Posted on 10/19/2014 8:59:01 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Professor Odon Vallet is an expert in the history of religions and civilizations and, since he is deemed a strong and radical "Progressive", he is a favorite in the French media to speak as a secular-friendly voice on Catholic issues.
He was interviewed by popular daily "20 Minutes" on the results of the 2014 assembly of the Synod of Bishops:
In what sense did the provisional text [the Forte relatio] signal an important step?
The provisional text included two overtures. One regarding the remarried divorcees. The other regarding homosexuals. It was not a revolution, but an evolution. It was not proposed to admit the remarried divorcees to the sacrament, but simply to predict, either by marriage annulment, or by a penance procedure, the readmission to the sacrament. For homosexuals, there was no question of recognized marriage, but to underline the "gifts and qualities" that they could offer to the Church. They were welcomed, without however officially recognizing their [civil] union.
An evolution that did not pass through at the time of voting...
In the final text, no allusion is made anymore to these two controversial issues. It is a resounding defeat for pope Francis, a snub. Worse still, an American Cardinal [editor note: Raymond Leo Burke, of the conservative opposition] even declared that the Pope had done "great harm by not saying openly what his position was." In reality, Francis remained silent to grant all freedom to the participants. It is the first time in 50 years, at least, that a cardinal opposes the Pope openly. It is the first time as well, in several centuries, that bishops and cardinals don't have confidence in him.
How to explain it?
The almost totality of these prelates were named by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Their opinions are more conservative than that of the pope. Some even pose the question of legitimacy. They have not accepted the resignation of Benedict XVI.[***] Since pope Francis said that he too would resign and that his pontificate would be brief, some are beginning to play for time and wait for the election of his successor.
However, it is indeed pope Francis who will have the final say?
After the second synod, in 2015, the Pope [would] normally take the decisions under the format of an apostolic exhortation. But it is almost impossible that the Pope will go against bishops and Cardinals. That would risk provoking a schism in the Church. Traditionalist Catholics have won a huge victory. France played an important part in this.
Isn't it a symbolic victory for homosexuals?
This attempt to change touched the spirits in parishes, in dioceses.[*] Many clerics who prepare for marriage were glad to see that the Synod seemed to take realities into consideration. But the final retreat left them distraught. In many countries, such as France and Germany, the Catholic Church is deeply divided. The great success of protests [Rorate note: La Manif pour tous] against marriage for all [Rorate note: mariage pour tous, a French Socialist euphemism for same sex civil "marriage"] foretold this failure of Pope Francis. Let us not forget that the center of gravity of the episcopal body is clearly conservative. The Pope has lost for the moment any room for maneuver despite his immense popularity [**]. Since he is cunning, he will take the time to reflect and try to take control in another way.
________________________
It is a correct analysis of the moment. We would just add a few notes. First, [*] that the provisional report inflamed spirits everywhere and in very different ways, not merely, as Vallet implies, of hope and expectation among pseudo-Catholics who do not believe in anything. From what we received from readers in more mainstream parishes, and from every single African reader, the provisional report set a fire of indignation in many spirits in parishes and dioceses as well. If anything, the laity in African nations (and certainly in every single Asian nation) is even more conservative in moral matters than their bishops. Second, that [**] the pope's undeniably immense "popularity" in secular contexts is much less noticeable at the parish level, where the "Francis effect" is negligible, if existent -- and the more dedicated and thoroughly catechized a particular group is, the less popular the pope is. Therefore, the risk, if not of an outright schism, of a strong and enduring division between pope and priests and laity is immense. Francis has lots of support to change Catholic doctrine... but mostly among people who rarely go to Church, if they are Catholics at all. Third, [***] the resignation of the former pope is a non-issue, except in the mind of the new liberal Ultramontanists.
An additional point concerns Cardinal Burke, this exemplary servant of the Church. He has been nothing if not humble, accepting all humiliations patiently. The way he has been treated by Francis is embarrassing for the pope, not for him. Consider how different John Paul II and Benedict XVI were with outright dissenters, such as the anti-African German cardinal Walter Kasper, and many others of a similar vein, who were never humiliated and threatened of demotion and exile, despite their position -- quite the opposite. This was not because these popes were "soft", but because they fought for the unity of the Church.
Francis, on the other hand, played with fire and brought the Church to the brink of the precipice, her most serious division in five centuries, in order to implement what even his nominee Cardinal Pell called "the secular agenda"; not even in a Synod whose members were chosen by him and steered by Cardinal Baldisseri under his command was he able to achieve even 2/3 of the votes on the issues close to his heart, even after they had been considerably watered down. Compare and contrast this to both Vatican I and Vatican II where not even the most controversial issues reached this level of disagreement from the clear will of the Pope -- and even when there was a much smaller proportion of "non placet" votes (even fewer than 10%), the texts were changed to achieve agreements as close to unanimity as possible. And instead of gracefully accepting the blocking of the rejected paragraphs, he proceeded to include the rejected passages in the text, which makes the whole synodal process lose meaning... Despite all this, as Vallet says, he is "cunning" enough to move forward in his attempt, regardless of the serious and extremely high risks to the unity of the Church involved in it. May Our Lord and Our Lady protect the Church.
Yeah,
But them fags got money.
Can’t believe the Catholic church would turn their collective backs on money?
Catholics that live the faith do not vote for baby killing politicians. Catholics-in-name-only do. The exact same thing happens in protestant faiths.
Can’t the pope just say screw all of you and do what he wants? He’s like a king, right?
“social gospel”
“collective salvation”
Very non-Christian beliefs that many hold to.
They can call it a victory but is it really?
The fact that they even had to consider gay marriage is a sign of doom for any Church.
The Socialist Party of America was brought about by a merger between the democratic-socialist political party and the Socialist Labor Party who won over 900,000 votes in 1912 and kept getting more popular until the 1940s.
Now people will say that America has won a victory over socialism because the socialist party flopped, when the truth is that since the Roosevelt Presidential years the democrat party has given the socialists what they wanted and more.
The same with the Church
The Catholic Church is the biggest Church in the world, the fact that this matter of same sex marriage was even considered tells the people they have to go no where else.
They can have what they want by just staying where they are, why have a small mountain or rock to hide them from the face of God if they can have a big one?
“The Catholic Church is the biggest Church in the world, the fact that this matter of same sex marriage was even considered tells the people they have to go no where else”
Can you show me in any of the reports that came out where same-sex “marriage” was considered? You’re wrong. Even the most liberal/progressive bishops know what Catholic Doctrine says and would never discuss same-sex “marriage” in any way, shape or form. Show me where the word “marriage” was used to describe homosexual relationships.
Catholics that live the faith do not vote for baby killing politicians. Catholics-in-name-only do.Sorry to inform you but your Pope appears to be what you describe as " Catholic-in-name-only".
Can you show me in any of the reports that came out where same-sex “marriage” was considered?
After it passes go a little farther next time.
They are already having Church weddings for homosexuals.
While these weddings may not be held in the Catholic church they are being held in the Churches which are the daughters of the Catholic church.
The Catholics Claim to be the successor’s of St peter which gives them the right to interpret scripture as they see it.
That being the case their daughters can do the same thing and are doing it, they are following the leadership of their mother.
There are many people in both Government and Church who want to destroy the principles which are based on Gods word.
It would be pretty hard for them to do that by going to the Bible, but they do not have to try to disprove the bible.
Since the Church is widely excepted as God`s earthly authority all they have to do is get their people excepted as members in the Church or dilute the minds of those already in there and then all it takes is a vote, maybe next time.
The early Church weeded out the undesirables from their membership, read acts 5, and it was about more than just money.
But the Churches today takes any one into their number, (membership ) read 1 Timothy 5: 9 through 16 and consider that widows are not the only thing that is important in this matter.
If the early Church had of considered membership as they do today the Church would have been involved in so many pagan rituals that it could not have with stood the storm.
Jesus just wanted a few good men as members to preach the gospel, the rest of us is to receive the gospel and do our best to live by it.
“While these weddings may not be held in the Catholic church they are being held in the Churches which are the daughters of the Catholic church”
There is only one Catholic Church, she has no daughters or brothers. Some protestant faiths allow homosexual “unions” and have openly homosexual “pastors” preaching the gospel. It will never happen in the Catholic Church. Doctrine does not change. Faiths that allow this abomination are not Catholic and have no magisterium, which is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church.
Doctrine does change for the times. It is the Word of God.
Meant to say “Doctrine does not change for the times”. The Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, are what doctrine are based on.
It will never happen in the 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.