Vennari: Amoris Laetitia And Situation Ethics

John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News, passed away yesterday after a bout with cancer.  Catholic Family News, along with the Wanderer and the Remnant, was at the forefront of Catholic media who told the truth about the massive deconstruction of the Faith that was being masterminded by progressives during the 20th century.  They started their work long before the advent of the internet.  Faithful Catholics owe men like Vennari much gratitude.  Let us pray for the eternal repose of his soul and for consolation for his family and friends.

Below is a talk that Vennari gave sometime last year in Chicago.  It may well be the last public address that he was able to give.  Anyway, he exposes the foundations of Amoralis Lamentia as being the heresy of situation ethics, and why acceptance of AL would greatly undermine Catholic moral theology.

I urge all to watch this, but first let's engage in a rather amusing digression.  Vennari and others helped pioneer the new Catholic media, of which this blog is a small part.  Not all greet us with enthusiasm.  The mainstream progressives, with their loyal lemmings, take great umbrage with us for depriving them of their monopoly over the public forum of Catholic ideas.  Take, for instance, this piece posted on Crud.  Notice how we are described as "cornered animals who snarl and bite"?  Then Longenecker quotes from Father Rosica, who in his suit against Vox Cantoris, did indeed play the biting and snarling animal.  Perhaps John Vennari can read this from his vantage point and have a chuckle while praying for us as we pray for him.

Jesuits Thumbing Their Noses At Our Lord Jesus

For quite some time now, the Society of Jesus has shown itself to be a society not of Jesus.  There have been exceptions in the form of faithful Jesuits but these are few.  Now some Jesuits - among them the new head of that order - are setting themselves above Our Lord in their own perverted estimations.

The new head is Father Arturo Sosa Abascal.  In an interview he claimed (quoting from LifeSiteNews) that "the words of Jesus against divorce are relative and must be discerned according to the conscience of each individual."  He's straight-out saying that if one's "conscience" doesn't approve of clear commands from Our Lord (such as His commands against fornication and adultery), then we are not duty-bound to obey Him.  We in essence can be our own little "gods".  This, in a nutshell, is the heresy that was once called "situation ethics".  We've heard that lots recently.  It was only last month that Cardinal Wuerl force-fed that poisonous brain-rot to young impressionable seminarians of his archdiocese.  But this is not a new problem by any stretch.  Mankind first encountered that temptation in the Garden of Eden.  Read Genesis 3:5, where the devil deceives Eve by telling her that if she sins, her "eyes will be opened and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil".

So there you have it from the head of the Jesuit order.  We know that desire to supplant God is at the basis of all the blather about "pastoral" and "discernment" and "accompanying" that pours forth from the Jesuit who is Pope Francis.  For those of you who insist on chanting the "pope can do/say no wrong" mantra, let's see if Abascal remains in his post.  If he remains, then we have yet more proof of the pope's own mindset.

Let's move on to Father James Martin, editor of America progressive rag.  He recently accepted an award from New Ways Ministry, a cabal of faux-katholycs who shill for homosexual perversion to be normalized.  After President Trump announced that he was reversing Obama's transgender bathroom order, he waxed indignant that transgender people were restricted to using bathrooms designated to their biological sex.  Normal, sane people would rejoice at this triumph of mere common sense, let alone Catholic morality.  Not so Father Martin.  From LifeSiteNews we catch a sampling of the tweets that he put out to whine about the matter.

As you read that piece, you'll notice that Father Martin, while accepting his bauble from New Ways, praised the "special gifts" of homosexuals.  Now when did we hear that sort of language in the not-too-distant past?  If you said, "from the interim relatio from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family" you are correct!  In that report we see this language: "postive aspects of homosexual relationships", "valuing homosexual orientation", etc.  Anyway, Father Martin's pro-pervert sentiments are troubling; if nothing else, they pose great scandal for those who may be wavering on the precipice of such temptations.  Along those lines, Michael Voris publicly asks Father Martin a question.  Will he answer?

