Pope Francis’s Haste: Preparing His Succession?

by Luiz Sérgio SolimeoAugust 3, 2023

FacebookTweetPinLinkedInPrintEmailShares2

“The Consistory of a Pope in a Hurry”

As his pontificate draws to a close, Pope Francis, in his eagerness to completely change the Catholic Church before rendering accounts to the Creator, is speeding up reforms and appointing prelates consistent with his religious ideology.

Thus, the upcoming consistory to elevate twenty-one more cardinals from his lineup indicates the haste with which he is acting. As a religious commentator put it, the September 30 consistory is the “consistory of a pope in a hurry.”¹

A “Synod” to Transform the Church

The Synod of Synodality is accelerating the institutional, doctrinal, dogmatic, and moral changes he has implemented throughout his pontificate.

Order Today: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go

Pope Francis himself has stated that, through the Synod, he intends to transform the monarchical Church, as Our Lord founded it, into a direct democracy in which the faithful decide instead of the hierarchy.²

“Synod on Sodomy”

Fr. James Martin’s appointment as a member of the Synod, as well as the presence of Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., at the head of the event as the relator general designated by the pope, has caused the event to be called the “Synod on Sodomy.”³

In an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA, Cardinal Hollerich stated that Church teaching condemning this sin against nature is wrong and must be changed:

“I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct. . . . I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine.”⁴

Amoris Laetitia’s ghostwriter appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

In the same vein of revising Catholic doctrine, Pope Francis on July 1 appointed Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, regarded as his ghostwriter,⁵ to head the Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. He is also the president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission.

Help Remove Jesus Bath Mat on Amazon

Upon appointing Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández to succeed Cardinal Ladaria, Pope Francis wrote Archbishop Fernández a letter presenting his conception of the Dicastery:

“The dicastery over which you will preside in other times came to use immoral methods. They were times when, rather than promoting theological knowledge, possible doctrinal errors were pursued. . . . What I expect from you is certainly something very different.”⁶

As Archbishop Fernández explains, the pontiff promised that July 1 letter to inform what he wanted him to do in the dicastery. He obviously agrees entirely with the letter’s content and believes the former Holy Office and Inquisition used immoral methods to persecute theologians.⁷

Commenting on the alleged “immoral methods” the former Holy Office employed, in an interview with an Argentine radio station, the archbishop mentions the reaction of a progressive theologian who made an act of revenge against the former Holy Office. Incidentally, that act was of a baseness more befitting a delinquent than a theologian. Says Archbishop Fernández:

“At the time of the Second Vatican Council, there were great theologians who this institution persecuted. And there is a famous case of a great theologian who urinated [on] the Holy Office’s door one night as a gesture of contempt in the face of this persecutory methodology.”⁸

Satanic Christ Porn-blasphemy at Walmart — Sign Petition

That progressive theologian was Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., one of the principal drafters of Vatican II texts.⁹Journalist Robert Blair Kaiser, a former Jesuit novice sent by Time magazine to cover the Council, narrates the episode,¹⁰ which Prof. Roberto de Mattei confirms, writing: “Congar himself, twice, in 1946 and 1954, urinated on the door of the Holy Office, as a sign of contempt toward the supreme institution of the Church.”¹¹

“Heal Me With Your Mouth. The Art of Kissing”

To get to know the new Prefect of the former Holy Office better, it is well to recall that as a young priest in 1995, Archbishop Fernández wrote an erotic-mystical book titled Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar (Heal Me With Your Mouth. The Art of Kissing).¹²

The book is illustrated with pictures of sculptures of naked men and women kissing. On page 10 of the opening chapter, the sculpture shows a frontally and totally naked woman, with her head tilted to one side, being kissed by an also naked man. Page 18 displays another sculpture of apparently a couple, also naked, holding each other and kissing.

How Panera’s Socialist Bread Ruined Company

Along with erotic-mystical considerations on kissing, he gives practical advice on how to kiss and lists obstacles that hinder this practice, such as bad breath (for which he offers advice to avoid), untrimmed mustaches, and so forth.

Carnal Kissing, a Mystical Act?

The author seems to give the sensual kiss between man and woman a mystical note, a fusion of personalities.

“Your whole being, and not just your lips, is committed in a kiss. . . . A kiss is a meeting of the two in a moment when nothing else exists, but them, and nothing else is worthwhile.”¹³

Further on, he writes:

“If those slow, leisurely, trembling kisses are missing, it may indicate that love has ceased to be an encounter of two who admire each other, contemplate each other, and adore each other.”¹⁴

“The kiss is the thermometer of love. That’s why, when things don’t work out between the two, you have to follow the paths that lead to the kiss rather than pretending to fix it in bed. What can those paths be? The most important are five: talk, look, touch, create, seek.”¹⁵

For him, the sensual kiss so merges personalities that “[b]ecause they understand this, many prostitutes lend themselves to all kinds of sexual games, but they don’t let themselves be kissed by just anyone.”¹⁶

What Does Saint Thomas Aquinas Say About Marriage?

He takes the metaphorical kiss used in Scripture and by mystics to indicate the union of a soul with God, to be the carnal kiss between a man and a woman. He asks:

“What is that infinite kiss reflected from God in our kisses?”¹⁷

The book’s last chapter is titled: “The supermystical kiss.”¹⁸

A Poet?

Archbishop Fernández also considers himself a poet. However, some of his poems in the book leave us in doubt, like this excerpt:

“You don’t realize it / clueless [distracted] / Your murderous lips / And your eyes do not warn / The wandering eyes / That remain detained / before the divine meat / of your mouth. … How was God so ruthless/ To give you that mouth…/ There is no one who can resist/ witch/ hide it.”¹⁹

This is a unique book, even more so because—as the archbishop informs us—he wrote it for his pastoral work with young people. What effect did this “pastoral” work have on those young people, particularly in this age of religious ignorance and the deification of sexual pleasure? Nor did the archbishop explain the moral norms one must follow in this grave matter.

Negating Humanae Vitae

He has an erroneous notion of morality—a normative science that guides human acts, forbidding what is evil and allowing what is good—by considering it only as an expression of mercy.

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes?

One deduces that from his article, “The Trinitarian Dimension of Morality II: Deepening the Ethical Aspect in the Light of ‘Deus caritas est.’”²⁰ In the name of mercy, he accepts contraceptives, contrary to the Church’s constant teaching, as recalled by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Archbishop Fernández says that when a couple uses periodic abstention for birth control, and the wife figures that imposes a heavy burden on her husband, “[i]n that case, an uncompromising rejection of all condom use would make compliance with an external norm take precedence over the grave obligation to care for the loving communion and conjugal stability that charity more directly demands.”²¹

Now, Humanae Vitae categorically states:

“Therefore, We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.”²²

Same-sex “marriage”

Archbishop Fernández is also ambiguous concerning homosexual sin. On the blessing of homosexual unions, he says they cannot be equated with marriage.

“Now, if a blessing is given so as not to cause that confusion, one will have to analyze and confirm it. As you will see, there is a point where you move out of a properly theological discussion and into a rather prudential or disciplinary question.”²³

Is Pope Francis Designating His Successor?

One may wonder whether Pope Francis intends to make his protégé and ghostwriter, Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, his successor by appointing him as Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Does he expect that, just as Cardinal Ratzinger succeeded John Paul II after occupying that position, the same may happen with the Argentine archbishop who succeeds him in the Chair of Saint Peter? That would guarantee the continuity of his transformation of the Church.

---

Footnotes:

1. John L Allen Jr/ Crux, “The consistory of a pope in a hurry,” Catholic Herald, July 10, 2023, https://catholicherald.co.uk/the-consistory-of-a-pope-in-a-hurry/, accessed Jul. 25, 2023. 
2. Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “A Confused, Upside Down ‘Synodal Church,’” https://www.tfp.org/a-confused-upside-down-synodal-church/. 
3. The John-Henry Westen Show, “Cardinal Müller’s take on Pope Francis’ pick for the Synod: Fr. James Martin,” July 13, 2023, https://www.lifesitenews.com/episodes/cardinal-mullers-take-on-pope-francis-pick-for-the-synod-fr-james-martin/, accessed Jul. 25, 2023. 
4. Catholic News Service, “Cardinal Hollerich says church teaching on gays ‘no longer correct,’” Angelus, Feb. 2, 2022, https://angelusnews.com/news/world/cardinal-hollerich-says-church-teaching-on-gays-no-longer-correct/, accessed Jul. 25, 2023. 
5. Hannah Brockhaus, “Pope Francis appoints Argentine Archbishop Fernández as head of doctrine dicastery.” “Pope Francis has named Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, his longtime personal theologian and ghostwriter, to lead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Catholic News Agency, Jul. 1, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254710/pope-francis-appoints-argentinas-archbishop-fernandez-as-prefect-for-church-doctrine; Edward Pentin, “Archbishop Fernández Defends ‘Amoris Laetitia’ From Its Critics.” “Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina and the author who drafted Amoris Laetitia said the Pope wishes pastors to consider ‘the complexity of particular situations’ where he believes the terms ‘fornicator’ or ‘adulterer’ would be inappropriate.” National Catholic Register, Aug. 21, 2017, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/archbishop-fernandez-defends-amoris-laetitia-from-its-critics. 
6. Christopher White, “Pope appoints new head of Vatican doctrinal office to promote theologians,” National Catholic Reporter, Jul. 1, 2023, https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-appoints-new-head-vatican-doctrinal-office-promote-theologians, accessed Jul. 25, 2023. 
7. Víctor “Tucho” Fernández: “Me llegaron a decir que yo no fundamentaba la visión de la Iglesia sobre los homosexuales,” Radio Perfil, Jul. 3, 2023, https://www.perfil.com/noticias/modo-fontevecchia/victor-tucho-fernandez-me-llegaron-a-decir-que-yo-no-fundamentaba-la-vision-de-la-iglesia-sobre-los-homosexuales-modof.phtml, accessed Jul. 25, 2023. 
8. Idem, ibidem. 
9. Cfr. Yves Congar, O.P., My Journal of the Council, trans. Denis Minns O.P. (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2012), pp. 870-871. 
10. Robert Blair Kaiser, “Story Confirmed: Congar Did Pee on the Wall of the Holy Office” Kaiser’s Vatican II Journal, Sep. 26, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20140126035352/http://robertblairkaiser.com/blog/2012/09/story-confirmed-congar-did-pee-on-the-wall-of-the-holy-office/; Novus Ordo Watch, “Fr. Yves Congar urinated on Wall of Holy Office,” June 12, 2016, https://novusordowatch.org/2016/06/congar-urinated-on-holy-office-wall/. 
11. Journal d’un théologien (1946-1954), (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2000), pp. 88, 293, in Roberto de Mattei, “Complessità e paradossi nella storia della Chiesa,” https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/complessita-e-paradossi-nella-storia-della-chiesa/. 
12. Editorial Lumen, Buenos Ayres, Argentina, 1995. (Our translation and emphases from the Spanish original.) 
13. Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar, p. 13. 
14. Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar, p. 15. 
15. Idem, p. 21. 
16. Idem, p. 55. 
17. Idem, p. 69. 
18. Idem. p. 71ss. 
19. Idem, p. 40. In the Spanish original: “No te das conta/ despistada [distraída]/ Tus labios asesinos/ Y tus ojos no advierten/ Los ojos divagantes/ Que quedan detenidos/ ante la carne divina/ de bu boca. … Como fue Dios tan desapiadado/ Para darte esa boca…/ No hay quien resista/ bruja/ escóndela.” 
20. Revista Teología, Tomo XLIII, No. 89, 2006. 
21. Op. cit., p. 150. 
22. Humanae Vitae, No. 14, https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html. 
23. Javier Arias, “Víctor Manuel Fernández a InfoVaticana: ‘Lo que está mal, está mal y yo defiendo la moralidad objetiva,’” Infovaticana.com, Jul. 5, 2023, https://infovaticana.com/2023/07/05/victor-manuel-fernandez-a-infovaticana-lo-que-esta-mal-esta-mal-y-yo-defiendo-la-moralidad-objetiva/, accessed Jul. 25, 2023.

Governor Ron DeSantis Fires Soros Backed Prosecutor – Watch

Governor Ron DeSantis announced on Wednesday morning that he has suspended Monique Worrell, State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, for dereliction of duty and incompetence.

Worrell, who was backed by a group tied to Democrat billionaire George Soros, has allowed murderers, other violent offenders, and dangerous drug traffickers to receive extremely reduced sentences and escape the full consequences of their criminal conduct, according to the governor.

DeSantis’s office revealed a list of the “more egregious results of her policies or practices in action.” Some of the examples included:

• “Just this past weekend, Worrell was at the center of a major controversy. Daton Viel was arrested in March 2023 for sexual battery on a minor, as well as Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. That arrest was made while Viel was on probation for another offense – that probation began in February 2023. Viel was still let out on bond and thereafter shot two Orlando Police Officers.”
• “In November 2022, 17-year-old Lorenzo Larry shot and killed his pregnant girlfriend, De’Shayla Ferguson. Larry had previously been arrested in May 2022 on several charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm on school property, and criminal possession of a firearm by a minor. But he was released after all these arrests. Worrell’s office did not act on any of these charges until after he killed his girlfriend and their unborn child.”
• “In February 2023, 19-year-old Keith Moses shot and killed a cameraman and a 9-year-old girl. He had a long history of arrests as a juvenile, including aggravated battery, assault, and grand theft. As recently as November 2021, he was arrested for drug possession, but no charges were pursued.”
• “In October 2022, a minor was arrested on first-degree murder charges with a firearm. The shooting was captured on video. One month later, Worrell’s office inexplicably filed a petition to reduce the charge to firearm possession. He was placed on probation.”

DeSantis said at a press conference that he was appointing Judge Andrew Bain to take over Worrell’s duties as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

August 06, 2023Special EditionThe U.S. Is In Real DeclineNo Kidding!By: Victor Davis Hanson Part One: Energy – August 1, 2023Far-called, our navies melt away;On dune and headland sinks the fire:Lo, all our pomp of yesterdayIs one with Nineveh and Tyre!Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,Lest we forget—lest we forget!     Rudyard Kipling, “Recessional” There is proverbially a lot of rot in any great nation, which accordingly can endure a lot of self-induced damage. But has the U.S. exhausted its reserves? Britain after World War I denied that its empire was doomed and its standard of living unsustainable. The Soviet Union was in decline gradually, then abruptly by 1989 became doomed. In the fourth century AD, Rome had established a modus vivendi of incorporating non-Romans into the empire, defending its borders, and tamping down on corruption. A century later, the Western empire collapsed from internal decay and tribal invasions across the Danube and Rhine. Affordable energy had been America’s strength. We are still the largest combined natural gas and oil producer in the world—but determined to forfeit that advantage on the world stage and at home damage the viability of the middle class. We were once the premier nuclear-generated power nation as well. No longer. Joe Biden and his surrogates on the state level have systematically waged war on fossil fuels, precluding even the reasonable idea that oil, gas, and coal can serve as necessary transition fuels over the next half-century, guaranteeing the American standard of living until the advent of viable alternative and renewable energies. The only time Biden focuses on oil and gas is before a midterm or general election when he hurriedly will either drain more of the strategic petroleum reserve or showboat a few more new federal energy leases. A state like California has the highest taxed and the costliest electricity in the continental United States, mostly as a result of bragging that it is self-sufficient in daytime electricity production due to massive and heavily subsidized solar and wind farms. Yet it keeps mum that after dark it must import equally large amounts of fossil-fuel-generated power from neighboring states. One of the most bizarre developments during the Biden years has been the complete exemption given massive and growing Chinese coal use, coupled with the furor over domestic natural gas production and use. Think of the logic: we coax and ignore our Chinese enemies who are hell-bent on record dirty coal use while hectoring the mostly now green American public on their supposedly toxic use of clean-burning natural gas—as if we could persuade 1.4 billion Chinese to cease burning coal by showing them that 330 million Americans can sacrifice by not burning natural gas. Here again, is the ancient bureaucratic principle in play of focusing on the misdemeanor of the law-abiding, as a way to square the utter inability to deal with the felony of law-breaking. As the U.S. is pushed to embrace the massive use of electrical vehicles, the vast majority of which will be charging after commute hours and in the dark, the more it resists nuclear and fossil fuel power generation, the only sure ways of producing steady and reliable electricity when the sun goes down. As the elite clamp down on gas cooktops, pizza ovens, and gas water heaters of the middle classes, it is silent on the use of private jets, or the energy consumption in huge homes over 5,000-6,000 square feet, of the Obamas-Al Gore sort. In California, we are far more likely to blow up a hydroelectric plant on a manmade reservoir than to create a new one—on the theory that someday we will have clean energy in abundance, but for now, the middle classes must suffer for energy-consuming sins. A final thought. The Left pushes mass transit as the cure-all for supposedly wasteful and consumptive automobile use. Yet it can offer no alternative to the car that any sane American would consider. In California, its multibillion-dollar price tag “high-speed” rail is stagnating between Merced and Bakersfield. After a decade, not a foot of track has been laid, and no one yet can explain why anyone would wish to go over 100 mph an hour from Bakersfield to Merced. The Bay Area’s once state-of-the-art BART rail system is in decay. The cars are increasingly unreliable, dirty, and crime-ridden. BART either cannot or will not ensure the safety of its passengers, in the toxic manner of all major contemporary urban mass transit systems. Why? In part, because to enforce laws against turnstile-jumping, harassment of passengers, or various assaults in stations would be, in the Age of Post-George-Floyd, somehow inappropriate. One does not have to be a conspiracist to see that the Left likes mass transit and hates cars for reasons other than energy-per-mile individual consumption. The more millions become captives of trains, the more unions control their very lives, the more the state alone can ensure their safety, the more the government can determine their travel and commute, and the more “equity” can be enforced. Part Two: Racial Relations – August 2, 2023And on the pedestal these words appear:“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”Nothing beside remains. Round the decayOf that colossal wreck, boundless and bareThe lone and level sands stretch far away.     Percy Shelley, “Ozymandias” I say America is in serious trouble because the Left has attacked systematically all of the U.S.’s great strengths and advantages on the world stage. It apparently thinks it must dismantle the old America before it can create a “new” America, something like a European Union state, only far more radical and volatile. One, we were the only multiracial constitutional state that had avoided the tribalism and violence of the Balkans, Rwanda, or the Middle East. Europe, for all its public grandstanding about ecumenicalism, has yet to have a black president or prime minister. The idea that Barack Obama could become a Russian or Chinese citizen and reach similar pinnacles of political power is absurd. (And for that matter, include Mexico and much of Asia and Latin America.) Yet race relations in the U.S. are at a historic low. More than 50 years of affirmative action have morphed into woke extremism, or the idea of racially separate graduations, dorms, workshops, and safe spaces. When working out, keeping a reasonable weight, camping, or showing up on time are now deemed racist, then there is no more Civil Rights movement which has instead descended into caricature. The more minorities reached parity with or exceeded the income of, the majority population, the angrier and more volatile racial relations became. The operative principle seems to be something like “Before we can have racially blind relations in the 21st century, we must first make up for the racism, largely in the South, of the prior two centuries by similarly fixating on race, but in reverse fashion of granting preference to nullify past bias.” No one dares talk about the violence of the inner city that makes 19th-century Dodge or Tombstone seem tame in comparison. No one discusses the utter failure of the inner-city schools or the need for intact families and omnipresent fathers to ensure any chance at parity. Instead, there is the notion that if blacks appear in 50 percent of television commercials, such ecumenicalism will magically either curb gunslinging on Saturday nights in Chicago or improved math scores in the Detroit or Baltimore public schools. Why do we obsess over the supposedly suggestive illiberal themes of Jason Aldean’s, “Try That In a Small Town,” when rap and hip-hop for decades have institutionalized violent misogyny, homophobia, violence against the police, anti-Semitism, and blanket anti-white lyrics? Orwellian censorship, coupled with deplatforming, cancel-culture, ostracism, and shadow banning, make any reasonable discussion of race taboo. The Left—instead of the old 1960s agenda of integration and assimilation—leveraged race and tribalism to create permanent constituencies, nursed on grievance and victimhood, and expectant of endless government redress and largess. In a strange development, the Left believes by according affirmative action and reparatory admissions and hiring to the African-American upper-middle class and wealthy and privileged, thereby the mostly neglected black underclass, trapped in the neglect and pathologies of the inner city, will somehow benefit. After George Floyd and the defunding of police forces and the decriminalization institutionalized by the Soros-funded prosecutors, there was an epidemic of inner-city crime, as smash-and-grab and carjacking became commonplace and swarm shoplifting became quasi-legal. The result is that while elites of all races are bonding as never before, the minority underclass is angrier and more separate from the mainstream than at any time in the last half-century. That reality is evident by the avoidance of entire swaths of urban America by liberal city-dwellers—even as the latter are prone to call “racist” anyone who describes honestly their segregationist behavior. One sign of toxic racial relations can be found in online newspapers and internet news sites that report crime. When a murder makes the news and the perpetrator is known to be black (55% of all homicide offenders constitute 12% of the population), the news site either does not describe the race of the murderer or mentions it only at the very end of the article—usually in dire contrast if the perpetrator is considered white. Yet if one reads the following comment section (and published comments are increasingly rare despite usually being carefully censored of racist and foul language), the so-called reading public, often disguised by pseudonyms, appears utterly cynical. The posters express disgust with the dishonesty of the media, but also no longer show much sympathy for “root causes” or why blacks continue to murder others (mostly other blacks) at over four times their numbers in the general population. Oddly, the more leftwing media tries to censor the news to disguise racial disparity, the more the public resents its one-sided selective censorship and veers into outright hostility. Part Three: Insecurity –  August 4, 2023Nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus.“We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies for them.”Livy There are unfortunately other barometers of U.S. ossification. America’s great strength was also its security. We were protected by two oceans and a similar English-majority-speaking and constitutional state on our northern border. In the modern age, we used to insist on only legal immigration from an often corrupt and impoverished Mexico. No longer. In just three years, the Biden administration destroyed the southern border, allowing seven million illegal aliens to enter without audit, despite a Covid epidemic, 100,000 American deaths attributable to the free importation of Mexican-produced fentanyl, and the multibillion-dollar cartels’ use of the border to levy fees on millions entering illegally. The administration’s agenda seems to be homeostasis or symmetry. That is, when the southern United States resembles the poverty and corruption of Mexico, then illegal immigration will largely cease, given there would be no reason to emigrate to a place identical to one’s one, in terms of economics, security, and culture. Aside from the border, the U.S. military is in decline. Its agenda is no longer just battle efficacy as a sure way to reaffirm deterrence, but a fast-track means to institutionalize a woke agenda, without the Sturm und Drang of federal and state legislative approval. Does the Pentagon have inestimable amounts of time, labor, and capital on its hands to indulge in exploring white rage, abortion on demand, pregnancy flight suits, and transgendered surgeries? Did it so well plan the flight from Kabul or the maintenance of artillery shell stocks, that it could indulge such hot-button social issues? Whereas the Left used to harangue Pentagon nominees about their revolving-door defense contractor board memberships and lobbyist roles, today they grow mute on such conflicts of interests—if the official in question has demonstrated a faithful adherence to woke principles. And in circular fashion, that reality is known to officers up for promotions, who in turn make the necessary woke adjustments. The discussion of future Joint Chiefs of Staff appointments center now not necessarily on their proven record of military excellence but on the degree they have been advocates of gay, transgendered, race, and gender agendas. Unfortunately, this advocacy is not just positive, but negative as well. It entails an overt harangue about “white privilege,” “white rage,” and“white supremacy”—most famously voiced by Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in congressional testimonies—without supporting data confirming “systemic racism.” The result of such fixations is a radical drop-off in enlistments, perhaps in aggregate reaching a 40,000-person shortfall in all the services. Stranger still, the military remains in denial, blaming the lack of interest in military service to out-of-shape youth, competition from a robust job market, gang affiliation, or criminal upticks—almost anything other than the creation of a hostile climate to the one demographic that has died at twice its numbers in the general population in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are other symptoms of our calcifying military. Our arsenals are emptying as a direct result either of our massive arms shipments to Ukraine or a multibillion-dollar abandonment of weapons in Afghanistan. And our defense industries shrink. Whether Javelins, artillery shells, or missiles, the military is short of munitions and will be for years. Our submarine fleet, once the hallmark of our naval superiority, is severely crippled and underfunded—a fact compounded by the dearth of shipyards. The entire navy is a shadow of its former Reagan-era strength. Our weapons systems in theory are unrivaled, but so expensive and scarce to be of dubious utility in a real war, given the rapid consumption of munitions—as we see from the insatiable rate of expenditure in Ukraine. And while the military enjoys excellent leadership from the colonel level downward, our top brass has scant record of success. What was disturbing about Afghanistan was not just the humiliating flight and careless abandonment of an entire theater arsenal, but the lack of any repercussions for the culpable officers in charge, both in theater and in Washington. The more wars we stalemate or lose—Iraq, Afghanistan, the Libyan bombing—the more there is little introspection about the causes of such defeats. Can the U.S. restore its military in time? Only if it were to drop woke and return to meritocracy, stop the politicization of the services, spend 5 percent of GDP on defense, end the revolving-door profiteering of defense-contractor generals, and invest in war-production industries. The only way to recruit American youth is to stop berating millions of them for their purported sins, and get out of the abortion, transgendered, race, and sex virtue-signaling business.  If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.Plato

Sponsored Message

Mark Levin RIPS the new Trump indictment TO SHREDS…It’s official. Unelected reckless prosecutors and unelected Democrat DC grand jurors are trying to decide the presidential election. Democrat DAs and the earlier indictment, same thing. Talk about attempting to deny voters the right to choose the next president – that IS what this is all about.Mark Levin is 100% right.  Biden’s Justice Department and Deep State operatives are rushing to jail their political opponents and intimidate voters like you into silence. Many of you are asking how you can stand up to these politically motivated zealots… STEP 1) SIGN THE PETITION: DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP >> The Radical Left thinks they can get away with absolutely anything. And they might be able to… unless we stop them right here and right now. We hope you do your part. Thank you, House GOP

OPINION

‘Don’t Listen To This Evil Woman!’ Catholic Bishop Explodes On Hillary Clinton In Scathing Statement

ByDavid Ru

Hillary Clinton discusses the overturning of Roe v. Wade | via CBS

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas sent a warning to Americans about listening to Hillary Clinton late last year. The former Secretary of State and two-time Democratic presidential candidate has been comparing pro-life laws in the U.S. to Islamic Sharia law in the Sudan and Afghanistan. 

Strickland couldn’t remain silent on the issues any longer. “Please, please don’t listen to this evil woman,” he said bluntly. “Her lies and immorality need to be silenced for the good of humanity.”

During her remarks at the Women’s Voice Summit, Clinton said, “We have come a long way on so many fronts but we are also in a period of time where there is a lot of pushback and much of the progress that has been taken for granted by too many people is under attack. Literally under attack in places like Iran or Afghanistan or Ukraine — where rape is a tactic of war,” she continued. (Trending: CNN’s Response To Joe Biden’s Corruption Is Jaw-Dropping)

“Or under attack by political and cultural forces in a country like our own when it comes to women’s healthcare and bodily autonomy,” Clinton continued. “It’s so shocking to think that in any way we’re related to poor Afghanistan and Sudan, but as an advanced economy as we allegedly are, on this measure, we, unfortunately, are rightly put with them.”

“This struggle is between autocracy and democracy from our country to places we can’t even believe we’re being compared to,” she added.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1598886352724049920&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americainsider.org%2F2023%2F08%2F05%2Fdont-listen-to-this-evil-woman-catholic-bishop-brings-down-hammer-on-hilary-clinton-4%2F&sessionId=ca7bdc1660f6958b987462dc5b90b37ccd102bc5&theme=light&widgetsVersion=aaf4084522e3a%3A1674595607486&width=550px

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a major victory for the unborn who have a right to life. This rightfully allows individual states to prohibit or regulate abortion. However, the goal of defending life is far from over. It is estimated that 26 states will ban or severely restrict abortion while roughly 24 states will not take action. 

In 1973, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution generally protected a right to have an abortion in Roe v. Wade. The case arose from a challenge to a Texas law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother. Norma McCorvey, who was using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged the law on behalf of herself and other women who wanted abortions. 

At the time, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roe. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the right to privacy, as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, includes the right to have an abortion. (Trending: Fauci Gets The Worst News of His Career)

However, the Court also ruled that this right is not absolute. Rights must be balanced against the state’s interest in protecting children’s health and the potentiality of life. Nevertheless, the Roe decision legalized abortion nationwide and there have been an estimated 63 million abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. 

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Roe decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, the Casey decision also allowed states to place some restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification and waiting periods.

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs decision left it up to individual states to decide whether to allow abortion. As a result, abortion is now illegal in some states across the country.

