and the bishops should ask the faithful to… look elsewhere? Christ is being spit in the face, and those who decry it should be the one who give scandal? Insane. Diabolical.
Cardinal Burke has betrayed his flock, big time. So have – or will – all those Bishops and Cardinals who will avoid to denounce heresy. Heresy must be denounced and condemned, not ignored.
There is simply no possible universe in which a Pope can speak heresy and a Bishop or Cardinal is authorised to shut up about it!
This is on Burke's head. How he can sleep, he only knows. This was supposed to be one of our best Cardinals, and he reminds me of a Tory party functionary. This is a man who wears the red reminding him of the blood of the martyrs.
For shame. For shame. For shame.
I have, yesterday, commented on the phrase:
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [Footnote 351 here]
This astonishingly heretical, official papal statement has clearly opened the door for the reception of the Sacraments, because it simply states that even when the objective situation of (mortal) sin is there, this sin could not be mortal. And if the sin is not mortal, grace is not dead in the sinner. And if grace is not dead in the sinner, the sinner should be allowed to go to confession and receive Holy Communion.
If you read again this phrase, you notice there is no strict need for an explicit permission to receive the sacraments. The door is already ajar, with a sign saying “your German foot here”.
But Francis isn’t happy with that. He wants more. He wants to explicitly, in writing, allow the possibility of both confession and communion, spitting in the face of Christ twice in the same paragraph. But he does not want to go too openly about it, because he still fears his bishops (unjustifiably so, would I say on the morning of the fifth day after publication). Therefore, he allows the administering of both sacraments in a footnote.
Let us see the text of this notorious Footnote 351. Emphases, as always, mine:
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 , 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
Note here: the sinner is – in Francis’ satanical worldview – not in mortal sin. Therefore there is, in principle, no reason why sacraments should not be administered. Still, our Jesuit prudently states that in certain cases they might be administered. This is made so that the sacrilege appears “pastoral”, rather than the unavoidable consequence of his satanical way of thinking. It also allows him to open the door only for those who want to open it: the African bishops will not consent to the opening of any door, but the Germans are there waiting to push the door wide open with the shoulder.
The “help” include sacraments. Notice the plural. They must, therefore, be at least two. Which ones are they? The following text leaves no doubt whatever as to which ones they are, because Francis “reminds” and “points out” to exactly them.
The first is the Sacrament of Confession. Francis here quotes himself with one of his extremely stupid kindergarten comparisons (“this is not that”, where “that” is something no one has ever said in the past, but which must make him feel smart). There can be no doubt (unless you are stupid, or retarded, or a Jesuit; no, actually if you are a Jesuit you have no doubt at all) that Francis is here authorising the admitting of public adulterers to confession, in an official papal document.
The second is the sacrament of communion. Another extremely stupid kindergarten comparison is served, because Francis loves to humbly quote from… himself. It’s there, black on white, spelling damnation for reprobates.
I have no words to express my outrage, and those I might have cannot be published.
Before anyone produces himself in an exercise of “extreme Jesuitism” and tells me that Francis does not explicitly say, verbatim, “public adulterers are therefore allowed, in certain circumstances, to be admitted to the sacraments of both confession and communion”, I must (after insulting their stupidity; which is, at this point, both salutary and obligatory) ask them how they would interpret the following statements:
A) Heinrich Himmler writes to his camp directors the following instruction: “Jews must be exterminated. In certain cases, this can include the help of mechanical devices and chemical means. I want to remind camp officers that Zyklon B is not rosewater. I would also point out that crematoria are not storage containers, but a powerful way of getting rid of unwanted waste”.
B) A Ku Klux Klan chief sends the following message to his group leaders: “Blacks are an inferior race and must be kept submissive. In certain cases, this can include physical punishment. I want to remind you that hanging from a tree tends to calm down unruly individuals. I also points out that lynching isn’t great fun for the individual affected, but a powerful way of punishing one in order to educate one hundred”.
I wonder who is the man so retarded, so unbelievably stupid or, far more probably, so twisted and in bad faith that he would like to make the case with you that Heinrich Himmler is not directing his subjects to the use of crematoria and Zyklon B, and the Ku Klux Klan leader is not directing his chiefs to the use of hanging and lynching.
Francis, you evil clown, I have bad news for you. You may think we are stupid, but we aren’t. You may think that you can hide behind your finger, but you are far too openly heretical for that. You may think that you will deceive your critics, but you will only deceive those firmly intentioned to be deceived, and willing to ignore reality at any cost. In the same way as anyone would call twisted and in bad faith those who would refuse to draw the only logical consequence from the statements A) and B) above.
Let me close these remarks with an obvious, but rarely heard, statement: a Pope making openly heretical statements in an official papal document is worse than any KKK chief, worse than Himmler, worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin. He is, without any doubt, Satan’s Numero Uno here on earth.
There is no comparison whatsoever, there is not even a comparison in kind, between the massive destruction of perishable mortal bodies and the worldwide attack on Truth, and on immortal souls of infinite value, perpetrated by the Truth’s first and foremost representative on Earth.
Francis is Number One enemy of humanity. Stalin does not even come close. Not only in this generation, but possibly of all times. I struggle to find in history a man so dangerous to so many not in their ultimately perishable bodies, but in their immortal souls. Mohammed might qualify; but you see, Mohammed was clearly recognisable as not a Christian. This one is an inside job.
It is as if Stalin, or Mohammed, or Satan himself had become Pope. None of the three would, upon being elected Pope, proceed to openly proclaim their false religion or wicked ideology. They would not be as stupid as that.
They would use footnotes instead.
Cardinal Burke has given an interview to the NCR about Amoris Laetitia, and he was worse than lame.
