I don’t mean the bloody red demon exorcist green-pea-soup satanism,
though that certainly exists and is the true darker side of it, and I
don’t mean the LARPy dress-up ackshually satanism of redditors. I mean
in the worst sense, the Luciferian Freemasonic sense, where man thinks
himself Godlike. This is beyond the idea that man sole measure of all things, but that man is also the creator of things. - Renowned statistician and scholar William Briggs
Ironically, Francis conservative Carl E. Olson shows the history of nominalism and it's implicit Lutheran connection to Francis's relativistic Amoris Laetitia. He explains what Francis's most eminent modern theologian Certeau's nonimalism
teachings ultimately are and implicitly why Francis's beloved Martin
Luther noninalistic thinking helped bring about the present
Certeau/Derrida WOKE "hyper-nominalism" of Joe Biden's transgender post-truth America and the world. - The Catholic Monitor
Today, renowned statistician and scholar William Briggs wrote that "Justice Anthony Kennedy Is A Satanist":
Anthony Kennedy, while sitting as a Supreme Court Justice, in an
infamous ruling wrote, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define
one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the
mystery of human life.”
This is satanism.
I don’t mean the bloody red demon exorcist green-pea-soup satanism,
though that certainly exists and is the true darker side of it, and I
don’t mean the LARPy dress-up ackshually satanism of redditors. I mean
in the worst sense, the Luciferian Freemasonic sense, where man thinks
himself Godlike.. This is beyond the idea that man sole measure of all things, but that man is also the creator of things...
... If Kennedy is right, you have no foundation, no basis at all, to prove
me wrong. You may only disagree. Your disagreement means nothing. It is
mere air. Especially if you are weaker than I, and it is dinner time.
As idiotic as this disproof is, it is valid because it relies on
ideas we all have embedded into us, or we quickly learn, which are
certain universal notions. It is that now we (especially the young) deny them. Or pretend to. It is the retreat from universalism that led to Kennedy and to us.
We can thank especially William of Ockham, he of the dull razor fame,
for this. At the peak of Realism in philosophy, the glorious Middle
Ages (an apt term), certain academic thoughts occurred to those
impatient with the rigor of the schoolmen. Thoughts of doubt. Which
became a mark of sophistication. Which, through the passing of years and
encrustation of theory, led to the considered-brilliant solution: we
are certain we can never be certain.
Anyway, Ockham was the father of nominalism, which is the denial of universals, and therefore of underlying fixed Reality. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/38845/]
If "nominalist" Justice Kennedy is a "satanist" then is Francis a "satanist," too?
Does Francis believe that there is no objective
basis for truth and that there is no objective meaning or reality like Kennedy seems to think due to his aparent nominalism?
The nominalist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.
In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth.
The Francis considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:
"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today."
(onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to
Private Audience")
De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:
"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It
is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists
who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness
of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)
Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern
theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality.
Windschuttle wrote:
"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is
critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary
evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of
writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues...
writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."
"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau
subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and
not to any real, outside world..."
"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no
different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of
writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages
31-34)
The Pope's favorite theologian's central religious idea according to de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff are:
"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal
event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the
resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life
is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but
with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of
Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ:
Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de
Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality,
Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De
Certeau")
The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity
are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward
wrote:
"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's
body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as
later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes,
acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the
Plural, " Page 511)
In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the
Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it
is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a
sign of "absence."
Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels
before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like
Certeau might consider oppressed?
De Certeau's key ideas are oppression of groups and the deconstruction of meaning.
For the most part, de Certeau appears to have gotten these ideas from
the postmodernist Jacques Derrida.
The scholar Pablo Markin states that Francis "departs from...Thomistic positions" in his "close" following of apparent nominalist Marion's teachings in his encyclical Amoris Laetitia:
"Oltvai argues
that Pope Francis, born as Jorge Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
departs from the Thomistic positions of his predecessor, while adopting
the notions of the face, the gaze and the other in his pontifical
communication, such as in Evangelii gaudium and Amoris Laetitia.
