Saturday, October 11, 2014

Phil Lawler: "What's wrong with this Synod, II: Debate is free, open (and censored)"

Phil Lawler's article HERE.

Among other things, Lawler reports the following:
Speaking to the Synod of Bishops on its first day of discussions, Pope Francis urged the participants to speak out boldly, “without human respect, without timidity.” The secretary-general of the Synod, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, echoed that message, saying that “discussion at the Synod is to be open.” This, we were told, would be a meeting marked by candor, by open debate, by an absence of restraint on the free flow of ideas.

The reality has been quite dramatically different. The Synod meeting of October 2014 has been far less transparent than previous sessions. The information reaching the Catholic world has been tightly controlled, heavily filtered—and, therefore, easily manipulated.

... We don’t know what is happening inside the Synod hall; the discussion sessions are closed....
Our own underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep it's secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, comments from Rome this week:
It gets old, doesn't it? It is exactly the same rhetorical chess game President Obama pays, using words that mean something very different from what scenarios they spark or launch. You would have to be tone-deaf and circumstance-blind not to see the obvious manipulation afoot. And after the abuse scandals, mea culpas, and talk of openness, it really is nothing sort of jaw-dropping of people to willingly accept such governing tactics. Transparency, openness, forthrightness, directness? I see none of these, whatsoever. The 'cunning' Jesuits are infamous for makes no sense at all when they hold the key seat of power. Then such cunning becomes nothing so much as ingenuous. And disingenuousness should win no one sainthood, not even The Advocate's Person of the Year (funny, I have read not a single Catholic commentator's reaction to that laurel, btw).
Noir told me he had left behind his Valium tabs, thinking he could handle the assignment without them, but reversed his decision and wired me to overnight his meds to him in Rome; so I told him to lay off the liquor for a while, if he was going back on the Valium. He does like his liquor, as we both know.


23 comments:








BenYachov

said...

I say Guy Noir is all wet.

The free and open debate is clearly meant for the Bishops only. Not us lay people.

This is the Catholic Church not a Republican democracy like the USA.

If you are not a Bishop appointed to this Synod by the Pope or a lay person invited to address it you have no right to any say whatsoever.

>The information reaching the Catholic world has been tightly controlled, heavily filtered—and, therefore, easily manipulated.

Make up your mind Francis bashers. If Francis speaks off the cuff without a filter or control then he causes scandal and confusion. If OTOH they keep a tight lid on the information then Francis is Obama.

Give me a break!





BenYachov

said...

BTW I read some of the comments over at Catholicculture.org

I wish I had some money so I could donate and debate(i.e they only let donors to their organization post comments).

Some actually believe "open debate is a bad idea. We need to hear Christian doctrine not the blathering of various speeches by bishops."

Others believe it is so the competent Cardinals can have it out with the less then competent.

I have no sympathy for the conspiracy theory or anonymous reporting.

I can sympathize with the sentiment against reading the Cardinals' speeches. I read the dogmatic sessions of various Ecumenical but I can say with a little bit of justified pride I NEVER read any of the speeches given by Cardinals or Bishops.

I mean that is like attending a gourmet five star restaurant and eating a five star meal but then insisting I have to look at the messy kitchen pots and board where it was prepared.

I don't need to see that.





benYachov

said...

One last thing then I will shut up,,,,,,if according to all the rumor mongering I read on Lawler's website is true.

Specifically Cardinal Müller is being told not to promote his book attacking the Pope's alleged favorite Kasper and that soon Cardinal Burke will be given the heave ho then why is Burke one of the moderators at this Synod?


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/americans-help-moderate-synod-discussions-87525/

BTW No mention of Kasper at all?





Anon. II

said...

I'm glad Ben "Hunky-dory" Yachov is just peachy-keen with the way things are. Clearly Catholics know exactly what they're supposed to believe about marriage and divorce and communion. Nothing to see here: move along, folks.

