In Part 5 of an ongoing series of articles being published by the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize attempts to answer the question, Is Pope Francis Heretical?
Here, I provide a necessarily detailed examination of Fr. Gleize’s jaw-dropping treatment; one that is sure to disappoint those who, in these deeply troubling times in which we live, have come to rely upon the Society for Catholic clarity and conviction. (I encourage especially those who fit this description to read this difficult post in its entirety.)
Before we begin, might I suggest that all concerned take heart by recalling the words of our first Pope:
And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6:68)
“The words of everlasting life” remain available to us, even if not in the utterances of present day churchmen, in the timeless decrees infallibly set forth by the Holy Catholic Church that speaks in the name of Our Blessed Lord.
It is these upon which I rely in the following.
Fr. Gleize proposes, “in order to be brief,” to explore the question at hand by examining “the essential idea of each dubium.”
The first dubium asks if it is possible to give absolution and sacramental Communion to divorced-and-remarried persons who live in adultery without repenting, to which Fr. Gleize responds, “For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is no.”
He then goes on to cite AL 305, followed by the infamous footnote:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, 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.” (AL 305)
He then cites the infamous footnote 351:
“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’”
Fr. Gleize concludes:
“The doubt arises here with the note. There is no doubt about the fact that non-culpable ignorance of sin excuses from sin.”
A critical point that Fr. Gleize fails to mention is that while “it is possible” that one who commits an objectively grave sin “may not be subjectively culpable,” the Church does not have the right, or the ability, to render such judgments.
If and when it is the case that one is inculpable of a grave sin committed, it is God alone who renders such judgment. (Fair warning: It will be necessary for us to repeat this infallible doctrine often in the face of Fr. Gleize’s assessment.)
Fr. Gleize goes on to say:
“But to those who are victims of this ignorance and thereby benefit from this excuse, the Church offers first the help of her preaching and warnings, the Church starts by putting an end to the ignorance by opening the eyes of the ignorant to the reality of their sin.
The help of the sacraments can only come afterward, if and only if the formerly ignorant persons, now instructed as to the seriousness of their state, have decided to make use of the means of conversion, and if they have what is called a firm purpose of amendment. Otherwise the help of the sacraments would be ineffective, and it too would be an objective situation of sin.”
Now we seem to be getting somewhere… The Church’s response to every sinner is to preach, to warn, and to invite to conversion. She does not, however, enter into an examination of culpability as such is the prerogative of God alone!
According to Fr. Gleize:
“We are dealing here therefore with a doubt (dubium) in the strictest sense of the term, in other words, a passage that can be interpreted in two ways. And this doubt arises precisely thanks to the indefinite expression in the note: ‘in certain cases.’”
I disagree with the suggestion that this text from AL can be interpreted in two ways as it clearly proposes that the Church and her confessors have the ability, and the right, to weigh culpability, when in truth, they do not.
This, my friends, is the fundamental error upon which much of Amoris Laetitia, Chapter Eight, is constructed and must fall.
Frankly, I am surprised that Fr. Gleize has not seized upon this very point.
In his Encyclical on the Errors of the Modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X repeated the traditional (and dogmatic) doctrine:
“We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.” (cf Pascendi 3),
Even the dreadful conciliar document Gaudium et Spes gets this right:
“God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.” (GS 28)
Moving on to the second dubium, which asks if, in light of AL 304, there is such a thing as intrinsically evil acts from a moral perspective that the law prohibits without any possible exception.
Fr. Gleize answers. “For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is yes.”
He then goes on to paraphrase AL 304:
“…citing the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas (I-II, question 94, article 4), [AL 304] insists on the application of the law, rather than on the law itself, and emphasizes the part played by the judgment of prudence, which allegedly can be exercised only on a case-by-case basis, strictly depending on circumstances that are unique and singular.”
It must be said yet again, there is no “part played by the judgment of prudence” with respect to intrinsic evils (such as adultery) that admit of no exceptions. “No exceptions” means precisely this.
Fr. Gleize then quotes AL directly:
“It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule.” (AL 304)
Fr. Gleize concludes:
“This passage does not introduce any ambivalence, properly speaking. It merely insists too much on one part of the truth (the prudent application of the law), to the point of obscuring the other part of the same truth (the necessary value of the law), which is altogether as important as the first. The text therefore errs here by omission, thus causing a misreading.”
I find this stunning, to be quite honest. Remember what we are discussing – adultery.
“The law” in this case is absolute; it is not open to nuance or “prudent application,” properly speaking:
Thou shalt not commit… This formulation is very clear, and Our Lord even further clarified precisely what constitutes adultery.
Contrition, confession, firm purpose of amendment… The practical application (insofar as the remedy is concerned) is equally as clear.
That said, one should know that Francis is misappropriating St. Thomas’ teaching in order to give the impression that the Angelic Doctor considered the Commandment against adultery a mere “general rule,” when in fact he clearly treated it for what it is; a moral absolute upon which particular circumstances have no bearing.
AL 304 is an error plain and simple (and not simply by “omission” as Fr. Gleize states) since moral absolutes such as that expressed in the Commandment against adultery do indeed “provide absolutely for all particular situations.”
Francis states the exact opposite, and that, my friends, is heresy.
Moving on to the third dubium we find a question concerning paragraph 301; paraphrased by Fr. Gleize as follows:
“Can we say that persons who habitually live in a way that contradicts a commandment of God’s law (for example the one that forbids adultery) are in an objective situation of habitual grave sin?”
Again, Fr. Gleize responds, “The Catholic answer is yes.”
He then quotes AL 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.”
Fr. Gleize proposes:
“Two points should be emphasized. The sentence just quoted posits in principle the impossibility of making a universal affirmation. It does not deny the possibility of saying that public sinners are deprived of grace; it only denies the possibility of saying that all public sinners are deprived of it. This denial has always been taught by the Church.”
Once again, it is to be shocked. Here is what the Council of Trent had to say [with my emphasis]:
“In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification [sanctifying grace] is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins…” (Session VI, Chapter XV)
NB: It is to be maintained… Note as well the reason given: thus defending the doctrine of the divine law.
AL 301, in contravention of the divine law, presumes to overturn the infallible teaching set forth by the Council of Trent by insisting that it can no longer be maintained.
Folks, this is a no-brainer; it is plainly “heretical” according to Fr. Gleize’s own working definition of the word.
Fr. Gleize continued:
“There are in fact, in concrete human acts, what is called exculpatory or ‘mitigating’ reasons (or factors). Because of them, the sinner may not be morally responsible for the objective situation of sin.”
At this point, I am certain that you can say it with me: God alone judges such matters as moral responsibility.
As for what is required of Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Church, we must accept what is stated by the Council of Trent: It is to be maintained…
Fr. Gleize’s treatment of AL 301, in an essay that proposes to examine whether or not Francis is a heretic, is at best perplexing.
For reasons that only he can explain, he has chosen to focus on the solitary sentence quoted above while ignoring entirely the one immediately following, which reads:
“A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sin of adultery], 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.” (AL 301)
Once again, that which is set forth by Francis runs afoul of the infallible doctrine taught with piercing clarity by the Council of Trent:
“With the help of divine grace, one can refrain from such deadly sins as adultery and fornication.” (cf Session VI, Chapter XV)
NB: There are no “concrete situations” wherein one is unable to refrain from the mortal sin of adultery.
If this isn’t enough for one to conclude that Francis is heretical, consider as well:
“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)
NB: In stating that certain situations “do not allow” one to keep God’s commandment against adultery, Francis has most certainly anathematized himself.
This brings us to the fourth dubium which poses the question (as presented by Fr. Gleize) concerning paragraph 302:
“Can we still stay, from a moral perspective, that an act that is already intrinsically evil by reason of its object can never become good because of circumstances or the intention of the person who performs it?”
Once again, Fr. Gleize provides a response, “The Catholic answer is yes,” and then quotes Amoris Laetitia:
“A negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.” (AL 302)
Fr. Gleize states:
“That is true, but the reverse is not, and by neglecting to say that, this passage again introduces doubt…
This is the case indeed, but yet again, the fundamental error undergirding much of this disastrous Exhortation is left unaddressed: The Church and her confessors simply do not have the right (or the ability) to weigh matters of imputability.
On this, Catholic doctrine leaves no room for confusion. Simply accepting and applying this doctrine is enough to remove all doubt.
Francis, in Amoris Laetitia, however, goes to great lengths to undermine it.
Finally, we arrive at the fifth dubium concerning AL 303:
“Can we say that conscience must always remain subject, without any possible exception, to the absolute moral law that forbids acts that are intrinsically evil because of their object?”
Fr. Gleize responds, “The Catholic answer is yes.”
He continued by stating that AL 303 is deficient in that it fails to make clear that “a will conformed to an erroneous conscience can be bad,” thus “introducing here a fifth doubt.”
In his treatment of AL 303, Fr. Gleize has once again chosen to focus on but one solitary sentence while ignoring entirely what, in this case, are perhaps the most offensive portions of the entire Exhortation:
“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.” (AL 303) [emphasis added]
Here, we have two more undeniably clear examples of heresy as defined by Fr. Gleize.
If, as Francis states, persisting in mortal sin is the most generous response which can be given to God, this necessarily means that “the demands of the Gospel” (God’s laws) are, at times, impossible to keep.
As previously noted in our examination of AL 301, according to the Council of Trent, Francis has thus anathematized himself:
“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)
At this we come to that truly odious proposition set forth by Francis which says that, at times, God himself is asking man to persist in his failure to meet the demands of the Gospel; in this case, to persist in the mortal sin of adultery.
This is a blatant instance of both heresy and blasphemy. As Sacred Scripture attests, and the Catholic conscience most certainly knows, the All Holy God never asks that we should persist in sin:
Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)
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. (James 13:1)
Far from asking us to sin, the Lord’s will is perfectly clear in spite of knowing our every weakness:
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
The Council of Trent teaches [emphasis added]:
“If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.” (Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
By stating that God himself is asking one to persist, at times, in the intrinsically evil act of adultery, Francis is imputing this work of evil to God, properly, and of Himself. He has thus anathematized himself yet again.
CONCLUSION
An “Editor’s note” given at the conclusion to Fr. Gleize’s article provides the punchline:
“Fr. Gleize’s precise distinction will surprise more than one. In short, it seems that Pope Francis cannot be considered heretical…”
Surprise?
How about disgust.
Fr. Gleize, in his own words, concludes:
“The five dubia are therefore quite well-founded. The root of them is always the same: the confusion between the moral value of an act, a strictly objective value, and its imputability to someone who performs it, a strictly subjective imputability … The Church’s traditional doctrine gives primacy to this objective order of the act’s morality, which follows from its object and its end or purpose. Amoris Laetitia, by reversing this order, introduces subjectivism into morality.”
No, the traditional doctrine does not simply “give primacy” to the objective order; it goes further by insisting that the Church does not judge subjective imputability.
Fr. Gleize asks rhetorically:
“Does such subjectivism, as understood in its principle as well as in the five conclusions that follow from it here, represent the negation of a divinely revealed truth that is proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium?”
He then states that the answer, at least for himself, “is far from obvious and certain.”
That I disagree has already been made clear. Know, however, that I am not alone.
Readers may recall that three Eastern European prelates – Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider – recently issued a text concerning AL that includes the following observations:
God gives to every man assistance in the observance of his Commandments, when such a request is properly made, as the Church has infallibly taught: “God does not command that which is impossible, but in commanding he exhorts you to do that which you are able, and to ask for that which you cannot do, and so he assists you that you might be able to do it” (Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 11) and “and if someone says that even for the man who has been justified and established in grace the commandments of God are impossible to observe: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18.)
The Church, and specifically the minister of the sacrament of Penance, does not have the faculty to judge on the state of conscience of an individual member of the faithful or on the rectitude of the intention of the conscience, since “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” [the Church does not judge internals] (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The minister of the sacrament of Penance is consequently not the vicar or representative of the Holy Spirit, able to enter with His light in the innermost recesses of the conscience, since God has reserved such access to the conscience strictly to himself: “sacrarium in quo homo solus est cum Deo” [conscience is the altar upon which man is alone with God] (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et spes, 16).
NB: There are no less than three direct citations of the dogmatic and infallible Council of Trent given in the above commentary provided by three “full communion” bishops.
Who would have thought that more Catholic clarity and conviction would come from these men-of-the-Council than from the Society of St. Pius X?
Throughout this lengthy examination of Fr. Gleize’s assessment of Francis vis-à-vis Amoris Laetitia, it has (in the present writer’s opinion) been sufficiently demonstrated that Fracnis is objectively “heretical” according to the parameters that Fr. Gleize himself established at the outset.
In a number of places, including portions of AL that Fr. Gleize chose not to address, Francis set forth propositions that directly contradict Sacred Scripture and have been unambiguously condemned by the Council of Trent.
And yet, remarkably, Fr. Gleize states:
“For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II.”
If Amoris Laetitia does not represent “formal opposition” to the infallible Magisterium of the Church, nothing does.
As if all that has been written by Fr. Gleize is not disturbing enough, he states:
“If Amoris laetitia became the cause of heresy, it would be in an absolutely unique way, underhanded and latent as modernism itself.”
Pope St. Pius X defined modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
And yet, how quickly Francis is being all but excused for his underhanded, latent, modernist screed; even by the Priestly Society that bears his name.
Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
I wish that we could read an analysis by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, who is also a Theologian.
Horrific. What has happened FSSPX? Lord, have mercy.
“If and when it is the case that one is inculpable of a grave sin committed, it is God alone who renders such judgment. (Fair warning: It will be necessary for us to repeat this infallible doctrine often in the face of Fr. Gleize’s assessment.)”
Louie or other readers, I heard the same in one of the late Fr. Gregory Hesse’s conferences, he said “The Church does not judge the interior” is a Church doctrine, can someone provide authority on this? Any Papal Bull? Encyclical or if no Papal teachings at all, Church Fathers or St. Thomas? Thanks and God Bless!
Daniel,
.
The citation from the Council of Trent should suffice: “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” [the Church does not judge internals] (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1).
.
In this, the council isn’t introducing anything new, nor is it addressing a denial of said teaching (a heresy); it is simply repeating what the Church has always held.
.
If readers have other citations, I’d be interested in seeing them as well.
Thanks a lot, Louie. That is exactly what Father was quoting from because he repeated that in Latin also. Thanks for the great article.
Excellent article Louie. The Church so needs your clarity of instruction on this horrendous matter. Thank you once again.
As someone who grew up near one of the SSPX “Meccas,” I can say they tend to be a very fractured group, which is understandable given they are people from all walks of life fleeing insanity in their respective dioceses. I knew some fine people among their ranks and some that were certifiably insane. If some among them join Pope Francis and do his bidding, I believe a sizable portion will now follow. Good analysis Mr. Louie.
Another reason I raised “Church does not judge interior(subjective)” is one priest(forgot his name he is African from the Caribbean, a theologian with also a Ph.D. in Math) in responding to PF’s “Who am I to judge” said that a priest indeed judges whenever he hears confessions. Fr. Issac said the same that confession is a trial where the priest is the judge in the person of Christ. So it seems to me what they are saying is a priest judges the objective guilt or innocence of the penitent but not the subjective. How about if a couple in their prenuptial agreement stating they intend no children(subjective) but the contraception fail resulting giving birth to a child(objective). Is their marriage valid? I think the tribunal applies similar standard as civil court/criminal court in figuring out subjective, for example, subjective intent for 1st degree murder. Any thoughts? Thanks and God Bless!
Iusp this points to a more serious problem, is he a young priest? would that be possible that the SSPX Seminary in the U.S. has been infected by Modernism? The one thing that shocks me the most is he uses the words “concrete situation” which is classic in the works of situation ethics heresy. The question would be is this systematic or isolated? His District Superior or Superior General needs to have a talk with him.
Thank you for your hard work here.
A Catholic with a well-formed conscience knows heresy when they hear it, and they know sellouts when they see them, as well.
Strong work Louie. I pray the SSPX yanks this molly-coddling, squishy and Francis-caressing analysis.
Louie asked: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” To the SSPX-Resistance!
Sodalitium Pianum is one of their best blogs: http://sodalitium-pianum.com
The SSPX hasnt even signed the reconcilliation papers yet and the modernism poison is already taking effect. I will say what I have been saying for a while now. Avoid the NO. Avoid its clergy. Avoid its sacraments. Avoid its devotions. Avoid its Saints, and above all avoid its “popes.” Avoid it as you would avoid Episcopals or Methodists or any other protestant.
All are affected. Many are infected. Who ever said that “traditionalists” cannot go to hell? It’s all transparent now. Just waiting for Our Lady to clean shop.
I don’t understand what’s so unclear and needs so many explanations, questions, doubts and words. Blah, blah, blah! It’s the 6th commandment. What’s the question? God already told us the answer. These unnecessary and telling discussions are far beyond the simple and pure of heart. Notice how you have to have such patience and endurance just to read through this stuff. I don’t think the saints of the past needed this much dwelling upon whether the 6th commandment, which God gave us, is true or not. Common, it’s the sixth commandment. It’s not rocket science. We already have the answer. It’s a no brainer…Like, don’t eat the fruit from that tree. Oh, wait, we messed that up too. Hence our fallen nature and hence the need for God to give us the ten commandments. It’s that simple. No one needs to manipulate them. I can’t believe we even dignify this with our attention. It’s time to just be Catholic. Just do it.
-It is a pleasure though reading Bishop Schneider and co. Words. Pleasure. As well as Pius X’s words are always refreshing.
Thank you for your fine work, Louie.
Praying for that Holy Prelate.
Our Lady of the Great Event, pray for us.
St. Maria Goretti, pray for us.
So the Resistance folks were right. Can’t say we weren’t warned.
Thank you for the analysis Louie. What the SSPX priest seems to be saying – if I understand his reasoning’s is something like this;
The Commandments are not all encompassing in that they cover sins, only to a point.
So there must be sins, which for concrete reasons are outside the gambit – in case adultery in one of its “forms”.
Another way of saying is the sinner is compelled to persist – in his own conscience- then that’s in order for him to receive absolution. Relying on ignorance has been raised – spuriously I would guess, as a savle to the stain of the sin.
What a light weight argumentation.
Tommy Playfair has a Rule which says; “Things equal to the same things are equal to each other”.
Now the so called penitent could first time around argue – compulsion (not addiction) inability to leave the union adulterous, but that would wash once, I would say.
One who would try and remain “marinated” as it were in the state of adultery, one could not possibly present as one worthy of absolution. The reality of the sins would override the excuses offered once ignorance was disposed of.
Very clever for PF to explore that impediment in the commandment – another kite flying or false flag raised to see who saluted, from among the ignorant.
The Good Shepherd went looking for the “lost sheep”. the 1 in 99, this AL seems to suggest such a Shepherd need not have wasted his time…very cute…like the pagans who worship false Gods, be it in ignorance or with PF’s approval, even sanction, they will arrive at their One Sheepfold by a different but efficacious journey as these Modernist spout.
.How do clergy reach these dirty depths. Is it a product of homosexual or predator priests confessing to their fellows of the same persuasions?
There seems to be a certain trait, all cloaked in “mercy” which is trying to convince the faithful that the rigidity of the truth, watered down, doesn’t really mean what the former Councils like Trent decreed, that dogmas held will be “upgraded over time”.
