An Open Letter to a Merciful Pope (From a Terrible Old Priest)

by  Fr Senectutus

Bless me Father, for you have sinned!

Author’s Introduction: I thought that you, Michael Matt, might be interested in the attachment. It is a satire from a very old traditional priest (84 years old) who is basically ‘fed-up’ with all the nonsense that before Pope Francis appeared, the Catholic Church did not DO MERCY. This is pretty insulting to those of us who have spent more than 40 years toiling away in those (apparently) terrible years – both before Vatican II and since. The piece is totally satirical but none the less completely true for all that. I have written all my life and, so I hope I’m still ‘cognitively intact’ which is a polite way of saying: I’m not crazy! God bless all who work on your very famous paper. It was first given to me by a wonderful parishioner more than 35 years ago. It was your paper and Michael Davies’ great trilogy that helped me to find my way and actually saved my faith. I pray for all the Defenders of the Faith on the Web each morning at Mass. - Fr Senectutus

Thank You, Holy Father Francis.

Francis (The Pope of Mercy)

As the end of this precious Year of Mercy drew to a close, we older priests, many of whom have spent more than forty years working in the vineyard, decided to express our deep sense of gratitude for the insight you have given us in our twilight years.

Even though we worked without any lay help: no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, no Readers, no lay people to take Holy Communion to the hospitals and Nursing Homes, no deacons, no parish councils, no liturgy committees – in fact, no one but our poor selves, we worked often until we dropped, but we do see now, it was all meaningless. You, dear Holy Father, have made clear to us now the reason for this: We did not have any mercy. We humbly ask pardon for our lives; thank heavens the priests who come after us won’t make the same mistakes we did.

You see the problem was, Mercy, as such, was unknown in the priesthood, until you enlightened us. We, foolish blind guides, just worked and worked, unheralded, largely unknown, suffered unknown, had no female or male partners to comfort us, and thought we were following Christ and living as He wanted. How stupid can you get? But then, at last, you came to the throne, Holy Father, and showed us how wrong we all were. You set us right! Thank Heavens for that!

We are so grateful to you. It means that when we faced as many as four or five long rows of people waiting for each and every session of Confessions, we obviously did it all wrongly. We counselled against sin as we thought that was a work of mercy. Again, wrong! You have shown us that we must not judge in any way. We thought we were being merciful, not judging, but you have made it clear how wrong we were. Please forgive us for our stupidity; we got all that wrong.

I think all of us always found the constantly interrupted sleep to do emergency calls to Hospitals and Nursing Homes when a person was dying, very difficult. So many of us usually had to be up bright and early for the first Mass of the day which usually had a very large crowd of workers trying to fit in an extra Mass before going off to work. Now, we see – through your enlightening teaching – that we were wrong. You have revealed to us, at last, that all that worrying about the Sacraments was, in reality, the opposite of mercy; it was really being judgemental. We obviously thought that the person was not in a fit state to stand at Judgement. Thank God, you have shown us we should have stayed in bed; we were obviously not motivated by mercy. 

I suppose, in some sort of self-defence, we could say, we thought we were merciful, but it is true we did worry about sin a lot; we thought it was because we didn't want our parishioners whom – I speak for all of us – we actually loved, and we didn't want them to end up in Hell. (I beg your pardon, Holiness for mentioning that word; it offends people today, I do realise that now.) Again, Holiness, you have shown, even in relation to that ‘location’, how misguided we were, for you have made it clear that there is no real sin at all – except, perhaps, not believing in Christ whose words and teaching continue to evolve with time.

 
We thought – so naïve we were – that such a view was Lutheran and that it was wrong, but you have made it clear that they were right, not us. It makes sense, of course, when you think of it. They were called the Reformers, weren't they? So they must be right.

We, in our dull, cruel, pitiless way, actually were so benighted as to think that anyone who didn't live according to Christ’s words in their daily lives was in danger, but you have indicated that all that is necessary is to be ‘spiritual’ and ‘inclusive’. We, being so old now, find it hard to understand just what these terms actually mean. As there are practically no Christians practising their faith now, we ponder the meaning of these words as we shuffle along in our walking frames. The fact that we are trying to understand must mean, Holy Father, that we are not without some hope, doesn't it? Please say it does!

We did pray a lot, Holy Father; prayed for our people, for all their problems, but that was obviously not a merciful thing to do either. We can only apologize for that; we knew no better. Please, Holiness, intercede for us at the Judgement for we have been badly misled. The fact that most of us have severe knee problems, and re-structured knees, as a result of our foolishness, is a fitting punishment for our wrong-doing. I see now it a judgement of God on us.

We prayed for our glorious Religious, too, but, strangely, they – the few that are left – turned against us, too. We must have been wrong about them as well. We praised those wonderful nuns who spent most of their lives in horrible places, even leper colonies, often contracting many tropical diseases themselves; I thought they were heroes but, judging from what Religious now say about all that previous work, obviously those old nuns and other Religious were wrong as well. We actually thought that the taking of the holy Religious Habit was a glimpses into the glory of Heaven but, through you, we have come to realise that Religious life itself is of no importance at all, unless it is teaching Marxism to the uninformed – in designer-label clothes and expensive coiffures.

 
All of us are so sorry, Holiness, it is too late for us to start again; you should have arrived earlier to lead us on the right path – we all, obviously, had no mercy at all and had no care for the outcast, the sick, the dying, the poor and the stranger. We were totally wrong in everything. We just want you to know that we have certainly listened to you intently; that is how we have discerned our terrible errors and want to publicise them so that the young ones won’t fall into the same errors as we did.

We also thought that our missionaries – priests, nuns and brothers – were the front-line troops in the war for souls but you have pointed out, very forcibly, that to proselytise is not an act of mercy; it is a SIN! Please, please forgive us, we didn't know that! Francis Xavier should have been excommunicated, not canonised, the wicked man!

You have, rightly, I'm sure, railed against our lack of mercy in regard to the refugees, the migrants. Holiness, at one time, many of us did struggle desperately to learn some words of the language of the Italians, Greeks, Maltese, Germans, and all the rest, who came to our land. We wanted to do this so that we could speak a few phrases to make them feel welcome, but these refugees were mainly Catholic, so I don’t think that would count as mercy, would it? 

It is true that we find Islam frightening, but we’ll try our best to change our attitude to that faith now, since you have assured us that it is a ‘Religion of Peace’, and you show your preference for Muslims even sharing your plane with them. That is so nice of you. I do hope the Middle Eastern Christians, as they flee from their homelands, appreciate your wonderful example – and try to imitate you. 

Holiness, we want to mention money for a moment as we know you are constantly urging us to be like the poor. We, priests were really like the poor then, and received a mere pittance in salary in those, bad, terrible days, and it was very difficult to find the money for all the people who came to the door of the presbytery, but we did try, Holiness, we did try. We actually thought that that was an act of mercy; apparently, we were wrong again. It’s so difficult to know what is right or wrong isn't it?

On a personal note again, I, personally, did try to fix up hundreds of legal papers, including marriages, for the poor Vietnamese who were rescued by Australia when South Vietnam was overrun by the Communists. The poor people came here to this country with no papers at all. I suppose, though, that didn't count: I did not have any mercy towards these people; I was just being legalistic, trying to get them a marriage certificates so they could get employment and welfare! I will know better if the situation ever occurs again, Holiness, I promise you.

We, poor senile idiots, in our time, actually thought that abortion was a most terrible crime, and it was a good way of trying to prevent women from taking this course by pointing out that the Church regarded the crime as so grave, that it required a bishop to absolve the sin as it involved the killing of an innocent child. Thank Heavens, Holiness, you have made it clear that it’s not a serious crime at all and that any priest can now absolve it. 

