The Humanism of John Paul II

On January 17, 2001, CNS News reported the following: "Pope John Paul II issues Call for Ecological Conversion . . . The world's people need to undergo an 'ecological conversion' to protect the environment and make the earth a place where all life is valued and can grow in harmony, Pope John Paul II said" http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=webpage&page_id=81.

Yes, that's how far we've come. Pope John Paul II, idly standing by as the Church in the USA has been infiltrated by homosexuals and perverts, calls us to convert ecologically. Pardon my human way of speaking here, but what the heck is the Pope doing beating the environmental drums while the Church is going to hell??!! Don't you think that's a bit of "misplaced priorities" here? Did Our Lady of Fatima appear in order to convert people ecologically so that natural disasters would be prevented?? Or did she not rather appear to ask for the conversion of sinners, that we turn from sin, so that God's punishment would not be meted out on the world? Now, Our Lady appeared in 1917 for the first time. May I ask: has the world gotten any better since then in terms of its sinfulness?

A response to that need hardly be given. But the Church, starting from the top on down, has become totally twisted. We have a Supreme Pontiff now who, after all his scandals, sacrileges, blasphemies, and heresies now calls the faithful to ecological conversion. Yes, you got it: we have a "green" Pope! Just when you think you've heard and seen it all from John Paul II, something like this comes along. That's the same Pope who invited a Voodoo witchdoctor to share his thoughts on peace with Catholics. Beautiful. Surely, this must be the "new springtime" we keep hearing about. The Church has so blossomed in this "springtime" that worry about heresy can be replaced by worry about environmental issues. Heck, who cares if people are going to hell because they have followed a false gospel, as long as the trees are green! Of course there is no time to deal with the Novus Ordo bishops covering up for homosexual predator priests, when North Dakota's ladybugs have arthritis!

In Australia, the bishops there have already called for a "green church." Salvation, they say, is not just for mankind, but for all of creation. I'm telling you, if this is not the Great Apostasy, then I sure don't want to be around when it gets here. You can read the story about the Australian green hippies here: http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/sep/15/02.html.

Folks, ask yourselves: What's next? An encyclical on animal rights? A motu proprio on the dignity of flowers? An apostolic exhortation on how to avoid emitting carbon-monoxide? Please don't say it can't happen or it would be too ridiculous - since 1958, we've pretty much seen and heard it all. What Pope Pius XII would have insisted could never, ever happen is now considered "conservative." So, please.

Anyway, I needed to give you this shocker because it's just unbelievable what we read about every day, coming from the Vatican, from the bishops, and from the other high offices in the Church. Now, after 14 installments of the humanism of our Pope, you probably wonder by now just what the reason might be for John Paul II's humanistic (and now ecologistic??) teachings. Just why humanism? Why not orthodox Catholicism? Why is John Paul such a humanist?

I suppose only God and perhaps John Paul II can answer this question satisfactorily. However, we can at least make an attempt at understanding the possible motivation that lies behind his strange theology. As always, a messed-up theology originates in messed-up philosophy. When we look at John Paul II's philosophical interests and upbringing, we see that he admired and/or was influenced by Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler, Jacques Maritain, Henri de Lubac, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) was a mathematician and logician who became extremely well-known by inventing a new method of philosophical investigation known as "phenomenology," a method that would focus on--and be restricted to--investigation of what appears to consciousness. His two-volume work Logical Investigations (1900/01) introduced this new method. The way Husserl defined his phenomenology and the way he wanted it to work, it is not acceptable for a Catholic, because, among other things, it sets aside issues of reality and truth and falsehood. However, some people, even Catholics, have attempted to modify Husserl's phenomenology such that it could be used fruitfully in philosophical and theological investigations. Having studied the issue for quite a while, I must say that I find it to be, at best, nothing other than utterly verbose sophistry with little substance. But that would mean it is seriously harmful to a sincere search for the truth because it clouds the intellect and thereby inhibits its pursuit of truth and wisdom. Consider, for example, terms like "penetrating" and "reflecting"--some of the favorite buzzwords in phenomenology--in connection with phenomenological investigation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think there's much meaning behind them. And as a concrete example, I have yet to see a difference--in practice--between reflecting on a subject and reflecting on it specifically phenomenologically.

For his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy (1953), John Paul II (as Karol Wojtyla) wrote on the ethics of Max Scheler. While critical of Scheler's conclusion, Fr. Wojtyla was intrigued by Scheler's use of the phenomenological method to reflect on and "penetrate" Christian ethics.

Now, John Paul II certainly loved Scheler's phenomenology, and this left a lasting impression on John Paul's thought. But John Paul did not only have a love of phenomenology, but also of anthropology, the study of man. Now, put the two together and you get phenomenological anthropology - and, I think, this is what we've been seeing in the encyclicals and homilies and other writings of this Pope. Fancy words and highly complicated expressions, spanning lots of pages, while saying very little, and constant references and allusions to man. I don't know about you, but that's how I experience John Paul II's writings.

Just in his latest apostolic letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, we once again find his incessant and utterly unprecedented identification of Christ with man in general. Thus, for instance, the subtitle that begins paragraph 25 is "Mystery of Christ, mystery of man." He then says that the Rosary has "anthropological significance," and he claims, as he already did at the very beginning of his pontificate in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, that Christ's life reveals "the truth about man." Once again, John Paul's humanism is easily visible. Last time I checked, Christ didn't come to reveal truth about man but only truth about Himself and about God and about salvation. That Christ's teaching has implications for what is true about man, that's no doubt true. But John Paul treats it as though we would somehow have to discover something about man, as if man were the focal point. No pre-Vatican II Pope to my knowledge ever talked about there being some "big truth about man" that Christ came to reveal or that we have to glimpse. This is utterly novel, and wasn't made possible until Vatican II, the council of man!

The Pope admits as much when he says that it was Vatican II that taught that "it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man is seen in its true light" (Gaudium Et Spes #22). Isn't that sickening? I mean, what the heck is this talking about! "Mystery of man"? Why is everything after Pius XII, and especially since John Paul II, a "mystery"? It is unbelievable. I think this is the phenomenological spirit that the Pope has picked up, which ends up mystifying everything. In the end, there is no more reality but only "profound mystery" to be "penetrated" and some "richness" in it all that ought to be "reflected on." Hello? Are we on the same planet here?

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to banalize Sacred Doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that our minds could never even grasp - really grasp - the essence of a fly! However, at the same time, St. Thomas taught clearly, with authority, and with God's and the Church's approval, that we can have real knowledge of real things, not just earthly things but also things in the spiritual and metaphysical realms. While having a healthy respect for man's limited knowledge, St. Thomas nevertheless was an epistemological optimist.

Jacques Maritain (1889-1973) was another enormous influence on the thought of Wojtyla/John Paul II. Maritain taught what he called "integral humanism," as opposed to false or secular humanism. On top of that, he also spread "personalism," the notion that personality and personhood are a key to interpreting reality. In other words: it's all about man.

Now, there's no way I could possibly go into all the different philosophies discussed here, but at least I wish to scratch the surface a bit. Another man I mentioned is Fr. Henri de Lubac, who, I believe, was made a cardinal by John Paul II. De Lubac is the "father of the New Theology" - he was a real liberal and modernist. The Society of St. Pius X has graciously made available online a little compendium about all the main figures of the New Theology, i.e. the New Apostasy, and de Lubac is featured prominently in the series "They Think They've Won!" You can view this here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm.

The same compendium includes an installment precisely on John Paul II, his novel theology, and his influence by the liberals, including the heretical Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. View it here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1994_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVII.htm.

Basically, since Vatican II, and especially in the writings of John Paul II, instead of a clarification of teaching, we find obfuscation of the old and invention of novelty, together with plenty of convoluted phrases. Interestingly enough, it was Pope St. Pius X who, in his letter "Our Apostolic Mandate," observed that "evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious."

