Morality is not Relative

[MaryT777]

The only things that those holy 108 bishops wanted to do was to make a statement that gay humans have some worth and that the entire annulment process should be looked at in a way that is not so freaking outdated and expensive. Not one word was mentioned about having gay marriages take place in the Church or doing away with annulments. It’s obvious that those 108 bishops are actually pastors.

I agree 100%
Mary.

 

[otjm]

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/10/an-extraordinary-synod-indeed

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Weigel, but his math is beyond atrocious.

His second paragraph has the bishops at the Synod as the bishops of the Council. Given that there are extremely few priests elevated to bishop at the age 35 (John Paul 2 was made auxiliary bishop at the age of 38), let’s take age 35 as the age of a bishop at the beginning of Vatican 2.

It started Oct. 11, 1962. If they had turned 35 the day before, and been made bishop that day, they would be 35 (age the day it started) plus the 52 years since (87). Given that the mandatory age of retirement is 70, he is about 17 years off his mark at the most possible earliest entry into V2.

I agree that the cardinals and bishops at the synod have had the “privilege” of being in office when huge segments of the Catholic population have gone south. Ascribing it pretty much across the board to failed leadership ignores what was already occurring in Europe and the United States.

I will agree with him that there were some at the synod who were, politely, twiterpated. But as to the preliminary vote and the second vote, unless one speaks with each bishop and Cardinal, ascribing the “why” to the way they voted is beyond shoddy journalism.

 

[otjm]

but it’s a step in that direction - something to be concerned about. These articles are in many different places but Dr. Bowring, Catholic theologian, follows all this very closely. Here are links to 15 articles - twoheartspress.com/uncategorized/pope-francis-agenda-unfolding/

Any theologian who starts of with a question about “schism” has already played their hand. They may call themselves a Catholic theologian, and have a sheepskin to wave around as proof, and even have others who call themselves Catholic supporting them and their post.

But St. Peter answered Christ’s question, in John 6, when he said “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life.”"

One does not have to be a theologian to know that the Church has held since the beginning, 2000 years ago +/- that the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, and that the Holy Spirit would guard it and keep it from error. I was taught that in grade school in the 1950’s, so it is not exactly new information to today’s Catholics.

And any theologian who picks up on the rumors that there just might be a schism is playing a card that is clearly marked. And that is a card that is not used by those who follow the Magisterium, and trust the Holy Spirit, and the promises of Christ.

So to whom are all these allegedly borderline schismatics going to go to? It might be that they would deny being sede’s, but their words would be unconvincing (which is a polite way of saying a lie). The Church has admitted that it has had scalawags as Pope on a few occasions, but it has laso consistently maintained that none of them ever made any errors in faith or morals.

So: if the alleged borderline schismatics insist that the Pope has erred or is likely to err in faith or morals, then either Christ lied (at which point we can all go home), or that the individual in the Office is not the true Pope (because the promise was true, and he erred), and someone else is the true Pope. There are no other logical alternatives.

May some leave the Church over their own perceptions as to what has been or will be done? Well, we have a long, long history of that occurring, so it should be no surprise. But it is due to their perceptions, rather than to reality.

And really not worth the breath of air required to mention it.

 

[otjm]

there are many quotes from the bishops - if you want to sweep these concerns under the carpet then do so - Dr. Bowring is in good standing with the Catholic Church and he doesn’t post anything that can’t be documented. You, I think, are denying reality - I told you what the vote count was - people vote with their hearts - 108 of these guys want to bow to worldly pressure and conform our Church to worldly morality. Those are facts - your comments about tabloid journalism are ridiculous.

Father Hans Kung is still in good standing in the Church also. His right to hold himself out as a teacher of theology has been pulled, but he is still a priest; his faculties, as best I know, have never been pulled, and he most certainly has not been excommunicated.

Rather, he has bet with Pope Benedict at least once, if not several times, privately. The comment about “good standing” is thus not exactly an imprimatur or a nihil obstat.