Similarly, with a priest soliciting sexual partners in the confessional; we thought that, too, was a fearful sin, but you again, have shown us the true path to Righteousness. Thank you again for this great insight, Holiness and forgive us our lack of compassion to these sex-starved priests. It is wonderful that any priest can now absolve from this sin now. I understand that it is only supposed to be one of the 1,000 Missionaries of Mercy who can absolve these special sins, but as no one has ever seen these priests, obviously, then, any priest can absolve the sins. Thank you for that; it is real mercy and a tremendous relief to the paedophiles.

We often, Holiness, I’ll tell you this truthfully, struggled desperately trying not to let slip – by the slightest hint – of what we heard in the Confessional, as we thought that was a most dreadful sin and a lack of mercy to the sinner, but now, you have relieved us of worrying about that. If we do blurt out a juicy bit of scandal, then we can now feel free not to worry about it; any priest can fix that up. That’s mercy to us and no mistake; I'm a little worried, Holiness as to whether it is mercy to the sinner though? You could make that clear to us during your press conference, on your next plane trip; we’d be very grateful.

Most of us are in our eighties now and can’t have much time left. I thought of that when I decided to write to you. You are such a busy man with a positive carousel of meetings with exotic religions. I thought I might fall off the twig before I relieved my conscience and expressed my gratitude to you for your inspired new insight into Christianity and our Catholic Faith itself.

 
I hope I have not offended you by mentioning the ‘Catholic’ Faith; I meant to be inclusive not divisive – I trust you, in your mercy, will pardon me for the slip. I am a very old man and we get quite silly when we get old, you know. You see, we oldies, once thought that the Catholic Faith was the greatest gift of mercy in the whole world. However, we now know we were completely wrong; you have made that so clear to us, Holy Father. For that, and all the other things you have done, we thank you… Please, Holy Father, have mercy on us.

Fr Senectutus

Father Senectutus was good enough to submit a few more of his articles, which will appear in the Print/E-edition of The Remnant over the next few months.

—The Remnant

There is "no absolute morality"...and "metaphysics is nonsense"?

An Inquiry                  

by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Plato and Aristotle

In our yesterday discussion on Facebook, on the topic “Where do our morals come from?”, Jan Pretorius, responding to Jordan Azoth Mamano (and indirectly to my own article on Relativism), wrote:

“You claim that there is some absolute notion of right and wrong, and this is where my position gets tricky. I don't think there is absolute right or wrong, but we can establish objective right and wrong when we define a moral structure that we want to live with.

“The reason I feel this way is that I find a few problems with the idea of absolute morality:

“1. As soon as you say something is metaphysical, I don't know what you are talking about. Can we measure it? Can we at all even know anything about something that is metaphysical? A metaphysical element can, by its very nature, not be proven in conventional physical means. But, if you are not proving anything physically or demonstrably, then you are far way from proving it.

“2. Can we know or tap into such a metaphysical morality if it existed, and how can we discover what the absolute morals are? Furthermore, how did they come to be? You may think the origins of morality to be inconsequential, but it matters if we want to answer the question - WHY obey absolute morals, if they existed? This question is important because of my next point.

“3. How have you determined that the absolute morals, supposing there are any, are actually the best way to live? It is entirely possible that if absolute moral codes existed, they might not always be very efficient. Here is an example:

“Suppose that there was an absolute moral code that says we should never murder. Does that mean we should absolutely never murder? Or are there cases such as self-defence or preventing other deaths, where murder can be permitted? I doubt that an absolute moral code could be nuanced enough to include every single complicated moral dilemma possible. Either we would have to improve upon that morality, or we would have to adjust it in relative terms.

                                                                                                                         
“For this reason I subscribe to an objective sense of morality (not absolute). We can say that it is objective when we determine the goals of morality. This is a morality that requires constant investigation and evaluating situations as they come along. I would say that this is better than absolute morality, and I would even venture as far as to say that this is better than absolute morality even if absolute morality existed (perhaps depending on its origin).”

           

Here, I wish to respond to these questions as briefly as I can, and without wasting time I start with the first objection raised, namely that “As soon as you say something is metaphysical, I don't know what you are talking about. Can we measure it?...”

What is Metaphysics? Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question “What is?” It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.

The word metaphysics is formed from the Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta phusika), a title which, about the year A.D. 70, was related by Andronicus of Rhodes, a Greek philosopher, to that collection of Aristotelean  treatises which since then goes by the name of the “Metaphysics”. Aristotle himself had referred to that branch of philosophy as “the theological science” (theologikê). (Note: theology translates into English from the Greek theologia (θεολογία) which derived from Τheos (Θεός), meaning “God,” and -logia (-λογία), meaning “utterances, sayings, or oracles” (a word related to logos [λόγος], meaning “word, discourse, account, or reasoning”) which had passed into Latin as theologia and into French as théologie). Aristotle referred to that branch of philosophy as the “theological science” because it culminated in the consideration of the nature of God, and as “first philosophy” (prôtê philosophia), both because it considered the first causes of things, and because, in his estimation, it is first in importance. The editor, Andronicus, however, overlooked both these titles, and, because he believed that that part of the Aristotelean corpus came naturally after the physical treatises, he entitled it “after the physics”—Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά. This is the historical origin of the term.

Many modern philosophers—like the positivists—have been advocating a total destruction of metaphysics, the only crime of metaphysics being that it delves into the immaterial world inaccessible to sense perception. But it is impossible to destroy metaphysics—to do so is simply to destroy philosophy itself. Metaphysics is very important because it is, in fact, the foundation of philosophy. Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless to deal with reality—we could not feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect. Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live.

           

In fact philosophy started just this way—the metaphysical way. The very first philosophers started with metaphysical cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos “world” and -λογία, -logia “study of”), which is  the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe by thought alone. Thales proposed a first principle (ἀρχή, arche) of the cosmos, namely water—holding that the universe is alive, that it has a soul and is full of gods; Anaximander posited what he called the boundless apeiron (ἄπειρον), and Anaximenes thought that there was something boundless that underlies all other things, and made this boundless thing something definite—air, etc. These philosophers—and their successors—thought of themselves as inquirers into many things, and the range of their inquiry was vast. They had views about the nature of the world, and these views encompass what we today call physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, astronomy, embryology, and psychology (and other areas of natural inquiry), as well as theology, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. They tried to explain the world and the whole of reality—which is the primary function of metaphysics.

                                                                                                     

Reality is absolute. It has a specific nature independent of our thoughts or feelings. The world around us is real. It has a specific nature and it must be consistent to that nature. A proper metaphysical worldview must aim to understand reality correctly. The physical world exists, and every entity has a specific nature. It acts according to that nature. When different entities interact, they do so according to the nature of both. Every action has a cause and an effect. Causality is the means by which change occurs, but the change occurs via a specific nature.

Aristotle (in Met., VI, 1026 a, 31) placed metaphysics in the genus of “science”—he called it  “the theological science”. As a science, it has, in common with other sciences, this characteristic that it seeks a knowledge of things in their causes. What is peculiar to metaphysics is the difference “of being as being.” In this phrase are combined at once the material object and the formal object of metaphysics. The material object is being, the whole world of reality, whether subjective or objective, possible or actual, abstract or concrete, immaterial or material, infinite or finite. Everything that exists comes within the scope of metaphysical inquiry. Other sciences are restricted to one or several departments of being: physics has its limited field of inquiry, mathematics is concerned only with those things which have quantity. Metaphysics knows no such restrictions. Its domain is all reality. For instance, the human soul and God, because they have neither colour nor weight, thermic nor electric properties, do not fall within the scope of the physicist’s investigation; because they are devoid of quantity, they do not come within the field of inquiry of the mathematician. But, since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation. The material object of metaphysics is, therefore, all beings. As Aristotle says (Met., IV, 1004 a, 34): “It is the function of the philosopher to be able to investigate all things.”

