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.

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.

Thoughts On Why Amoris Laetitia Undermines The Faith

Not being one to "reinvent the wheel" I'm going to link to some excellent commentaries on Amoris Laetitia and post an interview conducted by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN.  Here they are.

• This is an analysis of Chapter 8 found in Catholic World Report by Eduardo Echeverria, comparing it with Veritatis Splendor by Pope Saint John Paul II.
• Christopher Ferrera wrote "Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy Of A Pontifical Debacle".  It is a thorough analysis of AL.  Because AL is long, this is fairly long too, but well worth the read.
• LifeSiteNews reports that Pope Francis doesn't remember Footnote 351.  However, his remarks during that plane ride from Greece indicate that he was at least aware of the controversy contained therein.  Does he suffer from "Clinton Amnesia Syndrome"?  At any rate, the buck stops at his desk.  He owns it.  It is his responsibility, not that of some Vatican bureaucrat.

Before I post the Arroyo interview, I'll urge everyone again to read Amoris Laetitia for themselves.  Educate yourselves as to what is proceeding from this pontificate.  If you care about your loved ones and their souls, it is your responsibility to educate yourselves.  I realize the tone of my suggestion may seem rather strong, but I've been reading/hearing too many suggestions that "the ordinary Catholic" need not read AL.  Such suggestions are both irresponsible and condescending and should be utterly rejected outright.

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.

CUA Ethicist Recommends Reworking Of Amoris Laetitia

Sometimes Crud gets it right.  This time is occasioned by the publishing of a commentary by Michael Pakaluk, professor at Catholic University of America.  He is troubled by the obvious input of Archbishop Victor Fernandez.  He points out that several of the passages in AL, including some from Chapter 8, were lifted almost verbatum from earlier writings done by Fernandez.  Apparently the same can be said for some passages from both Evangelii Gaudeum and Laudato Si.

I've written a bit about Fernandez before; see this anthology of posts.  For obvious reasons, he could well be nick-named "bishop kissy-mouth".  At any rate, Pakaluk delves more into the errors of Fernandez's statements and his misquotes of prior church writings in an attempt to justify the twisted conclusions embedded in Amoris Laetitia.  Pakaluk therefore suggests that "Amoris needs to be taken back to the shop" and while they're at it, to address the other ambiguities broached by the dubia.  Agreed.

Pope Snubs Dubia Cardinals Yet Again

As we all know, Cardinals Brandmuller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner issued four questions, called dubia, to seek clarification from Pope Francis regarding the intended meanings behind certain passages of Amoris Laetitia - most notably, chapter 8.  These questions were issued last September.  To date the "dubia cardinals" have received no reply.

Last April they requested a private audience with the pope to follow up on the dubia.  The request was made by a letter penned by Cardinal Caffarra.  The blogger Sandro Magister obtained a copy and it has been published on numerous sites.  I'll reproduce it below.  The letter was hand-delivered to the pope.  Sadly this letter is receiving the same treatment as did the original dubia.  If the pope grants the audience later, I'll gladly report on that development.

Now the text of the letter:
--------------------------------------------------------

Most Holy Father,

It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the "sweet Christ on earth," as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus. We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the munus of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which "has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood" (Acts 20:28).

On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five dubia, asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.

Most Holy Father,

A year has now gone by since the publication of Amoris Laetitia. During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on. One is reminded of the bitter observation of B. Pascal: "Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank."

Numerous competent lay faithful, who are deeply in love with the Church and staunchly loyal to the Apostolic See, have turned to their Pastors and to Your Holiness in order to be confirmed in the Holy Doctrine concerning the three sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist. And in these very days, in Rome, six lay faithful, from every Continent, have presented a very well-attended study seminar with the meaningful title: "Bringing clarity."

Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience.

May Your Holiness remember us in Your prayers, as we pledge to remember You in ours. And we ask for the gift of Your Apostolic Blessing.

Carlo Card. Caffarra

Rome, April 25, 2017

Feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist

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.

Was Pope Benedict Deposed To Make Way For Amoris Laetitia And Other Insults To The Faith?

This post will highlight two posts concerning this current papacy.  At first glance they may appear to be unrelated to each other.  I suspect they are very much related, for reasons that I'll state further into this post.