Even before this warning of a very attentive Pope, the First Vatican Council had already made clear that "the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected" (Denzinger #1800). Yet, in my opinion, the present Pope is drawn to do just that: "develop," reinterpret, improve upon, add on to, and transform our received Faith, especially "in light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," as he would say.

It is clear why this wicked revolution in the Church could never have taken place without a council. There would have been no basis for any theologian, prelate, or even the Pope, to base their novelties on.

With Vatican II came the turn from proper Catholic philosophy and theology to humanism under the guise of personalism. Fr. Richard Hogan, in his book ironically called Dissent from the Creed, tries to make us understand the novel thinking of Karol Wojtyla this way: "The future Pope used the truth of our Creation in God's image in a new way. Since we are all created to be like God and since we are all unique in reflections of God, our own experiences, properly understood, reveal something of God. Since we are images of God, our experiences should reveal something about God" (p. 319).

Let me at this point again refer to the New Catechism's paragraph 675, which says that there will be a "supreme religious deception [which] is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."

Before the Great Deception can fully install man in the place of God, there necessarily has to be a "gradual shift," and I think this is done by the "personalism" and humanism of the New Theology. After all, if the Innovators were immediately putting man in God's place, everyone would notice. So, now they're using complicated-sounding heretical musings that many people will simply think are the conclusions of a "profound philosophical mind, a gifted intellect, a great thinker."

And what are the practical applications and conclusions of this "personalism"? Well, we've seen it all: religious liberty, Assisi, indifferentism, blasphemy. Once we turn to man in order to "see God," the line into idolatry has been crossed. Certainly, we can look at man and praise the Creator who has created such a marvelous being. We can gather by looking at man that God is incredibly intelligent and all-powerful. That's fine. But the New Theologians have totally perverted this and made man a way to God. "Man is the way for the Church," said John Paul II in his 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (#14). He suggests that by God's revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, He has revealed man to himself; that by showing us who He is, He shows us who we are - what utter nonsense, and utter blasphemy. Here we see a continual identification of man with God. Not fully yet, of course, because there's the always-present "in a sense" and "to an extent" and "if properly understood," but you get the point.

"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption," the Pope continues further.

"Man the fundamental way of the Church" - folks, this is utterly novel, unprecedented, never heard-of in the Church until Vatican II and especially John Paul II. It is the fruit of phenomenology, personalism, and humanism. I reject it with every fiber of my being.

In his 1987 encyclical Dominum Et Vivificantem, John Paul II wrote: "The 'first-born of all creation,' becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also 'flesh'--and in this reality with all 'flesh', with the whole of creation" (#50). This borders on pantheism! Pantheism is the wicked heresy that God and reality are one, that is, that everything, all of creation, is divine. Surely, the defenders of John Paul II would point to the phrase "in some way" as a way out in order not to reach the pantheist conclusion. But folks, what is this? A cat-and-mouse game? Why is the Pope playing hookey-dookey with us?

I'm glad that John Paul II is so hard to understand - this way, many people will not be misled. On the other hand, other innovators can simply introduce more novelties and claim that John Paul II encourages this or calls for this in one of his writings. You know, the typical "that's what the Pope said" excuse. This is what has largely been done with Vatican II (e.g. "Vatican II says….." when many people have no idea what Vatican II actually said), where we can already see this kind of language, the kind that St. Pius X condemned so long ago.

Basically, as I see it, what John Paul II has given us in his encyclicals is phenomenological personalism - his own philosophical musings mixed with some Catholic doctrine and plenty of novelty. But the Supreme Pontificate is no playground, no testing ground for philosophical theories. We don't want to hear the personal philosophy of Karol Wjotyla applied to Catholicism. We want to hear Catholic truth, unmixed with error. And that is our right.

