Expert: Synod Cardinal who supposedly wanted major change in doctrine asserts there is no such intention

[OraLabora]

If you take an honest look back at all the Synod related threads, you’ll notice that they are not full of people chanting that the Pope is going to dramatically change doctrine. They are full of people talking about leaving the church if even one word or one comma of teaching is changed and those who think Pope Francis is shaping up to be an heretical Pope … and then those of us who are trying to inject proper balance. I’ve been raised in a Catholic way where you might not always understand the ways of the Magisterium, but in faith and the spirit of obedience, you obey and pray for wisdom and humility to stay the course. There was emphasis put on the Church as ‘pilgrim’ and not rooted to any temporal loyalties, but loyal only to Christ through the Church whom He inspires. The Catholic faith is a journey, a Camino so that the teachings conveyed to us by the Magisterium of today can be accepted as timeless reformulations of Gospel truths and interpretations. I’m shocked at how many people actually think they are more Catholic than the Pope.

I had already mentioned earlier in the thread the Pontifical council on birth control called by Pope JohnXXXIII as an example of synodality and its fruits. We have a clear teaching regarding the evils of contraception through HV and the Catechism. It may very well be that after the Synod, we again have some Bishops and people dissenting against any new reformulations because they disagree with the Pope and reject that his authority is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Myself, I am firmly a Pope follower and will endeavour to ‘think with the Church’ whatever comes out of the Family Synod.

Basically my sentiments as well. Although we’re entitled to an opinion on the matter of irregular marriages, and that opinion for me leans more “Kasper” than “Burke”, one, I have no dog in that hunt (my marriage being regular and to the same and only spouse each other have ever had), and two, my religious tradition (Benedictine) always is obedient to the Holy Father. “Obedience” is in the monastic vow and oblate promise. So whatever the Holy Father decides, is what I will assent to.

I find it interesting to look back at HV. We had a similar situation of bishops pressuring the Holy Father for a relaxation of the doctrine. At the end, this great (and underestimated) pope that many accuse of being liberal (in particular with liturgy and ecumenism), held fast to previous teaching and wrote a document that turned out to be awfully prescient. He never really got over its rejection, BTW. Clearly the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church down then, and the Holy Spirit won’t let the Church down now. Those who believe otherwise have a very tenuous claim on the label “Catholic”.

I fully expect no doctrinal changes, but pray that there may be more mercy in its application. God will hear my prayers, and he will answer them. If the answer is negative, I will assent to that as His will. He’s told me “no” before, and I managed to get over myself…

 

[McCall1981]

Why do people insist on knocking down this straw man over and over again? No one thinks that the Kasper proposal involves changing doctrine, in the simplistic sense of the Church declaring “marriages can be dissolved.”

The issue is the adoption of a practice that is irreconcilable with the divine law as laid down by Christ. Circumventing and acting contrary to the divine law isn’t any better than outright contradicting it.

I think this says it perfectly.

 

[Brendan]

I find it interesting to look back at HV. We had a similar situation of bishops pressuring the Holy Father for a relaxation of the doctrine. At the end, this great (and underestimated) pope that many accuse of being liberal (in particular with liturgy and ecumenism), held fast to previous teaching and wrote a document that turned out to be awfully prescient. He never really got over its rejection, BTW. Clearly the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church down then, and the Holy Spirit won’t let the Church down now. Those who believe otherwise have a very tenuous claim on the label “Catholic”.

It is precicely the example given, (HV) where I know that there will be no substantial changes.

As I mentioned earlier, +Kasper asked questions, and +Burke provided the answers.

And that was affirmed by the Vatican shortly after the Synod

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23232

 

[Joe_5859]

This confirms what I’ve been saying all along (how convenient for me! ). Kasper’s “proposal” – whether you like it or don’t – has never been about changing doctrine.

I tend to share the misgivings about how it could be possible to reconcile the proposal with existing doctrine. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear Cardinal Kasper say that he does not wish to change the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. He never once said that he did.

