Four Cardinals Publicly Seek Clarification On Amoris Laetitia

In September, four cardinals wrote to Pope Francis to seek formal clarification regarding problematic statements found in Amoris Laetitia.  The pope did not reply to them so now they have made their concerns and questions public.  I will publish the complete text as found in National Catholic Register below the jump break, since it is rather lengthy.

The four cardinals are Walter Brandmuller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner.  They have formatted their writing in the form called "dubia", Latin for "doubts".  The questions are structured in such a way that the answer to be given them must be a "yes" or "no".  Consider also as you read this that the answers will have one of two effects: 1) the reversal of Amoris Laetitia, as well as the proceeds of the two synods or 2) the placement of the pope in formal heresy.  I link now to analysis done by LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, Vox Cantoris, AKACatholic.  Several have asked why there are no more cardinals participating and why these four.  They then answered their own question by pointing out that three of these are retired and the fourth has already had influence stripped from him.  They have nothing to lose from a pope who has shown himself capable of punishing those who contradict him.  Please pray for them, the pope and that the filth may finally be swept from the Vatican.  Now the letter, after the jump break.

Cardinal Wuerl: Amoris Lamentia Is A "Consensus Exhortation"

Yes, you read the title correctly.  I will henceforth refer to "Amoris Laetitia" as "Amoris Lamentia".  There is much heresy and spiritual poison therein to cause massive lamentation: or at least it should cause lamentation and great horror on the part of faithful Catholics.

In addition to the ones that I've already highlighted in previous posts, I'll call to your attention some other excellent commentary on AL: one from my blogging colleague at Les Femmes and two other highlighted by another blogging colleague at Tenth Crusade.

Thanks to Gloria.tv, I present to you now an interview of Cardinal Wuerl, as he gushes about Amoris Lamentia.  Bear in mind that this document is one of the rotten fruits of the two sin-nods held these past two Octobers: events at which Wuerl wielded a disproportionate measure of influence (see here and here).

I'll point out some highlights of this interview and put them into some historical context.

1. Cardinal Wuerl is conducting this interview with Susan Timoney, an Assistant Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of Washington.  She's on Cardinal Wuerl's payroll.  It might be reasonable to opine that this dialogue is scripted and probably rehearsed.
2. Right off the bat, at the 0:25 mark, the Cardinal calls AL the "consensus exhortation".  He mentions all the "talking" and "engaging" with clerics and lay, along with the two sin-nods, and says that AL came from "all that".  As pointed out in one of the earlier links, Cardinal Wuerl himself had quite a hand in developing the final reports from the two sin-nods.
3. So Amoris Lamentia "reflects the consensus of bishops from all over the world". So what?  Does it reflect the timeless Teaching of Jesus Christ, reflected in Sacred Tradition and Magisterium?  That's what really counts, not all this "consensus".
4. At 1:30 he stated "we all know what the teaching of the Church is".  I wish that were true but thanks to katholik "education" that is in reality brainwashing in heresy and fluffy-puff homilies, the average Catholic in the pews is often quite ignorant of basic Catholic teachings on faith and morals.  Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington!  When did you last hear a homily that preached against the mortal sin of contraception?  When did you last hear from the pulpit that homosexual relations are mortal sins?  I can't remember, either!
5. He continues, "but today as we face the challenges of the current moment..what is it that we (bishops) bring that we all agree we want to say?"  Hey!  If you have to ask that question, maybe your seminary classes weren't all that swift!  "What you should be bringing" is the timeless teachings of Jesus regarding marriage.  These would be the same teachings that have been promulgated for over a thousand years.  They do not change because the origin of these teachings, God Himself, is perfect and immutable.

If time permits, I'll elaborate more on this.  But for now, I'll let you see and hear the drivel for yourselves.  However, here's a big "take away" in all of this.  All this garbage about "consensus" is absolute nonsense.  We Catholics are about truth, the kind of truth mentioned by Jesus when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life".  Truth is NOT found in consensus.  Consensus has absolutely no value in determining objective and eternal truth, for consensus has its origins in human opinion, not the Word of God.

ADW Set To Implement Amoralis Lamentia, To The Detriment Of Countless Souls

I'm in the Archdiocese of Washington and didn't hear of the impending storm until I saw the news on Canon 212.  This webmaster in turn cited the Tablet and the Catholic Herald - both British websites.  I find it most peculiar that the news broke on foreign sites, not American.  But it's not the first time this has happened!  But I digress!

The "pastoral plan" (there's that word "pastoral" again!) is on the archdiocesan site.  I'd suggest that we all download it for safe-keeping.  It's a 58-page tome, but quite a bit of it is blank space and pictures.  The thing is rife with talks of "pastoral accompaniment".  For example, on page 11 of the pdf, right-hand column under "step by step", we read "In considering a pastoral approach toward 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."  The Church does that by telling them in no uncertain terms that they must quit their sinful situations and go to Confession.  Why, oh why, is that not plainly stated?  Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance.

On page 13 of the pdf, we read "If there is a breakdown that leads to separation or even divorce, that loving accompaniment by the Church needs to continue, said the Holy Father. “It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church".  There is so much wrong with this.

• If a Catholic divorces and civilly remarries, they have ejected Our Lord from their lives by their mortal sin.  The Church cannot "accompany" them in their sin.  The Church must practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  That entails "rebuking the sinner".
• Notice the word "feel".  Feelings often have nothing to do with reality.  The goal of making them "feel part of the Church" when in fact they have separated themselves from sanctifying grace would be to engage in deception that can only have disastrous consequences for the souls of these divorced Catholics living in adultery.

As with Amoris Laetitia itself, probably the most egregious "poison pill" is found towards the end of the document.  In this case, it is on page 53 of the pdf, bottom right.  To wit:  "At the core of accompanying people on the faith journey and helping them appropriate the Church’s teaching stands the humble recognition that the culpability of any of us does not depend solely on exposure to the teaching. It is not enough simply to hear the teaching. We have to be helped to grasp and accept it. We must have “experiential” and not just “objective” moral knowledge, to use the language of Saint John Paul II in his encyclical letter, Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). Priests are called to respect the decisions made in conscience by individuals who act in good faith since no one can enter the soul of another and make that judgment for them. As Pope Francis teaches, “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them”

Let's be plain-spoken, shall we?  This gobblygoop is nothing more than an attempt at a disclaimer of responsibility for those who are literally hell-bent on thumbing their noses at God's moral teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, etc.  I'll point out some of the more obvious nonsense.

