Monday, October 13, 2014

The Family Synod and LGB Outreach

Pardon me if I continue to take a 'wait and see' approach with the developments of the Church synod.

I feel no need to defend everything coming out of it - and I'm already on record as regarding Cardinal Kasper to be a pretty obvious quisling who I trust about as far as I can throw. I am not so naive as to lack awareness that progressives are absolutely enamored with being "subversive", and that they dive for double-talk to advance their agendas whenever possible. They manipulated and abused Vatican II, and they're hoping for another go at that kind of damage-doing.

At the same time, I am not going to panic at every suggestion that there should be a new way of communicating church teaching to a casually sinful public. I think social conservatives have largely done a bad job on this front (with some high points, admittedly), and a need for a new approach - not a new teaching, but new approach - is in order. Moves like this come with risks, but refusing to move has risks associated with it as well. So it's not like I'm in the camp where people are insisting that the only thing the Church should do is repeat what we all know, in the exact same way we've said it before, and act like that's all we can do.

So when I see the document talking about valuing the contributions homosexuals can make to the Church, I just shrug - sure they can make contributions. Sex ain't one of those contributions, but that's also (contra the LGB jackboots) not necessarily a central part of a gay person's existence anyway. Can something 'good' be found in a same-sex relationship? Yeah, I suppose, in the same way that something good can come from the relationship a guy has with the girlfriend he beats on a regular basis. He may well be supportive of her, nice and a genuinely good guy the 75% of the time where he's not drinking or knocking her around. It's not letting him off the hook the 25% of the time, but good is good.

I'm probably not wording things the way Kasper would prefer, but I really do not care.

The point is that, while I'm obviously waiting for the other shoe to drop, I'm actually willing to go along with a certain amount of olive-branch-extending. In fact, that's not me making a concession - I believe this anyway. There is - there truly is - good to be found in bad, even perverse relationships at times, and I don't need to ignore or forgive the bad to recognize as much. On the flipside, there's also BAD to be found in such relationships, and no amount of good can change that. Sin is sin, and you can't barter your way out of that.

I also admit, I realize that nothing short of a total capitulation is going to please the progressives anyway, so in a way some of this is moot. Try telling a progressive that as a Catholic you think there can be some positive aspects to a same-sex relationship, except all the sex is sinful and of course the whole thing can never rise to the level of sanctity that a traditional marriage can. Let me know how happy they are, except you won't be able to because you'll be too busy dealing with them trying to get you fired for your hate speech.

21 comments:

BenYachov said...

Here is a typical Reactionary “orthodox" rant from a website that once hosted a holocaust revisionist
on the synod.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-synod-report-homosexual.html

It is interesting to see the selective filters. Let me do my own filtering.

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.
Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.END QUOTE

Of course I can see the Reactionary Progressive reading the above and saying “What do you mean my gay marriage isn’t on the same footing as the one you straight people have? So I am a second class citizen in the Church!!!!! My marriage has `moral problems’!!!
A bunch of homophobe men in dresses!!!!! blah! blah! Blah !

Mark has such style when it comes to defending the Church(Of course say Torture or Capital punishment or Libertarianism or Ayn Rand & he goes into tin hat mode. Go figure!)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/10/mercy-for-heterosexuals-everybody-is-fine.html

Like this one too.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2014/10/13/no-earthquake-here-at-the-synod-the-church-teaches-us-how-to-dress-for-the-feast/


Cheers Crude you have the right idea.

PS some of my posts here are recycled from other blogs with some additions and editing.

I'm just spreading the luv.

malcolmthecynic said...

My initial impression is that the most liberal bishops quickly got together and put out a wet dream document, presumably in the hope that since they're the ones with the plan everybody else is going to follow.

Pope Francis strikes me as somebody who has genuinely tried to stay objective (going by there being no word from him thus far and very little said by him about the synod beforehand), which isn't bad but isn't necessarily good either - sometimes you need to take sides. But I can't fault him for his approach.

We'll see if the conservative bishops fold as easily as the Kasperites seem to hope.

Crude said...

The funny thing is, if that's the 'liberal wet dream document', it ain't much of one. But I suppose we'll see.

The Pope does seem to keep hinting he's not exactly conservative in his approach here, but as I keep saying, the conservative approach - not the orthodox teaching, but the approach - has flaws.

The Deuce said...

BenYachov:

Sorry, but Shea is being a raging, irrational jackass as usual. You'll note that he doesn't actually address anyone's arguments, and as usual he probably hasn't really read them. He just does his usual routine of straw-manning them and smugly accusing them of hate.

Of course the liberal bishops are going to say that they aren't compromising doctrine. What matters is what they're actually doing, not what they say they're doing. Liberals in *all* denominations say the same thing, no matter how far off the rails they're going. And they always couch it in vague sentimentalist bafflegarb to make it difficult to absolutely pin them down on anything, and so that jackholes like Mark can rationalize it all away and attack people who notice the practical intent.

The presence of strained sentimentalist psychobabble is itself a pretty good indication that a liberal is trying to put one over on you. As I said yesterday, I think Dwight Longnecker does a pretty good job and breaking through the vagueisms and feelsisms and noting the problematic implications here.

And, do note, this is the same group that wants to give communion to people the Church teaches are in unrepentant mortal sin, which implies that they don't really think it's mortal sin, or they don't really believe that taking communion in mortal sin is to eat and drink damnation onto yourself, so it's pretty naive to think the above is all more innocuous than it seems. Despite Mark's attempt to paper it all over with the word "gradualism" and to insinuate that everyone who disagrees is just a hatey hater who hates gradualism and mercy, Jimmy Akin notes here that it's being used in a sense condemned by JPII when a Synod tried to do the same thing with contraception.

The Deuce said...

Also, with regards to my previous point that liberals don't clearly talk about sin, Fr. Longnecker points out here that it's missing from the synod's report.

They do manage to "denounce clearly" (their words) "excessive room given to market logic," "discrimination," and "exclusion" among other things(No "gradualism" for those things? How can we be so judgmental and unwelcoming as to just come right out and tell people they need to stop giving excessive room to market logic?!)

Now, they give themselves plausible deniability here. They don't come right out and say, "Sexual immorality isn't really a sin and we should start accepting it. Repentance isn't important. The real problems that need addressing are a lack of socialism and inclusiveness." They don't technically deny any doctrine outright (well, except for the part about taking communion in an unworthy manner). No doubt Mark Shea has a sneering post up right now accusing all who see that and go "WTF?" of being libertarian heretics who only object because they worship Mammon and hate the poor, Pope Francis, and the very concept of mercy.

But you can still tell what they're about from what they say and don't say. You can know them by their fruits. You can tell what they're trying to put emphasis on in the Catholic church, and what they want to take it away from, and from that you can infer what they really believe. If, as Mark Shea says, this is just a peek into their thought processes, well, the people who wrote this thing are pretty secularistic in their thinking, and have left-wing social and economic agendas on their mind a lot more than the Gospel.

This kind of twaddle is why the Catholic church fell into such dire straights after VII, and is so full of nominal members who don't actually believe any of its doctrines or give a shit if their own church is forced to provide contraception or whatnot. Your members aren't going to take the teaching seriously or believe it (or see any reason to come to church) when their leaders and preachers signal that they don't believe it either, even if they play the "We're not *officially* changing any doctrines" ruse).

Crude said...

I'm not a fan of Mark Shea, who is even more hostile and given to ranting than I am.

That said, here's the problem:

They do manage to "denounce clearly" (their words) "excessive room given to market logic," "discrimination," and "exclusion" among other things(No "gradualism" for those things? How can we be so judgmental and unwelcoming as to just come right out and tell people they need to stop giving excessive room to market logic?!)

Agreed, but it's a false comparison to a point. Those are abstract ideas, not people.

But you can still tell what they're about from what they say and don't say. You can know them by their fruits. You can tell what they're trying to put emphasis on in the Catholic church, and what they want to take it away from, and from that you can infer what they really believe.

You can, usually. But frankly, sometimes you can't. I have had it suggested that I was a liberal myself for criticizing social conservatives, a portion of whom - let me be frank - are vastly more concerned that they be able to say "FAGGOT" in casual conversation without anyone objecting than they are with actual success in the culture wars, or political progress.

There is a legitimate complaint that there needs to be an approach to gay people, and sinners in general, that allows them the possibility of gradually straightening out their lives and coming to the Church. There is likewise a legitimate complaint that conservatives haven't handled this properly. There is FURTHER a legitimate complaint that some people who are attempting to handle this may have ulterior motives. And there is an even FURTHER point that anyone who attempts to handle this is going to get at least suspected of exactly that.

