Follow by Email

mardi 16 janvier 2018

Marche pour la vie 2018

https://www.enmarchepourlavie.fr/

Jean-Pierre Chevènement est un idéologue dangereux !

 !

Président de la Fondation pour l'islam de France, l'ancien ministre de l'Éducation nationale a plusieurs fois rencontré le président Macron afin de lui exposer sa vision de la laïcité. Il est certain que ses positions sur ce sujet orienteront une partie des décisions du chef de l'État. Il vient d'accorder à Valeurs Actuelles (n° 4232 du 4 janvier 2018) un passionnant, et terrifiant, interview.

Des positions dogmatiques

Ce qui frappe dans cet entretien c'est le nombre de positions dogmatiques, sans aucun lien avec la réalité, défendues par le " Che ". « L'islam peut s'accommoder de la laïcité » affirme, péremptoire l'ancien ministre. Il s'agit d'une pétition de principe ne reposant sur aucun fait. Où et quand cette intéressante expérience a-t-elle été menée avec succès ? La réalité est que toutes les tentatives de laïcisation de l'islam ont été des échecs : en Turquie, en Irak, en Iran, en Égypte, etc.

« La loi républicaine régit le temporel. Le spirituel appartient à chacun ». Le drame, pour M. Chevènement, c'est que toutes les religions, sans aucune exception, ont des conséquences temporelles car elles portent en elles-mêmes une conception de l'homme qui influence leur vision de l'organisation de la société. Toute société politique a pour fondement une anthropologie d'essence religieuse. Ainsi l'égalité en dignité, ou non, de l'homme et de la femme repose sur une conception de l'être humain – homme ou femme – d'origine religieuse qui impacte la vie sociale.

« L'émergence d'un islam de France cultivé constitue la vraie réponse ». Quel mépris ! Quelle suffisance ! Quel aveuglement ! Ainsi donc, pour M. Chevènement plus on serait un musulman « cultivé » plus on serait perméable à la laïcité, et inversement. C'est oublier un peu vite que parmi les terroristes islamistes, nombreux sont ceux qui ont un niveau d'études tout à fait honorable, en particulier d'ingénieurs.

« Le personnel politique de droite comme de gauche n'est pas massivement influencé par la religion, même catholique ». Pour être franc on s'en doutait un peu ! En revanche, une grande partie de notre personnel politique est encore plus ou moins consciemment de culture chrétienne voire catholique, ce qu'a confirmé l'intéressant ouvrage de Samuel Pruvot à l'occasion des élections présidentielles, Les candidats à confesse. La laïcité semble cependant bien dépourvue quand il lui faut répondre à la question pourtant essentielle : Comment distinguer l'expression religieuse – interdite dans l'espace public – et l'expression culturelle – digne de toutes les louanges ? Une crèche est-elle une manifestation religieuse ou culturelle ? Ce sont aujourd'hui les juges du Conseil d'État ou de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme qui en décident, ce qui est toucher du doigt l'ampleur du drame q ue nous vivons. La solution serait peut-être une crèche sans l'Enfant-Jésus ou avec l'Enfant-Jésus surmonté de l'inscription : "Cet enfant n'est pas Dieu" ?

Des vœux pieux

M. Chevènement appelle tous les citoyens « à la lumière de la raison naturelle, à s'entendre sur une définition de l'intérêt général ». On en rit encore à s'en briser les côtes, dans les madrasas du Pakistan ou d'Afghanistan comme à l'université Al-Azhar ou dans les écoles coraniques du Maghreb. Qu'est-ce que la raison face à la parole de Dieu ? Pour un pieux musulman, il n'y a pas à raisonner mais à chercher les bonnes réponses dans le « saint coran ». Dieu, transcendant, est au-delà de la raison. Il n'est pas lié par la raison. Nous nous permettons de recommander à M. Chevènement la lecture du discours de Ratisbonne du pape Benoît XVI, le 12 septembre 2006, à propos des rapports entre la raison et la foi, en particulier dans l'islam.

Logiquement, le président de la Fondation pour l'islam de France note à propos de nos « concitoyens de confession ou de tradition musulmane » que leur « avenir est en France et avec la France et nulle part ailleurs ». Même François Hollande, dans son livre d'entretiens, Un président ne devrait pas dire ça, s'était aperçu qu'une « partition » était en cours. Cette réalité ne semble pas effleurer l'esprit de l'ancien maire de Belfort.

Enfin, quelqu'un pourrait-il signaler à M. Chevènement que le temps des hussards noirs de la République est irrémédiablement révolu. Ils étaient le fruit d'une morale chrétienne laïcisée, celle de l'impératif catégorique kantien. Un jour de mai 68, on s'est aperçu que cette morale sécularisée était, en réalité, sans fondements. Elle s'est alors écroulée comme un château de sable.

De sombres lendemains

Il est à craindre que nous ne soyons dans un déni de réalité s'appuyant sur une immense vanité : la laïcité à la française résoudra toutes les difficultés, pour la raison simple que ce concept est celui auquel adhèrent des hommes de la qualité de Jean-Pierre Chevènement éclairés par la lumière infaillible de leur raison. Cette raison n'excluant d'ailleurs pas une part de lâcheté mais aussi de complicité, disons affective, avec l'islam de la part d'un nombre grandissant de nos responsables politiques.

Tout cela nous promet des lendemains qui ne chanteront guère.

Jean-Pierre Maugendre


Pour en savoir plus :

Ouvrages vendus sur le site www.renaissancecatholique.org)



Editeur : Renaissance Catholique
http://www.renaissancecatholique.org

PEQUEÑO APUNTE DEL DÍA | CATAPULTA

http://catapulta.com.ar/?p=4755

samedi 13 janvier 2018

Safe-Abortion Fund architect receives pontifical honor | News | LifeSite

Safe-Abortion Fund architect receives pontifical honor | News | LifeSite

Safe-Abortion Fund architect receives pontifical honor

Featured Image
Lilianne Ploumen Shutterstock

January 12, 2018 (Lepanto Institute) – On January 12, reports began surfacing on Twitter that Lilianne Ploumen, former minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in the Netherlands, was honored by Pope Francis with the title of Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great. 

The Lepanto Institute was able to confirm from a December 22, 2017, Dutch radio broadcast that Ploumen indeed received the honor. In a brief video clip promoting the broadcast, Ploumen displays the medal while saying that she received it from the Pope.

Here is a crude translation of the exchange:

BNR: And this is the umpteenth prize that Lilianne Ploumen observes, won in 2017 and from whom they came.

Ploumen: Yes, it is a high distinction from the Vatican; from the pope.

BNR: From the pope.

Ploumen: Beautiful.

BNR: Yes.

Ploumen: It is Commander in the order of St. Gregory.

BNR: And that despite that you are pro-abortion.

Ploumen: Yes, you can check.

To say that Lilianne Ploumen is "pro-abortion" is an extreme understatement and doesn't even come close to the scandalous reality of her activism.

In January 2017, after U.S. President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, Ploumen launched a new NGO called She Decides to provide mass amounts of funds to organizations that would no longer receive funds from the U.S. government. The Mexico City Policy automatically denies U.S. funding for international organizations that perform or promote abortion.

Referring to the Mexico City Policy as a "Global Gag Rule," Ploumen stated that the intention of She Decides was to continue support for existing programs being run by organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. She said, "These are successful and effective programs: direct support, distributing condoms, making sure women are accompanied at the birth, and making sure abortion is safe if they have no other choice."

By July 2017, Ploumen's program had raised more than $300 million.

In October 2017, Ploumen wrote an article for the Financial Times, in which she emphatically stated, "America's regressive policies on abortion are a calamity for girls' and women's rights that the rest of the world must counter."

Ironically, just a few days ago, Ploumen was awarded the Machiavelli Prize "for her campaign for the safe abortion fund SheDecides." The article on the award indicates that "The Machiavelli prize is awarded to a person or organization which the jury considers has excelled in public communication. In particular, the jury praised the speed at which SheDecides was set up and went global."

It is worth noting that from 2004 to 2007 Ploumen was the director of programs and on the board of directors for CORDAID, the Dutch Catholic aid relief agency that was caught funding Planned Parenthood and dispensing contraception.

But Ploumen's anti-Catholic activity isn't restricted to abortion. In September 2017, Ploumen participated in the United Nations LGBTI Core Group.  As the first speaker at the event, Ploumen noted that "LGBTI rights are human rights."  In her opening remarks, she said, "We cannot be complacent. (Today) in more than 70 countries homosexuality is still criminalized … stigma against LGBT people continue all over the world."

In 2014, Ploumen ended foreign aid to the country of Uganda for passing a bill banning sodomy and same-sex "marriage."

In February 2010, Ploumen called on LGBT activists to descend upon and disrupt Mass at St. John the Baptist Cathedral, wearing pink triangles with the words "Jesus excludes no one." The reason?  She and other pro-LGBT activists were protesting the Church's moral teaching regarding homosexuality.

The Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great was established in September 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI. The honor of membership in the Order is conferred on individuals for their "personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church, through their unusual labors, their support of the Holy See, and their excellent examples set forth in their communities and their countries."

It remains to be seen what service Lilianne Ploumen has provided for the Catholic Church or the Holy See, given her staunch support for homosexuality, abortion and contraception. Given that the one thing that Lilianne Ploumen is known for in the past year is the establishment of a fund that provides hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations that commit abortion and dispense contraception, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate her recent Pontifical honor from this grievous and scandalous act.

vendredi 12 janvier 2018

Entrevista a mons. Schneider sobre Profesión de verdades, y comunión divorciados vueltos a casar

Entrevista a mons. Schneider sobre Profesión de verdades, y comunión divorciados vueltos a casar

Entrevista a mons. Schneider sobre Profesión de verdades, y comunión divorciados vueltos a casar

IMPORTANTE: Rorate Caeli entrevista a monseñor Athanasius Schneider en relación con la Profesión de las verdades inmutables, y la comunión para los divorciados vueltos a casar

Monseñor Athanasius Schneider –obispo auxiliar de Astaná (Kazajistán) y uno de los tres firmantes originales de la Profesión de verdades inmutables aparecida esta semana en respuesta a Amoris Laetitia y a la aprobación oficial del papa Francisco de la administración de la Sagrada Comunión a algunos católicos «divorciados y vueltos a casar»– fue entrevistado por Rorate Caeli tras la publicación del documento.

En esta dirección pueden leer más sobre el documento original. Instamos a todos los medios y blogs católicos a reproducir la entrevista en su totalidad. Eso sí, les rogamos que citen como fuente a Rorate Caeli [y a Adelante la FE para la versión en castellano, N. del T].

RORATE CAELI (RC): Vuestra Excelencia lleva muchos años dando la cara en lo que se refiere a la restauración de la liturgia tradicional. Ahora, junto con los arzobispos Peta y Lenga ha dado la cara enérgicamente en defensa del matrimonio después de la publicación de  Amoris Laetitia. ¿Que les ha llevado a la conclusión de que ha llegado la hora de responder?

MONSEÑOR ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER (MAS): Tras la publicación de Amoris Laetitia, varios prelados y conferencias episcopales comenzaron a publicar normas pastorales para los supuestos «divorciados vueltos a casar». Hay que afirmar que para el católico no existe el divorcio, porque un vínculo sacramental válido de matrimonio rato y consumado es totalmente indisoluble, e incluso el vínculo del matrimonio natural es de por sí igualmente indisoluble. Es más, para el católico sólo hay un matrimonio válido en tanto que viva su legítimo cónyuge. Por tanto, en este caso no se puede hablar de segundas nupcias.

