Author: Mark Docherty

#AmorisLaetitia
Thank God for men like +Slattery, +Morlino, +Sample, +Wall, +Olmstead and several other good bishops here in the U.S.  I cannot imagine what it must be like for solid bishops in these dark times. I also thank God for solid priests, which I am blessed to know several. Many, many understand the gravity of the situation, and are looking for direction.  It’s easy to get discouraged with everything that’s going on, so sometimes we need to start with a thanksgiving for the good we have.  If you are lucky enough to be in the flock of one of these men, won’t you offer a short prayer for him?
But it’s the Cardinals we need in this fight. The men who wear red, symbolizing the blood of the Lamb, the blood of the martyrs, and the possibility they might have to give their own lives in defense of the faith.  Where are those holy men who stood up and fought during the synods?  It’s been two weeks, Eminences, the dung heap is really starting to stink, and it ain’t going away on its own.
The harm +Francis is inflicting is real, and at risk are millions of souls. This isn’t a joke, and the Jimmy Akins and Mark Sheas of the world trying to play this off as no big deal are part of the problem, not part of the answer.  A few respected cardinals speaking the Truth about this wretched document sure would throw a wet towel on all the remaining Pollyannas.
The damage from this document cannot be overstated.  Encouraging invalid confessions, Communion for unrepentant mortal sinners, mortal sinners encouraged to remain in their sin, teaching that grace subsists in sin, etc, etc. It renders vast swaths of the CCC ‘obsolete’. It deviously cites past orthodox papal documents to falsely support heretical positions.  It endorses ideas that were repeatedly rejected by the synod fathers over the past two years.  When +Francis couldn’t muscle his heresy through the synods, because orthodox prelates resisted to his face, he simply backdoored it into the exhortation.
So again, where are those prelates now?  If they had the courage to resist to his face, to write the famous letter, why would they suddenly go dark now that the document is out?
Are we to suppose that this time around, as we’ve seen at other times in Church history, the laity will need to drive this reform?  Is the hierarchy just too far gone?  Perhaps. The excellent seminarians we have being ordained in solid diocese and the FSSP will take decades to make an impact once the hippies and gays die off.  We don’t have that long.
What have the cardinals to fear?  Their worldly positions?  Instead, they should fear for their own immortal souls.  I think the ones on the right side do.
So I have a confession to make.  I’m a Pollyanna too.  I think the good cardinals and good bishops are busy planning a counterattack.  I mean it.  They all were just as stunned as we were when the document was published, so there wasn’t work already underway.  It needs to be strategically devastating to the current pontificate, so it takes time to build. +Burke made a bit of a misstep out of the gate.  Good canonists are divided on the best course.  But it’s all being worked out.  I have hope, if only because I don’t want to think about the alternative.
There’s one more thing, and I keep wondering about it as the uniqueness of the situation continues to stun me. I can’t help thinking somehow this comes into play:
Have you noticed we have two popes?
Oh, and one of them wears red.

#AmorisLaetitia
The thread that runs through Chapter Eight of this wretched document is the same one that runs through the ramblings of this entire papacy.
Because remember, “Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles” HERE.
Traditional marriage (the only kind of marriage that exists, BTW) is being trashed in a way that has that element of diabolical inversion that I speak of frequently.  I see it happening on two levels here.
First, marriage is dragged down to the pit by those who want to see irregular unions normalized.  And I haven’t even touched on the same-sex nonsense that is promulgated in here.  For now, I’m just talking about second “marriages”.  We are told of the “grace” they contain.  We are told of the “worse sin” of renouncing the union, or even, perish the thought, remaining in the union but with perfect chastity.
Second,  while at the same time dragging down traditional marriage, they also hold it up as a nearly impossible to achieve ideal, and it’s done in a way that insults the sacrament at the same time.  In calling marriage a “lifelong burden” (AL36), the mask comes off, and we see plainly that the authors are completely lost.  They are trying to blame-shift the sin of Adultery onto the sacrament of Marriage itself. The sacrament is culpable, the sinner is not.  Unbelievable.
Another axiom from Chesterton comes to mind:  “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
Stay with me, because this is KEY to understanding what is really going on here, and just how much poo poo we are in.  The people who wrote this garbage are so far gone, so mired in sin, so far removed from living the gospel, so far removed from even TRYING to live the gospel, that they truly think it isn’t possible.  It’s just too darn difficult, so we need to slather it with “mercy” and change God’s will.
You think I’m judging?  Then try to come up with another explanation for what’s going on here. I mean, if the beautiful concept of remaining faithfully married for a lifetime is soooo hard, that it’s only an “Ideal” that is nearly impossible to achieve, just think what other wretched filth has blackened the souls of these men.
It’s also clear that the I’m Okay You’re Okay nuReligion on display here is deeply rooted in 1968 Hippie Jesus of the Eternal Hug.  It is so shallow and “nice”, it is staggering how so many fall for it.
Step into the time machine with me for a moment.  Assuming you haven’t been 100% faithful in your commitment to TRY to live the gospel since you attained the age of reason, think back to when you actually thought you were Christian, yet you were not.  Remember?  Back when you thought you could jettison the few hard parts you didn’t like, but retain 95% of the faith, and therefore remain Christian.  Remember those days?  Remember when every discussion, whether with someone else or with yourself, would always come back to “Well, I look around at my circle of family and friends, and I’m basically a good person, and that’s what counts.”
Then something triggered you to look deeper.  You realized that being basically a good person in the eyes of society has absolutely nothing to do with it.  In fact, if you are truly trying to live in accordance with the gospel, society will see you as A TERRIBLE PERSON.  A “HYPOCRITE”.  A prude, a bigot, uneducated, unscientific.  A bitter clinger.  Well, it looks like this might not be as fun as I thought, but I’m discovering more and more undeniable Truths, and since this seems like the most real thing I’ve ever experienced, I want more.
Then you discovered the Truth about pornography, the Truth about masturbation, the Truth about divorce and remarriage (otherwise known as Adultery from 33A.D. until 8 April 2016), the necessity of frequent Confession, the beautiful Truth of the Holy Eucharist, the evil of contraception, etc etc.  It probably didn’t take long to realize you were not a Christian at all, and that becoming one was not achievable on your own.  Only through total self-emptying, totally turning your life over to Christ, can you accept these Truths and resolve to live by them.
I proclaim that the authors of this document, with +Francis at the head, have no idea what I’m talking about.  They don’t think it is possible.  That’s why the entire pogrom is about trying to square unrepentant mortal sin with the gospel.
It’s an unprecedented attack on the One True Faith, and it will not stand.

Back in December, I wrote about the Year of (false) Mercy HERE and of course it’s all coming true. Mercy does not exist outside Justice. They go together.
Just came across a superb article by Frederick W. Marks from the Jan-Feb edition of NOR HERE. He does a great job of debunking the common misconception that the God of the New Testament is the God of mercy, and as such is somehow in opposition to the God of justice in the Old Testament.  You must go over and read the whole thing ($1.95 to access the article).
A taste:

How familiar are you with these divine attributes? If you think you know the proper balance between the mercy and justice exemplified by our Lord, try your hand at the following multiple-choice test:

(1) We read in the New Testament that God will judge the world with
(a) mercy
(b) justice
(c) mercy and justice
Answer: (b) justice (Acts 17:31)
(2) When Jesus mentions mercy and justice, which comes first?
(a) mercy
(b) justice
Answer: (b) justice (Mt. 23:23)
(3) Of the seven spiritual works of mercy, which comes first?
(a) forgive all injuries
(b) admonish sinners
Answer: (b) admonish sinners (forgiveness comes sixth on the list)
(4) When Jesus pleads with His heavenly Father for the gift of unity, He addresses Him as
(a) merciful Father
(b) just Father
Answer: (b) just Father (Jn. 17:25)

The gift of divine mercy is inestimably great. Yet it comes with strings attached because justice is “the foundation” of God’s throne (Ps. 97:2). To avail ourselves of God’s great mercy, we must repent of our errors and firmly resolve to sin no more.

The article is excellent and will give you lots more scriptural ammo for the war.

I’m paraphrasing, but you can watch the video for yourself.
Question:  Papa, in footnote 351 you talk about offering the sacraments to people who are living their lives in a state of public unrepentant mortal sin.  Did you really mean that?
PF:  I can say yes, period.  But go read what +Schonborn said.  And I don’t remember the footnote. HERE
Your Holiness, ahem, you just emphatically answered YES to the footnote.  You can’t claim you don’t know what it says.  But if you want us to read +Francis through +Schonborn, well that makes total sense, +Schonborn being at the forefront of heresy and the dialogue with evil for the past few years HERE.
Now, the official document from +Schonborn was bad enough HERE.  So many distortions and outright lies. In fact, he is lying about the lies.
But then there is the Vatican Radio interview! HERE

Card. Schönborn: I think it is fairly clear: there are circumstances in which people in irregular situations may really need sacramental absolution, even if their general situation cannot be clarified. Pope Francis has himself given an example: when a woman [in an irregular marital situation] comes to confess her abortion – the sin, the grave sin of abortion – not to relieve her, even if her situation is irregular – the discernment of the shepherd can be, and I would say, “must be”: you have to help this person to be freed from her burden, even if you cannot tell her that her marital situation has been regularized by this absolution – but you cannot [let her leave] the confessional with the burden of her grave sin she finally had the courage to come to confess. That was the example he had given, and I think it is a very good example for what this little note could mean in certain cases: i.e. “[…]even the help of sacraments.”

