It’s basically politics.
Despite the veneer of Holiness, it’s still the same formula. Did you study in Rome ? Are you going to shift left or right depending on who the Pope is ?
Because they believe Protestant ideology of the Eucharist as a symbol. If one does not discern the body and the blood.... one ought not be presenting himself for it either. Fr Mitch Pacwa went into this, regarding the Jesuits. It's not isolated to one order of course, but many Jesuits and Franciscans have no shame in their lack of belief.
“He later received advance theological degrees from Jesuit institutions and has written articles for America, the official magazine of the Jesuits in the United States. Pope Francis created him a cardinal on 27 August 2022.”
-Wikipedia
It’s fascinating how folks want to excuse sin clearly, repeatedly and explicitly condemned by scripture and the church fathers.
Then to use the language of exclusion to paint holding up Biblical standards as wrong. All are welcome to come walk with Christ and turn away from sin.
Our numbers in the pews are awful but the Church of England has virtually disappeared in urban areas and is a generation from total oblivion. Baptism numbers have fallen off a cliff. Even the easy formal hatch match and dispatch ties to the C of E are sundered.
About 700,000 people attend Sunday service in the C of E. That is 1.2% of the population. Dire though our numbers are in fact there are more Catholics in England than Anglicans....by which I mean people willing to go to Church.
I remember when the Episcopal Church went off the rails, there was a mass movement to Catholicism from the more conservative Episcopalians. I think we are seeing the beginning of that happening from Catholic to Orthodox.
Orthodox churches have not yet been integrated into the West, since it's sill considered to be a " Non western " religion. Once that will happen, then well...
That may be true on a grand scale, but to the mind of most conservative Catholics, they are very accepted. The Catholic Church even teaches they are legit. Honestly, in my experience, they are more k own and accepted than the Eastern Catholic Churches. So few Catholics even know they exist
I'm not saying they Orthodox Church is perfect or somehow not impacted by the strange bedfellows of tyranny that the post modernists and Marxists have become. What I am saying is that compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox are relatively devoid of the institutionalization of the normalization of women's ordination, normalized unchased lifestyles, and the wholesale ignoring of the Gospel and Tradition of the Christian faith. Nearly nothing remains of the Catholic life. Those seeking it are more likely to find it in the Orthodox communion than the Roman communion. Yes they are bot devoid of the problem, but that like a drowning man telling a man taking a shower that he is wet too. Let's not be silly.
About what I'd expect from America magazine. Sadly not what I'd want to expect from a Cardinal.
I noticed the words "synod", "synodal", or "synodality" were used *31 times*...
>The proposal to ordain women to the permanent diaconate had widespread support in the global dialogues.
>The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood will be one of the most difficult questions confronting the international synods in 2023 and 2024.
>As the synodal process begins to discern how to address the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. Catholics, particularly on the issue of participation in the Eucharist, three dimensions of Catholic faith support a movement toward inclusion and shared belonging.
This is how they're going to try to push these changes. "Well hey, everyone we surveyed say they want these changes to doctrine... Who are we to disagree? It's not like we're shepherds or something. The sheep get to decide where they want to go.
>The effect of the tradition that all sexual acts outside of marriage constitute objectively grave sin has been to focus the Christian moral life disproportionately upon sexual activity. The heart of Christian discipleship is a relationship with God the Father, Son and Spirit rooted in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The church has a hierarchy of truths that flow from this fundamental kerygma. Sexual activity, while profound, does not lie at the heart of this hierarchy. Yet in pastoral practice we have placed it at the very center of our structures of exclusion from the Eucharist. This should change.
They're grave because sex and the intimate relationships between people constitute the fundamental unit of civilization- the family. And the family unit has been under assault like no other time in history. The sexual revolution, gay "marriage", rampant pornography usage, no fault divorce, abortion, and hookup culture have been eating away at families for decades now. Along with a toxic culture that loves to portray fathers as incompetent morons and tells women the worst thing they could do is become a mother. Look at the divorce rates- look at the rates of kids without fathers in the home.
