“Luxembourg’s RTL media group quoted the cardinal as saying on July 25 that Catholics who expected the Church’s structure to be “completely changed” would be disappointed.”
So, make the Church a democracy and change its teachings on sexual morality. What was sacred for 1,500+ years (the traditional Latin Mass) is now odious, and what was odious and sinful for 2,000+ years is now sacred!
It would seem to me that if homosexuality is not a sin, and if remarriage after divorce is not adultery, then the Church is not what she claims to be. If you believe these things, why would you be a member of the Church? And, supposing the Church would change its teaching, why should anyone join an institution that says X is true one day and false the next? The Church would have no doctrinal integrity, which is, at root, something required for any religion to be true.
I’m interested in what the response was to the small but probably vocal group at the Synod in Luxembourg calling for general availability of the TLM.
“ Cardinal Hollerich said earlier this year that he believed that the “sociological-scientific foundation” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality was “no longer correct.” Seems like a pretty good summary to me. Bible? Tradition? Where’s the “sociological-scientific” in any of that old stuff? We want new stuff. Bring on the late 20th century scientism.
> integrate women by giving them responsibilities, abolish mandatory celibacy
It's becoming increasingly odd to me that the idea "women are important" and the idea "men have needs [and those needs are: women]" are more-or-less always found together when I read articles about people's visions for the future, but I suppose that no one intends it to look odd, they just haven't thought it through.
The Synodal report also said a respondents firmly believed that "Cardinal Hollerich is the most handsome Cardinal in the Catholic Church." Remarkable. That wasn't even one of the discussion topics.
At what point does this become the Synod on Confirmation Bias?
I would like to see some reporting on what the heck is supposed to happen at the Synod on Synodality. In the west, most countries are returning results that request radical changes to Church teaching. The effort appears to be coordinated.
Cd. Hollerich is running the Synod, and we know where his sympathies lie. Also, it’s hard not to believe that this isn’t all happening with Francis’ tacit, at least, approval.
What can the faithful expect when this thing kicks off? What are people in Rome saying?
The reasonable voices, so to speak, all seem to be suggesting that we shouldn’t worry about it because Church teaching can’t change, but that doesn’t seem like a safe bet. What happens if the “God of Surprises” appears at the Synod? (And we’ve been primed for his—her?—appearance now for some time.) What would that mean for Church unity?
It just seems like the Catholic world is sleepwalking into this thing. Shouldn’t we flesh out the consequences of this before the thing gets started? This is radical stuff, and it’s not coming from the peripheries.
Right, so the sociological-scientific understanding of homosexuality has changed in the last 100 years, but sociological and scientific reasons AREN’T the reason the Church holds homosexual acts as sinful so that’s kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Have these learned church men NEVER read theology of the body???
I get it, a lot of people with same sex attractions have suffered a lot of cruelty, violence and dehumanising treatment for something that they didn’t choose to have and can’t always help having either. We shouldn’t deny them the goodness of Gospel and the fact that their body and sexual desires (misguided in raw form, just like the rest of us) reveal something divine.
Luxembourg's synodal experience reinforces the usual western trends:
(i) most 'Catholics' are so only on paper, with most being completely alienated from the Church or only having the most superficial connection.
(ii) those few Catholics who are actively involved with the (mainstream) Church have fundamentally secular values and opinions.
The luxembourg ouput is pathetic, 1% is hardly representative of general opinion and clearly the process has been stage managed by a select few.
We often hear of "liturgy wars", with currently the traditional Latin Mass (and attendant restrictions) being discussed a lot. We should not forget that the neo-reformers also sought to destroy Catechesis in the wake of Vatican II, not just the liturgy.
My own childhood catechesis (80s and early 90s) was so poor as to be laughable. After 13 years of Catholic school, I could not even have made a guess at answering why the Church exists and I knew more about Jewish liturgical items and rites of passage than I did about our own.
It is clear to me looking back that this poor catechesis has been quite intentional, because if Catholics do not know their faith, then they cannot easily identify or object to enforced changes regarding it.
These synodal outputs are a good example. How can the Church possibly 'change' its teaching on homosexuality? The teaching is a clear sighted, accurate and honest analysis of homosexuality through the prism of human biology. For the teaching to change, human biology must first change.
Those calling for changes are either activists or - if Catholic at all - are completely ignorant about the teaching and its foundation, as a result of poor catechesis.
To say nothing of the knock-on effects of a 'change' on the rest of our doctrines, or indeed of the effect on the Church's remaining credibility if She 'changes' a teaching in order to agree with secular society. That this is even suggested is lunacy - we are not protestants!
The presence of men like Cardinal Hollerich in the hierarchy is a big problem for the Church. Like so many of his brother Bishops and Cardinals, he has repudiated his oath to defend and broadcast Catholic doctrine, instead only ever attacking and undermining it.
People need to recognise the Hollerichs of this world and give them a wide berth. Rank, past record or canonical status is of no use to determine Catholicity in this modern age. Look only at clergymen who broadcast Catholicism - whole and entire - and use that as your only reliable guide of which Clergy and Churches to interact with.
Note that those who say the Church has got the teaching 'wrong' never articulate why it is wrong, or what should replace it. Such people are led by secular mores, not the Holy Ghost.
