Does Francis's Lie that "The True Thomism is that of Amoris laetitia" promote Intrinsically Evil Acts?
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."
"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."
(National Catholic Register, "Is 'Amoris Laetitia' Really Thomistic?," December 16, 2016) - The Catholic Monitor
Pope Francis "The true Thomism is that of Amoris laetitia ... - YouTube
Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) / Twitter
https://twitter.com › catholicsat:
Pope Francis "The true Thomism is that of Amoris laetitia ... - YouTube
The true Thomism is that of Amoris laetitia. ... May 13. Hope is springs eternal, but to quote Pope Francis' abiding maxim “reality is greater than ideas”.
"Victor
Manuel Fernandez's concrete reasoning... in pp. 158 and 160 of his
paper... [leads to] 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)
Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows the connection with the denial of the intrinsically evil act of condom use and contraception to sodomy.
"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no... spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."
Why is 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 apparently above average intelligent Francis totally understands and agrees with his close personal theologian 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?
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.
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."
"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 Francis's situation ethics is spreading heresy.
(National Catholic Register, "Is 'Amoris Laetitia' Really Thomistic?," December 16, 2016)
The Filial Correction give similar evidence to show how and why Francis's situation ethics is spreading heresy.
So far, all the Filial Correction attackers, the Francis'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."
"Indeed:
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."
"Indeed:
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:
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.
Again, in simple words, Amoris Laetitia says God wills intrinsically evil acts which brings us to Haring's influence on the current Pope.
Fr. Edmundus 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)
Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for
Catholic Culture.com said anyone who would praise Haring "as one of the
first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century
must be ignorant, confused, or subversive."
In the beginning of the post, titled "Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent," Mirus said:
"Pope Francis praised...Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first
to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican
Council."
The article presented some of the moral theologian's dissenting heretical teachings:
"In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization,
contraception and artificial insemination...According to Haring, under
difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which
leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts."
The Kasper proposal agenda which became Amoris Laetitia is in
significant segments about allowing intrinsically evil acts such as
adultery and implicitly homosexuality. Fr. Z said at his website on
April 16, 2016:
"'Homosexuality' was the bigger issue with the Kasperites... This is still the Kasperite strategy."
The Kasper agenda and Amoris Laetitia's unavoidable logic is:
It follows that if unrepentant adulterers can receive Holy Communion,
then unrepentant homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too. Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
Fr. Edmundus 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)
Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for
Catholic Culture.com said anyone who would praise Haring "as one of the
first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century
must be ignorant, confused, or subversive."
In the beginning of the post, titled "Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent," Mirus said:
"Pope Francis praised...Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first
to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican
Council."
The article presented some of the moral theologian's dissenting heretical teachings:
"In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization,
contraception and artificial insemination...According to Haring, under
difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which
leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts."
The Kasper proposal agenda which became Amoris Laetitia is in
significant segments about allowing intrinsically evil acts such as
adultery and implicitly homosexuality. Fr. Z said at his website on
April 16, 2016:
"'Homosexuality' was the bigger issue with the Kasperites... This is still the Kasperite strategy."
The Kasper agenda and Amoris Laetitia's unavoidable logic is:
It follows that if unrepentant adulterers can receive Holy Communion,
then unrepentant homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.