We've got a mess, and there are no easy outs.

This kind of twaddle is why the Catholic church fell into such dire straights after VII, and is so full of nominal members who don't actually believe any of its doctrines or give a shit if their own church is forced to provide contraception or whatnot.

You say that as if this is some particularly Catholic affliction, and doesn't describe just about every Church that goes beyond a handful of members.

BenYachov said...

@Deuce

>Sorry, but Shea is being a raging, irrational jackass as usual. You'll note that he doesn't actually address anyone's arguments, and as usual he probably hasn't really read them. He just does his usual routine of straw-manning them and smugly accusing them of hate.

If you are expecting a defense of Shea you will get none from me. Yes he is very lazy in that he rarely defends his blog posts in his commbox and seems content to let his partisans do the work.

Of course in this case I am one of them in regards to this one post. So yeh Shea won’t fight you and in that capacity he is useless. But I am BenYachov & you know I will fight. I live for it.

THE SCOTTS ARE OUT!!!!

>Of course the liberal bishops are going to say that they aren't compromising doctrine. What matters is what they're actually doing, not what they say they're doing.

Tedious! I’ve argued with Fundamentalists before who start out by accusing the Church of teaching some type of pelagian doctrine on works then when I pull out Session Six-Canon One of Trent they switch gears to “Yeh you don’t really believe that since I know Catholics who try to become saved by their own works apart from Christ.”

We must take the Bishops at their word & then hold their feet to the fire. It’s not hard.

>Liberals in *all* denominations say the same thing, no matter how far off the rails they're going. And they always couch it in vague sentimentalist bafflegarb to make it difficult to absolutely pin them down on anything, and so that jackholes like Mark can rationalize it all away and attack people who notice the practical intent.

But there is certainly enough that is clear from the Church to explain the so called vagueness in favor of orthodoxy. I just did it in my post at the top.

>The presence of strained sentimentalist psychobabble is itself a pretty good indication that a liberal is trying to put one over on you. As I said yesterday, I think Dwight Longnecker does a pretty good job and breaking through the vagueisms and feelsisms and noting the problematic implications here.

I don’t dispute with Longnecker. Rather I just refuse to be hysterical over this synod like the usual suspects. Heck today the Vatican spokesmen came out and said " that it is a working document, which summarizes the interventions and debate of the first week,”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/synod-secretariat-relatio-is-a-working-document-only/#ixzz3GApsj8Td

BenYachov said...

>And, do note, this is the same group that wants to give communion to people the Church teaches are in unrepentant mortal sin, which implies that they don't really think it's mortal sin, or they don't really believe that taking communion in mortal sin is to eat and drink damnation onto yourself, so it's pretty naive to think the above is all more innocuous than it seems.

You are equivocating between something being by nature intrinsically evil and being in mortal sin.

Consider these words from a prominent Cardinal.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-have-to-judge-acts-vaticans-cardinal-burke-dismantles-who-am-i-to-judge

Quote:"The Vatican cardinal added that while we can judge acts as gravely sinful we can’t say that a particular person is in grave sin, since “perhaps you are committing them without even knowing that they are gravely sinful, or perhaps you are committing them without fully consenting, who knows?”END QUOTE

People conscience of mortal sin should not take communion. But a lot of people are stupid. OTOH not giving communion to persons who engage in actions that are intrinsically evil is a safe bet in preventing them from “eating and drinking their own damnation’. Still I can see the other side but I am confident in one thing. The Church is Infallible and Indefectable. So all these ideas if they are really 100% wrong will not be made the official teaching. The followers of Kasper are simplicity itself. They all believe some “development” of doctrine could arise that will provide an exception that proves the rule. I am content to let them hope in vain.

PART II
> Despite Mark's attempt to paper it all over with the word "gradualism" and to insinuate that everyone who disagrees is just a hatey hater who hates gradualism and mercy, Jimmy Akin notes here that it's being used in a sense condemned by JPII when a Synod tried to do the same thing with contraception.

Yeh I have been talking to some of the Reactionaries in Mark’s combox. These people just hate gays. Some choice quotes one asshole says gays should be
" detested and punished” because Dante said it. Another says "The best way to "show these people compassion and joy in following Jesus and letting his Grace lead them to chastity." is to FORCE them to crawl on their knees to the foot of the Cross, and COMPEL them to beg God's forgiveness. Letting someone go to Hell is hardly and act of compassion.” Another said all gays have a pathology and that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation.

Fucking morons & I say this as someone who has no trouble slagging off PC gay fascists who try to punish people for not photographing their same sex wedding or bake a cake for it. These people want to use Catholic doctrine to say FAGGOT and by the standards of mistrust that are automatically projected on to the liberals (not taking their words at face value) I see no reason why the reactionaries should be believed when they say they are compassionate and just want to save souls from Hell? Maybe they just want to say FAGGOT?

Well maybe not all of them. But enough of them that we must overcompensate in the other direction.

The Deuce said...

I'm not a fan of Mark Shea, who is even more hostile and given to ranting than I am.

That's not Mark's problem. I enjoy reading a good sincere rant, personally. Mark's problem is that as a leftist, he subscribes to false narratives that he can only uphold by constantly lying to himself, and so he must go out of his way to prevent any hatefacts from accidentally getting into his brain and exposing his lies. As such, he never actually responds to anyone else's arguments. If he perceives that somebody disagrees with him, then like a typical leftist he automatically dismisses them as being driven by hate, and writes vicious slanderous screeds attacking them personally for stuff they didn't say, without even reading the ungoodthink he's supposedly attacking them for.

I gave one example above, where Nate clearly didn't read or understand Kevin Williamson, but just went by what a far-leftist hit piece said about him. I mentioned a couple other examples at the end of this FB thread, regarding Matt Walsh and Ben Stein (and I'd bet money that he never actually read Matt's posts on suicide either). I could give many other examples. And, of course, in at least that one case, it resulted in him publicly beclowning himself in epic fashion.

And then when you attack his (often incoherently or vaguely stated) position directly to his face, he'll howl and whine that you're putting words in his mouth and being horribly unfair to him, and then ban you.

When he first started with this, it was mainly limited to political issues. But of course political issues are not really independent of religious issues, and leftist ideology is an all-consuming poison that politicizes everything and is inherently secular, so now Mark has reached the point that he's basically a full-time raging demagogue who is incapable of reasonably discussing anything at all ever. So, for instance, if trying to square a statement like "We have absolutely no idea if there is anyone in hell or not" with Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching gives you a cognitive dissonance headache and you say so, why that's just because you hate sinners and want them to go to hell. And so forth.

One of his narratives is that Pope Francis is basically a perfect human being who can do no wrong and must never be criticized for any reason. Hence, anyone who criticizes him is just driven by hate, because they're a racist "Murican" who doesn't trust the Holy Spirit, or whatever, and hence they don't actually need to be read or genuinely responded to. Since Francis seems to have high regard for Kasper and has called for this synod, and has added those six liberals to it, all that transfers to them by osmosis, so nothing they say can be problematic either, and if any of it raises your alarm bells, well that just means you're a hysteric who's filled with hatey badthink and doesn't trust the Holy Spirit.

Notice how in the piece Ben linked, Mark doesn't actually discuss anything the people he talks about say, or respond to any of their points specifically. He just goes on at length accusing all of them of hating mercy, and hating homosexuals, and hating evangelism, and hyperventilating for no reason, and not understanding the concept of ongoing sanctification after conversion, and so on and so forth.

The Deuce said...

Correction: Above I said "where Nate clearly didn't read or understand Kevin Williamson." I meant to say "where Mark clearly didn't read or understand Kevin Williamson."

BenYachov said...

Radtrad nonsense.

>Mark's problem is that as a leftist,

No Mark is a pox on both your houses contrarian.

When it comes to politics Shea has nothing worthwhile to say. On matters of defending and the Pope & the church he is spot on.

>One of his narratives is that Pope Francis is basically a perfect human being who can do no wrong and must never be criticized for any reason.

Wrong again (& I am not defending him if you are going to critize him at least get it right).

Where has he even said this? He hasn't.

The Deuce said...

No Mark is a pox on both your houses contrarian.

That might've been almost true circa three years ago or so, but it's simply false now. Look at the way he heaps adoration on guys like Jon Stewart, or Tom Tomorrow, or Colbert (I've got a great story of him going absolutely to the mat to defend Colbert on Facebook, from the notion that maybe he isn't the best Catholic witness in the world on account of his shilling for gay "marriage," abortion, and the birth-control mandate. He smeared everyone who questioned it, and accused them of being pharisees who were trying to write Colbert out of Catholicism for being impure). Contrast that with the way he tried to write Matt Walsh out of Catholicism for being impure, on account of his conservatism.

