Thursday, September 29, 2016

Moms and Dads Be Careful!!! Gender Ideology Is Now Being Wrapped in Cellophane and with a Big Bow for Our Children in the Film Called "Storks, Find Your Flock"

  • We would like to thank one of our readers/friends for sending us this warning.
  • What They Did Not Tell You Before You Took Your Children To Watch It.
  • They Seek, Very Subtly, to Condition Mentalities From an Early Age, with a Poison Concealed Behind Something Nice.

Friday, September 23, 2016

While It Is Possible… And When It Is Not Possible Anymore… by Father Castellani

My friends, while there is still something to save; with calmness, peace, prudence, reflection, firmness, and imploring the divine light, we must do whatever we can to save it. When there is nothing to be saved, we still have our soul to save (…) It is quite possible that under pressure from the plagues that are falling on the world, and from that new falsification of Catholicism, the structure of Western Christianity will continue to undo in such a way that, for a true Christian, very soon there will be nothing left to do with respect to the public life. What we have to do now is stick to the central message of Christianity: flee the world, believe in Christ, do as much good as we can, detach ourselves from creatures, step away from false prophets, and remember death. To sum up, live our lives to testify to the Truth and wish for the coming of Christ. In the midst of this chaos, we have to work carefully toward our salvation (…) The first Christians did not dream of reforming the judicial system of the Roman Empire; they dreamed of being able to face the beasts with all their strength; and of contemplating with horror the monstrous power of the devil over men in the figure of the Emperor Nero.

(Father Castellani. A modo de Prólogo. Decíamos Ayer.)

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Are Exorcisms A Thing of the Past? Father Amorth Answers (Year 1998)

• In the Bible there are cases of demonic possession.
• The devil is the cause of temptations, that is why we ask not to fall into temptation in the Our Father, which is the prayer that Christ taught us.
• “Deliver us from evil” refers to the wicked one.
• We must doubt of whatever the devils says during an exorcism, because he is the Father of Lies.
• No exorcist is infallible when interpreting the veracity or falsehood of what the devil claims.
• Being an exorcist does not mean that he cannot be mistaken in his priestly ministry.

Father Gabriele Amorth, exorcist of the diocese of Rome, which is the diocese of the Pope, is the author of the book entitled “An Exorcist Tells His Story”. In this book, he talks about the existence of the devil, how we can detect him, how he behaves, how to fight him with exorcisms, and who can expel the devil. The book was translated to Spanish and was presented recently in Madrid. On that occasion, Father Amorth made the following statements:

Why is Satanism spreading everywhere and, instead, exorcisms are becoming a subject of taboo?

When faith diminishes, superstition increases. Occultism always attracts great attention, especially with all the things it promises: to satisfy the three great passions, which are ambition (success, power), wealth (to be able to own everything one wishes to) and pleasure (sex, gluttony).

Exorcisms have become a subject of taboo because the world has stopped believing on the existence of the devil, as it is presented in the Bible. It no longer believes in possessions and spells, thinking that they are nothing but psychological illnesses which need to be solved by medicine. This leads people to believe that exorcisms are a thing of the past, something impossible to accept in modern society. There are even many priests who are confused or ignorant about exorcisms or who simply do not believe in them.

If the Church is deprived of exorcisms, would it mean that she is being deprived of signs of salvation?

Without a doubt, the exorcisms that Jesus performed were a sign that the Kingdom of God had started and that Satan’s realm had been defeated. They are a sign of Christ’s divinity because the devils are forced to obey Him. They are also a sign of future happiness, because Christ has defeated Satan and all the consequences that were introduced by him: sin, suffering and death.

Is it necessary for a Christian to know the power of darkness?

Yes, so he can fight against it with the strength of Faith. We are all subjected to the temptations of the devil; Jesus Himself accepted this human condition. Saint Paul says that our fight is against the devils. The knowledge of the power of darkness is useful to be able to understand all the evil that there is in this world.

Where can one see the devil?

There is the risk of thinking that he does not exist, which is something that many people claim today, but there also the risk of seeing him everywhere, in every illness, no matter how mild it may be, or in any setback. But those who have a clear idea of the devil know how to distinguish what comes from him from what it does not.

Is it possible that talking about the devil, exorcisms and possessions might create false fears?

Magicians and sorcerers are phony substitutes of exorcists. (Editor’s note: magicians and sorcerers who act as healers. There are, as Father Amorth asserts, magicians and sorcerers who work with the devil). Most of the times they are nothing but liars, but when they work along with Satan they can cause serious evils. Certainly, they can never do good; those who seek their help to get rid of their afflictions, can only aggravate their situation and condition.

Does this mean that sorcerers and magicians are pseudo-substitutes of exorcists?

Yes, that is right. Christians have forgotten that there is another kingdom, besides the Kingdom of Christ. The center of the gospel message is the Person of Jesus, our only Savior and Teacher. It is only thanks to Him that we can defeat evil. A great number of Christians allow themselves to be guided by sects, gurus and oriental religions. And, thereby, they abandon the Kingdom of God, Church and, finally, they lose their faith.

Do you mean that they have forgotten that there is another kingdom that is in front of the Kingdom of God?

… Paul VI, in his famous speech about the devil, on September 15, 1972, listed some of the signs of satanic influence: when there is a radical and subtle denial of God, which leads to preach that “God is dead”; when love disappears to make room for cold and cruel selfishness; when the name of Jesus is attacked with conscious and cruel hatred; when the spirit of the Gospel is distorted and denied. Behind all of these things is the impulse of the devil.

Being the official exorcist of the diocese of Rome, have you ever had direct experiences with him? Does the devil really possess so much evil, as some people claim?