"Francis bashing"? "Rumor mongering"? "Conspiracy theories"?

What planet does this feller inhabit? How does being distressed with the state of a church in advanced stages of collapse require someone to be a "Francis basher", a "rumor monger", or a "conspiracy theorist"?

Nobody doubts that there are some such. That doesn't mean everyone is. But anybody who's just "hunky-dory" with the current state of affairs in the church or thinks there's no crisis in its administration, from the Vatican on down to the parish, is not only "all wet," but out to lunch.





Sheldon

said...

Apparently mainstream neoconservative Catholics like Phil Lawler and Robert Royal can now grouped (and targeted) together with "rad-trads". Strange days have found us indeed.





BenYachov

said...



@Anon. II

I don't believe by a long shot "things are just hunky dory". I simply don't believe it's the end of history or that anything new (in terms of badness) is in fact happening. I also don't believe I am helpless.

Since you are talking pot shots at me personally let me return in kind.

You it seems have a Protestant's either/or mentality.

Either Francis is a big mega-disaster and the Church is going to Hell in a hand basket or things are just peachy keen and those are the only two choices.

I choose neither. I choose to be a realist. Francis like his predecessors will be great in some respects and lousy in others. Just like St John Paul II or Benedict Pius XII, St Pius X etc.....

Things aren't that bad but then again they HAVE NEVER been really great. With the Church in this world we have no Lasting City till the world to come.

The Church has been in distress since I started to care about it at age 20 (I am now 46). My elderly Italian aunts used to tell me stories how the Priest in their village openly kept a mistress. How did that happen during the golden age of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism?

>Apparently mainstream neoconservative Catholics like Phil Lawler and Robert Royal can now grouped (and targeted) together with "rad-trads". Strange days have found us indeed.

Not as strange as a "Radtrad" like Michael Voris who has the correct idea of how too treat the Pope that puts him light years ahead of any Francis bashing so called Neo-Catholic.

Care on.





Athelstane

said...

Hello Ben,

"...then why is Burke one of the moderators at this Synod?"

Because Cardinal Burke was elected by his fellow bishops of one of the three English-speaking circles (the Anglicus A) as moderatore (chairman) of the group to help in the writing of the group reports that make the final report.

He wasn't appointed by the Pope.

The Pope, instead, spontaneously chose six additional prelates (including Cardinal Wuerl) to add to the committee.

There's no necessary inconsistency between the proposition that Cardinal Burke is out of favor with the inner circles of the Holy See but is still popular enough with many fellow bishops to win election to the Synod committee.





Athelstane

said...

One more thing, Ben:

"If Francis speaks off the cuff without a filter or control then he causes scandal and confusion. If OTOH they keep a tight lid on the information then Francis is Obama."

Presumably who such Catholics want to hear from are the Synodal bishops, not the Pope per se, who is scheduled to say little at the Synod anyway.

In any event, there's no necessity for a ubiquitously loquacious pope, and there is indeed very little historical precedent for it until recent decades. I believe it was Fortescue who once argued that the pope should hide in the Vatican, and disappear unless he wishes to make a formal definition. The less one speaks, the less likely it is that an imprudent remark will be avoided - but also, what words are spoken will have greater effect.





JFM

said...

Ben,

You have got to be kidding me. Really. Francis causes scandal because he speaks, period, off the cuff or officially. That is pretty apparent. A strange world when laypeople do sound more Catholic than the Pope.

The issue here is His Holiness effuses about openness and then retreats into bureaucratic secrecy on official maters. A contradiction very similar to the one people observe in President Obama. It is not about being a Francis basher, but about bashing problematic behavior. It could be St. Peter for all I care. The man may be great, but his execution of his office is not something promised to be error-free.

