Did Amoris Laetitia’s Ghostwriter Just Respond to the Dubia?


Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández is a man close to the pope — and his mission. The relationship between these two men can be traced back to their native Argentina, where, nearly a decade ago, then-Cardinal Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio “fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege” to the position of rector at the Universidad Católica Argentina. It was a job the alumnus and faculty member of the Catholic University of Argentina had wanted for some time, but he was stopped by from obtaining it by the Congregation for Catholic Education. Why this obstruction in the career path of an up and comer under the tutelage of the future pope? It was in part because of work Fernández did on the topic of marriage and family. Work that was created as a counterpoint to a 2004 conference in Buenos Aires dedicated to the theology of the family in light of Veritatis Splendor. Work that would later re-appear nearly verbatim in the controversial eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia.

Of his work on the topic at the time, Vaticanista Sandro Magister writes:

During those years Fernández was professor of theology at the Universidad Católica Argentina in Buenos Aires.

And at that same university in 2004 an international theological conference was held on “Veritatis Splendor,” the encyclical of John Paul II on “certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine,” decisively critical of “situational” ethics, the permissive tendency already present among the Jesuits in the 17th century and today more widespread than ever in the Church.

Attention. “Veritatis Splendor” is not a minor encyclical. In March of 2014, in one of his rare and deeply pondered writings as pope emeritus, indicating the encyclicals out of the fourteen published by John Paul II that in his judgment are “most important for the Church,” Joseph Ratzinger cited four of these, with a few lines for each, but then he added a fifth, which was precisely “Veritatis Splendor,” to which he dedicated an entire page, calling it “of unchanged relevance” and concluding that “studying and assimilating this encyclical remains a great and important duty.”

In “Veritatis Splendor” the pope emeritus saw the restoration to Catholic morality of its metaphysical and Christological foundation, the only one capable of overcoming the pragmatic drift of current morality, “in which there no longer exists that which is truly evil and that which is truly good, but only that which, from the point of view of efficacy, is better or worse.”

So then, that 2004 conference in Buenos Aires, dedicated in particular to the theology of the family, moved in the same direction later examined by Ratzinger. And it was precisely in order to react to that conference that Fernández wrote the two articles cited here, practically in defense of situational ethics.

It would seem, then, that the Congregation for Catholic Education was right to block Fernandez from the top position at a Catholic university. However, as Magister notes, they were forced “to have to give in later, in 2009”, when Bergoglio exerted his considerable influence.

To say that Fernández knows the mind of the pope on his now-infamous post-synodal apostolic exhortation is an understatement; it was Fernández who was the author of much of what was written therein. And as we all know, the very substance of that document has sparked one of the most significant theological debates among some of the Church’s most preeminent scholars and clergy around the world.

It was also Fernández who, over two years ago, laid out the road map for the papacy when he made clear that the “reform” agenda of Pope Francis was, by design, intended to be “irreversible”. In May of 2015, Fernández was interviewed for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera by Robert Mickens — the openly homosexual journalist who lost his position as the Rome correspondent at the leftist UK Catholic publication The Tablet after referring to Pope Benedict XVI as “the Rat” and seemingly wishing for his imminent death. The same Robert Mickens who, in September of that same year, referred to the pope admiringly as a “Master Tactician” who is “keeping score” against those who get in his way. The same Robert Mickens who wrote just last month, with apparent anticipation, that “the reformer-pope has run out of patience with the obstructionists [in the curia] and now wants to move more decisively in replacing them with people who are much more eager to promote his agenda. After all, the clock is ticking.”

And perhaps only a sympathetic interviewer of Mickens’ stripe could have elicited such brazen candor from this Argentinian Archbishop who has ridden his patron’s coattails all the way to the episcopacy — and into Vatican’s inner circle.

“There’s no turning back.” Fernández told Mickens. “If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong. For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned. And then the majority of the People of God with their special sense will not easily accept turning back on certain things.”

Throughout the interview, Fernández displayed the same unwavering confidence in his mentor’s ability to get the job done: “You have to realize that he is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he’s running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

A ticking clock indeed.

In June of 2016, on the heels of Amoris Laetitia’s publication, Fernández toldLa Stampa’s own resident papal sycophant, Andrea Tornielli, that the plan going forward was “decentralization of the Catholic Church.” Further, he said that it was time to consider giving

“…more power to the Bishops’ Conferences, including  some doctrinal authority.” He adds: “Progress is very slow – not because the pope has not encouraged it, but because the theologians and pastors themselves do not dare react with generous creativity.”