 

[ProVobis]

Clearly the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church down then, and the Holy Spirit won’t let the Church down now. Those who believe otherwise have a very tenuous claim on the label “Catholic”.

Again, I’d be careful with that sort of argument. First, the Protestants also believe the Holy Spirit guides them. Second, it seems to ignore what all theologians know, that God has both a positive will and a permissive one. While H.V. was proven correct, the path towards it (the conscience clause in Progressio Populorum, assembly of moral theologians voting for ABC twice, inter alia) leads one to believe it was not optimal.

 

[McCall1981]

It is precicely the example given, (HV) where I know that there will be no substantial changes.

As I mentioned earlier, +Kasper asked questions, and +Burke provided the answers.

And that was affirmed by the Vatican shortly after the Synod

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23232

I’m very happy that the CDF said this, but I’m not sure exactly how to take it.

On the one hand it’s a clear affirmation, from the CDF itself, and it came after the Synod, which all implies its a pretty big deal.

On the other, the CDF has affirmed this teaching numerous times in the recent past (2012 for instance) and that didn’t stop the issue from being disussed at the Synod.

So should we take this as a concrete affirmation that the decision has been made and the traditional teaching is upheld? Is this affirmation basically meaningless because it’ll all be totally up for debate in a couple of months? Somewhere in between?

 

[FollowChrist34]

This confirms what I’ve been saying all along (how convenient for me! ). Kasper’s “proposal” – whether you like it or don’t – has never been about changing doctrine.

I tend to share the misgivings about how it could be possible to reconcile the proposal with existing doctrine. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear Cardinal Kasper say that he does not wish to change the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. He never once said that he did.

Agreed. It has been perfectly clear to me all along that there was much more to this than changing doctrine, if that was ever seriously on the table. It’s much more complicated and subtle than that. My concern all along has been about the application of so-called pastoral changes or modifications. This is in my view a very slippery slope. I can’t see the Holy Spirit leading us to backflip on doctrine, or to the application of pastoral “modifications” of doctrine that contradict or undermine doctrine. To me, this is all a very grey area, subject to misinterpretation and misapplication. I would add that most of the laity do NOT have the theological training to tackle these issues, and thus I feel we are at a disadvantage. (Is Jonathan Gruber a practicing Catholic? - let’s hope not! )

To sum up my worries, I would draw an analogy with the “spirit” of Vatican II vs. the letter of Vatican II. A wider concern I have is that this issue will continue to divide us and spread anxiety, all the while distracting us (bishops, clergy, laity) from focusing on issues like traditional marriage, the welfare of children, the rights of the unborn, euthanasia, religious persecution, the environment, social injustices (all over the world, including the West).

 

[LongingSoul]

While H.V. was proven correct, the path towards it (the conscience clause in Progressio Populorum, assembly of moral theologians voting for ABC twice, inter alia) leads one to believe it was not optimal.

I find it interesting to look back at HV. We had a similar situation of bishops pressuring the Holy Father for a relaxation of the doctrine. At the end, this great (and underestimated) pope that many accuse of being liberal (in particular with liturgy and ecumenism), held fast to previous teaching and wrote a document that turned out to be awfully prescient. He never really got over its rejection, BTW. Clearly the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church down then, and the Holy Spirit won’t let the Church down now. Those who believe otherwise have a very tenuous claim on the label “Catholic”.

There are those that might say that if there were no changes resulting from the examination of contraception in the 60’s why bother having gone there? But they fail to recognise the great leap forward in the understanding of what constitutes contraception and how the natural form of ‘birth control’ ie. NFP is perfectly licit and good for the marriage and family. HV stands out as condemning contraception but its real work was in inspiring science to devote effort to ways of fertility recognition for the benefit of Catholic family life.

