I could be wrong, but this papal Motu Proprio seems to confirm what Cardinal Hollerich told a reporter back in February of 2022.
During an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA, Cardinal Hollerich stated that Church teaching related to homosexuality “is false,” because the “sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”
Below this English Translation of the Motu Proprio is a Pillar article of what this kind of thinking and theologizing will enable and confirm—a new understanding of sex and redefining marriage as the Anglican Communion has already done. In other words, this ain’t your Holy Father Benedict XVI Church anymore or anyone’s fathers’ Church.
Read this English translation of the new papal Motu Proprio and tell me what you think:
APOSTOLIC LETTER
IN THE FORM OF A “MOTU PROPRIO”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
Ad theologiam promovendam
WITH WHICH ARE APPROVED
NEW STATUTES OF THE
PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF THEOLOGY
1. Promoting theology in the future cannot be limited to abstractly re-proposing formulas and schemes of the past. Called to prophetically interpret the present and glimpse new itineraries for the future in the light of Revelation, theology will have to confront profound cultural transformations, aware that: “What we are living through is not simply an era of change, but a change of epoch” (Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 21, 2013).
2. The Pontifical Academy of Theology, which arose in the early 18th century under the auspices of Clement XI, my Predecessor, and was canonically established by him with the brief Inscrutabili on April 23, 1718, throughout its centuries-long existence has constantly embodied the need to place theology at the service of the Church and the world, modifying when necessary its structure and expanding its aims: from an initial place of theological formation of clergymen in a context where other institutions were lacking and inadequate for that purpose, to a group of scholars called upon to investigate and deepen theological themes of particular relevance. The updating of the Statutes, desired by my Predecessors, marked and promoted this process: think of the Statutes approved by Gregory XVI on August 26, 1838, and those approved by St. John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter Inter munera Academiarum on January 28, 1999.
3. After almost five years, the time has come to revise these norms, to make them more suitable for the mission that our time imposes on theology. A synodal, missionary and “outgoing” Church can only be matched by an “outgoing” theology. As I wrote in my Letter to the Grand Chancellor of the Catholic University of Argentina, addressing professors and students of theology, “Do not settle for a desk theology. Let your place of reflection be the frontiers. […] Good theologians, like good pastors, also smell of the people and the street and, by their reflection, pour oil and wine on the wounds of men.” Openness to the world, to man in the concreteness of his existential situation, with its problems, wounds, challenges, and potential, cannot, however, be reduced to a “tactical” attitude, extrinsically adapting now-crystallized content to new situations, but must urge theology to an epistemological and methodological rethinking, as indicated in the Proem of the apostolic constitution Veritatis gaudium.
4. Theological reflection is therefore called to a turning point, to a paradigm shift, to a “courageous cultural revolution” (Encyclical Letter Laudato si’, 114) that commits it, first and foremost, to be a fundamentally contextual theology, capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women daily live, in different geographical, social and cultural environments, and having as its archetype the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, its entering into the culture, worldview, and religious tradition of a people. From here, theology cannot but develop into a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly confronting everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Indeed, the need for dialogue is intrinsic to human beings and to the whole of creation, and it is the particular task of theology to discover “the Trinitarian imprint that makes the cosmos in which we live ‘a web of relationships’ in which ‘it is proper to every living being to tend toward another thing'” (Apostolic Constitution Veritatis gaudium, Proem, 4a).
5. This relational dimension connotes and defines, from the epistemic point of view, the status of theology, which is urged not to close itself in self-referentiality, which leads to isolation and insignificance, but to grasp itself as embedded in a web of relationships, first and foremost with other disciplines and other knowledge. This is the approach of transdisciplinarity, that is, interdisciplinarity in a strong sense, as distinct from multidisciplinarity, understood as interdisciplinarity in a weak sense. The latter certainly promotes a better understanding of the object of study by considering it from multiple points of view, which nevertheless remain complementary and separate. Instead, transdisciplinarity should be thought of “as the placement and fermentation of all knowledge within the space of Light and Life offered by the Wisdom that emanates from God’s Revelation” (Apostolic Constitution Veritatis gaudium, Proem, 4c). Hence the arduous task for theology to be able to make use of new categories elaborated by other knowledges, in order to penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today’s languages, with originality and critical awareness.
6. Dialogue with other knowledge evidently presupposes dialogue within the ecclesial community and an awareness of the essential synodal and communal dimension of doing theology: the theologian cannot but live fraternity and communion in the first person, at the service of evangelization and in order to reach the hearts of all. As I said to theologians in the Address to the Members of the International Theological Commission, November 24, 2022: “Ecclesial synodality therefore commits theologians to do theology in a synodal form, promoting among themselves the capacity to listen, dialogue, discern and integrate the multiplicity and variety of instances and inputs.” It is therefore important that there are places, including institutional ones, in which to live and experience theological collegiality and fraternity.
7. Finally, the necessary attention to the scientific status of theology should not obscure its sapiential dimension, as already clearly stated by St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. Summa theologiae I, q. 1, a. 6). Therefore, Blessed Antonio Rosmini considered theology a sublime expression of “intellectual charity,” while calling for the critical reason of all knowledge to be oriented to the Idea of Wisdom. Now the Idea of Wisdom inwardly holds Truth and Charity together in a “solid circle,” so that it is impossible to know truth without practicing charity: “because the one is in the other and neither of the two is found outside the other. Hence he who has this Truth has Charity with it that fulfills it, and he who has this Charity has Truth fulfilled” (cf. Of the Author’s Studies, nn.100-111). Scientific reason must expand its boundaries in the direction of wisdom, lest it dehumanize and impoverish itself. By this route, theology can contribute to the current debate of “rethinking thinking,” showing itself to be a true critical knowledge insofar as it is sapiential knowledge, not abstract and ideological, but spiritual, elaborated on its knees, pregnant with adoration and prayer; a transcendent knowledge and, at the same time, attentive to the voice of the people, thus “popular” theology, mercifully addressed to the open wounds of humanity and creation and within the folds of human history, to which it prophesies the hope of ultimate fulfillment.
8. It is a matter of the pastoral “stamp” that theology as a whole, and not only in one of its particular spheres, must assume: without opposing theory and practice, theological reflection is urged to develop with an inductive method, which starts from the different contexts and concrete situations in which peoples are inserted, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality, in order to become discernment of the “signs of the times” in the proclamation of the salvific event of the God-agape, communicated in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is necessary that the knowledge of people’s common sense, which is in fact a theological place in which so many images of God dwell, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, only and always love, be privileged first of all. Theology is at the service of the Church’s evangelization and transmission of faith, so that faith becomes culture, that is, the wise ethos of God’s people, a proposal of human and humanizing beauty for all.
9. Faced with this renewed mission of theology, the Pontifical Academy of Theology is called to develop, in its constant attention to the scientific nature of theological reflection, transdisciplinary dialogue with other scientific, philosophical, humanistic and artistic knowledge, with believers and non-believers, with men and women of different Christian denominations and different religions. This will be able to happen by creating an academic community of shared faith and study that weaves a network of relationships with other formative, educational and cultural institutions and is able to penetrate, with originality and a spirit of imagination, into the existential places of the elaboration of knowledge, professions and Christian communities.
10. Thanks to the new Statutes, the Pontifical Academy of Theology will thus be able more easily to pursue the goals that the present time requires. Accepting favorably the vows that have been addressed to me to approve these new norms, and indulging them, I desire that this egregious seat of study may grow in quality, and therefore I approve, by virtue of this Apostolic Letter, and in perpetuity, the Statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, legitimately drawn up and newly revised, and I confer upon them the force of Apostolic approval.
All that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter motu proprio given, I order to have stable and lasting force, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 1st day of November in the year 2023, Solemnity of All Saints, the eleventh of the Pontificate.
