This article was originally posted on 6th June 2018. It was a response to an article in the Catholic Times by Fr. Basil Loftus, who proffered a very Modernist position on the changes in the Church. I thought it apropos considering that the latest interview Francis has given to Eugenio Scalfari reveals that Francis is "driven by the desire that our Church survive by adapting our collective spirit to modern civil society." And, that, dear reader, is the very definition of Modernism. It is the desire to "update" or "modernise" the Church with the zeitgeist (spirit of the age).
In his column for the Catholic Times, 11th of May edition, entitled "Getting on with changes in the Church", Mgr. Basil Loftus wrote a lengthy column publishing many false arguments against what he calls "juridical fundamentalists", or what I would call normal Catholics; the same Catholics who actually except that there is a universal moral law, placed within men by God, and which governs the actions of all human beings. This moral law is defined by the only true voice of reason and morality: the Catholic Church.
Before I begin to make my reply to some of the Monsignor's comments, I must state that I find his label of faithful Catholics, juridical fundamentalists, a injurious insult not only to myself but also to all those Catholics who truly accept and assent to the teachings of Mother Church. As taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #142-165, faith is the free assent of the intellect and will to the Truths of God as taught by the Catholic Church. It is not just some subjective feeling or action, but an objective submission of the mind and will to Catholic Teaching. A Catholic who objectively submits to Catholic Teaching will readily embrace even those teachings which he may not fully understand or which he may have difficulties excepting, but which he nevertheless knows are true, because God has spoken them through His Church. Sadly, however, most Catholics today are coddled into Subjective Catholicism, which is nothing other than the Arch-heresy of Modernism, which subjectifies Catholic Teaching to each individual person. This is why we now have many Catholics, both cleric and laic, who go about undermining Catholic Teaching by stating that the universal moral norms of the Church, based on both Moral and Natural Laws, don't apply to "each concrete situation" and that they have to be redefined to "accompany" people who are in "irregular situations" or, to put it into the Catholic Tongue: the moral teaching of the Church has to be changed to accept, allow and promote immoral lifestyles. The Modernists are good at word-play, and of confusing one with Modernist jargon that leaves one quiet boggled as to what it means, hence why people are always confused when the current Pontificate publishes anything! There is no point in asking for clarity with these people, because even their clarification will need a clarification! It should also be noted that Modernists use mostly the same language as ordinary, orthodox Catholics, but apply a meaning radically different.
After reading this column, my mind raced with thoughts. Being overwhelmed by them, I have decided to note them down. This is somewhat of a reply. I was going to actually write to the Catholic Times with such a reply, but after composing the same, I have decided that such is probably far too long for them to publish, so I am publishing it on St. Mark's instead.
Please note that this work is not authoritative in any way, but is only my personal reflections in response to the column. I do not claim any inspiration with this work.
However, I digress.
Modernism, Magisterium & Morality
After his introduction to his column piece, the Monsignor quotes from an American judge, one Justice Tomkins from 1805, saying: "If men themselves change with the times, why should not laws also undergo an alteration?" The Monsignor then goes on to say: "This is a question which surely needs today to be put with increasing urgency to those in authority in the Church..." The Monsignor commits an error in that Catholic Teaching is not some man-made law that can be altered or replaced entirely with something new. Catholic Teaching is nothing other than the Divine Revelation given by Our Blessed Founder, Jesus Christ, to His immaculate Spouse, the Catholic Church. This Revelation, known as the Deposit of Faith, contains in it everything that the Lord commands of us to believe in, as He reminds us in Matt. 28:20, in which He says to His Apostles about Catholics, "Teach[...] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you". The Church teaches us all those things which are necessary for belief if we wish to have any hope of arriving at the shores of Heaven.
Any serious Catholic would, and should, quiver in fear at even the thought of tampering with God's Revelation, especially by those who profess to be its defenders and teachers. Just as the Church shivered at the sight of the Protestants mutilating Divine Scripture by aborting from it certain books and texts, so She should shiver that the same action is now being done to the Church's Magisterium: the aborting of certain teachings because they either don't sit comfortably with some people, or because such people are actually participating in a lifestyle that is contradictory to Catholic Teaching. Naturally, such people have an invested interest in changing such teachings to appease themselves and their comrades.
But where does this notion come from, that Church teaching can change? It comes from a heresy called Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X wrote about all the way back in 1907 in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. One of the principles of Modernism is the evolution of dogma, that is, that dogma can evolve to suit the needs of the people of a particular time and place. I shall quote from the section in which the sainted Pontiff refers to the Modernist belief in the evolution of dogmas (often now wrongfully called the "development of doctrine"):
1] Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. Is this not what Monsignor Basil Loftus is engaging in when calling for an "alteration" in Church doctrine?
2] Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. We often hear today about a "living Magisterium". In its true meaning, it refers to the fact that the Magisterium, both past and present, equally apply to every person in the Church, and that the past teachings of the Magisterium are just as applicable as the Magisterium of the current Pontificate, hence the term "living". However, this is usually not what is meant by Modernists today when they speak of a "living Magisterium". Their notion is that the Magisterium needs to be subjective, that is, needs to be relevant to each person and their "concrete situation". Thus, for a Modernist, the idea of objective universal moral truths are anathema, and so must be replaced by subjective morals that are more "relevant" to each person. Thus, instead of affirming the universal moral teaching that adultery is immoral and those who are in permanent adultery are barred from Holy Communion until they rectify their situation, we instead subjectify this teaching by saying that people in adulterous unions cannot live up to the "ideal" of normal matrimony, and so they have to be "pastorally accompanied" by the Church and "discern" whether they personally feel they should be receiving Holy Communion. If this sounds very familiar, it should be. Sadly, this language is being used not only by Modernist clerics, but, sorrowfully, by even the Holy Father himself in his Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Even the documents of the Second Vatican Council were not spared the harassment of having Modernist language drugged into them.
The Commandments are reduced from the perfect Law of God to merely "ideals" that people should try and live up to; but no sweat if you can't. We see here the Modernist Magisterium at work, adapting the Church's teachings (and even God's own Law!!) to the subjective situations of the faithful. Whilst the Modernists won't, in principle, deny the Sixth Commandment which forbids adultery, they will in practise deny it and circumvent it by man-made programmes, very much like the Pharisees of old who circumvented the Commandments by diverse regulations. Rather ironically, these same Modernists accuse orthodox Catholics of being the Pharisees, when we're not the ones creating ridiculous circumventing laws to dally around the Divine Law! The Modernists are the spiritual successors of the Pharisees of old, doing their damndest to flout the sublime Laws of God. For me the Sixth Commandment simply says: Thou shalt not commit adultery; for the Modernist an invisible caveat appears and thus it says: Thou shalt not commit adultery; unless thou art discerning with the Church on an pastoral accompaniment programme, in which thou discernest that thou art actually not really an adulterer.
3] ...[T]here is no room for surprise that Modernists regard [dogmas] so lightly and in such open disrespect. Do we not see this everywhere in the Church today?
4] And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. We hear today about those "rigid" Catholics; those "juridical fundamentalists" who cannot prize themselves away from rules and regulations. Well, St. Pius already knew this back in 1907. It's the same tactic. We also hear about the "excessive moralism" of the Church, and that the Church needs to be more "open" and what-not. Just more Modernist jargon; more Modernist clap-trap.
5] ...[W]ith that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself. We see today, certainly heightened since Pope Francis was elected, the increasing need for novelty in Church teaching, discipline and the like. We see the despising of apostolic traditions by many in the Church, including the Monsignor who wrote the column I am giving answer to.
These are just some quotes from the encyclical. I would highly encourage my readers to go and read the document themselves, and to digest what it teaches. Pure, undiluted truth straight from the hand of a saintly Pontiff. You can't get better than that!
Subjective Morality & Situation Ethics
Next, the Monsignor writes: But rather than simply altering laws we need perhaps even more urgently at the present time to ask ourselves if certain purportedly universal moral laws address the reality of every individual concrete situation. And as if by magic, the Monsignor uses the very language that I above warned about. His language is very Modernist. Note his use of the phrase "purportedly universal moral laws", thereby implying that moral law is purported and not actual. Real Catholics know that there is a universal moral law, which the Church teaches us is embedded in every human heart by God Himself. This explains why even aboriginal tribes who have had no contact outside their environs already know that wilful murder, for instance, is wrong. The Monsignor, in this column, brings the Moral Law into question because a Modernist cannot advance his Subjective Morality if there is a Universal Moral Law which is binding on every man. Such dismantling of the Moral Law is couched in such terms as being "merciful" or "compassionate" or being "open to the voice of the Spirit"; it is implied that Catholics who don't accept such dismantling of the Moral Law are somehow "closed" to the voice of the Spirit. Yet, how can the Holy Spirit, Who guides the Church into all truth, inspire the Church to disobey His very Laws? Such is the dissonance of Modernists. But, I am very sure that it all works out in their elastic minds.
