I think a certain amount of ambiguity is okay for people like Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was very orthodox in most areas but somewhat of a mystic, with the usual mystic's lack of precision, and Fr. Neuhaus, who is a journalist and political/religious philosopher. But it's not okay for the Pope, and the Pope's occasional ambiguity on doctrinal matters and failure to enforce orthodoxy unless challenged in the most extreme terms is what is truly dangerous.
But I thought it was very well explained by Romano Amerio, who is quoted in the article as writing:
Now, the peculiar feature of the pontificate of Paul VI was the tendency to shift the papacy from governing to admonishing, or in scholastic terminology, to restrict the field of preceptive law, which imposes an obligation, and to enlarge the field of directive law, which formulates a rule without imposing any obligation to observe it.
This is an excellent analysis of what happened. Oddly enough, it happened to some extent in secular society, too, where laws continued to exist but penalties for violating them disappeared or were vitiated. We all probably remember the days in the 1970s when people got sentences of 7 years with "time off for good behavior" for first-degree murder.
But I think that as goes Rome, so goes the world. I have always felt that the breakdown in authority and law in the secular sphere, along with the rejection of traditional patterns of behavior, would never have happened had it not happened first in the Church. What happened in the Church gave permission for the same thing to happen in the secular world, and took away the only secure defense against it.
The author is a liar.
He quotes Canon 212 at the beginning of his article (in "part 1"),
"...They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals." (Canon Law 212)But the actual text says,
They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. (It is §3 of Canon 212!)The Canon 212 begins,
Can. 212 §1 Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.Someone who dares to criticize the magisterial teachings of the Holy Father, should at least pretend himself to show some integrity. ;)
I have the feeling that his other "quotes" in thext are conveniently doctored in the same way, to attack the Church's Magisterial Authority gently. Would someone who has the time check them out?