Sunday, January 14, 2018

"Satan is in the Vatican" of Pope Francis said World Renowned Exorcist Fr. Amorth in 2016 before his Death

In an interview, before his death on September 16, 2016 the world renowned exorcist of Rome, Fr. Gabriele Amorth was asked a question and answered as follows:

"You've said publicly that you believe, referring to the current Church scandals, that Satan is in the Vatican. Do you still believe this?"

"Yes, Today Satan rules the world. The masses no longer believe in God. And, yes, Satan is in the Vatican."
(Vanity Fair, "The Devil and Father Amorth: Witnessing "Vatican Exorcist" at Work," October 31, 2016)

In a book of interviews titled "Confessions" (2010), Fr. Amorth said:

"Even in the Vatican, one finds members of satanic sects... It involves priests, bishops and even cardinals! I have it from persons who have been able to report it to me for the good reason that they have the opportunity to observe it directly." (Christian Order, "The Church of Darkness," January 2018)

However, in the January 2018 Christian Order article Fr. Amorth said in 2001:

The "Holy Spirit... governs the Church: 'The gates of hell shall not prevail.' Despite the defections. And despite the betrayals. Of course, the devil can win some battles, even important ones. But he can never win the war."

The Christian Order editor Rod Pead, in the piece after showing that the current crisis in the Church caused by Pope Francis is ultimately a battle between Satan and God which of course God will win, asks:

Let "us resolve to endure; to prayerfully and sacramentally persevere in our daily petition for the Pope's repentance and conversion. Or, failing his response to grace, his rapid replacement by a Holy Father who immediately reinsitutes the prayer of St. Michael after every low Mass. For only then will we know for sure that Satan's ascendancy... is on the wane... that he and his Church of Darkness are finally leaving Rome."

Say a St. Michael prayer now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Is Pope Francis a "Atheist" according Pope John Paul II?

"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence" (Malcolm Muggeridge)


Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio and "explicitly atheist" according to Veritatis Splendor.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

"Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]

The Pope's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote:

"There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329)."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:

"This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example 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."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.

They redefine adultery as a "irregular relationship" and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.

This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at "peace" with it, if the sinful behavior is "humanly impossible" to change, "if they can't change their sinful behavior" or don't know it is wrong. 


Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.

Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said "An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse" as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:

"I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind...It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is."

"Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right...If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse." (Ralph McInerny, "Ethica Thomistica," 1982, 1997, page 110-111)

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a "supreme tribunal of moral judgement... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear":

"Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8... As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: 'In this passage, the German bishops get all they want':"


"But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are 'in God’s grace', and that their pastor can know it too... The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes 'the help of the sacraments... '"

"Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 


The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can't be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of "mercy" to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called "Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power."

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn't have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.

They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.

Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.

One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.

Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:

"Certain currents of modern thought... are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment... about good and evil... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."


This may be a valid question to ask Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinitions:

Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every Pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?


John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a "explicit atheist."

Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction.

Obama's Gay Sexual Misconduct Accusations & Atheism

Is Barack Obama a homosexual?

Recently, Sylvester Stallone said:

Obama is a “closet homosexual” who “lived his whole pathetic life as a lie... I have nothing against homos, but I can’t stand liars.”

Everybody who is anybody in Chicago knows all about the real Barack Obama,” Stallone said on the set of Creed 2. “I’ve spent a lot of time in Chicago and the stories you hear about that guy – wow. It just disturbs me and concerns me that we had a liar and a fraud in control for eight years.
[http://www.mdadaily.com/sylvester-stallone-pathetic-obama-is-closet-homosexual-living-a-lie/]

Remember when people were claiming that George W. Bush took cocaine. I don’t remember any of them saying they were willing to submit to a polygraph test or filing a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Bush's staff.

Larry Sinclair was willing to submit to a polygraph test and is filing a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff.
Sinclair “claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with [Obama].”
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626],[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2008/09/if-bill-clinton-was-our-first-black.html?m=1]

As for Obama's homosexual sexual misconduct accusations, the accusations were confirmed by multiple sources to THE KANSAS CITIAN:

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2011/11/barack-obama-accused-by-two-men-of.html:

Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior

During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.

The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.

THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.

In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.[http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2011/11/barack-obama-accused-by-two-men-of.html]

UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP.

The AP:

A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.

He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment.
[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57319854-503544/sharon-bialek-accuses-cain-of-sexually-inappropriate-behavior/]

According to the journalist Thomas Roeser "who was the first to interview [Obama] on radio after he became a state senator," he is a atheist:

Obama is an Atheist Clothed in Humanist Philosophy
By Thomas Roeser

Obama's Creed

When asked why I am outspokenly anti-Obama, here is a main reason. Last April 9 at a news conference in Turkey, he said that while there is a great number of Christians in the United States...

"... we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

You can check the quote for accuracy on the Internet. It's verifiable. Well, as reader Joan Solms (and conservative activist) says: who are "we"? And what "ideals and a set of values"? What are they?

Here is the closest affirmation I can find of what this 3rd World-indoctrinated mystery man of murky genealogical background really "believes" if in fact belief is the right word. He is really not very smart. He poses often with his forefinger dug into his cheek with a faraway look in his eyes from which we are to deduce he's an intellectual. He's decidedly not (take it from me who was the first to interview him on radio after he became a state senator).

Some say he's a Deist like Thomas Jefferson but the above statement contradicts that. Jefferson who first postulated (in a private letter) the concept of "wall of separation" between church and state first suggested that members of Congress go to church in the Capitol itself. That's not Obama. His statement above is humanist and intrinsically atheist. His 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was no test. How can one sit there for 20 years hearing Wright rave against whitey and believe that's Christianity? Obama did it because he was a young man on the make and he decided the folks there could be put to good use as volunteers for him. Period. If he ever believed anything Wright said he should not have tossed him aside when the heat came on... because Wright was a detriment.

No, essentially Obama is an atheist clothed in humanist philosophy. His declaration above certifies it.

Religious historians commonly trace the origins of modern atheism to the 18th century "Enlightenment" [sic] or humanism, spawned by the fight by materialist philosophers and the encyclopedists (among whom was one Francois-Marie Arouet who signed himself "Voltaire") who sought to collect the sum-total of human knowledge within two covers. The original motivation was correct-to change the Old Order of ancient states which sanctioned their rule of "Divine Right." But it soon changed as the masses were told in books and pamphlets that the Christian religion contradicts "the political health and well-being of nations." Thereupon the encyclopedists invented their own god-the state... to which Obama obviously subscribes as substitute for God. People of Voltaire's time believed Christianity is "the art of making men drunk with ecstasy in order to divert their attention from the evils heaped upon them by those who govern them."

It's notable that since he's been president, Obama has never found a church or belief to which he is sustained. Jeremiah Wright was a useful tool and nothing else... no church, no minister... can supplant. So Obama lives a life as president identical with his life before being president: rootlessness but at bottom his religion is the state. It translates practically into humanism-atheism... which comes down to a variant of Marxism.

Marxism which started in the 19th century is essentially humanist, affirming the towering domination of man. Marx like Obama believed in essential economic rationale meaning that the production of goods and services form the real basis of society. Economics is totally under man's control and he need not look to any god beyond his own collective genius to achieve happiness. Among intellectuals there are two ways of looking at the purpose of human life. One is to begin with the world and allow one's intellect to soar after that to God. That is what's called philosophy. The other is to begin with God and allow one's intellect to explore the world. That's what's known as theology. Obama follows neither route. That's why he has tried to redefine what we believe as "ideals and a set of values."

It boils down to the state. Obama is a pragmatic materialist, an atheist-humanist who has placed the totality of his belief in man and the state as created by man. That's what I believe he is. Tell me if you agree or disagree by writing me at thomasfroeser@sbcglobal.net

You are subscribed to email updates from TomRoeser.com ::
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-is-atheist-clothed-in-humanist.html?m=1]

Finally, another oldie but goodie from 2010 on Obama's gay past:

Is there "Damage Control over Obama Chicago Gay" Past?
I don't know. Maybe other news groups besides the Globe can check into this.

Fred

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Doug Walk
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 11:50:07 AM
Subject: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up

Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up

July 25, 2010 ·

Donald Young

In late May, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen had a bombshell revelation about Obama’s membership in a Chicago gay man’s club. Madsen also reported on the Sociopath’s sexual relationships with other men, including politicians and Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of the church in Chicago of which Obama was a member for some 20 years — Jeremy Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ black liberation theology.

Obama’s relationship with Young was confirmed by Larry Sinclair, who claims to have had two sex-cocaine trysts with Obama.


Larry Bland

There were two other openly gay men in Wright’s church: Larry Bland and Nate Spencer. In late 2007, as Obama began his ascent to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, in a span of 1½ months, all three men “conveniently” died:

Bland was murdered execution-style on November 17, 2007;
Young was murdered execution-style on December 24, 2007;
Spencer reportedly died of septicemia, pneumonia, and HIV on December 26, 2007.

Nate Spencer (r)

Death certificates of Bland and Young, HERE.

Now, Young’s elderly mother is speaking out about her suspicions that her son was murdered to protect Obama’s reputation and assure his political future as President.

~Eowyn

White House ramps up damage control over Obama Chicago gay history
Wayne Madsen Report – July 19, 2010

The story about President Barack Obama’s bi-sexual past will not go away. Now, in an exclusive interview with The Globe, Norma Jean Young, the 76-year old mother of the late Trinity United Church of Christ choir director Donald Young, has spoken out and declared that persons trying to protect Obama murdered her son at the height of the 2007 Democratic presidential primary to protect Obama from embarrassing revelations about his homosexual relationship with her son. Donald Young’s bullet-ridden body was found in his Chicago apartment on December 23, 2007, in what appeared to be an assassination-style slaying.



Norma Jean Young revealed to The Globe that her son Donald, who was openly gay, was a “close friend” of Obama. Mrs. Young also believes the Chicago Police Department has not placed a high priority on finding the killers of her son. Mrs. Young, who is, herself a former employee of the Chicago Police Department, told The Globe that, “There is more to the story,” adding, “I do believe they are shielding somebody or protecting someone.”

The Globe’s revelations are consistent with information obtained by WMR during a May investigation conducted in Chicago. On May 24, WMR reported:“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bath house in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city.” The report added, “WMR spoke to several well-placed sources in Chicago who reported that Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama’s former church of 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on Chicago’s south side, ran what was essentially a matchmaking service for gay married black professional members of the church, including lawyers and businessmen, particularly those with children. The matchmaking club was called the ‘Down Low Club’ but references to it over the phone and email simply referred to the group with the code phrase ‘DLC.’ The ruse, according to our sources, was to make anyone who was eavesdropping on the communications [FBI wiretaps in the Rod Blagojevich case likely contain such references] believe that the references were to the Democratic Leadership Council, also known as the DLC . . .

Among the members of the gay ‘DLC’ were Obama and TUCC’s choir director, Donald Young, an openly gay man who reportedly had a sexual relationship with Obama. Two other gay members of the church were Larry Bland and Nate Spencer. Young and Bland were brutally murdered, execution style, in late 2007. Bland was murdered on November 17, 2007 and Young on December 24, 2007. The latter was killed by multiple gunshot wounds. Spencer reportedly died on December 26, 2007, official cause of death: ‘septicemia, pneumonia, and HIV.’”

Larry Sinclair, the gay man who claimed to have had two sexual encounters with Obama in Chicago in 1999, wrote a book, “Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder,” in which he states that Obama was linked to Young’s murder. Sinclair wrote that he was in contact with Young shortly before his murder and Young revealed his relationship with Obama. At the time of his revelations about Obama at a National Press Club news conference, WMR doubted the veracity of Sinclair’s story due to the absence of corroborating evidence coupled with a bizarre news conference. However, since that time, WMR has received corroboration from a number of sources in a number of locations, including Chicago, Alabama, Georgia, and Washington, DC. WMR has received information that various competing camps, including the Hillary Clinton and John McCain campaigns, attempted to co-opt Sinclair and his revelations for their own political purposes. Sinclair, it should be noted, has not deviated from his original story or charges against Obama.

On June 19, 2008, WMR reported: “WhiteHouse.com held a news conference following Sinclair’s at which a video of Sinclair’s polygraph was to be shown. After experiencing technical difficulties with the video presentation, Parisi abruptly canceled the news conference and took no questions.” The aborted news conference was as bizarre as Sinclair’s. Sinclair was arrested by Washington, DC police following his news conference based on a warrant from Delaware issued by Vice President candidate Joseph Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden. The Delaware charges against Sinclair were later dropped.

Sinclair’s book is now the subject of a defamation lawsuit [Daniel Parisi, et al v. Lawrence W. Sinclair a/k/a "Larry Sinclair," et al] brought by Dan Parisi, the proprietor of the website, Whitehouse.com, who is mentioned in Sinclair’s book with regard to his involvement in polygraphs administered to Sinclair after he made his allegations against Obama public during the 2008 presidential campaign. The lawsuit is being handled by the politically powerful Patton & Boggs law firm, the same firm that represented George W. Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame Wilson/CIA leak, and has been filed against Sinclair, his publishing company, and distributors, including Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Sinclair is currently a resident of Florida.

The lawsuit against Sinclair has been assigned to Judge Richard Leon, the Republican deputy chief minority counsel on the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, aka, the Iran-contra scandal. From 1988 to 1989, he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from 1992 to 1993 was the Republican chief minority counsel on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s October Surprise Task Force investigating the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign’s secret dealings with Iran to ensure the defeat of President Jimmy Carter. Leon Leon was nominated for the federal bench by President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001. Leon’s involvement in so many high-level cover-ups of White House misconduct makes him an illogical choice to hear a case involving serious allegations against President Obama.

Note: Blagojevich’s defense in his federal corruption trial is slated to begin today in Chicago. Judge James Zagel has denied the defense’s request for all the government’s wiretaps to be played. The tapes, as previously reported by WMR, contain some earthy references to Obama’s and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s homosexual habits.

Sinclair has told WMR that he believes the Obama White House is trying to have his book withdrawn from circulation to avoid any further embarrassments about Obama’s homosexual past and the possible involvement of his top lieutenants in Young’s murder. The Globe reported in May 2008 that a top Chicago private detective said he believed Young was “rubbed out” because of his relationship with Obama. Sinclair has echoed the private eye’s beliefs about Young and Obama. The Globe reports that before his death, Young was planning to flee to Africa to teach. The information was provided to The Globe by Young’s mother, who also now fears for her life and plans to leave her Peoria, Illinois home for a secret location. Mrs. Young said the Chicago police have warned her that her life is in danger.
[http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/mom-of-murdered-o...], [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-there-damage-control-over-obama.html?m=1]
 

Bishop René Henry Gracida says No to "Catholic" No-Fault Divorce

Bishop René Henry Gracida publicized a open letter to a canon law professor at Catholic U where the professor was asked to change his opinion tacitly condoning marital abandonment.

Bishop Gracida was a friend of St John Paul II and Mother Angelica. He is Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, having served as the Fifth Ordinary, or Diocesan Bishop, of that Diocese from May 19, 1983 until retirement on April 1, 1997.

- - - - - - - - - 
No-Fault Divorce

Fr. John Beal virtually says the civil courts should decide the obligations of parties in marriage break-up, and I found that the obligations must be determined by natural law, divine law, and canon law --- not no-fault divorce lawyers and government employees.  Today, I sent open letter to Fr. John Beal, canon law professor at Catholic University of America, because he virtually condones marital abandonment.  I’m asking everybody to send, on their behalf, my message too.

View 50-second promotional video, and share on Facebook HERE.

Same 50-second video on YouTube also HERE

See blog posting showing my open letter and text for copying to anyone’s message HERE

US Bishops should care about this.

MY MESSAGE TO FR. BEAL <beal@cua.edu>
January 1, 2018


The Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God
Mirror of Justice

Dear Rev. Beal,

With the non-profit organization Mary's Advocates, I work to reduce unilateral no-fault divorce and support those who are abandoned. We publicize the Catechism and Canon law about separation of spouses and divorce.

This message is an open letter wherein I am asking you to emend your statement in two publications from Catholic University Press.


Although the Church reserves to itself the sole right to judge the validity of the marriages of the baptized, it recognizes the authority of secular courts to deal with the merely civil effects of marital break down. These civil effects include such matters as the distribution of property, child support, spousal support or alimony, custody of minor children, and child support and visitation. (p. 90 Martens. p. 470 Jurist)

Beal, John. Mitis Iudex Canons 1671-1682, 1688-1691: A Commentary. The Jurist 75 (2015): 467-538.

Beal, John. [Link HEREMitis Iudex Canons 1671-1682, 1688-1691: A CommentaryJustice and Mercy Have Met, Pope Francis and the Reform of the Marriage Nullity Process. Ed. Kurt Martens. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2017. 87-158


You appear to be explicitly condoning marital abandonment and all divorce, while giving the impression that the Church has relinquished its competence over cases of separation of spouses to the civil courts.

The phrase "merely civil effects" of marriage appears in canon 1692 §3, which discusses criteria that must be met before a tribunal judge can exercise the possible option of trying to persuade a spouse to go to the civil courts to manage a case of separation of spouses, rather than the bishop's administrative venue or the tribunal's judicial venue. In many states in the US, the only kind of separation available in the civil forum is divorce. So, in practice, the canons regarding approaching the civil forum are applicable to Catholics seeking a civil divorce or civil separation.

CHILDREN

In my research, I find the effects of marriage may be considered as being of a spiritual, temporal, or mixed character. When you say that custody of minor children and child visitation are merely civil effects of marriage, you teach readers that the upbringing of children is a purely temporal/material aspect of marriage. Anyone who has his or her own children would find that impossible.

The Catechism teaches that divorce is immoral, a grave offense against nature and only tolerable under certain criteria about which only the bishop, or his mandated delegate, has competence to judge (CCC 2382-2386). Canon law specifies a spouse has the right to educate his or her children (c. 226). Even for parties that have an invalid marriage, canon law requires that the ecclesiastic judge's sentence must instruct the parties of their civil and moral obligations toward the upbringing of the children (Mitis Iudex c. 1691 §1, CIC c. 1689). It is a wrongful abdication of responsibility for Church authorities to leave determinations about upbringing of children to amoral no-fault divorce professionals.

No-fault divorce Courts routinely grossly interfere with the ability of an innocent spouse to educate his or her own children in the natural every-day interactions between child and parent. Courts forcibly/coercively separate children much or most of the time from the spouse who did nothing grave to justify separation who was counting on the other spouse to uphold the marriage promises. Furthermore, no-fault divorce Courts give children scandal by ordering children to undergo training sessions where government employees attempt to propagandize children into believing that there is nothing wrong with one or both spouses choosing to break-up the children's intact home. Courts also give children scandal by forcing them to live with, or spend overnight visits with, the parent that is living with an adulterous partner and keeping no secrets about sleeping with the new partner.

PROPERTY

When you say that distribution of property, child support, and alimony are merely civil effects of marriage, you teach readers that one's obligation to uphold one's marriage promises is a purely material/temporal aspect of marriage, about which there are no moral and spiritual obligations. Obligation of marriage include being oriented toward the good of the other, and providing one's share of mutuum adiutorium toward the other spouse and children in the marital home (cf. 1983 CIC c. 1055, 1917 CIC c. 1013). It is a wrongful abdication of responsibility for Church authorities to leave determinations about material support and property to amoral no-fault divorce professionals.

The civil no-fault divorce courts have no expectation that a party should uphold his or her marriage promises. Consequently, the civil Courts routinely are necessary, material, cooperators with objective evil when the civil courts order the innocent spouse, who wants to keep the family together, to financially equip the abandoner to maintain a second home. In cases in which the Church would judge a marriage to be invalid because one spouse simulated the promise of sexual fidelity or permanence, the civil courts have not respect for natural law which requires one to repair, as much as possible, harm caused to another. In no-fault divorce, the party that simulated is routinely rewarded at the expense of the innocent party.

While money, houses, furniture, household chores, and cars are all material temporal items, there are spiritual or moral obligations associated with these items. For example, if I stole a TV from a store, I would have the moral obligation to pay for it or return it; whether, or not, I fulfill that obligation has an obvious effect on my spiritual life. The obligations of marriage should not be treated with less respect. In no-fault divorce, a woman who selfishly chooses to breakup her marriage will be rewarded with property and support from her husband, though I hope you would agree that she is the one obligated to support the husband and children and repair the damage she causes. If her marriage broke-up because she suffered a grave psychic anomaly at the time of marriage making her incapable of consent, natural law seems to dictate that her putative husband should not have to financially support her, but the no-fault divorce courts routinely make the innocent party, who properly consented to marriage pay, and lose everyday access to his children. Even for parties that have an invalid marriage, canon law requires that the ecclesiastic judge's sentence must instruct the parties of their civil and moral obligations toward one another (Mitis Iudex c. 1691 §1, CIC c. 1689).

CHURCH COMPETENCE PRIOR TO DIVORCE ACTION

In my work upholding marriage against unilateral no-fault divorce, I have found that some diocesan personnel think that separation and divorce are a private matter wherein one party can petition for divorce and that nothing is wrong with giving government civil courts full control over one's family. Diocesan personnel are unaware that cases concerning the separation of spouses pertain to the public good (of the Church) and require the intervention of the diocesan Promoter of Justice. To correct this misunderstanding, I have a compiled canonical writing going back to the Council of Trent. Please see 7-page explanation and 107-page exhibits 
HERE).

I pray you will have time to consider my request to emend your statement about the merely civil effects of marriage, and work to restore to the ecclesiastic forum its proper competence over cases of separation of spouses. Because the United States Constitution forbids state legislatures to interfere with obligations of parties to a contract, and because state courts respect arbitration agreements, the canon lawyers in the US are in a position to join Mary's Advocates' movement to protect families from unilateral no-fault divorce.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Bai Macfarlane
 
Bai Macfarlane
Mary’s Advocates
2721 Wagar Road, Rocky River OH 44116
DONATE 501(c)(3) nonprofit

Please Help Spread the Word

To upholding True Marriage, we need your help.

$3080 remaining in the monthly goal. Otherwise, proactive outreach will slow way down after January
when I look for another job.

$3800 is total monthly goal regularly.

Thank You,

 Bai Macfarlane, Mary’s Advocates. We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Did Fr. Z say Amoris Laetitia Absolution is Sacrilegious as Explained by Coccopalmerio & Did Cocco change Act of Contrition?

Pope Francis's Vatican interpreter of Amoris Laetitia (AL) Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio said:

AL "allows absolution... in the presence of an impossibility to change the condition of sin." (National Catholic Register, "Three Bishops Issue Profession of Truth About Sacramental Marriage," January 3, 2017)

This statement is not just anathema by the Council of Trent as explained in a earlier post, but if I read Fr. Z rightly, it is a sacrilege. Fr. Zuhlsdorf posted:

"However, if a person evince no firm purpose of amendment - that is, she clearly doesn't intend to avoid sin(s) again - then the priest cannot, must not, give absolution. His absolution would be... sacrilegious." (Fr. Z's Blog, "Can absolution be granted when no purpose of amendment exists?," January 15, 2017)

It appears, if I am reading Fr. Z correctly, then the absolution that Pope Francis's Vatican interpreter of Amoris Laetitia Coccopalmerio is speaking of is sacrilegious.

Coccopalmerio may have to change the "Act of Contrition" section that says "to sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin" to "to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin unless it is impossible then it is okay to sin because it's impossible."

Sadly, the above change to the "Act of Contrition" is not fictitious.

It is what the Cardinal would mean when he probably changed it "to sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin unless there is 'the presence of the impossibility to change the condition of sin.'"

Probably he, the almost comically ignorant or confused defenders of the above interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and the Vatican Insider/La Stampa commentators will say anyone who defends the infallible words of Jesus as well as of Trent, the "Act of Contrition" and the law of contradiction are anti-Pope Bendict XVI.

All these ignorant or confused commentators claiming the magisterial authority of Amoris Laetitia need to listen to magisterium authority expert Villanova University theologian Jessica Murdoch:

"By contrast, doctrinal evolution in which a new teaching sublates and eliminates the earlier teaching in a quasi-Hegelian fashion breeds dissolution, confusion, and death." (First Things, "Creeping Infallibility," 9-27-16)

Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction.

Monday, January 08, 2018

Did Pope Francis's Lead Advisor on Refugees Sutherland's Goldman Sachs Create the ILLEGAL US ALIEN INVASION?

Pope Francis's lead advisor on refugees, migration and the Vatican Bank reform Peter Sutherland died on January 7.

Who was Sutherland?

What type of advise did he give to Francis?

Did Sutherland's Goldman Sachs create the U. S. illegal alien invasion?

Here are the answers to the above questions:

-The conservative New American Reported:

Former "chairman of Goldman Sachs International Peter Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland, an Insider’s Insider among the globalist banking establishment, was brought in to help “reform” the Vatican Bank, which was akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank...
Sutherland is a prominent political figure who is regularly described in media accounts as a “practicing Catholic,” which means he wears his religion when it is expedient to do so. As attorney general of Ireland, Sutherland helped to scuttle that Catholic country’s legal restrictions on abortion and favored the “LGBT rights” movement..."

"Here are some of his other globalist credentials, as previously in The New American:

• He is a regular attendee and former Steering Committee member of the ultra-secretive, ultra-elite Bilderberg Group;
• he was European chairman of the Trilateral Commission;
• he is past chairman of British Petroleum (BP);
• he is honorary president of the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN), one of the principal corporatist insider organizations promoting EU-U.S. merger through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP);
• as a top Eurocrat, he played a lead role in destroying national sovereignty by replacing national currencies (and national monetary control) with the euro, as well as engineering the 'borderless Europe,' which the current migrant crisis is now proving to have been so destructive."             


-Even the extreme leftist Progressive Labor Party (PLP) said: "The Pope’s lead advisor on the current refugee crisis is ultra-capitalist Peter Sutherland. After granting Francis an audience in June, Sutherland dictated the Pope’s bogus “humanitarian” stance, subsequently adopted by the capitalist rulers in Germany and other European nations as a means to discredit Russian bosses. Sutherland is the chairman of Goldman Sachs International and ex-chairman of British Petroleum. To protect their billions in profits, both Goldman and BP need the U.S. war machine to continue slaughtering workers in the Middle East."
[https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931558-peter-sutherland/]

-RTE news reported: "He served as chairman of Goldman Sachs for a 20-year period until 2015, and also served as the UN's special adviser on migration until March of last year."
[https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931558-peter-sutherland/]

Did Pope Francis's Lead Advisor on Refugees Sutherland's Goldman Sachs Create THE ILLEGAL US ALIEN INVASION?:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INVASION: WHO CAUSED IT
http://kandylini.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/the-tequila-trap-the-real-story-behind-the-illegal-alien-invasion/


THE TEQUILA TRAP: THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION
Posted by kandylini on March 16, 2008

Here’s an excerpt from The Web of Debt. A nice refresher into what happened in Mexico, and good to keep in mind when we want to blame “them” for our economic problems when in fact they were manufactured by our own government.

By 1994, Mexico had restored its standing with investors. It had a balanced budget, a growth rate of over three percent, and a stock market that was up fivefold. In February 1995, Jane Ingraham wrote in The New American that Mexico’s fiscal policy was in some respects “superior and saner than our own wildly spendthrift Washington circus.” Mexico received enormous amounts of foreign investment, after being singled out as the most promising and safest of Latin American markets. Investors were therefore shocked and surprised when newly-elected President Ernesto Zedillo suddenly announced a 13 percent devaluation of the peso, since there seemed no valid reason for the move. The following day, Zedillo allowed the formerly managed peso to float freely against the dollar. The peso immediately plunged by 39 percent.5

What was going on? In 1994, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office Report on NAFTA had diagnosed the peso as “overvalued” by 20 percent. The Mexican government was advised to unpeg the currency and let it float, allowing it to fall naturally to its “true” level. The theory was that it would fall by only 20 percent; but that is not what happened. The peso eventually dropped by 300 percent – 15 times the predicted fall.6 Its collapse was blamed on the lack of “investor confidence” due to Mexico’s negative trade balance; but as Ingraham observes, investor confidence was quite high immediately before the collapse. If a negative trade balance is what sends a currency into massive devaluation and hyperinflation, the U.S. dollar itself should have been driven there long ago. By 2001, U.S. public and private debt totaled ten times the debt of all Third World countries combined.7

Although the peso’s collapse was supposedly unanticipated, over 4 billion U.S. dollars suddenly and mysteriously left Mexico in the 20 days before it occurred. Six months later, this money had twice the Mexican purchasing power it had earlier. Later commentators maintained that lead investors with inside information precipitated the stampede out of the peso.8 These investors were evidently the same parties who profited from the Mexican bailout that followed. When Mexico’s banks ran out of dollars to pay off its creditors (which were largely U.S. banks), the U.S. government stepped in with U.S. tax dollars. The Mexican bailout was engineered by Robert Rubin, who headed the investment bank Goldman Sachs before he became U.S. Treasury Secretary. Goldman Sachs was then heavily invested in short-term dollar-denominated Mexican bonds. The bailout was arranged the very day of Rubin’s appointment. Needless to say, the money provided by U.S. taxpayers never made it to Mexico. It went straight into the vaults of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other big American lenders whose risky loans were on the line.9

The late Jude Wanniski was a conservative economist who was at one time a Wall Street Journal editor and adviser to President Reagan. He cynically observed of this banker coup:

There was a big party at Morgan Stanley after the Mexican peso devaluation, people from all over Wall Street came, they drank champagne and smoked cigars and congratulated themselves on how they pulled it off and they made a fortune. These people are pirates, international pirates.10

The loot was more than just the profits of gamblers who had bet the right way. The pirates actually got control of Mexico’s banks. NAFTA rules had already opened the nationalized Mexican banking system to a number of U.S. banks, with Mexican licenses being granted to 18 big foreign banks and 16 brokers including Goldman Sachs. But these banks could bring in no more than 20 percent of the system’s total capital, limiting their market share in loans and securities holdings.11 They wanted the whole enchilada. By 2004, all but one of Mexico’s major banks had been sold to foreign banks, which gained total access to the formerly closed Mexican banking market.12

The value of Mexican pesos and Mexican stocks collapsed together, supposedly because there was a stampede to sell and no one around to buy; but buyers with ample funds were sitting on the sidelines, waiting to pick over the devalued stock at bargain basement prices. The result was a direct transfer of wealth from the local economy to international money manipulators. The devaluation also precipitated a wave of privatizations (sales of public assets to private corporations), as the Mexican government tried to meet its spiraling debt crisis. In a February 1996 article called “Militant Capitalism,” David Peterson blamed the rout on an assault on the peso by short-sellers. He wrote:

The austerity measures that the U.S. government and the IMF forced on Mexicans in the aftermath of last winter’s assault on the peso by short-sellers in the foreign exchange markets have been something to behold. Almost overnight, the Mexican people have had to endure dramatic cuts in government spending; a sharp hike in regressive sales taxes; at least one million layoffs (a conservative estimate); a spike in interest rates so pronounced as to render their debts unserviceable (hence El Barzon, a nation-wide movement of small debtors to resist property seizures and to seek a rescheduling of their debts); a collapse in consumer spending on the order of 25 percent by mid-year; and, in brief, a 10.5 percent contraction in overall economic activity during the second quarter, with more of the same sure to follow.13

By 1995, Mexico’s foreign debt was more than twice the country’s total debt payment for the previous century and a half. Per-capita income had fallen by almost a third from a year earlier, and Mexican purchasing power had fallen by well over 50 percent.14 Mexico was propelled into a crippling national depression that has lasted for over a decade. As in the U.S. depression of the 1930s, the actual value of Mexican businesses and assets did not change during this speculator-induced crisis. What changed was simply that currency had been sucked out of the economy by investors stampeding to get out of the Mexican stock market, leaving insufficient money in circulation to pay workers, buy raw materials, finance loans, and operate the country. It was further evidence that when short-selling is allowed, currencies are driven into hyperinflation not by the market mechanism of “supply and demand” but by the concerted action of currency speculators. The flipside of this also appears to be true: the U.S. dollar remains strong despite its plunging trade balance, because it has been artificially manipulated up by the Fed. (More on this in Chapter 33.) Market manipulators, not free market forces, are in control.

This entry was posted on March 16, 2008 at 7:03 pm and is filed under Politics, economy. Tagged: economy, mexico, nafta, Politics, web of debt. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site

Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction. 

Friday, January 05, 2018

Are the Dubia Cardinals Sinning if they don't Correct Pope Francis?

 St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae said:

"If the faith were endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject,  rebuked in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith." (Summa Theologiae II-IIae, 33,4,2)

Ought means it is a moral obligation.

 Amoris Laetitia has become a imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith.

 In 2016, one of the four Cardinals, Walter Brandmuller said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."

Where are the Dubia Cardinals?

They are in hiding like the Apostles were after Jesus's resurrection and ascension into heaven.

What can we do?

Remember, the Apostles after they prayed nine days with Mother Mary got the actual graces to face death fearlessly.

I'm going to begin a simple novena to Mary under her title of Our Lady of Fatima starting today.

This novena is prayed to ask Our Lady to intercede with her spouse the Holy Spirit to send actual graces to the Dubia Cardinals to issue the correction to Pope Francis.

I ask everyone who reads this to pray one Hail Mary for nine days for this intention.

Waldorf Shows Ignorance of Bible, Infallible Trent, Magisterium Authority, Thomism & Unwittingly says Pope is a Heretic

On January 4, Stephen Walford in his article for the Vatican Insider said:

"Pope Francis was asked directly in April 2016 the question: has sacramental discipline changed for the divorced and remarried? And his answer was yes. Since then, he has given the Church a document (the Buenos Aries guidelines) which obviously represents for him the way a discernment process should work for those not only who feel their first marriage was invalid but cannot prove it, but also those who for other reasons cannot live as brother and sister but who hope to reach that point through the grace of God, and an application of the law of gradualness." [http://www.lastampa.it/2018/01/04/vaticaninsider/eng/documents/the-amoris-laetitia-dissenters-lGWxh795fjt5DHh7Wx74WP/pagina.html]

On December 23, 2016 Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, one of the four Cardinals of the dubia, said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic."[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dubia-cardinal-anyone-who-opens-communion-to-adulterers-is-a-heretic-and-pr]

In that article Waldord, also, said "Loyalty to the Holy Father and obedience to his magisterium has always been central to a spiritual life pleasing to God. To place oneself outside that requirement is not only defying the Successor of St Peter, but God himself."

Waldord, in his ignorance, thinks St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong and taught Catholics to defy... God himself." Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae taught :

"If the faith were endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject,  rebuked in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith." (Summa Theologiae II-IIae, 33,4,2)

The Bible, Revelation, teaches St. Paul rebuked or corrected St. Peter for error. Does he think Francis can teach error when even Peter was rebuked for teaching error?

In the Vatican Insider article he said:

"Fr Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer from the Archdiocese of New York who stated on the 28th September 2017 edition that adultery is always a mortal sin “we cannot go by moral theology which minimises the gravity of that offence.” Fr Murray either doesn’t know what is taught in the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, and various documents of the CDF [1]or he is choosing to ignore them creating a false magisterium that rejects the authentic magisterium in relation to moral theology, mortal sin and subjective guilt. The question is: if he does know these teachings (it has been pointed out to him), why give the false impression to every soul in these situations that they are definitely in mortal sin? Is that the Christian way of charity and mercy?"

Thomist scholar Fr. Basil Cole OP said it is not Fr. Murray that does not understand Catholic teachings, but Waldorf and the writers of Amoris Leatitia. They contradict Catholicism and Thomism:

"Another tangle one can encounter is when quoting Aquinas piecemeal or without full advertence to his theological project. St. Thomas was nothing if not a complete and consistent thinker. To pick and choose his statements without considering their context and relation to his other relevant insights would be about as disastrous as proof-texting Sacred Scripture."

"One might suppose that a situationist ethic is supported by Aquinas when he states, “In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. […] The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 4; quoted in Amoris Laetitia n. 304). Isolated from Aquinas’s other statements, it could seem as if the doctor of the Church is saying that no moral rule is absolute, but that discernment is needed in each and every situation to know whether or not a general moral principle applies in a particular situation. However, this is not authentic Thomism."

"Situation ethics contradicts Aquinas's firm affirmation that there are some moral norms that always hold for everyone: these are the precepts of the Decalogue (T I-94, q.100, a.8)... Aquinas's teaching is clear: a person should not receive Holy Communion or absolution from sin who does not intend to change his life and forsake public sin... (ST I-94, q.43, a.1)."
(National Catholic Register, "Is 'Amoris Laetitia' Really Thomistic?," December 16, 2016)

Waldord unwittingly shows that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent when he said:

"The I would suggest that the Pontiff’s interpretation of canon 915 is far more nuanced than those whose rigidity betrays a pharisaical intransigence to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Churches at this time. Cardinal Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts seems to share this opinion also."

On January 2, Vatican expert Edward Pentin reported that Pope Francis's president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio unwittingly said that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent:

"In comments to the Register last month, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio insisted the Pope’s official endorsement of an Argentine directive on the issue did not contradict canon law."

"The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said it is true that 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they are ‘in manifest grave sin.'”"

"But he added that there are 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!”

He further noted that the relevant canon, number 915, states that Holy Communion cannot be allowed if the person remains “obstinately persevering” in grave sin. The word “obstinate” means “without any intention to change,” Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “so these faithful can be admitted to Holy Communion because they have the intention to leave the condition of sin and therefore they are not in sin.'”

"He added that the “doctrine of sincere repentance” which contains the purpose of changing one's condition of life as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of Penance 'is respected' because the faithful in such hypothesised situations 'are conscious, have conviction, of the situation of objective sin in which they currently find themselves.' They also 'have the purpose of changing their condition of life, even if, at this moment, they are not able to implement their purpose.'”

"'The cardinal added that the doctrine of 'sanctifying grace as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist is also respected' because the faithful in this case 'haven’t yet arrived at a real change of life because of the impossibility of doing so, but have the intention of implementing this change.'”

"He said it is 'precisely this theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always — we repeat — in the presence of an impossibility to immediately change the condition of sin.'”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkx_mDWIbqA]

The Cardinal in the above statement said it is impossible to "change the condition of sin" which is another way of saying Amoris Laetitia's "in concrete situations which does not allow him or her to decide otherwise."

Trent said "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified  and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema." 

Finally, On February 2, 2017, Walford in another article for the Vatican Insider titled "The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors come to his Defence," again, showed his ignorance of magisterium authority.

Walford's central argument in the piece is that Amoris Laetitia is a case of papal ordinary magisterium and to deny its authority is to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

He claims three great Church theologians "ruled out" that a Pope can teach heresy.

His claim that the great Fr. Francisco Suarez agreed with his thesis is worst than sloppy writing. It is the opposite of the truth.

Suarez taught "it is a given that a pope could be a formal heretic." (Crisis, "Can a Pope be a Heretic?," March 4, 2015)

Scholar James Schall, S.J. said:

"Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy." (The Catholic Thing, "On Heretical Popes," November 11, 2014)

Walford said St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori agreed with him.

As Schall's quote shows Bellarmine taught that the possibility of heretical popes could be piously believed despite what the saint personally believed.

As with Bellarmine, Liguori personally believed that popes could not be heretics, but like the former he did not disallow Catholics to believe in the possibility of heretical popes.

Villanova University theologian Jessica Murdoch explains magisterium authority for Walford:

"Responding faithfully to the trans-temporal magisterium of the Church (and not just to the magisterium of one's own time) requires holding in view two other principals of interpretation. First, 'the minor gives way to the major.' Second, the 'one gives way to the many.'.. Thus, Amoris Laetitia cannot supersede the encyclical Veritatis Splendor... One must privilege the harmony of the many pontificates in union with each other, and their unanimity with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over the one seemingly dissonant voice." (First Things, "Creeping Infallibility," 9-27-16)

The article shows that to disbelieve papal teachings that are dissonant from every single magisterium teaching in the history of the Church is the only way not to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

Resisting such dissonant papal teachings, as Amoris Laetitia, is the only way not to bring about "dissolution, confusion, and death" into the Church.

In the same article, Murdoch said:

"By contrast, doctrinal evolution in which a new teaching sublates and eliminates the earlier teaching in a quasi-Hegelian fashion breeds dissolution, confusion, and death."

Thursday, January 04, 2018

Cdl. Muller follow Pope Benedict XVI's Example: Retract your Statement that is Anathema by Trent

Cardinal Gerhard Muller is anathema by the infallible Council of Trent for saying to the question asked below:

In your introductory essay to Buttiglione's book, you speak of at least one exception concerning the sacraments for those who live a second union, that concerning those who cannot obtain marriage annulment in court but are convinced in conscience of the nullity of the first marriage. This hypothesis was already considered, in 2000, by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In this case, can we open the way to the sacraments? Could Amoris laetitia be considered a development of that position? 

"Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to reflect on this without having a ready-made solution... It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament." (Vatican Insider, "Muller, 'Buttiglione's book dispelled the cardinals' dubia,'" December 31, 2017)[http://www.lastampa.it/2017/12/31/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/mller-buttigliones-book-has-dispelled-the-cardinals-dubia-qLOM0A9C6J1kJi8ohrveoL/pagina.html]

In simple words, Muller said a penitent and a priest can decide on "matrimonial causes" between themselves and therefore matrimonial causes do not belong to Church judges (ecclesiastical judges).

 "Canon XII. -If any one saith that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema."
(http://www.thecounciloftrent/ch24.ht)

Cardinal Gerhard Muller it appears accepts the claims by his interviewer that Pope Benedict XVI in some 2000 writings supported his new teaching that is anathema by Trent.

All the writings of Ratzinger as Cardinal and as Pope Benedict, that I know of, officially flatly contradicted Muller's new error that is anathema by Trent. For example, he didn't say along with Muller that the "penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons," but said the "conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception":

"a. Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear instruction of the Lord.
In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.[2]" (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Muller: Where is Pope Benedict's Supposed Writings that are Anathema by Trent?

If Muller were any kind scholar in the least degree, he would have quoted the supposed statement of Benedict and have stated what the title of the statement was at the minimum.

If the 1972 essay is what Muller is speaking of, he failed to note that CNA on December 4, 2014 reported that Benedict retracted the 1972 essay issued before he was a Cardinal or Pope that said the divorced and "remarried" could receive Communion.




"News broke weeks ago that a new volume of Benedict XVI's collected works was being released in German with an updated version of a 1972 essay, which no longer suggests that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion, as it once did..."

"But as doctrine developed, Ratzinger moved away from his 1972 essay, humbly retracting the suggestion he had then offered."

"In 1991, he wrote that the suggestions had been made 'as a theologian in 1972. Their implementation in pastoral practice would of course necessarily depend on their corroboration by an official act of the magisterium to whose judgment I would submit … Now the Magisterium subsequently spoke decisively on this question in the person of (St. John Paul II) in Familiaris consortio...'"

"Magister's Dec. 3 article includes both the original conclusion of Ratzinger's 1972 essay, and the new conclusion written in 2014. He writes that 'it comes as no surprise … that Ratzinger should have maintained that it was inappropriate for Kasper to cite his 1972 article in support of his own theses, as if nothing had happened after that year.'" [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ratzingers-retraction-the-fruit-of-42-years-of-theological-maturation-54465]

If this is the writings he referred to, Muller if he is a honest man needs to acknowledge this fact which he failed to bring forward.

Muller needs to follow Benedict's example and retract the statement he made above that is anathema by Trent.

Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction and that Muller is not the next pope. 

Wednesday, January 03, 2018

Pope Francis is Anathema by Infallible Trent: "If anyone says that the Commandments of God are, even for one that is Justified and Constituted in Grace, Impossible to Observe, let him be Anathema."


On January 3, Crux reported that Pope Francis said he believed in grave sin:

“'There are, in fact, grave sins, the so-called ‘mortal sins’ because they cause the eternal life in us to die,' Francis said. 'For those sins, in order to be forgiven, confession and sacramental absolution are necessary.'”
[https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/03/pope-mercy-talks-penance-opening-public-act-2018/]

Unfortunately, Francis's concept of sin appears to be contrary to "the Sixth Commandment and to Saint Paul’s prohibition outlined in 1 Cor. 11:27-30" and the infallible Council of Trent.

Dr. Luca Gili, a professor of philosophy at the University of Quebec in Montreal, told LifeSiteNews:

“By saying that ‘there is no other interpretation’ [to [the Argentinian] guidelines that appear to blatantly approve Communion for adulterers], the pope is stating that he is (magisterially) proposing a doctrine which is contrary to the Sixth Commandment and to Saint Paul’s prohibition outlined in 1 Cor. 11:27-30."

Dr. Gili in speaking of heresy said:

“Any denial of a divinely revealed truth is (material) heresy, according to the definition of heresy in CIC 751. In conclusion, the pope is (allegedly) teaching a plain heresy.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/pope-francis-supporters-demand-faithful-catholics-accept-communion-for-adul#ampshare=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-supporters-demand-faithful-catholics-accept-communion-for-adul]

The Argentinian Bishops Guidelines says couples in adulterous second marriages not living in continence in "other more complex circumstances... Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to... the Eucharist." (Aleteia.org, September 13, 2016)

Pope Francis's letter to the Argentinian Bishops on their guidelines says there is "no other interpretation." (Aleteia.org, September 13, 2016)

In simple words, Francis is officially saying couples committing the grave sin of the sexual act of adultery can receive Holy Communion with the excuse of "complex circumstances" which is against God's Divine Law and Revelation as taught be the infallible Council of Trent:

Trent's decree on justification: "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Versus

Amoris Laetitia, 301: 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.'
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/04/22/five-serious-problems-with-chapter-8-of-amoris-laetitia/]

On January 2, Vatican expert Edward Pentin reported that Pope Francis's president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio unwittingly said that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent:

"In comments to the Register last month, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio insisted the Pope’s official endorsement of an Argentine directive on the issue did not contradict canon law."

"The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said it is true that 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they are ‘in manifest grave sin.'”"

"But he added that there are 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!”

He further noted that the relevant canon, number 915, states that Holy Communion cannot be allowed if the person remains “obstinately persevering” in grave sin. The word “obstinate” means “without any intention to change,” Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “so these faithful can be admitted to Holy Communion because they have the intention to leave the condition of sin and therefore they are not in sin.'”

"He added that the “doctrine of sincere repentance” which contains the purpose of changing one's condition of life as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of Penance 'is respected' because the faithful in such hypothesised situations 'are conscious, have conviction, of the situation of objective sin in which they currently find themselves.' They also 'have the purpose of changing their condition of life, even if, at this moment, they are not able to implement their purpose.'”

"'The cardinal added that the doctrine of 'sanctifying grace as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist is also respected' because the faithful in this case 'haven’t yet arrived at a real change of life because of the impossibility of doing so, but have the intention of implementing this change.'”

"He said it is 'precisely this theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always — we repeat — in the presence of an impossibility to immediately change the condition of sin.'”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkx_mDWIbqA]

The Cardinal in the above statement said it is impossible to "change the condition of sin" which is another way of saying Amoris Laetitia's "in concrete situations which does not allow him or her to decide otherwise."

