Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

RIP Irony

No comment from me is necessary here:

In a nearly 40-minute prepared talk, the Pope warned new bishops against using their office to be self-serving, but rather to share the holiness, truth and love of God.

“The world is tired of lying spellbinders and, allow me to say, ‘trendy’ priests or bishops. The people sniff them out – they have God’s sense of smell – and they walk away when they recognise narcissists, manipulators, defenders of their own causes, auctioneers of vain crusades,” he said.

Irony, you will be missed.

253 thoughts on “RIP Irony”

  1. About Amoris Laetitia, frankly i don’t see the heresy. Amoris Laetitia NEVER stated that Holy Communion should be given to people guilty of mortal sin.

    Amoris Laetitia states that even a public adulterer can hafe mitigating factors who diminish his guiltiness.

    http://www.catholicnewworld.com/rbonal
    ” When i was a child I studied the Roman Catechism before making my First Holy Communion. The Catechism was written by a pope who was undoubtedly anti-modernist: Saint Pius X. I remember him saying that to receive the Eucharist a soul had to be free from mortal sin. He also explained what a mortal sin is. In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions are necessary. It must be an intrinsically evil act or gravely contrary to the moral law: that is, it has to be grave matter. Sexual relations outside of marriage are without doubt gravely contrary to the moral law. This was the case before Amoris Laetitia, this is still the case in Amoris Laetitia, and it will naturally be the case after Amoris Laetitia. The pope has not changed the Church’s doctrine.
    But Saint Pius X tells us more. For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. IF ONE IS CONVINCED IN CONSCIENCE THAT THE ACT IS NOT (GRAVELY) EVIL, THE ACTION WILL BE MATERIALLY EVIL BUT NOT IMPUTED TO THE PERSON AS A MORTAL SIN. Moreover the acting subject must give deliberate consent to the evil action. This means that the sinner must be free to act or not to act: that is, he must be free to act in one way rather than another, and he must not be coerced by a fear that obliges him to do one thing when he prefers another”.

    The key factor is this

    “IF ONE IS CONVINCED IN CONSCIENCE THAT THE ACT IS NOT (GRAVELY) EVIL, THE ACTION WILL BE MATERIALLY EVIL BUT NOT IMPUTED TO THE PERSON AS A MORTAL SIN. ”

    And this is exactly what Amoris Laetitia 301 states 301.

    ‘For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

    Where is the heresy?

    Reply
        • The problem bro is when the pope puts a lot of stuff that confuses the Church, that is not clear and very dangerous claims still said being subtle… this is when it is very dangerous. Then the pope just approved communion for divorced in Argentina Bishops, saying “there is no error in your interpretation”… See, it’s all about interpretation and it’s never clear. The faith had always been clear and it has to be clear. It can never contradict itself..

          Reply
          • In fact i see no error in the interpretation of the argentian Bishops. That someone who lives in an objectively sinful situation can be in a state of Grace is doctrine of the Church, it is not an heresy.

            Adultery is ALWAYS grave matter, but you can’t be guilty of mortal sin unless you have full awareness (beautifully explained by my compatriot Rocco Buttiglione) and free consent.

            But i agree that the Pope should (and i hope he will) issue a Motu proprio or something like that to settle this situation once and for all.

            He has the full power to change the pastoral and the law of the Church on this subject so i hope he will, shutting down all this mess.

            sorry if I did some writing error but i’m italian and i live in Italy.

          • Did you even watch the video I sent you? Here’s the money quote from Fr. Murray that completely blows your argument to smithereens (and note that Murray is not the only one saying similar things):

            “Mitigating circumstances do not give you a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Mitigating circumstances about culpability: Those apply in retrospect if you look back when you’re making your examination for confession—’What did I do?’ ‘Was anything involved?’ If you’re planning on committing adultery tomorrow, or the day after, you can’t claim ‘mitigating circumstances’. You have to say, ‘The call to conversion applies to me, just as it applies to everybody else.’ (emphasis added)

          • And nobody—not even the Pope—can propose anything that contradicts established tradition. Do you honestly think the magisterium is “whatever the Pope says on a given day”?

            Either you’re being intentionally dense, or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. You can’t square your position with Tradition. It can’t be done, no matter how much you try.

          • The Pope cannot contradict doctrine but he can change ecclesiastical laws, he has the plenitudo potestatis for a reason.

            A “tradition” is not always binding, and the Pope can change it.

          • Have you even read Familiaris consortio? John Paul II reinforces the divine nature of the matter by appealing directly to sacred Scripture. That alone makes it more than just a human tradition that can be changed.

          • Familiaris Consortio 84 isn’t a dogma. Even GPII knew that some divorced and remaireed were not in a state of mortal sin but he excluded them from the Holy Communion because, back in 1981, the Church feared that a more “pastoral” law could have given scandal.

            An ecclesiastical law, and that’s it. The Pope has the plenitudo potestatis and can change it.

          • But it affirms the immemorial (back to Christ and St. Paul) practice of the Church. Are you arguing that the Pope has the authority to go against that?

          • And this is why the Church is in such trouble today. People like Roberto literally think that a pope has the authority to do whatever he wants, and to question him is tantamount to schism. If the words of Christ and St. Paul can be disregarded (as Roberto argues), then our Faith is built on nothing more than the whims of whoever the man in white happens to be. And that means we have no real Faith at all.

          • Indeed – I think this maybe the reason why God is allowing the Church to go through such a chastisement at the moment. It has become mired in the worst sin of all – idolatry. Most Catholics currently think along similar lines to Roberto where effectively they put more faith in the pope and his words than they do in Christ and the Word of God.

            As a Church we have raised the Pope up so high that he can countermand Christ and most Catholics don’t see a problem with that. At best they have human faith, but certainly seem to lack supernatural faith. The punishment will be just.

          • Let’s read the Word of God

            ” I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.

            Jesus gave to Peter and his successors the plenitudo potestatis. The Pope can’t, of course, change the doctrine but he can change ecclesiastical laws if he wants, because God said ” Whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.

          • Law and doctrine are inextricably linked. If you change practice and law, you de facto change doctrine. How you don’t see this is mind-boggling.

          • This is not just an “ecclesiastical law”. It has been the constant and universal Tradition of the Church back to the time of the apostles. No Pope has the power to overturn it without putting himself out of communion with all of his predecessors.

            You are idolising the power of the papacy.

          • And Jesus said to Peter “get behind me, Satan, you are thinking like men..”

            At this point, Jorge is thinking like men.

            The binding and loosing can not contradict the words of Jesus:

            “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery.” – Luke 16:18

          • To Roberto Montesi: changing the laws is the same as changing doctrine, they are one and the same thing. There is no such a thing as a difference between doctrine and pastoral principles. If practice denies doctrine it is heretic. Likewise, there is no such a thing as invincible ignorance. Any Catholic child that has been catechized knows very clearly what is mortal and venial sin. No need to explore deeply if such a person, even a child, is ignorant of what is mortal sin.
            By the way, our Lord gave Peter the keys and the power to bind and to loose, except the power to change his own words. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, not his replacement.
            Carlos Martínez

          • Indeed. That would deny the Divine origin of the Church and render Catholicism as nothing more than another man-made religion.

          • You don’t see the difference. We know that we can’t eat the Holy Communion if we are in a state of mortal sin, but if we are not in a state of mortal sin we can.

            The Church in the past choose to not give the Holy Communion to divorced and remaireed NOT because they were always in a state of mortal sin, but because the Pope were afraid that a more “pastoral” approach could have given scandal.

            That’s not the case in this day and age.

          • My patience is gone. Your arguments are inherently flawed, completely out of step with teaching that goes all the way back to Christ Himself, and require one to perform the equivalent of an elective lobotomy to accept.

            Have you ever read the CIC 1983? Look at Canon 915, which is BINDING upon priests:

            “”Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

            It has nothing to do with being “pastoral”. It has everything to do with priests not scandalizing their flocks by allowing couples who are known to be in objective mortal sin to receive Communion.

            “That’s not the case in this day and age.”

            Spoken like a true Modernist. St. Pius X was far ahead of his time in so many ways.

          • “It has nothing to do with being “pastoral”. It has everything to do with priests not scandalizing their flocks by allowing couples who are known to be in objective mortal sin to receive Comunion”

            You keep on mistakenly equating the state of public sin with mortal sin (and you are terribly wrong, i’ve already told you why, i’m not gonna repeat myself).

            And yes, the decision was fully pastoral.

            ” Spoken like a true Modernist. St. Pius X was far ahead of his time in so many ways”.

            This is not modernism. Some actions today don’t give scandal like in the past

          • Canon 915 says anyone “persevering in manifest grave sin” (not “mortal sin”) is to be barred from Communion. It says nothing about one’s personal culpability. If they are committing objective sin and the priest knows it (as well as most likely most of the congregation), then they are to be disallowed from receiving Communion. Period.

          • Canon 915 is not dogma and i’m pretty sure the Pope will change it in the near future. He can change it, he has the full power to do it, and he received such power from Christ himself.

          • Except that isn’t what’s happening here. Francis knows he cannot change canon law in order to push this through or he will have an uprising from conservative/orthodox cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen. So what he’s doing is duplicitous. He’s trying to effectively change the law by how it is practiced without actually changing the text of the law.

          • If the pope were to change the canon (Why? No one follows it anyway), a future pope can reverse that and reinstate it.
            A future pope can also declare the present one to be an antipope.
            See Popes Formosus, Stephen VI, and Sergius III.

          • “If the pope were to change the canon (Why? No one follows it anyway), a future pope can reverse that and reinstate it.”

            Of course. Popes have the plenitudo potestatis for a reason, they have the absolute power to change the law and reinstate it. I’ve never denied that.

          • 1. Even if not in a state of subjective mortal sin, it doesn’t automatically follow that one may receive Communion. Eg, 3-year old children can’t communicate in the Western Church; one (not a celebrating priest) who has taken Communion more than twice on the same day can’t communicate again (except eg at the 3 Christmas masses.); if you’ve eaten inside the mandatory fasting times … etc, etc.

            2. If the Popes were only concerned about scandal, why did they not arrange for private communion “remoto scandolo” for these subjectively innocent remarrieds who are persisting in sexual union, just as they did for those living as “brother and sister”?

            3.The risk of scandal, albeit extremely important – even today – is only a secondary consideration. The primary consideration Familiaris Consortio gave was this: “They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”

            This objective contradiction exists regardless as to the subjective culpability of the would-be recipients.

            In 2000, the Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts explained the necessity to rely on “objective” conditions rather than subjective culpability further in the context of Canon 915 (which forbids ministers giving Communion to those obstinately persisting in manifest “grave sin”) by stipulating why “grave sin” was to be understood objectively: “because the minister of Communion would not be able to make a judgment regarding subjective imputability.”

            Fr Brian Harrison(1) comments:

            “Indeed, as the PCLT also points out, to interpret the words “grave sin” in c. 915 subjectively for civilly remarried divorcees would in “effect empty them of their substance” (section 2).

            For, logically, those words would then also have to be interpreted that way for all other Catholics living in publicly sinful situations. Since only God knows for sure the state of other people’s consciences, admitting remarried divorcees to Communion on a ‘benefit-of- the-doubt’ basis would imply showing the same indulgence to cohabiting couples, homosexual couples, polygamists, ‘polyamorists’, mafia dons, abortionists, brothel keepers, and virtually any other public sinners who choose to call themselves Catholic. Since the relevant words of c. 915 would thus end up applying to nobody at all, the PCLT points out that this ‘subjectivist’ interpretation of the canon is absurd, and therefore unacceptable.”

            4. As Fr Harrison concludes, this prohibition applying to the divorced and remarried is not merely some ecclesiastical positive law able to be altered by human authority (even the Pope): it is a matter of Divine Law.

            “Moreover, this 2000 Declaration not only asserts the “impossibility” of Communion for civilly remarried divorcees (section 5); it also makes the extremely important assertion that this prohibition, “found in the cited canon [c. 915], is by its nature derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church” (section 1, emphasis added). And precisely because divine law is at stake here, the document insists that no exceptions can be made: “Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he issue directives that contradict it” (section 4).”

            1. http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/frontpage/how-a-magisterial-document-was-manipulated-at-the-synod/

          • Canon 915 isn’t dogmatic.

            http://isoladipatmos.com/amoris-laetitia-la-teologia-dellassegno-in-bianco-il-potere-delle-chiavi-non-e-sindacabile-salvo-cadere-in-eresia/

            “# 1 of the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, We can read : “The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter can not introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. ” And here – given that the dogmatic theologians should make dogmatic theologians and canonists should do instead canonists and not the spin doctors -, there is a totally unwarranted assimilation of the aforementioned canon to the divine law, al most as if it enjoyed the same authority. The canon derives from divine law, you can not put that into question. But be careful: if it derives, it means that it is below; this is not a sophism, nor a scrambling, is pure theological logic. On the other hand, the canon law, in its essence, in addition to incorporating God’s laws, does nothing but collect the positive laws of the Church, as an expression of the power of the keys.

            ” Above the canon laws , which are the positive laws of the Church – apart from the natural law , which has nothing to do here now – there is nothing but the divine law or divine law . So , to say that a canon law ” transcends positive law ” is to attribute a divine authority , which obviously you can not say , because in that case we just have to make a joke … Well , if it is written in the Code of Canon Law by canonists , then even God Almighty can do anything !

            The reigning Pontiff has chosen to maintain the standard established by the Holy Father John Paul II to n . 84 of Familiaris Consortio , this thing makes happy , theologically speaking , both the Father Giovanni Cavalcoli is me, however, after it is confirmed , IT proceeds with a just and necessary distinction between the divine law and the laws of the Church , for example as regards ‘Eucharist. This was established by Jesus Christ and God’s law is immutable. . Discipline and administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is for the Church legislation , under the chairmanship of the Supreme Pontiff , who has power to legislate and to change laws [ cf. Note 351 ] .

            By acting in this way the Supreme Pontiff has healed a legal text in my opinion not particularly happy as the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts issued in 2000. A text that some use for their ideas ” or is black or white, ” almost as if it were a dogma of faith , while at the same time , however, putting into question – and we have also seen how aggressive contempt – a real dogma : the authority of Peter , the depositary of power the keys

            Passa a italiano

            And making use of its sovereign judiciary , the Supreme Pontiff loosens the tie too tight this Statement points between the canonical norm of exclusion and the divine law , comparing the former to the latter. . The Supreme Pontiff shows the possibility of mitigating factors and teaches that divorced and remarried can be in a state of grace. And finally shows the risk that the Declaration runs to attribute to divorced and remarried a permanent state of mortal sin , deduced too quickly by the permanence of their state of irregular life .

          • You seem to misunderstand what the sin of scandal consists in – it has nothing to do with going against what is widely acceptable in any given epoch. This is a largely Anglo-Saxon misunderstanding of the term which leads me to suspect that you are not Italian at all and “Roberto Montesi” is simply a sock puppet for a prolific internet troll who cruises a number of Catholic blogs.

            The sin of giving scandal, as understood in Catholic theology, consists in leading another person into sin. This may be done either by directly encouraging the sin, affirming that the act is not sinful, affirming that the Church or God does not consider the act sinful, failing to correct those who have an erroneous understanding of the nature of the act, i.e. leaving them in ignorance.

            In this scenario we are discussing, if the Church permitted people who are living in a state of public, permanent adultery to receive Communion, irrespective of their state of grace, this would lead the faithful and unfaithful alike to believe that adultery was no longer a sin and, therefore, be an encouragement of others to sin. This is what a situation of scandal means in this context, and it would, of itself be a serious sin. Essentially what you, Bergoglio and his minions propose is that the Church should give the appearance of endorsing sin, i.e. that the Church collectively should commit the sin of scandal.

            In the words of Our Lord, “If anybody should lead these little ones into sin, it were better that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be thrown into the sea.”

          • BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I guess given that homosexuality is also celebrated, then Communion should be given to them because it’s not such a scandal in this day and age.

            Roberto you crazy heretic! Stop and think about the absurdity of your words!

          • The law is coherent with the doctrine. Trash the law and you trash the doctrine. As Cardinal Sarah opined, people who want to make the Way and the Life conflict with the Truth suffer from a fundamental Christological heresy.

          • Familiaris Consortio 84 reflects longstanding Catholic teaching.

            There’s not a pope until now who would have said otherwise. And we all know it.

          • Roberto, FC 84 is the continuous Magisterial Teaching of the Holy Spirit…the Holy Spirit and His Spousal Church will never change the this Truth, for IT is ‘the same today, yesterday and forever’.

            Roberto, another of the problems is that Francis, or whoever wrote AL, left out Teaching by quoting Saint John Paul, Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratizinger, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Vatican II in part – leaving out the Truth that the Holy Spirit has gifted His Spousal People with and thus presenting what looks like objectively new and non-organic ‘Teaching’ ….subjectively, is this what Francis wants…he says no…it is only for the rare, exceptional cases, it isn’t universally true for the divorced and remarried, but for the few particular cases….but others want it for more, the many or the all….

          • “Roberto, FC 84 is the continuous Magisterial Teaching of the Holy Spirit…the Holy Spirit and His Spousal Church will never change the this Truth, for IT is ‘the same today, yesterday and forever’.”

            You are equating pastoral practice with dogma, this is a serious mistake: the Church will never denie the indissolubility of marriage, but She HAS to respect the faithful’s conscience.

            This is not an opinion.

            Of course the Church will present the truth, but the Truth has to be applied to people, and we the “salus animarum” as ultimate goal.

          • Quel testo dice cose che già conosco bene, e comprendo le paure dei conservatori ma, di fatto, in un punto dice esattamente ciò che sto ripetendo in questo blog

            “It is true that because of invincible ignorance, people can be living in grace while choosing objectively gravely immoral objects. But even if a pastor could know they are in such ignorance, he would have a duty in charity to help them get out of their objectively sinful situation”.

          • So basically the Pastor has to inform them of their sin. Which means their ignorance ends. Which means they amend their lives. If they don’t, they cannot receive Holy Communion. To suggest otherwise is HERESY, and brings damnation down upon the couple.

          • Is editorial mischief at play in the Pope’s exhortation?

            http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/april-29th-2016/reading-the-fine-print-in-amoris-laetitia/

            There is a touch of farce about the furtive footnotes of Amoris Laetitia, which have left reporters puzzled and perplexed. In a document of unprecedented length, why would the apparently critical conclusion be relegated to the now famous footnote 351? When asked on the return flight from Greece about it, the Holy Father dismissed its importance, saying he couldn’t remember it. But he directed journalists to the comments introducing Amoris Laetitia by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who specifically addressed the importance of footnote 351. So are the footnotes foundational or forgettable?

            The footnote follies are important. Footnotes in magisterial documents are meant to show continuity with previous magisterial teaching, as well as help shed light on the current text. They are intended to strengthen the current teaching by demonstrating its lineage. But what if the footnotes don’t appear to mean what they are intended to mean?

            Footnote 344 is one of several that illustrate the problem, and is perhaps most indicative. Pope Francis is pointing out that various subjective factors might mitigate or even extenuate moral culpability for objectively sinful acts. The footnote says: “John Paul II, in his critique of the category of ‘fundamental option’, recognised that ‘doubtless there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability’ (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17 [December 2, 1984]).”

            It appears straightforward, but it’s not. Much of the focus of the two synods was on whether John Paul’s Familiaris Consortio had to be upheld, or could be left aside. (Cardinal Schönborn said that Amoris Laetitia upheld Familiaris Consortio.) Yet the 1984 Reconciliatio et Paenitentia – the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Sacrament of Reconciliation – is equally relevant. In Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17, John Paul treats at length the exact same material as Pope Francis does in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. So the editors evidently decided that they simply could not ignore what John Paul taught there, and should reference it.

            What does the reader find when he goes back to check that paragraph? The teaching there does not appear, at first glance, to correspond to the teaching of Amoris Laetitia. A detailed textual comparison might make the case, but on its face the referenced text does not support what it is claimed to support.

            This must be described as editorial mischief. I don’t expect the Holy Father himself waded through all 391 footnotes and followed them up. He already indicated on the plane that he could not remember the most important one. So the mischief here must be attributed to those who edited Amoris Laetitia. In footnote 344, the cited portion of Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17 (para 17) indicates that the subjective culpability can be reduced by various factors. Yet the very next line in that text states directly: “But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the ‘fundamental option’ precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.”

            And the lines immediately after that would seem a very direct warning about the approach taken in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia: “While every sincere and prudent attempt to clarify the psychological and theological mystery of sin is to be valued, the Church nevertheless has a duty to remind all scholars in this field of the need to be faithful to the word of God that teaches us also about sin. She likewise has to remind them of the risk of contributing to a further weakening of the sense of sin in the modern world.”

            How then is the reader to interpret footnote 344? The citation is selective at best, not in keeping with the main thrust of the paragraph from which it is taken. Does the footnote therefore nullify Amoris Laetitia? That cannot be the intent of Pope Francis. Or does the footnote reinterpret the entire teaching of Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17, which is equally implausible? Or is the footnote simply mischievous, presenting the illusion of continuity?

            Even more striking is that, having referenced Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Amoris Laetitia ignores its most relevant section, entitled “some more delicate cases”, in which John Paul writes: “On this matter, which also deeply torments our pastoral hearts, it seemed my precise duty to say clear words in the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, as regards the case of the divorced and remarried, and likewise the case of Christians living together in an irregular union.”

            Amoris Laetitia suffers from selective citations throughout which, though apparently clever in the short term, will diminish the enduring value of this magisterial text by undermining its continuity with authoritative teaching in the recent past.

            Fr Raymond J de Souza is a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and editor-in-chief of Convivium magazine.

            This article first appeared in the April 29 2016 issue of The Catholic Herald. To download the entire issue for free with our new app, go here.

          • The Pope will change the canon 915 in the near future, right now he is changing the pastoral practice.

            Again, i fail to see the problem here; we are not talking about heresy.

          • Yes we are. Holy Communion cannot be given to public sinners who refuse to amend their lives, and therefore cannot receive penance.

            Canon Law exists to defend that MORAL UNCHANGEABLE INFALLIBLE CHURCH TEACHING.

            The Pope is attempting to change Canon Law or pastoral practices to undermine the Doctrine and justifying it with HERESY.

          • Roberto, sia limpido, davvero?! Sia Lodato Gesu` Cristo!!

            I put the more relevant paragraphs first, but the full article FROM lifesitenews.com follows…

            NOTA BENE – the couple are OBLIGED to avoid giving scandal

            The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

            HERE IS THE FULL ARTICLE

            NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCH, EDITORIAL Tue Sep 13, 2016 – 11:18 am EST

            Why all the fuss over allowing Communion for the remarried in just the hardest of cases?

            Amoris Laetitia , Catholic , Communion For Remarried , Pope Francis , Walter Kasper

            EDITORIAL

            September 13, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – After the battle in the Catholic Church over the last two years culminating in the publication of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, many Catholics may be left scratching their heads. One of the most common thoughts has been why all the fuss over allowing “remarriage” in some cases? And why not allow the happily married new couple to be good Catholics and go to Holy Communion?

            This was also one of the most frequent criticisms of our report on September 9 about the Pope’s letter praising the Argentinean bishops’ directive allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried.

            But while this practice, giving Communion even in only some of the hardest cases, may sound eminently reasonable, it would in fact totally undermine the faith. Let me explain, by among other things, using very applicable comments on the same arguments by then Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II in 1994.

            First though let me offer an analogy. Many of the moral nightmares we face today were brought in using the ‘hard cases’. We have three prominent examples of this playing out over the last 40 years: contraception, abortion and euthanasia.

            When the (Anglican) Lambeth conference proposed allowance of contraception in 1930 it was to be only for married couples, and then only in some cases. Prior to this, all Christians in the world had opposed contraception.

            When abortion was legalized it always first came in under the guise of protecting the life and health of the mother, with multiple doctors needing to confirm the necessity. Euthanasia was begun as a voluntary ending of the intolerable suffering for only those whose deaths were near.

            In all of these cases, we have seen how initial, limited violation of the previously inviolable principle has led to far more liberal use and moral anarchy.

            The famous Kasper proposal, now known to be favored by Pope Francis, was never quite as simple as a blunt demand that the divorced and remarried be admitted to the Eucharist. That confusion led some commentators to read Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation as a rejection of the Kasper proposal.

            For Kasper, whether intentional or not, his modus operandi has never been an outright demand for something heretical. It has always been a conniving and nuanced way to undermining Church teaching.

            Twenty three years ago, while he was a bishop in Germany, Kasper issued a pastoral letter to be read in all churches suggesting that the prohibition on Communion for remarried couples was not universally applicable and needed to be decided case by case.

            A summary of the matter by Rev. Professor Joseph Bolin at the International Theological Institute notes that in 1993, Kasper, along with Bishops Karl Lehmann and Oskar Saier, issued a pastoral letter urging a dialogue to consider if the “generally valid” prohibition against the remarried receiving the Eucharist applies in all cases, arguing that there ought to be “room for pastoral flexibility in complex, individual cases.”

            The bishops give a misleading nod in the direction of Familiaris Consortio saying that “divorced and remarried people generally cannot be admitted to the Eucharistic feast as they find themselves in life situations that are in objective contradiction to the essence of Christian marriage.” But Familiaris Consortio has that as an absolute prohibition. It says, “the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” The German bishops go on to argue that canon law can “set up only a valid general order; it cannot regulate all of the often very complex individual cases.”

            Sound familiar? It should. It is indeed the same language used in Amoris Laetitia.

            Kasper’s document received a Vatican reprimand in 1994 through a letter approved by Pope John Paul II but written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and later to become Pope Benedict XVI.

            Since the Kasper proposal remains largely unchanged in its current iteration, which is now known to be accepted in Amoris Laetitia, the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger may be read as a response to the Kasper proposal as reflected in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

            The Vatican letter took up the hardest of cases intentionally so as to show the logic of the necessity to adhere to the teaching and practice of the Church in every case. Laying out the scenario, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about a situation where the couple considered themselves justified in conscience in receiving Communion. He wrote:

            This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflection and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

            Cardinal Ratzinger proposes in the scenario that the couple must consult an expert priest who undertakes a “benevolent and pastoral solution” respecting their consciences without even implying an official authorization.

            He then lays out the response with clarity and charity (emphases by LifeSiteNews):

            In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

            This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”(7).

            The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

            In conclusion Cardinal Ratzinger, with the approval and sanction of Pope John Paul II, calls on pastors and all the faithful to ensure this teaching is well received. “In pastoral action one must do everything possible to ensure that this is understood not to be a matter of discrimination,” he writes, “but only of absolute fidelity to the will of Christ who has restored and entrusted to us anew the indissolubility of marriage as a gift of the Creator”

          • The words of Christ are a small-t tradition now? Ditto Paul’s teaching on receiving the Eucharist?

            You’re torching doctrine quite cavalierly. Then again, defending Francis requires no less.

          • ‘Have the same mind and heart in you that is in Christ Jesus’…

            Roberto, c’ha ragione con il suo punto…..Robert is correct with his point – one can be subjectively non-culpable and therefore still in the Holy Communion of Grace with Christ and the Living Members of His Household and so come to Holy Communion (is there anywhere Christ or any Saint has shared contrarily???)….the problem is that this is so simple and yet Francis and so many are refusing to make it clear…which gives satan a field day on both sides of the matter….Francis needs to Confirm and Feed and Tend the Sheep – and Shepherds – with the Holy Spirit’s Teaching….why he has not appears objectively sinful in many disastrous ways…and do we think this is what the Beloved desires or has intimated to Francis to do??? Let us live great prayer, penance and self-denial daily within the Hearts of Jesus and Mary for the Holy Spirit to bring His Teaching clearly and concisely!!

            Also, some ‘shepherds’ have gone further than Francis – and some sheep – and want those in mortal sin to receive, or commit Sacrilegious Communions…

            Blessings of the Jubilee, let us at be Christ in our discussions…grace and peace in JMJ

          • “Roberto, c’ha ragione con il suo punto…..Robert is correct with his point – one can be subjectively non-culpable and therefore still in the Holy Communion of Grace with Christ and the Living Members of His Household and so come to Holy Communion (is there anywhere Christ or any Saint has shared contrarily???)….the problem is that this is so simple and yet Francis and so many are refusing to make it clear”

            You are 100% right. As i said, i think that in the near future (maybe the next year) the Pope will issue a Motu Proprio or something like that, pace of the conservatives. He has the PLENITUDO POTESTASTIS AND CAN DO IT.

            If, in the Future, we’ll have an ultraconservative Pope who will reinstate certain rules he will also have the power to do it. The Popes received Plenitudo Potestatis from Christ himsel, the only thing they can’t do is teaching heresy, but this is not the case.

          • The Pope has written heresy into Amoris Letitia by stating that Couples living together immorally possess grace. They do not. Ignorance does not offer grace. If it did, the absurd conclusion would be that everyone who does not possess the Catholic Faith due to ignorance is better off than one who does. Amoris Letitia also contradicts Familiaris Consortio on the topic of conscience. DIRECT CONTRADICTION. John Paul teaches that an ill formed conscience offers no excuse. Francis teaches that an ill formed conscience is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Therefore… Heresy.

          • He didn’t say anything wrong, but what you people don’t understand is that there is the possibility of invincibile ignorance, when your conscience formulate a judgment contrary to the Magisterium without guilt.

            When such a thing happen you are not guilty of mortal sin, but it is a situation that must be discerned by the confessor.

          • Who in their right mind has no idea that adultery is a mortal sin? Natural law applies; every single civilized society recognizes that adultery is inherently wrong. Why do you think adultery qualifies as grounds for divorce in nations that don’t have no-fault divorce?

          • Many divorced and remaireed don’t think they are adulterers because they see the first marriage as “dead” in conscience, so the can’t understand why the Lord should damn them to Hell for this.

            Keep in mind that even the Holy Apostles didn’t understand at the beginning when the Lord abolished divorce.

          • That’s why we have priests to educate people so they can’t . . .

            Oh, never mind. No matter what anyone says to you, you will insist that someone cannot be held accountable for their actions, even if they have been made fully aware of the gravity of their actions, so long as their “conscience” (malformed though it may be) tells them they are not sinning.

            This is situational ethics at its worst.

          • It is DEFINITELY NOT situational ethic. When someone commits sins of the flesh there is ALWAYS grave matter, and adulterous couples make no exception, BUT if they don’t have full awareness they are not accountable of mortal sin.

            This is not situational ethic, this is tomistic doctrine at his finest.

            Situational ethic claims that in some circustances actions like adultery is not grave matter, that in some situation adultery is licit “per se”. That’s not the case of Al, which states that the sinful situation remains (because adultery is an intrinsece malum, and the definition of intrinsece malum is exactly what is denied by situational ethics) but the sinner could be in a state of Grace because of mitigating factors.

          • So people can commit mortal sin, but still be in a state of grace because . . . they don’t think it’s a mortal sin? It’s not even venial?

            Well, damn then. I should have started committing adultery a long time ago; I’ve apparently been missing out on a lot of excitement (and the opportunity to still remain in a state of grace).

            Silly, silly me.

          • “So people can commit mortal sin, but still be in a state of grace because . . . they don’t think it’s a mortal sin? It’s not even venial?”

            EVERYTIME someone commits adultery he/she commits grave matter; this is unquestionable.

            But if they don’t have full awareness the sin is not mortal, it is “only” venial.

            It it is not that someone can commit mortal sin and still be in the state of Grace (that would be a HUGE contradiction, and the principle of non-contradiction is not an optional), The fact is that someone can commit GRAVE MATTER and stilll be in a state of Grace. You are mistakenly equating grave matter with mortal sin, but that’s wrong.

            What i showed you is pure, unadultereted tomistic doctrine.

          • Quote the Summa then. Part, Question, and Article.

            You still haven’t proven how any pope has the authority to contradict Christ and Scripture, and I grow tired of waiting.

          • Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.

            I quote from this http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm

            “The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.

            Amoris Laetitia is 100% thomistic.

          • Again, you fail to provide any sort of evidence or reasoning to support your assertion that an adulterous couple can somehow be ignorant of the gravity and mortal nature of their actions upon being informed fully by their priest/confessor. You keep appealing to their consciences, but in your quote regarding St. Thomas, the author admits that, according to Thomas, “one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience . . . one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.

            So even if one is somehow truly ignorant of the gravity and mortal sin that is adultery, it does not (according to the work you yourself cited) excuse them from the responsibility to educate themselves on Truth, especially if their pastor has already informed them they are in fact in objective sin.

          • You keep appealing to their consciences, but in your quote ” regarding St. Thomas, the author admits that, according to Thomas, “one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience . . . one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.

            Exactly, one MAY have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error. But there are many case where they have an inculpably erroneous conscience.

            “So even if one is somehow truly ignorant of the gravity and mortal sin that is adultery, it does not (according to the work you yourself cited) excuse them from the responsibility to educate themselves on Truth, especially if their pastor has already informed them they are in fact in objective sin.”

            You are 100% right, but someone, even if he knows the norm, can still have problems to understand it and as long as this situation endures he/she is obliged to follow his/her conscience, even if his erroneous.

            I quote Amoris Laetitia 301, it says exactly what i’m saying

            “301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

          • ” Again, you fail to provide any sort of evidence or reasoning to support your assertion that an adulterous couple can somehow be ignorant of the gravity and mortal nature of their actions upon being informed fully by their priest/confessor”

            Well, there a lot of couples that don’f understand why God should damn them to hell, because they are happy in the new relationship while they see the first marriage as a life sentence.

            Women that were beaten and humiliated, they found happiness in a new relationship and they cannot understand why God would anatematized their relationships.

            There are case of an husband and a wife There are cases of husband and wife who are separated by mutual agreement because their marriage has become a cage for both

            There are cases of husband and wife who are separated by mutual agreement because their marriage has become a cage for both.