In an article in The Remnant, Dr. Thomas Woods aptly observed: "What the entire dispute ultimately amounts to is the First Vatican Council's description of the Pope: the guardian of the Church's moral tradition, not its author or innovator. He has no right to impose his personal opinions on the universal Church in the face of thousands of years of testimony to the contrary. To be perfectly frank, the present Pontificate appears to have had a mesmerizing effect on otherwise sensible Catholics, who now believe that Church tradition is whatever the Pope says it is" ("Justice Scalia, the Pope, and the Death Penalty" in The Remnant, 2002).

What's left for me to say? Let me give you a good book recommendation. Fr. Johannes Dormann has written a trilogy about John Paul II called "John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi," first published in 1994. It is available from Angelus Press (1-800-966-7337). See more about it here: http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis_2.htm#dormann.

You can furthermore find more information on personalism, its philosophical origins, and the whole mess of Vatican II and John Paul II's encyclicals, right here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/Magisterium%20Vat2.htm.

This concludes my series on the humanism of Pope John Paul II. Much evidence has been left untouched, but one can only do so much. You will certainly hear more of John Paul II's horrendous and humanist/personalist statements in future articles on this site.

Every denomination? What about the charismatic and evangelical denominations?

They have encountered there own deforming problems.

One is the fact that they have generally adopted the Biblically-condemned Onanism of contraception as morally justified and even desirable.

Another is the crass commercialization of Christianity through the "name-it-and-claim-it" school of simony.

Another is the unbiblical idea that the demonic "speaking in tongues" such that no one understands what you are saying is analogous to the Biblical speaking in tongues of the Apostles wherein everyone understands what you say.

Another is the anti-Christian Arian heresy known as Oneness Pentecostalism.

Another is the LaHaye marketing tool of "secret rapture" and a third coming.

All these are of very recent provenance.

To even think that is to suggest JP is not in charge - or worse - that he is so out of it he doesn't even know.

Or it could be to suggest that the Pope is a human being who sometimes makes prudential errors of judgment and who can be taken advantage of by dishonest people.

I don't know what phenomonology posits, but to say that it is not a 'shifting thing' but is imperfect because we are imperfect, (and it depends on how we perceive it) tells me that whatever it expounds should not be an article of faith.

No one is suggesting making it an article of faith. What is being suggested is making it a tool of speculative theology, as St. Thomas made use of Aristotle and St. Augustine made use of Plotinus.

Don't we have real things to iron out, rather than the subjectivity of of something as elusive as quicksilver?

Christians have minds as well as souls and bodies, and it is an inevitable tragedy that sometimes they will be caught doing things like thinking carefully about philosophical matters.

"Your claim of Heresy is unfounded and is based on nothing but a SSPX pamphlet."

What pamphlet might that be, pray tell? Was Assisi I and II an example of syncretism or indifferentism? Do I need a pamphlet to tell me what to think about something so obviously unprecedented and scandalous? Should Catholic popes be praying with animists and bragging about it in their diaries? Should a Catholic Pontiff, at a papal audience, be giving Communion to a woman who is a prominent activist for abortion? Or kiss the ring of the Archbishop of Canterbury who lacks any standing as a real cleric? Do I need pamphlets to tell me how to think about these actions? It seems to me if anyone's not doing his own thinking, it's yourself. Look at the photos of Hindu priests using our altars at Fatima to pray to their false gods. Who allows this desecration? Do you need somebody in Rome to tell you this is not as it should be? If so, you've got a long wait coming.

Mario Derksen is a sedevacantist.

Yes he is.

The concept that Christ, through His Incarnation, is closely united with all creation is hardly an heretical notion.

You may note that nowhere in the above article does Derksen criticize the idea that "Christ, through His Incarnation, is closely united with all creation ," so the fact that it is not a "heretical notion" is not relevant to the current discussion. You are merely arguing with strawmen instead of with the actual substance of the debate.

I need hardly point out that phenomenology began as Husserl's effort to return to Plato. I personally prefer the Thomistic/Aristotelian approach to moderate realism but I cannot pretend, as Derksen does, that the Augustinian/Platonist view is either illegitimate or unfruitful.