La expresión «divorciados que se han vuelto a casar» es, por consiguiente, equívoca y engañosa. Por ser un expresión conocida, sólo la escribimos entrecomillada o precedida de un adjetivo como supuesto o llamado. Las mencionadas normas pastorales para los supuestos divorciados vueltos a casar, enmascaradas en una retórica rayana en la sofística, consideran básicamente la admisión de los «divorciados recasados» a la Sagrada Comunión sin el requisito de la indispensable condición establecida por Dios de que no se viole el sagrado vínculo conyugal mediante una relación sexual habitual con alguien que no sea el legítimo cónyuge. Se ha llegado a un extremo  en este proceso de reconocimiento implícito del divorcio en la vida de la Iglesia con la reciente orden del papa Francisco de publicar en los Acta Apostolicae Sedis una carta en la que aprobaba normas semejantes a las promulgadas por los obispos de la región pastoral de Buenos Aires.

A este acto siguó una declaración de que dicha aprobación pontifica pertenecería al Magisterio auténtico de la Iglesia. Dado que tales normas pastorales contradicen la divina Revelación, que prohíbe tajantemente el divorcio, así como las enseñanzas y la práctica sacramental del magisterio ordinario infalible y universal de la Iglesia, nos vimos obligados en conciencia, como sucesores de los Apóstoles, a levantar la voz y reiterar la doctrina y la práctica inmutables de la Iglesia en relación con la indisolubilidad del matrimonio sacramental.

RC: ¿Ha publicado oficialmente la conferencia episcopal kazaja una interpretación de Amoris Laetitia? ¿Tiene pensado hacerlo, o quiere decir esta carta que la conferencia cree que no es posible entender Amoris Laetitia de un modo que se ajuste a la ortodoxia, o que sea de alguna manera compatible con el Catecismo, la Escritura y la Tradición?

MAS: El texto de la Profesión de verdades no es un documento de la conferencia episcopal kazaja, sino de los obispos que lo firmaron; nada más. Nuestra conferencia no consideró necesario promulgar normas pastorales para interpretar Amoris Laetitia. Aunque a consecuencia de setenta años de materialismo comunista la plaga del divorcio está extendida en nuestra sociedad, y también tenemos en nuestras parroquias casos de «divorciados vueltos a casar», no se atreverían a pedir que les dieran la Sagrada Comunión, ya que gracias a Dios la conciencia de pecado está arraigadísima en las almas, incluso en la sociedad civil.

En nuestro país la gente peca como en todas partes, pero el pueblo todavía reconoce lo que es pecado, y por tanto hay esperanza de conversión y de divina misericordia para esos pecadores. Para nuestros feligreses –incluso para los que están «divorciados y vueltos a casar»–, sería como una blasfemia exigir que se les permitiera comulgar mientras siguen cohabitando con una persona que no es su legítimo cónyuge. Por tanto, nuestra conferencia no consideró necesario publicar normas al respecto.

RC: Se enviaron al Papa los famosos dubia, así como una corrección filial firmada en mayor parte por laicos, y en ambos casos ha dado la callada por respuesta. Sin embargo, muchos piensan que Francisco ya ha respondido en cierto modo al aprobar oficialmente las instrucciones al parecer heréticas de los obispos bonaerenses para los divorcriados que se han vuelto a casar y siguen conviviendo. ¿Debemos esperar algo más de Francisco a este respecto? 

MAS: Los obispos de Buenos Aires no han expresado de forma directa una herejía. Ahora bien, en casos particulares permiten que personas divorciadas que se han vuelto a casar reciban la Sagrada Comunión a pesar de que no desean dejar de mantener relaciones sexuales con una persona con la que no están casadas. Ese ese caso, las mencionadas instrucciones pastorales niegan en la práctica, de forma por tanto indirecta, la verdad divinamente revelada de la indisolubilidad del matrimonio. Se da la triste circunstancia de que el Papa ha aprobado esas instrucciones. De esa manera el Papa ha respondido, en mi opinión, de forma directa el primer dubium y de forma indirecta los otros cuatro dubia. Lo único que podemos esperar es que por nuestros ruegos, oraciones y sacrificios el papa Franscisco responda de forma claramente inequívoca los cinco dubia de un modo que se ajuste a las enseñanzas del magisterio infalible ordinario y universal en ese sentido.

RC: El peligro para los fieles se ha hecho patente, no sólo desde la promulgación de Amoris Latetitia, sino nada más por las cosas que se hablaron en los sínodos. Nadie puede negar la confusión que todo ello ha causado. Sin embargo, de forma muy parecida a como el tiempo que demoró en publicarse la Humanae Vitae disminuyó su utilidad, ¿diría Vuestra Excelencia que ya es tarde para impedir el daño, sobre todo ahora que el Papa ha autorizado oficialmente a los divorciados vueltos a casar a recibir la Sagrada Comunión?

MAS: Debemos tener presente que la Iglesia no está en nuestras manos, ni siquiera en las del Papa, sino en las todopoderosas manos de Cristo, y no podemos por tanto afirmar si ya es tarde para impedir el daño. Podemos también aplicar la siguiente afirmación de San Pablo a lo que está sucediendo en el seno de la Iglesia: «Donde abundó el pecado sobreabundó la gracia» (Rom. 5, 20). Dios ha permitido la extraordinaria confusión moral y doctrinal que atraviesa la Iglesia para que una vez pasada la crisis la verdad reluzca con más esplendor y la Iglesia se vuelva espiritualmente más bella, sobre todo en los matrimonios, las familias y los pontífices.

RC: Hemos tenido noticia de que desde hace más de un año es inminente una corrección formal de parte de los cardenales, pero hasta ahora no ha pasado nada. ¿Qué es lo que cree que la está impidiendo?