Trent said "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified  and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Coccopalmerio's above statement of the Pope's understanding of sin is important because he was Francis's selected Vatican official who stated:

"While the content of the pope's letter itself does not contain teachings on faith and morals, it does point toward the interpretations of the Argentine bishops and confirms them as authentically reflecting his own mind." [https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/12/05/pope-francis-makes-his-letter-argentine-bishops-amoris-laetitia-part-official]       

As stated by Francis's own selected Vatican official Coccopalmerio to explain the pontiff's authentic interpretation:

The Pope's Amoris Laetitia appears to have fallen into the heresies of Martin Luther and situation ethics which are condemned by Trent and Veritatis Splendor.


Pope Francis said of the heresy of Luther on justification which includes his teaching on sin:

"Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err." (patheos.com/blog/scotticalt, "Pope Francis is Wrong about Luther and Justification," April 5, 2017)

On May 25, 2016, the Catholic Herald said new "revelations suggest that some of Amoris’s most contentious paragraphs – relating to “situations of sin” and “mitigating factors” – had their origin in Archbishop Fernández’s articles, which gave a critique of John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor."

The evidence shows that the Pope’s intimate friend and ghostwriter Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez did a "cut and paste" from his ten year old anti-John Paul II tracts which made up some of the most controversial parts of the papal document according to a May 25 article of The Spectator.

Francis' friend, The Spectator said, is seen as "a joke figure" in terms of his reputation as a theologian who wrote a silly book called “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing.”

All these revelations came from Vatican expert Sandro Magister's blog. Magister said Pope John Paul II condemned the situational ethics of "theologians" like Fernandez in his important and magisterial encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y&refresh_ce ]

The Vatican expert in the article showed how intimate a friend then Archbishop Bergoglio and the future pope was to his protege:

"Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege."

The Catholic Herald quoted a passage from Fernandez's situational ethics articles which were "consciously echoed" in Amoris Laetitia’s paragraph 301:

“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.”

This passage according to the Catholic Herald may be directly counter to defined Catholic doctrine:

"This paragraph of the exhortation has been criticised by theologians including E. Christian Brugger, who argued that it apparently goes against Church teaching: 'This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: 'If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.'”

First Things, in "Francis's Argentine Letter And The Proper Response " by Elliott Milco, says the exact same thing about Francis's letter which endorses the Argentine norms.

America's most influential journal of religion and public life, First Things' Deputy Editor Milco says:

"The Church teaches and has always taught, from St. Paul to the Council of Trent and beyond, that grace strengthens and liberates us from the bonds of sin, and that while we may never, in the present life, be perfectly free from the inclination to do wrong, it is possible through grace to keep the commandments."

"This doctrine was given force of law in Trent's decree on justification: 'If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.'"

"'The same decree explains that 'God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and aids you that you may be able.'"

"The real problem with the Argentine norms is their deviation from this larger and more fundamental principle: that grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so. Jesus Christ holds us to this standard in the Gospel. It is presumptuous of Francis—however benign his intentions—to decide that his version of 'mercy' trumps that given by God himself."

Brugger and Milco are not speaking about the Kasper proposal, but the Catholic doctrine of infused grace which was denied by Martin Luther and the other "reformers"

On that other issue, Fr. Raymond de Sousa's article "What Argentina's 'Amoris Laetitia' Guidelines Really Mean" in the National Catholic Register tries to make the case that the Kasper proposal in it's totality actually suffered a lose despite media hype claiming otherwise and despite Francis's efforts to implement the total proposal.

De Sousa tries to makes the case that the Argentine norms is not mistaken because it could be treated in pre-Amoris Laetitia "standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree."

On this separate issue from the topic of grace, Brugger in the Catholic World Report with the article "The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and "Amoris Laetitia" destroys the De Sousa attempt to justify the Argentine norms by using Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor that shows it creates a "destructive dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality."

He demonstrates that the only solution to the problematic Argentine norms is to form consciences not create loopholes so persons can sin in invincible ignorance.

Be that as it may, the point is that the Kasper proposal isn't the issue here, but Amoris Laetitia and the Argentine norms apparent denial of a defined doctrine of the Council of Trent on grace which the "reformers" denied.

The "reformers" idea of imputed grace saw man as "totally depraved" and corrupt who even after justification was not infused with grace and truly changed on the inside.

Luther's image of imputed grace was that of man as a pile of dung covered with snow.

Man isn't changed on the inside (he is still a pile of dung), but "justified" man is covered with grace (snow) while not being changed on the inside.

As Milco said Trent's doctrine on infused grace says "that graces truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so."

It is a very big and scary moment in Church history when it appears that a Pope is openingly teaching error that is anathema by the infallible Trent:

Moral Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, on April 22, wrote Amoris Leatitia (A.L.) in 301 is "inconsistent with the teaching of Trent on grace."

Brugger then writes that it appears that Canon 18 of Trent, which is infallible doctrine, gives an anathema to Pope Francis's 301 teaching on grace.

Pray a Our Father now for the Dubia Cardinals to issue the correction.

     

Endnotes and quotes from Dr. E. Christian Brugger's CWR article:

Dr. E. Christian Brugger is the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Professor of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver and Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation in Washington, D.C. He has a forthcoming book with Catholic University of America Press on the indissolubility of marriage and the Council of Trent.

Dr. Brugger said of Amoris Laetitia, 301 in the Catholic World Report:

'Inconsistency with the teaching of Trent on grace

301. 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."

 Again, the 'rule” is the norm against adultery articulated in the sixth precept of the Decalogue, which Jesus says is violated by one who divorces his spouse and marries another (cf. Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18). Here chapter 8 teaches that someone who knows full well the “rule” (and is by hypothesis justified in Trent’s/Paul’s sense) can “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further
sin” (emphasis added). This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: “If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.”

It might be replied that no. 301 is addressed to pastors and is about mitigation, not objective possibility, not subjects in their deliberations about possible options.  But in fact it is addressed to everyone, and no. 300 has identified “responsible personal and pastoral discernment” as proceeding on the same logic and as extending to personal discernment of possible present options, a logic that 301 is just unfolding.

What AL is ignoring is the adequacy of grace to enable people to respond to the overall objective demands of the Gospel.

ENDNOTES:
1 The note reads: “This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.”
2 See no. 301 where “rule” clearly refer back to the “demands of the Gospel”
3 Note 336 makes clear that participation in the sacraments is one of the forms of participation in play in this passage.
4 The note references the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried (June 24, 2000), no. 2. AL references the text to help overcome the potential judgment excluding remarried divorcees from Holy Communion. But the Pontifical text is saying just the opposite. The relevant passage reads:
“The Code of Canon Law establishes that ‘Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried…. [These] authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of ‘grave sin’, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who ‘obstinately’ persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor….
“The reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
“Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance. The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are: a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability; b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church; c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.”
5 The encyclical Veritatis Splendor (Aug. 6, 1993) was the last papal document to be addressed to these issues, and is known to be an unprecedentedly serious effort to expound the Church’s understanding on moral norms from the apostles until today.
6 The note says: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.”