Realizing that my previous post on this topic is perhaps too time-consuming a read for some, here I offer a far briefer overview with citations not found in part one.
In answer to the question, Is Pope Francis heretical, Fr. Gleize concluded:
Not heretical but promoting heresy … it is not the scandal of a heresy formulated doctrinally; it is the scandal of a praxis that clears the way for a challenge to Catholic truth on the indissolubility of marriage.
First, let it be said that Amoris Laetitia does far more than just cast doubt on the indissolubility of marriage; it upends the very notion of mortal sin and intrinsic evil – the far reaching deleterious effects of which cannot be overestimated.
Some readers appear content to focus on the accusation of “promoting heresy;” as if it is enough to say that Amoris Laetitia suffers only from ambiguity.
As the editor’s note following Fr. Gelize’s article insists:
None of the ambiguous statements in Amoris laetitia constitute “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” [the definition of “heretical” provided by Fr. Gleize].
Is that conclusion the reality?
Consider the following, presented in plain language, and then you tell me:
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: It is to be maintained, that sanctifying grace is lost by any mortal sin including adultery. (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: It can no longer be said that those in adultery are living in a state of mortal sin and deprived of sanctifying grace. (see Amoris Laetitia 301)
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: If any one says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep; let him be anathema. (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: An individual can be in a situation that makes it impossible to refrain from adultery. At times, adultery is the most generous response that one can give to God. (see Amoris Laetitia 301, 303)
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: If any one says that God not only permits works that are evil, but that He works them properly and of Himself; let him be anathema.” (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Session VI, Canon VI) 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)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: Situations exist wherein an individual can discern with certain moral security that persisting in adultery is what God himself is asking. (see Amoris Laetitia 303)
So, does Amoris Laetitia, or does it not, manifest “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”?
Not only is the answer entirely obvious to those of us with a sincere love of Catholic tradition, but also to certain men-of-the-Council (including the three “full communion bishops cited in part one):
“I am still convinced that some of the statements in AL are wrong and even (in some cases) objectively heretical.” – Professor Josef Seifert, philosopher and close personal friend of John Paul II
Fr. Gleize clearly disagrees. He does suggest, however, that Francis is proceeding in the manner of the modernists who “take advantage of unwary minds [and] promote heresy while giving the appearance of remaining Catholic.”
Who among us is so unwary of mind as to believe that the above mentioned citations of Amoris Laetitia have even the remote appearance of Catholicity?
To me, the overwhelming appearance is plainly diabolical.
Is Francis a modernist?
Indeed he is!
Has something changed?
It would appear so.
Fr. Gleize (let’s not kid ourselves, on behalf of the Society) is suggesting that while Francis behaves like a modernist, somehow he is “not heretical.”
Given that “modernism” as defined by the saintly namesake of the Society is the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi), this amounts to splitting hairs to the point of absurdity; especially in light of the blatant contradictions of infallible truth outlined above.
Over the years, I have been a staunch defender of the SSPX and its Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. I’ve enjoyed sincere friendships with certain of their priests, other staff, and faithful. (Hopefully, I still do.)
At times, I’ve even been accused of being a paid mouthpiece for the Society.
Since launching akaCatholic, new supporters have come and others have gone; the latter, at times (like right now), for having taken offense at certain of the positions articulated here.
I won’t lie. Staying afloat hasn’t been easy, and as I write times are definitely tough.
And yet, through it all, one thing remains unchanged; the pursuit of truth regardless of cost.
If that effort should one day render me friendless and this blog utterly devoid of supporters, so be it.
Roughly one year ago today, in a post wherein I came to the defense of the SSPX and Bishop Fellay, I wrote:
So, what is my dog in this fight?
To be very clear, it’s not that I’m on “team SSPX” or “team Fellay.” I’m on “team Catholic.”
Most importantly, I concluded:
It just so happens that the Society of St. Pius X, under the leadership of Bishop Bernard Fellay, is on the same team.
Short of a correction and a retraction of Fr. Gleize’s stunning assessment of Francis and Amoris Laetitia (which I have invited my contacts within the Society to offer) it is with a heavy heart that I now have reason to wonder if, and to what extent, that’s still true.