We also see in the above comment the use of "every individual concrete situation". This is Subjective Morality par excellence, which is commonly called "situation ethics". It is the heresy that the Moral Law be tailored to each situation, on a "case-by-case basis"; we hear that ghastly phrase all the time now! Whether it's pastoral discernment of adulterers receiving Holy Communion, or allowing the Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive regularly the Holy Eucharist, we hear that everything is on a case-by-case basis; Situation Ethics in practise, and which is condemned by the Church. Pope Pius XII, no less, condemned Situation Ethics, and he stated with alarming condemnation: "Taking, therefore, the words of Christ and of the Apostle [Paul] as the strict rule, should not one say that the Church of today is rather inclined more to indulgence than to severity? It so happens that the accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church by the ‘new morality,’ in reality, attacks, in the first place, the adorable Person of Christ Himself."So, the Venerable Pontiff accuses Situational Ethicists of attacking "the Adorable Person of Christ Himself". What a charge to be levelled against, and by an almost canonised Pontiff. And not only that, but the Ven. Pius points out how indulgent the Church is now, especially when She is compared to Her former, and I may say venerable, practises such as inflicting harsh penances on mortal sinners, binding the faithful to rigorous fastings or subjecting heretics to the Holy Inquisition. Which Modernist can refute the indulgence of Mother Church in these areas? Though, I may interject here and posit that such relaxation has led to the negligent nature of Catholics today, including myself, allowing them to become fat from Her indulgence, and causing them to forget their God or fear His terrible Judgment, in similar fashion to how the accumulation of material wealth leads one to stray from the Lord, thinking that there is nothing more God could offer. So, I would petition Mother Church to return to Her former severity, but only so far as is conducive to the salvation of souls. No doubt, the Modernist will hiss at such a petition, and condemn me for being a Pelagianist. But let them hiss and condemn, for I will follow the path of the Lord and rise above the Pharisaic Modernists who, believing themselves to be open and compassionate, close themselves to the legitimate concerns of ordinary, faithful Catholics, with whom I share a loving fraternity.
We must also concern ourselves with the logical conclusion of Situation Ethics. For, subjecting the Moral Law to each individual situation, it seeks to nullify even the Divine Law of God, as expressed in the Commandments. It also renders the Sacred Magisterium of Mother Church virtually useless, because, as I have explained earlier, it creates this false Modernist Magisterium which can only ever legislate for today, and never for tomorrow. And, to be logical, we must ask: If we, today, have arrived at the discernment that adulterers can receive Holy Communion, what will prevent a later generation from arriving at that discernment which previous generations before us have already discerned: that adulterers cannot receive Holy Communion? For, logically, if Situation Ethics is applied to tomorrow, the generation, indeed the very Magisterium, of tomorrow may conclude, after similar pastoral discernment and accompaniment as of today, that such adulterers cannot receive Communion, and thus are to be barred from approaching the Sacred Altar to receive It. One must wonder if the Modernists have even entertained that such may actually happen in the future, or whether they naively believe that their Situational Ethics will continue unchanged; if they believe this latter, then they have created their own universal moral law, whilst claiming that such moral law doesn't really exist. Another Modernist Dissonance, which, again, I am sure makes perfect sense to their minds.
With this, the Monsignor then goes on to write: No-one has difficulty with the universality of 'Do good and avoid evil'. This is divinely stamped into our being. The problem arises when the institutional Church then applies this certainty to each and every concrete situation, in many of which there is both good and evil. So, according to our good Monsignor, there is a universal moral law which is 'do good and avoid evil (sin)', but the Church really shouldn't apply it to "each and every concrete situation" because in many of them "there is both good and evil"! It may have escaped our learned Monsignor, but every situation has both good and evil in it. What makes a person moral is that they choose to do the good, and avoid the evil; avoid the sinful action in a situation. A person who chooses evil is not moral. As Our Lord taught us, it is what comes out of a man that makes him moral or immoral, and He mentions specifically adultery as an evil that makes a man immoral (Cf. Mark 7:14-23). To say that the Church cannot apply the universal command of Our Lord to avoid sin (Cf. Matt. 3:8; Matt. 4:17; Matt 5:48; Lk. 13:3; &c) attacks not only the very Gospel in which we are shown the way to rise above evil, but attacks, as Pius XII states above, the very "Adorable Person of Christ Himself". It is to say that what Our Saviour expects of us, viz, to give up our sinful ways, is impossible, and thus to charge the Most Merciful with unmercifully burdening us with a command we could never achieve in contradiction to what He Himself said to us (Cf. Matt 11:29-30). The Council of Trent, in Canon XVIII of Session VI, declared: "If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema". To even insinuate that "divorced and remarried" Catholics cannot keep the Sixth Commandment of not committing adultery, or that the Church cannot apply this Commandment to them and therefore must create some man-made process of "accompanying" their adultery, smacks of heresy and blasphemy. And what, may I ask, is to become of other Catholics who cannot keep the Commandments? Are they to be "accompanied" by the Church, instead of being called to penance?
Ah! But, you see, this is the cunning of Modernist Morals: the universal law of avoiding evil cannot be applied to "each and every concrete situation" since all human situations have evil in them due to our sinful nature, and thus, by that, the Universal Moral Law must give way to Universal Situational Ethics. The Church can no longer apply Moral Law to anyone, because everyone has a "concrete situation" which has some evil in it, whether it be their company not paying them just wages or their politicians lying to them. Every situation now becomes ipso facto exempt from the "universality of 'Do good and avoid evil'". Instead what we have is the universality of accompanying evil. As in the 16th century, when certain persons went about selling indulgences, we now have the moral equivalent of that: you pay the Church via a pastoral accompaniment programme, and She will produce a Certificate of Discernment, in which your particular immoral lifestyle is now approved, and you are now released from your moral purgatory in which you were imprisoned. I suppose the rhyme accompanying that would be: Every discernment in the diocese rings, a soul from Universal Moral Law springs!
