[This entry has been updated. You may need to refresh your browser.]

THE MOST important thing to bear in mind when considering Amoris Laetitia, the “apostolic exhortation” from “Pope” Francis on marriage and family, aside from the fact that Francis does not possess the authority to guide Catholics given that he himself rejects certain Catholic dogmas, is the context. We live in an age of moral relativism. That is the context. The last thing people need to be told today is that everyone’s situation is different, that ethics are ambiguous. Everyone knows that. What everyone does not know, what most people do not know, is that ethics are not situated primarily within the purely human realm but within the mystical connection between God and man. Jorge adds fuel to the already raging inferno of naturalistic moral relativism — and worse. He has, as was widely anticipated through the charade of a democratic process, opened the door to reception of the sacraments to those who are living in objective sin. He does it through the modernist’s trump card: the theological loophole, which is a perversion of the compassion due to individuals in a variety of difficult circumstances. God loves the repentant sinner. Jorge loves the unrepentant sinner.

The home-wrecking pseudo-pontiff once again attacks Holy Church in his diabolically crafty, lovespeak way, accusing those who have upheld and taught the moral law — and who thereby protect the young and rejected spouses — of throwing stones at people’s lives and possessing a “closed heart.” From his exhortation:

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”.349 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”.350 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.351 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”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.

God, according to Joyful Theology, has thrown stones at people: “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?”

Joyful Theology is a condemnation of the Church’s perennial teaching and its inherent justice toward the vulnerable. Jorge doesn’t give a flying fig for the welfare of children whose lives have been torn asunder by divorce and “cohabitation.”

Rorate Caeli writes:

Though released only this morning, Catholic observers and commentators have already begun to identify several objectionable passages in which the doctrine and discipline of the Church’s Faith is elided, wrested, and contradicted. We at Rorate Caeli will have more to say on this subject, but we can affirm that the headline of Maike Hickson’s commentary at OnePeterFive is correct: “Pope Francis Departs from Church Teaching in New Exhortation.”  Also correct is Voice of the Family’s observation, “There are many passages that faithfully reflect Catholic teaching but this cannot, and does not, lessen the gravity of those passages which undermine the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.”

Do read Hickson’s comments, and when you have time, visit Canonist Edward Peters’ weblog and read his “First thoughts on the English version of Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia.”  His criticisms isolate what are probably the worst aspects of the pope’s exhortation (there are many others that are also very bad), and the criticisms are charitably presented — to my mind charitably to a fault.  Here is the core of Peters’ critique (emphasis added) ..

The Catholic Church has always shown mercy toward men and women with serious marital discord. But the mercy has been tempered by justice and reverence. Joyful Jorge doesn’t like that. There’s not enough joy in limits.  Amoris Laetitia marginalizes the important roles of justice and reverence due to God alone.

Robert Royal writes:

Amoris Laetitia hopes to resolve the situations of many in the modern world, but is far more likely only to add further fuel to the holocaust. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that once Communion can be taken by the divorced/remarried in some circumstances, it will soon be assumed licit by all. And – why not? – by people in gay relationships, who probably have an equally good claim to mitigating circumstances.

I have not had the chance to read through the whole text yet or comb through the best analysis out there yet as I have unfortunately not been able to do much blogging this week because of pressing obligations at home, but here is some initial commentary from the blogger Mundabor, who sadly believes that a pope can be a heretic:

Amoris Laetitia (subtitle: “on the graces of those living in public adultery”) has been released, and it is worse than the worse expectations of your truly. I have obviously not read the entire pile of rubbish (nor will I ever do it), but I have followed the hints appeared in the press, and you don’t need more than 3 minutes to understand the scale of the attack to Truth. 

I was expecting fluffy and ambiguous statements, which can (and must) be read in an orthodox sense, in the style of the closing Relatio of the synod. But this is much worse. This Apostolic Excrementation seeks to demolish the very concept of objective situation of sin excluding one from communion. It seeks to impose on Catholics the idea that one can publicly live in sin, and be aware of his situation of publicly living in sin, and not be in mortal sin because he just doesn’t want to get it. 

There is a complete disregard of the (obvious) considerations JP II made about the objective scandal given by those who, objectively, live in scandal. And it is, without having to mention JP II, a complete disregard of the most elementary common sense. 

I have no way to copy and paste right now. Read the paragraphs starting from 301 to 306. It is purest heretical poison. 

Once again: this encyclical pretends to base on what is already Catholic teaching (of course there can be circumstances which diminish culpability; we all knew that), and extends its meaning to encompass any publicly sinful, publicly adulterous, uninterruptedly sinful behaviour and lifestyle. 

Voice of the Family, an organization which has tirelessly worked to prevent the Vatican II Church from attacking Catholic theology on the family, writes:

The promulgation of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis marks the conclusion of a synodal process that has been dominated by attempts to undermine Catholic teaching on matters relating to human life, marriage and the family, on questions including, but not limited to, the indissolubility of marriage, contraception, artificial methods of reproduction, homosexuality, “gender ideology” and the rights of parents and children. These attempts to distort Catholic teaching have weakened the Church’s witness to the truths of the natural and supernatural order and have threatened the well-being of the family, especially its weakest and most vulnerable members.

The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is a very lengthy document, which discusses a wide variety of subjects related to the family. There are many passages that faithfully reflect Catholic teaching but this cannot, and does not, lessen the gravity of those passages which undermine the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. Voice of the Family intends to present full analyses of the serious problems in the text over the coming days and weeks.

Voice of the Family expresses the following initial concerns with the greatest reverence for the papal office and solely out of a sincere desire to assist the hierarchy in its proclamation of Catholic teaching on life, marriage and the family and to further the authentic good of the family and its most vulnerable members.

We consider that in raising the following concerns we fulfil our duty as clearly laid out in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (Canon 212 §3)

Admission of the “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion

Amoris Laetitia, over the course of Chapter VIII (paragraphs 291-312), proposes a number of approaches that prepare the way for “divorced and remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion without true repentance and amendment of life. These paragraphs include:

(i) confused expositions of Catholic teaching on the nature and effects of mortal sin, on the imputability of sin, and on the nature of conscience

(ii) the use of ideological language in place of the Church’s traditional terminology

(iii) the use of selective and misleading quotations from previous Church documents.

A particularly troubling example of misquotation of previous teaching is found in paragraph 298 which quotes the statement of Pope John Paul II, made in Familiaris Consortio, that there exist situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” However in Amoris Laetitia the second half of Pope John Paul II’s sentence, which states that such couples “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (Familiaris Consortio, No. 84),  is omitted.

See more here.

To be continued.

— Comments —

George writes:

[Amoris Laetitia cites] “the deeply personal process of making decisions.”

Holy cannoli! The Holy See has hit upon what had been evident since the light-seeking caveman left the dank cave to gaze upon the stars. We are free agents born of the gift of life and free will. I was under the distinct impression well near everyone but Moslems understood this but it turns out to be a Eureka! moment for Il Papa.

“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.”

By imagining everything is a blend of black and white, i.e., one of fifty shades of gray, we close off the need for God, the Incarnation, The Sufferring, Sacrifice, Death & Resurrection.

I have a notion that the delusional Mohammed had devised a better religion in a cave than Francis the Emender does in the midst of the Vatican. Gnosticism, in its ascendancy – as Islam is – is full of itself in the guise of yet another iteration of Modernism, i.e.,Toleration. Operational procedures in the overthrow of all that had been fine and good has gone from tactical nuance (cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School) to strategic abrogation of all things fine and good (Islamism)

I await Jorge’s rewrite of God’s role in the universe.

Share:000