Unfortunately this is no longer the “function” of many modern philosophers—whose primary function rather seems to be their obsession with the rejection of the supernatural! 

Jan Pretorius’ assertion that “if you are not proving anything physically or demonstrably, then you are far way from proving it” clearly shows that he isn’t even talking about metaphysics—which he perceives to be only about the immaterial—but about something else!

Pretorius is certainly a materialist. Materialism, naturally, objects to the claim of metaphysics to be a science of the immaterial. If nothing exists except matter, a science of the immaterial has no justification. But Pretorius—and indeed all Materialists—forgets that the assertion, “Nothing exists except matter”, is either a summing up of the individual experience of the materialist himself, meaning that he has never experienced anything except matter and manifestations of matter, and then the assertion is merely of biographical interest; or it is an affirmation regarding possible human experience, a declaration of the impossibility of immaterial existence, and in that sense it is a statement which in itself has a metaphysical import! Materialism is in fact a metaphysical theory of reality and hence is a contribution to the science which it professes to reject! 

The second question, “Can we know or tap into such a metaphysical morality if it existed, and how can we discover what the absolute morals are?” sounds somehow meaningless because “metaphysical morality” is inherent in our nature as human beings. How can you ask me how you can discover what is in you?

Man is naturally a moral being, so asking the question “can we discover what the absolute morals are?” is just as funny as asking if we can discover that we are really human beings. For me, it doesn’t sound rational. As we read in the article (during our FB discussion), “Aristotle pointed out that all rational thinking is ultimately ordered towards some perceived good, and its function is to help us discern between good or bad, an essentially moral purpose. Plato and his followers insisted that man's nobility lies in his desire for ultimate truth, goodness, and beauty, and that all these are really facets of the same ultimate reality, making the pursuit of truth (rationality) impossible to divorce from the pursuit of the good (morality)”. (See: Where do our morals come from?).

Again, your assertion (that “People have gotten morality wrong for ages. It is something that we work on consistently. It is not sacred, otherwise we wouldn't be improving on it”) was rightly addressed by Jayson Paul Rucks.  He wrote:

“When you say that we are “improving” on morality, isn't that appealing to an objective standard since you’re saying that there is an objective, ideal standard out there to “aim towards” with improvement? You can’t improve on morality without that sense of “improving” being attached to an “ideal” standard of “ethical goodness”. Therefore, who is the authority to define ---the--- “ideal” standard of ethics? Who is the authority to define what is good from evil?”

               

On the third question raised, namely that “I subscribe to an objective sense of morality (not absolute). We can say that it is objective when we determine the goals of morality. This is a morality that requires constant investigation and evaluating situations as they come along...”, I respond:

We can’t “determine” the goals of morality because morality exists independently of our thoughts and feelings. Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source. I subscribe to this.

It is, of course, common nowadays for the non-religious to point out that almost all of them are “moral” in the sense they pay taxes, don't murder, don’t rape people, and so on. So already we see morality basically being understood as “not being evil”!

But morality is and has always been about more than that—it’s about what we mean by goodness, living life according to objective virtues, disciplining one’s passions, and living life for others, not oneself. It’s not impossible to be moral in that sense without a religion, but it’s certainly very hard. As someone puts it, “Without God or other ultimate grounding, a life spent masturbating all day while playing MMOs is just as “good” as a life where one works to raise a family while contributing to charity and volunteering.”

So Pretorius’ “good” as an objective concept is completely meaningless.

This is not to say that without a religion we become lazy blobs—many non-religious people of course live the virtues (though that is because morals, as already stated, are also inherent in the laws of the universe and in the very nature of humanity). It’s rather to make a reference to the objectivity of morality—to say that objective Good exists and is independent of humanity and does not depend on society or change based on culture. For Catholics, God is “The Good” and the goal towards which we must align ourselves in all our thoughts and actions—without Him, in fact, there is nothing like morality.

               

Atheists can donate to charity, love their families and friends, and do all sorts of other really good things. They do it because it makes them and those whom they help feel good. However, when we ask the question of why they and others should feel good, they usually chalk it up to “common sense” or some other non-answer. If pleasure is just another meaningless cosmic phenomenon, then it doesn't make sense to “construct” a moral system around it. However, if our form of the Good is God, who by His infinite nature continually gives meaning to Himself, then we have a good and solid foundation on which our morality is built.

Related articles: 

• Relativism will certainly damn our souls!
• Augustine and the Myth of Eternal Return

Does Pope Francis actually oppose Church teaching on contraception? This summary raises the question

Francis

“In short, Pope Francis has restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from the office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching.” (Matthew McCuske)

Does Pope Francis actually oppose Church teaching on contraception? This summary raises the question

by Matthew McCuske

February 1, 2017 (Voice of the Family) – The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the appointment of a “papal delegate” to assist in the “renewal” of the order, raises further questions about the extent to which Pope Francis assents to the teaching of the Catholic Church on questions of sexual ethics. In this article we will revisit previous concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on contraception, in the light of recent events.

At the heart of the crisis in the Order of Malta is the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, over a number of years, by Malteser International (MI), the humanitarian arm of the order. Edward Pentin has provided details of MI’s programmes in his comprehensive article on the subject. An investigation by the Lepanto Institute provides further information about MI’s work promoting condoms and abortifacient drugs worldwide. Amongst their findings the following facts stand out:

• MI distributed 52,190 condoms in Burma (Myanmar) in 2005 and 59,675 in 2006
• A World Health Organisation report from 2006, entitled Reproductive Health Stakeholder Analysis in Myanmar 2006 includes “family planning” among MI’s “areas of expertise”, “contraception” amongst its “activities” and “birth spacing” amongst its “future plans”. The report also reveals that MI provided oral contraceptives to 2,500 women in one Burmese township.
• In 2007 MI received a four-year grant of $1.7 million from the Three Disease Fund, for whom they distributed over 300,000 condoms in Burma.
• In 2012 MI entered a partnership with Save the Children to carry out a joint project, for which they received $2.1 million from the Global Fund, to distribute yet more condoms in Burma during the period from 2013-2016.

Malteser International was headed throughout this period by Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager. An internal investigation by the Order of Malta found that von Boeselager was ultimately responsible for the programmes that involved the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs.  His role at MI was one of the major factors that resulted in his dismissal from the role of Grand Chancellor by the Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing, on 6 December 2016, after he twice refused to resign. Von Boeselager appealed to the Vatican. A commission was appointed to investigate his dismissal. Edward Pentin has provided extensive, and disturbing information, about the make-up of this commission, which seems to have consisted largely of von Boeselager’s friends and associates. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a sovereign entity, refused to accept the legitimacy of this interference into their internal affairs.

On 24 January 2017 Fra Matthew Festing was asked to resign by Pope Francis and acceded to this request. The following day Pietro Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, stated that Pope Francis was declaring null and void all Fra Festing’s acts since 6 December, thus nullifying the dismissal of von Boeselager. Fra Festing’s resignation was accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order of Malta on 28 January and it was announced that von Boeselager was restored to his position as Grand Chancellor of the order.

In short, Pope Francis has restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from the office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching.

In the light of this, and of his decision not to confirm that he accepts Catholic teaching on the existence of intrinsically evil acts, it is reasonable to review other concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on the morality of using contraceptive methods. The list below draws readers’ attention to important incidents of which we are aware; it is not intended to be exhaustive.

5 March 2014 – Pope Francis is interviewed by Corriere della Sera. He is asked “At half a century from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, can the Church take up again the theme of birth control? Cardinal Martini, your confrere, thought that the moment had come.” In his reply Pope Francis stresses that “Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations”. The pope also stated, “The question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.” The full implications of these words will become clearer during the two-year synodal process.

13 October 2014 – The heterodox relatio post disceptationem of the Extraordinary Synod is published, after having received the personal approval of Pope Francis. This document adopts an ambiguous approach towards contraception, and an approach to conscience and the natural law of a kind that will inevitably undermine the Church’s moral teachings. The alternation between orthodox restatements of Catholic doctrine and ambiguous and erroneous statements will be followed in all succeeding synodal documents.

19 October 2014 – The final report of the Extraordinary Synod makes the approach of the above relatio its own. The treatment of contraception and the natural law are examined in more detail in Voice of the Family’s analysis of the document.

16 January 2015 – Pope Francis makes reference to Humanae Vitae in an address to families in the Philippines, once more laying emphasis not on the central doctrine of the encyclical but on his contention that Paul VI “was very merciful towards particular cases, and he asked confessors to be very merciful and understanding in dealing with particular cases. But he also had a broader vision: he looked at the peoples of the earth and he saw this threat of families being destroyed for lack of children.” The implication of this passage, especially in light of the comments of 19 January below, is that contraception might be tolerated in particular cases, and that the Church’s teaching is a “broader vision” or ideal. This would reflect the “gradualism” adopted in the synod documents and in Amoris Laetitia.

19 January 2015 – Pope Francis, during a press conference on his return flight from Manila, tells journalists that the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, was not about “personal problems, for which he then told confessors to be merciful and understand the situation and forgive, to be understanding and merciful” but rather about “the universal Neo-Malthusianism that was in progress”. Thus he frames Humanae Vitae not as being principally about a universally binding norm but rather as a political response to an ideological movement. During the same press conference he criticises a mother who had eight children by Caeserean section and accuses her of being guilty of tempting God. He goes on to say that Catholics should practice “responsible parenthood” and shouldn’t “breed like rabbits”.

17 June 2015 – Pope Francis appoints climate scientist Hans Schellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Science. Schellnhuber believes that there is a “population problem” and has previously stated that the “carrying capacity of the planet” is “below 1 billion people”. Schellhuber’s positions have been analysed in more detail by Voice of the Family in this article.

18 June 2015 – Pope Francis promulgates the encyclical letter Laudato Si endorsing the theory of climate change and the environmentalist agenda. The encyclical makes no direct reference to contraception despite the close interrelationship between the environmental and population control movements. This connection is exemplified by the Vatican’s selection of Hans Schellnhuber and Carolyn Woo, then President and CEO of Catholic Relief Services, an American organisation that has funded groups that promote abortion and contraception, to present the document at its launch.

23 June 2015 – The Instrumentum Laboris of the Ordinary Synod is published. This document, which was approved by Pope Francis prior to its release, gravely undermines the Church’s teaching on contraception, and her moral teachings in general. This is explained in detail in Voice of the Family’s analysis of the document. 

10 September 2015 – 65 academics appeal to the fathers of the upcoming Ordinary Synod to reject “the distortion of Catholic teaching implicit in paragraph 137” of the Instrumentum Laboris. They write: “Paragraph 137 addresses a key document of the modern Magisterium, Humanae Vitae, in a way that both calls the force of that teaching into question and proposes a method of moral discernment that is decidedly not Catholic. This approach to discernment contradicts what has hitherto been taught by the Magisterium of the Church about moral norms, conscience, and moral judgment, by suggesting that a well-formed conscience may be in conflict with objective moral norms.”

24 October 2015 – The final report of the Ordinary Synod continues to adopt a gravely problematic approach to the moral law, and to the issue of contraception in particular.

30 November 2015 – Pope Francis asserts, in the context of a question regarding the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, that there could be a conflict between the fifth and sixth commandments.

A German journalist asked: “Is it not time for the Church to change its position on the matter? To allow the use of condoms to prevent more infections?”

