Rorate Caeli

The Council and the Eclipse of God by Don Pietro Leone – Chapter 9 (part 4) of The Metaphysical Analysis – conclusion.

 Antirealist Subjectivism

Conclusion to Section A: Antirealist Subjectivism


The Council’s offense against the ten metaphysical principles treated in Section A may be defined in terms of one single metaphysical error of the Council, which we have described above as ‘antirealist subjectivism’. This is true even if we have only designated one of the ten offenses in these terms, since only one of them involves subjectivism in explicit terms. The principle of antirealist subjectivism is in fact of key importance for understanding the evil of the Council, philosophical, ethical, and theological, so that we shall now proceed to examine it more closely, under the following headings:


      1.    Antirealism

      2.    Antirealist Subjectivism

      3.    The Ground of Antirealist Subjectivism



1.     Antirealism


Now all error altogether may be described as ‘antirealist’, inasmuch as all error simply consists in a lack of correspondence between an idea (or statement) with objective reality; likewise every false philosophy altogether may be described as ‘antirealist’, to the extent that it upholds doctrines which do not correspond to objective reality. The reason for this is that the one true philosophy has Being for its object, so that every erroneous philosophy may in fact be defined by its denial of Being, in other words by its antirealism.


A false philosophy may, by contrast, be defined as ‘antirealist’ simpliciter, once it has been elaborated into a coherent system opposed to objective reality. Such is the case of the Council’s philosophy, which, as we have seen in the course of this section, constitutes an attack on Being, on the determinations of Being, and on the necessary relation between Being and thought.



2.     Antirealist Subjectivism


We shall now briefly sketch out the rôle of this false principle in:


a)     Philosophy;

b)    Ethics;

c)     Theology.



a)    Philosophy


Now any antirealist philosophy, any philosophy elaborated into a coherent system opposed to objective reality, will also be marked by subjectivism, a turning away (aversio) from Being to the self. For clearly if one detaches oneself from the object, from what is objective, from objective reality, then one necessarily attaches oneself to the subject [1].


The principle of antirealist subjectivism constitutes the denial that ‘the True has logical priority over the Good’, and may thus be defined positively as the erroneous proposition that ‘the Good has logical priority over the True.’ It equally constitutes the denial that the object, the objective order, has priority over the subject, over the subjective order, which is tantamount to madness.


The principle of antirealist subjectivism is the root error not only of the Council’s philosophy but also of its ethics and theology, becoming in ethics the principle of egoism, and in theology the principle of self-deifying atheism, as we shall now attempt to show.



b)    Ethics


Since antirealist subjectivism is the root error of the Council’s philosophy, it is also the root error of all the actions which this false philosophy entails, in other words of its ethics. In fact it is the root error of all false systems of ethics. This is because ethical good is nothing other than the correspondence of an action to Being, to objective reality. If I act according to Being, according to the exigencies of Being as expressed in the Natural Law - in treating well those who have a claim on me by feeding them when hungry, for example, or by visiting them when they suffer - then I am acting in a way that is ethically good [2]; if I act in an antirealist manner, by contrast, such as by not feeding the hungry who have a claim on me or by not visiting those who suffer, then I am clearly acting in a way that is ethically evil. This type of action will, moreover, be not only antirealist but also subjectivist, since aversion from objective reality can only be motivated by subjectivism: by the personal desires of the subject, in other words by egoism, as can be seen in the examples just given. 



c)     Theology


Now the principle of antirealist subjectivism becomes in theology the principle of self-deifying atheism. For since the ultimate theological reality is God, to be antirealist is equivalent to atheism, and to be subjectivist, to prefer oneself to God, is equivalent to self-deification. Here the principle of antirealist subjectivism attains its maximum absurdity, as the rational creature, in turning away from God to himself, substitutes the finite being, truth, and goodness of the creature for the Infinite Being, Truth, and Goodness of God. Far from becoming God he becomes a fool, an egoist of the most infantile variety.


We proceed to glance at three areas which form a part of, or are related to, theology, namely:


i)    Moral theology;

ii)   Religion;

iii)  Liturgy.



            i)         Moral Theology


In the domain of moral theology in particular, the antirealist subjectivism of ethics becomes the self-deifying atheism of sin: the aversion from God and the conversion to the creature [3]. The dilemma between realism and subjectivism in this domain is well expressed by the Italian phrase: io o Dio [4].


            ii)        Religion


We here understand Religion to comprise in the most general terms a system of beliefs and of moral theology. As we shall see in our presentation of Gnosis in the next chapter, the new religion that the Council espouses is characterized by self-deifying atheism, both in its beliefs and in its moral theology.



            iii)       Liturgy


We understand liturgy as the science of religious cult. We have witnessed the same principle of self-deifying atheism at work in this field in our analysis of the Council’s program for the New Rite of Mass [5]; and in detail in our book on the New Mass [6].



         3.     The Ground of Antirealist Subjectivism


The ground of Antirealist Subjectivism is double: moral and metaphysical. Its moral ground, which is clearly its primary ground in furnishing the motivation for its metaphysical ground, is pride. Its  metaphysical ground is its opposition to the very ordination of the mind to Being: God created the intellect to know Being as Truth; He created the will to love Being as Good. The principle is antirealist in not directing the intellect to objective Truth; it is subjectivist in not directing the will to objective Good, but rather to the subjective good, the putative good of the subject. Such is its fundamental error in all the five domains that we are considering in this book: philosophical, theological, ethical, religious, and liturgical.

Where the Glory of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? 

Where its spiritual Glory? Where its liturgical Glory?



We note in concluding that antirealist subjectivism, as we have here exposed it, may be seen not only in all the Council’s false doctrines, but also in its silence about all that pertains to Being in itself, its nature and its properties, about objective reality, about the True and the Good; it affords no absolutes, no absolute principles, no certainties, no rules; it aspires neither to sanctity, nor to heroism, nor to martyrdom, nor to glory.

- Where is the Glory of the only Begotten Son of God, full of Grace and Truth?

- Where is the Glory of Grace?

- Where the Glory of Truth?

- Where the Glory of Christ the King, come to give witness to the Truth?

- Where the Glory of Christ Crucified?

- Where the Glory of His Immaculate and Most Glorious Mother, Mary Most Holy?

- Where the Glory of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

- Where its spiritual Glory?  Where its liturgical Glory?

- Where the Glory of the Church Militant?

 - Where the Glory of the Imitation of Christ?

 - Where the Glory of Martyrdom?

 - Where the Glory of Sanctity?


The Council’s teaching, its spirituality, its liturgy is without substance, without courage, without conviction, without mystery [7]; it is obtuse, banal, cheap, superficial, and vulgar; it is effete, it is emasculated [8], it is decadent; it expires with the deathly langour of the death of Civilization itself [9].


[1] as we have already observed in a footnote to the Introduction

[2] the metaphysical ground for the correspondence of Being to morally good action is the fact that Being is Good (as the object of desire) 

[3] sin is defined in scholastic moral theology as aversio a Deo et conversio ad creaturam

[4] me or God

[5] see the conclusion to chapter 7

[6] The Destruction of the Roman Rite op.cit.

[7] we think particularly of the mystery of the Old Rite of Mass, present to our devout forefathers every day of their lives.

[8] an added motive for the impurity that we discussed in Section B

[9] see the analysis of tribalism in ch.11. A, 8. c (ii) below