Do Pope John Paul II's Teachings say Francis "Rejects Redemption"?

- Updated December 12, 2019

Why is everyone surprised?

Why would Francis believe Mary is the co-redemptrix if he according to Pope John Paul II apparently "rejects Redemption"?

Francis's Amoris Laetitia theology of conscience as the supreme tribunal can, to some extent, be summed up as promoting "the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption... as it were an impenetrability of conscience."

Many who follow Amoris Laetitia may apparently be rejecting Redemption.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sin. The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn’t have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church
and the World said:

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins."

"The action of the Spirit of truth, which works toward salvific 'convincing concerning sin,' encounters in a person in this condition an interior resistance, as it were an impenetrability of conscience... Pope Pius XII had already declared that 'the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin,'¹⁸⁶ and this loss goes hand in hand with the 'loss of the sense of God.' In the Exhortation just mentioned we read: 'In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed. Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin.'"
[http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html]

Francis's apparent "loss of the sense of sin" and the "sense of offense against God" seems to point towards a type of practical atheism on his part.

The Catholic News Agency (CNA) headline on December 7, 2013 at the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis summarized his talk that day and his whole non-transcendent papacy in which he ironically spoke of 'practical atheism' as neglect of human dignity without talking about "the loss of the sense of sin" and the "sense of offense against God":

"Pope [Francis]: Neglect of human dignity causes 'practical atheism'"

In the CNA article Francis says "This false model of man and society effects a practical atheism (by) denying, de facto, the Word of God that says ' let us make man in our image," but then when speaking of  "rights," "dignity," and a "throw-away culture" never mentions "the loss of a sense of sin" or the "sense of offense against God" or the transcendent. 

The "Word of God" is used as a means to talk of the non-transcendent "material rights and dignity of the human person."

The Argentinain Pope's talk and, for the most part, his papacy has shown a "indifference to... the transcendent."

Pope John Paul II in a General Audience on April 1999, on the other hand, explained that practical atheism is "indifference to... the transcendent. The Polish Pope said:

"The contemporary era has devastating forms of 'theoretical' and 'practical' atheism. Secularism... with its indifference to ultimate questions and... the transcendent." (Vatican.va>hf_jp_ii_ 14041999)

Francis's primary focus on only earthly human dignity, it appears, could be a form of practical atheism or secularism.

Francis rarely focuses on "ultimate questions and... the transcendent" such as heaven and hell as well as the Last Judgment, but almost always on non-transcendent issues that tend to bring leftist pro-abortion politicians into power such as radical environmental issues, leftist economic policies and unlimited immigration.

This form of practical atheism has brought about the Pope's seamless garment teachings which we will see appears to be a form of Kantian practical atheism.

The upcoming abortion holocaust in Ireland can, to some extent, be blamed on the Irish bishops following Pope Francis's seamless garment "pro-life" teachings that equates killing innocent human life with pro-abortion politician issues such as the death penalty, leftist economic policies and radical ecology policies.

Even after the abortion referendum was overwhelming lost, to some extent, due to the seamless garment focus as well as inaction by Francis and the Irish bishops, Dublin Bishop Diarmuil Martin had the gall to call for more seamless garment Kantian practical atheism. Martin said:

"Pro-life means being alongside... economic deprivation, homelessness and marginalization." (Crux, "After abortion loss, Irish prelates look to pope's vision of 'pro-life," May 27, 2017)

The seamless garment teachings of Francis and the Irish bishops, to some extent, can be blamed for the coming death of thousands even millions of babies

This teachings come about because of their conscious or unconscious Kantian practical atheism which is this world materialistic and tends to exclude the eternal.

The practical atheist Immanuel Kant while not explicitly denying the existence of God said:

"God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me." (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)

Below is a summary of the type of Kantian practical atheism which appears to be part of the thinking of Francis and the Irish bishops.

In this part of the academic article "Categorical imperatives impair Christianity in culture" by scholar Douglas A. Ollivant it is explained that Kantian practical atheism infiltrated Catholicism and gives a background, to some extent, to why the protection of the unborn ended in Ireland.(July 20, 2010, Religion and Liberty, Volume 13, Number 4):

"In his must-read Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak introduces us to the concept of 'Kantian Christianity.'  Kraynak claims that the 'Kantian influence on modern Christianity is … deep and pervasive.'” 

 "What he means is that Christian thinkers no longer speak about culture and politics in terms of the more enduring principles of moral virtue, law, and the common good but now focus on social justice, understood as solely the immediate, material rights and dignity of the human person..."

"The rights and dignity of each person replaces moral and theological virtues: rational and spiritual perfection. Further, an emphasis on personal autonomy or personal identity diminishes long-established Christian teachings about the dependence of the creature on the Creator, original sin, grace, and a natural law through which human beings may share or “participate” in eternal law..."

"But the most flagrant use of categorical imperatives in our current political culture deals with life issues. It must be stated up front that no practicing Christian disputes that life is one of the most precious gifts that God has given to us. The second century “Letter to Diognetus” bears testimony to early Christians not taking part in the Roman custom of 'exposing [or 'discarding'] their offspring' – the preferred method of pagan infanticide for the weak or unwanted."

"But to speak of a “culture of life” – if used simply to express a “seamless garment” univocal defense against any taking of life – has become a categorical imperative. For instance, the core of what we might call the “Bernadin project” is that Christians (in this case Catholics) must dogmatically oppose and fight against any early termination of human life. But this understanding fails to see that there may be an important, and even a critical, difference between a true culture of life and a “culture of merely life.” The former taking into account the authentic existence of human beings within not only the material realm, but also the immaterial, the spiritual; the latter limiting human existence to the breathing of the air in this temporal world only."


 "To quote at length from Kraynak:

'Proclaiming a right to life easily turns into the claim that biological existence is sacred or that mere life has absolute value, regardless of whether it is the life of an innocent unborn child, or the life of a heinous criminal. And the claim that life is a “right” diminishes the claim that life is a “gift” from God: How can a gift be a right? Proclaiming a right to life eventually leads to the mistaken idea of a “seamless garment of life” that is indistinguishable from complete pacifism or a total ban on taking life, including animal life, even for just and necessary causes. It also makes one forget that the good life, not to mention the afterlife, is a greater good than merely being alive in the present world – an unintended but significant depreciation of Christian otherworldliness.'"

This "depreciation of Christian otherworldliness" appears in certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia which are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio as well as "explicitly atheist" and deny the existence of objective truth according to Veritatis Splendor.

 Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

 "Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]

The Pope's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote:

"There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329)."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:

"This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.

They redefine adultery as a "irregular relationship" and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.

 This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at "peace" with it, if the sinful behavior is "humanly impossible" to change, "if they can't change their sinful behavior" or don't know it is wrong. 

Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.

 Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said "An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse" as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:

 "I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind...It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is."

"Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right...If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse." (Ralph McInerny, "Ethica Thomistica," 1982, 1997, page 110-111)

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a "supreme tribunal of moral judgement... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear":

"Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8... As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: 'In this passage, the German bishops get all they want':"

"But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are 'in God’s grace', and that their pastor can know it too... The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes 'the help of the sacraments... '"

"Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

 

Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 

The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can't be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of "mercy" to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called "Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power."

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn't have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Francis and the inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.

They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.

Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.

One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.

Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:

"Certain currents of modern thought... are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment... about good and evil... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."

This may be a valid question to ask Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinitions:

Do you believe that the conscience is the supreme tribunal or do you believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every Pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins by your theology of conscience?

 John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a "explicit atheist."

 Pray a Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.