How is it that the cardinal doesn’t understand the very basics of making a good confession, basics that a third grader is taught before making her FIRST confession?

• Contrition for all your sins is necessary
• Firm purpose of amendment for all your sins is necessary
• You must confess all your mortal sins
• Failing to confess even one mortal sin invalidates the entire confession
• Even one unrepented mortal sin condemns your soul to Hell for eternity

Well, I guess all that is out the window.  I can’t wait to see the 2017 CCC.  Buy stock in Wite Out.
If you want more, Mundabor has the exhaustive rundown HERE
 
 

From the homily of +Francis 11 April 2016:

“It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned’ and wants to give … and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! – they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to do. And he went and hanged himself. And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: ‘Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple… and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter.”

This is insanity. No, really.  Who thinks like this?
This is an attack on those who understand that a person must actually repent of his sin in order to be forgiven  – the doctors of the letter, otherwise known as Catholics until 2013. But what is worse than the attack is how he twists every element of what is really going on here.
First, Judas would not have sought forgiveness from the Jewish priests, regardless of what was in his heart, because the priests did not possess that power.  If he were truly sorry, he would have gone to Jesus himself, or at least tried to intervene in the trial and execution.  But of course he wasn’t really sorry, he was not contrite, he was only sorry FOR HIMSELF. He was sorry that he had gotten himself into this mess, and then he despaired and died in mortal sin.
But instead, +Francis PRAISES JUDAS.  “This poor, repentant man.”  Obviously, +Francis considers Judas to have been forgiven by God.  So then wasn’t Judas the first martyr?  Will his feast day be Good Friday? Or will it be transferred until after the Octave?
Now, contrast the near Canonization of Judas with +Francis’ thoughts on a few other matters:

• The BVM commits mortal sin at the foot of the cross, accusing God the Father of deception HERE
• God the Son commits the sin of deception HERE
• God the Son commits a sin in creating the Fifth Joyful Mystery, for which he needed to “beg forgiveness” HERE and HERE
• God the Father commits mortal sin by willing mortal sin HERE

Seriously, how is the diabolical inversion of truth not obvious to everyone?  I can’t even keep up.
 

#AmorisLaetitia
We should just rename it Heresy One.  The plane, I mean.  We could have a contest to come up with a neat logo.  I think the logo should include a Triregnum tiara and an ermine trimmed mozzetta.  Maybe the tiara should be inverted.  Any artists out there?
You don’t need to wait for the official translation, and I see one has gotten it wrong already.  You just need to watch the video.  It doesn’t matter how bad your Italian is.
“YES.  PERIOD.”
Now, will all the Pollyannas please stand up?  I don’t want your apologies, and I don’t want your excuses.  You can skip all that.  But please, won’t you now join the cause?
Souls are at stake.  Your soul is at stake.  This abomination must be called out.  +Francis must be accused, tried, deposed, and his entire papacy anathematised.
It’s sort of a big deal.

#AmorisLaetitia
Time for a lesson on Revealed Truths. HERE and HERE. There are three classes of revealed truths: Truths formally and explicitly revealed, truths revealed formally but implicitly; and truths only virtually revealed.
Now, speaking of divorce and remarriage, understand this:  Church teaching on this matter is not the result of some complex, deeply thought-out theological exercise.  It doesn’t require advanced degrees.  It isn’t something the Church struggled with until Augustine or Aquinas came along to figure it out. In fact, the Church didn’t have to spend five seconds figuring out the teaching.  Why?
Because not only is this teaching a revealed truth, it is a revealed truth of the FIRST CLASS, from the very lips of our Lord, with absolute clarity, in Matt 19:9 and Luke 16:18.  Sorry to bust out the bible on your cheatin’ heart, but boom, there it is.
It’s also important to consider the context on this issue as we see it revealed in scripture.  Jesus is not reinforcing an established law of Jewish tradition, He is REVERSING the tradition.  This is a showstopper, folks. The Jews, lacking the spiritual benefit of two out of three Persons of the Holy Trinity, had allowed their hearts to harden.  So Moses let ’em slide. Jesus was standing up to say STOP; I am commanding the restoration of the indissolubility of marriage. Restoration, as in, back to the way it was created in the first place (Matt 19:8). Restoration, as in, taking a piece of fine old furniture, tarnished and banged up, and restoring it to all its original beauty.
So when +Francis in AL goes about eliminating culpability for the sin of divorce and remarriage, otherwise known as ADULTERY from 33 A.D. until last Friday, make sure you understand that he is commanding the direct contradiction of the command of Jesus.  He’s commanding all the bishops around the world to institute sacrilege in their diocese by finding ways to accompany public adulterers on the path to the Eucharist by way of the adulterous relationship, which he declares to be infused with supernatural grace.
But wait, there’s more!  +Francis isn’t claiming the objective situation doesn’t exist, he’s just claiming it doesn’t matter.  If you say it does matter, you are a mean doctor of the law. We are being asked to ignore the facts on the ground in order to embrace the possibility of mercy for actions which are objectively disordered.  In declaring this new praxis, he extends Church authority to the subject of culpability, a subject for which She has no capacity to judge specific cases in absolute terms.  Only God knows.  Yet instead of erring on the side of the plain public facts as we know them, +Francis thinks it is better to unleash scandal and sacrilege across the world.
God will not be mocked, and we know that the gates of Hell will not prevail. We just don’t know how Act III plays out.
Cheer up and join the war.

#AmorisLaetitia
This is when I got the knot in my stomach.

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is (sic) 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.
Footnote339: John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121.

Before we get to the footnote, as misleading as the footnote is, there are two other things here that are even worse.  And I only pasted the first half of the paragraph.
See those air quotes around “irregular”?  That’s what writers do when they believe the phrase in question is inherently fallacious. Like Catholics referring to so-called “gay” marriage.  So Francis is mocking the very notion that there is anything irregular about these relationships. Ya think that might be a teensy weensy problem?  Explains a whole lot of other things, doesn’t it?
Then comes a real show stopper.  After 232 pages of set-up, Francis attempts to abrogate the dogma of Immutability. Does everyone remember the dogma of Immutability?  “For I am the Lord, and I change not” (Mal 3:6).  God does not change, so His divine will does not change, so the things which go against His divine will (sin) do not change. Nor can doctrine, which is the codification of His will. How do we know God doesn’t change? Because time is a construct.  Time was created by God, just like all the material dimensions were created by God.  God exists outside of time.  Change cannot occur without the element of linear time.  Now watch this.
“Hence it is (sic) 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.”
Got that?  “Can no longer be said.”  What was true in the past is no longer true. That’s why He is the God of surprises. Surprisingly, He now loves moral relativism, situational ethics, divorce and adultery.  Well, He might not LOVE them, but He knows there is certainly GOOD contained within them, and He wants us to discover that GOOD, and to stop being so mean. Time to face the strange cha cha cha changes.
Someone at the Vatican must be super busy collecting every extant copy of the CCC and whiting out paragraph 2384: (emphasis mine)

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:  If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

Honestly, I will say this.  It is entirely possible that Francis himself is eligible for some of this cheap grace he is dishing out, because the brashness, the hubris he is exhibiting here is at such a level that you wonder if he was ever properly taught the faith.  Is he really rejecting it, or does he just not understand it?  Yes, I really think that could be true.  Think of the irony if he is actually guiltless out of invincible ignorance.
Finally, the footnote. It’s from FC 33 HERE.  Is FC 33 dealing with people in irregular situations who are living their lives in a state of mortal sin?  Um, no. FC33 is about ACTUAL MARRIED PEOPLE, and the subject matter is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from what’s being dealt with here.  Namely, a situation where the actually married couple struggles, in the context of modern sexually depraved society, to understand, accept and practice continence while avoiding artificial means of contraception.
Which in itself is a rather generous bit of sympathy, given that Humanae Vitae isn’t that hard to understand  HERE.

