BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

I'm two weeks late with this translation but no matter. In this Bergoglian era of the Church, it is really timeless in the sense that it is always topical. Because it is a sign of our time, specifically, of the time in the Church that has followed the publication of what I can only think of as the exhortation from Hell. Valli uses the word subjectivism rather than relativism, but it's all the same.

And the infamous AL, which was published in April 2016, 11 years since Cardinal Ratzinger unforgettably decried the dictatorship of relativism in a historic homily the day before he would be elected pope, constitutes the very embodiment of that relativism – unleashed with full deliberation by his successor.

What Valli cites here is one of the most objectionable takehome messasges from AL, articulated in this case in a pamphlet distributed to Italian parishioners on Sundays - ostensibly, as Valli points out, with the 'nihil obstat' of some bishop, who did not have to issue it formally since he did not think it was required at all. After all, a printed aid to the propers of the day's Mass is surely 'nihil obstat' (i.e., 'nothing stands in the way' of its publication because nothing in its content could possibly be objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds).

Until and unless subversive material such as that analyzed by Valli here is piggybacked onto the content of the Mass as if it were all of one piece. Then the responsible bishop is patently derelict in his duty, even if in his own mind, he is merely facilitating the dissemination of 'an important message from the pope', no matter that such message is subversive of the faith.

A hymn to subjectivism in the Mass booklet
given out in Italian parishes on July 9
by Aldo Maria Valli
Translated from his blog
July 12, 2017

Last Sunday, July 9, in Rome – and I think in all other Italian churches celebrating the Roman rite – the booklet La Domenica (Sunday) was handed out to the faithful, containing the readings of the day and the principal prayers of the Mass to help them follow the rite.

In general, the last four pages of this pamphlet are devoted to discussions of topical issues, and in this issue, there was an article about Amoris laetitia. But it was a text that raised many questions for me and left me quite perplexed.

After a first rapid reading, I said to myself: "What the hell is written here? Is it possible such things could be written?" Since it was day of torrid heat, I blamed myself and my heat-induced lethargy, but later after reading and rereading it, and feeling even more disconcerted with each reading, I decided it was not because of the heat.

Right under the title, "First conscience, then the rules" (in itself a highly problematic statement, to which I shall return later), we find this first statement: "Among the four words which translate the profound meaning of the exhortation Amoris laetitia – namely, welcome, accompaniment, discernment and integration – discernment merits a more attentive consideration".

I thought that soon after there would be some reflection on the meaning of discernment. Discernment to arrive at what? Discernment guided by whom, and how? But nothing of all that. What is proposed instead is an affirmation that is as peremptory as it is undemonstrated, which is, that "by resorting to this choice, Pope Francis meant to grant to Christian families a warrant of their maturity in the faith".

What does that mean? What exactly does it mean that by resorting to 'discernment', the pope is granting Christian families, in effect, a license attesting to their maturity in the faith? Should not the pope seek to link families and individuals to divine law? Granted that it is so – that the pope wants to grant Christian families this phantom license on the basis of an undefined discernment, to what end? We do not know. [The end is, of course and in effect, what we might call self-absolution from all sin, without need of going to confession, and therefore, being able to decide for oneself that one is in the required state of grace to receive communion.]

I continue reading and I find the next concept: "Indeed, for discernment, personal commitment is needed, much more than the rules. Because discernment, which adapts itself to the concrete situation of the discerning individual, is more demanding than rules. Every person has his 'own' situation. To think of setting any 'rules' applicable to as many situations experienced by persons in their relationships would mean to enter into an inextricable tangle that is as risky as it is unjust".

I re-read this passage more than any of the rest. And I felt my face, already contorted by the heat, turn into a giant question mark. Therefore, I seem to understand, discernment, whatever it means, depends not on rules but on a personal commitment. What commitment? What kind of commitment? To get where? To do what? But it's all a fog. Yet, the conclusion is categorical: this undefined 'personal commitment' is more important than divine law, better than what God himself teaches us for the good of the human being.

And what to say of the statement that since every person lives in his own situation, to even think of establishing rules that would apply to every conceivable situation would mean entering into an 'inextricable tangle that is as risk as it is unjust"?

What the text seems to say is that any single situation cannot be regulated, but only observed through the lens of discernment. Thus we are in what is called situational ethics, characterized by the fact that any judgment made about the decisions made by a person is not based on a universal truth expressed in a law, but on the basis on how each single situation is experienced by the subject who is its protagonist.

Which is, to call it what it is, sheer subjectivism. It is not divine law, universal and binding, which determines what is good or bad, but the conscience of the subject. Even worse, we are told that if a universal law is applied, it would not be just. On the contrary, it would lead to injustice.

This first conclusion, from the Catholic point of view, is in itself unacceptable. But there is more, because shortly after, we read: "In fact, in Amoris laetitia, the pope has not done that". Has not done what? He has not entered that jungle which is as risky as it is unjust, which is the universal law of God. Rather, he has embraced situational ethics, that is to say, subjectivism, which is ultimately, relativism. And this is supposed to be a good thing. If words have any meaning, this is what we are told in the La Domenica pamphlet distributed in our parishes. Let us take note. Now we come to how it ends.

"Personal discernment is more respectful but also more demanding. Rules are more convenient, discernment is more severe. God does not expect from us goodness in general but that good which represents what is best for us in any given situation, in the light of our relationships. Therefore, the maximum good possible, which can be realized only through discernment".

In what sense would personal discernment be more respectful than law is? More respectful, it seems to mean here, means more understanding. But are we sure that by being more understanding be are more respectful? Is one more respectful when one is more tolerant, more flexible, less bound by the truth? Or, on the contrary, is one more respectful when one takes the law as a binding reference point with the certainty that God means it for our good?

As for the idea that a rule would be more convenient or easy, whereas discernment would be more severe, once again we must ask: what does that mean?
- In which way would a rule or a law be more convenient?
- Should we conclude that the good God, with his ten Commandments, chose to take the most convenient path, the easy path?
- Would it have been better if he had been inconvenient and added multiple provisos that could be used for every single situation?

And what does it mean that God does not expects goodness in general from us, but only what is best for us in a certain situation?
- Does this mean that objective good does not exist, only subjective good?
- But if objective good does not exist, how would we know what is good or what is bad in a given situation? What would be the basis for our choice?
Again, the conclusion we are led to is that only the subjective experience matters, which is good in and of itself, beyond any objective norm and every objective universal law. Which is to say, man is his own god. Which means man does not need God.

Now let's read the last lines: "The rigorous application of the law invokes instead the concept of the 'least possible evil', the same pharisaic attitude as in 'I respect the Sabbath, and I am at peace'..But the Gospel does not say that".

But why would applying the law invoke the concept of the 'least possible evil'? In what sense?
- So the good God, when he handed down the tables of the law, did not have what was good for his creatures in mind but rather 'the least possible evil'?
- Therefore our Holy Mother Church, in teaching the truth and applying divine law, will settle for the least possible evil rather than seek the salvation of every man?
- And why should applying the law lead to pharisaic behavior?
- If pharisaic, as implied here, means hypocritical, should we conclude that those who have truth at heart, and therefore respect universal law that is binding on everyone, are necessarily hypocrites and therefore, impostors?

The text ends in a peremptory statement: "But the Gospel does not say so". Really?
- What does the Gospel say, which is, what does Jesus say?
- Does it not say that "whom God has put together, let no man put asunder"?
- Does it not say "and the two shall beone flesh"?
- Does it not say "Go and sin no more?"
- Does it not warn "anyone who would violate any one of these precepts"?
- Does it not say "Go and teach all peoples", or does it say "Go and discern case by case"?

Let us get back to the title: "First conscience, then the rules". If we consider conscience an absolute, and we do not speak of a conscience that is formed through the Word of God and divine law bound to truth, we end up in subjectivism. Is this what our holy Mother Church teaches today? [No, it is not our Church that teaches this apostasy – it is the church of Bergoglio.]

A text like the one we have just analyzed would be worthy of publication In the Bulletin of the Association of Inveterate Subjectivists (don't worry, it does not exist, I invented it to make a point), but to find a pamphlet like La Domenica distributed in thousands of parishes through Italy with the effective 'nihil obstat' of the bishops of the land, leaves me appalled.

"First conscience, then the rules" – the title led me back to something else. Of course, Blessed John Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk comes to mind, in which the great convert to Catholicism said that, in a hypothetical after-dinner toast, he would drink to the pope, but first he would drink to conscience and then to the pope.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Ratzinger explained very well in commenting on that famous line, Newman was certainly not breaking a lance in favor of subjectivism when he spoke of conscience, he meant a conscience enlightened by Revelation and therefore by divine law. Newman was not advocating a subjectivism that affirms itself, but the way of obedience to objective truth because, still using the words of Ratzinger, "conscience has value, dignity and power only by being bound to the truth, to God".

In short, "First conscience, then the rules" simply makes no sense to a Catholic. Because conscience, in order not to fall victim to a self-referential subjectivity, needs the truth, therefore, law, therefore rules.

Then after thinking of Newman explained by Ratzinger, I was reminded of the hypopedic method described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. What does it have to do with all this, you ask.

Hypnopedia is a technique which consists in administering auditory stimuli to a sleeping subject such that the ideas transmitted are unconsciously and deeply assimilated. In Huxley's distopic novel, hypnopedia is employed by the political regime so that its subjects could internalize slogans useful to the regime, and, of course, sheer repetition of the slogans did not include any explanation because the purpose was to condition the minds, not allow rational adherence.

Now try to repeat continuously: "Welcome, accompany, discern, integrate". Don't get tired. Let it become like a Tibetan mantra. See? Bravo! Go on ….

"Welcome, accompany, discern and integrate!" Don’t ask why and wherefore. Do not be distracted by the question of meaning. Just repeat it – that's all. Let yourself be ravished by the sound – so beautiful, so good, so politically and ecclesiastically correct.

Then add "First conscience, then the rules". Again and again. Let yourself be lulled. Don't think. Free your mind.

"Welcome, accompany, discern, integrate. First conscience, then the rules". Don't ask questions. Questions have become useless. Meaning is no longer important. What matters is the sound alone.

Done? Very well, brothers, welcome to the New Church.

P.S. The author of the article I referred to is a journalist, a colleague whom I know and esteem. I wish to reiterate my friendship and esteem, but truly, I cannot understand how he could have written what he wrote. We have reached a state of confusion that is far more than just concerning…

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/07/2017 12:22]