The occasion for this writing is given to me by the recent appointment of His Excellency Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández as Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is well known how he contributed to the drafting of the disputed apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia;1 his appointment has caused consternation in many Catholic circles (just do a search on the web to find blog articles that not only question the newly appointed prefect’s claims in the field of moral theology, but also his alleged cover-up of priests implicated in sex scandals).2
I received from a friend, also dismayed, an invitation to listen to a homily by our prelate, given during the Holy Mass he celebrated at the Cathedral of La Plata, on March 5, 2023.3 And indeed I could see how said homily contains devastating statements for natural and Catholic morality: I translate from minute 24:43.
Nothing changes if I don’t learn to look at their beauty beyond their looks, their abilities, their sexual orientation, whatever it may be, if I don’t learn to look beyond everything, I can’t end up loving them as they are, whether I like it or not. So every brother and sister is worth more than anything on this earth. You know that for many centuries the church went in another direction without realizing that it was developing everything in philosophy and in a morality full of classifications to classify people to put labels on them this is this is this… This one can receive communion, that one cannot receive communion, this one can be forgiven, that one cannot be forgiven… It’s terrible that this has happened to us in the Church… Thank God Pope Francis is helping us to free ourselves from these patterns!
These remarks stand on a certain dialectic, which has returned to wide debate especially since Amoris laetitia and other interventions by Pope Francis, whereby a “case-by-case moral evaluation” on the one hand is contrasted with, on the other hand, “casuistry,” despised as a set of prepackaged answers for all cases.
While we may find exaggerations in the old collections of cases of conscience—in which, by the way, great moralists have exerted themselves (e.g., trying to determine the time of the Mass directing whether or not the precept has been fulfilled, the distance of the confessor such that a priest who is to celebrate is not in a state of grace is exempt from the obligation of confession before Mass, etc.)—the controversy actually rests on a much more serious problem: Can human actions be traced back to moral kinds and species?
The problem is serious, because this reconduction is a conditio sine qua non to support the existence of moral absolutes,4 that is, of actions that, if done with foreknowledge and deliberate consent, are always sinful. For this reason, I find it useful to analyze the scope of Bishop Fernandez’s statements.
A very popular ecclesial slogan especially after Amoris laetitia, but exhuming old errors previously condemned by the Magisterium, sounds like this: “Today we can no longer speak of acts that are intrinsically bad, but we must evaluate every action always and only on a case-by-case basis.”5
The second part of the above statement might seem unexceptionable, and it is—as long as one does not see it as contradictory to the statement of moral absolutes. A good confessor, faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, does not answer or evaluate the penitent according to an ironclad logical scheme “if… then,” precisely because each man and each situation is something unrepeatable and unique; he necessarily makes an evaluation on a case-by-case basis. But this does not stand in the way of the fact that there are actions that are always sinful, regardless of the circumstances (presuming these actions are done in freedom, that is, with knowledge and consent).
If somehow the kinds of sin could not be classified, that is, if human acts could not be considered to be of a particular moral species, St. Paul could not have written: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor misers, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.”6
How, then, to reconcile the case-by-case principle with object morality and the reaffirmation that there are acts that are always sinful? What are the consequences of this eventual reconciliation?
To try to answer these questions, I will articulate this paper in the following way: we will first see the similarities between a human act and the material entity. Then we will see how the morality of the human act depends radically and essentially on the truth of the acting subject, and only accidentally on the situation in which a subject finds himself acting. Finally, we will try to draw conclusions, thus answering our initial questions.
1. Analogies that exist between a human act and the created material entity
1.1 The essence of the entity
When we say today “the dog and the horse are man’s most faithful friends” and when Pliny the Elder, two thousand years ago, said the same,7 are we talking about the same animals or about different realities? And when a child who is learning to speak says “doggy,” does he mean the same thing that was described by the ancient scientist? Why, after almost two thousand years, can we talk about the same reality with the same term?
The reason is because the dog has an essence, a nature, which does not exist in and of itself but is really participated in by all individual dogs. These essences, which Plato placed in the heaven of forms, are virtually present in God before they are participated in by the created entity—analogous to the way a house pre-exists in the mind of an architect, compared to the same house when the work is completed. God, who made everything “with measure, number, and weight,” has in Himself the order and measure of all essences.8 And it is according to this measure that God distributes being in the creative and sustaining “act” (actuality) of entities. Things are true because they are adequate—even before they exist—to the divine intellect (meaning, they reflect and resemble the divine idea of them).
Human knowledge is thus a participation of these eternal truths. Man, while perceiving only individual objects by means of the senses, grasps the essence of things by abstraction, that is, by separating the perceived object from all that is contingent and might be or not be—that is, by separating the created entity from matter, motion, and time. Thus, continuing with the above example, when a man perceives a particular dog, he separates in his intellect the sensible object from all that is accidental—the size of the dog, its color, the time in which that dog lives or has lived—and understands that he is seeing a dog. Even a child who calls the dog awkwardly with a few syllables performs this mental abstraction, and uses the same babbled word to signify all dogs he has occasion to meet.
1.2 The essence of an act
Man is able to grasp, too, the essence of a human act. The reason is that perfect voluntariness consists in wanting to perform a certain action insofar as it is ordered to an end. There are entities that move insofar as they are moved by other entities (inanimate things); entities that move of themselves without being able to consider either the ultimate end or positing acts ordered to that same end (animals, which, in a way, are more “acted upon” by instinct than they are proper agents); and man, who considers in his mind and deliberates a certain action in view of the ultimate end, which is happiness.
This practical reasoning cannot be accomplished at all if the intellect does not grasp the essence of a proposed act, if it does not abstract from it that which makes it possible to evaluate whether or not this act is or can be ordered to that end. The object of the act is the act considered not in its materiality but as ordered to the ultimate end; on the basis of this ordering, the act assumes the aspect or nature of good.9 This taking on of the nature of good is like a new form added to the purely material act, and thus really specifies it and makes it participate in a genus.
Now, since every morally evaluated act has an essence, it can be compared to a substance, insofar as this is being that participates in a form. And the circumstances of the act are analogous to the accidents of a material entity. Thus St. Thomas explains:
The term “circumstance” has also passed to the field of human acts from things existing in space. Now, speaking of a localized body, one calls surrounding those things which, though extrinsic, nevertheless touch it and are locally close to it. Therefore all conditions that are outside the essence of the act, and yet affect the human act in some way, are called circumstances. But that which affects a thing and is outside the essence of it is an accident of it. Therefore, the circumstances of human acts are to be regarded as their accidents.10
Hence, just as the essence of a dog is the same in every place and in every age, so, although individual adulteries exist in time and space (they are differentiated materially), there is a kind of essence of adultery: “sexual relations with a person married to another”—an essence that is participated in by all adulteries, in all times and in all places.
2. Goodness of the act and truth of the acting subject
At this point we must ask what the essence of an act is based on, that is, the immutable dimension of that which, as an action, belongs rather to being than to becoming.
We have seen that the human act is that which is freely performed in view of the end: every human act is performed in view of happiness, and the ultimate end moves the efficient cause of the act, which is the free will, pre-moved by God and at the same time sustained in being as not determined by any finite entity (hence morally free). But the action of an entity in view of the end is by no means unspecified, nor does it have infinite potentiality, but it is always according to the form of the entity itself; if we say that nature is the principle of operation, every operation is necessarily according to the nature from which it proceeds. For example, fire will only be able to heat, because its nature is to be maximum heat. And since man acts freely in view of the end, freely he will be able to act according to his nature, which is to build up in himself the image of God freely and through every act.
These concepts are well expressed at the beginning of the Prima Secundae of St. Thomas’s Summa Theologiae:
The first thing to be considered on the subject [morality] is the ultimate end of human life, the second will be the means which enable man to attain it: for on the end depends the nature of what is ordered to the end. (Ia-IIae q. 1 pr.)
But:
As Damascene teaches, man is said to have been created in the image of God, inasmuch as the image stands for “a being endowed with intelligence, free will, and dominion over his own acts.” Therefore, after having spoken of the exemplar, that is, of God and what is derived from divine power in conformity with the divine will, it remains to deal with his image, that is, of man, inasmuch as the latter is the principle of his own actions, by virtue of the free will and dominion he has over himself. (ibid.)
On the basis of what has been said, the proposition “The act leads me to the ultimate end” is equivalent to saying: “The act is fitting to my essence inasmuch as, by means of such an act, I can realize in myself the image of God.” And so we can say that man is created to be faithful to his spouse: this truth is essential and cannot be validated on a “case-by-case” basis. Man is made to think and speak the truth, and therefore is never permitted to lie. Man is made to love and safeguard life, and therefore can never kill the innocent. And so on for all moral absolutes.
Conclusion
To recapitulate, every human act has an efficient cause (physical grace/promotion and human will sustained in being by God the Creator), a material cause (the particular act, “ipsa substantia actus absolute”), a formal cause (the form of the will from which the act proceeds,11 which makes it possible for it to be according to human nature as the image of God), and a final cause (happiness).
What thus grounds the reality of the moral essence of an act is its conformity to the truth about man and thus its right orientation to the ultimate end. Circumstances do not change the substance of the act, because they are like accidents; sometimes a circumstance seems to change the act, but, in that case, it is not properly a circumstance, but is another kind of act.
The attempt to do away with any formal categorization of human acts falls within what Pascal described in the words “Man is neither angel nor beast, and unhappily whoever wants to act the angel, acts the beast.”12 The rejection of the kinds of human acts—that is, claiming to evaluate the act in its precise singularity—inevitably leads to a moral nominalism, thus to a radical skepticism and relativism, where moral evaluation depends substantially more on the passions13 than on reason; or on the attribution, to one’s own proudly creative conscience, of full possession of the knowledge (and arbitrary determination) of good and evil.
The axiom of natural philosophy is well known: “Of individual entities as such, there is neither knowledge nor definition”14: and so it must also be of individual human acts. St. Paul, when he says, “I do not judge even myself,”15 teaches us to avoid the pretense of morally evaluating an act with the exactness that is proper to a mathematical demonstration; and when the same Apostle tells us to examine our conscience lest we be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,16 he invites us to grasp the essence of our free actions and to compare it with the Divine Law, with its relation to the ultimate end, considering whether, having performed them, “Christ is formed” in us by them.17
This “holy uncertainty” about the self, accompanied by a moral certainty about kinds of acts, is what enables us to trust God about our salvation without attributing it to ourselves, “so that no man may glory before God” (1 Cor. 1:29), “ignoring God’s righteousness and seeking to establish his own” (Rom. 10:3), for “in hope we have been saved” (Rom. 8:24). On the other hand, moral categories come to our aid so that the freedom to which we are called “does not become a pretext for living according to the flesh” (Gal 5:13).
In nomine adulterii
There is a well-known Latin saying, the extreme summary of all nominalism: “Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus” (the primrose rose exists only in name; we possess only naked names).18 We may summarize the nominalism of extreme case-by-case morality in a similar sentence: “Stat adulterium pristinum nomine, nomina nuda tenemus” (adultery [or lying, or murder, etc.] itself exists only in name; we possess only naked names). In fact, this is the very premise of all heresies that bury moral absolutes.
To the above sentence, I contrast a line from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, / By any other name would smell as sweet.”19 Whether we give something the name of adultery or refuse to call it such, it will always smell like a sin. And if we call a same-sex union “marriage,” perhaps even blessing it in church, it will never smell like a rose, it will never have “the fragrance of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:15).
(Translated by Peter Kwasniewski. Original source in Italian here.)
• Related at CWR: “The refined, problematic casuistry of Abp. Fernández’s defense of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia” (Sept 11, 2017) by Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD
Endnotes:
1 Cf. S. Magister, “’Amoris laetitia’ has a shadow author. His name is Víctor Manuel Fernández” (site accessed 4-7-2023).
2 For example cf. “Campeones del abuso: once curas denunciados y protegidos por el Arzobispado de La Plata” (site visited on 4-7-2023).
4 Thus John Paul II states, “One has consequently reached the point of denying the existence, in divine revelation, of a specific and determined moral content, universally valid and permanent: the Word of God would merely propose an exhortation, a generic parenesis, which then only autonomous reason would have the task of filling in with normative determinations that are truly ‘objective,’ that is, adapted to the concrete historical situation. Of course, an autonomy conceived in this way also entails the denial of specific doctrinal competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium regarding determined moral norms concerning the so-called “human good”: they would not belong to the proper content of Revelation and would not in themselves be relevant in regard to salvation. There is no one who does not see that such an interpretation of the autonomy of human reason entails theses incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” Veritatis splendor, 6-8-1993, § 37, under editorial emphasis.
5 Cf., e.g., Lorenzo Bertocchi, “Kasper: Re-married divorcees, the Pope has opened the door,” La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, 26-04-2016 (site visited 4-7-2023).
6 1 Cor 6:9-10.
7 Pliny the Elder, Historia naturalis 142 “Ex his quoque animalibus, quae nobiscum degunt, multa sunt cognitu digna, fidelissimumque ante omnia homini canis atque equus.”
8 “For the reason that God creates with wisdom, creation has an order: ‘You have arranged everything with measure, calculation and weight’ (Wis 11:20)”; Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 299.
9 The ratio boni. “What then relates almost materially to the object of the will is whatever is willed, but the character of the object is completed by the character of the good” (“Illud autem quod se habet materialiter ad objectum voluntatis, est quaecumque res volita: sed ratio objecti completur ex ratione boni”); St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 48 q. 1 a. 2 co.
10 “Et inde est quod nomen circumstantiae ab his quae in loco sunt, derivatur ad actus humanos. Dicitur autem in localibus aliquid circumstare, quod est quidem extrinsecum a re, tamen attingit ipsam, vel appropinquat ei secundum locum. Et ideo quaecumque conditiones sunt extra substantiam actus, et tamen attingunt aliquo modo actum humanum, circumstantiae dicuntur. Quod autem est extra substantiam rei ad rem ipsam pertinens, accidens eius dicitur. Unde circumstantiae actuum humanorum accidentia eorum dicenda sunt”; Summa Theologiae, Iª-IIae q. 7 a. 1 co. In St. Thomas we find the expression “ipsa substantia actus absolute,” to denote the pure materiality of the act, which stands as the being to the form in a material substance: without moral consideration the essence of an act is not grasped (and then fornication and matrimonial act would be identical): but a purely material consideration does not grasp the moral substance, so an act then can be considered as belonging to a genus; Super Sent, lib. 4 d. 16 q. 3 a. 1 qc. 2 ad 2: “Some acts by their genus are bad and good, and therefore from the same genus of the act one can assume the circumstance of the moral act. What, however, on the basis of which the act is found to be in that genus although it is of the substance of the act from the moral point of view nevertheless is out of its substance according to that the same substance of the act is considered absolutely: whereby some acts are identified in the natural species and differ in the moral species: such as fornication and the marriage act.”(“Ad secundum dicendum, quod aliqui actus ex suo genere sunt mali vel boni, et ideo ex ipso genere actus potest sumi circumstantia actus moralis. Hoc autem ex quo actus reperitur in tali genere, quamvis sit de substantia ejus inquantum est ex genere moris, tamen est extra substantiam ipsius secundum quod consideratur ipsa substantia actus absolute; unde aliqui actus sunt idem in specie naturae qui differunt in specie moris; sicut fornicatio et actus matrimonialis”).