His malice is immense because he is a pure spirit, with an intelligence that is not conditioned by material ties. In my book I tell many examples of this.

Is mortal sin the greatest diabolical possession?

We must distinguish between moral evil done to ruin a soul and a corporal possession. In the first instance, it can only happen with one’s consent, and salvation can only come through conversion. When the devil takes possession of a body, or when he is the cause of an evil, the soul does not give its consent for that to happen. It follows, therefore, that we should be more afraid of sin, which depends on us and is a surrender of the soul to the devil, than to the evils that the devil may cause to our bodies.

How is being an exorcist like?

The ministry of exorcist is a compromising and fatiguing task. The priest on charge of it must be spiritually alert, he feels in touch with the invisible world and this helps the faith, besides the possibility of doing so much good. Most of the times it is enough to lead the affected people toward a Christian life. There are so many people who call themselves believers, but that are not practicing! In cases where there is a satanic influence, people who are being attacked by the devil are freed from terrible evils.

The Devil tempts us making us believe he is not the one who is tempting us.

Monday, September 19, 2016


Over a million Mexicans attended nationwide rallies on Saturday, September 10, 2016, in support of traditional marriage. The protests were directed at President Enrique Pena Nieto's proposal to legalize same-sex marriage. The protesters chanted various slogans, including "Children need a father and a mother!" and "Wake up and defend the family!"

Marco Tulio Mendoza, director of the National Front for the Family, the chief organizers of the protest, said the group recorded 124 marches across the country.

"The purpose is to defend the family; what we are proposing is the protection of marriage and family. The parent has the right to educate their children according to their convictions, and that education be free of ideologies," he said during an interview. A Grand National March is planned in Mexico City on 24 September.

In May, Mexico's President signed an initiative to pave the way for same-sex couples to marry in accordance with Mexican law. The initiative included amending the Mexican constitution and federal civil code to allow marriage without any discrimination "based on ethnic or national origin, disability, social status, health conditions, religion, gender or sexual preference." However, the initiative has yet to take concrete steps to nationwide same-sex marriage since Nieto's party suffered losses in midterm elections in June.

Carlos Alberto Ramírez Ambríz, president of the Dilo Bien International movement and spokesman for the National Front for the Family, said that Peña Nieto “launched an attack against the family thinking that there would be no consequences for their political operations.” “Mexican society is tired of the corruption, impunity and arrogance that the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party, to which the president belongs) represents in Mexico and that fatigue was seen reflected in the recent elections.”

One more time, Catholics in Mexico even if they rerpresent 83,7 % are not receiving strong support by the bishops or Pope Francis in this defense of the family. Mexico’s Catholic bishops had denounced President Enrique Peña Nieto’s new initiative to reform the constitution and create homosexual “marriage,” but were silent about the immorality of homosexual unions and were even speaking positively about them, despite Catholic teaching to the contrary.

For example, the Cardinal Archbishop of Morelia, Michoacán, Alberto Suárez Inda, rejected homosexual “marriage” and blamed its promotion on international organizations but said it could be “legitimate to recognize [homosexual unions] as social pacts, as unions[.]"

The Bishop Raúl Vera López from the Diocese of Saltillo, is known for his views that are openly in contrast with Catholic doctrine. He favors the special rights claimed by LGBT activists and the promotion of abortion. He even called the sodomites “our saviors” who were needed to create a more inclusive Church.

The Pope himself, in his very cold visit to Mexico in February, did not give any encouragement to Mexicans in their fight against the destruction of the family, but received Bishop Vera in a private meeting and kept him at his side during the whole visit.

On the contrary, the Catholic Bishop of Cuernavaca, Mexico, Bishop Ramón Castro, was notably present at the recent March for the Family in Cuernavaca. Bishop Ramón Castro has been informed that he’s being investigated in response to a complaint by the socialist governor of the state of Morelos, Graco Ramírez, for speaking out against the creation of homosexual “marriage"; he is accused of “homophobia,” according to Mexican news outlets.

“If I go to prison, no problem, I’ll do the work of evangelization there!”.


Saturday, September 17, 2016

R.I.P. Father Gabriele Amorth!

Father Gabriele Amorth died on September 16 in Rome at the age of 91.

"I have no doubt that the devil tempts especially the leaders of the Church, as he tempts all leaders..."

Father Gabriele Amorth was born in Modena, in northern Italy, on May 1, 1925. After several days in the hospital of Santa Luciae, he died yesterday in Rome at the age of 91.

He was ordained a priest in 1954 at the age of 29. An excellent writer, he published many articles in Famiglia Cristiana. He became the editor of the Catholic monthly magazine Madre di Dio. He was a member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy.

In 1986, the Pope's cardinal vicar for the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Ugo Poletti, named Fr. Amorth the exorcist for the diocese.

In various interviews, Fr. Amorth said he had carried out more than 50,000 exorcisms over the years, with only 100 cases of real demonic possession in all those tens of thousands of cases. Most of the cases, he said, were either "disturbances" caused by the devil, or simple mental illnesses.

In an interview with Stefano Maria Paci published in 30 Giorni in 2001, Fr. Amorth sharply criticized the post-Vatican II revision of the rite of exorcism. In this interview, he spoke about "the legions of demons that have taken up residence in the Vatican.

The smoke of Satan enters everywhere... I have no doubt that the devil tempts especially the leaders of the Church, as he tempts all leaders."

Paci: Are you saying that here, as in any war, Satan wants to conquer the opposing generals?

Amorth: "It is a winning strategy. One always tries to implement it. Especially when the defenses of one's opponents are weak. Satan also tries. But thankfully there is the Holy Spirit who governs the Church: 'The gates of hell shall not prevail.' Despite the defections. And despite the betrayals. Which should cause us no surprise. The first traitor was one of the apostles closest to Jesus, Judas Iscariot. But despite this, the Church continues on her way. She is held up by the Holy Spirit and therefore all the efforts of Satan can have only partial results. Of course, the devil can win some battles. Even important ones. But never the war."

In another interview, Fr. Amorth once said that he believed the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, had not been done fully.

The Consecration has not yet been made... I was there on March 25 (1984) in St. Peter's Square, I was in the front row, practically within touching distance of the Holy Father. John Paul II wanted to consecrate Russia, but his entourage did not, fearing that the Orthodox would be antagonized, and they almost thwarted him. Therefore, when His Holiness consecrated the world on his knees, he added a sentence, not included in the distributed version, that instead said to consecrate 'especially those nations of which you yourself have asked for their consecration.' So, indirectly, this included Russia. However, a specific consecration has not yet been made. You can always do it. Indeed, it will certainly be done...".

Requiescat in pace!

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Prayer reminder for the thirteenth day of each month

We remind you that today, as every 13th day of each month, we will join together in prayer for five minutes, for the intentions that are explained in the following link:

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The Veil: Respect Before God and Honor to Women (Excellent Video)

According to the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (Canon 1262 §2)[1], the custom of women covering their head and men keeping it uncovered, is a tradition of apostolic origin stressed by Saint Paul [2]. As such, it is in force without it being explicitly ordained in the new Code. Unfortunately, this omission has led to its disuse. However, it would be a very good thing if Christian women knew the reason of this custom, that comes to us from the Apostles, and wore the veil again. Hence the importance of analyzing all the reasons exposed in this video. In fact, there are several churches, particularly those where the traditional rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated, where this beautiful custom has returned to the House of God. We pray so that it becomes a widespread practice once again throughout the Church, despite the lack of understanding of some people, and opposition of those who do not love the ancient traditions of the Church.

[1] Canon 1262 §2: “The men should assist at Divine Services, either in Church or outside of it, with uncovered heads, unless the approved customs of the people or peculiar circumstances demand the contrary; the women should assist in modest dress and with head covered, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
[2] “But every woman praying (in public)… with her head not covered, disgraceth her head… Doth it become a woman to pray (in public) unto God uncovered?” Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, 5, 13.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Biography of His Holiness, Saint Pius X

But as we were approved by God that the gospel should 
be committed to us: even so we speak, not as pleasing 
men but God, who proveth our hearts. 1 Thess 2:4.

Saint Pius X, Pope (1835 – 1914)
Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto was born 2nd June 1835, at the village of Riese, Province of Treviso, in Venice.
He was the oldest of eight children; his parents were Giovanni Battista Sarto and Margarita (née Sanson); the former, a postman, died in 1852 when he was 17, but Margarita lived to see her son a cardinal. They were a poor family. Their house at the centre of Riese had just eight rooms (four up and four down). The floors were earthen on the ground floor and rickety staircase led from the kitchen to the upstairs hall. The house is now and preserved in its original state with the original furniture and even  plates, cutlery and cooking utensils.
Guiseppe Sarto as a youth was a bright student and pious too. One of his pleasures when he had the time was to walk 2km to assist at Mass in his favourite church Santa Maria in Cendrolli in a neighbouring village. In order to save his shoes, for they were the only ones he possessed, he walked bare foot whenever he could. He tied his shoe laces together and hung his shoes around his neck.
After finishing his primary education, Giuseppe at first received private lessons in Latin from the arch-priest of his town, Don Tito Fusaroni, after which he studied for four years at the gymnasium of Castelfranco Veneto, walking to and fro every day.

Having being recognised as having a possible vocation, in 1850 at 15 years old he received the tonsure from the Bishop of Treviso, and was given a scholarship of the Diocese of Treviso in the seminary of Padua, where he finished his classical, philosophical, and theological studies with distinction. It is a credit to Don Tito Fusaroni that he was singled out and found a scholarship for Guiseppi Sarto, for his family were too poor to support him themselves and would not have dreamt of an honour so high for their son.



Guiseppi Sarto was ordained in 1858 at 23 years old, and was sent to a village called Tombolo as a curate. This was a difficult posting for the village was a poor one and the faith was dying among its inhabitants and what-is-more the parish priest was an invalid and required much care and attention. Father Sarto worked and prayed tirelessly. He was gifted in that he could survive on just four of sleep a night. The housekeeper for the parish priest reproached him on one occasion for leaving the oil lamp burning at night. She had seen it a 4 o’clock in the morning from the street. But Father Sarto was not sleeping at his time - he was already at his desk.
He not only performed the functions of the parish priest in Tombolo, he found time to study, seeking to perfect his knowledge of theology by assiduously studying Saint Thomas and canon law; and, at the same time he established a night school for adult students, and devoted himself to the ministry of preaching in other towns to which he was called.
In 1867, after his parish priest had signalled to the local bishop that Father Sarto had extraordinary talents and was wasted in a place like Tombolo, he was named arch-priest of Salzano, a large borough of the Diocese of Treviso. Here he restored the church, and provided for the enlargement and maintenance of the hospital by his own means, consistently with his habitual generosity to the poor; he especially distinguished himself by his abnegation during the cholera epidemic.
He also cared and provided much for the religious instruction of adults.
In 1878, on the death of Bishop Zanelli, he was elected vicar-capitular – which made him successor to the bishop.


And then on 10th November, 1884, he was named Bishop of Mantua, then a very troublesome see, and was consecrated on 20th November.
His chief care in his new position was for the formation of the clergy at the seminary. “Love your seminary” was his motto among the faithful. In one year the number of seminarians rose from about 9 to 149. Bishop Sarto himself taught dogmatic theology for several years at the seminary. At the seminary he insisted that the doctrine and method of St. Thomas be followed, and to many of the poorer students he gave copies of the "Summa theologica". He also cultivated the Gregorian Chant among the seminarians.
The temporal administration of his see imposed great sacrifices upon Bishop Sarto. He visited every parish of his diocese and, despite his gentle disposition towards others, he insisted on strict discipline among his clergy ensuring that their spiritual lives were in order and that their duties to study be fulfilled.
It was not unknown for Bishop Sarto, when visiting the presbyteries of his diocese, to select moral theology textbooks from the libraries of his priests, blow the dust off them and then fix the trembling priest with an inquisitive glare.
By his attendance at the confessional, he gave the example of pastoral zeal. He never ceased to promote the catechism as the principal tool for Catholic education and encouraged the Catholic political movement "Opera dei Congressi".

Pope Pius X


On the death of Pope Leo XIII, the princes of the Church, the cardinals, entered into conclave. Mgr Merry de Val, the young sophisticated and brilliant diplomat was unexpectedly made Secretary of the Conclave and after the dramatic attempt to veto the liberal Cardinal Rampolla by the Emperor Franz-Joseph, and after several ballots Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto was elected on 4th August by a vote of 55 out of a possible 60 votes. He was under no illusions about the task that faced him so that when the Cardinal Dean asked Cardinal Sarto what name he would assume the answer was: “Since the Popes who have suffered most for the Church in this age have borne the name of Pius, I will to take this name.” His coronation took place on the following Sunday, 9 August, 1903.
The election of St. Pius X was a surprise to the world. He was not from the Roman Curia, he had no diplomatic experience, he was of humble origin, the son of a postman, and virtually unknown outside of Italy. He didn’t even speak French (imagine!). He was the first to ascend the throne of Peter having passed through every clerical rank from curate to pope. It was only after the official reception of the Diplomatic Corps, where the ambassadors of the nations of the world, were officially presented to the new pope that the wisdom of the conclave became apparent.
Pope St. Pius X ascended the Papal throne at a critical stage in Church history. The Church had lost the last of its Papal States in 1870 to the Italian Revolutionaries; the major secular powers of the world were controlled by the enemies of the Church; the morals of the age were in deplorable decline; and the Church herself was being corrupted from within by pernicious errors.
While Leo XIII had done much the to increase the prestige of the Church in the eyes of the world, and while he had made some reforms and encouraged a rekindling of the intellectual and spiritual life among Catholics, the situation was still near desperate.



The biggest battle of all was one of ideas. While the Church possesses the integral truth, there have been times during the Church’s history where her children have veered away from the perennial doctrine of the Church. The error of his time and of our time is the most pernicious of all errors. It was not like Arianism, Pelagianism, or any of the heresies that denied some aspect of the Church’s doctrine in the preceding centuries. This heresy was a synthesis of all heresies, it challenged not one doctrine but everything together. The heresy was called Modernism.
Modernism destroys the order of man to God. God made man with an intellect, with a will and with passions. When man is ordered to God his passions are submitted to his will, his will is submitted to his intellect and his intellect is submitted to God. Modernism destroys this order, it consists of two elements:
The first element is to separate the intellect of man from God. This error is called Agnosticism and claims that whatever is unknowable by the direct experience of man cannot be the object of science. Revelation is discredited as is natural theology. In effect, it holds that it is folly to search for God using our intellects because God cannot be seen, touched or heard.
The second element is to submit the intellect and the will to the passions by holding that the supernatural virtue of faith, instead of being an infused virtue that moves the intellect to adhere to divinely revealed truth, is really a religious sentiment, a feeling, a movement of the passions resulting from the subconscious innate need of man for God. It is called Vital Immanence and not only does it deny the origins of faith, it denies the distinction between natural and supernatural because it claims that faith is natural to man.
In 1907, he caused the publication of the Decree Lamentabili (called also the Syllabus of Pius X), in which sixty-five propositions are condemned. The greater number of these propositions concern the Holy Scriptures, their inspiration, and the doctrine of Jesus and of the Apostles, while others relate to dogma, the sacraments, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Soon after that, on 8th September 1907, there appeared the famous EncyclicalPascendi, which expounds and condemns the system of Modernism. It points out the danger of Modernism in relation to philosophy, apologetics, exegesis, history, liturgy, and discipline, and shows the contradiction between that innovation and the ancient faith; and, finally, it establishes rules by which to combat efficiently the pernicious doctrines in question.
Among other measures (the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum on the regulation of teaching in ecclesiastical institutions, and the prescription of the anti-modernist oath [abandoned at the time of Vatican II - when it was most needed!]) Pope Pius X established a committee to censor books and to root out Modernism in the dioceses and especially in the seminaries.
It was a liberal age and the errors of modernism found ready adherents in the young seminarians. New and exciting ideas, the promise of freedom from the sound discipline of the past were causing many to adhere to Modernist ideas. Pius X was ruthless in weeding out these pernicious elements. The danger to the faith was so great that he encouraged those with responsibility to expel without scruple anyone who showed signs of sympathy towards Modernist ideas.



In the Encyclical Acerbo nimis (15th April 1905) he treated of the necessity of catechismal instruction, not only for children, but also for adults, giving detailed rules, especially in relation to suitable schools for the religious instruction of students of the public schools, and even of the universities. He caused a new catechism to be published for the Diocese of Rome and subsequently the Catechism of Saint Pius X.
The catechism is the most efficient means of teaching the fundamental truths of the faith. While is might appear dry and uninteresting, if it is memorised it provides the Catholic with a starting point in meditation, discussion and defence of every aspect of the faith.

