The General of the Jesuits: “Jesus Too Must Be Reinterpreted”

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

22 feb 17

Marriage and Divorce. The General of the Jesuits: “Jesus Too Must Be Reinterpreted”



Incredible but true. In the eighth chapter of “Amoris Laetitia,” the most heated and controversial, the one in which Pope Francis seems to “open up” to remarriage while the previous spouse is still alive, there is no citation at all of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce, presented primarily in chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew:

«Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”»

It is an astonishing omission. Also striking are two other moments of silence from Francis, on the same question.{emphasis by Abyssum}

The first took place on October 4, 2015. It was the Sunday of the beginning of the second and final session of the synod on the family. And on that very day, in all the Catholic churches of the Latin rite, at Mass, the Gospel passage read was from Mark (10:2-9), parallel to the one in Matthew 19:2-12.

At the Angelus, the pope avoided any reference to that passage of the Gospel, in spite of its extraordinary pertinence to the questions discussed at the synod.

And the same thing happened last February 12, with another similar passage from the Gospel of Matthew (5:11-12) read at Mass in all the churches. This time as well, at the Angelus, Francis avoided citing and commenting on it.

Why such adamant silence from the pope on words of Jesus that are so unequivocal?{emphasis by Abyssum}

One clue toward a response is in the interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the “Giornale del Popolo” of Lugano.

Here are the passages most relevant to the case. Any commentary would be superfluous.


Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.”{emphasis by Abyssum}

A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.

Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.{emphasis by Abyssum}

A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!

Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”?

A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . .{There you have it!!!  The infamous Jesuit device for robbing any statement by Jesus, the Apostles, previous popes, of its clear meaning.  Humpty Dumpty: “Words mean what I want them to mean.” – Abyssum}

Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . .

A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment.{emphasis by Abyssum}

Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt.

A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who – as Jesus has promised – helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.{Saint Paul warned that there would come a time when men “with ears itching” would want to hear ‘new things’; Saint Paul must have foreseen that there would be Jesuits in the future!!! – Abyssum}

Q: But discern how?

A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide.

Q: And who must decide?{emphasis by Abyssum}

A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it…

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine.

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine. {INCREDIBLE !!!  Magisterial Doctrine cannot be ‘discerned’ to mean the opposite of the clear meaning of words !!! – Abyssum}

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.{emphasis by Abyssum}

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.{emphasis by Abyssum}


Properly speaking, there are Catholic exegetes who give the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce an interpretation that admits repudiation and remarriage.

This is the case of the Camaldolese monk Guido Innocenzo Gargano, a famous biblicist and patrologist, professor at the pontifical universities Gregoriana and Urbaniana.

His exegesis was presented in its entirety by http://www.chiesa on January 16, 2015:

> For the “Hard of Heart” the Law of Moses Still Applies

It is an exegesis that naturally cannot be shared and has in fact been contested at its core.

But it has the virtue of transparency and of “parresìa,” which instead are missing in those who change the words of Jesus without doing so openly and without giving a reason.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The General of the Jesuits: “Jesus Too Must Be Reinterpreted”

  1. Dave Wuthenow says:

    Sent from my iPad

    No Comment


  2. I failed to mention in my first comment that recently Jorge Bergoglio has “contextualized” the words spoken by Jesus about marriage, when our Lord advised men not to take a new wife (unless she committed adultery), and not to look lustfully at other women. In one of his homilies this year Jorge Bergoglio replaced “unless she committed adultery’ with “unless the marriage is invalid”. [Earlier on one of his doctrinally fruitful plane rides Jorge Bergoglio made the claim that most Catholic marriages are invalid.] As to the command that a husband should refrain from lustfully looking at other women, Bergoglio replaced it with “looking at other women with a spirit of possessiveness”. He proceeded to explain that in Jesus’ times men considered wives to be their possessions. Since husbands were instructed to not look at women as possessions, perhaps lusting after them deemed a former marriage invalid. Greed for possessions is bad, but love is good, Perhaps Jesus equalled lust with love, as is currently the practice.
    I feared as soon as I read it, that this historically revised look at marriage is meant to be the official position of the Church. According to Bergoglio Jesus said – do not take a new wife unless your marriage is invalid (and most marriages are, because people do not know what they are promising, when they do), and do not be greedy – do not look at women who are not you wives in order to increase your possessions.
    I am convinced that this new interpretation of God’s commandments has nothing to with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but instead everything to do with a desire to unite the Catholic Church with heretical and false religions. I suspect that commitments have been made unbeknownst to us the faithful.

  3. When Jesuits who take pride in their superior intellectual accomplishments grant the simple and not very intelligent the power to re-interpret very clear words of Jesus, serious problems arise. How can an intelligent Jesuit not see the dangerous consequences of this outrageous proposition? The man is not talking about the best minds in the Church looking at the words of Jesus again (to align it with the “unique gifts and insights” following from putting value on sodomy – we all know), he is talking about each person being allegedly able to discern (with the help of parish priest) truth in a sinful situation, without any self-interest or faulty logic.
    This is madness. The Jesuit knows it, and deliberately insults the discerning of his deception, because he can, He has no concern for the salvation of souls,

  4. Will the Jesuits now” discern” the other words of Jesus; THIS IS MY BODY; THIS IS MY BLOOD ?Does it never end? Will they then say..Jesus never said anything..only men wrote the Scriptures? Does it never end? Dear Lord, have Mercy on us!!!!

  5. Jane Griffin says:

    Bishop Gracida,

    I found this post of the interview with the Argentine Jesuit most interesting! We all really know the twisted thinking out there anyway, but it was interesting to see it stated. I am still shaking a bit over the “dance” he did to avoid supporting the unchanging truth of the words of our blessed Lord! Interestingly, I, too, was dismayed when the priest who said Mass for us on that same day conveniently left out any mention of Jesus’ teaching on marriage (I was anticipating a strong word on it in light of serious controversy over A.L. ). All he said was: “Marriage can be so difficult. At times it seems impossible to stay married. ” THAT was it , adding more grease to that “slippery slope” . May God have mercy on us all !

Comments are closed.