• culpability of any of us does not depend solely on exposure to the teaching. It is not enough simply to hear the teaching. We have to be helped to grasp and accept it.  Would the same excuse be given if the teaching in question regarded the topic of theft?  If someone hears the teaching "thou shalt not steal", they simply must obey it.  No one has to "help them to accept it".  If a thief is caught and tried, that defense (in most cases) will be laughed off.
• Here is the link to Veritatis Splendor from the Vatican website.  I looked up the word "experiential" and couldn't find it.  Is anyone else able to cite the specific section of that encyclical where this term "experiential moral knowledge" exists?  If not, I must assume that either Pope Francis fancied something that wasn't there OR it's a cheesy attempt to misuse the name of Pope Saint John Paul II to lend undeserved credibility to both AL and this "pastoral plan".
• Priests are called to respect the decisions made in conscience by individuals who act in good faith since no one can enter the soul of another and make that judgment for them  Let's not kid ourselves.  Anyone whose "conscience" directs them to disobey God's commands is NOT acting in good faith, absence of "acceptance" notwithstanding.

This "pastoral plan" is not the only thing written by the Cardinal regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  More can be found here.  I believe some fallout is soon to be manifest in the parishes.  Please advise in the comments if and when that happens, with details.  

Debate Over. Amoris Laetitia Is Heresy

Below what I now write is a video from the Remnant's Michael Matt, commenting on the Profession Of The Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage.  When I first posted about this on January 2, only the three bishops from Kazakhstan, the authors, had signed it.  Now the number of signers is seven, including one cardinal.

Matt points out that this statement is not one asking for "clarification", as was the dubia.  Rather, this statement directly contradicts and rebukes the errors of Amoris Laetitia.  Some ambiguity remains, though.  Pope Francis is not merely erroneous in how he interpreted Amoris Laetitia, but the pope's more egregious error lies in how he wrote Amoris Laetitia.  His interpretation is not erroneous; it's the document itself that is inherently heretical.

The dubia have been answered.  They may not have been answered according to protocol, but let's be real.  If the pope holds God's immutable truths in disdain (and he does!), why on earth would we think that he'd give a rat's ass about the protocols of the dubia?  We have the answers; we have the clarity.  It's just not a clear answer that we might wish, but it is what it is.  The progressives who wrote Amoris Laetitia (that includes the pope!) will not stop with Communion for unrepentant adulterers.  They seek to undermine Humanae Vitae and other cornerstones of Catholic moral teaching.

So what are we faithful Catholics going to do about it?  As Matt says, we must resist.  No one gets to sit quietly on the sidelines.  We are all members of the Church Militant and we must pray and act like it.

Amoris Laetitia - Oozing With Heretical Gobblygoop

Here is a link to Amoris Laetitia as it appears on the Vatican website in English.  Please note that this English translation is on the Vatican's site.  There can be no claims to "poor translation"; the pope owns the mess.  So now let our Friday penance begin.

Paragraph 3 is a thinly disguised attempt to justify situation ethics.  Notice the line "each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs".  Wrong.  It is the eternal Teaching of Our Lord, manifested through Sacred Tradition, that is to take precedence over "local tradition".  Solutions must be based on Our Lord's words and Teaching - that and that alone, with no tweeking for the sake of "tradition".  When he evangelized Ireland, should St. Patrick have been sensitive to the "tradition" of druidic human sacrifice?  No less should our bishops today give any lenience to the mortal sin of adultery, which is what the divorced and "civilly married Catholics commit to the eternal detriment of their souls.

So that's only page 4.  We've got 260 more pages of this pig-slop through which we must slog.  But we will soldier on!  In paragraph 4 he said that the synod process was both "impressive and illuminating".  I might agree with him there, but I saw it to be "illuminating" for the heretical proclivities and strong-arming of faithful Catholics that it revealed.

In paragraph 7 he said that "everyone should feel challenged by chapter 8".  I think I will pop over there, but notice how he words his statement.  What does he mean by "challenged"?  Is this more of the "god of surprises" flim-flam?  Let's move to chapter 8.

At the end of paragraph 294 and going into 295, we hear talk of this "law of gradualness".  To wit:

"That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.  Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called law of gradualness in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

I read the passage of the woman at the well a number of times.  That conversation between Jesus and the woman occurred in a matter of minutes.  I don't consider that to be especially "gradual".  He got right down to the nitty-gritty and did not permit her to remain in her sin without direct confrontation of that sin.  What the pope is proposing in terms of addressing the needs of a cohabiting couple is - not to address their real need of immediate repentance, for as long as they remain in sinful situations they place themselves and each other in danger of hell.  If any of us realized that our loved ones were in a burning building, would we consider the "law of gradualness" or would we rush in to rescue them?

In paragraph 297 there occurs a curious and perhaps heretical statement: "No one can be condemned forever for that is not the logic of the Gospel".  Excuse me, but what does the pope think hell is?  Is he denying the existence of hell?  Among other things, it is the abode of those who are condemned forever by their own doing.  Then he talks about an "unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous mercy".  There is no such thing.  While God's mercy is unmerited, by no means is it "unconditional and gratuitous".  The necessary condition for receipt of God's mercy is repentance.  Repentance entails the forsaking of sinful conduct and near occasions of sin.

Paragraph 298 is not much more than an attempt to justify those divorced who are living in adultery.  With all the litany of sad circumstances, the fact still remains that as long as the couple are living as husband and wife when they aren't they place themselves and one another in mortal sin.  I wonder how they can claim to love one another and still jeopardize the eternal salvation of each other?  Or doesn't eternal reality factor into their considerations?

Paragraphs 299 and 300 are also full of blather seeking to justify adultery.  Paragraph 301 sees the pope being a bit more blatant about it.  Read this: "Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."  Oh yes it can and it must.  What was once true is always true.  Those living in adultery are living in mortal sin.  Sexual sins are always grave matter and obviously consent is present.  Even with the lackluster catechesis in the church today there is often an intrinsic realization that adultery is sinful.