            There are cases where the rule “live like brother and sister” would cause the breaking of the new union with great detriment of children born from this new union and we could go on ad infinitum…

          • Now you’re just throwing out sob stories and appeals to emotion.

            If any of the couples in the situations you describe believe they have a case due to lack of understanding at the time of marriage, they can apply for a declaration of nullity. If the tribunal does not grant them one, they are married for life, end of discussion.

            Who the hell ever said marriage would be perfect for everybody? That is why couples should seriously discern with their pastor for some time before they marry in order to avoid as many of these situations as possible.

            But really, this whole “merciful” approach being bandied about is a slap in the face to men and women who have remained in troubled marriages because they took their vows seriously and made them work, or who separated and remained chaste for the rest of their lives in obedience to Christ’s teaching.

          • ” Now you’re just throwing out sob stories and appeals to emotion”.

            I’m not. I’am speaking about reality.

            “If any of the couples in the situations you describe believe they have a case due to lack of understanding at the time of marriage, they can apply for a declaration of nullity. If the tribunal does not grant them one, they are married for life, end of discussion”.

            I’m not talking about couples who can have declaration of nullity, of course; i’m talking about people who are validly married.

            “Who the hell ever said marriage would be perfect for everybody? That is why couples should seriously discern with their pastor for some time before they marry in order to avoid as many of these situations as possible”.

            You are 100% right on this, i can tell you. The problem is that sometimes those situations emerge after a lot of years, and these people don’t believe they will be damned to hell because they pursued happiness or because they wanted to give their children a father or a mother.

            ” But really, this whole “merciful” approach being bandied about is a slap in the face to men and women who have remained in troubled marriages because they took their vows seriously and made them work, or who separated and remained chaste for the rest of their lives in obedience to Christ’s teaching”

            Re-read the parable of the prodigal son or, better yet, the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

          • You mean the parable of the prodigal son in which the son returns home having made a firm purpose of amendment to change his ways and is willing to accept the consequences of his actions, to the point where he is willing to no longer be called his father’s son? That one?

            Repentance and absolution require one to do their best to cease and desist their sins. How does living in continued objective sin by continuing to commit adultery demonstrate a firm purpose of amendment?

          • This guy is a troll. Everything he’s posted here in this thread is nothing but a circular argument. I would not reply again to anything he writes. Nothing anybody says to him is going to convince him. Shake the dust from your sandals just like Jesus instructed the Apostles and move on.

          • It’s obvious now, isn’t it? And I enabled him by letting him hijack the thread.

            I’m done with him, but it just p***es me off that people like him actually exist within the Church and that they are allowed to publicly endorse mortal sin as not being mortal sin without any consequences at all.

          • Don’t worry, this Roberto will answer to God for leading souls to hell.
            I believe in Divine Retribution and he’ll get some.

          • One problem with your stories is that about 40% or more of people regret their divorces. Imagine that. If those couples had support from the local priest and parish community, if they had worked through their problems and been steadfast, they would have saved themselves, their children, and the community the devastation of a divorce. If you look closely at the parishes that have already been allowing divorced and “remarrieds” to receive Communion, you would see second divorces and adultery in these “marriages” too. Statistics bear this out.

          • Roberto, I’m a catholic writer doing a story on the topics you and others have addressed in this thread. You can google my name (George J. Galloway) and verify this. I would like to interview you, via email, on questions I have for my story. I don’t have to use your name or information on your background, although this intrigues me and I would very much like to. You can email me at [email protected]. God bless you and yours. Fair weather always.

          • Oh, he’s not joking at all. He sincerely believes all this garbage.

            Modern theologians (like the ones you’ve mentioned you encountered in seminary) have so corrupted the concept of “invincible ignorance” that they, like Roberto here, insist, or at least strongly imply, that no one can be damned for anything—even if they have been given complete and total instruction by their pastor that their actions are objectively and mortally sinful—so long as their consciences manage to find some sort of loophole. (As if our fallen nature allows us to 100% trust our consciences over the teachings of the Church.)

          • Show me where AL is not thomistic. You are equating conservatism with good theology, but you are completely wrong.

          • That is the duty of the Confessor: discernment. To discerne when there is vincibile or invincible ingnorance due to unculpably erroneous conscience.

          • Do you wanna bet that the majority of sexual sinners will be found having a conscience formed in such a way that they are deemed not culpable?

          • Are you a Confessor? If you are not, let them do their job.

            They know if and when they can admit someone to Communion. If we can’t trust the Confessors then what are we doing in the Church?

          • Getting a little Tucho, I mean touchy? Here’s the scenario, Confessee: “Father, forgive me for I don’t feel I’ve sinned.” Confessor: “My child, then why are you here?” Confessee: “There is still a little niggling sense of guilt over my “irregular” situation. It just won’t go away. Why, Father? I am well versed in the teaching of Amoris Laetitia. And I believe it with all my heart.” Confessor: “My child, for the sin of not receiving God’s absolution for the last 10 times, you are forgiven! In the Name of….”

          • Give me some sample of mitigating factors.
            The wife burn the food too many times? So the husband must divorce her and get a new wife?

          • ” Give me some sample of mitigating factors.
            The wife burn the food too many times? So the husband must divorce her and get a new wife?”

            I’ve never said such an idiocy. Reread my posts, i’ve already made a lot of examples.

          • My dearest cardinal-to-be Roberto,

            Your comments truly fill me with the joy of love.

            Please get yourself to the Vatican as soon as possible; I have a red hat waiting for you!

          • Anyone whose conscience is that annihilated wouldn’t want the Eucharist in the first place.

            You–and the Pope–are infantilizing and affirming warped consciences.

          • “Anyone whose conscience is that annihilated wouldn’t want the Eucharist in the first place.You–and the Pope–are infantilizing and affirming warped consciences”

            That’s not true: if a person is incapable to understand and appreciate some teachings of the Church regarding sexual morality that doesn’t mean that he/she has an “annihilated” conscience.

            Try explain to a teenager that masturbation and french kiss (yes, even french kiss is potentially mortal sin http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html ) are mortal sin and see what they say and think. 😉

          • That’s not true: if a person is incapable to understand and appreciate some teachings of the Church regarding sexual morality that doesn’t mean that he/she has an “annihilated” conscience.

            You so cavalierly assume that such people – yes, even badly formed teenagers! – are incapable of understanding what they’re doing. Unless they’re of severely below average intelligence, they *do* understand. You’re setting the bar too low.

          • “You so cavalierly assume that such people – yes, even badly formed teenagers! – are incapable of understanding what they’re doing. Unless they’re of severely below average intelligence, they *do* understand. You’re setting the bar too low.”

            Are you sure, dude? Do you SERIOUSLY think that catholics (well, 99,99% of us catholics, including Bishops and Cardinals) could believe that a just and merciful God will throw them in hell because of a makeout session??? http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html

            Do you think that if the Church made public this doctrine people would believe this, in conscience? Come on, stop deluding yourself. We are not living in 1216 anymore.

          • Very many – most Americans (and I expect Argentinians) are badly formed in any number of ways. But “badly formed” does not equal “incapable of forming a natural marriage.”

            Just how well formed do we really think that the Christian converts of Late Antiquity really were, anyway?

            Who does God throw into hell? We do not know that with any precision. But the testimony of Christ’s own words in the Gospels (Luke 13:23-24, Mark 20:16) and the overwhelming conclusion of the Fathers, doctors and saints of the Church is that few are saved. Possibly very few. We should not presume on grace, though we hope for it. “The number of the elect is so small – so small – that were we to know how small it is, we should faint away with grief.” – St. Louis Marie de Montfort

            If we emphasized these hard realities – you know, the Four Last Things – as they once did, perhaps many *would* refuse to believe. But it would not be the first time that’s happened. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Who indeed?

          • I think that you people are underestimating the power of the sacrifice of our Lord.

            He told to many saints (including Saint Father Pio) that He visits every soul on the verge of death, and only the ones who refuse final grace will die in mortal sin and go to hell.

            I think that Hell is not empty but i’m sure that God does everything to save every human soul. Afterall, He died for that, He died for our safety, not for our condemnation.

            Even the CCC informs us that Hell is SELFexclusion http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

            “1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell”.

          • I think that you people are underestimating the power of the sacrifice of our Lord.

            Given the considerable damage rendered on human nature by Original Sin, the fact that even one soul is saved is, indeed, testimony to the power of that sacrifice. We do not need to multiply it to great lengths to grasp a sufficient hint of its power!

            He told to many saints (including Saint Father Pio) that He visits every soul on the verge of death, and only the ones who refuse final grace will die in mortal sin and go to hell.

            Caution is needed here, though. Padre Pio did indeed say, it seems, not only that, but that he believed that “not a great number of souls go to hell” – though he spent a great deal more time speaking of the suffering of the poor souls in Purgatory, and it is impossible to imagine that the saint who said “”My children, we cannot prepare ourselves too much for Holy Communion” would give sanction to a Catholic in a clearly adulterous relationship receiving communion without rectifying the situation first. To my knowledge he spoke of no direct divine intimation for such belief; and the reality remains (again) that the weight of Scripture and Fathers and saints on this question is….overwhelming. Whether we call it “self-exclusion” (the modern Catechism’s gloss) or something else.

            Since we’ve been looking at St Thomas in this discussion, it is worth remembering that he speaks directly to this question. “The good that is proportionate to the common state of nature [e.g., not being disabled, being healthy] is to be found in the MANY; and is wanting in the FEW. The good that exceeds the common state of nature is to be found in the FEW and is wanting in the MANY. Thus it is clear that MANY men have a sufficient knowledge for the guidance of life; and the FEW who have not this knowledge are said to be morons or foolish; but they who attain to a profound knowledge of things intelligible are MOST FEW in respect to the rest. Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and ESPECIALLY in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin, there is a SELECT FEW who are saved. In this especially, however, appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that salvation, from which VERY MANY in accordance with the common course and tendency of nature fall short.” (ST I, Q.23, A.7, ad.3)

            And if we really do believe what we say, we cannot think it merciful to risk such souls by allowing and even encouraging them to commit sacrilege, let alone to persist in their grave sin.

          • ” Given the considerable damage rendered on human nature by Original Sin, the fact that even one soul is saved is, indeed, testimony to the power of that sacrifice. We do not need to multiply it to great lengths to grasp a sufficient hint of its power!”

            The Lord died for everyone, even for Judas Iscariot. I seriously think that the power of His sacrifice has been underestimated a lot, over the centuries. He died because He wanted everyone saved.

            ” Caution is needed here, though. Padre Pio did indeed say, it seems, not only that, but that he believed that “not a great number of souls go to hell” – though he spent a great deal more time speaking of the suffering of the poor souls in Purgatory, and it is impossible to imagine that the saint who said “”My children, we cannot prepare ourselves too much for Holy Communion” would give sanction to a Catholic in a clearly adulterous relationship receiving communion without rectifying the situation first. ”

            Well, Padre Pio had is own pastoral approach, we can’t blame him for that.

            . Anyway, We have the rivelation of Saint Faustina (recognized by the Church, And She is a canonized Saint) i quote from her diary

            “To my knowledge he spoke of no direct divine intimation for such belief; and the reality remains (again) that the weight of Scripture and Fathers and saints on this question is….overwhelming. Whether we call it “self-exclusion” (the modern Catechism’s gloss) or something else.”

