Thus far, Pope Leo has in simple ways, but through talks to select groups but sticking to a written text, indicated the direction that His Holiness’ papacy will take as it regards synodality, politics and sexuality. And to a certain extent, His Holiness’ agenda for the Liturgy of the Church.
One rotten fruit the expanded synodality of Pope Francis has produced is to make political the nature of conveying and changing doctrines and morals.
Under Pope Francis, who protested a bit too much that synodality under his watch was not a political parliament, became precisely that a political jamboree.
Within that context, one major political lobby that is huge as a secular worldwide lobby and now to find a branch in the Catholic synodal lobby, is the LGBTQ+++ Synodal Political Party Lobby.
Under this umbrella, the heterodox of the Church, who since 1968 with St. Paul VI’s release of Humanae Vitae, have sought to overturn that document in order to revultionize Catholic sexual morals with a new kind of morality which in effect is the old immorality.
If the LGBTQ+++ synodal lobby gets its way, Humanae Vitae will be overturned, not official, but in fact.
No longer will the sex act be linked to a licit marriage and procreation and the unitive aspect of uniting a man and woman in a licit marriage of love and life. It will be for anyone, in any manner, although respectful, but who defines that, because what is respectful to one is violent to another. Thus artificial birth control as immoral will have no meaning whatsoever for heterosexual couples.
Gender fluidity will become the norm and multiple genders recognized according to what one thinks they are or “feels” they are.
Natural Law will be tossed as well as what the Church has taught since the earliest centuries about human sexuality.
Abortion will be embraced as a sacrament.
OF COURSE THE FIRES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL OVER THE CHURCH!
Pope Leo’s short papacy and few words have made that clear in a simple way:
1. He upholds natural law, the key for evangelization and for all moral documents of the Church to include sexuality but beyond that also.
2. He upholds the Deposit of Faith and asks moral theologians to follow the pre-Vatican II moralist, St. Alphonsus Liguori.
3. He calls sinners to conversion.
4. and in one sentence describes what synodality is by quoting St. Augustine:
23 comments:
He’s just conducted 2x 2.5 hour interviews with crux now reporters, to be released soon.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2025/09/leo-gives-first-exclusive-interview-to-crux-correspondent-for-new-bio
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/rober-catholic-fundamentalism-massa-church
Thanks for the link. In the late 1800’s when modernism was infecting the liberal Protestant denominations at the time, their so-called embrace of heterodox modernist ideas led, within Protestantism, as a reaction to it, to the Protestant fundamentalist movement of the early 1900’s in the USA. Vatican II’s heterodox modernists too have provoked a similar movement in the Catholic Church in the USA and I presume elsewhere, of a reaction to the heterodoxy left making the orthodox right go a bit too far right or “fundamentalist.” The Commonweal author traces that history starting in the late 60’s but doesn’t make the connection to the reaction of orthodox Catholics to the heterodoxy of the left. That’s the weakness of the article. Today, though, with synodality, listening, and all the other manipulative words used, if the LGBTQ++++ and other heterodox left leaning groups are to be coddled and welcomed, so too must the Fundamentalist Catholics. I did not see that welcome in the article or chastising the Archbishop of Detroit for his rigid exclusion of those with whom he disagrees and without dialogue with them, from his seminary. There also was not due process and all of that will end up in court and the Archdiocese paying a hearty price in a law suit.
Are you referring to the sacking of 3 controversial seminary professors?
I would have thought that’s entirely within the remit of the archbishop and a matter of religious freedom. If a bishop can sack a staff member of a school not involved in religious/catechetical formation for lifestyle reasons then he can absolutely do so to seminary teachers who loudly criticise the pope and challenge his encyclical teachings.
Yes, the three seminary professors. In the USA, in terms of employment, one must follow due-process or face a lawsuit. These professors had contracts and also tenure. The Archbishop act unilaterally, not even consulting the rector of the seminary, who ordinarily does the firing, even if asked by the Archbishop to do it. What this Archbishop did is questionable from the secular point of view and certainly anti-synodal from the new Catholic point of view.
By the way, when I was in Macon, Ga, our private Catholic High School had hired an actively gay young man, as the music director. While there, but before same sex marriage became legal in the USA for all states, he decided to marry his male partner but in a ceremony in Minnesota, which at that time recognized same sex “marriage.” The bishop of our diocese asked the President of the high school to fire the teacher. I was involved in all of this as the dean of the Macon deanery. The firing of this man caused a media melt down at it made international news. The young man hired a good lawyer, and the high school was ordered to pay a settlement to him. That’s how it works in the USA even with our division of Church and State.