He tries to cite St. Thomas Aquinas as a source for this strange teaching by saying "Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well"  There's a vast difference between "not exercising any one of the virtues well" versus living in a state of mortal sin.

Paragraph 305 is an outright vilification of clergy who act in fidelity to the Tradition of the Church and who rightly hold that individual conscience must yield to that same Tradition.  He states that such pastors are "throwing stones at people's lives" and that they are of "closed heart of one hiding behind Church teaching".  How can it be wrong for one to "hide" behind God's word?  Would that all engaged in such "hiding", rather than in hiding behind progressive and humanistic justifications for slapping God in the face by regarding His commands with less than obedience.  As you read this paragraph, please take note of footnote 351 for therein you'll find both insult against the sacrament of Confession and a thinly-disguised justification for adulterers receiving Holy Communion.

Voice of the Family has an excellent treatment on this eighth chapter.  Rorate Caeli and AKA Catholic should also be studied.  I hope to put some more time into the reading of this thing but the consumption of 260+ pages of flim-flam is an onerous task.

Amoris Laetitia Paves Way For Immoral Sex Ed At World Youth Day

I've written a bit about the document that I'll call Amoralis Lamentia in the past and I'll link to those posts now for some context.  A few weeks ago there was some buzz on the blogosphere about a protest addressed to the pope regarding the errors in AL.  Because the authors/signers were anonymous at the time and the content unknown, I did not think it prudent to jump on the bandwagon.  I simply had no idea what it entailed.

Now more is known, and One Peter Five has it, along with a link to the full document.  The document calls AL "a grave danger to Catholic faith and morals".  No truer words were spoken.  Both the document and cover letter are pdf files; they can be saved to your own machines.  I suggest you do so.  I suggest you read it very carefully, alongside the English translation of Amoralis Lamentia.  Pay close attention to the censures.  Understand that Pope Francis claims that AL is "sound doctrine".  Cardinal Schonborn takes the lunacy even further by stating that previous Catholic teaching must be read in light of Amoris Laetitia.  My!  Doesn't he have it backwards! It is AL that must conform to the Sacred Tradition of the Church, not vice versa.  I suspect the protest was written before Schonborn plopped this stinker, else it might have been listed in the censures.

In my first anthology of posts there is stated a theory that the synods were rigged to pave the way for this thing, and even the ouster of Pope Benedict XVI was done with this in mind.  The protest states that Amoralis Lamentia will pose a danger to Catholic morals.  This week, during World Youth Day, the young people attending that thing will have foisted upon them a most immoral sex education program, promulgated by Pontifical Council for the Family.  The president of that council is Msgr Paglia.  At the World Family Meeting in Philadelphia last year, he stated that gays would have the same status as others - to implement the Instrumentum Laboris on the Synod, a precursor to Amoralis Lamentia.

LifeSiteNews has more detail on this program.  While the program is held out as Church teaching, it does not touch on what constitutes sins against chastity.  The importance of parents is entirely neglected.  The language and videos used therein can be considered pornographic.  And of course it is being promulgated to implement Amoralis Lamentia.  As LSN points out, the very existence of this program runs counter to many papal teachings of the past.  But then again, we see how Schonborn sought to undermine Church tradtition by making it subordinate to Amoralis Lamentia.

I'd urge parents of young people who are attending this World Youth Day to be vigilant.  Ask questions.  Don't be passive in the face of this intrusion into your sphere of authority.  Be informed and be parents.  I'd make the same recommendation of those who are chaperoning groups attending this thing.  Be prepared to offer authentic Church teaching on this and other matters.

Amoris Laetitia - The Postives Ain't So Positive

A friend sent to me this morning a commentary on the exhortation by Robert Royal.  I link to it here.  In his article, he starts off by lauding the thing for the "positive" restatement of various points of Catholic teaching.  I've seen in Facebook many Francis-groupees taking faithful Catholics to task for pointing out only the "controversial" parts.  I responded to one of them by asking why on God's green earth should a Church document ever contain "controversial" elements as they should always be the epitomes of the defense of Christ and His Church's teachings.

Let's look at the matter from another angle, and I'll use an analogy I've used before to deal with this "positive versus negative" nonsensical paradigm.  Say there's a lovely meal set before you.  The food is healthy, delicious and visually appealing.  There's just one teensy little problem.  You've received credible information that this lovely meal is laced with a bit of deadly poison. It's not enough to cause the meal to lose its sensory appeals but it's there.  Who in their right mind would take one bite of that otherwise healthy, delicious and visually appealing meal?

What is happening with Amoris Laetitia is exactly what I just described.  The only difference is that we aren't talking of bodily nourishment versus poisoning, but rather spiritual nourishment versus poisoning.  The latter is far more serious for that comes with eternal consequences.

"But does that discount the good in the exhortation?", I can hear the groupees whine.  Well, yes.  In fact, the so-called "good" in the exhortation becomes much less than good.  In the meal example, the offering of the otherwise healthy food becomes an evil act because of the evil motive of camouflaging the poison.  Recall from Catholic moral theology that an act that is of itself good or neutral can be rendered evil if the motive behind it is evil.

Therefore I put forth the very real probability that all the "positive" statements towards the beginning were done with less-than-noble intents.  It's quite probable that they were placed there in order to disarm the readers' critical thinking processes so that they would unwittingly swallow the spiritual poison that this exhortation does contain.  That in fact renders the presence of the so-called "positives" evil in and of itself.

So that is why we "mean-spirited", "rad-trad" bloggers focus on the "negative" in proclamations coming from the Church.  They should contain not one scintilla of "negative" (meaning variance and dissidence from Church Teaching) whatsoever.  Look at it this way.  If there was no "negative" in fact, you wouldn't have to hear from us meanies!  If what we tell gets under your skin, go to the source of the problem versus the ones who merely inform you of the problem.

Cardinal Wuerl Trips Over Himself While Celebrating Amoralis Lamentia

Amoris Laetitia

One year ago today, the world was scourged with Amoralis Lamentia, a piece of pig poop that has already cast doubts upon the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, leading to the peril of many souls and most likely the damnation of more than a few who have passed to their judgments during this past year.

Many of us have been sounding the alarm regarding this spiritual poison while its shills have been "circling the wagons" around Amoralis Lamentia as they attempt to put some lipstick on that pig.  One of those lame attempts was published by Crud, authored by Cardinal Wuerl who played a pivotal role in tweaking the results of the two sin-nods to justify the publication of AL.  Please have this link open (should be in separate window) as we unpack this mess.