The Role Of Situation Ethics In The Border Mass And Singing Priest Debacles

Now that some of the dust - and emotions - have (hopefully) calmed after the revelation of Father Kelly's performance two weeks ago, I think it bears revisiting.  There are underlying moral principles at play, and we cannot ignore them for the sake of maintaining a facade of peace.  A "peace" that cannot bear some rigorous examination of situations and underlying principles is not true peace.

Father Ray Kelly is the priest in Ireland who violated Mass rubrics by putting on a singing performance during a Nuptial Mass two weeks ago.  In discussions regarding his actions, I've seen undercurrents of a "situation ethics" mindset in the remarks of faithful Catholics.  I've also seen it as we've discussed the "border Mass" on April 2, done by some bishops as part of their ongoing shilling for amnesty for people in this country illegally.  Needless to say I'm greatly concerned.

Let's define "situation ethics".  In this Christian-oriented site, we see that "situation ethics" was pioneered by an Episcopal priest in the early 1900s.  He also happened to be an advocate for euthanasia and for Planned Parenthood - small wonder.  The site does an excellent job in demonstrating the logical fallacies of situation ethics.  In a nutshell, situation ethics is a notion that decision-making should be based on the particulars of a given situation and not upon fixed law (such as Mass rubrics as defined by the GIRM, the Ten Commandments, etc).

I was involved in a closed discussion during the Triduum weekend with faithful Catholics regarding the Father Kelly matter.  More than a few seemed to buy the notion that the rubrics, generated by the Roman Catholic Church, can be suspended for the sake of a "happy moment".  It was mentioned that "at least there were no dancers or clowns".  Now see the problem?  If the rubrics of Mass can be suspended at will, what's the difference between priests singing versus puppets galloping down the aisles?  Without objective principles that govern the Mass, those embellishments become a mere matter of personal taste, don't they?  Once we jettison a principle for one circumstance, it can never be invoked for another circumstance for in that first act of disregard we would have shown our own disrespect for that principle.

I've also seen "situation ethics" ethos in other discussions.  One very public discussion is on Jill Stanek's site.  Granted, Jill and many of her site assistants aren't Catholic.  I'm just appalled at how they think they're knowledgeable enough to tell Catholics what their attitudes toward Church authority should be.  Some of the commenters - Catholics - tried to explain the role of Church authority in our Mass.  But again too many Catholics were all too willing to turn a blind eye "because the song made people happy" or some other similar excuse.

I also had a Facebook discussion on the matter.  Of course there was my original post on this matter.  Take a look at those comments and you'll notice that most of those supporting Father's disobedience voice their own flippant attitudes towards the Magisterium.

I think we also saw the situation ethics mental poison at play during the "border Mass" on April 2.  Please read the link to refresh your memories about that event.  I link now to an article that explains why that was a violation of Canon Law regarding Mass.  Situation ethics has corroded even the thinking of many of our bishops.

Some might ask why I continue to harp on what they might consider "minor matters".  Folks, it's very simple.  The underlying moral principles of any situation can never be regarded as "minor".  If we refuse to examine rigorously these principles behind our thinking when it comes to so-called "minor matters", we risk crippling our ability to deal properly with matters that aren't so "minor".  I'm no expert in that regard, but I do know enough to realize the damage done when we don't attempt rigorous, thorough thinking that applies Christ's Commandments and Church law appropriately.

Is Pope Francis Equivocating On The Mortal Sin Of Homsexual Relations, Or...

Or is that merely wishful thinking on the part of some Cardinals??

I'm baffled by this article.  I truly hope this is more twisting of the Holy Father's words.  However, the progressive media can twist his words only as far as the words themselves are susceptible to such manipulation.  With the possible exception of the condom remark, I never heard Pope Benedict's words bandied about; that's because his words were crystal clear and thus did not lend themselves to distortion.

According to that article, His Holiness wants to stop condemning same-sex unions and instead "study them" - per Cardinal Dolan.  So we would should not condemn that sin, should not perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy such as "rebuke the sinner" and "instruct the ignorant", thus imperiling the souls of many?  Let's do a little word-substitution here.  Instead of "same-sex unions" let's say "child rape".  How about drunkedness?  Should we be silent and just "study" these too?  Really???