The other day I read of and wrote of the recent Jesuit-run Boston College conference on the reception of Amoris laetitia. HERE and HERE and HERE In the balance, this confab was really an Agitprop Workshop. The participants in this closed-door strategy practicum were feed talking points and language useful in uprooting truth and planting weeds.
For example, I remember my initial reaction when I read the statement, uttered during the Workshop, that Jesus “disfavored” adultery. One of the tactics of the Left will be to replace clear, sane language with slippery weasel words such as that. Another trick is to describe an adulterous union as an “irregular” union, which shifts the situation out of the realm of sin and morality and into the realm of mere man-made rules or regulations, which of course can be easily changed according to our needs.
My friend Fr. Gerald Murray has a keen sense of smell for this sort of B as in B and S as in S. He also has a sharp quill. Fr. Murray take aim at this diabolical assault on the intelligence of Catholics through the Orwellian twisting of words. You don’t want to miss his piece at The Catholic Thing today.
Here’s a sample:
More Bad Defenses of “Amoris Laetitia”
The claim was widely made during the two Synods on the Family that the innovation of allowing persons living in adulterous second unions to receive Holy Communion, as proposed by Cardinal Kasper and others, was not a change in doctrine, but simply in discipline. [B as in B. S as in S.] I did not believe this to be true then (or now) and, apparently, neither did many of the supporters of this innovation. [Which makes them duplicitous squared.]
The first evidence of that was the seemingly universal refusal to identify these unions as adulterous in fidelity to Christ’s words: “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Lk 16:18) Instead of adulterous these sinful relationships were called “irregular” unions. This tactic reduces Christ’s teaching to the level of a regulation. The use of scare quotes further diminished the stature of Christ’s teaching by casting doubt on whether we should really consider these unions to be irregular at all.
A conference on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia was recently held at Boston College. Further evidence of the rejection of Christ’s plain teaching on marriage, divorce and adultery is found in the reported comments of two speakers: Professor Cathleen Kaveny and Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J.
Kaveny used curious language to describe Our Lord’s teaching on marital fidelity: “Jesus clearly disfavored adultery.”No, Jesus forbade adultery. One can disfavor things that are good in themselves, but simply do not appeal to one for a variety of reasons. One can never claim as good and right something that God has clearly forbidden.
Kaveny continued: ”It’s clear that he rejects divorce and remarriage as contrary to the original will of God. But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance.”
Well, the original will of God remains in force unless God himself has indicated otherwise. Jesus clearly reaffirmed the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, harkening back to God’s original plan for man and woman as revealed in the Book of Genesis.
Understanding the sin involved in divorce and remarriage requires making distinctions. The responsibility for the break-up of marital life falls upon one or both parties, depending upon each one’s degree of culpability. The obtaining of a civil divorce is likewise to be evaluated as to the motives and responsibilities involved: is a divorce sought to free one to enter a new union, or is it sought to obtain legal protection of the financial and other interests of the offended spouse and children?
The decision to enter into an adulterous second union, however, is a public violation of the nature of indissoluble Christian marriage, and of one’s wedding vows. It involves the sin of adultery and the public scandal of living in opposition to Christ’s commandments.
Kaveny adds: “We do not need to disturb Jesus’ teaching in order to refine and develop it in these ways, in ways that moral theologians and canon lawyers have always done.” [Slithery wickedness.] Jesus’ teaching cannot be disturbed, however, but it can be ignored or falsified. The admittance of invalidly married couples to Holy Communion is not a refinement or development of that teaching, it is a betrayal.
One can claim to uphold a teaching by refining and developing it in a way that totally changes its meaning, but such a claim is false. Either adultery is always wrong, or it is never wrong. There can be no middle ground. To redefine some forms of adultery as not adultery is an offense against the plain meaning of Christ’s words. It’s wishful thinking that endorses immorality and would have the effect of destroying the unity of faith taught by the Church.
Fr. Antonio [2+2=5] Spadaro, S.J., who also spoke at the conference, uttered an incredible statement that dovetails with Kaveny’s remarks. He said: “It is no longer possible to judge people on the basis of a norm that stands above all.” This is a direct contradiction of how the Church has always understood Christ’s teaching. [Poison.]
Do you see what is going on?
The left is changing language and introducing new labels and terms. Watch for their linguistic maneuvers. They are astute and sly.
And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion?