So much for a bishop serving the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Like so many Catholics, he's more a fan of the Waybe, the Truthiness, and the Half-Life.
RORATE CAELI: Portuguese Bishop: OK with men who "live" with other men; for artificial contraception
"Progressive" Bishops attack again. Let the Belgian collapse be a warning: there is no innocence or naivety in anything that "Progressive" Bishops do or say. And, particularly when they are so nonchalant and shameless about certain matters, the signs of grave problems in their dioceses and nations are clear. Rome should act before grave things come out, and not express sympathy for the hierarchy when the result of their behavior leads to an inevitable humiliation of the hierarchy.
3 comments:
For years now I've thought that "dialogue" usually means the following:
Person X: Let's talk about your disagreements with my views!
Person Y: Sure.
*later*
Person X: Will you change everything to be in line with what I think now?
Person Y: No.
Person X: Well, let's keep talking until you do. That's what dialogue means!
How come I seem to never see any dialogue in the opposite direction? Where's the dialogue, where pro-abortion organizations or groups allow pro-lifers to show up and 'dialogue' with them about pulling back their pro-abortion views? Why is there seemingly perpetual attempts at getting 'dialogue' in the church about gay priests or contraception, but these groups seemingly never accept 'dialogue' from other groups that seek to change their minds?
Crude:
Consider what the good bishop says just before the line I headed up in this post:
"There is a great communion, and love for the Church, and I am convinced, by my pastoral experience, that that which I defend will soon be a reality. I do not accept the dogmatism of natural methods. People often do not wish to be realistic."
His premise that, since "truth" is not something the Church can "have," much less assert or defend, there is only "realistic" POLICY. His premise about communion is that it is not a communion with Christ Who is Himself the Truth, but rather a conglomeration of gradually "common" policy in "reality." Its ecclesial utilitarianism and evangelistic Realpolitik. The purpose of the Church is to increase "communion," but we all know you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar, so the most "realistic policy" is to agree with what, roughly, "most people find least burdensome in reality."
Again, with bishops like these....
As for your point about the disparity of "dialogue," I think it boils down to the suppressed premise that dialogue only works if no side actually defends its position as true. This is why, e.g., "pro-choice" is not a positive doctrine, but merely a proscription of any general policy for individuals. Pro-choice is thus a code word for the cynicism that, since no one or nothing is ever true or right, therefore we each must be allowed to be wrong in our own ways.
Best,
The following comment by Knight of Malta is a zinger, and piggybacks on my communion comment above:
"These modernist Rahnerians are the direct fruit of the Second Vatican Council, which allowed the "Smoke of Satan" (i.e. modernism) to come seeping into the Church. As Msgr. Gherardini so aptly put it:
"In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic...The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God...the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together...After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no...But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS." [Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion, pg. 92]"
Post a Comment