Did The Pope Just Answer the Dubia In The Worst Way Possible?

As way of review, I link to my post in which I published the original letter of the four Cardinals.  In that letter are the five dubia as they were formally promulgated.

In September of 2016, the pope wrote a letter to some Argentinian bishops in which he said that "in some cases", divorced and civilly remarried Catholics (that is, Catholics living in the mortal sin of adultery) could receive Holy Communion.  Furthermore, that letter stated that there was "no other interpretation" of Amoralis Lamentia possible.

Comes now the news that the pope has declared that this letter that he wrote to the Argentinian bishops is "authentic Magisterium".  That is, he has attempted to change the teaching of the Catholic Church that she received from Jesus Christ Himself centuries ago.  See here for another analysis.

Does the meme to the right depict the current state of affairs of the Church?  Does this new "magisterium" rise to the level of formal heresy?  If not, why?  If so, it would seem that we may not have a pope, save the Pope Emeritus.

At any rate, it would appear that the pope has indeed answered the first of the five dubia incorrectly.  Now will Cardinals Brandmuller and Burke issue the formal correction immediately?  How much more damage must ensue before that happens?

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.

Attention Vatican! Envirowhackoism Is NOT Magisterial Teaching

A December 3rd Acton Institute conference in Rome saw a close papal adviser make statements about the Magisterium that are, well, not in keeping with Church tradition.  The bishop in question is Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.  He unabashedly stated that the politically correct and scientifically unsound envirowhackoism as espoused by progressives is to be considered part of the magisterium.  Why?  Because the pope included it in Laudato Si.  LifeSiteNews has a full report.

The bishop found himself contradicted by Acton president Father Robert Sirico and journalist Ricardo Cascioli.  Sorondo then uttered this incredible nonsense as the definition of the magisterium: When the Pope has assumed this, it is Magisterium of the Church whether you like it or not..

Got that?  According to him, mere assumption is enough to constitute Church teaching.  Of course that is poppycock.  At the very least, any such "assumption" must be in conformity with already-established Church teaching, and that teaching states that the pope can speak infallibly only on matters of faith and morals.

My Catholic Media Coalition colleague at Les Femmes also commented on this bishop's foolish pronouncement, one that Father Fessio called an "embarrassment to the Church".  As I mentioned in her comments, this bishop was merely parroting the pope.  I now link to a piece published by Catholic Citizens of Illinois (another Catholic Media Coalition member).  It is by Carl Olson, editor of Catholic World Report.  He writes about the many gaffes that this current pontiff has uttered and the damage done by them.  I daresay this latest nonsense by Bishop Sorondo claiming that Laudato Si is defined dogma of the Church is just the latest example of the havoc being caused by these regrettable papal statements.

Catholic Church Entrusted With The Full Truth

I cannot say it better than this Real Catholic Vortex installment.  (Click here if you can't see embedded video)



I also want to highlight an address given by Archbishop Chaput of Denver on August 24th.  It is entitled, "Living within the truth: Religious liberty and Catholic mission in the new order of the world".  I urge all to read it in its entirety.

I'll quote a few salient points.  The archbishop makes a very important distinction.  "First, “freedom of worship” is not at all the same thing as “freedom of religion.” Religious freedom includes the right to preach, teach, assemble, organize, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith. This is the classic understanding of a citizen’s right to the “free exercise” of his or her religion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s also clearly implied in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast, freedom of worship is a much smaller and more restrictive idea."  Now how often lately have we been hearing the oligarchy in DC celebrate "freedom of worship"?  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a mere "difference of terms".  They know full well what they're doing.  For all their egregious faults, most of them are lawyers who understand the importance of language and who will go to great lengths to manipulate it to serve their progressive world views.

Again.. "Today’s secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering."  He's right.  The Messiah Most Miserable and his Adoring Minions are acting to restrict all our rights that are guaranteed under the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, too, for that matter).  This is clearly a case of "use it or lose it".  We must speak out and bring our beliefs to the public square and yes, into the voting booths with us this November and in all subsequent elections.