A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[Jeanette_L]

It seems to me that an awful lot of people around these parts are taking on roles that don’t belong to them. To have the audacity to say that the pope should or shouldn’t have done this or that, should have excommunicated this one, not that one, should require public repentance of this one and not that one, this constant grumbling seems to set oneself up as pontiff.

How is it that this can happen? How is it that we can begin to think so highly of ourselves when we in fact have a very limited understanding of the big picture, limited knowledge of all the facts, limited grace given to deal with such weighty matters, and yet dare to think that we have been given so much more insight than those God himself has entrusted with these matters?

Why is it that we cannot focus on our own very real shortcomings and ask for the wisdom and grace to succeed in overcoming them, and not worry so much about what God is doing with this one over here or that one over there, things that we have no control over nor should we.

Where does all this pride come from?

Reminds me of Moses, when asking God’s help with the people in his care, how did he describe them? “Lord, these are a stiff necked people”. God help us also.

 

[JReducation]

It seems to me that an awful lot of people around these parts are taking on roles that don’t belong to them.

This is what has been referred to in the modern Church as the “clericalization of the laity.” The clericalization of the laity is when lay people assume postures, opinions and authority that pertain to deacons, priests, bishops or religious. This obviously includes the Pope.

To have the audacity to say that the pope should or shouldn’t have done this or that, should have excommunicated this one, not that one, should require public repentance of this one and not that one, this constant grumbling seems to set oneself up as pontiff.

No one can set oneself as judge over another’s soul. What happens between a person and his conscience is a matter for the individual, his spiritual director, confessor and God. Not the rest of humanity.

How is it that this can happen? How is it that we can begin to think so highly of ourselves when we in fact have a very limited understanding of the big picture, limited knowledge of all the facts, limited grace given to deal with such weighty matters, and yet dare to think that we have been given so much more insight than those God himself has entrusted with these matters?

VAtican II makes it very clear that it is the role of the laity to sanctify the secular sphere of society, their families and to contribute to the ministry of the Church under the guidance and jurisdiction of the bishops and their appointees. If we stuck to making our society, place of work, and homes holy places and holy communities, we would have enough work to do to last us a lifetime. I have only two kids and keeping my family holy takes a great deal of time, effort and prayer, not to mention what I must do to conribute to society and my job.

Why is it that we cannot focus on our own very real shortcomings and ask for the wisdom and grace to succeed in overcoming them, and not worry so much about what God is doing with this one over here or that one over there, things that we have no control over nor should we.

St. Benedict told his monks that they should focus on leading virtuous lives and leave sanctity up to God. St. Francis told his three orders to love all priests and venerate them, even if they were the most sinful of men and never speak ill of them. St. Teresa of Avila said that she preferred a intelligent priest over a saintly one, because saints can be a pain in the neck to deal with. All this sounds like good advice to me.

Where does all this pride come from?

This is what St. Francis de Sales calls spiritual pride.

Reminds me of Moses, when asking God’s help with the people in his care, how did he describe them? “Lord, these are a stiff necked people”. God help us also.

Let us not forget what St.Paul said, “If I have not loved . . . .” He is talking about love of one’s brothers and sisters.

JR

 

[Dies_Irae]

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying is that he was never asked to make a public statement or to recant in public.

Whatever transpired in Blair’s conversion was private between the Cardinal Archbishop of London and the Holy Father.

The Church does not always place people in positions where they have to make a public statement about their conscience, unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Obviously, in Blair’s case is was not deemed necessary. Just as Pope Benedict did not deem it necessary for Blair to be a Catholic to give him communion, even though the Cardinal in England had asked Blair not to receive communion. Pope Benedict gave him communion, after he was pope and said that it was a matter of charity. If I find the citation, I’ll provide it for you.

JR

What you posted suggested that perhaps he hasn’t accepted all of Catholic teaching of faith and morals just yet - please be more careful here unless you have some personal knowledge that this is the case.

