How many times must Amoris Laetitia be clarified?

mean, real­ly, dear read­er, maybe I am a fool, but did­n’t we have a clar­i­fi­ca­tion already from Car­di­nal Schon­born? I report­ed on this all the way back on May 1. If my math is cor­rect, that was two hun­dred days ago. Have peo­ple not been read­ing this blog? Lis­ten­ing to Schon­born?

Back in April, the wery month the pope released Amor­is Laeti­tia, Car­di­nal Schon­born addressed “the ques­tion of this lit­tle foot­note.” (That’s foot­note 351, if I may refresh your mem­o­ry, dear read­er, the smok­ing gun, the ele­phant in the cor­ner, the heresy in the Church, the pre­vail­ing of the gates of Hell, which, if we are to believe 1 Vad­er 5 and the oth­er usu­al sus­pects, says that unre­pen­tant cou­ples in an adul­ter­ous union may nev­er­the­less receive com­mu­nion.)

“In cer­tain cas­es,” says the foot­note, cou­ples in such irreg­u­lar unions can receive “the help of the sacra­ments.”

Grab me my faint­ing couch, what does that mean?!

Car­di­nal Schon­born tells us. Behold, I told you before. Says Schon­born:

There is one point, very clear already. John Paul II has known, in cer­tain cas­es, explic­it­ly. And this is impor­tant for the under­stand­ing. You all know the famous excep­tion John Paul has explic­it­ly said.

And what is this “excep­tion” giv­en by John Paul II in Famil­iaris Con­sor­tio 84? Let us look.

[W]hen, 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.

Oh. So accord­ing to Car­di­nal Schon­born, the “cer­tain cas­es” the pope has in mind in foot­note 351 are the ones described by John Paul II in Famil­iaris Con­sor­tio 84. The cou­ple must agree to live in con­ti­nence, and then they can receive Com­mu­nion.

And remem­ber, dear read­er, accord­ing to Life Site News itself, Pope Fran­cis has said that Schon­born’s inter­pre­ta­tion on this top­ic is “the final word.”

So where’s the con­fu­sion? Why aren’t we lis­ten­ing to Car­di­nal Schon­born?

Or why aren’t we lis­ten­ing to Car­di­nal Muller, the pre­fect of the Con­gre­ga­tion for the Doc­trine of the Faith? Accord­ing to Muller, Amor­is Laeti­tia is in per­fect accord with Church teach­ing on com­mu­nion in such cas­es, which would mean Famil­iaris Con­sor­tio 84. Right? Teach me, if I be wrong.

Accord­ing to Muller:

With­out going into details, it is enough to point out that this foot­note [351] refers to objec­tive sit­u­a­tions of sin in gen­er­al, not to the spe­cif­ic case of civil­ly remar­ried divorcees. The sit­u­a­tion of the lat­ter has pecu­liar fea­tures which dis­tin­guish­es it from oth­er sit­u­a­tions.… [it] does not apply to the pre­vi­ous dis­ci­pline.… The stan­dard of FC 84 and SC [Sacra­men­tum Car­i­tatis] 29 and their appli­ca­tion in all cas­es is still valid.

[Note: SC, Pope Bene­dict XVI’s apos­tolic exhor­ta­tion of 2007, reit­er­ates in para­graph 29 the con­di­tions of FC 84.]

Why, dear me, what Schon­born and Muller say about Amor­is is exact­ly what I said about it all through the month of April!

Don’t doubt me, dear read­er.

More impor­tant­ly, don’t doubt the princes of the Church who have already giv­en this same clar­i­fi­ca­tion mul­ti­ple times. I fail to under­stand why prelates must rush out upon demand to clar­i­fy Amor­is Laeti­tia over and over and over again. How many times is enough? Sev­en? Sev­en­ty? Sev­en­ty times sev­en? 35 quin­til­lion?

Every time one of them clar­i­fies Amor­is, he tells us, Hey, guys, gals, kit­tens and pup­pies, and every­thing that God hath made, Amor­is is to be read com­plete­ly and ful­ly in line with the tra­di­tion of the Church, it is con­sis­tent with Famil­iaris, it is con­sis­tent with Sacra­men­tum, don’t wor­ry, don’t pitch your­self over a cliff, don’t lis­ten to 1 Vad­er 5.

And yet now, God help us all, there is a request for one more clar­i­fi­ca­tion, as if we don’t have oth­er things to talk about, with dire warn­ing of car­di­nals mak­ing a “for­mal cor­rec­tion” of Pope Fran­cis, with des­per­ate talk of there being con­fu­sion and divi­sion, and we need Burke, Caf­fara, Brand­muller, and Meis­ner to ride in on white hors­es and save the Church from the pope.

Why? Because Schon­born and Muller are not to be believed? Who are they, any­way? Schon­born and Muller? Pshaw! Schon­born and Muller are ass­es who don’t know which way is up, which way is down, or per­haps they are lying, cov­er­ing for a heretic, spread­ing the smoke of Satan. Who knows?

I just fail to under­stand what more should be clar­i­fied.

Per­haps you can help me, dear read­er.