Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Taking Amoris Laetitia to the next level…

“Bishop” Peter Kohlgraf:
“We need to work on our View of Sin”

Image: Olaf Kosinsky (kosinsky.eu) (cropped) via Wikimedia Commons
License: CC BY-SA 3.0-de

For over 30 years, the ancient German diocese of Mainz was occupied by the notorious Modernist “Cardinal” Karl Lehmann, a student of Karl Rahner and mentor of the heretical “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller. When Lehmann reached the mandatory retirement age of 80 on May 16, 2016, it was clear that it would only be a matter of time before a successor would be chosen.

Almost a year later, on April 18, 2017, “Pope” Francis appointed “Fr.” Peter Kohlgraf, a pastoral theologian from the region, to succeed Lehmann. Kohlgraf officially took over as chief shepherd in Mainz this past Sunday, Aug. 27, at his “episcopal ordination” (video and photos) in the invalid Novus Ordo rite.

A few days ahead of his installation, the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine conducted an interview with Mr. Kohlgraf, in which he demonstrated plainly the chief qualification he brings to his new position: He isn’t a Catholic.

He made this absolutely clear when he addressed the issue of cohabitation between couples before they are married. Asked about whether he might adopt “Bishop” Stefan Oster‘s suggestion of replacing some sacramental wedding ceremonies with a rite of blessing instead, since many people who get married in church are not practicing Catholics and don’t really know what a sacramental marriage even is, the “pastoral theologian” Kohlgraf replied:

A ceremony of blessing is a good approach, I think; I can imagine that. Without, of course, abandoning the sacramentality of marriage. But there is another thing to consider. It is a fact that most couples live together before they decide to get married. According to strict Catholic doctrine, sexual intercourse between two people who are not married, is a sin. If henceforth a priest merely blesses a couple, who then, however, go back to cohabiting, then these partners would only be allowed to talk philosophy at night [i.e. have no sexual relations] according to traditional Catholic teaching. This shows that as a church we need to work on our view of sin and that traditional moral theology does not correspond to reality.

(Peter Kohlgraf, “Wir müssen an unserem Sündenverständnis arbeiten”, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Aug. 18, 2017; our translation.)

The theological balderdash expressed here defies belief!

First of all, if a couple is known to cohabit, not only can they not have a public wedding in church, they cannot even receive a public blessing. Secondly, they wouldn’t even be allowed to “talk philosophy at night” because they would not be allowed to spend the night under one roof at all. Even living as brother and sister would not be permitted for them because it would obviously constitute an unnecessary occasion of sin, not to mention scandal.

Kohlgraf’s references to “strict Catholic doctrine” and “traditional Catholic teaching” show that he is very well acquainted with the truth of Catholicism — he just rejects it anyway. Also, notice the contempt the new pretend-bishop has for the moral law, expressed tacitly in his “only talk philosophy at night” quip.

Modernists like Kohlgraf always act as though rampant sexual immorality were somehow a “new” thing, something the Church had never enountered until relatively recent times and that she now needs to find a fitting “approach” to. Far from it!

Sexual immorality is as old as sin itself. It was the reason why God sent the deluge in the time of Noah (see Gen 6); it was the reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (see Gen 18-19); it was the reason why King Solomon fell into idolatry (see 3 Kgs 11); it was not unknown among the Corinthians (see 1 Cor 6); it was a favorite sin of Ancient Rome; and it is, according to Our Lady of Fatima, the primary reason why most souls go to hell.

So, let’s stop this ridiculous idea that fornication and adultery (and worse) are recent developments that the Church still needs to figure out how to address. Sexual sin has been around for as long as there have been fallen human beings, and it will always be this way, because human nature does not change. The good news (and the Good News!) is that our fallen human nature was redeemed by our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (cf. Titus 2:14). With His grace, we can overcome our sinful inclinations, regain control over our passions, and be forgiven if we fall. That is the only genuine — and infinitely sufficient — remedy against this evil, for which reason Christ commanded His Church to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15).

The divine mandate to the Church is clear, but not everyone is happy with it. “For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”, St. Paul warned (2 Tim 4:3). Mr. Kohlgraf is one of them.

His proposal is very much in the spirit of Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, which he is really just taking to the next level: Having “accompanied” sinners by telling them that even their sins have “elements” of virtue and are therefore not altogether bad, Kohlgraf now wants to move to eradicate the concept of sin altogether. The results are guaranteed to be stellar: After all, if there is no sin, there are no sinners! And if there are no sinners, there is no need for a Redeemer!

Do you see where this is leading? This is what Pope St. Pius X meant when He said that the Modernists are “the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving … utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 1). They are so haughty and evil that they are not ashamed even to “deny the Lord who bought them” (2 Pet 2:1).

By why stop at morality? Perhaps we should “work on our view” of crime, too: If the murder rate is too high in a particular city, we could just change the definition of what constitutes murder, and, voilà, problem solved! After all, we want to make sure that our criminal code corresponds to “reality”, don’t we?!

The Kohlgraf proposal is, in truth, a betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Mainz’s new pretend-bishop does not want to preach the hard truth of supernatural contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, aided by grace, as a necessary precondition for receiving forgiveness (cf. 2 Para 7:14; Lk 14:27; 1 Jn 1:9); rather, he wants the Church to change her understanding of what constitutes sin!

This is the very opposite of what the divine commission is about: Instead of teaching man to conform to the law of God, the Modernists want to tell God to conform His law to man! Again we can turn to Pope Pius X to find an apt description of what is going on here:

…[M]an has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (2 Thess 2:2).

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5)

What makes Kohlgraf’s proposition even worse is that it is not simply idiotic — it is criminal, in a spiritual sense, because this abhorrent departure from the Gospel is obviously deliberate. Kohlgraf is no idiot. He has a doctorate in Ancient Church History, and he knows very well that man must conform to God if he wishes to be saved, not the other way around.

The Church’s “view” of sin is rooted in the natural law and in God’s revelation and not in the social mores of a bygone era. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic theologian and demands that God and the Church conform to the sinful habits of self-worshipping modern man, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing (cf. Mt 7:15; Acts 20:29), a spiritual criminal of the worst sort.

If “traditional moral theology does not correspond to reality”, then the problem is with reality, not with Catholic morality. The very idea, concealed in this accusation, that morality ought to “correspond to” (that is, be driven by) sinful man’s “reality”, is gratuitous and false. It is precisely the mission of the Church to change “reality” — the status quo — by teaching, ruling, and sanctifying the human race. That is why the Church exists. She does not exist to make sinners feel comfortable in their sins, to accompany migrants, or to prevent mudslides in Sierra Leone.

Ladies and gentlemen, beware of Novus Ordos telling you about morality being opposed to “reality”, because this is a sure indication that they have embraced the error of “situation ethics”, also known as “ethical existentalism”, which was condemned by Pope Pius XII:

The authors who follow this system hold that the decisive and ultimate norm of conduct is not the objective right order, determined by the law of nature and known with certainty from that law, but a certain intimate judgment and light of the mind of each individual, by means of which, in the concrete situation in which he is placed, he learns what he ought to do.

And so, according to them, this ultimate decision a man makes is not, as the objective ethics handed down by authors of great weight teaches, the application of the objective law to a particular case, which at the same time takes into account and weighs according to the rules of prudence the particular circumstances of the “situation”, but that immediate, internal light and judgment. Ultimately, at least in many matters, this judgment is not measured, must not and cannot be measured, as regards its objective rectitude and truth, by any objective norm situated outside man and independent of his subjective persuasion but is entirely self-sufficient.

According to these authors, the traditional concept of “human nature” does not suffice; but recourse must be had to the concept of “existent” human nature, which in many respects does not have absolute objective value, but only a relative and, therefore, changeable value, except, perhaps, for those few factors and principles that pertain to metaphysical (absolute and unchangeable) human nature.

Of the same merely relative value is the traditional concept of the “law of nature”. Thus, many things that are commonly considered today as absolute postulates of the natural law, according to their opinion and doctrine, rest upon the aforesaid concept of existent nature and are, therefore, but relative and changeable; they can always be adapted to every situation.

Having accepted these principles and put them into practice, they assert and teach that men are preserved or easily liberated from many otherwise insoluble ethical conflicts when each one judges in his own conscience, not primarily according to objective laws, but by means of that internal, individual light based on personal intuition, what he must do in a concrete situation. Many of the things set forth in this system of “situation ethics” contradict the truth of the matter and the dictates of sound reason, betray traces of relativism and modernism, and wander far from the Catholic doctrine handed down through the centuries. In many of their assertions they are akin to several non-Catholic ethical systems.

(Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Instruction Contra Doctrinam)

Speaking of “reality”, it stands to reason that the ultimate reality is God Himself. Those who want to spend eternity enjoying His Presence in Heaven instead of facing His just wrath in hell, would do well to adjust their “concrete situation” to such an extent that their lives become acceptable to Him, for “[t]here shall not enter into [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie…” (Apoc 21:27; cf. Acts 10:35; 1 Pet 2:5).

No, “Bishop” Kohlgraf, the Catholic Church need not work on her view of sin. She got her “view” of sin from God Himself. Sinners, instead, need to get their act together if they want to be saved (cf. Phil 2:12).

Like all Modernists, Mr. Kohlgraf uses an inductive approach to theology: He begins with a particular given situation and then wants to produce general principles from it. That’s what he is getting at when he says that because the “reality” is not in agreement with traditional theology, then we need to “work on” our view of sin. The particular case determines the general rule. This is totally backwards.

The Catholic theological method is deductive, not inductive: We begin with general principles and then apply them to particular cases, as Pope Pius XII makes clear in the above quote. A pretty good explanation and illustration of the difference between the two methods can be found in an article by John Vennari on the “psychotic synod” of 2014.

It is surely no surprise that Kohlgraf is a Modernist through and through. We will have to leave it to a future post to examine his thought in some depth, but what he said about morality in the Frankfurter Allgemeine interview is a scary enough preview.

Aside from being completely irreconcilable with Catholicism, Kohlgraf’s thesis is also not particularly bright, despite all of the man’s academic credentials. Essentially, his prospoal reflects all the intellectualism of a sixth grader who asks: How can it be wrong if everyone is doing it?

Fifty years after Vatican II, this is where Novus Ordo theology has gotten them.

No wonder Francis appointed the man successor to “Cardinal” Lehmann. He’s a perfect fit.

22 Responses to ““Bishop” Peter Kohlgraf: “We need to work on our View of Sin””

  1. bartmaeus

    Ah yes, Abraham, it’s so clear now that you adopted a wrong debating strategy with the Lord on the question of Sodom. So unsophisticated of you, old man. How privileged we contemporaries are to live in such enlightened times. (sarc)

  2. Susan Shelko

    The entire structure — whatever is left standing — is about to crumble. Morality, purity, absolutes, truth? Why absolutely not! We need to redefine our concept of sin. It is outdated. We need a modern version. These men are paving the interstate to hell and are putting up highway markers. (sarcasm off)

    Novus Ordo Watch: you will be delighted to know that the holy priests at St. Gertrude the Great will work with me individually on catechism stuff (ask anything!) and will help me get caught up on the sacraments. I ordered Fr. Lasance’s Missal, the Baltimore Catechism and Msgr. Knox’s Translation of the Holy Bible.

    It is my firm intention to never again walk into a modern Catholic mass or Church. Just Call Me Jorge and all his Homoerotic Friends can keep their heresy, sacrilege and blasphemy. Communion, unity, fellowship — I think not. Come out from her my people, do not partake in her sin and do not share in her plagues ….

    • Gisèle A. Demers

      I support you all the way in your decision. I made that same decision four years ago in September…I never regret it..

      • Susan Shelko

        I appreciate the encouragement. For me, it has been a slow, deliberate and researched decision. I could convert to Protestantism and it would be far more acceptable than for me to say the seat of Peter is vacant. That four letter “sede” word is loathed and despised. I could become a Lutheran. I could become an atheist. I would be applauded in the spirit of ecumenicism. It takes courage to go against 99% (or more) of the Catholic universe.

        • Gisèle A. Demers

          Susan, imagine having to make that decision when you live at about 200 feet from the church in which you did your first communion, you saw you saw siblings baptized and uncles married! You pass by that church every day, and you cannot assist the liturgies anymore…! You have nothing left…except the mass on the internet…By the way you know the link? www. sggresources.org. click on live webcast… Mass on Sunday is at 9:00 and 11:30….I don’t remember if the morning low mass is at 7h00 or 8:00… Go check the site: http://www.sgg.org

          • Susan Shelko

            Very, very painful. I cannot imagine. I am sorry for your losses and I would encourage you by saying that I truly believe you will be rewarded for your faithfulness by the Lord himself. The Church represents roots and memories, family and friends, a community and a gathering place — in addition to being spiritual sustenance and a path to eternal life. There are losses all the way around and on every level. Plus there is the feeling having been lied to and betrayed by the leadership/ hierarchy of the Church. It is a grieving process plus it is doing the unpopular or counter-cultural thing. I imagine many people do not leave because they belong to a community. The convenience and familiarity of the Catholic Church down the street is too much for many.

            It seems almost beyond belief what is happening in the Catholic Church. One has to love, love, love the truth so very much to make this type of decision. In my opinion, the gift that Francis gives to all who have eyes to see is the heresy, the blasphemy and the sacrilege — it is “in one’s face” and cannot be avoided. He is the fruit of the poison tree. He is the logical conclusion to 50+ years of Vatican II. Thank you for web site information for SGG. Fr. Cekeda and Bishop Dolan have been an invaluable help to me — as has Bishop Sanborn and the Most Holy Family seminary site (the one in Florida). I have access to a small chapel about an hour and fifteen minute drive from where I live. Twice a month, a priest from SGG celebrates the mass in a private home.

            I suspect each person has his or her own journey out. For me, it was coming back to the Catholic faith only to find with shock and surprise: “What have I come home to?” I have had multiple (negative) experiences over the course of two years that would lead me to the decisions and conclusions I have arrived at. Ironically, the websites 1 Peter 5 along with the Remnant and aka Catholic were instrumental in my awakening. These websites helped to educate me and helped me to understand what I was seeing and experiencing — and they explained how we got to where we are today. Although the folks on 1P5 et al. will only go so far and then fail to connect that final dot (i.e., must not consider the “sede” arguments. must reject “sede” out of hand. must not talk about “sede” except in derogatory terms), I was willing to allow logic and reasoning to take me its reasonable conclusions and to truth. I am so very blessed.

          • Gisèle A. Demers

            Any time you need a listening ear, or a sister in Christ to share the faith…I am only an email away.

          • Tom A.

            The Truth is the second person of the Divine Trinity. To follow Him comes with a great cost. The Cross. We must all bear our cross as He did. Loss of friends, community, human respect, these are nothing compared with what one gains.

          • Susan Shelko

            Yes, to follow Christ comes at great cost. I have lost all of these things and more (friends, community, human respect). There will be additional losses to come. Of that I am certain. The invitation is come, deny yourself/ die to yourself, take up your cross and follow me. My friends do not understand me. My Catholic friends think Francis is oh so humble and oh so holy. They want what he wants: doesn’t Jesus want us to be happy? No, I say, Jesus wants us to be holy and to be perfect — that we might be like Him. Each and every day I pray for two things: the first is to love the Truth with so much passion and zeal that I will do anything for it/ for Him. The second is the gift of final perseverance. Tom, I love your comments, and I follow what you write on akaCatholic. Do you comment elsewhere?

          • Tom A.

            No Susan, I am either banned or have my comments deleted on most other sites. I have learned just how hard and unpopular the Truth is, even with traditional Catholics. The Truth is a sword and it divides wheat from chaff.

          • Susan Shelko

            Ah yes, of course. You dare to speak a whole series of inconvenient truths. Have you considered starting your own website/ blog page? You write well enough to that. I have not been banned anywhere (yet). I find it simply astounding that no matter what the evidence, folks will not look at the logical conclusions and go wherever the truth takes them. It seems that it is far easier to con/ fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been conned/ fooled.

          • Eric H

            Well said, Susan. Jesus does want us to be happy, but with a spiritual happiness that bears with and even thrives on crosses and worldly trials. And sometimes He pours out consolation in abundance, as in this episode in the life of St. Francis Xavier (link). Great book, by the way, and here’s volume 1: (link).

          • Theycallmechuck

            Susan and Giselle, I unhappily live through the same things. I am grateful that you share those thoughts. I feel so alone at times.
            “Jesus wants us to be …” or “God doesn’t care if you …” are just a couple of replies that make your head hurt and your heart ache.

  3. jay

    The Vatican II cult keeps hacking away with its false doctrine hoping that true Catholics will succumb to it’s heresy. Even the elect are worn down but they cannot be extinguished, nor can Christ be overcome. Do these most learned gentlemen in their posh frocks ever read the Apocalypse of ST.John the Apostle .

  4. Dum Spiro Spero

    According to Amoris Laetitia God can sometimes ask to do evil:

    Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God (Relatio Finalis 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).

  5. BurningEagle

    Pete Kohlgraf’s remarks are perfect. I hope he encourages his fellow co-religionists to make similar statements. The Novus Ordo is completely devoid of even any remnants of Catholicism. This stuff should surprise nobody. We don’t expect to see horses fly, so why should anyone expect a Novus Ordo churchman to speak Catholic truths? The Novus Ordo clergy are all heretics and apostates, and we should expect nothing less from them.
    If there are folks who are just now becoming aware of the problem, these remarks will drive the point home all the more.

      • BurningEagle

        We should all be for the N.O. allowing any and all kinds of absurdities and evils. It just makes it easier for the folks out there who haven’t thought this thing through yet, to finally make the decision to reject the N.O.
        And yet the S?PX still maintain Jorge and his henchmen are the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, the Immaculate Bride of Christ. What a blasphemy!
        (I refer to them as S?PX, because, ever since the “canonizations” of Roncalli and Wojtyla, the S?PX has been teaching the heresy that canonizations are NOT Infallible. If that were true, then we could not be sure that ANY saint is truly a saint. Their heretical theory makes the traditional ceremonies for canonization of a saint a lie and a farce, because the petitions to, and the response from, the Roman Pontiff refer to the Magisterium’s immunity from error in this regard. And so, according to their heresy, we cannot be certain that St. Pius X was in fact a saint. Therefore I refer to their organization as the S?PX, to be consistent with their heresy, and to point out its absurdity all at once.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.