Just a bit of chronological context: 'INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY', which became an almost-instant theological classic, was published one year before Jorge Bergoglio was ordained a priest.
ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI
From 'Amoris laetitia to heresy -
by way of Macchiavelli and masonry
Translated from
July 7, 2018
Let us get back to Amoris Laetitia. Rather, to the instructions that the bishops of the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy have derived from that apostolic exhortation. Why? Because the instructions contain a grave heresy!
And it’s not I who say it, since I am not competent in this, but don Alfredo Morselli, indomitable priest and theologian from Bologna who has dedicated diligent study to AL and now to the document from the bishops of his region.
Calling himself a ‘backwoods theologian’, don Alfredo has no polemical intentions, but simply wishes to unmask the heresy. In the essay that we shall proceed to examine (the original may be read in its entirety here –
https://cooperatores-veritatis.org/2018/07/06/leresia-del-teleologismo-dagli-antichi-traci-alle-indicazioni-dei-vescovi-dellemilia-romagna/).
He ends up concluding that the bishops’ document has statements that come straight out of Macchiavelli and masonic thought, but he does not accuse the bishops of being heretics, masons or followers of Macchiavelli. His intention, as he himself says, is “to put a flea in their ears” so they may reflect on the logical consequences that some of their statements have - consequences which, he charitably concedes, would be well beyond the bishops’ intentions.
So he writes:
In the Instructions regarding Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, published in the name of the Bishops fo Emilia-Romagna, are found statements that are unacceptable to every good Christian. Particularly Paragraph 9 which says:
“Discernment on conjugal relationships, the possibility of living together as ‘brother and sister’ in order to be able to go to confession and receive communion, is contemplated in Footnote 329 of AL. This teaching, which the Church has always imparted and which was confirmed in the Magisterium in Familiaris consortio 84, must be presented with prudence, in the context of an educational pathway aimed at recognizing the vocation of the body and the value of chastity in various states of life. This choice is not considered the only one possible, in that the new union and therefore, even the good of the children from that union, could be at risk in the absence of conjugal relations. It is a delicate matter for discernment in that internal forum which AL refers to in Par. 300”.
At first reading, this paragraph may seem to be nothing but a product of common sense and a spirit of mercy. But don Alfredo points out why not:
“First of all, [it is wrong] to refer to the sexual relations between the two partners [of an irregular union] as conjugal relations, and then, the expression ‘vocation of the body’ is used rather loosely. [In Catholic theology],the union between a man and a woman is a symbol of Christ’s union with the Church, and corporality is called on to realize this image, But it is not possible that the most faithful spousal relationship possible (that between Christ and his Church) could even be remotely set alongside an adulterous relationship.
In the third place, it is affirmed that a certain benefit (the education of the children from the adulterous union) could be put at risk when a sin (adulterous sexual relations) is not committed, as if to say that a sin could really be an act of love!
In the fourth place, the instructions unduly refer the discernment of the partners to the internal forum (the confessional) about an act which is intrinsically and therefore always evil – when, in fact, a) the word discernment is correctly used only when referring to making a choice between two good acts, not between a virtuous act and a sin; and b) no sin can be authorized, neither in the internal forum nor externally (cfr Veritatis splendor, 56).
As you can see, so many errors in just a few lines.
[The entire criticism really points back to AL since the passage cited from the bishops' statement seems to have been lifted verbatim from the text of that accursed document!]
And which is the error from which all the rest derive from? Don Alfredo says:
It seems to me it is the heresy that John Paul II called teleologism”, i.e., a heresy that practices and perpetuates the excuse that ‘the end justifies the means’ and which the pope-saint described with precision in Veritatis splendor 75 when he wrote about ‘consequentialism’ (in which the criteria for defending the rightness of a chosen mode of conduct are derived only from calculating the consequences one foresees arising from making the choice) and of ‘proportionalism’ (which is weighing the ratio between the good and bad effects of a given situation, with a view to determining the ‘greater good’ or the’ lesser evil’).
It is easy to verify that in the document of the Emilia-Romagna bishops, in don Alfredo’s words, “acts that are always illegal – namely conjugal relations between unmarried persons – are allowed towards the end of “not putting the new union and the good of the children at risk”, which precisely constitute consequentialism and proportionalism.
St John Paul II is clear when he explains in VS,
If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.”
Her goes on to cite St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, who had explained very well that intrinsically evil and sinful acts do not become good and not sinful if they are dome with ‘good intentions”.
And how do Macchiavelli and Masonry come in?
We begin with Macchiavelli. As everyone knows, the saying “the end justifies the means" is attributed to him, and he says very clearly in
The Prince: Whoever aims at the acquisition and maintenance of power looks only at his ends and is only preoccupied by what he wishes to achieve.
Don Alfredo introduces a playful but eloquent comment. First, he cites Macchiavelli, then shows how the thinking of that founder of modern political science can be perfectly applied to the bishops’ document.
Macchiavelli:
"And you have to understand that a prince, especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things by which a man is considered good, being often required – in order to maintain his power - to work against humanity, against charity, against religion. So he must have a spirit willing to turn according how the winds and vagaries of fortune command him to do to the fact that the winds and the variations of fortune command him; and, as I said above, do not start from the good, being able to do so, but know how to get into the evil if you have to”.
Bishops:
You have to understand that a couple of remarried divorcees cannot observe all those things whereby, according to Paul VI and John Paul II, spouses are considered good, since they are often required – in order to maintain their new union, to work against chastity. But this couple must have a spirit willing to turn wherever the particular situation commands them; and as I said above, do not start from the good, being able to do so, but know how to get into the evil if you have to”.
Machiavelli: "Therfore make the Prince accountable for living to maintain the State: the means will always be judged honorable and praised by everyone”.
Bishops:
“Therefore let a couple of civilly remarried divorcees be accountable for living to maintain their union: the means will always be judged honorable and praised by everyone”.
Macchiavelli was motivated by a profound pessimism about man. Not knowing what grace is, he saw in many only the need to adhere to evil (“it would be nice of all men were all good, but that is not the case and never will be”). The same pessimism is found in the new morality, which ignoring divine Providence and grace, is always focused on fallen human nature,
as though holiness, which is beautiful in itself, were alas, not pursuable – which is a great offense to God, who not only asks holiness from all of us, but concedes it to everyone, in every situation, providing us with the means to to achieve it.
And now about masonry.
The Macchiavellian slogan “Tne end justifies the means” is found in its more ancient form,
exitus acta probat (The result justifies the deed) [from Ovid’s
Ars amatoria], on the family coat of arms of George Washington who became a Mason in 1752, later a Master, then Venerable Master and finally a Grand Master of the Masonic Order.
And why would a mason choose that motto? Because it is incompatible with objective morality, namely, one that presupposes absolute values. As don Alfredo explains:
For masons, as for neo-modernist Catholics, who lack ultimately objective criteria to weight the morality of an action, the only possible measure is the outcome if the act itself. But the consequences of such an attitude are disastrous because, following it, then everything becomes permissible and legitimized.
“That which establishes the moral value of an act,” don Alfredo writes, “is not its outcome but the answer to the question, 'In this act, am I realizing the image of God?'
Acts that are intrinsically evil are not deductions by philosophers but acts in the commission of which man would never conform himself to to the concrete Truth which is Jesus himself”.
John Paul II:
“Circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act "subjectively" good or defensible as a choice. Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is "not capable of being ordered" to God and "unworthy of the human person" are always and in every case in conflict with that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression. (VS, 81-82)
We come to the conclusion.
The Church has always taught that sometimes it is licit to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, but she has never taught that it is licit to do evil out of which good might come. And if we Catholics should ever come to sustain such a position, then we must really ask ourselves whether we are still Catholic.
Don Alfredo says that if Cardinal Caffarra were still alive
[he was Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna], this pastoral instruction would never have been issued. But in the absence of that courageous cardinal who passed away last year, we now have the ‘backwoods theologian’ who inherited his moral theology from Caffarra, along with, as he himself is the first to say, “love for the Holy Father and fidelity to the Magisterium”.
“Therefore I entrust what I have written to the judgment of the Church,” don Alfredo says, “and will consider everything retracted that is contrary to what she teaches us to believe. Did I err by writing this? Then, punish me because ‘whoever fails to use the stick hates his child; whoever is free with correction loves him”
(Proverbs 15,31). Finally, I entrust this writing to the Most Blessed Mary, Exzterminatrix of all heresies, as we await the inevitable triumph of her Immaculate Heart”.
My final comment:
John Paul II was canonized by the reigning pope but what is happening to his teachings?
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/07/2018 06:34]