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.
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!].
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.
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?