Posted on 10/27/2015 12:33:33 PM PDT by LovedSinner
No, look, what actually happened is that conservatives won what was probably the closest thing to victory that they could have hoped for, given that 1) the pope was against them, and 2) the pope stacked the governing and writing committees and the voting ranks, and did I mention that 3) the pope was against them.
...
So the journalists covering the synod document as a setback for the innovators (and, because he elevated them, the pontiff) are mostly correct, given their ambitions going in. But so, in a certain way, are the journalists covering it as a kind of cracked-door to innovation, because the conservatives didn’t have the votes or the power to keep every ambiguity at bay. The most straightforward reading of the synod text supports the first interpretation, for the reasons that (among others) George Weigel and Robert Royal lay out: There is no abrogation of the ancient ban on communion for the remarried, and plenty of phrasings that indicate that ban is still in force.
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The liberals will keep pushing.
“Saint Athanasius would say LOL”
St Athanasius for Patron Saint of Cell Phones, then.
Yes they will, but we must remember not to despair.
They need to get a conservative Pope soon or this will turn ugly
Basically, what the orthodox (not “conservatives,” but people who hold to orthodox Catholic doctrine) got was the avoidance of a flat-out statement overturning teachings...which Francis had said all along would not happen, simply because he knows he can’t do it. So that wasn’t much of a win.
On the other hand, the left essentially is now going to be able to define its own terms - simply through practice. The document made everything dependent on “culture” (that is, condoning the particular sin that particular country is devoted to, be it homosexuality or polygamy or simply fornication) and the “internal forum,” another way of saying that Church law has been rendered meaningless and the only thing that matters is what your local parish priest thinks of your behavior.
Goodbye to the Church, which was once everywhere and at all times and for all people the same. That’s what law is...impartial and based on an ideal...and essentially the synod dumped this for a biased reading by a biased individual who is earning his living by keeping in the good graces of his “clients,” formerly known as parishioners.
Many people were worried that the bishops’ conferences were going to be given doctrinal authority, but now it looks like it resides with Fr. Bob and probably, sooner or later, with Sister Snowflake when she gets off the bus.
They’re all elderly, but they still have enough venom left in them, now that they’ve been revived by the elderly Pope Francis living out his Vatican II fantasies, that they could probably deliver a mortal sting to many in the Church.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The document does not say that priests can allow Catholics to have their private conscience trump Church doctrine. That was the spin put on by those bishops (like Archbishop Cupich) whose idea it was in the first place.
None other than Cardinal Pell also agrees with me here. He even went further and said the document does not contain any ambiguities, only some incomplete parts.
Some people may interpret this however they wish, but the document does not say that communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is okay. It calls for discernment for integration for those outside the Church but does not clarify further.
How can you despair with saying “Goodbye to the Church?” The damage was minimized, and Francis will not be Pope forever. He is almost 80 and has hinted that he may resign when he hits that age. He is not going to live for fifty more years.
JMHo
Update: The liberals have now made a big stink over this very article. They actually wrote this letter:
To the editor of the New York Times
On Sunday, October 18, the Times published Ross Douthat’s piece “The Plot to Change Catholicism.” Aside from the fact that Mr. Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject, the problem with his article and other recent statements is his view of Catholicism as unapologetically subject to a politically partisan narrative that has very little to do with what Catholicism really is. Moreover, accusing other members of the Catholic church of heresy, sometimes subtly, sometimes openly, is serious business that can have serious consequences for those so accused. This is not what we expect of the New York Times.
October 26, 2015
John O’Malley, SJ (Georgetown University)
Massimo Faggioli (University of St. Thomas, Minnesota)
Nicholas P. Cafardi (Duquesne University)
Gerard Mannion (Georgetown University)
Stephen Schloesser, SJ (Loyola University Chicago)
Katarina Schutch OSF (University of St. Thomas, Minnesota)
Leslie Tentler (Catholic University of America, emerita)
John Slattery (University of Notre Dame)
Andrew Staron (Wheeling Jesuit University)
Megan McCabe (Boston College)
Thomas M. Bolin (St. Norbert College)
Kevin Brown (Boston College)
Alan C. Mitchell (Georgetown University)
Elizabeth Antus (John Carroll University)
Kathleen Grimes (Villanova University)
Fran Rossi Szpylczyn
Christopher Bellitto (Kean University)
Katharine Mahon (University of Notre Dame)
Tobias Winright (Saint Louis University)
Corey Harris (Alvernia University)
Kevin Ahern (Manhattan College)
John DeCostanza (Dominican University)
Daniel Cosacchi (Loyola University Chicago)
Amy Levad (University of St. Thomas, Minnesota)
Christine McCarthy (Fordham University)
Don’t you see? It will be interpreted the way anyone wishes to interpret it. That is the direct and sure result of ambiguity.
If the document wished to make it clear that the divorced and remarried could not receive communion under NO circumstances it would have been very easy to say just that. If the document wished to make it clear that the divorced and remarried were in mortal sin and must change their lives before receiving communion, it would have stated such a thing.
It did none of these things...this is not difficult to see when wants to see it. What it did do is take Vatican II further and promoted further modernist blather. More modernist blather from the so-called “Catholic” hierarchy.
Nobody wins here. Souls continue to be led astray.
This has on a smaller scale been happening for years. You need an annulment find the right diocese and you will get it. Pope John Paul tried to fight this and he lost, and now it is a part of this new Francis’ Catholic Church.
I say at best, because at worst Francis will proclaim against the traditional bishops and create a unified New Catholic Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.