Or contrast him saying that libertarianism is a heresy because it's not explicitly Catholic and some of its leading lights are "pro-choice," and then turning around and saying that feminism is good and necessary.

Or look at his personal character assassination of Kevin Williamson. You'll notice that Mark didn't actually use Kevin Williamson's article as his source, and he probably didn't read it. Instead he used a leftist pro-choice hit piece on Kevin as his source for what Kevin believes.

I mentioned above how Mark once accused Ben Stein of advocating eugenics on Facebook. This is the Ben Stein article that was the "source." Mark clearly hadn't read it. Instead, he linked to this leftist hit piece, and added his own slander on top of it.

That's a regular thing for him now. He constantly character-assassinates conservatives in the most personal of terms, usually relying on some left-wing attack piece for his assessment of them, and parroting left-wing narratives and talking points about how conservatives are REALLY just driven by racism, and sexism, and hate, and so forth. When he "attacks" liberals, he rarely makes it personal but just disagrees with their position, and rarely if ever cites conservative attack pieces against them. He clearly gets most of his "news" from left-wing sources, and from the left-wing echo chamber he has surrounded himself with.

The Deuce said...

While he never has anything nice to say about conservatism nowadays, he'll make "more in sorrow than in anger" statements about how he wishes liberals hadn't embraced abortion, because liberalism has so much to offer. You will never see the personal hatred, the outright malice and spite, aimed at a leftist demagogue like Colbert, that you see aimed at a Ted Cruz or a Matt Walsh over the minorest of supposed infractions. He recently said that "the Right is the home of Crazy" over the sarcastic Twitter posts of some Republican party flak in North Carolina. He won't say that about leftism, despite the constant insanity coming from their leaders, because his worldview is fundamentally leftist now.

His only exceptions to liberalism are gay marriage and abortion, and even there he's slipping. His "pro-life" stance primarily consists nowadays of looking for opportunities to call pro-lifers hypocrites. He's accused people who think that more government welfare is probably not a good idea of not being really pro-life and of "forcing" women to get abortions. On Facebook he once told me that he can see how it's possible to vote Democrat in good conscience, since their (socialist) economic policies arguably prevent abortion, but he can't see how anybody could vote Republican, cause they're all obviously torture-lovers with no redeeming qualities.

I could go on and on, but really, that's enough. Heck, just look at the people he's banned from his blog and Facebook the past couple of years ago, for the slightest disagreements. What do you think their political philosophy is, in nearly all cases? You notice how on his FB discussion I linked to, it's been reduced almost entirely to a left-wing Matt-Walsh-hating echo chamber? And it's even more of one now, since he banned me over it. Imo, it's impossible to look at Mark's recent behavior and not conclude he's a leftist, if you're honest with yourself.

The Deuce said...

Wrong again (& I am not defending him if you are going to critize him at least get it right).

Where has he even said this? He hasn't.



Of course he hasn't said that outright. But if somebody publicly criticizes Francis on anything, or anyone Francis is perceived as agreeing with, he'll circle that wagons and accuse them of not trusting the Holy Spirit, or of wanting to be their own Magisterium, or of being Protestants at heart, or whatever. He'll say "the Pope is not the Church's problem" or "the Church does not need to be protected from the Pope."

He never allows for the possibility that somebody might honestly think that something Francis or his perceived allies are doing poses A problem for the church without thinking that Francis is THE problem, and since that latter is not allowed, the implication is that there must be no criticism at all. He talks as if it's just an ontological impossibility that the Church could require protection from the Pope's actions, when it's a historical fact that exactly that situation has happened several times. Again, the implication is that the Pope can do no wrong, or at least no wrong that can be acknowledged.

Look at what he did to Pat Archbold in the article you linked to. He quotes him as using the phrase "a dark and false Church," which occurs in the second paragraph of Pat's piece (which, I would wager, is about as far as Mark read), without providing any context or responding to any of Pat's actual points, then proceeds to accuse him of not believing in the work of the Holy Spirit and various other slanders.

Go and actually read Pat's piece. He explicitly says the opposite of that:

If the Church were merely an institution of man it would be a foregone conclusion that the gates of hell will soon prevail. Of course, it is not. We have that promise. God will save His Church. But there will be a terrible price to pay. Our Lady will not be able to restrain the flaming sword of our destruction.