11 “Forma voluntatis producentis actum” Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 48 q. 1 a. 2 co. If the act is good, it is informed by charity.
12 “L’homme n’est ni ange ni bête, et le malheur veut que qui veut faire l’ange fait la bête” Blaise Pascal, Pensées, (557 ed. Sellier, 678 ed. Lafuma, 358 ed. Brunchvicg, 572 ed. Le Guern). Indeed, only the moral act of each angel at the time of the trial to which they were placed at the time of their creation is a particular act assessable specifically on a case-by-case basis.; but man is not an angel.
13 The passions do not abstract, but have only particular objects, reacting to their proper stimulus necessarily and exclusively on a case-by-case basis.
14 “Singularium nec est scientia, neque definitio” Les Auctoritates Aristotelis. Un florilège médiéval. Étude historique et édition critique. Éd. J. Hamesse. Philosophes médiévaux, tome XVII. Louvain publications universitaires: 1974. p. 130.
15 1 Cor 4:3.
16 Cf. 1 Cor 11:27-28.
17 Cf. Gal 4:19.
18 Variation of verse I, 952 of the hexameter poem De contemptu mundi by Bernard of Cluny (12th cent.).
19 Act II, scene 2, vv. 47-48.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The author was “assigned by Cardinal Carlo Caffarra to celebrate the traditional Mass in Bologna.”
Wasn’t Cardinal Caffarra one of the “dubia cardinals” to whom Pontiff Francis never replied and gave an audience? Yet, Pontiff Francis deigned to entertain at the Vatican the “artist” who depicted Christ in a urinal, and saw Bill Clinton in audience?
On my part, the sooner the Catholic Church is relieved of Pontiff Francis, the better. And, why would it suprise me that he fills important positions in the Church with apostates? It doesn’t.
Yes, the four authors of the dubia: the Italian Cardinal Caffara (RIP), the American Raymond Burke, and the Germans Walter Brandmüller, and Joachim Meisner (RIP). All stiffed by Pope Francis.
And this (sin of?) omission is the hole in the dike…So, how, exactly, to think about both moral absolutes and concrete cases–how to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Butt, this has already been clarified, e.g., in the Catechism (n. 2352) dealing with concrete individual personal responsibility—not abstract and collective as for the LGBTQ commune—without deleting objective natural law and moral absolutes (“Thou shalt not…”); and in Veritatis Splendor–an integral and explicit part of the magisterium (n. 115), and not a mere school of “theology” as Archbishop Fernandez might prefer (he reduces his new role to that of theology and prudential decisions).
The second-stringers would like to “stretch the gray area” with the goalposts on roller skates (Grech); gang-rape sexual moral theology with pseudo-sociology and pseudo-science (Hollerich), and even up-end the nature of the Church itself (Batzing).
I would not like to be in the shoes of either the current Pontiff or Abp Fernandez when facing my Maker. No pleading of ignorance can be applied to either case.
Catherine, your comment makes us (royal plural) think of St. Bridget. Frustrated by Pope Urban V fleeing Rome to go back to Avignon after only three years, she said: “It wearies (Pope Urban) to do his duty; he is longing for ease and comfort . . . for his own country and his own carnally minded friends.” She subsequently predicted his death and said when it happened: “It’s a great day for the Church, but a bad day for him.” Meow.
What did Pope Francis say about his reading of Church history: “See, we are not doing so badly.”
To reply to your position.. I a. not going to bring up theology or magisterial. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to gently tell all of us that maybe the entire idea of “magisteium” as catholics have traditionally been led to believe in may have been no more tan a power play – a means of controlling others – and that perhaps it is time to begin to dismantle the entire house of cards that traditionally has been referred to as “magisterium”. Jesus came by the power of the Holy Spirit to teach us LOVE ❤️… not to judge nor to condemn . . . magisterial I would posit is contrary to the teachings & life affirming witness of Jesus. In short, He would have frowned/does in fact frown at the arrogance of human beings who presume to teach about Him “magisterially” .. . “authoritatively”! Perhaps Jesus chose Francis as Bishop of Rome at his unique point in time – a watershed moment – to open our eyes ears hearts minds spirit … to what is really important in this life…what affirms us as the People of God/ the real Body of Christ. God is concretely in bread and wine…this we know without resorting to Ecclesial “magisterium” (so called) but by virtue of his dying on the cross and rising to new life for all of us. I feel that AMORIS LAETITIA is in fact the new blueprint to go out & be Church…become truly “His Body” … unconditional love. To wit weaponizing the eucharist, making pro forma judgements of others (that’s not within human purview), marginalized the marginalized, condemning, using the long mistaken idea of “magisterium “… of pro cathedral “infallible” pronouncements has nothing at all to with Jesus. Amoris Laetitia I feel encapsulates the new ethos…the memory of jesus..what would he do…what would he say….! I think we may be seeing the end of the entire conception of “ecclesial magisterium” held (despite Jesus mandate to not judge or condemn others) by his church mistakenly for millennia. Case I point…in the Church’s history popes have abused their office to inflict horrid despicable abuses on humanity (i.e. Urban II calling for crusade – war I’m Jesus name?!.. Paul IV gleefully imposing the inquisition to condemn torture murder others). The official Church acted in an imperious way, not as Jesus would do! The preposterous idea of a divine magisterium is gradually being called out for what it really is…the misuse of HUMAN power to impose control over others! A most “un-Jesus” conception…a human made means of wielding power/abuse of said power over other frail weak reeds (aka all humans). I would positively that Amoris Laetitia the new German Synodal Way tolerance, kindness, nonjudgement are reflecive of the true face of Jesus intuited by Pope Francis.
To close, I think that the Holy Spirit’s indwelling in the people of God is at long ladt being recognized & correctly understood. The concept of magisterium has finally been seen by Vicar of christ (not God’s enforcer…but by his shepherd) to be a intrinsically flawed way of seeing the real Jesus..
of being really “Church”. This us what Vatican 2 was really trying to do fefore it was ruthlessly quashed by the impossibly cruel much mistaken HUMANAE VITAE of Paul VI, the harsh autocratic “rule of JP II who never understood really what Vatican 2 liberation theology creation spirituality et al meant. All the above are models of how to follow in Jesus’s footsteps…to be “Christ” in the word.
Magisterial ways (narrow minded, authoritarian, unjust, harshly critical, impossibly demanding, imperious, unChistian yes Fascist) are not – and should never – have even the path of Jesus Church! Sadly, it pursued just that (pursuit of power, dominance over human abilities to discern the face of the ever merciful, all loving, never condemning Jesus) simply because the Ecclesiastal INSTITUTION ( not JESUS) chose for 2 millennia the path of power… not of love.
Francis, Abp Fernadez, BP Wilmer, the Germa Synodal Way have at long last been enabled to remove the veil of unfeeling to reveal the true face of Jesus…MERCY..HEALING .. LOVE
Please do not revert to platitudes in response to this or allue to me as a “heretic” ( a human, institutional hateful label by the way… nothing to with the real Jesus). Do not dismiss thus out of hand as the illconsidered rantings of a “leftist” but a truly discerning outlook on how to be the face of Jesus in this flawed world. The idea of “magisterium” is a house of cards built not on Jesus but o human arrogance, pride a desire to wield power…in other words to paraphrase Jedus himself “a house built on sand that the winds & storms will buffet & destroy.
Jesus lives not in the conception of cruel harsh “magisterial/institutional” ways of thinking/doing but in how we learn to love others… to not judge or condemn. That elevates us … frees us to be truly bear witness selflessly to Jesus in cruel world 🌎 he has given to us in order to make it better!
Your harsh, magisterial, authoritative, and platitudinous judgments against harshness, the Magisterium, Church authority, platitudes, and judgment are duly noted…
I pretty much agree with you on all points and I am also offended by the bad grammar and the multitude of spelling errors.
But that’s just me.
Brian Christopoulos:
It is not very persuasive to begin by suggesting that the Catholic Church (and btw the Eastern Orthodox Church) has for the 2000+ before the election of the Pontiff Francis, been violating the will of Jesus by teaching what Jesus and his Apostles taught. That would require ignoring a whole lot of “the commands” taught by Jesus and his Apostles.
Your opening statement sounds mire like an argument in favor of a different Church devoted to ignoring Jesus and his Apostles.
And it does not inspire confidence in your argument that the Pontiff Francis is somehow the first Pontiff to be “non-Fascist,” seemingly implying (as some other people more explicitly assert) that the Pontiff Francis and his circle are in some (mysterious) way oracles of the Holy Spirit, and yet in the same comment to condemn both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II as “fascists” (etc, etc), when your readers observe that the Pontiff Francis apparently betrayed “non-fascists” everywhere and lost his “oracular” functionality when he himself declared these two fascist popes to be in his judgment saints.
Your comment seems incoherent and self-contradictory.
Very much like the “ideologues” promoting the various Synods of the Pontiff Francis, culminating in his new “Synodality-Synod.”
“Go and baptize all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…”
My head almost explodes when I read these things. It is all so contrary to what I was taught, early on, by humble sisters and priests. I detest the mess this Vatican has made.
I do not see that or how Pascal’s quip bears on the subject. I do not see that or how the Pascal line extends out of Aquinas or remains faithful to Aquinas. All due respect, just do not see it. Won’t venture it.
Isn’t it Pascal’s (and Aquinas’) idea that human nature consists of the created powers of soul which are neither strictly ‘natural’ (beast-like) nor angelic (God-like)? God’s ‘sanctifying’ grace does not inhere within a person’s essential natural being. (Why then baptize?) The ‘image’ of God within the human being requires restoring and perfecting (through the Sacraments which infuse God’s life of grace).
Traditional theology has grace perfecting nature. Each person makes moral choices or actions from the interplay of will, reason, and appetite together with God’s actual grace. Moral actions accrue over a lifetime of personal choices; one’s ultimate morality or immorality does not result from a once-in-a-lifetime decision. Every choice to act strengthens a virtue or a vice, tending to a ‘habitus,’ or a contributing to a ‘character’.
A virtuous habitus enables a soul’s perfection by enabling the infusion of God’s sanctifying grace. A vicious habitus rejects God’s love, help, grace, His very life.
A contemporary theology which perceives man as graced by God simply because he exists (as he is, no action required) is a theology based on the nature of the non-rational, non-willing, non-sanctified beast.
Thoughts?
I am going to ponder what you say meiron, it’s well written.
We can be like angels, we are kindred spirits. We can even end up looking angelic as in Acts 6:15. And the BVM is above the angels even St Michael!
The angels welcome it ahead of our even knowing it.
Moreover if Stephen could look so bright to those who moved to kill him, then how we must appear in God’s own vision of us!
I do not have it in me to make all kind of allowances just to find a possible valid meaning for Pascal’s quip. The same goes for other quips of his. Personally when I read them they do not attract, rather in fact I get a sorry feeling about it.
Truth to tell I turn away from reading more of him.
Truth to tell you see some of the characters described in the post below by Chris, corresponding to the ambiguities in Pascal and relying on him to suggest some sort of a surfeit of authenticity.
And I don’t refer to the particular personages in Chris’ own view. It’s not a healthful situation and I believe I would be lying to you by glossing it.
If Amoris wants to include an idea about the benefit of the doubt it’s still not the whole story and it is not a defining item. In faith divorce is not a legal phenomenon requiring adjustments. It is a spiritual reality that first breaks.
“Benefit of the doubt” and equivalents are not even probative and there is no Holy Spirit guarantee coming with any of them them. God be praised.
Science
*************************************
‘ ….. Pascal wrote, echoing contemporary notions of science and falsifiability: “In order to show that a hypothesis is evident, it does not suffice that all the phenomena follow from it; instead, if it leads to something contrary to a single one of the phenomena, that suffices to establish its falsity.” ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
*************************************
In science Pascal says once an exception is found it disproves the premise. On the face hard to argue with it but it is actually a misinformation at the level of science. It presumes that the scientific method is rooted in “either/or”; which is 1. unreasonable as that concept has no proof absolute and 2. not shrewd where scientific method, pursuits and outcomes are not reducible to a singularity equation.
The exception might just mean that the premise is incomplete or the evidence is still coming in or the identified subject matter has to be circumscribed better or something went wrong in the data; further that the premise that seems to have been disproved might still have a subordinate role or a conditioned one alongside other related premises.
On 1. scientists do not all act uniformly nor to the particular Pascal “guideline”; and I haven’t interviewed them but I suspect they all have their own styles and tricks and these keep multiplying.
Admittedly premises in science can be disproved as a result of a particular finding. But that is not the whole story. In a typical case the scientist is testing multiple subjects with each test in an array and extracting results to build the science and the premises. It doesn’t all begin in a premise. What we are describing here also, is a difference between his “thinking” era and our technological one that has abundant resources at hand and a wealth of accumulated banked knowledge.
Or test him again, premises could just be altogether badly crafted at the start and they fail on account of their own irrationality or some other defectiveness going on in the proposition-statement or the thinking. If you find an “exception” to what is in actuality a wrong formula, well, eureka?
You are telling people to waste their time on obviously distorted propositions so that you will find the exceptions that immediately “disprove” them?
Faith
Pope Francis is trying to provide merciful ease in so many categories and set aside either/or casuistry, incurvatus, indietrism, rigidity, condemning spirit, etc. How then do we uphold Pascal who didn’t definitively renounce Jansenism and its Jansenist casuistry and fatalisms; who was its apologist; whose work was propelled after his death by Jansenists to sustain Jansenism; and whose ideas including the theosophic etc., typify di-polar extremes or stretches. Pope Francis says “paradoxes” when in reality they’re not merely mental affects but carry serious consequences.
We read: “A very popular ecclesial slogan especially after Amoris laetitia, but exhuming old errors previously condemned by the Magisterium, sounds like this: ‘Today we can no longer speak of acts that are intrinsically bad, but we must evaluate every action always and only on a case-by-case basis’.”
Not only “nominalism”–the COVID-like variant is fourfold: Recall that Fernandez is the papal ghostwriter, and that he had his fingerprints all over Evangelii Gaudium (2013), which superimposes four “principles” (?)–each leavening, but also ambiguously capable of exploitation. A question raised on this website, lo, for these past many years…
Again, the four (!) corners intended to square the circle of objective/subjective moral theology:
FIRST, when is “realities are more important than ideas [concepts?]” at risk of NOMINALISM (LGBTQ exemptions from the moral absolutes of the universal natural law, and therefore the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor)?
Butt, also:
SECOND, when is “time is greater than space” at risk of HISTORICISM (the “paradigm shift” against all that is branded “backward”)?
THIRD, when is “unity prevails over conflict” at risk of CLERICALISM (the “expert”-moderated synodal plebiscite, and now plebiscite ratification through a navel-contemplating circularity: A “Synod” on “Synodality,” or, rather two! of them in 2023 and 2024)?
FOURTH, when is “the whole is greater than the part” at risk of GLOBALISM (e.g., the Fundamental Option, Proportionalism/Consequentialism, as in the conflation of Centesimus Annus’ interactive “human ecology” with “natural ecology” in Laudato Si and its “integral ecology”)?
About which, Veritatis Splendor (VS), which is explicitly part of the (backward?) Magisterium:
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this encyclical and which today is being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the REAFFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF THE MORAL COMMANDMENTS [italics], particularly those which prohibit always and without exception INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS [italics]” (VS, n. 115).
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (VS, n. 115).
SUMMARY: A red-faced, butt not a red hat.
Peter, thank you for the four principles “explosed” which one might expect to eminate from Rome shortly before the AntiChrist stepped onto the World Stage. If only this ugly assault on Catholicism from the See of Peter were a novel, and not for real.
Only today my daughter sent me notes from her bible study incorporating quotes from pp Leon XIII and “the Second Bishop in White, that’s me” (Bergoglio’s – personal declaration included in official Magisterium Vatican Documents online from the Fatima Canonisations Homily). How will her generation survive? 1970 Post-Conciliar collapsr may appear a mild storm in comparison with the consequences of unbridled Bergoglioism.
One can but pray not all will be lost as Bergoglio’s “Apostasy” (Argentinian Archbishop Emeritus Aguer, Lifesitenews.com ) implodes in a puff of Lavender.
It is clear that “the mission” of Pontiff Francis, and his “representatives,“ such as “His Excellency” Fernandez, is to proclaim what St. Paul called “a different Gospel,” one preached not with the recognizable voice of Jesus (“I say even a man who looks at a woman lustfully has already commented adultery in his heart”) and his Apostles, but with the alien voice of what Jesus calls “false shepherds.”
Evidently, “His Excellency” Fernandez (like so many other stars in the “Constellation-Francis”) is extraordinarily devoted to establishing a “reformed-church-of-safe-space” for those who yearn for a gospel of sexual immorality.
And isn’t it interesting to observe that the more such false shepherds call out to “the sheep,” the more such sheep leave the pasture?
They declare themselves ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus, and publish celebrity performance art like “Heal Me With Your Mouth…” which apparently they are simultaneously thrilled with and are yet eager to publicly erase from the recently-revised Curriculum-Vitae of their pied-piper, “His Excellency” Fernandez.
At a simply human level, it is regrettable that such men seem to have no appreciation for their contributions to the endowment of irony.
On a divine level, it is remarkable that they seem to have no concern that they are making a mockery of The Catholic Church.
On the other hand, considering “the mind” and “lived experience” of their once publicly acclaimed model and hero “His Eminence” Theodore McCarrick, they may simply view the Church as their personal property, and as their other hero “His Eminence” Kasper wrote (in his work entitled “God in History”), “the God who sits enthroned over the world as a changeless being is an offense to Man…this God must be opposed.”
Isn’t it odd that The Catholic Church establishment has been and continues to be promoting such men?
As if…the Catholic Church establishment is disoriented…
As if…the disorientation is diabolical…
But we good Christian soldiers fear not. The victory has already been achieved. We soldiers of Christ know the battle which we’re privileged to wage. Our wages garner glory. The enemy’s wage is paid by death.
Too much for my very limited and tired 84 year old brain to comprehend, but I DO sense the severity of our present state in the Church and society: objective or subjective morality. The Church and its teaching is the last hope for the survival of humanity, and if it caves in ALL is lost. The loaf needs the yeast, the salt its essential properties. Jesus said as much. We need not fear, however, as we know the final outcome of the Great War. This may well be the final battle that we may well loose it, but Jesus WILL come again and we ( who remain true and faithful) WILL be with Him. Let’s stick together and keep our eyes on Him. Our Church leaders are Satan’s biggest target and we must love them more and pray more for them. We must not allow evil to destroy the Church. May God bless us all.
