Thursday, December 06, 2018

Is McCarrick Victim James Grein Right that Pope John Paul II & Vatican II Bear Responsibility for the Gay Sex Abuse Scandal?

Dr. Taylor Marshall in his YouTube interview with the ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick victim "James" Grein, made famous in a New York Times article, revealed some of the underlying causes of the Catholic sex abuse crisis.

The McCarrick victim revealed that Pope John Paul II, Vatican II and the modernist "spirit of Vatican II" Saint Gallen Mafia who apparently helped bring Pope Francis into power bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal.

Grein, in the interview, disclosed that his well connected as well as wealthy grandfather and devout Catholic family befriended the fatherless McCarrick and financed his education as well as introduced him to influential high ranking Church clerics.

James' family helped McCarrick reach the heights of Church influence and power over the last decades of the twentieth century.

The ex-cardinal, and close collaborator of Pope Francis, repaid the family's kindness and generosity by repeatedly sexually abusing James.

In the interview Marshall asked the McCarrick victim: "Did John Paul II know about this [that the ex-cardinal was a sexual predator]?"

Grein said: "Yes!.. He [John Paul II] was part of the agenda. He changed a lot of things in the Church, but not fast enough for the people behind... The people behind are the people of Saint Gallen."
[https://taylormarshall.com/2018/12/188-mccarrick-st-gallen-mafia-james-grein-reveals-truth-vatican-podcast.html]

The article below shows evidence to back up Grein's testimony that John Paul II and Vatican II bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal.

The ultimate "new springtime" of Vatican II Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, in the Catholic Herald said:

 "[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."

Schmitz shows that most bishops, liberal and conservative, want to continue the "new springtime" of Vatican II and it's post-Vatican II settlement "that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish":

"[Conservative] Bishop Barron also cautioned against what he called an “ideological” response... those who raise concerns about Humanae Vitae, priestly celibacy, or “rampant homosexuality in the Church” may be... causing a 'distraction'."

"No one cares for the endless Catholic culture wars, but we should be wary of attempts to shut down frank discussion of how we got here. Bishop Barron’s list of taboo topics suggests that he – like most bishops – is keen to preserve the settlement of 1968."

"In that year, Pope Paul VI famously reaffirmed Catholic teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae, but then declined to discipline the many bishops and priests who rejected that teaching. The result was an uneasy truce: the teaching was formally upheld, but obedience to it was not demanded."

"The same dynamic played out in 2005, when the Vatican decided that men with 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies' should be barred from the priesthood."

"... But for people in the pews, things don’t look so great. In 1955, nearly 75 per cent of American Catholics went weekly to Mass. Today, only 39 percent do. Outside of a few Latin Mass and “reform of the reform” enclaves, Mass-going Catholics suffer wrecked sanctuaries, botched liturgies and moral confusion. The springtime is hard to find."[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/aug-17th-2018/a-truce-that-cannot-hold/]

The taboo topic that all will not mention, but that the numbers above as well as the McCarrick and Pennsylvania scandals prove is that Vatican II is the cause of the "culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."

The Amoris Laetitia-like ambiguous Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality."

Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.

Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Pope agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.

Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)

The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:

"That depends.  In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate.  Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics.  Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc.  Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith.  It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order.  The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society.  And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state could in principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good)."

"This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”  Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled -- these have all been matters of controversy.  They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided.  The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled.  Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas Storck, Fr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink." 

One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:

"The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish":

"There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce [,homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.

Apparently, Chaput teaches that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth." The Archbishop wrote:

"Error has no rights, but persons do have rights - even when they choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most important right any human being has." (First Things, "Of Human Dignity," March 18, 2015)

So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if "persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?

In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his "'longtime friend' Cardinal McCarrick" who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: "McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver." ("The Neo-Catholics," pages 154, 159)

What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?

Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?

Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?

On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops" reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he "expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered'" which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, "September 20, 2017)

It appears that the "conservative" Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth."

Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth":

"In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, 'See you later.'”

"With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015."

“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. 'Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.'”

"Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest." [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and the safety of heroes James Grein and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Also, pray an Our Father for faithful Catholic media heroes such as Dr. Marshall and others. (Relevant Radio just dropped two faithful Catholic shows as the purge and censorship continues.)

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.


 

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Does Pope John Paul II & the Council of Trent Condemn Pope Francis's Amoris Laetitia?

Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio (and the Council of Trent as we will show later) as well as "explicitly atheist" and deny the existence of objective truth according to Veritatis Splendor.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

"Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]

The Pope's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote:

"There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329)."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:


"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:
"This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.

They redefine adultery as a "irregular relationship" and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.

This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at "peace" with it, if the sinful behavior is "humanly impossible" to change, "if they can't change their sinful behavior" or don't know it is wrong. 


Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.

Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said "An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse" as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:

"I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind...It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is."

"Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right...If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse." (Ralph McInerny, "Ethica Thomistica," 1982, 1997, page 110-111)

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a "supreme tribunal of moral judgement... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear":

"Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8... As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: 'In this passage, the German bishops get all they want':"


"But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are 'in God’s grace', and that their pastor can know it too... The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes 'the help of the sacraments... '"

"Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 


The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can't be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of "mercy" to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called "Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power."

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn't have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.

They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.

Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.

One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.

Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:

"Certain currents of modern thought... are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment... about good and evil... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."


This may be a valid question to ask Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinitions:

Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation as every Pope and saint in history has believed since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?


John Paul II condemned anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal as being a "explicit atheist."

Not only is Pope Francis's teaching on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal condemned by Pope John Paul II, but Amoris Laetitia's teachings are counter to the teachings of the Council of Trent.

Amoris Laetitia and Francis's letter which approves the Argentine norms as the only interpretation of that papal document is teaching false doctrine and condemned by the Council of Trent.

Trent teaches defined infallible Catholic doctrine that can't be changed.

It was reported that after the papal letter Argentine Bishop Macin cited it as the order of the Pope to give Communion to 30 it appears unrepentant adulterous couples since no mention was made of them living as bother and sister.

Again, Francis's teachings are not only directly counter to the encyclicals of John Paul II, but are condemned by the infallible Council of Trent.

According to leading Catholic theologians including Dr. E. Christian Brugger, the Council of Trent appears to give these teachings of Pope Francis, and his intimate friend  Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez who wrote important parts of the document, an anathema.

On May 25, the Catholic Herald said new "revelations suggest that some of Amoris’s most contentious paragraphs – relating to “situations of sin” and “mitigating factors” – had their origin in Archbishop Fernández’s articles, which gave a critique of John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor."

The evidence shows that the Pope’s intimate friend and ghostwriter Fernandez did a "cut and paste" from his ten year old anti-John Paul II tracts which made up some of the most controversial parts of the papal document according to a May 25 article of The Spectator.

