"From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." John 6:66
I am confused. Our Holy Father needs to be specific and not leave it up to Vatican Radio to interpret.When a public scandal is created by an Archbishop calling for same-sex civil unions or presenting flowers to a pagan god or bankrupting the diocese due to bad bets on horses and land or being found with child porn on your computer or covering up of sexual abuses and rape or paying out millions to silence your gay lover and your the Archbishop or as a Cardinal engaging in homosexual activity with your seminarians...I could go on, and on, and on.So, this is all public; we are not to comment?Is this what he is saying?
Like Jesus' parables and messages, one is often left to interpret what He means as His message has broad implications. I don't think an archbishop who supports "legal civil unions" is acting as an alternate "defender of the faith," but SSPX corporately (and we're not talking about the crackpot Bishop Williamson here) thinks they are the true defenders of the faith in opposition to the See of Peter and the bishops in union with the Pope. LCWR hasn't ordained a parallel Magisterium yet, but they act as a Magisterium "Defending the Faith" as they understand it as corrupt as that understanding is. There are crackpots and perverts in every walk of life, I don't think we can call those kinds of people, in union with Rome or not, true Defenders of the Faith unless they in their depravity still uphold the teachings of the Church.
He did not really say anything. This could be interpreted in any way you like...does openness to the Holy Spirit and not being closed in on ourselves mean that the Bible and Dogma are "living documents" like the US Constitution supposedly is and, therefore, subject to re-interpretation based upon the modern mindset? I see big headlines about yet another woman being ordained a priest with all the usual attendant calls for radical Church "reformation." I have enjoyed some of his pastoral homilies, and I like his apparent orthodoxy, but Biden and Pelosi still received at a Papal Mass and I don't see anything going on that indicates any teeth to his warnings and comments.Again, the SSPX is the very least of what needs to be addressed. It seems to be an easy target for a Curia that wants to look tough but does not have the guts to attack the real dissenters and apostates... Bishops and Priests who espouse Modernism and flaunt heresy with impunity.
Gene, you know that even in the hands of a reformer the Vatican moves slowly. As far as either Pelosi or Biden go I think a Bishop form Argentina can be excused ignorance of these minor celebrities.
RCG, Bull...he knows....or, at least, his cadre knew and should have advised him or intervened in some way. It is just this kind of nonchalance that sends the message, "Hey, it is no big deal."
I would seriously be surprised if he knew very much about them. You are right about the cadre, but they screened a lot of information about the sex abuse crisis from previous Popes, too. It does beg the question, What did he do about similar politicians and public figures in Argentina? I expect he will have to deal with his own Fifth Column while, ironically, dealing indirectly with the politicians of other countries through his bishops. We may not want a Borgia, but we should have his advice.
At this point, I'd take a Borgia...
Post a Comment