Father Matthias Gaudron, priest of the Society of St. Pius X, comments on the subjectivism of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) but along with the SSPX priests who comment on AL he does not see the subjectivism in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Similarly for Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw subjective cases are objective.So they interpret Vatican Council II,like Fr.Gaudron, as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). For them LG 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS. It is not hypothetical but objective.This is the new salvation theology for them for the SSPX and for Fr. Gaudron.
Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.So for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw AL 301 is based upon the new moral theology which they have accepted.
But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger, Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitiahttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/but-if-we-shouldntand-indeed-cantrender.html
CASE BY CASE JUDGEMENT
AL says that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace. It will be judged that there could be some persons whose subjectivity can be judged .So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.This is something, not only for God, according to AL, but also for humans to judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
With the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin, to judge hypothetical cases as being objective, doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals.
Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism fo desire and being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) and so de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith(salvation).
So by assuming we can judge subjective cases there are exceptions projected to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.
Father Matthias Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw, does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He notices this subjectivism in AL but does not see this same subjectivism in the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Father Mathias Guadron, SSPX has got it right : there are no known exceptions to the traditional moral teachings.The new moral theology is based on an irrationality