And no sooner had the Motu Proprio been decreed on November 1st, a German bishop issues a 1,000 word letter to his diocese allowing priests and deacons to bless adulterous heterosexual unions and LGBTQ+++ unions. I am sure there will be no papal correction unless this good bishops allows these blessings within a Traditional Latin Mass.
Press the title of the Pillar title for the full implementation of this Motu Proprio:
German bishop asks pastors to bless same-sex couples
A German bishop issued a letter Thursday asking pastors in his diocese to bless same-sex couples. Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesemann said in the Nov. 2 letter to priests, deacons, and lay pastoral workers that the blessings — which he also extended to remarried couples — could take place in churches in the Diocese of Speyer.
36 comments:
This is a powerful comment from the Pillar article:
David Werning
11 hrs ago
It's not surprising given Pope Francis' encouragement in so many ways. Certainly the pope says all the right things: there is no correspondence at all between so-called same-sex unions and marriage; we must respect divine revelation; all abuse is evil. But then his actions reveal his mind: go ahead and find a way to bless a couple of guys or gals living together; he writes that revelation includes “the knowledge of the common sense of the people who are in fact a theological place in which so many images of God dwell, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God” (This from his most recent motu propio, in paragraph 8); and Rupnik is his own special case, not to be considered under the pope's strong words. I agree with the person who wrote "Either I'm Catholic, or they are." It really does seem that we're getting to that point. And yet, I refuse to give in to despair, because I do believe that Jesus is the head of the Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I'm sure I will need to open myself more to Jesus, and to keep trying to put on his mind. But the Christian face of God is Jesus, and Jesus is the fullness of revelation. All theology starts with him. We certainly do not want to dismiss the experience of people, but their common sense needs to correspond with Jesus. Didn't Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
I foresee Hell for high ranking members of the Heirarchy
This is not meant as any kind of public proclamation or assertion, but merely an opinion, but if anything ever led me to suspect that Francis is an antipope (which of course, a future pope would have to proclaim) its this statement. Especially his uber-controlling ending of "All that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter motu proprio given, I order to have stable and lasting force..." I am not saying definitively that he IS an antipope, but I have strong, strong suspicions. This document not only enshrines relativism, but it puts a stone wall around the shrine.
Sorry popesplainers, but he's just too inflexible and rigid when it comes to giving the full force of the law to flimsy assertions.
Cardinal Mueller recently said that if a pope teaches heresy, he is no longer the pope, especially, I suspect, in an authoritative promulgation, not just what might be said in a spontaneous interview answer. MT says a pope can’t teach heresy. Mueller’s assertion guarantees it. But, yes, a future pope would have to put a pope like Francis on trial after his death or abdication to determine if he truly taught heresy. If the verdict is yes, then that pope becomes an antipope. I am not sure if that began with the teaching or from the time of his election though.
The theologically unsophisticated are out in force today, I see.
Now, TJM can make a comment about abortion, Jerome can again proclaim just how unsophisticated he is, but that that really doesn't matter, and Fr. ALLAN McDonald can say "See, you proved my point!"
Jerome, before your concern over ""All that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter motu proprio given, I order to have stable and lasting force..." sends your blood pressure through the roof, you might want to check a few other papal pronouncements for similar language. You might start with this passage from Quo Primum of Pope Pius V, "This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church." Even Military Orders - how's THAT for "uber-controlling"???
Every theological statement we have reflects the time in which it is developed. Every one of them. The Gospel writers all presented Divine Revelation in ways that reflect and embody the time and the culture in which they wrote. The patristic authors did the same. Many theological pronouncements from the Post-Reformation are heavily colored by the fear and the dismay that Luther and his followers provoked among leaders of the Catholic Church.
Just as with the predictions of an apocalyptic result from the Synod on Synodality, I expect the same kind of result from this latest Pope Francis tempest-in-a-teapot explosion.
TJM:
Don't bother. It's not worth it.
Fr K Orwell,
You vote for abortion in every national election. So you should be happy if Francis does your Party’s bidding
Jerome - So one pope saying "World without end, Amen" is bad, but another pope saying "World without end, Amen" is good?
Gotcha...
Fr K Orwell, have you been drinking or is this a feeble attempt by a corrupt cleric at humor?
Sophia here: Yes, absolutely and obviously Fr. K.- because it depends on to WHAT each is referring! That is the problem with Modernists/Relativists-false equivalences.
Sophia - There's no false equivalence.
Jerome took exception to a pope making a statement about his directions perduring. He made ZERO substantial reference to what it was about the Motu Priprio that he objected to. According to Jerome, that kind of statement, ""All that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter motu proprio given, I order to have stable and lasting force..." makes Pope Francis "uber-controlling" and, in Jerome's untutored view, opens him to being declared an anti-pope.
However, another pope made a statement about his directions perduring. "This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church." That, it seems, is not at all troubling to Jerome. It did not make Pius V "uber-controlling," nor did it put him in line to be denounced.
Ya can't have it both ways.
That is the problem with unsophisticated "theologians."
Sophia and TJM,
While I certainly appreciate you both coming to my defense, maybe the good priest who has granted me the privilege of living rent-free in his head is kind of right. You CAN’T have it both ways.
I don’t think the possibility of Bergoglio being an anti-pope has anything to do with his closing formula of decree…in fact, Fr. K is right inasmuch as a LOT of documents have traditionally ended with such a formula. No problem there. Perhaps I don’t always express myself as clearly as I intend or should, but what bothers me about this document is that it give such force to the new idea that the Church must subordinate herself to secular influences.
Perhaps I should have relied on the words of someone like Cardinal Mueller, who, when speaking of the synodal process said, “This is a desire to take over, a power which doesn't exist, a want to be more intelligent than God himself. It is like the Marxistic form of creating the truth by presenting of his own power. ... They have the intention to substitute their own subjective ideas, against a revealed reality of Jesus Christ, as is the [path to the] destruction of the Catholic Church.”
What initially bothered me about this closing formula of Francis’ motu proprio probably lies more in the tone of his papacy and its transparent contradiction. He never ceases to rail against the past, against tradition–or, dare I say, he tries to redefine tradition–and he preaches a sort of unbridled “openness” and “flexibility” as the hallmarks of what the Church should be…yet he unfailingly uses the traditional “muscle” of declaring his new vision as unchangeable by using such formulas. He seems to want to scuttle any notion of unchangeable rules and traditions, yet he invokes their forumula when it suits his purpose. He just can’t have it both ways.
So Father K is quite right in criticizing me and I openly and freely admit it and thank him for his kind correction.
What is a Motu Priprio? That is the problem with unsophisticated "priests" who vote for the Party of Moloch
Not being a theologian, my thoughts.
*In principle, I don't think there's anything particularly disagreeable with this motu propio. It's how it could be abused that has me wondering.
*Agree, learning, advancement, development etc. might cause a theology to be rethought based upon that new learning (we now know what we didn't before), or perhaps a new theology to be developed.
*"Openness to the world, to man in the concreteness of his existential situation, with its problems, wounds, challenges, and potential, cannot, however, be reduced to a “tactical” attitude, extrinsically adapting now-crystallized content to new situations, but must urge theology to an epistemological and methodological rethinking" I'm not following how, relative to the Deposit of Faith, Catholic theology can be fully "de-crystallized".
*"By this route, theology can contribute to the current debate of “rethinking thinking,” showing itself to be a true critical knowledge insofar as it is sapiential knowledge, not abstract and ideological, but spiritual, elaborated on its knees, pregnant with adoration and prayer; a transcendent knowledge and, at the same time, attentive to the voice of the people, thus “popular” theology, mercifully addressed to the open wounds of humanity and creation and within the folds of human history, to which it prophesies the hope of ultimate fulfillment." I'm not following how the Deposit of Faith and the theology that pours forth from it can bend its knee to become "popular". We are countercultural. Christ, the physician of souls and bodies, will heal modern wounds now as he did one thousand years ago.
*"It is a matter of the pastoral “stamp” that theology as a whole, and not only in one of its particular spheres, must assume: without opposing theory and practice, theological reflection is urged to develop with an inductive method, which starts from the different contexts and concrete situations in which peoples are inserted, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality, in order to become discernment of the “signs of the times” in the proclamation of the salvific event of the God-agape, communicated in Jesus Christ." Does this open the possibility of theologies becoming distorted, or twisted such that they then are at odds with the Deposit of Faith? Theology subjugated to popular culture, or whim?
"Read this English translation of the new papal Motu Proprio[.]"
No thanks. I would list the things that would be a better use of my time, but it would be such a long list that I would be wasting my time.
Nick
"The theologically unsophisticated are out in force today, I see."
The mark of an incorrect progressive is usually humility.
Nick
Nick,
LOL! Not that “progressive!”
Separately, the unprovoked, elitist, commentary presented a few comments up is totally off-putting and, arguably, unbecoming.
Revival and evangelization will be difficult to achieve if such attitudes are pervasive day to day.
I'm not a theologian as mentioned. Likely my comments and reflections are an unsophisticated waste of time. The sophisticates can enjoy their clericalism while the rest of us evidently will continue wallowing in our ignorance.
Fetishes and now unsophisticated..
Archbishop Vigano penned a powerful homily for the feast of St. Charles Borromeo reflecting on the state of the Church. Here are a few choice excerpts:
"What therefore constitutes the difference between Saint Charles Borromeo – and along with him all the Holy Confessors of the Faith – and the current Episcopate? The difference is Charity, that is, the love of God above all things and the love of one’s neighbor for love of Him....Without Charity, he would have left the heretics in heresy and would not have fought their errors...Without Charity he would have asked English Catholics, in the name of inclusiveness, to dialogue with their heretical queen who was the ferocious enemy of the “papists.” Without Charity, which makes us love God in His sublime Truth and detest everything that clouds His teaching, Saint Charles would not have participated in the Council of Trent to define more forcefully the points of Catholic doctrine contested by the Lutherans and Calvinists, but indeed he would have tried to smooth over any theological divergence so as not to make them feel excluded and judged. He would have marginalized good priests and faithful laity, accusing them of being rigid and mocking them in his writings or in his homilies..."
"If we want to have further proof of the abyss that separates the Holy Shepherds – and Saint Charles among them – from the mercenaries who today infest the Church of Christ, it is sufficient for us to imagine how he would judge the participants in the Synod on Synodality, and what he would say about Bergoglio’s condemnation of those who “limit themselves to abstractly re-proposing formulas and patterns of the past,” of Bergoglio’s invitation to an “evolution of the interpretation” of the Holy Scriptures, of the cult of the Pachamama, of his standing rather than kneeling coram Sanctissimo, of the Abu Dhabi Declaration, of the alleged role of women in the government of the Church, of the desire to abolish Sacred Celibacy, of the admission of concubinage partners and divorced people to Holy Communion, of the blessing of homosexual unions and the promotion of the LGBTQ+ ideology, of having promoted a harmful and deadly vaccine, of having become a zealous supporter of the Agenda 2030."
Even the unsophisticates of this "Age of Progressive Advancement" can smell the phoniness that reeks from the Vatican. Fortunately, there are still a few priests and bishops, like Vigano, who are more enthralled with the love of God than their own vanity.
ByzRus,
Don't forget denying that the Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is mysterious and mystical!
Nick
Jerome Merwick,
The Village Idiot will be here soon to correct you.
The Catholic Church was experiencing a revival under Pope Benedict. His ending of the liturgical war was a key element. Priests under 40 want none of the bilge PF is peddling. Hopefully they will be our future bishops unless PF destroys the unity of the Church by ordaining women as a last act of tyrannical desperation. He may not be an antipope but he is evil, Satan's puppet. He is also the dumbest man to inhabit the Chair of Peter in my lifetime and I go back to Pius XII.