MAS: Ante el presente eclipse temporal y parcial de la función magisterial del Papa en lo que se refiere concretamente a la defensa y aplicación práctica de la indisolubilidad del matrimonio, los integrantes de los colegios episcopales y cardenalicios tienen que asistir al Sumo Pontífice en este debe magisterial haciendo profesión pública de las inmutables verdades que el magisterio ordinario y universal, es decir, lo que a lo largo de todos los tiempos han enseñado los papas y la totalidad de los obispos con relación a la doctrina y a la práctica sacerdotal del matrimonio.

RC: ¿Qué pasará si varios cardenales hacen una corrección formal y Francisco sigue aprobando oficialmente que las conferencias episcopales permitan que se administre la Comunión a algunos divorciados que se hayan vuelto a casar?

MAS: Desde los primeros siglos existe el siguiente principio en la doctrina católica tradicional: Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. Esto es, que la cátedra episcopal primada de la Iglesia –la del Papa– no puede ser juzgada por nadie. Cuando los obispos le recuerdan respetuosamente al Romano Pontífice la verdad inmutable y la disciplina de la Iglesia, no juzgan con ello la autoridad de la cátedra primada. En vez de ello actúan como colegas y hermanos del Papa. La actitud hacia él de los prelados deber ser colegial, fraterna, no servil, y siempre sobrenaturalmente respetuosa, como se recalcó en el Concilio Vaticano II, en particular en los documentos Lumen gentium y Christus Dominus. Hay que seguir profesando la fe inmutable y rezar todavía más por el Papa, y luego, sólo Dios puede intervenir; sin ninguna duda que lo hará.

RC: ¿Qué diría Vuestra Excelencia al católico típico que va a Misa pero tal vez no esté al tanto de los politiqueos de la Iglesia como los lectores de Rorate, los católicos de a pie que en los últimos años han oído decir al Papa tantas cosas que confunden, cosas que parecen contrarias a lo que (esperamos) se les ha enseñado toda la vida? ¿Y cómo reaccionan los católicos serios cuando los modernistas les preguntan sin son más papistas que el Papa?

MAS: En primer lugar, esos católicos tienen que seguir leyendo y estudiando el Catecismo inmutable, y sobre todo los grandes documentos doctrinales de la Iglesia. Documentos como por ejemplo los decretos del Concilio de Trento sobre los sacramentos; encíclicas como Pascendi de S. Pío X, Casti connubii de Pío XI, Humani generis de Pío XII y Humanae vitae de Pablo VI; el Credo del pueblo de Dios de Pablo VI; la encíclica Veritatis splendor de Juan Pablo II, y su exhortación apostólica Familiaris consortio. Estos documentos no reflejan el sentido personal y efímero de un papa o un sínodo pastoral. Al contrario, reflejan y reproducen el magisterio infalible ordinario y universal de la Iglesia.

En segundo lugar, deben tener presente que el Papa no es creador de la verdad, de la fe ni de la disciplina sacramental de la Iglesia. Ni el Papa ni la totalidad del Magisterio están «sobre la Palabra de Dios, sino que la sirven, enseñando solamente lo que les ha sido confiado» (Concilio Vaticano II, Dei Verbum, 10). El Concilio Vaticano Primero enseñó que el carisma ministerial de los sucesores de San Pedro «no quiere decir  que puedan dar a conocer alguna doctrina nueva, sino que, por asistencia [del Espíritu Santo] ellos puedan guardar santamente y exponer fielmente la revelación transmitida por los apóstoles» (Pastor aeternus, chap. 4).

Y en tercer lugar, el Papa no puede ser el centro focal de la vida diaria de fe de un católico fiel. Por el contrario, el centro focal debe ser Cristo. De lo contrario, seríamos víctimas de un papocentrismo demente, una especie de papolatría, actitud que es contraria a la tradición de los apóstoles, los Padres de la Iglesia y la tradición mayor de la Iglesia. El llamado ultramontanismo de los siglos XIX y XX ha alcanzado su cenit en nuestros tiempos y creado un papocentrismo y una papolatría que son una locura. Veamos un ejemplo: hubo en Roma a finales del siglo XIX un célebre monseñor que solía llevar grupos de peregrinos a las audiencias papales. Antes de hacerles pasar ante el Sumo Pontífice para que lo vieran y escucharan, les decía: «Escuchad atentamente las palabras infalibles que saldrán de la boca del Vicario de Cristo.» Es indudable que semejante actitud es una caricatura del ministerio petrino y contraria a la doctrina de la Iglesia. Y sin embargo, en nuestros tiempos, no son raros los católicos, sacerdotes y obispos que manifiestan en sustancia la misma actitud ridícula hacia el sagrado ministerio del sucesor de San Pedro.

Según la tradición católica, la verdadera actitud que se debe tener hacia el Papa debe ser la misma moderación sensata, con inteligencia, lógica, sentido común, espíritu de fe y, por supuesto, sentida devoción. Pero tiene que haber una síntesis equilibrada de todas esas características. Esperamos que después de la crisis actual la Iglesia adquiera una actitud más equilibrada y sensata hacia la persona del Romano Pontífice y hacia su sagrado e indispensable ministerio en la Iglesia.

(Artículo original. Traducido por J.E.F)

Edición en español del prestigioso blog tradicionalista internacional RORATE CÆLI especializado en noticias y opinión católica. Por política editorial no se permiten comentarios en los artículos

jeudi 11 janvier 2018

Abolition of Christmas, is it the end of the religious freedom?


Image

Abolition of Christmas, is it the end of the religious freedom?

Image

 

Dear friends,

 

The Western world wants to celebrate holidays and festivities but expect to delete the deep meaning of religious and civil holidays.

Christmas period has gone, during it in China as in Europe and in US it has been considered preferable to abolish all symbols of the its meaning and of Jesus' birth. The nativity, Christmas carols, Santa's pictures, everything must be deleted, abolished.

What happened in the world in these last weeks is so clear: the dominant power, politically correct, wants to abolish all Abrahamic religions especially Christianity, Catholicism, to clear it from society's memory.

Catholic dioceses of Washington D.C. was prohibited from displaying posters on public transport: they showed shepherds walking in the comet's light. The judge had considered the picture not commercial.

Nativity, the representation of Jesus' birth created by St. Francis, has been already abolished by social media and in French schools.

Since last 16th December Facebook has censored some pictures of the Nativity placed in St Peter's Square because it considered them "sexually explicit and indecent".

"Femen" women tried to steal baby Jesus placed in St. Peter square on last 26th December.

Pope Francis himself has noticed this censorship problem and in His audience on 27th December he[CR1] [CR2] has denounced the terrorist attack to Christian basis and said: "nowadays, in Europe especially, we are witnessing the distortion of Christmas: we are deleting from the celebration every references to Jesus' birth, in the name of a false concept of respect that is not Christian and often it hiddens the intention of marginalize the faith."

In those days the cartoon "the Star" was censored in a French school.

At Langon school in Gironde around one hundred students were watching the movie when the teacher realized that the main topic in the story were Mary, Joseph and Jesus' birth so it was stopped. " it is not respectful enough for the century-old spirit of the nation." If we abolish Christmas, Nativity, baby Jesus and Christmas cartoons, which part of Christian tradition will remain to western children and adults?

In China there is the same situation: the Communist Party has prohibited "religious and civil celebrations, pictures" and arrested indiscriminately. Is communist China the new model of religious freedom Western secularism?

 

 

 Thank you for your prayers and attention !  

 

Novae Terrae Foundation

Legal Office: Milano, via San Vito, 6

Oprative Office : Via San Giuseppe, 101

21047 Saronno

Varese - Italy

CF 97412950152

 



mercredi 10 janvier 2018

Drammatica domanda di un monaco ortodosso: “Voi cattolici che farete?”.

MiL - Messainlatino.it: Drammatica domanda di un monaco ortodosso: "Voi cattolici che farete?".

Drammatica domanda di un monaco ortodosso: "Voi cattolici che farete?".

Sono stato molto in dubbio se mettere questo post. 

Poteva sembrare poco rispettoso nei confronti del S. Padre e della Sede Apostolica. 

Però dà dei buoni spunti di preghiera e riflessione per un presente difficile nella S. Chiesa di Dio di oggi.

Preghiamo per la Chiesa Cattolica e per il S. Padre che lo Spirito Santo continui ad illuminarlo.

Pur cercando di evitare possibili derive millenariste. Che non fanno parte del DNA cattolico.

Anche dagli scismatici può  arrivare  qualche brandello di verità.

L


Oracolo di Cooperatores Veritatis 4-12-17

Qual è l'incubo di ogni cattolico romano? Non poter seguire un papa. Quando questo avviene, che cosa dobbiamo fare?

Vogliamo parlarvi di un monaco ortodosso: si tratta di padre Paisios l'Atonita del Monte Athos (1924-1994), iscritto dal 2015 nel registro dei santi della Chiesa ortodossa su approvazione del Santo Sinodo del Patriarcato Ecumenico di Costantinopoli. Il suo corpo riposa nel monastero di San Giovanni il Teologo a Sourotì, presso Salonicco, in Grecia, ed è meta di continui pellegrinaggi.

Perché vi parliamo di lui? Perché ebbe da Dio
diversi carismi mistici, tra cui quello della profezia. Vogliamo raccontarvi in modo particolare ciò che disse ad un sacerdote cattolico suo amico. Se qualunque cattolico avesse letto il resoconto di tale incontro solo qualche anno fa, avrebbe sorriso o storto il naso, pensando che si trattasse dei vaneggiamenti di un nemico della Chiesa cattolica. Invece, purtroppo, le parole di padre Paisios si stanno avverando terribilmente.
«Oggi la situazione delle Chiese è molto grave», cominciò il monaco ortodosso. «Non lo capiscono, ma è così. Ci aspettano molte prove. Fra pochi anni ci sarà una grande prova: i pii saranno duramente provati… L'Europa diventerà una grande potenza, avrà un capo ebreo[1]; non solo, ma cercheranno anche un capo spirituale per avere più forza, e sarà il papa, il quale metterà assieme tutti, cattolici, protestanti, mussulmani… li metterà insieme lasciando a ciascuno libertà… Viviamo in tempi di Apocalisse, siamo come al tempo di Noè; lo prendevano in giro… Oggi nessuno ci crede, ma siamo al colmo. I pii avranno grandi prove, ma il tempo sarà breve. Queste cose sono chiaramente annunciate da Ezechiele e Zaccaria…».

Al sentire quelle parole sul papa, il sacerdote cattolico non poté trattenersi: «Padre, lei crede che il papa possa giungere a questo punto?». «Certo che avverrà questo», rispose con sicurezza padre Paisios. «Ci sarà una grande catastrofe… Fra poco succederà questo».

Sta forse succedendo oggi? Sembrerebbe di sì, a giudicare da come papa Francesco governa la Chiesa cattolica e si pone di fronte al mondo: un vero e proprio leader spirituale intento a far sì che la terra diventi una "casa comune" per tutti, indipendentemente dal credo religioso.
Inoltre, padre Paisios non è stato l'unico a "vedere" la terribile deriva di un pontefice romano. Anche Bruno Cornacchiola, il veggente delle Tre Fontane (apparizione riconosciuta per l'arcidiocesi di Roma da papa Pio XII), riportò nel suo diario, in data 21 settembre 1988, ciò che vide in un sogno: «Ciò che ho sognato non si avveri mai, è troppo doloroso e spero che il Signore non permetta che il Papa neghi ogni verità di fede e si metta al posto di Dio»[2]. Anche la SS. Vergine di Civitavecchia, in un messaggio del 1995, ci avvisò che «a Roma le tenebre stanno scendendo sempre di più sulla Roccia che mio Figlio Gesù vi ha lasciato…»[3].