Canon Law


Another invaluable contribution Pope Pius X effected was the codification of Canon Law. Canon Law is the law of the Church. Just as every society needs laws to govern itself, the Church which is the perfect society, also needs laws. Until that time the system of Canon Law had evolved haphazardly on a regional basis. Every country, every diocese and every religious community had its own laws which overlapped; there was no unity within the Church. Pius X, therefore, on 19th March 1904, created a special congregation of cardinals, of which Mgr Gasparri, later a cardinal, became the secretary. The most eminent authorities on canon law, throughout the world, collaborated in the formation of the new code. He died before the completion of the project which terminated in the 1917 Code of  Canon Law published under Pope Benedict XV.


Many say that the outbreak of war broke his heart. On 18th August he contracted fever and died on 20th August 1914.  Miracles were worked. In June, 1951, Pius XII beatified and on May 29, 1954, canonized this great Pope of the Eucharist.

 The inscription on his tomb, in St. Peter's reads: "Born poor and humble of heart, Undaunted champion of the Catholic faith, Zealous to restore all things in Christ, Crowned a holy life with a holy death."

Monday, September 5, 2016

45 Catholic Theologians, Philosophers and Historians Confront Amoris Laetitia with the Immutable Doctrine of the Catholic Church

They request that the Patriarchs and Cardinals ask the Pope to Condemn the Errors Against Faith Contained There. 

On June 29, 2016, 45 theologians from all over the world addressed to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, a critical analysis of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia in which they condemn 19 statements in this Papal document. Their critique has appeared on a number of English-language websites. Here is the English version of the letter to Cardinal Sodano and the names of the 45 signatories.


Letter to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals

29th June, 2016
 Your Eminence,

As Catholic theologians and philosophers, church historians and pastors of souls, we are writing to you in your capacity as Dean of the College of Cardinals to request that the College of Cardinals and the Patriarchs of the Catholic Church take collective action to respond to the dangers to Catholic faith and morals posed by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia issued by Pope Francis on March 19th 2016. This apostolic exhortation contains a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals. We have specified the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia in the accompanying document. We request that the Cardinals and Patriarchs petition the Holy Father to condemn the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitiadoes not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true. For the convenience of the Patriarchs and members of the College of Cardinals, we shall send each of them a copy of this letter and its accompanying document.


Dr. José Tomás Alvarado

Associate Professor

Institute of Philosophy, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile


Rev. Fr Scot Anthony Armstrong PhD

Brisbane Oratory in formation

 Rev. Claude Barthe

Rev. Ray Blake

Parish priest of the diocese of Arundel and Brighton

Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières FSVF

Doctor of Philosophy

Dr. Philip Blosser

Professor of Philosophy

Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Archdiocese of Detroit

Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carambula, STD, JD

Chaplain and Faculty Member of the Roman Forum

Rev. Fr Thomas Crean OP, STD

Holy Cross parish, Leicester

Fr. Albert-Marie Crignion FSVF

Doctor designatus of Theology

Roberto de Mattei

Professor of the History of Christianity, European University of Rome

Cyrille Dounot JCL

Professor of Law the University of Auvergne, licencié en droit canonique,

Ecclesiastical advocate, archdiocese of Lyon

Fr Neil Feguson OP, MA, BD

Lecturer in sacred Scripture, Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford

Dr Alan Fimister STL, PhD

Assistant Professor of Theology, St John Vianney Seminary, archdiocese of Denver

Luke Gormally

Director Emeritus, The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics (1981-2000)

Sometime Research Professor, Ave Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Michigan (2001-2007)

Ordinary Member, The Pontifical Academy for Life

Carlos A. Casanova Guerra

Doctor of Philosophy, Full Professor of Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago de Chile

Rev. Brian W.Harrison OS, MA, STD

Associate Professor of Theology (retired), Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico; Scholar-in-

Residence, Oblates of Wisdom Study Center, St.Louis, Missouri; Chaplain, St.Mary of Victories

Chapel, St. Louis, Missouri

Rev. Simon Henry BA. (Hons), MA

Parish priest of the archdiocese of Liverpool

Rev. John Hunwicke

Former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford; Priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of

Peter A. Kwasniewski PhD, Philosophy

Professor, Wyoming Catholic College

Dr. John R. T. Lamont, STL, D.Phil

 Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta, PhD

Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology, Theological Faculty of Lugano, Switzerland

Priest in charge of St Mary’s, Gosport, in the diocese of Portsmouth

Dr Anthony McCarthy,

Visiting Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at the International Theological Institute, Austria

Rev. Stephen Morgan DPhil (Oxon).

Lecturer & Tutor in Theology, Maryvale Higher Institute of Religious Sciences

 Don Alfredo Morselli STL

Parish priest of the archdiocese of Bologna

Rev. Richard A. Munkelt PhD (Philosophy)

Chaplain and Faculty Member, Roman Forum

Fr Aidan Nichols OP, PhD

Formerly John Paul II Lecturer in Roman Catholic Theology, University of Oxford

Prior of the Convent of St Michael, Cambridge

 Fr. Robert Nortz MMA, STL

Director of Studies, Monastery of the Most Holy Trinity, Massachusetts (Maronite)

Rev. John Osman MA, STL

Parish priest in the archdiocese of Birmingham, former Catholic chaplain to the University of

Christopher D. Owens, STL. (Cand.)

Adjunct Instructor, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, St. John’s University (NYC)

Director, St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies

Rev David Palmer MA

Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Chair of Marriage and Family Life Commission, Diocese of Nottingham

Dr Paolo Pasqualucci

Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia

 Dr Claudio Pierantoni

Professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Chile

Former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Faculty of Theology of the Pontificia

Universidad Católica de Chile

Member of the International Association of Patristic Studies

Fr Anthony Pillari JCL (Cand.)

Priest of the archdiocese of San Antonio, chaplain to Carmelite nuns

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli

International Science and Commonsense Association (ISCA)

Department of Metaphysics of Beauty and Philosophy of Arts, Research Director

 Dr John C. Rao D.Phil. (Oxford)

Associate Professor of History, St. John’s University (NYC)

Chairman, Roman Forum

 Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire FSVF

Doctor designatus of canon law

 Rt. Rev. Giovanni Scalese CRSP, SThL, DPhil

Ordinary of Afghanistan

 Dr Joseph Shaw

Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford University

Dr Anna M. Silvas FAHA,

Adjunct research fellow, University of New England, NSW, Australia.

Michael G. Sirilla, PhD

Professor of Systematic and Dogmatic Theology, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Professor Dr Thomas Stark

Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Benedikt XVI, Heiligenkreuz

Rev. Glen Tattersall

Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, archdiocese of Melbourne

Rector, St Aloysius’ Church

Giovanni Turco

Professor of the Philosophy of Public Law, University of Udine

Fr Edmund Waldstein OCist.

Vice-Rector of the Leopoldinum seminary and lecturer in moral theology at the Phil.-Theol.

Nicolas Warembourg

Professeur agrégé des facultés de droit

Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne – Université Paris 1




The apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, issued by Pope Francis on March 19th 2016 and addressed to bishops, priests, deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples, and all the lay faithful, has caused grief and confusion to many Catholics on account of its apparent disagreement with a number of teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. This situation poses a grave danger to souls. Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, inferiors are bound to correct their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the faith (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae q. 33 a. 4 ad 2; a. 7 co.), and the Catholic faithful have the right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to make known their views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Latin Code of Canon Law, Can. 212, §3), Catholic theologians have a strict duty to speak out against the apparent errors in the document. This statement on Amoris laetitia is intended to fulfil that duty, and to assist the hierarchy of the Church in addressing this situation.

The authority of Amoris laetitia


The official character of Amoris laetitia enables it to pose a grave danger to the faith and morals of Catholics. Although an apostolic exhortation pertains normally or principally to the purely pastoral governing power, nevertheless, on account of the inter-connection of the powers of teaching and of government, it also pertains indirectly to the magisterial power. It can also contain directly magisterial passages, which are then clearly indicated as being such. This was the case for previous apostolic exhortations such as Evangelii nuntiandi, Familiaris consortio, and Reconciliatio et paenitentia.

There is no obstacle as such to the Pope’s using an apostolic exhortation to teach infallibly on faith and morals, but no infallible teaching is contained in Amoris laetitia, since none of its statements satisfy the strict requirements for an infallible definition. It is thus a non-infallible exercise of the papal magisterium.

Some commentators have asserted that the document does not contain magisterial teaching as such, but only the personal reflections of the Pope on the subjects it addresses. This assertion if true would not remove the danger to faith and morals posed by the document. If the Supreme Pontiff expresses a personal opinion in a magisterial document, this expression of opinion implicitly presents the opinion in question as one that it is legitimate for Catholics to hold. As a result, many Catholics will come to believe that the opinion is indeed compatible with Catholic faith and morals. Some Catholics out of respect for a judgment expressed by the Supreme Pontiff will come to believe that the opinion is not only permissible but true. If the opinion in question is not in fact compatible with Catholic faith or morals, these Catholics will thus reject the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church as it applies to this opinion. If the opinion relates to questions of morals, the practical result for the actions of Catholics will be the same whether they come to hold that the opinion is legitimate or actually true. An opinion on moral questions that is in truth legitimate for the Supreme Pontiff to hold is one that it is legitimate for Catholics to follow. Belief in the legitimacy of a moral position will thus lead Catholics to believe that it is legitimate to act as if it is true. If there is a strong motivation to act in this way, as there is with the questions being addressed here for the faithful to whose situations these questions are pertinent, most Catholics will act accordingly. This is an important factor in an evaluation of Amoris laetitia, because that document addresses concrete moral questions.
It is however not the case that Amoris laetitia is intended to do no more than express the personal views of the Pope. The document contains statements about the personal positions of the current Holy Father, but such statements are not incompatible with these positions being presented as teachings of the Church by the document. Much of the document consists of straightforward assertoric and imperative statements that make no reference to the personal views of the Holy Father, and that thus have the form of magisterial teachings. This form will cause Catholics to believe that these statements are not simply permissible, but are teachings of the authentic magisterium which call for religious submission of mind and will; teachings to which they must yield not a respectful silence accompanied by inner disagreement, but actual inner assent. (1)

The dangers of Amoris laetitia


The following analysis does not deny or question the personal faith of Pope Francis. It is not justifiable or legitimate to deny the faith of any author on the basis of a single text, and this is especially true in the case of the Supreme Pontiff. There are further reasons why the text of Amoris laetitia cannot be used as a sufficient reason for holding that the Pope has fallen into heresy. The document is extremely long, and it is probable that much of its original text was produced by an author or authors who are not Pope Francis, as is normal with papal documents. Those statements in it that on the face of them contradict the faith could be due to simple error on Pope Francis’s part, rather than to a voluntary rejection of the faith.

When it comes to the document itself, however, there is no doubt that it constitutes a grave danger to Catholic faith and morals. It contains many statements whose vagueness or ambiguity permit interpretations that are contrary to faith or morals, or that suggest a claim that is contrary to faith and morals without actually stating it. It also contains statements whose natural meaning would seem to be contrary to faith or morals.
The statements made by Amoris laetitia are not expressed with scientific accuracy. This can be advantageous for the very small proportion of Catholics who have a scientific training in theology, because such Catholics will be able to discern that the assertions of Amoris laetitia do not demand their religious submission of mind and will, or even a respectful silence in regard to them. Accurate formulation and proper legal form are needed in order to make a magisterial utterance binding in this fashion, and these are for the most part lacking in the document. It is however harmful for the vast majority of Catholics who do not have a theological training and are not well informed about Catholic teachings on the topics that the apostolic exhortation discusses. The lack of precision in the document’s statements makes it easier to interpret them as contradicting the real teachings of the Catholic Church and of divine revelation, and as justifying or requiring the abandonment of these teachings by Catholics in theory and in practice. Some cardinals, bishops, and priests, betraying their duty to Jesus Christ and to the care of souls, are already offering interpretations of this sort.
The problem with Amoris laetitia is not that it has imposed legally binding rules that are intrinsically unjust or authoritatively taught binding teachings that are false. The document does not have the authority to promulgate unjust laws or to require assent to false teachings, because the Pope does not have the power to do these things. The problem with the document is that it can mislead Catholics into believing what is false and doing what is forbidden by divine law. The document is formulated in terms that are not legally or theologically exact, but this does not matter for the evaluation of its contents, because the most precise formulation cannot give legal and doctrinal status to decrees that are contrary to divine law and divine revelation. What is important about the document is the damaging effect it can have on the belief and moral life of Catholics. The character of this effect will be determined by the meaning that most Catholics will take it to have, not by its meaning when evaluated by precise theological criteria, and it is this meaning that will be addressed here. The propositions of Amoris laetitia that require censure must thus be condemned in the sense that the average reader is liable to attribute to their words. The average reader here is understood to be one who is not trying to twist the words of the document in any direction, but who will take the natural or the immediate impression of the meaning of the words to be correct.

It is acknowledged that some of the censured propositions are contradicted elsewhere in the document, and that Amoris laetitia contains many valuable teachings. Some of the passages of Amoris laetitia make an important contribution to the defence and preaching of the faith. The criticism of Amoris laetitia offered here permits these valuable elements to have their true effect, by distinguishing them from the problematic elements in the document and neutralising the threat to the faith posed by them.

For the sake of theological clarity and justice, this criticism of the harmful parts of Amoris laetitia will take the form of a theological censure of the individual passages that are deficient. These censures are to be understood in the sense traditionally held by the Church (2), and are applied to the passages prout iacent, as they lie. The propositions censured are so damaging that a complete listing of the censures that apply to them is not attempted. Most if not all of them fall under the censures of aequivoca, ambigua, obscura, praesumptuosa, anxia, dubia, captiosa, male sonans, piarum aurium offensiva, as well as the ones listed. The censures list i) the censures that bear upon the content of the statements censured, and ii) those that bear upon the damaging effects of the statements. The censures are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors that Amoris laetitia on a plausible reading contains; they seek to identify the worst threats to Catholic faith and morals in the document. The propositions censured are divided into those that are heretical and those that fall under a lesser censure. Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The propositions that fall under a lesser censure than heresy are included as posing an especially grave danger to faith and morals.

The censures of these propositions are not censures of administrative, legislative or doctrinal acts of the Supreme Pontiff, since the propositions censured do not and cannot constitute such acts. The censures are the subject of a filial request to the Supreme Pontiff, which asks him to make a definitive and final juridical and doctrinal act condemning the propositions censured.
Finally, some of the theologians who are signatories to this letter reserve the right to make minor adjustments to some of the censures attached to some of the propositions: their signatures should be taken as indicating their belief that all the propositions should be censured, and a general agreement with the censures here proposed.

Theological censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia


A – Heretical propositions.

1)    AL 83 : ‘The Church … firmly rejects the death penalty’.

If understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the state:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Perniciosa.
Gen. 9:63:
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
See also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28; Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120: 499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 7954; Pius V,Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment; Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.

2)    AL 156 : ‘Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’

If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Prava, perniciosa.

Eph. 5:24:
“As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”
See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.
3)    AL 159 : ‘Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.’

Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10:
“If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).

See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII, Sacra virginitasAAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10.

4)    AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’

AL 301: ‘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”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18:
“If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH1568).
See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

5)    AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’

If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Scandalosa, perniciosa.

Matt. 25: 46:
“These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”
See also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th Synod of Toledo (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus DeusDH 1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeliDH 1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum, AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-37.

6)    AL 299 : ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’

If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Mk. 10:11-12:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.
See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

7)    AL 301 : ‘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”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Prava, perversa.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20:
“If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

8)    AL 301 : ‘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, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:
1.   Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Prava, perversa.

Ps. 18:8:
“The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”
See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).

9)    AL 303 : ‘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, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’

Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21:
“If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).”

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2:
“If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802).”

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5:
“If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805)

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7:
“If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH2162-63); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum,ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177;Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.

10)  AL 304 : ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’

Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115:
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14 (DH1254); Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).

11)  AL 308 : ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’

If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:
1.    Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.

1 Cor. 11:27:
“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
Familiaris consortio, 84:
“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’.”
2nd Lateran Council, canon 20:
“Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).
See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 1646­47)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 (DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

B) Propositions falling under lesser censures

12)  AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’

If understood as meaning that free acts that do not fully carry out the objective demands of divine law can be morally good:
1.    Erronea in fide.
2.    Scandalosa, prava.

1 Jn. 3: 4:
“Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.”
See also: Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimumASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).

