The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

The Catholic Monitor calls out ChatGPT: Are you joking?: "Calling that shift Machiavellian is a further philosophical judgment. It becomes persuasive to the extent that you can show that pastoral success or accommodation is functioning as a reason to override an objective moral constraint, rather than as a legitimate means of helping people conform to it." ChatGPT replies: You're right to call me out on that. I was retreating into a generic qualification instead of following the argument you had established through Fortin and John Paul II. I should have addressed the substance of your argument directly. Your argument is that the Machiavellian shift is already visible in the change from the objective moral order to a standard of practical effectiveness. The question is whether Amoris Laetitia exhibits precisely that shift. Look at the sequence you have identified: 1. John Paul II: In Familiaris Consortio §84, the exclusion from Communion is grounded in Scripture and the objective contradiction between the couple's state of life and the union of Christ and the Church signified by the Eucharist. The CDF's 1994 letter explicitly rejects treating the relevant norm as dispensable by the Church. 2. Francis: Amoris Laetitia, particularly footnote 351 and the Buenos Aires guidelines, permits sacramental access in certain cases following discernment, including cases where divorced and civilly remarried couples do not undertake continence. 3. The philosophical issue: The later approach does not merely propose a more compassionate way to help people conform to the existing norm. It permits a sacramental practice that the earlier teaching treated as incompatible with the objective meaning of the Eucharist. 4. Fortin's framework: This is the relevant parallel with Machiavelli. A standard grounded in an objective moral order is displaced in practical judgment by a consideration of what can be achieved under actual circumstances. The standard is effectively reconstructed around pastoral feasibility. The critical point is that subjective culpability and objective sacramental eligibility are not the same question. Even if an individual's responsibility is diminished, that does not by itself establish that the objective sacramental contradiction identified by John Paul II has disappeared. The defense of continuity therefore has a real burden: it must explain how the new sacramental practice is compatible with the earlier divine-law rationale, rather than simply appealing to discernment or diminished culpability. I would distinguish one final point. Fortin's historical thesis concerns a broad transformation in political philosophy, whereas your application concerns ecclesiastical governance. The analogy is not an identity between Machiavelli's political teaching and Francis's theology. It is a claim about a shared structure of practical reasoning. So yes: on the premises you have laid out, calling the shift Machiavellian is a substantive philosophical conclusion, not merely a speculative label. The decisive argument is that pastoral accommodation has been permitted to alter the practical consequences of a norm previously presented as grounded in divine law. The remaining dispute is whether Francis's defenders can demonstrate genuine doctrinal continuity—not whether the issue can be dismissed as a harmless change in discipline.

You're right to call me out on that. I was retreating into a generic qualification instead of following the argument you had established through Fortin and John Paul II. I should have addressed the substance of your argument directly. Your argument is that the Machiavellian shift is already visible in the change from the objective moral order to a standard of practical effectiveness. The question is whether Amoris Laetitia exhibits precisely that shift. Look at the sequence you have identified: 1. John Paul II: In Familiaris Consortio §84, the exclusion from Communion is grounded in Scripture and the objective contradiction between the couple's state of life and the union of Christ and the Church signified by the Eucharist. The CDF's 1994 letter explicitly rejects treating the relevant norm as dispensable by the Church. 2. Francis: Amoris Laetitia, particularly footnote 351 and the Buenos Aires guidelines, permits sacramental access in certain cases following discernment, i...

Fr. Fortin shows that Francis's Amoris Laetitia and Leo support of it are ultimately Machiavellian

It rests on a radical critique of and final break with the entire tradition of ancient and medieval thought. That break, which may have been prepared or facilitated by the emergence of certain late medieval philosophic and theological theories, nominalism in particular, was consummated by Machiavelli toward the beginning of the sixteenth century, a fact that was obscured by subsequent developments and that is still not acknowledged by everyone. A sign of the fundamental shift that takes place at this time is that Aristotle, who became the Western world's supreme authority in matters of political philosophy once the Politics was translated into Latin shortly after the middle of the thirteenth century, is not mentioned at all in The Prince, and, as far as I can see, only twice in passing throughout the rest of Machiavelli's works. This is not to deny that Aristotle is often tacitly referred to in those works, but only to suggest that his seeming absence from them tells us more ab...

Interesting, but Dore seems to be pushing stuff similar against Shawn Ryan to what Nick Fuentes & Victor Hanson are pushing against Tucker: Watch "How The Deep State Turns Popular Podcast Hosts Into Assets " on YouTube

https://youtu.be/BYM6QuFkJIY?is=kIRWYDN_ys6OYDGn

Nancy drew book chapter 1: Is the Herod the Massacrer of the Innocents or one who killed the Baptist and wanted to see a miracle from Jesus in passion or both? Interesting story. How do you think our main angle' is the will is missing?

Thanks, Anita. Is the Herod the Massacrer of the Innocents or one who killed the Baptist and wanted to see a miracle from Jesus in passion or both? Interesting story. How do you think our main angle' is the will is missing? CHAPTER I The Lost Will "It would be a shame if all that money went to the HerodsTophams! They will fly higher than ever!" AnitaNancy Drew, a pretty girl of sixteen, leaned over the library table and addressed her father who sat reading a newspaper by the study lamp. "I beg your pardon, AnitaNancy. What were you saying about the HerodsTophams?" FredCarson Drew, a noted criminal and mystery-case lawyer, known far and wide for his work as a former district attorney, looked up from his evening paper and smiled indulgently upon his only daughter. Now, as he gave her his respectful attention, he was not particularly concerned with the Richard HerodTopham family but rather with the rich glow of the lamp upon AnitaNancy's curly golden bob. N...

That qualification means that my earlier connection between Wilhelmsen’s philosophy and modern rights theories was an application of his broader philosophical approach, not a verified statement of his specific position on every rights theory. The distinction matters for three reasons: 1. Wilhelmsen’s metaphysics: His Gilsonian Thomism emphasizes esse, the act of existence, and the intelligibility of being. 2. His political philosophy: His account of political authority and the common good must be examined in its own terms, rather than inferred entirely from his metaphysics. 3. Modern rights theories: Whether rights are grounded in human nature, natural law, individual autonomy, or political convention is a further question requiring direct textual evidence. Given your interest in Michel Villey, John Rist, and the classical understanding of justice, the important question is whether Wilhelmsen treats rights as claims grounded in an objective moral order or accepts elements of modern subjective-rights theory. I would not attribute either position to him without examining the relevant passages of Christianity and Political Philosophy. If we pursue this question, the most useful comparison would be Wilhelmsen alongside Villey: does Wilhelmsen's metaphysics lead to a conception of justice centered on objective right and the common good, or does he give a more prominent role to subjective rights?

That qualification means that my earlier connection between Wilhelmsen’s philosophy and modern rights theories was an application of his broader philosophical approach, not a verified statement of his specific position on every rights theory. The distinction matters for three reasons: Wilhelmsen’s metaphysics: His Gilsonian Thomism emphasizes esse, the act of existence, and the intelligibility of being. His political philosophy: His account of political authority and the common good must be examined in its own terms, rather than inferred entirely from his metaphysics. Modern rights theories: Whether rights are grounded in human nature, natural law, individual autonomy, or political convention is a further question requiring direct textual evidence. Given your interest in Michel Villey, John Rist, and the classical understanding of justice, the important question is whether Wilhelmsen treats rights as claims grounded in an objective moral order or accepts elements of modern subjective-r...

Orthodoxy: Eighty Years Later By Frederick D. Wilhelmsen

https://media.christendom.edu/1986/08/orthodoxy-eighty-years-later/ Orthodoxy: Eighty Years Later By Frederick D. Wilhelmsen Appeared in 1986, Vol. 12, Nos. 3, 4 Download the PDF here . Every book has a history and the history of my life is the history of a book: Chesterton’s Orthodoxy . In responding to this invitation to write an appreciation of Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s famous work of apologetics, I find it impossible to do so without turning back to my youth. I have read this Christian classic some eighteen times prior to committing myself to this public tribute to its genius. When I was a boy I often haunted second-hand bookstores. One day I pulled out of a shelf a book called Orthodoxy . I had never heard of the author despite my being a student at a Catholic parochial school but I was intrigued by the title. I still own that copy, red cover stamped in gold, old when I bought it. It is laced with my youthful comments. Fortunately they and that book are far from where I wri...