In other words, Pat says that the Holy Spirit WILL protect the Church, but he recognizes that this doesn't guarantee that the actions of its leaders can't inflict great harm upon it in the meantime. Again, nobody with even a cursory knowledge of Church history can possibly deny that possibility, because it has happened several times in the past.

But no, as Mark sees it, if you think that could happen, and if you see any red flags, you don't "trust the Holy Spirit." Trusting the Holy Spirit means blind trust that Francis and the bishops perceived as being his friends couldn't possibly make any major mistakes here.

And, as usual, if you disagree with him, he won't respond to what you actually said. He'll just use the leftist tactic of declaring you a hater and attacking the hateful Holy-Spirit-distrusting strawman he's constructed instead.

BenYachov said...

@The deuce.

>That might've been almost true circa three years ago or so, but it's simply false now….

Whatever, on politics he is tedious & he goes out of his way to defy political category. In fact he banned me again today even thought I was defending his post and got a bunch of up votes.

I am not going to defend the man. I only agree with his sentiment on the church & the Pope & his distain for the reactionary hysteria.
That is it.

>Of course he hasn't said that outright.

Well then that grants me the lion’s share of the argument. I’ll take it! Give me an inch I will take a mile and steal your cattle like my ancestors before me.

> But if somebody publicly criticizes Francis on anything, or anyone Francis is perceived as agreeing with, he'll circle that wagons and accuse them of not trusting the Holy Spirit, or of wanting to be their own Magisterium, or of being Protestants at heart, or whatever. He'll say "the Pope is not the Church's problem" or "the Church does not need to be protected from the Pope.”

Well he(as do I) remembers all the fruitcake Radtrads who where just as venomous toward St John Paul II "the Koran kisser" who was also "destroying the Church".
This is the same crowd of refuse and resist SSPX wannabes and future Sedes. As Pete Vree noted THE REMNANT is publishing articles claiming Pope Benedict’s abdication was “invalid” and he is still Pope. FRUITBATS!

>He never allows for the possibility that somebody might honestly think that something Francis or his perceived allies are doing poses A problem

I don’t see him attacking Carl Olsen who has given respectable & respectful criticism of some of Pope Francis’ follies. But Carl doesn’t devote his whole life to bitching about it & running around like Chicken little with his head cut off attacking the Pope every day.

>Look at what he did to Pat Archbold in the article you linked to.

The dude who quotes Catherine Emmerich whose visions are questionable because they are filtered threw her scribe who was an idiot who believed in the Jewish Blood libel. Yeh he banned me from posting in the commbox over at the Register. Apparently nasty attacks on the Pope are allowed but speaking ill of him or the SSPX is not allowed.

>Go and actually read Pat's piece. He explicitly says the opposite of that:

He is still spreading fear and dissension & citing a questionable visionary.

>n other words, Pat says that the Holy Spirit WILL protect the Church, but he recognizes that this doesn't guarantee that the actions of its leaders can't inflict great harm upon it in the meantime.

Of course the so called conservative and traditionalist blogs don’t do that themselves? Geocentricism, holocaust revisionist theories, being obnoxious to homosexuals etc…Kevin Terney is right we have a bunch of Warlords among the orthodox catholic blogspere each staking out their own turf.

> Again, nobody with even a cursory knowledge of Church history can possibly deny that possibility, because it has happened several times in the past.

How has the spreading of fear and rebellion ever helped stop bad clergy? The last time that was tried we had something called a “Reformation” which proved to be the world’s deformation. Also don’t give me this “but Saints have rebuked the Pope” mishigoss. As Voris himself pointed out one of the Saints who criticized the Pope was wiping down a leper. She was repulsed by him for a moment so to do reparation for the sin of not seeing Christ in him she wiped down his sores with rags and drank water with the rags in the cup as a mortification. That is the level of holiness you need to criticize the Pope. Being a blog editor doesn’t cut it.

The Deuce said...

Whatever, on politics he is tedious & he goes out of his way to defy political category.

No, he goes out of his way to *say* that he defies political category. Sort of like Obama, the "pragmatist" who wants to "get beyond political ideology" and "just does what works."

This is the same crowd of refuse and resist SSPX wannabes and future Sedes.

Oh? All the people who see the synod report as heretical and a big problem are in that boat? They all don't "trust the Holy Spirit" or don't think that the church "already has a Savior"? Jimmy Akin? Cardinal Burke? Cardinal Mueller? The Catholic leaders of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East? The Polish Episcopal Conference? All a bunch of loonies making something controversial out of an utterly orthodox and "surprisingly accessible" document because they hate the Pope, don't want mercy for sinners, and don't believe in the Holy Spirit?

The fact is, Mark attempted to cherry-pick what he thought would be the most fringy and disloyal voices to portray his opposition as a bunch of crazy dim-witted bigots like he always does, and yet he was STILL too chickenshit to actually respond to what they actually said.

The dude who quotes Catherine Emmerich whose visions are questionable because they are filtered threw her scribe who was an idiot who believed in the Jewish Blood libel. Yeh he banned me from posting in the commbox over at the Register. Apparently nasty attacks on the Pope are allowed but speaking ill of him or the SSPX is not allowed.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that Mark strawmanned him and everyone else mentioned in his piece by "responding" without actually responding to anything they said or any points they made about the Synod report.

And by extension he did the same to all the many, many people not directly mentioned in his hit piece, who happen agree with the people he did mention regarding the Synod report, by stating that it's completely non-problematic and insinuating that everyone who disagrees is just an unfaithful hysteric who doesn't trust the Holy Spirit.

The Deuce said...

He is still spreading fear and dissension & citing a questionable visionary.

I'm sure he'd deny that. That's why it's important to, you know, actually respond to what he said to make the case that he's doing that. Whether the visionary was right, from where I sit the idea that there's a "dark church" infecting the Catholic Church, which really got going in earnest after "the spirit of Vatican II," is about as obvious as the sky above. Does it even need to be pointed out that Catholics support gay marriage, abortion, and all the other social (and economic) liberal causes in numbers significantly above average, who don't actually believe the doctrine, and that quite a lot of priests and bishops and prominent Catholic "theologians" are right there with them?

Of course the so called conservative and traditionalist blogs don’t do that themselves? Geocentricism, holocaust revisionist theories, being obnoxious to homosexuals etc

Are any of those nutter ideas at risk of being taken seriously by the Church's leaders at the synod and implemented in canon law?

How has the spreading of fear and rebellion ever helped stop bad clergy?

You said the bishops' feet need to be held to the fire. Not sure how people do that without raising a ruckus when they go off the theological rails, and pointing out the likely consequences of it. That seems to me an important part of preventing actual rebellion later on, which is the inevitable consequence of complacency in the present (Even the Protestant rebellion didn't spring out of nowhere all of a sudden, you know). Have you considered that the Holy Spirit may act through the faithful laity as well, via the pressure they bring on straying leaders? And the fact is, the Synod appears to be backing off, so the so-called "fear and rebellion" may do just that.

That is the level of holiness you need to criticize the Pope.

Maybe that's the level of holiness you need to condemn the Pope, but for mere criticism? For simply acknowledging reality? That's a ludicrous standard, and to apply it to the others at the Synod would be an order of magnitude more ludicrous.

BenYachov said...

Well isn't this special?

How an Incorrect Translation of the Synod Report Fueled Controversy

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-an-incorrect-translation-of-the-synod-report-fueled-controversy/#ixzz3GK1F26M8

All this hysteria over nothing.

Two sad things here. The Media will lie & Reactionaries will believe them.

Crude said...

Bullshit

BenYachov said...

Why?

Crude said...

Because I'm tired of that. We went through the 'oh goodness it was just a poor translation when the Pope said a bunch of ridiculous liberal bullshit' schtick already. What a shock - there's a major backlash, including by cardinals in attendance at the Synod, and now we get to hear a day late about how maybe possibly there was a mistranslation at one part, and if only we imagine what the other interpretation should be and extrapolate it...

No. I stand with Burke. I can deal with mercy. I have endorsed the Pope's call for a new tone repeatedly. But now it's time for the Pope to clearly, and for all to hear, endorse orthodox Catholic teaching. If he can't manage that, then it's clear that insofar as the Holy Spirit is at work in the church, it will largely be working in spite of him.

The Pope welcomes and tolerates people who come to him calling for people in open and unabashed same-sex relationships and the like to be welcome in the church. If he can't welcome and tolerate me for asking what I'm asking, that's his problem.