Might WWIII & Francis's Amoris Laetitia really be about Rejection of "God's own Governance of the World" that is Natural Law?
Volodymyr Zelensky is dancing in heels ...
Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and... other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.
The modern
secularist, or at least the educated modern secularist, needs to be brought up
to the level of the ancient pagan before he is likely to take Christian
revelation seriously. He needs a renewed
understanding of the nature on which grace builds and apart from which faith,
revelation, and the supernatural falsely seem to float in mid-air, without a
foundation in reason or reality. He
needs natural theology and natural law -- natural theology and natural law
grounded in the truths even the pagans knew, natural theology and natural law
as articulated and defended within Scholasticism, within Thomism -- and he
needs it now more than ever. - Catholic Philosopher Edward Feser [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/09/natural-law-or-supernatural-law.html]
Catholic pundit Ann Barnhardt asked why the Western globalist elite such as Joe Biden and Francis seem to want war with Russia. Here is part of her speculation:
Now, let’s look at why a KGB agent with a history of murdering his political opponents, and who dumped his wife and took up with a gymnast, and is clearly addicted to facial mutilation, is being painted as a “Christian fundamentalist theocrat tyrant dictator”.
Putin has said the following things:
-Sodomy should not be publicly glorified, promoted or displayed.
-Children should not be exposed to or propagandized into sodomy.
-Children should not be trafficked and sold to sodomites under the guise of adoption (which is what ALL “gay adoption” is.)
-Men and women should get married to each other and have children.
That’s it, really. These points aren’t even exclusively Christian. Every one of these points falls under the Natural Law, which is why even atheists and pagans, up until just a few years go, almost universally held these items as givens.
If you are old enough, stop and think about YOUR perception of sodomy, say, thirty years ago when the big push in the media was just beginning.
Now just stop and consider where we are today. Speaking against sodomy is already criminalized as “hate speech” and “discrimination”.
And, to the point of this essay, the Sodogarchy (aka Globohomo) are literally, right now, as I type this, agitating for NUCLEAR WAR, first and foremost in EUROPE, which is, of course, the center of Christian Civilization, with Rome being the visible central locus of the One True Church. In order to install Sodogarchy as the dominant cultural milieu, Christianity must not only be infiltrated, but completely memory-holed. Every reminder of even the existence of Christianity must be PHYSICALLY destroyed. The Church MUST be destroyed in every sense, both spiritually and physically. [https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/03/07/this-isnt-world-war-three-it-is-far-far-worse-this-is-world-war-sodomy/]
What is natural law?
The Mosaic website's Dr. Mark Latkovic who is professor of moral and systematic theology at Sacred Heart had this to say about what natural law is:
The Natural Law: "Written Upon Our Hearts"
God's universal standard of right and wrong is rooted in our human nature and knowable through reason and a well-formed conscience.
Let's face it. On the subject of morality, our world is really confused. Virtue is vice and vice is virtuealthough we don't use the language of virtue and vice much anymore. But we do talk a lot about rights. (Oh do we talk about rights!) That's not always a bad thingby no mean—particularly when we link rights with duties. But the Catholic Church also has had guardianship of an older language: the language of natural law.
Unfortunately, the terms "nature" and "law" aren't looked at favorably these days. When our secular culture hears law, they primarily hear "no." When they hear nature, they hear only "environment."
But the Church uses these terms in a much different sense in her moral teaching, even if that teaching may involve a firm noeven an absolute noto a particular evil such as abortion or euthanasia.
What is Natural Law?
When she speaks of "natural law," the Church indicates to us that it is a moral law whose principles pertain to free human nature. This is the same law that St. Paul said God has "written in our hearts" (cf., Rom 2:15).
So natural law is both a "supernatural" reality and a "natural" one. St. Thomas Aquinas indicates this twofold character when he defines natural law as "nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law" (Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q. 91, a. 2). By eternal law, St. Thomas means God's wise and loving plan for all of his creation. Thomas also calls it "Divine Providence."
Natural law, then, is our way of sharing in God's own governance of the world by means of human reason. Put another way: God has made all men and women with a particular nature one that can both reason and will and, when reasoning about practical matters, we can look at our actions and ask, "Is this act in accord with the highest moral standard of all: that of God's eternal law?" [https://mosaic.shms.edu/the-natural-law-written-upon-our-hearts]
In 2016, even the Francis friendly Catholic Insight website seemed to be saying that Amoris Laetitia might be about trying by sleight of hand of get around "natural or divine law":
However, one must be cautious here, for in the whole preceding section of this lengthy missive, Newman is at pains to make clear that the Pope and the Magisterium, and we may add the whole body of revealed doctrine, along with all the Church’s laws and edicts, are there to be the primary guide for our conscience. As the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, declares, one is bound to seek the truth, and once one is aware of a conclusion of natural or divine law, as revealed and defined by the Church, one is bound to hold and keep it.
As may have been expected, the Holy Father in Chapter 8 gives no permission to deliberately violate divine or natural law. What he does seem to do in Chapter 8 may be reduced to two things:
First, he offers some freedom to Catholics to discern whether certain disciplinary laws, particularly about marriage, fail in some cases to reveal the objective truth of their situation (e.g., the validity, or not, of the first marriage).
Second, he suggests that even in clearly non-marital situations, some people may not be fully culpable for breaking the moral law.
To those in the first case, those in ‘irregular situations’ that may approximate marriage, the Holy Father exhorts them to examine their conscience, for example, the state of their ‘first marriage’, their own level of guilt in the breakdown, who was hurt, and so on. However, they (and we) must beware that they are not justifying grave evil for the sake of some temporal good. Although the guilt in any marital separation may vary, we cannot take these words to mean that one can self-administer one’s own personal annulment (nor, on the other side, can one in the interior and secret realm of conscience ‘make’ oneself married to another). The Pope’s words here are somewhat ambiguous and easily misinterpreted, and I hope that clarification is offered to those in such situations, that they quickly seek a decision in law for the state of their new ‘union’ before joining as ‘man and wife’. We must recall that if an annulment is not an infallible decree (the marriage may still be ‘real’), far more fallible is our own hazy and rationalizing conscience.
To those in the second category, here is the rub: Adultery and
fornication are grave objective moral evils, and we are bound to avoid
them, even if it means great sacrifice or even death, as the untold
number of martyrs in the Church’s calendar attest. For these acts to be
‘mortal sins’, however, one must carry them out with full knowledge and
deliberate consent. One may therefore be ignorant of the
moral law, and the Pope quotes Saint Thomas on this in I-II, q. 94., a.
4, but Thomas is speaking principally of pagan cultures who have not had
the fullness revelation, or any revelation at all. This would be
difficult to justify in our modern era, where almost everyone has access
to the Church’s teaching, especially if they are coming to a Catholic
Church for the sacraments. [https://catholicinsight.com/conscience-and-amoris-laetitia/]
Moreover, Austen Ivereigh at Crux reviewing a book by Massimo Borghesi
called "Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Una Biografia intellettuale" which shows
that much of Francis's thinking comes from Fr. Gaston Fessard who was apparently a historicist or relativist.
Ivereigh claims that Fessard is "anti-Hegelian."
As usual, Ivereigh is wrong.
Back in 1950, Thomist Jules "Icaac was accusing Fessard of identifying
this quasi-science of thought with the science of the real order, or
metaphysics. That is what Hegel does."
"The executive function of the dialectic, as Isaac interpreted Aquinas,
uses the law of thought in a concrete instance of thinking or arguing.
Because Fessard used these laws not as laws of arguing, but as laws of
the development of historical events, he is again accused of
Hegelianism." ("Gaston Fessard S.J., His Work Toward A Theology of
History," by Mary Alice Muir, 1970, page 30)
Sadly, Fessard realized that Hegelianism is historicism or relativism.
He hoped to save Hegel's dialectic thought from relativism with his
confused twisting of Aquinas, but instead it appears that he became a
soft Hegelian historicist and relativist.
It appears that Francis is a historicist and relativist if his thinking comes from Fessard.
As the scholar Fr. Edmundus Waldstein shows this "soft" historicism,
that its proponents deny is Hegelian, but is Hegelian relativism despite
the denials, brought us subjectivist Bernard Haring's "moral" theology,
endorsed by Francis, which denies intrinsically evil acts.
Fr. Waldstein, O. Cist., at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives an overview of why Francis praised dissenter Haring and why Amoris Laetitia promotes allowing intrinsically evil acts:
"In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus,
the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a
decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative
commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now,
Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to
begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces." (Dubia and Initiating
Processes, December 7, 2016, sancrucensis.wordpress.com)
"This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy.... Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church."
This relativism it appears brought us Amoris Leatitia's "spreading of heresy" and it's denial of intrinsically evil acts such as adultery, contraception and sodomy which EWTN's World Over Fr. Gerald Murray, Josef Seifert and the Filial Correction so clearly show to be the fruits of this papal document.
Austen Ivereigh at Crux reviewed a book by Massimo Borghesi called "Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Una Biografia intellettuale" which shows that much of Francis's thinking comes from Fr. Gaston Fessard.
Ivereigh claims that Fessard is "anti-Hegelian."
As usual, Ivereigh is wrong.
Back in 1950, Thomist Jules "Icaac was accusing Fessard of identifying this quasi-science of thought with the science of the real order, or metaphysics. That is what Hegel does."
"The executive function of the dialectic, as Isaac interpreted Aquinas, uses the law of thought in a concrete instance of thinking or arguing. Because Fessard used these laws not as laws of arguing, but as laws of the development of historical events, he is again accused of Hegelianism." ("Gaston Fessard S.J., His Work Toward A Theology of History," by Mary Alice Muir, 1970, page 30)
Sadly, Fessard realized that Hegelianism is historicism or relativism.
He hoped to save Hegel's dialectic thought from relativism with his confused twisting of Aquinas, but instead it appears that he became a soft Hegelian historicist and relativist.
It appears that Francis is a historicist and relativist if his thinking comes from Fessard.
As the scholar Fr. Edmundus Waldstein shows this "soft" historicism, that its proponents deny is Hegelian, but is Hegelian relativism despite the denials, brought us subjectivist Bernard Haring's "moral" theology, endorsed by Francis, which denies intrinsically evil acts.
Fr. Waldstein, O. Cist., at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives an overview of why Francis praised dissenter Haring and why Amoris Laetitia promotes allowing intrinsically evil acts:
"In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus,
the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a
decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative
commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now,
Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to
begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces." (Dubia and Initiating
Processes, December 7, 2016, sancrucensis.wordpress.com)
"This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy.... Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church."
This relativism it appears brought us Amoris Leatitia's "spreading of heresy" and it's denial of intrinsically evil acts such as adultery, contraception and sodomy which EWTN's World Over Fr. Gerald Murray, Josef Seifert and the Filial Correction so clearly show to be the fruits of this papal document.
The relativist and nihilist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.
In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth.
The Francis considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:
"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")
De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:
"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)
Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:
"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."
"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."
"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.