Jorge and a Pregnant Bride

THERE IS still much to say about Amoris Laetitia, the “apostolic exhortation,” or sexhortation, of Jorge Bergoglio — you know, that big-time celebrity who goes by the stage name of “Pope Francis.” Released on April 8, after months of anticipation, the long-winded document on marriage and family, has since resulted in an outpouring of commentaries.

You have to read Amoris, or read those worthy commentators who have read it, to appreciate how extensive its attack on the family and Christian civilization is. Francis goes so far in this staggering, pseudo-pontifical document as to say that God sometimes approves of mortal sin and that His divine laws need not be obeyed by people who don’t understand their “inherent value.” The implications for all of morality, not just sexual morality, are immense.

Imagine a murder suspect going to court and saying to the judge, “Look, I understand there are laws against murder, but I don’t understand their inherent value,” and the judge saying, “Well, if your conscience is uneasy about this law, it need not apply to you.” That’s the type of situation ethics promoted by Frank the Faker.

Granting those in “irregular situations” — the new code term for fornication and adultery — full access to the sacraments at the discretion of pastors and bishops is supposedly the worst of Amoris’s content. But the document is literally stuffed with heresies, blasphemies and pseudo-psychological garbage, most of it in code language. The Argentine Bomber is now into nuclear weaponry.

It could take a long time for all Amoris’s assaults on moral theology to be appreciated and brought to light, but hard-working, self-sacrificing analysts have accomplished a lot already. I note here some of the best critiques. Be forewarned. Delving into Amoris is like mental root canal. You might only be able to keep your mind open to it for a few minutes at a time. Novocain can’t help you as you make your way through the deceptions and gooey, sentimental doublespeak. Most people won’t have the stamina to read it or to realize just how radical it is. But even those who do read it will be thrown off guard and confused by its blasts of hot air and crafty ambiguity.

Ross Douthat in The New York Times writes:

Amoris “carries a distinctive late-Marxist odor — a sense that the church’s leadership is a little like the Soviet nomenklatura, bound to ideological precepts that they’re no longer confident can really, truly work.

A slippage that follows from this lack of confidence is one of the most striking aspects of the pope’s letter. 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.

Francis doubtless intends this language as a bridge between the church’s factions, just dogmatic enough for conservatives but perpetually open to more liberal interpretations. And such deliberate ambiguity does offer a center, of sorts, for a deeply divided church.

But not one, I fear, that’s likely to permanently hold.

It is more accurate to say that the pope intends this language as a Trojan Horse. It is obvious what this enemy of the Catholic Church who kisses the feet of the “transgendered,” meets with trashy celebrities, makes consoling calls to unwed mothers and chose as ghostwriter of his encyclical on ecology, Victor Manuel Fernández, author of  “Heal me with your Mouth: The Art of Kissing.”

As Pope Pius X warned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ambiguity is a weapon: 

It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.

Revolutionaries would not have credibility if they came right out and said it.

Just how revolutionary is Amoris?

In this interview on Restoration Radio (it’s worth the subscription price), Bishop Donald Sanborn says “all of the moral principles of the Catholic Church are thrown to the dogs” in Amoris, which is the culmination of Vatican II, trashing the last remaining moral principle not yet undermined by the Conciliar Church — the principle of the indissolubility of marriage. Fr. Anthony Cekada, another sedevacantist, also participates in this extended conversation. He explains how Amoris elevates “conscience over law.”

While Amoris ostensibly leaves doctrine untouched, it allows it to be overturned in practice, under the principle of “pastoral discernment,” a kind of magic wand waved over sinners to turn them into victims of “irregular situations” destined for heaven. In practice, adultery and fornication and sodomy will be approved. Of course, some conservative parishes will continue to hold the line and not allow those who are in second marriages or are cohabiting or in same-sex relationships to receive Communion, but they will be doing so only at the discretion of their pastors or bishops, not because the Conciliar Church upholds the practice.

Someday, said Bishop Sanborn, the bonfire created with Vatican II documents in St. Peter’s Square will be so intense you will be able to see the flames in satellite photos. Copies of the 200-plus pages of Amoris will generate explosive heat.

The incomparable host of the radio show Tradcast (free to listeners) describes Amoris as “vintage, modernist B.S.” The “pastoral nightmare” which will result, he says, is “fully intended” by Chaos Frank.

“I can already hear some ultra conservatives bragging because their bishop does not give Communion to adulterers.”

Tradcast offers an excellent, though grueling, two-hour tour of Amoris which includes lots of appropriately hot indignation. 

Francis has the audacity to refer in paragraph 298 to the “proven fidelity” of some of those in longtime “irregular situations.” “What absolute trash,” says the host. “…You cannot be faithful to someone you are not married to. Fidelity refers to the marriage vow.” We’re talking the Sixth Commandment here, folks — a divine commandment, not a divine suggestion. In moral theology, “irregular situations” do not have “elements of marriage,” as Bergoglio maintains, anymore than “stealing has elements of making a purchase.”

Dr. Thomas Droleskey also undergoes root canal with deep analysis that begins here and ends here. “As is the case with the screeds of social revolutionaries, theological revolutionaries such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio,” he writes, “must invent straw men in order to justify their hideous schemes before men, schemes that are to the detriment of the salvation of souls and thus also to the good of men and their nations.”

One of those straw men is a Church that supposedly demanded perfection. From Amoris, paragraph 57:

I thank God that many families, which are far from considering themselves perfect, live in love, fulfil their calling and keep moving forward, even if they fall many times along the way. The Synod’s reflections show us that there is no stereotype of the ideal family, but rather a challenging mosaic made up of many different realities, with all their joys, hopes and problems. The situations that concern us are challenges. We should not be trapped into wasting our energy in doleful laments, but rather seek new forms of missionary creativity. In every situation that presents itself, “the Church is conscious of the need to offer a word of truth and hope… The great values of marriage and the Christian family correspond to a yearning that is part and parcel of human existence”.48 If we see any number of problems, these should be, as the Bishops of Colombia have said, a summons to “revive our hope and to make it the source of prophetic visions, transformative actions and creative forms of charity.”

The Catholic Church, as Dr. Droleskey explains, “has never taught that there is an ‘ideal’ family.” In fact, it has taught that every single family and every single person is affected by Original Sin and their own personal sins. It has demanded resistance to sin and repentance in its aftermath, not accomodation to it.

“Missionary creativity” is Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s special revolutionary code language for doing whatever it is he wants.

Finally, I recommend two commentaries by Atila Sinke Guimãeres of Tradition in Action. In “The Form of Amorous Laetitia under Analysis,” Guimaeres writes:

 After carefully reading AL, my first reaction to this document on love is that Pope Francis actually does not love his readers. He imposed on them an unnecessary burden that no one would inflict on anyone he loves. Indeed, he could have expressed everything he set out here in a much shorter text. The Italian copy I read, taken from the Vatican website, has 146 pages; the English edition in book format has 250 pages. It is exorbitantly large for a papal document!

Francis should have presented a better written and much shorter document. Had I been the editor of this document, I would have simply removed the five first chapters, which contain almost nothing of substance. In short, to present such a prolix draft as a final document is a lack of consideration for Catholics.

[…]

2. When one is accustomed to the papal encyclicals before Vatican II, issued in the most serious, elevated and noble language, the comparison with Francis’ populist style is shocking. Especially for topics like conjugal love, which demand a great distance and reserve, particularly when dealt with by men who supposedly have dedicated themselves to a chaste life.

But, Francis takes no such care. For example, he exclaims euphorically: “God himself created sexuality, which is a wonderful gift to His creatures.” (§ 150) (1) Since he is not taking a theoretical approach, but everything for him must be based upon “experiences,” the question that immediately comes to mind is: “How do you know that? Aren’t you supposed to be chaste?”

In “The Content of Amoris Laetitia Under Scrutiny,” Guimãeres writes that the morality of Amoris is apocalyptic and bears a “great hatred” for the Catholic Church. [Guimãeres, unfortunately, does not see that a heretic and hater of Catholicism cannot be a valid pope.]

The most shocking statement in the entire document is surely Bergoglio’s comment that those living in “irregular situations” can be in a state of grace. This turns sin on its head. Sin becomes holiness.

“Bergoglio,” says Guimãeres, “transforms the Church into the ‘habitation of devils and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird.’ (Apoc 18:2)

Please follow and like us: