Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Doctrinal development in the Vatican II Sect…

The Amoris Laetitia Effect: Novus Ordo Theologian argues Couples may be Required to use Contraception

More like an immoral theologian: “Fr.” Maurizio Chiodi

It is amazing how quickly doctrine develops in the Novus Ordo Sect. Consider Francis’ blasphemous exhortation Amoris Laetitia, for example: Released on Apr. 8, 2016, the document is not even two years old yet, and already an Italian (im)moral theologian is using its teaching to justify more sins against the Sixth Commandment — that’s the one with “irregular situations” and such.

According to a report by Life Site:

Responsible parenthood can obligate a married couple to use artificial birth control, a recently appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life has argued, basing his theory on Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia.

Italian moral theologian Father Maurizio Chiodi said at a December 14 public lecture at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome that there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”

In the final part of his talk, Fr. Chiodi developed an “anthropology of marriage” based on what he considered its “four fundamental aspects”:  The relationship between sexuality and sexual difference; the relationship between human sexuality and the spousal covenant; the relationship between marital communion and generation; and the meaning of responsibility in generation [i.e. responsible parenthood].

He also noted, referring to Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, that these four aspects have the character of a “promised good” which “opens up the possibility of failure.” Therefore, in these four aspects of marriage a person is called to “discern the good that is possible” and to avoid the “absolute opposition between good and evil, between black and white, as Amoris Laetitia says,” by considering “the very obscure and dramatic circumstances of life.”

(Diane Montagna, “New Academy for Life member uses Amoris to say some circumstances ‘require’ contraception”, Life Site, Jan. 8, 2018; italics given.)

Let’s back up for a minute and review what the world’s chief apostate, “Pope” Francis, teaches in n. 303 of his supposed “apostolic exhortation”:

Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

(Antipope Francis, “Apostolic” Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 303; underlining added.)

This is both heresy and blasphemy, for the text clearly states or implies (see underlined parts) that it may not be possible, even with God’s help, to keep the commandments, and that God may actually desire that they be broken. This is directly contrary to Sacred Scripture (see Lev 22:31; Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 2:3) and to the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent:

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under an anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. “For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do, and assists you that you may be able”; “whose commandments are not heavy” [1 John 5:3], “whose yoke is sweet and whose burden is light” [Matt. 11:30]. For they who are the sons of God, love Christ: “but they who love him, (as He Himself testifies) keep his words” [John 14:23], which indeed with the divine help they can do.

Can. 18. If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed in grace impossible to observe: let him be anathema.

Can. 22. If anyone shall say that he who is justified can either persevere in the justice received without the special assistance of God, or that with that [assistance] he cannot: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter XI; Canons 18, 22; Denz. 804, 828, 832)

Of course, Novus Ordo Modernists do not care about the Council of Trent (1545-1563). After all, it took place before Vatican II — way before Vatican II — which, as we all know, was the “New Springtime” in the Church.

So with the cobwebs of Trent removed from everyone’s enlightened consciousness, Francis simply declares that God may want people to commit adultery — not everyone, of course, but perhaps you, you in your very concrete circumstances and incredibly complex limits, at least for now.

While the rest of the Novus Ordo world was busy debating whether Francis’ doctrine is strictly heretical or just loosely so, whether he can be excused on the grounds of not knowing the Ten Commandments or of never having read the text he wrote, whether dubia about the issue should be followed by a fraternal or a filial correction, etc., other people wasted no time and applied some simple logic: If God could be asking certain couples to commit adultery, who’s to say He could not also be asking them to commit contraception?

This is where “Fr.” Chiodi comes in. He heretically turns “the good that is necessary” into “the good that is [merely] possible”, and, to everyone’s surprise, finds very quickly that sometimes the good is not possible whereas evil is, and then simply declares evil to be good! After all, who wants to entertain some rigid “absolute opposition between good and evil”? St. Paul perhaps? “For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14), the Apostle asked, clearly revealing his hopeless pre-Vatican II mindset. “That depends on the concrete circumstances,” Mr. Chiodi would retort. Or maybe King Solomon? “Give therefore to thy servant an understanding heart, to judge thy people, and discern between good and evil” (3 Kgs 3:9). Another pre-Vatican II fool, apparently.