The archbishop then explained that the pope’s intention – as expressed in Amoris Laetitia – is to give more scope to the local bishops to deal with moral questions “in dialogue with the pope.”  Fernández still insists that the Church has to become “more merciful, more transformed by the primacy of love and also closer to the reality of the people.” He also repeated that there is a “pastoral door” opened with regard to the divorced and “remarried.”

This summer, Fernández is back in the news again, and he’s continuing his line of thought right where he left off. In a new interview with the Spanish-language theology journal Medellín, entitled “Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia: What Remains After the Storm,” Fernández came out swinging against critics of the ersatz moral theology in the document. As reported by Crux‘s Austen Ivereigh:

[Fernández] begins by asserting the pope himself gave an authoritative interpretation of chapter eight of Amoris, where the footnote on Communion is found, in a letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires on Sept 9, 2016.

In the letter, Francis thanked the bishops for guidelines they had drafted allowing for discernment leading in some cases to the sacraments, and said there was “no other interpretation” of Amoris than the one they had given.

Responding to critics that the pope cannot make an authoritative statement in such a format,  Fernández cites past instances of papal correspondence to bishops being quoted in teaching documents (for example, in a note by Pope Pius IX cited in Lumen Gentium, a document of the Second Vatican Council).

Those precedents prove the “hermeneutical authority” of his letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, Fernández said. [emphasis added]

It should be noted here that the archbishop conflates two examples of the same form of papal writing with two examples of the same level of papal authority — a trick becoming increasingly popular with today’s papal positivists. (Recall that it in the modern Church, it is not so much the form but the content that is most helpful in determining the magisterial authority of a given teaching.) While it is true that a letter written by Bl. Pope Pius IX to a German bishop was cited in Lumen Gentium (and Vatican I before it), that correspondence is of a significantly different nature than that sent by Pope Francis to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region. Lumen Gentium 25 states:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*)

The citation in footnote 40 includes a reference to “Pius IX, Epist. Tuas libener: Denz. 1683 (2879)” — the correspondence in question. Dr. Kurt Martens explained the history and significance of this particular piece of papal writing in an article last summer for the Catholic Herald:

The term ‘ordinary magisterium’ was first used by Pius IX in the letter Tuas libenter addressed to the archbishop of Munich and Freising on 21 December 1863.

Earlier that year, a meeting of Catholic theologians had taken place in Munich. The pope had been told that in the course of that meeting the opinion had been expressed that Catholic theologians were bound to hold only those truths of faith which had been solemnly declared.

Pius IX replied that “it must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.”


The teaching of Pius IX on ordinary magisterium was later incorporated in the documents of Vatican I, in particular the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

It was understood that the addition of ‘universal’ to ‘ordinary magisterium’ was meant to relate the phrase to the teaching of the whole episcopate with the pope, and not the teaching of the pope alone.

It is ironic, therefore, that Fernández equates a letter from a pope praising pastoral guidelines implementing a pastoraldocument (Amoris Laetitia) that disclaims its own universal and magisterial application (AL #3) at the outset with a critical theological clarification made by a pope that helped to authoritatively define magisterial authority and its application in the first place (Tuas Libenter). (The irony deepens when one considers that said pastoral guidelines have themselves been argued to be “against the ordinances of God” — which excludes them from the faithful’s duty to assent.)


A Response to the Dubia

Paraphrasing Fernández, Ivereigh — himself a known papal apologist and defender of Amoris Laetitia — argues that

Francis never claims general moral laws are incapable of covering every situation, nor that they are incapable of determining a decision in conscience, but that in their formulation they are incapable of addressing each and every situation, the archbishop said.

“It is the formulation of the norm that cannot cover everything, not the norm in itself,” Fernández said.

In the case of norms forbidding killing and stealing, for example, the norms are absolute, admitting of no exceptions; yet it is questionable, he said, whether taking life in self-defense is killing, or taking food to feed a hungry child is stealing.

From my reading, it appears that in the above, Fernández is backing away from the menacing specificity of the dubia.

