Mark Mallet goes on to imply in his very lengthy post that those who are trying to save the lives of unborn children are somehow engaging in , 'Culture Wars' (mirroring and defending the Vatican's own position under the leadership of Pope Francis.) ....and I quote from Mark: 'It was in an interview that appeared in America Magazine, a Jesuit publication. There, the new Pope shared his vision: The Church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise, even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow. —September 30th, 2013; americamagazine.org Notably, several of those battling the “culture of death” on the front lines were immediately offended. They had assumed that the Pope would applaud them for boldly asserting the truth about abortion, defence of the family, and traditional marriage. Instead, they felt they were being scolded for being “obsessed” with these issues.' https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...eaks-at-catholic-church-pro-life-protesters-k I won't comment on this ; I will be kind and write,;I simply find his comments on this matter jaw dropping. As indeed I have found the comments and attitude of Pope Francis on these subjects totally jaw dropping also. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...francis-of-failing-to-uphold-church-teaching/ Pro-life leaders from 13 countries accuse Pope Francis of failing to uphold Church teaching by Staff Reporter posted Tuesday, 12 Dec 2017 Pope Francis speaks during a weekly general audience at the Paul VI audience hall (Getty Images) One signatory accused the Pope and other members of the hierarchy of spreading errors Leaders of pro-life organisations from across the world have signed a letter accusing Church leaders, including Pope Francis, of undermining their movement through ambiguous statements and actions contrary to Catholic teaching. The letter says that over the past 50 years the pro-life movement has “relied in a particular way on the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, which affirms the moral law with the greatest clarity.” However, the signatories say that in recent years that teaching has increasingly been replaced by “ambiguity, and even by doctrines directly contrary to the teaching of Christ and the precepts of the natural law”. The letter then lists the concerns of several documents and letters to Pope Francis over the past couple of years, including the Filial Appeal in September 2015, the ‘Dubia’, the Filial Correction earlier this year, and Fr Thomas Weinandy’s letter last month. On top of these, the signatories accuse the Pope of statements and actions which “contradict the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraceptive acts”, “contradict the Church’s teaching on the nature of marriage and the intrinsic evil of sexual acts outside the union of marriage”. They also criticise his approval of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which they say “effectively call for member states to achieve universal access to abortion, contraception and sex education by 2030”. Finally, they condemn the “approach adopted towards sex education, particularly in chapter 7 of Amoris Laetitia and in The Meeting Point programme produced by the Pontifical Council for the Family”. Signatories from the UK are John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Greg Clovis of Family Life International UK, and Dr Thomas Ward of the National Association of Catholic Families. Irish signatories are Patrick Buckley of European Life Network, John Lacken of Legio Sanctae Familiae and the Lumen Fidei Institute, and Anthony Murphy of Catholic Voice. John Smeaton, chief executive of SPUC, issued a statement accusing Pope Francis of disseminating errors, and urged priests not to follow them. “Over the last couple of years Pope Francis and Vatican authorities have capitulated to the ‘culture of death’ by supporting the pro-abortion United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and by promoting the agenda of the international sex education lobby through Amoris Laetitia and the Pontifical Council for the Family’s pornographic sex education programme. This has a direct effect on real children and real families,” he said. “For this reason the pro-life movement cannot bury its head in the sand and ignore what’s happening at the highest levels of the church today,” Smeaton added. “We must ceaselessly demand that our priests and bishops teach the fullness of the Church’s doctrine and do not collaborate, even for a moment, in the dissemination of errors that are tragically being spread by His Holiness Pope Francis and by many other senior members of the hierarchy. If we fail to take this stand we will be failing in our duty to the weak and vulnerable children that we have pledged to protect.”
Sigh . This is all so depressing. But I had to write something. Poor people are being mislead here. I had to speak out; though it does not give me any pleasure to do so. Sad times. Anyway if Mark would like to respond to these or other issues I have raised here I would be very,very happy respond; but in a kindly spirit, I have an immense respect for him. I just feel I cannot let this go by. His blog posts at the moment could be enormously misleading to the Faithful John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
I notice that Mark is clinging to the flogged-to-death phrase "Pope Francis hasn't changed Doctrine". That's the mantra of those who would have us believe that pastoral practice doesn't need to support what we claim to believe. Cardinal Marx, in his defence of the German plan to give Communion to Lutherans, also said it doesn't change doctrine. I'm sure that somewhere gathering dust on Lutheran shelves there's some official teaching about adultery and sodomy being sinful. If so, their pastoral practice has rendered it obsolete. Only an ostrich could fail to see the effects that type of contradiction has had on Protestantism. Anyone who believes the results will be different for the Catholic Church is deceiving himself.
Author: Pope Francis Is a ‘Mystic’ Trying to Solve Left-Right Dichotomy in the Church Massimo Borghesi For Massimo Borghesi, author of Jorge Mario Bergoglio: An Intellectual Biography, Pope Francis is an “original and profound” thinker who has drawn on numerous Church thinkers of the 20th century to seek a “third position” between conservatism and progressivism. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...c-trying-to-solve-left-right-dichotomy-in-the If he is right we are wrong. But hold on a minute 2 + 2 can equal 5 so we can be both right! (subtle use of irony)
I see Francis as the Pope of 2+2 = 5 Examples of 2+2 = 5 For the Pope the devil is real but hell does not exist. Herein lies Mark's dilemma. Excuses are made - Scalfari is quoting from memory, he is old etc but it is out there in the public domain - the Pope reputedly said 'Hell does not exist; the disappearance of the souls of sinners exists.' Excuses are made -- 'If someone is gay' - the first Pope to use the gay word. There is no such thing as gay - that is a social construct to justify perversion -- simple More excuses -- I could go on and on - Pope Francis is the pontiff of 2+2 = 5. I think 2+2 = 4 Most people on this forum think 2 + 2 = 4 Herein lies the dilemma - if someone tells us 2 + 2 = 5 we ain't going to believe them even if they are Pope.
They are not quite telling us 2+2=5 They are telling us 2+2 can equal 4 or 5. To have 5 only would be a change in Doctrine. To them 5 is a new spiritual understanding of 4. 5 is the new enrichment of 4. A much deeper understanding and enlightenment of 4. They wont be so silly to say 2+2=6 That would be heresy.
Exactly right, exactly right. I also note that Mark's blog has taken on a level of argumentativeness and a kind of attack posture that mirrors that of the Vatican Press Office and the Holy Father himself. I think one thing has become very obvious here. If you go down the road of, 'Defending', the indefensible you end up in a hard , very rocky place. Mark seems to have chosen the extraordinary position of , on the one hand agreeing to be very , 'puzzled' and confused and concerned about the goings on of Pope Francis (citing the Papal Posse on EWTN for instance) and on the other hand engaging in rhetoric on his support. Straddling two mutually logically incompatible worlds. A for instance having once raised in a very vague and general way on concern about Pope Francis he rushed out on his next post one that is almost adulation: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2018/04/24/ It is very obvious that Mark is very, very uncomfortable indeed with any subject matter whatsoever about Pope Francis and is, very earnestly trying to hang his coat on two hooks, but finding it very,very difficult indeed to do so. He reminds me of a man treading water trying not to get swept away by very strong currents.
Yes! Truth is truth. Subtle “nuances” belong to the evil one. Ancient device that destroyed our first parents in Eden. Everything old is new again. Sickening.
They gave themselves away when they made the 2+2=5 statement. How stupid do they think we are? The answer is very! For anyone who is unaware 2+2=5 is straight out of George Orwell's 1984 where the evil authoritarian regime is trying to forcefully convince people that objective reality must bend to the party's will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_+_2_=_5
This is the "Big Lie" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." -Joseph Goebbels
Yes, it's one big lie. When history is written about this disgraceful episode in the life of the Church, atheist Scalfari could well prove to be one of the most if not the most honest journalist covering this papacy. Roundly condemned over a year ago for reporting that Pope Francis intended giving Communion to anyone who asks, if he isn't the most honest of the journalists he must be a prophet because he has certainly proven to be the most accurate. I feel sorry for professional Catholics, especially the faithful kind like Mark Mallet. Some of them must feel like they're between a rock and a hard place. I'm not Mark's biggest fan because his style of writing doesn't appeal to me but nobody could accuse him of being lukewarm or out to destroy the Church like those at the infamous fishwrap.
