Heresy Hunter returns to skewer Francis' Apostolic Expectoration!

Really HH; you've been away too long!

http://heresy-hunter.blogspot.ca/2016/04/sound-trumpets-rome-has-apostasized.html

Bishop Bernard Fellay: It makes us cry!

The most Catholic of Bishops speaks!

 … An Apostolic Exhortation which bears the title “The joy of love,” but that makes us cry. This exhortation is a summary of the two synods on marriage. It is very long and contains many things that are right, that they are beautiful, and after building a beautiful building, a beautiful boat, the Supreme Pontiff has made a hole in the keel of the boat, along the waterline. You all know what is happening. Needless to say, the hole was made by taking all possible precautions, thus it is needless to say that the hole is small: the boat sinks! Our Lord himself said that even an iota, not a single iota will be taken away by the law of God. When God speaks, his words do not admit exceptions, when God commands, he is of infinite wisdom that has provided for all possible cases. There is no exception to the law of God. And now, suddenly, it is claimed that this law of marriage, which keeps saying that “marriage is indissoluble” (the repeats this sentence, it must be said), then it says you can, despite everything, have exceptions in the sense that these so-called divorced and remarried in this state of mortal sin may be in a state of grace, and therefore could receive communion. It is very serious! Very serious! I think they do not sufficiently measure the seriousness of what has been said. Needless to say, are small exceptions put there in the corner; that’s how it went to Communion in the hand and as I explained with the little hole in the vessel is appropriate, the boat sinks! “

Heresiarch of Chicago Blase Cupich, "I wouldn't exclude anyone" from Holy Communion. Is this what you meant Pope Francis?

Pope Francis! 

Does Blase Cupich speak for you?

Is this true; is this what you meant?

Responde mihi!

“It can no longer be said, according to Pope Francis, that all those living in an ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” Cupich said....Asked in what specific situations he would allow a divorced and remarried person to receive Communion,  Cupich refused to rule anyone out.
“I wouldn’t exclude anyone,” he said. “I would like our pastors to have discussion in all of those folks who are in these kinds of situations. … I know in my experience as a pastor, if you’ve seen a marriage then you’ve seen one marriage. There is no instance that can be replicated. Every situation has its variables that are part of it.”

http://www.cruxnow.com/cns/2016/04/12/cupich-pope-has-intuition-about-where-people-live-their-lives/

Remember!

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

With that quote, (originating at the NCReporter) Father Thomas J. Rosica, on numerous occasions, laid out the plan of the Synods on the Family and the Apostolic Exhortation.

Anthony Spadaro, S.J. - Francis has removed all limits on integration! As with Kasper, Spadaro believes the Church has been wrong for 1600 years!

They're smiling now. All happy and joyful. Will this be their expressions when they answer to Our Lord Jesus Christ for how their work has led people to continue to live in their sin?

Anthony Spadaro is the mastermind behind this papacy. He is a confident of Pope Bergoglio. If the Pope does not correct these remarks then are we to assume that he endorses them?

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351273?eng=y

Francis and Antonio, a Couple in Excellent “Society”

The pope has in Fr. Antonio Spadaro, a Jesuit like him, his authorized translator. Here is how “La Civiltà Cattolica” restates in clearer words what “Amoris lætitia” presents in allusive form

by Sandro Magister

ROME, April 12, 2016 – It was an easy prediction to make when the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, (in the center of the photo, next to the superior general of the Society of Jesus) pontificated last November that “on access to the sacraments the ordinary synod has effectively laid the foundations, opening a door that at the previous synod had instead remained closed.” And this in spite of the fact that in the “Relatio finalis” of the synod the words “communion” and “access to the sacraments” do not appear even once:

> Francis Is Silent, But Another Jesuit Is Speaking For Him

In presenting the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” today, in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica” - promptly released in conjunction with the publication of the papal document - Fr. Spadaro shows no hesitation in declaring that prophecy to have been fulfilled.

