Roberto de Mattei: "'Correctio Filialis': A First Apraisal"

Roberto de Mattei Corrispondenza Romana October 4, 2017 Correctio Filialis: a first appraisal On September 25th, the day after the publication of the Correctio filialis to Pope Francis, Greg Burke, the spokesman for the Vatican Pressroom, with condescending irony, denied the news diffused by Ansa, which had reported that access to the site of the Correctiohad been blocked by the Holy See: "Do you really think we would do this for a letter with 60 names?" The director of the Pressroom, who judges initiatives on the basis of the number of "followers" , might be interested to know that www.correctiofilialis.org, eight days after being put online, had more than 180 thousand individual visitors and 330 thousand page visits.  The visits come from 200 different countries of the five continents.  Italy and the United States lead the number of accesses. Further, the letter of correction addressed to Pope Francis by 62 scholars, was shared on October 3rd, by 216 theologians, priests, professors and scholars of all nationalities, whose signatures are visible on the site. Added to these, there are thousands of adherents, who put their signature on the official site or on other Catholic sites which actively support the initiative: onepeterfive.com,lifesitenews.com, katholisches.Info. Guido Mocellin, in Avvenire of September 27th, had to admit that in "the ecclesial blogsphere" , thanks to a" modern website in six languages", "the posts on the Correctio filiale directed to Pope Francis "as a result of the propagation of heresies" have been the most present over the past few days: they constituted 30% of all those that I was able to consult between Saturday 24th and Monday 26th of September. If we want to stay with the numbers, the number of cardinals, bishops and theologians who have risen up against theCorrectio, in defence of Amoris laetitia, is irrelevant. Even the Cardinal closest to Pope Francis, the Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, took a position of equidistance, declaring that  "people who are not in agreement voice their dissent but these things have to be discussed, in an attempt to understand". What is missing most of all, beyond the number, is substance in the argumentation of the efforts to reply to theCorrectio. The greatest effort done, which nearly arrives at the acrobatics of the sophists, we owe to the Member of Parliament and philosopher Rocco Buttiglione on Vaticaninsider of October 3rd. The central passage of Amoris laetitiacriticized by the signatories of the Correctio, according to Buttiglione, is "something absolutely traditional, which we all studied as children at Catechism in the Catholic Church, not only in the new one by St John Paul II, but also in the old one by Pius X". It's true – Buttiglione admits that there is "an absolute impossibility of giving Communion to those in a state of mortal sin (and this rule is of the Divine law and thus unbreakable) but if, as a result of  lack of instruction or deliberate consent, there is no mortal sin and Communion may be given, from the point of view of moral theology, even to a divorced and remarried [person]." For Buttiglione, like Pope Bergoglio's trusted theologian, Monsignor Victor Manuel Fernàndez, the basic problem would be that of  the "imputability " of the acts. An imputabilty which would be absent in the great majority of more uxoriocohabitants, since the concrete situations they are living in, mitigate there awareness and, above all, for them, render it practically impossible to observe the law of the Lord. With this the Council of Trent is, without any qualms, contradicted;  [the very Council] which anathematizes those who say "that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed in grace impossible" [Denz-H. n.1568). "God, in fact, does not command the impossible; but when He commands He admonishes us to do what is possible, ask what is not possible and He helps you to make it possible." (Denz-H, n. 1356). On the other hand, the bishops who apply Pope Francis' teaching, are not inspired by Pius X's catechism, nor John Paul II's new one. In their dioceses, the divorced-remarried, perfectly aware of their situation, insist on Communion and according to Amoris laetitia, Communion is permitted to them, as a legitimate right.  To justify this immoral practice, we have arrived at the falsification of St Thomas Aquinas' thought. However, a valiant Italian moralist who signed the Correctio, Don Alfredo Morselli, demonstrated, on Messainlatino blogspot, October 3rd, the impossibility of harmonizing Pope Francis' Exhortation with the doctrine of St. Thomas. Don Morselli refers to some unequivocal passages by the Angelic Doctor, which affirm the contrary of § 301 in Amoris laetitia:   "A good intention is not sufficient to determine the goodness of an act: since an act can be in itself bad, and in no way can it become good" (Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 40 q. 1 a. 2 co.). "There are some, (human actions) that have a a deformity inseparably belonging to them, like fornication, adultery and other things of this kind, which cannot be considered morally good in any way whatsoever." (Quodlibet IX, q. 7 a. 2 co.). In coherence with authentic Thomism, Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz,  presently an Opus Dei prelate, at a convention promoted to celebrate the 20 years of Humanae Vitae, recalled that "the existence of particular norms of natural morals, having universal and unconditional value belong to Catholic doctrine, and actually is a truth of the faith" (Humanae Vitae, 20 years later, Edizioni Ares, Milan 1989, p. 129). Among these, the prohibition of contraception and the prohibition of adultery.  Has the teaching of the University of Santa Croce and Navarra (promoter of that convention along with the John Paul Institute) changed or will it change?   One wonders, after the interview of September 30th at Infovaticana.com, in which the present Vicar of Opus Dei, Mariano Fazio, censures other members of the prelature who signed the Correctio, accusing them of "scandalizing the entire Church". The interview is strange: neither the Argentine Bishops nor the Maltese Bishops, who authorize adultery in their dioceses are guilty of scandalizing the Church, but those who protest against these scandals are. The Pope, according to Fazio, can be criticized, but in private circles, never publically. In the avalanche of contrary comments, which submerged the blog Infovaticana, there is one which hits the nail on the head: "What about St. Paul?" Wasn't it precisely St. Paul who corrected St. Peter publically?  (Gal. 2, 7-14) The apostolic candour of St. Paul and the humility of the Prince of the Apostles have remained, since then, the model of the correct relationship between those who exercise authority and those who obey them with filial respect but not without discernment. One of the most influential signatories of the Correctio, the theologian and philosopher of Science, Don Alberto Strumia, prefers discernment. In an interview on September 30th to the daily, Il Giornale, he explained: "The doctrine of the Church was not invented by theologians and not even by Popes, but is founded in the Scriptures and rooted in the tradition of the Church. The Pope is at its service, as guardian and guarantor of this continuity and cannot break it not even covertly, implying, with ambiguous formulations, that today one might think of doing the opposite of what has been taught until now by the Magisterium, regarding essential questions such as the doctrine of the Sacraments and family morality, with the motivation that times have changed and the world demands some adjustment.  For this [reason] it is a duty of charity, which has the aim of "saving souls" as it was said in the past, the  defense of the very dignity of the throne of Peter, and of the one who sits there, to highlight these ambiguities with the greatest respect." […] " To dare address a doctrinal correction to the Pope can be done and must be done only when the truth of the Faith is in danger and thus the salvation of the members of the people of God." At a time when consciences are darkened, the Correctio filialis expresses the sensus fidei of tens of thousands of Catholics who remind their Supreme Pontiff with filial respect, that the salvation of souls is the greatest good and for no reason in the world can one do evil or make compromises with it. (by Roberto de Mattei) [Translation: contributor Francesca Romana on Rorate Caeli] Send to a Friend !

Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office."

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain.

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

 General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

 

Trump is fighting And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” 

 

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

 

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.     

 

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.   

 

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.  So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

 A NATION THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT
ITS VETERANS IS A NATION THAT 

WILL NOT LONG ENDURE
FOR IT HAS LOST HONOR