            Anyway, We have the rivelation of Saint Faustina (recognized by the Church, And She is a canonized Saint) i quote from her diary

            “I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.
            Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God.”(1698)

            And these are the promise of Jesus for anyone who will pray the Chaplet

            ” Tell them no soul that has called upon My mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul that has placed its trust in My goodness. Write that when they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My Father and the dying person, not as the just Judge but as the merciful Saviour” (Diary, 1541).

            “Oh, what great graces I will grant to souls who say this chaplet (…) Write down these words, My daughter. Speak to the world about My mercy; let all mankind recognize My unfathomable mercy. It is a sign for the end times; after it will come the day of justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy; let them profit from the Blood and Water which gushed forth for them” (Diary, 848).

            “At the hour of their death, I defend as My own glory every soul that will say this chaplet; or when others say it for a dying person, the indulgence is the same” (Diary, 811).

            Regarding the “selfexclusion” that’s an important point, because the CCC recognize that God doesn’t send anyone to Hellv and that only those who refused consciously and IRREVOCABLY His Mercy and the power of His sacrifice will be damned. The Fathers of the Church tought that hell was a punishment inflicted by God, not selfexclusion, And that’s The reason they were so pesimistic towards the salvation of the world.

            “And if we really do believe what we say, we cannot think it merciful to risk such souls by allowing and even encouraging them to commit sacrilege, let alone to persist in their grave sin”

            I’ve neves said that. I think that here the confessors will have to make a careful discernment, because it’s obvious that the Church can’t admit someone in mortal sin to Communion. Careful discernment, as i said.

          • Blessed Jacinta Marto is also a mystic, recognized as such by the Church.

            She had this to say about hell, as related by her cousin Lucia dos Santos:

            “I was thinking of sinners and the war that is to come.

            “So many lives will be lost, and almost all will go to Hell.

            “So many houses will be destroyed, and so many priests will be killed.

            “If men ceased offending God, the war would not come, and such great numbers would not go to Hell.”

          • She saw sinners go to hell like snowflakes but we should remember that even if 1% of humanity goes to hell it still is a huge number of damned people.

            151,600 people die every day, so do the math. 😉

            We have to remember that hell is autoexclusion and that the Lord gives to everyone the graces needed to salvation, so if someone goes to hell because he refuse the grace of Jesus even on the verge of death well, he had it coming.

          • 151,600 individuals die everyday http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/ so even if only 1% of them go to hell you can imagine why Giacinta saw so many people in there.

            We know that the Lord does everything He can to ensure the salvation of sinners, And that He even gives them a final grace to be saved on the verge of death.

            If someone is so stubborn and diabolically corrupt to refuse salvation by his own will, it is inevitably that he will go to hell.

          • I think you are overestimating the sinful nature of people. It’s a teaching from the Church that the majority of people are damned and through their own fault. Go read the Fathers and Christ Himself who said few people are chosen and few enter by the narrow gate. SIN is all about SELF. The more we sin, the more we give in to ourselves. Many do this. Many like Roberto make excuses to continue doing so and then commit more sin by taking Holy Communion while still living in sin! Therefore given Roberto’s own example here we can conclude that mankind makes silly excuses to abuse God and then subsequently many go to Hell for it. Roberto doesn’t care to help them because apparently it’s too hard, and they’re better left in invincible ignorance to continue sinning, then when they die they still want to sin because they are attached to it. So when God comes to them at the moment of death, they are so used to sin that they reject God and go to Hell so that they can keep their sin that they enjoy.

          • Yes Roberto. Because Lust leads directly to Hell. Engaging in lustful activity that doesn’t lead to the marriage act is an OCCASION OF SIN. Perhaps Roberto has a problem with Jesus Christ who said, “Whoever so much as looks at a women with lust committs adultery in his heart”??? Let’s see Roberto try to teach the teenagers that one! But we can see clearly now that Roberto is a heretic trying to make excuses, likely for himself.

          • Sorry Robert, As Cardinal Burke has recently written it’s the truth of the faith that draws people to the Church, which equals what happened here.

          • But they still remain mortal sins and must be stopped. Also Teenagers do know that masturbation is sinful. That’s why they always try to hide and do it privately. If they didn’t they’d just do it in public. Don’t be stupid Roberto. Just because the task is hard for Mr. Roberto to explain, doesn’t mean Roberto is off the hook to not inform sinners of their sinful activity. The fact remains that anyone who cannot understand the teaching on divorce, would have t be brain dead, and incapable of even entering a marriage in the first place. I’m sure the Church will have no problem annulling Roberto’s example of a man married to a comatose woman against her cognitive will.

          • Everyone knows that if you got married and got a divorced and wanted to remarry you could not in the Catholic church unless annulled because it is deemed as adultery. As they would find out trying to remarry in the church. So they would not be invincibly ignorant and know that the church would not approve.

          • But they cannot possess Invincible Ignorance once they come in contact with a pastor who has the duty to inform them. And one should laugh madly at the very suggestion that divorced couples have no knowledge of what the Church teaches about divorce. Roberto, you are making silly excuses to justify Heresy. Following you logic, the world would’ve been better off if they remained ignorant about Christ and the Catholic Faith. According to you God doomed the world by revealing Himself. Think about it!

          • Mitigation can be applied to objectively sinful acts. There is no doctrine of the Church which states that mitigating factors apply to the freely chosen state of living in permanent public adultery.

          • ” Mirigation can be applied to objectively sinful acts. There is no doctrine of the Church which states that mitigating factors apply to the freely chosen state of living in permanent public adultery”.

            Mitigation (in tomistic terms “epikeia”) is not to be applied to sinful acts but to PEOPLE.

            An intrinsece malum like adultery, fornication, masturbation and contraception is ALWAYS immoral and grave matter “per se”.

            Mitigation is to be applied to sinner, not to sin. Everytime someone commits fornication, adultery, masturbation or contraception he/she commits sin.

            But for the sin to be mortal it is hugely important the internal forum and it is a question between the faithful and the Confessor.

          • I really don’t like to be the grammar police, but if you are going to lecture us on theology, you could at least take the time to spell “Thomistic” correctly. You’ve misspelled it on literally every post in which you’ve tried to use that word.

          • You are right, as i said before i’m italian and i live in Italy, so please be patient. 😉

            Anyway, if i make huge mistakes in writing it is a good thing if you correct me.

          • Exactly – it is applied in the internal forum “post factum” to a sinner with a firm purpose of amendment who sincerely intends henceforward to live by God’s law! It is never applied in the case of a sinner who clearly intends to commit the same sin again and continue in the same sinful state in perpetuity. Such an idea would be a sacreligious abuse of the Sacrament of Penance.

          • If a marriage is not annulled following an application, it therefore always remains a valid marriage. Any Catholic validly married will have been made aware of the indissolubility of the Sacrament. Therefore a couple cannot be in a position whereby they can claim ignorance of adultary if either should lay with A.N. Other. And no informed Catholic could claim they didn’t know adultary is a mortal sin. And likewise no informed catholic should be ignorant of the fact that holy communion should not be received when in a condition of mortal sin. Neither the Pope nor any other prelate can by interpretation make 2 plus 2 equal 5. It cannot be said “your marriage is not annulled but for you it’s ok to be married to some one else at the same time.” That’s bigamy, that’s adultary.

          • “That’s bigamy, that’s adultery”.

            I’ve never denied that. But this doesn’t mean they are guilty of mortal sin.

          • Given the state of current Catholic Sunday CCD programs across the US, etc., it would not surprise me that an overwhelming number of “Catholics” to include clergy, etc., simply do not know the true Faith.

          • I ask then, how is it possible that an adult deemed able to enter the sacrament of marriage, enters it, recites the marriage vows before God and witnesses, then brakes them, enters an adulterous relationship, and is not fully aware of what he/she did?
            Many many people make a big deal of wedding garments, wedding bouquets, decorated limousines and cakes, expensive venues and meals – so aware are they of the gravity of marrying another.
            I married civilly when I was an unbeliever, and my spouse is still an atheist, but even without our Lord’s grace and blessing, I am very aware of seriousness of marriage. I also understand that in light of Church teaching I am an adulteress while faithful to my spouse, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, all our lives. Even though we didn’t celebrate on the day of our civil union, and I do not remember the date or exact number of years spent together, I never forget whom I promised to love, in front of a government official.

            I ask, how can a Catholic, who stood before the altar and spoke the words confirming his will to love and cherish until death not be aware of what he had done, and before Whom he had made the promise? How can any priest convince himself that such an adult person needs a gentle accompaniment and is worthy of the Holy Eucharist? Would a mentally healthy unfaithful and unrepentant son expect his earthly father to bless him, despite continued great offences against him?

            How much more should he fear the righteous anger of God whom he mocks? The way to forgiveness is through repentance and making amends, not through rebellion and insistence that fornication is necessary.

          • You can’t seriously believe what you’re saying?

            Let’s play a game. It’s called, Spot the Diminished Culpability!

            So a man gets married in the Church, has children, and sets about raising a family. Then things get hard because they ALWAYS DO so the man says, “screw this” – and in effect screw the vows he made before God – and proceeds to get a “divorce” thereby doing permanent damage to his children. And he knows he’s doing it because he watches them cry themselves to sleep night after night. And where does he go to get this divorce? Why to the state, of course, because he knows damn well the Church isn’t in the business of tearing up the hearts of little children.

            Then he goes on with life, probably never bothering to pursue an annulment (such a messy complicated thing, you know), and in time he falls in “love”. More children, but this time before the “marriage”, because, hey, you gotta have sex, but also have to make sure about these things before you “commit”, right? The man stays away from the Church all this time because he knows he can’t take communion, and because he feels guilty as hell. But because he’s a proud jackass, he attributes this to the Church being mean.

            Then along comes Francis who tells the man, that yes, the Church has been mean, lacking in mercy really, and that all that guilt he’s been feeling isn’t because of mortal sin, but rather because he’s been wrongly judged.

            Turns out he had diminished culpability all along! When he said, “I will love and honor you all the days of my life.” he really didn’t know what those words meant. When he watched his children in agony, he really had no idea it was because he was trashing the family God had given them, first to demonstrate His love, and then to help them get to Heaven. When he went to the civil magistrate for a “divorce”, rather than the Church, it was just a matter of chance; he was truly ignorant about Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage; if only the chancery was on his way home rather than the courthouse, he might have learned! When he deliberately chose to skip the annulment process, and just went ahead and got “remarried”, despite being riddled with guilt, he was completely in the dark as to whether he was doing something wrong or contrary to his faith. And when he stayed away from mass for the next fifteen years, because he couldn’t receive communion, the rationale was always a mystery to him, and never once did it occur to him why he was barred to receiving the sacraments.

            The response to anyone who would argue that this decades long process of willful sin can be waived away because someone “discerns diminished culpability” is simple:

            Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth and go back to the pit of hell.

          • I have already answered to all this questions: we are not Confessors, they have the duty to discern, it is not our work.

            Besides, when the Church speaks about diminished culpability never speak of a man who betrayed his wife and left his family, the Church was speaking about women or men who are abandoned or that partied ways on mutual agreement.

          • Nice interpolation on your part. No such stipulation has been made. PF simply speaks about “love failing” which is a convenient catch-all for anything and everything.

          • That’s not true: if you read the document of the argentian Bishos you’ll find out that they made the same distinction i made.

          • Here’s what you’re not getting, a husband and wife who part ways on mutual agreement – especially, but not exclusively, when there are children involved – are in effect saying “screw this” to the vows they took before God, and everyone knows it. There is no diminishing the culpability of such an offense simply because it was “amicable”. Moreover, an abandoned spouse is still a spouse, and as such – as everyone knows – is not free to marry another without a decree of nullity; being a victim does excuse becoming a perp.

          • If is not our duty to discern the culpability, this is Confessor’s work. Anyway

            ” Here’s what you’re not getting, a husband and wife who part ways on mutual agreement – especially, but not exclusively, when there are children involved – are in effect saying “screw this” to the vows they took before God, and everyone knows it”

            Many times for the children is better to see their parents divorced rather than seeing his parents screaming and hating each other, sometimes marriage can become worse than a life sentence for both the parents and the child ora the children, and this situations are taken into account by the Confessors in the discernment.

            ” Moreover, an abandoned spouse is still a spouse, and as such – as everyone knows – is not free to marry another without a decree of nullity; being a victim does excuse becoming a perp”.

            Sure, so if someone marries a 25 years girl and leaves her after 5 years she is comdemned to stay all the rest of her life alone because she married a bastard because otherwise, if she finds someone to love, that really loves her, she will suffer eternally in the lake of fire.

            I think we should all remember what our God said to the pharisees

            Luke 11,46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

        • Do you really find that article convincing? The central assertion of the clown who wrote it seems to be: “Of course the 45 are wrong because the Pope can’t teach anything contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” This is crass hyper-ultramontanism which refuses to face the facts before it. This pope could teach that the Mother of God sinned and such clowns would say “Of course he didn’t say that.”

          If that is indicative of the quality of logical discourse in Italy, then no wonder the Church is in a mess there. No wonder also that the CDF have suggested the SSPX establish a seminary in Italy – they need it.

          Reply
      • Steve, I copy below a reply I made to Ana Milan regarding the sock puppet “Roberto Montesi”. Be warned, he is a nightmare who will try to wreck your blog as he has done with other Catholic blogs where orthodox Catholics “congregate”.

        “Good catch, Ana. I also recognize some emotive phrases he constantly uses when people get the better of him as he employed them a lot on the Catholic Herald website when it was still taking comments.

        He is a real narcissist heretic from the north-west of England who sits behind a bank of laptops using different VPN’s and IP addresses so that he can create as many “sock puppets” as he likes to invade and dominate a combox. He has been having conversations with himself on here under the guise of “George Galloway” and possibly “padre” as well. A key giveaway is when you look at their profile and find the only comments they have made via disqus is on this thread.

        I guess with Catholic herald shutting down their comboxes, he has found a new playground on 1P5. He has been variously known as “Phil”, “Meena”, “Meena 2015”, “Pterodax” and can have long conversations with himself that end up hijacking a whole site. I note that on Verecchio’s blog he has been using the “John Coltrane” sock puppet.

        He knows enough to make it sound plausible, but there is always a stink about his misquotes and inappropriate citations. He has a lot in common with PF in that regard. And he appears to hold PF in high regard as well – no doubt narcissists are birds of a feather.”

        Reply
        • I had already banned him before you said this. I don’t know if he’s a troll or not, but he’s certainly a distraction from productive discussion here. And if he’s that savvy with VPNs, then I guess we’ll have to play whack-a-mole. Just let me know if you think you see any of his additional aliases.

          Reply
    • Are you serious ? Why all the fuss then? Move on nothing to see here. How are so many dissident priests, bishops and cardinals coming out against church teachings while this man is the Pope? They have never done this without retribution fro Popes. Never before such a disrespect for the teachings and yet what has this Pope done to condemn error! Or clarify? Nothing. Move on nothing to see here. God help us!

      Reply
      • PF has given the sodomites free reign to don their rainbow colours & dance in the sanctuary. The child abuse enablers are still in office. By placing a football in front of the Tabernacle he blasphemed Christ Our Saviour. He has appointed his own supporters to high office even though they are not worthy of such calling. He says there is no Catholic God, i.e. no God as there can only be One God. Everyone can get to Heaven by good deeds, there is no Hell so therefore no sin, repentance not therefore necessary. He & his predecessors have trashed our Liturgy of Ages & Holy Sacraments instituted by Christ Himself. They wilfully disposed of catechesis in our schools with the result few of to-day’s adults know right from wrong. All for the sake of the NWO religion/government they are ready to introduce. Islam is a side issue for them as they have no regard for Catholic culture or civilisation.

        I have requested above that Roberto should now come clean about his strong arguments iterated here – is he a priest residing in Rome, or does his interest lie in demanding access to Holy Communion while in an adulteress situation?

        Reply
        • When the Pope said that “there is no hell”?

          When the Pope said that all people can go to heaven by “good deeds” when he ALWAYS stressed that Jesus redeemed all of us?

          When he said that “there is no catholic God” he wasn’t saying that Christ is not the one true God, he was saying that His Grace is not linked only to Sacraments, because He can be merciful to everyone and he offers them all the Graces needeed to salvation.

          Remember what Saint Paul taught us about the Jews

          Romans 11,28-32

          “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

          Reply
          • But there’s the rub Roberto, they need to do specific things in order to receive God’s Mercy. It’s not just rained down upon them because of Roberto’s personal feelings. Mercy is CONDITIONAL. Something Roberto does not understand. The sin must be confessed and removed completely, otherwise the person cannot enter heaven where nothing unclean will exist. So even if a person didn’t have the Sacraments, they would have to be cleansed – THROUGH PURGATORY – until the sin is eliminated. So one way or another the condition will have to be paid. But what Roberto doesn’t understand is that despite ignorance, habitual sin so impresses itself upon the sinner that he always desires it, like a perverted man in lust, he just has to have it. Even in death! And thus such people are more inclined to choose sin over God, and thus many go to Hell. So sad that Roberto doesn’t care about them, but pretends salvation is easy and handed out like free candy. Roberto doesn’t understand that even in ignorance, people go to Hell, imagining it to be Heaven! There are lots of insane people in Hell! The conscience and the cognitive abilities don’t work there! Roberto needs to read more about what Hell is like! Only the Devils have full knowledge! Which is why their suffering is greater in Hell than a human beings! So ignorance is also harmful, otherwise people would be better off if the Catholic Church never existed so that they can remain in ignorance and thus count of Roberto’s magical God’s mercy!

      • “If you haven’t been listening to Pope Francis for the past three year’s, then Dogma is not important to you.”

        What? What do you mean?

        Reply
    • “Roberto,” why have you posted the exact same trollspew on Louie Verrechio’s blog (post title: Is Francis a Heretic?) under the name “John Coltrane?” I didn’t realize the great jazzman was so popular among Italians, but hey, that’s cool, right?

      Reply
        • It’s “cara” to you, troll, as I am a woman. Care to address the question as to why you troll this and other Catholic sites with the exact same words but suspiciously better English when using the ‘John Coltrane’ name?

          Reply
          • Non sono un troll, dolcezza. Ho postato su altri blog con un altro nome perché qui faccio il login con “disqus”, su Akacatholic.com faccio il login con wordpress.

            Qual’è il problema? E riguardo il mio “suspiciously better English” non so di cosa tu stia parlando: spero di non fare troppi errori atroci scrivendo in inglese. 😉

          • Let us accompany one another in dialogue, hungry one. You have had your trollmeat for the day, and may have the last word here as far as I am concerned. My Italian derives from long-ago opera training and nowadays must be trans-translated from Italian’s similarities with Spanish, which I do read fairly well.
            I understand, I think, what you’ve been doing here. The theological arguments you make, and the (appreciated for source points) references to JPII-era guidance for confessors, are not unknown to me. You are correct in that Church teaching in regard to imputable mortal sin has been- for quite some time- a rather subtle matter in terms of quasi-Magisterial teaching.
            If you will dialogue with me in English, I would appreciate an honest answer to these questions:
            Have you been encouraged by any person with an official position in the Catholic hierarchy to comment on traditionalist Catholic blogs?
            How do you think Pope Francis will go about rescinding Canon 915?
            What do you think will happen in Lund when the Pope celebrates the Protestant Revolution?
            Thank you in advance, as we say in America, for your reply.

          • ” Have you been encouraged by any person with an official position in the Catholic hierarchy to comment on traditionalist Catholic blogs?”

            Nope. I swear i wasn’t “encouraged” by anyone.

            “How do you think Pope Francis will go about rescinding Canon 915?”

            Maybe a “Motu Proprio”, but i’m not sure about that.

            ” What do you think will happen in Lund when the Pope celebrates the Protestant Revolution?”

            Hmmm… This is a though question. Well i guess the Traditionalists are going to anathematize him, but i don’t think that the Pope will endorse any heresy.

            “I understand, I think, what you’ve been doing here. The theological arguments you make, and the (appreciated for source points) references to JPII-era guidance for confessors, are not unknown to me. You are correct in that Church teaching in regard to imputable mortal sin has been- for quite some time- a rather subtle matter in terms of quasi-Magisterial teach”.

            Those teachings are not against the Magisterium, i’m sure you know this. Compared to the past, now the teaching of the Church is more focused on consciousness but as you can see St. Thomas Aquinas gave the conscience a huge importance.

            I quote from here

            http://followyourconscience.bl
            “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
            Again, it is very clear in the first two sentences here that obedience to conscience is always and everywhere required. To act in disobedience to conscience is to disobey God, since it is God, Himself, who speaks in the depths of conscience. If a person acts against conscience, that person condemns himself or herself!
            There seem to be a number of people in cyberland Catholicism who want to place the emphasis on the second half of the paragraph, which reminds us that we can make erroneous judgments in conscience. However, the paragraph says nothing that indicates that we should disobey conscience when it is in error. Rather, the reminder that we might be in error is solely intended to slow us down from reaching moral certitude too quickly – with too little reflection.
            In effect, the paragraph is saying, “When in doubt, follow Church teachings. When you find yourself having trouble agreeing with the Church, make absolutely sure you are right before you act.”
            Phrased this way, I have not problem with saying we should be humble before Church teachings. However, I get the impression that some people think that the actual interpretation should be that if your conscience disagrees with the Church, you must obey the Church. This is not stated in the paragraph, and from what is clearly stated in the first two sentences, it cannot be true that the Church would teach such a thing!
            To tell another person that they must obey the Church even if the morally certain dictates of conscience is tell them otherwise is to tell that person to commit a mortal sin. You may as well be telling the person to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You can never, ever, under any circumstances tell another person to violate their conscience.
            You may appropriately ask questions, such as “Have you truly reached moral certitude? Did you consider Church teaching as part of the process of reaching moral certitude? Are you certain that you understood Church teaching correctly in this process of reaching moral certitude? How does your morally certain opinion flow from the golden rule? How is your morally certain opinion supported by reason? How do you reconcile your morally certain opinion with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? Why do you chose to remain in the Catholic Church when your morally certain opinion differs from the current official teaching?
            All such questions are appropriate – but the one thing you cannot advise someone is that conscience can be disobeyed. Conscience must always and everywhere be obeyed!”

          • Okay, I will take you at your word that you act independently as a married lay Catholic, not having been encouraged in any way by any clerical authority to comment as you do. For the record, I’m a lay Catholic woman who comments under the same conditions.
            Not that this isn’t fun (it is, because I’m ornery) but I really must soon go to feed my family. I don’t wish you ill. I think you’ve made emotional appeals (“they think the first marriage is dead, etc.”) which fail in terms of justification through the very sources you cite- JPII’s Commission and Aquinas. You seem to be happy that Pope Francis has and seemingly will further use his authority to reduce the pastoral burden a confessor faces in making a penitent aware of his/her culpability with regard to serious sin, especially when the state of life presents a constant occasion to continually commit that sin. You also seem to be saying that the public state of scandal no longer matters in this age.
            I wish you well and must at the same time disagree with your contention that Pope Francis is taking a truly merciful path in his teaching and governance. More later, if I have time.

          • “Not that this isn’t fun (it is, because I’m ornery) but I really must soon go to feed my family. I don’t wish you ill. I think you’ve made emotional appeals (“they think the first marriage is dead, etc.”) which fail in terms of justification through the very sources you cite- JPII’s Commission and Aquinas.”

            Well i don’t know, it depends on concrete situations. Many divorced found remaireed found happiness with another person and they can’t believe that God wil damn them to hell for this. There are women who were treated like beasts by their husbands and now they found happiness and protection (for them and their children) with another man.

            There are cases in wich they partied ways by mutual agreement because their marriage be came a cage for both (husband and wife).

            This people have often serious problems to understand the sinfulness of the new situation, because they don’t see why God would damn them to Hell for this.

            “You seem to be happy that Pope Francis has and seemingly will further use his authority to reduce the pastoral burden a confessor faces in making a penitent aware of his/her culpability with regard to serious sin, especially when the state of life presents a constant occasion to continually commit that sin”

            Yes, i’m happy that the Pope is creating a pastoral policy more “close” to real life of the faithfuls.

            “You also seem to be saying that the public state of scandal no longer matters in this age”.

            Not exactly: i’m saying that in this age has become “normal” to be divorced, we live in a secular world, and these situations don’t scandalize people like in the past.

            “I wish you well and must at the same time disagree with your contention that Pope Francis is taking a truly merciful path in his teaching and governance. More later, if I have time.”

            Well, the Ortodox Church has always had this pastoral approach.

          • Sorry to see that I was wasting my time. Your insistence that the way of the world (“the marriage has become a cage for both” and “… they can’t believe God would damn them to hell for this…”) justifies a quickie, de facto declaration of nulliity in service of man’s almightily desirous conscience, to be proclaimed by any priest in any confessional anywhere, reveals all.
            **** Any abused, unhappy, “unsatisfied” divorcees may live a blessed life of chastity and virtue after separating, if necessary, from a truly incorrigible spouse. You never mention this age-old, faithful form of resolution. Neither does Pope Francis. Indeed there has hardly been any ‘support’ for this merciful, clearly Scriptural way of life emanating from the church hierarchy in… a long time.***

            I didn’t want to believe that you’re only a troll. I had hoped to reach you. In fairness, many Catholics are as willfully deceived as you are. May the Lord have mercy on us all; we are terrible sinners who do not want God’s will to be done, only our own. May the Lord give us His grace, His unmerited grace!

          • “Sorry to see that I was wasting my time. Your insistence that the way of the world (“the marriage has become a cage for both” and “… they can’t believe God would damn them to hell for this…”) justifies a quickie, de facto declaration of nulliity in service of man’s almightily desirous conscience, to be proclaimed by any priest in any confessional anywhere, reveals all”

            No, you are terribly wrong, believe me. I’ve speaked about “de facto declaration of nullity”, i’ve said that, even though their sinful situation remains (grave matter is always grave matter, And adultery is), they POSSIBLY can BE in a state of grace, and that’s all.

            ” Any abused, unhappy, “unsatisfied” divorcees may live a blessed life of chastity and virtue after separating, if necessary, from a truly incorrigible spouse. You never mention this age-old, faithful form of resolution”

            I already know this solution, but to me is clear that the Pope wants to endorse a more merciful pastoral approach. Asking that a girl of 30 stay alone for the rest of her life because she married a bastard son of a bitch could make her walk away from the Church endagering her soul much more than with this pastoral approach.

            ” i didn’t want to believe that you’re only a troll. I had hoped to reach you. In fairness, many Catholics are as willfully deceived as you are”

            Why do you think i’m willfully deceived? I’ve studied these problems for a long time to form my own idea and conscience on this.

            “May the Lord have mercy on us all; we are terrible sinners who do not want God’s will to be done, only our own. May the Lord give us His grace, His unmerited grace!”

            I totally agree with you here, sister.

            Let’s read the letter to the Romans

            Romans 5,7-11

            “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

            I suggest to everyone the chaplet of Divine Mercy http://www.divinemercy.org/chaplet-of-divine-mercy/78-the-promises-of-jesus-to-those-who-pray-the-chaplet.html

            Everyone who is devoted to that Chaplet will be saved, it’s our lord promises and we know from the Scripture that ” God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom 11,29)

            I quote the promises of our Lord linked to the Divine Mercu devotion (which is recognized by the Magisterium And comes from a canonized Saint).

            “It pleases me to grant everything souls ask of me by saying the chaplet. When hardened sinners say it, I will fill their souls with peace, and the hour of their death will be a happy one. Write this for the benefit of distressed souls; when a soul sees and realises the gravity of its sins, when the whole abyss of the misery into which it immersed itself is displayed before its eyes, let it not despair, but with trust, let it throw itself into the arms of My mercy, as a child into the arms of its beloved mother. Tell them no soul that has called upon My mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul that has placed its trust in My goodness. Write that when they say this Chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My father and the dying person, not as the Just Judge but as the Merciful Saviour.” (Diary, 1541)

            “At the hour of their death, I defend every soul that will say this Chaplet as I do my own glory. When this Chaplet is said by the bedside of a dying person, God’s anger is placated and His unfathomable mercy envelops the soul.” (Diary, 811)

            “My daughter, help me to save a certain dying sinner. Say the Chaplet that I have taught you for him”. When I began to say the Chaplet, I saw the man dying in the midst of terrible torment and struggle. His Guardian Angel was defending him, but he was, as it were, powerless against the enormity of the soul’s misery. But while I was saying the Chaplet, I saw Jesus just as He is depicted in the Image. The rays that issued from Jesus’ heart enveloped the sick man, and the powers of darkness fled in panic. The sick man peacefully breathed his last.” (Diary, 1565)

          • Nothing can “make” your “30 year-old girl”…”walk away from the Church endangering her soul” except her unwillingness to take up her cross and live as contentedly as possible, serving the Lord and her neighbor.
            Good night, John Coltrane/Roberto. You have made yourself clear.

          • Yeah, it’s 03.22 here in Italy and i should really go to bed; i have barely six hours of time to sleep. 😉

            But infortunately this night i can’t sleep.

            Good night to you.

          • Roberto, life’s tough and sad. Tragic things happen to people, including the 30-year-old girl. I feel sorry for her, but two wrongs don’t make a right Roberto. If someone steals from you you lose. But that doesn’t make you stealing to reimburse yourself alright. The same for adulterous marriages. No matter what absurdity Roberto will argue that the poor 30 year old woman who had her life savings stolen should also steal from someone else, and maybe the pressures of life misinformed her conscience so it’s okay for her to do so. Don’t be stupid Roberto. Sin is sin. And the majority of people aren’t clinically insane and their conscience do work. You are trying to excuse heresy, and can’t deal with the fact that the present Pope is spreading this error. That’s all this is. I suspect you have a guilty conscience about something which is driving you to say these things, so you better go deal with that with a confessor who won’t treat you like an imbecile.

          • May I add to the growing number of folks commenting on this thread who strongly disagree with your take on the pontiff and AL? But first, allow me to express my (somewhat grudging) admiration for a fellow who’s willing to draw so much fire, and defend his position with such unyielding fortitude against all comers. Most impressive, and it’s to be appreciated when one’s beliefs are intelligently countered, not merely echoed, regardless of how we might prefer the latter. Now to business…

            “I’m saying that in this age has become ‘normal’ to be divorced, we live in a secular world, and these situations don’t scandalize people like in the past.”

            Maybe, just maybe, the fact that divorce and sexual misbehavior in general no longer scandalize people is a serious problem, an indication of how callous and insensitive we as a culture have become to mass disregard of what Our Lord clearly and unmistakably taught in Matthew 19:9.

            And maybe, just maybe, what we fallen sinners really need (and deep down, maybe even want) is not a church that accommodates our weaknesses, but one that challenges us to, well, be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect. And at the same time to do this with genuine charity and a total absence of vengeful harshness.

            Yes, that would be difficult. It would be much easier and safer for the Church to be either too hard or too soft, and what I see in AL, whether or not it manages to adroitly skirt heresy, is an excess of softness. And the level of popular approval accorded to this congenial softness, especially in the media, is a sign of great spiritual danger, cf. Luke 6:26. If the Church isn’t hated, cf. Luke 6:22-23, let’s face it, it isn’t really doing its job, which is to carry out the Great Commission, on every level, even and especially when it hurts.

            You base much of your case on what you refer to as “reality.” Yes, of course the World as it is cannot be ignored, but in the many areas in which it is fallen and corrupt, it needs to be called out and challenged to be better, even if the one calling is mocked and disregarded, even if the World walks away, even as all but the Apostles walked away from Our Lord, when He made His challenges to them.

            The Church would suffer greatly if it took a genuinely and unavoidably oppositional stance towards the darkness in the World, many would resist it, ignore it, leave it, and many have. But there would be those who would appreciate and be inspired to take the challenge, and I think that we’d be amazed at how many there would be. If this challenge doesn’t come from the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine who else would deliver it. And I don’t see the current Holy Father moving anywhere in that direction, quite the contrary. Pray for him. God bless.

          • “May I add to the growing number of folks commenting on this thread who strongly disagree with your take on the pontiff and AL?”

            Of course.

            ” But first, allow me to express my (somewhat grudging) admiration for a fellow who’s willing to draw so much fire, and defend his position with such unyielding fortitude against all comers. Most impressive”

            Well, you know bro, we italians have the “eye of the tiger”, we never back down Ahahahah 😀

            “and it’s to be appreciated when one’s beliefs are intelligently countered, not merely echoed, regardless of how we might prefer the latter.”

            Yep, same here. I like to “test” my beliefs with people who disagree.

            “Maybe, just maybe, the fact that divorce and sexual misbehavior in general no longer scandalize people is a serious problem, an indication of how callous and insensitive we as a culture have become to mass disregard of what Our Lord clearly and unmistakably taught in Matthew 19:9.”

            Well, in this subject i have mixed thoughts. I mean, the Church in the past centuries always taught that sex was only meant for procreation, but with Humanae Vitae something changed.

            I think that in the past we were too strict regarding moral sexuality, because we didn’t know human body and human mind like today.

            “And maybe, just maybe, what we fallen sinners really need (and deep down, maybe even want) is not a church that accommodates our weaknesses, but one that challenges us to, well, be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect. And at the same time to do this with genuine charity and a total absence of vengeful harshness”.

            But are we SURE that the severity of the past regarding moral sexuality is really what God wants? I don’t think so, sincerely.

            “Yes, that would be difficult. It would be much easier and safer for the Church to be either too hard or too soft, and what I see in AL, whether or not it manages to adroitly skirt heresy, is an excess of softness. ”

            It’s a pastoral decision, but i don’t think it is too much soft. I think it’s a realist document.

            “And the level of popular approval accorded to this congenial softness, especially in the media, is a sign of great spiritual danger, cf. Luke 6:26. If the Church isn’t hated, cf. Luke 6:22-23, let’s face it, it isn’t really doing its job, which is to carry out the Great Commission, on every level, even and especially when it hurts.”

