Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in The Fatima Crusader, Issue #117 (2016), pp. 38-46, and has been slightly altered for this online publication. We remind the reader that Mr. Vennari wrote this in 2016 and, ten years later, all can see that his warnings are being proved true.
Catholic Morality Dismantled
This new approach (see part one) effectively destroys true Catholic moral theology. Situation Ethics cannot be admitted in one instance and not in others. Once situation ethics is granted in one area, it undermines the reality of moral absolutes in every area, and all morality is cast into a state of subjectivist flux.
Likewise, in the case of opening the sacraments to those living in sin: once it is permitted to divorced and civilly remarried because of varying “concrete circumstances,” and once the situation determines moral action, we can expect cohabitating couples and even homosexuals to claim a right to the Eucharist in light of their varied circumstances. [Note: This is happening everywhere within the Catholic Church today!]
Chicago’s own Cardinal-designate, Archbishop Blase Cupich, stated publicly in October 2015 that he would give Holy Communion to a practicing homosexual who came to the conclusion in his conscience that he is free to receive the Eucharist, without Confession and abandoning his homosexual lifestyle.
Tragically, this same Archbishop Cupich was appointed by Pope Francis to be on a key bishop-making panel in the Vatican. Francis will also elevate Cupich to the dignity of Cardinal in the Consistory of November 19, 2016.
Once moral absolutes are abandoned in the area of the divorced and “remarried” being admitted to the Eucharist, then moral absolutes will go on to be abandoned in other areas, such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia, medical ethics, just war, surrogate parenting, and the list goes on.
With universal, binding, immutable norms of morality discarded, the practice of what we do becomes an alleged “discernment” based on the concrete circumstances of the individual, or even the gut-instincts of the individual.
What about Natural Law?
Natural Law, which determines morality based on the intrinsic nature of the act, and on the nature of man himself, is the genuine ethic of the Church and common sense. It is taught within the tried-and-true realism of scholastic philosophy and theology; and as St. Pius X warned in Pascendi, Modernists despise scholasticism – the categories, the clear distinctions that allow for no wiggle room. Liberals live in a climate of ambiguity. They hate scholastic precision of language.
Likewise, Natural Law has always been the sworn enemy of situation ethics, as it insists there are certain acts that are intrinsically disordered, and no set of circumstances can justify committing them.
Not surprisingly, Francis’ Amoris Laetitia undermines Natural Law, claiming that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions.” (#305)
In other words, Natural Law is only at the level of “inspiration” that one may take or leave as the individual works out his “deeply personal process” of deciding one’s own moral behavior.
The entire orientation of Francis’ Amoris Laetitae is contra Natural Law, contra “black and white” moral absolutes, pro-subjectivist and pro-situationist. It is the death knell of true Catholic moral theology.
Why Do Too Many Catholics Go Along with This?
Why then do so many Catholics praise the document, or claim there is nothing substantially wrong with it?
We can give five quick reasons:
1) Many Catholics – priests and bishops included – have not received a proper systematic, scholastic formation in philosophy and theology. Much of their formation is fragmented and deficient, due to the breakdown in seminaries and Catholic higher education as a result of Vatican II. They are not equipped to see the blatant problems staring them in the face.
2) Other Catholics believe they are duty-bound to defend and accept anything that comes from the Pope, even though – as Cardinal Burke noted – the document is a “personal opinion of Francis and is not [to be] confused with the binding faith owed to the exercise of the magisterium.”
Yet we know from Pope Innocent III, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, and others that it is possible for a Pope to deviate from the truth, and if he does so, Catholics may resist and prevent his will from being enacted (on this point, see Father Nicholas Gruner, Crucial Truths to Save Your Soul, “A Duty to Resist,” pp. 54-57).
3) Many Catholics are unaware that Amoris Laetitia is the full-flowering of a crisis in moral theology, devastating the Church for over 50 years.
Since the time of Vatican II, perverse theologians such as Fathers Joseph Fuchs, Charles Curran, Richard McBrien, Richard McCormick and countless others advanced this situationist, consequentialist, non-absolutist approach to moral theology.
Inside the Lutheran Cathedral where Pope Francis participated in the Lutheran service, the “Rapid Response” team (from left) Patrick Ryan, Michal Semin, Joanna Swords, Coralie Graham – and not shown in photo – James Hanisch and Dan Smith, settled into a quiet corner to pray a Rosary for the conversion of misled souls.
Except for Charles Curran, who was eventually silenced (after over 20 years of discussions with Rome), these other delinquent theologians ran rampant, spreading their poison throughout the Church for decades in seminaries and universities, and in once-prestigious Catholic journals such as Commonweal, Theological Studies, and America magazine (especially during the reign of John Paul II, who took no effective action against them).
One strong voice of opposition was the late Msgr. William Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at Dunwoodie Seminary, who delivered countless lectures in the 70s, 80s and 90s against these perverse theologians and their situationist errors. The key errors he fought have all surfaced in Amoris Laetitia.
4) Too many Catholics succumb to the claim that the document does not change doctrine and is therefore safe. Those who say this fail to understand how modernism operates. Modernists, as St. Pius X warned, are “full of deceit,” and usually do not announce blatant changes in doctrine (although Francis makes the heterodox statement in #297: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” which appears to discard the Catholic and Biblical truth that souls are condemned to hell).
Rather, Modernism – by using new language, new emphasis, presenting an overall new atmosphere (“Mercy and Compassion” and “accompaniment”), emphasizing certain aspects of Catholic truth while ignoring others, pretending the magisterium has not spoken on certain points, failing to affirm key doctrinal points that contradict its general trajectory, and introducing new praxis contrary to doctrine – effects a revolution in Catholic attitude and behavior without explicit change of doctrine.
This is exactly how Amoris Laetitia operates. Even conservative Philip Lawler referred to Francis’ document as a “subversive” text.
5) Then, of course, there are liberal Catholics who thrill at the new approach. The radical Cardinal Kasper celebrated that Amoris Laetitia effectively “changes everything.”
Now, the next obvious question: Will this not result in a floodgate of sacrilege?
Yes, a floodgate of sacrilege. By canonizing a situation ethics approach, a system which Pius XII and his Holy Office explicitly condemned, Francis opens the door for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive the Eucharist. He is personally responsible for opening the floodgates of sacrilegious Communions that will necessarily follow. Every Eucharistic sacrilege that follows as a result of this document will have his name written upon it.
We reemphasize the words of St. Jacinta, pray a great deal for the Holy Father.
What Do We Do?
We cling to the perennial truths of the Faith, publicly resist this latest subversion, teach the truth to those within our sphere of influence, work to prevent Francis’ will from being enacted in this regard, and offer many prayers of reparation, such as taught us at Fatima, for the countless sacrileges that will result from Amoris Laetitia.