Interesting Article: What do you think?

As someone who has been following these stories closely, I find the article very interesting indeed.

However, I think it's somewhat erroneous to lump Royal, Lawler and Burke together.

Cardinal Burke, though a "conservative" churchman (I am using their term; I personally abhor using political descriptors when dealing with Church affairs), has not endorsed any open dissent, disrespect or defamation of the Holy Father, and apart from some fairly routine press interviews, has not been "pushing it" after the dubia were made public.

Royal has always been of a conservative bent of mind in the political sense. When I look at him, I see a soul conflicted: should he just hold the line and remain an orthodox Catholic, or should he take the dive and join the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd? After one of his recent posts critical of the Holy Father, a prominent R&R website hailed him and claimed that he had finally "taken the red pill" (an execrable term whose authors deserve to burn in Hell) - upon which Mr. Royal quickly posted in the combox of said website, stating that he was not ready to take the plunge. He needs our prayers.

Lawler, on the other hand, reminds me of my toddler on the very rare occasions when he is in a bad mood; he is cranky, takes offence at almost everything the Holy Father says, and uses hyperbolic language ("This disastrous papacy") to refer to Pope Francis. In other words, he has been throwing cyber-tantrums for quite a while. Not being his parent (and besides, he is too old for such things) I can't exactly calm him down or put him in the time-out room, so I simply ignore his regular blasts of hot air.

The Church has problems - it always has had, ever since St. Peter did something rather silly with a group of Gentiles and received a "dubium" from St. Paul - but it behooves us to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

I'm with you on this, Clare.  I started my post with "Same old ..."

Personally speaking, the bolded makes me see red rather frequently when reading non-Catholic coverage of Church matters. Especially when cast in the line of American politics, as if the US were the source and summit of all matters Catholic (which is a problem we have regardless of the issue, but we're frequently too blind to see it.)

I consider myself not quite a rad trad, but leaning trad. I don't read a lot of trad stuff online because I think a lot of it is nuts, but I've seen crackdowns on traditional liturgy and practices in my diocese and I really don't like it, and I think it's counterproductive. I can understand the frustration a lot of people feel. But no, I think the schism talk is way overblown. People are upset, but where else are we going to go? We know the Church has the Truth.

Hahahahz. No....we're just not an argumentative bunch! Hee hee

Well, I guess I will throw in my 2 cents worth.

I have often said that one of the most successful plans of the devil was the introduction of television. Even more successful has been the introduction of the internet, as commentary (much of which I cannot in good conscience call "news" or "information") is disseminated almost instantaneously.

Coupled with that has been the dumbing down of education; we now are faced with hoards of allegedly educated people who have no concept of critical analysis, let alone any practice of it.

For all the article points out of the various reasons Cardinals, bishops and etc. may be disenchanted with the Pope, the largest sticking point seems to be the issue of Communion for divorced and remarried couples.

As the issue does not apply to me, I have not invested a large amount of time parsing the matter. On the other hand, there does appear to be at the minimum a move in a direction that previously might only have been breathed to very select audiences, And perhaps only by a few with any reputation to be considered.

It is clear that after two papacies of scholars, we have a Pope who is first and foremost a pastor (and that is not to imply in any way that he "fell off the rutabaga truck" as it rolled past the Sistine Chapel). The Jesuits, in my experience, are not prone to ordaining dummies.

Without any doubt, there is a clearly defined position of the Church that divorced and remarried cannot receive (with limited exceptions of "brother and sister" relations).

There also is, if I recall correctly, a position of the primacy of conscience; and that comes in the CCC before the paragraph that if one's conscience is not in accord with the Church, that one has a moral duty to continue to seek and to pray concerning the gap.

It thus may be that the doctrine is not being eroded, so much as the issue of conscience is being - what, not elevated, but perhaps at least referenced? From what I have read, there is a very strong wording that pastors are to accompany the couple (which I presume means providing guidance and moral clarification) as the couple struggles with the issue. Cardinal Burke seems to overlook matters of what it means to be pastoral.

I don't want to take on the Cardinal; but I was born before the Pill was invented, and have seen more than my fair share of clericalism, and doctrinally hidebound clerics who can tell you the doctrine, but do nothing to assist you on the journey. In fact tonight in RCIA, the matter came up about confessors, and I backed the speaker's comment by referencing one old (70s to 80s) Dominican I had confessed to, who did little other than to tell me how sinful I was. And so, perhaps, my reading of the Cardinal is tainted by my life experiences.

The whole matter is so far above my pay grade that I will simply wait in patience ( and likely with not a lot of attention to the matter) while the minds of great theologians sort it all out. I have seen the issue up front and close while a team member of Catholics Coming Home, and some reconciled with the Church (through the tribunals) and others did not return.

In any event, I am inclined to the position that a goodly part of the stir is due to the internet and to the oversimplification of complex matters, too often by both writers and readers, both groups lacking in any concept of critical thinking.

And having lived through the issue of the Pill, and having seen the carnage since then, I am not totally unsympathetic with the Cardinal's position - not that doctrine is being overturned, but rather, that people who do not make the effort to think critically or who may not be capable of it, can and will take shortcuts.

On the other hand, anyone fearing that there will be a wholesale return this month or next of the huge number of Catholics divorced and remarried to the parish and to Communion is someone living in a fantasy world. The subset of those who have left the Church are so disconnected from the Church in any form as to have no knowledge at all of the document or the discussion. There will only be a small minority who will approach a parish, and many, if not most pastors will be underwhelmed with the numbers doing so. Hopefully, they will be guided by their bishops, and the document, and the Holy Spirit.

And that is my take, at least in part, of the article.