Of course, Prof Seifert already wrote the definitive smackback to Fr. Chiodi on his 're-reading of Humanae Vitae in the light of Amoris Laetitia'. (That's a Bergoglian innovation in thought: to reread
an existing document in the light of something written half a century later, even if that something is a shoddy, slipshod, self-indulgent text bordering on heresy, compared to the tightly argued
orthodoxies of an encyclical that far outranks in magisterial importance a miserable third-rate post-synodal exhortation). But every worthwhile refutation and condemnation of Chiodi's Bergoglio-
servile lecture needs to be read...
Sad...but most Catholics don't care anyway...
January 9, 2018
Is it possible that Catholic progressives have successfully positioned themselves to emerge victorious in their war to dismantle Humanae Vitae and, by finally driving a stake through the document's heart, to achieve the Protestant Reformers' dream?
Some background:
o 50 years ago, Blessed Pope Paul VI declared in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, that artificial forms of birth control are intrinsically evil and,thus, their use is forbidden. The Pope did so--much to the chagrin of Catholic progressives--despite a commission recommending he do the opposite.
o Arguably, that declaration has divided the Church with progressives--perhaps constituting the majority in the industrialized West--being the most vocal not only in expressing their disdain ("the Pope has no business in my bedroom") but also in declaring the encyclical non-binding Church teaching since it has not been accepted by Catholics.
o For their part, Catholic conservatives have generally been successful in fending off these attacks, if only because Humanae Vitae has been upheld in subsequent papal teaching and its prophetic dimensions have sustained the test of time.
o In this new battle, progressive Catholics may have found support--and are arguing that they have--from none other than Pope Francis and, in particular, Chapter 8 of his 2016 post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Many commentators have focused upon Amoris Laetitia to justify the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried couples who have not received a declaration of nullity of their first bonds. But, in the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae,
progressives have found a very wide and spacious opening not only to do away with the kind of objective, scholastic morality that underpins Humanae Vitae but also to achieve their much grander and more ambitious objective: A protestantized Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Francis recently appointed one warrior in this particular battle to the Pontifical Academy for Life. He's Father Maurizio Chiodi, a professor of Moral Theology in Milan.
As reported over at LifeSiteNews.com, in a recent public lecture at Rome's (Jesuit) Pontifical Gregorian University, Fr. Chiodi argued there are "circumstances--I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8--that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception." Taking direct aim at Humanae Vitae, Chiodi argued that when “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found."
The key to Chiodi's deconstruction of Humanae Vitae is the word "responsible," the adjective introduced into the working document of the 2015 Synod on the Family. It was used to modify "parenthood"...as in "responsible parenthood."
Fr. Chiodi maintains:
...an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.
Let's be clear: This cleverly worded discourse is all about changing Church teaching concerning moral norms, conscience, and moral judgments.
Using clever twists of phrase, Catholic progressives--like Fr. Chiodi--would very much like that
existential circumstances--as intimated in his statement about "welcome and hospitality"--be used to grant exceptions which, in turn, would permit individuals to commit what Humanae Vitae called "intrinsically evil acts" but in "good" conscience.
Let's also be clear:
Most Catholics living in the US and Europe agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Chiodi. Why? They're regularly using artificial forms of birth control and don't like the Church reminding them that what they're doing is intrinsically evil. Or, as the Catholic progressive media would characterize those who conservatives who uphold Church teaching, "those who wag a sanctimonious finger of moral judgment and condemnation." They ask: "Who are you to judge?"
While Fr. Chiodi acknowledges the very important place of Humanae Vitae in in the Church's historical development,
he also appears to consider it simultaneously a relic of the past. As evidence, he cites the fact that most Catholics--not just married couples but priests, pastors, bishops, and apparently, Pope Francis--have rejected its teaching. In his lecture, Chiodi observed:
While in the 50s and 60s [the norm] was urgent for believers, now the great majority of even believing married couples live as though the norm doesn't exist. Officially and objectively the norm has remained...[but] even many pastors don't talk about it. In public, in catechesis, and in preaching, they prefer not to talk about it. In personal encounters, they maintain a very indulgent attitude when the issue is raised. And therefore, it's significant that Amoris Laetitia speaks so little about it. [Deliberately, don't you think? Why bring up a text that already you are thinking to dump, or at least savage mercilessly?]
Fr. Chiodi asserts that the reason is Pope Francis wants Catholics to think for themselves. According to Fr. Chiodi,
"...normally, the objective is identified with the moral norm known by reason and the subjective is identified with the conscience enlightened by the law." But,
the Pope has rejected this notion, arguing instead in Chapter 8 that “the relationship between objective and subjective is not a relationship between the norm known by reason and the conscience" but "between the act…and conscience."
Insofar as Fr. Chiodi is concerned, it's high time to "rethink a theory of conscience" that recovers "the original link between conscience and the moral act."
Fr. Chiodi cites Jesus as his authority, noting that "Jesus opens to the believer the possibility of acting responsibly, that is, a way of acting that responds to grace, passing through the travails of history and of evil." He adds:
“Within this perspective, moral norms are not reducible to rational objectivity but belong to human life understood as a story of salvation and grace. The norms conserve the good and instruct in the way of good. But they are historical. [Moral norms] have a symbolic and universal quality, because they point to the good to which they attest, and to the conscience which they instruct and guard. In this light, discernment is not an activity added on [but] conscience itself.
Those who disagree with Fr. Chiodi should take heart. He provides a great service by illuminating what Catholic progressives actually have in mind. All that's required is to strip the clever twists of phrase down to what they actually mean:
o "historical" connotes subject to change--in other words, "relativism";
o "conscience" connotes an ideal that is not normative for existential circumstances--in other words, "individualism"; and,
o "responsibility" connotes discerning other options that are mandated by existential circumstances--in other words, "subjectivism."
So, as Fr. Chiodi's argument can be summarized:
50 years ago, Blessed Pope Paul VI had it correct, given the times. While he taught the ideal, history has changed. Having rejected that ideal, Catholics must make responsible decisions today for themselves by discerning what their existential circumstances mandate.
Five hundred years ago, "sola scriptura" was the Protestant Reformers' battle cry. Illuminated by the Holy Spirit, all Christians needed to discern God's will responsibly was scripture and conscience, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit...not papal encyclicals, absolute moral norms, or even Magisterium.
If today's progressive Catholics prove themselves successful in their war to dismantle Humanae Vitae, will all roads lead to Protestantism?