In today’s OPINION page article of the Philippine Star is the following “love story”:
'I love you, Father Reuter'
MANILA, Philippines – I was 12 when my mother divorced my father. He was a tall, golden haired, blue eyed American, who had left California to serve in WWII and returned home proudly flourishing a delicate souvenir from the Philippine Islands.
My tiny mother, observing this new world through almond shaped eyes, saw the rest of tall, white America bending down to look at her. They would speak slowly and loudly at her, remarking to each other, “Isn’t she cute?” My mother had a PhD in English literature and did not like to be referred to as cute. After two painful decades of having to buy her shoes in children’s stores, she broke the law and with two half white daughters, escaped back to the city of her own youth: Manila.
I was not yet a teenager when we stepped off the PresidentWilsonOcean Liner. The intense heat, the bugs, the constant swirl and hum of laughing people was overwhelming. My mother moved quickly to hide us, and within a few weeks, my younger sister and I were installed in a Philippine Catholic girl’s school: St. Paul’s College of Manila.
It was confusing to us. We were barely religious, maybe only very slightly Catholic… at Christmas. Who was St. Paul? We were children, why were we going to a college? Ah, the confusion was only beginning.
Both of us came equipped with English and Spanish. The lingua franca was Tagalog, which we could not read, write or understand.
Both of us were much larger than the Asian girls our age. My sister was a blonde. I had long masses of curly hair. Like a slow motion dream, we were buried alive in a landslide of shimmering, pitch black tresses that flowed from the heads of tiny, graceful nymphs. These girls didn’t guffaw their laughter, they giggled demurely. They didn’t argue a point; they pursed their lips and lowered their eyes. They didn’t push or shove, they pouted and turned away slowly, lifting high one perfectly curved eyebrow. We were wildflowers blown into a hothouse of exotic orchids. They wanted to talk about love. They looked us over and asked …did we have a brother? We had no brother. Ohhh, tooooo baaaaad.
We also didn’t have the right shoes. The right socks. The right book bags.
This was the 1960’s and we’d been raised by bohemians who had encouraged us to speak our minds, ignore our appearance and argue both sides of the communist take over of Cuba.
We were American peasants in bad need of a full spa make over.
To make matters worse, we had no father. Not only had my mother married a white man, she had divorced him and come back home with two fatherless girls. This information produced a wave of deep shock that washed over everyone around us. Where is your father? Will he come to get you? Will you ever see him again? Doesn’t he love you? Does he have another wife?
My sister being younger took it more in stride and prospered, artfully winning friends with her honeyed locks and dimpled smile. I closed and toughened. My mother had managed to escape imprisonment on the wrong planet and one day, I would do the same. I was an alien who would never, ever paint her fingernails.
Then, one morning, studying alone on the stone steps of the school chapel, my life was changed forever. I looked up to see a tall man in a white cassock crossing the quadrant, Sister Nieves and Sister Joanna hurrying to keep up with him. He was talking in the loud voice of the white man, not hushing his tones for propriety sake. He was striding along purposefully like the white man, not mincing his step to accommodate the women. The bright sun on his golden, white man hair haloed him, making his approach akin to that of a brilliant comet. Was I dreaming? Was this a saint? Was I dead but didn’t know it yet? He came straight towards the chapel and hypnotized by my approaching destiny, I could not move. Looking down at me, a homeless animal crouched on the stone steps, he smiled and said; “you must be the fatherless girl”. His eyes were blue, blue, blue. This was the first white man I had seen since I’d come to the Philippines. In coloring and shape he looked startlingly like my father, whose memory had begun to evaporate within me … except for his coloring and shape.
Sister Joanna said; “her name is Lotis”.
Sister Nieves said; “Lotis, this is Father Reuter”.
I was paralyzed, like the kitten before the tiger that will consume it. Father Reuter put his large, white gold hand on my curly head and said; “come, talk to me, I’ll hear your confession”. Confession? What was that? What should I confess? That I felt ugly and stupid? That I hated this place? That I hated myself? Ignorant of the concept of personal sin, unaware of what confession was supposed to consist of, these were the things I told him.
I talked to Father Reuter that day and many, many more days over the years to come. He heard my “confession” in person every week or so, and the rest of the time I talked to him in my heart, in my dreams, in my prayers. In reality he did not treat me any differently than any other little girl. I was no special pet or favorite. I don’t know if he even thought of me at all outside the confessional. I am unaware if I ever made any particular impression on him. No. It was him who made the impression on me.
Father Reuter had been sent by the Jesuits, to the Philippines, just before WWII and wound up interned by the Japanese. At wars end, the Jesuits asked him to stay on for a bit and he did…returning to the US for a visit only once in the next 60 years. There was nothing of the effeminate about this priest. Nothing soft or flabby or repelling. His love was not vague, distant, or carefully guarded. A gruffly practical, quick tempered, get to the point! kind of priest, he could grab you by the back of the neck, give you a shake, stare you down and demand immediate love and obedience in the same instant. He was a steely eyed, unflinching priest, who rarely whispered when he could shout, loved with an iron fist, and was simultaneously feared and adored by all who knew him.
In this day of gross immorality, I don’t know if anyone can understand how, without the slightest hint of sexual impropriety, a little girl can love her priest and find her salvation through him. But it is true. Father Reuter was more than a man or a priest. He was a father.
Before I knew God in the personal way I do now, I knew Father Reuter in place of Him. Before I could accept God as my Father, Father Reuter was there to create that role for me. I was a lost child who would have been lost forever if not for this celibate male taking me for one of his children. He encouraged me to speak and communicate my thoughts. He pushed me to develop my voice. He made me understand that even if I didn’t fit in I was valuable and gifted.
After high school I went on to a life filled with many elaborate diversions. I did foolish things and I was pushed by my curly, wild nature to adventures that sorely tried all around me. I can remember times I would pause for an instant and think; “I should go to Father Reuter for advice”, but pride mixed with shame, would erase the impulse. In my heart nestled a deep fear he would be so angry at things I had done, he would no longer love me. Anyway, I was an adult now, capable of dealing with life.
I no longer needed a father of any kind.
I finally did go to see Father Reuter, but only recently, some 40 years since I had last seen him at my graduation. I am not taller than I was in high school, but bent over with age he is now shorter than I am. His slightly trembling hands and feet are misshapen with arthritis. His golden hair is gone. He was seated in a wheelchair wearing his white cassock, and when I entered he struggled to rise and kiss me. I looked into his eyes and they were blue, blue, blue. I was twelve again and struck dumb with love. I could not talk much and in his fatherly way he understood and did the talking for me. Nothing important really, just making enough sound to ease the tension and let the ghost years slip away. As time dissolved between us; the feeling of his strength, the powerful force of his love, the intensity and vigor of his fatherhood, coiled and wrapped itself around my heart, pulling me to my knees before God, in the very deepest gratitude for this man.
Dear, dear man of God. I have never said this to you but I have always wanted to: I love you Father Reuter and I always will. — Lotis Key-Kabigting
[Source:The Philippine Star (Opinion) Thusday, May 28, 2009]
There is nothing else I can truthfully add to Ms. Kabigting’s soul-stirring account of her own personal “love story” starring James B. Reuter S.J., except to say a thousand times over, “AMEN!”
Fr. Reuter has written his last column on "The Philippine Star" newspaper today. For those who have not seen it - read on . He has written such a beautiful prayer in the end. He is waiting to be called, please pray for him.
HOPING WE WILL BE ONE, FOREVER
I am in Our lady of PeaceHospital , on the Coastal Road , and it is really 3:00 A.M . The planes coming and going from the airport are roaring over my head.
Everything is peaceful and quiet. Even the roaring planes add to the feeling of peace and quiet.
I am ten days away from my 93rd birthday. God has been kinder to me than I deserve, giving me such a rich life, in such a beautiful country, among such gentle people. He has blessed me with so many kind, affectionate, generous loving friends.
I found that the best time for me to write was 3:00 A.M. My mind is clearer, my heart is warmer, and I am overwhelmed with the goodness of the people God sends to me.
In this column I have always tried to be positive - presenting the goodness of people, and the wisdom of God's Providence as I saw it.
I have tried to give.... to give the only thing I have to give ... Myself. I have tried to share my thoughts, my feelings, the wonderful holiness that I see in the simple, gentle people that God sends to me.
As soon as I came to the Philippines I realized that the Filipinos were the loveliest people in the world. It was a gift of God, a special blessing, that He sent me here.
I have been thanked for giving my life to the Philippines.... But whenever you give, you always get back more than you have given.
Thank you .
* for your gift of friendship through these many long years
* for reading "At 3:00 A.M.." from the time I started writing my column
* for your reactions through letters and phone calls when you liked or did not like what I wrote
* for sharing your stories which inspired me to write them so they could inspire others
* for your love and concern
*for your prayers which comfort me and which I need.
I have tried to be a priest. A priest is a bridge ...a bridge between God and man.... a channel of God's love, peace and joy.
What I have found in the Philippines is union ....union of hearts and minds... It is marked by sharing.... The simple, gentle Filipino is willing to share all he has, with everyone.
That is holiness ... That is sanctity ... That is being like God.
In heaven we will all be one - united in heart and soul .... Loving each other.
In this column written at 3:00 A.M. that was my only message ...give...give yourself.... love.
And when I presented this, I discovered what it meant, myself.
Being strong, sometimes, means being able to let go. I know that now is the time to " let go". I have been up at 3:00 A.M. to write my column for many many years. It is now time for me to stay in bed until the sun comes up and the birds start to sing.
This is not goodbye. Wherever I am, whatever I do, you are always in my heart and in my prayers. All of you.
God bless!
The song is ended ... but the melody lingers on .. and on ... and on.
I love those who have read this column...And I hope that they love me.
* * *
For those who are interested, here is my prayer that I would like to share with you.
Lord God,
Look down upon us, this day, this hour.
Regardless of what has gone before,
or what will come after,
give us the grace to consecrate this time entirely to You –
NOTE:Ariel Querubin is a former Marine Colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Eight years ago he was recognized by the Philippine Military as most deserving of its HIGHEST POSSIBLE award for valor and leadership in the field of battle, the Medal of Valor, He is now however, languishing in a very cramped and unhealthy detention cell at Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City, for having publicly rallied his troops and subordinate officers in support of their Marine Commanding General’s protest against corruption in government.
Recently he announced that he is running for the Senate. His handwritten letter to me is as follows:
May 8, 2009
Dear Sir Ed,
May the Peace of Christ be with you!
I have no doubt in my mind that the Lord has all the while been preparing me for public service. I was left for dead in 1989, and he allowed me to spring back to life. I have been imprisoned as a soldier, but I fully regained the honor and right to wear a soldier’s uniform after having been awarded the Medal of Valor in 2001. As my military career was very much back on track, I was again challenged to choose between right and wrong, between honor and injustice, between good and evil.
Even as we all work for a vibrant and prosperous Philippines, my dream is for every Filipino to enjoy the essence of freedom from poverty, fear, and injustice, to feel the tangible benefits of good governance, and to live comfortably in a society that fosters the unity of the family, protects human rights, and upholds the dignity of all.
I have not had an easy life. My life story has been replete with vivid encounters with injustice, poverty, corruption, and war. These painful experiences have shaped this dream. I never succumbed to the lure of material wealth. The physical, mental, and emotional hardships have been painful, but I never sold my soul.
I am fully aware that some people would insist that men in uniform should stay away from politics; that we would serve best our nation if we were fighting wars in Mindanao; that we have no business in meddling with the affairs of the state as we have been formed and trained in the rudiments of war, and not in the civil service, much less in politics. I agree but that assumes that the people who have been entrusted with the public trust have been sincere, honest, and have been true to their pledges.
As a young soldier, armed with idealism and the fire of youth, I have offered my life to defend this country from all its enemies. I have suffered long and hard for the principles that I hold dearly. Many of my loved ones have suffered with me – maybe not physically, but certainly have shared in the misery and hardships that I have endured. The fire of idealism still burns in me, but I have been wiser not to engage fire with fire.
With a lot of circumspection, I have decided to run for the Senate in 2010. I have no political pedigree. I have no political machinery. I have no financial resources. But I do have honor. I do have principles. I do have courage.
I believe I am ready to take on this new role, (and) with your prayers and support this dream is not too far-fetched. It takes the collective effort of every member of this society to make things improve for a country in disarray… a country that has been plundered… a country whose hope is running dry…
All I can do on my end, is to make the best effort possible to make society better, stand by my principles, and fight for what is right. There is hope for this country and our people; all we have to do is believe.
This I will do, if not for myself and our generation, then at least for our young children and their children. My warmest regards and God bless us all.
Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
ARIEL O. QUERUBIN
Email: querubinariel@yahoo.com
Here was MY REPLY to him:
Dear Ariel:
May the Lord God, of whom you say that you have no doubt in your mind, “has all the while been preparing (you) for public service”, BLESS and INSPIRE YOU even more so. But above all, may the Lord grant you the grace to keep in your heart and follow HIS Gospel’s words and instructions FAITHFULLY ALL THE TIME, not only during your forthcoming election campaign but above all, if and when He graciously allows your truly successful election as a Senator of the Philippines.
For your trials and temptations if and when you will become a Senator, particularly those involving lust for power, money, adulation and flattery - - aside from that of the flesh – will be exponentially far more intense than whatever you may have already experienced as a Catholic Christian soldiering for the Philippine Marines.
As you well know yourself, many other prominent Catholics and/or Christians who have been so elected, or are still the top officials of our country, probably had the very same highly noble thoughts, and motivations when they first pursued their public service ambitions. But to our Nation’s collective grief and near despair, most of them have UTTERLY BETRAYED their own souls -- and more so our people, time and time again, particularly when they were already occupying the highest seats of power and influence in our government.
I dare say that you too will probably end up just like them, IF YOU WILL HAVE STRAYED AWAY from the Lord’s Gospel, into mere mouthings of seemingly pious platitudes and hypocritical public speeches.
However, ever since the few times I have visited you in prison, you have led me into again being hopeful despite having been fooled a number of times into believing other politicians or at least very disappointed with their selfish partisan antics, to say the least. I shall therefore continue to pray for you and help you to pursue your noble objectives, modest as my contribution will be in the estimation perhaps of our very materialistic society. And so, I wish and pray that HEAVEN HELP THE PHILIPPINES through Ariel O. Querubin, in one way or another…
Again, may God bless you, your loving wife Bong, your dear children as well as your loyal, sincere friends and political supporters.
Vincent J. Genovesi, S.J. is the relatively unknown Jesuit author of the moral theology reference book entitled “In Pursuit of Love”. It is apparently a favorite textbook on sexual morality used by Jesuit professors especially for priests and nuns studying at the Loyola School of Theology and at the Ateneo itself. As its sub-title indicates, the book presents itself as a seeming authority on Catholic moral teachings on Human Sexuality. As of last week however, Genovesi has become no longer an obscure person, at least within the confines of Metro Manila Catholic schools of theology of whatever kind.
Aside from having studied at those ultra-liberal-modernist-theology oriented Jesuit schools such as Fordham in New York City and Woodstock in Maryland and being a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Genovesi’s seeming authoritativeness as a teacher on sexual morality, appears to be due to the fact that he is a veritable mouthpiece of the much more wellknown and original core group of DISSENTING Catholic theologians. They have long fulminated against official Catholic teachings on premarital sex, contraception, abortion, ordination of women, clerical celibacy among others.
And so from start to finish, the book is rife with footnotes ascribing such seeming authoritativeness and intellectual gravitas to the similar earlier opinions of those original and media glorified modernist DISSIDENTS. Thus Charles E. Curran the ordained Catholic priest who was disqualified from teaching Catholic Theology by the Vatican as early as 1986, and Jesuits Richard A. McCormick, S.J. (died 2000), Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Karl Rahner, S.J. (died 1984), to name a few, compose the core group of this Jesuit dominated “footnote-periti” of the book In Pursuit of Love.
And so too in the wake of our nationwide controversy on the Reproductive Health Bill, it was not surprising why the Internet’s local chain of interlinked e-mail addresses among rival Catholic school faculties and alumni intelligentsia, was filled with criss-crossing comments and counter-comments soon after someone had posted the original critique with its palpable outrage over the Ateneo Jesuits having the gall to publish the book for local distribution through their Jesuit Communications Foundation.
I confess that I too received a fair amount of those comments about Genovesi’s book, most probably because the e-mail senders still remember that on July 31, 2005 (Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola) I must have shocked a good number of personalities within my own Jesuit and Ateneo alumni circle of friends, as a result of my hardhitting comments and shocking revelations in my autobiography Light A Fire II, about the “neo-Jesuit rebellion” against the Roman Catholic Papacy.
In truth I received enough of those Genovesi-related materials via the Internet to prod me ASAP into looking for and buying the book immediately! And also, to revive my long dormant Blog by writing this commentary.
With all due respect to everybody, thus I submit that from a truly Catholic conviction, Genovesi’s treatise should be considered as in pursuit, NOT of LOVE, but of moral PERDITION and CONFUSION – whether willy nilly or not, but certainly because of the author’s non-Catholic point of view!
There is no other conclusion logically possible for authentic Catholics, for the simple reason that Genovesi’s In Pursuit of Love (GIPOL, henceforth for brevity) is based on philosophical propositions, factual allegations and definitions of terms which are obviously contrary to the perennial and authentic teachings of the Catholic Church Magisterium. And more particularly in fact, GIPOL directly contradicts the most recent Papal encyclicals on the subject matter, i.e. Humanae Vitae,Evangelium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor and Vatican II itself,in a manner and tone which suggest as if these magisterial teachings were written by doddering old-fashioned clergymen and ignoramuses on the Catholic Theology on faith and morals.
On Authentic Catholic Teaching
Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium or Light of the World) has already emphatically re-affirmed the 2,000 plus years old doctrine, that our Catholic bishops united with the Pope are the Catholic Church’s “authentic teachers”, that is, teachers endowed with “the authority of Christ.” GIPOL however repeatedly manifests in no uncertain terms, that the late 20th century albeit contrary opinions of Genovesi, Curran, Sullivan, McCormick, Rahner et al are at a superior level of logic, as well as moral and theological authoritativeness.
Furthermore, in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) it is ALSO RE-AFFIRMED that“the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted EXCLUSIVELY to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ”(DV10)
And yet according to GIPOL: ( page 67, Chapter2 )
“To speak, then, of authentic teachings of the Church does not mean that such teachings are always or necessarily true or accurate. Rather, the authentic teachings of the Church are those that are official or authoritative because they are proposed by the hierarchical magisterium.” (page 67, ibid with emphasis added)
And thus by GIPOL’s convoluted logic such “authentic” teachings, despite being “official” or “authoritative”, are supposedly “NOT always NOR necessarily true or accurate”. Therefore, GIPOL has clearly yet arrogantly laid down their self-serving basis for Church-wide disobedience to the Magisterium. For the unavoidable conclusion from GIPOL’s grossly faulty logic is that the authentic teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are NOT reliable, may even be erroneous, and thus surely non-infallible… while their own dissenting views are presumed to be reliable, and even supposedly consistent with the opinions of a majority of Catholic theologians.
And yet in Genovesi’s singleminded attempts to convince his readers that the Catholic Church Magisterium is allegedly teaching outmoded and erroneous moral principles, particularly on sexual morality and contraceptives, the author merely succeeded in highlighting the monstrous features of GIPOL’s mainly neo-Jesuit road map to perdition. Thus for example, the following:
Morally wrong but still supposedly okay!
Second; intercourse outside marriage might be seen as an objective moral wrong but subjectively not sinful in the following scenarios: (1) after dating steadily for three years, two young adults become engaged with plans to be married within a year. After prayerful reflection andcareful discussion, they honestly believe that given their mutual love, intercourse would not be wrong for them; this is their sincere judgment. Objectively, they may be mistaken in their evaluation and an objective moral wrong may be involved, but there would probably be no serious sin on their part; (2) two teenagers, who have been bombarded by the sexual fireworks of our society and who find themselves pushed to false sophistication, may wind up in a relationship that stirs their feelings far more than they understand or can cope with; their passions prevail and become their masters, leading the couple into periodic episodes of genital involvement. Here again, objective moral wrong exists, but if there is truly a curtailment of the couple’s freedom, the reality of serious subjective guilt or sin seems unlikely. Pastorally, of course, these teenagers need to be informed of the human and spiritual harm associated with their activity. It is to be hoped, too, that they can be brought to a change of behavior.” (GIPOL, page 175 with emphasis added)
Twitting Church Teaching
“…After recognizing that it is morallypermitted to engage in sexual intercourse while maintaining the desire and intention to avoid conception, we must then ask whether any means other than periodic abstinence may be used morally to achieve the intended goal of not procreating.