In his response Pope Francis stated: “Yes, it’s one of the methods. The moral of the Church on this point is found here faced with a perplexity: the fifth or sixth commandment? Defend life, or that sexual relations are open to life?”

In fact there can never be any conflict between the commandments of the decalogue. Pope Francis further implies that the Church’s teaching on this matter is not a priority:

“This question makes me think of one they once asked Jesus: ‘Tell me, teacher, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Is it obligatory to heal?’ This question, ‘is doing this lawful,’ … but malnutrition, the development of the person, slave labor, the lack of drinking water, these are the problems. Let’s not talk about if one can use this type of patch or that for a small wound, the serious wound is social injustice, environmental injustice, injustice that…I don’t like to go down to reflections on such case studies when people die due to a lack of water, hunger, environment…when all are cured, when there aren’t these illnesses, tragedies, that man makes, whether for social injustice or to earn more money, I think of the trafficking of arms, when these problems are no longer there, I think we can ask the question ‘is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?'”

10 December 2015 – Cardinal Turkson suggests that the world might be overpopulated and states that “this has been talked about, and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that.” He later stated that he should have used the term “responsible parenthood” rather than “birth control.”

18 February 2016 – Pope Francis seems to suggest that condoms are a “lesser of two evils” that can be used to prevent the transmission of the Zika virus and again makes the erroneous assertion that there can be “conflict between the fifth and sixth commandments” of the decalogue. He also seems to suggest the question of contraception is a “religious problem” rather than a “human problem”. This incoherent approach to the moral law was already predicted by Voice of the Family, in our analyses of the synodal documents.

19 February 2016 – The Vatican press office confirms that Pope Francis intended to approve the use of condoms in certain cases in his remarks of the previous day.

8 April 2016 – The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is promulgated. This document builds on the erroneous approach adopted in the synodal documents towards conscience and the natural law and pursues false approaches to moral theology, including gradualism, situation ethics, and fundamental option.

1 September 2016 – Pope Francis states that he is “gratified” by the adoption of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include “universal access to sexual and reproductive health”. These terms are understood to include contraception and abortion by UN agencies, national governments and international agencies. Archbishop Mupendwatu, of the Pontifical Council for Healthcare Workers, had earlier told the World Health Assembly in Geneva that the Holy See welcomed the SDGs unreservedly and that Goal 3, on the two goals that call for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health” was the key to achieving all the other goals. The pope’s assertion that he is “gratified” by goals that will lead to further killing of unborn children threatens to destroy the credibility of the strong statements that he has made in opposition to abortion during his pontificate.

19 September 2016 – Four cardinals write to Pope Francis asking him to resolve five dubia they have about the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia. These dubia, which raise questions regarding the nature of conscience and the existence of intrinsic moral evils, are of great relevance to the Church’s teaching on contraception.

24 October 2016 – Pope Francis praises Bernard Häring, a moral theologian and influential dissenter from Humanae Vitae.  He told the 36th general Congregation that Häring was the “first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again” and that “in our day moral theology has made much progress in its reflections and in its maturity”.

14 November 2016 – The four cardinals make the text of the dubia public after Pope Francis informs them that he does not intend to give an answer. The pope’s decision not to explain clearly the meaning of his own text strengthens the common perception that his teaching is deliberately ambiguous and intended to undermine the Catholic faith.

The examples listed above demonstrate the extent to which the pontificate of Pope Francis has caused widespread doubts and confusion concerning the doctrine of the faith. In this hour of great crisis for the Church we must turn to God, with ever greater confidence, offering prayer and penance that he will soon manifest His almighty power and bring deliverance to His Church.

Related articles:

Defection from the Faith & the Church - Faith , Heresy, and Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of John Salza & Robert Siscoe Part III

Nigerian clergy following a manifestly heretical anti-pope, “Francis”!

(Please note: Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae  is never as spotless as Novus Ordo Catholics have always presented it to be!)