30 Nov 2016

Cardinal Zen: Pope Francis would ‘betray Christ’ by allowing Communist China to select bishops


by Pete Baklinski 

Cardinal Zen

The highest ranking Chinese Catholic has stated that if Pope Francis allows Communist China to have a hand in the selection of the nation's Catholic bishops it would be “betraying Jesus Christ.”

“You cannot go into negotiations with the mentality that ‘we want to sign an agreement at any cost,’ then you are surrendering yourself, you are betraying yourself, you are betraying Jesus Christ,” Cardinal Joseph Zen told The Guardian this week.

The 84-year-old former bishop of Hong Kong has firmly opposed a potential deal between the Vatican and the Chinese government that would add legitimacy to the state-run Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. He says the move would alienate authentic Catholics who worship in the ‘underground Church’ from the one true Church headed by Christ and his representative, the Pope.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that in such a deal, "Rome would commit to recognize as bishops only those clerics who first win nomination from the Patriotic Association’s bishops conference,” thus allowing the government, not the Church, to decide who is bishop.

Cardinal Zen said earlier this month that such a deal would simply lend Vatican credibility to “fake bishops” who, as "puppets" completely controlled by the government, would not seek the good of the Church but her destruction.

According to the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Bishops (1965), the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs “properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

“Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities,” the council stated at that time.

Canon Law (Canon 377 § 5) states that “no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.”

Canon Lawyer Edward Peters said the Vatican, when dealing with China, should remember history and the lesson that the “greater the role played by secular power in ecclesiastical appointments, the greater the chances of abuse are.”

“Such a concession to China, if that is what is actually being proposed, would surely be demanded by other totalitarian states, re-creating the messy entanglements of Church and State that marked and sometimes marred much of Church history,” he wrote on his blog.

Zen told The Guardian in the interview that any proposed deal would create merely a “fake freedom” for a fake institution.  

“But it’s only the impression of freedom, it’s not real freedom, the people sooner or later will see the bishops are puppets of the government and not really the shepherds of the flock,” he said.

Zen would like to see the Vatican leave the deal.

“If you cannot get a good deal, an acceptable deal, then the Vatican should walk away and maybe try again later. Could the Church negotiate with Hitler? Could it negotiate with Stalin? No,” he said.

Zen suggested that the Vatican’s recognition of the government-run church by confirming bishops appointments would only “poison” the real Catholic Church in China, where it is estimated that some seven million people attend secretly.

“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of new Christians,” he said. “If that blood is poisoned, how long will those new Christians last?”

24 Nov 2016

More Bishops are coming to the Defence of the Four Cardinals


Bishop Jan Watroba

Their monumental error remains their “defence” of Church doctrine from the perspective of the scandalous Second Vatican Council and the teaching of Vatican II popes instead of—peculiarly—the teaching of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. ...But we leave them for now.
                   
Just like Bishop Józef Wróbel of Lublin, Poland (See: POLISH BISHOP: FOUR CARDINALS EXERCISED “A DUTY”; "IT IS ONLY JUST TO ANSWER THEM" ), Bishop Jan Watroba, President of the Council for the Family of the Polish Bishops’ Conferences, has now made a public statement where he declares that he believes that the publication of the Four Cardinals' Letter is “not reprehensible.”

According to the Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Watroba sees in the four cardinals’ letter “an expression of the commitment and care concerning the right interpretation of the teaching of Peter.” He stressed also that he himself is now “waiting very much to see an answer, a clarification,” inasmuch “as I myself have now been overwhelmed with many similar questions – just like other bishops and pastors.”

Watroba, speaking to the Polish News Agency (KAI), added:

“It is too bad that there exists no unified interpretation and no clear message of the document [Amoris Laetitia] and that one has to add interpretations to the Apostolic document...” (His reference to John Paul II intentionally omitted here, for the sake of goodness!)

Similarly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, has also publicly voiced the following:
Bishop Athanasius Schneider

“We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the” (truth 2 Cor. 13: 8)
A Prophetic Voice of Four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church


Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany), His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, have published on November 14, 2016, the text of five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”), which previously on September 19, 2016, they sent to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with an accompanying letter. The Cardinals ask Pope Francis to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” concerning the interpretation and practical application, particularly of chapter VIII, of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and the Church’s moral teaching.

