On March 19, 2026, Leo announced his intention to convene a meeting aimed at unearthing all of the glorious treasures to be found in Jorge’s Love Letter to Satan (aka Amoris Laetitia).
In his own words, Leo said that his wish is that the gathering will “proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Lætitia, and taking into account what is currently being done in the local Churches.”
On October 7, after more than six months of getting ready to get ready, the meeting – “Ten years after Amoris Laetitia: Proclaiming the Gospel with families today” – officially opened.
Is it possible that the meeting will conclude with Leo correcting his predecessors’ errors as some naïve individuals seem to imagine?
SPOILER ALERT: No, he will not. Remember, Leo has already declared that Bergoglio is looking down on the mess that he made from Heaven. As such, there’s little-to-zero chance that he’s going to deviate from Via del Bergoglio any time soon.
In any case, much of the Catholic commentary surrounding the above-mentioned meeting seems to be focused on that dastardly footnote, the one that essentially opens the door for unrepentant public adulterers and fornicators to receive the sacraments of Confession (minus a firm purpose of amendment) and Holy Communion.
I get it, but when it comes to the blasphemous nature of Amoris Laetitia, that footnote is more symptom than it is disease. In other words, the doctrinal and moral errors that are put forth in the text are the foundation upon which that footnote stands.
With this in mind, it may be useful to undergo a review of sorts. In this post, in order to provide perspective to the synodal circus presently underway in the Occupied Vatican, I will draw from articles previously posted in this space to recap some of the more important aspects of Amoris Laetitia.
1. Mortal Sin and Sanctifying Grace
Amoris Laetitia 301:
“Hence it 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.”
Commentary:
- This is nothing less gravely serious than an attempt to abrogate mortal sin! And it is a bold attempt, at that.
- Notice that Francis even goes so far as to eliminate the excuse of ignorance in order to assert that even those who choose to persist in mortal sin with full knowledge do not lose sanctifying grace.
- This proposition is what Tucho Fernandez, the alleged ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia, called Francis’ “the great novelty.” (Great heresy is more like it.)
- Amoris Laetitia denies that the state of mortal sin – with specific reference to adultery and fornication – entails the loss of sanctifying grace, even on the part of those who are not ignorant of the demands of the divine law.
Contrast AL 301 with the Council of Trent:
- “The received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever.” (cf Session VI, Chapter XV)
See: Council of Trent declares: “Let Francis be anathema!” Roman Catholic Church v. Francis
2. The Possibility of Obeying Divine Law
Amoris Laetitia 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.”
Commentary:
- Francis presumes to declare that God’s law, for some, represents an unattainable ‘ideal’ and an impossible demand. This is tantamount to saying that the Lawgiver is unjust. Blasphemy!
- In claiming the existence of particular circumstances that allegedly do not allow for one to meet the demands of the Divine Law, AL 301 amounts to a denial of the divine grace that makes all deadly sins avoidable.
On this note, the Council of Trent teaches:
- “If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.” (Session VI, Canon XVIII)
3. Objective Sin and Subjective Culpability
Amoris Laetitia 302:
“A negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.”
Commentary:
- This proposition is defensible. Though the Church has always maintained that subjective guilt may not necessarily exist within an act that is gravely sinful (e.g., due to invincible ignorance), she has never suggested that the action itself (the matter) may cease to be gravely sinful.
- In other words, gravely sinful acts are always gravely sinful. This is an objective reality that does not change regardless of so-called concrete circumstances. ‘Thou shalt not…’ should be enough to make this clear.
- NB: Even as the Church speaks and rules in the name of Christ as she renders judgement regarding objective sin, let us not forget what Pope St. Pius X wrote even as he excoriated the Modernist:
“We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.” (Pascendi 3)
4. The Internal Forum and Sacramental Discipline
Amoris Laetitia 300:
“What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.”
Commentary:
- The end result of such a proposition in practice? All cases are excusable if only they are ‘discerned’ carefully enough. This is not mercy; it is encouragement for fallen men, already prone to sin, to remain on the easy road to perdition.
- While it may be useful for a confessor to weigh such things as a penitent’s knowledge and formation in determining how best to pastor them, the reality is that no one – not even the sinner himself – has the ability, much less the right, to discern the existence of imputability.
- Francis is assuming that the immemorial practice of the Church – namely, denying access to the sacraments for those persisting in objective situations of habitual grave sin – is predicated upon the subjective guilt of the individual. It is not.
- Even John Paul the Great Ecumenist seems to get this right: “The Church’s practice of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion to divorced persons who have remarried, is based upon Sacred Scripture.” (cf Familiaris Consortio 84) NB: Non-admittance is predicated on revealed truth concerning the objectively sinful nature of the act itself.
5. Confession, Repentance, and Holy Communion
Amoris Laetitia 305 and footnote 351:
“It is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end…”
Footnote 351: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.”
Commentary:
- The intent is neither complicated nor ambiguous: Francis is plainly stating, and has since affirmed, that ‘there are no other interpretations’ (see letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires) that even when the objective state of sin endures (i.e., persists as there is no firm purpose of amendment to avoid the sin going forward), such persons can be admitted to the sacraments, specifically, Confession and Communion.
Amoris Laetitia 300:
“Useful in this process [of discernment] is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance … A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone.
- Don’t let the word ‘repentance’ fool you: This does not refer to Confession with the firm purpose of amendment that is necessary for absolution, rather, it’s about pseudo-contrition and comforting oneself with a false sense of God’s mercy.
See: Cardinal Caffara fires warning shot; Dubia ‘officially’ answered tomorrow?;
6. Francis Removed Any Doubt About His Intent
It bears repeating, the Buenos Aires bishops published guidelines explaining that Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia “opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” for persons living more uxorio (as husband and wife) with someone other than their lawful spouse.
To this, Francis responded: “The document [outlining the Buenos Aires Bishops’ guidelines] is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia.”
And, importantly, he concluded: “There are no other interpretations.”
Commentary:
- This being so, there are no longer any doubts (dubia) as to what Francis intended to teach.
- The letter is, therefore, of immense importance in that it irrefutably testifies to the supposed “pope’s” intent. The eight-day meeting presently underway cannot credibly deny as much.
7. Conscience and the Will of God: The Gravest Offense
Amoris Laetitia 303:
“Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.”
Commentary:
- Bear well in mind that Francis is here speaking of adultery and fornication as being “what God himself is asking!” This amounts to accusing God of willing that mankind should persist in mortal sin. Blasphemy!
- This particular heresy has long impressed me as the most odious part of the entire text.
- If it is true that God occasionally wills that one should persist in mortal sin, then there is no such thing as mortal sin, practically speaking, and that includes not only adultery and fornication, but also abortion, homosexual activity, you name it.
- Lost along the way is any sense of the existence of intrinsic evil.
James 1:13: “Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.”
As Sacred Scripture makes clear: What Amoris Laetitia 303 teaches is directly opposed to revealed truth, i.e., it is heresy.
Conclusion: How should one view Amoris Laetitia?
Is it a strictly Bergoglian text, one of the more disturbing features of a most regrettable pontificate (so-called)? Was it a good faith effort to address a real issue, an undertaking the product of which, unfortunately, is so rife with ambiguity that it demands further interpretation? Is it so ambiguous, in fact, that one can expect it to undergo a certain amount of revision?
No, Amoris Laetitia is neither strictly Bergoglian, ambiguous, nor subject to revision.
As the existence of the eight-day meeting currently taking place in Rome indicates, the blasphemous and heretical text promulgated by Francis has a permanent place in the conciliar church’s “magisterium,” the assorted errors and offenses against Almighty God that it contains are woven into its very fabric, every bit as much as the Second Vatican Council itself.
In fact, the corrupt theological seeds for Amoris Laetitia, in particular as it concerns the blasphemous notion that sin, at times, is what God himself is asking (AL 303), can be found in the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae. (See Dignitatis Humanae: Theological Seeds for Amoris Laetitia)
As the name of the Council’s decree suggests, at the very heart of the matter is a grossly overblown sense of human dignity which, according to the conciliar enterprise, is infinite! In short, at Vatican II, man was put in the place of God, the Author of the Divine Law, the same that Amoris Laetitia has branded unjust.
I fully expect that the concluding message of the meeting “Ten years after Amoris Laetitia: Proclaiming the Gospel with families today” will serve to make this all the more clear: Amoris Laetitia is inseparable from the conciliar church, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a false church not to be confused with the one true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church.
