Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part four

Although it is hard to believe, it has only been nine days since the release of Amoris Laetitia, which was signed by the false “pope,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, on Saturday, March 19, 2016, the Feast of Saint Joseph. The man who loves to “make a mess” of things” is reveling as his grand scheme of tearing apart the last remaining bastions of anything recognizably Catholic in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.  

We are eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of the prophetic warning that had been given to the bishops of Holy Mother Church by Pope Pius VIII in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

Pope Pius VIII’s description of how the bishops of his day at the end of the third decade of the Nineteenth Century is exact opposite of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants his own “bishops” to be, and this is because he, Bergoglio, belongs to the category of evil forces that Pope Pius VIII warned his bishops to remove from their very midst. Read the passages above over and over again. You will see how prophetic they are in light of today’s incredible circumstances.

Bergoglio knows that most of those “conservatives” and “traditionalists” who recognize him as “Pope Francis” will complain loudly about his heresies. He also knows that most of the complainers are all talk, meaning that they will never “walk” from the conciliar structures or come to the conclusion that he is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. The Argentine Apostate knows that the tide has turned in his false church, that the thought of a “conservative” revival has been ended for good even though “conservatives” do not realize that this is the case.

Amoris Laetitia has opened up the floodgates of sin in the name of “mercy,” thus making it impossible for any “conservative” or “traditionally-minded” priest or presbyter in the conciliar structures to preach about the horrors of sin ever again or even to deny absolution to someone who is in what their “pope” says is merely an “irregular” situation without hearing about it from their local chancery office. The conciliar revolution’s overthrow of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals is now complete. Anyone who thinks that their “petitions” or letter-writing campaigns to turn the clock back to the supposedly “good old days” of the heretical exponent of the “new theology,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is delusional.

Yet it is that most of the “conservatives” and “traditionalists” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will never leave. They will stay within what can be called the “Worldwide Conciliar Communion” as they content themselves to complain privately much in the manner that has been done for nearly a century now by “Anglo-Catholics” within the so-called “Worldwide Anglican Communion.”

High Anglicans are notorious for threatening to do something "any day now" about the ways in which their more "liberal" brethren have departed from "traditional" teachings over the years. These threats have been mostly hallow, although there have been moments when some prominent "high church" Anglicans have converted to the true Faith, especially during the Oxford Movement of the Nineteenth Century. Even Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 9, 2009, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of Our Saviour (Basilica of Saint John Lateran), which resulted in the “Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Washingham in 2011, convinced very few “high” Anglicans to leave their false religious sect, which was, after all, created by the lustful, adulterous and bigamous King Henry VIII because Popes Urban VII and Paul III refused to accede to his demands for the dissolution of his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon. (Henry could have gotten anything he wanted, including a “photo-op,” if only he could have waited four hundred seventy-two years for “Pope Francis” and Amoris Laetitia.)

Most Anglo-Catholics, as they like to call themselves, long ago convinced themselves that their false "church" is indeed one of the three great "pillars" of Christendom, the other two being the Roman Catholic Church and the heretical and schismatic Orthodox churches. This special brand of hubris is a rather prominent feature of the English, of course. It couldn't possibly be the case that the Anglican "church" is no church at all, that it has no true bishops and no true priests, hence has no true Eucharist and no true absolution of Mortal Sins committed, and that it, the Anglican "church," has no authority from the Second Person of the Blessed made man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother to teach anything in His Holy Name. No, English pride can't admit that the "party" has been over since King Henry VIII took Catholic England out of the true Church in 1534 and since his daughter, Queen Elizabeth I, did so for good in 1560.

Many Anglo-Catholics really do believe, of course, that the Anglican "church" is a real, legitimate church, perhaps not the one and only true Church, but a true "church" nevertheless, equal in authority and history to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. It is this false belief that causes them to hesitate when some particularly egregious novelty is advanced by their liberal or progressivist brethren. They believe that they can "hold their noses" and swim against the progressivist tide as long as they maintain the "bells and whistles" of the High Anglican liturgy--and as long as they can retain their titles and parsonages. After all, you can't be expected to give up all this just over an internecine battle in one of the "three pillars" of Christendom, now can you?