The Church still has not learned its lesson. If any institution anywhere should have open and free conversation it is us. When something as basic as "The Family" requires such guarding in conversation and reems of talk of gradually etc, something is off. Similar situation to conversations about the welfare of our children. Only in the Catholic Church could matters that can be solved with basic common sense be inflated into "crisis" etc. And only in the Catholic church could wanting a Pope to sound like a Pope be construed as being impossible to please.

But hey, if someone is *sincere* and trying to follow the Lord, who can judge? All bets are off. Sincerity is what counts, and sincerely, I do believe both you and I are sincere in our comments. Which ma explain why we both are totally exasperated. I guess I should return to trying to generate enthusiasm for passing the peace!






Anon. II

said...

Ben says:

"I simply don't believe it's the end of history or that anything new (in terms of badness) is in fact happening."

Neither do I or, from what I can tell, most of us here. Things like this have happened before. The Arian controversy comes to mind, in which two-thirds of the bishops slid into heresy. So we can agree that nothing particularly new is happening. Just nothing especially admirable or good.

"You it seems have a Protestant's either/or mentality."

Why is that a Protestant mentality?

"Either Francis is a big mega-disaster and the Church is going to Hell in a hand basket or things are just peachy keen and those are the only two choices."

I agree those aren't the only two alternatives, but how would you describe the Arian schism? Anything short of a mega-disaster? How would you describe our current situation (I'm just curious): better or worse than the Arian debacle?

"I choose neither. I choose to be a realist."

Oh, whoom-te-do! Al Gore claims to be a realist. Everyone is a realist in their own eyes: the guy diving faster than me is a maniac, and the guy driving slower than me is a moron. So where does that get us?

"Francis like his predecessors will be great in some respects and lousy in others. Just like St John Paul II or Benedict Pius XII, St Pius X etc....."

Do you think I or anyone else here disagrees?

"Things aren't that bad but then again they HAVE NEVER been really great. With the Church in this world we have no Lasting City till the world to come."

Granted, we have had better as well as worse periods in the church's history. I don't know who wouldn't concede that. But you would honestly say of the church in our own time that "things aren't that bad"??? Seriously? Better or worse than under Pius XI? Leo XIII? Just trying to get a fix on your outlook.

"The Church has been in distress since I started to care about it at age 20 (I am now 46). My elderly Italian aunts used to tell me stories how the Priest in their village openly kept a mistress. How did that happen during the golden age of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism?"

Again, so do you think things are now improved?

"... a "Radtrad" like Michael Voris who has the correct idea of how too treat the Pope that puts him light years ahead of any Francis bashing so called Neo-Catholic."

This was in response to someone else's comment, but raises all sorts of questions in my mind. Would you please define the word "Radtrad" as you understand it?

In keeping with the speeding "maniac" and puttering "moron," it looks to me like everyone a little less sanguine about the pope than you is a foam-at-the-mouth reactionary "Radtrad" (whatever that is), and everyone giddy with enthusiasim about the prospect of the Pope of Mercy changing doctrine is a flaming "Liberal."





BenYachov

said...

Three at once let us do this……..

@Athelstane

>Because Cardinal Burke was elected by his fellow bishops …...He wasn't appointed by the Pope.

According to the conspiracy theory crowd he was to be made patron of the Knights of Malta so he couldn’t participate in the Synod(since he would loose his automatic invite & Francis in cahoots with Kasper wants to stack the Synod in favor of the liberal position). Yet there he is…additionally other reports I’ve read said the Pope isn’t even aware of the Book Burke contributed too that also contains a contribution by one of Francis' gang of eight Cardinal Pell.

All this panic and the alleged reshuffling of Burke hasn’t even happened yet? What if it doesn’t I wonder?

>Presumably who such Catholics want to hear from are the Synodal bishops, not the Pope per se, who is scheduled to say little at the Synod anyway.
The Synod is meaningless unless it is finally & formally endorsed by the Pope. I don’t think of or remember the words of the committee that recommend

Paul VI allow some form of contraception that defeats the final causality of the sex act. I just remember Humane Vite. Anyway we are not entitled to hear anything other then what they tell us which will be orthodox anyway.