This stands close to the philosophical positions of not only Levinas,
but also those of Marion, a French Catholic theologian, phenomenological
philosopher and a student of [postmodernist Heideggerian] Jacques Derrida." [https://dgo.hypotheses.org/221]
The Pro Quest website showed that Francis's most important theologian and nominalist Derrida are close collaborators:
This article presents the connection between Michel de Certeau and
Jacques Derrida on two key issues for both authors: the mystical and
writing. Their positions and common grounds about desire, necessity and
the ineffable are shown here through references to their main works. [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2089762984]
The Cairn Information site says that the top teacher Francis is a type of mystical tradition of nominalism:
The question of language enables us to make our way through the entire
work. Quite early on, the mystical tradition appeared to Certeau as a
particular writing, a language whose characteristics it was important to
define. In doing so, he tore spirituality away from insolvable
theological debates that it had become the prisoner of. At the same
time, he encountered the radical questions posed to philosophy and
theology by taking seriously how language functions, from the nominalist
crisis to Wittgenstein and Derrida. [https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RSR_161_0033--michel-de-certeau-and-the-question-of.htm]
Ironically, Francis conservative Carl E. Olson shows the history of nominalism and it's implicit Lutheran connection to Francis's relativistic Amoris Laetitia. He explains what Francis's most eminent modern theologian Certeau's nonimalism teachings ultimately are and implicitly why Francis's beloved Martin Luther noninalistic thinking helped bring about the present Certeau/Derrida WOKE "hyper-nominalism" of Joe Biden's transgender post-truth America and the world:
Whereas St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) had taught that man can know the
true, objective essence of things, Ockham denied it was possible. As
Benjamin Wiker observed in Moral Darwinism (InterVarsity, 2002), Ockham believed that "when we use the word dog there is really no universal entity, essence or dog-ness that we perceive. Dog is merely a name we apply to particular things that happen to look alike. Hence, the name of his system, nominalism, for the Latin nomen, 'name.'"
In other words, nominalism is a philosophical system claiming that
everything outside the mind is completely individual: Reality cannot be
comprehended through the use of universal and abstract concepts but only
through the empirical study of specific, individual objects. Historian
and Benedictine monk David Knowles, in The Evolution of Medieval Thought,
wrote that nominalism holds that "there is no such thing as a
universal, and it is nonsense to speak of the thing known as present in
an intelligible form in the mind of the knower."
[...]
Ockham went so far as to say that the Incarnation had value only to the
extent God gave it value; God could have redeemed mankind just as easily
by becoming a stone, tree, or donkey. If there is no common, or
universal, human nature, the Incarnation was not so much about the Logos taking on human nature as it was about God working as he wishes, in a manner unrelated to any sort of logic or reason.
Because of the arbitrary nature of reality, man cannot know the
essential nature of sin and grace. Thus, he has no way of knowing his
state before God — outside of intuition and inner experience...
... Ockham went so far as to say that the Incarnation had value only to the
extent God gave it value; God could have redeemed mankind just as easily
by becoming a stone, tree, or donkey. If there is no common, or
universal, human nature, the Incarnation was not so much about the Logos taking on human nature as it was about God working as he wishes, in a manner unrelated to any sort of logic or reason.
Because of the arbitrary nature of reality, man cannot know the
essential nature of sin and grace. Thus, he has no way of knowing his
state before God — outside of intuition and inner experience...
... Like a stream growing as it flows from a mountain into a valley,
nominalism has helped shape modernity's view of God, man, and reality.
Ockham's focus on empirical knowledge played a vital role in Luther and
Calvin looking inwardly in search of faith. But it was not long before
Enlightenment thinkers would cast aside the tenuous reality of
self-enclosed faith and begin searching for data and evidence in a new
way...
... What the Protestant revolt and later modernity had in common was that a
subjective, individualistic view of reality turned into the essential
basis of knowledge. The difference was in the object of focus. The
Reformers looked to God, relying on intuitive, subjective experience.
Later thinkers, relying on their own intuitive experiences, concluded
that man is autonomous and God is unnecessary. The former resulted in
Lutheranism, Calvinism and a host of splintering groups. The latter
resulted in all sorts of nasty "isms": empiricism, positivism, moral
relativism, and deconstructionism.
Summarized, the move toward subjective and intuitive knowledge, opposed
to abstract and universal knowledge, led to increasingly radical
philosophical propositions. G.W. F. Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx
pushed the envelope of nominalist-indebted thought. German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote, "There are no facts, only
interpretations" — a sentiment echoed in the common contemporary
refrain: "There is no truth, only opinions."
In the twentieth century, Jacques Derrida's work in deconstruction —
which asserts that truth cannot be known and words lack real meaning —
was a type of hyper-nominalism.[https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802]
Hyper-nominalism is just another word for Modernism. Is Francis a Modernist (hyper-nominalist)?
