ARBEIT MACHT FREI WITH THE HELP OF AMORIS LAETITA

Blood Pool

Blood Pool

by Fr John Hunwicke
.
[ Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum ]
.
According to AL, a conscience may “recognize that a a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security … what for now is the most generous response”.
Let us examine how this moral principle might apply in situations of organised and industrialised genocide.
A man involved in the extermination of Jewry, for example … if he were to decline to collaborate in any more murders, not only might he be subjected to discriminatory responses, but his family also might suffer grievously. His marriage might suffer!
Is he, perhaps, required by the Bergoglian moral principle of “what is for now the most generous response” to try, gradually so as not to be noticed, to reduce the number of Jews whom he kills each day? Or might Bergoglianism mean that he should do his very best to see that they die less painfully? Or should he attempt, again without drawing too much attention to himself, so to work the system that in three months time he gets transferred to duties which involve him less directly in extermination … like, for example, harmlessly organising the train schedules?
I am aware that my questions lay me wide open to an accusation that I am either an unbalanced crank in making an equivalence between well-mannered habitual adultery among the nice, if rather gleefully rutting, German middle-classes, and genocide; or ‘antisemitic’ for illustrating a moral priple by talking so calmy about something as vile as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews.
It is my view that such an accusation by such an interlocutor would in fact amount to an admission that Adultery is not really sinful … that it is, well, perhaps not technically in accordance, quite, with the book of rules, but it is not really wrong. Cardinal Coccopalmerio has in fact said something rather like this.
It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called “tolerated concubinage”, I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides.
In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives … or marriages … by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat?
A person, you tell me, may well know a rule yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently. So …. if this does not also apply within genocidal situations, where can it apply?
A person’s long involvement, you tell me, in sinful actions may well so habituate him to those actions that the subjective sinfulness, as AL claims, is radically diminished … yes; I happen to agree with you there, and, like all confessors, I am mindful of this when I sit with my ear against the grill. But you won’t forget, will you, that somebody who has been killing Jews for a couple of years might also well be in such a condition. And the tribunals which judged War Criminals after 1945 don’t seem to have taken this laudable casuistic principle into their jurisprudence.
Bergoglio’s ‘jesuitical’ campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendor paragraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian ‘moral principles’ prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed”.
__________________________________ 
{There can be no doubt about it: the complete absence of any reference to Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio in Amoris Laetitia is a dead giveaway that Francis and his ghost writer, Archbishop Fernandez, realized that those two monumental magisterial documents contradict the basic principles of Amores Laetitia and reveal them to be vehementer suspectus de haeresi and therefore could not afford to draw the readers attention to those two magisterial documents which are among the most important promulgated in the Twentieth Century. }
__________________________________
Father John Hunwicke was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. He is now incardinated into the Personal Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham.
The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer’s opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium.
Nothing on this site is to be taken as representing the views of the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham, of its Ordinary, or of any part of 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.

2 Responses to ARBEIT MACHT FREI WITH THE HELP OF AMORIS LAETITA

  1. I can see how one who is ‘washed’ with Bergoglianism in his mind and soul, would apply it to all situations … even the one which Father lays out. The Pope, with his words and his ideas proclaimed daily is brainwashing Catholics. Thank God for the Priests and Bishops who speak out thereby keeping us in the truth. Thank you Father!”Those who lead others unto justice will shine like stars.”

  2. Father, with due respect, I do not believe that you have to resort to the extreme example that you have done. Why not the case in a homosexual ‘marriage’ where children have been gotten, through surrogacy, and one of the partners repents and would like to come back to the sacraments while the other partner is not interested.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: