And if you are being truthful when you say that, Dolours, then I suggest your 'discernment' has reached a new low! Satan is certainly hard at work trying to undermine this papacy and is having some success but the papacy and the Church is built on the strongest of foundations. May the goodness of Pope Francis come to be recognized even by his critics on this forum!
What part of the subtitles would Pope Francis disagree with David? After all,Proselytism is solemn nonsense. Pope Francis is cool with other religions. Pope Francis mocks rosary counters, Where is the error ?
https://onepeterfive.com/professor-seifert-comments-fr-chiodis-re-reading-humanae-vitae/ Professor Seifert Comments on Fr. Chiodi’s “Re-Reading of Humanae Vitae” Maike Hickson January 9, 2018One Comment Image of Fr. Chiodi courtesy of Diane Montagna/LifeSiteNews Editor’s Note: The following text is a statement written by Professor Josef Seifert, a famous Austrian philosopher and co-founder of the International Academy of Philosophy (IAP). He kindly sent it to us for publication. Professor Father Maurizio Chiodi delivered last Dec. 14, 2017, at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, a speech entitled “Re-reading Humanae Vitae (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia (2016)”. He is a new member of PAV, the Pontifical Academy for Life, founded by Pope John Paul II in order to explain and defend the truths the Church teaches about human life in Humanae Vitae and other documents. Nonetheless, Chiodi does not only rejects openly a central moral teaching of the Church on contraception, admirably stated in Humanae Vitae, namely that a wonderful and deep link exists between the conjugal loving union and procreation, such that any single contraceptive act that separates the unitive from the procreative meaning of the conjugal act is intrinsically wrong in any situation. Above and beyond his denial of this teaching, Chiodi asserts that contraception is even morally mandatory under certain circumstances. According to him, responsible parenthood can oblige a married couple to use artificial birth control. This suggests an answer Fr. Chiodi gives to two of the famous five dubia of the four Cardinals. Chiodi’s implicit answer may be formulated thus: “Indeed, there are no human actions that are intrinsically wrong under all circumstances”. Chiodi invokes Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia, as a new model and paradigm for moral theology that eliminates the notion (solemnly and magisterially laid down in Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, and Veritatis Splendor) that contraception is an intrinsically evil human act that is wrong anywhere and at any time. Chiodi adds, in radical and direct contradiction to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in Humanae Vitae, that there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.” When “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found,” Fr. Chiodi argued. Chiodi’s position constitutes an unequivocal defense of the consequentialist and proportionalist ethics that attacked Humanae Vitae from the first day of its publication on, and not only took issue with its teaching that contraception is intrinsically wrong, but claimed that there are no intrinsically evil acts at all; and that any human action is determined in its moral character solely by the proportion between its good and bad effects. This opinion was clearly and unambiguously refuted and rejected by Veritatis Splendor. Chiodi likewise proposes more general philosophical and ethical positions that are profoundly erroneous and totally destructive not only of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, but also of the essence of morality, and in fact, of any truth and any Church Teaching: namely 1) a historical relativism, 2) a consensus theory of truth, and 3) situation ethics. Saying that the norms of natural law “conserve the good and instruct in the way of good, but they are historical, “ Chiodi denies the perennial truth and validity of the norms that tell us that contraception and many other acts are intrinsically wrong, in a way that is not relative to, and dependent on, historically changing opinions, as if Humanae Vitae could have been true in 1968 but would no longer be so in 2018. Besides this, Chiodi, while not directly claiming it, still strongly suggests that the fact that a large percentage of Catholic spouses practice contraception and do not accept the norms justifies silence about them, or even proves that these norms are no longer valid, as if majority consensus determined the truth.[1] With the same right, he could claim that we are justified no longer to speak of the first commandment to love God above everything else, or even that this norm is no longer valid because a majority of Catholics do not fulfill it, or that the commandment that forbids to give false witness against one’s neighbor is not valid any longer because most people lie and calumniate others. Claiming that some “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 —precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception” (Chiodo, ibid.), Chiodo denies in fact directly the intrinsic wrongness of contraception magisterially taught by Paul VI and his predecessors and successors, and makes what is morally good or bad in the transmission of human life entirely dependent on concrete situations. Drawing out the lines of such a purely teleological or consequentialist proportionalist ethics of contraception, Chiodi suggests that quite in general no intrinsically wrong acts exist and that the moral quality of a human action can never be determined universally “by a general rule,” but depends on a proportion between good and bad consequences of human actions in concrete situations. Understood in this general way, the situation ethics Fr. Chiodi defends would also deny the intrinsic wrongness of abortion and euthanasia, and of many other acts listed in Veritatis Splendor as acts that are morally wrong under all circumstances and in all situations. It is worth noting that this opinion has nothing to do with blindness of conscience, lack of ethical knowledge, or personal imputability invoked so often by Rocco Buttiglione in the present debate. No, Chiodi implies an entirely objective “duty to contracept” in certain situations. Thus the lecture of Father Chiodi contains, besides his open rejection of Church Teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, disastrous general philosophical errors that have been magisterially and forcefully rejected by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. One can only hope that Pope Francis, Archbishop Paglia, and the large majority of members of PAV will ask Father Chiodi to revoke these grave errors, or to resign immediately his membership in this illustrious Academy, whose founder and spiritual Father Pope John Paul II unambiguously and consistently fought against precisely these same errors that Father Chiodi now proposes, and condemned them in a definitive way. Moreover, Saint John Paul II founded the PAV precisely in order that it explain and defend these truths Chiodi denies. (As, prior to its reform through Pope Francis in 2016, an ordinary, life-long member of PAV, who had to take an oath never to deny these truths, I could only feel profound sadness over this betrayal of the PAV, especially dear to the heart of John Paul II, if such views as Chiodi’s are not retracted by himself, by the PAV, or by Pope Francis). Ethical truth and the untruth of this proportionalism are not only subject of Catholic faith, however, but can be recognized by human reason as well.[2] They have been forcefully defended by the great pagan philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Cicero and are being defended by members of other religions, some of whom are members of the new John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family that continues, without any ambiguities, its service to the great founding truths and goals of PAV. Prof. DDr. habil. Dr. h.c. Josef Seifert, President John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family (See here for more information on the newly founded John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the family) NOTES: [1] I rely here on the summary of the talk in LifeSite: “While in the 50s and 60s was an urgent for believers, now the great majority of even believing married couples live as though the norm doesn’t exist,” he said. “Officially and objectively the norm has remained,” but “even many pastors” don’t talk about it, he said. “In public, in catechesis, and in preaching, they prefer not to talk about it” while “in personal encounters they maintain a very indulgent attitude when the issue is raised.” “And therefore,” he argued, “it’s significant that Amoris Laetitia speaks so little about it.” [2] See Josef Seifert, “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts I: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in Veritatis Splendor”. Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 2, pp. 27-67; “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts II: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in Veritatis Splendor”. Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 3, pp. 7-37.
Professor Seifert has called for what I did yesterday when he said: "One can only hope that Pope Francis, Archbishop Paglia, and the large majority of members of PAV will ask Father Chiodi to revoke these grave errors, or to resign immediately his membership in this illustrious Academy, whose founder and spiritual Father Pope John Paul II unambiguously and consistently fought against precisely these same errors that Father Chiodi now proposes, and condemned them in a definitive way." (I emboldened parts for emphasis) If the above is not done then I can see no way anyone can any longer see anything but tacit approval for these errors coming from those in charge of this institution. If the above is not done, then truly if it were possible, I would say the Vatican has fallen.
The church is being undermined by pro-contraception prelates like Fr Chiodi spouting heresy as a member of the Pontifical Academy for 'Life'. But, perhaps David you might agree with the position that he takes on contraception? http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2017/Nov/Editorial-More rumblings.html http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...mber-uses-amoris-to-justify-contraceptive-use https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/n...es-amoris-to-say-some-circumstances-require-c
Below I am posting an excellent article on what lies ahead for the Catholic Church if we accept the error of allowing contraception. We do not have to guess, there already exists a blueprint for it. This happened in the Anglican Church at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 when they officially accepted it. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...mber-uses-amoris-to-justify-contraceptive-use
The Catholic Church remains the last bulwark against the contraceptive mentality that has led to the present culture of death. It is beyond belief that prelates like Chiodi were given posts in the Pontifical Academy of Life given the track record of dissent from Church teaching.
I'll take my discernment over yours any day, David, because mine is based on the belief that the Catholic Church wasn't founded in 2013 but was instituted by Jesus 2,000 years ago. Our first loyalty is to Jesus.
To follow a Pope when he proclaims the faith as it has always been taught and to obey him as long as he does not go against what the Church has always taught is our duty. To follow a Pope into error is not Catholic in any sense. To incite others to do so is either ignorant or evil. To blindly follow anyone into error is to commit error ourselves. We are not robots. This is the constant teaching of the Church through the Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church. "...that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal custom of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed" -Pope Innocent III "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See- they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." -Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” -St. Robert Bellarmine
As I'm being invited to comment, I will do so. Firstly, I haven't been able to find the text of Fr Chiodi's talk. Plenty of commentary and criticism but I would actually like to see what he said in full. However, taking at face value what he is reported to have said, his position seems similar to that held by the theological commission which, as a majority, advised Pope Paul VI to allow contraception! So people shouldn't get horrified by clergy today having the same views as the Pope's advisors 50 years ago! I remember at the time, prior to Pope Paul VI's decision on the matter, arguing with my boss that the Pope would say no. My boss thought there was no chance he would say no. Fr Chiodi's associating the matter with AL seems spurious to me. The reasoning behind the relaxing of discipline on the reception of Holy Commmunion in certain cases has nothing to do with the question of whether contraception is right or wrong. I will just add that getting hot and bothered by this topic at this stage is inappropriate.
So you are saying that poisonous Modernist thought has been around since the times of Pope Paul VI. I agree. And he unequivocally put an end their plans at that time with Humanae Vitae. Truth does not change.
Fr Chiodi has a history of dissent from Humane Vitae so I suspect what we are getting reported is fairly spot on. You are rather diffident about our concerns concerning pro-contraception clergy. We have grave concerns - because such priests are a cancer in the body of Christ and lead people astray endangering souls. The teachings of Humanae Vitae are crystal clear and prophetic. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. Oral contraceptives and implants are actually abortifacient in nature. So in fact these prelates support the satanic culture of death. Sorry if getting hot and bothered about the destruction of innocent human life is such a problem for you.
DavidT says "Satan is certainly hard at work trying to undermine this papacy and is having some success ". It seems that PF doesn't need any help he is doing it all by himself.
We must beware Modernists who beguile with forked tongues and who attempt to subvert long-standing Catholic Doctrine with words soothing to the ear. It only takes one error to hold a heretical view. One could be doggedly pro-life, anti-contraception, follow all of the Ten Commandments, pray daily, be a Church lector, never utter so much as one drop of profanity, wear a Roman collar, believe every single word of every single Church Council and all of the Dogmas of the Faith, but if one also rejected just one point such as the Immaculate Conception or any other Church Doctrine then one would be at the very least a material heretic. The devil is not going to perpetrate his ultimate deception by appearing in a red cape and yelling "Murder babies!" He will appear kindly and gentle, speaking soothing words to us. Catholic sounding words. All the while whispering errors softly into our ears. View attachment 7298
David, This issue of contraception will now take on a life of its own here on MOG. It is important because if the Pope refuses to promptly correct Fr. Chiodi, then the fears of most on the forum will only be exacerbated. Your reply above was a little veiled. I would love to hear you say, "Thank God for Pope Paul VI's position on contraception. I wholeheartedly agree with Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor. The very existence of the family as taught by the Church is at stake!" But I don't think that will happen. This issue has already been thoroughly discussed back in 2016. Even back then you focused on the possibility of exceptions and unless I'm mistaken you'll do so again. So I thought I'd save you the trouble. You might think I'm out to get you, but that is not true. What I'm trying to do is challenge you to avoid side-stepping which might get you "bounced." The undue caution you use is tortuous to me. Best to stand on your convictions and get bounced. Please don't shadow box. Here's how you responded back then on the thread, "Francis has been totally orthodox..." Actually, it isn’t clear exactly what he said about contraception. Catholic theology in this area is complex, and Pope Francis was speaking in generalities, off the cuff, as he often does during his papal plane press interviews. He seemed to imply Thursday (Feb. 18) that using contraception could, if trying to stop the spread of Zika, be the lesser of two evils. As an apparent analogy, he cited Pope Paul VI’s views on the use of contraception by African nuns who were victims of sexual violence. But “use of contraception” isn’t precise enough to know what the pope meant — at least not from the perspective of Catholic moral theology. The church teaches that use of contraception, which separates sex from its natural openness to procreation — either as the end goal of one’s action (“I don’t want a pregnancy”), or as the means by which one accomplishes something else (“I don’t want a pregnancy because it will lead to X”) — is never permitted. It isn’t even permitted if it is the lesser of two evils. Church teaching would seem to mean use of contraception in response to Zika is out. In such a case, shutting off sex’s natural openness to procreation looks like the means by which one is getting to one’s goal — not getting pregnant. But not so fast. Perhaps the pope was relying on the principle of double effect here? This may allow him to say that what is really going on (in Catholic moral theology, this is called “the object of the act”) is stopping of transmission of the Zika virus — while the closing off of sex from producing new life is foreseen but unintended. Double effect is invoked all the time in Catholic theology. For example, in cases of abortion, Catholic hospitals may remove a cancerous uterus with the baby inside if the death of the child is foreseen but unintended; in war one may drop a bomb that kills an innocent person as long as the death of the person is foreseen but unintended. One may also take a patient off life support — their death must be — you guessed it — foreseen but unintended. Does the principle of double effect work in the case of using contraception to avoid transmission of a disease? Several years ago, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke in a very similar way about the use of condoms in response to the spread of AIDS. “He wanted to kickstart a debate,” Vatican officials said. Boy did he ever. Benedict spoke with enough generalities that it wasn’t immediately clear what, if anything, justifies the use of condoms in response to AIDS, leaving much room for debate. Francis has also spoken with enough generalities that it wasn’t immediately clear what, if anything, justifies the use of condoms in response to Zika, leaving much room for debate. We’ve seen this before. And from a “conservative” pope, no less. http://religionnews.com/2016/02/19/the-real-surprise-in-pope-francis-zika-virus-remarks-commentary/ Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I just listened to an excellent homily on sensus fidellium: divine spirit vs diabolical spirit. Something very appropriate for the days we are in--IMHO
This is what I would like as well, but as you say David is trying to maintain a presence on the forum and he knows posts viewed as heretical will not be brooked here. This is not fertile ground upon which to sow Modernism and the Church Teaching is quite clear on this issue.
