Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: sinkspur
Typical response from the National Catholic Reporter. You'll notice that they don't deny what Balistrieri asserts: the response was not formal, but the contents - and no one has said the contents are in error - are Magisterium.

They muddy the issue by asserting that there is a wide disparity of opinion in the Vatican about what to do on this issue. There may well be a wide disparity of opinion. But that doesn't alter the fact that the response is materially a summation of the Magisterium.

You see, stating that people hold differing opinions is not a statement that the facts are affected by that. I may be of the opinion that the car which just passed was red - you might think it was blue. But neither of our opinions change the color of the car. The car's color is what it is. Saying that some in the Vatican hold one opinion, others another, means absolutely nothing. The teaching is what it is. That's the point DiNoia and company are currently forced to dance around.

Either Fr. Cole's summary is accurate or it isn't. If it isn't, then someone should say so. But no one has.

12 posted on 10/23/2004 6:28:14 PM PDT by skellmeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: skellmeyer
Either Fr. Cole's summary is accurate or it isn't. If it isn't, then someone should say so. But no one has.

On the contrary, DiNoia has said that there is no heresy. If you want the Vatican's position, that is it.

15 posted on 10/23/2004 6:31:11 PM PDT by sinkspur ("If you're always talking, I can't get in a word edge-wise." God Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson