The Synod on Synodality has come to an end with Pope Francis’ ratification of its long final document. But the synodal process grinds on as the Church now awaits the findings of its fifteen Study Groups, which will examine a wide range of issues, including the female diaconate and the criteria for selecting bishops. Group Nine deserves special scrutiny because it has been entrusted with a review of the “theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.” These controversies center primarily on sexual morality and life issues, such as abortion and euthanasia.
In its preliminary report to the Synod participants before they dispersed, the study group proposed a “new paradigm” and a “conversion of thought” that undermines the Church’s perennial teaching on moral absolutes. According to the study group’s report, ethics “is not a matter of applying pre-packaged objective truths to the subjective situations, as if they were particular cases of an immutable and universal law.” Instead, ethics is a matter of discerning the moral truth that is consistent with one’s lived experience, in “contextual fidelity” to the Gospel.
Thus, through a process of discernment every moral agent will determine what is right for her depending on her lived experience and unique circumstances. The notion that there are intrinsic evils or specific moral requirements that hold without exception is quietly put aside in favor of the personal judgement of one’s conscience. Conscience, therefore, has primacy in the moral life along with the sovereignty to determine exceptions to formal moral norms, including the moral imperatives expressed in the Decalogue.
Of course, there is nothing really “new” about this proposed paradigm shift. The tradition of exceptionless moral norms has been under severe assault since the end of the Second Vatican Council. However, these absolute precepts that always prohibit such things as adultery or the killing of the innocent are critically important. They are intrinsically related to the foundations of morality established by the natural law. The absolute norm excluding adultery, for example, is necessary for preserving the permanence and integrity of the unconditional conjugal commitment made between a man and woman when they take their marriage vows.
After the Council, which actually reaffirmed the doctrine of intrinsically evil acts, revisionist theologians of different stripes began to question these norms, which they regarded as far too rigid and restrictive. Moral theologians like Josef Fuchs, S.J. and Richard McCormick, S.J. argued tenaciously against the existence of such specific absolute norms. Fuchs, for example, declared that the command forbidding adultery was an “exhortation” rather than a moral precept in the strict sense. It mattered little that these moral absolutes had been competently defended by the likes of Aristotle and Aquinas or witnessed to by a legion of martyrs such as St. Maria Goretti or Saints Perpetua and Felicity.
For this new breed of moral theologians, it was futile to judge an action as immoral based on some universal moral standard without considering intentions, circumstances, and consequences.
In his magisterial 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, St. John Paul II sought to correct this dissident vision. One of the principal themes of Veritatis Splendor is that the Christian faith includes specific moral demands clearly conveyed in the Decalogue that was re-promulgated by Jesus himself. John Paul II’s encyclical confirms that the faithful must acknowledge “the absolute validity of negative moral precepts which oblige without exception” (76). A person who is contemplating an abortion or euthanasia does not need to “discern” whether this action is morally justified no matter how exigent the circumstances may be. The taking of innocent human life is always an objective evil. God has also conveyed to his people these same specific moral requirements as the part of the fabric of the natural moral law.
Thus, conscience does not entail creative thinking or discernment about whether one is allowed to commit a particular evil act. Rather, conscience is a judgement based on moral truths, some of which are precepts that oblige under any circumstance.
John Paul II’s writings initially subdued the dissenters’ efforts to soften the doctrine of intrinsically evil acts, but the opposition to that doctrine has resurfaced with a special vigor. What is particularly disturbing is that Pope Francis seems to side with the revisionists. In his controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, he writes that “it is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s action correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being…. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations” (304; my emphasis). This elastic interpretation of moral precepts clearly leaves ample room for conscience to discern whether an exception to a moral law is warranted in one’s “particular situation.”
In addition, Veritatis Splendor is now virtually ignored at the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences, which seems determined to sweep away the Pope’s theological legacy. Instead, the new faculty, hired by its Grand Chancellor, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, teach courses like “Conscience and Discernment.” They are also keen to emphasize how the moral law must be constantly modified and re-conceptualized in response to cultural evolution and historical experience. Regrettably, many other moral theologians have emerged to give new hope to the frustrated ambitions of their predecessors in the 1970s. At a conference on moral theology held two years ago in Rome, several moral theologians expressed their utter disdain for Veritatis Splendor and the need for a modification of its key doctrines.
Fr. Julio Martinez, S.J., professor of moral theology at Comillas Pontifical University, said that it was necessary “to untie the knots Veritatis Splendor made in Catholic morals.” Veritatis Splendor, he asserted, initiated “a very profound development in moral theology with the introduction of the concept we call intrinsic evil.” According to Fr. Martinez, this is a “controversial philosophical concept that brought serious difficulties for moral theology.” He claimed that these vexing “knots” also appear in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. However, Fr. Martinez overlooks the fact that this doctrine has been taught without objection in the Catholic Church for many centuries.
It seems clear that the “new” paradigm proposed by the Study Group Nine will have widespread support in all the quarters of the liberal Catholic Academy. However, the absolute prohibitions against certain evil acts based on the moral commandments and the natural law constitute the backbone of morality, and softening their moral force opens the door to subjectivism. If these exceptionless principles are reduced to general “guidelines” or “exhortations” that warrant exceptions all the time, we inevitably end up with a form of situation ethics. Moreover, this controversial paradigm casually overlooks how easily conscience is beguiled by emotion and tangled rationalizations, especially in our ambient modern culture where it is so difficult to engage in sound moral reasoning.
The Catholic Church continues to encounter a perilous cultural landscape where it must contend with a relentless global Sexual Revolution that threatens marriage and family, along with a culture of death that demands euthanasia and unfettered abortion. Any paradigm that deprives morality of its objectivity is profoundly unstable and implicitly licenses a certain skepticism about the moral worth of every human person. The Church can successfully oppose these falsehoods only if it stands on the firm ground of natural law, anchored in our immutable human nature.
The convictions of this study group mirror the post-modern mentality that celebrates indeterminacy and subjectivism over objectivity, and moral chaos over the created order. Conscience is no longer the servant of moral truth, but its master. Perhaps this is what we must now expect from a post-modern, synodal Church, in which all is gray and personal conscience reigns supreme.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
ENTROPY is broadly defined as “the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system…”
For example, might we FANTASIZE synodally that Christian faith & morals are degrading into simply one several natural religions? In the absence of the historical fact and event of the singular and divine self-disclosure (!) of the Incarnation?
Why not a merger, then, with Pachamama, or the Marxian crucifix from Peru, or the Wiccan Stang accepted at the World Youth Day, or radical Secularism…? Or even, a convergence with ISLAM which, while the Qur’an includes the name of Moses some 136 times and honors the “Law of Moses,” explicitly includes only the first five Commandments ABSENT explicit mention of the other five prohibitive Commandments. The natural law and moral absolutes explicitly affirmed and defended in Gaudium et Spes (nn. 16, 79), the Catechism, and Veritatis Splendor (VS) from which: “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this norm” (VS, n. 95).
The Faith, then, is reduced backwardly (!) to grasping for the vaporous and totally inscrutable transcendent, no longer the Triune One who said, “Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). Instead, like Islam, a promiscuous and historicist FLUIDITY by which what came before, and to us from above, instead of being deepened (Vincent of Lerins, Newman), is “abrogated.”
Not the Judeo-Christian way, but now the Islamo-Christian way? The confluence of “creative” process theology and inventiveness under endless synodality, and paradigm-shift “abrogation” under Islam…and now the fluid droppings from “walking together” study group nine. Or, is it “study group nein”?
SUMMARY: Under the siren call of inclusive secular globalism, spiritual entropy is a similarly devolving and converging state of mind, toward an amalgam of natural religions. Today, dressed indifferently in EITHER in a turban, or red hat, or a rainbow banner.
On the eve of 2025 and the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea, Arius is winning.
Well stated. I don’t know how you keep your patience to state the issues so clearly. I was going to just talk about renewing my prescription for my blood pressure medication, but I changed my mind. Maybe I’ll just pray my rosary then have a drink.
The issue is staring us in the face, yet we cannot see it. The church is teaching Christian Humanism. This is the root of the tree of bad fruit. Where does this originate? Aristotle, and every theologian that embraces Greek philosophical tradition. You have created a Kingdom of man in which you try and explain what is in error, but you end up using the same argument they do. Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plato…As bad as he was, you need to seek the example of Solomon.
Christian humanism, rather than leading us astray, helps us understand God’s truth more fully and does not seek to elevate human wisdom above divine truth. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas used philosophy, not to replace revelation, but to deepen our understanding of it. Pope Leo XIII’s Aeterni Patris even endorses using classical philosophy as an aid in theological study because it “contributes much toward the defense and development of the Faith.” The Church has long taught that reason and faith work together because both come from God. Far from creating a “kingdom of man,” theologians like Aquinas and Augustine used philosophy to deepen our understanding of divine truth. Even Solomon, known for his God-given wisdom, shows that reason and intellect are gifts meant to bring us closer to God, not replace Him. As Fides et Ratio says, faith and reason are “two wings” lifting us to truth. You must be speaking of the protestant version of Christian humanism that led to the spirit of rebellion during the renaissance bearing fruit in the protestant rebellion / reformation.
A nice analysis, dear Tim Vail.
Yet the most immediate motivator for PF et cie’s well-orchestrated anti-Apostolic rebellion is surely their urgent desire to retrospectively sanctify the (now exposed) ghastly immoralities AMONG the clergy & especially the numerous (very costly) immoral abuses of children & vulnerable adults BY the clergy.
The ideals they express are sophisticated camouflage for their normalizing of vices so as to fix the pervasive scandals of clergy abuses. Presumably, it was Jorge’s readyness to legislate ‘sin is no longer sin’ that won him the votes he needed.
May GOD have mercy on us.
A soul faithful to God forms his belief system about good and evil, right and wrong in accord with that faith.
A soul more in love with personal vanity than God will form his beliefs about good and evil in ways that accommodate the evil in his life and construe the will of God as subordinate to those beliefs.
Thus, pseudo-believers are more inclined to be “progressive,” someone who believes truth is evolutionary and changes with the tides of history and the demands of cultural preferences. It is, therefore, the duty of elite minds to demand that lesser minds open themselves to new possibilities of social structures that will, in due course, create evolved societies.
To the theological progressive, God must also step aside and learn from history. But the Godly souls who remind us that moral absolutes exist, not only because they originate with a benevolent and complete creator, but also because we are prone to do evil within our “lived experience,” and we lie to ourselves in denying the evil we do during our “lived experience.” Murderers tend to believe, in their lived experience, their victims had it coming. The threat of truth not only impeaches the lives of sinners but the vanities of elites. The ordained, not pursuing holiness, can become truth haters as easily as anyone.
The very clownish decision to entertain a juvenile notion that “lived experience” cannot be delusional proves the hunger and thirst for human delusion.
If further proof is necessary, a brief survey of the post-election nervous breakdowns occurring by the tens of thousands upon having fantasies of magical powers to perfect life on earth exposed as, well, delusional.
True Christian Humanism is a converted one, Tim – manifest early in the Church’s history by the Fathers (with the exception of Tertullian, the first Protestant).
However, I suspect Benedict has a soft-spot for Tertullian and I was hoping he would have shed a light on that before his passing -if it were indeed so. At any rate Benedict seemed to have been citing him often enough on critical issues. Bot much I can do with my resources to find out more on it.
My classification of Tertullian is based on his radical opposition to the integration of faith and reason in the pursuit of truth, Elias.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in while acknowledging Tertullian’s contribution seminal contribution to the development of Trinitarian theology, writes of him: “But a too individualistic search for the truth … gradually led him away from communion with the Church … When one only sees his thought in all its greatness, in the end, it is precisely this greatness that is lost. The essential characteristic of a great theologian is the humility to remain with the Church, to accept his own and others’ weaknesses, because actually only God is all holy.”
I wasn’t aware of those aspects. I still wonder if Tertullian and his circumstances could be revisited, in light of his influence with Cyprian and perhaps even Jerome. His wholesome effect continues down to our times.
‘ The five books against Marcion, written in 207 or 208, are the most comprehensive and elaborate of his polemical works, invaluable for gauging the early Christian view of Gnosticism. Tertullian has been identified by Jo Ann McNamara as the person who originally invested the consecrated virgin as the “bride of Christ”, which helped to bring the independent virgin under patriarchal rule. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
What was the situation context of Tertullian’s “separation”?
It surely would be a total mis-characterization were someone to apply to Benedict a description of “becoming separated” similar to this-:
‘ “But a too individualistic search for the truth … gradually led him away from communion with the Church … When one only sees his thought in all its greatness, in the end, it is precisely this greatness that is lost. The essential characteristic of a great theologian is the humility to remain with the Church, to accept his own and others’ weaknesses, because actually only God is all holy.” ‘
Bravo, PD Beaulieu! A pellucid critique.
I am neither philosopher nor theologian but I don’t understand why these two ways of thinking can’t be reconciled. Must they be mutually exclusive- either or ? Why not both and? Can’t there be an objective moral standard outside of ourselves which is the ideal which we strive for, while at the same time the individual is held accountable to the extent of his/her accountability? Truth is rigid and unchanging, but life is temporal and changing. We are accountable to the extent of our culpability, and our culpability is ever changing as we grow and comprehend. We grow, change and hopefully mature. We are not the same person today as we were even yesterday. A well formed conscious is the product of time and experience and no two people have comparable consciences. When judging one, we must lay the template of one’s culpability over the ideal standards of morality. We must ever seek the ideal while at the same time acknowledging the real. That’s why it is never EVER possible to really judge another person. We can only observe what they have done (and even that is limited by what WE bring to that observation) but can never really know WHY they did it.
