Is it possible Francis's Death Penalty Tactical Game is for more Abortions & "Negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY... a Game of explicit & overt Negation of the NATURAL LAW"?

Francis appears to have a game plan that includes the tactic of precise unambiguous language.

The old plan was to use ambiguous language to allow sexual intrinsically evil acts.

In this plan, Francis is saying the death penalty is an intrinsically evil act in precise unambiguous language, it appears, to possibly negate natural moral law.

Dr. Joseph Shaw at the Lifesitenew and S. Armaticus at the Deus Machina blog made the same observation on Francis's newer language:

-Shaw: "The Pope speaks in this address with a level of technical precision not always to be found in his remarks.'

-Armaticus: "Since May, the 'literary construct' used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity.'

If what Dr. Shaw, Armaticus and Dr. Deward Feser are saying below is true then the new plan is to possibly bring about more abortions while claiming to be pro-life and negate objective truth as well as natural moral law. Fr. Edmundus Waldstein, O.Cist.,at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives a overview before we get the Shaw, Feser and Armaticus :

"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, in a ambiguous way, 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.

The bigger agenda of Cardinal Kasper and Haring (besides allowing intrinsically evil acts), which Francis may or may not understand, is a Hegelian philosophic idealistic subjective metaphysics of historical becoming which denies the eternal and/or objective truths of the Classical Greek/Thomistic metaphysics of being.

Waldstein, O. Cist., explains:

"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."

"I call this sort of historicism “soft” since its proponents would not all be willing to affirm the dark core of Hegel’s account of the good. But by adopting historicist terms they tend to draw conclusions that imply the basically subjectivist, modern account of the good, and the account of freedom that follows from it. Thomas Stark has shown how these problems play out in the theology of Cardinal Kasper." [https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/#more-5361]

What happens when you reject the objective truth of Thomism and common sense is you negate natural moral law.

Dr. Joseph Shaw shows how "conservative" moral Catholic theorists such as Germain Grisez who reject Thomism for Kantian philosophy play into the abortionist game plan and the apparent new Vatican plan.

In an LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Francis Dr. Joseph Shaw explains how the Pope has aligned with Grisez:

Francis speaks in this address with a level of technical precision not always
to be found in his remarks. He says:

'It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a
human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which –
ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.'

This logically implies that the 'willful suppression of life' in self-defence and war is also always and everywhere ruled out.

This aligns his position with that made famous by the American theologian Prof
Germain Grisez (who, as a matter of fact, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis
protesting about the undermining of the teaching of the Church on marriage, with his longstanding collaborator Prof John Finnis). Grisez argues that warfare is morally possible if we think of soldiers not intending to kill, but intending to incapacitate.

This raises the question of whether Pope Francis or his collaborators would like at
some point to take advantage of another implication of Grisez’s position. Grisez’s
view is that it is intrinsically wrong to intend to take a life, and that this is always
wrong (even in a just war). On the other hand, it would be permissible to remove anon-viable fetus from the womb, if the intention was not to kill but to remove the fetus from the womb for the sake of the mother’s health. Indeed, to facilitate this removal, it would be permissible to cut the fetus into pieces first.
(See Germain Grisez ‘Towards a consistent Natural-Law ethics of killing’ American Journal of Jurisprudence 15 (1970) p4; cf. Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) p311)

This view was condemned by Pope St John Paul II in Evangelium vitae 62 (cf. §§40,
60, 63). It should be emphasised that Grisez and his collaborators accepted the
position of Evangelium vitae as binding on Catholics.

The condemnation of the death penalty in all circumstance could be part of a
strategy to adopt this understanding of a consistent pro-life ethic. While it looks at
first like a very strong ‘pro-life’ position, it allows so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’, and
adopting it would enable the Church to make an enormous concession to the
practice of abortion.

Is should be noted that the great majority of abortions are carried out under the
justification of the ‘health of the mother’, whether physical or mental, and while
Grisez would insist that few could be truly justified on his theory, it would not be easy
for legislators to distinguish which were and which were not. The practical result of
adopting this approach would be the end of the Catholic campaign against legal
abortion, and the resolution of the confrontation between the Church and the world on this most explosive of issues.

In short, the implications for the pro-life movement would be catastrophic.
(LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Pope Francis with Dr.
Joseph Shaw, Oxford professor.
October 20, 2017)

Philosopher Edward Feser explains in the article "Live Action, lying, and natural law" why Grisez's theology is "incompatible with biblical revelation, traditional Catholic moral teachings and traditional natural law":

The answer, in my view, is that the project of the “new natural lawyers” is inherently deeply unstable. The point of the theory from its inception has been to provide an alternative philosophical foundation for Catholic moral teaching, especially concerning sexuality.

But it is very difficult – I would say impossible – to defend traditional sexual morality without treating biological facts as normative. And that requires attributing to biological phenomena essences in virtue of which they point inherently to certain ends; that is to say, it requires attributing to them something like Aristotelian formal and final causes. Hence references to “acts of the reproductive type,” to “the language of the body,” and the like keep finding their way into the arguments of “new natural lawyers” – language which seems at best metaphorical and at worst unintelligible unless understood as a roundabout way of referring to the formal and final causes of biological phenomena.

Yet writers like Grisez and Finnis, officially committed as they are to the Humean “fact/value distinction,” have for decades been badmouthing traditional Scholastic natural law theorists for committing the so-called “naturalistic fallacy” in grounding ethics in Aristotelian metaphysics. The attempt of the “new natural lawyers” to square this circle – to smuggle in a bit of disguised Aristotelianism after all, under the Humean radar – results in obscurantism and incoherence.

The results of the “Grinnis” approach are in some cases not only obscure, but decidedly untraditional. For example, “new natural lawyers” often hold, not only that it is better not to impose the death penalty (something many Catholic moralists have held over the centuries, Pope John Paul II being the most famous example), but that the death penalty is always and intrinsically immoral – a claim that is simply incompatible with biblical revelation, traditional Catholic moral teaching, and traditional natural law theory. (Tollefsen and I debated this issue several years ago when we were co-bloggers at the now defunct Right Reason group blog. You can find his statement of his position here and my reply here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine.)

Tollefsen’s conflation of lying and deception is of a piece with his conflation of intentional killing and murder. And just as the latter conflation implies a kind of quasi-pacifism – Grisez and Co. hold that it is wrong even in a defensive war ever to intend to kill attacking enemy soldiers (one may in their view at most foresee and allow their deaths as an unintended side-effect) – so too the former conflation implies a radical restriction on “practices of undercover work, espionage work, and other forms of journalistic, police, and governmental work,” as Tollefsen acknowledges in a reply to Kaczor.

Tollefsen does not elaborate, but it seems likely that he would have to condemn as “unloving” many deceptive practices that do not involve lying and which have been considered justifiable by traditional natural law theorists and Catholic moralists. (In fairness to Tollefsen, he does tell us in another follow-up article that he thinks that certain methods employed by police in infiltrating gangs and busting drug dealers can be justifiable. He does not tell us, though, whether all of the kinds of broad mental reservation and evasion allowed by traditional natural law theory are sufficiently “loving” or conducive to the “unity” of the “inner self” with one’s “appearance in the world.”)

Hence, though the “new natural law” position is commonly regarded as conservative (and in some of its applications is conservative), it leads in other cases to what Tollefsen has called “liberal and progressive” outcomes, and certainly to outcomes that depart from traditional Catholic and natural law teaching. My own view is that these outcomes and the novel premises they are based on are philosophically and theologically highly dubious – and pastorally unwise too, leading as they do (in the ethics of killing and deception, as we have seen here, but in other areas too) to a kind of otherworldly rigorism.

One of the great achievements of the Scholastics was to provide an Aristotelian corrective to the Platonic austerity of earlier writers, leading moral theology in a more sober, humane, and realistic direction. It is no surprise that the “new natural lawyers,” in abandoning an Aristotelian metaphysics of human nature, have in some respects returned to something like the rigorism of the earlier writers.

In any event, it is important to emphasize that their novel conclusions are applications of Grisezism rather than of Thomism, traditional natural law theory, or traditional Catholic moral theology.

[For criticism of the “Grinnis” school from the point of view of traditional natural law theory, see: chapter 5 of my Aquinas; David Oderberg’s paper “The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law”; the first edition of Ralph McInerny’s Ethica Thomistica and chapter 9 of his Aquinas on Human Action; Anthony Lisska’s Aquinas’s Theory of Natural Law; Henry Veatch’s “Natural Law and the ‘Is’-‘Ought’ Question,” in Swimming Against the Current in Contemporary Philosophy; and Russell Hitinger’s A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory. Chapter 5 of Aquinas also contains a general defense of traditional natural law theory; and for a defense of the traditional natural law approach to sexual morality in particular, see chapter 4 of my The Last Superstition.]

(Click to read whole article:http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/live-action-lying-and-natural-law.html?m=1)

At The Deus Ex Machina Blog, S. Armaticus in "From 'Pseudosacral Homopoetic Prose' To Transrational Brutalism And How We Got Here" S. Armaticus explains what may be the end game plan of those who are prepping Pope Francis in using precise unambiguous language:

Since May, the “literary construct” used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity to the following:

“On the contrary, traditionalist ideology has a faith like this [the pope makes a gesture of putting on earmuffs]. “The benediction should be done like this. In Mass, fingers should be like this, with gloves, like before …” What Vatican II has done with the liturgy has been something truly grand, because it has opened worship of God to the people. Now the people participate.”

This latter passage is from the Vox Cantorix blog post titled Of Bergoglian earmuffs and socks, and appeared on the 4th of September, 2017.

So as we can observe is that over the span of 3 1/2 months, Francis the bishop of Rome has gone from using cryptic and enigmatic “literary constructs” to express a “certain thought”, to using outright clear and precise verbiage to express that same “certain thought”.

Aside, the latter construct is not very Jesuitical, if I do say do myself… Reason being that the latter “literary construct”, i.e. “traditionalist ideology” is a very precise term.

Come to think of it, the expression “traditionalist ideology” is as specific and as precise and as understandable as anything that one can come across, when going through the various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments of Francis, i.e the Francis “magisterium”.

Actually, this “literary construct” is as precise and definitive as say… oh… this passage below is precise and definitive:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Now you can’t get any more precise and clear and definitive than the above, now can you?

Which brings me to the subject matter at hand.

If one were to hear the expression “traditionalist ideology”, one might be excused if one experiences a feeling of cognizant dissonance. Yes, it is an oxymoron. One cause for the above could be due to reading the many posts about what constitutes an IDEOLOGY on this blog. But I digress…

So in an attempt to combat the dissonance, one might do a word search on a random search engine (hint: DuckDuckGo) and find the term IDEOLOGY defined as follows:

Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has.

Now in our case, we would be referring to Catholic society.

So drilling down into the definition, we notice the term “normative beliefs”. Here is what we would find if we follow the links:

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.

Which leads to the question of where do “norms”, or to be more precise, “moral norms” come from?

In Catholic Society, “moral norms” originate from two sources, namely: as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and as known through “divine revelation.”

So naturally, something that is known as a “norm” would be closely associated with an underlying “law” from which that norm originated. Now, when I use the term “law” I am speaking in a very general case.

In the specific Catholic sense, the origin of the law is defined as follows: (see here)

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”

So from the above, it is plainly obvious that any “moral norm” must originate in Natural Moral Law which originated in God and was divinely revealed by His Son.

Which then begs the question, how does one get from:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 [emphasis added] (see here)?

The obvious answer is: one can’t.

So the question that is in need of an answer is: by what thought process can one get from A to B, given that both cannot be correct? I.e. they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive positions.

The answer is that this circle can only be “squared” by a POST-MODERNIST thought process. Here is another short video that sets the proper CONTEXT for the above. When viewing this, think about how closely Dr. Peterson comes to explaining the phenomenon of Francis, bishop of Rome.

And the reason that the POST-MODERNIST thought process can explain this logical contradiction is that…

…the post-Modernists to some degree, because their in-coherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic.

So what’s the point of this exercise and why am I beating this POST-MODERNIST dead horse again? Where is the “newness” you dear reader might be asking right about now?

The “newness” of the above has to be the “novelty”, in Jesuitical terms, whereby a pathological, consummate and seemingly incorrigible Jesuit is now using clear, precise and specific language to argue his position.

Yes, he is using the term IDEOLOGY!

And please ignore the fact that that word doesn’t mean what Francis thinks it means.

So the point of the above 1500 or so words, is to NOTE that this new game being played, is no longer a game based on a sleight of hand nor nuance nor even acts of omission. The game now being played presently is one of negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is a game of explicit and overt negation of the NATURAL LAW and it’s source NATURAL MORAL LAW.
(Click for whole article: https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/from-pseudosacral-homopoetic-prose-to-transrational-brutalism-and-how-we-got-here/0)

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html

- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

"I love Cardinal Burke, but I've run out of patience": A Vatican expert who has met Francis & wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monitor an impassioned statement for Cardinal Burke & the faithful bishops: End the Bergoglio Borgata

Catholic Conclave @cathconclave @Pontifex thanks journalists for practicing omertà. The mind boggles at the scale of the possible coverups that this has enabled. How does he think a use victims feel when hearing this statement Quote Damian Thompson @holysmoke · Jan 22 Incredible! Pope Francis lets the cat out of the bag, thanking Vatican correspondents for their "silence" and therefore helping him conceal the scandals of his pontificate. Take a bow, guys! 8:23 AM · Jan 22, 2024 · 345 Views The moral crisis and "doctrinal anarchy" as Vatican expert Edward Pentin and others have written about in the Church caused by Francis has reached the breaking point where all faithful Catholics must pray for and demand that Cardinal Raymond Burke and the faithful bishops issue the correction and investigate if Francis is a n invalidly elected anti-pope . That is the purpose of this post. A Vatican expert who has met Francis and wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monit

The Catholic Monitor

Search This Blog

Is it possible Francis's Death Penalty Tactical Game is for more Abortions & "Negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY... a Game of explicit & overt Negation of the NATURAL LAW"?

Philosopher Edward Feser explains in the article "Live Action, lying, and natural law" why Grisez's theology is "incompatible with biblical revelation, traditional Catholic moral teachings and traditional natural law":

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden"

"I love Cardinal Burke, but I've run out of patience": A Vatican expert who has met Francis & wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monitor an impassioned statement for Cardinal Burke & the faithful bishops: End the Bergoglio Borgata

Fr. Chad Ripperger's Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) & Binding Prayer ("In the Name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, and by the power of the Most Holy Catholic Church of Jesus, I render all spirits impotent...")