The Absurdities of the Moral «New Paradigm» Le Assurdità del «Nuovo Paradigma» Morale. Osservatorio Van Thuan. : STILUM CURIAE

Archbishop Jerome Lloyd OSJVPosted by

Dear StilumCuriali, we offer to your attention this article which appeared in the Van Thuan International Observatory , which we thank for the courtesy. Happy reading and sharing.

The drift of moral theology is known, especially in the last decade, according to which there is a tendency to approve what appears to be a “morality of the situation” in favor of those who perform “intrinsically bad acts”. The evil of contraception and artificial insemination, for example, is thus weakened, providing justifications to the transgressor. This is the moral “new paradigm”, proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper and confirmed by Pope Francis in  Amoris Laetitia .

“We do not propose at all – essentially say the promoters of the “new paradigm” – a sort of “morality of the situation”, openly reproached among other things by John Paul II in  Veritatis Splendor , but we limit ourselves to noting the weakness of man sinner and we say for the good, as concerned about his (and our) eternal salvation, that the moral significance of “intrinsically bad acts” must be evaluated not only on the object of the transgression, but also on the subjective spiritual disposition of the offender ”.

The discussion seems to be flowing, also because Saint Thomas Aquinas had also expressed himself positively on the importance of subjective dispositions. From what Thomas teaches, especially in questions 72, 74 and 88 of the  Summa Theologiae  (I-II), the Council of Trent affirms what we read in n. 1857 of the  Catechism of the Catholic Church : «A mortal sin is one which has as its object a grave matter and which, moreover, is committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent».

All of this is true, but there is a ‘but’. A big ‘however’, which is systematically ousted by the moralists of the “new paradigm”: the mission of Jesus Christ and his Church is to give awareness (knowledge, reason) and direct the consent (will) of the sinner towards the good, not towards evil. The nature of the sin must be evaluated by the confessor, after the crime and in suffrage of the sinner, not by the preacher, who must instead focus his attention only on the grave matter and consequently excite the sinner’s repentance.

If, for example, the confessor makes the adulterer aware of the sin of adultery, the sinner will no longer be justified in the future and the venial sin – if one of the conditions fails (full awareness) – will certainly be mortal. This is about reason. As for the will, the penitent has the obligation to “shun proximate occasions of sin”, venial and mortal: not to shun sin, but the “occasions”. And opportunities are avoided with an act of the will, which the repentant sinner can and must excite towards good.

If this does not happen, grace can neither manifest itself nor act on the penitent. Thus, justification and consequent salvation are lost. The question is not trivial, but it is at the basis of the so-called “discernment”, both called into question and ignored by pastors.


Le Assurdità del «Nuovo Paradigma» Morale. Osservatorio Van Thuan. : STILUM CURIAE

Leave a Reply