Ah, but it is precisely that false line of reasoning that caused many Catholics in the Sixteenth Century to defect from the Faith and to go along with the breaks with the true Church caused by Henry Tudor and his daughter Elizabeth. After all, one can't be serious about this business of giving up his life for the Faith. There are more important duties, you know, starting with our "duty" to our king or our queen and to our "national" traditions. We can't be "traitors" to England, of all things. Let's be "reasonable" about all of this.

Indeed, the high degree of tolerance that Anglo-Catholics have exhibited in the face of progressivists has been parodied in a number of ways, including in the following set of conversations between and Anglican "priest" and his wife before and after a decennial Lambeth Committee meeting:

Before the Lambeth Committee meeting:

Anglican "priest:" If the liberals do one more thing, just more thing, I'm converting to Catholicism."

Wife: "Well, you said that when the liberals gave you women priests."

Anglican "priest." It's different now. No more. I've reached my limit. No more compromises."

After the Lambeth Committee meeting:

Wife: "What did they did this time?"

Anglican "priest:"  "I'd rather not say."

Wife: "Was it really that bad?"

Anglican "priest:" Yes, about the worst."

Wife: "What did they do?"

Anglican priest: "Instituted a feast in honor of the adversary. (Long pause). I tell you, if they do one more thing I'm converting to Catholicism, do you hear me?"

And thus it has ever been with most of the High Anglicans, who consider themselves defenders of a "tradition" that was born in a bloody rebellion started by an lustful, adulterous and bigamous king against the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It's rather cheeky to consider yourself a defender of "Christian tradition" when you belong to a false church founded on the blood upon over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to the true Church rather than to keep their property or their titles or their very lives. The logical "disconnect" in all of this is quite obvious to all except the high Anglicans, ever content to beat their breasts to prove how superior and "faithful" they are in comparison to their Low Church, progressivist cousins.

Protestantism, of course, breeds logical disconnects, if you will. Most Protestants, save for those whose ancestors from Africa or Asia were "converted" to some Protestant sect from paganism or barbarism, have Catholic ancestors in their family trees. Most Protestants are, however, totally unaware of this fact. "History" begins for them in 1517 and thereafter. What happened before 1517 must be distorted by Protestant and Judeo-Masonic "historians" to make of true history a blood sport for the justification of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised exclusively by the Catholic Church and the ruin for souls wrought in its wake. Those who are taught this distorted view of history wind up making the most absurd comments imaginable.  The Anglican "church" is composed of a worldwide "communion" of people who disagree about basic tenets of Christianity.

In like manner, however, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is composed of a "communion" of nearly a billion people who are not required, at least in a de facto manner, to believe the one and the same Faith of our fathers. Those who dissent from articles contained in the Deposit of Faith are promoted as "bishops" and left to serve as "priests" for years on end. Public officials, whether Catholic or not, are given "papal" knighthoods despite supporting the destruction of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs. And we have the spectacle now of a supposed “pope” who has just done away with the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and the Natural Law itself as nothing but “rules” that cannot be “imposed” by “sheer authority”:

35. As Christians, we can hardly stop advocating marriage simply to avoid countering contemporary sensibilities, or out of a desire to be fashionable or a sense of helplessness in the face of human and moral failings. We would be depriving the world of values that we can and must offer. It is true that there is no sense in simply decrying present-day evils, as if this could change things. Nor it is helpful to try to impose rules by sheer authority. What we need is a more responsible and generous effort to present the reasons and motivations for choosing marriage and the family, and in this way to help men and women better to respond to the grace that God offers them.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Comment Number One:  

As noted nine days ago now, moral truths are no more “imposed” upon anyone than are the supernatural truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Moral truths exist in the nature of things. Ah, it is clear that Jorge Mario Bergolio is hereby rejecting the very existence of the Natural Law. He is an egregious liar and demagogue who is, in effect, denying the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood that flow into the souls of men through the loving hands of Our Lady, she is who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Bergoglio is concerned about hurting the feelings of those who have chosen to live in states of wanton Mortal Sin while he is offending God by giving sanction to sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and can lead souls to Hell for all eternity.

Moreover, our true popes have always decried evils so as to warn the bishops that is their duty to protect their flock from the errors of the day. The Catholic Church has never failed to preach the truth about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and truth is never an “ideal.” Truth is. Truth exists independently of human acceptance of it. To assert that the Catholic Church has expected too much from her children concerning the faithful observance of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandment is to deny the efficacy of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is thus to blaspheme Our Lord and His Holy Church in order to soothe the tender consciences of those who have chosen to live in sin because they wanted to do so, not because they had “no other choice.”

