https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/filial-correction-pope-marked-glaring-hypocrisy-risible-accusations
I discussed the flaws of their agrument and perspective yesterday in Distinctly Catholic and on my blog, Hey, Michael Sean! at http://heymsw.blogspot.com/2017/09/correction-of-francis-reveals-critics.html Now, I will offer the more charitable explanation. It’s all true. Every word, at least in their world. They are cultural authoritarians and Francis is certainly not one of their kind. He may not even be a hierarchist and this rubs them the wrong way. Indeed, if Francis reaches out to them, they will hate him all the more. In their world, the Church should endorse dogma in the strongest ways possible for the preservation of our souls, since dissent from right doctrine is damnable (even though they cite seems to be more about pedersasty than pedantics). Indeed, they will cover up the former for the good of the Church, but they cannot abide the latter, especially if they disagree with what has been said or believe it violates what has been said previously. Is this a theological argument? No. Pure social science. They have become as predicatable as lab rats in a maze or Trump defenders in a Frank Luntz focus group.
As for the first part of Walford’s essay on infalliability. Either those passages on papal teaching are relativism (for Catholics by their Pope) or they still endow all Popes with Magic. The charitable view is the former, but authoritarians essentially believe the latter, except about this Pope. He does not seem to have the right spells for these Trads.
No comments:
Post a Comment