• "avoiding the constraints of a perspective that focuses solely on certain aspects"  That's the end of the second paragraph.  Now just what might be these "certain aspects"?   Might these "certain aspects" include minor details such as the Sixth Commandment and the Church's laws on marriage and receiving Holy Communion worthily?
• "This apostolic exhortation, which follows on the Synod of Bishops that met in October of 2014 and another in 2015 to discuss the challenges to marriage and family today, reflects the consensus of those meetings and many voices."  Whom does he think he's fooling?  We all know that the final report of the extraordinary sin-nod contained three paragraphs that were voted out by the bishops in attendance.  We all know these reports were compiled too quickly after the discussions; the only logical explanation is that these reports were created before the discussions, if not before the synods themselves.
• "Holy Father points the way to how the Church might take steps to support married couples and families in their lives, and to mercifully bring hope and healing to those who find themselves in broken and wounded situations, with a sensitivity toward the diversity of particular relationships and cultures,"  Are we truly to believe that for the past 2000+ years of Christianity the Church has not known how do deal with these "broken and wounded situations"?  Those means of healing remain exactly the same for the words of Jesus Christ Himself are immutable.  We'll spell it out.  Any underlying sin must be eradicated and confessed to a priest.  The occasion of sin must be abandoned.  God's Commands transcend "particular relationships and cultures".  Therefore, these "relationships and cultures" must be brought to conformity with God's commands, not vice versa.
• "Even for those in a marriage that does not reflect entirely the Church’s teaching, continues the Pope, Christ inspires the Church to turn to them with love and affection to assist them in overcoming the trials they face."  Again, this is no mystery.  The underlying sin must be eradicated and repented of in the Sacrament of Confession.  The occasion of sin must be eradicated and/or abandoned.  Important edit: If this "marriage" involves a "spouse" who was married to another and was civilly divorced without a proper annulment, then no real "second marriage" exists.  Rather, the situation is an adulterous shack-up.  Any priest worthy of his collar will tell the parties in no uncertain terms to immediately cease and desist their mortal sin of adultery.
• "Without claiming to present an entire pastoral plan, the Holy Father calls for a family apostolate that offers more adequate catechesis and formation, not only of engaged and married couples and their children, but also priests, deacons, seminarians, consecrated religious, catechists, teachers, social workers, medical professionals, and other pastoral workers."  If that catechesis involves absolute and unwavering fidelity towards the teachings of Holy Mother Church as she has taught over the past several hundred years, this might be one tiny silver lining to an otherwise very gloomy cloud.
• The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability. If that individual conscience acts in disobedience to God's commands, even if it is aware of the demands of God's law, full culpability exists.  If the sin is inherently serious, in the case of full knowledge that sin is very likely mortal.  No "hermeneutic" will change that.
• "The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances".  Got that?  We give the perfunctory nod to the "objective moral order" but if it contradicts these "actual circumstances", well, "objective moral order" be damned.  That's what's really being said.
• "In this context, the role of the priest in listening and offering affirmation or challenge to persons as they work through their own understanding of their situation becomes central to the type of pastoral work with married couples needed today. It is the very heart of the ministry of accompaniment that the exhortation calls for."  Let's cut through the flim-flam, shall we?  Working through the situation boils down to conformity with God's laws and nothing else.  If these laws are being transgressed, that transgression must cease immediately, and the sin be confessed, along with the resolution to avoid the near occasion of that sin.  If the priest eschews these simple truths in the pursuit of this "ministry of accompaniment" he will likely find himself in the unenviable position of cooperating with mortal sin via his silence.  By the way, can anyone tell me just where in the Church's 2000+ years of tradition can this phrase "ministry of accompaniment" be found?
• "The apostolic exhortation calls for a compassionate pastoral approach to many people - married, single, and divorced - who are struggling to face issues in life, the teaching of the Church, and their own desire to reconcile all of this."  Desire to reconcile - or - desire to justify the continuance of mortal sin?

I'll close this piece with one last quote. "In the action of going out, encountering, sharing, and accompanying, moreover, we also recognize that in the journey, we - ourselves - are also drawing closing to the Lord."  I'm copying/pasting these excerpts right from the article so I guess "drawing closing" is a typo that was supposed to mean "drawing closer".  If so, that statement is brashly presumptuous. Amoralis Lamentia is one giant screed designed to exalt man's faulty, unformed and uninformed conscience over God's transcendent, immutable commands.  Any deviance from those Divine commands is sin, "hermeneutics" and "accompaniment" notwithstanding.

I pray that the four "dubia" Cardinals see their way to issuing the formal correction since it is apparent that the pope has no intention of answering the dubia.  Cardinal Wuerl's piece, for what it's worth, reflects the intentions of the pope regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  To follow this path that the pope and his collaborators set forth is to flirt with eternal damnation. We must pray, speak the truth and resist this evil onslaught.

Father Thomas Weinandy Continues To Articulate The Truth - His Full Article Here

A few days ago, a piece by Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Sandro Magister on his blog.  Father Weinandy, who was sacked by the increasingly inimical USCCB for speaking truth, demonstrates how the so-called "pastoral" approach is in fact deadly to souls.   This piece is the keynote address that Father gave at Notre Dame University in Sydney Australia where I believe he currently teaches.

Many Catholic sites linked to the address as it appeared on Sandro Magister's blog.  However, when I went to look for it there, I found that it had been pulled.   After some searching, I found it at the Catholic World Report.  To guard against another (ahem!) "mysterious disappearance", I'll copy and paste it in its entirety.

This piece is lengthy, so I'll put the jump break here.

The New Possibilities That Point Toward Hell

Once again we hear the pope making wild claims while engaged in an in-flight interview.  In the past I viewed these interviews as just another source of scandal.  In retrospect I can see I was incorrect.  The scandals aren't coming because of the plane interview settings, but because of what the pope has on his mind.

At any rate this latest revelation occurred on a flight from Greece.  Maybe "revelation" is not an accurate term.  Perhaps it is simply confirmations of suspicions that faithful Catholics have had after the two synods and the release of Amoris Laetitia.  Due to other commitments, I've been a little slow to report on these matters but fortunately my blogging colleagues at One Peter Five and Les Femmes have put up excellent analyses of that mess.  They both link to Cardinal Schonborn's statement, the one that the pope seems to think is more authoritative than 2000 years of Church teaching.

The pope was asked about "new possibilities for the divorced and remarried".  If by "new possibilities" he speaks of these adulterers (for if the first marriage isn't annulled they are living in adultery) being admitted to Holy Communion while still engaged in ongoing mortal sin, he is confirming their path to hell.  That is not so much a "new possibility" but a highly probable eternal destiny if they continue on that till death.

Two more things:

1. Those who are in denial of the situation, hiding behind the "the pope can't change doctrine" canard now have no morally acceptable choice but to wake up to the peril in which these "non-binding" statements place so many souls.
2. I'm seeing some nonsensical suggestions to Catholics that they need not read Amoris Laetitia for themselves because they're just "ordinary Catholics".  Such suggestions are patently irresponsible.  I believe the late Father John Hardon when he said "only heroic Catholics will attain heaven in this day and age."  We might as well start by grappling with the heresies in Amoris Laetitia.

Stand With Faithful Catholics Of Nashville TN

Note: What I am about to relate is a scenario that will become more and more common in Catholic schools and parishes.  It is an expected consequence of Amoralis Lamentia.  Last July we reported on a particularly lurid piece of pornography promulgated by the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family called the "Meeting Point", a euphemism for "sex education".  My post, and the linked LifeSiteNews report, point out many ways in which this program is a slap in the face to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This past summer several Church officials from around the world authored and signed a letter asking the pope to condemn the errors of Amoris Laetitia.  In this post of mine is a video of pro-life and Catholic leaders asking the same; some ask for the complete withdrawal of Amoris Laetitia.   A few days ago GloraTV announced that some of the signers are suffering repercussions for standing for the faith.  Hey!  Why aren't they being "accompanied"?  Double standard much??

This heavy-handedness is being manifested in the Diocese of Nashville Tennessee.  LifeSiteNews reports that parents of a student at Father Ryan High School were told in no uncertain terms that unless they ceased their objections with the lurid sex ed program there, their son could not return.  The bishop, David Choby basically stuck his finger in the parents' eyes.  While giving some perfunctory lip-service to parental rights, he then went on to say that these rights were subordinated to school demands.  The fact is that Church tradition has always held parental rights to be binding under natural law and that educators were there to support the parents.  Now the parents aren't being supported.  They are being undermined overtly, and are even being punished by a bishop who now stands in stark disobedience to Church teaching and natural law regarding the primacy of parents in the education of their children.

What the diocese is doing is a direct result of the document known as Amoris Laetitia.  Within the document itself are statements and footnotes that undermine parental authority.  Moreover, the abuse that the Nashville bishop is orchestrating against this family is very similar to the vindictiveness that is being unleashed against some of the signers of the letter.

The LifeSiteNews article, at the bottom, has contact information for the bishop and for school officials.  I ask all my readers to contact these individuals.  With respect but in no uncertain terms, please rebuke them for:

• the vindictive punishment meted out to this family
• their disrespect for the place that parents have in the education of their children
• the existence of this pornography in the school

That is what we all can do.  Good Catholics in the Diocese of Nashville should rally around this family and decide on local courses of actions.  Boycotts of collections and pickets come to mind.  Don't be passive in the face of this evil, for if we are passive, we'll only encourage future outrages.

Church Militant! Stand With The Four Cardinals!

Randy Engels, who wrote "Rite of Sodomy", one of the first books to expose the gay infestation within the Catholic Church, issued an open letter to Pope Francis on the occasion of the filth that poured from his mouth during that interview a few days ago.  Here it is at it is published at Renew America.  When the pope uttered almost identical bile three years ago, she had written a letter then.  My one disagreement with Ms. Engels is that the pope wasn't only referring to "false news", but "nasty things, even if they're true".  As we know, "nasty" is a term ascribed by subjective judgment/feeling, not by the merits of objective truth.  In other words, the pope was slandering all of us who seek to shine the light on his attempts to undermine Holy Mother Church.  Did he feel the need to trot out that vile insult in a lame attempt to discredit those of us who are shining the light on Amoralis Lamentia and the de facto schism that is becoming more and more apparent?

Perhaps, as Ms. Engel suggested, he was actively trying to desensitize Catholics to the sinfulness of various perversions in order to make things like Amoralis Lamentia more palatable.  Let's look at the title of that document itself - Amoris Laetitia.  Some have criticized my coined term for the document, but perhaps the actual name is problematic itself.  Blogger Ann Barnhardt has issued her own commentary about the papal vulgarity and noted that a Latin definition of "amoris" is sodomy.  I googled it myself and sure enough, it is one of the translations of "amoris".  Yes, it's only one of five definitions, but might we be looking at some deliberate "double entendre" here?  Given past history, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Meanwhile more faithful Catholics are openly protesting Amoralis Lamentia.  Two leading Catholic philosophers, Germain Grisez and John Finnis, issued a 37-page letter to Pope Francis, asking him to condemn some errors that they believe could arise from Amoralis Lamentia.  (The link to the letter on the First Things article is broken.  Go here and download it in case it "disappears")

Yesterday I mentioned a meeting that Bishop Schneider chaired, regarding the AL mess.   He gave a talk at that meeting.  He detailed times throughout history when prelates either defended God's teaching against man's sinful fancies (such as St John Fisher standing against Henry VIII) or when they capitulated to public demand (Aaron the first Jewish high priest making the golden calf).

Now let's look at another aspect through the lens of Our Lady of Akita.  The message of that apparition is quite similar to that given by Our Lady of Fatima, namely, that if there isn't repentance, God will chastise the earth.   Two phrases from Our Lady's message of Oct 13 come to mind.  First, cardinals and bishops will be opposing each other.  Given Archbishop Pinto's rebuke of the four cardinals (apparently at Pope Francis' behest) and Cardinal Tobin's attack on Archbishop Chaput, we see that prophesy playing out before our very eyes.  Another piece of the prophesy that is unfolding as I write this is "the Church will be full of those who accept compromises".  Indeed, the upper eschelons of Church hierarchy seem to be dominated by those who work to undermine her mission to save souls.  Getting back to Fatima, Sister Lucia dos Santos predicted that the "final battle between Christ and Satan will be about marriage and the family."

