Many people very much more holy and learned than I am have spoken of the great riches and beauties which are to be found in Amoris laetitia. Since, we are told, portions of it were added at the request of the CDF, I see no reason why this should not be true. But I think footnote 329 is thoroughly Nasty and Dirty. It is dealing with the idea that "remarried" divorcees might live together as brother and sister. But, in the course of doing this, it quotes Gaudium et Spes. Since the Conciliar Document is referring ad locum to the spacing of families by married couples, this misrepresents the Council. It is always Nasty and Dirty to tell lies, particularly when it is a case of radically misrepresenting the teaching of an ecclesiastical organ ... an Ecumenical Council ... to which Christian people might feel they owed a duty of respect.
And, finally, this footnote appears to accept by implication the proposition that the Grace of God is not able to give Christian people the strength to live in accordance with His will. That is Nasty and Dirty. The Church has always taught that Chastity is within the reach of those who live in God's grace. Millions of Christians have found this to be true.
Indeed, this repulsive little footnote really does draw back the lace curtain on the Nastiness and the Dirt to be found inside the Holy Father's House of 'Mercy'. Some people, we are informed, point out that if "remarried" divorcees live together without sex, one or both of them will be in danger of cheating on their new quasi-spouse. Surprise, surprise! One, at least, and perhaps both, have almost certainly already cheated on another and lawful spouse; is there really any reason why they should not cheat on a new and unlawful "spouse"? Go on: be realistic! Isn't it what we should expect? And this footnote does not even put into the mouths of the "couple" the sentiment If we try to live as brother and sister we shall probably fall, and end up in bed together. That, at least, would be human and honest. And it could be given a gentle and understanding pastoral answer. But No! Footnote 329 says it is the 'fidelity' of the new quasi-marriage which will be endangered. In other words, Cardinal Marx's "remarried" divorcees are making the threat You've got to let us have sex together because if you don't we'll have sex anyway ... BUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE!! So there !!! A seedy lot, both the Cardinal and the adulterers he so enthusiastically sponsors.
However, since a new relationship has, by producing children, created new obligations, this situation should, we are often told, be accepted. If it is true that quasi-union II can do this, why should quasi-union III not do the same? The idea that Adultery can, as it were, be regularised by the emergence of a new economic unit, a second family, has endless ramifications!
Paradoxically, we should, I think, thank God for the very open Nastiness and Dirtiness of Footnote 329. At least we know where we are, and the sort of people we are dealing with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thank you Father. You are brave and honest. Thank you again and again.
Fr-great post by the way!Adulterers living as brother and sister is not only an oxymoron in itself but a sin- an occasion of sin!Very nearly as bad as actual Mortal sin.
Fr. H :"However, since a new relationship has, by producing children, created new obligations, this situation should, we are often told, be accepted. If it is true that quasi-union II can do this, why should quasi-union III not do the same? The idea that Adultery can, as it were, be regularised by the emergence of a new economic unit, a second family, has endless ramifications!"
Well put Padre. To continue your line of thought, situations such as quasi-union II and quasi-union III can wreak emotional havoc on children who sometimes find themselves interspersed between Union I, quasi-unions II and III. A very good acquaintance of mine has one sister (half-sister) from the same mother and from a different father, plus a brother (half-brother) from the same mother and yet another father ; that's to say, three siblings with the same mother, but each with a different father. One main argument for maintaining quasi-union II was "for the sake of the children". Yet such a scenario can only make the heart bleed if one remains totally oblivious to the obvious question which would follow : But what about any children from Union I , or quasi-union III (IV, V) ?
Agreed, that we should be thankful to, "God for the very open Nastiness and Dirt of Footnote 329. At least we know where we are, and the sort of people we are dealing with." Might I hasten to add that the devil is a master tactician - particularly when it comes to sowing confusion and division ?
Back in September of 2015, the mainstream media were having a field day, touting, boasting – how Pope Francis was going to "help Catholics remarry by speeding up the annulment process".
Yet, today the " annulment rpocess" - whether streamlined or otherwise, would hardly seem necessary/requisite/applicable in the context of the "Nasty and Dirty" footnote. The possibility exists that the more immediate purpose of whomever may have actually penned footnote 329 may be elimination of the annulment process altogether.
. . . One more reason for us to keep praying.
In the morality of the brave new world the sinfulness of adultery appears to diminish the more often you do it. Apparently, the occasional betrayal of one's marital vows is still a big no-no, but if you betray them on a regular, even permanent and public basis - to the extent of producing bastard offspring - then adultery can acquire the signs and qualities of virtue.
How long before public and permanent adultery is seen as an icon of Christ's love for His bride, the Church?
While there may be meritorious elements of AL, the demerits of the document demand that it be repudiated, anathematized and burnt. Those who try to justify it by its merits are like sociopathic serial killers who laud the magnificence of a feast which only contains a "tiny bit" of cyanide.
Yes, thanks for pointing this out and naming it for what it is.
Yes! Thank you, father. More here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2016/04/10/fancy-footnotes-and-the-diabolical-inversion-of-truth/
The problem seems to be that the majority of marriages are invalid anyway to the point where the Church can no longer can guarantee the sacrament.
The simple solution is for us all to abstain from communion (perhaps for a hundred years or so) until we get some clarity as to where we are headed as a civilization?
Amoris laetitia is not an infallible document by any definition of that term. It has to be considered with respect as it is written by a pope. It is in no way binding on informed Catholics who disagree with any of its contents, and that includes its footnotes.
It is proper in these situations of confusion to go back and start at base.
Adultery is a mortal sin.
No one in mortal sin, objectively speaking, may receive Holy Communion without incurring further mortal sin.
Any one who suspects this, cleric or lay and allows it or is complicit in such mortal sin is therefore also guilty of mortal sin.
To deny that the grace of Christ is insufficient, either a direct denial or an implicit denial, is heresy.
Yes, we do indeed live in interesting time!
Thank you, Father.
@Jacobi
"To deny that the grace of Christ is INsufficient..."?
Bravo, Father! Just bravo! God bless!
Philip Johnson’s comment appears to be unaware of the teachings of St John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio. He incorrectly describes the thing to which he refers as an oxymoron. The whole point is that those living now as brothers and sisters have had to repent of their adultery in order to be readmitted to the sacraments.
One of the best and most insightful posts I have read to date on your blog, Fr. Hunwicke - and that is saying something.
Thank you for the straight talk Fr. Hunwicke. We are starting to really hurt over the reality of such anti-Catholic distortions coming out of the Vatican and at the same time having to listen to clergy fawn over the lies. It's just becoming harder and harder to take, since we have scanned the horizon for help and have to accept, it's not coming. We better lift our gaze upward.
Post a Comment