Via the AKA Catholics blog, see original here.
Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest. And when she had seen Peter warming himself, looking on him she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest. And he went forth before the court; and the cock crew. And again a maidservant seeing him, began to say to the standers by: This is one of them. But he denied again. And after a while they that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean.
But he began to curse and to swear, saying; I know not this man of whom you speak. And immediately the cock crew again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him: Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me.
And he began to weep.
(Gospel according to St. Mark 14: 66-72)
This must to be corrected!
*****
SSPX offers stunning evaluation of Amoris, Francis
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. Glieze’s own working definition of the word.
Fr. Glieze 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.
Halina said:
A Catholic Thinker March 13, 2017
https://akacatholic.com/sspx-offers-stunning-evaluation-of-amoris-francis/
….where there’s no ‘sting’ of poison, how clear is the mind…..please, read his comment.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Thank you Halina.
The Catholic Thinker comment needs to be read.
The problem that I have with Fr. Gleize’s essay is the clarity issue. We are really in the weeds on this one.
LikeLike
Halina said:
Clarity comes from His grace. We must discern, but not despair. Do not let the hirelings of Satan, poison your heart, lest blindness will overcome you…..God forbid!
We must pray for Catholics, especially, do penance like there’s no tomorrow, that God will humble the enemies of Holy Church. For God forbid, we, unintentionally, but rather blindly taken by the ‘spirit’ of ‘we the people’, become one in his mind…..the prince of this world!
Keep the faith! Your family is counting on your faithfulness to God’s Providence!
Not our will, BUT, GOD’S WILL BE DONE!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Halina said:
‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’
Let us take the ax to the root: (My Catholic Faith).
Christ said to Peter: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (St. Matt. 16:18). By the ‘gates of hell’, He meant all the power of the devil – all kinds of attacks, physical violence as well as false teaching. Christ promises here that HIS CHURCH would be assailed always, but never overcome. “Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (St. Matt. 28:20). The long history of the Catholic Church is attended by schism and heresy, but each attack has only strengthened it. It has continued to live and spread IN SPITE of everything and everybody. The Church is the BRIDE OF CHRIST, cast into prison, starved, thrown to the beasts, trampled underfoot, hacked, tortured, crucified, and burned. But this fair Bride emerges from it all in the bloom and freshness of youth, serene, calm, immortal……for the last 2000 years, proves the perpetuity of the Church. AMEN!
“Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
St. Ambrose said: “The Church is like the moon; it may be wane, but never be destroyed; it may be darkened, but it can never disappear.”
St. Anselm said that the bark of the Church may be swept by the waves, but it can never sink, because Christ is there. When the Church is in greatest need, Christ comes to its help by miracles, or by raising up saintly men to strengthen and purify it. It is the bark of Peter; when the storm threatens to sink it, the Lord awakens from His sleep, and commands the winds and the waves into calm: “Peace; be still!”
Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
….there are some options for the ‘proud’, for the ‘scandalized’, and for the ‘doubtful’……..The schismatic Orthodox Church, the sede-vacantist sect, the so-called ‘Resistance’ sect. HECK!, Bishop Williamson plans on consecrating another Bishop May 11th (Fr. Zendejas ), they must be expecting a ‘harvest’!
There’s one more option…..Protestantism.
Just curious; will the Remnant, Christopher Ferrara and the rest, who are members of the FSSP……leave?……To whom shall they go? If Fraternity of Saint Peter is CATHOLIC (including the ‘dubia’ bishops, and many others)…….how in the Name of Jesus, the Society of Saint Pius X can be accused of betrayal…..and other nonsense???
Do not be like those who wave their ‘fists’, as cowards do, outside the walls of the ‘Church’, but rather, be like a true soldier of Christ ought to be……in fearless faith, facing the enemy within.
…..”Thy Church, O Christ, is a strong city built on a mountain visible to ALL (not hiding in basements and caves…..my emphasis) and enlightening all. Thou art her Founder and foremost Citizen, O Jesus Christ, Son of God and our Lord. Every day she gives birth to new children by the operation of the Holy Spirit. As vine, her branches cover the whole world. Her boughs are upheld by the wood of the Cross and they reach up to the Kingdom of heaven.” (Divine Intimacy).
May God Bless The Society Of Saint Pius X! May God’s Will Be Done!
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
Women…
LikeLike
AMDG said:
Is this the OFFICIAL official statement of the Brotherhood on the Sacrament of marriage?
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
Gosh, I didn’t expect to be right so quickly! Litigate! It’s the dock for you, Fr. Gleize. Let’s turn on our allies. Yeah. Lets fight each other rather than our actual enemy. Great plan.
But seriously, could you take a moment to think through what Fr. Gleize is saying without his actually coming out and saying it? He is letting everybody know you simply are not going to be able to make the charge of heresy stick. If you pin your hopes for victory on that stratagem you will be routed in short order.
Does Mr. V. seriously think he knows better than Fr. Gleize? Prima facie the probably correct opinion is Fr. Gleize’s. Or at least the faithful, when in doubt, would not be culpable in siding with Fr. Gleize. Authority rests with him and not Louie.
I propose that Fr. Gleize is offering another opening to advance the cause. I propose that Fr. Gleize is saying that the man a certain cabal promotes as the true successor of St. Peter, who styles himself Francis, while not provably a heretic (on AL that is. On other grounds?), is provably, which is to say objectively, in a state of mortal sin and therefore completely without God’s sanctifying grace making null all of his works and jeopardizing his immortal soul , by the fact that he encourages people under his authority to commit an act of heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin. Accessory to mortal sin is, itself, a mortal sin. He has also failed in charity towards his neighbour by an act of injustice in that he, as a public official, has failed to speak without employing error, bias, wishful thinking, obscuritarianism, pseudo-science, or outright lying. A half truth is a lie. Lying is bearing false witness and theft. False witness and theft are mortal sins. There are at least two clear cut instances of him committing mortally sinful acts. As he has permitted, so he may be judged.
It is on this ground, that the correction needs to take place. Failure to repent of these mortal sins is grounds for excommunication.
In cases of acts of theft the restitution of the goods stolen or damaged is a necessary action for the absolution to be valid. In this case he has deprived the faithful members of the mystical body of Christ of the truth, by as Fr. Gleize proves, obscuring by exaggeration.
He must restore the truth or face excommunication.
Modernism is based upon a pseudo-scientific anthropology, namely that conscience is an innate faculty. It is not. Conscience simply means “with knowledge.” Knowledge of what? Knowledge of what the Church teaches is moral or practically permissible. This knowledge takes up residence in the memory. This knowledge, therefore, is objective not innate or immanent. If you are charged with teaching this objective body of truth, you can’t then claim that you were not aware of the content of the body of knowledge, aka science.
Gross dereliction of duty. There is another one to pin on him.
LikeLike
Akita said:
Distressing development indeed. This pablum must be yanked.
Who knew the most courageously steadfast would arise from the backwaters of civilization in Kazakhstan? God Keep Bishop Schneider.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Petrus Romanus said:
Schneider the ecumenist and novus ordo celebrant? Hardly the St. Athansius we need
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
Here is a germane and insightful analysis from the Fatima Network.
The Bottom Falls Out of the Middle
“I had not thought death had undone so many.”
– Dante, The Inferno
For all the horrors elaborated in its deeper circles, Dante consigns most of the damned to a vestibule of the Inferno reserved for the non-committed: there, those who are fit neither for Heaven nor for hell run a ceaseless round, spurred on by the sting of small insects. They follow behind a banner on which nothing is written, and among their number, all unnamed, is one who made “the great refusal.”
Some identify this soul as Pontius Pilate, who refused to follow his conscience and release the innocent Christ because it was not politically expedient. So he fell back upon the rationalization provided by his agnosticism: “What is truth?” Others identify this figure with Pope Celestine V, who resigned the papacy rather than confront the evils with which the Church was beset. He was succeeded by Boniface VIII, whom Dante places in hell for his political ambitions and willingness to use his office to acquire worldly power.
The vestibule is also home to those angels who refused to take a side during Lucifer’s revolt. Neutrality in the face of evil is capitulation to evil.
Dante does not name any soul in this circle, and his guide, Virgil, hastens him on, thus giving the impression that those who run this pointless round are not worthy of consideration. They stood for nothing in life, except their own convenience and pleasure, and now occupy a kind of no-man’s land in death: they are even denied the distinction of being in hell proper, with souls who made a choice. And the vestibule is very crowded: “I had not thought death has undone so many.”
Dante thus describes the mass of men at any given time in history. T.S. Eliot uses the same line, quoted above, to describe the crowd flowing over London Bridge during the morning rush hour in his early 20th century poem, “The Waste Land.” They are the Laodiceans of the Book of the Apocalypse: the lukewarm whom Christ finds so unpalatable.
But the fact is, most people go along to get along. They are represented in the halls of power by those who speak with bland circumspection, never saying anything unqualifiedly and with conviction. They form the heart of every bureaucracy: cautious, self-serving, unprincipled, mildly cynical and morally lethargic. They can remain largely anonymous and relatively harmless so long as those who govern have virtue. But if those who govern lack virtue, the bureaucracy will assist in the demise of the institution on whose preservation they depend, so deep is their habit of deference and conciliation. (See: “Cardinal Müller Tightens His Blindfold”.)
We appear to have arrived at a juncture at which those who would follow safely behind a blank banner are being forced to choose a standard. This is happening in the world as well as in the Church. Two figures are lighting up the landscape, exposing everyone’s position: in the world, it is Donald Trump; in the Church, it is Pope Francis.
Trump has revealed the collusion of the ruling elite that pretends to be divided into different factions, representing democracy, but is in reality an oligarchy with identical interests. He has also exposed the media as the servants of this oligarchy and the utter disregard for truth routinely displayed by those who bring us “the news.”
Pope Francis has exposed the temporizing hierarchy whose moderation has allowed the deconstruction of the Church to proceed for more than a half-century now. Some wonder why so few among the Cardinals and bishops speak out against the blatant heresy coming out of the Holy See (see: “BREAKING: Pope fails to reply to 4 cardinals’ urgent plea for clarification, so they go public”). These princes of the Church and successors of the apostles are, with some notable exceptions, so accustomed to pretending that every assault upon the Faith and liturgy is merely an “updating” in continuity with tradition, that they have lost the faculty of telling the truth, let alone defending it. Jorge Bergoglio has bypassed the very structure — the Roman Curia — they have so assiduously tried to preserve as their power base, and now governs by decree, aided by his hand-picked ideologues. (See: “Francis: The Pope Without a Curia”.)
But the Pope’s departure from Catholic teaching has become so blatant and outrageous that even among those Catholic commentators who have made a career out of rationalizing the demolition of Tradition there have arisen, here and there, voices of protest. (See: “Phil Lawler Has Had Enough”.)
Those who would continue to pretend that all is as it should be with the Bergoglian papacy are now forced to side with a radical campaign to purge the Church of all who defend magisterial teaching on sex, marriage and the reception of Holy Communion (see: “Bishop Barron’s Moral Subversion and the Perils of Celebrity Clericalism”). Attempts to ignore the Pope’s increasingly pointed attacks on orthodox churchmen and faithful Catholics are now seen as absurd denials of the screamingly obvious. One can no longer tiptoe around the elephant in the room.
Comparisons of what is happening in the Church and in the U.S. government are instructive. The Trump administration is fast learning that civil discourse and compromise with its critics is impossible. The opposition party, which includes the political and corporate establishments and almost the entire media, is intent upon total destruction of the Trump presidency and will settle for nothing less than the removal, in any way possible, of the man they consider to have usurped the power they have wielded, unchallenged, for so long.
Those who would uphold the immemorial teaching of the Church are fast learning that to do so is regarded as an attack upon the Pope. Simply to state that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion unless they repent of their adultery and amend their lives is now labeled as rigid and reactionary and opposed to the “mercy” that the Pope demands of his clergy. Those four Cardinals who were rash enough to ask the Pope if he supports the moral absolutes the Church has always taught are labeled heretical (see: “Updated: Who are these four cardinals who wrote the ‘dubia’ to the Pope?”).
One almost expects to see banners with a slogan from 1984’s Ministry of Truth hanging from the papal balcony: The Truth Is A Lie. (See: “Behold the Face of the New Doctrine-Free Catholicism”.)
The Pope has been hailed by the media as the new leader of the global Left. Like the Left, Pope Francis prefers the argument ad hominem to reasoned argument: he caricatures and vilifies people and positions he dislikes, piling on insult and invective in an attempt to delegitimize criticism by breeding contempt for his critics. And all of this is done in the name of compassion, just as the Left claims its increasingly nasty, totalitarian and sometimes violent actions are motivated by compassion for the supposed victims of bigotry and injustice, i.e. Muslims, illegal immigrants, criminals and anyone who might help to complete the dismantling of what remains of Western culture.
The avid attention now given to current events, both in the Church and in the world, reflects the recognition that we have reached a civilizational crisis point: either we abandon traditional moral values and conform to whatever the managers of the New World Order tell is acceptable behavior (see: “A Harbinger of the Apocalypse?”), or we fight a last-ditch battle for the preservation of what we know to be true and good.
The stakes are high. Some stand by and wait to see which side will prevail, as though they are essentially uninvolved, much as the angels did who were consigned to the vestibule of hell. But the battle now being fought does not respect non-combatants. You must either stand with the truth or against it. Neutrality is capitulation to falsehood.
Sister Lucy told Cardinal Caffarra that the final battle would be fought over marriage and the family. Can anyone now doubt the accuracy of that prophecy? We who love Our Lady, who believe in Her Fatima Message, must do all we can to stand our ground and proclaim the truth, no matter what the cost. We know that Our Lady’s victory is assured, but we don’t know how dark and dire the conflict may become before the smoke of satan clears and Her banner shines triumphant in the light of truth. Be prepared for what may come. And do all you can to support this apostolate and Our Lady’s Army of Advocates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michael E. Dowd said:
Thanks S.A. for a most insightful analysis of theological deviousness. Fr. Gleize, it appears, is being recklessly dishonest with the truth of Catholic doctrine. The reason he is doing this may have something to do with maintaining harmony with Rome pending the approval of the SSPX Prelature.
One a personal note. When trying to determine whether an action is sinful it is very tempting to excuse oneself by saying that one’s will was overcome with passion, or that the sinfulness of the act was not mentally present at the time or the act was a venial sin, etc. There is no end to the excuses on can make for oneself. Therefore my judgement on these matters is to always confess sin with no mitigating circumstances and let God decide on the subjective imputability of guilt.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
“When trying to determine whether an action is sinful it is very tempting to excuse oneself by saying that one’s will was overcome with passion, or that the sinfulness of the act was not mentally present at the time or the act was a venial sin, etc”
This is Immanence, that which Pope St. Pius X explained in Paschendi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Dale said:
This is the product of liberalism in the great Society. If you coddle the counterfeit conciliar church you get poison. So the Resistance was right all along. A very sad day when you read this on the website of the SSPX. Quo vadis Fellay
LikeLike
Guiseppe said:
The “Resistance” could never be right because it is guided by the Devil. Who would expect good fruit from a tree of blatant disobedience, complete lack of prudence, arrogance, and a phony visionary? The Society on the other hand is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected by the Blessed Mother as is obvious by all that has already transpired when it comes to dealings with Rome.
There is another parallel between what is happening in matters of The Church and matters of the U.S. government’s Trump administration. There are far too many supporters on the side of good who prefer suspicion and accusation to trust and prayerful hope. Vigilance is wise but alarmist announcements are not the way. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” is not the battle cry of a Catholic. Make your concerns known in more profitable ways. Then if scandals should come it will be because God permitted it, not because we did not pray.
In the meantime…Stop putting beans up your noses.
LikeLike
Margarita Macaria said:
Guiseppe, I agree with you.
I have no dog in this fight, since I am old, twice married, and twice widowed (assuredly, in the correct order) but it does not mean I’m Laodicean.
Really, where do you find in the day-to-day parish life that Amoris Laetitia is discussed? I wouldn’t blame our priests if they, let alone our bishop, take no sides on it at this point, since their choice would be Pope Francis vs. Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel. Only the very brave would.
I stand with Jesus, but would not say it publicly unless asked. It does not mean I’m not doing anything about it. I am praying for everyone concerned, knowing that she who prays and vigilantly waits also serves.
I also believe there are a lot more people secretly waiting and praying. I’ve learned my lesson when I innocently told some friends last election that I would be voting for Trump. They did not even give me the chance to say why, not a chance to tell them it was his list of pro-life would-be Supreme Court nominees that I would, in effect, be voting for.
My friends shut me down, but I actually gained some new ones after Trump won the elections. Like me, these new friends have been secretive of their support for Trump, but were actively praying and came out only after he won. I’m sure they’re also praying even now that in the long run, Pope Francis backs off on the wrong parts of AL. Jesus does answer prayers.
That was at my parish north of San Francisco. But an hour’s drive from here is the Church of St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland where a Canon of Christ the King Sovereign Priest celebrates the Exraordinary Form Sunday Mass to which I go. There you can breathe and talk freely during coffee hour about AL without fear of offending anyone. In fact I bet all who attend the Mass are like-minded and support the traditional Church teachings on marriage instead of Pope Francis’s footnotes.
Blessedly, Cardinal Raymond Burke will be our guest celebrant on Sunday, March 19, at 12:30pm, after which there will be a reception in his honor. Cardinal Burke will also preside at a conference later in the afternoon (5pm) at the Oakland Cathedral of Christ the Light, followed by a Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.
Everyone who lives in the SF Bay Area or who happens to be in our part of the country is welcome to attend. Cardinal Burke will be taking questions. But not sure if he’ll be wearing his cappa magna. :-)
God bless us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Dale said:
At Guiseppe. Sir, what you level at the Resistance could be (and was) levelled at the Society in its early days when Archbishop committed his “schismatic” act. So history repeating itself. No change there. Now let’s get down from our high horse. I generally do not assist at Society Masses, except when I travel, so forgive me if I am not fully ofay with current trends within it. I come at it as a concerned observer from attending TLM Masses in the diocesan structure, concerned as we all are about the sad state of our Blessed Lord’s Church.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, of which the Society is an important part because, as I see it, the good Archbishop fully grasped what was happening in the conciliar church, valiantly provided for a priestly society grounded in tradition. After trying to reach an accommodation with the Church, he saw what a nest of vipers he was dealing with and turned tail.
I sincerely believe, as you do, that the BVM is guiding the society. I just question whether now is the time to be stepping aboard the train wreck that is Rome at this juncture. I do not believe that ++Lefebvre would be doing it. The Resistance sees a creeping liberalism has infected the Society, seemingly undermining the very work of the good archbishop. The next 15 months are going to be an interesting ride before Bishop Fellay’s tenure is up. Can he deliver the Society intact over to the vaunted prelature? We shall see.
I don’t no what you are insinuating with your second paragraph, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But in my humble opinion, the Society is not immune to the depredations that are afflicting the conciliar church. And by the way, I do pray and hope for the Church. I also observe with eyes wide open.
LikeLike