>In any event, there's no necessity for a ubiquitously loquacious pope, and there is indeed very little historical precedent for it until recent decades. I believe it was Fortescue who once argued that the pope should hide in the Vatican, and disappear unless he wishes to make a formal definition. The less one speaks, the less likely it is that an imprudent remark will be avoided - but also, what words are spoken will have greater effect.

That is a valid opinion but I doubt it is realistic in the modern hyper-communication age. Also it tells me that in all likelihood even St Pius X himself made major gaffs it’s just there wasn’t a cell phone or a microphone there to record it or a refuse & resist Catholic News group to plaster it all over the internet in their lust for detraction and what Voris called “spiritual pornography”.





BenYachov

said...

@JFM

>The issue here is His Holiness effuses about openness and then retreats into bureaucratic secrecy on official maters. A contradiction very similar to the one people observe in President Obama.

Under the Constitution Obama owes us voters an explanation. The Pope is not my President and he owes me nothing the President owes me. He is my

spiritual Father and the Vicar of Christ. At best he owes me orthodox teaching which will come anyway via the promises of Christ.

>It is not about being a Francis basher, but about bashing problematic behavior. It could be St. Peter for all I care. The man may be great, but his execution of his office is not something promised to be error-free.

The Pope answers to no one & is judged by no one save God alone. It is not our place to bash him. I’ve seen the Voris video on the matter & I agree with him 100%. If the Pope was as articulate as you want him to be the Media would still lie about it like their master the Devil.

>The Church still has not learned its lesson. If any institution anywhere should have open and free conversation it is us.

It doesn’t really matter on way or another. In the end we get orthodox teaching.

>When something as basic as "The Family" requires such guarding in conversation and reems of talk of gradually etc, something is off. in the Catholic Church could matters that can be solved with basic common sense be inflated into "crisis" etc. And only in the Catholic church could wanting a Pope to sound like a Pope be construed as being impossible to please.

So we are a “Family” now not a political organization? Make up your mind. Is the Pope our Holy Father or the President in a white outfit?

Hey you no doubt think Burke is way more articulate than Francis & less gaff prone & yet no matter how “clear" he is the media lies about him or fails to tell the whole truth.

For example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/raymond-burke-gay-relationships_n_5967198.html

I read the actual argument Burke makes over at lifesitenews it’s subtle and not black and white.

>Sincerity is what counts, and sincerely, I do believe both you and I are sincere in our comments. Which ma explain why we both are totally exasperated. I guess I should return to trying to generate enthusiasm for passing the peace!

Rather nothing changes. I remember the Pope bashing from the JP2 era & nothing new or helpful is ever done by the refuse & resist crowd but needless complaining and shooting of those who should be their allies.





BenYachov

said...

@AnonII

>So we can agree that nothing particularly new is happening. Just nothing especially admirable or good.

The later is where you are wrong. There is a lot good as there has always been. St. JP2 didn’t do much to stop the sex abuse problem but Benedict did a lot & Francis has one upped him by actually arresting an abusive Bishop. Francis warns more about the danger of the Devil then I remember from either of his predecessors. There is a lot of stuff if you take the time to look.

>Do you think I or anyone else here disagrees?

You apparently since you don’t think there is anything admirable or good.

>Again, so do you think things are now improved?

I am sure there are still priests with mistresses or God forbid boyfriends. If a proverbial future Pius XIII took the Papal throne and abolished the Paul VI mass & lived out the SSPX dream papacy we would still have them.

>This was in response to someone else's comment, but raises all sorts of questions in my mind. Would you please define the word "Radtrad" as you understand it?

Sandra Miesel invented the term to describe reactionary, fringe lunatic and dissident Traditionalist types. Kevin Terney a young spit fire traditionalist sort of brokered a peace treaty calling for the abolition of the terms “Radtrad” and NeoCath.