Questo è l'incubo di ogni cattolico romano! Infatti, il monaco del Monte Athos, guardando dritto negli occhi il suo amico cattolico, gli domandò: «Voi (cattolici) come vi comporterete quando il papa farà così?».

Già, come ci comporteremo? «Se il papa non segue il Vangelo non lo si può seguire…», rispose prontamente e giustamente il sacerdote cattolico.

Capendo la difficoltà per un cattolico di non poter seguire un papa, padre Paisios soggiunse: «Non vi dico di fare insurrezioni, ma la Verità non si può camuffare… Se mio padre è ubriaco o adultero, non posso passarlo sotto silenzio. Bisogna cercare le vie dello Spirito per aiutarlo a capire, ma con pietà: come, se e quando Dio lo vuole… Non ci si può nascondere che c'è molta massoneria e sionismo a Roma, c'è grande corruzione, c'è la mentalità del mondo… (…) Non dobbiamo insorgere, ma servire la Verità e non piegarci al mondo… La Chiesa non è la barca personale di qualcuno, né del papa, né del patriarca, né del vescovo. Nessuno può far tacere lo Spirito nella Chiesa, nei fedeli. Dovremo patire molto, ma sarà breve la prova… questa è una grande consolazione».

Saggi consigli e insegnamenti di un monaco ortodosso, che vanno sulla stessa direzione di quelli di vescovo cattolico, mons. Athanaius Schneider, ausiliare di Astana in Kazakhstan. Il presule, in una recente intervista[4], ha spiegato che il Papa non va adulato, e sarà un «atto di carità» anche nei suoi confronti chiedergli chiarezza nel suo magistero. Chi non lo farà, ha avvertito mons. Schneider, al momento del giudizio renderà conto a Dio per non aver fatto niente durante la confusione, per non aver alzato la voce in difesa della Verità.

 ________________________________
BIBLIOGRAFIA

Padre Paisios del Monte Athos. La vita (Ieromonaco Isaac, Edizione Sacro Monastro di Sant'Arsenios il Cappadoce).

Non cercate una santità a buon mercato. Vita e insegnamenti dal Monte Athos (Dionisios Tatsis, EDB, 1997).

Cronache dal Monte Athos (Lorenzo Diletto, Piccola Famiglia della Resurrezione, Valleripa, 1986).

NOTE
[1] Che si tratti di George Soros, il potentissimo imprenditore che con i suoi soldi finanzia rivoluzioni, partiti e uomini politici, promuovendo leggi e governi anti-cristiani soprattutto nell'Unione Europea?
[2] Il veggente. Il segreto delle Tre Fontane (Saverio Gaeta, Salani, 2016).
[3] La Madonna di Civitavecchia. Lacrime e messaggi (Padre Flavio Ubodi, Ares, 2012).
[4] Bishop Schneider Interviewed by Michael Matt (The Remnant, 19-11-2017)

Vidéo-témoignages : "Pourquoi l'espérance chrétienne est-elle si importante?" – gloria.tv

https://gloria.tv/video/ibiPLkM1o8gr44LjYeBjdpgmF

mardi 9 janvier 2018

New Academy for Life member uses Amoris to say some circumstances ‘require’ contraception | News | LifeSite

New Academy for Life member uses Amoris to say some circumstances 'require' contraception | News | LifeSite

New Academy for Life member uses Amoris to say some circumstances 'require' contraception

Featured Image
Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews

ROME, January 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Responsible parenthood can obligate a married couple to use artificial birth control, a recently appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life has argued, basing his theory on Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia.

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

Chapter 8 of the Pope's 2016 document on the family has drawn controversy because of its differing interpretations on the issue of admitting some divorced and civilly "remarried" couples to Holy Communion.

When "natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found," argued Fr. Chiodi in his lecture entitled: Re-reading Humanae Vitae (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia (2016).

In such circumstances, he said, "an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality."

The Italian professor's comments come as the Church this year marks the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church's ban on contraception. In his encyclical, Paul VI called artificial contraception "intrinsically wrong," approved natural family planning, and upheld the Church's teaching on conjugal love and responsible parenthood.

Chiodi's lecture was the third in a series of talks being hosted this academic year by the Gregorian University's faculty of social sciences and moral theology. The aim of the talks is to take a new and broad look at the encyclical "in the context of a time of change" and "more complex" situations.

Fr. Chiodi's lecture also follows revelations that the Vatican quietly created a four-member commission with the Pope's approval, in order to "promote a comprehensive and authoritative study" of Humanae Vitae to coincide with the anniversary. The move came after Pope Francis purged the Pontifical Academy for Life, filling it with new appointees (including Fr. Chiodi), some with dissenting views on Humanae Vitae. And they coincided with the Pope issuing on September 8 a papal decree replacing the John Paul II Institute with a new institute to carry forward the teaching of Amoris Laetitia.

Image
Fr. Maurizio Chiodi delivers a talk entitled "Re-reading Humanae Vitae in light of Amoris Laetitia", on Dec. 14, 2017 at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome. Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews

Concerns about the conference series were first made public in the National Catholic Register by Edward Pentin, and by George Weigel in an article published in First Things. But Fr. Chiodi's public lecture, which included students and religious sisters, may be the most explicit indication to date that an organized effort to challenge Humanae Vitae's prohibition against artificial contraception is underway.

Taking on the JPII Institute

Fr. Chiodi, a professor of moral theology at the Northern University of Italy in Milan, began his talk by summarizing an article published in First Things during the 2015 Synod on the Family. Two professors from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family had drawn up the "Appeal" that criticized paragraph 137 of the synod's working document (Instrumentum Laboris) which focused on responsible parenthood and Humanae Vitae.

The authors took issue with the text, saying it contradicted the teaching of the Church's Magisterium about moral norms, conscience, and moral judgment. In particular, they argued that it fell into the error of using particular situations to grant exceptions, which in turn, would permit someone to commit an intrinsically evil act in "good" conscience.