I think I should have written "non-sophisticates"?
Dang.
Nick,
Great point.
TJM,
The conspiracy theorist in me doesn't think he's stupid in the least. To me, this MP is written in a way that will allow others to do what he can't risk doing himself. I've spent a career mitigating risk. This got my attention.
Now another might accuse me, among others, of said theories, fetishes and being unsophisticated. That's fine, I'm a big boy and my keyboard feelings won't be hurt. Christ incarnate walked among common man. He didn't tell them how unsophisticated they were during his earthly ministry. Even the meek woman who suffered hemorrhages and was cured by touching Jesus' robe wasn't chastised. That was simply unbecoming behavior by one who strikes me as both angry and confrontational. So be it. People are who they are, habits are modified, rarely changed. Two great equalizers in life: death and judgment before the fearsome judgement seat of Christ. An explanation might be requested there, sophisticationat that juncture will simply be an earthly care. I hope after reflection, a response can be provided.
"'The theologically unsophisticated are out in force today, I see.' The mark of an incorrect progressive is usually humility."
Yes, Old Nick, the unsophisticated are out in force.
First, you seem to misunderstand what constitutes humility. Too many think it means making oneself a doormat, denying one's gifts and talents, never raising one's voice to offer correction to errors.
That type of misunderstanding - and it is just that - flows from a pervasive "I'm OK, You're OK" thinking that leads people to label educated people as "elites." Byz then adds that those among the ordained who venture to respond to correct erroneous understandings of Catholic theology are suffering from "clericalism."
Well, the one of the benefits of seminary formation is an appreciation for the complexity and the nuance that is part and parcel of Catholic theology from Day One. A cursory read of several papal documents would have prevented Jerome from accusing Pope Francis of being "uber-controlling." But, no, he came out with guns blazing to accuse Francis of being wrong for doing what many of his predecessors have done. That's the result of a lack of sophistication.
Now, back to humility . . . To be humble is to know what your God-given gifts ARE and what they ARE NOT. A humble person doesn't hide his/her talents, for to do so would be an insult to the giver of those talents. When told, "Man, you really pitched a great game!" the truly humble person doesn't say, "No, it wasn't good at all." Or when told, "That's a great dress!" the truly humble person doesn't respond, "What, this old thing?" when in fact it's a new garment. The humble person says, "Thank you" and remembers to offer gratitude to God for good thing.
So, Ol' Nick, don't dare waste your time gaining some sophistication. It's more fun, isn't it, just to blunder ahead in a fog of misconception and misunderstanding, and then accuse those who are more tutored of being something they are not.
Fr AJM provided this past and asked us to tell him what we think.
I was clear that I lack training in theology when providing my observations.
I do not wish to engage in exchanging insults. Continue with this dialog appears counterproductive.
This could have been interesting.
Ol' Nikki - There are many, many folks who have a superb theological education, many better than mine, who never attended a seminary. That comment shows you miss the forest for the trees.
As for my "narrow" education, I received a biology from a liberal arts-oriented college. At that level, there was nothing remotely narrow about it. My seminary education is from one of the most highly respected seminaries in the USA. We followed the course of studies that was offered in most, if not all, American seminaries. Again, nothing remotely narrow.
Jerome threw a very narrow, precisely aimed barb at Pope Francis. I pointed out, as I was able to do given my substantial educational background and continued theological studies since ordination, his little bomb-lette was a dud.
So, you go on now with your little tirade. As you so highly value of the lack of sophistication in technical fields, be sure you consult your local Roto-Rooter man the next time you suffer from constipation. When he tells you that he doesn't have the training or the ability to help, may I suggest you consult someone with the proper background and knowledge needed to address the problem.
ByzRus,
Agreed. My comment is not worth leaving up. My wife thinks I don't have a temper; I'm not sure why.