Better to have former public sinners convert and accept all of church teaching without a public refutation of former errors, than to have them convert and not accept all of church teaching. The latter presents a far bigger problem than the former. After all, being catholic means we take the whole package - not pick and choose the truths we want to accept. If folks are now conveting without accepting all of what the church teaches, then we’ve got a major crisis on our hands somewhere, somehow.

Best thing is just common sense. To prevent scandal, a public refutation of former errors would be very much in order, since the former errors were so very public themselves. And if the person in question truly converted and truly embraced these truths, I struggle to see what the problem would be for this person to publicly say so - they are public figures after all.

God bless,

Dies Irae

 

[Dies_Irae]

This is what has been referred to in the modern Church as the “clericalization of the laity.” The clericalization of the laity is when lay people assume postures, opinions and authority that pertain to deacons, priests, bishops or religious. This obviously includes the Pope.

Hey now - we’re all giving our lay opinions here. You can’t start drumming up charges against fellow lay folk just because you disagree with them.

And if we can’t give our opinions, then I guess someone should tell the folks here to close down the forums.

I just wandered in here recently, and it gives me the feel of a big family get together, with all the banter and yelling and arguing going on at such things.

I’ve already got certain folks pegged…the know-it-all uncle, the hippy aunt, the hotheaded nephew, the “why can’t we all get along” cousin, the wise old granpa, etc. It’s kind of funny…just gotta wear a thick skin and remember we’re all family.

Dies Irae

 

[Dies_Irae]

…Just as Pope Benedict did not deem it necessary for Blair to be a Catholic to give him communion, even though the Cardinal in England had asked Blair not to receive communion. Pope Benedict gave him communion, after he was pope and said that it was a matter of charity. If I find the citation, I’ll provide it for you.

Please do - that would seem to go against what Pope Benedict wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger, and against my understanding of canon law - which lays out some pretty clear guidelines here if I recall correctly.

One interesting side note on this whole Communion thing. One of the first things to happen after the pope’s visit to the U.S. was the appointing of ArchBishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis to the Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts, which interprets canon law. -I think we all know where he stands on this matter, so it might give us some insight into the Holy Father’s thinking.

God Bless,

Dies Irae

 

[JReducation]

Hey now - we’re all giving our lay opinions here. You can’t start drumming up charges against fellow lay folk just because you disagree with them.

And if we can’t give our opinions, then I guess someone should tell the folks here to close down the forums.

I just wandered in here recently, and it gives me the feel of a big family get together, with all the banter and yelling and arguing going on at such things.

I’ve already got certain folks pegged…the know-it-all uncle, the hippy aunt, the hotheaded nephew, the “why can’t we all get along” cousin, the wise old granpa, etc. It’s kind of funny…just gotta wear a thick skin and remember we’re all family.

Dies Irae

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3720915#post3720915

Take a look at post number 2. That may help clarify what I’m trying to say.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Please do - that would seem to go against what Pope Benedict wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger, and against my understanding of canon law - which lays out some pretty clear guidelines here if I recall correctly.

One interesting side note on this whole Communion thing. One of the first things to happen after the pope’s visit to the U.S. was the appointing of ArchBishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis to the Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts, which interprets canon law. -I think we all know where he stands on this matter, so it might give us some insight into the Holy Father’s thinking.

God Bless,

Dies Irae

Canon law does allow for non catholics to receive communion with the permission of the Ordinary. An Ordinary can be a bishop or a major religious superior, which does not have to be a bishop. Religious Superiors are Ordinaries as long as they are male superiors.

As to correcting or communicating these are the parameters that Canon law sets.

**Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.**

Where many lay people fail are the areas that I have unerlined.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[Dies_Irae]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3720915#post3720915

Take a look at post number 2. That may help clarify what I’m trying to say.

JR

Hmmmm. Ok.

Well, that’s alot of text there my friend.

I’m not exactly sure what you are seeing as a problem. Take for example this paragraph -

“Now we want back the Tridentine mass with the priest on one side and the laity on the other, no females in the sanctuary, no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and altar rails to keep the laity and the priest separate. We don’t want the priest out in the congregation preaching or shaking hands”

To which I would say absolutely - traditional catholics would like to see these things return and for some very sound reasons. Reasonable reasons if I do say so myself .

I tend to think we’re going in this direction little by little under the guidance of Pope Benedict. That being said, I’ve never, and I know of no traditional person, who has ever walked up to a non-traditional priest at an OF mass and chastize him for such things since they are common and allowed pretty much everywhere now.

At coffee hour after mass, if I was comfortable enough with the priest, and if the topic came up while we were talking, I wouldn’t hestitate to share my opinion - but I certainly wouldn’t “rebuke” him for such things. Wouldn’t make sense to do such since they are presently allowed or at least commonplace (not sure if the priest is technically supposed to be out of the sanctuary while mass is going on in the OF though - but so many do it).

“However, we want to have the authority to correct deacons, priests and bishops.”

What do you mean? Could you elaborate with some specific examples from these forums? Remember, talking and sharing out thoughts on forums is not the same thing as walking up to a deacon, priest or bishop and “correcting him.”

Just like someone complaining about a presidential policy over dinner, if meeting him in person, would probably just say “Hello Mr. President, a pleasure and an honor to meet you.”

I mean it’s one thing to be voicing opinions and talking plainly about things here in forums - heck, I think it’s just great that there are so many folks concerned enough about the Church* to have an opinion* - apathy being what it is these days if you know what I mean. But that doesn’t mean folks are chasing down priests after mass and reading them the GIRM act.

Another personal example, I attend a noon OF mass through the week at a nearby shrine run by the Oblates - very different from my weekend EF with ICKSP priests. The priests and folks at the Shrine I think know I’m “traditional” from the trusty ol’ '62 missal I always take with me to mass (beautiful prayers in there for before and after). I get some odd looks occaisionaly and one priest in particular has asked me several times the same question - “Whatha got there?” with a knowing smile on his face. I smile back and invite him over for the Solemn High Mass if he ever gets a free Sunday. It’s kind of funny.

God bless,

Dies Irae

 

[Dies_Irae]

Canon law does allow for non catholics to receive communion with the permission of the Ordinary.

If I recall correctly, the things the Ordinary determines is if a grave necessity is present (such as danger of death) and if the person is properly disposed (not sure what that means, perhaps free from mortal sin for reception of Communion). The other specific criteria are laid out pretty straightforward and are objective, are either present or they are not present (such as the person having to ask for the Sacrament on their own, and having no access to thier own pastor or religious community). I’ll have to look up the exact wording - unless you have it handy.

As to correcting or communicating these are the parameters that Canon law sets.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

**§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, **especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Where many lay people fail are the areas that I have unerlined.

Again, some examples might be in order to clarify exactly what you are talking about. I’m a little confused still as to what exactly you are talking about. Much of what I see here on the forums is in accord with paragraph 3 up there…

"even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."

**God bless, **

Dies Irae

 

[brendankiwi]

I’m inclined to agree but I still have a preference of the 1962 missal. I’d attend the TLM but for the fact it is hard to avoid a few crazed seda vacanatists, sectarians, political extremists (right wing). So many of them preface their religion with traditional or Latin Mass…I’m satisfied merely by catholic.

 

[stmaria]

=Jeanette L;3720731]It seems to me that an awful lot of people around these parts are taking on roles that don’t belong to them. To have the audacity to say that the pope should or shouldn’t have done this or that, should have excommunicated this one, not that one, should require public repentance of this one and not that one, this constant grumbling seems to set oneself up as pontiff.

I absolutely believe that Father Charles Curran should have been excommunicated and that it was a mistake not to do so.
How many souls are in hell because of his teachings.? While he has been banned from teaching at Cathoic Universities he continues to teach, under the guise of a Catholic Theologian, at Southern Methodist University.

How is it that this can happen? How is it that we can begin to think so highly of ourselves when we in fact have a very limited understanding of the big picture, limited knowledge of all the facts, limited grace given to deal with such weighty matters, and yet dare to think that we have been given so much more insight than those God himself has entrusted with these matters?

