Austen Ivereigh - Water Boy For Papal Progressives

As the left wing in the US has been taking potshots at US history and those who defend our traditions, so too do their counterparts in Church circles snipe at those who defend the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Recently a Crud commentator named Austen Ivereigh penned a diatribe called "Pope Francis And The Convert Problem".   In his second paragraph, he claims "I don't want to be seen as sniffy and condescending towards people who become Catholic.."  The italics are mine and for a reason.  He doesn't want to be seen for something he really is; what else do we call it when he coins the term "convert neurosis"?

I could take an hour to unpack that mess.  Suffice it to say that he is simply trying his level best to disparage faithful intelligent converts as a lame excuse for not paying attention to their common-sense questions and objections.  I, a cradle Catholic, have documented scores of this pontiff's misdeeds and gaffes, and I haven't been the only one.  It doesn't take a degree in advanced theology to understand that those living in adultery cannot receive Holy Communion, etc, etc..  By the way - that is one reason why it should have taken the pope only a few minutes to craft a proper reply to the dubia that were submitted by the four cardinals almost one year ago.

Today we see that Mr. Ivereigh moved on to other faithful Catholics who have taken issue with the immorality that is sanctioned by Amoris Laetitia (or Amoralis Lamentia).  Today's Crud piece is called "Papal Confidante Says Amoris Critics Locked In Death-Trapped Logic".  That "confidante" is none other than Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, a.k.a. "Bishop Kissy-Face".  I dubbed him that because of a porn piece book that he wrote called "Heal Me With Your Mouth - The Art Of Kissing".  The article states that Fernandez helped draft Amoris; indeed they do have similarities to things he wrote long before the two synods: so much for Amoralis Lamentia stemming from all this "collegiality" of the bishops.

Going further down the article, we are treated to some very faulty theology from the bishop (surprise!).  To wit:"In the case of norms forbidding killing and stealing, for example, the norms are absolute, admitting of no exceptions; yet it is questionable, he said, whether taking life in self-defense is killing, or taking food to feed a hungry child is stealing."

We will do a little unpacking here.  The Fifth Commandment forbids murder.  Not all homicide is murder.  Thus the homicide in self-defense would not be any sort of violation of the Fifth Commandment.  The Seventh Commandment forbids the taking of property against the reasonable will of the owner.  If the taking of food is the only way to feed a starving child, the reasonable will of the owner would be to give the food.  In both cases, the Commandments are not violated.  See how these progressives attempt to justify situation ethics by obfuscating the language?

In the following paragraph he attempts to continue the obfuscation in order to justify the mortal sin of adultery.  In this case, both parties in adultery are endangering their own souls and each other's, as well as inflicting scandal upon the children.  That is what is being touted in Amoralis Lamentia.

Now who are these "amoris critics locked in death-trap logic"?  That august number might include the converts whom Ivereigh vilified in his earlier article.  They most certainly include the dubia cardinals who seem to be preparing a formal correction.  Ivereigh appears to have a new job - damage control for the Vatican progressives.