Simply diabolical. I am certain there is only One Sheep Gate, through which all must enter, in order to be saved. Our Good Shepherd told us that. And He confirmed it to Peter as Louie pointed out. Are there any Holy priests, shepherds left??
Padre Pio ora pro nobis.
I do believe all this subjective realtivism, so prevelant since Martin Luther, exists in order to justify sodomy.
So Louie, where do you go from here? You’ve concluded some time ago that Amoris Laetitia was a heretical document that clearly defined the pope as a heretic, but to your surprise, not everyone agrees with you––as witnessed by the response from an SSPX priest.
True, Father Gleize’s response did not set forth the “official” view of the SSPX, but it would be surprising to learn that Bishop Fellay was unaware that Father Gleize was publicizing his thoughts on the issue. Of course, you may know more of the back story in that regard and, if so, might even be able to clarify it for others. For many of us who regularly assist at the SSPX Masses, the opinion of the Society is very important.
The Dubia raised five questions. In theory, the pope was to be given the opportunity to either admit, deny or clarify what was intended to be presented by the document. He failed to answer it in any meaningful way, thus far, and (as gleaned from your earlier columns) it appears that you have concluded that he’s had enough time. Moreover, you’ve further concluded that if he did eventually respond, his answers would probably fall short of what you believe to be the truth.
Well, you’re a very knowledgable man on Catholic doctrine so maybe you’re right; but then again, maybe you’re not right. You may disagree with the interpretation offered by Father Gleize, but it does not mean, that he is absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Yes, you have an opinion based on sound Catholic teaching, which in my view, is very persuasive. But, quite frankly, as much as you believe that Amoris Laetitia puts the final nail in this pope’s coffin on the issue of formal heresy, Amoris Laetitia aside, Father Gleize appears to be believe otherwise.
Quite clearly, Father Gleize reasoning was to give the pope the benefit of the doubt on the question of the document representing a formal heresy. Why he did so is certainly unclear, but here’s one suggestion. Perhaps this response is part of an “agreement” the Society has with Cardinal Mueller on the issue of accepting the SSPX back to the Church in ”full communion” (whatever that may mean)? As you are aware, that issue appears to be moving back to the front burners again, with Mueller asking the SSPX to “help” the Church address the heresy of Modernism.
It would be foolish, therefore, not to acknowledge that “politics” is alive and well even in the Church. So, with respect to Father Gleize’s conclusion, as I understand it, he was not arguing that Amoris Laetitia was sound Catholic doctrine––he was only saying that it was insufficient evidence to conclude formal heresy. And as much as you and others might disagree with that conclusion, that expressed opinion may well serve to take the pope off the hook (for the moment). Having the SSPX coming out in a quazi-defense of this pope is, unquestionably, a “Nixon goes to China” moment in the Church. As such, the opinion of the SSPX, expressed publicly, has great “political” value. The purists may like to believe that politics must always be eschewed, but that is not always realistic.
In any event, Father Gleize presented one side of the issue and you rebutted it. So if this position paper of father Gleize is not actually a part of some “agreement” between the Vatican and the SSPX on the issue of regularization, and Father Gleize is open to debating his position publicly, perhaps you could find a way to invite (even inveigle) Father Gleize into engaging in a mano-o-mano on this issue, much as you did earlier with Chris Ferraro. That would be interesting, revealing, and most importantly, helpful to many of us.
So Father Gleize, in other words, will sell out for a personal prelature? And that’s okay? Because it’s a Nixon goes to China moment? You have got to be kidding. Where does Christ fit into your view?
Beautifully stated, Cortez.
“So Louie, where do you go from here?”
If I understand his position rightly, the only possible (Catholic) options for him would have to be a Resistance or sede/quasi-sede chapel.
“So, with respect to Father Gleize’s conclusion, as I understand it, he was not arguing that Amoris Laetitia was sound Catholic doctrine––he was only saying that it was insufficient evidence to conclude formal heresy.”
That’s my read as well.
The SSPX has set about doing what many other noteworthy internet traditionalists have done: build an argument on the premise that Francis is the Pope, (ignoring completely the possibility that Benedict’s “resignation” was invalid, all in an effort to avoid sounding like sede-vacantists,) in order to demonstrate and “logically” conclude that Francis cannot be a heretic because he is Pope.
How tragic that the order established to fight for Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of all Nations, now actively serves to defend the usurper of the throne of the Vicar of Christ and to accept from this antipope, who is himself an antichrist, a new canonical structure (which means a new body, a new creation, no longer the SSPX) and Episcopal jurisdiction, neither of which he has any authority to give.
Imagine what would happen if Bishop Fellay receives a red hat and is elected “pope” in the next conclave while Benedict yet lives. An orthodox catholic antipope. God help us all if this happens.
Whatever happens, I’m with Our Lord and His Vicar: Pope Benedict XVI.
In a word, your response to my post was uncharitable. I will resist the urge to respond likewise. But to answer your question, Jesus Christ fits quite nicely into my view on all issues. Perhaps you might take more care in reading these posts. For your information, as I had indicated in my post, I actually found Louie’s analysis and conclusion on this topic to be very persuasive.
But to directly address your specific objection, nowhere in my post did I even remotely indicate that I supported what may (or may not) be some political collusion going on between the SSPX and the Vatican. Again, I simply pointed out what may be an explanation as to why the SSPX priest has, somewhat inexplicably, sided with Rome. Considering the possibility of “politics” raising its head––even in the Church–– is called reality. If you’re having problems with that, then that’s a different issue.
Perhaps my “question” was more rhetorical than it was one that might be actually answered. But it is very difficult to see where any faithful Catholic goes from here. There are no clear and unambiguous answers––at least ones that I can see. Without question, these are challenging times––especially for those of us who look to the SSPX as being the last defenders of the true teachings of the Catholic Church.
Yet, notwithstanding the turmoil of the moment, it is probably more prudent to wait and watch to see what ultimately develops with this issue––and others that are sure to follow. We who have confidence that the Church will be with us until the end of time, believe that Jesus Christ will also provide all of the answers for all of us in due time. As the holy nuns taught many of us in the past, maybe these twisted and perilous events that are unfolding are nothing more than the Lord drawing straight with crooked lines.
Statements like this coming from an SSPX priest is more damaging and more disturbing than coming from Bergoglio. We expect this from Bergoglio. He’s a heretic.
This is the same Fr. Gleize that several years ago debunked the notion of a “Conciliar Church”, a term (coined by Bishop Giovanni Benelli) that Archbishop Lefebvre picked up and used frequently. One who has assisted at Society Masses prior to 2012 will remember the term used regularly, including in Society publications such as Angelus Magazine. Since 2012, after Fr. Gleize’s theses was apparently adopted, I personally have noticed the term completely dropped in official Society publications and only used by some of the older priests.
It is instructive to note that Bishop Tissier de Mallarais wrote a rebuttal to Fr. Gleize’s work, published by the Dominicans of Avrille in their Le Sel de la Terre newsletter. The General House of the Society was not happy that Bishop Tissier’s rebuttal was published, and the Dominicans of Avrille were further ostrecized by officials in the Society as a result. It is worth reading Bishop Tissier’s rebuttal to Fr. Gleize’s “Conciliar Church” treatment available on the Dominican’s website here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/.
I think we are now witnessing a different sort of thinking in the higher echelon of the Society among some. I personally sense danger and even some betrayal. We must all do our best to continue to study our faith, get the facts, and pray hard for discernment during this diabolical disorientation so that we recognize Truth. Thank you Louis for your work and bringing the important truths to light.
Yeah, he uses a lot of their lingo.
“But it is very difficult to see where any faithful Catholic goes from here.”
I hear you on that.
But even if that is true – what do you do when Benedict dies? After all, the odds are still that he will predecease Francis.
I don’t accept a sedevacantist thesis. But if I did, I think those who put the breaking point in the 1958-63 timeline have a better case. And let’s be honest: Benedict was/is a liberal, too – just one with much better character, and better taste.
Archbishop Lefebvre from the notes in his last book, Spiritual Journey:
“3. The providential choice of Rome as the Seat of Peter, and the blessings of this choice for the growth of the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe I must add some words to draw the attention of our priests and our seminarians to the indisputable fact of the Roman influences on our spirituality, on our liturgy, and even on our theology.
One cannot deny that this is a providential fact. God, Who leads all things, has in His infinite wisdom prepared Rome to become the Seat of Peter and center for the radiation of the Gospel. Hence the adage: Unde Christo e Romano.
Dom Gueranger, in his Histoire de sainte Cecile, recounts the great part which members of great Roman families played in the foundation of the Church, giving their goods and their blood for the victory and the reign of Jesus Christ. Our Roman liturgy is the faithful witness of this.
“Romanitas” – Romanism ‑ is not a vain word. The Latin language is an important example. It has brought the expression of the Faith and of Catholic worship to the ends of the world. And the converted people were proud to sing their Faith in this language, a real symbol of the unity of the Catholic Faith.
Schisms and heresies are often begun by a rupture with Romanitas, a rupture with the Roman liturgy, with Latin, with the theology of the Latin and Roman Fathers and theologians.
It is this force of the Catholic Faith rooted in Romanitas that Freemasonry wished to eliminate by occupying the pontifical States and enclosing Catholic Rome in Vatican City. This occupation of Rome by the Masons permitted infiltration of the Church by Modernism and the destruction of Catholic Rome by Modernist clergy and Popes who hasten to destroy every vestige of “Romanitas”: the Latin language, the Roman liturgy. The Slavic Pope is the most determined to change the little which was kept by the Lateran Treaty and the Concordat. Rome is no longer a sacred city. He encourages the establishing of false religions in Rome itself, accomplishing there scandalous ecumenical meetings. He everywhere pushes for the inculturation in the liturgy, destroying the last vestiges of the Roman liturgy. He has modified in practice the status of the Vatican State. He has renounced coronation, thus refusing to be a Head of State. This relentlessness against “Romanitas” is an infallible sign of rupture with the Catholic Faith that he no longer defends.
The Roman pontifical universities have become chairs of Modernist pestilence. The coeducation of the Gregorian is a perpetual scandal.
All must be restored in Christo Domino ‑ in Christ the Lord, in Rome as elsewhere.
Let us love to see how the ways of Divine Providence and Wisdom pass by Rome. We will conclude that one cannot be Catholic without being Roman. This applies also to Catholics who have neither the Latin language nor the Roman liturgy. If they remain Catholic, it is because they remain Roman like the Maronites, for example, by the ties to the Catholic and Roman French culture which formed them.
It is, moreover, an error to speak of Roman culture as Western. The converts from Judaism brought with them from the Orient all that was Christian, all that which in the Old Testament was preparation and could be a component of Christianity, all that which Our Lord had assumed and that the Holy Ghost had inspired the Apostles to adopt. How many times do the epistles of St. Paul teach us on this subject!
God willed that Christianity, cast in a certain way in the Roman mold, receive from it a vigorous and exceptional expansion. All is grace in the divine plan and Our Divine Savior disposes all as the Romans are said to act, that is, “cum consilio et patientia or suaviter et fortiter ‑ with counsel and patience, sweetly and mightily” (Wis 8:1).
Ours is the duty to guard this Roman Tradition desired by Our Lord, as He wished us to have Mary as our Mother. “
When the Pope dies there is a conclave to elect his successor. Francis is not the pope; Benedict is Pope.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be uncharitable. Simply stunned that you seemed to be trying to put a positive spin on a seemingly learned man’s downplaying of the abject moral desolation of Amorim Laetitia.
No problem. But please understand that it is far from my intention to downplay a Modernist, heretical (in my judgment) writing that only serves to lead more unwitting Catholics away from the true teachings of the Church. I obviously was less than precise in what I wrote. I will at least try to make my positions on issues more clear in the future.
That you again for the unnecessary apology.
That change has been noted on my blog. It is obvious the Society is saying to itself “how do we get a deal with Rome” and working backwards with their theology to make that happen. The Society of old started with Truth and went from there https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/what-conciliar-church/
On the first dubium, I think the core sentence of Mr Louie Verrecchio is:
I disagree with the suggestion that this text from AL can be interpreted in two ways…
And this is the core of his disagreement with Fr Gleize. Father Gleize shows WHERE the ambiguity really is: in the words “in certain cases” at the very beginnig of the note to the paragraph 305.
Fr Gleize says in one word: if one understands “in certain cases” in such as way as it would allow giving communion BEFORE instructing the ignorance that might make the sinner subjectively not culpable, before seeing that the then instructed person has manifested the firm purpose of amendment, then the footnote is wrong.
But if one understands “in certain cases” as meaning AFTER such instruction and its fruits in the amendment of the sinner, then it is not wrong.
Fr Gleize does well to remind that the FIRST aid that the Church offers is precisely that of preaching the truth, and that it should precede the giving of the sacraments (to adults).
Objection: but in the second case (“after…”), one gets out of the situation of people “subjectively not culpable”. Answer: the Pope is exhorting the priests to pastoral care for such people, that does not put them off, but rather leads them to recovery – and Fr Gleize shows how a wise spiritual physician can do that, by using the remedies in the proper order: first teaching, and then when this first remedy has brought its fruit of change of life, the second remedy of the sacrament. Nowhere does the Pope say that such people should be left in ignorance… for the greatest scandal of the Christian community!
Now Mr Louie Verrecchio’s whole sentence was: “I disagree with the suggestion that this text from AL can be interpreted in two ways as it clearly proposes that the Church and her confessors have the ability, and the right, to weigh culpability, when in truth, they do not.” And he adds shortly after: “Frankly, I am surprised that Fr. Gleize has not seized upon this very point.” The fact is that the priest’s duty to instruct such person does not require “the ability to weigh culpability.” Anyone in authority whose duty is to require a difficult task from a fellow adult knows that he should EXPLAIN it, otherwise the risk not to be obeyed in great. Moreover, a priest should know that to encourage faithful to some difficult actions, such as leaving a situation of sin, it is very useful to give motives of FAITH: such motive do include considerations on the Last Judgements, Heaven and Hell, and explanations on the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. All that is done without bearing judgement on interior culpability.
Mr Verrecchio is right that the FALSE interpretation of AL does include that the priest would be capable to judge the inner invincible ignorance that would excuse culpability. But such priest would be wrong to leave such person in their ignorance and to go ahead and give them Holy Communion, to the great scandal of the community.
However Fr Gleize’s purpose is not to refute the false interpretation, but simply to show that there is objective ambiguity and possibility of an acceptable interpretation and hence one cannot conclude that AL is heretical. Note that the very fact that there is ambiguity is bad: hence the Cardinals do well to ask to remove that ambiguity.
As for the second dubium, it seems to me that Mr Louie Verrecchio misses Fr Gleize’s “theological language”. Fr Gleize speaks as a metaphysician, a theologian, and – in their “language” – it is perfectly true that all general principles of morals are applied in concreto by the virtue of Prudence; this is indeed what St Thomas Aquinas teaches. But that does NOT mean that prudence may insert a loophole in the universal Law! It belongs to prudence precisely to TAKE THE RIGHT MEANS in order to obey the Law! The Law itself does not indicate the means; these are often indicated by the Tradition of the Saints; prudence must search for them, find them and implement them. And the right means in the particular situations considered by AL would be to get out of the situation of sin, while properly providing for the children born of these sins! Note that the very fact to get out of that situation of sin does provide a good example to these children, who on the contrary would later be scandalised by the bad example of their parents if they would stay in that situation of sin.
So as it appears above, Fr Gleize is right to say that this paragraph 304 sins by omission (omitting to say what I just said on the right workings of prudence).
As for the third dubium, as Fr Gleize said, it is evidently part of traditional doctrine that there are cases of invincible ignorance. As Fr Gleize points out, the ambiguity of the paragraph he quotes consists in the easy confusion between “the state of mortal sin” which is interior and known to God alone with certitude, and “an objective situation of habitual grave sin” which is exterior and usually visible for others. The Dubium of the cardinals concerns the second, AL speaks of the first. Yet because many people would jump from one to the other, AL is ambiguous and it is wise for the Cardinals to ask for such clarification.
However, Fr Gleize could have pointed out that the words “no longer” are rather out of place. If that sentence of AL had only “not” instead of “no longer”, it would just state that there exist cases of invincible ignorance. But the expression “no longer” seem to insinuate that there has been some NOVEL development of doctrine… without telling it explicitly and this is precisely very dangerous.
Moreover Mr Verrecchio does well to point out that the next sentence of AL is even worse:
“A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sin of adultery], 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.” (AL 301)
If one “knows full well”, then he cannot claim invincible ignorance, nor any other mental disorder that could excuse from sin: any such mental disorder would prevent the ability to “know full well”! If one has such “full” knowledge, the “difficulty to understand” does not come from the mind, it can only come from the passions – and that is not without sin, to let one’s mind be so influenced by passion in such grave matter!
To me it seems that the word “further” avoids heresy: it implies that there was a first sin, but not an additional one. “Without further sin” is not the same as “without any sin”. But as usual, modernists’ sentences are not clear. Hence it is good for the Cardinals to ask for a clear statement.
Mr Verrecchio accuses Fr Gleize of “focussing on but one solitary sentence while ignoring entirely what, in this case, are perhaps the most offensive portions of the entire Exhortation.” The reason is that Fr Gleize comments the five Dubia, and the passage Mr Verrecchio quotes is not directly connected with one of the five dubia.
Yet Mr Verrecchio is right to point out to the very BAD sentence: “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.” (AL 303) [emphasis added]
He is right to point out that such phrase is not compatible with the possibility to observe the Law of God, and that each one receives enough grace to enable him/her to observe the Law. Yet he seems to forget that man can be illogical, and that if Pope Francis would be asked, point blank: “Is sometimes the Law of God impossible to observe?” he would certainly not answer “No” – but you might not get a clear “Yes” either! Man can be illogical, and without denying one truth, he might strive to think something that is – objectively – incompatible with it. For such an attitude to be formally heretical, there is need of being challenged by the Church’s authority to correct the false statements – and this has not happened.
On the one side, Fr Gleize said: ““For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II.” On the other side, Mr Verrecchio concludes: “If Amoris Laetitia does not represent “formal opposition” to the infallible Magisterium of the Church, nothing does.” If AL would be so evidently “heretical”, as Mr Verrecchio pretends, it would have been denounced as such by the Cardinals and by three Eastern European prelates he quotes, there would be an uproar among the faithful. The reason why there is not is precisely because the Devil is smarter than Mr Verrecchio, and today prefers something “favens haeresim – favouring heresy” rather than something openly heretical, because the first causes less reaction and yet causes more destruction in the long term.
So yes, we must denounce the errors of AL, but we must stick to the truth and not exagerate the condemnation, lest by concluding too much we conclude nothing.
I did not know that site “aka Catholic”, so I look at its presentation on the page “About”. The very first sentence warned me: “We are determined to scrutinize all things through the lens of tradition in pursuit of Catholic truth, and to propagate it to the best of our abilities once it is found.” Here you have someone who established himself as the judge of “ALL THINGS”! Beware!
“There shall fall a thousand on your [left] side and ten thousands on your right” (Ps. 90): the Devil does not mind on which side he impells people to fall, on the left (modernist) or on the right (sedevacantist), so long as he succeeds in making people fall. To keep the right path as Archbishop Lefebvre has done is not always easy, but the surest way to depart from it is pride and starting to judge “ALL things”…
Please reduce your “book” into one succinct paragraph, if possible, thanks. We on this site usually have to deal with 10 page excerpts of “true and false pope” almost daily. A straight-to-the-point post would be nice for a change of pace.
If a couple intends to have no children then the marriage as a sacrament is invalid. Like all the Sacraments, the intention is required.
You shall not commit adultery.
-God
I think the likelihood that a conclave will be held when Benedict dies – but Francis is still alive – is somewhere between nil and zero. (However much many bishops would like to do it.)
We lack clear, convincing proof that Benedict was forced to abdicate under duress. No one here is less happy than me with this utter debacle of a pontificate, but until such proofs are made public and confirmed, I’m left with accepting the reality that Benedict abdicated freely and properly (though wrongly, I think), and Francis (who is, as Dr John Lamont argues, more likely than not a formal heretic) was properly elected.
I think we are discussing two different things.
You seem to be discussing what other people think and what is likely to occur. I am discussing what is true regardless of what people think about it.
As to the resignation of Benedict, I do not base my belief in its invalidity upon the argument that he was under duress, but rather that his very words in his “resignation” make clear that he only intended to hand over the active exercise of the ministry of and not to renounce the office of Pope; he made a distinction between active and passive exercise of an office and then applied each to a different person and split the office, much the same way God’s subsistence to all things was then misapplied to the church in Lumen Gentium.
Yes, Bergoglio is a heretic. If he ever were validly elected he would now have ceased to be pope. But he never was. Because Benedict never resigned, having qualified his renunciation.
Fr. Paul Kramer has demonstrated all of this; check out his Facebook timeline, or Tradcatknight posts tagged with Fr. Kramer.
Ann Barnhardt also has good posts on the subject.
We have good reason to believe that Francis is not the pope because he is obviously a heretic. We have good reason to believe Benedict is still the pope because he is called Pope, he wears white, lives in the Vatican, and believes he still functions in a papal function, Cd. Muller believes we have two popes, Abp. Ganswein says Benedict believes he is still pope, and Violi has demonstrated precisely what Benedict’s words indicate in his resignation.
Benedict is Pope.
I love your blog. Well done.
So, when Benedict dies, the see will be vacant. If there is a conclave it will give us the next true Pope.
If Francis resigns or dies while Benedict yet lives, the conclave will elect another antipope. He is to be opposed, resisted, and certainly not followed.
The Faith is fixed – as truth, it cannot be changed nor improved on. It is simple and understandable by basic human reason, which most people have attained by seven years of age. Lord, save us from these evil false prophets who work with our temporal persecutors to ruin all souls.
Excellent quotes, as usual, from Archbishop Lefebvre, on the subject of Romanitas, and the modernist revolution against it. A voice of reason.
IMO, Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t spend much time elaborating on whether or not the Pope (JP2) was a formal heretic or not. The Archbishop pointed out the pope’s errors with clarity, and the errors of the modernists in general, as well as their departure from Tradition and the Catholic Faith of all time. He stayed true to the teachings of the Church, and provided a place for Catholics to receive the Traditional sacraments. And of course he provided for the training up of good, solid priests. Even though I support the Resistance, there are, of course, many good solid priests in the SSPX. I think that this piece from Fr. Gleize may cause a bit of confusion for them. I know it does for me.
Meanwhile Bishop Williamson plans on consecrating another Bishop May 11th (fr zendejas )
I second that. Excellent blog. A godsend. I’ve been sharing it wherever I can.
Marriage is not a private matter. It is a public fact. Banns are required and so are witnesses. AL should know full well that we are not dealing with a sin that is not public but we are dealing with a sin that is a public sin, unless the adulterers in question plan to run from one parish to another in order to hide who they are and what they are doing by choosing to excuse themselves by receiving communion while falsely pretending to be married. ADULTERY and these so called “remarried” Catholics can be known and witnessed by many by the simple fact that marriage is public matter also. This pastoral provision of AL to accompany them in their sin while they work it out is blasphemous no matter how ones wishes to spin it. This is not only all about the adulterers but it is also about the many millions and millions of Catholics who will be poisoned, scandalized by this because they will be, whether they care or not, brought away from really knowing and understanding who God is and what His commandments are and what will get one to Heaven and what will bring one to Hell.
Why won’t our bishops and priests speak this (or any other) truth? It is their grave duty to condemn these far-publicised lies.
https://akacatholic.com/sspx-offers-stunning-evaluation-of-amoris-francis/
Here is a selective examination of some of Louie’s statements here, followed by comments on Fr. Gleize’s paper.
–
Concerning the first dubia, Louie disagrees that the phrase “in certain cases” has more than one interpretation. Louie seems to be suggesting that because Church does not judge internals, there are no valid cases at all where the Eucharist may be offered to public sinners (adulterers), and in that he is completely correct, of course (with a caveat below).
–
However, of course Fr. Gleize is not contesting that point at all (which he makes clear even in what Louie quotes) – rather, Fr. Gleize seems to be stating that it isn’t clear if “in certain cases” is actually referring to people obstinately persisting in public sin, rather than something else entirely. Fr. Gleize states, “We are dealing here therefore with a doubt (dubium) in the strictest sense of the term, in other words, a passage that can be interpreted in two ways. And this doubt arises precisely thanks to the indefinite expression in the note: in certain cases.’ In order to dispel this doubt, **it is essential to indicate clearly what these cases are in which the Church’s sacramental aid proves possible and to state that this is about situations in which the sufficiently enlightened sinners have already decided to abandon the objectively sinful situation.**”
–
So, it is clear that Fr. Gleize is questioning exactly what “certain cases” refers to. Note that he has already given his answer to the dubia: “The first dubium poses the question concerning paragraphs 300-305 of Amoris laetitia: is it possible to give absolution and sacramental Communion to divorced-and-remarried persons who live in adultery without repenting? For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is no.”
–
Now I definitely agree that AL seems to be suggesting that “certain cases” refers to those “in an objective situation of sin”, but the document does not state this with complete clarity, which is exactly why bishops have been and continue to interpret it differently. The point of Fr. Gleize’s analysis is to remain completely objective.
–
(And here’s the caveat: Louie is missing that the Church does not judge the internal forum, just as individuals do not, but the Church certainly can and does judge public sins in some cases – after all, that’s exactly what the prohibition from the Eucharist for unrepentant public sinners is based on! However, this is unrelated to his arguments.)
–
–
Louie: ““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.” Fr. Gleize proposes: “Two points should be emphasized. The sentence just quoted posits in principle the impossibility of making a universal affirmation. It does not deny the possibility of saying that public sinners are deprived of grace; it only denies the possibility of saying that all public sinners are deprived of it. This denial has always been taught by the Church.””
–
Once again, it is to be shocked. Here is what the Council of Trent had to say [with my emphasis]:”
–
–
Louie, you’re contradicting yourself. You noted above that only God judges the internal forum, and Fr. Gleize is saying nothing more than that above. He’s merely noting that none of us know which public sinners are culpable for their sin – and he’s entirely correct that this is in concert with Catholic teaching. He said nothing more here; he did not in the least indicate that this in itself justifies the heterodox praxis AL seems to allow. He is examining this statement in isolation, and his analysis is completely correct and completely straightforward. How are you shocked by the true statement that not all public sinners are deprived of grace?
–
You quote Trent regarding the fact that sanctifying grace is lost by mortal sin, as if this is something Fr. Gleize is not cognizant of. Fr. Gleize is merely making the proper distinctions between the objective and subjective, and you are not. Whether or not objectively sinful acts deprive the soul of grace comes down to imputability, of course. This is basic Catholic teaching and all Fr. Gleize is stating!
–
(The Church’s laws regarding obstinate public sinners being deprived of the Sacraments is not, of course, based on the internal forum. It is not based on purporting to know the state of their souls, but on prudently taking steps to avoid the *possibility* (likelihood) of desecration of the Eucharist and, the public scandal of allowing those in public sin in the external forum to approach the Sacred Body and Blood.)
–
–
Louie: “Now we seem to be getting somewhere… The Church’s response to every sinner is to preach, to warn, and to invite to conversion. She does not, however, enter into an examination of culpability as such is the prerogative of God alone!” And Fr. Gleize is certainly not contradicting that.
–
–
Louie: “I find this stunning, to be quite honest. Remember what we are discussing – adultery. “The law” in this case is absolute; it is not open to nuance or “prudent application,” properly speaking: Thou shalt not commit… This formulation is very clear, and Our Lord even further clarified precisely what constitutes adultery.”
–
By no means does Fr. Gleize give any hint of suggesting that there are occasions where adultery is allowable! What you have missed is that the passage he was responding to speaks of “rules” – Church law – not the objective morality of acts. And, he does say that the passage “errs”!
–
–
Louie: “… moral absolutes such as that expressed in the Commandment against adultery do indeed “provide absolutely for all particular situations.” Francis states the exact opposite, and that, my friends, is heresy.”
–
While I’d never defend this disastrous document, again, *it isn’t referring to adultery here but to sacramental practice* – “rules”: “It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.”
–
Again, you are mixing & conflating the objective and subjective, and now sin and canon law as well.
–
–
Louie: “For reasons that only he can explain, he has chosen to focus on the solitary sentence quoted above while ignoring entirely the one immediately following, which reads: “A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sin of adultery], 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.” (AL 301)”
–
I must agree that this omission is unfortunate. This sentence is indeed horrible; to state that persons might be “disallowed” from avoiding sin is indeed preposterous and indeed at least seemingly in conflict with dogma. The same goes for paragraph 303. This is one valid point that Louie makes (anyone who responds to my rebuttal be sure to be aware that I allowed this).
–
However, once again Louie certainly goes much too far in his opinion, apparently unaware that the objective and subjective are being mixed without distinction. Though this clause appears to be impossible to reconcile with Catholic moral dogma – which is why it’s been attacked so savagely by Chris Ferrara and others in the Recognize and Resist camp – whether Francis is pertinacious in heresy (that is, “a heretic,” himself), consciously rejecting the teaching of the Church, is another matter. That’s the question here – it concerns the person of the Pope, not statements in this exhortation.
–
–
Louie: “If this isn’t enough for one to conclude that Francis is heretical…” Louie switches from the objective to the subjective without batting an eye, or apparently being unaware that he’s made just the leap. What Louie seems to mean is that the statement is heretical, but then he immediately assigns culpability for obstinate heresy to the person of Francis – in contradiction to the maxim he states himself above. If this isn’t what he meant, the terminology (which is rather critical – the entire point here) is quite sloppy.
–
–
Fr. Gleize’s analysis is rational and sober. It is the response of a trained theologian – a man who has taught theology in a Traditional Catholic environment for decades. If an objective analysis will not satisfy some, the fault lies not with the document or its author. (I do not intent to make some kind of argument from authority here – these are objective comments regarding the document.) Again, however, it would have been better to speak (objectively) fully to paragraphs 301 and 303 – but, again, this would, in itself, be quite separate from the question of whether *Francis* is a heretic, and that based *only* on examining Amoris Laetitia, which is the scope of this article.
–
As Fr. Geize notes early on, “It is different [than use of the word an an insult] with the doctrinal censure “heretical”: the latter is a technical expression, part of the terminology to which specialists resort in order to give as precise an evaluation as possible.” And the doctrinal censure of a *person* – a subject – is exactly the topic here.
–
It isn’t enough that Fr. Gleize gave the correct answer to every dubia and correctly labels AL ambiguous? It is a fact that the document is ambiguous, just like those of Vatican II regarding other potential errors, just like this entire crisis, which is why there has been so much disagreement regarding its interpretation.
–
The article reiterates correct Catholic teaching on each and every point, and, further, indicts AL most seriously. Coming from such a theologian, statements such that the document “errs” and that the criticism of the dubia, which everyone knows is a ferocious slap in the face to the pontiff, is “quite well-founded,” are damning.
–
“The help of the sacraments can only come afterward…”
–
“The text therefore errs here by omission…”
–
“The five dubia are therefore quite well-founded…”
–
Fr. Gleize has clearly sided entirely against Francis (of course) in regards to the monumental and almost unprecedented step the Dubia cardinals (the “Dubia Brothers” as Louie refers to them) have taken in publicly challenging the pope.
–
Yet, again, the analysis is sober and rational, and is careful to make the critical distinctions between the objective and the subjective. I can understand that “disgust” might be the reaction of those who have already judged Francis a notorious heretic.
–
In conclusion, I find it most ironic that Louie drives home the point that, “The Church and her confessors simply do not have the right (or the ability) to weigh matters of imputability,” while proclaiming a judgement on Francis himself regarding his culpability in heresy.
Dear Catholic Thinker…..thank you.
When the ‘sting of poison’ is NOT in ones mind, and heart…..’those who have eyes SEE, and those who have ears ‘HEAR!’ All else are open to their own private interpretation, NOT for their good.
Vivat Christus Rex!
Wow, Rich – who are you to make such a silly demand? The rebuttal is certainly of a length similar to what it’s rebutting.
Well V2 changed all that.