Francis's friend, The Spectator said, is seen as "a joke figure" in terms of his reputation as a theologian who wrote a silly book called “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing.”

All these revelations came from Vatican expert Sandro Magister's blog. Magister said Pope John Paul II condemned the situational ethics of "theologians" like Fernandez in his important and magisterial encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ [ http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y&refresh_ce ]

The Vatican expert in the article showed how intimate a friend then Archbishop Bergoglio and the future pope was to his protégé Fernández:

"Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege."

The Catholic Herald quoted a passage from Fernandez's situational ethics articles which were "consciously echoed" in Amoris Laetitia’s paragraph 301:

“A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”

This passage according to the Catholic Herald may be directly counter to defined Catholic doctrine:

"This paragraph of the exhortation has been criticised by theologians including E. Christian Brugger, who argued that it apparently goes against Church teaching: 'This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: 'If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.'”

First Things, in "Francis's Argentine Letter And The Proper Response" by Elliott Milco, says the exact same thing about Francis's letter which endorses the Argentine norms.

America's most influential journal of religion and public life, First Things' Deputy Editor Milco says:

"The Church teaches and has always taught, from St. Paul to the Council of Trent and beyond, that grace strengthens and liberates us from the bonds of sin, and that while we may never, in the present life, be perfectly free from the inclination to do wrong, it is possible through grace to keep the commandments. This doctrine was given force of law in Trent's decree on justification: 'If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.'The same decree explains that 'God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and aids you that you may be able.'"

"The real problem with the Argentine norms is their deviation from this larger and more fundamental principle: that grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so. Jesus Christ holds us to this standard in the Gospel. It is presumptuous of Francis—however benign his intentions—to decide that his version of 'mercy' trumps that given by God himself."

Brugger and Milco are not speaking about the Kasper proposal, but the Catholic doctrine of infused grace which was denied by Martin Luther and the other "reformers"

On that other issue, Fr. Raymond de Sousa's article "What Argentina's 'Amoris Laetitia' Guidelines Really Mean" in the National Catholic Register tries to make the case that the Kasper proposal in it's totality actually suffered a lose despite media hype claiming otherwise and despite Francis's efforts to implement the total proposal.

De Sousa tries to makes the case that the Argentine norms is not mistaken because it could be treated in pre-Amoris Laetitia "standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree."

On this separate issue from the topic of grace, Brugger in the Catholic World Report with the article "The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and "Amoris Laetitia" destroys the De Sousa attempt to justify the Argentine norms by using Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor that shows it creates a "destructive dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality."

He demonstrates that the only solution to the problematic Argentine norms is to form consciences not create loopholes so persons can sin in invincible ignorance.

Be that as it may, the point is that the Kasper proposal isn't the issue here, but Amoris Laetitia and the Argentine norms apparent denial of a defined doctrine of the Council of Trent on grace which the "reformers" denied.

The "reformers" idea of imputed grace saw man as "totally depraved" and corrupt who even after justification was not infused with grace and truly changed on the inside.

Luther's image of imputed grace was that of man as a pile of dung covered with snow.

Man isn't changed on the inside (he is still a pile of dung), but "justified" man is covered with grace (snow) while not being changed on the inside.

As Milco said Trent's doctrine on infused grace says "that graces truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so."

It is a very big and scary moment in Church history if the above and following is true:

Moral Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, on April 22, wrote Amoris Leatitia (A.L.) in 301 is "inconsistent with the teaching of Trent on grace."

Brugger then writes that it appears that Canon 18 of Trent, which is infallible doctrine, gives an anathema to Pope Francis's 301 teaching on grace.

Milco says that Francis is not just directly countering Trent's infallible doctrine, but Jesus Christ when he writes:

"It is presumptuous of Francis—however benign his intentions—to decide that his version of 'mercy' trumps that given by God himself."

A published writer friend of mine who has studied Thomas Aquinas told me:

"A.L. has in fact done something much more serious: It denied the entire concept of what it means to possess Catholic charity, sanctifying grace, and justification. If this isn't seen and loudly and forcefully condemned, all the rest will follow, just as it did in Lurtherism and all of Protestantism."

To put it mildly, if the above is true then A.L. 301 and the letter which endorses the Argentine norms are the greatest material errors ever written by a Pope or in the case of Amoris Laetitia a Pope and his ghostwriter.

The material error of Pope John XII of the Middle Ages will be considered a minor footnote next to Pope Francis's 301 and letter which endorses the Argentine norms if America's most influential journal of religion and public life, First Things' Deputy Editor Milco, Dr. Brugger, and my friend are right.

  
Pope Francis and his intimate friend Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez who wrote important parts of Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



Sunday, November 25, 2018

Is Pope Francis's Theology a mix of Fascist Leftist Peronism & the Modernist "German... Spirit of the People, the Volkgeist [&]... Pre-Christian beliefs, half-baked Catechism precepts, and Outright Superstitions"?

The executive director of Catholic News Agency and the editor of a papal biography on the current pope Alejandro Bermudez says:

The "biggest impact on Francis' thought were Jesuit Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone... a professor of young Fr. Bergoglio- as well as Argentinian Fr. Lucio Gera."
(Catholic News Agency, "The theological formation of Pope Francis," March 17, 2018)

Scannone is a "second generation disseminator" of Gera's Theology of the People which governs Francis's thought and papacy according to Latin America and Pope Francis expert Claudio Ivan Remeseira.

Remeseira says the "thinking of Pope Francis has been shaped by two specifically Argentinian factors... Peronist theologians and priests [such as Scannone who] seek to reconcile their political beliefs with the ecclesiology of the People of God championed by Vatican II."

This amounted to a mixture of Franco-like Fascist Peronism with Peronist leftist secular socialism that was the "Argentine social-welfare state" which Remeseira called "National-populist ideology" and the belief that "popular culture is... the sign of the Holy Spirit's presence in the community":

"[T]he Peronist... terminology was reminiscent of Francoist Spain, but instead of turning the country into a National-Catholic regime, Peron turned around the relationship between Church and State... Argentina morphed into a secular National-populist ideology.... [with] [o]ther characteristics of Peronism common with Fascism... fervent nationalism... the identification of Party and Nation as one."

"The centerpiece of this ideology was the charismatic relationship between Leader and People... the religious undertones of Peronism were captured by Evita [wife of Peron], the [Virgin Mary-like] mediator between the Leader and the masses [the "People"]... When Evita died... a saint-like cult of her memory rapidly spread across the country."

"... The long established influence of German idealism [this relativistic philosophy is the basis of the Modernist heresy] in Argentine philosophy also played its part... [Modernist German] Cardinal Walter Kasper points out that during his doctoral studies in 1950s Germany, Gera 'became familiar with... the Tubingen school (of theology)... teachings about the spirit of the people', the volkgeist."

"The ethnic essentialism associated with the notion of the volk had a peculiar spin in Argentina... the mestizo population that had been displaced by the those immigrants. The displacement of the lesser-skilled labor force by the [Peronist] gringos... [a] majority of the Argentinian churchmen- including Bergoglio- were themselves first or second generation European ["gringos"] immigrants; their awareness of, and in some cases, their feelings of guilt, help explain their support for Peron and their entrenched dislike of capitalism."

"In this theology, the People are defined in a narrow sense as the poor and the dispossessed..."

"... [the "People's"] Latin American Catholicism... a suspicious mélange of pre-Christian beliefs, half-baked Catechism precepts, and outright superstitions. Gera... develop[ed]... as key to the spiritual renovation of the Church."
(Medium, "Pope Francis, Peron and God's People: The Political Religion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio," September 17, 2017)

Renowned theologian Tracey Rowland says that the "Argentinian 'People's Theology'" gives:

A "privileged epistemological standing to the 'people' similar to that given to the proletariat class by Marxist theorists and to the 'Volk' by the German National Socialist...To European ears', the notion of 'the people' enjoying some kind of special epistemological status is strongly evocative of the National Socialist concept of the 'Volk'... Scannone would argue... their spirituality is based on [popular culture as explained by Gera] Christian beliefs, not Norse mythology."
(Catholic Theology, page 182)

To a large extent, Pope Francis's Theology of the People, it appears, is not based on Revelation, but German relativistic heretical Modernism.

Francis's thinking appears, to a large extent, to be based on a Argentinian Modernist version of German Volk or People of God theology that believes the "key to the spiritual renovation of the Church" is the People's "pre-Christian beliefs, half-baked Catechism precepts and outright superstitions" and is "strongly evocative of the [German] National Socialist concept of the 'Volk'" as well as the Argentinian Peronist mixture of Franco-like Fascist and leftist socialist secular political beliefs.

Please pray a Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Why is Pope Francis Promoting Intrinsic Evil & does he believe God wills Evil?

Why is the unscholarly Pope Francis, who thinks a third rate thinkers such as the confused and almost unreadable Postmodernist Michael de Certeau is "the greatest theologian for today," promoting intrinsically evil acts?

One possibility is because he was "confused and mislead" into thinking Amoris Leatitia is "Thomist" and orthodox by the heretical scholar Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez and the "great theologian" Cardinal Christoph Schonborn.

Latin American Catholic philosopher Carlos A. Casanova shows that dissenter Tony Mifsud and Archbishop Fernandez both of whom "irrationally" misuse Thomism are bedfellows following the lead of Fr. Bernard Haring in dissent from Catholic moral doctrine:

"Mifsud... [i]n p.73 he quotes Bernard Haring holding that the fruit of the II Vatican Council was the spirit of dissent among theologians towards the "dictates of the official Church."

"... Victor Manuel Fernandez's concrete reasoning is different... [b]ut the goal is very similar to Mifsud's, to open the way for the plausibility of "righteous" (or at least not-guilty) violations of God's law."

"... What Fernandez means is that the lady of his example does not will what is just, because that does not conform her concrete situation... As one can see in pp. 158 and 160 of his paper, he applies this principle to homosexuals and to spouses who "need" to use the condom."
(Aemaet, "Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor as Exposition of 'Natural Law' Contrasted with Their Irrational Rejection," Carlos A. Casanova, 2018)

Schonborn didn't explain to unscholarly Francis that the heretical Fr. Haring's theology of the denial of intrinsically evil acts which was used by the heretical Fernandez as a ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia (AL) would destroy all Catholic moral doctrine as it attempted to justify the "violation of God's law" by promoting "persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion" with the unavoidable logic of unrepentant homosexuals eventually receiving the Eucharist.

Dubia Cardinal Brandmuller says that those who promote intrinsically evil acts are heretics:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic."
(lifesitenews.com, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who opens Communion to adulterers 'some a heretic and promotes schism,'" December 23, 2016)

An example of what appears to have happened to Francis in his promoting of heresy can be found in history.

Pope Francis is the new Pope Honorius.

The unscholarly Pope Honorius was "confused and mislead" into becoming a material heretic who promoted the Monothelitist heresy. He was condemned by a general council and Pope St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Honorius that he "was not a profound theologian, and allowed himself to be confused and mislead."
(Edward Feser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

Theologian Tracey Rowland wrote that Francis before the papacy said "I can't imagine anything more boring than Fundamental Theology." She quotes Ross Douthat saying:

"Francis is clearly a less systematic thinker than... his predecessors" to the papacy. (Catholic Theology, page 192)

In other words, Francis is not a profound theologian and often a "confused" thinker.

It was reported that the not very systematic thinker Francis during his visit to Colombia said:

"Amoris Laetitia is Thomist, the morality of the great Thomas. You can speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn. ."
(National Catholic Register, "Pope to Jesuits: Help Critics of Amoris Leatitia to See Its Morality Is Thomist," September 28, 2017)

In a interview, with the Jesuit magazine America, Schonborn said "one who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments."

Schonborn in the interview appears to deny that the truths of the Decalogue of Revelation are eternal or objective:

"The complexity of family situations, which goes far beyond what was customary in our Western societies even a few decades ago, has made it necessary to look in a more nuanced way at the complexity of these situations. To a greater degree than in the past, the objective situation of a person does not tell us everything about that person in relation to God and in relation to the church. This evolution compels us urgently to rethink what we meant when we spoke of objective situations of sin. And this implicitly entails a homogeneous evolution in the understanding and expression of the doctrine."
(America, "Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love," August 15-22, 2016)

This is not Thomist, but appears to be soft historicism which comes from Hegel.

Hegelian historicism doesn't believe with Thomism that truth is objective and eternal.

Schonborn, in his quote above, appears to believe that historical evolution changes the meaning of truth which is anti-Thomist.

The unscholarly Francis bases his statement that "Amoris Leatitia is Thomist" on Schonborn's authority as "a great theologian."

Unfortunately for Francis, Schonborn is misrepresenting the truth about Aquinas's teachings and Amoris Leatitia is not Thomist.

Thomist scholar Fr. Basil Cole OP said that Schonborn's theology and Amoris Leatitia contradicts Thomism:

"Another tangle one can encounter is when quoting Aquinas piecemeal or without full advertence to his theological project. St. Thomas was nothing if not a complete and consistent thinker. To pick and choose his statements without considering their context and relation to his other relevant insights would be about as disastrous as proof-texting Sacred Scripture."

"One might suppose that a situationist ethic is supported by Aquinas when he states, “In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. […] The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 4; quoted in Amoris Laetitia n. 304). Isolated from Aquinas’s other statements, it could seem as if the doctor of the Church is saying that no moral rule is absolute, but that discernment is needed in each and every situation to know whether or not a general moral principle applies in a particular situation. However, this is not authentic Thomism."

"Situation ethics contradicts Aquinas's firm affirmation that there are some moral norms that always hold for everyone: these are the precepts of the Decalogue (T I-94, q.100, a.8)... Aquinas's teaching is clear: a person should not receive Holy Communion or absolution from sin who does not intend to change his life and forsake public sin... (ST I-94, q.43, a.1)."
(National Catholic Register, "Is 'Amoris Laetitia' Really Thomistic?," December 16, 2016)

The Filial Correction give similar evidence to show how and why Pope Francis's situation ethics is spreading heresy. 

So far, all the Filial Correction attackers, the Pope's inner circle and supporters who are defending Amoris Laetitia, it appears, are not Thomist, but soft Hegelian historicists who claim there is no objective/eternal morality or discipline.

Francis supporter theologian Giuseppe Lorizio of the Pontifical Lateran University mocked the Correction statement of "eternal discipline" in the area of the Eucharist.

He appears to have forgotten that St. Paul said you can't receive the Eucharist in a state of moral sin such as having sexual relations in an adulterous relationship.

Lorizio claims the discipline came only after the Council of Trent.
(Catholic Conclave, "Anti-Papal manipulation by enemies of the Pope and the Gospel," September 27, 2017)

Gay activist Michael Sean Winters in his attack on the Correction let the Hegelian historicism cat out of the bag.

He went so far as to attack Fr. James Martin defender Archbishop Charles Chaput for daring to criticize soft Hegelian Fr. Bernard Haring. (National Catholic Reporter, "'Correction' of Francis reveals critics don't come in good faith," September 27, 2017)

Winters pointed to the source of their problem with the Correction:

Winters, Lorizio, Schonborn and, it appears, Pope Francis don't believe in objective morality and promote allowing intrincically evil acts which Haring brought into the Church following the Second Vatican Council.

Schonborn following in the footsteps of Haring (who Francis praised), it appears, in a America magazine interview is saying that Amoris Laetitia says that God wills evil:

"In his great experience of accompanying people spiritually, when the Holy Father speaks of “objective situations of sin,” he does not stop short at the kinds of cases that are specified in No. 84 of 'The Family in the Modern World.' He refers in a broader way to “certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience” while “recognizing the influence of concrete factors” (No. 303).

"The conscience plays a fundamental role."

"Indeed:
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 not yet fully the objective ideal (No. 303)."
(America, "Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love," August 15-22, 2016)

What is Schonborn saying?

World-renown philosopher, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher and friend of Pope John Paul II, Josef Seifert in a new paper on Amoris Laetitia explains what Schonborn is saying:

"AL says that we can know with 'a certain moral security' that God himself asks us to commit intrinsically wrong acts such as adultery..."

"If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered 'intrinsically wrong'?" ("Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?," August 5, 2017)

In simple words the friend of John Paul II and renown philosopher says:

Pope Francis's Amoris Leatitia says God wills evil.

The philosopher's paper says:

"Let us read the decisive text (AL 303), which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or 'irregular couples'... :

'Yet conscience can do more... the most generous response which can be given to God (Relations Finalise 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one's limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).'"

Again, in simple words, Amoris Laetitia says God wills intrinsically evil acts which brings us to Haring's influence on the current Pope.

Fr. Edmundus Waldstein, O. Cist., at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives an overview of why Francis praised dissenter Haring and why Amoris Laetitia promotes allowing intrinsically evil acts:

"In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now, Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces." (Dubia and Initiating Processes, December 7, 2016, sancrucensis.wordpress.com)

Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for Catholic Culture.com said anyone who would praise Haring "as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive."

In the beginning of the post, titled "Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent," Mirus said:

"Pope Francis praised...Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican Council."

The article presented some of the moral theologian's dissenting heretical teachings:

"In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization, contraception and artificial insemination...According to Haring, under difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts."

The Kasper proposal agenda which became Amoris Laetitia is in significant segments about allowing intrinsically evil acts such as adultery and implicitly homosexuality. Fr. Z said at his website on April 16, 2016:

"'Homosexuality' was the bigger issue with the Kasperites... This is still the Kasperite strategy."

The Kasper agenda and Amoris Laetitia's unavoidable logic is:

It follows that if unrepentant adulterers can receive Holy Communion, then unrepentant homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too.

The bigger agenda of Cardinal Kasper, Schonborn and Haring (besides allowing intrinsically evil acts), which Francis probably doesn't understand, is a Hegelian philosophic idealistic subjective metaphysics of historical becoming which denies the eternal and/or objective truths of the Classical Greek/Thomistic metaphysics of being.

Waldstein, O. Cist., explains:

"This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy.... Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church."

"I call this sort of historicism “soft” since its proponents would not all be willing to affirm the dark core of Hegel’s account of the good. But by adopting historicist terms they tend to draw conclusions that imply the basically subjectivist, modern account of the good, and the account of freedom that follows from it. Thomas Stark has shown how these problems play out in the theology of Cardinal Kasper." [https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/#more-5361]

Those who promote relativistic historicism promote the killing of objective Thomism.

The Thomistic philosophy of being or objective truth and Revelation is a basis of all Catholic infallible doctrinal and moral teachings as well as the basis of Western Civilization and offshoots of it such as charity, objective universal human rights and science.

Thomas Woods in the book "How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization" explains in detail why and how the Church and Thomistic philosophy alone guarantee sound objective moral teachings and a civilization that brings about charity, human rights and science.

If intrinsically evil acts are allowed through a denial of objective truth and objective Revelation to become the norm in our culture, then not only does Catholic doctrinal and moral teachings collapse, but Western Civilization, also, collapses.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Monday, November 19, 2018

Is Pope Francis a Nihilist who doesn't believe in Truth?

The Catholic Thing wrote that "Francis made a startling claim" that appears to deny objective truth:

"We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths."
[https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]

Pope Francis apparently got this terminology about "abstract truths" from a Jesuit theologian Michael de Certeau who wrote:

"In history everything begins with the gesture of setting aside, of putting together, of transforming certain classified objects... It exiles them from practice [praxis] in order to confer upon them the status of "abstract" objects of knowledge..."

"... [T]he historical discipline... designate[s] the "that" as a "fact" is only a way of naming what cannot be understood."
( Michael de Certeau's book: The Writing of History, pages 72-73 and 84)

De Certeau is a nihilist who Francis considers to "be the greatest theologian for today." This theologian believes that there is no "possibility of an objective basis for truth" and that there is no objective meaning or reality. (Dictionary.com definitions of nihilism)

 In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth and objective Catholic truth.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")


Rev. Dr. Federico Colautti, ITI, in a talk titled "Pope Francis: Understanding His Language and Mission (1-10-2015)," shows that de Certeau had "a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... [n]ot making faith of a museum":

In the "discourse, a video message that the Pope send the Catholic University of Buenos Aires... I discovered that one of the few quotes he makes is from a theologian... a certain Michael de Certeau... I can imagine that this author had a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... Not making faith of a museum... This preference for the periphery could have a relationship with this theologian Michael de Certeau."

