1. Fatima Christmas

    image
  2. Moscow Conference

    image
  3. Rome 2017

    Rome 2017
  4. Fatima Portugal

    Fatima Portugal 2017
  5. Ask Father

    image

Is This For Real?
Cardinal Coccopalmerio's "Explanation" of Amoris Laetita

by Christopher A. Ferrara
January 8, 2018

As the number of prelates signing the Profession of Immutable Principles rises to seven, with Emeritus Auxiliary Bishop Andreas Laun of Salzburg, Austria, adding his signature on the Feast of the Epiphany, the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin has pointed back to an interview in the Register of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In that interview, conducted by the redoubtable Pentin, Coccopalmerio confirms precisely that disastrous interpretation of Amoris Laetitia (AL) which the Profession now rejects as “alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” That is, the interpretation to which Pope Francis dares to affix the deceptive label “authentic Magisterium.”

Engaging in the usual Modernist doubletalk, Coccopalmerio insisted that AL does not change the application of Canon 915, rooted in divine law, which forbids administration of Holy Communion to those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin,” but that those who are indeed persevering in adulterous sexual relations in “second marriages” can be admitted to Holy Communion if they find it “impossible” to change their behavior by living as brother and sister. To quote the Cardinal’s clumsy sophistry:

“Think of a woman who lives with a married man. She has three little children. She has already been with this man for 10 years. Now the children think of her as a mother…. How can you stop the whole thing if that will harm people? It is important that this person doesn’t want to be in this union, wants to leave this union, wants to leave, but cannot do it….

If the two can live together as brother and sister, that’s great. But if they cannot because this would break up the union, which ought to be conserved for the good of these people, then they manage as best they can. Do you see? That’s it….

“I can’t damage a person to avoid a sin in a situation that I haven’t put myself into; I already find myself in it, one in which I, if I am this woman, have put myself into without a bad intention. On the contrary, I’m trying to do good, and, at that moment, I believed myself to be doing good, and certainly I did do good. But maybe if, already at the beginning I had known, if I knew with moral certitude that this is a sin, maybe I would not have put myself in that condition. But now I already find myself there: How can I go back? It is one thing to begin, another to interrupt. These are also different things, no?...

“Do you see there is an impossibility in this case? One cannot change immediately.

Do they have to change their style of life before receiving Communion?

“No, they have to change their intention, not their style of life.”

Incredibly enough, this is the thinking of the man Pope Francis has put in charge of interpreting canon law: i.e., that a woman living in adultery can receive Holy Communion while continuing her adulterous relations with a man to whom she is not married so long as she would like to stop but finds it “impossible” to do so. And why is it “impossible”? Evidently because her partner in adultery would abandon her if he is not provided with sexual relations outside of marriage and the children of the illicit union would suffer. In other words, the woman is justified in doing evil to prevent another (perceived) evil.

By that logic, no habitual mortal sin is an impediment to Holy Communion so long as one can construct an argument that it would be “impossible” to cease committing the sin because some onerous burden would ensue. Thus collapses the entire moral edifice of the Church into a heap of “good excuses” for continuing immoral behavior while professing that one would like to change. And with that collapse, if it were possible, the entire Faith ultimately collapses. For if even obedience to the fundamental moral law is optional in given circumstances, why not also obedience to any other teaching of the Church?

Coccopalmerio, lest we forget, is the same prelate whose secretary, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, was “arrested by Vatican police after they caught him hosting a cocaine-fueled homosexual orgy in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica.” Whoever thinks Coccopalmerio was unaware of his own secretary’s corruption and perversity might be interested in purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge. 

Is this for real? One might wish to believe it’s all a nightmare from which we will eventually awake. But in fact it is an awful and unparalleled reality in the history of the Church — one from which, it now seems, only direct divine intervention can deliver us.

[Hat tip to Canon212 for links to the Pentin articles.]