THE MISUSE OF AMORIS LAETITIA TO SUPPORT ERRORS AGAINST THE CATHOLIC FAITH

Two preeminent Catholic Scholars send an Open Letter to the Bishop of Rome and all bishops in communion with him. The eight positions are highlighted below; the full letter at the link can also be found below. It is long. It is heavy. It is a must read and share.

If I can use a less than academic expression, it demolishes Amoris Laetitia and those behind it for issuing it. It is a condemnation of the heresy contained therein and a rallying cry to the faithful.

John Finnis

Emeritus Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy, University of Oxford

Fellow of the British Academy (Law and Philosophy sections)

Biolchini Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, Indiana

Member of the International Theological Commission

of the Holy See 1986–91

Germain Grisez

Emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics, Mount St. Mary’s University

Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University 1957–72 and

Campion College, University of Regina 1972–79

Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics,

Mount St. Mary’s University 1979–2009

A letter to the Supreme Pontiff Francis, to all bishops in communion with him, and to the rest of the Christian faithful 

John Finnis and Germain Grisez 

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/12/an-open-letter-to-pope-francis

Your Holiness, Pope Francis;

Your Excellencies, all Bishops in communion with him; andall of our other Brothers and Sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ:We are convinced that certain statements in the ApostolicExhortation Amoris Laetitia, and certain omissions from it, have beenmisused and/or, unless prevented, will be misused to support positionsthat are or include errors against the Catholic faith. We shall identify eight such positions, explain how AL is used to support each of them,and show how each either is or includes error against the Catholic faith.Proponents of the erroneous positions may respond that their readings of AL are accurate, and that the Exhortation overrides and supersedes the sources we quote from or cite to show that the positions they defend are errors against the Catholic faith. But in making such a response, as in holding their positions, they would neglect what it is for bishops of the Catholic Church to teach. (continued at this link)

... 

http://www.twotlj.org/OW-MisuseAL.pdf

Position A: A priest administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation may sometimes absolve a penitent who lacks a purpose of amendment with respect to a sin in grave matter that either pertains to his or her ongoing form of life or is habitually repetitive.

Position B: Some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments; though resigned to committing ongoing and habitual sins in grave matter, they can live in grace.

Position C: No general moral rule is exceptionless. Even divine commandments forbidding specific kinds of actions are subject to exceptions in some situations.

Position D: While some of God’s commandments or precepts seem to require that one never choose an act of one of the kinds to which they refer, those commandments and precepts actually are rules that express ideals and identify goods that one should always serve and strive after as best one can, given one’s weaknesses and one’s complex, concrete situation, which may require one to choose an act at odds with the letter of the rule.

Position E: If one bears in mind one’s concrete situation and personal limitations, one’s conscience may at times discern that doing an act of a kind contrary even to divine commandment will be doing one’s best to respond to God, which is all that he asks, and then one ought to choose to do that act but also be ready to conform fully to the divine commandment if and when one can do so.

Position F: Choosing to bring about one’s own, another’s, or others’ sexual arousal and/or satisfaction is morally acceptable provided only that (1) no adult has bodily contact with a child; (2) no participant’s body is contacted without his or her free and clear consent to both the mode and the extent of contact; (3) nothing done knowingly brings about or unduly risks significant physical harm, disease transmission, or unwanted pregnancy; and (4) no moral norm governing behavior in general is violated.

Position G: A consummated, sacramental marriage is indissoluble in the sense that spouses ought always to foster marital love and ought never to choose to dissolve their marriage. But by causes beyond the spouses’ control and/or by grave faults of at least one of them, their human relationship as a married couple sometimes deteriorates until it ceases to exist. When a couple’s marriage relationship no longer exists, their marriage has dissolved, and at least one of the parties may rightly obtain a divorce and remarry.

Position H: A Catholic need not believe that many human beings will end in hell.

 

Permission is hereby given to everyone to publish electronically or

otherwise this entire booklet as a unit or the entire treatment of any one

or more of the eight positions dealt within it provided this copyright

notice is included in the publication; all other rights reserved.

Copyright © John Finnis and Germain Grisez

Notre Dame, Indiana — 21 November 2016