I have been speaking to sources in Rome over the past week, and several interesting pieces of information have emerged. As is often the case with what goes on at the Vatican, these remain firmly planted in the realm of credible rumors, not hard facts. And while rumors are something I generally avoid trafficking in, these are pertinent to what we have seen (and will see) play out as regards the yet-to-be-settled question of how Pope Francis will handle communion for the divorced and remarried.
One source close to the Vatican tells me they have it on good authority that the Scalfari phonecall really did happen. This person relayed to me what they have been told: during the Synod, Pope Francis was, in fact, dead set on finding a way to give communion to the divorced and remarried.
Only there was a problem.
There was too much push back on the issue, and it was quite aggressive. Another source has revealed to me that news of the Synod Walkout petition made it all the way to the Holy Father himself, who was upset to hear of its existence. He appears to think he has his finger on the pulse of the Church, and is therefore surprised, even”rattled” when his agenda faces real opposition. Several progressive cardinals are said to have advised Pope Francis not to push the issue too hard. Surprising names. Marx. Daneels. Schönborn. Those whom one would think would be among the most aggressive proponents of the push for communion to the unrepentant. But these men have a great deal of experience playing the long game. They have all worked to advance heterodoxy without losing their positions. They recognized that the media backlash could be significant if they made the wrong play, as could the reaction from the faithful.
There is also, I’m told, a general fear of social media within the higher echelons of our Church. It is not well understood, and they are unable to gauge effectively the power that it wields in shaping the narrative. This makes them vary wary of provoking a viral firestorm of opposition. The petition, for example, may have only garnered 2800 signatures, but it was brought up during a Synod press conference with Cardinal Pell. It was the reason I was invited to write an op-ed about the Synod in the Washington Post. It was then referenced by Vaticanista Antonio Socci.
In other words: the idea had legs, and it had reach. Combined with other forms of public resistance, it signified the potential tip of an iceberg.
So perhaps for these reasons, perhaps also for others, Francis relented. He was advised to find a more subtle way of accomplishing his mission. A back door. Based on the tenor of his final speech, we can tell that he was not happy. Those “doctors of the law” were nipping at his heels, transforming “bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick…that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens.”
And when it comes to getting these difficult problems out of the way, of pushing inconvenient ideas out into the public forum, there is always Scalfari.
So we return to the phone call, which I am told almost certainly happened. We return to the idea that the pope told Scalfari that for the divorced (and remarried) who ask, communion will be granted. This is a way, as I said yesterday, for him to get this agenda piece out into the mind of the public. Perhaps one could consider this a trial balloon, perhaps a stalking horse, or perhaps more of a beachhead. There is something to be said for constantly pounding ones enemies with the idea that you will do something they don’t like, but then making them wait. It exhausts them. It softens their resistance.
Pope Francis is nothing if not determined. And he is very, very good at finding a way to do these things surreptitiously. He makes surprising and newsworthy (but totally deniable) phone calls. He puts people in place who will see things done so that he doesn’t have to. He creates secret commissions that write documents nobody sees coming until they are suddenly imposed. His hands almost always stay clean. Others — like Scalfari — take the public beating. They seem willing enough, though. They are excited to be part of this new thing that is happening, I suppose. They have a role to play in the papacy that is remaking the Church.
This is, perhaps, why Francis hates gossip so much. Not just because it is sinful, but because it is the only way his subterfuge can be exposed. There is no evidence. Only Vatican sources speaking on condition of anonymity. Only credible rumors. The kind of thing that raises suspicions, but never gives certainty.
I do not like rumors or gossip. I like facts. But I tell you these things anyway because I trust my sources. I tell you these things because they have the ring of truth. I tell you these things because we must be prepared for what comes next, and it is good to know what has already happened that has worked in our favor so far.
They are aware that we are fighting back, and they do not like it. So we will keep fighting until the fight is won.
Ah yes, ye olde “plausible deniability”: the mark of cowardly, gossipy sneaks everywhere. This Pope is toxic.
Good – well done on the petition. It obviously had an effect. Now is the time to start a new petition calling for Francis’ resignation on the grounds that he is promoting Pharisaism over against the teachings of Christ.
He is clearly not fit for office.
I would sign that petition. And I think you may have hit on something. Lay-led social media can make a difference. Most are on the side of orthodoxy, as the great mass of indifferent Catholics find the entire business not worth their time. Start with Cupich and Wuerl, I say.
I’m considering this or a petition asking the Cardinals to begin the process of deposing the Pope. Technically only God can depose him but the cardinals can declare him deposed after sufficient warnings from them have gone unheeded.
I think “technically only God can depose him” only refers to the situation before Benedict changed the papacy by resigning. We live in a new world now where Popes’ scalps can be claimed by external pressure. Whatever the true source of that pressure for Benedict, he effectively changed the papacy by giving in to it. And yes, he is also culpable for this mess we are in. He fled the wolves and let them take charge of the sheep-fold.
What reason would be more justified for seeking a Pope’s resignation than that he cannot even be faithful to the clear teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ and every one of his predecessors?
I believe you are wrong when you say that Benedict’s resignation is responsible for the mess the Church now finds itself in. He did not flee from the wolves. Pope Benedict is in bad health, with little energy to fight the wolves who are many and vicious. By resigning I believe he felt that a stronger Pope would be able to “clean out the stables”. Too bad that the wolves were set to pounce and elect Bergolio to the Papacy. I read that a Cardinal who was an elector said that if the vote were to be made today, Bergolio would be fortunate to receive 10 votes. If that is accurate, then the Cardinal electors have learned a lesson–pay attention to the moving of the Holy Spirit and destroy the wolves.
You are perfectly within your rights to believe I am wrong, but I would counter that, after nearly 3 long years, Benedict is still writing, still teaching, still receiving guests, still has his marbles and is in better health than JPII was for the last 5 years of his pontificate.
Whatever, the damage has now been done and there is no going back. I only hope that the deck of Cardinal electors is not stuffed with any more Bergoglio clones before he clears off.
JPII heroically endured much suffering, but persevered to the end. Benedict took his ball home and quit. I believe a pope who has the good of the Church in mind should stay till they die. by resigning Benedict started the mess we have now with Francis who doesn’t have the best interests of the Church in mind IMO. If Benedict didn’t want to be pope, he should have not accepted when he was elected, instead of quitting.
Anthony, Benedict didn’t start this mess by resigning. Had he remained in office until death, he wouldn’t have been able to stop it. This mess started when the Catholic Church embraced a fundamentally secular, materialist world view. Benedict was part of that. In 2009, when the president of the German bishops’ conference said on German television that Jesus Christ “did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat” but rather in “solidarity” with humanity. Benedict never publicly corrected or rebuked Zollitsch — whom John Paul II appointed in 2003 as the archbishop of Freiburg. JPII also paved the way with his borderline syncretism at Assisi and his outright appeasement of Islam — which Francis not only is continuing but accelerating.
There were, however, downsides to having a weak JPII on the throne of St. Peter. I don’t like that Benedict resigned, but if he felt like he couldn’t control the Vatican, anymore, it might have been legitimate for him to think it better not to put himself into a position where he could be used as a puppet.
Something to remember is the “sudden” announcement nearly at the end of the Synod that there would indeed be not only a published final relatio, but an Apostolic Exhortation after all, an outcome that was obviously being kept in storage until the outcome of the Synod was clear.
A well-trusted Vatican source also said that it might be an encyclical instead of a post-synodal apostolic exhortation.
So that Pope Francis the Vague can strike again?
He is not really vague at all.
Say what????????
He is plainly a Modernist happy-go-lucky Jesuit. Malachi Martin S.J. nailed these heretics to the wall(see ‘Jesuits’). The confusing things he says are very much meant to be confusing….and disarming. Wait for his encyclical – it will be much worse than Laudato Si. Hell hath no fury like a demon scorned. The Jesuits have recreated Christianity in their own image and likeness. We are in chastisement; it is bishop against bishop.
Yes, I agree. His attacks on Faith and morals are all too glaringly clear.
The reason for the published final relatio and the vote on final doc were due to the 13 cardinal letter. Giuseppe Nardi goes into that on one of his Eponymous Flower posts. Initially, there was to be no final relatio and vote. But that kept on changing due to the letter of 13.