Perhaps what I am suggesting is that an action can ALWAYS be wrong, but the degree of “wrongness “ is dependent on the situation. Wrongness exists outside of space and time, while the commission of wrongness happens in space and time, and as such in fluid rather than static.
Personal culpability can be lessened by internal subjective circumstances, sometimes triggered by external dangers, etc., by strong emotion, false understandings, confused perceptions, but that is a matter for discernment in the confessional, it does not in the slightest lessen the existence of actions that are objectively intrinsically evil always. You, and many others, I mean no offense, appear to confuse these two things. What Pope Francis and others who ought to know better are letting in through the front door is the terribly damaging idea that some external circumstances may actually allow adultery, for instance, or the killing of innocents, etc. and letting individuals think they can make such judgments. At best, these well-trained, highly placed, individuals are amazingly confused. We can only speculate what the other possibilities may be given, for some of these people, the great hostility to the magisterial teaching of JP 2, and the opacity of the individual soul to anyone but God and a few saints like Padre Pio. May God deliver them and us from such misunderstandings and false perceptions, etc., and from confused teachings.
In making your point, are you also confusing how an objective action can be “ALWAYS be wrong” (your words) with the separate matter of “judg[ing] another person”?
The difference between the two is the difference between objective moral evil and reduced personal culpability due to inadequate knowledge or impaired free will. The fatal error (as the tireless Fr. Morello frequently clarifies) is to create a new “category” whereby circumstances serve to create a zone where moral evil is subjectively redefined and reclassified as no longer objectively evil.
Benedict XVI addressed this matter on the big screen of recent history. About the widespread deadening of conscience in the West, he wrote:
“(First) I have been absolutely certain that there is something wrong with the theory of the justifying force of the subjective conscience . . . Hitler may have had none (guilt feelings); nor may Himmler or Stalin. Mafia bosses may have none, but it is more likely that they have merely suppressed their awareness of the skeletons in their closets. And the aborted guilt feelings . . . Everyone needs guilt feelings. (And second) The loss of the ability to see one’s guilt, the falling silent of conscience in so many areas, is a more dangerous illness of the soul than guilt that is recognized as guilt [see Psalm 19:12] . . . To identify conscience with a superficial state of conviction is to equate it with a certainty that merely seems rational, a certainty woven from self-righteousness, conformism, and intellectual laziness. Conscience is degraded to a mechanism that produces excuses for one’s conduct, although in reality conscience is meant to make the subject transparent to the divine, thereby revealing man’s authentic dignity and greatness” (Benedict XVI, “Values in a Time of Upheaval,” Crossroad Publishing, 2006).
Earlier (1986) and ever more relevant today, as in the context of fluid synodality, he had written, clearly, that the individual homosexual person, for example, must be always treated with respect and compassion, in accord with the “authentic dignity” of each and every person, but that the inclination is still “objectively disordered.” He further distinguished between the inclination and then the actions. This might be why the synodal Final Report chose to delete the categorical term “LGBTQ.”
For complete clarity on my part, the final paragraph should read “…that the inclination is still ‘objectively disordered’ but not sinful. He further distinguished between the inclination and then the actions.”
“That’s why it is never EVER possible to really judge another person.”
Except for all the times you judged Trump on this site, right?
Good point. And the two contributors above yours did an excellent job distinguishing between objective evil and culpability.
An often overlooked fact by extreme moral relativists is their own anger. If moral subjectivity is all there is, how can anger, an implicit moral judgment, ever be justified?
The Pachamama idolatry PR campaign by Pontiff Francis, and the queer-Church-agenda of the Pontiff-Francis-sycophants-cult, are the 2-part sign of the evil stalking inside the Church, which has floated to the top of the now heavily polluted water of the Tiber.
“Ethics is a matter of discerning the moral truth that is consistent with one’s lived experience, in ‘contextual fidelity’ to the Gospel” (Spinello exposing the lie submitted by [apparently] key Synod study group 9).
Principles contained in Amoris Laetitia, the primacy of personal conscience as opposed to Apostolic doctrine, mitigation of moral principles, by inference inclusive of intrinsically evil acts, adultery, homosexuality are the underlying agenda of the Synod. Mitigation theory was warned by John Paul II of making it a theological category, that by consequence would lead to the diminishment of sin. Example, the fallacy of exaggerated mitigation is seen in the scenario of the man who abuses himself sexually one time, dies unrepentant and is condemned, whereas the man who continues to sexually abuse himself is considered to be suffering a habit that frees him of sin, dies and goes to heaven. This is the exact doctrine taught in Amoris regarding divorced and remarried living in adultery.
Amoris Laetitia pits individual conscience as supreme regardless of revealed truth, specifically the commandments revealed by Christ inclusive of the Decalogue. A direct repudiation of our repetition of the Nicene credo we make each Sunday of our lives. If we repeat those everlasting truths and disbelieve we are consummate liars. And quite clearly a repudiation of the words of Christ that those who hear the Gospel and refuse baptism will be condemned.
Richard Spinello’s well articulated presentation need not be paraphrased here. It suffices to say that anyone who is convinced the Synod on Synodality is not intended to implement the errors contained in Amoris Laetitia, a literal attempt to replace the Gospels, is not willing to admit and contend with reality. We’re morally obliged as clerics to alert and advise the faithful.
https://oldyosef.hkcatholic.com/?p=2073
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-zen-pope-francis-uses-synods-in-attempt-to-change-churchs-doctrines/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
Elias, the Cardinal’s assessment of the Synod rings true.
Fr. your postings are very steadying and instructive. Though I might feel to disagree 3% of the time or so, maybe 4%, if that -maybe 2%; I nonetheless take it “under advisement” with a side-note that I could have to willingly give it admission. But thank you for sharing, it’s great to read.
Oh, the photo of Cardinal Zen when he is on his own, with others turned away in the background, is tears-inducing.
“Pope Francis uses synods in an attempt to “change the Church’s doctrines or disciplines.”
Yes, 100%, in a very clever, fake “grassroots” process.
” … conscience is nothing but one’s final judgment as to what he should do and not do; …one’s first responsibility [as a faithful Catholic believer] is to do h is best to make sure that this judgment is true … that self-deception can make one feel sure that a sin is permissible without freeing him from guilt for committing it, that doing what is wrong because of a blamelessly mistaken conscience always causes harm and often leads to tragedy …”. Germain Grisez writing in “The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and Guide”
I can readily see the attraction of this new Jesuitical “Catholique” church.
If there are no absolute truths regarding morality, then I myself am the arbiter of right and wrong, of what should be done and what should not be done. Of what is and is not.
Thus, logically, if I am the determiner of the nature of all things, it follows that I must be God.
How astute of Bergoglio and all of his minions to recognize my remarkably superior presence in this way!
Thus, for my first issuance of divine truth, let me issue my first scripture passage. We shall call it Briney 1:1.
“Do unto others before they do it unto you.”
Thanks be to me.
Right on, dear BrineyLord!
As St Augustine taught – those who pick-&-choose what they want out of The Gospel have ceased to qualify as believers, for their belief is in themselves, not The Gospel.
As St Paul wrote to the Galatians – anyone who supports a different version of The New Testament Gospel is under a curse.
The curse of self-worship is all too evident in PF & in so many other ‘leaders’ of our Church today, in the mutual ecstacy of their cleverness in ‘discovering’ The Broad Way.
Unless they repent and return to The Narrow Way, they identify themselves as false shepherds and they will inevitably pay the penalty.
May GOD have mercy on us. Ever in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
Pius XII had the vision while walking in the Vatican gardens in 1954. When asked what it meant, the pope replied with one word: “apostasy”.
The Synod on Synodality has not come to an end and it won’t until a group of bishops stand up like men and call the party out for what it is…a festival of narcissists confecting a fraudulence in their own image.
It is quite astonishing to witness the Church act out as the mirror image of the Democrat Party here in the United States, submerged in their own notions, drunk on their own juices. But then that is the character of the worldwide globalist mendacity.
The faithful, the nominal as well as those best instructed in the faith, recognize this movement of deists — Arians if you will, but I wouldn’t provide them that much credit — within the Church to be illegitimate and fraudulent but the only ones who can bring this to a halt are too spineless to rage against the faithless enterprise. The entire production is a rage from Hell and there will be a price to pay in time and eternity.
Thank you..
Since Synodaling is man made, it will die of natural causes. But in the meantime dear readers, despair not! Stay Catholic with the Saints, like Pope John Paul II. The Splendor of Truth Is Christ, the only Way to eternal Life. “This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’—and I am the worst of them all”. (1 Timothy 1:15)
All are welcome to repent.
Am I the only person who finds that “new paradigms” are becoming old hat? They become irrelevant before they attain whatever relevance they’re seeking. Back in the ‘80s, the late Joseph Sobran, before he went a bit off the deep end, wrote that it was exhilarating to belong to a Church that was 500 years behind the times and completely indifferent to contemporary trends; it must be humiliating to belong to a church that’s five minutes behind the times and huffing and puffing to catch up. The current Vatican seems hellbent on becoming the latter.