The authors further maintained that the text's "ambiguous and imprecise formulations" suggested a "rejection of the existence of intrinsically evil acts," and appeared to call into question the Tradition of the Church and the explicit teaching of Pope St. John Paul II's 1993 encyclical on the fundamentals of the Church's moral theology, Veritatis Splendor.

They urged the Synod Fathers to reject the paragraph, saying it "empties" Humanae Vitae of its "central teaching" and could have "devastating consequences." The appeal was signed by 62 philosophers and theologians worldwide, including key figures from John Paul II Institutes in Rome, Washington D.C., Krakow, and Melbourne.

In his talk, Fr. Chiodi, who preferred to call the appeal an "accusation," said the authors' interpretation of paragraph 137 seemed "to force its meaning" and was "guided by a kind of methodical doubt or suspicion." Chiodi added that the authors failed to address what he considered to be the central question in moral theology today, i.e. "the relationship between the objective and subjective."

The Italian moral theologian explained that "normally, the objective is identified with the moral norm known by reason and the subjective is identified with the conscience enlightened by the law." But he rejected this idea, arguing instead that "the relationship between objective and subjective is not a relationship between the norm known by reason and the conscience" but "between the act … and conscience." The task for philosophers and theologians, Chiodi said, is to "rethink a theory of conscience" that recovers "the original link between conscience and the moral act."

He concluded by saying that the authors' final "accusation" — that paragraph 137 "undermines the central purpose of the encyclical" which is to offer a normative interpretation of the natural law — is a "theoretical question" which "requires us to think."

The significance of silence

Fr. Chiodi dedicated the second part of his lecture to the relationship between Humanae Vitae and Amoris Laetitia. While he acknowledged that Humanae Vitae occupies "a very important place" in the "historical development" of the Church's magisterium on marriage, he said the encyclical has become more of a "symbolic issue, criticized or rejected by those who were disappointed with its conclusions, or considered as a true pillar of Catholic moral doctrine on sexuality by others."

The Italian priest attributed the encyclical's increasing importance to its insertion in John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio, n. 29-34, but especially, he said, "to the fact that Veritatis Splendor n. 80 includes contraception among the 'intrinsically evil' acts."

But from a pastoral point of view, he said the "urgency of the issue" of contraception "seems gradually to be diminishing."

"While in the 50s and 60s was an urgent for believers, now the great majority of even believing married couples live as though the norm doesn't exist," he said.

"Officially and objectively the norm has remained," but "even many pastors" don't talk about it, he said. "In public, in catechesis, and in preaching, they prefer not to talk about it" while "in personal encounters they maintain a very indulgent attitude when the issue is raised."

"And therefore," he argued, "it's significant that Amoris Laetitia speaks so little about it."

Commenting further on the significance of this silence, Fr. Chiodi pointed out that Humanae Vitae is cited only six times in Amoris Laetitia. "It has been observed," he added, that its most important reference — on the generation of life, responsible choice and conscience (paragraph 222) — presents "a relatively soft formulation" of Paul VI's encyclical, since "it refrains from a clear and strong condemnation of differing positions, both systematic and normative."

Moreover, Chiodi noted that Amoris Laetitia makes no "explicit reference" to contraception as "intrinsically evil," adding that "it would have been very easy to do so given Veritatis Splendor."

In light of the paucity of references to Paul VI's landmark encyclical in Amoris Laetitia, Fr. Chiodi asked: "How can one claim to reread Humanae Vitae in light of Amoris Laetitia? It seems I've been given an impossible task."

Impossible, really?

But he proceeded to do exactly what he feigned to be unachievable, moving straight to a consideration of what he called the "two great questions" that emerge in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. The first question, Fr. Chiodi said, is the "objective relevance of extenuating circumstances and subjective responsibility of the conscience." The second: "the constitutive relationship between norm and discernment."

His talk then took a sophistic turn through a wandering reflection on conscience, act, norm, and discernment. Fr. Chiodi himself acknowledged his ambitions "might be excessive" in the time allotted, but eventually got to the crux of his argument.

Through His Paschal Mystery, Fr. Chiodi said, "Jesus ... opens to the believer the possibility of acting responsibly, that is, a way of acting that responds to grace, passing through the travails of history and of evil."

"Within this perspective," Chiodi argued, "moral norms are not reducible to rational objectivity but belong to human life understood as a story of salvation and grace. The norms conserve the good and instruct in the way of good. But they are historical."

"In other words, they are subject to change," an academic close to the Vatican told LifeSite. This is "nothing more than historicism and relativism," he added.

Chiodi continued: "[Moral norms] have a symbolic and universal quality, because they point to the good to which they attest, and to the conscience which they instruct and guard."

And "in this light," Fr. Chiodi said, "discernment is not an activity added on" but is "the conscience itself."

He then moved on to his last point — Humanae Vitae: conscience, norm and discernment — and said the theory he was proposing was aimed at "rethinking the anthropology of marriage in its core, on the one hand in sexual difference, and on the other in responsible fruitfulness."

The "wisdom of Humanae Vitae," he said, is to have stressed "the connection between the spousal relationship and generation," which he believes is "the fundamental anthropological lesson that we have to take" from the encyclical.

Significantly, Fr. Chiodi said the reflection he had offered in his lecture "seems to authorize us to rethink the meaning of the moral norm of Humanae Vitae, so that we don't concentrate on [it] as an objective truth that stands before reason, in this case, of the believing spouses."

"My thought is to take up the anthropological meaning of the norm of Humanae Vitae," Chiodi said. Therefore, he stressed, "it's not a matter of abolishing the norm, but of demonstrating its meaning and truth."

The academic speaking anonymously to LifeSite said that given Fr. Chiodi's "clear historicism, it seems that for him, there is no objective truth."  For Chiodi, the source added, "there is no moral norm that is always normative."