>In keeping with the speeding "maniac" and puttering "moron," it looks to me like everyone a little less sanguine about the pope than you is a foam-at-the-mouth reactionary "Radtrad" (whatever that is), and everyone giddy with enthusiasim about the prospect of the Pope of Mercy changing doctrine is a flaming "Liberal.”

Wow your Grammar is as bad as mine. Awesome. It is nice to know I am not alone.

No what I am sick of is my memory of the deep hatred I saw flung at JP2 back in the day by Catholic Reactionaries. Here it all come again.

There is nothing new under the sun.





Mighty Joe Young

said...

AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV

22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.





Mighty Joe Young

said...

The professional( several are very well paid) Catholic Laity, who presume to be the gate keepers of who may or may not be considered an authentic Catholic like to label traditionalists (Rhyming names a la Jessie Jackson) even though such an action is contrary to tradition and the expressed proscribing of same by Pope Benedict XV.

I am NOT like THOSE people

Sadly, for them, their rhetorical offices have collapsed and their scorn has been rendered ineffective by the continued revolution in Church praxis; but, happily, for men of a certain orientation their collapse has not only been predicted by M.J. but its arrival is a collapse to be applauded.

Their pretensions of right living/right thinking have always been psychologically skin-deep and theologically shallow and as their world collapses, one must expect even shriller rhetoric and invective issuing from as their self-worth is not mightily uninvolved with being able to identify themselves as NOT THEM

All of their everything-is-good Chickens they have sicced on those who knew better are all now coming home to roost and it couldn't have happened to a nastier set of persons.

They do have time to reorient their lives but having spent so much time trashing Tradition, they have huge psychological barriers to scale before they return and humility is not the mark of those who have defended an obvious revolution within the form of Catholicism.

It has been a source of wry amusement to watch the Yosemite Sam of Patheos, Mr. Shea, lead that posse into so many box canyons braying and barking while trying to bully those who disagreed with his personal opinions.

Well, ya got the leader you deserve (and M.J. does not just mean Shea.)





Pertinacious Papist

said...

MJY, thanks for the Benedict XV quotes. Great stuff.





Sheldon

said...

Ben's criticisms of "pope bashing" have got me wondering when, if ever, it's right for the faithful to criticize popes. To listen to most Neocaths, one would think the answer is never. This, certainly, seems to be the contemporary Neocath concensus, which amounts to a sort of neo-ultramontanist papolatry.

Just a little research into Church history, however, turns up a much different picture. Popes have been roundly criticized and even tossed out of office. Some popes, like Benedict XI were vile rapists, adulterers, and murders. St. Louis IX harshly criticized his pope. St. Bernard and St. John of Salisbury were openly critical of popes in their day. And we all know about St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Bridget of Sweden.

A case can easily be made that the faithful sometimes have the duty to resist popes, who, after all, are merely human. Their charism of infallibility safeguards them in a very narrowly-defined sphere of formal doctrinal definition, but not, as Neocaths generally seem to assume, in all things.

Neocaths will concede that the pope is not impeccable, but insist he's infallible, which is right as far as it goes. But this doesn't mean that popes are immune from bad judgments even on matters touching upon doctrine.

Numerous popes and saints attest to this. Popes can (and have) even entertained heretical beliefs on faith and morals in some of their statements. Witness the list of quotations on this website, for example: http://www.romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.html

Rants against "pope bashing" often amount to little more than pretexts for sticking one's head in the sand. Granted, one ought to speak respectfully when addressing the pope. He occupies the office of our universal pastor, our spiritual father. But when he expresses stupid or heretical-sounding ideas, we owe him the filial courtesy of pointing this out. Not to do so would be like hesitating to point out to your dad that he's walking down the street with his fly open.





BenYachov

said...


MJY writes:
The professional( several are very well paid) Catholic Laity, who presume to be the gate keepers of who may or may not be considered an authentic Catholic like to label traditionalists.