The Monsignor, like others, seems to apply Situation Ethics only on the sexual life, rather than also applying such a rule on other areas of life. For adultery is not the only "concrete situation" in which there is "good and evil", there is also defrauding labourers of their just wages, lying and the like. I have to ask: do corporations get off because there is good (employment) and evil (defrauding) in their relations with people? Or do governments get a free pass because there is good (common good) and evil (lying) with their relations with citizens? Why does Situation Ethics only seem to apply to the sexual life? Why does it not extend to the social moral life? If I am an employer who is habitually defrauding my workers, or a politician habitually lying to my constituents, can I apply for the Pastoral Accompaniment & Discernment Programme so that I can carry on committing my immoral behaviour whilst also presenting myself for Holy Communion? Why do adulterers get a free pass and I don't? One is reminded of how an immoral nobleman could build a massive Church as a penance, get pardoned for his sins, and then go on to commit the same sins over and over again. Instead of building a Church, one just goes to the above mentioned Programme as their penance, and they are approved. The same problem that caused the former is now causing the latter: the super-indulgent nature of the Church. As mentioned above, the Church has become less of a Mother and more of a Coddler; an Enabler. She no longer disciplines Her children, but rather panders to their every whim, and then wonders why they act like such heathens. The answer to their heathenism from the Hierarchy is: more pampering; more pandering; more....mercy! Oh yes! We have become very familiar of that word, mercy, since it is peppered into every conversation anyone ever has on the subject of adultery, or even of homosexual practises and the like. Any sexually immoral person must now be shown mercy, because - God forbid! - anyone should be unmerciful to them and actually tell them that they are immoral, and they need to repent of their immorality for the salvation of their souls!
In short, Modernist Morals are always a slippery slope, because Situational Ethics always become the norm. After a ram of applications, bishops will decide to throw their approval to every application, and then we have universal acceptance regardless. Situational Ethics follows from its sister, Situational Liturgics (if I may coin the phrase), in which a case-by-case basis is set up for some extraordinary liturgical practise, like Communion in the hand was back in the 60/70's, but then it becomes universal practise very rapidly. Situational anything in the Church always goes wrong, and ends up doing the opposite to what it is claimed it should be doing. I am no prophet - and have no desire to be one in view of what happens to them! - and have no inspiration from the Holy Spirit because I am unworthy of so great a gift, but let me predict this: the current movement in the Church regarding the circumstance of adulterers being admitted to Holy Communion may start out as a case-by-case procedure, but will quickly become a universal norm. And when that has happened, the Modernists will turn to another sexual immoral practise and repeat the process all over again. Surely and slowly, the Church accompanies every immoral sexual practise, no matter how grave it may be. This is the Great Apostasy at work, right before our eyes. And, surely as Our Lady has warned, it has started at the top.
But alas, let us move forward.
Juridical Fundamentalists & their inability to see good
Our Monsignor then comments: Such situations call for a discernment that juridical fundamentalists in the Church will not permit. As I remarked in the Introduction, I find this label of juridical fundamentalists an injurious insult to ordinary, faithful, orthodox Catholics. As for the broader comment, it simply isn't true. Speaking for myself, I have never thought nor opined that sexually immoral people shouldn't be permitted to "discern" their situation; rather, I am opposed to the type of discernment they are asked to perform, namely, subjectively judging that, somehow, God is permissive of their practises and that they should present themselves for Holy Communion with a clear conscience. Instead, such people should discern, with the guidance of the Church, that they are, in fact, in an immoral lifestyle and that they need to repent of said lifestyle, do sufficient penance, and then be brought back into sacramental communion with the Church. They should be "accompanied" back to morality, back to living a life that isn't in defiance of the Moral Law, and back to a State of Grace.
People in such situations in which they have become habitual, do suffer from their actions even if they don't know it. Their sufferance, however, is not the doing of the Church, or of the Moral Law, but of their decision to abandon morality. The Church never asks them to commit such grave sins, and therefore She cannot be made to be the bully in this, as Modernists always paint Her to be. Just like the #MeToo movement in which every woman is now made a victim of any male interaction, so too the Modernists paint sexually immoral people as victims of an harassing Moral Law. The Church excludes these poor victims, they cry, whilst never even entertaining the thought that such people exclude themselves because they chose to commit a grave mortal sin! The Church never asked them to do such a thing.
It must also be said that this name-calling by the Modernists in the Church is just as pathetic as the name-calling of the Radical Left in the secular world. Rather than having an honest debate, the Radical Left just shout abuse and simplistic phrases their ignorant minds can retain. In similar fashion the Modernists just compose idiotic phrases and launch them at faithful Catholics in order to bully them into submission. It may not be so bad, if not for the fact that even the Holy Father has used many of these phrases to describe his own children. In fact, someone on the internet composed a list of all these phrases, which you can read. Each phrase is linked to a relevant article. My filial advice to the Holy Father is to cease using these phrases, because it stings coming from a priest or bishop, but hurts when coming from the Pope.
Moralising immorality: Adultery
After informing us of how juridical fundamentalists will not permit discernment of situations, the Monsignor gives us three examples of some of these "situations". "For instance", he says, "because adultery is wrong, therefore we may not take account of the good and the love in a second marriage." A few things come to mind about this comment.
Firstly, adultery isn't just wrong - it's outright immoral. But, a Modernist will never use such terms when referring to a situation that he is trying to normalise. In like manner, an abortionist won't refer to abortion as infanticide, because they will never admit to what they are actually doing. So, the Modernist will never describe adultery as immoral, but just as wrong - a wrong that can be conveniently plastered over. They will use flowery language to dress up the corpse, as it were.
Secondly, it is interesting that he uses the term "second marriage". Why is it interesting? Well, any educated Catholic should know the answer to that! Because, the Catholic would say, one can only be married once whilst the other spouse is still alive. One cannot enter a second marriage whilst the true spouse is still alive. Matrimony is a life-long union, which no earthly power - not even the Church Herself - can sever, and certainly no government. (Cf. CCC #1640; #1650) To use the term "second marriage", a false term, is to deny the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which defames the Church, and thus, once again, attacks the Adorable Person of Christ Himself. Christ Himself established Matrimony from the beginning of time when He decreed that our First Parents, Adam and Eve, were to be joined together. When He graced the earth, He decreed that Matrimony, then a natural union, be elevated to a Sacrament, and thus fused with sanctifying grace. Matrimony isn't just a covenant between man and woman, but also includes God Himself, Who promises to bless the couple so long as they walk in fidelity to the norms of the Sacrament. By using this false term of "second marriage", the Monsignor is, whether he realises it or not, undermining Christ, the Church and the Sacrament. Since this Sacrament is founded for the union of man and woman, the pro-creation of children and their education and spiritual life, to talk of second marriages breaks asunder the sacred union with which the family is nurtured, and also tears the conjugal act from its sacred position to a cheap, and dirty, practise.
Thirdly, let us take a juridical fundamentalist's view of this comment and ask: What "good" and what "love" can there be in adultery? In order for adultery to be good, it must be moral, which it isn't. And against what, or whom, are we measuring this "good"? The man has shown he cannot be monogamous, since he deserts his true spouse and then moves on to another woman. Since he cannot keep his vows of being faithful to his spouse - forsaking all other! - what good is left? A man who is a marital infidel cannot be good. And, not only that, but since he cannot be monogamous, and cannot keep his vows, he cannot be truly loving these women. Love is always accompanied by sacrifice. We may also ask: If such a man can love his "second" spouse, why couldn't he love his "first" spouse? If such a man truly loved his true spouse, he would have done everything possible to retain his union with her; he would have stormed Heaven with cry after cry for the grace to keep fidelity to both God and his spouse. And if the circumstance came about that the spouses couldn't actually live with each other, why do people immediately think that divorce is the only answer? The Church proposes another solution: physical separation (Cf. CCC #1649; CIC, cann. 1151-1155; FC 83). This is where the couple separate, but remain married and don't try to file for divorce. This practise is preferable to divorce, for obvious reasons. Catholics in such situations have nothing to fear from the Church, since they haven't done something immoral, and they still respect the union between them. Naturally, the Church prefers them to be together, but will tolerate separation if it is applied for.
If by "good" we refer to the bearing of children, does one really think that children born of an illegitimate union is good? These children are born of adultery and fornication - not really a good thing to be born of! And before anyone points fingers, I have experience of this since I was born out of wedlock; my parents being baptised but non-practising. Do I condone my parents' conception of me out of wedlock? No. And whilst the conception of children is a good thing in itself, the fact that such children are conceived in fornication does not make the fornication good. The ends never justify the means. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii, says that adultery should not be engaged even for the sake of children: "[F]inally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring."[Para. 10] Incidentally, that quote from Pius XI is also a quote from St. Augustine. So, even as far back as the 4th-5th centuries, such practises were condemned.
In all this, love has been reduced from the sublime virtue it truly is, to merely a sentiment of the heart; a feeling that may or may not be transient. Many people today will announce they are in love, but this love, rather than being an ineffable sign of sacrifice, is only a passing feeling; truthfully it is not love, but lust. A male youth, maturing into manhood, will begin to grow into his sexual faculties. As demonstrated by today's Culture, rather than tempering the raging hormones that the young man will encounter during this time with the practise of the virtues of chastity and purity, a man now will become a slave to his developing sexual faculties and will, from the moment he becomes mature and able to re-produce, go about abusing himself and his wonderful faculties by taking a string of girlfriends, engaging in fornication with them very quickly. He will not temper himself and pray that God guide him into controlling himself and mastering his sexual faculties, but will rather become a hormonal monster, unable to - pardon the phrase - "keep it in his trousers". And young women are not off the hook, because they also do likewise. Because they no longer are taught to master themselves, they become stuck in this vicious cycle of never being able to stop. And, to add fuel to the testosterone fire, modern education, even in Catholic schools, takes this testosterone titan and gives him the knowledge of how to actually go about fornicating via their "Sexual Education" programmes. Sex-ed really should be called "Fornication 101". It was revealed, at least in the UK, that where sex-ed was cut, teen pregnancies went down (cf. UK stats: Cut gov’t sex ed funding and teen pregnancy rates drop.). It is clear, at least to me, that sexual education outside the family leads to promiscuity. Yet, sadly, many today would probably still be as promiscuous with parental sex-ed because their parents themselves were either wrongly educated or are also promiscuous. This will be tempered with virtuous parents, usually in the more traditional/conservative wing of the Church.
Moralising immorality: Homosexual unions
After informing us of the supposed good and love in adultery, the Monsignor goes on to say that, "Genital intimacy between individuals of the same gender is wrong, therefore no credit may be given for the unselfish care one such partner may have for the other." The Monsignor goes straight from moralising adultery to moralising homosexuality. That quick move is symbolic of how the Modernist mind works in these things: they quickly move from one practise to the other, moralising them as they go.
The subject of homosexuality is often a very emotional and personal subject, mainly because those who engage in homosexual acts have come to it from an emotional background. From the little research I have done into it, it seems the same reasons come up again and again. For a lot of homosexual men, the two biggest factors are usually, I find, because (1) they were sexually abused by a male adult in their childhood, and so became confused about their own sexuality, or (2) they had terrible paternity in their childhood, viz, their father either wasn't around, or wasn't dutiful in his fatherhood. Thus, robbed of their father and a man to guide them, these men grew up trying to find a father figure in some other man, often turning into a sexual desire. Other factors also seem to crop up, but I find these the two biggest factors. Thus, one can see why it would be a very emotional and personal thing to talk about. And indeed, speaking for myself, I truly pity such men who, through no fault of their own, have been led into such a dark place. Indeed as the Catechism teaches us on this topic (CCC #2357-2359), such persons are to be treated with dignity, compassion and sensitivity. And such persons should never be patronised, because that only drives them further away. Instead, as I have heard, such men (and indeed women) need persons who will listen, and instruct. Many of these men are looking for a father figure that will guide them; no better person than a priest, a spiritual father. But sadly, many homosexual men never find such a spiritual father, because many of the priests in the Catholic Church, it is revealed, are homosexual themselves, or they are permissive about homosexual acts, like our Monsignor it seems. Thus, many homosexual men are misguided, and robbed, once again, of a loving father who will, even though it is hard, correct them and teach them.
Whilst one may, on occasion, find two homosexual persons who have an unselfish care of each other, this is, to be truthful, very rare. Homosexual persons tend not to be monogamous people, but rather flitter about from one partner to another. And, to interject here, one does not need "genital intimacy" with someone of the same sex in order to be unselfish toward them or to love them. For example: I love my father, but would never engage in incest with him! Sadly today, many think that love equals sex, and vice-versa. However, the opposite is true.
What is making it harder to truly accompany homosexual persons to a chaste life, as many have come to, is the fact that almost every bishop in the Church seems to be moralising homosexuality. Indeed, if the bishop approves, how can the priest or any layman not also approve? And it's not just your local Ordinary, but, it seems, the Pope has climbed aboard this jilting bus, and has, according to the testimony of a homosexual sex-abuse victim from Chile, said that God makes people gay (cf. ‘God made you gay’: Did Pope Francis just tell the lie of the century?). Whilst the Pope, and the bishops, probably intend to do good, they are, in practise, doing the opposite. Testimonials of many men who abandoned the homosexual lifestyle do not paint it in a pretty picture. And the pandering of the bishops and the Pope to the homosexual lifestyle only fuels those in the Church who are intent on overturning the Church's teaching on homosexuality, which She describes as an intrinsic evil. This does not, as many claim, mean the Church hates homosexual people, or is homophobic, since She distinguishes between people and actions. The Church never judges persons, only their actions, since She cannot see into the heart. There is only One Who can judge a person, and that is God, since He alone can see the heart and the thoughts that reside there. Nevertheless, it is the proper duty of Mother Church to judge the external actions of Her children, for such actions are a symptom of some internal problem, which needs to be corrected. Many in the Church no longer understand this basic principle, and thus completely annihilate such things. For them, the person and their actions are the same thing, and they don't separate the two. So, for the Modernist, a homosexual is his actions; whilst for Catholics like me, a homosexual is not his actions. This, I hope, may help to explain why such people are incessant that those who do not accept homosexuality are somehow homophobic; they cannot separate a man from his actions. For me, a homosexual is distinct from his actions, meaning that whilst homosexual acts are evil, that doesn't necessarily mean the homosexual himself is evil; many are, as I have said above, confused persons, in need of proper paternal guidance. However, such a person must still be informed that his actions are evil, because nothing supersedes the preaching of the Gospel, nor does anything remove the need for conversion and penance.
I shall end here by stating that, contrary to what many have come to believe, the Catholic Church does not obsess on homosexuality. Indeed, the Catechism only contains three paragraphs on the subject, whilst it entreats seven paragraphs on abortion. I'm sorry to burst bubbles, but homosexuals don't have any priority in the Catechism!
Moralising immorality: Artificial birth-control
The Monsignor ends this list by stating: "Artificial birth-control is wrong, therefore no account may be taken of the need to avoid contagious diseases or to preserve the unique quality of married love when further child-bearing would be medically inadvisable." As with the other comments, the Monsignor denigrates faithful Catholics by equating to them false sentiments or opinions. Firstly, artificial birth-control - a flowery term for contraception - is condemned by the Church as an intrinsic evil (CCC #2370). The word contraception means, in Latin, against conception. Even the thought that any Catholic, let alone any "enlightened" person, could support contraception, which is just a facet of the "Culture of Death", terrifies the mind. But, people do support the practise of not having children which - they seem to not be cognizant of - leads to stagnant population growth. I hear about me here in England how we don't have enough doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to run our hospitals, to which my answer is always: stop contraceiving and aborting them! You cannot have your cake and eat it too; you cannot refuse to have children and complain about stagnant population growth.
Secondly, the use of "to avoid contagious diseases" is a bit vague. I am supposing here that he is primarily referring to sexual diseases. That being the case, it obviously hasn't occurred to the Monsignor that there is another way of avoiding such diseases without the use of any contraception. In the first place, regarding certainly the West: stop having promiscuous sex; in the second place, in places such as the Africas, better medical treatments and, in the case where the mother's (or indeed the father's) life may in danger due to exposure to sexual diseases in the local environment, periodic sexual abstinence, providing this doesn't lead to sexual sins. It always amazes me how, even in the Church now, the thought of being continent seems to be derided. People are now so sex-mad that they cannot imagine how anyone could be continent, or have a chaste marriage. This sex-madness has infected the Church, so that Catholics now cannot think of a continent relationship.
Regarding the Monsignor's comment about medical situations, I find this a disgusting abuse of the conjugal act. He is saying that sex, a sacred act, can be used to just pleasure the couple whilst preventing another pregnancy. Such a practise is gravely sinful. Rather, such a couple should instead take up periodic or complete abstinence, if it does not lead to sin, as is described: "It may indeed become absolutely necessary, especially because of the "medical indication", to avoid the conception of a child. It is then that the Church and ethical medical science recommend complete abstinence as the safest solution, providing it, too, can be kept without sin". (Natural Family Planning). The "without sin" means that such an abstinence must not lead to one of the spouses abusing themselves for sexual pleasure, like the use of masturbation. Yet, even in this medical case, "It is important, however, not to accept the judgment of a single doctor as infallibly decreeing the death of the next pregnancy. Too many of us know of women so instructed who bore many children safely. A doctor can be wrong. The better the doctor, the less he is inclined to lay claim to infallibility in making these observations. It should be remembered, too, that doctors, though men of science, are not always scientific in their practical determinations. Like anyone else, they may have a small-family mentality and are quick to convert their patients to this way of life (ibid)." (Natural Family Planning) The use of contraception in such a situation does not, as the Monsignor seems to think, preserve the conjugal act, but will rather degrades it from a sacred act of pro-creation to simply an exercise of satisfying passion. It degrades the spouses from dignified persons to sex objects. This is why people regard each other as objects to be exploited for sex, because sex has been detached from the uniquely spousal act of love to just a satisfaction for passions. Contraception is the door through which the corruption of sex, the family, the bearing of children and eventually abortion come through. All of the modern mentality on sex and the bearing of children (or in today's case the lack thereof) stems from this abomination called contraception.