Some cases 'require' contraception

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

Before moving on to consider these four aspects, Fr. Chiodi said that "naturally, we need to ask if natural methods can and have to be the only form of responsible parenthood, or if this doesn't need to be interpreted more broadly."

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

Moving rapidly through the first three points, Fr. Chiodi came to the fourth, i.e. the meaning of responsible parenthood. He said the vocation inscribed in generation is to "recognize that generating is not creating" but involves "responding to a gift and recognizing with gratitude the call to welcome the presence of another."

"I believe that this is what the natural methods of fecundity attest to," Fr. Chiodi said.  "They attest to the responsible character of generation, through the rhythm of time, the rhythm of the body of the other, the care for a relationship that involves dialogue and mutual acceptance, not the instrumentalization of the other."

Having given a 40-minute lecture laden with ambiguities and vague philosophical theories, interspersed with intimations of where he was going, Fr. Chiodi in the last three minutes of his talk revealed his true intention and meaning — namely that, in some circumstances, artificial birth control is not only acceptable but even good and therefore is not "intrinsically evil."

Fr. Chiodi concluded his lecture with remarkable frankness about his intentions, saying:

If it is true that the responsibility in generating is what these [natural] methods point to, then we can understand how, in situations when natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception. In these cases, a technological intervention does not negate the responsibility of the generating relationship. The insistence of the Church's Magisterium on natural methods cannot be interpreted, in my opinion, as a norm which is an end in itself, nor as a mere conformity with biological laws, because the norm points to an anthropology, to the good of marital responsibility.

He added:

Technology [i.e. artificial birth control], in certain circumstances, can make it possible to guard the responsible quality of the sexual act, even in the decision not to generate, for all of the reasons that Paul VI, and even before, Pius XII already indicated as 'plausible reasons' for avoiding the conception of a child. Technology [i.e. artificial birth control] it seems to me, cannot be rejected a priori, when the birth of a child is at play, because technology [i.e. artificial birth control] is a form of acting, and so requires discernment on the basis of these circumstances, one however that is irreducible to a material interpretation of the norm. In the above-mentioned circumstances, then, an artificial method for the regulation of birth could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child but because in those situations, responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.

Coordinated Push

Fr. Chiodi's talk was introduced by one of the chief organizers of the conference series, Argentine Jesuit Father Humberto Miguel Yanez. Fr. Yanez is the Director of the Department of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University. Yanez is known to be close to Pope Francis, and in fact Bergoglio was Yanez' religious superior as a young Jesuit (see Pope Francis, untying the knots).

In May 2015, Father Yanez participated in the "secret synod" at the Gregorian, during which a number of theologians sought to sway the synod on the family to accept same-sex unions, dispense with the term "intrinsically evil," and introduce a controversial "theology of love."

Father Chiodi's December 14 lecture is not his first attempt to justify contraception, nor to use arguments that critics say are condemned in Pope St. John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Earlier this year, both he and Father Yanez also took part in the presentation at the Gregorian of a new book entitled Amoris Laetitia: A Turning Point for Moral Theology, edited by Stephan Goertz and Caroline Witting, in which it is argued that Amoris Laetitia represents a paradigm shift for all moral theology and especially in interpreting Humanae Vitae.

Fr. Chiodi's lecture was followed by an accompanying talk by Emilia Palladino, a professor of family ethics in the Gregorian's department of social sciences. Palladino, one of the chief organizers of the conference series together with Fr. Yanez, also expressed support for the use of artificial contraception in some circumstances.

Image
Prof. Emilia Palladino, one of the organizers of the conference series being held at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews

Fr. Chiodi's talk comes after several articles appeared in Avvenire, the Italian bishops' newspaper, promoting a similar position. A summary of Fr. Chiodi's talk is expected to be published in Avvenire in mid-January.

Asked for an interview by LifeSite, Fr. Chiodi declined to comment, saying these are "sensitive matters."

Moral theologian reacts: Chiodi's theories vs. Church doctrine

Here below are comments on Fr. Chiodi's talk from a well-respected moral theologian who wished to remain anonymous.

The Church's position on this matter is abundantly clear, and has been repeated many times. According to perennial Magisterial teaching, the use of contraceptives is an intrinsic evil, that is, a moral evil that never becomes good no matter what circumstances may exist. As an objective moral evil, the use of contraceptives therefore is never responsible, but rather is a practice that is always irresponsible because it undermines the dignity of the spouses and instrumentalizes the conjugal union by destroying its chief end, namely, procreation.  

Fr. Chiodi's position, therefore, is no different from a moral relativism which states that there are no actions which by their very object are intrinsically evil. Instead, his view assumes the principle that circumstances can make any action good and laudable provided certain circumstances exist and the agent act with a good intention. Such a view undermines the entire moral order and will justify every kind of moral disorder.

Pius XI makes this abundantly clear, saying:

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin (Casti Conubii, n. 56).

Likewise, Paul VI in Humanae Vitae declares:

"Excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. […] Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. […] Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (n. 14)

The Church, said Paul VI, "condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious" (n. 16).

Pope Paul VI also stated in Humanae Vitae, n. 14, that "it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."

And in Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II states that:

[T]he negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality" - which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [to commit abortion] when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. [emphasis added] (Evangelium Vitae n. 13)

...Today an important part of policies which favour life is the issue of population growth. Certainly public authorities have a responsibility to "intervene to orient the demography of the population. But such interventions must always take into account and respect the primary and inalienable responsibility of married couples and families, and cannot employ methods which fail to respect the person and fundamental human rights, beginning with the right to life of every innocent human being. It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods such as contraception, sterilization and abortion in order to regulate births (n. 91).

It is surely significant that Francis never quotes St. John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor. Had he done so, Francis could have easily shown that he rejects all forms of moral relativism, situationism, and the sorts of theories proposed by Fr. Chiodi. This is particularly clear with respect to Veritatis Splendor no. 80:

[T]he acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): […] are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.            

John Paul adds:

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: 'Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.'