Francis - he writes confidently - has removed all the “limits” of the past, even in “sacramental discipline,” for “so-called irregular” couples: a “so-called” that is not Spadaro’s but the pope’s, and that in the judgment of Church historian Alberto Melloni “is worth the whole exhortation,” because all by itself it absolves such couples and makes them “eligible for the Eucharist.”

And this in spite of the fact that this time as well in the 264 pages and 325 paragraphs of the papal exhortation there is not even a single word in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried, but only a couple of allusions in two minuscule footnotes, numbers 351 and 336, this latter promptly defined by Melloni as “crucial.”

Fr. Spadaro is not just any Jesuit. He is director of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” which historically has always been “the pope’s magazine” and is so now more than ever, “because of the interest that Pope Francis shows concerning some statements of the magazine that accompany his magisterium,” as attested to last March by a witness of sure reliability, Fr. GianPaolo Salvini, its former director:

> "La Civiltà Cattolica" ha un direttore super: il papa

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Fr. Spadaro is everything. Adviser, interpreter, confidant, scribe. There is no counting the books, articles, tweets that he incessantly writes about him. Not to mention the pontifical texts that bear the imprint of his hand.

He was part of the circle that worked on the drafting of “Amoris Lætitia” in the closest contact with the pope.

And as procedure would have it, the presentation that Spadaro made of it in “La Civiltà Cattolica” was given to Francis to read before it was sent to press. One more reason to take this exegesis of the document as authorized by him, and therefore revealing of his real intentions.

Reproduced below are some of the passages of the 12 pages, out of 24 in all, that Fr. Spadaro dedicates to the question of “so-called irregular” couples and their access to Eucharistic communion.

With striking craftiness even John Paul II and Benedict XVI are made a part of the same “journey of healing” that Francis is now bringing to the point of Eucharistic communion for the divorced and remarried, with no more impediments as before.

But the whole article is worth reading, on the website of “La Civiltà Cattolica":

> "Amoris lætitia". Struttura e significato dell'Esortazione post-sinodale di Papa Francesco

While here is a link to the complete text of the exhortation:

> "Amoris lætitia"

__________

“Without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past...”

by Antonio Spadaro, S.J.

The exhortation incorporates from the synodal document the path of discernment of individual cases without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past. It declares, moreover, that it cannot be denied that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (“Amoris Lætitia” 302; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1735) because of various influences. [. . .]
Therefore, the pontiff concludes, if one takes into account the innumerable variety of concrete situations, “it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300). [. . .]
So the consequences or effects of a norm do not necessarily have to be the same, which “is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” (AL 3000, footnote 336). “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305).
And - it is specified - this help “in certain cases can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.’ I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’” (AL 305, footnote 351).

FROM JOHN PAUL II TO FRANCIS

If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.
On the civilly divorced and remarried, the apostolic exhortation of Saint John Paul II (1981) affirmed: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (FC 84).
On access to the sacraments, John Paul II reiterates the previous norm, and nonetheless affirms that the civilly divorced and remarried who are living their conjugal life together, raising their children together and sharing in everyday life, can receive communion.
But he sets up a “condition” (which is at another level with respect to the norm): that of taking on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (ibid.).
So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple - who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence - and the Eucharist.
With regard to sexual relations, the formulation of Saint John Paul II required that the couple “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence.” In “Sacramentum Caritatis” Benedict XVI had incorporated this concept, but with a different formulation: “The Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister” (SC 29). The “encouragement to commit themselves” implies a journey and places the accent better and in a more adequate way on the personal dimension of conscience.
Pope Francis moves forward in this direction when he speaks of a “dynamic discernment” that “must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (AL 303). An irregular situation cannot be turned into a regular one, but there are also journeys of healing, of exploration, journeys in which the law is lived step by step. [. . .]

NOT A “CHURCH OF THE PURE,” BUT OF JUST AND SINNERS

“Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors,” the pontiff writes, “we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage” (AL 303). This is a culminating point of the apostolic exhortation, in that it attributes to conscience - “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man, where he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16; AL 222) - a fundamental and irreplaceable spot in the evaluation of moral action. [. . .]
The conscience “can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (AL 303).
This passage of the exhortation opens the door to a more positive, welcoming, and fully “Catholic” pastoral practice, which makes possible a gradual exploration of the demands of the Gospel (cf. AL 38).
In other words, it does not say here at all that one’s weakness should be taken as a criterion for establishing what is good and what is evil (this would be what is called the “gradualness of the law”). Nonetheless there is affirmed a “law of gradualness,” meaning a progressiveness in knowing, in desiring, and in doing the good: “Reaching for the fullness of Christian life does not mean doing that which abstractly is most perfect, but that which is concretely possible.” [. . .]
With the humility of its realism, the exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” situates itself within the great tradition of the Church, reconnecting with an old Roman tradition of ecclesial mercy for sinners.
The Church of Rome, which since the 2nd century had inaugurated the practice of penance for sins committed after baptism, in the 3rd century was just about to provoke a schism on the part of the Church of northern Africa, led by Saint Cyprian, because it did not accept reconciliation with the “lapsi,” those who had become apostates during the persecution, who were in fact much more numerous than the martyrs.
In the face of the rigidity of the Donatists in the 4th and 5th centuries, as later in the face of the Jansenists, the Church of Rome always rejected a “Church of the poor” in favor of the “reticulum mixtum,” the “composite net” of just and sinners of which Saint Augustine speaks in “Psalmus contra partem Donati.”
The pastoral practice of “all or nothing” seems more sure to the “rigorist” theologians, but it inevitably leads to a “Church of the pure.” Valuing formal perfection before all else and as an end in itself brings the risk of unfortunately covering up many behaviors that are in fact hypocritical and pharisaic.

Judas Iscariot of whom Our Lord said, "woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed" was really just a "poor repentant man" according to Francis!

Perhaps the Bishop of Rome is getting a hint at the blowback due to his exhortation and getting angry. In this morning's homily, (non magisterial or infallible teaching) he condemned (though not presumably forever) the "doctors of the letter" who were so mean to Judas Iscariot when he came to "repent."

If Judas truly "repented" he would have ran to Calvary and thrown himself at the foot of the Cross of Christ. Our Lord would have looked down upon him from that "noble tree" and forgiven him. Judas would have embraced "mercy." Instead, he did not repent, but he despaired in his evil act and took his own life. He could have been Saint Judas the Repentant, instead, "it were better for him if he were not born."

Francis though, thinks Judas was just a "poor repentant man."

Incredible.

http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/11/papa_i_dottori_della_lettera_sono_chiusi_alle_profezie/1221766

“Mi fa male quando leggo quel passo piccolo del Vangelo di Matteo, quando Giuda pentito va dai sacerdoti e dice ‘Ho peccato’ e vuol dare… e dà le monete. ‘Che ci importa! - dicono loro, così - Te la vedrai tu!’. Un cuore chiuso davanti a questo povero uomo pentito che non sapeva cosa fare. ‘Te la vedrai tu’. E andò ad impiccarsi. E cosa fanno loro, quando Giuda se ne va ad impiccarsi? Parlano e dicono ‘Ma, povero uomo’? No! Subito le monete: ‘Queste monete sono a prezzo di sangue, non possono entrare nel tempio’ … la regola tale, tale, tale, tale… I dottori della lettera!”. 

"It hurts when I read that passage smaller than the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas repented goes by the priests and says, 'I have sinned' and wants to give ... and gives the coins. 'Who cares! - They say, so - You will see it yourself! '. A closed heart before this poor repentant man who did not know what to do. 'You will see her you'. And he went and hanged himself. And what they do, when Judas goes away and hanged himself? They speak and say 'But, poor man'? No! Immediately coins: 'These coins are the price of blood, they cannot enter the temple' ... the rule that, this, this, this ... The doctors of the letter. "

Edward Beck, CNN's go to priest - a liar and a deceiver!