            But Pope Francis said things very harsh sometimes. You don’t remember what he said about gender theory, do you?

            “You base much of your case on what you refer to as “reality.” Yes, of course the World as it is cannot be ignored, but in the many areas in which it is fallen and corrupt, it needs to be called out and challenged to be better, even if the one calling is mocked and disregarded, even if the World walks away, even as all but the Apostles walked away from Our Lord, when He made His challenges to them.
            The Church would suffer greatly if it took a genuinely and unavoidably oppositional stance towards the darkness in the World, many would resist it, ignore it, leave it, and many have. But there would be those who would appreciate and be inspired to take the challenge, and I think that we’d be amazed at how many there would be. If this challenge doesn’t come from the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine who else would deliver it. And I don’t see the current Holy Father moving anywhere in that direction, quite the contrary. Pray for him. God bless.”

            The world today has many defects, but it’s definitely more civilised that in the past. We fail to aknowledge that because we ignore the influence that cristianity had in the past, an influence that shaped the western world.

            I think you are forgetting that the most important goal of the Church is the “salus animarum”. Salus animarum is also called the “suprema lex”.

            This is the real great commission. If the Church chooses to make use of a “harsh” pastoral approach causing many to leave it, in this case she would ” put even more at risk those souls”

            Remember: suprema lex salus animarum.

          • Our Conscience needs to be formed correctly with the traditional teachings of Holy Mother Church. After our conscience is properly formed, than we can use it for important decisions. Conscience should only be obeyed if formed properly.. Kyrie eleison….

          • “. Conscience should only be obeyed if formed properly.. Kyrie eleison…”

            That’s not what Aquinas said.

            Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience”.

            I quote from here
            http://www.aquinasonline.com/Q

            “The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.

  2. THE
    SIMPLE
    SHEPHERD

    Spontaneous, humble
    Piety-planned
    Everywhere cameras
    Shooting modesty grand.

    Humble, spontaneous
    Planned-negligence
    “Smell the sheep and their wolves
    But don’t feed, that’s expense!”

    Reply
  3. I truly wish people could “sniff them out” … Most people like being told what they want to hear. It’s validating. Is the Pope oblivious to is own faults, or is he simply mocking us?

    Reply
  4. What he did to Irony ensured that the latter was buried in a closed casket funeral. DNA samples had to be used to identify the body, as even dental records were of no use.

    Reply
  5. I’m sure the Bishop of Rome has an ideal priest in his mind. You know someone meek, humble etc etc – an ideal lets say….

    Reply
  6. What is so odd is that pope Francis continues to rant against the clergy but he doesn’t criticize the liberal Cardinals that he puts in places of authority in holy mother church especially Cardinal Cupich from Chicago…..

    Reply
  7. Re: Irony. Man, that guy (Bergoglio) mixes it up like a boss. The rope-a-dope is brilliant. After a while you just want to say, “okay, anything you want, just please shut up.”

    Reply
    • PF’s Weekly Planner
      Monday: Thrash traditionalists for their cold hearts
      Tuesday: Kick priests for lack of mercy toward sodomites, fornicators/adulterers
      Wednesday: Mix molecule of orthodoxy in banal homily, make sure it gets heard
      Thursday: Remove faithful Old Guard – Appoint Modernist Yes-Men
      Friday: Make reference to Our Lady, devil, (alternating Fridays, Christ)
      Saturday: Deconstruct Catholicism, embrace NWO and ANC (anything not Catholic)
      Sunday: Invite destruction of remaining Christians and Christianity by promoting influx of
      Mohommadan hordes (insult hapless natives for having ‘cold hearts’)

      Reply
      • Yes, he is getting so predictable now that even the dimmest intellect can see it. Those who persist in supporting and protecting his actions are indicting themselves for all the world to see.

        Reply
  8. Astonishing! Utterly!
    But if Bergoglio really believes what he is saying, he needs prayer, and if he is oblivious to extreme irony of his words — he also needs prayer. And the church needs prayer too!

    Reply
    • Trust me he doesn’t believe it. he is just trying to put people off guard and confuse people. He knows what he is doing. It just like Obama who accused the press of being bias IN FAVOR of Trump.

      Reply
  9. It is alarming to come to the realization that the pope as shepherd cannot be trusted now not to intentionally expose his flock to the wolves or lead them astray, but I can only come to the conclusion that personally seeking Jesus matters more than ever now.

    Reply
  10. Hard to argue with Ross Douthat’s take at the New York Times today: Why not same-sex couples, too?

    “If relationships the church once condemned as adultery are no longer a major, soul-threatening sin, then why should a committed same-sex relationship be any different? If the church makes post-sexual revolution allowances for straight couples, shouldn’t it make the same ones for people who aren’t even attracted to the opposite sex?”

    Only the personal restraint of a (current or future) pope would keep such a development at bay – not any doctrine. Because the only one that would operate to block such an eventuality is the one that’s apparently been bracketed away this month by Pope Francis.

    Reply
  11. “Okay, let’s see here. You think that we know more about the body and mind than we did in the past.”

    Well, you just think about moral sexuality: the Church for 2000 years taught that every sexual activity not meant for procreation was gravely sinful, but in 1967 we had Humanae Vitae that recognized even the unitive purpouse of human sex.

    Saint Augustine would have considered Humanae Vitae heretical in his times. Why the Church wrote Humanae vitae? Because we increased our knowledge concerning human body and mind.

    “Re the “severity of the past,” Matthew 19:9 remains crystal clear, and is under renewed attack, just as it was when it was first said.”

    Nobody attacks the law, what is under discussion is HOW the law should be applied to the faithful.

    We should remember that the law exist to condemn us, to put us in front of our sinfulness.

    Romans 3, 19-20

    ” Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.”

    Understood? Saint Paul in Roman 7,7-10 is even more explicit

    “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not!Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. FOR APART FROM THE LAW, SIN WAS DEAD. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.”

    Galatians 3,10-14

    “All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone is cursed who does not keep on doing all the things that have been written in the Law scroll. But since no one is made righteous by the Law as far as God is concerned, it is clear that the righteous one will live on the basis of faith. The Law isn’t based on faith; rather, the one doing these things will live by them.[e] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed. He redeemed us so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, and that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

    Here Saint Paul tells us that the law is a “curse”.

    Why is a curse? Because, as i said before, it puts us in front of our sinfulness, And by doing so it can bring us to spiritual death.

    The law is our death, Jesus is our resurrection

    1 Corinthians 15,56-57

    ” Death’s sting is sin, and the power of sin is the Law.Thanks be to God, who gives us this victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!”

    If we rely on His Mercy we will not perish. Saint Caterine of Siena said that God told her: ” This is the sin that is never forgiven, now or ever: the refusal, the scorning of my mercy. For this offends me more than all the other sins they have committed. So the despair of Judas displeased me more and was a greater insult to my Son than his betrayal had been.Therefore, such as these are reproved for this false judgment of considering their sin to be greater than my mercy… They are reproved also for their injustice in grieving more for their own plight than for having offended me.”

    Do you understand now why the Church today is stressing so much God’s mercy and not the harsh application of the law? The law condemn us, because, as Saint Paul said “FOR APART FROM THE LAW, SIN WAS DEAD.” The law makes clear to us that we can’t redeem ourselves nor can we save ourselves. The law makes clear that we need a savior And His mercy, and this savior is God Himself, Jesus Christ.

    Let’s rely on His mercy and make sure that people have trust in Jesus and the redemption earned by His sacrifice and many people will be saved. http://www.divinemercy.org/chaplet-of-divine-mercy/78-the-promises-of-jesus-to-those-who-pray-the-chaplet.html

    Reply
    • [FYI, I slightly edited the post to which you responded, but it appears that the changes didn’t make it before you responded.]

      Well, as I expected, I’ve enjoyed crossing swords with you, but we’re really talking past each other, so there’s not much point in continuing. Last try: It’s clear that, while I view true mercy as speaking the truth in charity and calling sinners to repentance, you (along with the current Church hierarchy in general) view it as being “nice” to people and making illicit exceptions for hard cases. Do you really see no danger in a false, easy “mercy” which will only confirm people in their sins, even if it keeps them in the pews? Forgive me, but that’s not mercy, that’s only the desire to look good in the eyes of the World. And Jesus had a thing or two to say about that.

      I understand, for centuries Christian man has struggled to reconcile God’s infinite mercy with His infinite justice. It’s much easier to focus entirely on one and to ignore the other. And that’s just what the Pope does when he says, “God is mercy.” Whether he intends it or not, this stance comes across as “Do whatever you want, God won’t mind.” (With exceptions for the Mafia and not recycling, of course.) It would be just as bad if he said, “God is justice.” A church completely without lenience would be inhuman, but a church completely without harshness is no church at all. We need both, and Jesus made this clear: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” When Paul said, “All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse,” he was not calling for the abolishing of law, but warning against an excessive reliance on it. Reliance on God’s mercy is fine, but only if it doesn’t lead to the sin of presumption, and it can.

      You will deny all this, of course, Signor Tiger-Eye, so the last word is yours, if you wish it. Ciao.

      Reply
  12. “The world is tired of lying spellbinders and, allow me to say, ‘trendy’ priests or bishops. The people sniff them out – they have God’s sense of smell – and they walk away when they recognize narcissists, manipulators, defenders of their own causes, auctioneers of vain crusades,”

    Is he the kettle, the pot or both?. The man’s hubris knows no limit.

    Reply
    • I once had to go to a group associated with AA, called Al-Anon, because my papa was an alcoholic and I loved him, but it was a confusing, messy, heartbreaking, and even abusive thing — to love a man who was screwing up so badly a lot of the time.

      Yes, so the same thing applies here for Catholics with a Capital “C”, as you say, who are true sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church. Indeed, he is our Pope. But loving him also means not enabling him, not hiding the truth to protect him, and not engaging with him when he is abusing his authority and abusive towards his family.

      Yep, those AA methods for families of alcoholics come in quite handy when dealing with the current Pope. He’s that kind of Papa, isn’t he. But instead of alcohol,….it’s Modernism. Another very toxic substance that destroys and perverts family love.

      Reply
  13. Just saw this yesterday and it reminded me of when the same “newspaper” wrote a national editorial opposing the Mississippi Personhood amendment that would have recognized the preborn child as a person under the MS constitution. It is no surprise that the same publication that helped to kill our amendment would issue a PF special edition … So sad
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-11-06/personhood-abortion-vote-Mississippi/51097728/1

    Reply
  14. Picture that careless, reckless childhood friend who would come to your home and turn things upside down. We all know the type. They may be our childhood friends, our siblings’ childhood friends, or our children’s childhood friends, or even us. Although most of them will straighten up if someone gets seriously hurt, they don’t usually think of consequences. They usually don’t think of anyone or anything except their own desires, and I’m not talking about your typical childlike selfishness (or ADHD, although this sounds like it). They impulsively steal food, money, and other things that might be easy to grab quickly. They knock things over because they won’t slow down. They break things because they don’t know how to handle things gently or to restrain themselves from grabbing what should be left alone. They’re inappropriately loud, and disrespectful to authority. They also are more likely to tease someone who isn’t like them, or who is annoyed by them rather than to be considerate. Some grow up, others never do.

    Reply
  15. Yet he installed Blase Cupich as Archbishop in Chicago whose ideology comports with the Chicago communist, microphone seeking, hoodie wearing community agitator “Fr.” Pflager.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...