Fr Martin Rhonheimer is already known for his claim that the pre-conciliar popes, and particularly Pius XII, were implicitly anti-Semitic for failing to accept the salvific character of Judaism. (Indeed, Pius XII taught that “on the Cross the old law died, soon to be buried and become the bearer of death”). Rhonheimer (and his cheerleader Sandro Magister) is even more notorious for his claim that condoms are not necessarily contraceptives. He is very fond of presenting his errors as ‘defences’ of the Pontiff now gloriously reigning. It seems he has now taken to championing the hermeneutic of rupture in regard to Dignitatis Humanae. In this regard the apostasy is even more frank: “this teaching of the Second Vatican Council is what Pius IX condemned in his encyclical Quanta cura.” Pretty clear. So much then for the Catechism which seems to think (890) “It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.” It seems that the Magisterium on its own is not enough God’s people also need Fr Rhonheimer to show them which elements of the Church’s teaching are “deeper and more essential” and thus need to be bothered with.
>
This sort of apostasy is flagrantly paraded by those who think that their right-wing politics some how constitute an adequate substitute for the profession of the Catholic Faith. Here is a particularly excruciating example from everyone’s favourite Social Modernist George Weigel:
>

>
Since when was ‘un-american’ a theological censure? The logical consequences of this condemned error are horrific. If the state is not competent to recognise Christ as King then surely no one else is either. For conversely, if anyone who has attained the age of reason is competent to recognise Christ as King then surely the state must be. It must therefore only be legitimate to baptise infants and madmen if no rational person is competent to recognise the Kingship of Christ. Note also that Weigel takes as a premise that ‘George VII’ or ‘Charles III’ could not be made King. So he seems to think hereditary monarchy is contrary to the teaching of the Church as well. Rhonheimer’s rejection of the Church’s teaching on Contraception and Judaism is no coincidence. If Solemn Definitions of Catholic Dogma like Unam Sanctam or all those Councils which summoned Crusades or regulated the use of the secular arm can err then what hope Humanae Vitae? If non-infants are simply incapable of recognising the Kingship of Christ then how can God command all men to enter the Catholic Church and profess the true faith?

“Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man: Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.” Catechism of the Catholic Church §2244

See also: here (h/t) and here.

Advertisements