#AmorisLaetitia
I have a question for all of the orthodox prelates and priests who are claiming this document is no big deal because it is not magisterial, and because it’s not magisterial, we can just ignore the parts that aren’t Catholic.
Guys, I am well aware that I can and must not only ignore but also protest the parts that aren’t Catholic.  I don’t need permission nor to be made aware.  But thanks for pointing it out, because there are millions of Catholics who don’t understand the differing weights of papal pronouncements. So bravo for at least drawing the distinction, even if, on the ground, it won’t matter.
But here is my question for each of you, humble servants.  Do you consider yourself a pastor of souls?  Do you believe in the Original Sin Free Will Heaven Hell Eternity thingee?
Then how can you sit back so calmly and say that none of this matters, when it matters PROFOUNDLY.  The eternal destiny of souls is at stake. The gravity of the matter determines the gravity of the response. Does anyone remember Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2?
Consider that the document is even more of a disaster in the fact that, instead of establishing a universal discipline and process for wielding the (false) mercy, which could easily have been called out as heresy, he instead leaves the heresy up to the local Ordinary.  Your ability to receive (false) mercy will depend on how heterodox your bishop is. And with over 3000 diocese around the world, someone seriously underestimated there being only 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover. Welcome to Universal Unitarian Catholicism.  Too bad that’s exactly the opposite of the definition of Catholic. Diabolical inversion abounds.
Consider also the historic irony of +Burke calling on Catholics to ignore portions of a papal document, due to these portions being heterodox, and that this aspect of the article isn’t even news!  That’s how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone in three years.
Consider lastly those, and I’m still speaking of loyal sons here, who are actually proclaiming the goodness of the document, as if the poison weren’t there.  Well, at least he didn’t support “gay” marriage, he said abortion was bad, and there was some pretty sweet biblical language in there about marriage.  Again, this is what passes as Hope when you’re that far down the rabbit hole.
Doesn’t everyone realize we are beyond the point of no return on this papacy?  We’ve already tried the private interventions.  We’ve already tried the public interventions.  Get your head around the fact that THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING.  Success builds on success. These treacherous infiltrators are here to destroy the Church.  Stop telling me I’m overreacting, because I’m here to tell you the situation CANNOT be hyperbolized.
There is now absolutely no acceptable course other than formal accusation, deposition and renunciation. Into The Breach, boys!  The power of Christ compels you.
 

#AmorisLaetitia

300. If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336
Footnote 336 This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists. In such cases, what is found in another document applies: cf. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 44 and 47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040.

The footnote is footnoted.  +Francis references EG 44, 47 (which isn’t a reference at all, since he wrote it himself). So what do these two paragraphs say?  Before your read them, you should know something.  He is so in love with these two paragraphs, he comes back to them multiple times, with direct quotes and more footnotes, in subsequent sections of AL.  This is really the heart of the matter; the battlefield before us.

44. Moreover, pastors and the lay faithful who accompany their brothers and sisters in faith or on a journey of openness to God must always remember what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches quite clearly: “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”. Consequently, without detracting from the evangelical ideal, they need to accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressively occur.  I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy which spurs us on to do our best. A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties. Everyone needs to be touched by the comfort and attraction of God’s saving love, which is mysteriously at work in each person, above and beyond their faults and failings.
47. The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

Get it?  Mortal Sin is nullified by inculpability always and everywhere.  It’s not just the possibility of a reduction in culpability depending on the circumstances, which the Church does teach is possible, and is already dangerously close to Situational Ethics.  It’s also that this reduction in culpability, up to and including inculpability, occurs in EVERY CASE of Mortal Sin, and this includes future intended sins! That’s the only way “there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” squares with the issue at hand. Since no one is really guilty of their faults, no one is deserving of the punishment God’s justice would require.  Because “God’s saving love is at work in each person”, when someone sins, it must mean that they have some burden or defect which cannot be overcome and is not their fault.
This is a different religion.  A properly catechized ten year old can explain that, not only does God never cause you to sin, He also never puts you in a situation where you are incapable of resisting sin.  Sin is an action taken through free assent of one’s own free will that goes against God’s will.  God cannot will something that goes against His own will.
The three conditions necessary for Mortal Sin:  Grave Matter, Full Knowledge, and Deliberate Consent.  God made it simple, so that simple people can know the score.  That quote from the Catechism in EG44 is CCC 1735.  Now take another look at the Catechism, at the bits immediately preceding and following CCC1735:

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:  Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question. The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered. An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done.

Twisting CCC1735 by selectively quoting it in isolation from the context which surrounds it. This is not merely willful ambiguity, nor merely deliberate obfuscation. This is diabolically inverting the truth.  And he is not being misquoted, mistranslated or misunderstood. No, he is obstinately clinging to these notions, time after time, after numerous charitable corrections, after petitions, after the Thirteen Cardinals Letter, etc etc.
And that’s how you attempt to destroy the One True Faith. By holding the Bride of Christ at fault, and holding Her children blameless.  If the children are blameless, Christ died for nothing. And when the children have nothing required of them, have nothing Supernatural to strive for, for whom nothing is transcendent, they dedicate themselves to attacking the First Commandment by worshiping environmentalism, vegetarianism, and animals.
Oh, I haven’t even gotten to the bad parts yet.