The Bergoglian doctrine adapted and applied by Mr. Chiodi is simply situation ethics, also known as the “new morality” or “ethical existentialism”. It was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XII in the 1950s:

The distinctive mark of this morality is that it is not based in effect on universal moral laws, such as, for example, the Ten Commandments, but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which men must act, and according to which the conscience of the individual must judge and choose. Such a state of things is unique, and is applicable only once for every human action. That is why the decision of conscience, as the advocates of this ethic assert, cannot be commanded by ideas, principles and universal laws.

The new ethic (adapted to circumstances), say its authors, is eminently “individual.” In this determination of conscience, each individual finds himself in direct relationship with God and decides before Him, without the slightest trace of intervention by any law, any authority, any community, any cult or religion. Here there is simply the “I” of man and the “I” of the personal God, not the God of the law, but of God the Father, with whom man must unite himself in filial love. Viewed thus, the decision of conscience is a personal “risk,” according to one’s own knowledge and evaluation, in all sincerity before God. These two things, right intention and sincere response, are what God considers! He is not concerned with the action. Hence the answer may be to exchange that Catholic faith for other principles, to seek divorce, to interrupt gestation, to refuse obedience to competent authority in the family, the Church, the State, and so forth.

All this would be perfectly fitting for man’s status as one who has come “of age” and, in the Christian order, it would be in harmony with the relation of sonship which, according to the teaching of Christ, makes us pray to God as “Our Father.”

This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the “new morality.”

For the rest, against “situation ethics,” We set up three considerations, or maxims. The first: We grant that God wants, first and always, a right intention. But this is not enough. He also wants the good work. A second principle is that it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may result (Rom 3:8). Now this new ethic, perhaps without being aware of it, acts according to the principle that the end justifies the means. A Christian cannot be unaware of the fact that he must sacrifice everything, even his life, in order to save his soul. Of this we are reminded by all the martyrs. Martyrs are very numerous, even in our time. The mother of the Maccabees, along with her sons; Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, notwithstanding their newborn children; Maria Goretti, and thousands of others, men and women, whom the Church venerates—did they, in the face of the “situation” in which they found themselves, uselessly or even mistakenly incur a bloody death? No, certainly not, and in their blood they are the most explicit witnesses to the truth against the “new morality.”

(Pope Pius XII, Address Soyez les Bienvenues, Apr. 18, 1952)

For more evidence demonstrating that Francis is teaching as “Catholic doctrine” the very errors rejected by Pope Pius XII, see our informative post on the issue:

In addition, it may be a good idea to review Pope Pius XI’s landmark encyclical on Christian marriage, which includes a condemnation of the instrinsic evil of contraception:

Although it was already very bad before his arrival, under Francis the Vatican has become an infernal den of unparalleled theological iniquity. The apostasy has matured to a point where surely Almighty God will soon intervene to put an end to this state of affairs. It simply cannot continue much longer.

At this point, the Novus Ordo pseudo-authorities are telling their sheeple to believe that what used to be a mortal sin, to which even the most gruesome death was to be preferred, is now, given certain circumstances, a moral duty! This is obviously a 180-degree turn worthy of the condemnation of the prophet Isaias: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20). In the Vatican II Sect, however, after being drowned in a flood of smart-sounding words, such a theological about-face is called “hermeneutic of continuity”. For those who begin to see through the ruse, professional Novus Ordo apologists are standing by: If Mark Shea‘s profound blog posts don’t convince you that you’re just a colossal right-wing idiot who cannot see the saintly doctrine being proclaimed by Francis the Merciful, then Jimmy Akin has 14 things to know and share for you.

So, forget about the old debates over whether or not contraception is ever permitted. That is totally pre-Amoris Laetitia. The real question being discussed now is when it is required to commit this mortal sin! Truly, Bergoglio’s god of surprises never fails to deliver!

With such massive doctrinal development, we will surely not have to wait long until the publication of the next encyclical: Gaudium in Contraconceptionem!