non veni pacem

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.

#AmorisLaetitia
Be patient.  There are at least three of these  footnote monsters, and I’m pressed for time.

298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. 329

Let’s have a look at footnote 329, wherein the Holy Father attempts a diabolical inversion of Truth by referencing two documents, both of which actually say the OPPOSITE or something WHOLLY DIFFERENT from what he is proposing.  Here’s the footnote:

329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Now watch this.
First, here is the text from FC 84, written 35 years ago, by a saint.

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.
…
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]
…
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Yes, it acknowledges the sad reality of broken families, and notes that “discernment of situations” is necessary.  But then it goes on, within the same paragraph, to reinforce the impossibility of Eucharistic Communion for those who continue in second “marriages” unless, for the sake of the children produced by the second bond, and after repentance and sacramental Confession, they practice perfect continence (which, by the way, is already a very generous provision).  So Francis is using this paragraph to support his position that situations differ, even though elsewhere in the very same paragraph his broader proposal is utterly destroyed, by coming to the OPPOSITE conclusion of where he is going with this.
Now back to footnote 329, the second part, which references GS51.  Go back and look at the footnote.  Francis is moaning that, while of course the living as brother and sister option is always available, that idea is just so cruel and unmerciful, we must find a way around it for the sake of the children.  Then he quotes GS 51 to support the argument.
Except guess what. GS51 is talking about PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY MARRIED.  First marriages. Not divorced and remarried.  Furthermore, the topic at hand in GS is the licitness of refraining from full intimacy for the sake of spacing of children, which is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from the topic we are dealing with in AL. Here’s the relevant text:

51. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

You can’t tell me this is bad scholarship.  This is deliberate and diabolical inversion.
And there is so much more.
 

• Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:28-30
• A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. Titus 3:10-11
• Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. 2 John 1:9-11
• Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
• For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 2 Tim 4:3-4
• But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1-3

Read the rest of it HERE

Meaning, its seriousness on several levels cannot be overstated, and there is no turning back.  The Great Apostasy has now arrived, 8 April 2016,  with the publication of Amoris Latitia.
Let’s get one thing out of the way right from the start.  I don’t care who the ghostwriters were.  I don’t care how much of it is directly from Pope Francis (but it’s obvious that much of it is).  It’s his name at the top – he owns all of it.
It is a 260 page (in English) disaster, a cobbled mess of quotations from homilies, audiences, statements from episcopal conferences, VII documents, relatios from the two synods, and finally, and devious misquotations from pre-Franciscan popes, most notably and unsurprisingly from Familiaris Consortio.  It doesn’t matter that the majority of it is harmless if it is read with the mind of traditional Church teaching.  I read the whole wretched thing, although I had to skim some of the middle fluff to fight off drowsiness.
The poison is there, and it can’t be covered up.  The first hint comes 61 pages in:

78. The light of Christ enlightens every person (cf. Jn 1:9; Gaudium et Spes, 22). Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church’s pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. Following this divine pedagogy, the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an imperfect manner: she seeks the grace of conversion for them; she encourages them to do good, to take loving care of each other and to serve the community in which they live and work… When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond – and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials – this can be seen as an opportunity, where possible, to lead them to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony.
79. When faced with difficult situations and wounded families, it is always necessary to recall this general principle: ‘Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations’ (Familiaris Consortio, 84). The degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases and factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision. Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, pastors are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations, and they are to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience and endure distress because of their condition.

None of this heretical, if understood in accordance with Church teaching.  But it is part of the set up for what’s coming. Remember, most of those VII documents are also harmless if their ambiguous parts are read in the light of Tradition.
After 80 more pages of fluff, meandering well past our desire to please get to the point, out of nowhere comes this huge shot across the bow:

185. Along these same lines, we do well to take seriously a biblical text usually interpreted outside of its context or in a generic sense, with the risk of overlooking its immediate and direct meaning, which is markedly social. I am speaking of 1 Cor 11:17-34, where Saint Paul faces a shameful situation in the community. The wealthier members tended to discriminate against the poorer ones, and this carried over even to the agape meal that accompanied the celebration of the Eucharist. While the rich enjoyed their food, the poor looked on and went hungry: “One is hungry and another is drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (vv. 21-22).
186. The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ” (v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.

Oh yes, you had to read that several times, didn’t you.  Maybe not the first time we’ve seen calumny in a papal document, but it’s the first time it has been directed at me. Alas, he’s been doing it verbally for three years.
It seems like we’re about to go nuclear at this point but, annoyingly, nearly 80 more pages of fluff follows this.  And just when it goes on so long that you start thinking we are going to escape the ordeal with nothing serious, the final chapter arrives.  Chapter Eight:  “ACCOMPANYING, DISCERNING AND INTEGRATING WEAKNESS”.
The situation cannot be hyperbolized.  It is so, so, bad.  It affirms, for the most stubborn Pollyana, that +Francis was the driving force behind the absolute worst of what went down in the synods.  That +Francis intends to institutionalize sacrilege, destroy three sacraments, and renounce Divine Immutability.  It’s kinda serious.
I’m not pasting the entire chapter.  There will be several posts to come regarding Chapter Eight. Go read it, and start praying.  Contemplate how, if we really believe what we say we believe, we can let this stand.

Meaning, its seriousness on several levels cannot be overstated.
On Friday morning, each and every Catholic bishop in the world will need to rise, put on a strong pot of coffee, read the Exhortation, and make a series of decisions which will directly affect the vector of many, many souls, foremost his own.
He must decide whether or not  his diocese will endorse the sacrilege, which presumably would entail erecting structures and programs to circumvent the reality of Matthew 19:9. If he chooses to not overtly endorse it, but rather stay quiet and do nothing, well, that’s nearly the same thing as endorsing it. Inaction is action.
Or he could publicly denounce the document and call out its authors and endorsers.  How many will?
Beyond the particular issue at hand, Communion for those guilty of obstinate unrepentant mortal sin, and the horrific sacrilege being demanded from bishops and priests, we have another problem.  Leaving the solutions up to each individual diocese isn’t collegiality, it’s anarchy.  Have these people learned nothing from the Anglicans?
Matters of Faith and Morals are the Truth itself.  Truth cannot vary from diocese to diocese.  This is third grade catechism.
Pray intensely for your bishop.  Pray for your priests.  War is coming.