Faced with a poisoned cake and asked about it, the Cardinal chooses to simply ignore the poison. Rather, he promotes the eating of the cake as if there was no poison in it.
The fact is: the poison is there, and the Cardinal has no business whatever simply ignoring it. As a Bishop and Cardinal, it is exactly his duty to warn the faithful about the poison, and to condemn the one who baked the poisoned cake.
Burke becomes even worse than that, when he implies that not the heresies in the text, but the strong reactions of the Catholic laity confuse the faithful. No, Your Grace, it is not the lay bloggers who confuse the faithful; it is the like of you who do it, indicating that open heresy can be simply ignored when it is leading people to hell every day. This behaviour would be unacceptable in any bishop, and it is utterly unworthy of a Prince of the Church.
Almost as lame is the other astonishing statement, that an apostolic exhortation has no juridical value. This is neither here nor there. Amoris Laetitia is an official papal statement packed with heresy and blasphemy, which cannot be simply ignored merely because the heresies and blasphemies therein contained have no official canonical value.
Of course there is some value in the Cardinal's words, as he points out that truth can't be changed anyway. But this is simply besides the point. The Catholic world was not waiting for the Cardinal to tell us whether truth can change. It was waiting for him to do his job as Bishop and Cardinal and condemn heresy!
Besides, the Cardinal can simply not pretend not to know that the subversion of Catholic doctrine evidently planned by the Pope and his minions does not go – nor could it ever do – through official, legally sanctioned, proclamation of heresy, but through the allowing of an heretical praxis vigorously, brutally defended and openly promoted by the very words of a Pope.
Shame on you, Cardinal Burke! Millions of devout Catholics stun in disbelief at the extent of the blasphemous and heretical effrontery, and all you can do is to invite them to look the other way!
Heresy cannot simply be swept under the carpet. It is happening now, even as the life of the Church is being split in two in the very basics of Catholic thinking.
To pretend that this can be countered simply by inviting the faithful to be faithful is not good enough.
The Cardinal was called to roar, and he has meowed. No doubt, many others will do like him. On his head be it.
I keep hoping and praying that, among our bishops and Cardinal, some men will still be found.
For the moment, I have heard only of a pussycat.
Prepare to hear many more like him.
The text (as always, all emphases mine):
305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.
[to be continued]
One does not even know where to begin. Almost every word here is a slap in the face of Christ.
it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives, etc.
Unspeakable arrogance. Blasphemy. Our Lord did exactly what Francis condemns. Francis clearly implies the following:
that Our Lord simply did not do enough by applying the moral law to the adulterous woman;
that he threw stones at her;
that he had a closed heart of one used to hide behind’s His Church’s teachings;
that he was “sitting on the chair of Moses” judging with superiority (how could anyone think he is morally superior to an adulteress?) and superficiality the “difficult case” of the woman;
Then Francis hides behind the finger of an International Commission or other, which insults Our Lord in the following ways:
Our Lord should not have presented the moral law as something that applies to the woman a priori;
rather, the adulteress should have used the moral law merely as a source of objective inspiration;
this objective inspiration should have helped her in her deeply personal process of making decision.
Mind: this process is deeply personal. Our Lord can not simply sit there “on the chair of Moses” and tell the woman “go, and sin no more”? How superior, how superficial is that? Is it not throwing stones at the poor, wounded adulteress?
You would think this is enough for a heretical paragraph. You would think this is enough blasphemy. It isn’t.
It is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace,
No. It is not possible. The objective situation of sin (living more uxorio) creates an objective scandal. This scandal is, therefore, objectively a mortal sin. The mortal sin ipso facto excludes from communion. No one gives a Francis whether the woman thinks the Blessed Virgin appeared to her and ordered her to keep living in sin. The situation is objectively scandalous, the sanction is objective impossibility to receive.
This is so much so, that the adulterer is not even allowed to go to confession. This is beautifully coherent with the premise. As long as an objective situation of mortal sin persists, it is unthinkable that anyone may think he can walk to the confessional, repent on the moment and go back to his objective situation of sin immediately thereafter; a situation of sin that was never even interrupted. It is absurd. It is the very negation of what the Sacrament of Confession is there for. Therefore, coherently the Church has prescribed, and still prescribes, that a public adulterer living in scandal cannot receive until the situation of objective scandal ceases.
A person in objective mortal sin is a person objectively dead to grace. There is no grace in him. This is why it is called mortal sin: because it is mortal. The only thing that can restore grace is repentance and contrition in the proper way (perfect or imperfect according to the situation). But until that happens, there is no grace in a person in mortal sin.
What this evil clown is trying to smuggle to you as Christianity is this: that even in the most evident situations of objective mortal sin, a mortal sin may not exist. The public sphere of the behaviour is completely neglected, washed away as a mere accident. A public situation of adultery is downgraded to a merely “irregular” situation, which might or might not be a mortal sin. Worse still, the assessment of whether this “irregular” situation is or is not, in the concrete case, a mortal sin, is not something that, say, a priest (which would be blasphemy enough) decides. No. This is a situation about which the deeply personal process of making decisions of the adulterer should decide.
The adulterer becomes his own Christ, who changes Christ’s rules. The new rules decides that he is his own priest, who can assess the matter individually instead of according to objective situations. This new lay priest can then, indeed, decide that his own mortal sin isn’t such.
The public sinner has become judge and jury. Christ has no place in this process. No one else has. It would be “throwing stones at people’s lives”.
Paragraph 305 goes on with more rubbish, and with the notorious Footnote 351. This paragraph is so full of… Francis that I must break it in at least two parts. God pleasing, the rest of the paragraph will be commented tomorrow. For the moment, I offer this reflection:
When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.
Keep this in mind, and it will do you a lot of good in your path towards salvation.