Unfortunately today, there are still Catholics who condemn NFP as contraception despite the clear Church teaching. I believe that their rejection of teaching and condemnation of NFP prevents Catholics from seeing the true evil of contraception. It causes them to see the rule as a meaningly Catholic drudge that can be left to their conscience… hence their comfort at using contaception.

 

[SWolf]

There are those that might say that if there were no changes resulting from the examination of contraception in the 60’s why bother having gone there? But they fail to recognise the great leap forward in the understanding of what constitutes contraception and how the natural form of ‘birth control’ ie. NFP is perfectly licit and good for the marriage and family. HV stands out as condemning contraception but its real work was in inspiring science to devote effort to ways of fertility recognition for the benefit of Catholic family life.

Unfortunately today, there are still Catholics who condemn NFP as contraception despite the clear Church teaching. I believe that their rejection of teaching and condemnation of NFP prevents Catholics from seeing the true evil of contraception. It causes them to see the rule as a meaningly Catholic drudge that can be left to their conscience… hence their comfort at using contaception.

I’m not sure what Catholics you are referring to. In any case, for clarification, using NFP improperly, as in avoiding having children in a marriage when you have the resources to do so, is sinful.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (2368)
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

 

[ProVobis]

HV stands out as condemning contraception but its real work was in inspiring science to devote effort to ways of fertility recognition for the benefit of Catholic family life.

This may be true, but…

In 1958, Pope Pius XII had declared that use of the pill to treat menstrual disorders was not contrary to catholic morals. Rock believed it was only a matter of time before the Catholic Church approved its use as a contraceptive.

In 1968 the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae entrenched Catholic opposition to hormonal contraception. Rock was profoundly disappointed. For the first time in his life, he stopped attending Mass.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rock_%28American_scientist%29

 

[KSU]

I did read the whole thing. I don’t know why you posted that quote against yourselves?? Pope Francis has asked for the examination of an issue but there are those who instantly claim this is “discontinuous development”.

If Tigg in #37 hasn’t dispelled the “confusion” I caused you in #34, you will just have to live with it.

My friend, the point you ignore is that although Cardinal Kasper’s proposals regard explicitly revealed doctrine, he SEEMS to be searching for ways to permit types of sex always and everywhere prohibited by the Church from the beginning. I believe you know that that is not what Francis asked him to examine; he was asked to examine certain Church procedure, but I don’t think you can point to where Kasper made his understanding of that clear. Bishops who were there must have missed it, too.

If you view Kasper’s proposals as merely an attempt to develop doctrine, you made the fatal mistake of appealing to Father John Harden, my long-time mentor through his witting. Fr. Harden of blessed memory, reminds us that “What God has revealed will not be added to or amplified, until the beatific vision.” Therefore, he says, when the Church speaks of legitimate development of doctrine, it is necessary first to identify the development as a continuous development, i.e., continuity with the past, which means no shadow of contradiction between what the Church has taught in the past two millennia.

Please tell me, has Kasper, without a shadow of contradiction, identified the required continuity with the past and the progress in developing Jesus’ teaching about adultery? A few Cardinals (who BTW understand the process of development far better than you and I) have very clearly answered that question in the negative. You nevertheless reject their answer, but fail to present a better argument.

 

[KSU]

Here we go:

churchmilitant.tv/platform/?vidID=spec-2014-11-18

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m very happy that the CDF said this, but I’m not sure exactly how to take it.

On the one hand it’s a clear affirmation, from the CDF itself, and it came after the Synod, which all implies its a pretty big deal.

On the other, the CDF has affirmed this teaching numerous times in the recent past (2012 for instance) and that didn’t stop the issue from being disussed at the Synod.

So should we take this as a concrete affirmation that the decision has been made and the traditional teaching is upheld? Is this affirmation basically meaningless because it’ll all be totally up for debate in a couple of months? Somewhere in between?