“Luxembourg’s RTL media group quoted the cardinal as saying on July 25 that Catholics who expected the Church’s structure to be “completely changed” would be disappointed.”
I sure hope so.
So, make the Church a democracy and change its teachings on sexual morality. What was sacred for 1,500+ years (the traditional Latin Mass) is now odious, and what was odious and sinful for 2,000+ years is now sacred!
It would seem to me that if homosexuality is not a sin, and if remarriage after divorce is not adultery, then the Church is not what she claims to be. If you believe these things, why would you be a member of the Church? And, supposing the Church would change its teaching, why should anyone join an institution that says X is true one day and false the next? The Church would have no doctrinal integrity, which is, at root, something required for any religion to be true.
Why do so many Catholic clergy want us to become Protestant? I truly don’t get it.
I’m interested in what the response was to the small but probably vocal group at the Synod in Luxembourg calling for general availability of the TLM.
“ Cardinal Hollerich said earlier this year that he believed that the “sociological-scientific foundation” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality was “no longer correct.” Seems like a pretty good summary to me. Bible? Tradition? Where’s the “sociological-scientific” in any of that old stuff? We want new stuff. Bring on the late 20th century scientism.
> integrate women by giving them responsibilities, abolish mandatory celibacy
It's becoming increasingly odd to me that the idea "women are important" and the idea "men have needs [and those needs are: women]" are more-or-less always found together when I read articles about people's visions for the future, but I suppose that no one intends it to look odd, they just haven't thought it through.
The Synodal report also said a respondents firmly believed that "Cardinal Hollerich is the most handsome Cardinal in the Catholic Church." Remarkable. That wasn't even one of the discussion topics.
At what point does this become the Synod on Confirmation Bias?
I would like to see some reporting on what the heck is supposed to happen at the Synod on Synodality. In the west, most countries are returning results that request radical changes to Church teaching. The effort appears to be coordinated.
Cd. Hollerich is running the Synod, and we know where his sympathies lie. Also, it’s hard not to believe that this isn’t all happening with Francis’ tacit, at least, approval.
What can the faithful expect when this thing kicks off? What are people in Rome saying?
The reasonable voices, so to speak, all seem to be suggesting that we shouldn’t worry about it because Church teaching can’t change, but that doesn’t seem like a safe bet. What happens if the “God of Surprises” appears at the Synod? (And we’ve been primed for his—her?—appearance now for some time.) What would that mean for Church unity?
It just seems like the Catholic world is sleepwalking into this thing. Shouldn’t we flesh out the consequences of this before the thing gets started? This is radical stuff, and it’s not coming from the peripheries.
Right, so the sociological-scientific understanding of homosexuality has changed in the last 100 years, but sociological and scientific reasons AREN’T the reason the Church holds homosexual acts as sinful so that’s kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Have these learned church men NEVER read theology of the body???
I get it, a lot of people with same sex attractions have suffered a lot of cruelty, violence and dehumanising treatment for something that they didn’t choose to have and can’t always help having either. We shouldn’t deny them the goodness of Gospel and the fact that their body and sexual desires (misguided in raw form, just like the rest of us) reveal something divine.
Luxembourg's synodal experience reinforces the usual western trends:
(i) most 'Catholics' are so only on paper, with most being completely alienated from the Church or only having the most superficial connection.
(ii) those few Catholics who are actively involved with the (mainstream) Church have fundamentally secular values and opinions.
The luxembourg ouput is pathetic, 1% is hardly representative of general opinion and clearly the process has been stage managed by a select few.
We often hear of "liturgy wars", with currently the traditional Latin Mass (and attendant restrictions) being discussed a lot. We should not forget that the neo-reformers also sought to destroy Catechesis in the wake of Vatican II, not just the liturgy.
My own childhood catechesis (80s and early 90s) was so poor as to be laughable. After 13 years of Catholic school, I could not even have made a guess at answering why the Church exists and I knew more about Jewish liturgical items and rites of passage than I did about our own.
It is clear to me looking back that this poor catechesis has been quite intentional, because if Catholics do not know their faith, then they cannot easily identify or object to enforced changes regarding it.
These synodal outputs are a good example. How can the Church possibly 'change' its teaching on homosexuality? The teaching is a clear sighted, accurate and honest analysis of homosexuality through the prism of human biology. For the teaching to change, human biology must first change.
Those calling for changes are either activists or - if Catholic at all - are completely ignorant about the teaching and its foundation, as a result of poor catechesis.
To say nothing of the knock-on effects of a 'change' on the rest of our doctrines, or indeed of the effect on the Church's remaining credibility if She 'changes' a teaching in order to agree with secular society. That this is even suggested is lunacy - we are not protestants!
The presence of men like Cardinal Hollerich in the hierarchy is a big problem for the Church. Like so many of his brother Bishops and Cardinals, he has repudiated his oath to defend and broadcast Catholic doctrine, instead only ever attacking and undermining it.
People need to recognise the Hollerichs of this world and give them a wide berth. Rank, past record or canonical status is of no use to determine Catholicity in this modern age. Look only at clergymen who broadcast Catholicism - whole and entire - and use that as your only reliable guide of which Clergy and Churches to interact with.
Note that those who say the Church has got the teaching 'wrong' never articulate why it is wrong, or what should replace it. Such people are led by secular mores, not the Holy Ghost.