De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:

"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no "access" to outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."

"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."

"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)

By Francis's greatest modern theologian's logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate, is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or "narrative."

They change the "narrative" or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their "narrative" point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their "narratives" are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin "narrative" is "news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion." (Dictionary.com)

They usually use their "narratives" in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is the Pope's favorite theologian's central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau")

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the Plural, " Page 511)

In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a sign of "absence."

Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau's influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

"It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church." (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

"Certeau... came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the "law of conflict," that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is "shattered." ("Michael de Certeau - in the Plural", Page 359)

Francis's greatest modern theologian doesn't believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Pope's most eminent modern theologian doesn't even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If the Pope is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The "Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s... Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals - or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter..."

"Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology..."

"Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track..."

"Here it is useful to recall Derrida: 'deconstruction never had any meaning... than as a radicalization... within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'" ("Explaining Postmodernism," Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and it appears Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal ideology or group.

Instead of economic Marxism, the post-modernist in the 1970's focused on Cultural Marxism which de Certeau and other post-modernists termed "oppression" of groups.

Power not truth for groups such as women, gays, transexauls, workers and any sub-category of minorities was the new goal to achieving control.

An example is abortion: women had to have power over their bodies so the truth that the unborn baby is human must be denied and politically incorrect.

Another example is homosexual acts: gays had to have power over their bodies so the truth that it is was a sin and led to disease and a early death had to be denied and politically incorrect.

Remember that liberals, who never use Marxist words, are nothing but post-modernist who use words like equality and compassion as masks for raw power.

Venezuela is another example.

The liberals from Fr. James Martin to Pope Francis will not lift a finger or say a word to stop the Venezuelan people from being starved and brutalized because the country's dictator is part of their liberal group.

The liberals means to achieve power in the Church is praxis theology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis's "decision - making process" outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is "the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory."

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia "might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter." Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks:

How can footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia "be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between... two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other." ("Catholic Theology," Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis theology.

Rowland says "praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics." She then explains praxis ideology or "theology":

"Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process." ("Catholic Theology," Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of Pope Francis and praxis "theology," then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

The Church has a Pope who has betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

It appears that Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "secular (liberal or Marxist)" ideology which denies objective truth.

Francis in Amoris Laetitia and back on Holy Thursday appeared to be denying objective truth. Canon lawyer , in The Catholic Thing, wrote at the Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Holy Thursday morning "Francis made a startling claim" when he called truth an idol:

"We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths. They can be comfortable idols, always within easy reach; they offer a certain prestige and power and are difficult to discern. Because the “truth-idol” imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart. Much worse, it distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus."

Fr. Murray then defines truth as the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches and shows that apparently Francis denies truth and makes "erroneous opinion into an idol": 

"Truth is the conformity of mind and reality. The truth about God is understood when we accurately grasp the nature and purpose of His creation (natural theology), and when we believe in any supernatural revelation He may make. Jesus told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All truths have their origin in the Truth who is God made man. The Christian understands that the truth is a Person."

"... Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?

"If the truth could be an idol, then naturally any use of the Scriptures to illustrate that particular truth would be a charade. But the truth of God cannot be an idol because what God has made known to us is our means of entering into His reality – the goal of our existence."

"Francis states that this 'truth-idolatry' in fact 'distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus.'”

"Here we have the interpretative key to what I think he is getting at. He is defending his decision in Amoris Laetitia to allow some people who are living in adulterous unions to receive the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharistic while intending to continue to engage in adulterous relations."

"... The truth will set you free, it will not enslave you in error and darkness. Those who seek to be healed by coming close to Christ in his sacraments will only realize that goal by knowing and doing what Jesus asks of them. To reject in practice his words about the permanence of marriage and the obligation to avoid adultery, and then assert a right to receive the sacraments risks making an erroneous opinion into an idol." [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]

Francis because of his apparent denial of truth appears to be denying objective morality and intrinsically evil acts. Professor Claudio Pierantoni, a Patristic Scholar of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile and Member of JAHLF (John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family), said that  Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate appears to deny "the existence of intrinsically evil acts" and is promoting "situation ethics":

"[T]he document is read within the context of the present controversies in the Church, especially that about Amoris Laetitia and situation ethics, one gets the strong impression that many passages are directly aimed at harshly rebuking all those people (cardinals, scholars, journalists and simple laypeople writing on blogs) that have opposed the papal agenda about giving Communion to the divorced and remarried, Communion to Protestants, permitting contraception in certain cases, too mild opposition or silence in the face of anti-family and anti-life legislation (pro-abortion, pro-birth control pro-euthanasia and pro same-sex marriage). In this sense, the document brings no progress or clarity in any of the most controversial and anti-doctrinal stances of Pope Francis. Quite to the contrary, it seems to represent one more step towards giving a kind of official approval to situation ethics."

"So, the reading of this document should once more to urge us to plead before the Pope for an answer to the dubia, and in particular to dubium no. 2 about the existence of intrinsically evil acts, which are not justifiable in any situation. We should not forget that to deny this doctrine, or sow doubts about it, in any field of ethics, is the principal heresy of our times and the most dangerous enemy of sanctity." [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/professor-pierantoni-gaudete-et-exsultate-supports-error-of-situational-eth#.WuLDtN9lDqC]

Why does Francis deny truth which has led to his promoting situation ethics?

Pope Francis expert Austen Ivereigh points to how this happened:

"Bergoglio’s fascination with polarities began in the 1960s, when he first began exploring as a Jesuit via Gaston Fessard’s 1956 monumental anti-Hegelian work on the dialectics of grace and freedom in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Fessard, Francis tells Borghesi, 'gave me so many of the elements that later got mixed in.'”


"Fessard was one of a 1950s group of Lyons-based jésuites blondéliens - that is, Jesuits inspired by Maurice Blondel - that included Henri de Lubac, Gaston Fessard and Michel de Certeau." [https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/18/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity/]


Ivereigh's claim that Fessard is "anti-Hegelian" is wrong.

Back in 1950, scholar Jules "Isaac [O.P.] was accusing Fessard of identifying this quasi-science of thought with the science of the real order, or metaphysics. That is what Hegel does."

"The executive function of the dialectic, as Isaac interpreted Aquinas, uses the law of thought in a concrete instance of thinking or arguing. Because Fessard used these laws not as laws of arguing, but as laws of the development of historical events, he is again accused of Hegelianism." ("Gaston Fessard S.J., His Work Toward A Theology of History," by Mary Alice Muir, 1970, page 25-26)

 Francis theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone connects the final dots of the close connection of Francis's thinking with Fessard and Blondel's Hegelian teachings which explains why the Pope does not apparently believe in truth and promotes situation ethics:


"Between Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidences, probably because they both draw from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. However, indirect links between the two should not be excluded, for example, through the relationship between Gaston Fessard (strongly influenced by Blondel) and Miguel Ángel Fiorito, much appreciated by Bergoglio. This article focuses first on the convergences regarding action; then it compares the coincidences between the two authors regarding the overcoming of social and existential conflicts. Finally, it studies the parallelism between the «logic of love», nominated and applied by the Pope, and the «logic of a moral life» by Blondel, focused on charity. ( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III / www.laciviltacattolica.it )" [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]

Scannone connecting the Pope's thinking to Blondel is very important because he is one of "Francis’ closest theological advisors" according to an expert on Latin America and Francis's theology, Claudio Remeseira:

"In the almost fifty years since its appearance, the Theology of the People has become the Argentine theological school by default. The generation of its founders was followed by a second generation of disseminators, the most prolific of whom is father Scannone... Scannone, Galli, and Fernández are among Francis’ closest theological advisors. ["https://medium.com/@hispanicnewyork/pope-francis-per%C3%B3n-and-god-s-people-the-political-religion-of-jorge-mario-bergoglio-2a85787e7abe ]

Theologian John Lamont explains what Blondel taught:

"The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be understood in Aristotle's sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving the philosopher Maurice Blondel's rejection of the traditional definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality ('adaequatio rei et intellectus') in favour of an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life ('adaequatio realis mentis et vitae'). While this definition of truth was not explicitly stated by the neomodernists, the importance of Blondel for their thought makes this interpretation a plausible one; Bouillard, for example, wrote extensively and approvingly on Blondel.12 What they did explicitly assert was that the truth of past dogmatic pronouncements does not consist in their being an accurate description of reality, and that a theology that was not relevant to the present day ('actuel') was untrue." [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html?m=1]

Even liberal neo-modernist philosophy writer Anthony Carroll wrote:

"Conscious of the challenge to the traditional Thomist theory of knowledge that had been ushered in by modern philosophy, Blondel, for example, sought to identify the practical level of human action as the place where one might find a new apologetic for the Christian faith. In his L’Action (1893), he analyses the dynamics of human action and argues that the distance between what we desire and what we actually realise in our actions indicates that what we truly desire lies always beyond the particular object that we are momentarily fixed upon. This transcendental horizon of desire draws the mind and heart towards God as the only One who can satisfy truly our infinite longings. For Blondel, it is this Augustinian unrest that leaves a trace of the divine in our human experience. Such a turn to the interiority of human experience as grounds for the proof of God’s existence is what is meant by immanentism in Pascendi."

"Rather than pointing towards the historical existence of Jesus, the factual occurrence of miracles and the fulfilment of earlier prophecies for proof of God’s existence, the Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics of the time, which had been constructed on the basis that external revelation could be taken for granted. With this turn to the interior experience of the human subject, more than simply philosophical questions were raised. If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?" [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]

Finally, the great theologian and teacher of Pope John Paul II, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote about Blondel and why anyone who was influenced by his teachings, directly or indirectly, would deny truth, as apparently Francis is influenced according one of his closest advisor's Scannone:

"One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity
of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
(Denz. 2080) " [https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P__djvu.txt]


Blondel's modernist theology came from "the Idealism of Kant and Hegel." Hegel leads to the "Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida" where de Certeau got most of his philosophy.

Did Francis's theology of the periphery come from the "Prophets of Extremity"?

The definition of extremity is "the furthest point or limit of something."

The definition of periphery is "the outer limit or edge of an area or object."

Remember what Francis expert Rev. Dr. Colautti said:

In the "discourse, a video message that the Pope send the Catholic University of Buenos Aires... I discovered that one of the few quotes he makes is from a theologian... a certain Michael de Certeau... I can imagine that this author had a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... Not making faith of a museum... This preference for the periphery could have a relationship with this theologian Michael de Certeau."


Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau's key ideas are oppression of groups and the deconstruction of meaning for the most part. De Certeau got these ideas from most of the same sources as Derrida who, like Fessard, had as his starting point Hegel. Remember that much of Francis's thinking comes not only from de Certeau, but from Fessard who was a Hegelian.

Derrida scholar Allan Megill on the Hegelian influence wrote:

He "sees no possibility of ever "escaping" Hegel... every attempt to state a truth is already a reintegration into the dialectic... A key term for Derrida is "dissemination"... a kind of anti-dialectic, going against the dialectical rule of three... The fourth moment of the dialectic is the deconstruction moment: position, negation, negation of the negation, deconstruction (or Nietzsche... Derrida)."
("Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida," Pages 271, 273-274)

The fourth moment or the deconstruction of meaning for Derrida and de Certeau is the Nietzschean relativism moment.


Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau ultimately leads him to Friedrick Nietzsche and the Nietzschean relativism moment.

De Certeau apparently made Francis a Nietzschean.

Nietzsche scholar Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote a book that shows Hegel leads to Nietzsche:

Nietzsche said the "'dialectical principles with which Hegel assisted the German spirit to gain its victory over Europe- 'contradiction moves the world, all things are contradictory to themselves.'"
("From Hegel to Nietzsche," Page 180)

Professor Allan Bloom, author of "The Closing of the American Mind thought that the only virtue 50 years of Nietzsche's influence on public education – and he could have said 50 years of Catholic education – has achieved is relativity of truth.

Bloom said relativism "is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society."

The move away from objective truth leads to universal rights being replaced by Nietzsche's will to power. Bloom, for example, showed how the old civil rights movement "relied on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." But the new Black Power movement considered the Constitution "corrupt" and demanded a "black identity, not universal rights. Not rights but power counted."

The liberal "Catholics" speak the jargon of the Catholic while following Nietzsche's will to power. They understand power and hold most of the power positions in the infrastructure of the American Church.

According to Catholic scholar James Hitchcock, the leftist "clerical homosexual network" extends to "bishops, seminary rectors, chancery officials, [and] superiors of religious orders."

The faithful Catholics, the ones not infected with relativism and will to power, not realizing that their opponents use words as ploys to attain power, still use logic in an attempt to reason them back into objective truth. So they control many traditional and conservative publications, as well as the EWTN Cable Network, but they have power over only a few dioceses, colleges and high schools, where the real power is.

Meanwhile, the Nietzschean "Catholics" are going for the throat by going after the young. They control the American Catholic high school system, which is pro-homosexual, and filter out Roman Church documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ... [and] under no circumstances can they be approved." 


That the Catholic schools are not teaching the Catechism of the Catholic Church is shown by recent polls which found that the vast majority of Catholic high school students are pro-gay. That is, they buy the whole gay agenda and even have gay clubs at their Catholic schools.

Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows why this relativism and moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to will to power:

"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."

This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.

Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.

Leftists replace the traditional family with sexual power struggles that lead to the death mills of the abortion industry and the graveyards of AIDS and the abandonment of children and women at the altar of free sex.

Sex is not free. It was once a responsibility that a mature man entered into for life, for the security of his beloved children and wife.

Likewise, liberals replace the Constitution with gay, gender, group and ethnic power struggles that lead to the breaking of the rule of law.

If a president can sexually abuse women and possibly even rape them, then obstruct justice and lie under oath, are we under the rule of law?

If our society will not tolerate truth, then men and women are not secure in their "inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society," as Bloom said.

If we reject the rule of law and natural rights, our society will progress toward the Clintonian and homosexual power tactics of prison inmates.

The leftists in the Church and the media rejecting objective truth no longer want to be identified as men of objective faith and reason, but rather as Nietzschean post-modernists to be identified with the "culture" of the gay and Clintonian playboy slogans of the media elite.

The media elite uses management tactics on anyone who wants to be identified as a man of objective morals, faith and reason. They redefine the meaning of words like morals, faith and reason through association and repetition, then isolate those who don't accept the new definitions, after which they ostracize the good name of any person or group that doesn't accept the new "culture" and isn't a "team player."


The very respected scholar Edgar H. Schein of MIT Sloan School of Management explains the process in "Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited":

"It may seem absurd to the reader to draw an analogy between the coercive persuasion in political prisons and a new leader announcing that he or she is going 'to change the culture.'

"However, if the leader really means it, if the change will really affect fundamental assumptions and values, one can anticipate levels of anxiety and resistance quite comparable to those one would see in prisons. The coercive element is not as strong. More people will simply leave before they change their cognitive structures, but if they have a financial stake or a career investment in the organization, they face the same pressure to 'convert' that the prisoner did. ... Consider, for example, what it means to impose a 'culture of teamwork' based on 'openness and mutual trust' in an individualistic society."

By using this process, the leftists with the media's marketing ability learned they could create massive peer pressure – some would call it a "mob mentality," which changes the worldview of people with weak morals, weak faith or the Judas mentality. These types of people see themselves as the "elite" because they accept the "culture of teamwork" and have "openness" to the new definitions.

These persons wishing to be part of the "culture" or "team" are open to cognitive re-definition. Schein explains how the process works:

"'Cognitive redefinition' involved two different processes. First, concepts like crime and espionage had to be semantically redefined. Crime is an abstraction that can mean different things in different conceptual systems when one makes it concrete. Second, standards of judgment had to be altered. Even within the western concept of crime, what was previously regarded as trivial was now seen to be serious. The anchors by which judgments are made are shifted and the point of neutrality is moved. Behavior that was previously judged to be neutral or of no consequence became criminal, once the anchor of what was a minimum crime was shifted. These two processes, semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, are the essence of cognitive re-definition."

Professor Bloom thought that Nietzsche was the father of the modern American culture with it's "semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad." He said, "Words such as 'charisma,' 'lifestyle,' 'commitment,' 'identity,' and many others, all of which can easily be traced to Nietzsche ... are now practically American slang."

But the most important Nietzschean slang word is "values."

"Values" are the death of Christian morality because values simply mean opinions. If opinion is how things are decided, then might makes right.

One must remember that whenever someone talks about values in modern America – family values or religious values or place-the-blank-in-front-of values – they are saying there is no real or objective right or wrong – only opinions of the self and its will to power.

Nietzsche's philosophy is summed up by Bloom as:

"Commitment values the values and makes them valuable. Not love of truth but intellectual honesty characterizes the proper state of mind. Since there is no truth in the values, and what truth there is about life is not lovable, the hallmark of the authentic will is consulting one's oracle while facing up to what one is and what one experiences. Decisions, not, deliberations, are the movers of deeds. One cannot know or plan the future. One must will it."

As a philologist, Nietzsche believed there was no original text and transferred this belief to reality, which he thought was only pure chaos. He proposed will to power in which one imposes or "posits" one's values on a meaningless world.

Previous to Freud's psychoanalysis, Nietzsche's writings spoke of the unconscious and destructive side of the self. In fact, Freud wrote that Nietzsche "had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was likely to live."

Max Weber and Sigmund Freud are the two writers most responsible for Nietzschean language in America. Few know that Freud was " profoundly influenced by Nietzsche," according to Bloom. Freud, much more than Weber, profoundly changed America from a Christian culture to a therapeutic or self-centered culture.

The therapeutic approaches, which started with Freud, have a basic assumption that is not Christian. The starting point is not the Christian worldview, which is summed up in the parable of the prodigal son: a fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters.

Unlike the Christian worldview, the therapeutic starting point is that the individual must overcome personal unconscious forces, in Freud, and in Carl Jung the person must unite to the collective unconscious, which is shared by all humans.

In both cases, the therapist assists his client to change himself to 'become his real self.' Forgiveness and returning to God are not needed. What is needed are not God and His Forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of its self.

Freud, under the influence of Nietzsche, moved psychiatry away from the mechanistic and biological to the previously "unscientific" model of the "symbolic language of the unconscious."

Freud's pupil Carl Jung took the symbolic language of the unconscious a step further. Unlike his mentor, Jung's unconscious theory is not just about making conscious sexually repressed or forgotten memories. His symbolic therapy used what he called the "active imagination" to incorporate split-off parts of the unconscious (complexes) into the conscious mind.

He believed with Freud that dreams and symbols are means to the unconscious, but for Jung the dream and symbol are not repressed lusts from stages of development. They are a way to unite with the collective unconsciousness.

Many Christians thought this "language of the soul" was a step forward from what they considered the cramped scientific reality of modernity. What they didn't understand was that Jung's theory was part of a movement that led to the rejection of objective morality and truth.

Jungian (and Freudian) psychoanalysis reduces Christian concepts such as God, free will and intelligence to blind reactions, unconscious urges and uncontrollable acts. Even more disastrous, Jung inverted Christian worship.

Leanne Payne, a Christian therapist, considers Jung "not a scientist, but a post-modernist subjectivist. Jung's active imagination therapy is hostile not only to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to all systems containing objective moral and spiritual value. Within this world the unconscious urge becomes god. What the unconscious urge wants is what is finally right or moral. These psychic personae [complexes] are literally called 'gods' (archetypes),' and so an overt idolatry of self follows quickly."

It seems to me that within the modern French Nietzschean schools of thought of Foucault, Derrida and Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau a type of Jungian unconscious urge is replacing the old existential conscious self who chooses. The post-modernist and all Nietzschean secularists are moving from the idolatry of self to the idolatry of autonomous inner "beings" that, according to Payne, are similar to pagan "gods." 


Sadly, these pagan "gods" appear to be the "spirits" that guide those who are disciples of de Certeau and the French Postmodernists who can be called Marxist "Materialist Magicians."

Are they the "spirit" that guide the Pope's synods? Francis has said of his synods:

They are "the outcome of the working of the Spirit."
(Fatima Perspectives, "The 'Synodality' Scam," November 20, 2018)

As C.S. Lewis predicted in "The Screwtape Letters," we are moving to a "scientific" paganism. C.S. Lewis' name for the "scientific" pagan was the Materialist Magician and the name of the autonomous inner "beings" was the "Forces."

In "The Screwtape Letters," his character who is a senior evil spirit said:

I have high hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to the Enemy [God]. The "Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our prefect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of "spirits" – then the end of the war will be in sight.

Some of the largest audiences for this "scientific" paganism with its inversion of worship and the Judeo-Christian worldview are followers of Christ. By using Christian symbols and terminology, Jungian spirituality has infiltrated to a large extent Christian publishers, seminaries, even convents and monasteries.

Many Christians are using Jung's active imagination as a method of prayer. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., thinks this is dangerous "because this fantasy life has no moral underpinnings, because it helps to reinforce an experience of autonomous inner 'beings' accessible via the imagination, and because it is a defense against redemptive suffering, it easily allies with and quickly becomes a Gnostic form of spiritually with powerfully occult overtones."

If one is under the influence of the autonomous inner "beings," uncontrollable urges can overpower the self. One can go temporarily or permanently insane. And in the Christian worldview, the autonomous inner "being" is not always just an imaginary being, but can be a personal being, which then makes possession a rare, but not impossible, occurrence.

In fact, according to one Jungian therapist, Nietzsche himself went insane permanently when an autonomous inner "being" (archetype) overpowered him. So, unfortunately with the widespread acceptance of Jungian spirituality, mainstream Christianity seems to be moving to post-modern Nietzschean insanity and possibly, in some cases, possession.

Jung's autobiography is full of insane or occult experiences. He was continually hearing 'voices.' In his autobiography he said his home was "... crammed full of spirits ... they were packed deep right up to the front door and the air was so thick it was scarcely possible to breathe."

During the Hitler regime, which itself was obsessed with the occult, Jung edited a Nazi psychotherapeutic journal where he said, "The 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish." Keep that word "potential" in your mind. It will be used by American psychology.

Once opinion is master, then might makes right. In "Beyond Good and Evil," Nietzsche proclaimed a new morality, "Master morality," which was different from Christian morality – or "slave morality," as he called it. He thought the weak have the morality of obedience and conformity to the master. Masters have a right to do whatever they want; since there is no God, everything is permissible.

In what Nietzsche considered his masterpiece, "Zarathustra," he said the new masters would replace the dead God. The masters were to be called Supermen, or the superior men.

After Freud and Jung came Alfred Adler, also a follower of Nietzsche, with "Individual psychology," which maintains that the individual strives for what he called "superiority" but now is called "self-realization" or "self-actualization," and which came from Nietzsche's ideas of striving and self-creation.

The "human potential movement" and humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are imbedded with these types of ideas. The psychologists of "potential" teach the superior man.

Edvard Munch said:

"Alfred Adler translated Nietzsche's philosophical idea of 'will to power' into the psychological concept of self-actualization."

"Thus, Nietzschean thought forms the foundation for and permeates Alfred Adler's Individual Psychology, Abraham Maslow's Humanistic Biology, Carl Rogers's Person-Centered Psychology, and has influenced many other psychological ideas and systems. ... Alfred Adler was the first psychologist to borrow directly from Nietzsche, making numerous references to the philosopher throughout his works. Adler took Nietzsche's idea of "will to power" and transformed it into the psychological concept of self-actualization, in which an individual strives to realize his potential."

Mary Kearns, in an address to the Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland, spoke of the Nietzschean ideas now being taught in Catholic schools in the name of "scientific" psychology. Kearns said:

"The methods are based on 'the group therapy technique' first developed in America in the 1970's by two psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. They described how emotional conditioning should be carried out by a group 'facilitator.' The facilitator does not impart knowledge like the old fashioned teacher. Instead he/she initiates discussions encouraging children to reveal their personal views and feelings. The facilitator's approach is 'value free.' There is no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question. Each person discloses what is right or wrong for them. All choices are equally valid even if they are opposites. Everything depends on feelings or emotions. Reason and conscience are discouraged. If anyone attempts objective evaluation, they are to be treated as an 'outsider' and there will be a strong emotional reaction against such judgemental intolerance'".

If it is true that Catholic education now uses these techniques in "teaching religious and moral education," then the Catholic education system has entered into the Nietzschean insanity. If these are the techniques being used in education and in the seminaries, then sexual misconduct charges against priests are a symptom of "scientific" paganism replacing Christianity.

Santa Rosa priest Don Kimball, who is charged with sexual misconduct, is an example of someone whose "approach" was "value free" – that is, there was "no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question."

In 1996, Karyn Wolfe and Mark Spaulding of Pacific Church News said, "THE WEDGE! You can't do youth ministry (any ministry for that matter) without it. ... Basing his theory on psychologist Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs', the Rev. Don Kimball developed this model for the growth and maturity process of a group."

Another example of the value-free approach is Thomas Zanzig, a major leader in the Catholic Church for youth ministry, plus an editor and writer of Catholic textbooks.

According to Marks S. Winward, Zanzig, in a book on youth ministry, "bases his 'Wedge Model' on a similar model developed by Fr. Don Kimble." Homeschool leader Marianna Bartold said, "Sharing the Christian Message by Thomas Zanzig has students come up with as many slang or street words as possible for penis and vagina in three or four minutes."

Now, many might say these are only isolated cases of misuses of Maslow and Adler until one reads the original text. According to William Coulson, a former collaborator of Carl Rogers, Maslow was always a revolutionary. ... In 1965, working a radical idea about children and adult sex into his book about management, "In Eupsychian Management: A Journal," [Maslow said]: "I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisioned a kind of social worker ... as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch."

As one can see, the basic therapeutic assumption leads to certain results in the real world. These thinkers don't believe in the basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves.

It is understandable that Nietzschean atheists such as Maslow, Adler and gay activists could hold these basic assumptions that sexually abusing children is okay, just as Hitler thought killing Jews was okay since he had the basic assumption that there is no right or wrong only relativism and will to power disguised in Nazi pagan religious and "National Socialist" language.


It would not be understandable and would be a disgrace if Pope Francis holds these Nietzschean assumptions. Relativism with its implicit denial of original sin and personal sin is, in large part, behind the sex-abuse headlines of Chile, Pennsylvania and those around the globe.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.