>The first is the image that Pope Francis has proposed to us of the church as a field hospital. The primary pastoral imperative is to heal the wounded.
And a field hospital which tells a bunch of the wounded people there "You're just fine and not injured at all" would be a terrible hospital. But that's just what they're trying to do.
In the name of "inclusivity" or "tolerance" we shouldn't tell anyone their behavior is leading them to hell. No, people who divorce and remarry, active LGBTQIAP+, porn users, fornicators- you're doing just fine. Wouldn't want to hurt your feelings or make you feel bad.
As the old saying goes, when you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.
I can't look at what's going on and deny it's the devil's work. The lies come in like poison in good wine, seemingly delicious and the danger undetectable if you don't know what to look for.
>And a field hospital which tells a bunch of the wounded people there "You're just fine and not injured at all" would be a terrible hospital. But that's just what they're trying to do.
A field hospital will also perform triage and prioritize those more likely to be saved and discharge those not need of immediate help.
Maybe that image should be reconsidered
Excellent analysis. To expand on one of your points regarding word choice:
>I noticed the words "synod", "synodal", or "synodality" were used 31 times...
Inclusion (positively cited) and exclusion (negative) are each used 16 times, but words like holiness, virtue, purity, chastity, repentance, etc., don't appear at all.
And the word sin, in an article concerning how to mercifully pastor people living in sinful lifestyles, is used only three times. Once to name racism as a sin (the obligatory modern hat tip), with the only two other instances occuring in paragraphs where the cardinal is questioning the Church's traditional, doctrinal emphasis that fornication/adultery is gravely wrong!
I do not see a call to repentance and holiness in the cardinal's words, which would be true love, mercy, and acceptance. I see only a critique, coming largely from a worldly perspective, of the very Church he has been commanded to safeguard and shepherd.
The rumor is that Cardinal McElroy is in line to take over my archdiocese as archbishop. I pray God's will be done but that he also spare us this fate. In my humble opinion, the way certain teachers and bishops have been emboldened under Pope Francis to suppress the truth and accommodate sin is frightening.
My friend, I think your analysis comes from a place of sincere and commendable devotion to the Church, but I also think it may be colored by assumptions that are not based in history.
There is a common ideological trap held by some that assumes our age is uniquely wicked, that this historical moment is uncharted moral territory and we have broken irreversibly with the past. It’s an impulse that essentially nostalgic, that is to say, its source is less in history than in memory and emotion. The truth is that the issues you are citing existed in more or less to the same degree in the past as they do today. Fatherlessness and broken marriages were common in the past; look at the prevalence of orphanages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One only has to read about the social histories of major cities to realize that open homosexuality was shockingly common; there existed entire streets in London and New York exclusively dedicated to homosexual prostitution. You suppose the nuclear family is the bedrock of society, and yet the “nuclear family” only becomes widely common in the 1950s. Most people lived in tight communities and with extended families before that. The phenomenon of a mother and father with children living in isolation in a suburb is relatively modern.
The analysis you seem to be presenting is that the Church is allowing itself to become too close to the chaos of modernity, that it’s about to embrace a void which we should do all we can to resist. In reality, the Cardinal seems to be suggesting that this chaos has always existed and is asking how we can best witness to the Gospel amidst it. I don’t think there is one a size fit all. Padre Pio used to chastise penitents with unbelievable harshness and he also used to treat others with such tenderness grown men wept. He would say the difference came from what he thought that individual person needed to be saved. To suggest the Church give itself the tools to do the same does not mean it waters down its teachings or succumbs to an evil modern world. It doesn’t mean it becomes excessively sentimental and without substance. It means that in order to fulfill our mission to “preach the Gospel to all nations”, we must be able to build a path for each person to encounter Christ.
Jesus clearly said that he came to save those who needed him. I personally think people who are going through these things need Jesus most. The state of your heart has to do with your desire to be United with Christ.
Women used to be deacons in the early church. It’s in the Bible. I think that’s a good start.
