I can’t believe it’s not adultery…

Is it Adultery? In Portugal, YOU Decide!


Roughly two weeks ago, the Vatican’s no. 2 in command, Secretary of State “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, stated that with Francis’ infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, there had been introduced a “paradigm shift”. Although he cleverly chose not to elaborate on this concept, we are beginning to see precisely that: a shift from objective moral norms to situation ethics, according to which each individual decides what is right and wrong for his particular “concrete” case.

No matter the verbal contortions and the lipservice being paid to objective morality, it is clear that a subjective, individualized pseudo-morality is precisely what is intended with Bergoglio’s paradigm shift. We see this in the deliberately vague and ambiguous language used in the document itself, together with what ought to be said that is left unsaid; we see it in what is said behind closed doors; we see it in the refusal to clarify; we see it in the utter chaos that has erupted that Francis could end at any moment but chooses not to; we see it in the example the “Pope” himself gives in “blessing” adulterous unions; we see it in the praise and acceptance of those who draw the intended conclusions; and we see it in the toleration of and refusal to contradict those who take the principles a step further to argue that mortal sin may sometimes be not only permissible but even obligatory to commit.

It is no accident that Pope St. Pius X, in warning against the Modernists, identified them as “the enemies of the Church” on account of not only “their tenets” but also “their manner of speech, and their action” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3). This is very important: Not only must we look at what they say but also how they say it, and what they do. If we apply this method to Francis, it does not take long to conclude that he is, in the words of Pope Pius X, among “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church” (ibid.).

The latest news on the Amoris Laetitia kerfuffle comes from the Novus Ordo archdiocese of Braga, Portugal. On Jan. 17, 2018 its leader, “Abp.” Jorge Ferreira da Costa Ortiga, announced details concerning the implementation of Amoris Laetitia in his diocese at a press conference: The diocese has launched an “Office for Welcoming and Support to the Family” and issued two documents to put Amoris Laetitia into effect. Although these two documents are not yet available in English, a transcript of Ortiga’s presentation was released by the diocese in both the original Portuguese and in English translation:

The most salient and explosive part of Fr. Ortiga’s presentation is the following:

We believe in the methodology’s soundness proposed by Pope Francis: to accompany, discern and to integrate. This means that couples have to be ready, for example, to accept that there are no pre- conceived answers or previously defined goals. If this were not the case, there would be nothing to discern. The couple of “remarried divorcees” and the spiritual director must accept that it isn’t a process to guarantee access to the sacraments, but rather a spiritual way to seek God’s will.

After several steps and a course of a few months, it will ultimately be up to the couple to take the decision before God. The spiritual director is responsible for monitoring the process and ensure that it runs with complete normality. As Pope Francisco says, “we are called to form consciences, not to replace them” (AL 37).

It’s not a matter of granting a general “authorization” to access the sacraments, but of a process of personal discernment, of the internal forum, accompanied by a pastor with regular meetings. This priest will help in the process of discernment in the light of the Church’s teaching.

(Archdiocese of Braga, “Criteria for running the Archdiocesan Service for Reception and Support to the Family”, n. 3; underlining added.)

All the fluffy verbiage found in the pretend-Archbishop’s speech is intended to make this all-determining “discernment process” look profoundly spiritual and doctrinally sound. However, it does not take a prophet to predict that the reality of it all will simply be this: The “irregular” couples will end up reading a bunch of boring documents, they will say some prayers, they will talk with the pastor and probably a few lay “counselors” — and ultimately they will all “discern” that in their particular case, there is no adultery; or even if there is, they can continue engaging in sexual relations because “for now [that] is the most generous response which can be given to God” and in fact “is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of [their] limits” (Antipope Francis, Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 303). This will happen probably without a single exception.

By the way, what if the two “irregular” parties come to opposite conclusions in their discernment? It seems no one has thought of that scenario at all, but why not? Could it be that we all know that everyone will always “discern” the same thing, namely, that they can keep having relations? Perish the thought!

In any case, no matter what is actually discerned, this internal-forum process is contrary to the dogmatic decree of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema” (Session 24, Canon XII; Denz. 982). It is a real shame that Pope Pius IV, who promulgated this Tridentine anathema, didn’t know about the panacean internal forum solution! Had this been known then, it would have saved King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII a lot of trouble — and St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a few heads!

Ironically, Fr. Ortiga has it exactly right when he says that if “there are no pre-conceived answers or previously defined goals”, then “there would be nothing to discern.” And that is precisely the case: There is nothing to discern because there are pre-conceived answers. They are the answers of the objective moral law, which is applicable at all times and everywhere, equally to all; all consciences must conform to it, and if they do not, then those consciences must indeed be “replaced”. Sometimes the truth is as simple and dull as: “…he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18).

In his role as “Archbishop” of Braga, Fr. Ortiga is also the Primate of All Portugal. Whether the Bergoglio-Ortiga process will soon be adopted throughout the rest of the nation remains to be seen, but for now, it most certainly applies to the territory over which “Abp.” Ortiga wields his putative authority.

Ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves: Is your carnal union matrimonial, blessed by God, and therefore an aid to your eternal salvation? Or is it adulterous, mortally sinful, and therefore putting you on the path to hell? In the Modernist archdiocese of Braga, you decide!

Share this content now:

15 Responses to “Is it Adultery? In Portugal, YOU Decide!”

  1. Daniel

    NOW said: ‘we see it in the utter chaos that has erupted that Francis could end at any moment but chooses not to’

    If according to the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostalic Officio of February 15, 1559 of Pope Paul IV, Bergoglio is not the Pope and NOW is convinced he isn’t then how can Bergoglio end the utter chaos at any moment? Even if he were to have a miraculous conversion to the Catholic Faith he still would not be the Pope.

    I have tried to hypothesis an end to the disasters of Vatican II and all the false Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, liturgy, sacramental rites, blessing, canonizations, etc and the best one that I can imagine is the
    coming of the anti-Christ followed shortly by the second coming of Jesus Christ as per the second letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. My strategy is to hold fast to tradition as best I can while waiting for this to happen. I also wonder that if the private revelation of Fatima is in fact true, why would our Blessed Mother Mary ask us to pray for the conversion of Russia when the greater enemy had already infiltrated the Church prior to 1917, namely the modernists? I’ve asked myself how the disasters of Vatican II could have happened when Pope St. Pius X had warned about the modernists? He even went so far as to command the vow against modernism. What went wrong?

    I just found out about another document that Pope St. Pius X wrote, his encyclical Acerbo Nimis on teaching Christian doctrine. He commanded that all the parish priests teach on every Sunday and holy day, with no exception for the space of one hour from the text of the Catechism (Council of Trent presumably) the boys and girls on those things they must believe and do in order to attain salvation. Was this ever done? I was born in 1957, raised in the ‘Catholic Church’ and I have never seen or heard of this being done. Pope St. Pius X also commanded that in each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine was to be canonically established. I’ve never heard of this until reading this document. Here is the link for those interested:


    I hypothesis that if all the Catholic laity had been taught the Catechism of the Council of Trent as per the command of Pope Pius X that the disasters of Vatican II would never have happened. What has happened is the result of disobedience to the Papal authority of Pope St. Pius X. The gross ignorance of so called Catholics is why this happened. If all Catholics knew the faith, myself included I would think they would have rejected the mass of Paul VI, the Vatican II modernist heresies and literally thrown these modernists out of the Catholic Church. In one of my previous comments left on this website I suggested that what we need is a new Catholic inquisition of some sort whereby these modernists would be routed out somehow. Unfortunately now I think this is all too little too late and there is no simple remedy. I think the solution will have to be direct divine intervention, namely the second coming of Jesus Christ. It was prophesied in sacred scripture so why not now?

    Our Lady of Sorrows pray for us, Our Lady Destroyer of Heresies pray for us.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      You misunderstood what I was saying, and perhaps I should have been more clear. But notice that the phrase “utter chaos that has erupted” is hyperlinked to our Amoris Laetitia Chaos Watch page. It was in reference to the chaos generated by Amoris Laetitia that I wrote that Francis could end the chaos at any point — by saying exactly what he is teaching and legislating, what the implications are and aren’t, and to what extent his underlings have to submit to it. That’s all. Francis could end the chaos about Amoris Laetitia, but he chooses not to because the chaos is desired. He wants the chaos.

      As far as St. Pius X’s “Acerbo Nimis” goes, I don’t know for sure but I imagine that this legislation was changed at some subsequent point, perhaps in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

      The reasons for how Vatican II happened are manifold. By way of summary, it would probably be correct to say that the Popes that follows Pius X simply underestimated the seriousness of the Modernist threat, and they did not govern the Church well enough and not vigilantly enough.

      But we must always keep in mind that everything that happens takes place within the solicitude of Divine Providence. We cannot look at Vatican II as simply an accident that could have been avoided. In a sense, it is true, of course — but in another and very important sense, it was decreed from all eternity that it should happen this way, just as it has been decreed that there will one day be an Antichrist. The “operation of error” is foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. Nothing that happens can happen without God permitting it, and He permits it for a greater good. Somehow all this is to His glory and to the salvation of the elect. In all our tremendous suffering and our understandable frustrations, we must never lose sight of this. Just as the Passion and Death of Our Lord weren’t things that happened by accident and thwarted, as it were, the divine plan, so neither is the Vatican II apostasy and its aftermath that we are currently living through. By the grace of God, we must use all our troubles to advance our salvation, for that is why God is permitting them.

      • jay

        Vatican II came about because of sin. We wanted the golden calf of modernism, Ecumenism religious liberty. It was easy for the Free Masons, Schismatics and Atheists to enter the gates of the Vatican we never locked them out.

      • Daniel

        NOW makes it sound like Bergoglio wants chaos for the sake of chaos. I think that in his modernist mindset he believes he has a better way, he truly believes what he is teaching in Amoris Laetitia. He rejects the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ says go and sin no more to the woman caught in adultery he means exactly that, go and sin no more. Bergoglio says it isn’t black and white, we are somehow misinterpreting the words of Jesus Christ. There are particular ‘concrete circumstances’ that overrule the black and white of the sixth commandment, it is all about situation ethics to him, it is subjective not objective. Intrinsic moral evil doesn’t exist for him. He knows what the Catholic Church has always taught regarding the intrinsic evil of adultery, he rejects that, he is dictating a new doctrine for this Novus Ordo Religion. Doctrines evolve for modernists they are not immutable.

        Most will go along with it, the ‘recognize and resist’ followers will try to live with it even though it puts them in a contradiction regarding obedience to Papal teaching authority, and hopefully a few will wake up and reject anti-Pope Bergoglio and his modernist teachings.

        • rich

          I dont believe for a split second that Jorge truly thinks that he is doing the right thing. I fully believe that he is an evil man who is intent on leading souls to hell. That is simply how I am seeing it.
          Good posts regardless though. Thanks Daniel.

      • Clare Forkin

        Powerful stuff that! To realise that the Popes following from Pope St Pius X “accommodated” Modernism in a certain sense by not confronting it head on! One sees this more clearly from the perspective of a century later… The theological poison that Pascendi warned of, has infiltrated the whole ecclesiastical body politic… Bergolio is only a nasty by-product of the ongoing poisoning process!..

        • BurningEagle

          St. Pius X knew they were all over the place even from Leo XIII’s reign. Modernism is not as new as some people think.

  2. BurningEagle

    A correctly formed “conscience” is one that has the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Catholic Church as its standards. But the Novus Ordo does not have any objective teachings with regard to doctrines or morals, let alone Catholic doctrinal and moral teachings. Therefore, they can only malform consciences.

    But, one does not expect to see a flying pig, or a whistling snake; so why should we expect Novus Ordo Modernists to behave like Catholics?

  3. Patrick O'Brien

    Pastors have time to meet on a regular basis to discern if this or that couple committing adultery isn’t really guilty committing adultery? Give me a person who commits mortal sin but is at least honest about it. At least he might be open to repentance. Meanwhile, the streets will soon be repaired in Hell: “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325 attributed.

  4. James Pridmore

    Who authored the following passage?

    “Every Star has its own Nature, which is “Right” for it. We are not to be missionaries, with ideal standards of dress and morals, and such hard-ideas. We are to do what we will, and leave others to do what they will. We are infinitely tolerant, save of intolerance.”

    If you answer Francis, give yourself half credit. Notice the references to relativism, rigidity, proselytism, liberty and tolerance. Spend a little time with ‘infinite tolerance’ to realize it does away with morality altogether. No moral absolutes, just ‘discernment,’ which is Francis-speak for willful blindness.

    Francis has abolished morality. Why? Because it’s an offense to sinners.

    • BurningEagle

      I don’t understand why the answer of Francis is 1/2 credit. The answer (anyone can google it) is Aleister Crowley, the Satanist. What do I win?

Leave a Reply

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