, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tyson FightingIn yesterday’s post titled Moving The Goal Posts, we left off our analysis of the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” by identifying and defining its respective parts, in line with definitions as understood and used in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As we demonstrated in that post, this new “animal” with which we are dealing since that fateful speech of FrancisCardinal Walter Kasper at the Consistory of Cardinal of 2014, can best be classified as a The Theology of Lust™.(see here)

We concluded our post by explaining that this Theology of Lust™ is in fact nothing new. In essence it is no different than the protestant version of the theology of lust that the German Lutheran Church has instituted and has been systematically “developing” since at least the end of the Second World War. We used the Markus Günther article from the FAZ, translated on the Radical Catholic blog (see here) to support our contention.

On an aside, and as confirmation of the above, entering the “marks” of this protestant theology of lust into any internet search engine, such as DuckDuckGo for example, will yield numerous results from other protestant denominations. Here are just a couple of sightings. The protestant version of the theology of lust has an Anglican “strain” as described here, and an Episcopal strain as described here.

And since we are using the term “strain”, we can easily draw the conclusion that the appearance and spread of these various “strains” of The Theology of Lust™ would likewise be recognizable to the average epidemiologist. The symptoms and effects would be analogous to those which he would find dealing with viruses such as Ebola. With equally devastating results. But I digress…

Back to the subject at hand. We left off our post titled Moving the Goal Post making the observation that:

A Theology of Lust therefore, will not help the Catholic Church any more than it helped the Lutherans.

But for some reason, TEAMFRANCIS just doesn’t get it.

So today we pick up trying to answer  the question as to what exactly is the Theology of Lust™ and uncover another HIDDEN AGENDA. The natural place to start is by examining the motivation of the participants of this strategy Lord’s pastoral call behind the attempted introduction of the Theology of Lust™ into Catholic moral theology.

One clue as to the participants and motivation that we have at our disposal, comes by way of an analysis that your humble blogger did on the individual that is labeled as the driving force behind this Theology of Lust™ process, namely the FrancisCardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx. In an interview that the Cardinal Archbishop of “Swank” gave to the Jesuit magazine America, which we analyzed in the post- Data Mining With Marx (see here) the following is written:

In the lecture, titled “The Contribution of Christian Values to the Common Good,” Cardinal Marx referred to his early formation into the “left position” of social justice—“how to work with those who are poor,” he said—through conversations with his father.

In that post we are introduced to the FrancisCardinals “values” and provided with a definition of what a “left position” could possibly mean. Of note is that this term has NO counterpart in Catholic moral theology or social teaching. This term “left position” is strictly a secular term that identifies a political view that can be better described as a leftist ideological persuasion.

Just for reference purposes,  “theology” is defined as: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world. A theological theory or system.

As for the former, here is how the term ideology is defined: (see here and emphasis added)

Ideology, in the Althusserian sense, is “the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence.” It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one’s goals, expectations, and motivations. An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision, meaning that it is a set of standards that are followed by people, government, and/or other groups that is considered the “norm”. [1][further explanation needed], a way of looking at things, as argued in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies). It can also be a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of society to all members of society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization [further explanation needed], as suggested in some Marxist and Critical theory accounts. While the concept of “ideology” describes a set of ideas broad in its normative reach, an ideology is less encompassing than as expressed in concepts such as worldview, imaginary and ontology.

What I would like to draw your attention to dear reader is two aspects of the above definition that hold the key to understanding not only FrancisCardinal Marx but the entire TEAMFRANCIS effort which is the driving force behind the Theology of Lust™.

The first aspect of the definition is the part that states “imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence”. This phrase in and of itself is benign since it is nothing more than the restatement of a deductive or inductive scientific process or method. It can also be easily assimilated with the works of St. Thomas Aquinas or William of Ockham. Furthermore, it is nothing more than a restatement of one of the founding principles of the Roman Catholic faith, i.e. that part of the faith that comes to be “known through natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. Therefore, this above identified phrase, i.e. “imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence”, does not define an ideology in and of itself.

What is needed to complete the definition of “ideology” is the “normative” part. The definition of a “normative process” is as follows: (see here)

Normative means relating to an ideal standard of or model, or being based on what is considered to be the normal or correct way of doing something.

To be more precise and since we are in essence speaking about a philosophical or rather a pseudo-philosophical construction, the following passage is the key to understanding the nature of what constitutes an ideology:

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

So from the definition of the term “normative” we can see the contradictory nature between a “normative process” or a “normative statement” and a “theological statement”, i.e. a statement whose essence is purely “positive”.

In other words, the Catholic faith is in part derived “through natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, i.e. a purely positive process. The other part of our Faith comes from divine Revelation, likewise a purely positive process arising from a completely rational and logical source, i.e. Our Lord. Combined, these two sources represent that which is by definition a “theology”.

In turn, the Theology of Lust™ of FrancisCardinal Marx is derived from “statements making claims about how things should or ought to be”. He calls them a “left position”. In other words, it’s a purely “normative” process, hence fitting the definition of an “ideology”.

And naturally, since the FrancisCardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx is not God, he has no definitive underlying basis for this ideology, i.e. the Theology of Lust™.

And by analogy, one can easily infer that the protestant denominations, with their particular versions of their very own theologies of lust, likewise have this same inherent problem. They are likewise doomed to fail, since their “theology” is likewise, in essence an “ideology in disguise”.

So just to summarize, the Theology of Lust™ is nothing more than a “left position” ideology that is based on a “normative process making claims about how things ought to be”. Since it is a normative process, it has no underlying grounding in OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Although it could be quite appealing on a superficial level, the inherent contradictory nature of a normative process makes the Theology of Lust™ unsustainable in the long term. Empirical evidence from other protestant denominations that have instituted their own versions of this “ideology disguised as theology” demonstrates the disastrous effects and consequences.

Summa summarum, what we are dealing with here, with TEAMFRANCIS and their promotion of their “ Ideology of Lust™”, is what can be described as a lost cause.

To draw a colorful analogy, this lost cause is similar to that faced by a boxer  when stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime. The Ideology of Lust™ is like that boxer’s plan for defeating Tyson. When Mike Tyson was once asked about a challenger who claimed that he had a plan for defeating the champion, Tyson answered as follows: Everyone has a plan ‘til they get punched in the mouth.

And from looking at the experience that the protestant denominations have had with their versions of the Ideology of Lust™, it is pretty evident that OBJECTIVE REALITY has treated these denominations just as mercilessly as Mike Tyson treated his challengers.

Which leaves us to make the obvious observation: the Ideology of Lust™ is driven at least in part by a HIDDEN AGENDA of the FrancisCardinal Marx, a HIDDEN AGENDA that is in part ideological at its foundation. And being fully aware of the disastrous results of the Cardinal’s German protestant counterparts, one has to wonder what else, aside of ideology is lurking behind Marx’s HIDDEN AGENDA.