13)  AL 296 : “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.”

AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’

Understood as meaning that in circumstances where an offender does not cease to commit an offence the Church does not have the power or the right to inflict punishments or condemnations without later remitting them or lifting them, or that the Church does not have the power or the right to condemn and anathematise individuals after their death:
1.    Erronea in fide.
2.    Scandalosa, perniciosa, derogans praxi sive usui et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1358:
“The remission of a censure cannot be granted except to an offender whose contempt has been purged”.
3rd Council of Constantinople, Condemnation of the Monothelites and of Pope Honorius I:
“As to these self-same men whose impious teachings we have rejected, we have also judged it necessary to banish their names from the holy Church of God, that is, the name of Sergius, who began to write about this impious doctrine, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, of Paul and of Peter and of those who have presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and the same for those who have been like-minded. Then also (the name) of Theodore who was bishop of Pharan. All these aforenamed persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and thrice-blessed pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the . . . emperor, and rejected by him as having thought in a way contrary to our orthodox faith; and we determine that they are also subject to anathema. Along with these we have seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome” (DH 550).

See also: 2nd Council of Constantinople, canons 11-12; Lateran Synod, canon 18 (DH 518-20); Leo II, Letter Regi regumDH 563; 4th Council of Constantinople, canon 11; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH1339-1346; Benedict XV, 1917  canons 855, 2214, 2241:1 and 2257; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 915 and 1311; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 1424:1.

14)  AL 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.’

If understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone other than their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being sexually faithful to their civil partner:
1.    Erronea in fide.
2.    Scandalosa.

1 Cor. 7:10-11:
“To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.”
See also: Gen. 2: 21; Mal. 2:15-16; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Heb. 13:4; Letter Quam laudabiliter of Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus ad nos of Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter Gaudemus in Domino of Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus (DH 860); Council of Trent, Session 24 canons 5, 7; Pius Vl, Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11th July 1789; Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 19, 80-81, 84: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1643-49.

15)  AL 298 : ‘The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. [footnote 329] 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”.’ {N.B. The last clause in double quotation marks misleadingly applies to divorced and civilly married couples a statement of Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51, that refers only to validly married couples.

Understood as endorsing claims that divorced and civilly remarried couples have an obligation of sexual faithfulness to each other rather than to their true spouses, or that their living ‘as brother and sister’ could be either a culpable occasion of sin against that supposed obligation, or a culpable cause of harm to their children:
1.    Erronea in fide.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Ecclesiasticus 15:21:
“He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin.”
See also: Rom. 3:8, 8: 28; 1 Thess. 4:7; Jas. 1:13-14; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 79-83: AAS 85 (1993): 1197-99 (cf. DH 4969-70).

16) AL 300 : ‘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. [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.’
AL 305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [footnote 351] In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”’.’

Understood as saying that absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy:
1.    Erronea in fide, falsa.
2.    Scandalosa.

John Paul II, Familiaris consortio 84:
“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’.”
1 Jn. 2:20:
“You have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things”.
See also Ez. 3:17; Mt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 11:27-29; Eph. 5:30-32; 2nd Lateran Council, DH 717; Paul V, Rituale Romanum, 49; Benedict XIV, Confirmation of the Synod of the Maronites; Encyclical letter Ex omnibus; Benedict XV, 1917Code of Canon Law, canon 855; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 915; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic communion by those faithful who after a divorce have entered a new marriage, AAS 86 (1994): 974-79; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 712; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650, 2390; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, in “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT), “Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 29: AAS 99 (2007), 128-29.

16)  AL 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.’

If understood as meaning that the divorced and remarried can either sin or culpably expose themselves to the occasion of sin by abstaining from sexual relations in accordance with the perennial teaching and discipline of the Church:
1.    Temeraria, falsa.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, derogans praxi et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

Ecclesiasticus 15:16:
“If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.”
See also: 1 Cor. 7:11, 10:13; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 102-03: AAS 85 (1993): 1213-14; Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio, 84, AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 99 (2007), 128-29.

17)  AL 298 : ‘There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.’ 

If understood as meaning that subjective certainty in conscience about the invalidity of a previous marriage is sufficient on its own to excuse from guilt or legal penalty those who contract a new marriage when their previous marriage is recognised as valid by the Church:
1.    Temeraria, falsa.
2.    Scandalosa.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 12:
“If anyone says that matrimonial cases do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema” (DH 1812).
See also: Leo XIII, ArcanumASS 12 (1879), 393; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 1059-60, 1085.

19) AL 311 : ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these considerations.’
Understood as meaning that the teaching of moral theology in the Catholic Church should present as probable or true any of the propositions censured above:
1.    Falsa.
2.    Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa.

Matt. 5:19:
“He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
See also: Is. 5:20; Mt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 6:20; Jas. 3:1; Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum, DH 3541; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine ecclesiae exercendoAAS 81 (1989): 106; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum veritatis, On the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, AAS 82 (1990): 1559; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 115-16: AAS 85 (1993): 1223-24; Benedict XVI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ, 2 (DH 5107).

The propositions censured above have been condemned in many previous magisterial documents. It is urgently necessary that their condemnation be repeated by the Supreme Pontiff in a definitive and final manner and that it be authoritatively stated that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.

Source: onepeterfive – DICI du 09/08/16


1 Cf. Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, 2nd ed. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 52-55; and A.-M. Aubry, Obéir ou assentir ? De la « soumission religieuse » au magistère simplement authentique, Paris, DDB, Collection « Sed Contra », 2015. .
2 See H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of the Professio fidei’, June29th, 1998.
3 Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the neo-Vulgate.
4 All references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd edition.