[piusv]

Benedict is suggesting that Vatican II went too far.

Is he? I'm not convincned that is what he is actually saying. It sounds to me that he is talking about things "after the Council". I don't see where he actually blames the Council.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Let's say that there are two diametrically opposed views on the statement "no salvation outside the Church", i.e. you have to be baptized Catholic in order to be saved vs. the existence of the Church and the love, grace, and truth that flow from it allow for many non-Catholics to achieve salvation without a Catholic baptism.

Let's say that there are somewhere on the order of a million sentences that can be uttered that appear to state some position between those two extremes.

Let's say that what Benedict said was one of these million statements.

Now we're arguing about whether Benedict's statement and/or the decrees of Vatican II were closer to one extreme or the other.

That's not my point. My point, a point which everyone in this thread seems to be aggressively avoiding, is asking the simple question: What do we as political conservatives do going forward? Do we focus on evangelization at the expense of distancing ourselves from potential political allies, or do we behave more conciliatory in order to win the important political battles now, and put off any theological discussions for later.