His own words convict him.

Francis saves some of his most startling and liberating comments for the latter part of the exhortation.  After having made an earnest appeal for the primacy of conscience and individual discernment within the context of the faith community, Francis says this: "It 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."
How extraordinary!
That means those who cohabitate without the benefit of marriage are not to be perceived a priori as "living in sin"— nor is anyone else, for that matter.  We do not have states of life that are deemed sinful, or beyond the reach of grace.  Rather, we have individuals who must be encouraged, no matter what their state in life, to be continually transformed by the grace of inclusion and mercy.
Joyous indeed.
Father Edward L. Beck, C.P. is an on-air commentator for CNN on issues of Faith and Religion.

 http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/11/two-views-on-what-amoris-laetitia-really-means/

Cardinal Burke; Amoris is not "magisterial teaching." Cupich calls it a "game-changer"

Cardinal Burke has penned an assessment of the apostolic exhortation published in the National Catholic Register. 

He states what most of us already know, it is "not magisterial teaching" and certainly not "infallible" though you wouldn't know it from the papolaters out there. The problem is, the secular media and certain priests such as Edward Beck and James Martin make it seem that it is. This is why it is so dangerous to the faith. The Pope must speak and write (or have his minions write) with clarity and precision. Anything less creates a danger to the Faith and to souls. Then there are the clericalist types such as Dwight Longenecker who think that the laity are just "armchair" critics and should just shut-up.

It is important to read all of what Cardinal Burke wrote and to read it slowly and carefully. He is not condemning the exhortation, but he is certainly not praising it either. His approach is clearly one of a Canonist. It is reasoned and rational. He makes it clear, it is the "opinion" of Francis, it is not infallible, it is not magisterial. Reading between the lines, one can surmise he is disgusted. 

Francis "thinks" Jesus is saying something different today than for the last 2000 years. This is ridiculous, but it his opinion and in my opinion, Francis is wrong.

One of the liars and deceivers is Blase Cupich. Severe words to be sure to describe an Archbishop but Cupich is promoting that the exhortation is a "game-changer." So, who's telling the truth, Cupich or Burke? Are we, as simple laymen, expected to suffer confusion from the likes of Cupich or do we use our own God-given intellect to sort through the mess which Francis has created.

The scandal arising from the AE is this; remember what they already told you they would do.

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

Pope Francis and his poison!

Fatigue must not be allowed to settle in with regards to this rotten fruit given to us by the Bishop of Rome in the form of his apostolic exhortation. We are only getting started. We must oppose this error and this Pope. It is our duty to Christ and the Church. If not us, who then?

It is mainly the laity who have called out the heresy the "Joy of heresy." So far, little has been said by Cardinals and Bishops who would naturally oppose the error being preached. I suspect that they will speak soon after taking the time to review the document, dissect it. It is even possible that their are broader discussions taking place around the world to oppose the error and proclaim the truth.

This document is poisonous. It is catastrophic. Some writers, priests, bishops, cardinals will tell you otherwise. They lie. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, wrote:

"There can be nothing more dangerous than those who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one worked, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."

Leo's statement describes well this document. Francis cannot run from it. He cannot hide. 

He has promoted numerous heresies. Of this, there can be no doubt. It is not even easily disguised. Read it. If you have any knowledge of true Catholicism it will jump out at you intantly, It starts in the third paragraph.

The clerical twitterati is lying to the poor sinner; telling them they are all okay now, no need to repent, no need to amend their lives. They are liars and deceivers, they are leading souls to Hell and will join them there or precede them.

Now, there are those who quite rightly say that the document must be read in continuity with the Faith and Tradition. Yes, fine; for me and you, dear reader. But that is not what is going to happen with those who will use the contradiction and ambiguity to further their agendas. The fact is, nobody should need to "interpret" a papal exhortation, it should be clear enough for the average Catholic that is simply interprets itself.

This document must be denounced. Those who wrote it must be called out for the scandal. The Pope must be held to account in this world so that he may repent and find the mercy he so frantically preaches.

Otherwise, Bergoglio will go to Hell. 

The Bergoglio Tango Mass - an abomination of desolation!

Any priest that would allow this to take place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be suspended. He cannot love Our Lord. He cannot love the Holy Sacrifice. It is not logical.

When it is a priest or cardinal, he should be summoned to Rome and stripped of his office.

When that man becomes a Pope, he must be denounced for his liturgical abomination.

James Martin, S.J. A liar, a deceiver, leaving a man dead in his sin!

All of these malefactors, from Jorge  Bergoglio to this James Martin must be called out.

James Martin, S.J. is a liar. The online picture below reveals the lie in his response to a poor man who has fallen in to sodomy and thinks he has a "husband." Well, Ian MacDougald, James Martin won't tell you the truth but you already know it. You said it yourself.

James Martin, S.J. ! This verse from scripture is for you. 

May St.Ignatius intercede and convert you before you end up dead and in Hell for all eternity.

18 Si, dicente me ad impium: Morte morieris, non annuntiaveris ei, neque locutus fueris ut avertatur a via sua impia et vivat, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem ejus de manu tua requiram.

18 If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

18 When I threaten I the sinner with doom of death, it is for thee to give him word, and warn him, as he loves his life, to have done with sinning. If not, he shall die as he deserves, but for his undoing thyself shalt be called to account.

Who will denounce Amoris Laetitia as heretical? Who will call out Jorge Bergoglio for his crime. Will history now call this the Bergoglian Heresy?

Let's take a look at paragraph 301 in the Joy of Whatever

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment 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”,339 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”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well;341 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”.342

This is a lie.

It is always "mortal sin." There is always a deprivation of "sanctifying grace." It simply does not exist. To believe otherwise is heretical.

What are these "irregular" situations that the Bergoglio would not mention? No courage to mention them specifically? How about two Catholics "shacking up"? How about a Catholic engaging in same-sex behaviour? How about a Catholic who has deserted their legitimate spouse to fornicate in an adulterous relationship with another? What about a chronic masturbator? If these people do not know that it is mortal sin, whose fault is that? What mitigation is there in these examples. Perhaps depression might lead to suicide, this might be a mitigating factor and the person is entrusted to God's mercy.  

Mortal sin is mortal sin. If there is a mitigating factor that is up to God. The Church must proclaim the Truth.

Jorge Bergoglio has lied. Yes, he has lied. There is mortal sin. It will kill your soul. Mortal Sin deprives the soul of "sanctifying grace."

To believe otherwise is foolish.

If this lie is promoted in parishes it will lead people into greater sin and lead them into Hell.

Yes, that is how serious this paragraph is. Who will denounce it? What Prelate will have the courage to call out the Pope?

It will be known in history as the Bergoglian Heresy.

Don't blame the secular media

You know the story about the scorpion and the frog, right? Well, a scorpion does what it does. The media does what it does. It cannot be expected to be schooled in theology or philosophy or Catholic thought. 

This is why the Church must always speak with preceisio and clarity.

This is why Jorge Bergoglio is a dangerous man.

From One Peter Five is this headline summary.

Don't blame the media, blame the Pope!

http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-headlines-say-it-all/#prettyPhoto/0/

Bergoglio blasphemes the Holy Spirit "women's movement" is God's doing!

"There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument, however, is not valid, “it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism”. The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women." Frank 

"Catholics cannot accept elements of Apostolic Exhortation that threaten faith and family" Did you ever think you would see such a headline? The Pope must be resisted!

Forward Share Tweet +1 Catholics cannot accept elements of Apostolic Exhortation that threaten faith and family

The promulgation of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis marks the conclusion of a synodal process that has been dominated by attempts to undermine Catholic teaching on matters relating to human life, marriage and the family, on questions including, but not limited to, the indissolubility of marriage, contraception, artificial methods of reproduction, homosexuality, “gender ideology” and the rights of parents and children. These attempts to distort Catholic teaching have weakened the Church’s witness to the truths of the natural and supernatural order and have threatened the well-being of the family, especially its weakest and most vulnerable members. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is a very lengthy document, which discusses a wide variety of subjects related to the family. There are many passages that faithfully reflect Catholic teaching but this cannot, and does not, lessen the gravity of those passages which undermine the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. Voice of the Family intends to present full analyses of the serious problems in the text over the coming days and weeks. Voice of the Family expresses the following initial concerns with the greatest reverence for the papal office and solely out of a sincere desire to assist the hierarchy in its proclamation of Catholic teaching on life, marriage and the family and to further the authentic good of the family and its most vulnerable members. We consider that in raising the following concerns we fulfil our duty as clearly laid out in the Code of Canon Law, which states: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons." (Canon 212 §3) Admission of the "divorced and remarried" to Holy Communion Amoris Laetitia, over the course of Chapter VIII (paragraphs 291-312), proposes a number of approaches that prepare the way for “divorced and remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion without true repentance and amendment of life. These paragraphs include: (i) confused expositions of Catholic teaching on the nature and effects of mortal sin, on the imputability of sin, and on the nature of conscience (ii) the use of ideological language in place of the Church’s traditional terminology (iii) the use of selective and misleading quotations from previous Church documents. A particularly troubling example of misquotation of previous teaching is found in paragraph 298 which quotes the statement of Pope John Paul II, made in Familiaris Consortio, that there exist situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” However in Amoris Laetitia the second half of Pope John Paul II’s sentence, which states that such couples "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (Familiaris Consortio, No. 84),  is omitted. Furthermore, in the footnote to this misleading quotation, we read: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).” The document makes reference to this erroneous view but does not explain why it is a false approach, which is namely that:  (i) All sexual acts outside of a valid marriage are intrinsically evil and it is never justifiable to commit an intrinsically evil act, even in order to achieve a good end (ii) “Faithfulness is endangered” by acts of sexual intimacy outside of marriage but faithfulness is lived when two individuals in an invalid union refrain from sexual intimacy in fidelity to their original union, which remains valid (iii) The quotation implies that children will suffer because their parents, with the help of divine grace, live chastely. On the contrary, such parents are giving their children an example of fidelity, chastity and trust in the power of God's grace. The document cites Gaudium et Spes but the passage is quoted out of context and does not support the argument made. The context makes clear that Gaudium et Spes is speaking of married Catholics, in the context of procreation, not those cohabiting in an invalid union. The full sentence is as follows: “But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperilled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 51). It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Apostolic Exhortation is at least raising the possibility that adulterous sexual acts might in some cases be justifiable and has misquoted Gaudium et Spes as if to provide grounds for this. Other approaches that undermine Catholic doctrine on reception of the sacraments will be discussed by Voice of the Family in due course. Parental rights and sex education Amoris Laetitia includes a section entitled “The Need for Sex Education” (paragraphs 280-286). This section spans more than five pages without making even one reference to parents. On the other hand there is reference to “educational institutions”. Yet sex education is “a basic right and duty of parents” which “must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them” (Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, No. 37). The omission of this teaching seriously fails parents at a time when parental rights regarding sex education are under serious and sustained attack in many nations of the world, and at the international institutions. In this section Amoris Laetitia does not cite any of the previous Church documents that clearly affirm this right; it does however cite a psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, associated with the Frankfurt school. The document’s earlier references to parental rights (paragraph 84), while welcome, cannot compensate for the exclusion of parents from this section. Homosexual unions Amoris Laetitia, following an approach similar to that previously adopted in synod documents, implies that “same-sex unions” may offer a “certain stability” and can have a kind of similarity or relation to marriage. It states that: “We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage.” (Paragraph 53) There is great pressure at the international institutions for the rejection of the traditional understanding of the family through the adoption of language which refers to "variety" or "diversity" in the forms of the family. The implication that "same-sex unions" form part of the "great variety of family situations" is precisely what pro-family groups are fighting hard to oppose. By using such language the Apostolic Exhortation undermines the pro-family movement's work to protect the true definition of the family and, consequently, to protect children who depend on the family structure willed by God for their well-being and healthy development. It should be noted that in paragraph 251 the authentic teaching of the Church, that "there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family" is restated. "Gender ideology" Amoris Laetitia endorses a central aspect of “gender ideology” by asserting that it "needs to be emphasized" that biological sex and socio-cultural 'gender' can be "distinguished but not seperated" (paragraph 56). This acceptance of the underlying principle of gender theory undermines the document’s otherwise welcome criticism of the ideology and its effects. The false notion that biological sex is distinguishable from so-called "gender" was first proposed in the 1950s and is the foundation of "gender ideology". Opposition to the consequences of "gender ideology"will be impossible if its erroneous first principle is accepted. Attacks on innocent human life Amoris Laetitia fails to grapple with the scale of the threat to unborn children, the elderly and the disabled. Conservative estimates indicate that over one billion unborn lives have been destroyed by abortion over the last century. Yet in a document addressing challenges to the family, which is 264 pages long, there are only a small number of passing references to abortion. There is no mention of the destruction caused by artificial methods of reproduction, which have also resulted in the loss of millions of human lives. The absence of serious discussion of attacks on unborn life in this context is a grave omission. There is also minimal reference to euthanasia and assisted suicide despite the increasing pressure for their legalization across the world. Failure to adequately discuss this threat is likewise another very regrettable omission. Contraception Amoris Laetitia fails to adequately restate Catholic teaching on the use of contraception. This is a troubling oversight given that (i) the separation of the procreative and unitive ends of the sexual act is a major catalyst for the culture of death and that (ii) there is widespread disobedience and ignorance of the Church’s teaching in this area precisely because of the failure of the hierarchy to communicate this truth.  The document's discussion of conscience is likewise flawed both in paragraph 222, which deals with "responsible parenthood", and in Chapter VIII which deals with the admission to the sacraments of those in public adultery. Paragraph 303 is of particular concern, especially in the following assertion: "Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized." This statement seems to adopt a false understanding of the "law of gradualness" and suggest that there are certain occasions when sin is not only unavoidable but even actively willed by God for that person. This would clearly be unacceptable. Conclusions This is only a brief introduction to the very numerous problems to found within Amoris Laetitia. It will take further study to fully draw out all the implications of the text but it is already abundantly clear that the document fails to give a clear and faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine and leads inescapably to conclusions that could result in violations of the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, and those disciplines which are inextricably founded upon it. Our initial overview provides sufficient cause to regard this document as a threat to the integrity of the Catholic faith and the authentic good of the family. We reiterate once again that we make these criticisms with great reverence for the office of the papacy but with the consciousness of our duties as lay Catholics towards the good of the Church, and our duties as pro-life/pro-family campaigners to work to protect the family and its most vulnerable members. Voice of the Family is an international coalition of 26 pro-life/pro-family organisations and was present in Rome throughout both the Extraordinary (2014) and Ordinary Synods of the Family (2015). Voice of the Family has published in-depth analyses of the Synods' official documents. Voice of the Family can be contacted on: mobile +44 (0)7507 742957 landline +44 (0)20 7820 3148 email enquiry@voiceofthefamily.com

Copyright © 2016 Voice of the Family, All rights reserved. You have received this email because you subscribed via our website. Our mailing address is: Voice of the Family Unit D, 3 Whitacre Mews Stannary Street London, SE11 4AB United Kingdom Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences