According to AL, a conscience may "recognize that a a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel" but sees "with a certain moral security ... what for now is the most generous response".
Let us examine how this moral principle might apply in situations of organised and industrialised genocide. A man involved in the extermination of Jewry, for example ... if he were to decline to collaborate in any more murders, not only might he be subjected to discriminatory responses, but his family also might suffer grievously. His marriage might suffer! Is he, perhaps, required by the Bergoglian moral principle of "what is for now the most generous response" to try, gradually so as not to be noticed, to reduce the number of Jews whom he kills each day? Or might Bergoglianism mean that he should do his very best to see that they die less painfully? Or should he attempt, again without drawing too much attention to himself, so to work the system that in three months time he gets transferred to duties which involve him less directly in extermination ... like, for example, harmlessly organising the train schedules?
I am aware that my questions lay me wide open to an accusation that I am either an unbalanced crank in making an equivalence between well-mannered habitual adultery among the nice, if rather gleefully rutting, German middle-classes, and genocide; or 'antisemitic' for illustrating a moral priple by talking so calmy about something as vile as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews. It is my view that such an accusation by such an interlocutor would in fact amount to an admission that Adultery is not really sinful ... that it is, well, perhaps not technically in accordance, quite, with the book of rules, but it is not really wrong. Cardinal Coccopalmerio has in fact said something rather like this.
It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called "tolerated concubinage", I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives ... or marriages ... by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat?
A person, you tell me, may well know a rule yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently. So .... if this does not also apply within genocidal situations, where can it apply?
A person's long involvement, you tell me, in sinful actions may well so habituate him to those actions that the subjective sinfulness, as AL claims, is radically diminished ... yes; I happen to agree with you there, and, like all confessors, I am mindful of this when I sit with my ear against the grill. But you won't forget, will you, that somebody who has been killing Jews for a couple of years might also well be in such a condition. And the tribunals which judged War Criminals after 1945 don't seem to have taken this laudable casuistic principle into their jurisprudence.
Bergoglio's 'jesuitical' campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendor paragraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian 'moral principles' prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, "no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed".