Cardinal Marx: Church should see positive aspects of homosexual relationships [CWN]

[JurisPrudens]

Amoris Laetitia has already dismissed this immoral idea.

 

[bilop]

The Pope apologized on behalf of all Catholics which as the head of the Church he very much can do.

Except he didn’t actually. He said (my emphasis):

I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness — like that “Marxist Cardinal” said (laughs) — must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times — when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners! — Christians must ask forgiveness for having not accompanied so many choices, so many families …

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia/#ixzz4CtgjnKwV

He says we must ask forgiveness as individuals sinners. He does not say the Church itself is to blame, or apologizes. But, as always, we only ask forgiveness for the sins we commit, not the sins of others.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Am I?
Doesn’t St Paul (1Cor 6:10) lump drunkards together with homosexuals?

This epitimises the “holier than thou” attitude of many Communion receiving Catholics who think they have access because they are morally pure.

We are all sinners and in need of the same forgiveness as civil society’s moral lepers even if current Church discipline “arbitrarily” banns Communion if we are caught up in some objective sins but not others.

In short surely even the ritually/morally “pure” receiver Communion as a merciful gift of Jesus not as an earnt reward.

No, the difference is between those who are sorry and repent for their sins (even if they continue to commit them out of weakness) and those who deny that their sins are wrong.

No traditional catholic that I have ever heard looks down on a person with same sex attraction, who tries to live chastely, but somethimes sins. They are just like all of us, who sometimes commit sins, even mortal sins, but then repent, confess our sins, and try not to sin again.

The active homosexual who denies that homosexual acts are sinful, and demands state recognition of homosexual unions, is in a whole different category. The same is tru for the adulterer, or fornciator, or masturbator, who deny their acts are sinful.

If we soft pedal the Gospel message about sexuality, we do a grave disservice to those people, because we confirm them in their sins, and put their souls at risk.

That is what traditionalists find alarming about Pope Francis. We fear that in trying to be welcoming to all, he is downplaying the seriousness of many sins, and potentially leading people into confusion and error.

God Bless

 

[JosieN]

No, the difference is between those who are sorry and repent for their sins (even if they continue to commit them out of weakness) and those who deny that their sins are wrong.

No traditional catholic that I have ever heard looks down on a person with same sex attraction, who tries to live chastely, but somethimes sins. They are just like all of us, who sometimes commit sins, even mortal sins, but then repent, confess our sins, and try not to sin again.

The active homosexual who denies that homosexual acts are sinful, and demands state recognition of homosexual unions, is in a whole different category. The same is tru for the adulterer, or fornciator, or masturbator, who deny their acts are sinful.

If we soft pedal the Gospel message about sexuality, we do a grave disservice to those people, because we confirm them in their sins, and put their souls at risk.

That is what traditionalists find alarming about Pope Francis. We fear that in trying to be welcoming to all, he is downplaying the seriousness of many sins, and potentially leading people into confusion and error.

God Bless

Well said.

Many in the world today do not understand why the sins of the flesh are serious and how they put souls at risk. I feel for those who do not understand why this sin is considered a grave sin. I believe we can learn from the saints of the Church who have spoken on this topic . As a Catholic I feel it is important for us to understand why we believe sins against our own nature are serious sins.

Here is quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). I think explains the seriousness of this sin well.

Commenting upon Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27), Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains why the sin of homosexuality is so grave:

"Given the sin of impiety through which they [the Romans] sinned against the divine nature [by idolatry], the punishment that led them to sin against their own nature followed… I say, therefore, that since they changed into lies [by idolatry] the truth about God, He brought them to ignominious passions, that is, to sins against nature; not that God led them to evil, but only that he abandoned them to evil…

"If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature…

"Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we can say that every sin is a sin against man’s nature, because it is against man’s right reason…

“Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man’s animal nature.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

No, the difference is between those who are sorry and repent for their sins (even if they continue to commit them out of weakness) and those who deny that their sins are wrong.

No traditional catholic that I have ever heard looks down on a person with same sex attraction, who tries to live chastely, but somethimes sins. They are just like all of us, who sometimes commit sins, even mortal sins, but then repent, confess our sins, and try not to sin again.

The active homosexual who denies that homosexual acts are sinful, and demands state recognition of homosexual unions, is in a whole different category. The same is tru for the adulterer, or fornciator, or masturbator, who deny their acts are sinful.

If we soft pedal the Gospel message about sexuality, we do a grave disservice to those people, because we confirm them in their sins, and put their souls at risk.