You may not wish to argue it, but Derksen makes a very convincing argument that Husserl's phenomenology is "illegitimate or unfruitful." It is false and it is destructive. If you wish to take the opposite position, where is the fruit? Nor is it correct to conflate Plato and St. Augustine as you have done. Augustine was a severe critic of Platonism, especially the neo-Platonism of his day, but Plato himself as well.

One would be more justified in arguing that Derksen's position, which implies that Christ is not united to the world he created, smells of Marcionism, Manichaeanism and Catharism.

If that's the case, then perhaps you ought to argue it instead of simply throwing around innuendos and veiled accusations of heresies.

He is advocating that people remove their allegiance from the Pope and consider the Pope's authority null and void.

Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid. If someone considered Clinton a traitor to his country, that wouldn't mean that they wanted US citizens to withdraw their allegiance to the presidency, just that the current incumbent was an illegitimate office holder.

He may pretend that the Holy See is vacant and that he will completely obey any new Pope who is elected to Mario Derksen's personal standards and who teaches in the way that Mario Derksen prefers, but in essence he claims that he is able to decide when and under what circumstances he will obey the Pope.

This is a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue with his position, at least represent it fairly.

Either the Pope can command obedience or he can't.

A general can command the obedience of his soldiers, but Benedict Arnold was a traitor.

Additionally, his logic is thoroughly flawed in its basic assumption: Church discipline is not infallible but prudential.

He's not talking about Church discipline but about basic Catholic theology.

Derksen is specifically citing a passage in which the Pope argues this position as evidence of the Pope's allegedly heterodox humanism.

This is not a straw man. Derksen is creating a straw man by saying that man is not a legitimate subject of revelation and that therefore statements about man qua man are somehow suspect.

You may not wish to argue it, but Derksen makes a very convincing argument that Husserl's phenomenology is "illegitimate or unfruitful."

There are indeed problems with phenomenology, as there are with Aristotelianism, Platonism, Kantianism and every other purely philosophical system.

If you wish to take the opposite position, where is the fruit?

Husserl's own phenomenology inspired him to accept Christ as God. Husserl's best student was St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross who converted from atheism to become a Carmelite nun and who died heroically in the Holocaust.

Her writings contain a moving phenomenological investigation of the Incarnation and the meaning of the Cross.

Nor is it correct to conflate Plato and St. Augustine as you have done.

Augustine argued his points using the vocabulary and analytical tools of neoplatonism. One need only read his De trinitate to see how obvious this influence is.

Augustine was a severe critic of Platonism, especially the neo-Platonism of his day, but Plato himself as well.

And St. Thomas did not accept Aristotle uncritically either. Likewise, Pope John Paul II does not uncritically accept everything Husserl thought.

If that's the case, then perhaps you ought to argue it instead of simply throwing around innuendos and veiled accusations of heresies.

Derksen's statement that Christ only came to teach about salvation and deity and not about man is a statement that neither Marcion nor Manichaeus nor the Cathari would have any problem with. Yet it is a deeply disturbing statement for an orthodox Catholic.

That is a concise statement of why his position does not pass the smell test.

Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid.

Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight.

This is a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue with his position, at least represent it fairly.

I have fairly represented it. Mario Derksen claims to be able to judge whether or not a given Pope is an apostate. Therefore, any legitimate Pope, in his eyes, would have to adhere to what Mario Derksen considers to be orthodoxy.

A general can command the obedience of his soldiers, but Benedict Arnold was a traitor.

An individual soldier in the ranks is not entitled to remove his obedience from his commander unless an authority legitimately constituted over that commander revokes the command.

Otherwise, it's pure insubordination.

He's not talking about Church discipline but about basic Catholic theology.

No, he's specifically adduces the 1983 CIC as his grounds for unilaterally deposing the Pope. Canon law, as I recall, is disciplinary.

"The encyclical does not say that the Church must take the path of modernity - it says that the Church must follow the steps that Christ traced."

The minute the Pope says something like "man is the primary way the Church must follow", he is speaking gobbledegook. In fact, it is God who shows the way. But he doesn't say this or seem to mean it. He doesn't say Jesus is the way. He says just the opposite, that Jesus himself followed OUR way. He is saying it is our own humanity in its diverse relationships that must PRIMARILY show us the way. But this is nonsense. Such a course would mean that the blind would be leading the blind.

Think about it for a minute. Here's what he says: "this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church." So it's us, not God; WE'RE supposed to lead the Church--this is the literal sense of the passage.

But JPII doesn't speak literally, he speaks in circumlocutions at best. What he really seems to be suggesting is a variation of Gaudium et Spes, that human institutions and rational systems of thought must guide the Church. Fine. It's done so in the past. But this way requires being clear about where we ourselves have been and where we are going. We have to know who we are as a Church and be rooted in our own Tradition. I don't see that with this Pope. I see him launching out into new territories--without any indication he knows where he's going.

Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight.

That's just one of several reasons why it is irrelevant to the discussion of JPII's phenomenological personalism. So who dragged that into the discussion anyway?

I have fairly represented it. Mario Derksen claims to be able to judge whether or not a given Pope is an apostate.

That's not even mentioned in the article.

An individual soldier in the ranks is not entitled to remove his obedience from his commander unless an authority legitimately constituted over that commander revokes the command. Otherwise, it's pure insubordination.

I believe it's Catholic theology that a soldier can and must disobey any orders which are inherently immoral. For example, a soldier cannot follow orders to kill defenseless civilians. He has to refuse obedience on the spot. Otherwise he'll be considered a war criminal (assuming his side loses the war). Do you support a German soldier who followed orders to kill inmates in concentration camps? Should they have continued to obey orders until some higher authority removed their generals from command?

No, he's specifically adduces the 1983 CIC as his grounds for unilaterally deposing the Pope. Canon law, as I recall, is disciplinary.

Again, that's not mentioned in the article, so you're bringing in lots of unrelated material. Secondly, Canon Law very often contains statements of Catholic doctrine in addition to disciplinary material.

Attacking the Pope by claiming he is separated from the Catholic faith is ridiculous. Popes can screw up, that isn't any sort of revelation.

I never claimed the SSPX was sedavacanist, they are in schism. That is the Popes judgment to make, and he indeed made it. Can it be twisted into something else?

Some are abuses, some are not. The Pope does understand that nothing comes from kissing a ring, and perhaps it can heal a rift in the Church, I personally want the Anglican to return as I want the SSPX to return.

I don't have any information on the other charges, except for SSPX echoes (secondary sources). Please ping mail me a primary source.

Her writing also contains a lot of totally unacceptable material.

She was not a Catholic her whole life and when she became one she was just learning. Nothing in her convent writings appears "totally unacceptable" to me.

I cannot understand how she could have been approved for canonization.

I believe you.

Perhaps she retracted all her errors.

Or perhaps her "errors" weren't errors at all, or perhaps the original German did not convey the sense you extracted from the translation.

Or perhaps her canonization was intended to be a vicarious "baptism" of Husserl.

Or perhaps you're grasping at straws.

Here is a person who gave her life in conformity to the suffering of Christ, endured horrors we can't imagine with an unshaken devotion to Jesus, and you think it was all a conspiracy to to "baptize" Husserl.

You disappoint me.

That's just one of several reasons why it is irrelevant to the discussion of JPII's phenomenological personalism. So who dragged that into the discussion anyway?

You originally wrote: "Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid."

I responded: "Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight."

And now you tell me it's irrelevant? Why did you make that point if you did not want it addressed?

But it was mentioned in your comments to which I was responding.

I believe it's Catholic theology that a soldier can and must disobey any orders which are inherently immoral.

Of course, but I don't think anyone was arguing that the Pope was commanding Catholics to commit sins.

Again, that's not mentioned in the article, so you're bringing in lots of unrelated material.

Again, you discussed these issues above, so I don't know why you don't want to discuss them now.

Secondly, Canon Law very often contains statements of Catholic doctrine in addition to disciplinary material.

Mario's on the topic introduces the novel claim that Church disciplinary norms are infallible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.