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!
Image source: lifesitenews.com (Diane Montagna)
License: fair use
If this immoral theologian suggests that contraception may be ‘required’ under certain ‘circumstances’, then why not abortion starting with ‘selective reduction’, and euthanasia under the guise of ‘assisted dying’?
The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to contraception as the equivalent of murder. In the section on the Sacrament of Matrimony it states on page 369: ‘and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime-nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder’.
It is one thing for a theologian to propose such anti-Catholic teaching but when it originates from the man sitting on the Chair of St. Peter with his anti-Catholic Amoris Laetitia it is an entirely different matter. Mathew 7:16-17 ‘By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.’
I once watched a video debate entitled ‘The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in World’ between the late militant atheist (or ‘anti-theist’ as he referred to himself) Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Fry (open homosexual) against ‘Catholics’ Archbishop John Onaiyekan (now a Novus Ordo Cardinal) and Ann Widdecombe (former British politician). Bet you all can’t guess who lost? Yes, the so-called ‘Catholics’. I couldn’t figure out why at the time since I was a faithful Novus Ordo follower. Since discovering the true Catholic faith in October 2016 it is readily apparent why they lost, they no longer possess the truth, they have exchanged it for modernist lies. I had always hoped and prayed that one day Christopher Hitchens would be converted but it didn’t happen and I hold these Novus Ordo apostates responsible. The debate was sponsored by ‘Intelligence squared.com’. These are supposed to be some of the worlds sharpest minds and most exciting orators. Really?
Where are the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, etc. today?
Our Lady of Sorrows Pray for us, Our Lady Destroyer of Heresies pray for us.
It’s all moot, really, since the Novus Ordo rejects the Council of Trent. Why keep expecting Catholicism from people who are not Catholic?
Spot on. Its like expecting a pig to fly, or a snake to whistle. The whole organization, from top (Jorge and the Rat) to bottom (Father Tom in your local Novus Ordo hell hole) do not profess the catholic faith, and the bulk of them detest Catholicism. One cannot expect non-Catholics to convert other non-Catholics to Catholicism.
The two councils they hate the most: 1) Trent, 2) First Vatican Council.
Having redacted the Our Father, correcting the words of the Son of God, isn’t it high time the Holy Father also updated the Ten Commandments too? To more clearly reflect the modern world?
For instance, instead of the “Thou shalt not”, might it not be better to write: “Ideally, it would be good not to” etc. As in: “Ideally, it would be good not to kill”, or “Ideally, one should not commit adultery.”
And, to give a concrete situation in which this new dispensation might be applied: “Ideally, you should stop committing those those heinous crimes against the 6th as well as the 5th Commandments, Mr Jeffrey Dahmer. But if the most generous response you can make to God at this time is to kill your victims more quickly, and so put them out of their misery sooner, then that is what is God is asking at this time.”
How’s that for a humane, ethical update?
“Ideally, one should not commit adultery”? I really don’t get the impression that Frank thinks that adultery is a problem. I expect that he’d probably just delete that one. Come to think of it, he’d probably like to delete all of them…
The 10 commandments are just 10 suggestions for the ideal.
In line with the Hermeneutic of Continuity, he would replace them with more updated versions, to better reflect the Modern World, and its Unique Challenges and Enlightened perspectives, especially regarding the Environment, the Global Community, the Brotherhood of Man, the Preferential Option for the Poor, and (keep this quiet, though) the esoteric Power of the Global Banking Cabal and the Secret Societies over the exoteric institutions in Politics and Religion.
The Novus Ordo adherents hate anything to do with Trent, or the idea of a Counter Reformation, and condemnation of Protestantism. They will not openly admit it, but they hate the Council of Trent. They hate the popes of that Council, from Pope Paul III to Pope Pius IV. They hate St. Thomas Aquinas, and his Aristotelian scholastic theology, whose books were open and on the altar, along with Sacred Scripture, at the council. They hate the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, because Trent made it the official text. They hate the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V. They hate the codification of the liturgy of Roman Rite by St. Pius V in the Missal and the Breviary. (Admit it, they hate St. Pius V.) They even hate the vestments and liturgical appointments of the Catholic Church from that time.
They hate all the “imperialism” of the Roman Catholic Church, and they hate even the mindset of the Church in always making things more clear, more defined, and more uniform.
They want a formless, undefined, fluid, vague, open-for-interpretation, slippery “Chrissstianity” (yes, say it like a Protestant) which will allow for various kinds of Chrissstianity, and various opinions, (just like their vestments). They believe the “ancient Church” was like this, or so they say. They are liars, or at least dead wrong. I am convinced they are liars, but I am a presumptuous, egotistical, uncharitable monster.
I am also of the opinion we should HATE their religion as much as, or more than, they hate our religion. “odientes malum, adhaerentes bono.” You cannot love a good and not hate that which is opposed to that good. May God grant me to be consumed with the love and adherence to good and the hatred of evil.
To quote Fr. Faber “Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”
I believe “responsible parenthood” began with Paul VI. One can sense immediately in that phrase the influence of the demonic, worldly way of thinking. Practically, now in the VII sect, NFP is seen as a way of life. It is seemingly assumed that its use is obligatory and perpetual. This, of course, is not how the Church viewed it previously where couples could only have recourse to it for “grave reasons.”
I think much of this stems from faulty philosophical influences – the dogmas of the new religion – like personalism.
I respectfully disagree. It was my observation that very few in the Novus Ordo sect practice NFP. Too archaic and risky for them. Most now practice artificial birth control. Most of the women of child bearing age either use birth control pills or have their tubes tied after the obligatory two or three kids. As an alternative many demand that their men get a vasectomy.
My point wasn’t that more practice NFP than contraception, but that of those who are at least disposed to following Church teaching on contraception, practicing NFP in an ongoing way without grave reasons is common.
As “Pope” Francis said a couple years ago, “God gives you methods to be responsible… Some think that — excuse the word — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Parenthood is about being responsible. This is clear.” The theologian is just following the conclusion of his pope. They’re thinking about Laudato Si. Less people = cleaner air. To them if you’re going sin, then sin boldly as Martin Luther “a witness of the gospel” taught.
Novus Ordo philosopher, Josef Seifert, was fired by his own archbishop because he denounced that Amoris Laetitia demands to do evil.
Is Francis even referring to God’s commandments when he says “the objective ideal”? By “the objective ideal,” couldn’t he mean something like “the highest degree of sanctity”?
“By ‘the objective ideal”, couldn’t he mean something like the highest degree of sanctity “?”
Spot on! There is in fact no such thing as an objective anything where Modernism is concerned, everything is subjective! It’s rather like the character Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who paid words to mean whatever he wanted them to mean! So we have already entered the realms of fantasy and absurdity when it comes to objective morality!
As were his predecessors back to Roncalli.
Agree. But most Catholics love John XXIII and John Paul II. In order to find out they would have to become Traditional or orthodox Catholics which is unlikely as the Vatican II was is easy road to heaven in their minds.
I assume you are using the term Catholics loosely. They would NOT have to become “traditional” or “sedevacantist” to find it out. All they need to do is some research. Even the R&R websites have alot of good information on them. How anyone can be in love with a guy who preached that Luther was a profoundly religious man and a great reformer, and who preached that the miracles of Christ have nothing compelling in them, and that they only hint at His messianic dignity, and that St. John the Baptist did not know that Christ was the Messias. He did this from a LUTHERAN pulpit on the 2nd Sunday of Advent 1983. What about kissing the Koran? What about the topless females reading the lessons? What about all the impure entertainments at the Vatican in which he indulged? What about the new Code of Canon Law? And on, and on…
If you know of any of these folks who love John XXIII and JP2, have them go to the top of the N.O.W. page and look up false popes. N.O.W. has done most of the work for these people.
How about John XXIII being suspect of Modernism. How about his best friends being excommunicated for Modernism? How about John XXIII not reprimanding those who bugged Padre Pio’s confessional? How about John XXIII overturning the Church’s teaching on Religious Liberty (Pacem In Terris) over which the Jews and the Freemasons went ga-ga. How about John XXIII throwing out all the traditional schemas for the Vatican II Council, and replacing them with liberal garbage. A guy could go on and on about all of these rotten usurpers.
I am probably “preaching to the choir,” and you already know this, and are in agreement. I hear what you are saying, but I am a presumptuous uncharitable monster, who thinks the worst about everybody. I take a harder stance. I would like to be more optimistic. I think these folks who love Wojtyla and Roncalli are purposely deluding themselves, or ultimately really don’t give a hill of beans about anything Catholic.
They love meat on Friday. They love not fasting. They love the idea of not separating themselves from non-Catholics and from the world as much as possible. In other words, they want to be just like all their worldly friends, so that they can watch their TV and sports (and cheerleaders) and get along with and be like everyone else. And they do not want to upset their current routines.
Like you said, it goes on and on. Let’s not forget Jorge’s thoroughly blasphemous and undeniable heresy that the Holy Trinity is up there arguing over doctrines while presenting only an appearance of unity.
So “be fruitful and multiply” has been replaced with “contraception is now a requirement”?
What’s next, the Church rethinks its views on abortion?
Its not the Church.
A wise man once said, “God wills one religion and many nations; the Devil wants one nation and many religions.” (as long as they’re not Catholic).
Thanks for Pope Pius XII – the last pope.
Many ‘middling’ Conservative Novus Ordites, spend much sweat on ferreting faux fault with his Magisterium in order to find leeway with the VII pretenders. Ferret they might, he upheld Catholic doctrine.
I cannot speak for N.O.W., because I am not part of N.O.W.; but I know that N.O.W. has featured some of Bp Sanborn’s stuff in the past.
We may not always agree with every detail, but Novus Ordo Watch generally highly recommends the work of Bp. Donald Sanborn and Most Holy Trinity Seminary.
So if couples may be forced to use contraception, if according to Amoris Laetitia couples can be adulterous, and if in order to practice contraception you must be having intercourse, does this mean that people may be forced to commit adultery?
……..Maybe that’s why Francis hates the “theology of if…then?” lol