In their statement entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia,” the Cardinals say that to “many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union.” Speaking so, the Cardinals have merely stated real facts in the life of the Church. These facts are demonstrated by pastoral orientations on behalf of several dioceses and by public statements of some bishops and cardinals, who affirm that in some cases divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Holy Communion even though they continue to use the rights reserved by Divine law to validly married spouses.

In publishing a plea for clarity in a matter that touches the truth and the sanctity simultaneously of the three sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist, the Four Cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals, which consists in actively contributing so that the revelation transmitted through the Apostles might be guarded sacredly and might be faithfully interpreted. It was especially the Second Vatican Council that reminded all the members of the college of bishops as legitimate successors of the Apostles of their obligation, according to which “by Christ's institution and command they have to be solicitous for the whole Church, and that this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (Lumen gentium, 23; cf. also Christus Dominus, 5-6).

In making a public appeal to the Pope, bishops and cardinals should be moved by genuine collegial affection for the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth, following the teaching of Vatican Council II (cf. Lumen gentium, 22);, in so doing they render "service to the primatial ministry" of the Pope (cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, 13).

The entire Church in our days has to reflect upon the fact that the Holy Spirit has not in vain inspired Saint Paul to write in the Letter to the Galatians about the incident of his public correction of Peter. One has to trust that Pope Francis will accept this public appeal of the Four Cardinals in the spirit of the Apostle Peter, when St Paul offered him a fraternal correction for the good of the whole Church. May the words of that great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas, illuminate and comfort us all: "When there is a danger for the faith, subjects are required to reprove their prelates, even publicly. Since Paul, who was subject to Peter, out of the danger of scandal, publicly reproved him. And Augustine comments: "Peter himself gave an example to superiors by not disdaining to be corrected by his subjects when it occurred to them that he had departed from the right path" (Summa theol., II-II, 33, 4c).

Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls. In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, the Pope speaks of a need for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity” (n. 2). Furthermore, relationships at all levels within the Church must be free from a climate of fear and intimidation, as Pope Francis has requested in his various pronouncements.

In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the unusually violent and intolerant reactions on behalf of some bishops and cardinals against the calm and circumspect plea of the Four Cardinals cause great astonishment. Among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four Cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics.

Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life. The above-mentioned clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth. Such a violent reaction has only one aim: to silence the voice of the truth, which is disturbing and annoying the apparently peaceful nebulous ambiguity of these clerical critics.

The negative reactions to the public statement of the Four Cardinals resemble the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis in the fourth century. It is helpful to all to quote in the situation of the doctrinal confusion in our days some affirmations of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”.

“You [the bishops of Gaul] who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example” (Hil. De Syn., 3).

“Your [the bishops of Gaul] invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth and, content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience” (Hil. De Syn., 4).

“I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now” (Hil. De Syn., 92).

The following words of Saint Basil the Great, addressed to the Latin Bishops, can be in some aspects applied to the situation of those who in our days ask for doctrinal clarity, including our Four Cardinals: “The one charge which is now sure to secure severe punishment is the careful keeping of the traditions of the Fathers. We are not being attacked for the sake of riches, or glory, or any temporal advantages. We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true religion, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all that utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right of free speech” (Ep. 243, 2.4).

Today those bishops and cardinals, who ask for clarity and who try to fulfill their duty in guarding sacredly and faithfully interpreting the transmitted Divine Revelation concerning the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, are no longer exiled as it was with the Nicene bishops during the Arian crisis. Contrary to the time of the Arian crisis, today, as wrote Rudolf Graber, the bishop of Ratisbone, in 1973, exile of the bishops is replaced by hush-up strategies and by slander campaigns (cf. Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973, p. 23).

Another champion of the Catholic faith during the Arian crisis was Saint Gregory Nazianzen. He wrote the following striking characterization of the behavior of the majority of the shepherds of the Church in those times. This voice of the great Doctor of the Church should be a salutary warning for the bishops of all times: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance" (Orat. 21, 24).

When Pope Liberius in 357 signed one of the so called formulas of Sirmium, in which he deliberately discarded the dogmatically defined expression “homo-ousios” and excommunicated Saint Athanasius in order to have peace and harmony with the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops of the East, faithful Catholics and some few bishops, especially Saint Hilary of Poitiers, were deeply shocked. Saint Hilary transmitted the letter that Pope Liberius wrote to the Oriental bishops, announcing the acceptance of the formula of Sirmium and the excommunication of Saint Athanasius. In his deep pain and dismay, Saint Hilary added to the letter in a kind of desperation the phrase: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius), cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 141. Pope Liberius wanted to have peace and harmony at any price, even at the expense of the Divine truth. In his letter to the heterodox Latin bishops Ursace, Valence, and Germinius announcing to them the above-mentioned decisions, he wrote that he preferred peace and harmony to martyrdom (cf. cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 142).

“In what a dramatic contrast stood the behavior of Pope Liberius to the following conviction of Saint Hilary of Poitiers: “We don’t make peace at the expense of the truth by making concessions in order to acquire the reputation of tolerance. We make peace by fighting legitimately according to the rules of the Holy Spirit. There is a danger to ally surreptitiously with unbelief under the beautiful name of peace.” (Hil. Ad Const., 2, 6, 2).

Blessed John Henry Newman commented on these unusual sad facts with the following wise and equilibrated affirmation: “While it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 465).

The Four Cardinals with their prophetic voice demanding doctrinal and pastoral clarity have a great merit before their own conscience, before history, and before the innumerable simple faithful Catholics of our days, who are driven to the ecclesiastical periphery, because of their fidelity to Christ’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. But above all, the Four Cardinals have a great merit in the eyes of Christ. Because of their courageous voice, their names will shine brightly at the Last Judgment. For they obeyed the voice of their conscience remembering the words of Saint Paul: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13: 8). Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

The following words inspired by the Holy Spirit retain their prophetic value especially in view of the spreading doctrinal and practical confusion regarding the Sacrament of Marriage in our days: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 3-5).

May all, who in our days still take seriously their baptismal vows and their priestly and episcopal promises, receive the strength and the grace of God so that they may reiterate together with Saint Hilary the words: “May I always be in exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again!” (De Syn., 78). This strength and grace we wish wholeheartedly to our Four Cardinals and as well as to those who criticize them.

November 23, 2016

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana


21 Nov 2016

Benedict XVI supporting Francis and his disastrous “pontificate”


by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Francis I and Benedict XVI

 
Two days ago, one of Father Paul Kramer’s Facebook friends, Rosangela Alves, asked:

Francis and Benedict XVI
“Padre , Francis e Bento abençoaram JUNTOS os novos cardeais! Estao JUNTOS ! Roma tem dois Papas? Bento apoia francis! Caso contrario teria tomado atitude de ir contra tais ensinamentos hereticos de francis. Apocalipse 13 deixa muito bem esclarecido. Cego e aquele que nao quer ver,surdo e aquele que nao quer ouvir!”

Roughly translated from Portuguese:

“Father, Francis and Benedict have blessed together the new Cardinals! They're together! Rome has two popes? Benedict Supports Francis! Otherwise he would have taken action to go against such heretical teachings of Francis. Revelation 13 makes it very clear. Blind is he who does not want to see, and deaf is he who does not want to hear!

And Father Kramer answered:

“Rasangela Alves: Bento XVI deve responder a Deus por sua dissimulação: não renunciou ao munus petrino como é necessário para uma renúncia válida do papado.”
  
Translated:

“Rosangela Alves, Benedict XVI must answer to God for his deception: he did not renounce the Petrine munus as is necessary for a valid renunciation of the papacy.”

Again, said Father Kramer:

Francis and Benedict XVI
“A Canon 332 s.2 exige uma renúncia correta do "munus" como condição de validade. Bento XVI não renunciou ao munus, mas apenas ao "ministério". O munus eo ministério são duas coisas distintas.”

Translated:

Canon 332 (2) requires a correct renunciation of the "munus" as a condition of validity. Benedict XVI did not renounce the munus, but only the "ministry." The munus and the ministry are two distinct things.”

Again:

“O Papa Bento XVI enganou os cardeais e a Igreja para pensar que ele havia renunciado ao cargo pontifício; Enquanto ele só tentou "ampliá-lo" para incluir dois membros, o que é teologicamente impossível.”

Translated:

Pope Benedict XVI fooled the Cardinals and the Church to think that he had renounced the pontifical office; while he only tried to “enlarge” it to include two members, which is theologically impossible.”  

According to Father Kramer, “Benedict XVI tempted God by allowing what is in reality the election of an anti-pope. He provoked the wrath of God, who, in his wisdom and Providence, allowed a manifestly heretical anti-pope to usurp the pontifical throne.

Father went on: 

“Como o Papa Honório, que não era ele mesmo um herege formal, mas foi condenado por favorecer a heresia Monothelita, Benedict XVI favorece publicamente a heresia de Bergoglio, reconhecendo-o como um papa válido e permanecendo em silêncio. É dever de seu cargo condenar os erros de Bergoglio e rejeitá-lo como um antipapa. 

                      
Translated: 

“Like Pope Honorius, who was not himself a formal heretic, but was condemned for favouring the Monothelite heresy, Benedict XVI publicly favours the heresy of Bergoglio, recognising him as a valid Pope and remaining silent. It is his duty to condemn the errors of Bergoglio and reject him as an anti-pope.”

This is true. On Saturday, September 19, Benedict XVI once again manifested clearly his support of Bergoglio and his heresies. After the consistory, Francis and his 17 new “cardinals” visited Benedict XVI at his home at Mater Ecclesiae monastery in the Vatican. Benedict received them with a smiling face, and greeted them one by one. After that, he wished Francis’ cardinals luck for their new appointment as cardinals. "My prayers are always with you, he said.

Pope Benedict XVI then asked Pope Francis if they could give them their blessing together, and so they did! Then Pope Francis said a warm farewell to Pope Benedict XVI, who is in good shape despite his advanced age, and he encouraged him to keep on taking good care of himself. 

"Make sure to eat well! said Francis, and they both parted happily!

Francis I and Benedict XVI
Thus Benedict XVI is showing his open support of Francis and his disastrous “pontificate” even at a time when some cardinals are raising serious issues against the anti-pope. This indeed speaks volumes about this man called Joseph Ratzinger! Of course, by all these gestures he is saying clearly to all who still have eyes to see: “HEY! I LOVE POPE FRANCIS AND ALL HE STANDS FOR!”

For the video of the mess, see: New Cardinals get blessing from Benedict XVI.

However, hopefully it seems some bishops and cardinals are just beginning to reason with the four cardinals. See, for example: POLISH BISHOP: FOUR CARDINALS EXERCISED “A DUTY”; “IT IS ONLY JUST TO ANSWER THEM”.

POLISH BISHOP: FOUR CARDINALS EXERCISED “A DUTY”; "IT IS ONLY JUST TO ANSWER THEM"


Steve Skojec

Bishop Józef Wróbel

 
In what appears to be the first (of hopefully many) prelates to speak out publicly in favor of the Four Cardinals Letter, Auxiliary Bishop Józef Wróbel of Lublin, Poland, said in an interview with Michele M. Ippolito of La Fede Quotidiana that “The four cardinals were right to ask for clarification on Amoris Laetitia. If anything, it is only just to answer them.”

In the interview, the bishop is very candid in his support:

[Your] Excellency [Bishop] Wrobel, what do you think of the letter of clarification on Amoris Laetitia sent by four cardinals to the Pope?

They have done well and they have exercised correctly the provisions of canon law. I think it is not only a right, but even a duty. It would have been just to answer to their observations. They asked no questions about the next day’s weather, but on issues concerning the Church’s teaching and therefore the faithful.

The doubts regarding AL, do you find them pertinent?

As I said before, a clarification on the document, and especially on chapter 8 is opportune. The text effectively lends itself to various interpretations, it’s ambiguous.

Why does it lend itself to various interpretations?

Because it was not well written. Probably with too much haste, without analysing the contents and the possible consequences with careful [extreme] attention. There is a need to bring these questions to the Vatican and to the collaborators in whom the Pope has confidence. Drawing up such important texts in haste does not render good service to the Church.

Can one give Communion to those who have remarried civilly?

You couldn’t give [them Communion] before Amoris Laetitia, it’s not possible now. The doctrine of the Church is not subject to changes, otherwise it is no longer the Church of Christ founded on the Gospel and the Tradition. It is given to no one to modify the doctrine insofar as no-one is master of the Church.

Communion to gay couples?

It is not possible, and mercy is not a permission slip. Homosexual acts are a very grave sin, much more than those committed among heterosexuals. In fact, they go against nature.

His comments on Amoris Laetitia are strikingly firm, but equally so is his answer to a question that is high on the Vatican’s list of priorities: the welcoming of refugees:

Immigration, what to do?

Welcoming is in the Christian spirit. Above all, in moral theology, the primacy is in charity. It looks first to those closest [to us], to the neighbours, in order to get to those further away. And so we should first of all ensure that those who live close to us — relatives, children, parents, fellow citizens — are doing well and only afterwards take care of those who come from outside. Demagoguery leads nowhere.

Like Bishop Athanasius Schneider before him, we see in Bishop Wróbel an auxiliary who cares far more about the Catholic teaching and the faithful than about advancing in his own ecclesiastical career.

And in a way, their work elevates them far beyond the dignity of a diocesan see. They truly become bishops of the world.

We can only pray that this is the beginning of a larger trend of support for the four cardinals from among the world’s apostolic successors.

Roberto Tomasso contributed to this translation: OnePeter5

19 Nov 2016

Either Defend Amoris Laetitia, or You're In Trouble


Francis

Sandro Magister, a credible and well respected journalist known to lock horns with  “Pope” Francis now and again, relates on his blog that an anonymous group of laymen who identify themselves by the acronym OARCPF (Osservatorio per l’Attuazione della Riforma della Chiesa di Papa Francesco, “Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis”) has been sending out official-sounding emails issuing veiled threats against faculty members at academic institutions in Rome if they do not teach the revolutionary doctrines of Amoris Laetitia that undermine Catholic morality. What they teach in their classrooms, the emails make clear, is being “monitored”.

Magister has reproduced all the emails received by professors at the so-called “Pontifical Institute of John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and the Family” in his blog post. Here is an English translation of the text by Rorate Caeli:


Incredible - Sandro Magister reveals: A Banana-Republic Gestapo for Francis: Either Defend Amoris Laetitia, or You're In Trouble


You will not believe the ridiculousness of it all, but Bergoglioland has finally reached full Banana Republic status. Pope Francis, the Anastasio Somoza of Adultery, the Papa Doc of Sinful Cohabitation, has under him now a Secret "Police", the Osservatorio per l'Attuazione della Riforma della Chiesa di Papa Francesco (OARCPF - Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis) sending our e-mail letters of official tone to professors in Roman institutions demanding them to teach Amoris Laetitia according to the mind of the Pope (that is, Holy Communion to public adulterers and fornicators) -- or (the threat is obviously implied) to face expulsion.

Sandro Magister reveals it today in his personal blog, and calls it a "Sodalitium Franciscanum", in reference to the "Sodalitium Pianum" (SP) St. Pius X supposedly established as an underground network to find Modernists infiltrated in the Church. The main difference, of course, is that the supposed "SP" tried to do a good thing (that is, avoid the spread of errors and novelties that attempted against the Faith and Morals the Church has always professed), while the Pope's new Banana-Gestapo (like the actual Gestapo or the KGB) tries to do a bad thing: expel from Catholic institutions those who simply want to teach Catholic Faith and Morals as the Church has always taught them -- and warns all that they are being monitored secretly in their classrooms in order to toe the new pro-adultery and pro-cohabitation line.

Magister transcribes the letter received by faculty in the Pontifical Institute John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and the Family (linked to the Lateran University). The threats contained in it are not hollow, because Francis himself intervened earlier this year to completely subject the board of the Institute to HIS new view of marriage (as opposed to Jesus Christ's and John Paul II's), putting strong henchmen in their place. Men who would not mind following orders, even if absurd. 

E-mail below:


Subject: Monitoring of studies and teaching in the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

Dear Mr/Ms Professor
Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
Pontifical Lateran University
Vatican City

As has already happened and is happening for other pastoral, academic, and cultural Catholic institutions, our Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF) – an initiative of a group of Catholuc lay people in support of the pontificate of Pope Francis – has begun in the current academic year the monitoring of the contents of publications of faculty and the teachings imparted [in class] in the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family  in order to make clear the adaptations or eventual disagreements regarding the address made by Pope Francis on the occasion of the opening of the new academic year of your Institute (Sala Clementina, October 28, 2016), in which you were called "to support the necessary opening of the intelligence of the faith in the service of the pastoral solicitude of the Successor of Peter."

In particular, the contents of published works and the imparted classes will be taken into consideration in reference to what is expressed in the apostolic Exhortation "Amoris laetitia", according to the image "of the Church that is, not of a Church thought in one's own image and likeness," orienting research and teaching not anymore towards "a too abstract theological ideal of matrimony, almost artificially built, far from the concrete situation and from the effective possibilities of families as they are" (Pope Francis, mentioned address, October 28, 2016).

To this end, we will make use of the analytical and critical reading of the studies published by the faculty, of the theses of graduation and doctorate approved by the Institute, of the syllabus of classes of of their bibliographies, as well as interviews of students made after classes, in the square in front of the Lateran University.

Certain that we are doing a useful task to improve the service that you perform with dedication to the Church and to the Holy Father, we keep you up to date on the results of our observational study.

Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF) - Section for Rome

Of course, it may be something limited to the Lateran University -- but if one professor is affected in the content of the classes out of fear of spreading the truth, the Bergoglian forces will have already triumphed.

Please note: Novus Ordo Watch (a Sedevacantist group who though teach the massive heresy that ALL Novus Ordo Sacraments are invalid and their priests invalidly ordained) has rightly warned that “We have long said that Francis’ open apostasy may be designed to make Benedict XVI and John Paul II look Catholic, and this is exactly what he has accomplished, judging by how many “traditionalists” in the Novus Ordo Church are acting: John Paul II and Benedict XVI are now being treated as though they had been paragons of Catholic orthodoxy, when in truth they undermined Catholicism every step of the way and engaged in the most disgusting heretical practices, taught heresy and other errors, and humiliated Jesus Christ before the Jews”.

That is true, and that is what is happening now!
       
Related article: On the Open Letter to Francis by the four cardinals

16 Nov 2016

On the "Open Letter" to Francis by the four cardinals


The four cardinals

Francis and Antonio Spadaro, S.J.

The four Cardinals who wrote a letter to anti-pope Francis in September 2016 asking the supposed “pope” to clarify grave errors in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia have now made the matter public—after waiting for Francis’ response for about two months, all in vain—by releasing their letter with an explanatory note giving the faithful the opportunity to see their grave concerns.

Of course, there have been responses from the apostate Rome concerning the letter.
 
Toronto Catholic Witness writes:

“Antonio Spadaro S.J., strikes back: The Four Cardinals are "disqualified" - the issue is now closed...As predicted by this blog, the dubia questions raised by the Four Cardinals regarding the permission of accepting Adulterers to Holy Communion has been soundly rejected by the Roman Authorities. 

“Antonio Spadaro., S.J., the Ghost Writer of Francis', and the de facto "pope" of Rome has rejected out of hand and dismissed the Four Cardinals. In this, I am not surprised, indeed, I predicted it. In no way is Francis and his manipulator, Spadaro in any way inconvenienced. 

“In an arrogant Tweet from his Twitter feed, Spadaro has reaffirmed Francis' letter to the South American Bishops, and sent a canon blast (no pun intended) towards the four Cardinals. 

“The issue is now closed. 

“The "official" Catholic media will now be strongly onside, the bishops of the world cowed; the laity - intoxicated with masturbation (well over 90%, perhaps as high as 95% of the general population), fornication, adultery, contraception, homosexual perversion, and unnatural oral and anal sex (actually onanistic sodomy which is being promoted by the Theology of the Body crowd) - solidly following Spadaro, will blindly accept the "wink-wink" at adultery from this Jesuit and his underlings in Rome. 

“Be assured that The "Four Cardinals" and their dubia are now a dead issue, and the promotion of adultery is proceeding at full speed. ...Once again: we have the Pope we deserve.”

Well, Cardinal Raymond Burke has indicated in a recent interview that the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the “pope” fail to address their concerns. (See: Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action).

Now that the “pope”—massively supported by blind bishops and priests around the world, INCLUDING ALL THE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IN NIGERIA AND THEIR BLIND “FAITHFUL”, the laity “intoxicated with masturbation (well over 90%, perhaps as high as 95% of the general population), fornication, adultery, contraception, homosexual perversion, and unnatural oral and anal sex (actually onanistic sodomy which is being promoted by the Theology of the Body crowd”—has failed to respond, we are eagerly awaiting that “formal correction”  from the four cardinals. Interesting to see the four cardinals basing most of their objections on the teachings of "St". John Paul II instead of pre-Vatican II teachings. We leave them for now. 

Here is the letter:
                                                                                
Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in "Amoris Laetitia"

1. A Necessary Foreword
2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope
3. The “Dubia”
4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals
     
CONTEXT
     
THE QUESTIONS
    
        Doubt number 1:
        Doubt number 2:
        Doubt number 3:
        Doubt number 4:
        Doubt number 5:
 
1. A Necessary Forward

The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals has its origin in a deep pastoral concern.

We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting interpretations of Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia".

The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to resolve those doubts which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.

Ours is therefore an act of justice and charity.

Of justice: with our initiative we profess that the Petrine ministry is the ministry of unity, and that to Peter, to the Pope, belongs the service of confirming in the faith.

Of charity: we want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.

We have also carried out a specific duty. According to the Code of Canon Law (cc. 349) the cardinals, even taken individually, are entrusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

We hope that no one will judge us, unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing has its origin in the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.

Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner

2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope

To His Holiness Pope Francis

and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller

Most Holy Father,

Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia", theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.

Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.

Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, we, with profound respect, permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as Supreme Teacher of the Faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the "Dubia" that we attach to the present letter.

May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.

Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner
 
Rome, September 19, 2016
*
3. The “Dubia”

1.    It is asked whether, following the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person "more uxorio" (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" n. 34 and "Sacramentum Caritatis" n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live "more uxorio"?

2.    After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3.    After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

4.    After the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

5.    After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
*
4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals

CONTEXT

"Dubia" (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.

Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.

Upon the publication of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around its eighth chapter. Here, specifically paragraphs 300-305, have been the object of divergent interpretations.

For many - bishops, priests, faithful - these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of "Dubia", hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.

The fact that interpreters come to different conclusions is also due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life. In this sense, what is at stake in "Amoris Laetitia" is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can - under certain circumstances - be readmitted to the sacraments.

Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.

Thus, while the first question of the "Dubia" concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.

THE QUESTIONS

Doubt number 1:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person "more uxorio" (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" n. 34 and "Sacramentum Caritatis" n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live "more uxorio"?

Question 1 makes particular reference to "Amoris Laetitia" n. 305 and to footnote 351. While note 351 specifically speaks of the sacraments of penance and communion, it does not mention the divorced and civilly remarried in this context, nor does the main text.

Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation "Familiaris Consortio", n. 84, already contemplated the possibility of admitting the divorced and civilly remarried to the sacraments. It mentions three conditions:

- The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of their children);

- They take upon themselves the commitment to live according to the truth of their situation, that is, to cease living together as if they were husband and wife ("more uxorio"), abstaining from those acts that are proper to spouses;

- They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the appearance of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).

The conditions mentioned by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and by the subsequent documents recalled will immediately appear reasonable once we remember that the marital union is not just based on mutual affection and that sexual acts are not just one activity among others that couples engage in.

Sexual relations are for marital love. They are something so important, so good and so precious, that they require a particular context, the context of marital love. Hence, not only the divorced living in a new union need to abstain, but also everyone who is not married. For the Church, the sixth commandment “Do not commit adultery” has always covered any exercise of human sexuality that is not marital, i.e., any kind of sexual acts other than those engaged in with one’s rightful spouse.

It would seem that admitting to communion those of the faithful who are separated or divorced from their rightful spouse and who have entered a new union in which they live with someone else as if they were husband and wife would mean for the Church to teach by her practice one of the following affirmations about marriage, human sexuality, and the nature of the sacraments:

- A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. However, people who are not married can under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.

- A divorce dissolves the marriage bond. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts. The divorced and remarried are legitimate spouses and their sexual acts are lawful marital acts.

- A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. People who are not married cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts, so that the divorced and civilly remarried live in a situation of habitual, public, objective and grave sin. However, admitting persons to the Eucharist does not mean for the Church to approve their public state of life; the faithful can approach the Eucharistic table even with consciousness of grave sin, and receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance does not always require the purpose of amending one’s life. The sacraments, therefore, are detached from life: Christian rites and worship are in a completely different sphere than the Christian moral life.
Doubt number 2:

After the publication of the Post-synodal Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

The second question regards the existence of so-called intrinsically evil acts. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" 79 claims that one can “qualify as morally evil according to its species … the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”

Thus, the encyclical teaches that there are acts that are always evil, which are forbidden by moral norms that bind without exception (“moral absolutes”). These moral absolutes are always negative, that is, they tell us what we should not do. “Do not kill.” “Do not commit adultery.” Only negative norms can bind without exception.

According to "Veritatis Splendor", with intrinsically evil acts no discernment of circumstances or intentions is necessary. Uniting oneself to a woman who is married to another is and remains an act of adultery that as such is never to be done, even if by doing so an agent could possibly extract precious secrets from a villain’s wife so as to save the kingdom (what sounds like an example from a James Bond movie has already been contemplated by St. Thomas Aquinas, "De Malo", q. 15, a. 1). John Paul II argues that the intention (say, “saving the kingdom”) does not change the species of the act (here: “committing adultery”), and that it is enough to know the species of the act (“adultery”) to know that one must not do it.
*
Doubt number 3:

After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

In paragraph 301 "Amoris Laetitia" recalls that: “The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” And it concludes that “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.”

In its Declaration of June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts seeks to clarify Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” The Pontifical Council’s Declaration argues that this canon is applicable also to faithful who are divorced and civilly remarried. It spells out that “grave sin” has to be understood objectively, given that the minister of the Eucharist has no means of judging another person’s subjective imputability.

Thus, for the Declaration, the question of the admission to the sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at all.

Along the same lines, in his encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia", n. 37, Saint John Paul II recalls that “the judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience.” Hence, the distinction referred to by "Amoris Laetitia" between the subjective situation of mortal sin and the objective situation of grave sin is indeed well established in the Church’s teaching.

John Paul II however continues by insisting that “in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved.” He then reiterates the teaching of Canon 915 mentioned above.

Question 3 of the "Dubia" hence would like to clarify whether, even after "Amoris Laetitia", it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder, or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.
*
Doubt number 4:

After the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

In paragraph 302, "Amoris Laetitia" stresses that on account of mitigating circumstances “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.” The "Dubia" point to the Church’s teaching as expressed in John Paul II’s "Veritatis Splendor" according to which circumstances or good intentions can never turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.

The question arises whether "Amoris Laetitia", too, is agreed that any act that transgresses against God’s commandments, such as adultery, murder, theft, or perjury, can never, on account of circumstances that mitigate personal responsibility, become excusable or even good.

Do these acts, which the Church’s Tradition has called bad in themselves and grave sins, continue to be destructive and harmful for anyone committing them in whatever subjective state of moral responsibility he may be?

Or could these acts, depending on a person’s subjective state and depending on the circumstances and intentions, cease to be injurious and become commendable or at least excusable?
*          
Doubt number 5:
After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
"Amoris Laetitia" n. 303 states that “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.” The "Dubia" ask for a clarification of these affirmations, given that they are susceptible to divergent interpretations.
For those proposing the creative idea of conscience, the precepts of God’s law and the norm of the individual conscience can be in tension or even in opposition, while the final word should always go to conscience that ultimately decides about good and evil. According to "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, “on this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.”
In this perspective, it will never be enough for moral conscience to know “this is adultery,” or “this is murder,” in order to know that this is something one cannot and must not do.
Rather, one would also need to look at the circumstances or the intentions to know if this act could not, after all be excusable or even obligatory (cf. question 4 of the "Dubia"). For these theories, conscience could indeed rightfully decide that in a given case, God’s will for me consists in an act by which I transgress one of his commandments. “Do not commit adultery” is seen as just a general norm. In the here and now, and given my good intentions, committing adultery is what God really requires of me. Under these terms, cases of virtuous adultery, lawful murder and obligatory perjury are at least conceivable.
This would mean to conceive of conscience as a faculty for autonomously deciding about good and evil and to conceive of God’s law as a burden that is arbitrarily imposed and that could at times be opposed to our true happiness.
However, conscience does not decide about good and evil. The whole idea of a “decision of conscience” is misleading. The proper act of conscience is to judge and not to decide. It says, “This is good,” “This is bad.” This goodness or badness does not depend on it. It acknowledges and recognizes the goodness or badness of an action, and for doing so, that is, for judging, conscience needs criteria; it is inherently dependent on truth.
God’s commandments are a most welcome help for conscience to get to know the truth and hence to judge verily. God’s commandments are the expression of the truth about our good, about our very being, disclosing something crucial about how to live life well. Pope Francis, too, expresses himself in these terms when in Amoris Laetitia 295: “The law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.” 

(Translation by Matthew Sherry): LifeSiteNews.com