Stranger still, he then appears to go on to attempt to answer the dubia. I didn’t catch it on my first read through, but as I parsed his statements, it occured to me that I should cross-reference them. I would not say that these are direct responses, and they aren’t prefaced as such, but it is almost impossible not to see a parallel structure between the dubia and the Archbishop’s carefully staked out defense of the pope. See for yourself:

Dubia #1: 

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?[emphasis in original]


“… It is also licit to ask if acts of living together more uxorio [i.e. having sexual relations] should always fall, in its integral meaning, within the negative precept of “fornication”. I say, ‘in its integral meaning,’ because one cannot maintain those acts in each and every case are gravely dishonest in a subjective sense. In the complexity of particular situations is where, according to St. Thomas [Aquinas], ‘the indetermination increases.’ Indeed, it is not easy to describe as an ‘adulterer’ a woman who has been beaten and treated with contempt by her Catholic husband, and who received shelter, economic and psychological help from another man who helped her raise the children of the previous union, and with whom she has lived and had new children for many years.” [emphasis added]

And further:

Turning to the process of discernment outlined in Amoris, Fernández said Francis nowhere claimed that someone can receive Communion if they are not in a state of grace, only that an objectively grave fault is not sufficient to deprive a person of sanctifying grace.

Therefore, “there can be a path of discernment open to the possibility of receiving the food of the Eucharist.” [emphasis added]

Dubia #2, 3, and 4:

2.) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3.) After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

4.) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”? [emphasis in original]


He said Pope Francis has resisted proposals of progressive moral theologians to drop altogether a distinction between objective sin and subjective guilt, and has maintained that sexual relations by divorced people in a new union always “constitute an objective situation of habitual grave sin,” even if culpability might not exist in a subjective sense in some cases.

Even in these cases, however, “for Francis it is not the concrete circumstances that determine the objective morality,” said Fernández, adding: “The fact that conditions might diminish culpability does not mean that what is objectively bad thereby becomes objectively good.”

Rather, the objectively sinful situation persists “because there remains the clear Gospel proposal for marriage, and this concrete situation does not objectively reflect that.” [Emphasis added]

Dubia #5: 

After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?


Discernment in such cases, he said, involves a person using his or her conscience to examine before God their real situation, together with its limits and practical possibilities, in the company of a pastor and enlightened by the Church’s teaching.

Such discernment, he went on, is not about the moral absolute of the norm, but about its disciplinary consequences. The norm remains universal, but its consequences or effects can vary. By making clear that this can be discerned by means of a “pastoral dialogue,” said Fernández, “this is what opens the way to a change in [sacramental] discipline.” [emphasis added]

Is it just me? Or is Fernández carefully stepping away from the danger zone on Francis’ behalf? His interpretations here are full of casuistry and would hardly be considered orthodox, but they appear to me to be moving away from the current position and in the direction of at least appearing to honor the Church’s moral norms. Or perhaps more aptly put, to at least to admit they exist.

I don’t know whether to be encouraged or concerned.

Fernández sums up his view of Francis’ paradigm shift in Amoris as follows:

“Francis’s great innovation,” he wrote, “is to allow for a pastoral discernment in the realm of the internal forum to have practical consequences in the manner of applying the discipline [his italics].” The general canonical norm remains, but “may not be applied in certain cases as a consequence of a path of discernment.”

This, said Fernández, is where Francis “is bringing in a change with respect to the previous praxis.”

Meanwhile, the pope’s letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region now appears as part of the official papal correspondence on the Vatican website. One can’t help but wonder, then, if there are plans to move it into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would take the letter from the realm of personal correspondence and give it official status. The AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

Fernández is close to both the pope and the exhortation. He knows and has been broadcast

ing the papal agenda for some time now, and he hasn’t been afraid to disclose just how revolutionary it is. The appearance that he is circling the wagons, attempting to redefine terms and thereby shoring up the doctrinal bona fides of Amoris while simultaneously elevating the pope’s letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the status of “authoritative” and “hermeneutical” interpretation is raising red flags, but I can’t put my finger on what I’m seeing.

What I know is that this is a new tactic from a team that always goes to the same playbook, time after time. Something is afoot.




  • Avatar

    Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández is a stalking horse for Pope Francis sent out to see how the wind is blowing, figuring out how to maneuver in order to bring Pope Francis ship of heresy (Amoris Laetitia) safely to port. We can be sure of one thing. If Victor Manuel Fernández is involved bad things are happening. No need to put a finer point on it.

    • Avatar

      It is a bait and switch!

      Their goal is to legitimize homosexuality and their ” unions “, and hence the Sacrament of Matrimony and all that is holy and good. Sin is their pleasure. It was never really about Communion for the civilly remarried, that was a smokescreen.

      Fernandez is but a foolish tool who takes the faithful laity eyes away from what is swirling around all of us.

      We must see what is front of us. It is very ugly, but it must be called out.
      Here is the elephant in the room question to Pope Francis, ” Do you renounce homosexuality? Do you believe man was created by God to be homosexual? Do you renounce Father James Martin’s activities in promoting homosexuality?”

      Our Lord needs to put more spit on the eyes of our prelates and take the wax from their ears and fill their tongues with Truth!
      I am reminded of last week’s Gospel.
      Until then, I remain very, very guarded of everything and everyone with Catholic in front or behind their name, or door. My trust has been brokered of the things and men of this earth.

      • Avatar

        “Their goal is to legitimize homosexuality and their “unions”……..I have been saying this cs since the day after A.L. was published. This is NOT only about “Marriage” and the destruction of it, the REAL GOAL is the acceptance of homosexual sex as ‘normal, natural and even going so far as to say it is ‘God ordained’!!! This is the golden ring they are after!

    • Avatar

      Correct, but we would do well to understand the finer points in Abp. Fernandez’s rhetorical devices.

      “Make a mess!” the Pope told a youth rally in 2015. The Archbishop, a clericalist if ever there was one, is doing just that here – indeed trying (at least in public) to step away from the danger zone through confusing language, but not so far as to weaken the intent of the AL exhortation, which he is clearly addressing. Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, said it best: “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

      These men, or the secularists who control them, are not foolish. They mean business and know how to use procedure. For public consumption, clarity is the enemy, and absolutely everything can come up for “discernment.” Sadly, some early results are favorable – the Maltese bishops teach AL one way, the Polish bishops the other.

      • Avatar

        Yes. Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez is trying to make official what has
        been a defacto practice in many dioceses for years, particularly as
        regards co-habitation before marriage. One of our priests told me he
        requires that couples stop cohabiting two weeks before marriage,
        presumably as a hat-tip to the morality (official) of it all. Nothing
        like hypocrisy paying tribute to virtue. The entire annulment and
        re-marriage business is pretty much of a fraud. If the Church is going
        to insist on strict Catholic morality it is going to be much, much
        smaller. That, I think, is the real issue.

        • Avatar

          Paul VI did exactly alike with the communion in the hand that many Dutch and German dioceses had begun to practice in the wake of VATII though it was obviously forbidden. Once it began to spread, the Pope authorized it instead of clinging hard to its interdiction.

        • Avatar

          ah…excuse me here?
          I am understanding the priest has no problem with the couple having relations prior to two weeks before marriage?
          How little this priest thinks of this man and woman.

          • Avatar

            cs. Guess so. I was told that some time ago Florida Bishops told their priests not to speak about co-habitation to couples seeking to be married. Times do change–and only for the worse. This is the spirit of Vatican II at work.

        • Avatar

          The couples in the situation your priest discussed are exercising their free will in the absence of well-formed conscience, and are casualties of the persistent crisis in catechesis. The priest is trying to do his “best” amid a misguided pastoral sensitivity and fomenting scandal. And all this is probably just fine with the local bishop, who really, really wants to keep his job. At the top, globalists Fernandez and Francis are capitalizing on all this.

          Your point brings to mind this 1969 quote, one of many reasons Ratzinger will go down as one of the greats. Link to related article below: “From the crisis of today a new Church of tomorrow will emerge…she will become small and will have to start afresh
          more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit
          many of the edifices she built in prosperity. . . ”

          But to me, while the transition will continue to be very painful, a small church would be an improvement, not an issue. And the next conclave is critical.


  • Avatar

    Steve, you say “but they appear to me to be moving away from the current position and in the direction of at least appearing to honor the Church’s moral norms.”

    Yes, the greatest danger is the use of taqiyya by this Pope and his henchmen.

    In fact, I have been surprised he hasn’t used this tactic more frequently.

    Why, he could easily come out and answer every question in the Dubia in a totally orthodox fashion and nevertheless still continue wrecking the Church.

    Indeed, that is how Catholic prelates have been doing it for years.

    Pretend to be orthodox and then allow ANYTHING.

    This is precisely why “men” like this Tucho heretic were excommunicated in the past. They are toxic and malignant tumors in the Body of Christ.

    The Church needs a LOT more excommunications, laicizations and interdicts.

    • Avatar

      Taqiyya is a good word for it.

      • Avatar

        The Islamic doctrine perfectly describes it.

