Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
September 6, 2017
The news was reported by Maike
Hickson.
On August 31st, Monsignor
Javier Martínez Fernández, Archbishop of
Granada, after having suspended the Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert from
teaching, he expelled him from the International Academy of Philosophy of which
he is one of the founders, but today comes under the authority of the Archdiocese.
It should be borne
in mind that Professor Josef Seifert is considered one of the most important
Catholic philosophers of our time. His curriculum and his bibliography fills
numerous pages. However, he
is noted most of all for his fidelity to the Papal Magisterium, which earned him the
nomination as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Any Catholic
university would be honoured to have him among their teaching staff. What is
the reason for the drastic measures taken against him? According to a
communiqué from the Archdiocese the motive for his latest dismissal is an article
in which Professor Seifert made a plea with regard to Pope Francis’ Post-Synod
Exhortation Amoris laetitia. *
In the
incriminating article, Seifert, asked Pope Francis to retract an affirmation in
Amoris laetitia from which, on the basis of convincing logic, would result in the dissolution of Catholic moral teaching in its entirety. **
Seifert cites the sentence in Amoris laetitia according to which the conscience
of adulterous couples, otherwise known as “irregular couples” “can do more than recognize that a given
situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the
Gospel. It can also recognize with
sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be
given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God
himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not
fully the objective ideal” (AL, no. 303).
In other words, Seifert
comments, besides defining the objective state of grave mortal sin “not yet
fully the objective ideal”, Amoris
laetitia affirms that we can know with “a certain moral security” that God
Himself asks us to commit intrinsically wicked acts, like adultery and active homosexuality.
The Austrian philosopher at
this point poses his question:” I ask: Can pure Logic fail to ask us
under this assumption: If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted
and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered
‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can want an adulterous couple to
live in adultery, should then not also the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery!’
be reformulated? […] Must then not also
the other 9 commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and all past and
present or future Church documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the
existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? […]Must then not from pure logic
euthanasia, suicide, or assistance to it, lies, thefts, perjuries, negations or
betrayals of Christ, like that of St. Peter, or murder, under some
circumstances and after proper “discernment,” be good and praiseworthy because
of the complexity of a concrete situation."
At this point he follows
with his appeal to the Pope: “Thus I wish to
plead with our supreme spiritual Father on Earth, the “sweet Christ on earth,”
as Saint Catherine of Siena called one of the Popes, under whose reign she
lived, while she criticized him fiercely […]to please retract the mentioned
affirmation. If its logical consequences lead with iron stringency to nothing
less than to a total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church,
should the “sweet Christ on Earth” not retract an affirmation of his own? If
the mentioned thesis leads with cogent logical consequence to the rejection of
there being any acts that must be considered intrinsically morally wrong, under
any under any circumstances and in all situations, and if this assertion will
tear down, after Familiaris
Consortio and Veritatis Splendor, likewise Humanae Vitae and many other solemn Church
teachings, should it not be revoked? And should not every Cardinal and Bishop,
every priest, monk or consecrated Virgin, and every layperson in the Church,
take a most vivid interest in this and subscribe this passionate plea of a humble layperson, a simple Professor of
Philosophy and, among other subjects, of logic?”
There has been
no response to the question raised by Professor Seifert. The communiqué from
the Archdiocese of Granada limits itself to stating that the philosopher’s
position: “damages the communion of the Church, confuses the faith of the faithful,
and sows distrust in the successor of Peter, which, in the end, does not serve
the truth of faith, but, rather, the interests of the world.” The diocese of Granada adds:“from the very first moment to have
adopted the application of the Papal text prepared by the bishops of the Region of Buenos Aires”, in other words, following the guidelines of the Argentinean
prelates, who, in their document approved by Pope Francis, allow adulterers
access to Holy Communion.
The Archbishop
of Granada’s stance is summed up in the veto of asking any questions, which
according to the philosopher Eric Voegelin, is the characteristic of
totalitarian regimes. With the same criteria, all Catholics faithful to Church
orthodoxy have been eliminated from the Pontifical Academy for Life, beginning with Seifert himself, the most orthodox teachers are being expelled from
schools and Catholic universities, priests faithful to Tradition are
transferred from their parishes and in some cases suspended a divinis. What will happen to the cardinals if and when
their correctio fraterna arrives?
This repressive logic opens a schism in the Church.
The only argument that the Amoris
laetitia fanatics are capable of raising against the critics of this
document is the weak one of “breaking communion”. Yet, those who are raising
objections about the Papal Exhortation, refer to the immutable doctrine of the
Church and have no intention of leaving Her.
If as a result of their fidelity to the Magisterium they are officially
sanctioned, those who sanction them commit an act of auto-separation from this
Magisterium.
Professor Josef Seifert’s articles are motivated by love
for the Church and above all love for the Truth. The bishop who is punishing
him, is separating himself from the natural and divine law which prohibits
adultery, homicide and other grave sins, without exceptions or compromises. By
accusing him of breaking unity with the Pope, the prelate manifests the
existence of a magisterium by Pope Francis incompatible with that of perennial
Church Magisterium.
Monsignor Martínez Fernández punished Professor Seifert because he had
asked the Pope, humbly and respectfully, to withdraw an affirmation which leads
to adultery and the dissolution of morality. So, in the diocese of Granada, as
in those of Malta and Argentina and in many other places in Christendom, in
order to be in communion with Pope Francis you need to accept, at least in
certain instances, the lawfulness of adultery and other transgressions of the
moral law. Pope Francis is the successor of Peter, but Our Lord doesn’t say:
whoever loves Me must follow blindly the successor of Peter.
On the contrary: “He
that hath my commandments and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. ” (John 14, 15-21).
If the Supreme Pastor should diverge from the Divine commandments and invite
the flock to follow him, the faithful should distance themselves from him, as
“we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5, 29). If to be in communion with
Pope Francis one is constrained to embrace error, those who want to remain in
the truth of Christ, are obliged to separate themselves from Pope Francis. This
is what Monsignor Martínez Fernández, the Archbishop of Granada is affirming
publically.
Translation:
Contributor Francesca Romana