When a theologian teaches against the Church don’t you think he should be excommunicated? Curran has led many Catholics to believe that sex outside of marriage , homosexual acts, abortion, divorce are all morally acceptable and that the Church has erred and that individuals have the right to ignore the Church’s teachings on morality.

Why is it that we cannot focus on our own very real shortcomings and ask for the wisdom and grace to succeed in overcoming them,** and not worry so much about what God is doing with this one over here or that one over there**, things that we have no control over nor should we.

We need to worry about what our children are being taught. Apparently you are not.
Charles Curran
hli.org/features_millstone_award_curran.html
"Shortly after Pope John Paul II was elected, the Holy Father launched a detailed investigation of Father Curran’s teaching, and found that he consistently ignored and denounced Church teachings on every aspect of sexuality, including marriage, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, masturbation, contraception, fornication, and homosexual acts.

Father Curran has done incalculable damage to souls and to the Faith. He is always a willing voice for the Catholic-baiting and Catholic-hating mainline media.
He speaks at nearly every Call to Action national conference, and in fact received the organization’s 2005 Leadership Award. He is also deeply involved in the homosexual dissenting organization New Ways Ministry, and received its first Bridge Building Award in 1992."

 

[stmaria]

JReducation;3720573]Our Holy Father likes him very much and respects him. Fr. Kung was our Holy Father’s first boss. He hired Joseph Ratzinger to teach his first year as a professor of theology. They go way back.

As to Fr.Curran, he is not excommunicated either. He is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and is on loan to teach theology at a Methodist University.

Kung teaches, among other things, that Papal infallibility is a man made dogma. Curran teaches that abortion, premartial sex, homosexual sex, birth control are morally acceptable. You have stated that you are a theologian. Are you satisfied that these heretical theologians were only given a slap on the wrist? Why isn’t excommunication in order when you consider how many Catholics believe what these men teach and not what the Church teaches.
By the way, exactly when did you get your theology degree. In the 80’s, 90’s or more recently? Thanks

 

[catharina]

We are called to love God and one another, to center our lives around praise and thanksgiving, of and to God, for all of His glory. We are not called to act as Secret Police with an assumption of the right to chastise the Vatican in regard to the presumed faults or sins of others.

 

[stmaria]

We are called to love God and one another, to center our lives around praise and thanksgiving, of and to God, for all of His glory. We are not called to act as Secret Police with an assumption of the right to chastise the Vatican in regard to the presumed faults or sins of others.

We are also called to fight for the glory of God. You cannot have a ‘business as usual’ attitude. The laity have the obligation to speak out against heretical theologians or groups.
For years the laity called for the excommunication of the group Call to Action. It was pressure from the laity that finally prevailed and they were excommunicated.
Sadly todays Church Militant is plagued with indifference.When you witness God being insulted through blasphemy, heresy or denial of the teachings of His Church you cannot remain silent.

 

[catharina]

We are also called to fight for the glory of God. You cannot have a ‘business as usual’ attitude. The laity have the obligation to speak out against heretical theologians or groups.
For years the laity called for the excommunication of the group Call to Action. It was pressure from the laity that finally prevailed and they were excommunicated.
Sadly todays Church Militant is plagued with indifference.When you witness God being insulted through blasphemy, heresy or denial of the teachings of His Church you cannot remain silent.

Oh, Maria. If only you were as accurate as you are agitated.

First you say Charles Curran was excommunicated. He was not.
Now you say Call to Action was excommunicated. It was not.

One group of Call to Action in Nebraska was. Here’s the story.

"FRI, DEC 8 (Immaculate Conception) – Vatican confirms excommunication for US dissident group – Dec. 7, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has confirmed an American bishop’s decision to excommunicate members of the dissident group Call to Action.

Call to Action is “causing damage to the Church of Christ,” wrote Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, in a letter to Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska.