The first is from Bear Witness Central entitled "Was There A Coup In The Vatican To Depose Pope Benedict XVI?"  For the record, I believe there was, for Benedict's resignation appears to be most uncharacteristic of him.  Several circumstances are mentioned therein: the election of Pope Francis after the reigns of two faithful popes, the admission of Cardinal Danneels of a "mafia" within the Vatican that opposed Pope Benedict XVI, and Danneels' rise in prominence after Francis ascended the papal throne despite his own dissidence from the Church's moral teachings.  I won't go into every detail of that post here, but suggest its careful study since many facts of Pope Francis' words and conduct, and their relationships to one another, are illustrated.

The second is by Sandro Magister entitled "Amoris Laetitia Has A Ghost Writer. His Name Is Victor Manuel Fernandez."  If Fernandez's name sounds familiar, I regret that it is for cause.  I've written a bit about him in the past.  It was Edward Pentin who broke the news that Fernandez would be the principal author of the post-synodal exhortation; at the time of Pentin's revelation, Amoris Latetia was not yet named.  Fernandez is also the author of some crap entitled "Heal Me With Your Mouth; The Art Of Kissing".  That sure makes Fernandez sound like some porn author.  No wonder I was inspired to rename AL to be "amoralis lamentia".

What Magister points out that really raises eyebrows are the comparisons of theologically faulty pieces of AL with previous writings of Fernandez's of several years ago.  The similarities suggest that AL may well have been drafted before the two synods.  That seems to be the case for the synod reports: written before the synod fathers could have any meaningful input.  I agree with my colleagues at Rorate Caeli when they postulate that the two synods were merely fronts to legitimize the screed of Fernandez.

So what is the connection between these two posts that I cite?  Fernandez wrote his articles, the foundations of "amoralis lamentia" well before Cardinal Bergoglio became Pope Francis.  Its promulgation is one key step in the deconstruction of Catholic life as we know it.  Pope Benedict stood in their way and needed to be removed.  I believe he was.  After that, we immediately saw the little insults to traditions, such as dispensing with traditional papal garb, the beach ball on the altar of St. Mary Major, clown nose selfies to the more harmful gaffes ("who am I to judge").  I could go on and on, but the undermining of the Faith has worsened in both number and severity of incidents.

Pope Paul VI is quoted as saying, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church".  He was right, and now the Vatican is full of carbon monoxide.  Pray, stay alert, and speak out.

FWIW - Thoughts On 2016 And 2017

In a few hours 2016 will end and 2017 will begin.  On a personal note 2016 has been somewhat difficult owing to two family deaths, one of them immediate.   With regards to Catholic and national life, it's a mixed bag from my perspective.

Of course Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.  But think about the words of that promise, for Our Lord chooses His words precisely and words have precise meanings.  When we talk about the gates of any institution not prevailing, doesn't that refer to that institution being under seige?  In this case, wouldn't the Church then be the attacking army?  Let's be very blunt about this, shall we?  At this time, the Church is taking no proactive stand against any real evil whatsoever.  I'm speaking primarily of the institutional Church, starting with Pope Francis himself for he constantly displays his divergence from the true mission of the Church to save souls.  Instead of having the salvation of souls and fidelity to the magisterium at the forefront of its actions and very existence, the institutional church, under the deliberate impetus from this pope, not only cowers before the gates of hell but in some cases (Amoris Laetitia being only the latest example) seems to be reinforcing the gates of hell.

There are pockets of faithful Catholics who are striving to keep the faith alive.  By God's grace we are finding each other and are learning to work together to counteract at least some of the mischief that emanates from the Vatican.  Within the past few weeks four faithful prelates promulgated the dubia to correct errors being caused by Amoris Laetitia, and more are rallying with them.   Unless the pope issues an appropriate response to the dubia, a formal correction to the errors of Amoris Laetitia will be issued.  In that we rejoice and pray for while correction seems to be forthcoming, it won't come without considerable angst.  In the meantime we bloggers will keep writing in the hopes of waking up fellow Catholics.  In the midst of this travail, I'm stunned by how many Catholics are oblivious to the sorry state of the Church at large.  While some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the official Catholic news outlets, the great bulk of it lies with the Catholics in the pews themselves.  Most have internet access.  With real information just a few mouse clicks away, there's simply no excuse for ignorance.

On the national front, 2017 promises to be much better than the past eight years.  During the first few days of November there was much apprehension regarding the real possibility of a Hillary presidency.  Many prayers, many rosaries were offered for the outcome of the election.  God displayed His mercy in sparing us the scourge of four more years of a quasi-socialistic dictatorship.  That's not to say that Trump will be perfect, but let's face it; Bozo the Clown would have been preferred over Hillary.  Trump's election is not so much a cure as it is a reprieve.  We now have some breathing room, some time, in which to work.  We must pray, fast, work, educate our fellow Americans regarding our heritage.  Catholics in particular must work to learn the Faith ourselves and to bring Christ's teachings into the public square.

2017 can be an opportunity to bring western civilization back from the precipace.  The question now is whether or not we will avail ourselves properly of that opportunity or squander it.

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.

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.

Papal Reactions To The Dubia

Tomorrow there will be a consistory at the Vatican to formally create the new Cardinals.  Traditionally before such gatherings, the pope has held pre-consistory meetings with already existing cardinals before the ceremony.  This time he canceled it.  Understandably a number of eyebrows are raised, particularly because Pope Francis has often lauded "dialogue" and "collegiality".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to postulate a reason for this cancellation.  That reason is the Dubia written by the four cardinals, requesting formal clarification regarding doctrinally questionable segments of Amoris Laetitia.  A response from the pope has been requested.  Can anyone doubt that it would seem grossly disingenuous of the pope if he didn't at least mention it at any meeting of cardinals.

The Dubia is formatted in such a way that it must be answered with "yes" or "no", with no "in-between" responses feasible.  In an interview, the pope had this to say: "Some, as with certain responses to Amoris Laetitia, persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life.."  "Discern in the flow of life"?  What the hell does that mean???  Might it be a clever way of saying "go with the flow"?  If so, what flow?  Who/what determines the flow?  Are we even (in the pope's mind) even allowed to ask that question, because, well - the god of surprises!!!  Faithful Catholics have news for him.  Has he considered that at the end of time there will either be heaven or hell?  Doesn't that truth seem to be rather "black and white"?

Elsewhere in the interview he says critics of Amoralis Lamentia "don't understand" that the Church "exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God's merciful design".  As I learned my Baltimore Catechism, Jesus Christ founded the Church to help us get to heaven.  That is done by administration of the Sacraments, as well as promulgation of Christ's teachings.  His teachings on faith and morals are quite direct, "black and white".  One either obeys or disobeys them.

I will post now a video of yesterday's episode of World Over, where Raymond Arroyo interviews Robert Royal and Edward Pentin.  The whole thing is worth watching, but pay close attention between the 27:10 and 29:09 marks, where Pentin relates what his sources told him, that the dubia has the pope "boiling with rage".  While we'd hope for a calm response to the letter, at least we know that the dubia isn't being ignored - at least privately.

Let us pray that the pope reaffirms the Teachings of Jesus.  Barring that, let us pray that these cardinals stay the course and that others join them.  Vox Cantoris has words about that.  Now the video.

News Flash! The Church Does Not Do Paradigm Shifts!

Thank George Weigel for that title.  He is correct.

Heterodox Cardinal Cupich gave an address in Cambridge England last week; here's the full text of the gibberish.entitled, "Pope Francis' Revolution Of Mercy: Amoris Laetitia As A New Paradigm Of Catholicity".  Not possible.  The Deposit of the Faith cannot change for it comes from God who is Himself immutable.  There can be no "paradigms" when it comes to Church doctrine and/or Church practice.  Anything that pretends to be a "new paradigm" is by definition heresy.

Section 1 of the thing, called "The Present Reality", contains a bald-faced lie.  It claims, "His description of the present reality in chapter 2 of Amoris relies heavily on the worldwide consultation of the faithful and the deliberations of the bishops at the 2014 and 2015 synods on marriage and family."  No, it doesn't.  Many of us reported on those two synods and how the deliberations of the bishops were disregarded and overruled by the select few in control.  But I really don't have time to wade through this gobblygoop.  FatimaPerspectives has a decent treatment of the mess.

The National Catholic Register informs us that Cupich will carry on his Amoralis Lamentia shilling in three seminars for the benefit (?) of US bishops.  He will be assisted by some of the usual gang of suspects: Cardinals Kevin Farrell, Donald Wuerl, Joseph Tobin, Bishop Robert McElroy.  Of course what would such seminars be without some key laypeople?  Therefore Kate Ward, former board member of Call to Action, is involved.

Please note in the Vortex below the references made to the two synods in 2014 and 2015.  These two synods were a sham, meant to lend legitimacy and pave the way for Amoralis Lamentia.  Voris also has some words to say about Cardinals Tobin and Cupich.  I must take issue with an implied belief that Pope Francis is merely too concerned with mercy so as to "let his strings be tugged".  The evidence is all too clear that Pope Francis is a willing and knowing accomplice, if not a leader, in these attempts to subvert our Faith.

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.

Cardinal Burke: Formal Correction Now Necessary

As we all know, the pope has not responded to the dubia issued by Cardinals Burke, Branduller, Caffara, and the now-deceased Meisner.  The dubia were five very simple questions, requiring a mere "yes" or "no".

Cardinal Burke, in a recent interview, has stated that in light of the pope's unresponsiveness, a formal correction on some areas of the pope's teachings (particularly as found in Amoris Laetitia) is now necessary.  The pope will then be obliged to respond.  As Burke points out, the Church is being divided over various interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.  Recent comments from the Vatican favor interpretations that fly in the face of Church Tradition, i.e., the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews has summarized twelve points about this situation.  The text of the interview (at least the pertinent section) is here.   Meanwhile, Cardinal Brandmuller (another dubia cardinal) published an article about a tradition of popes reciting a declaration of faith upon their ascents to the char of Peter; it's high time that tradition was reinstated.

Let us pray that these Cardinals can proceed with all due haste, and more importantly, that the pope will respond to this correction in such a way that will preserve fidelity to the Church's timeless teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, and the sacraments.

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.

Ominous Yet Expected Answers To Dubia

Today, as the Sin-Nod on Sodomy approaches, Francis received a new set of dubia, another attempt to ask him to clarify his statements and actions.  This is signed by five cardinals.  The first two are the surviving two cardinals who issued the first set of dubia about seven years ago: Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Brandmuller.  They were joined by Cardinals Sarah, Zen, and Sandoval-Iniguoez.

Cardinal Burke, on his webpage, gives some critical background and information regarding the dubia, as well as its text.  Originally, five dubia were presented to Francis this past July.  Francis was rather prompt in issuing replies to them, unlike the ones from several years ago.  He did so, however, in such a way that allowed for, shall we say, "wiggle room".  Realizing the problem, the five cardinals reissued their dubia in August.  At that time, the questions were formulated so that a "yes" or "no" would be required to answer the questions.  After not receiving answers to the August dubia, the cardinals decided to make them public knowledge on October 2nd.  The full texts of the two sets of dubia, as well as the responses to the first set of dubia, are found on Burke's site.  

I should point out that the five cardinals received some key support.  Both Cardinal Muller and Bishop Scheider voiced their support for the dubia.  They praised the five cardinals for acting as true advisors to the pope and calling on him to answer the dubia.  While these dubia have not received formal answers as of this writing, recent actions seem to answer at least a few of them.  It is a case of "actions speak louder than words".

The five cardinals weren't the only ones to submit dubia to Francis.  In July, Cardinal Dominik Duka of Prague submitted ten dubia on behalf of the Czech Episcopal Conference.  These focused on the care of divorced/remarried Catholics in light of Amoris Laetitia.  Francis and Cardinal Victor "Kissy-Face" Fernandez replied that Amoris Laetitia does indeed allow those de facto adulterers to receive Holy Communion, thus committing sins of sacrilege.

During a pre-synod retreat, Father Timothy Radcliffe (where have we heard that name before?) gave an address of sorts.  He started by apologizing for his limitations.  What are these limitations that necessitated an apology?  Why, he's old, western, white and male!  Oh, the horror!  He commiserates with those who might feel "marginalized" - folks who might be divorced/remarried, in gay relationships, polygamous, etc".  Why, they "long for a renewed church in which they will feel fully at home, recognized, affirmed, and safe."  Doesn't that sound lovely?  A bastardized renewed church!  And what about that "affirmed" part?  Affirmed in mortal sin?  How will that assist the sinner as they stand before God's judgment seat?

Now recall Francis' answer to the first dubia regarding marriage, particularly, attempts by gays to simulate "marriage".  While Francis reiterated that marriage can only be between man and woman, he voiced the possibility of "blessing" gay shack-ups.   Full stop!  One cannot "bless" mortal sin.  Such an attempt would be its own sin.  Francis and many Catholics need to review the nine ways of cooperating in the sin of others, for that is what they are doing.

He's leaving it up to individual priests as to whether or not they should "bless" gay shack-ups.  So consider; he gives priests that illegitimate option, but comes down heavy-handed on them if they should celebrate the Latin Mass!  Does that make any sense?  Well, yes it does!  Both these actions are attempts to deconstruct the Church and undermine the teachings of God as revealed through His church.

Today is October 4.  This Sin-Nod on Sodomy is expected to go on all month.  Already it is proving to be a proverbial train wreck.  No doubt there will be more damage to come.