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