**In March 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz had announced the excommunication of all Catholics in his diocese who were members of Call to Action or several other dissident groups which he described as “totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.” **

The Nebraska chapter of Call to Action appealed the bishop’s decision to the Vatican. In his November 24 letter to Bishop Bruskewitz, Cardinal Re reports that Vatican’s finding that the disciplinary action was “properly taken.”

The Vatican has determined that “the activities of ‘Call to Action’ in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic Faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint,” Cardinal Re writes. He concludes: “Thus to be a member of this Association or to support it, is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic Faith.”

**The excommunication that Bishop Bruskewitz announced covered not only to Call to Action, but also to members of Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X. ** The excommunication order applies only within the Lincoln, Nebraska diocese. But the Vatican’s judgment against Call to Action raises clear questions about the status of the group’s members in other dioceses."

We are called to defend the Faith, not to invent stories about evil.

 

[consumedconvert]

We are also called to fight for the glory of God. You cannot have a ‘business as usual’ attitude. The laity have the obligation to speak out against heretical theologians or groups.
For years the laity called for the excommunication of the group Call to Action. It was pressure from the laity that finally prevailed and they were excommunicated.
Sadly todays Church Militant is plagued with indifference.When you witness God being insulted through blasphemy, heresy or denial of the teachings of His Church you cannot remain silent.

Hmm…well, being passingly familiar with the ways of the Vatican, I would highly doubt it was popular demand or “pressure from the laity” that triggered an excommunication.

That’s a little post hoc ergo… well, you know the rest.

 

[stmaria]

=catharina;3721496]Oh, Maria. If only you were as accurate as you are agitated.

First you say Charles Curran was excommunicated. He was not

.
If only you were as accurate as you are agitating. I said" He **should have been **excommunicated along with Father Charles Curran…"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239157&page=16

Now you say **Call to Action **was excommunicated. It was not.

One group of** Call to Action **in Nebraska was. Here’s the story.

That is exactly the group the gorup I was referring to.
"FRI, DEC 8 (Immaculate Conception) – Vatican confirms excommunication for US dissident group – Dec. 7, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has confirmed an American bishop’s decision to excommunicate members of the dissident group** Call to Action**.

We are called to defend the Faith, not to invent stories about evil

.
And what story did I invent???

 

[stmaria]

Hmm…well, being passingly familiar** with the ways of the Vatican**, I would highly doubt it was popular demand or “pressure from the laity” that triggered an excommunication.

That’s a little post hoc ergo… well, you know the rest.

The Vatican wasn’t involved in the excommunication. It was at the local level of the diocese of Lincoln. The Vatican later gave its approval to the excommunication.

 

[JReducation]

Hmmmm. Ok.

Well, that’s alot of text there my friend.

I’m not exactly sure what you are seeing as a problem. Take for example this paragraph -

“Now we want back the Tridentine mass with the priest on one side and the laity on the other, no females in the sanctuary, no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and altar rails to keep the laity and the priest separate. We don’t want the priest out in the congregation preaching or shaking hands”

To which I would say absolutely - traditional catholics would like to see these things return and for some very sound reasons. Reasonable reasons if I do say so myself .

I tend to think we’re going in this direction little by little under the guidance of Pope Benedict. That being said, I’ve never, and I know of no traditional person, who has ever walked up to a non-traditional priest at an OF mass and chastize him for such things since they are common and allowed pretty much everywhere now.

At coffee hour after mass, if I was comfortable enough with the priest, and if the topic came up while we were talking, I wouldn’t hestitate to share my opinion - but I certainly wouldn’t “rebuke” him for such things. Wouldn’t make sense to do such since they are presently allowed or at least commonplace (not sure if the priest is technically supposed to be out of the sanctuary while mass is going on in the OF though - but so many do it).

“However, we want to have the authority to correct deacons, priests and bishops.”

What do you mean? Could you elaborate with some specific examples from these forums? Remember, talking and sharing out thoughts on forums is not the same thing as walking up to a deacon, priest or bishop and “correcting him.”

Just like someone complaining about a presidential policy over dinner, if meeting him in person, would probably just say “Hello Mr. President, a pleasure and an honor to meet you.”