The fact that this unique situation has been a difficult dilemma for Clergy in the Diocese for at least 30 years, indicates that the issue needs examination for further clarification. It involves a relatively small group. They are the obviously practicing grace filled families who don’t technically qualify for judicial annulment due to unknown or unverifiable aspects, but where the fruits of their Catholic life seem to indicate the invalidity of their first union. It can’t possibly be subject to any general rule because those indicators could only be known on a case to case basis.

The fact that Pope Emeritas Benedict, a very orthodox theologian, mused on the possibility of an aspect of invalidity that can’t be judicially quantified buy only revealed through the fruits of the lives being lived today… indicates something really significant to me.

I know that Pope StJPII was uncomfortable with the concessions being made in the judicial annulment process in order to make it more accessible and easy. That really makes me wonder if examining this new unique group of situations will help to refine and define what invalidity really means. I think that people often apply for an annulment immediately they are divorced in anticipation of a future relationship… but I wonder about the health of that practice to the concept of marriage. It doesn’t really allow people the time and space to apply their faith to the situation they find themselves in IMO.

Then there are those who don’t bother seeking annulment through immature or absent faith but after moving on and maturing, find that their faith grows in the natural environment of family, and they begin to feel the wound of their distance from God and past disregard for the meaning of marriage. That is such a painful realisation to people. I’ve never been in that situation but I keenly feel the suffering of it. It’s like moments when you draw closer to God (especially during the Spiritual Exercises) and realise clearly ways in which you have rejected and ignored Him through your weakness of faith. Even though you could attribute it to immaturity or some other cause… your natural instinct is for remorse and reconciliation with Him.

I see the need for examination of these unique marriage issues as being impelled by these experiences of renewed or discovered faith and the awareness of how you rejected God in your past. As Pope Benedict mused, perhaps in this situation there may be a cause for invalidity through having celebrated the Sacrament without faith.

In all these talks there has never been any possibility of a general rule change to accommodate the situation. But it is a seeping wound begging to be explored. Perhaps the happy result will be an even deeper understanding of what marriage really means that will benefit the next generation of couples and their Priests.

 

[LongingSoul]

If Tigg in #37 hasn’t dispelled the “confusion” I caused you in #34, you will just have to live with it.

My friend, the point you ignore is that although Cardinal Kasper’s proposals regard explicitly revealed doctrine, he SEEMS to be searching for ways to permit types of sex always and everywhere prohibited by the Church from the beginning. I believe you know that that is not what Francis asked him to examine; he was asked to examine certain Church procedure, but I don’t think you can point to where Kasper made his understanding of that clear. Bishops who were there must have missed it, too.

If you view Kasper’s proposals as merely an attempt to develop doctrine, you made the fatal mistake of appealing to Father John Harden, my long-time mentor through his witting. Fr. Harden of blessed memory, reminds us that “What God has revealed will not be added to or amplified, until the beatific vision.” Therefore, he says, when the Church speaks of legitimate development of doctrine, it is necessary first to identify the development as a continuous development, i.e., continuity with the past, which means no shadow of contradiction between what the Church has taught in the past two millennia.

Please tell me, has Kasper, without a shadow of contradiction, identified the required continuity with the past and the progress in developing Jesus’ teaching about adultery? A few Cardinals (who BTW understand the process of development far better than you and I) have very clearly answered that question in the negative. You nevertheless reject their answer, but fail to present a better argument.

He was asked to present his ideas which he had developed over the lifetime of his Priesthood. It was in a similar way to how at the Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church in 1975 allowed the many Priests and theologians who thought that women should be allowed to be Priests, to present their ideas for examination. That commission resulted in the 1976 CDF document “DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD”

Some things are difficult to grasp and understand and often understood in a wrong context. The discussion between theologians and protected by the Popes office… lead to a clearer understanding of the place of women in the Church and the impossibility of Ordination. However some Catholic dudes still reject even a moderate role for women in the Church and condemn female altar servers and EMHC’s etc.

If that examination was not allowed and the place of women in the Church not opened up to scrutiny, I imagine that many women would have left the Church as a result.

