I haven’t read the whole article yet, but I know from long experience reading CFN that it is a Feeneyite paper.
Ok, just an observation here. Three thousand plus words here, and reads like securities trial motion hearing brief. Why do so many catholic things read this way? Every position of controversy seems to be accompanied by long dense tomes of research.
Is this a recent phenomenon? Where has the simplicity gone?
Is the writer of this verbal hissy fit, Brian McCall, JD, a lawyer, a member of the pro-sodomy persuasion?
It seems odd for any real religious scholar to claim, even just by implication, that The Roman Catholic Universal Church is a democracy, subject to modification by random and arbitrary consensus and popular vote.
For me, the validity of a religious challenge is not proportional to the number of words used in the "argument."
If there is no clear understanding of right and wrong, and its susceptibility for arbitrary change, it can't be much of a religion.
” He then traces the origin of the single greatest attack on the family, divorce, to ideas originating in the Reformation.”
Yeah,,, God likes it better when you call divorce “annulment”. At least kids of divorce can know that they were born in wedlock, though it later ended in divorce. Kids of annulment are basically told they are little bastards, because their parents marriage was NEVER legitimate to begin with.
Classy.
“Brian McCall, JD”
Juris Doctor,,,, answered my question. Lawyers really do screw up everything they touch. Id like a catholic sunday school teacher to explain this. I might not agree,, but at least I could follow his argument.
I have some sympathies to FMC, but there is definitely some hyperventilating. Anyone who believes in the sacramental validity of the Post-Vatican mass couldn’t possibly call being required to use the Post-Vatican mass an “interdict.”
Also, there is another option besides censorship here. Dr King could simply correct Dr. Dudley, or the false impression of those who the author believes have misinterpreted Dr Dudley. Simply asserting the validity of the post-Vatican mass and Vatican II would have “distanced” himself from the allegedly false understanding that Dr Taylor has.
As for Dr Taylor, I was highly suspicious when I first read Dr Taylor’s letter. He describes how everyone quit because Dr Dudley spent the endowment fund and proceeds from the sale of the college property on real estate, as if that’s somehow inherently shady. But that’s exactly what I would expect him to spend those funds ON: a new campus! Describing a new campus as a “real estate scheme” is shady, itself.
I think Dr Taylor has perhaps decided it’s best for his career options at mainstream, traditionally leftist colleges to distance himself from Dr Dudley and Dr King.
Canon law = "small-minded rules".
"Refusing to censor" sounds like a cry that would come out of a place like DePaul, Marymount, Georgetown, or Trinity, not out of a faithful, traditional educational institution.