Amoris laetitia: objectively malicious with consistency of malice

death star

An analogy of Amoris laetitia. Because Jesus always wins.

The more I drill into Amoris laetitia, the more I am convinced that there are no inconsistencies whatsoever. I think that those who think that there are inconsistencies are simply afraid to see what’s really, horrifically, actually there. I believe that it is terribly consistent, with the best of the best parts having to be read in view of the worst of the worst parts. O.K. Fine. Read the worst of the worst parts in view of the best of the parts and you’ll come up with the same thing. The document really is very, extremely clever, clever with purpose, objectively malicious. By that I mean that I grant, of course, subjective sincerity of niceness to the ghost writers, but what they present, objectively, is a full attack on the Church.

WHISKEY

Whiskey

For instance, I think those who say that note 351 can be read in an orthodox way are wrong, not because they are mistaken about their ultra-refined argumentation which effectively absolutely zero percent of the Catholic population of the earth will understand – but because the note is to be read with the rest of the document to which it is a note. That context also has, say, the sophistry of note 329 [Look it up.], which even those making the most fantastical apologia admit they cannot wrap their minds around. Note 329 belongs to paragraph 298 [Look it up.] which has a reference to the wonderful nature of “Christian commitment” to an adulterous relationship. That has a certain insanity of consistency with note 351 [Look it up.]. It’s all apiece. You’ll excuse me if I refrain from continuously repeating that I think it is a piece of… I mean, look, note 329, outrageously maliciously (objectively speaking) ripping citations out of context [Look them up. Seriously. Do it.] and turning them upside down and inside out, back to front, inescapably encourages adulterers to Force niceness upon each other with Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Yep. After all, if you’re an Amoris laetitia fan you wouldn’t want alienation of affection for adulterers would you? “Alienation of affection” refers not only to companionship, but also to carnal marital relations. Saint Paul speaks of this. [Look it up!] All that supplies only one very unorthodox possibility for the true contextual reading of note 351, that is, that unrepentant sinners who have zero purpose of amendment are to be absolved of a sin they don’t even think is a real sin for themselves because, you know, they are so special and the only ones in history with special circumstances, thus sending them off to receive Communion. Sure, there are all sorts of guidelines to stop scandal and to help whoever along, but the absolution and Communion are always, sooner or later, to follow, no matter what, since, you know, no one is to be condemned forever. See the immediately preceding paragraph 297 [Look it up!].

TANGO

Tango

Back in the 1990s, I had long discussions with a particularly influential Cardinal and surely close friend of Father Bergoglio, and who was near the very top of the Roman Curia, about the 1993 paper on Interpretation of the Bible in the Church put out by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. At one point I said that I was at the point of cross-referencing paragraphs throughout the document from memory. I started to explain that I was noting consistency of argument throughout the document but with conclusions that I thought were dreadful. But he cut me off abruptly with my reference to cross-referencing paragraphs in different sections while looking for consistency, insisting rather roughly, I must say, that I must never do that, never look for consistency (he knew where I was going!), for this would not be of service to the Church. He continued to try to form me into accepting a mentality of how such documents are to be written[!], that each bit had to be simply a stand-alone paragraph or section and nothing more, that that was the only way forward. I hope that frightens you, for it is THE POLICY OF AMBIGUITY. I was scared to death.

I realize that Cardinal Burke has recommended making the attempt to read this document in light of Sacred Tradition, but I think there is a preliminary step to be made before that, for me (I know he’s done that), which is simply to read the document in light of itself. Once we know what it says, avoiding reading into it what may not be there, then we can do a comparison in attempt to understand it a little better. I’ve been having trouble getting past the first step. I am devastated at the evil that I see there. I am overwhelmed. This is not the Gospel. It is casuistry. It is the encouragement of self-absorption, far from reverence for the wounds upon the dearest and divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, Christ Jesus. It’s all about confessors being Promethean providers of the ways of neo-Pelagian self-congratulations. Such mind-games, so very far from love and mercy, are not of Jesus.

FOXTROT

Foxtrot

I won’t have any part of it. If you want to know just what kind of mercy this Missionary of Mercy exercises if not that of Amoris laetitia, just what kind of mercy any priest should exercise according to the Lord Jesus, stay tuned for long planned articles on the prodigal son and the adulterous woman. And if you think that the pictures of this article have any significance, say, in regard to military alphabet code, well, you would be right. I only mention that because the more liberal crowd will surely respect that they have hurt my feelings in publishing such an objectively malicious document. And because they know I have hurt feelings, they will be nice to me, right? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

10 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Confession, Mercy, Synod on the Family

10 responses to “Amoris laetitia: objectively malicious with consistency of malice

  1. elizdelphi

    This would suppose that it was written by one author who was most careful and consistent and exercised a great logical capability, or edited in a rigorous and careful way by one person who was a very consistent logical thinker with a malicious intent. But it was neither written by one person nor is Pope Francis a very consistent logical thinker. We have all heard his homilies and his off the cuff statements and can all reasonably conclude that he is not the greatest philosopher and theologian. It seems a lot more reasonable to call AL mediocre, and I think it is unfounded and uncharitable to call it malicious. And if there is malice, the fault could be that of a ghost writer. I can only support those who say it must be interpreted in an orthodox way.

  2. Got cha’! Thanks Father for saying what I have been thinking. I thought it was just my ignorance, that caused my confusion. I have been reading and trying to figure out the nuances of this document and stumble at each paragraph. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday! This document reminds me of a padre who said he did not believe in hell because surely God is too kind to really condemn anyone forever! What about the devil? He’s a tool – that’s all. He scared me. A lot. So does Amoris Laetitia. I thought he was just an isolated case of warped thinking. Now it looks like it’s an epidemic.

  3. Father George David Byers

    I’ll get to other comments in a bit. Off to mercy land good Samaritan stuff. Some hundreds of miles.

  4. Daniel P Furey

    Amoris Laetitia almost makes me physically ill because it forces me to acknowledge that the “Smoke of Satan” has indeed entered the Church I love. I continue to be shocked at the silence and/or support that the hierarchy are giving this “thing.”

    With it’s release, the pope has made the Church “protestant.” Every conscience is it’s own “pope/magisterium.”

    I’ve tried to read it in a different way, but the message of the document is all TOO clear.

    “Amoris Laetitia stercora est!”

  5. Father George David Byers

    @ Daniel P Furey – Just one thing: No Successor of Saint Peter can make the Church “protestant.” Always, but always make the distinction between the Church and this or that individual in the Church. I know it’s not easy. Hang in there. You’re being held up by our Lord, lifting you up on the Cross. Just look to him. You have the great Ecumenical Councils to which you may turn, with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

  6. meshugunah

    More than ever, we must pray for the current occupant of the Chair of Peter!

  7. Father George David Byers

    @ elizdelphi – Remember, I give sincerity to whoever put this together, group or individual. I hardly put this on Pope Francis as he scarcely even knew there was a footnote such as 351. Whatever about their capacities or lack thereof, however it came together, it is the final product which is the way it is. Because it is what it is, we have to deal with it as such. What is there is there: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. I really do find consistency. I’ll give examples. The human mind seeks for consistency and rejoices when it is found. Unfortunately, I have not found a consistency that is hits the target of the good of the Church. There are many parts I just can’t see that can be interpreted in an orthodox way. In saying that I’m begging to be proven wrong. Begging. You have no idea. I agonize.

  8. Father George David Byers

    @ meshugunah – Absolutely. I offered Holy Mass for him today. I would put up the numbers but he doesn’t like that. Let’s just say I’ve offered really very many Masses for him. As I’ve often said. I love Pope Francis to pieces. I owe him a great deal. I think I even understand his way of going about things just because I think I’ve known the kind of people and been in the kind of situations I think he has been in. But I cannot agree with his way of going about things. Please, someone! Prove to me that I’m wrong. I love Pope Francis!

  9. Cathy

    329? If an adulterer is not given an ok to commit adultery, it might force them to commit adultery????

  10. Father George David Byers

    @ Cathy – That’s one way to put it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s