Thursday, March 20, 2014
Why Johnny Can't Be Moral
In 2011, a sexually explicit book, entitled Fifty Shades of Grey, started what has been called "mommy porn." Young women/mothers started reading this trash deemed a "romance" novel which explores the hedonistic escapades of the fictitious character "Christian Grey." There were two sequels and the series has generated millions of dollars. I couldn't help but notice the alleged protagonist's name---Christian Grey. His first name signifies traditional Catholic Christian morals based on the natural law and God's revelation through His One True Church. There are absolute standards of right and wrong, black and white. When black and white get mixed you have gray also spelled grey. He's a nominal "Christian" who sees no right and wrong but only shades of gray.
The "graying of True Christianity" began at Vatican II. With the take-over of Modernism and the Great Apostasy, the Magisterium is gone. In it's place is the Vatican II sect, rife with relativism. They espouse both religious and moral relativism. Religious relativism holds that no one religion or set of beliefs is true. We see this in ecumenism, with Bergoglio telling us "there is no Catholic God," and even atheists can go to Heaven.
Moral relativism, teaches that there exists no one set of absolute, unchanging moral standards. This is what we now see happening with "communion" for the divorced and remarried (i.e. adulterers).
In the True Church, we know that marriage is indissoluble. If a spouse leaves you, you must remain celibate as long as he/she lives. Now "Cardinal" Walter Kasper, along with Francis, are trying to figure out imaginative ways to justify "communion" for adulterers while still paying lip service to the indissolubility of marriage. For them, Sts. John Fisher and Thomas Moore gave up their lives needlessly. It began with the false exaltation of "conscience" at Vatican II in the heretical document Gaudium et Spes. In paragraph 16 we read, "In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality."
Really? We as Catholics, are "joined to the rest of men" in the "search for truth?" What truth is this? In all likelihood, truth concerning religion and morals. Yet, wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church? For the sure possession of the truth of Faith and Morals, established over the course of the centuries by the Magisterium, the Council substitutes "inquiry"as a general criterion of some nebulous truth, something indeterminate. However, we know that this conforms to the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, which loves "inquiry," experience, novelty, and perpetual motion.
Pope St. Pius X warned us that Modernism, which begins in agnosticism, and exalts "experience" over the intellect in seeking truth, would destroy the Faith. As a matter of fact, it is leading us to the ultimate rejection of God--atheism. Secular Humanism is the final stop for Modernism. If you break it down, it doesn't seem far-fetched, it actually seems quite close to home.
Secular Humanism espouses the following tenets:
1. On Nature: Materialism
(a) Physicalism. The only substance that exists is matter (God, angels, and souls do not exist)
(b) Determinism. Every event has a natural cause. (There are no miracles).
(c) Mechanism. Humanity, including life and mind, is a type of "machine." (People are not unique in any way. Life is here by pure chance).
Vatican II is completely man-centered. The assembly of people is what matters most; if not exclusively. "Finding 'god' within" is a common theme among Vatican II clergy. When they changed the Mass into an invalid bread and wine service, they removed most references to miracles and the supernatural.
2. On Values: Conventionalism
(a) Subjectivism: Qualities and values are subjective human standards (there is no external, eternal objective morality.
(b) Hedonism: The only ethical standards are pleasure (good) and pain (evil).
(c) Relativism: Standards of conduct vary according to time, place, and individual.
This is where Bergoglio is headed. "Who am I to judge?" If having your third trophy "wife" feels good, do it, and we'll find the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem right and objective when it is neither.Remember not to concentrate on "small-minded rules" about abortion, birth control, and sodomy.
3. On Society: Contractualism
(a) Individualism: The atomic individual is the basic political unit.
(b) Social Contract: Government is nothing more than a contract between people based on fear and mistrust of others.
(c) Positive Law: All "rights" and "laws" are man-made rules ever subject to being abolished, embellished, or changed.
Rights do not come from God, since He does not exist. Society is not here to help us achieve salvation. Worry exclusively on the needs of the poor in the "here and now" because there is no "hereafter."
4.On Cosmology and Meaning: Absurdity
(a) Contingency: All events are pure chance (no ultimate explanations).
(b) Pessimism: The universe is doomed to extinction
(c) Humanism: Man, the center of all things, can face the universe heroically and responsibly with dignity and idealism. (You make your own meaning out of life, in spite of the fact that you know there is no objective meaning and all is doomed to death).
Approximately 40% of Vatican II sect members do not believe in a personal God!! This was published in a book entitled Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path To Knowing and Following Jesus by Sherry Weddell in 2012. People go to church to "find their own way" in a "faith community" that seeks to make everyone feel good.
In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was signed, outlining these basic tenets. With the Church to fight it, it didn't go very far. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was signed, bigger and bolder than before. It stated:
"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival."
And moreover,
"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture."
"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitative, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered 'evil.' "
With the Church sent underground in 1964, Modernism is moving right along to secular humanism. There was a scathing critique written in 1992 by William Kilpatrick, entitled, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong. In it he blames the schools for not giving a firm moral foundation to our youth. Mr. Kilpatrick himself got it wrong. It's not that Johnny can't tell right from wrong, Johnny can't be moral. He's a member of the Vatican II sect that sees nothing wrong with doing what feels good as long as you use your "conscience." He has no grace from the True sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice. He is told to conform to the world and not get tied down with small-minded rules. Worry about people in the here and now. Be "good" and go to Heaven with atheists because it really doesn't matter what, if anything, you believe.
So now, a majority approve of sodomite "marriages," a woman's "right" to kill her baby, and the list goes on and on. Johnny is "Catholic" in name only, and sees no clear right or wrong in anything religiously or morally. Johnny is Christian Grey.
I was searching for an article on conscience and came across this very apt post. I hear so many people refer to others as "having no conscience". On the other hand I hear others referred to as "having too big of a conscience". Is it possible for people to "have no conscience"? (Or is that what is meant by "having their conscience seared?). Is it possible to have too big of a conscience? (I have always been referred to as this by certain family members). Hope I'm not being a pest, but the only thing I can find on the internet in relation to the conscience is written after Vatican II.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteMy readers are never "pests," I am always happy to answer any inquiries. I might do a post on conscience now that you've brought it up. Until such time, to answer your queries, yes, a person can have no conscience--they are known as "sociopaths." A sociopath is defined as, "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."
Some people having become involved in serious sin, have a "dead conscience" whereby they are no longer bothered by their actions. People in organized crime syndicates would fit this description.
For Traditionalists, remember that Faith and morals go hand in glove; lose the one, the other will soon leave with it.
Having "scruples" or a scrupulous conscience is at the other end of the spectrum. These are people who consider EVERYTHING or virtually everything as sinful in one way or another. Neither is good for the soul, and recourse to a confessor and frequent reception of the sacraments is necessary.
Hope this helps!
---Introibo
Introibo -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your answer. It has proved very difficult to find anything written on the conscience by a Traditionalist. I do hope you will do a post on the subject. I have one more question. Are certain people born without a conscience or do they make themselves that way through choices they make?
The family member who would always tell me that I had "too big of a conscience", I believe was a "sociopath". I don't suffer from scruplosity. I am a retired Legal Assistant and believe the truth is "in the middle".
Joann,
DeleteWhile some sociopaths may have a true mental defect, there are others who have become such (or very, very close to it) from desensitization to sin.
Look at the movies and TV. When the movie "Psycho" came out in 1960, there were numerous reports of people fainting and throwing up. By today's standard of wholesale blood and gore, "Psycho" is seen as tame!
The first time someone lies, they are burdened by guilt. As they do it more and more without trying to amend their lives, soon lying becomes second nature to them. They may even lie and never even think about it. That can spill over into other areas of morality (and usually does). The greatest evil in the world is sin. As Pope Pius XII once remarked in the 1950s, "The greatest sin of today, is the loss of all sense of sin." Imagine what he would say in 2016!!!
---Introibo