Because of my 100% faith that we are in the end times - not the end of the world but the end of an era - with many dark prophesies about to unfold- I believe all baptised Christians are justified in baptising children of any origin. We are all in danger of death in more ways than one and in more ways than ever before. Babies are also in this danger. My old mum when she was a nurse always baptised babies who were in danger of death. I am sure she did not ask their origin. I have secretly given what those errant priests refused. Pope Francis can't win. In some eyes he is too hard. In others too soft. In my eyes he is simply Pope, God's man, God's mouthpiece, God's hands and feet.
The ship in Father Don Bosco's dream is surely rocking in the waves of confusion. It will continue to get worse according to his dream until the Pope is struck down. I believe Pope Francis may well be this pope. No sooner than the announcement of the Pope being killed their comes another announcement of a new Pope. He will anchor the ship, that is being thrown about by the storm, to the two pillars that rise from the stormy sea. The tallest will be support the Eucharist and the second pillar will support the Blessed Mother. Once this is accomplished the ships that were firing upon the church will turn against each other and the church will be on sound footing again. God has allowed us to have a pope that has brought about much controversy. Why remains the critical question. Regardless, it seems the church is meant to be shaken up, its teachings questioned and its members at odds with it all. The question is, who will the small church of the people of God be in the end? The one Pope Benedict foretold: "The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes...she will lose many of her social privileges...As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members…It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek...The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain... But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death."--Pope Benedict XVI (Faith and the Future, 2009) I contend it will be the ones who stayed firm to Holy Eucharist and its unchanging doctrine of the Real Presence (not the protestant doctrine on it) and those who retain true devotion to Mary, her rosary and the dogma's surrounding her. This is what I think St. John Bosco dream was all about. We are currently in the phase where the ship is being tossed about by the waves that Pope Francis said must come about, the "stirring things up" as he put it. "This stately vessel is shielded by a flotilla escort. Winds and waves are with the enemy. In this midst of this endless sea, two solid columns, a short distance apart, soar high into the sky: one is surmounted by a statue of the Immaculate Virgin at whose feet a large inscription reads: Help of Christians; the other, far loftier and sturdier, supports a [Communion] Host of proportionate size and bears beneath it the inscription Salvation of believers. "The flagship commander - the Roman Pontiff [the Pope]- seeing the enemy's fury and his auxiliary ships very grave predicament, summons his captains to a conference. However, as they discuss their strategy, a furious storm breaks out and they must return to their ships. When the storm abates, the Pope again summons his captains as the flagship keeps on its course. But the storm rages again. Standing at the helm, the Pope strains every muscle to steer his ship between the two columns from whose summits hang many anchors and strong hooks linked to chains. "The entire enemy fleet closes in to intercept and sink the flagship at all costs. They bombard it with everything they have: books and pamphlets, incendiary bombs, firearms, cannons. The battle rages ever more furious. Beaked prows ram the flagship again and again, but to no avail, as, unscathed and undaunted, it keeps on its course. At times a formidable ram splinters a gaping hole into its hull, but, immediately, a breeze from the two columns instantly seals the gash. "Meanwhile, enemy cannons blow up, firearms and beaks fall to pieces, ships crack up and sink to the bottom. In blind fury the enemy takes to hand-to-hand combat, cursing and blaspheming. Suddenly the Pope falls, seriously wounded. He is instantly helped up but, struck down a second time, dies. A shout of victory rises from the enemy and wild rejoicing sweeps their ships. But no sooner is the Pope dead than another takes his place. The captains of the auxiliary ships elected him so quickly that the news of the Pope's death coincides with that of his successor's election. The enemy's self-assurance wanes. "Breaking through all resistance, the new Pope steers his ship safely between the two columns and moors it to the two columns; first to the one surmounted by the Host, and then to the other, topped by the statue of the Virgin. At this point something unexpected happens. The enemy ships panic and disperse, colliding with and scuttling each other. Some auxiliary ships which had gallantly fought alongside their flagship are the first to tie up at the two columns. "Many others, which had fearfully kept far away from the fight, stand still, cautiously waiting until the wrecked enemy ships vanish under the waves. Then, they too head for the two columns, tie up at the swinging hooks, and ride safe and tranquil beside their flagship. A great calm now covers the sea." At this point Don Bosco asked one of the priests present for his views. He replied that he thought that the flagship symbolised the Church headed by the Pope, with the ships representing mankind and the sea as an image of the world. The ships defending the flagship he equated with the laity and the attackers with those trying to destroy the Church, while the two columns represented devotion to Mary and the Eucharist.
I think you are right David. The Pope doesn't seem to like Catholics who take their faith seriously conveniently labelling them as Pharisees including those involved in the cultural wars in the pro-life arena such as those who pray Rosaries at abortion clinics. As for the phrase 'personal relationship with Jesus' - a nice protestant soundbite which is a phrase that is purely subjective and has a shallow a hollow, vacuous ring to it and is not to be found in the Catholic Catechism or any encyclical.
[quote=" God has allowed us to have a pope that has brought about much controversy. Why remains the critical question. Regardless, it seems the church is meant to be shaken up, its teachings questioned and its members at odds with it all. The question is, who will the small church of the people of God be in the end? The one Pope Benedict.." Fatima One one of the two pillars is the Blessed Eucharist and on the other Our lady. "Breaking through all resistance, the new Pope steers his ship safely between the two columns and moors it to the two columns; first to the one surmounted by the Host, and then to the other, topped by the statue of the Virgin. At this point something unexpected happens. The enemy ships panic and disperse, colliding with and scuttling each other. Some auxiliary ships which had gallantly fought alongside their flagship are the first to tie up at the two columns. I honestly doubt that Pope Francis fits the mold you envision for him in John Bosco's dream, primarily because he does not appear to be steering us with greater reverence to our Eucharistic Lord. There is (at least) an inference in AL that divorced persons may receive Our Lord in Holy Communion while continuing to live in a state of objective sin. God Bless
Pharisaical definition: practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit Nothing about taking your faith seriously! As for a 'personal relationship with Jesus', yes its not a phrase Catholics are used to but read the writings of the Saints and you will discover what it means. They all had such a relationship and I repeat, no one will get into heaven without it.
We don't get into heaven by hammering doctrine, doctrine either. Being in a state of grace requires a few things, including repentance and love, which the pharisaical attitude lacks. I know people who are living in sin but as they age, are also admitting to deep regrets over how their lives have turned out, and who seem to agonize over past foolish decisions that they can't change and who would love nothing better that for something to set them free. I'm reminded of the story of conversion of Lenny Kravitz's father, who saw Christ on his deathbed after seeing horrible creatures coming out of the walls and circling around him. On the surface, he was a big-time sinner as the pharisees would point out, but was saved by grace and he was changed as a result. He told his children afterwards that he had always wanted to be free of drugs, and be a different man but felt imprisoned by something. Well, Jesus answered his prayers, even if he didn't know that they were prayers and set him free. Perhaps not everyone like him is saved, possibly because there aren't enough prayers to go around, but the fact that grace comes to him while he would be labeled in mortal sins by pharisees is proof that we can't and must not judge.
Why do people get their knickers in a twist when the word doctrine is mentioned? As you 'jumped into the conversation' I remind you that I was responding to David's post in which he said the following. As for a 'personal relationship with Jesus', yes its not a phrase Catholics are used to but read the writings of the Saints and you will discover what it means. They all had such a relationship and I repeat, no one will get into heaven without it. David's position then would preclude Muslims, Jews, people of good will and others who do not believe in Jesus. My response was entirely Catholic that only those in a state of grace enter heaven (which happens to be Catholic doctrine!). That means anyone in a state of grace - anyone!
My knickers aren't in a twist Garabandal, but I guess my writing style doesn't communicate that. In the months that I've read David's posts, he doesn't seem like the type to suggest that anyone is precluded from salvation. All of us will meet Jesus some day and those who are saved will have that relationship with Him, it's just the opening of heart that is needed for Him to enter. Well then I guess we agree. Thanks for pointing that out, I actually haven't read this thread, I only read a few people's posts on this forum now and David is one of them. As for jumping in, I think I'll join the ranks of those who have withdrawn from this forum since I have come to regret posting in this place, which isn't the same forum that drew me to join after spending months reading wonderfully enriching posts. God Bless.
1 The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia: a theological critique 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
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 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. 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. 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’, June 29th, 1998.
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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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 virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam
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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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” (DH 1568). 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: 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: Trent, session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he 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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). 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 (DH 2162-63); 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
