I would like to convince myself that Pope Francis thinks Wuerl is right, and the Maltese bishops and others are wrong.
This must have been written before the pope gave his approval and thanks to the Maltese bishops heretical interpretation.
Every one of us spent some time and effort into trying to convince ourselves Pope Francis 'thinks' with the Church. The problem was, Pope Francis never gave us any evidence to convince us he thinks with the Church. He's given us four years of evidence that not only contradicts Church teaching, but opened his thoughts and heart to reveal the cauldron of malice he's cooked up for those who teach what Christ teaches.
The pope is teaching what is outside of the Church, supporting the heresies and heretics that have been misleading the people we love and ridiculing and slandering teaching fiat and tools of living every day in a state of Sanctifying Grace.
God help the uncatechized. These are the days Christ warned us would come.
Interpreters of Amoris Laetitia have advanced two ways of interpreting its teaching on the state of couples who live in a sexual union outside of a valid marriage.
The first is a person who acknowledges that his or her union is contrary to Gospel teaching, and desires either to separate or, at least, to refrain from sexual relations, but is unable to do so. The usual reason given is threatened consequences from the other party.
Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio advanced the case of a woman who might desire just that, but whose civil husband would commit suicide if they stopped having sex. It’s a dramatic, and likely rare, set of facts.
This is so far fetched it is laughable.
If a man threatens to kill himself if his wife wanted to stop committing adultery, he'd pull the same emotional blackmail stunts when she's asked him to take out the trash or when he wants spaghetti and meatballs. Eventually, he might even do it.
Telling the woman the fix is breaking Commandments with him is not the least bit helpful to anyone. What she needs is a priest who tells the man he needs to see a doctor and get help for his mental illness.
A second situation is that of a couple not validly married - either divorced and remarried, or a never-married couple cohabiting - who are fully aware that their relationship is contrary to the Gospel, but choose to continue sexual relations as the better moral course, given that to separate or abstain would lead to new sins.
Again, this is nuts.
The first and most offensive problem with this idea is the objectification of woman as a receptacle for man's semen. The men who hold these convictions are telling women 'if you don't commit adultery with your arm candy, he may go out and find a prostitute which is a worse sin'.
There is no modest level of mortal sin that is salvific.
If a man has such little commitment to a woman and God that he seeks the services of a prostitute, there are bigger problems in the man and the relationship. She stuck herself to a jerk. The relationship is never going to last because he doesn't have the tools to ride the relationship through adversity. If a priest wants to fix the actual problem, he's got to teach him the tools and it can never be successful without Sanctifying Grace. Any priest, bishop or pope who would compound the problems by throwing the woman into a perpetual state of mortal sin is also a jerk.
And here we come to the real meat and potatoes of the heresies in Amoris Laetitia:
What these “new sins” might be, as opposed to the difficulties always inherent in following the moral law in a fallen world, are not specified.
This reading, which holds that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage can be a good moral choice, does depart from the Biblical teaching on marriage. That is the territory into which Amoris Laetitia 301 may tread, when it teaches that “a subject may know full well the rule, yet … be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
What appears to be envisioned here is that in some circumstances, it would be better, with full knowledge and full consent, to choose extra-marital sexual relations. It would certainly be a novelty for the Catholic Church to teach that there are circumstances in which sexual relations are morally permissible, much less morally advisory, outside of a valid marriage.
If so, it would contradict the clear teaching of the Bible about marriage and sexual relations. Is this what Amoris Laetitia teaches?
The very first lesson in the Bible explains what happens when we use emotional blackmail to lure a lover into sexual relations outside of marriage.
Adam tried to get himself excused from sin by saying Eve told him it was ok.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Eve telling us its ok or the Pope and the entirety of the court of clowns he's gathering to telling us its ok. Your mortal sins are not excused at the gates of Paradise.
And that is the bottom line.
What has become clear is that the Holy Father knows he cannot publicly answer the question without committing formal heresy - and losing his papacy.
What he can do is passively-aggressively answer the question by sending a letter approving the interpretation of the Maltese Bishops who say Amoris Laetitia does indeed approve living in a habitual state of mortal sin.
The sneakiness of this approach doesn't help retract the heresy inherent in Amoris Laetitia any more than his tactical sidelining, removal, slander and contempt for Catholics asking him to be a man and lay his outside of Church teaching cards on the table.
These stupid excuses are lies.
They are lying to us. By omission and commission.