- "[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for
the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience
of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of
modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and
Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional
Catholic apologetics... If it were the case that inner experience
justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s
existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the
teaching authority of the Church?" - Neo-Modernist AnthonyCarroll
At the Irving Convention Center in Texas on 2013, Francis's closest
adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently
declared himself a Modernist or at the very least at a Neo-Modernist and
appeared to claim that Modernism to some extent was Francis's agenda
and the "dreams of 'the next Pope":
"The Second Vatican Council... meant an end to the hostilities between
the Church and Modernism... Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction
against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of
the person."
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, "The Council's 'Unfinished Business,'
The Church's 'Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" - A
Southern Weekend with Francis' 'Discovery Channel,'" October 28, 2013)
Francis's close longtime theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone
said there is "significant coincidence" or concurrence between Francis's
pastoral theology and Modernism:
"Between [Modernist Maurice] Blondel's philosophy of action and Pope
Francis' pastoral action, there are significant coincidence."
(La Civilta Catholics, 2015 III)
The greatest theologian of the twentieth century Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained the Modernism of Blondel:
"One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the
adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and
life... Maurice Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution... Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it is evolved with him,
in him and through him. (Denz. 2058) One understands why Pius X said of
modernist: 'they pervert the eternal concept of truth 11 (Denz. 2080)"
(Archive.org, Catholic Family News Reprint Series, Where is the New Theology)
Simply put, Modernism is the denial of objective truth in which the individual's conscience and opinion or sentiment is supreme.
According to Pope John Paul II, the theology of Blondel leads to "the inescapable claims of truth disappear[ing]."
Below is the evidence that Francis is a Modernist heretic:
If Francis is a Modernist it explains why his teachings in Amoris
Laetitia as interpreted by his "authentic magisterium" Argentine Letter
are exactly the opposite of twenty centuries of Church doctrine and
Familiaris Consortio as well as deny the existence of objective truth
and objective morality 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."
"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]
"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]
John Paul II's above teachings reject the denial of objective truth and
situation ethics or the denial of objective morality, but Veritatis
Splendor explicitly says situation ethics by making the "individual
conscience... a supreme tribunal of... good and evil" leads or causes
"the inescapable claims of truth [to] disappear."
This article will show that Modernism, that is the denial of truth,
also, leads to situation ethics or the denial of objective morality.
Francis's Amoris Laetitia goes against the above teachings of John Paul
II because of his apparent denial of truth which leads to his promoting
"situation ethics" which by name was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1956.
(CatholicCitizens.org, "Pius XII's Condemnation of Situation Ethics:
'Accusations of rigidity first attack the adorable person of Christ,'"
5-30-2017)
Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, writing on AL 305, gives a quick summary of the Pope's situation ethics:
"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."
Francis in Amoris Laetitia and at a Holy Thursday liturgy appeared to be promoting the heresy of situation ethics because he denies truth. Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald E. Murray, in The Catholic Thing, wrote at the Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Holy Thursday morning "Francis made a startling claim" when he called truth an idol:
"We must be careful
not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract
truths. They can be comfortable idols, always within easy reach; they
offer a certain prestige and power and are difficult to discern. Because
the “truth-idol” imitates, it dresses itself up in the
words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart. Much
worse, it distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the
word and of the sacraments of Jesus."
Fr. Murray then defines truth as the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches and shows that apparently Francis denies truth and makes "erroneous opinion into an idol":
"Truth
is the conformity of mind and reality. The truth about God is
understood when we accurately grasp the nature and purpose of His
creation (natural theology), and when we believe in any supernatural
revelation He may make. Jesus told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and
the Life. All truths have their origin in the Truth who is God made
man. The Christian understands that the truth is a Person."
"...
Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself
up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the
heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the
Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?"
"If the truth could be an idol, then naturally any use of the Scriptures
to illustrate that particular truth would be a charade. But the truth
of God cannot be an idol because what God has made known to us is our
means of entering into His reality – the goal of our existence."
"Francis states that this 'truth-idolatry' in fact 'distances ordinary
people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of
Jesus.'”
"Here we have the interpretative key to what I think he is getting at. He is defending his decision in Amoris Laetitia to
allow some people who are living in adulterous unions to receive the
sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharistic while intending to
continue to engage in adulterous relations."
"... The truth will set you free, it will not enslave you in error and
darkness. Those who seek to be healed by coming close to Christ in his
sacraments will only realize that goal by knowing and doing what Jesus
asks of them. To reject in practice his words about the permanence of
marriage and the obligation to avoid adultery, and then assert a right
to receive the sacraments risks making an erroneous opinion into an
idol." [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]
Francis because of his apparent denial of truth appears to be denying
objective morality and intrinsically evil acts. Professor Claudio
Pierantoni, a Patristic Scholar of Medieval Philosophy at the University
of Chile and Member of JAHLF (John Paul II Academy for Human Life and
Family), said that Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate appears to deny "the existence of intrinsically evil acts" and is promoting "situation ethics":
"[T]he document is read within the context of the present controversies in the Church, especially that about Amoris Laetitia and
situation ethics, one gets the strong impression that many passages are
directly aimed at harshly rebuking all those people (cardinals,
scholars, journalists and simple laypeople writing on blogs) that have
opposed the papal agenda about giving Communion to the divorced and
remarried, Communion to Protestants, permitting contraception in certain
cases, too mild opposition or silence in the face of anti-family and
anti-life legislation (pro-abortion, pro-birth control pro-euthanasia
and pro same-sex marriage). In this sense, the document brings no
progress or clarity in any of the most controversial and anti-doctrinal
stances of Pope Francis. Quite to the contrary, it seems to represent
one more step towards giving a kind of official approval to situation
ethics."
Why does Francis deny truth which has lead to his promoting situation ethics?
"Bergoglio’s fascination with polarities began in the 1960s, when he
first began exploring as a Jesuit via Gaston Fessard’s 1956 monumental
anti-Hegelian work on the dialectics of grace and freedom in St.
Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Fessard Francis tells Borghesi, 'gave me so many of the elements that later got mixed in.'”
Francis theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone connects the final
dots of the close connection of Francis's thinking with Blondel's
teachings which explains why the Pope does not believe in truth and
promotes situation ethics:
"Between Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidences,
probably because they both draw from the Spiritual Exercises of St.
Ignatius of Loyola. However, indirect links between the two should not
be excluded, for example, through the relationship between Gaston Fessard (strongly influenced by Blondel) and Miguel Ángel Fiorito, much appreciated by Bergoglio.
This article focuses first on the convergences regarding action; then
it compares the coincidences between the two authors regarding the
overcoming of social and existential conflicts. Finally, it studies the
parallelism between the «logic of love», nominated and applied by the
Pope, and the «logic of a moral life» by Blondel, focused on charity. (
La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III / www.laciviltacattolica.it )" [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]
Scannone connecting the Pope's thinking to Blondel is very important
because he is one of "Francis’ closest theological advisors" according
to an expert on Latin America and Francis's theology, Claudio Remeseira:
Theologian John Lamont explains what Blondel taught:
"The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think
that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this
understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They
accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be
understood in Aristotle's sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving
the philosopher Maurice Blondel's rejection of the traditional
definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality
('adaequatio rei et intellectus') in favour of an account of truth as
bringing thought into line with life ('adaequatio realis mentis et
vitae'). While this definition of truth was not explicitly stated by the
neomodernists, the importance of Blondel for their thought makes this
interpretation a plausible one; Bouillard, for example, wrote
extensively and approvingly on Blondel.12 What
they did explicitly assert was that the truth of past dogmatic
pronouncements does not consist in their being an accurate description
of reality, and that a theology that was not relevant to the present day
('actuel') was untrue." [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html?m=1]
"Conscious of the challenge to the traditional Thomist theory of
knowledge that had been ushered in by modern philosophy, Blondel, for
example, sought to identify the practical level of human action as the
place where one might find a new apologetic for the Christian faith. In
his L’Action (1893), he analyses the dynamics of human action and
argues that the distance between what we desire and what we actually
realise in our actions indicates that what we truly desire lies always
beyond the particular object that we are momentarily fixed upon. This
transcendental horizon of desire draws the mind and heart towards God as
the only One who can satisfy truly our infinite longings. For Blondel,
it is this Augustinian unrest that leaves a trace of the divine in our
human experience. Such a turn to the interiority of human experience as
grounds for the proof of God’s existence is what is meant by immanentism
in Pascendi."
"Rather than pointing towards the historical existence of Jesus, the
factual occurrence of miracles and the fulfilment of earlier prophecies
for proof of God’s existence, the Blondelian schema holds that
justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the
personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is
characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the
Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge
to the traditional Catholic apologetics of the time, which had been
constructed on the basis that external revelation could be taken for
granted. With this turn to the interior experience of the human subject,
more than simply philosophical questions were raised. If it were the
case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to
find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would
be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?" [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Finally, the great theologian and teacher of Pope John Paul II, Fr.
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote about Blondel and why anyone who
was influenced by his teachings, directly or indirectly, would deny
truth, as apparently Francis is influenced according one of his closest
advisor's Scannone:
"One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity
of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
(Denz. 2080) " [https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P__djvu.txt]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.