Originally posted AUGUST 29, 2017, way back when the Amoris adultery lurv was fresh out of the box, the majority of Cardinals were still BXVI and JPII appointees, and we still thought it possible that ONE prelate would call out Benedict’s failed abdication (or at least the suspicion thereof), and the subsequent installation of a raging apostate antipope teaching heresy as Authentic Magisterium (which is impossible). Good news, gentleman; it’s not too late. -nvp
A Reflection for the Cardinals on the Beheading of St. John the Baptist
“I spoke of Thy testimonies before kings, and I was not ashamed; I meditated also on Thy commandments, which I loved exceedingly.” (Ps. 118:46-47) Introit for the Feast of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist
How’d that work out for St. John the Baptist? What was his earthly reward for speaking Truth to power? What price are you willing to pay for defending the indissolubility of marriage? Was the price paid by John just TOO MUCH? Should he have been more pastoral? More accompanying? More discerning? More tender and merciful? Ask yourself: Did St. John the Baptist err in his defense of marriage? Is this the error now being corrected in Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia? There can be only one Truth.
“Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all that I command thee. Be not afraid at their presence: for I will make thee not to fear their countenance. For behold I have made thee this day a fortified city, and a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass, over all the land, to the kings of Juda, to the princes thereof, and to the priests, and to the people of the land. And they shall fight against thee, and shall not prevail: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee.” Jeremias 1:17-19, Lesson for the Feast of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist
Our Lord did not lie when he proclaimed divorce and “remarriage” as adultery, and our Lord did not lie in today’s Lesson. Our reward is not of this earth. Where is the St. John of our times? Where are the men willing to sacrifice everything to defend our Lord and His Church? Where are those who will stop worrying about what they might lose and STEP UP? Have you no care for the souls which are perishing? If you’re not willing to defend the Sixth Commandment, you’re not much committed to the First Commandment.
“The just shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow up like the cedar of Libanus in the house of the Lord. To show forth Thy mercy in the morning, and Thy truth in the night. Alleluia, alleluia. The just shall spring as the lily, and flourish forever before the Lord. Alleluia.” (Ps. 91 13-14, 3; Hos. 14:6) Gradual for the Feast of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist
If flourishing forever before the Lord sounds glorious to you, get cracking.
Amoris Laetitia stated that not every sin of a given type is equally serious.
That’s true, as far as it goes.
It’s more serious to embezzle $5M than to steal a nickel.
But then AL alleged that “irregular unions” characterized by long term stability and the presence of children were in a special class, and that sexual relations must be permitted so that stability continued for the sake of the children.
It stands out strongly that AL quoted none of the New Testament verses having to do with marriage, divorce and remarriage/adultery.
One example is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
9: DO YOU KNOW THAT THE UNRIGHTEOUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, NOR ADULTERERS, nor sexual perverts,
10: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Hence, we surmise from St. Paul that all forms of adultery merit damnation absent repentance, irrespective of circumstances.
Besides, the Catechism no. 1754 clearly states that circumstances do not change moral quality.
What’s good may become more or less good from circumstances, but remains good.
What’s evil may become more or less evil from circumstances, but remains evil.
Circumstances would include children from the irregular union.
The Catechism states that some sins are gravely illicit from the act itself by reason of the object, independent of circumstances and intentions, and names adultery as an example.
So, AL’s allegation violates the Catechism.
AL’s position that sexual relations may licitly continue for the good of the children is transparently wrong from Scripture.
No rationalization justifies continued mortal sin that ends in eternal damnation.
JPII and BXVI reinforced perennial Church teaching that the only valid options for the adulterous union are:
1/ Live as brother and sister.
2/ Divorce and separate.
2/ Return to the valid spouse of the first marriage.