At the root of Modernism is the denial of absolutes, thus subjectivizing reality and truth and consequently sentimentalizing religion on a personal level — errors that Pope Francis has also been endorsing.

The Modernists place the foundation of their religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called agnosticism. Perforce, then, human reason is entirely restricted to phenomena, namely, things that appear, and that appearance by which they appear; it has neither the right nor the power to transgress the limits of the same. Therefore, it cannot raise itself to God nor recognize His existence, even through things that are seen. (Denzinger 2072) [emphasis added in this and succeeding quotes]

Certain Catholics, bedazzled by the triumphs of science and befuddled by false philosophies, embraced the idea that we can only get certainty from direct sense evidence. Doing this, they shut off reason from reaching God, when reason alone can provide us with an objective God. And only the objective God is the God of absolute truth, the Catholic God, i.e., the God to Whom only the true Catholic Faith leads. This is the real God; there is no other.

Sense data, of itself, provides no direct information about God, since God is immaterial. Only the immaterial power of man’s intellect, through a process of metaphysical abstraction, can yield certain, objective knowledge of what transcends the material order. Thus, chaining reason to phenomena pushes the one objective God away from reason’s reach. And without such an objective God, a man who “wants religion” must create his own subjective god. With Modernists, we no longer have the one creating God manifesting His order to the universe of men, but each individual man manifesting belief in the god of his creation. This is the long term result of the religious agnosticism which was condemned 100 years ago.

Did it disappear after its condemnation? Or did it mutate and, like a new strain of malaria, re-appear in a more insidious and deadly form? To answer this, we must turn to a Pope and an atheist, and see to what degree they mutually adhere to the three step subjectivization of reality given above.

Read more

Three reasons Roe v. Wade will fall

The U.S. Supreme Court-imposed abortion-on-demand regime of Roe v. Wade will one day fall. Why?

Roe will buckle under the weight of reason. “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible,” notes Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun (author of Roe) and supporter of legalized abortion. The U.S. Constitution cannot plausibly or rationally be said to include a right to abortion that precludes states dealing with this issue. Even the Court itself, when narrowly upholding Roe in 1992 (in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), could appeal only to stare decisis (i.e., past decisions should be reaffirmed because they are past decisions) and to virtual nonsense about “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Roe will buckle under the weight of democracy. The Court in Roe, without constitutional warrant, usurped the authority of the American people to determine abortion policy. This “exercise of raw judicial power,” as Justice Byron White put it, struck down the democratically-decided abortion laws of all 50 states and imposed a nationwide policy of abortion on demand whether the people like it or not. The radical extent of the Roe regime was not and has never been even remotely consistent with public opinion (polling on this question is often inaccurate, and ignorance of the extent of Roe is widespread). Roe has disenfranchised millions of Americans, fostering divisive cultural and political battles.

Finally, and most importantly, Roe will buckle under the weight of human rights. It decided that an entire class of innocent human beings must be excluded from legal protection and allowed to be killed for any reason. Roe, like Dred Scott v. Sandford before it, is profoundly unjust and contrary to the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of all members of the human family. And the consequences of the Court’s folly—55 million unborn human beings killed, many women (and men) hurt emotionally, psychologically, physically—have been nothing less than catastrophic.

Full text