        Early on after converting I found myself asking “How can the Church have all these doctrinal problems if all the prelates are avowedly orthodox?” Because, publicly, they all are “orthodox”.

        The reason is simple.

        We have a culture of deceit and lying from the top to the bottom.

        What we see now with the current pontificate isn’t a pell mell, radical conversion of orthodox prelates to heterodoxy, it is merely the little-by-little coming-out of dishonest men, now willing to let out a bit more of what they believe/don’t believe without the fear of any ramifications for doing so.

        “And furthermore, the Church desperately needs excommunications, laicizations and interdicts.”

        • Avatar

          You are absolutely correct.
          Anyone who has been in religious life since the council can affirm the rabid daily demonstration of your analysis. Manipulation and deceit in order to create a new entity which has no resemblance to the congregation one entered.
          The formal concept of “taqyia” was unknown to me. My thanks to both you and Steve for bringing it up. Very illuminating.

    • Avatar

      Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC1735: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. This deals with the “full knowledge/deliberate consent” parts of the equation, in a case (let’s assume) where the matter concerned is objectively grave (i.e. serious). This of itself is no more than classic Catholic moral theology, which (thank God) considers our intentions and not just our foolish actions. However, Amoris is perceived to have used this “get-out” as a pretext for fudging the issues around adultery and suggesting that access to Communion may be given in difficult cases. But, as it is said: “hard cases do not make good law”. It’s difficult to envisage many cases where a person in such a situation could justly be admitted to the sacraments. A case where abandoning a divorcee partner sexually might cause the partner to return with her children to an abusive biological father, perhaps?

      • Avatar

        “It’s difficult to envisage many cases where a person in such a situation could justly be admitted to the sacraments.”

        I don’t think it is hard to envision this at all. When people are not taught the truth, they will desecrate the Holy Eucharist. Look at the Pro-Abortion Advocate Politicians, they are going up to receive Communion to protect their reputations. They don’t care about God, it is all a SCAM! Hey, Adulterers want to protect their reputations too, and their sins have darkened their mind. It is called Justifiable Adultery!

        • Avatar

          Of course, if people aren’t told the truth, they may be wrong in their actions through no fault of their own, it’s possible. That’s what I’m saying.

          • Avatar

            Father, with all respect, “I did not know,” can not be the proper justification. Not for Catholics. Catholics should and must know the truth. Truth which is unchangeable and of vital importance for their eternal life.
            We can not just sit and wait, or just do not care or minimal effort, until the truth about certain and very important things shall be announced to us.
            If an adulterer 30, 40, and 50 years old is mature enough and able to know how to marry two or three times … Then he/she must also be mature enough to know the truth, which btw. is of vital importance for him/her.
            Besides, we are here not talking about pagans, who probably could have right to say ‘I did not know’. But the ones who are baptized in the water and the Spirit cannot have that justification.
            Moreover, the main task of every Christian is to seek, find and live with the truth, according the truth, and in the truth. Even in the smallest things. How more we should in such great things which are of vital importance.
            As the psalmist speaks: “The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom: and his tongue shall speak judgment. The law of his God is in his heart, and his steps shall not be supplanted.”
            And: “Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord: he shall delight exceedingly in his commandments.”

          • Avatar

            Errr…disagree somewhat. There IS such thing as “vincible ignorance” and it is certainly culpable. The “fault of their own” was never seeking out the truth in fact. God leads the good to the truth and lets the evil “have eyes and yet not see”. Obdurate sin breeds ignorance because “their minds have been darkened” [Romans]. God “gives up” the obdurate sinner to the folly of willful blindness.

            p.s. this is why, if you were wondering, many people (even Catholics) today do not “see” the obvious truth that Islam is the Antichrist religion and of the devil, full of evil. Because of their sin. Grave sin engaged in and justified over long periods of time (obduracy) leads to moral blindness and even to what St. Thomas calls “the loss of the good of intellect”. As a punishment for their grave sinfulness and refusal to repent, God “gives them up” to blindness and they are thus incapable of seeing what to any decent, good person is patently obvious. And they will pay the price for rejecting the truth.

  • Avatar

    The sticky word is “irreversible”, an apt word capping the terminus of this stage of the “road map”.

    Think these folks mean it. What was honed and fine-tuned in Argentina was not meant to stay in Argentina. The road is now being mapped for the post-Francis papacy.

    Yes, review papal history, but it can’t be denied that something is frightfully odd with this papacy. Do we have the language for it?

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
%d bloggers like this: