L
Leo_The_Great
Guest
It began with the Jesuits in the 16th and 17th centuries. Read Blaise Pascal’s “Provincial Letters” and you will be shocked. He interviews Jesuits, DOminicans, Jansenists, all the sides, and the most shocking is not the “Heretics” the Jansenists, it is the Jesuits.
THeir Authors wrote books upon books upon books about how certain circumstances mitigate sin, and how you can actually oppose virtue with the intent to sin; How you can hold to any probable opinion, even if it is dangerous for your conscience; How fasts don’t apply to various ridiculous circumstances, how and when people may break fasts, etc. It is really revealing, because it seems that with these groups of people within the Jesuit order, there is already the stated, and explicit, intention to subvert the Church to a new kind of morality, and explain away, explain away, explain away any real force of moral teaching.
Listen to this: "…“Be that as it may, father, you have at least answered my difficulty. But I have another to suggest. How do you manage when the Fathers of the Church happen to differ from any of your casuists?” (Moral theologians dealing with issues of conscience)
“You really know very little of the subject,” he replied. “The Fathers were good enough for the morality of their own times; but they lived too far back for that of the present age, which is no longer regulated by them, but by the modern casuists. On this Father Cellot, following the famous Reginald, remarks: ‘In questions of morals, the modern casuists are to be preferred to the ancient fathers, though those lived nearer to the times of the apostles.’ And following out this maxim, Diana thus decides: ‘Are beneficiaries bound to restore their revenue when guilty of mal-appropriation of it? The ancients would say yes, but the moderns say no; let us, therefore, adhere to the latter opinion, which relieves from the obligation of restitution.’”
“Delightful words these, and most comfortable they must be to a great many people!” I observed.
“We leave the fathers,” resumed the monk, “to those who deal with positive divinity. As for us, who are the directors of conscience, **we read very little of them **and quote only the modern casuists. There is Diana, for instance, a most voluminous writer; he has prefixed to his works a list of his authorities, which amount to two hundred and ninety-six, and the most ancient of them is only about eighty years old.”
“It would appear, then,” I remarked, “that all these have come into the world since the date of your Society?”“Thereabouts,” he replied.
“That is to say, dear father, on your advent, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and all the rest, in so far as morals are concerned, disappeared from the stage. Would you be so kind as let me know the names, at least, of those modern authors who have succeeded them?”
“A most able and renowned class of men they are…"
…“I understand all that,” said I. “It is easy to see that all are welcome that come your way, except the ancient fathers; you are masters of the field, and have only to walk the course. But I foresee three or four serious difficulties and powerful barriers which will oppose your career.”
“And what are these?” cried the monk, looking quite alarmed.
“They are the Holy Scriptures,” I replied, “the popes, and the councils, whom you cannot gainsay, and who are all in the way of the Gospel.”
***“Is that all?” ***he exclaimed; “I declare you put me in a fright. Do you imagine that we would overlook such an obvious scruple as that, or that we have not provided against it? A good idea, forsooth, to suppose that we would contradict Scripture, popes, and councils!"
SOunds to me like the beginning of modernism. Anyone else?
THeir Authors wrote books upon books upon books about how certain circumstances mitigate sin, and how you can actually oppose virtue with the intent to sin; How you can hold to any probable opinion, even if it is dangerous for your conscience; How fasts don’t apply to various ridiculous circumstances, how and when people may break fasts, etc. It is really revealing, because it seems that with these groups of people within the Jesuit order, there is already the stated, and explicit, intention to subvert the Church to a new kind of morality, and explain away, explain away, explain away any real force of moral teaching.
Listen to this: "…“Be that as it may, father, you have at least answered my difficulty. But I have another to suggest. How do you manage when the Fathers of the Church happen to differ from any of your casuists?” (Moral theologians dealing with issues of conscience)
“You really know very little of the subject,” he replied. “The Fathers were good enough for the morality of their own times; but they lived too far back for that of the present age, which is no longer regulated by them, but by the modern casuists. On this Father Cellot, following the famous Reginald, remarks: ‘In questions of morals, the modern casuists are to be preferred to the ancient fathers, though those lived nearer to the times of the apostles.’ And following out this maxim, Diana thus decides: ‘Are beneficiaries bound to restore their revenue when guilty of mal-appropriation of it? The ancients would say yes, but the moderns say no; let us, therefore, adhere to the latter opinion, which relieves from the obligation of restitution.’”
“Delightful words these, and most comfortable they must be to a great many people!” I observed.
“We leave the fathers,” resumed the monk, “to those who deal with positive divinity. As for us, who are the directors of conscience, **we read very little of them **and quote only the modern casuists. There is Diana, for instance, a most voluminous writer; he has prefixed to his works a list of his authorities, which amount to two hundred and ninety-six, and the most ancient of them is only about eighty years old.”
“It would appear, then,” I remarked, “that all these have come into the world since the date of your Society?”“Thereabouts,” he replied.
“That is to say, dear father, on your advent, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and all the rest, in so far as morals are concerned, disappeared from the stage. Would you be so kind as let me know the names, at least, of those modern authors who have succeeded them?”
“A most able and renowned class of men they are…"
…“I understand all that,” said I. “It is easy to see that all are welcome that come your way, except the ancient fathers; you are masters of the field, and have only to walk the course. But I foresee three or four serious difficulties and powerful barriers which will oppose your career.”
“And what are these?” cried the monk, looking quite alarmed.
“They are the Holy Scriptures,” I replied, “the popes, and the councils, whom you cannot gainsay, and who are all in the way of the Gospel.”
***“Is that all?” ***he exclaimed; “I declare you put me in a fright. Do you imagine that we would overlook such an obvious scruple as that, or that we have not provided against it? A good idea, forsooth, to suppose that we would contradict Scripture, popes, and councils!"
SOunds to me like the beginning of modernism. Anyone else?
It’s the shame tagged along, that makes someone feel worthless, that’s bad. There is a difference between guilt and shame, but unfortunately it does not seem that the older generation was taught that difference. If I do something wrong, or bad, I need to feel guilty-- or else I know that there is something wrong. Is shame that makes me feel worthless necessary? I don’t think so.