Moreover, our true popes have always decried evils so as to warn the bishops that is their duty to protect their flock from the errors of the day.

To wit, Pope Leo XIII issued Arcanum, February 10, 1880, to warn of the aggressive assault against the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that was being made by Freemasons throughout Europe and in the United States of America. The words of Pope Leo XIII stand as a rebuke to everything contained in Amoris Laetitia. Indeed, they are so much a rebuke as to make further commentary on the “exhortation’s” text most superfluous.

A reading of the following passages from Arcanum will illustrate the truth that the ideology of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his ghostwriter, Victor Manuel Fernandez, was identified and condemned one hundred thirty-six years before the issuance of Amoris Laetitia:

16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also -- indeed, human society itself -- may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.

17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

19. Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, has no problem with “civil marriages.” In truth, of course, he has no problem with adultery, fornication, sodomy, cross-dressing, contraception, bodily mutilation, or any other kind of impure practices. He only has a problem with those who condemn these evils and call to correction those who are engaged in them. In this regard, obviously, he has a problem with Holy Mother Church’s twenty true general councils and our true popes.

Pope Leo XIII used the authority of the See of Saint Peter to denounce popular trends that Bergoglio does not believe need to be decried:

28. Now, however much the legislators of these our days may wish to guard themselves against the impiety of men such as we have been speaking of, they are unable to do so, seeing that they profess to hold and defend the very same principles of jurisprudence; and hence they have to go with times, and render divorce easily obtainable. History itself shows this; for, to pass over other instances, we find that, at the close of the last century, divorces were sanctioned by law in that upheaval or, rather, as it might be called, conflagration in France, when society was wholly degraded by the abandoning of God. Many at the present time would fain have those laws reenacted, because they wish God and His Church to be altogether exiled and excluded from the midst of human society, madly thinking that in such laws a final remedy must be sought for that moral corruption which is advancing with rapid strides.

29. Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

30. Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

31. Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

32. Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society.

33. It must consequently be acknowledged that the Church has deserved exceedingly well of all nations by her ever watchful care in guarding the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. Again, no small amount of gratitude is owing to her for having, during the last hundred years, openly denounced the wicked laws which have grievously offended on this particular subject;[51] as well as for her having branded with anathema the baneful heresy obtaining among Protestants touching divorce and separation;[52] also, for having in many ways condemned the habitual dissolution of marriage among the Greeks;[53] for having declared invalid all marriages contracted upon the understanding that they may be at some future time dissolved;[54] and, lastly, for having, from the earliest times, repudiated the imperial laws which disastrously favored divorce.[55] (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Pope Leo XIII named Protestantism as the proximate root cause of the promotion of divorce and “remarriage” in contemporary times while condemning the Greek Orthodox, who blazed the path that Luther trod five hundred years after the Greek Schism of 1054, for their habitual dissolution of marriages. A true pope decried evils. He did not seek to make any excuse for them on the pretext of finding “good” in anything evil as evil is the privation of good. Then again, one has to be a Catholic to understand such points.

Pope Leo XIII also cited instances in which the Catholic Church rebuffed civil leaders who wanted her to sanction their lecherous and adulterous ways:

34. As often, indeed, as the supreme pontiffs have resisted the most powerful among rulers, in their threatening demands that divorces carried out by them should be confirmed by the Church, so often must we account them to have been contending for the safety, not only of religion, but also of the human race. For this reason all generations of men will admire the proofs of unbending courage which are to be found in the decrees of Nicholas I against Lothair; of Urban II and Paschal II against Philip I of France; of Celestine III and Innocent III against Alphonsus of Leon and Philip II of France; of Clement VII and Paul III against Henry VIII; and, lastly, of Pius VII, that holy and courageous pontiff, against Napoleon I, when at the height of his prosperity and in the fullness of his power. This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the proffered aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Each of the despots who demanded that their divorces be sanctioned by Holy Mother Church would have found a most tender and receptive ear in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has ready excuses for evils and those who persist in them while apologizing for how the Catholic Church has presented what he disparages as a “theological ideal” of marriage by stressing the “the almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation”:

36. We also need to be humble and realistic, acknowledging that at times the way we present our Christian beliefs and treat other people has helped contribute to today’s problematic situation. We need a healthy dose of self-criticism. Then too, we often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation. Nor have we always provided solid guidance to young married couples, understanding their timetables, their way of thinking and their concrete concerns. At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Comment Number Three:

“Pope Francis” is an insidious liar. This should come as no surprise as he is but a son of perdition who would have us believe that the “true” understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony was lost for centuries as a result of an “excessive idealization” that was “far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families.”

This means that is it not possible for married couples to welcome as many (or as few) children as God sees fit to bless them with over the course of the wife’s years of fruitfulness, which is nothing other as one of numerous ways in the text of Amoris Laetitia that Bergoglio demonstrates that he is a naturalist who is bereft of any love of the Catholic Faith as It has been handed down to us from the Apostles to the present.

The present conciliar “Petrine Minister” is not, however, blazing any new paths by asserting that the “unitive” end of marriage takes precedence over the procreation and education of children, nor is he doing anything “novel” by advocating for “responsible parenthood” as he did several times in Amoris Laetitia:

167. Large families are a joy for the Church. They are an expression of the fruitfulness of love. At the same time, Saint John Paul II rightly explained that responsible parenthood does not mean “unlimited procreation or lack of awareness of what is involved in rearing children, but rather the empowerment of couples to use their inviolable liberty wisely and responsibly, taking into account social and demographic realities, as well as their own situation and legitimate desires”.182

222. The pastoral care of newly married couples must also involve encouraging them to be generous in bestowing life. “In accord with the personal and fully human character of conjugal love, family planning fittingly takes place as the result a consensual dialogue between the spouses, respect for times and consideration of the dignity of the partner. In this sense, the teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (cf. 1014) and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (cf. 14; 2835) ought to be taken up anew, in order to counter a mentality that is often hostile to life... Decisions involving responsible parenthood presupposes the formation of conscience, which is ‘the most secret core and sanctuary of a person. There each one is alone with God, whose voice echoes in the depths of the heart’ (Gaudium et Spes, 16). The more the couple tries to listen in conscience to God and his commandments (cf. Rom 2:15), and is accompanied spiritually, the more their decision will be profoundly free of subjective caprice and accommodation to prevailing social mores”.248 The clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council still holds: “[The couple] will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God”.249 Moreover, “the use of methods based on the ‘laws of nature and the 248 Ibid., 63. 249 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 50. 170 incidence of fertility’ (Humanae Vitae, 11) are to be promoted, since ‘these methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour the education of an authentic freedom’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370). Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that children are a wonderful gift from God and a joy for parents and the Church. Through them, the Lord renews the world”.250  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)  

This is not the first time that Bergoglio has called for “responsible parenthood.” He has done on other occasions, including when he made his now infamous references to couples who “breed like rabbits” during an interview while The Philippines to Rome on January 19, 2015, the Feast of Saint Marius and his Companions, and the Commemoration of Saint Canute, King of Denmark:

Francis said Pope Paul VI, whose 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae outlined the contraceptive ban, was warning against a "Neo-Malthusianism, " a reference to a theories that suggested in the 1960s and ’70s that exponential global population growth would lead to an irreversible world food crisis.

Citing the low rates of birth specifically in Italy and Spain, Francis said such Neo-Malthusianism "seeks to control humanity."

At the same time, however, Francis made a statement that seems without precedent for a pope, suggesting that parents may have a responsibility to limit the number of their children, saying: "This does not signify that the Christian must make children in series."

Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via Cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: "Does she want to leave the seven orphans?"

"This is to tempt God," he said, adding later: "That is an irresponsibility." Catholics, the pope said, should speak of "responsible parenthood."

"How do we do this?" Francis asked. "With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood."

"God gives you methods to be responsible," he continued. "Some think that -- excuse the word -- that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No."  

"This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors," Francis said. Using the term for a practice that follows church law, he continued: "I know so many, many licit ways that have helped this."  

Francis was speaking about birth control in response to a question from a Filipino journalist. Use of contraception in the Philippines is a contentious issue, as the Philippine government only recently approved contraceptive access against forceful opposition from Catholic bishops.  

The pope's responses regarding birth control and ideological colonization were part of a wide-ranging conference that touched on a number of other subjects, including: Corruption in church structures, the place of women in church leadership, and global mistreatment of the poor that the pontiff said could be likened to a new form of "state-sponsored terrorism." (Bergoglio suggests Catholics should limit children.)  

Although Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick was the conciliar "pope" who introduced the term "responsible parenthood" in his revolutionary "encyclical," Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, the Feast of Saint James the Greater, two Jesuit moral theologians, Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, pushed the limits of their belief in family limitation as far as they could in the 1950s before the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Thereafter, however, they wrote freely, and Father Ford, in particular played a major role in the shaping of Humanae Vitae:    

"Responsible parenthood," writes Dr. Richard Fagley, "in the context of population explosion, more often than not means restricted to limited procreation in view of the total responsibilities of parenthood." And again, " 'Responsible parenthood,' in fact, is becoming the preferred term throughout Protestantism for limiting the number of  progeny." Dr. Fagley's words suggest the reasons why little seems to have been said about responsible parenthood fifty years ago and why today the words are becoming a popular slogan with the occasional connotation that Catholics favor irresponsible parenthood. Everyone has always agreed, however, that parenthood is a serious, responsible business. Catholics have not differed from their neighbors on that pint. The truth is fifty years ago we heard very little if anything about responsible parenthood, as that phrase is understood today, whether from Protestants, Catholics or non-believers. Why? (Father John C. Ford, S.J., and Father Gerald Kelly, S.J., Contemporary Moral Theology, Volume 2, The Newman Press, 1964, pp. 451-453. For a complete discussion of this, please see Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.) 

It was a scant four years later that Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick made this revolutionary phrase his very own:  

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."⁸

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.)

Who had been calling for "responsible parenthood" for five decades prior to her death on September 6, 1966? The nymphomaniac, racist and eugenicist named Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that became known as Planned Parenthood, that's who. Her followers continue to champion this shopworn slogan that found its way into the text of an alleged "papal" encyclical letter. Montini/Paul VI's acceptance of "responsible parenthood" slogan of Margaret Sanger and her diabolical minions, coupled with the inversion of the ends of marriage propagated by Dietrich von Hildebrand, constitutes a revolution against the ends of marriage that have "baptized," if you will, a supposedly "natural" form of contraception that is to be used as a matter of routine, not in truly extraordinary cases, where is it only lawful, that is, permissible, and never mandated.

The inclusion of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children by the use of "knowing" the physicality of a woman's body has been interpreted rather broadly, shall we say. In plain English: the use of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children has been used to reaffirm the "consciences" of those who are "not ready" for children. This is no different whatsoever than those who have chosen the use of artificial means to prevent the conception of children because they are "not ready" to have them. They have careers. They have poor finances. They have elderly parents for whom to care. They have "plans." They have to get through school. And on and on on. Everybody's got a "serious reason." These are nothing other than excuses and rationalizations that consider marriage in purely naturalistic and materialistic, if not utilitarian, terms without any true love of God and thus of trust that He will send married couples all of the supernatural and temporal helps that they need to provide for the children that God sees fit to send them.

The "teaching" that led to what is called today as "natural family planning" is not to be found in Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession. It is to be found in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, devoted to the "responsible parenthood" slogan of Planned Parenthood and the United Nations and environmental groups.

Truly responsible Catholic parenthood is founded in a love for God's Holy Will and by training however many or few children in the truths of the Catholic Faith, which require parents to eschew worldliness and to arm them with the supernatural and natural means to live in a "popular culture" devoted to the glorification of the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is, sin. That's truly responsible Catholic parenthood. Not that which is represented by "Paul the Sick" and Humanae Vitae, and that remains the foundation of the revolution against the family that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and friends seek to advance with the forthcoming "extraordinary synod of bishops" on the "pastoral challenges facing the family."

The notion of "family limitation" had been discussed at the "Second" Vatican Council, something that horrified the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the great foe of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and his Americanist efforts to make "religious liberty," termed as a  heresy by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, and as insanity by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832. Cardinal Ottaviani spoke as follows concerning "family limitation" at the "Second" Vatican Council:  

"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of  this quotation.)

Cardinal Ottaviani prophetically anticipated Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own smug belief that the correct stand that had been taken by the Catholic Church prior to the “Second” Vatican was erroneous all along, especially the emphasis on the procreation and education of children as the primary end of marriage. Amoris Laetitia does indeed imply that the Catholic Church was wrong, which is why it is necessary to admit “mistakes” and to make “adjustments” according to the circumstances of the times.

Amoris Laetitia is merely making explicit what was implicit in Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, that gave formal sanction to the inversion of the ends proper to marriage while at the same time calling for what the population controllers themselves had long advocated: “responsible parenthood,” a phrase that would be used also by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II as a means to endorse “natural family planning,” a subject that was addressed at length on this site nearly five years ago and about which not word needs to be taken away or added.  (See Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change, Jorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It and "Rabbits" to Jorge, God's Blessings to Pope Pius XII).

Bergoglio has also made his own the "personalism" that was embraced by Montini/Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and by his two immediate predecessors, Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, even though Pope Pius XII specifically condemned the personalist view of marriage on April 1,1944, and reiterated this condemnation seven years later:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:

"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.

Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.

According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.

Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.

Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".

Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which wasidentical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII,Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)  

Yes, some of the "conservative" commenators who are lambasting the man they believe to be "Pope Francis" for Amoris Laetitia have long endorsed conciliarism's personalist view of marriage, thus contributing to a Catholic "birth control mentality" that has undermined the stability of marriage, fed into the selfishness of spouses, closed the hearts of children to the benefits of having many siblings, and has led all too to seek "consolation," shall we say, outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The mess that exists at this time is the result of the abandonment of Catholic teaching by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" and pastors and theologians, not a strict adherence or insistence upon it. 

Moreover, the false "pontiff" uses the entirety of Amoris Laetitia's text to canonize "conscience" as the standard by which "merciful" confessors must take into consideration subjective circumstances that may mitigate the moral culpability of those in "irregular situations" that do not correspond to the "ideal." Bergoglio made this clear in several passages, mostly at the end of the "exhortation" but also in the beginning: 

37. We have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life. We find it difficult to present marriage more as a dynamic path to personal development and fulfilment than as a lifelong burden. We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Father Charles Curran, who led a pre-planned and well-funded campaign of dissent from Humanae Vitae on the grounds that it upheld Cahtolic teaching against artificial contraception even though was a revolutionary overturing of the ends proper to marriage and an endorsement of the agenda of family planners, has lived long enough to see his false notion of "conscience," which has received the de facto endorsement of many"bishops" and priests/presbyters within the conciliar structures, endorsed by a supposed "pope." 

Yet it is that Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in De Veritate that we are informed by the Natural Law to use our practical reason in a manner should the good will be chosen and evil avoided. The enemies of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that what is considered objectively evil can be called “good” because it is “unavoidable” to act otherwise. Pope Saint Pius X critiqued this Modernist falsehood as follows in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

From the combination and, as it were, fusion of these two elements, the common mind which draws up the formula and the authority which imposes it, arises, according to the Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And, as this magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences and possesses its mandate of public utility for their benefit, it necessarily follows that the ecclesiastical magisterium must be dependent upon them, and should therefore be made to bow to the popular ideals. To prevent individual consciences from expressing freely and openly the impulses they feel, to hinder criticism from urging forward dogma in the path of its necessary evolution, is not a legitimate use but an abuse of a power given for the public weal. So too a due method and measure must be observed in the exercise of authority. To condemn and proscribe a work without the knowledge of the author, without hearing his explanations, without discussion, is something approaching to tyranny. And here again it is a question of finding a way of reconciling the full rights of authority on the one hand and those of liberty on the other. In the meantime the proper course for the Catholic will be to proclaim publicly his profound respect for authority, while never ceasing to follow his own judgment. Their general direction for the Church is as follows: that the ecclesiastical authority, since its end is entirely spiritual, should strip itself of that external pomp which adorns it in the eyes of the public. In this, they forget that while religion is for the soul, it is not exclusively for the soul, and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who instituted it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)  

Amoris Laetitia is thus a work of pure Modernism, and that which is Modernist can never be issued by a true pope. 

What part of the following papal statements about the Catholic Church's freedom from error and heresy is hard to understand or to accept?

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

​Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)   

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)   

The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, no, not even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

We must continue to trust in Our Lady during this times when right is called wrong, the existence of objective truth, both supernatural and natural, is said to admit of uncertainty, and a putative “pope” can mouth one Modernist cliché after another with complete impunity as the “people” who are stepped in “evil” see him as the one who can “ratify” their lives of wanton sin and thus shut up anyone who would dare to tell them to reform their lives. Every Rosary we offer up as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary plants a few seeds for the restoration of the papacy and thus of the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.  

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Pope Saint Anicetus, pray for us.