The answer offered both by Humane Vitae and by the long-standing Catholic tradition is no. The argument offered is that contraceptive intercourse is against the natural order of things as intended and established by God, who wills that the procreative and unitive dimensions of the conjugal act be kept inseparable. (NOTE: Hence contraception is an intrinsic evil!) As suggested earlier, however, this line of reasoning appears flawed in that God and nature have seen to it that in no small measure the procreative and unitive dimensions of human sexuality are separable and separated – during a woman’s cyclic periods of infertility, after menopause, and in instances of biological sterility. (NOTE: Separate in time/space, but nevertheless inseparable in their purpose, by God’s sovereign Will!)
Two Wrongs Make it Right?
…As we shall see, any number(big deal!?!) of Catholic theologians now maintain that assuming spouses are responsibly motivated and are not acting out of selfish or materialistic contraceptive mentality, the use of artificial contraception does not constitute a moral evil or sin and is not even an objective moral wrong.” (page 201, ibid, with emphasis and comments added!)
“… adolescents, young adults, and anyone else who cannot be dissuaded from engaging in non-marital, pre-marital, or extra-marital intercourse, should be encouraged to a careful use of some kind of contraception. Moral responsibility would seem to demand this course of action.” (page 223, ibid) NOTE: Obviously their student priests, nuns and even bishops would be included among “anyone else” who are being “encouraged” by GIPOL to indulge in contraception in order to cover-up their illicit sexual activities!
GIPOL’s topsy-turvy hierarchy on moral authority:
Should it happen that a seemingly infallible teaching not be received or accepted as such by the body of the faithful, we are given some indication that the magisterium has failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for teaching infallibly and thus exceeded its competence to do so… But what can be maintained is this: while it is not the faithful’s acceptance or reception in faith that makes a particular teaching of the magisterium infallible, nonetheless, such acceptance by the believing community does certify or notarize that the teaching is in fact infallible. (page 71, GIPOL) NOTE: Thus according to these Jesuit dissidents, it is now the lay faithful in general, and NOT the hierarchy, who may certify that in fact any such teaching by the Magisterium is “in fact infallible!” And just who will they be? And what is their minimum number necessary so that such “faithful” lay people will qualify as a group to become some sort of super-magisterium, PRAY TELL!
In short, just because an inchoate number of DISSIDENT Catholics have rejected the Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV), then GIPOL presumes Pope Paul VI must have “failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for teaching infallibly and thus… exceeded (his) competence to do so”. And per GIPOL, only if and when this present selective rejection of HV by these dissidents will have turned into UNIVERSAL acceptance, would there be a “certification” or “notarization” that HV is in fact infallible! But that’s the same kind of veto power the Pharisses wanted to impose on Jesus Christ…
The most HIDEOUS of GIPOL monstrosities are from Rahner & Curran:
For now I propose we listen to some of the theological voices in the consensus that denies there can be (NOTE: in other words, there CANNOT BE) any infallible teaching when dealing with specific moral norms and questions. According to Karl Rahner, S.J., “apart from wholly universal moral norms of an abstract kind… there are hardly any particular or individual norms of Christian morality which could be proclaimed by the ordinary or extraordinary teaching authority of the Church in such a way that they could be unequivocally and certainly declared to have the force of dogmas”. A similar but perhaps slightly stronger position is taken by Charles Curran: “There has never been an infallible pronouncement or teaching on a specific moral matter; the very nature of specific moral actions makes it impossible, in my judgment, to have any infallible pronouncements in this area.” (page 72, ibid with emphasis added)
For us Christians, to be directed by a true moral conscience means that we are giving honest expression to our desire to live in the manner we think, (NOTE: To each his own truth!) best embodies the kind of love revealed in and by Christ for our imitation. (page 83, ibid)
NOTE: Charles Curran is the priest who was formally prohibited and disqualified by Pope John Paul II in 1986 from teaching theology in any Catholic institution! And Karl Rahner (died in 1984) among his many other dissenting propositions, questioned the validity of our Catholic belief in the REAL PRESENCE of Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament…
Obviously, these dissident Catholic theologians’ opinion in the preceding text (page 83, ibid), endorse a universal kind of moral relativism to be embraced even by Christians. It is a relativism where everybody has his/her own definition of moral truth, and is encouraged to behave as they see fit and “do his/her own thing” provided they themselves “think (it) best” to do so.
More of GIPOL’S most noxious dissident monstrosity: (page 232, ibid)
RESPONSIBLE (sic!) DISSENT FROM AUTHENTIC FALLIBLE TEACHING
Earlier in this volume we considered the essential role the magisterium plays in the articulation and explanation of moral teachings. We indicated that the Church clearly has a right and a duty to address any issue of personal or public morality. [CAUTION: Please note the cleverly camouflaged thus seeming concession to “the Church” having a clear right and duty to address moral issues. Consider however that “the Church” they are referring to is NOT the Magisterium, but the Church in general, thus certainly and self-servingly including themselves as dissidents! The following textual continuation makes this point more obvious….]
(continued) We noted as well that the clear theological consensus todaymaintains that with regard to specific norms of morality, the magisterium has never exercised its official teaching authority in an infallible way by means of any solemn definition issued either by a pope or by the college of bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council. [NOTE: Until the year 1996 when the 1st Edition of GIPOL was first published by the Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota, therefore such a supposed “theological consensus” would like us Catholics to believe that ever since Christ ascended to Heaven, we never had the benefit of any official, infallible and specific Catholic moral teachings at all!]
But what about AFTER 1996?
Moreover, there is still some discussion about whether the magisterium could ever teach infallibly concerning specific moral norms. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. claims that most Catholic theologians(how does Sullivan know that for sure?) and moralists now judge that the particular norms of a morality based solely on the natural law are simply not proper matter for irreformable or infallible teaching. As Sullivan rightly observes, the judgment of these moralists “rules out not only the possibility of the infallible definition of such a norm, but also the claim that such a norm has ever been, or could be, infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium.(page 232, ibid, with emphasis added)
In short, even the specific moral norms from the Ten Commandments, or its synthesis in the Two Greatest Commandments, supposedly have NEVER been and could NEVER ever be considered as infallible, according to GIPOL!
HOW DO WE REFUTE SUCH MONSTROUSLY HERETICAL PROPOSITIONS?
A point by point refutation of even just the most fundamental fallacies in GIPOL would surely require a much longer presentation. It would also probably be too tedious and too difficult for ordinary Catholics to understand much less to digest and remember.
There is a simpler yet equally logical way to prove that a proposition is FALSE. It is done by first assuming for the sake of argument, that the proposition is true. And if by proceeding arguendo, step by step from that assumption, you end up unavoidably in an obviously false or untenable conclusion, (Reductio ad absurdum!), then you will have logically proven that such a proposition was really and demonstrably FALSE.
And so assuming for the sake of argument that the teachings of ALL the Popes starting from St. Peter and the various Catholic magisteria united with these Popes during their lifetimes including the present one loyal to Benedict XVI, per these Jesuit dissident theologians Genovesi, Sullivan, McCormick, Rahner et al, yes -- ALL THOSE magisterial teachings -- should be “ruled out”, or DISQUALIFIED. Let us even presume that all these were invalid, not only as to the “possibility of the infallible definition” of any moralnorm, but also the claim that any such norm has “ever been, or could be, infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium”, as is being claimed by GIPOL on page 232 thereof.
