Saturday, January 25, 2020
Is Amoris Laetitia’s Unavoidable Logic that Unrepentant Homosexuals can receive Holy Communion?
Why is the Francis, who thinks a third rate thinkers such as the confused and almost unreadable Postmodernist Michael de Certeau is “the greatest theologian for today,” promoting intrinsically evil acts?
One possibility is because he was “mislead” into thinking Amoris Leatitia is “Thomist” and orthodox by the heretical scholar Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez and the “great theologian” Cardinal Christoph Schonborn.
The other possibility, and in my opinion the most probable, is that the obviously above average intelligent Francis totally understands and agrees with his friend Archbishop Fernandez who is a heretical scholar.
Latin American Catholic philosopher Carlos A. Casanova shows that dissenter Tony Mifsud and Archbishop Fernandez both of whom “irrationally” misuse Thomism are bedfellows following the lead of Fr. Bernard Haring in dissent from Catholic moral doctrine:
“Mifsud… [i]n p.73 he quotes Bernard Haring holding that the fruit of the II Vatican Council was the spirit of dissent among theologians towards the “dictates of the official Church.”
“… Victor Manuel Fernandez’s concrete reasoning is different… [b]ut the goal is very similar to Mifsud’s, to open the way for the plausibility of “righteous” (or at least not-guilty) violations of God’s law.”
“… What Fernandez means is that the lady of his example does not will what is just, because that does not conform her concrete situation… As one can see in pp. 158 and 160 of his paper, he applies this principle to homosexuals and to spouses who “need” to use the condom.”
(Aemaet, “Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor as Exposition of ‘Natural Law’ Contrasted with Their Irrational Rejection,” Carlos A. Casanova, 2018)
Schonborn supposedly didn’t explain to Francis that the heretical Fr. Haring’s theology of the denial of intrinsically evil acts which was used by the heretical Fernandez as a ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia (AL) would destroy all Catholic moral doctrine as it attempted to justify the “violation of God’s law” by promoting “persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion” with the unavoidable logic of unrepentant homosexuals eventually receiving the Eucharist.
Dubia Cardinal Brandmuller says that those who promote intrinsically evil acts are heretics:
“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic.”(lifesitenews.com, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who opens Communion to adulterers ‘some a heretic and promotes schism,'” December 23, 2016)
An example of what possibly could have happened to Francis in his promoting of heresy can be found in history.
Is Francis a material heretic like Pope Honorius?
The unscholarly Pope Honorius was “confused and mislead” into becoming a material heretic who promoted the Monothelitist heresy. He was condemned by a general council and Pope St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II.
The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Honorius that he “was not a profound theologian, and allowed himself to be confused and mislead.”(Edward Feser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)
Theologian Tracey Rowland wrote that Francis before the papacy said “I can’t imagine anything more boring than Fundamental Theology.” She quotes Ross Douthat saying:
“Francis is clearly a less systematic thinker than… his predecessors” to the papacy. (Catholic Theology, page 192)
In other words, Francis is not a profound theologian and often a “confused” thinker.
It was reported that the not very systematic thinker Francis during his visit to Colombia said:
“Amoris Laetitia is Thomist, the morality of the great Thomas. You can speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn. .”(National Catholic Register, “Pope to Jesuits: Help Critics of Amoris Leatitia to See Its Morality Is Thomist,” September 28, 2017)
In a interview, with the Jesuit magazine America, Schonborn said “one who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments.”
Schonborn in the interview appears to deny that the truths of the Decalogue of Revelation are eternal or objective:
“The complexity of family situations, which goes far beyond what was customary in our Western societies even a few decades ago, has made it necessary to look in a more nuanced way at the complexity of these situations. To a greater degree than in the past, the objective situation of a person does not tell us everything about that person in relation to God and in relation to the church. This evolution compels us urgently to rethink what we meant when we spoke of objective situations of sin. And this implicitly entails a homogeneous evolution in the understanding and expression of the doctrine.“(America, “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love,” August 15-22, 2016)
This is not Thomist, but appears to be soft historicism which comes from Hegel.
Hegelian historicism doesn’t believe with Thomism that truth is objective and eternal.
Schonborn, in his quote above, appears to believe that historical evolution changes the meaning of truth which is anti-Thomist.