Nick
"...may I suggest you consult someone with the proper background and knowledge needed to address the problem."
Could someone please forward Father Kavanaugh a link to his nearest Dale Carnegie course?
Nick,
The situation in the Church has left us hopelessly divided, rehashing the same topics over and over and going in circles while so doing.
Increasingly, my sense is we've simply exhausted this forum. I'm running out of things to say that I haven't already.
ByzRus:
Too right, mate. Too right.
Fr K Orwell must be drinking again. He is a legend in his own mind and a sad, sick example of priesthood: abortion, gay marriage, transgender supporting “priest.” I am sure his bishop might be curious of his views unless he is morally compromised as well!
We can leave Captain Sanctimony and Clueless Clericp to post whatever heretical nonsense they like
Sophia here: Here is another very heartening discussion of Pope Francis' paradigm shift in Theology, by three orthodox (vs heterodox, Modernist/Relativist)Theologians-Larry Chapp / Eduardo J. Echeverria / Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. in The Catholic Thing.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/11/07/three-theologians-on-the-popes-paradigm-shift-in-theology/?mc_cid=6210ceeec7&mc_eid=2cc978dc40
TJM's last comment reminds me of something that parallels other posts here about insulting priests.
We shouldn't. Unless I am mistaken about this, opening up a priest to ridicule is the sin of sacrilege. I will openly admit that I have done that very thing in these comment boxes and I mean to stop. I ask the priest in question, Father Kavanaugh to forgive me and I ask the readers to forgive me for setting such a bad example.
While I have serious disagreements with said priest, the "clueless cleric" moniker I coined doesn't make anything better and I would caution all who post here to learn from my mistake.
Most of us here, myself included, hide behind a false identity to protect ourselves in various ways. Father Kavanaugh does not. That alone should give us all pause.
Enough said. Let's stop the name-calling--even when provoked. ESPECIALLY when provoked.
I echo Jerome Merwick's thoughts.
With the exception of a very small few, most here, my self, other commenters as well as the host and Fr. MJK are guilty of lobbing barbs and insults. It's unbecoming, not what should be occurring on a blog that should celebrate our brotherhood and, to me, it's embarrassing where Catholics, Orthodox, Christians and non-believers might view our activities. If this blog was supervised by the episcopacy, I suspect the dynamic would be considerably different.
We are all guilty of wanting our own echo chambers, we all have our fetishes and we all seek out others that are like-minded (perhaps with two exceptions).
I've been wrestling with how to live with this. It's the internet, it's not life. The internet is unnecessary for day-to-day living, salvation, you name it. It is simply a convenience and one where many, myself included, hide behind a pseudonym.
A benefit of pseudonyms, lobbing barbs and insults is "free". As much as I have tried over the years to avoid this behavior, it is easy to fall victim to this evil and the combox being monitored/unmonitored, makes it even easier.
Part of me wishes that Fr. AJM would just mark its end and go off an enjoy his retirement without the burdens of the public. Anymore, I feel we mostly go in repetitive circles. Jesus good, sin bad, pray, pay and obey, that church beautiful, omg how ugly is that, heresy, pachamama, sophisticated, fetishes, why can't priests vest properly, why is Father on roller skates in church, too much lace, who cares about beeswax and on and one. At the same time, what else are we going to discuss? Perhaps scripture? I suppose I am free to walk away as well. It seems many have, Mr. Nolen, Bee, among others.
Debate is just that, debate. Debate usually welcomes all viewpoints and experiences. Debate can educate those who don't share common ground on a subject. Barbs and insults are exclusionary. Given the level of sophistication expected by some, I have grappled with how to continue on here. I'm neither clergy nor am I trained in various aspects of that vocation. Conversely, the clergy who post here aren't trained with respect to my vocation - a moot point as that vocation is irrelevant here. Debate could help to educate and find middle ground. Or, we can continue doing what we seem to do so very well. Free will, our choice, I suppose. I think we're better than our recent respective performances. I'm regretful for some of mine.
Post a Comment