No one with at least one functioning eye ball in their skull can deny that all these events are happening as we breathe.  What must we do?  First, we remember that we are part of the Church Militant.  We're not the "church mellow", not the "church meely-mouth", not the "church mediocre".  Each and every one of us is called to step out of his/her own insular existence and take up the fight.  It means doing precisely what Our Lord commanded as He communicated through His Mother at Fatima and Akita.  We must also take our public stances - each and every one of us - alongside the four cardinals to demand that the teachings of Jesus Christ be upheld in our Church.

Amoris Laetitia And Dubia - Separating Wheat From Chaff

Slowly but surely the Dubia that the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis is bringing a lot of dissent and heresy to light.  The head of the Greek Bishops' Conference (I won't even attempt that name) wrote to the four cardinals and flat out accused them of heresy.  One Peter Five has the text of the letter, and it is a beeyute!  He opens the letter by stating that the four cardinals should turn in their red caps (I don't know the proper term) and then accuses them of heresy, apostacy and scandal.  One wonders if he actually read the dubia, for all it does is ask the pope to clarify some passages in Amoris Laetitia that seem to contradict the tradition of the Church.  Or maybe he did read them and is simply trying to frighten others into not considering their input.

Cardinal Cupich seems to be mouthing similar things - almost as if they were all given "talking points".  I have written about the sword-crossing between him and Archbishop Chaput when the latter reaffirmed Church teaching in his own diocese.  In an interview, he told Edward Pentin that those who have "doubts and questions" regarding Amoralis Lamentia need "conversion in their lives".  I and others have written extensively about Cupich's dissidence many times.  Please read that list for yourselves for I haven't time nor space to detail just why Cupich may be the one needed conversion.

One wonders if that head of the Greek Bishops' Conference might have such strong words for his German counterpart.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch openly declared his belief that "Christ did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."  He believes that Jesus only offered "solidarity with the poor."  Now that is heresy.  Will the Greek head say anything about that?  Will the Pope have a rebuke for this heresy-spouting bishop?  I think we'll hear crickets and Zollitsch will retain his post.

However, it does seem that the four cardinals are not standing alone.  Polish Bishop Josef Wrobel says "the four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia".  He added that AL "is not written well".  He offered that as a potential excuse reason for its lack of clarity.

Two American bishops share the same last name: Tobin.  That's about all they share.  Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island opined last July that AL was "marked by ambiguity and that's intentional on the Holy Father's part, I think...so people can do just about whatever they want."  This bishop has consistently stood for the truth.  On the other hand we have Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In the previous link I detailed some issues we've had with him.  He called the four cardinals "troublesome".  Well, it might actually be a good thing to be regarded as "troublesome" to a progressive.  We know now why Joseph Tobin received his red hat!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a letter in which he defended the dubia and the four cardinals as a "prophetic voice."  In his letter, Schneider takes aim at the progressive syncophants who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the four cardinals without offering any real clarity, comparing the current situation to that of St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope Liberius.  The letter is worth careful study.

Then there is Bishop Jan Watroba, also of Poland.  He remarked on the ambiguity of AL, saying that he "preferred the clarity of Pope St. John Paul II".  I pray that these three bishops retain their posts and aren't sent to "diocesan siberia", if you get the drift.  I also pray that many more bishops join them to stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews is conducting a petition effort to ask the Holy Father to respond to the dubia.  Please sign and pass along.

Evangelical Christians School Defenders Of Amoralis Lamentia

Today's online issue of Crisis magazine featured a book review of Cardinal Coccopalmerio's attempt to justify chapter 8 of Amoralis Lamentia.  This chapter is one of the most troubling parts of AL as it erroneously states that adulterers can receive Holy Communion while still continuing their mortally sinful conduct.  The review is called, "A Cardinal's Implausible Defense Of Amoris Laetitia".  Implausible it is.

I don't need to add commentary to this good review.  I will add some context, though, considering this cardinal.  Most recently, a priest-secretary of his was busted for hosting a drug/gay orgy on Vatican premises.  At the time of the bust, Msgr Capozzi was so stoned that he had to be taken to a hospital for detoxification.  Coccopalmerio also said that some Anglican orders were valid.

So the good cardinal is trying to be ecumenical.  Well, here's an idea for him to promote ecumenism and to actually improve Amoralis Lamentia.  A group of American evangelical Christians stated some solid moral teachings regarding marriage in the form of articles.  They call it the Nashville Statement.  As far as morals go, it seems quite faithful to Traditional teaching.  It certainly is a vast improvement over the spiritual rot that is now embedded in this alleged papal teaching.  Why doesn't the Cardinal - in the interests of "dialogue", of course - suggest that chapter 8 be scrapped and this Nashville Statement be inserted in its place?

Seriously speaking, that replacement would be a vast improvement.

Disgraceful Dismissal Of Cardinal Muller

Cardinal Muller has been dismissed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  We knew that was coming, owing to the Cardinal's stances on both Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia.  One Peter Five has further details of the dismissal interview. The pope summoned Cardinal Muller to a conference.  Right away the Pope presented him with five questions in apparent mockery of the dubia issued a few months ago by the "dubia Cardinals".  The questions are (with the Cardinal's replies):

• Are you in favor of, or against, a female diaconate? “I am against it,” responded Cardinal Müller.
• Are you in favor of, or against, the repeal of celibacy? “Of course I am against it,” the cardinal responded.
• Are you in favor of, or against, female priests? “I am very decisively against it,” replied Cardinal Müller.
• Are you willing to defend Amoris Laetitia? “As far as it is possible for me,” the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith replied: “there still exist ambiguities.”
• Are you willing to retract your complaint concerning the dismissal of three of your own employees? Cardinal Müller responded: “Holy Father, these were good, unblemished men whom I now lack, and it was not correct to dismiss them over my head, shortly before Christmas, so that they had to clear their offices by 28 December. I am missing them now.”

Any Catholic worthy of the name would have answered all five of these in the negative, as has the Cardinal.  Immediately afterwards, the Pope announced to the Cardinal his dismissal from the post and abruptly ended the interview by walking out without even a "good bye".

When Cardinal Muller first complained about the manner of his dismissal, these details were not known.  Now we can understand the Cardinal's complaint in the correct context.  He also remarked that the Church should follow its own social teaching.  I agree.  For all the jibber-jabber about "dialogue" and "accompanying", those two elements were nowhere to be found in that conversation.

I will say one thing.  The pope put forth five questions and received five very prompt replies.  Will he now condescend to answer the cardinals' dubia?

Who's next?  Will it be Cardinal Sarah?  How about Archbishop Schneider or maybe Bishop Paprocki?  Pray that the faithful prelates remain steadfast and show your support for them.

More Analysis Of Amoris Laetitia

I've been unable to write during the past few days.  Others have written much, giving some food for thought.  Picking up where I left off in my reading, I noticed the following things.

Chapter 2 of AL goes through an entire litany of forces hostile to the family: poverty, drug abuse, violence, absence of fathers, unemployment, etc.  Only once do I see the word "contraception" mentioned (and I mean only once in the entire 264-page tome). That occurs in paragraph 42, but only to decry the forcing of the same on women by governmental authorities.  Nowhere is contraception itself condemned as the heinous moral evil that it has always been.  Yet Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae nailed it right on the head when he said that any engagement in the inherently sinful (mortal sin at that) practice of contraception would lead to the deconstruction of the family and ultimately civilization as well.  The ultimate consequence of course is the eternal damnation of those who engage in it.  In fact, as I read this, I see no mention of eternity.  There is only the focus on the situation of this temporal life, which is minuscule in comparison to eternity.  If choices impacting family life were made with the intention of furthering one's eternal salvation, many of the ills described in Chapter 2 would be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether.

In Chapter 3 we look at paragraph 59 where it says, "Our teaching on marriage and the family cannot fail to be inspired and transformed by this message of love and tenderness; otherwise, it becomes nothing more than the defense of a dry and lifeless doctrine."  Dry and lifeless doctrine?  Beg pardon, but if by "dry and lifeless doctrine" it refers to the teaching of Jesus Christ through His Church, such a slur is nothing short of blasphemy.  And what's with all this sissified emphasis on "tenderness"?  Whatever else it may be, it is not an integral part of true charity - unless "tenderness" means tossing moneychangers from the temple, excoriating the pharisees as "brood of vipers", etc.

Last week a New York Times article appeared online entitled "The New Catholic Truce".  For something coming out of NYT, I thought the author did a reasonably decent job in detailing the harmful effects of AL  Here is one cogent quote:  What the church considers serious sin becomes mere “irregularity.” What the church considers a commandment becomes a mere “ideal.” What the church once stated authoritatively it now proffers tentatively, in tones laced with self-effacement, self-critique.

You can see that he notices that the pope is shying away from the commands of Jesus Christ.  The author seems to think that such is the language of "truce" and that the pope is trying to satisfy both progressives and faithful Catholics.  He might have a point.  What often happens when one tries to please everybody is that he pleases nobody.  Of course when we're talking of papal writings, one should hope that the pope would only be trying to please One Person, God Himself.

I left a comment on the facebook page where this originated.  Here it is.  There's no "truce". As long as evil dissent is allowed to fester in the Church, there damned well better be division in the Church for we cannot "unite" around a policy of appeasing evil. More often than not, conciliatory language of "truces" is satanic in origin.

Cardinal Burke recently penned a commentary on AL that appears in the National Catholic Register.  While he rightly states that AL is not part of the Magisterium of the Church, I believe he misses the mark when it comes to understating the real damage being done to people by that heresy-infested document.  With all due respect to His Eminence, his is not the first  attempt to  do "damage control" for the pope and to pretend that when his deliberately ambiguous statements cause confusion in the minds of so many souls, that it really isn't "that bad".

I've read writings of other papal apologists who suggest that we should all break out in thanksgiving because the Vicar of Christ did not overtly show himself to be an anti-pope.  Such writing is pathetic and is its own scandal.  Is that the best we should expect from the Church's chief shepherd?  How craven we have become when it is suggested by Catholic authors that we all wax lyrical when the successor of Peter doesn't spew forth too much spiritual poison.  Alas, with AL such flimsy hopes were not to be realized.  Read Steve Skojec's take on the matter, with which I wholly agree.

Do Not Believe Every Spirit But Test Against God's Word

The Vatican Radio station published the homily that the pope gave at his Mass yesterday.  The full text is here.  Remember - this is on the Vatican's website. You can't blame the "big bad media" for taking the pope's words out of context. He spoke about docility to Amoris Laetitia the Holy Spirit.  Well, we can glean just what he meant.  Here is a key line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit under the guise of loyalty to the law."

Now what is this law to which the Pope so disdainfully refers?  Let's be blunt; it's the Sacred Tradition of the Church found in her dogmas, Sacred Scripture, canon law, moral precepts, etc.  Now from where did these originate?  From God Himself and that would also include the Holy Spirit.  So in light of these facts, let's rephrase that line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit because of loyalty to the Holy Spirit."

True docility to the Holy Spirit is not this "will o' the wisp" lark that the pope seems to embrace.  Remember his "god of surprises" schtick?  Where in all of Scripture or Tradition does anyone find precedent for that phrase?  We don't.  Some time ago there was yap and yammer from the pope about "change".  Not possible.  The Sacred Deposit of Faith and Tradition will not change.  Why? Because God, the source of the Faith is Himself immutable.  So if "loyalty to the law" renders you resistant to the spirit, keep resisting for that "spirit" is not the Holy Spirit.  Sacred Scripture in fact tells us to "test the spirits" for there are many out there that are malevolent.  One key way of doing that is to measure these "spirits" against God's already-revealed Word.

Do we have here yet another attempt at grooming the Catholic populace for seismic changes in "pastoral practices" that will be tantamount to de facto changes in doctrine.  Note I said "de facto" and not "de jure".  The pope can never change solemn Church teaching per se; but he and others can do immense harm by instituting "pastoral practices" that have the same spiritual effect.

Please pray.  Please be aware.

I'll now put up a clip created by my blogging colleage at AKA Catholic.

Cardinal Burke And Bishop Schneider On Resisting The Rot Within The Church

Courtesy of LifeSiteNews, we have videos of both prelates offering their wisdom on the need to resist errors from Church hierarchy.  A few weeks ago, Cardinal Burke gave a presentation at the Rome Life Forum in Rome, speaking on the need to resist those in the Church who expound false teaching on marriage, family and sacraments.  In the video we hear him declare "for example, today in the Church, there are those who refer to the objective reality of the grace of marriage as merely an ideal to which we more or less seek to conform ourselves."  Without specifically mentioning "amoralis lamentia", he was clearly contradicting the falsehoods stated throughout that thing that clearly utilized the language of marriage being merely an "ideal".  Here is a link to the full talk, with video, on the Voice of the Family site.  I urge all to read it.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider was also at the Rome Life Forum and was interviewed by LifeSiteNews.  One question that LSN asked him is whether or not faithful Catholics should remain silent in the face of the pope's controversial - and yes, erroneous - statements to prevent possible harm to the papacy.  Bishop Schneider replied in the negative, stating that the Church is not a dictatorship, where the subjects are afraid to contradict the dictator.  He also spoke at the conference, stating that "there can be no joy of love without first the joy of truth".  He used his play on the English translation of the flawed encyclical to point out its many flaws.

John Smeaton, co-founder of Voice of the Family, also addressed the forum.  He enunciated the need for a Catholic resistance movement.  In his talk, he read aloud his letter to Pope Francis that asked the pope to immediately withdraw "amoralis lamentia" for the harm contained therein.

An another interview that he gave, Cardinal Burke spoke of the pressures that many priests will now face in the light of "amoris lamentia", to give Holy Communion to known adulterers.  He stated that these clergy will have the duty to "refuse and pay the consquences".  He went on to say that for them, "being unjustly punished by a superior is part of confessing the faith".  Those of the Archdiocese of Washington, particularly of St John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg MD will recall what happened over four years ago, when Father Marcel Guarnizo refused Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian and was maltreated by the DC chancery.  Other priests have likewise been persecuted; their number is sure to mount.

In addition to prayer and maintaining our own fidelity to Our Lord, we must speak out when we see error, as Bishop Schneider reminded us.  Yesterday the pope gave us yet another occasion to do so, during his interview with La Croix.  In it, he equates the muslim doctrine of jihad with the Great Commission given by Our Lord to the Twelve to "make disciples of all nations".  To equate the murderous impulses of a barbarian cult to the command of Our Lord Himself is nothing short of blasphemy.  Let's call it what it is.  I now link to an extensive article found in the Remnant, discussing when and how a heretical pontiff could be deposed.  I pray to God it never comes to this.

Today Church Militant gave a great example of Catholic laity engaging in proper Catholic resistance.  Bishop Hanchon, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, presided at a confirmation at Assumption Grotto.  For reasons incomprehensible to decent, sane Catholics, the bishop decided to give a ukulele performance from the pulpit.  The resistance came from the organist, who played so as to drown him out.  Church Militant has video of the episode.  While it's sickening to see a bishop carry on like an adolescent, it was quite delightful to see that he didn't get away with it.

So how will we resist in our own locales?  Notice the question is "how", not "if".  If we haven't yet, let's start pondering these matters seriously.

Pope Francis Appoints Jeffrey Sachs To Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences

Readers of this blog will recall that I've written much about Jeffrey Sachs.  He is a population control proponent who has openly advocated for contraception and abortion as means of "reaching a level and sustainable population".   Because (not "despite" but "because") of that, he has been quite a fixture about the Vatican these past several years, having weighed in on Laudato Si, possibly Amoris Laetitia and various synod reports.  In short, his pernicious and spiritually deadly musings have been promulgated by the Vatican.

Sachs, with Jewish roots, has never announced any conversion to Catholicism although he claims Catholic social teaching has influenced him.  Of course that influence is of the progressive "social justice warrior" variety that is merely a facade for all things atheist and socialist, as evinced by his advocacy of baby-slaughter and his silence regarding human rights abuses in Red China.

I suppose all this, in the eyes of this current pope, makes Sachs a prime candidate for a position in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  That's right!  A non-Christian pro-abort is now occupying an official position within a Vatican organization. 

Please pray your Rosaries and please prepare to resist this pope when what he says or does runs counter to the Faith and Christian morality.

Confusion Of Amoralis Lamentia Strikes In Surprising Venues

Preface: "Amoralis Lamentia" is the nickname that I have given to Amoris Laetitia.  I believe that more aptly describes the nature of this exhortation.

Consider the following excerpt from a commentary on AL that was just published.  This excerpt has to do with Holy Communion being given to those in adulterous situations:

Because of the format in which it was published, I'm unable to copy/paste it.  If it is too small to read, here is the link and you'll want to look in the right-hand column.

No - your eyes are not deceiving you!  The source of this really is the Marians of the Immaculate Conception!  I've found them to be a devout order, dedicated as they are to spreading the Divine Mercy message, particularly through the Chaplet of Divine Mercy as given to St Faustina.  I might have expected such sloppiness from America or the National Catholic Reporter, but not at all from the Marians.  This is indeed sad.

Under the "For example" heading we see the author of this article clearly engaging in "situation ethics".  Look at the example.  The author doesn't even ascribe ignorance of the Church's teaching to his hypothetical woman.  He talks of the tough issues about which the Pope and bishops have been agonizing recently.  That last word is key, for I clearly suspect that such situations have existed for hundreds of years.  Why "recently" is there so much "agonizing" that hasn't been seen for the rest of Church history?

It's really quite simple.  (Note: I said "simple", not "easy".  The two words are not synonyms.)  If this hypothetical woman were to attempt to receive Holy Communion while still living in an adulterous situation, she would incur the guilt of making a sacrilegious Holy Communion.  Any priest and/or bishop who advises her that such is permissible is in fact lying to her and goading her into actions that can imperil her eternal salvation.  No amount of "agonizing" will change that eternal reality.

Two prominent clerics have publicly and rightly decried this attempt to introduce this spiritual poison that is found in Amoralis Lamentia.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider has directly said that parts of AL are "objectively erroneous".  He said quite a few other things about AL as well.

We also should recall what Cardinal Burke said four months ago.  He flat out said that if the Pope should move in the direction of giving Holy Communion to de facto adulterers, that "I will resist".  Not only he, but we faithful Catholics must resist as well.

In other Marian-related news, yesterday the Pope canonized the founder of that order, Blessed Stanislaus Papczynski.