Just to touch on one point: it's an inter-diocesan seminary, so the archbishop has little-to-no unilateral authority. But he acted without consulting the rector or the board overseeing the seminary, and without following the procedure outlined in the seminary's procedures. He truly is a protege of Francis: "for my friends, everything; for my enemies, not even the law."
Nick
Well music teacher wasn’t in a catechetical / religious teaching role so that’s the difference.
Archbishop probably coulda / shoulda consulted others but still think at the end of the day it’s right decision as they are unsuitable for teaching in a seminary.
You see, benny, the point of it is that every professor there is entitled to a review of their dismissal before it is final. Denying them that, even if you have concluded on your own authority that they're "unsuitable for teaching in a seminary[,]" goes against the Christian virtues of justice and charity.
Nick
Well depends on the seriousness of the offence. Summary dismissal is always an option but you would expect the reason to be given.
Summary dismissal is the immediate termination of an employee without notice or pay in lieu of notice (PILON) due to gross misconduct, a serious violation of their employment contract that fundamentally breaches trust. This can include actions like fraud, theft, or gross negligence. Employers must conduct a fair investigation and follow the proper procedure, even for gross misconduct, to avoid unfair dismissal claims.
To be fair, Ratzinger ordered the summary dismissal of a number of teaching staff and non-religious lay staff too
You would expect so, but the Archbishop didn't have the decency to do so.
Nick
Such as?
Nick
Google it!
Several theologians / seminary rectors or lay heads of Catholic charitable organisations etc were removed from post under instruction from the CDF.
Ratzinger demanded Cormac Murphy O’Connor remove Julian Filochowski (Director of CAFOD) from post but Cormac stood his ground saying “I can’t and I wont!”
Leo is relatively young and healthy so has decades to steer the Barque of Peter.
Unlike Francis, there’s no rush so he can afford to take his time and implement changes gently and incrementally.
benny,
I don't think you understand how commenting works. Making a sourceless assertion is discrediting (as well as your weird new obsession with Catholic vestments being the province of drag queens and gender-dysphoric individuals).
For what it's worth, Googling Filochowski and Ratzinger turns up nothing about this supposed dust-up. I did learn that Filochowski had an ex-Carmelite "husband" of some sort; suuure sounds like the sort of person who should be running a Catholic organization.
As for the likes of Curran, Schillbeekx, and others, such as liberation theologians (I can only assume you refer to such as these, seeing as you don't see fit to substantiate your assertions yourself), everything I could find reported significant circumstances not present in the Weisenburger removals. Discipline that was meted out often came after investigation and dialogue, which could be lengthy, into their positions--unlike what the pastoral, nice progressives like Weisenburger usually don't engage in. Ratzinger also had something Weisenburger does not, which is the authority to act as he did.
Nick
Ratzinger intervened as diocesan bishop / cardinal to remove numerous clerics from post.
You won’t find the Filochowski story online, it’s from a direct source who was in the room at the time!
"Ratzinger intervened as diocesan bishop / cardinal to remove numerous clerics from post."
There are so many distinctions between this (vague) assertion and the Weisenburger defenestrations that I won't even bother to detail them.
"Google it!"
"You won't find it online!"
benny, thank you for confirming that you shouldn't be taken seriously.
Nick
Well same sex marriage is not sacramental, it’s purely a secular recognition of a partnership so I would consider it to be equivalent to a civil union and not grounds for dismissal.
If a gay (non-sexual) couple need to have their relationship legally recognised for financial / tax / health and other purposes such as being next of kin then they don’t really have any other option if a formal civil union option is not on the statutes. It’s not a deliberate statement against church teaching but a pragmatic act to practical ends.
A number of gay catholics in civil unions objected to being automatically upgraded to marriage when the law was chsnged here in the uk.
See the last line of my previous comment.
Nick
https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/science-agrees-with-the-catholic-church-homosexuality-is-disordered/
Lifesite news is not a reliable source of information.
Science does not assert homosexuality to be disordered. The church uses the term disordered in a philosophical sense (not psychiatric / scientific).
Post a Comment