Joe Biden was seeing red after Tucker Carlson released a ground-breaking interview with this Hunter Biden confidant

Former Fox superstar Tucker Carlson is still causing quite the stir.

And it seems his popularity keeps climbing even after he was fired by the network.

That’s why Joe Biden was seeing red after Tucker Carlson released a ground-breaking interview with this Hunter Biden confidant.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down for a one-on-one interview with Hunter Biden’s former business partner and best friend, Devon Archer. 

Joe Biden knew, he definitely knew

Archer had just finished his closed door testimony before the House Oversight Committee in which he detailed Hunter’s business deals.

Most notable from Archer’s testimony was his bombshell revelation that Hunter Biden put his then-Vice President father, Joe Biden, on speaker phone during meetings with his foreign business associates on more than 20 occasions, despite Biden’s past claims he never even discussed his son’s business dealings with him.

Archer laid out in detail Biden’s involvement with his son’s business dealings in his sit-down with Carlson after his testimony.

https://decide.dev/lad/15117606981932902?pubid=ld-7664-8923&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fuspoliticaldaily.com&rid=&width=696&path=%2Fjoe-biden-was-seeing-red-after-tucker-carlson-released-a-ground-breaking-interview-with-this-hunter-biden-confidant%2F&utm_source=uspdnl&utm_campaign=email&utm_medium=campaigner

In his interview with Carlson, Archer again confirmed Hunter made more than twenty phone calls to his famous father while surrounded by business associates.

All of these, according to Archer, occurred within a ten-year period.

Carlson tried to pin Archer down even more.

“So Joe Biden, who is very much a product of Washington, of course must have known that he was calling into effectively a business meeting,” Carlson pointed out. “Something’s happening. He must have understood that that was kind of what his son was selling.”

But on that point, Archer remained elusive saying, “that’s hard for me to speculate.” 

“But like, just to keep it to the facts, Joe Biden, then the sitting Vice President, knew that there were Hunter’s business associates in the room,” Carlson pressed.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1686799149109256192&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fuspoliticaldaily.com%2Fjoe-biden-was-seeing-red-after-tucker-carlson-released-a-ground-breaking-interview-with-this-hunter-biden-confidant%2F&sessionId=6ee17ceaeee222c3f9a1c1a73ff5391d667770bb&theme=light&widgetsVersion=aaf4084522e3a%3A1674595607486&width=550px

“Yeah, I think I can definitively say at particular dinners and meetings, he knew there were business associates and he, or if I was there, I was a business associate too,” Archer responded. “So I think, you know, any of the other colleagues from the DC office or New York were there.”

A letter from Joe

Carlson next asked Archer about a January 20, 2011 letter President Biden penned to him.

The then-Vice President wrote Archer to personally apologize for not being able to speak with him while hosting former Communist Chinese President Hu.

“I hope I get a chance to see you again soon with Hunter,” Biden stated.

Archer said Biden also thanked him for an idea Archer had to “bring a government regulatory strategic advisory business into the private equity sector.”

The letter allegedly indicated Biden worked with foreign governments while serving as former President Barack Obama’s Vice President.

Archer said Hunter was asked to serve on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, only because he brought the benefits of the “Biden brand.” 

He and Carlson agreed it is “disingenuous” for anyone to claim to not know the reason Burisma hired Hunter, who served on the company’s board from 2014 to 2019.

Archer also explained that Hunter specialized in reducing regulatory exposure for Burisma. 

“So really, the business of Washington is selling access,” Tucker responded.

“Understanding a regulatory environment means selling access,” Archer replied.

It seems this is especially true if you are in the Biden family.

‘Elites’ Cannot Hide from the Consequences of Their Actions

By J.B. Shurk

August 3, 2023

In classical Greek mythology, hubris is a fatal flaw that inevitably leads to tragedy.  No matter how admired the hero, any mortal who dares to behave like a god is punished in the end.  Mankind never seems to learn this lesson.

The “elites” of every generation delude themselves into believing that they are superhuman and inherently different from those they consider beneath them.  They are not.  Whatever afflicts ordinary people will eventually come for those who build extravagant sanctuaries intended to rival Mount Olympus.

No “elite” ideology has caused as much suffering as communism for a simple reason: it is a false doctrine that feeds on hubris.  “Communism begins where atheism begins,” Marx wrote.  It permits “elites” to deify themselves.  Because of that delusion, it remains a “spectre” that still “haunts” the world.  

Wherever Marxism has reared its ugly head, it ultimately brings death and desolation.  Wherever communist “elites” believe that they can rule over a land of peasants while remaining safe and secure behind castle walls, those barriers eventually prove as fragile as any Potemkin village constructed from empty promises and outright lies. 

No matter how many hundreds of millions of lives socialism and communism have destroyed, Western “elites” remain enamored of Marxism.  Any system that eliminates private property for all but the aristocratic few and cultivates a slavish devotion to the State is attractive to arrogant human beings who believe it is their birthright to control others.

The “spectre of communism” haunting the world today comes in the form of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” or the United Nations’ planned technocratic tyranny.  It exists wherever one group of “experts”believes it has the moral prerogative to tell everyone else how to live and what to do.  Vladimir Lenin argued both that “medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism” and that the “establishment of a central bank is ninety percent of communizing a nation.”  Together, central banks and global health authorities are the gateway drugs for communism.

The party will take care of all your needs.  The World Health Organization will decide whether you can leave your homes.  The climate scientists will tell you how much food you may eat and how much fuel you may use to stay warm.  In every iteration of Marxist hubris, the promise is framed a little differently.  However it is formulated, it always brings tragedy.  

Marxist socialism, communism, planned sustainability, new world order, global government — whatever it is called, it remains “rule by the elite.”  Any system that refuses to protect individual freedoms and empowers a small coalition of authorities to control everyone else should simply be called “elitism.”  The distinction between political parties becomes meaningless when “elites” learn, as Lenin did, that the “best way to control the opposition is to lead it.”  Forget Republicans versus Democrats.  The real contest is between regular people and the privilege-hoarding “elites” who maintain a stranglehold over government.

This kind of thinking is denigrated as dangerous “populism.”  How dare the great majority of the people form opinions that reject the preferences of the “ruling class”?  Is it not strange that Western “elites” speak fondly about the virtues of “democracy” only when the people under their thumb do exactly what they say?  Not really.

“The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution,” Mao Zedong taught, “and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution.  The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.”  In other words, tyranny is most effective when citizens actually vote for their chains.  When the people think for themselves and reject the “elitism” that requires their submission, then the State dispels any pretense of caring about what the people think.  

Modern “democracy” in the West is a bastardization of medieval feudalism in which serfs labor under the delusion that they actually voted to be vassals of the State.  From time to time — especially when unworthy “lords” have caused widespread misery — the serfs begin to remember that it is they who are rightly lords over their own lives and that the State is meant to be in vassalage to their will and authority.  When “elites”decry “populism,” they are really ringing alarm bells for other “elites” to hear.  It is the surest sign of “ruling class” fear that the people have begun to wake up from their slumber only to discover their own imprisonment.  

That is when all hell breaks loose.  An army of a hundred thousand IRS agents is mustered to intimidate citizens.  The illusion of impartial justice is jettisoned, so that the State can quickly lock up its political enemies.  The regulatory bureaucracy fines and punishes anyone not toeing the government’s ever-moving statutory line.  Freedoms are taken away (speech, self-defense, due process), and the theft of those freedoms is blamed on the victims.  If they said the right things, we would not need to silence them!  If they really wanted peace, then they would give the government all their guns!  If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t object to our agents spying on them without probable cause or warrants!  When tyranny begins to choke a country, the innocent are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.  

You can be certain that the “spectre of communism” is spreading when “elites” stop pretending to be bound by any rule of law and instead project their power by resorting to open threats of violence.  “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” Mao knew.  “The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”  In America, the Second Amendment guarantees ordinary citizens. political power.  Gun control has never been about saving lives or preserving public safety; it has always been about controlling lives and preserving the “ruling class’s” safety.  A well-armed populace is capable of protecting its own liberties; a well-armed State is concerned only with protecting its own power.

It may not seem like it right now, but none of this will end well for these “elites.”  A great number of historians and political theorists have formulated expansive arguments that attempt to explain the collapse of governing systems.  It is mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion that remains closest to the mark: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The Marxist globalists pushing the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” on the West think they can play gods — destroying food and fuel supplies, eliminating private property, expanding invasive surveillance, devaluing physical money, mandating digital currencies, and even supplanting mankind with artificial life.  They simultaneously spread an irrational fear of “climate change” around the world while promising a cure in return for all of humanity’s obedience.  What these false gods unleash upon the world, however, will find its way back to their doors.  Hungry, impoverished, desperate people will have no trouble knowing exactly where the blame lies for a planet plagued by chaos.

The coming lesson from the people to their tormentors will be simple: you reap what you sow.

Keep in mind this truth: at no time in history have the people forcing others into compliance been anything other than the eventual perpetrators of unspeakable evils.  “Elitism” — in Marxist-socialist, “Great Reset,” or any other form — always unleashes colossal tragedy.  As so many tales from ancient Greek mythology make plain, though, there has never been a sanctuary safe enough for “elites” to hide from the consequences of their own deadly hubris.

August 07, 2023> J.B. Shurk     –      ‘Elites’ Cannot Hide from the Consequences of Their ActionsAlexander     –     Ego-Defense Mechanisms ‘Elites’ Cannot Hide from the Consequences of Their ActionsBy J.B. ShurkAugust 3, 2023 In classical Greek mythology, hubris is a fatal flaw that inevitably leads to tragedy.  No matter how admired the hero, any mortal who dares to behave like a god is punished in the end.  Mankind never seems to learn this lesson. The “elites” of every generation delude themselves into believing that they are superhuman and inherently different from those they consider beneath them.  They are not.  Whatever afflicts ordinary people will eventually come for those who build extravagant sanctuaries intended to rival Mount Olympus. No “elite” ideology has caused as much suffering as communism for a simple reason: it is a false doctrine that feeds on hubris.  “Communism begins where atheism begins,” Marx wrote.  It permits “elites” to deify themselves.  Because of that delusion, it remains a “spectre” that still “haunts” the world.   Wherever Marxism has reared its ugly head, it ultimately brings death and desolation.  Wherever communist “elites” believe that they can rule over a land of peasants while remaining safe and secure behind castle walls, those barriers eventually prove as fragile as any Potemkin village constructed from empty promises and outright lies.  No matter how many hundreds of millions of lives socialism and communism have destroyed, Western “elites” remain enamored of Marxism.  Any system that eliminates private property for all but the aristocratic few and cultivates a slavish devotion to the State is attractive to arrogant human beings who believe it is their birthright to control others. The “spectre of communism” haunting the world today comes in the form of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” or the United Nations’ planned technocratic tyranny.  It exists wherever one group of “experts”believes it has the moral prerogative to tell everyone else how to live and what to do.  Vladimir Lenin argued both that “medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism” and that the “establishment of a central bank is ninety percent of communizing a nation.”  Together, central banks and global health authorities are the gateway drugs for communism. The party will take care of all your needs.  The World Health Organization will decide whether you can leave your homes.  The climate scientists will tell you how much food you may eat and how much fuel you may use to stay warm.  In every iteration of Marxist hubris, the promise is framed a little differently.  However it is formulated, it always brings tragedy.   Marxist socialism, communism, planned sustainability, new world order, global government — whatever it is called, it remains “rule by the elite.”  Any system that refuses to protect individual freedoms and empowers a small coalition of authorities to control everyone else should simply be called “elitism.”  The distinction between political parties becomes meaningless when “elites” learn, as Lenin did, that the “best way to control the opposition is to lead it.”  Forget Republicans versus Democrats.  The real contest is between regular people and the privilege-hoarding “elites” who maintain a stranglehold over government. This kind of thinking is denigrated as dangerous “populism.”  How dare the great majority of the people form opinions that reject the preferences of the “ruling class”?  Is it not strange that Western “elites” speak fondly about the virtues of “democracy” only when the people under their thumb do exactly what they say?  Not really. “The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution,” Mao Zedong taught, “and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution.  The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.”  In other words, tyranny is most effective when citizens actually vote for their chains.  When the people think for themselves and reject the “elitism” that requires their submission, then the State dispels any pretense of caring about what the people think.   Modern “democracy” in the West is a bastardization of medieval feudalism in which serfs labor under the delusion that they actually voted to be vassals of the State.  From time to time — especially when unworthy “lords” have caused widespread misery — the serfs begin to remember that it is they who are rightly lords over their own lives and that the State is meant to be in vassalage to their will and authority.  When “elites”decry “populism,” they are really ringing alarm bells for other “elites” to hear.  It is the surest sign of “ruling class” fear that the people have begun to wake up from their slumber only to discover their own imprisonment.   That is when all hell breaks loose.  An army of a hundred thousand IRS agents is mustered to intimidate citizens.  The illusion of impartial justice is jettisoned, so that the State can quickly lock up its political enemies.  The regulatory bureaucracy fines and punishes anyone not toeing the government’s ever-moving statutory line.  Freedoms are taken away (speech, self-defense, due process), and the theft of those freedoms is blamed on the victims.  If they said the right things, we would not need to silence them!  If they really wanted peace, then they would give the government all their guns!  If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t object to our agents spying on them without probable cause or warrants!  When tyranny begins to choke a country, the innocent are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.   You can be certain that the “spectre of communism” is spreading when “elites” stop pretending to be bound by any rule of law and instead project their power by resorting to open threats of violence.  “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” Mao knew.  “The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”  In America, the Second Amendment guarantees ordinary citizens. political power.  Gun control has never been about saving lives or preserving public safety; it has always been about controlling lives and preserving the “ruling class’s” safety.  A well-armed populace is capable of protecting its own liberties; a well-armed State is concerned only with protecting its own power. It may not seem like it right now, but none of this will end well for these “elites.”  A great number of historians and political theorists have formulated expansive arguments that attempt to explain the collapse of governing systems.  It is mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion that remains closest to the mark: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The Marxist globalists pushing the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” on the West think they can play gods — destroying food and fuel supplies, eliminating private property, expanding invasive surveillance, devaluing physical money, mandating digital currencies, and even supplanting mankind with artificial life.  They simultaneously spread an irrational fear of “climate change” around the world while promising a cure in return for all of humanity’s obedience.  What these false gods unleash upon the world, however, will find its way back to their doors.  Hungry, impoverished, desperate people will have no trouble knowing exactly where the blame lies for a planet plagued by chaos. The coming lesson from the people to their tormentors will be simple: you reap what you sow. Keep in mind this truth: at no time in history have the people forcing others into compliance been anything other than the eventual perpetrators of unspeakable evils.  “Elitism” — in Marxist-socialist, “Great Reset,” or any other form — always unleashes colossal tragedy.  As so many tales from ancient Greek mythology make plain, though, there has never been a sanctuary safe enough for “elites” to hide from the consequences of their own deadly hubris.

OPINION

Veritatis Splendor vs. Amoris Laetitia

Pope John Paul II’s inspiring encyclical on moral theology celebrates its 30th anniversary, but today many at the highest levels of the Church ignore or even reject its teachings.

• Richard A. Spinello

https://trinitymedia.ai/player/trinity-player.php?postHashV2=3a8237876d0e4e08cd512fcd7ae94f23aa241ce8&pageURL=https%3A%2F%2Fcrisismagazine.com%2Fopinion%2Fveritatis-splendor-vs-amoris-laetitia&ver=6.2.2&unitId=2900009380&userId=651fb8cf-53db-45f3-ae6d-7e67559447e7&isLegacyBrowser=false&version=20230807_5b89728de297992bf98c12b5b142de68dae2a0f0&useBunnyCDN=0&themeId=140

Pope John Paul II’s inspiring encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor, was promulgated thirty years ago, on August 6, 1993. The encyclical has certainly lost none of its intellectual force or deep wisdom, and it remains as pertinent today as ever. When this papal teaching first appeared, however, it was greeted with a torrent of hostility by many of the Church’s moral theologians.  

Bernhard Häring (Pope Francis’ favorite moral theologian) described himself as “greatly discouraged” after reading John Paul II’s work. This is not a surprise since the pope was correcting the errors that Häring and other revisionist theologians had propagated in the Church since the end of Vatican II. As John Paul II pointed out, it was not a matter of isolated or limited dissent but a “systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine” (4).   

The fundamental option, proportionalism, the sovereignty of conscience, and moral subjectivism—all of these heterodox doctrines were thoroughly refuted through arguments woven with principled reasoning. For a time, it looked like the philosopher-pope had succeeded in his herculean effort to renew moral theology. But then came the papacy of Pope Francis, which has consistently sought to marginalize and undermine the principal moral teachings of this encyclical.    

ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily

Veritatis Splendor is now virtually ignored at the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences. Instead, the new faculty, hired by Archbishop Paglia, are keen to emphasize how the moral law must be constantly modified and updated in response to cultural evolution and historical experience. At a conference on moral theology held last year in Rome, some theologians expressed their utter disdain for Veritatis Splendor and the need for its correction. 

Fr. Julio Martinez, professor of moral theology at Comillas Pontifical University, said that it was necessary “to untie the knots Veritatis Splendor made in Catholic morals.” Veritatis Splendor, he stated, initiated “a very profound development in moral theology with the introduction of the concept we call intrinsic evil.” According to Fr. Martinez, this is a “controversial philosophical concept that brought serious difficulties for moral theology.”  

Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that the notion of intrinsic evil was just discovered thirty years ago by John Paul II. On the contrary, this doctrine was defended by secular philosophers like Aristotle, asserted by the Church Fathers along with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and taught without objection in the Catholic Church for many centuries.     

Also, the newly appointed head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, has made it clear through word and deed that he has little use for Veritatis Splendor. In one of his recent interviews, he conveyed his dismissive view of this encyclical because its particular concern is “to set certain limits.” Hence, according to Fernandez, “it is not the most adequate text to encourage the development of theology.”  

ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

The bishop’s reductive assessment, however, is way off base. Veritatis Splendor does far more than establish moral limits, though that task is certainly not alien to moral theology. Jesus Himself was not diffident about setting limits to our behavior. But John Paul II presents a holistic vision of moral theology, a brilliant synthesis of biblical Christian teaching, philosophy, and theology that covers a wide range of interrelated topics including human freedom, the divine and natural law, human nature, and the role of conscience in moral decision-making.  

The renowned Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre praised Veritatis Splendor as a major intervention in moral debate and a “striking contribution…to ongoing philosophical inquiry.” In his view, this encyclical clearly provided a viable platform for the creative development of theology or philosophy. But the liberal theologians who dominated the academy were simply not interested. John Paul II can hardly be blamed for the fact that in 2023 we have no theologians of the same stature as Karl Rahner or Joseph Ratzinger.   

The principal theme of Veritatis Splendor is quite simple and should be uncontroversial: the Christian faith includes specific moral demands because it is “on the path of the moral life that the way of salvation is open to all” (3). Those demands are clearly laid out in the Decalogue that is re-promulgated in the New Testament.  

The encyclical opens with an exegesis of Jesus’ dialogue with the rich young man in Matthew’s Gospel (chapter 19). Jesus draws this man’s attention to the centrality of the Decalogue’s precepts. Thus, “from the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue” (12). One of those commandments is also powerfully reaffirmed with a reference to the original order of creation in Jesus’ teaching on adultery (Mark 10:4-12).  

ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

Moreover, God has conveyed to His people these same specific moral requirements as the natural moral law that proscribes certain conduct such as adultery, theft, and the taking of innocent life. These “limits” that seem to disturb Archbishop Fernandez so much protect the fundamental goods of human nature such as marriage and life. They also represent the “path involving a moral and spiritual journey toward perfection” (15).   

But with a few notable exceptions, post-Conciliar moral theology has been centered on an imprudent and misguided attempt to mitigate the prohibitions found in Scripture and the natural law. Revisionist theologians have proposed theories like proportionalism (a variation of utilitarianism) that allow for exceptions to moral norms so long as the goal of a greater good or at least a lesser evil is realized. Nothing is intrinsically evil or good because everything depends on context. And they have suggested that the negative precepts forbidding certain actions that are expressed in Scripture are less than absolute.   

But John Paul II insists that to deny the truth of moral absolutes such as the prohibition against adultery is philosophically untenable because it opens the door to moral subjectivism. It is also inconsistent with Revelation, for “Jesus Himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions” (52). While someone may not be subjectively culpable for committing an adulterous act (through ignorance or compulsion), adultery is always objectively wrong no matter what the circumstances may be.  

If this encyclical needs to be “corrected” and cast aside, what sort of moral theology will take its place? We get a strong hint at the alternative to the principles of Veritatis Splendor by reading Pope Francis’ ambiguous apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, ghostwritten in part by Archbishop Fernandez. Pope Francis’ exhortation clearly sides with the revisionists when it comes to issues like intrinsic evil. In chapter eight he explains:  

It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being…. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.(304)  

Pope Francis insists upon his fidelity to St. Thomas Aquinas when he declares that “the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter uncertainty” (304). But, for Aquinas, moral ambiguity surfaces only when there are affirmative norms at stake. Amoris Laetitia completely disregards the essential Thomistic distinction between affirmative precepts (such as “one must return borrowed items”), which apply always but not in every situation, and certain negative precepts (“do not commit adultery”), which are valid without exception.  

According to Aquinas, while we cannot always determine what should be done in accordance with an affirmative precept, we can determine what must not be done in accordance with negative precepts (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 140, a. 1). When it comes to some negative norms such as “do not commit adultery,” there is never moral uncertainty or confusion, no matter how deeply we immerse ourselves in the details. Veritatis Splendor follows this Thomistic line of reasoning and argues for the decisive importance of these negative moral norms as a necessary safeguard against the encroachment of moral relativism. 

According to Fr. Martinez, however, Pope Francis has disentangled those “knots” conceived by John Paul II by introducing discernment as a way of guiding the moral decision-making process. As he observes, “To put the focus on discernment in order to find the good is a really new thing in moral theology.”  

Indeed, Amoris Laetitia equates the operation of conscience with the process of discernment rather than judgments that apply stable moral principles to specific situations. One can “discern” that a particular action, even one that violates one of the commandments, is what “God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits” (303). But as John Finnis and Germain Grisez point out in their critique of Amoris Laetitia, the traditional view of discernment presented by St. Ignatius Loyola and others is not concerned with what is morally right or wrong but with choosing between two morally acceptable possibilities. 

Veritatis Splendor is rooted in the moral certitudes embedded in Sacred Scripture and the sound philosophy of peerless thinkers like Aquinas—it enriches us both through its wisdom and its moral prescription. Amoris Laetitia, on the other hand, distorts or rejects the wisdom of saints like Augustine and Aquinas and favors a more relaxed paradigm where virtually every moral rule is subject to exception after a process of discernment. It privileges sentiment and pragmatic reasoning over moral truth and consistency. Since the moral terrain is so dimmed by shades of gray, moral principles can do no more than give us a general sense of direction. Conscience must do the rest of the work by creatively discerning the right course of action.  While Veritatis Splendor is in continuity with Scripture and Tradition, Amoris Laetitia represents a radical breach with both.Tweet This

While Veritatis Splendor is in continuity with Scripture and Tradition, Amoris Laetitia represents a radical breach with both. Catholics must decide which option they prefer. It’s a stark choice between the clarity of mind and coherence of popes like St. John Paul II or the web of incongruities and discontinuities found in papal documents like Amoris Laetitia. 

Author

• Richard A. SpinelloRichard A. Spinello is Professor of Management Practice at Boston College and a member of the adjunct faculty at St. John’s Seminary in Boston. He’s the author of The Encyclicals of John Paul II: An Introduction and Commentary and The Splendor of Marriage: St. John Paul II’s Vision of Love, Marriage, Family, and the Culture of Life.

Trumped Up

By: Judd Garrett

Objectivity is the Objective

August 3, 2023

In his Nobel Prize-winning book, The Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about how the leaders of the Soviet Union weaponized the judiciary against their political opponents – oftentimes, sending them to Siberian Gulags for the rest of their lives on spurious trumped-up charges. Most of the time, the charges against political prisoners were ambiguous ‘conspiracies’, ‘crimes against the state’, and ‘suspicion of espionage’. And there was rarely just one charge. It was usually three or four charges levied against their political opponents. There were speech crimes, thought crimes, and crimes of association. After experiencing life in the Soviet Gulags, Solzhenitsyn wrote, The old proverb does not lie: “Look for the brave in prison, and the stupid among the political leaders!”

Yesterday, Donald Trump was indicted for the third time during an election season in which the polls have him as the frontrunner over the incumbent President, Joe Biden. And not coincidently, it is Biden’s DOJ that has indicted Trump twice. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Donald J Trump has courage. The man is facing over one hundred years in federal prison, and not by an impartial judiciary, but by rabid partisans whose only goal is to use their vast power to see to it that Trump dies behind bars. And the surest way for Donald Trump to avoid that fate is to drop out of the Presidential election for if he does, these indictments will surely go away and be forgotten. But Trump fights on. He is not fighting for his over-inflated ego. He’s already a billionaire. He already has the President of the United States’ skin on his wall. He already received 74 million votes, the most legal votes by any candidate in our history.

He is fighting, not for himself, and not exclusively for us, the people. He is fighting for our country and future generations of Americans. Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, and regardless of whether he is re-elected in 2024, defeated, or spends the rest of his life in jail, his greatest accomplishment as President, beyond the economy, oil independence, the Middle Eastern peace deals or the Chinese tariffs, is that he exposed the corruption that is Washington, D.C. He has shown the world that our national politics are no better than Venezuela or Cuba or Russia or even China. We just know how to put on a better face. 

Our “elected” officials shroud themselves in the Constitution without the intent of following any of the principles to the letter or even the spirit in which they were written. They give grand speeches elucidating the high-sounding principles in our Constitution when it serves their purposes, and then completely ignore or defy those same principles when it’s politically expedient. Donald Trump has laid this all bare. He may be the least corrupt of the major political players in Washington, yet he is the one staring at over 40 indictments and 100 years in prison. That tells you everything you need to know. 

The Bidens and the Clintons have been selling political influence to foreign agents for decades and no indictments are coming their way. Mitch McConnell has sold out America to China and his wife’s family for over 20 years, amassing a fortune of over $50 million, and not a word is said about it. Paul Pelosi has been trading stock off of inside information from his wife, former Speaker of the House, Nancy for years, making him a better stock picker than Warren Buffet, and growing their wealth to over $100 million, yet everyone shrugs. When are they going to do an investigation on how Barack Obama has amassed over $135 million since entering the White House? 

Donald Trump is not part of the uni-party and is intent on exposing the uni-party, so he had to be destroyed. The uni-party puts up with Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan because they help to legitimize the facade of American democracy and debate, but if either gets too powerful or too popular or becomes a real threat, they will be crushed just like Trump. So, they will stay in their lane demanding change that will never come. Donald Trump could potentially bring that change or expose the corruption to a point that the change is inevitable, so he cannot be tolerated.

Special Counsel, Jack Smith’s recent indictment read just like some of those old Soviet indictments: 

ü “A conspiracy to defraud the United States, by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat, the lawful federal government function…”

ü “A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding…”

ü “Conspiracy against the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted…”

Listen to the buzzwords that do not mean anything – “obstruct”, “conspiracy”, “impair”, “impede”, and “corrupt”. All words that sound like something important but are wide open to interpretation. None of these words point to an actual overt crime that Trump committed, an actual act. They are thought crimes and speech crimes. Due to their timing concerning the 2024 election, these indictments by Jack Smith could easily be interpreted as election interference, and since a Presidential election is a “lawful federal government function”, Jack Smith could easily be charged with the same crimes he is charging Trump with – “conspiracy to defraud the United States, by using dishonesty, fraud” or“conspiracy against the right to vote”.

Jack Smith wrote those words, “conspiracy to defraud the United States, by using dishonesty, fraud…” So according to Jack Smith, Trump wanted to defraud the government by fraud? That would be like writing, ‘he conspired to murder someone by murdering him.’ Or ‘he planned on robbing the store by robbing it.’ When the best way that he can articulate the charges is filled with this much ambiguity and double talk, there is a very good chance that the charges are simply made up.

Smith also wrote in the indictment, “A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding…”  Is there a non-corrupt way to obstruct and impede a congressional proceeding? Of course, there is, just do it as a Democrat. You will never be charged. Isn’t that what hundreds of pro-abortionists did in September 2018, when they broke into the Capital and were pounding on the Senate Chambers doors during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings attempting to stop him from being confirmed? Not one of those people spent a day in jail for doing the same thing that Trump is falsely charged with and facing decades in prison for. 

Solzhenitsyn also wrote, “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” And that’s all we can do, live in the truth, not “our truth”, but the truth. There are too many liars in the world who are living “their truth.”