I mean it’s one thing to be voicing opinions and talking plainly about things here in forums - heck, I think it’s just great that there are so many folks concerned enough about the Church* to have an opinion* - apathy being what it is these days if you know what I mean. But that doesn’t mean folks are chasing down priests after mass and reading them the GIRM act.

Another personal example, I attend a noon OF mass through the week at a nearby shrine run by the Oblates - very different from my weekend EF with ICKSP priests. The priests and folks at the Shrine I think know I’m “traditional” from the trusty ol’ '62 missal I always take with me to mass (beautiful prayers in there for before and after). I get some odd looks occaisionaly and one priest in particular has asked me several times the same question - “Whatha got there?” with a knowing smile on his face. I smile back and invite him over for the Solemn High Mass if he ever gets a free Sunday. It’s kind of funny.

God bless,

Dies Irae

The situations that you describe above such sharing concerns with each other or with the clergy is not the same as rebuking or chastising. This is legitimate and it’s encouraged by the Church. I agree with you 100%.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. I don’t remember where it was, becasue it was more than a month ago, a priest posted a story on one of the threads that a younger priest had asked for a reassignment, because people in the parish continuously walked up to him and compalined about mistakes that he made while celebrating mass. The young priest was just out of seminary and apparently, the laity did not cut him a break. To the point that he want to his pastor and resigned. This is not sharing a concern, this is an overkill.

In our parish we have friars. The Superior of the house is a lay brother and the pastor is his subordinate. The Superior usually has very little to do with parish administration, because that really belongs to the local Bishop. However, he is responsible for the well-being and spiritual life of his friars. A person complained to everyone who would hear him that he did not like the fact that the pastor and the associates had to get permission from “just a brother” to miss community functions to attend certain parish functions, which were scheduled at times of the day when the friars had to be in community. For example, the friars always return to the friary in the evening for community prayers, meals, community recreation. The try to schedule the parish activities in between these things. When the lay people wanted to schedule something that was in conflict with the friary’s schedule, the friars always tried to rearrange the schedule of meetings and the like, to make everything fit. If it was not possible, they would honestly say, that they had to inform their superior that they were going to be unable to be at community prayers that evening or whatever.

This is really not a big issue. As long as something does not become a regular thing, superiors do not deny their subjects permission to minister to the fiathful during community functions. Obviously, if there is an emergency, the permission can be assumed. You don’t even have to ask.

For one person in the parish, this seemed to be an issue, because the superior was not a priest. This began a series of complaints that developed into rumors about the pastor being lazy and the superior being “just a lay brother”. This is an example of many kinds of clericalization. This person had to be told that he had no right to determine who the superior of a house is and that he was out of line in calling the superior “just a lay brother” and that the superior did have a right to know why his friars are missing community functions. The person left the parish over such a simple matter.

I hope these examples help to clarify what I mean about overstepping boundaries and clericalization of the laity.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Kung teaches, among other things, that Papal infallibility is a man made dogma. Curran teaches that abortion, premartial sex, homosexual sex, birth control are morally acceptable. You have stated that you are a theologian. Are you satisfied that these heretical theologians were only given a slap on the wrist? Why isn’t excommunication in order when you consider how many Catholics believe what these men teach and not what the Church teaches.
By the way, exactly when did you get your theology degree. In the 80’s, 90’s or more recently? Thanks

Personally I disagree with both of their positions. However, I was simply stating a fact, not defending or rejecting it. The fact is that they are in good standing with the Catholic Church.

It is not for me to tell the Church whom to excommunicate. I don’t have that authority. I have no idea what the bigger picture that the bishops and the Holy See may have that I don’t have.

I truly believe that in a case, such as Kung, where the Holy Father invites him to dinner and blesses his ministry in the area of ecumenism and agrees to disagree as the article said, there must be a bigger picture to which the rest of us are not privy.

I trust the judgement of the Church on these matters and wait to see what happens.

Do I agree with Fathers Kung and Curran, abosolutely not. Do I agree with the Holy Father? Let’s just say that I trust him.

JR