It’s not a crime or a sin to present an idea for examination. It’s a healthy human process.

 

[Brendan]

The fact that this unique situation has been a difficult dilemma for Clergy in the Diocese for at least 30 years, indicates that the issue needs examination for further clarification. .

What dilemma? For the faithful in their position to receive Holy Communion is damaging to their souls. How can not offering them such be anything other than crystal clear?

Or do the clergy you refer to not know the basic sacramentology of Confession, that the penitent must express contrition for their sins in order to be validly absolved?

Where exactly is this dilemma that you refer to?

 

[LongingSoul]

What dilemma? For the faithful in their position to receive Holy Communion is damaging to their souls. How can not offering them such be anything other than crystal clear?

Or do the clergy you refer to not know the basic sacramentology of Confession, that the penitent must express contrition for their sins in order to be validly absolved?

Where exactly is this dilemma that you refer to?

My uncle (also my godfather) is a Priest of nearly 50 years and I have a first cousin also a Priest for over 25 years and this is an issue that has been discussed by diocesan Priests for a long time. There are people presenting more faithfully to Catholic practice after they have children and through the natural love and experience of God that having children raises… their faith blossoms and their eyes opened. Priests are faced with these situations with very little scope to minister to. They are seeing an obvious fruitfulness between a couple who have given their lives to each other and experience a natural and holy desire to raise a Catholic family. When this fruitfulness is contrasted with a prior marriage that appears to have failed naturally and without the life of sacramental grace that would normally aid a genuinely valid marriage… something is needing to be addressed. Parish priests by virtue of their pastoral office desire something more to minister to people in these situations. The answer “sorry. You did the crime now you do the time as life without parole”… seems to be a wanting approach. Perhaps there will be some as yet undiscovered aspect of invalidity or perhaps the concept of spiritual communion can be more fully understood. Who knows what Pope Francis or even his successor if it is a long examination… might eventually offer as a result.

It is a long time weeping wound as far as the Priests ability to properly minister to people. There is a fruitfulness in these marriages that needs to be more fully understood as well. Pope Francis has not championed the concept of synodality so intensely since being elected for no reason. It has a place in the life of the Church and he says we shouldn’t fear honesty and that the twin sink holes of ‘hostile inflexibility’ and ‘false compassion’ need to be dispensed with the make it a fruitful process. I totally get him.

 

[KSU]

He was asked to present his ideas which he had developed over the lifetime of his Priesthood. It was in a similar way to how at the Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church in 1975 allowed the many Priests and theologians who thought that women should be allowed to be Priests, to present their ideas for examination. That commission resulted in the 1976 CDF document “DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD”

Some things are difficult to grasp and understand and often understood in a wrong context. The discussion between theologians and protected by the Popes office… lead to a clearer understanding of the place of women in the Church and the impossibility of Ordination. However some Catholic dudes still reject even a moderate role for women in the Church and condemn female altar servers and EMHC’s etc.

If that examination was not allowed and the place of women in the Church not opened up to scrutiny, I imagine that many women would have left the Church as a result.

It’s not a crime or a sin to present an idea for examination. It’s a healthy human process.

My friend, you should change your name to BraveSoul for trying to defend the damage that has and will continue to result from the attempted manipulation of the Synod. Obviously, there are appropriate and far better ways to study the questions of compassion at issue.

BTW, my pastor, I, and my wife (a “liberal”) are three of the millions of “Catholic dudes” and dudesses who don’t think altar girls are what the Church needs. He just a while ago stopped the practice, but very gently and with an explanation of why he did it. No problem.

The Church is painfully, slowly repairing the damage done in the wake of the confusion designed into the documents of VCII by semi-successful manipulation, and the lies later facilitated by that confusion. As a result, we have not yet been able to implement all the fruits of the Spirit brought about by VCII, not to mention the destruction we still are suffering as a result.

I am 75 years old, and can’t begin to recount to you the 40-year carnage, loss, pain and waste I’ve seen indirectly brought about by less than orthodox Council attendees. Catholics, included me, were cheated by what they sold as development (loss of meaning, beauty and awe in our liturgy; hiding tabernacles; destroying statues and paintings; sinister heresy masquerading as education; etc., etc.). So, I became angry again (it’s passed) at what I saw attempted at the Synod; deja vu all over again.

 

[Brendan]

My uncle (also my godfather) is a Priest of nearly 50 years and I have a first cousin also a Priest for over 25 years and this is an issue that has been discussed by diocesan Priests for a long time. There are people presenting more faithfully to Catholic practice after they have children and through the natural love and experience of God that having children raises… their faith blossoms and their eyes opened. Priests are faced with these situations with very little scope to minister to. They are seeing an obvious fruitfulness between a couple who have given their lives to each other and experience a natural and holy desire to raise a Catholic family. When this fruitfulness is contrasted with a prior marriage that appears to have failed naturally and without the life of sacramental grace that would normally aid a genuinely valid marriage… something is needing to be addressed. Parish priests by virtue of their pastoral office desire something more to minister to people in these situations. The answer “sorry. You did the crime now you do the time as life without parole”… seems to be a wanting approach. Perhaps there will be some as yet undiscovered aspect of invalidity or perhaps the concept of spiritual communion can be more fully understood. Who knows what Pope Francis or even his successor if it is a long examination… might eventually offer as a result.

It is a long time weeping wound as far as the Priests ability to properly minister to people. There is a fruitfulness in these marriages that needs to be more fully understood as well. Pope Francis has not championed the concept of synodality so intensely since being elected for no reason. It has a place in the life of the Church and he says we shouldn’t fear honesty and that the twin sink holes of ‘hostile inflexibility’ and ‘false compassion’ need to be dispensed with the make it a fruitful process. I totally get him.

First of all, the annulment process is open to them. That can determine if what they have is (or can be) an actual marriage. That is exactly what Cardinal Kasper indicated when the he mentioned that the indissolubility of marriage is not being put forward to change.

Secondly, if the annulment process indicates against them, they can most certainly have a fruitful life together, but must do so as Christ indicated, without the incurring the sin of adultery. They must repent of their sin, confess their sin to bring their souls into Grace and then make full use of the Sacraments that the Church offers.

Again, there is no dilemma here. Simply the Mercy of Christ offered to those who repent of their sins.

You do bring forth that a spiritual communion is always an option, but if their relationship is to be based on love, it must, of necessity not seek to damage the others soul. And also to keep one’s own soul intact and in Grace.

 

[LongingSoul]

First of all, the annulment process is open to them. That can determine if what they have is (or can be) an actual marriage. That is exactly what Cardinal Kasper indicated when the he mentioned that the indissolubility of marriage is not being put forward to change.

Secondly, if the annulment process indicates against them, they can most certainly have a fruitful life together, but must do so as Christ indicated, without the incurring the sin of adultery. They must repent of their sin, confess their sin to bring their souls into Grace and then make full use of the Sacraments that the Church offers.

Again, there is no dilemma here. Simply the Mercy of Christ offered to those who repent of their sins.

You do bring forth that a spiritual communion is always an option, but if their relationship is to be based on love, it must, of necessity not seek to damage the others soul. And also to keep one’s own soul intact and in Grace.

But what would you make of the the Card. Ratzingers 1998 wonderings…

“Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. n. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”

and then as Pope, his 2005 wonderings…

“During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.”

To my understanding, if an orthodox theologian Pope can open the problem to this type of thought and to suggest that it must be studied further… indicates to me that as human beings, with compassion for obvious suffering, we can safely ask the questions of theology with an openness to some answer from the Holy Spirit, whether yay or nay or a new surprise.

 

[KSU]

Good news:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23264

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23270

And some development of doctrine:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23260