That is what traditionalists find alarming about Pope Francis. We fear that in trying to be welcoming to all, he is downplaying the seriousness of many sins, and potentially leading people into confusion and error.

God Bless

It is not for the laity to judge the Pope.

Titles such as “traditionalist” have no great significance to me. As a priest, what has significance is: “Are you a Catholic unswervingly obedient and faithful to the teaching and the person of the visible head of the Church: the Pope?”

Obedient and faithful to the Pope are the words that, as a priest, have signficance to me in qualifying the word “Catholic.”

And this for good reason. As Pope Saint John Paul II taught so beautifully back in 1988:

*But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
*
To attempt to cling to Tradition without clinging to the very person of the Vicar of Christ is vain. It is to commit grave error and to risk placing oneself outside the Church.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No, the difference is between those who are sorry and repent for their sins (even if they continue to commit them out of weakness) and those who deny that their sins are wrong.

No traditional catholic that I have ever heard looks down on a person with same sex attraction, who tries to live chastely, but somethimes sins. They are just like all of us, who sometimes commit sins, even mortal sins, but then repent, confess our sins, and try not to sin again.

I could say the same of most people who use artificial birth control. They deny that ABC use is wrong. Some even claim it would be irresponsible and sinful NOT to use contraception. (They reject NFP either because “it’s no different from ABC” and/or “it doesn’t work”.)

The active homosexual who denies that homosexual acts are sinful, and demands state recognition of homosexual unions, is in a whole different category. The same is tru for the adulterer, or fornciator, or masturbator, who deny their acts are sinful.

The idea that “Homosexuals proclaim the legitimacy of their acts in public, so we’re justified in publically condemning that sin” could also be applied to some who believe ABC is not only legitimate, but that the State has a compelling interest in providing ABC to people, even forcing religious groups to pay for them.

And yet, of course, I see nothing near the uncharitable slams aimed at ABC users, compared to those I see against homosexuals. No one has stated “all the Pope should say about ABC users is the Bible passage about Onan that shows how God condemns ABC”. But at least one poster thinks that is all the Pope should say about homosexuality, how the Bible shows God condemns it.

If we soft pedal the Gospel message about sexuality, we do a grave disservice to those people, because we confirm them in their sins, and put their souls at risk.

I understand that, but I just don’t think that’s what the Pope was doing here. In his full response, he discusses many other people who are “marginalized” for reasons other than their sexuality and haven’t committed any sins at all, such as children exploited for their labor.

 

[TCEL]

And yet, of course, I see nothing near the uncharitable slams aimed at ABC users, compared to those I see against homosexuals.

Actually, in some ways, I have stronger feelings about ABC than homosexuality, because Christians should know better. A homosexual may legitimately claim deeply-seated tendencies. But no so with ABC. I suspect that there is more current brou-ha-ha about homosexuality because the ABC ship has sailed, and homosexuality is the most current tip of the iceberg, and I think many Christians are genuinely confused as to how the issue arose. ABC is about as mundane as soap nowadays. But, that’s a different topic.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Except he didn’t actually. He said (my emphasis):

He says we must ask forgiveness as individuals sinners. He does not say the Church itself is to blame, or apologizes. But, as always, we only ask forgiveness for the sins we commit, not the sins of others.

God Bless

Pope John Paul II on the Day of Pardon 2000:
Indeed, “because of the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us” (Incarnationis mysterium, n. 11). The recognition of past wrongs serves to reawaken our consciences to the compromises of the present,
Thus, in complying Pope Francis has said in the light of what Pope Saint John Paul II articulated, I have absolutely problem as a priest saying that the Church acknowledges and begs forgiveness for all those who have belonged to the Church – of the past and of the present – who have in any way caused or harm or merely occasioned harm by not be more active in defending the dignity and respect that is deserving of every human person.

We are more than able to carry out what the Pope, what Cardinal Marx and what many of the bishops are articulated: the expression of our sorrow and repentance as the body of disciples of the Lord Jesus for the extant of harm an entire category of human beings have suffered at the hands of those who claimed to do as Catholics.

The President of the Bishops Conference of the United States is providing exceptional leadership to the American bishops and the American faithful when he says:
WASHINGTON—Waking up to the unspeakable violence in Orlando reminds us of how precious human life is. Our prayers are with the victims, their families and all those affected by this terrible act. The merciful love of Christ calls us to solidarity with the suffering and to ever greater resolve in protecting the life and dignity of every person.
That is an excellent place to begin the apology. By affirming:

1. We are called to solidarity with the suffering.
2. We are called to a greater resolve to protecting the life and dignity of every person.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Actually, in some ways, I have stronger feelings about ABC than homosexuality, because Christians should know better. A homosexual may legitimately claim deeply-seated tendencies. But no so with ABC. I suspect that there is more current brou-ha-ha about homosexuality because the ABC ship has sailed, and homosexuality is the most current tip of the iceberg, and I think many Christians are genuinely confused as to how the issue arose. ABC is about as mundane as soap nowadays. But, that’s a different topic.