Yes this Vatican always makes sure it has some sort of plausible deniability, even if it is just a weak gossamer covering over what they are doing. That way the Catholics who have trouble accepting what is happening can pull the blankets up over their heads and say "See? Nothing is wrong."
Warm greetings. I was trying to find a reference quote, and it led me to this thread. I read through your comments and have just a few myself, if I may. There is an assumption here that, if one does not attack the Pope, he is, therefore, compromising the Faith, not wanting to "rock the boat" or "pulling a blanket over one's head." I think that is unfair. My personal response to the ambiguities of this pontificate has simply been to reiterate the truth. Amoris Laetitia, for example, if read as a whole, can be read in an orthodox manner. However, it can also be read in a heterodox way, and that is the problem. Our language should be clear and that document is not. Here was my response to it: The Anti-Mercy. It gives the Pope the "benefit of the doubt" while at the same time reinforcing Sacred Tradition. There is no need to descend into ad hominem polemics, particularly toward the Vicar of Christ. I have over 1400 writings on my website essentially to prepare the reader for these times we are in. I think I am hardly putting my head in the sand. At the same time, we ought to "strive for unity" as St. Paul says, for "a house divided against itself will fall." Thus, as Cardinal Sarah said, "We must help the Pope. We must stand with him just as we would stand with our own father." (May 16th, 2016, Letters from the Journal of Robert Moynihan). Cardinal Sarah is as faithful as they come. There is no question that remaining in communion with the Holy Father is walking a thin razor-edge line at times. I will say outright that I think it is wrong for Catholics to use forums, social media or the like to impugn the motives of the Pope and use derogatory language toward him. That is not God's will, ever, and betrays a lack of humility in the one saying these things. Pope Boniface once said, “…We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff” (Unun Sanctum, 1302). This implies submission to the authentic exercise of his magisterium, not a pope's loosey-goosey statements or sometimes confusing actions. Today (before coming here, I might add), I wrote a general response to concerns such as those expressed here. I receive your criticisms with the love in which there were intended. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from too: Only Jesus Walks On Water.
Actually no, it cannot. Academics and scholars with the credentials to examine this document, much more credible than you or I, found heresy and error in the plain language and understanding of this document. A group of Catholic academics and pastors has submitted an appeal to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome, requesting that the Cardinals and Eastern Catholic Patriarchs petition His Holiness, Pope Francis, to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from a natural reading of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. During the coming weeks this submission will be sent in various languages to every one of the Cardinals and Patriarchs, of whom there are 218 living at present. Describing the exhortation as containing “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals,” the signatories submitted, along with their appeal, a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.” https://onepeterfive.com/theologians-scholars-formally-request-correction-amoris-laetitia/ The days of straddling the fence and “finding an orthodox reading” of the latest nonsense from the Vatican are past.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-62-scholars-correct-pope-francis-for-propagating-heresies Over 60 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’ Pete Baklinski John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews.com Support the filial correction of Pope Francis for 'propagating heresies'. Sign the petition! ROME, September 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” Catholic clergy and lay scholars from around the world have issued what they are calling a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis for “propagating heresy.” The Filial Correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, bears the signatures of sixty-two Catholic academics, researchers, and scholars in various fields from twenty countries. They assert that Pope Francis has supported heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of “heresies and other errors” to spread throughout the Catholic Church. The correction was delivered to the Pope at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017. No similar action has taken place within the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, when Pope John XXII was admonished for errors which he later recanted on his deathbed. “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness,” the signers write in the letter. “As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment,” they state. “We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics — and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away — hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God,” they add. The signers respectfully insist that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has “directly or indirectly upheld,” and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity. They say that they make “no judgment” about the Pope’s culpability in propagating the seven heresies they list. They add that it is not their task to “judge whether the sin of heresy has been committed” whereby a person “departs from the faith by doubting or denying some revealed truth with a full choice of the will.” The letter was made public today, six weeks after the signers received no response from the Pope. Duty to correct The 62 clergy and lay scholars explain that, as believing and practicing Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the Pope “by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church” and that the correction in no way undermines Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible (incapable of error by a special gift of the Holy Spirit) when certain conditions are met. He teaches infallibly in his ordinary capacity when a doctrine is consistent, constant, and universal in relation to what the Church and other popes have always taught. Or in an extraordinary capacity, he teaches infallibly when he speaks “ex cathedra,” that is, when he speaks in the capacity of his office as Apostolic pastor and teacher for the purpose of defining a “doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” The Pope is not infallible in other matters, such as when he gives an off-the-cuff interview or presents his personal reflection on a given topic. “We adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrine of papal infallibility,” the signers state, adding that in their opinion “neither Amoris Laetitia nor any of the statements which have served to propagate the heresies which this exhortation insinuates are protected by that divine guarantee of truth.” The signers’ opinion that the exhortation is not infallible magisterial teaching is backed by leading churchmen, such as Cardinal Raymond Burke. The signers list a dozen passages from Amoris Laetitia that they say “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” Included in the list is the “smoking” footnote 351 where the Pope writes that those living in an objective situation of sin can receive the “help of the sacraments” to grow in the life of grace and charity. Many have interpreted this to mean that civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics living in adultery can receive Holy Communion, and the Pope has endorsed guidelines allowing this. Also included in the list is the text pertaining to couples living in adultery who, the Pope writes, see their situation as “what God himself is asking” of them, despite falling short of the “objective ideal.” The scholars say that these passages along with a number of “words, deeds and omissions” of the Pope are “serving to propagate heresies within the Church.” According to the signers, the “words, deeds and omissions” of Pope Francis that promote heresy include: Refusing to answer the dubia (five yes-or-no questions) submitted by the four cardinals (two of whom are now deceased) asking him to confirm that Amoris Laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith. Forcibly intervening at the 2015 Synod of the Family where he insisted on inserting into a midterm report a proposal (that did not receive sufficient votes) to allow communion for adulterers and a proposal that pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation. Endorsing an interpretation of the exhortation by Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that allows for Holy Communion to be given to adulterers. Affirming the statement of the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that allowed Communion to be given to adulterers, stating that “there are no other interpretations.” Appointing to positions of influence within the Church men who publicly dissent from Catholic teaching on the sacraments, including Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Cardinal Kevin Farrell. Allowing guidelines for the diocese of Rome to be issued under his authority that permit adulterers to receive communion under certain circumstances. Leaving uncorrected the publication in L’Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, the Maltese bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that allows communion for adulterers.
Con’t Seven heresies The Catholic clergy and lay scholars go on to list seven “false and heretical propositions” which they say Pope Francis “directly or indirectly” upholds through his “words, deeds, and omissions.” These seven propositions, listed below, are summaries of the positions which they attribute to Pope Francis and deem to be heretical. 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. Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio [as husband and wife] with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action. A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God. Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it. The clergy and scholars state that these “propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.” They add that it is “necessary” that such heresies be “condemned by the authority of the Church,” on account of the “great and imminent danger” they cause to souls. As one of the signers explained to LifeSiteNews, St. Thomas Aquinas taught that faithful Catholics have a duty to correct an erring prelate. He quoted the following passage from the saint’s famous theological work Summa Theologiae: If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects. The signers conclude the letter, writing: “At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis [seat of truth], the Roman Church, which has by divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of the world: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’" Support the filial correction of Pope Francis for 'propagating heresies'. Sign the petition! One significant name in the list of signers is that of Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). He signed the letter after it had already been submitted to the Pope. It remains to be seen how Fellay’s agreement with the content of the filial correction will affect Pope Francis’ recent efforts to integrate the SSPX legally into the Catholic Church. Signs of the times The filial correction comes after more than a year of the Pope not dialoguing or engaging with faithful Catholics who have approached him directly with serious concerns about how he is steering the Barque of Peter, the Church. The Pope has been sent letters, petitions, video messages, and official questions (the dubia), but all to no avail. Significant dates of attempts to dialogue with the Pope include: September 29, 2015 – 791,000 Catholics (including 8 cardinals, over 200 bishops, and numerous priests, religious, and lay faithful representing 62 pro-family organizations) petition Pope Francis to end the “widespread confusion arising from the possibility that a breach has been opened within the Church that would accept adultery... and would virtually even accept homosexual unions.” July 13, 2016 – 16 international life-and-family advocates plead with the Pope to “unambiguously speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity, and to be the Holy Father that Catholics need.” July 11, 2016 – 45 Catholic scholars submit a letter to the cardinals and Eastern patriarchs of the Church asking them to petition the Pope to “repudiate a list of erroneous propositions” that can be drawn from Amoris Laetitia. September 19, 2016 – Four cardinals (two of whom are now deceased) submit to the Pope five yes-or-no questions (dubia) asking if the exhortation conforms to perennial Catholic teaching on the moral life. The questions were never answered. January 18, 2017 – Three Eastern European bishops launch a “spiritual crusade” urging the Pope to “revoke in an unequivocal manner” pastoral guidelines stemming from Amoris Laetitia that allow adulterers to receive Holy Communion. April 25, 2017 – The four dubia cardinals unsuccessfully ask the Pope for a private audience to discuss “confusion and disorientation” within the Church after the publication of Amoris Laetitia. The filial correction comes as a "formal correction" of the Pope from cardinals may be imminent. Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the dubia Cardinals, told The Wanderer last month that this "formal correction" would involve a clear presentation of the Church's teaching on the points at issue, alongside what the Pope is actually saying on those points. "If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church,” he said. "It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond," he said. Burke said he and the other three cardinals – Walter Brandmuller, Joachim Meisner, and Carlo Caffarra (the latter two now deceased) – issued the dubia "in order to give [Pope Francis] the occasion to set forth the Church’s unchanging teaching." "Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the five dubia, so it is now necessary simply to state what the Church teaches about marriage, the family, acts that are intrinsically evil, and so forth," he explained. "These are the points that are not clear in the current teachings of the Roman Pontiff; therefore, this situation must be corrected. The correction would then direct itself principally to those doctrinal points." In an interview this week with Australia's Catholic Outlook, Burke said the need for a response to the dubia is urgent because of the "harm done to souls by the confusion and error." "The urgency weighs very heavily on my heart,” he said. The Filial Correction and its signatories, along with a summary statement and press release, can be viewed at www.correctiofilialis.org.
There are other viewpoints and from very orthodox and knowledgeable men. Tim Staples, head of Catholic Answers, and one of the most brilliant apologists in America in my view, explains how Amoris Laetitia can be read in an orthodox manner here: http://timstaples.com/blog/defending-pope-francis-pt-2 Fr. Matthew Schneider, L.C. also takes a similar view: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/02/06/weve-wrong-amoris-along/ There are passages in Amoris Laetitia that are ambiguous and, left alone, contradict previous magisterial teaching. But then, later or earlier in the document, another sentence corrects that. I agree, this is poorly written, confusing, and leaves the faithful open to great confusion. We've already seen progressive bishops abuse this ambiguity. But I tend to agree with these gentlemen, that if you read the document precisely as the Pope asked, that: "each part is read patiently and carefully" (n. 7), an "orthodox" interpretation can be reached. But that is a very arduous and difficult process, unlike the profound clarity of Veritatis Splendor.
Beth, I wrote about this subject today: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2019/02/11/only-jesus-walks-on-water/