Thank you!
I am reminded of Chesterton’s vision of Orthodoxy as a man behind “madly rushing horses”, swerving left and right to avoid enormous heretical obstacles through the ages, “the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect”.
This past year I rejoined a group discussing Michael Waldstein’s translation of “A Theology of the Body”. After some months I removed myself due to the opposition to John Paul’s essentialist defense of “Humanae Vitae” at the highest levels of the Church, the suppression of “Veritatis Splendor” and its contradiction by “Amoris Laetitia”, and the interior distress that resulted.
If the Thomistic manuals had become “impersonal” to the likes of even then Fr. Ratzinger, then surely those wild horses have veered far to the side of merely attempting to synthesize personalism, phenomenology and existentialism with Thomism and objective moral theology.
It is utterly frightening to think this Archbishop will be placed in charge of determining cases of Sexual Abuse committed by bishops, priests, and religious! How does one apply his reasoning in these cases? Are some sexual abuses of minors not sinful?? No heretic, and this heresy, because it has been already condemned by the church, should be put in charge of such an office! If he can’t say something is always wrong, then he cannot judge properly! He is unfit for the office of bishop! Or even being a priest for that matter.
Tad,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as Prefect of the Dicastery of Doctrine of the Faith, it’s not Cardinal Fernandez’ job to determine cases of sexual abuse by the clergy. That duty falls under another dicastery. I don’t know which one.
Cardinal Fernandez’ duty, then, is doctrinal, not disciplinary. It is to help the Pope and the Bishops in proclaiming the Gospel throughout the world by promoting and protecting the integrity of Catholic teaching on faith and morals. We expect him to do this not according to “his way,” but by drawing on the deposit of faith (the Magisterium) and seeking an ever deeper understanding of it in the face of new questions.
God bless and protect us.
Personnel IS policy.
Amoris Laetitia does not say with regard to the question of communion for the divorced and remarried that the answer lies in a case by case approach.
To say that would indeed involve implicate a nominalist ideology. It would be careless.
The author of this piece supposes that which leads to the conclusion that it offers: It begs the question
Amoris Laetitia, Chapter Eight concerns the world of fragility in the face of which pastoral discernment is necessary and pastoral rigorism is noxious. If one takes it in its context it makes perfect sense. The Holy Father had the right to write the Apostolic Exhortation that he wanted to write. There is no repudiation of what John Paul II said in Familiaris Consortio about the same issues. Francis looks at the matter from a higher and more general perspective. It is a development of doctrine and not a break. It does not say simpliciter that everything now is to be handled case by case. It reminds us of the role of pastoral discernment that examines concrete reality with care, and of its special importance in a world such as ours.
No, it was not careless. It was on purpose. I recommend reading “Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia” (April 22, 2016) by moral theologian E. Christian Brugger.
Here is an error in your understanding: “The Holy Father had the right to write the Apostolic Exhortation that he wanted to write.” No he does not! He is bound to Christ, to the Truth! Pope Benedict XVI explained this. A pope is not some president of a particular party that can change whatever he wants to when he takes office. He should not deleberately be sly, or coy in explaining the Fatih. When one has to decode a papal document to understand it, and uses footnotes, to disguise intent, there is a problem with honesty. “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.” Where in church history have we had to go get a decoder ring to understand the real intent behind a papal document? In this case a Bishops Conference is used as a decoder! Also, when one refuses to this day, to answer legitimate questions concerning the document, by those who have been given authority within the church to ask such questions, there is problem with truthfulness. An honest player has no reason to hide what they are doing. We are to be Children of the Light, and not hide in darkness.
Sounds like the embodiment of the defect of “Who am I to judge.”
All I know is that when I saw the complete name of his book “Heal Me With Your Mouth-The Art of Kissing” was when the realization that he was more a man of men than a Man of God came to me. Using Archbishop Vigano’s term for the Pope, Bergoglio and Fernandez are two peas in a pod.
I know that to some in this discussion it will be a heretical view, but at the end of the day it is your conscience that you must follow. There are also some (yes in my family as well) that believe only Catholics can get into Heaven. And as they read that statement they will be saying with a quizzical look on their face “and?”
The attempt in Amoris to change the Deposit of Faith/Truth from Christ to tolerate concubinage, etc., is simply an egregious form of clericalism. It’s rot to teach that God’s grace is not sufficient for us poor lay people to obey His commandments. God’s grace is sufficient for everyone, even Bishops.
Hec, even LCs!
Amoris being implemented in Argentina:
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=59222
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=59236
Good news! The call of Amoris to tolerate concubinage has reportedly been embraced twice by the Cardinal-elect in South Sudan. Finally, Africa is joining us – Amoris is becoming catholic! https://www.aciafrica.org/news/8638/south-sudanese-archbishop-whose-transfer-was-resisted-among-21-newly-named-cardinals
Everyone keep mumbling those prayers to St. Pollyanna.