I think the Little Sisters of the Poor would disagree that “ABC is about as mundane as soap nowadays”. But, many non-Catholics following that story have expressed puzzlement about why they and other Catholic groups fought the HSS mandate so much and refused the first “compromise”. They think that shows the Church is obsessed with ABC, that “Jesus never said anything about contraception”, etc., and they should save any “religious freedom” argument for something, well, less mundane.

Anyway, I guess that is off-topic. But, I’m just pointing out that I don’t see too many other moral issues where some Catholics seem to think, essentially, that people who commit the sin do not deserve any charity at all. Even though one could argue that, say, gossip is a sin that is proclaimed in public, think of all the websites that are essentially the online equivalent of newspaper “gossip columns” of an earlier generation.

It seems that for many Catholics and other Christians, the good end of “opposing the sin of homosexual sex” makes acceptable the means of “showing no charity at all to homosexuals, except for the charity of admonishing their sins”. I must admit I don’t quite understand that. And people who think this, are essentially proving gay activists true when they accuse Christians of hating not just the sin of homosexual sex, but the people who identify as homosexual, too.

 

[JimG]

Actually, in some ways, I have stronger feelings about ABC than homosexuality, because Christians should know better. A homosexual may legitimately claim deeply-seated tendencies. But no so with ABC. I suspect that there is more current brou-ha-ha about homosexuality because the ABC ship has sailed, and homosexuality is the most current tip of the iceberg, and I think many Christians are genuinely confused as to how the issue arose. ABC is about as mundane as soap nowadays. But, that’s a different topic.

Even though it’s off topic, I do have to agree with you here. It was the widespread acceptance of contraception that directly enabled the sexual revolution, detaching sex from marriage, marriage from children, permanence from marriage, enabling every type of sexual excess, and leading in a straight line to same sex marriage. The devolution is not yet complete.

 

[bilop]

I could say the same of most people who use artificial birth control. They deny that ABC use is wrong. Some even claim it would be irresponsible and sinful NOT to use contraception. (They reject NFP either because “it’s no different from ABC” and/or “it doesn’t work”.)

The idea that “Homosexuals proclaim the legitimacy of their acts in public, so we’re justified in publically condemning that sin” could also be applied to some who believe ABC is not only legitimate, but that the State has a compelling interest in providing ABC to people, even forcing religious groups to pay for them.

And yet, of course, I see nothing near the uncharitable slams aimed at ABC users, compared to those I see against homosexuals. No one has stated “all the Pope should say about ABC users is the Bible passage about Onan that shows how God condemns ABC”. But at least one poster thinks that is all the Pope should say about homosexuality, how the Bible shows God condemns it.

I agree with you. The Church and Catholic laity have failed badly on this issue.

The fact that this is no longer an issue for public dispute shows how badly we have lost on this issue.

God Bless

 

[zz912]

I am glad you asked. I am more than happy to explain.

I responded to the post which said:
I’m not declaring him guilty. But I** will not give him the benefit of the doubt **at this point. He lost the benefit of the doubt when he made these troubling statements.
The “him” here referred to is the person of His Eminence, Reinhard Cardinal Marx, President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Member of the Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis on those issues confided to the Council of Nine. His Eminence is also the Archbishop of Munich and Freising.

First it is an established norm that the only one who can pass judgement on a Cardinal is the Holy Father himself.

From the Code of Canon Law:
*Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment.*
It is not enough to say “I’m not declaring him guilty” – that would be presumption in the extreme for any lay person or even cleric – but simply to say “I do not give him the benefit of the doubt” is in fact to speak in a way a Catholic cannot on the issue of judging not just a Cardinal, but a specifically named Cardinal, or his statements in a published forum that the bishops of the diocese/region have conceded the privilege of using the title “Catholic” as part of their proper name.

Could you explain your viewpoint more? Does this mean that anything any Cardinal or Bishop says, priests or laity are not to form judgments about, discuss, or express an opinion upon? And I’m also confused on your citation of canon law. Here is 1401, which is what 1405 references for judgment:

Can. 1401 By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates:

1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters;

2/ the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those matters in which there is a question of sin, in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.

I’m unaware of any case currently brought against the Cardinal, nor any claim by anyone in the thread that the Cardinal violated an ecclesiastical law. Could you explain this some more?

 

[bilop]

It is not for the laity to judge the Pope.

Titles such as “traditionalist” have no great significance to me. As a priest, what has significance is: “Are you a Catholic unswervingly obedient and faithful to the teaching and the person of the visible head of the Church: the Pope?”

Obedient and faithful to the Pope are the words that, as a priest, have signficance to me in qualifying the word “Catholic.”

And this for good reason. As Pope Saint John Paul II taught so beautifully back in 1988:

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.

To attempt to cling to Tradition without clinging to the very person of the Vicar of Christ is vain. It is to commit grave error and to risk placing oneself outside the Church.

Every Catholic has to judge all teachings they hear (from Pope, bishop, priest, or layman) against the consistent and universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Popes have erred, and erred grievously in history. They are not impeccable. Their infallibility is quite narrow, and requires they teach in accordance with all the bishops, and what the Church has always taught.

If the Pope says something that appears to contradict or confuse the universal and constant teachings of the Church, I will be charitable and assume he misspoke, or was misinterpreted. But, I can not, in good conscience, follow a teaching that appears to me to contradict the doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

e.g. I will not believe that the vast majority of Catholic marriages are null. I will not believe that cohabitation can ever confer the spiritual graces of marriage for people who know what Christian marriage is.

God Bless

 

[JosieN]

Even though it’s off topic, I do have to agree with you here. It was the widespread acceptance of contraception that directly enabled the sexual revolution, detaching sex from marriage, marriage from children, permanence from marriage, enabling every type of sexual excess, and leading in a straight line to same sex marriage. The devolution is not yet complete.

It is not complete as the next generation is having sex education taught to them without religious morals or religious teaching of any kind. Without religion man makes the rules according to whatever guideline they see as moral. That could be anything, couldn’t it?

 

[JimG]

It is not complete as the next generation is having sex education taught to them without religious morals or religious teaching of any kind. Without religion man makes the rules according to whatever guideline they see as moral. That could be anything, couldn’t it?

Today it’s same sex marriage, an inherent contradiction, next it could be polyamory and polygamy, man-boy marriage, mother-daughter marriage, or any other imaginable combination. Once the nature of man, woman, and marriage is reduced to whatever we desire, reality is replaced by fantasy.

 

[Mark121359]

I find this to be a horrible statement. It is an attack upon His Eminence, which is already bad enough.

As a priest, I have known Cardinal Marx for years. He is an outstanding ecclesiastic who, I have every confidence, will make many and valuable contributions to the Church in Germany, in Europe, and beyond given the great breadth and depth of knowledge, his wisdom – and the great confidence that the Holy Father has in Cardinal Marx, and for good reason.

Beyond that, this statement is utterly defamatory against Germany and against Germans in the face of the incredible contributions to the global Church that have been made by Germany and by her saints, her clergy, her laity, and their incredible generosity.

Father, I’m genuinely curious of your opinion on the many reputable Catholic websites that have listed various articles including many comments from priests, cardinals, bishops, and canon lawyers who have voiced their concerns regarding the statements past and present from this particular Cardinal being discussed in this thread, as well as some of the other German Cardinals and Pope Francis. Are they not entitled to speak out, especially considering some of the confusion that seems to be emanating from some of these very same statements? Or should they remain silent?

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, the difference is between those who are sorry and repent for their sins (even if they continue to commit them out of weakness) and those who deny that their sins are wrong.

No traditional catholic that I have ever heard looks down on a person with same sex attraction, who tries to live chastely, but somethimes sins. They are just like all of us, who sometimes commit sins, even mortal sins, but then repent, confess our sins, and try not to sin again.

The active homosexual who denies that homosexual acts are sinful, and demands state recognition of homosexual unions, is in a whole different category. The same is tru for the adulterer, or fornciator, or masturbator, who deny their acts are sinful.

If we soft pedal the Gospel message about sexuality, we do a grave disservice to those people, because we confirm them in their sins, and put their souls at risk.

That is what traditionalists find alarming about Pope Francis. We fear that in trying to be welcoming to all, he is downplaying the seriousness of many sins, and potentially leading people into confusion and error.

God Bless

So why do you judge that a priest who sleeps with a bottle unspecified times each week is repentant while all homosexuals who might do likewise are not.
At least a fellow human being is capable of a caring faithful relationship in addition to unspecified “consumptions”, a bottle is not .