If we accept the foregoing assumptions, we will also therefore not be able to AVOID coming to the mindboggling and faith-shattering conclusion that: Any Tom, Dick and Harry’s claim for a moral truth will be just as valid or non-valid as somebody else’s! Also, there will be NOTHING which Catholics or any other religious group may claim to be a truly moral certitude! And so, nobody but nobody could truly claim any moral principle is absolutely true, much less impose that belief on the conscience of anybody! In short, its either moral RELATIVISM or worse, ethical NIHILISM! Reductio ad absurdum!
And here is what my old Webster’s College Dictionary has to say on NIHILISM.
1.Philosophy
a)the denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth
b)the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion etc. also ethical nihilism
And from Wikipedia: “the term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with ANOMIE, to denote the general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence when they realize there are no necessary norms, rules or laws (or are simply claimed to be destructively amoralistic).
Need we say anything more? Or shouldn’t we all exclaim with great sadness to be addressed even to ourselves, to these dissident Jesuit theologians, to their Jesuit confreres and their students at the Ateneo de Manila, and to local Church authorities who as shepherds of Christ are supposed to defend His flock from marauding wolves especially those disguised as sheep, or even as false pastors: “Ubinam gentium sumus?” For where and how in the world have we the supposedly loyal sons and daughters of numberless saints all of whom were absolutely loyal to the Church Magisterium, such as St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Robert Bellarmine, St. Benedict, St. Benilde, Thomas Aquinas or the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, and yet have sunk ourselves down to such disastrous depths of moral absurdity and permissiveness?
Post Script
Last week NBA basketball star Allen Iverson, (who was recently traded by the Philadelphia 76ers to the Detroit Pistons), was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to pay a hefty penalty of $260,000 to a certain Marvin Godfrey. The 3-judge Appeals Court ruled that Iverson was GUILTY of being NEGLIGENT in having done nothing to prevent nor to stop the bar-room brawl in 2005 initiated by Iverson’s own bodyguards, where the outnumbered victim, Marvin Godfrey, was overwhelmingly and severely beaten up.
At about the same time last week, this time at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana (where in 1952 I failed to join my late brother Valdemar in Notre Dame’s College of Engineering by not having met its academic requirements), the Catholic Bishop of Indiana, John D’ Arcy publicly announced over the diocesan Website, that he would no longer attend this year’s Commencement Exercises, as a result of U.S. President Barack Obama’s having been invited as its primary Guest Speaker, even without the Bishop’s prior knowledge nor consent.
Bishop D’ Arcy emphasized that he made his decision after much prayerful discernment, and that he intended no disrespect for the U.S. President. He did so simply because “a bishop must teach the Catholic faith in season and out of season”, and not only by his words - - but by his actions. He further added: “My decision is not an attack on anyone, but in defense of the truth about human life. The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. Indeed the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will NOT stand for”. (Ateneo Jesuits, please note!)
Some four years ago I was able to obtain from the Internet, a copy of a Jesuit priest’s letter written on October 25, 2001 to his Superior General. I had it reproduced in toto in Chapter 19, page 305 of my autobiography LIGHT A FIRE II. Here it is once again, for it is similar in substance to that of Bishop D’ Arcy’s objections about Obama.
Dear Fr. Kolvenbach,
Thank you for your letter of 3rd September. I apologize for not replying sooner. These last few weeks have been traumatic, culminating in a collapse and my hospitalization at the end of October for four days. It was not life-threatening, just the result of the tensions of the last 30 years, as a result of which I will be retiring in the next few months.
In confirming your decision to refuse me permission to publish my book, Pope’s Men: The Jesuits Yesterday and Today, you say that you have no objection to my manifesting conscience on this matter; only to the manner in which I have made it, i.e., by a book of this nature. I accept this. My concerns can be briefly stated in this open letter. This will enable me to manifest that conscience most directly and ease the pressure on it.
That conscience has been under strain since 1968 when the Society as a whole, despite Fr. Arrupe’s exhortations on the matter, refused to support Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Since Ignatius founded the Society to campaign for God in faithful obedience to the Papacy, and to put aside all judgment of our own to obey in all things our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, our duty here was clear and our refusal to do it was scandalous.
Since 1965 four General Congregations have accepted that some of us have been remiss in our duty of obedience to the popes and the hierarchical Church and promised we would change our policies, but we have not. Too many Jesuits are still giving the opposite impression and going unchallenged. I was not so long ago told by a distinguished Catholic academic that he admired Jesuits because they “can say and do what they like in the Church and get away with it”. I pointed out to him that we are not all tarred with the same brush. He was more than a little surprised.
Fr. Arrupe warned that if three popes have called us to account, then it is Christ the Lord who expects something better of us. He also warned us that to fail in fidelity to the Papacy is to sign our own death sentence. Far from resenting John Paul II’s intervention in 1981, he saw it as an occasion for demonstrating that wholehearted obedience to the Holy See to which we are vowed. Our response generally has been quite different, doing the minimum necessary to ensure no further action was taken against us and feeling aggrieved that we have been wrongly treated.
You yourself have reminded us that fidelity to the Holy See is of the essence of our vocation, and when the 33rd General Congregation asked you to look again at the rules for thinking with the Church in the light of the Council you said that they are as valid today as ever. My experience of the Society tells me that that is not the way Jesuits on the whole think. The general view is that we are an autonomous organization in the Church and should be allowed to proceed as we think fit.
Far from superiors generally giving us a lead in faithful obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium, too many (of these superiors) regard anyone who insists these are the essence of the Jesuit vocation, as stupid or malicious. I on many occasions have had to resist pressure from such men to abandon these ideals; this is a complete perversion of Jesuit obedience; to have been subject to such pressure is a form of spiritual and mental torture, a scandal that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
I write this letter on our patronal feast day, and I cannot help reflecting on Campion’s words, when on his capture he was taken before the Queen. His fidelity to the Papacy being challenged, he told his questioners that that was “my greatest glory”. Such is the tradition of the EnglishProvince. Not till we return to it will our work flourish. My prayers will continue to be that the day will come.
Yours in Christ,
Rodger Charles, SJ
--o--
Our children and grandchildren at the Ateneo de Manila and in other Catholic schools where these rabidly dissident yet supposedly “still Catholic” theologians’ PREDILECTION for moral relativism and/or ethical nihilism have been taught or promoted in one form or another, have therefore been morally and intellectually beaten up black and blue, since the 1960s. Thus in comparison, such INTRINSIC EVIL perpetrated on thousands of young minds, has been certainly far worse than the physical trauma Iverson’s bodyguards inflicted on just one person. As Fr. Rodger Charles, S.J. expressed in his letter, it is our “own death sentence” and a form of “spiritual and moral torture” and a “scandal that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.”
I shudder therefore over what the Divine Supreme Court will deem as a just and appropriate “millstone” type of sentence or judgment,* even on those who merely have negligently stood idly by and unconcerned, all the while that our innocent children and grandchildren and even theirs too, have been repeatedly scandalized, mauled and mutilated, morally and intellectually, for heaven knows how long!
And for those who have been actually teaching or deliberately abetting such monstrous falsehoods? Lord, PLEASE have mercy… ESPECIALLY on Thy REPENTANT sons and daughters whose souls have been uniquely consecrated to Thee, particularly as priests and bishops of Thy one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church…
More than four years ago on 8 August 2004, a Sunday, Ruben M. Tanseco, a Jesuit priest and Founder/Head of the Jesuits’ Center for Family Ministries for many years and up to now, published his usual Philippine Star newspaper column, ironically labeled as GOD’s WORD TODAY. The subject title was “Population Crisis”, whose full text can be downloaded for free from<>.
I shall zero-in on Tanseco’s main propositions in that column which were recently repeated verbatim by another Philippine Star columnist, Ms. Domini M. Torrevillas in support of the morally objectionable Reproductive Health Bill.
Those arguments in Tanseco’s August 2004 column are, I believe, based on outright FALSEHOODS! That column piece also constitutes a clear case of open and unabashed rebellion of a Catholic priest who is a Jesuit at that, against the Catholic Magisterium-- a rebellion so emphatically and repeatedly bewailed by Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary in their various messages to the world, given through visionaries such as Maria Valtorta, Father Stefano Gobbi, “Anne” the Irish lay apostle and Father Ed Carter, S.J.
Hereunder are excerpts of those most offensive and FALSE propositions in Tanseco’s8 August 2004 column, which should have been sub-titled as MORAL CRISIS, instead of Population Crisis. And so according to that Tanseco column piece:
“There are two moral positions within the same Church, as far as responsible parenthood is concerned. The official Papal position, and the non-official, responsible dissenting position of quite a number of moral theologians, bishops, clerics, and laity. Why is there room for a responsible, dissenting position? Because the official position, though normative, is not an infallible doctrine. It is not a dogma. The Second Vatican Council teaches us that the finalarbiter of moral decision(s) is one’s informed and responsible conscience. (Declaration on Religious Freedom, #3).” [emphasis supplied]
This method (Natural Family Planning), as the only one supported by the official Church for the last how many decades, has not worked effectively in our country, as far as control of population is concerned. Just to single out one reason, among others: For so many poor, uneducated couples, learning NFP as the only means of family planning is too difficult, cumbersome, and needs much discipline and spirituality. Many are not able to make it. The poor are already deprived of so many things, and to deprive them of love-making when they spontaneously feel like doing so is to make their lives even more miserable.
This responsible, dissenting position is advocated by eminent theologians, like the late Karl Rahner, Bernard Haring, and others.
We are currently facing a very serious situation of over-population. Our percentage of annual population growth is one of the highest in the world. Coupled with our poverty crisis, which our President is doing her best to solve in due time, our over-population problem is a crucial, national emergency situation that needs the active cooperation of all.
To be faithful and prudent stewards of the Lord, as Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel reading, let us all be actively involved in promoting responsible parenthood, using both the official and non-official moral means of family planning.
Whatever is for the ultimate good of our people and our country is clearly the will of our all-loving and compassionate God.
Tanseco’s Falsehood No 1: (Re: Tanseco’s first paragraph in his 8 August 2004 piece)
The Declaration on Religious Freedom or Dignitatis Humanae its Latin Title (DH for brevity) was promulgated by Vatican II with the joint approval of Pope Paul VI. It was a re-statement of a perennial Catholic doctrine stating that religious freedom is an inviolable and universal human right. However, a key portion of DH was necessarily devoted to freedom of conscience, because conscience is the principal faculty of a person’s soul together with his FREE WILL that FREELY exercises its right to religious freedom and is responsible for its consequences. Thus DH was addressed to the whole world and not just to Catholics, consistent with the Church’s role as Lumen Gentium (Light of the World). Therefore, regardless of whether or not the person is a Catholic, AND whether or not the moral issue involved is a dogma or teachings of Protestant sects, Jews or the Catholic Church, whether officially proclaimed ex-cathedra by the Pope as an infallible teaching or not, AND, whether or not it is the objective TRUTH that is being offered for belief, NEVERTHELESS the right and freedom to believe, or REJECT any or all such teachings, in conscience, STILL APPLIES to everybody!
Tanseco’s proposition and its initial premise are therefore both false yet so cleverly misleading because:
Aside from his opinion that Catholic teaching on sexuality and contraceptives are supposedly NOT infallible, that Tanseco-supplied qualification is immaterial according to DH (as shown above) for freedom of conscience to be applicable per se even to Catholics. And yet he further jumps to the FALSE conclusion, false both in fact and in logic, that Vatican II allegedly “teaches us that the final arbiter of moral decision(s) is one’s informed and responsible conscience.” As will be shown here later, per DH and other Vatican II documents, it is true that one’s conscience is ultimately responsible for its moral decisions, but certainly the decision-MAKER is NOT the final arbiter or final judge of the rightness in truth, or culpability for the error in the decision! And so we come to:
Tanseco’s Falsehood No. 2
For a person to be a “final arbiter” on any issue, whether moral, political, civil or criminal, it means that he is theFINAL JUDGE on the matter.
But if one may decide on a matter as the FINAL arbiter or judge thereof, whether rightly or wrongly, in good faith or not, or well informed or not, responsible or not, that person should consequently be immune to any liability or culpability whatsoever. And yet not even the Supreme Courts of democratic nations have that kind of absolute immunity or finality of judgments, because in the future they could be impeached or a new Court with different members may rule otherwise!
And so in all civil and ecclesiastical courts, more so before God, anybody’s claim to innocence due to his alleged sincerity and maturity of conscience is still subject to challenge and therefore NOT final!
Obviously therefore, Tanseco’s conclusion is patently FALSE, and HORRIBLY MORE SO in his succeeding statement that allegedly, that is what “The Second Vatican Council teaches us”, and which is supposedly based on Section 3 of Dignitatis Humanae. Please note in addition, that his column piece does not specify where and how Dignitatis Humanae says so. But before discussing that misrepresentation of DH Section 3, let me first come to the next focal point of his errors.
Tanseco’s Falsehood No. 3
Tanseco claims that there is room for his own personal so-called “responsible dissenting position (shared with) quite a number of moral theologians, bishops, clerics and laity”. For according to him, the official positions of the Catholic Church on sexuality and contraceptives including responsible parenthood are allegedly “though normative, is not an infallible doctrine. It is not a dogma.” Supposedly!
Yet clearly contrary to Tanseco’s assertions, here is what the “definitive edition” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the moral crux and doctrinal premises of the matter at issue, following Tanseco’s own presentation and line of reasoning.
Part One, Section Two, Chapter 3 (with emphasis supplied)
The Teaching Office
889In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith”
890The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faithful – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith”This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Thus it is clear that God’s promise of infallibility to the one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church, covers the following two instances:
1.The Roman Pontiff, the Pope, not just “by” but in virtue of his office, when as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful… he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
2.And it “… is also present in the body of bishops when together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council.
Thus Papal Encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae,Evangelium Vitae and Spe Salvi are usually preceded by an introductory paragraph conveying that these are being issued by the Pope as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful “to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, and all the Lay Faithful.” Such encyclicals also incorporate numerous supporting statements and decisions from previous Popes and Councils.
From Part One, Section One, Chapter 2
88The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in Divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having anecessary connection with these.
89There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, (Tanseco et al, please take note!) our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.
Thus contrary to Tanseco’s assertion that non-dogmas are not infallible, our Catechism states that the “fullest extent” of the authority of the Catholic Church Magisterium is behind its official teachings, whether it be in the “form (of ) dogmas” or even when defining other “truths having a necessary connection with these.” For dogmas are inter-related sections of the ENTIRE DOCTRINE of the Catholic Faith!
Thus too, the dogma on the sacredness and inviolability of life with its “apodictic” (meaning: with absolute certainty) commandment such as “Thou Shall Not Kill”, is necessarily related to the subsidiary truth proclaimed by the Church that human life with a body and an immortal soul, starts at the moment of conception. And so the dogma on the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and extraordinarily confirmed by Our Lady herself in her apparitions at Lourdes, France a short time later.
Still however, anybody may in conscience, whether informed and responsible or NOT at all (for nobody really knows except God Himself!), nevertheless accept or reject any or all of the official teachings of the Church Magisterium. But for Tanseco to say that rejection and/or acceptance of the same teaching are both morally correct per se, is an absurdity and thus a FALSEHOOD. Much more so, if as Tanseco claims in his column, that such conflicting decisions on DH-related issues are both consistent with being “faithful and prudent stewards of the Lord”.
And yet a mere eight months or so later on April 24, 2005 in that same column space, Tanseco advocated an even more startling proposition on Human Sexuality, as follows:
“The Church’s proposition on contraception is untenable. Because the Church’s leaders lack a true understanding of women and the struggles of family life, its teachings are no longer challenging but simply dismissed by most Catholics who have concluded that the Church is wrong.”
But the worst is yet to come, as follows:
Tanseco’s most egregiously blatant FALSEHOOD! (No. 4)
Tanseco must have known, or at least ought to have known as a supposedly responsible and truthful Catholic priest and opinion-writer, that even before its Section 3, Dignitatis Humanae already spelled out its major premises in Section 1 as follows:
“On their part all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations (i.e. to seek the truth and to hold fast to it) fall and exert their binding force.
Thus in the above official text, there is absolutely no room for relativism to fit in, as far as such OBJECTIVE TRUTH is concerned. Thus too Henry Cardinal Newman concluded that “conscience has its obligations precisely because it has an inviolable right to be free!” Otherwise, conscience becomes an absurdity by being trivialized, into various contradictory interpretations of the truth regarding moral issues, and to be decided arbitrarily by billions of individual consciences. Such will be the case even if per Tanseco’s thesis, they will all claim to be “informed and responsible”. Thus too, moral anarchy would still be the unavoidable result of Tanseco’s theory.
Moreover our DH text is categorical in that man’s obligation to “seek the truth and hold fast to it” has a “binding force” on the human conscience. Thus as in secular civil law, “CONSCIENCE” as the “OBLIGEE” (the party burdened with an obligation), is bound to perform such an obligation in favor of, or owing to an independent OBLIGOR. Therefore, as in civil law as well as by common sense logic, the individual conscience cannot be the ‘Final Arbiter’ over such obligations to be rendered as the Obligee and for the benefit of the Obligor -- no matter how supposedly well informed and responsible the Obligee may be.
As to the misinterpretation of Section 3 of Dignitatis Humanae, I surmise that Tanseco’s untenable basis for his “final arbiter” theory are these statements in that section’s penultimate paragraph:
“On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activities a man is bound to follow his conscience, in order that he may come to God.” (emphasis supplied)
But even without considering the earlier principal premises and definitions of terms made in the previous sections 1 and 2, those two sentences cannot be logically interpreted to mean that simply following one’s conscience, makes the person at the same time and automatically, as the “final arbiter” on the moral issues involved.
Providentially for us all however, in late May of this year, the Vatican Curia’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, issued a comprehensive set of official instructions and teachings on Authority and Obedience. A key section apropos to our key issue on conscience, was included, as follows:
Obedience and Objections of conscience (emphasis supplied)
27.“Here one could ask: Can there be situations in which a person’s conscience would not seem to permit following the directives given by persons in authority? Can it happen, in short, that the consecrated person must state in relation to the norms or to their superiors: “It is necessary to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)? This is the case of the so-called objection in conscience of which Paul VI spoke, (Evangelica Testificatio) and that should be considered in its authentic meaning.
“If it is true that conscience is the place where the voice of the Lord resounds, the voice that indicates to us how to behave, it is also true that it is necessary to learn to listen to this voice very attentively in order to know how to recognize it and distinguish it from other voices. In fact, it is necessary not to confuse this voice with those which emerge from a subjectivism that ignores or disregards the sources and criteria that cannot be given up and are mandatory in the formation of judgments of conscience: “It is the ‘heart’ converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience”, (Veritatis Splendor, 64) and “freedom of conscience is neverfreedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth”(Veritatis Splendor, 64)
Here is what the Blessed Virgin Mary speaking to Rev. Father Stefano Gobbi and Our Lord Jesus himself through Maria Valtorta, through “Anne” the Irish Lay Apostle and through Rev. Fr. Father Edward Carter, S.J., all have to say to ALL of us and to priests such as Ruben M. Tanseco, S.J. as well as to their superiors in their congregations and in the Catholic Church as well:
From message No. 211 given in Manila, Philippines to Fr. Gobbi on October 13, 1980:
Do Not Sin Any More
a"Today you are gathering here, in a cenacle of prayer, and recalling my final apparition at the Cova da Iria which was confirmed by the miracle of the sun.
bFrom this land (the Philippines), dear to me for the love and devotion with which I am loved and venerated, I make again to the world the anguished appeal which I made on that same day at Fatima and which summarizes, in a few words, the message which I came from heaven to communicate to you.
cDo not sin any more!
dDo not offend any more my Son Jesus, who has already been too much offended. Return to God by your conversion along the way of prayer and of penance.
eAlas, this message of mine has remained unheeded. And thus humanity has continued to hasten along the road of rebellion against God, in the obstinate rejection of his law of love. Thus it has come even to the denial of sin, to the justification of even the gravest moral disorders in the name of a falsely conceived liberty (of conscience). Thus Satan, my adversary, has succeeded in making you fall into his seduction.
f Many have thus lost the awareness of sin and so it is more and more committed and justified. The sense of guilt, which is the first step to take along the road of conversion, has practically disappeared.
gEven in those countries of the most ancient Christian tradition, the great crime of killing children still in their mother's womb has gone so far as to be legitimized. This crime cries for vengeance in the sight of God. (RH Bill Supporters, please note!)
hThis is the hour of justice and mercy. This is the hour of chastisement and salvation. The heavenly Mother intercedes before God for you because never, as in the present time, have you been so menaced and so close to the supreme test.
iFor this reason I beg you to repent and to return to God. Through you, sons especially chosen by me and consecrated to me, my apostles in these latter times, I want this anguished appeal to reach to the very limits of the earth.
jFrom this blessed nation, upon which I have a great design of love and of light, I gather you all into the refuge of my Immaculate Heart."
--o--
Message No. 384: June 11, 1988
The Great Apostasy
a"On the feast of my Immaculate Heart of this Marian Year, consecrated to me, beloved sons, I am calling all of you to enter into the heavenly garden which I have built for you, during these painful and bloody moments of the purification.
bThe hour of the great apostasy has come. What has been foretold in Holy Scripture, in the Second Letter of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, is now on the point of coming to pass.
cSatan, my Adversary, with snares and by means of his subtle seduction, has succeeded in spreading errors everywhere, under the form of new and more updated interpretations of the Truth, and he has led many to choose with full knowledge-and to live in - sin, in the deceiving conviction that this is no longer an evil, and even that it is a value and a good.
dThe times of the general confusion and of the greatest agitation of spirits has come. Confusion has entered into the souls and the lives of many of my children.
eThis great apostasy is spreading more and more, even through the interior of the Catholic Church. Errors are being taught and spread about, while the fundamental truths of the faith, which the authentic Magisterium of the Church has always taught and energetically defended against any heretical deviation whatsoever, are being denied with impunity.
fThe episcopates are maintaining a strange silence and are no longer reacting. When my Pope speaks with courage and reaffirms with force the truths of the Catholic faith, he is no longer listened to and is even publicly criticized and derided. There is a subtle and diabolical tactic, woven in secrecy by Masonry, which is used today against the Holy Father in order to bring ridicule upon his person and his work and to neutralize his Magisterium.
gThose children of mine who, often unknowingly, allow themselves to be carried along by this wave of error and of evil are victims of the great apostasy.
hMany bishops, priests, religious and faithful are victims of the great apostasy.
--o--
Message No. 420, given in Sao Paolo, Brazil on March 13, 1990
When the Son of Man Returns
a"You read in the Gospel: 'When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on earth?'
bToday I want to invite you to meditate on these words, uttered by my Son Jesus. They are grave words, which cause one to reflect and which succeed in making you understand the times through which you are living. First of all, you can ask why Jesus has uttered them: to prepare you for his second coming and to describe for you a circumstance which will be indicative of the proximity of his glorious return.
cThis circumstance is the loss of faith.
dAlso, in another part of holy scripture, in the letter of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, it is clearly announced that, before the glorious return of Christ, a great apostasy must take place. The loss of the faith is a true apostasy. The spread of the apostasy is therefore the sign which indicates that the second coming of Christ is, as of now, close at hand.
eAt Fatima, I have foretold to you that a time would come when the true faith would be lost. These are the times. Your days are marked by this painful and significant situation, which as foretold to you in holy scripture: the true faith is in the process of disappearing in an ever increasingly greater number of my children.
fThe causes of the loss of faith are:
(1) the spread of errors which are being propagated, and are often taught by professors of theology in Catholic seminaries and in Catholic schools and which thus acquire a certain character of credibility and legitimacy;
(2) the open ,and public rebellion against the authentic Magisterium of the Church, especially against that of the Pope, who has from Christ the duty of preserving the whole Church in the truth of the Catholic faith;
(3) the bad example given by those Pastors (Bishops!), who have allowed themselves to be completely possessed by the spirit of the world and who become propagators of political and sociological ideologies, rather than messengers of Christ and of his Gospel, thus forgetting the mandate received from Him: 'Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature.'
gThus, in these days of yours, apostasy on the part of many of my poor children is inundating you more and more.
hWhen the Son of Man returns ...
iIf indeed his return is close at hand, then my motherly action becomes more concerned and vigorous, in order to assist all my children to remain ever in the truth of the faith. This is why I have asked you to consecrate yourselves to my Immaculate Heart. This is why, in these times of yours, I have spread everywhere my Marian Movement of Priests: to form the little flock, reunited in the prayer of the cenacles and watchful in expectation - the flock gathered together and formed by me to ever preserve the true faith.
jThus, when the Son of Man returns, He will still find the faith on earth in all those who will have consecrated themselves to me, allowing themselves to be gathered together in the heavenly garden of my Immaculate Heart."
--o--
And from the Lord Jesus Himself as was dictated to Maria Valtorta (Q43:514) on October 30, 1943, referring to abortion as the “crime of crimes” in section 45, page 70 of the book The End Times as revealed to Maria Valtorta, as published by Editions Paulines, Centro Editoriale Valtortiano SRL, translated from Italian to English by Paul T.Y. Atworth.
Jesus says:
“I am the Merciful One. I am indulgent and I forgive. There is so much that I forgive. I forgive what I see you do out of human weakness, not what is done out of deliberate human self-interest. I will never be as severe a judge as with those who, with their thinking sold to Satan, commit more crimes than outlaws, lead(ing) others to commit crimes, and above all commit(ing) the crime of crimes, thus leading souls to mistrust God.
“Nowadays this crime of homicide and deicide is not the monopoly of a few. They kill bodies and souls and kill the idea of God in souls, making them blind like empty eye-sockets.
“The crowds make it out (realize it) too late. But I see, at the instant you think and act. And all of you, ungodly of flesh and spirit, will be judged with an extremely severe judgment.”
From Volume One of Direction for Our Times, Chapter 8, pages 144-145 (with emphasis supplied)
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Blessed Mother:
”Do you hear My Son’s voice? He is calling His children with authority. Dear little ones, He does this in an effort to save them. The Voice of my Son bears authority and that is why He says His children will know that it is He, their God, who calls out to them. My little ones must make a choice now. And they must choose God and all that is good.
…
Priests and religious, holy men and women, console my heart in extraordinary fashion right now and I am maximizing the tremendous graces I receive from (earned by) these righteous souls. Religious in the world are under attack. Be brave, religious souls. Your mother defends you as her own and you will be raised up to your rightful place soon. Instead of being honoured by the world, you are reviled and slandered. This will not endure.
I (also) want to say that there are those religious who have disappointed my Son and turned to the evil one. Do not think, oh souls of Satan, that you will escape divine justice. And for you who have damaged innocent souls?All of heaven quakes with the retribution that will be yours. I say this to you with a special gravity. Repent! Admit your sins and become cleansed. Only in this way will you enter into the Kingdom of God.”
And lastly from the booklet of Father Edward Carter S.J. entitled Tell My People, on page 61 thereof:
Jesus:
“My beloved friend, remind My people that the Church was born from My Heart, pierced with the soldier’s lance on Calvary. From My pierced Heart the Church with her sacraments was born. Two of these sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism, were symbolized by the Blood and Water which flowed forth from My pierced side.
…
“I am Lord and Master. I request that all My people listen to My words and respond to them. I love My people with a tremendous love, and in this great love I give them this message!”
“My church is experiencing critical and very difficult times. There are many divisions. There are many false teachings -including some put forth by certain theologians. These false teachings occur because those responsible are not in proper union with My vicar, the Pope, and the Church Magisterium. I want all My children to pray daily for the cure of many and serious ills of the Church. With increased prayer and sacrifices for the health of the Church, that day will soon come when the Church will be purified and revitalized. When that day comes, the Church will be a light to all nations as never before. When that day comes, the renewed Church will be characterized by the triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the reign of My Sacred Heart. Thus the message of Fatima will have reached fulfillment.