You guys are good, I’ll grant you that. According to the recent pew poll of Catholics, you are in the minority position on the issues but all the passion and energy is on your side.
Now, having said that, I believe that the Holy Ghost is on the side of His Holiness but it is necessary that traditionalist arguments be dealt with straightforwardly. Cardinal Schonborn I think understands this and he gave an interview where he reported that, “In the Vienna baptismal records of the 1800s, about half of the babies were illegitimate, children of all those servants in the upper-class homes who could not marry because they did not have the means.” My side needs more of this and less of trial balloons floated to Scalfari.
The Holy Ghost on the side of officially denigrating the Eucharist and trashing the words of St. Paul concerning same. Amazing. Heresy with chutzpah. I like that better I guess than the milquetoast response of confused Catholic “conservatives”.
Eh. Floating trial balloons to Scalfari doesn’t take much cajones. A 21st Century Exsurge Domine condemning the errors of traditionalists would but I don’t think the Pope has it in him.
Keep dreaming.
Probably. But I think we can agree that the current state of things cannot continue indefinitely. Whoever is giving the Angelus on a Sunday in 2019 will decide who wins this war.
Therein lies your error.
The war is already won.
Yes indeedy!!
I humbly thank you, my brother bishop.
And yes, floating balloons does not require many drawers.
A small point of precision, amigo mío. If and when you use foreign words or copy those used by others, be especially careful. The word you want to borrow here from Spanish, one in fact that seems to be gradually seeping into English usage, is cOjones, not cAjones as you put it. This latter word also exists in the language of Cervantes, but it means “drawers” as in “the drawers of a desk” (los cajones de un escritorio).
Let us assume for a minute that Schonborn is capable of telling the truth. I would be interested to know by what twisted logic you think that evidence for a lot of 19th century Viennese bastards can justify admitting unrepentant adulterers to Holy Communion now?
Are you saying that sins of the past can justify sins of the present?
Assuming the records are true and that these are baptismal records, the question would instead be why are relationships not considered mortal sins in 19th Century Vienna considered mortal sins now?
You did not answer the Deacon’s question.
How do you conclude that baptizing a child means that his parents aren’t in mortal sin? It’s the child receiving the Sacrament, not the parents.
Yes I get that. These are unmarried parents bringing their children to be baptized. Maybe they were denied communion maybe they weren’t. But that’s the point of my original post. It is incumbent on my side to bring to light the historical facts.
It’s “incumbent”? I wouldn’t bother, since you haven’t demonstrated the relevance of your “historical facts”.
It is incumbent on your side to repent of your heresies before it’s too late.
No one was denying bastards communion in the 18th century – or at least, not for the crime of being bastards. But they did, or at least were supposed to, deny it to known unrepentant adulterers, just as we do, or are supposed to, deny it to them today.
You’re missing the point of His Eminence I think. These are baptismal records so we know that the parents are bringing their bastards to Church for baptism. So, to me, the follow up questions would be the following:
Did they continue bringing their children to mass? Did the children go on to receive their first holy communion? And, most importantly, regarding the current debate, did the parents receive communion? If they did receive communion, what was the Church’s position on this? Particularly, what was the Pope’s position on this?
Well, I don’t have access to the records that Cardinal Schonborn is speaking of. So it’s hard for me to say. Interesting questions, however.
I can’t see why the children’s illegitimacy should have kept them from a) baptism or b) communion. If the parents were merely unmarried, having fornicated, there is no reason why they should have been denied communion at the time if they repented the sin in confession and were properly absolved. That’s standard Church teaching. (That the practice of actually receiving communion was much less frequent at that time is beside the point.)
The current issue is with those in manifest, obdurate, ongoing (note that word) sin, in the form of divorced-and-remarried, cohabiters, and those in sexually active homosexual relationships. That’s just as great a bar to communion as it would have been in 1800, let alone 180 AD.
A woman in my church had rejoined the Catholic Church AFTER having been away from the Church and having married a divorced non-Catholic, i.e., she is in an irregular, non-sacramental marriage. So, she does not go to Holy Communion. But that does not stop her from being at Mass every week, helping with parish activities such as fundraisers and funeral dinners, and raising her children as Catholics (indeed, the kids have even been altar servers). She is a joyful, lovely person who obviously loves the Lord — and completely respects the teachings of Jesus (and His Church) on this matter. Not being able to go to Communion has not stopped her from being a vibrant Christian, and indeed, her abiding by the Church’s (Jesus’s) teaching is a powerful witness to Truth, which does not change to suit human desire.
Why do you assume that they were not considered to be mortal sins? I have baptized my share of bastards – though most of them were legitimized retroactively. I would not refuse baptism to a child because of the sins of the parents and nor would most clergy.
However, Communion for adulterers and fornicators in the 19th Century is a total red herring. The laity would have received Holy Communion only once a year back then. Nobody noticed if people didn’t troop down to the altar rail because most everybody didn’t troop down to the altar rail.
Communion for adulterers has only become an issue in our day because receiving Communion has become the expected norm, and the adulterers feel “excluded” if they don’t join the flock. If you want to see how things used to be before a certain disaster in the 1960’s just go down to your nearest Polish church.
I’m aware of all that as well as the fact that it was Pope Saint Pius X who encouraged frequent communion. It still doesn’t address His Eminence’s point that marriage was something largely reserved to the upper class because all Catholics were still required to confess and receive communion at least once a year. What I want to know is were these parents confessing and receiving once a year and what was the Church’s position on it.
“According to the recent pew poll of Catholics, you are in the minority position”
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, ganganelli 🙂
And there’s this coming Sunday’s Gospel reading in the traditional Roman Rite: “Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will say to the reapers: Gather up the weeds first, and bind them in bundles to burn; but gather the wheat into my barns.’” (Matt 13:30)
Of course, it’s not always completely clear where the weeds are, and where the wheat is. But we do seem to be warned that there are a lot more weeds.
Today, between a third to one half of all babies today are aborted in the womb.. So Schonborn’s argument regarding 19th century illegitimacy would logically also apply to modern day abortion. So it is a really really bad argument that he is making. So if this is what “your side” needs more of, then perhaps you need to decide whether being on this side is the right one to be on? Personally, I think being on the side of the Gospels and Epistles etc is the better side to take..
I can help Cardinal Schonborn out by pointing out that people have been receiving Communion unworthily way before even the 1800’s. I can prove it goes all the way back to ancient Corinth just under 2000 years ago.
So how is all this relevant? And when you say “your” side – who cares about your side, this isn’t a game. Christ’s side is all that matters and you’re either for Him or against Him. Better change your side, bro!
Scripture is pretty clear on the matter. Christ has spoken… And you think that the Holy Spirit contradicts The Word?
Being straightforward can’t serve your side. Jesus said “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10: 11-12, RSV) I guess he didn’t consult Archbishop Coleridge about his tone. Straightforwardly, what can they say about that? That they’ve decided, on their own authority, that Christ is wrong? St. Paul said that “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11: 27) How will they explain how that wouldn’t apply to one’s plans to go home from Mass to commit adultery? The “liberal” bishops have been bringing up the issue of communion for the remarried repeatedly for decades. It’s now been discussed at synods under at least three Popes, including one that was set up to make it easy for them to present their case… And we’ve gotten nothing resembling an explanation on these points. It’s because they don’t have one… Because there isn’t one.
We definitely can’t expect them to explain how the Church’s practice, which has spanned countless cultural contexts including some at least as difficult as the present-day west, was wrong throughout the centuries. What do they think is so different now from the times of the number of previous Councils that upheld authentic Christian doctrine? What’s so different from when the Council of Trent declared: “If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema”? (Session 24, Canon 7) Or, for that matter, from when the Council of Illiberi declared “Likewise let the faithful woman, who has left an adulterous husband and attracts another faithful one, be forbidden to marry; if she should marry, let her not receive communion unless he whom she has left has previously departed this world; unless by chance the exigency of illness should compel the giving.” (Canon 9; DS 52a).
Will those who call obeying Christ’s commands “a dream” or a nice “ideal” straightforwardly address Archbishop Chaput’s comments at the synod about God’s Grace? Will they straightforwardly address why they think that the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is insufficient? Why “the grace which might perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married” that the Council of Trent tells us Christ merited for us is less available today?
They won’t be straightforward because they’re snakes, hell bent on denying Christ, His Grace, and His Commands.
If it’s so clear, please explain why an exception, the pauline privilege, was made within a generation of Our Lord’s crucifixion? If it’s so clear, why furthermore, have the Popes invoked the Petrine privilege to dissolve natural marriages?
Scripture gives us the Pauline privilege. Sacramental marriages cannot be broken, and natural marriages only in either a specific instance outlined in Scripture or, at the Pope’s discretion, in a situation fairly similar to that one. That’s not what they’ve been talking about now.
It is funny to watch you rhetorically lob things against a wall to see what will stick and it is even funnier to see you fail at getting to stick one of the things you lob and then, rather than respond to its refutation, you merely begin to rhetorically lob other things at the wall.
Written otherwise, you are amusing in the same sort of way the Three Stooges are amusing when they are stumbling about beating themselves up
I’m under no illusion that I will convince anyone here. My initial post was in agreement with Steve and that His Holiness will need to present the theological justification for the changes in Eucharistic discipline that he seeks.
I’m struggling to charitably interpret this statement as anything other than dissembling.
In any event, the ‘justification’ is not and has never been theological but “pastoral”, you know that little verbal sleight of hand that you modernist heretics deploy in order to get away with doing that for which no theological justification is possible (because it’s heretical).
You may fool yourselves with this tosh, but it won’t wash with Catholics who actually believe Our Lord, and who seek to obey the entire magisterium of The Church He founded, rather than follow the latest liberal fad.
People have been lobbying for communion for the “remarried” for centuries, and the current batch of clowns have been barking up that tree for decades. And, after all that, the synod fathers’ attempts at justifications included 1) Well, Moses allowed divorce, so why shouldn’t we! and 2) Since the Pope has the keys, can’t he just change the rules?
What threshold would have to be met for you conclude that a position lacks merit?
Your “side” is of the Devil.
*Says it is necessary that traditionalist arguments be dealt with straightforwardly. *
*Proceeds to address them using specious reasoning based on spurious use of historical example completely unrelated to the matter at hand.*
You couldn’t make it up.
Great work, Steve Skojec. I did not sign the ‘walk out’ petition, but I can see that it possibly had a very salutory effect. My takeaway from your article here is that we should be turning our minds more attentively to how we can use the social media more effectively to register more such salutary influences upon the arrogant ecclesiatical demi-gods who have tyrannised over the life of the Church for all (or most of) our lives.
Nice report, and I am especially intrigued by your comments concerning gossip. Francis, if memory serves me well, once called it the “murder of Christians.” Back when he first used it the phrase struck me as extravagant; not wrong but certainly unbridled. What you say puts it in a context that makes the excessiveness more comprehensible. I am also happy to know that my name came under scrutiny at the Vatican, attached as it was to the infamous petition.
This is quite interesting. Recently Ethika Politika ran two pieces against critics of Pope Francis, and I believe the first one used the argument that the laity or small time grassroots criticism has no effect on the higher ups. That seems to be incorrect.
It has no effect on their theology/ideology, but it does have an effect on actions to attain their goals. They should be opposed unceasingly.
I signed the petition and am proud of it. If it made the Pope unhappy, so much the better. It’s time for the laity to stand up to these heretical weasels. Perhaps tarring and feathering could make a comeback?
I signed too. I also signed one a year ago requesting the bishops to convene and try the question of formal heresy by Francis.
A little bread and wine does no harm.
Tienes razón, Jorge, pero cuando se trata del cuerpo y la sangre de Jesús, ya es otra cosa. Claro, si uno es protestante…..
Your sources are certainly accurate on the plan to destroy the Church starting with the camel nose under the tent of Holy Communion for adulterers. This process is certainly part of the modernist reconnaissance, yes, the trial marketing balloon to gauge the response. In addition, it clearly marks the “enemies”, that is faithful Catholics and prelates. The back door of devolving to episcopal conferences seems the best approach since the lie of “it’s only pastoral” is sold best that way, while pleasing the modernists. Recall also the talk of the infallibility of the sensus fidelium, so the official surveys before the synod clearly and “infallibly” indicate how the Church is to proceed, right? In addition, since the Freemason religion claims that all religions are just different paths to God, the devolvement sits well with a “church” of that nature, “do whatever you will” but always “in good conscience.” The coming Apostolic Exhortation should be a doozy.
Thanks for the update Steve. Happy to hear the petition may have been effective. On the issue of gossip. I think gossip in the sense you describe could be considered ‘ unconfirmed facts’ as opposed to scurrilous rumors. You should feel no guilt in trying to confirm facts especially these Vatican masters of deceit are doing their best to conceal the truth.
A couple of things. First about the social media. I have watched this exact thing play out in the two Polish elections
this year. Independent bloggers and twitter users were able to demolish
the post-communist stooges narratives and give a majority gov and presidency to
the Catholics. FIrst time since communism fell (1989) that the Poles have a
majority government.
As to Francis not getting his hand dirty, this may be true. But his fingerprints are all over these scandals. I have a different read on the synod Final Relatio. I think he wanted to put the Instrumentum Laboris to a vote, knowing that it would be defeated. It was Kasper/Shonborn that cut a deal with Muller not wanting to cause failed synod behind Francis’ back.
And lastly, this is the XXI century. There are OBJECTIVE analytical tools that can identify with a very high degree of probability what the agendas of the respective parties are. Sure, there will always be plausible denial, but circumstantial evidence leads to preponderance of evidence which leads to beyond a reasonable doubt. I think we the beyond a reasonable doubt is enough at this point.
I have never seen Communion refused to anyone. What, again, was the purpose of the Synod Against the Family? Why force the faithful to accept Modernism? The answer is Jesuits.
Here is suggested reading about the current offensive being conducted by sodomic forces within the Church. Although written several hundred years ago, it’s still germane, but notice the disturbing news the author has for us today. The Church in St. Peter Damian’s time was also under attack from sexual degenerates. The difference was that the pope then, Leo IX, at least understood the gravity of the assault and wanted to do something to thwart it; that does not seem to be the case today, in the eyes of impartial observers anyway.
As the translator and author of introduction of The Book of Gomorrah and St. Peter Damian’s Struggle Against Ecclesiastical Corruption, Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, tells us, “In the eleventh century the cause was the weakening of the papacy and of the hierarchical structure of the Church by the political chaos and breakdown of authority during the preceding two centuries. The popes began to recover their authority in the middle of the eleventh century and boldly asserted that authority against a deeply entrenched opposition, and eventually they won. We also face a crisis of authority today, but the cause is in this case an interior one, deriving from the unwillingness of many prelates to exercise their authority in defense of the faith and morals of the Church. The Catholic Church today does not suffer so much from the meddling of secular powers but from an internal crisis marked by an ambivalence about the very identity and mission of the Church itself. In that sense, it would seem to even more grave than the crisis of the eleventh century.”
Find this article at:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4335/saint_peter_damian_gomorrah_and_todays_moral_crisis.aspx
Dear brother old timer. In conjunction with what you are writing about sodomites, it is interesting to read saint Athanasius’s own writing about the history of the Arians and the trouble caused by the Eunuchs..the more things change….
“They are aware that we are fighting back, and they do not like it. So we will keep fighting until the fight is won.”
Let us fight to gain ground, not maintain the status quo.
Precisely right.
Yes, it’s time for an offensive!
Only 2800 signatures? Can that *really* have had an effect? Maybe. See Judges 7:2 ff.
Great work, Steve. Thanks for your effort and tenacity. Red flags are flying high during Pope Francis’ papacy, for sure, and flying higher all the time. One wants to support our Holy Father wholeheartedly, but there is this deep concern over heterodoxy. One holds onto the shred of hope no heresy will be taught from Pope Francis’ true magisterium.
This is a facinating glimpse inside an apparantly insular culture. The possibility that the Holy Father was jarred by the walkout petition means that there is much more possibility to influence the bishops than we may havr suspected.
Again, this points to the possibility of grass roots mustering of the episcopate. 50 blogs can easily be overlooked, but signatures numbering fractions of millions, perhaps mught be more difficult for some adulation seekers to avoid.
Who would have imagined, for example, that grand marshal Dolan would have been a signatory of the letter of concern at the synod’s outset. There may be more mode of influence open to our agenda than there has seemed.