It’s not about downplaying sin but upplaying the grace that may well be present in those faithful same sex relationships. If love covers a multitude of evils and evidences the presence of forgiveness…then there is your repentance.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Could you explain your viewpoint more? Does this mean that anything any Cardinal or Bishop says, priests or laity are not to form judgments about, discuss, or express an opinion upon? And I’m also confused on your citation of canon law. Here is 1401, which is what 1405 references for judgment:

Can. 1401 By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates:

1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters;

2/ the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those matters in which there is a question of sin, in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.

I’m unaware of any case currently brought against the Cardinal, nor any claim by anyone in the thread that the Cardinal violated an ecclesiastical law. Could you explain this some more?

This is a public forum…this is not private conversation. These posts remain forever on the Internet.

Moreover, this is a forum to which competent ecclesiastical authority has graciously conceded that the title “Catholic” may be used in the name – and that gracious grant can always be withdrawn, and indeed should be withdrawn, by competent ecclesiastical authority if due deference is not shown.

I was addressing comments that were judgemental against His Eminence. Of course we may speak about and discuss positively what any Cardinal says. Comments from the hierarchy are often in my homilies as I explain how what they have taught is to be received by us at the parish level and put into practice.

There have been three instances in recent years in which a decision has been taken regarding the behavior of Cardinals…from above NEVER from people below. That is wholly inappropriate.

The canon is quoted because the one to judge or reprove a Cardinal is the Pope and those who exercise directly the delegated authority of the Pope, namely the dicasteries of the Holy See. Thus, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could make a statement about a Cardinal’s particular declaration to clarify it – a bishop, priest, deacon or lay person? No.

Besides the matter is definitively resolved…the Pope has endorsed what His Eminence has said in the issue at hand, the matter is therefore truly closed – beyond our faithful implementation of the directive.

 

[bilop]

So why do you judge that a priest who sleeps with a bottle unspecified times each week is repentant while all homosexuals who might do likewise are not.
At least a fellow human being is capable of a caring faithful relationship in addition to unspecified “consumptions”, a bottle is not .

It’s not about downplaying sin but upplaying the grace that may well be present in those faithful same sex relationships. If love covers a multitude of evils and evidences the presence of forgiveness…then there is your repentance.

First, drinking is not even necessarily sinful. If the priest does intentionally drink to excess he may be an alcoholic, which would significantly mitigate his guilt. Also, if he is a great priest in every other aspect, he probably feels bad about his weakness.

On the contrary, a “faithful” sexual relationship that is not a marriage between a man and a woman, is simply a vehicle for hardening the partners in their sin. There are no graces in immoral sexual relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual. They cement the pair into gravely sinful behavior.

How can one be repentent if you are continuing with the illicit union? We wouldn’t speculate that an adulterer might be repentent if he kept spending the night with his mistress, or a cohbaiting heterosexual couple. We would expect the repentent person to end the illicit relationship.

I have great sympathy for homosexuals who try to be chaste, but occasionally fail. They are sinners like all of us. But, if one persists in an immoral sexual relationship, it’s hard to see any repentence, be you gay or straight.

God Bless

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I’m genuinely curious of your opinion on the many reputable Catholic websites that have listed various articles including many comments from priests, cardinals, bishops, and canon lawyers who have voiced their concerns regarding the statements past and present from this particular Cardinal being discussed in this thread, as well as some of the other German Cardinals and Pope Francis. Are they not entitled to speak out, especially considering some of the confusion that seems to be emanating from some of these very same statements? Or should they remain silent?

***Peace, Mark ***

I have no opinion on the matter for expression in a public forum…except for two thoughts

1. To say that when I had occasion to work with gatherings of bishops and there was a need for a thorough discussion of varying thoughts, recourse was had to executive session. Those of lesser status were dismissed from the proceedings. When the particular discussion was over, the body was brought out of executive session.
2. As a priest, ordained as the rite of ordination so beautifully expresses as “a co-worker with the Order of Bishops”, when I had a need to discuss a matter with my bishop, it was done behind closed doors. At times in personal meeting and, rarely, on the occasion of gatherings of the presbyterate of the diocese. To this day, no one would know or be able to guess if there was any point of diversion between myself and the bishops of my diocese. Their teachings and pronouncements and even their prudential decisions were echoed from my pulpit with my full and complete voice.

His Eminence in this case is the President of the Conference of Bishops of Germany and the President of The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community. As a theologian, I have found no need to seek clarification on his thoughts, personally. And as for a critique of his thoughts…I have not one to offer; my concern is simply with implementing, to the extent I can, what His Eminence has put forward.