The unscholarly Francis bases his statement that “Amoris Leatitia is Thomist” on Schonborn’s authority as “a great theologian.”
Unfortunately for Francis, Schonborn is misrepresenting the truth about Aquinas’s teachings and Amoris Leatitia is not Thomist.
Thomist scholar Fr. Basil Cole OP said that Schonborn’s theology and Amoris Leatitia contradicts Thomism:
“Another tangle one can encounter is when quoting Aquinas piecemeal or without full advertence to his theological project. St. Thomas was nothing if not a complete and consistent thinker. To pick and choose his statements without considering their context and relation to his other relevant insights would be about as disastrous as proof-texting Sacred Scripture.”
“One might suppose that a situationist ethic is supported by Aquinas when he states, “In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. […] The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 4; quoted in Amoris Laetitia n. 304). Isolated from Aquinas’s other statements, it could seem as if the doctor of the Church is saying that no moral rule is absolute, but that discernment is needed in each and every situation to know whether or not a general moral principle applies in a particular situation. However, this is not authentic Thomism.”
“Situation ethics contradicts Aquinas’s firm affirmation that there are some moral norms that always hold for everyone: these are the precepts of the Decalogue (T I-94, q.100, a.8)… Aquinas’s teaching is clear: a person should not receive Holy Communion or absolution from sin who does not intend to change his life and forsake public sin… (ST I-94, q.43, a.1).”(National Catholic Register, “Is ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Really Thomistic?,” December 16, 2016)
The Filial Correction give similar evidence to show how and why Pope Francis’s situation ethics is spreading heresy.
So far, all the Filial Correction attackers, the Pope’s inner circle and supporters who are defending Amoris Laetitia, it appears, are not Thomist, but soft Hegelian historicists who claim there is no objective/eternal morality or discipline.
Francis supporter theologian Giuseppe Lorizio of the Pontifical Lateran University mocked the Correction statement of “eternal discipline” in the area of the Eucharist.
He appears to have forgotten that St. Paul said you can’t receive the Eucharist in a state of moral sin such as having sexual relations in an adulterous relationship.
Lorizio claims the discipline came only after the Council of Trent.(Catholic Conclave, “Anti-Papal manipulation by enemies of the Pope and the Gospel,” September 27, 2017)
Gay activist Michael Sean Winters in his attack on the Correction let the Hegelian historicism cat out of the bag.
He went so far as to attack Fr. James Martin defender Archbishop Charles Chaput for daring to criticize soft Hegelian Fr. Bernard Haring. (National Catholic Reporter, “‘Correction’ of Francis reveals critics don’t come in good faith,” September 27, 2017)
Winters pointed to the source of their problem with the Correction:
Winters, Lorizio, Schonborn and, it appears, Francis don’t believe in objective morality and promote allowing intrincically evil acts which Haring brought into the Church following the Second Vatican Council.
Schonborn following in the footsteps of Haring (who Francis praised), it appears, in a America magazine interview is saying that Amoris Laetitia says that God wills evil:
“In his great experience of accompanying people spiritually, when the Holy Father speaks of “objective situations of sin,” he does not stop short at the kinds of cases that are specified in No. 84 of ‘The Family in the Modern World.’ He refers in a broader way to “certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience” while “recognizing the influence of concrete factors” (No. 303).
“The conscience plays a fundamental role.”
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, 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 not yet fully the objective ideal (No. 303).”(America, “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love,” August 15-22, 2016)
What is Schonborn saying?
World-renown philosopher, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher and friend of Pope John Paul II, Josef Seifert in a new paper on Amoris Laetitia explains what Schonborn is saying:
“AL says that we can know with ‘a certain moral security’ that God himself asks us to commit intrinsically wrong acts such as adultery…”
“If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’?” (“Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?,” August 5, 2017)
In simple words the friend of John Paul II and renown philosopher says:
Francis’s Amoris Leatitia says God wills evil.
The philosopher’s paper says:
“Let us read the decisive text (AL 303), which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or ‘irregular couples’… :
‘Yet conscience can do more… the most generous response which can be given to God (Relations Finalise 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).'”
Again, in simple words, Amoris Laetitia says God wills intrinsically evil acts which brings us to Haring’s influence on the current Pope.