Previous Posts

American theologians offer plea on behalf of Francis

Louie,

Fastiggi - GoldsteinIn an article written for the Italian daily, La Stampa, theologians Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein have entered a rather creative defense plea on behalf of the bishop in white who stands accused of heresy.

Specifically, the two contend that one of the most controversial texts in Amoris Laetitia (article 303) is actually orthodox, and that the English translation (below) provided by the Holy See is simply deficient.

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, while yet not fully the objective ideal. (see AL 303)

“When read in its original Latin, one [the above] contested passage in the document has a significantly different meaning than it does in the official English translation,” Fastiggi and Goldstein object.

One small problem…

Though an “official” (or typical) Latin version of the exhortation eventually was created for entry into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis more than one year after its publication, the “original” text of Amoris Laetitia was not Latin.

[For a list of the eight languages in which AL was originally published, see HERE.]

[For Fr. John Zuhldorf’s commentary on this fact, see HERE.]

What’s the difference? I say “official,” you say “original.” Let’s call the whole thing off!

The difference in this case; in particular, as it concerns chronology, is actually huge, but we’ll come back to this momentarily.

For now, let’s take a closer look at the excuse du jour; cutting right to the chase.

Fastiggi’s and Godlstein’s plea zeroes-in on the Latin word oblationem as they contend:

Our translation from the Latin shows that Pope Francis is clearly not saying that conscience may rightly discern that an objectively immoral act is not immoral. Instead, he is noting that in some complex and irregular situations a person’s conscience will recognize that God is asking for a generous response, indeed an oblationem, or offering, that moves in the right direction even though it does not completely rectify the objective irregularity of the situation.

How did they arrive at this conclusion?

The defense team of Fastiggi and Godlstein proposed what they consider to be a more accurate translation of the Latin text under review as follows:

This conscience, however, can not only recognize a given situation to be objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel; it can also recognize sincerely and honestly what may be the generous response owed to God in the present circumstances; and this same firm conscience can come to understand with a certain moral certitude that this is the offering that God himself is asking amid the mass of impediments, although it may not yet be the perfect objective model.

Go ahead, read it again if you must.

I know… you were expecting more, but that’s it. This is the version of the text that supposedly gets Jorge off the heresy hook.

Though it’s hardly necessary for most readers of this space, let’s go ahead and break down the “not guilty” version, shall we.

First and most obvious point: When it comes to such matters as marriage and adultery, the Gospel (i.e., the teaching of Our Lord offered in His very own words) provides far more than just a “general mandate.”

This much is entirely obvious, and it is precisely in reducing these teachings to such that Amoris Laetitia paves the way for its heresy and blasphemy.

Even in the translation provided by Fastiggi and Godlstein, the following is plain:

– The text points to “a given situation” that is “objectively at variance” with what Our Lord taught, as recorded in the Gospels, about marriage and adultery.

Simple.

– It states that those in such a situation can “recognize sincerely and honestly what may be the generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.”

If the sentence stopped here, it may be taken to mean that those presently in an adulterous relationship can recognize that they must cease persisting in it, and this is true. But alas, the sentence goes on!

For our purposes, we need to see how the text of AL (again, the translation given by Fastiggi and Goldstein) defines “the generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.”

We find this definition, plain as day, in the rest of the sentence:

–  “The generous response … is the offering that God himself is asking amid the mass of impediments, although it may not yet be the perfect objective model.”

Fastiggi and Goldstein, in their reading, even plainly admit that the “objective irregularity of the situation” remains even after the generous response is given.

Let’s be clear: The so-called “perfect model” of marriage is that which is in accord with Divine Law. Our Lord did not make a Divine Suggestion. What is here called “objective irregularity,” therefore, is more properly called “objective mortal sin.”

Fastiggi’s and Goldstein’s failure stems from their having swallowed the first crucial error that we identified in this portion of Amoris Laetitia; namely, the false idea that the teaching of Our Lord concerning marriage and adultery is simply a “general mandate.”

All of that said, the defense plea offered by Fastiggi and Goldstein fails perhaps even more miserably as a matter of common sense. Recall their main objection:

Our translation from the Latin shows that Pope Francis is clearly not saying that conscience may rightly discern that an objectively immoral act is not immoral.

Clearly?  I’ll give you clearly….

It is an indisputable part of the historical record that in the time between Amoris Laetitia  being published and the eventual creation of a Latin text, right up to the present day, Francis has made no effort whatsoever to insist upon, or even hint at, the spin provided by Fastiggi and Goldstein; on the contrary, and this even after being implored to do so multiple times by many highly respected individuals.

And now for the most tragic part of this tale:

Robert Fastiggi is a Professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, MI, and Dawn Goldstein is a Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, CT.

So much for neo-con claims about a new crop of orthodox priests currently in formation.

aka Spin Job

Blog Post

Comments (14)

  1. These Neo-Catholic, Modernists never change. More of the same obfuscation to justify their heterodox, heretical views. I want to puke.

  2. How can someone who has held membership of three faith systems be appointed as a Professor of Dogmatic Theology. More like Confused Theology & this is a serious problem for post VII so-called theologians. They are nothing but mixed-up wannabes.

  3. Perhaps they be lacking in sensus fidelium. 

    I heard it somewhere where said:

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    I can’t remember where I heard it,  though, or whom it was that said it.

  4. Dearest Louie,

    It is as though we are living the time of the Deluge again. Noah is constructing the Ark while the world continues as the world is, as an all but perfect lie, because there is no perfection in truth, to be found in the lie. We live the time of the summa and summit of Lucifer’s deception and this can only occur concomitant with the writ large reception of the “operation of error”, of which Saint Paul wrote and prophesied thus in 2 Thess 2, the likes of which can only harken– if one properly discerns the signs of the times– the arrival of the Great Apostasy, where all but all receive the lie as the Truth. There is no potential for anyone who is receiving the “operation of error” to see the truth as Truth, because they are ontologically destined, by virtue of receiving the Supernatural “operation of error”, to believe the lie as the Truth. This is God’s Will and thus it is immutable as it is inscrutable. It is Almighty God’s Will because it is the will of His miserable creatures, which He Himself protects with divine Sovereignty, living lives of iniquity, embellishing the flesh, having no zeal for the Truth as they have no love for the Truth as Love Himself.

    It is very hard Louie, as the Truth always is but in this time perhaps, as hard as it ever has been or ever will be, since the “Bread of Life” discourse. What it requires in this as our time, is the recognition for example, that Fastiggi and Goldstein are theologians but they are theologians of the church of the Antichrist and not the Church of Jesus Christ, which cannot hold and teach heresy, deFide. The so called Vatican Council II holds and teaches heresy. What is required of a Catholic and that is a person who holds the Truth and expresses that same Truth as the true Faith, is to remain free of internal contradiction, as to hold internal contradiction in matters of Faith, is to have lost the Faith, to have lost Christ, period and end. That is reality as Reality because in Christ Jesus there can exist no contradiction and only in Christ is His Church because He commanded it so. In John 14, He commanded that anyone who knows My commands and follows them loves Me, and as I am in the Father, you are in Me, and I in you. To remain free of internal contradiction, that same “Catholic” who is properly understood to be “Catholic”, must fully reject unto his own death, the reality as deception that the Holy Church established by the Son of God, could ever have had or have a Pope as Pope who embraces heresy, as objectively (materially) understood, period and end. This because the Beloved Son of God as God made Man, prayed in Luke 22 that Peter would never lose the Faith, period and end. He also commanded that His Church would never succumb to the gates of hell. He did not promise however, that Peter would remain always present until the end of time and in fact the infallible Vatican Council of the 19th century teaches that reality. It commanded Peter’s Successor “should” remain until the end of time, NOT that he “will” remain until the end of time. The Council could not have taught that Peter will remain until the end of time or it would have contradicted the Holy Writ in 2 Thess 2, which cannot happen in Christ’s true Church. “Should” is suggestive, whilst “will” is definitive. Thus, it is God’s Will that Peter’s Successor remains until the end of time but God did not command that he “will” remain until the end of time, period and end. It is Lucifer’s work to even posit a theological supposition or speculation around these realities as Reality, as they come from the Son of God and His true Church deFide, as the Eternal Word Himself. I pray this helps. In caritas.

  6. Dear my2cents,

    The devil is always to be found in “the details”, the ideological “complexities” of what is said, because truth as Truth (aka: reality as Reality) is always simple, as God is Simplicity Himself. To look critically at a couple of quotes attributed to Gerhard Muller from the article which you hyperlinked:

    ‘ “I don’t know if he was the ghostwriter of the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia. It is a text of the Pope, not of Victor Fernandez or of any other ghostwriter.
    “In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments. The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations.” ‘

    Muller, as an agent of his Prince, Lucifer, accomplishes a couple of things in those words. In the first statement as quoted from him, he clearly states that A. L. is the work of the “pope”, “a text of the pope” and, “not of Victor Fernandez or of any other ghostwriter.” Discussing now what has always occurred in Christ’s Church and as it only can occur in Truth, is that when the Holy Roman Pontiff defines and teaches in union with his Bishops, this defining and/or teaching is thus protected with the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility or the gates of hell prevail against the Church, period and end. It cannot matter whether the Holy Roman Pontiff is teaching something which he newly defined or whether he is reiterating that which had already been taught, as he and his Bishops in union with him may see fit. Otherwise the gates of hell prevail, period and end. Otherwise said, WHENEVER an Holy Roman Pontiff teaches in union with his Bishops something newly defined or teaches again something previously defined and taught, there can never be one iota of error as heresy contained within those words, and this as deemed so by the Son of God Himself in Matthew 16:18. We know this then with divine certitude. This first quote of Lucifer’s emissary Muller then, is the segue into the second one as quoted above. Muller first establishes that A. L. is the pure work of the “pope” as it carries his signature, as a so called, “post-synodal apostolic exhortation”. If that was the case in Truth, then it could not contain heresy, period and end, or the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s Church. It would also be the case that any Catholic who holds the true Faith would have to submit to it in its entirety or suffer the penalty of being outside the Church in schism, as from the Successor of Peter, period and end. Do you see how simple the Truth actually is, as it is freed from any diabolically contrived conjecture?

    In the second quote of Muller as noted above then, he goes on to posit the claim that in A. L., there is NOT contained any, “…new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine,…”. He then concludes that claim with the following statement, “…but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.” In that statement just quoted of Muller is contained the lie of Lucifer. How so? If “Amoris Laetitia” were actually a “post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation” of Christ’s Church and not from the church of the Antichrist as indeed it is in Truth, that last part of what is quoted from Muller, “…but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments” would be true. Because the document does contain heresy, as even those holding the “operation of error” now concede, it CANNOT be Christ’s Church that teaches “Amoris Laetitia”, period and end.

    Lastly, the last sentence of the second quote from above, ‘ “The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations.” ‘, is a stark as Satanic lie, which aught be seen as res ipsa loquitur. This because there can never be in Truth anything, as not one iota of anything, that can ever be understood as, “extraordinary situations”, when dealing with matters of Christ’s Church as divinely revealed or as taught deFide, which are objective reality, period and end. To make such a statement, as if that was all one had about Muller, shows who his master in Truth is, and it is not Truth Himself, rather it is His Adversary, Lucifer. Muller is a prelate but not of the Catholic Church, rather the church of the Antichrist which indeed is the teacher of all things heretical. I pray this helps. In caritas.

  9. My own crop of old neocon friends is no exception. JPII flag wavers now reduced to smarmy sophists and far removed from reality. They all went to brain damaging institutions.

  14. Dawn Eden Goldstein? Sounds like a dangerous combination of Haight-Ashbury ’68 and NWO Taludism.

Comments are closed.