Sheldon writes:

Ben's criticisms of "pope bashing" have got me wondering when, if ever, it's right for the faithful to criticize popes. To listen to most Neocaths, one would think the answer is never.

Benedict XV of happy memory.
"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another."

Am I the only person here who sees the disconnect?









BenYachov

said...

Sheldon

Without rancor I would like to respond.

>Just a little research into Church history, however, turns up a much different picture. Popes have been roundly criticized and even tossed out of office. Some popes, like Benedict XI were vile rapists, adulterers, and murders. St. Louis IX harshly criticized his pope. St. Bernard and St. John of Salisbury were openly critical of popes in their day. And we all know about St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Bridget of Sweden.

Yes but how are any of the Popes of this century from Leo XIII to Francis comparable to rapists, adulterers and murderers? I can assure you I would loudly condemn Pope Francis if he forced himself on a person sexually. Sorry but I don’t see how the Scalfari interviews even come close to that or even Pope St John Paul II kissing a Koran.

Also reporting and blogging every mistake or lack of clarity in speaking the Pope makes boarders on detraction. It does no good. The Pope never sees it and never hears it and is not rebuked or corrected by it. But Catholics have their faith undermined.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyH2hMdg73w

http://throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-michael-voris-could-be-right.html


>Rants against "pope bashing" often amount to little more than pretexts for sticking one's head in the sand. Granted, one ought to speak respectfully when addressing the pope. He occupies the office of our universal pastor, our spiritual father. But when he expresses stupid or heretical-sounding ideas, we owe him the filial courtesy of pointing this out. Not to do so would be like hesitating to point out to your dad that he's walking down the street with his fly open.

There is a moral difference between me saying in a very low voice “Hay Dad. XYZPDQ.” Verses saying “OLD MAN WILL YOU PULL UP YOUR FLY!
GOD! WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HUMILIATE ME!”.

When I see so called “Conservative” or “Traditionalist” Catholic bloggers openly mock the Pope or attribute bad motives. It’s John Paul II reign all over again. Except more vicious.





BenYachov

said...

Oh so this is what Mighty Joe Young is talking about bringing up Mark Shea.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/10/mercy-for-heterosexuals-everybody-is-fine.html

That is better then Steve Kellermeyer’s response.





Anonymous

said...

If you are going to defend Mark Shea you are on your own in the conversation. His caricatures of Trads are every bit as over the top as Trad complaints, and also impute bad motive. The fact his immaturity gets endorsement from places like the NCR says a lot about the wisdom of the dominant Catholic media mentality.





Sheldon

said...

Okay, Ben, let's clarify. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "criticism" but "resist," since there's a difference in connotation.

To "criticize" the pope sounds to some people like "calling names" or some other disrespectful form of attribution. Evidently that's how it sounded to you from the examples you produced.

So how about we agree with Michael Voris that we should never "criticize" the pope in that sense.

What about the respectful "resistance" being offered to the way Pope Francis allowed things to unravel after the first week of the synod, however? How about the way Cardinal Burke has called on the pope to step in and offer some clarity in the otherwise disastrous situation? There is surely at least a tacit disapproval here of the way the Holy Father is handling (or failing to handle!) things.

The reason I ask how you would respond to this alternative (of "resisting" the pope's inaction, for example, or his appointment of certain bishops who actually favor heretical revisionism of the church's moral teaching on sexuality), is because your opposition to "traditionalists" and even some "conservatives" who have expressed their dissatisfaction with things in Rome suggests an attitude of tepid indifference to the process. "Oh, it will all turn out right in the end," you seem to say. And (please note this) most of us may agree, but might demur by insisting that if they do turn out all right, it may in fact depend in some measure on how the faithful respond to the exigencies of the current situation.





BenYachov

said...

Me defend Mark Shea per say?

Yeh I decline. He is the clock who stopped and is right at least twice a day & he is useless on politics.