The conjugal act is a supremely sacred thing, created by God not only for the pro-creation of children, its primary function, but also for the natural satisfaction of well ordered passions, and the complementarity of man and woman. None of the functions of the conjugal act can be abused without grave moral sin. It is the obligation of every married couple to bring forth new citizens, not only of earth, but of Heaven: "The gravity is proportioned to the duty, which the spouses have to provide the human race with future citizens, and the Catholic Church with future believers. AND THIS IS A GRAVE DUTY, OBLIGING UNDER PAIN OF GRAVE SIN." (Natural Family Planning)
To end this section, the Monsignor writes: "All of this has become very relevant to the question of eligibility for the reception of Holy Communion." I find it rather interesting that the Monsignor doesn't refer to "divorced and remarried" Catholics here, but rather just speak generically. I am guessing here that the Monsignor isn't just thinking of adulterers, but also other persons who's sexual lifestyle bars them from Holy Communion. Already, the Modernist Mind is opining on all options, as I have mentioned above. I predicted above that each immoral practise will be moralised, and it seems that is happening here. As for the eligibility for Holy Communion, it seems that, eventually, everyone will be eligible!
He then follows this by stating: "So-called universal moral laws excluding such participation must now yield not to changed laws, or to permission from superior authority but to individual discernment brought about by pastoral discernment, which ecclesial authority must then respect". So, we see here plain and simple what the Modernists are going to do. Adulterers, our Monsignor says, won't even need permission from bishops to receive Holy Communion; they will just subjectively authorise it themselves, and the bishops will just bow down and comply! Also note, that he says that the laws will not be changed. This is a Modernist tactic: officially the Church's teachings are not changed, but in practise they are. So, whilst the Church will still teach the Commandments, they will, in practise, be made null and void by the man-made Pharisaic laws and regulations of the Modernists. Oh, the words of Our Lord are ringing in my ears right now! (cf. Matt. 15:1-9)
After this, the Monsignor goes on to write against Pope Benedict XVI, and how his theology was too static and weak, and how he believed that every existing moral situation had a pre-existing law to govern it; basically, the Monsignor casts the Pope Emeritus as one of those juridical fundamentalists. During this rant, he quotes from various sources, including from a document from the International Theological Commission published in 2009 (nos. 55; 56; 58), expressing how man needs to adapt universal moral laws to the diversity of situations in which he finds himself in. Naturally, the Modernist Theology has crept into official Church documentation; in very deed, it is embedded within the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Modernists, from the beginning, hijacked the Council, and turned it into the omnipotent, all-assuming "spirit" upon which we hang our latest novelties.
To end, the Monsignor writes how our current Roman Pontiff, Francis, has spotted a weakness in moral theology, "Far too long it has ignored the fact that Jesus taught that it is not the healthy who need the physician, but the sick." Once again, I must oppose the Monsignor and say that moral theology has never ignored this fact, but rather the Modernist Moral Theology does by making the morally sick into perfectly healthy, spiffing chaps who need not the Physician to heal them! It turns Christ's command to be perfect into a state that is unattainable, thus mocking Christ.
He then goes on to say, "The idea that those in so-called objectively sinful situations must reform them before they can grow in holiness has been the single biggest obstacle to the growth of the Church." This statement frightfully offends my piety, because what the Monsignor is saying is that morally sinful people need not reform their lives to become holy, but rather they can become holy by staying in a state of mortal sin which, if not confessed, will land them a place in the fires of Hell. So, in his operation of things, the morally sinful are to just be allowed to do whatever they want, and the Church will approve of it. I have never heard such rotten - quite frankly, demonic - claptrap in my life! This is such a dangerous assertion, as it poses a serious risk to the eternal destination of souls. Our Blessed Mother, at Fatima, warned that most people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh; what She didn't mention is that the clergy were the ones egging on these sins of the flesh!
What I have treated you to is some of the Modernist trash that is now prevalent in the Church. Modernism has been around for some time, being condemned as Liberalism in the 19th century by such illustrious Roman Pontiffs as Gregory XVI, Pius IX and Leo XIII. It was Pius X who, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, gave it the name of Modernism, and set out the beliefs and tenants of its system. Sadly, Monsignor Basil Loftus is another of these Modernist types, whether or not he consciously knows it. Modernism has now become so ingrained, that many a Catholic will espouse Modernist ideas without actually knowing that it is Modernist. Modernist principles are even contained in practically every ecclesial document that comes out of the Vatican, and they can be found in most, if not all, post Vatican II papal documents.
I would kindly direct my reader to such venerable papal documents as Mirari Vos of Gregory XVI, The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura of Bl. Pius IX, and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X, mentioned earlier. These are important documents to read, amongst others, that address some of the errors we see today. However, I feel it my duty to warn my reader that many of the issues spoken in these documents, especially in Mirari Vos and the Syllabus of Errors, are common beliefs and tenants of the West. That is, these documents address the erroneous doctrines that our modern western democracies now enshrine as God-given rights. I provide this warning for those of my readers who have no knowledge of these things.
In fine, I pray that I have provided some defence against Modernism in this work. I know it is unworthy of God, but I offer it to Him through the mediatorship of Our Lady and through the pious intercession of St. Mark.