Douthat's Francis book is poorly sourced, inadequate journalism

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/douthats-francis-book-poorly-sourced-inadequate-journalism
MGB: It is no shock that the sources Ross relies upon would give him a skewed version of what happened at the Synods.  Michael haunted the breaks and his sources were inside.  Ross's sources mostly want the Church of the past, not a Church of the future.  Francis is not an illness to be suffered through. He is already the change the Church needs. No amount of whining from the St. John Paul generation can change that. Indeed, the truth is that the Pastor-by-Pastor approach is ancient in the Church.  It goes back to Easter Sunday and the gift of the Spirit to each confessor, including those who pray with a sinful friend who unburdens himself, as in the Book of James. More recently, confessors were been hearing confessions from remarried Catholics long before Benedict became Pope. The reality is that the Synods brought this out into the open and let everyone know that returning to full Communion was available.

Douthat reports spin in his book, not facts, and the spin as a Traditionalist, or more accurately, an Anachronist bias, judging all by a Church that never was. As for St. John Paul seeking ressourcement for the Council and the modern Church, this belies the fact that then Father Karol was a leading obstructionist in the Council. Tigers do not change their stripes that much.

Ressourcement requires courage in correcting people's understanding of scripture. That takes courage and Popes are trained in consensus, not bravery. Francis could have corrected the bad proof texting on divorce. He did not. We are likely stuck with the current practice of sin first, reconcile later rather than admitting that there is no sin in the already divorced finding love again. The continued bias against homosexuals is more active and will therefore fall faster, much to the dismay of Cupich. Douthat and Williams.

Douthat and the Anachronists write about infallibility as a restriction against change rather than the responsibility to make it as our knowledge changes.  That is no way to move into the future. That is living in the past. Veritas Splendor is the Syllabus of Errors of its day. It was designed to be a way back, not a way forward. When will the CDF learn that you cannot canonize epistemic method?

The future is definitely not in the scrupulous sexual morality of an asexual clergy.  While I generally don't favor forcibly outing anyone's sexual orientation, when they are so unaware of how it impacts their view of teaching as applicable to my sexuality as a hetero male, I cannot stay silent, especially when it takes the conversation away from adding vigor to the Church's teaching on bringing about the Kingdom of God for the benefit of the poor and the worker.

The comparison between Trump and Francis shows that Douthat has not understanding of the way his own reactionary mind works. Of course, Francis is the best thing that happened to reactionaries, who don't really say anything new, but react to gains by the left, which is why Trump came to react to Obama and Burke et al to Francis.  Sometimes your value is a function of the enemies you make. Francis is of great value. This book? It falls in the same category of garbage as anything written by Limbaugh. I pity those who think that is a complement to to Douthat.