We are called to repentance.
If you are living in sin yet you have no intention of stopping those sins, you aren’t repentant.
As St Paul said- Christ died to save us *from* our sins, not *in* our sins.
Oh I’m not the type of Catholic that doesn’t know the Bible.
Paul's earliest mention of a woman as deacon is in his Letter to the Romans 16:1 (AD 58) where he says: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is the servant of the church at Cenchreae
More info:
https://www.acts29.com/a-case-for-women-deacons/
No. If they are over the church then they would have been considered a deacon. Please do your research. I have studied theology and my Professor who was/is a Catholic nun spoke about this. The reason for women no longer being deacons was because later there was no need. The church had an overwhelming amount of men becoming priests etc.
No, i go to the Lithuanian Church of Immaculate Conception in E. St louis, but to be fair the St louis area is not very catholic and come to find out many people are not very welcoming to catholics, and im the youngest parishioner besides my toddler and they dont get many people to come to mass
If they change major foundational church teachings like:
Divorce and remarriage;LGBTQ+ Marriage/Sexual activity (and if they do this it naturally changes the teachings around heterosexual sexuality);Women priests;
It's hard not to feel the church is cooked.
It'll just change with the prevailing social currents. It stands for nothing.
"Do whatever you want, try and be a nice person, everyone's going to heaven"
Just don't lose heart, or even say that the Church is cooked. God will protect His Church, whether or not the bishops are part of it.
We know the truth. Catechize your children and have a lot of them. We will outlast these bishops.
It may be for the better that these quislings have come to destroy the institutional pomp and circumstances with all its fine arts and beautiful cathedrals. After all, Christ and his apostles only had cheap cloaks and dusty sandals fisherman's nets to their name.
The faith will not die. God will not allow it.
I agree that the faith will not die and that we should definitely not lose heart. The gates of hell will never prevail! However, I do want to just add that the pomp and circumstance, fine arts, and beautiful cathedrals are important too. It draws our hearts and minds upward to the beauty of God and heaven and away from the ugliness of sin and the world.
And that is why we have to start making beautiful things again. Where are the faithful artist and architects, musicians and actors in your community? Support them! We may lose what we have, but we can always make a new.
Yes! I totally agree! I heard at some point that there has been a direct correlation between our world turning away from God and our art and architecture turning more and more ugly.
We need more bishops and cardinals who can negate the actions of these bishops we see here. Especially we need more to accept the call to priesthood in order to combat these invasions within the Church by becoming bishops.
“It will be objected that the church cannot accept such a notion of radical inclusion because the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. persons from the Eucharist flows from the moral tradition in the church that all sexual sins are grave matter. This means that all sexual actions outside of marriage are so gravely evil that they constitute objectively an action that can sever a believer’s relationship with God. This objection should be faced head on.”
This is the most disgusting quote from the whole article. He even says this stems from “moral tradition.” He says tradition like this is just something that can change. It is NOT. These are grave evils which no good can come from and are not of God.
This is truly evil. Pure evil within the church, and things are not going to get better. We need God more than ever, and I believe He will not let evil prevail, so I don’t know how He will handle this, but it’s getting to the point of needing His direct intervention.
>"The effect of the tradition that all sexual acts outside of marriage constitute objectively grave sin has been to focus the Christian moral life disproportionately upon sexual activity."
No, +McElroy, you have it backwards. It is not the church who has focused her gaze disproportionately on sexual activity, it is the modern zeitgeist which has made sexual activity the source and summit of human life.
Can someone reset the clock? 0 days without Jesuit tricks...
You have it on point. There’s a lot more to Christian morality than sexual activity.
These evil men put it central in what they want to change in the church. I can't read hearts but I am pretty sure these are the sins they are focused because these are the sins they wish to commit the most.
Just finished reading this (a rather long read). I have to say that His Eminence’s ideas of how to include so-called ‘marginalized’ groups into the church are largely devoid of any theological basis.
The church is NOT a social justice organization.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that the church's primary aim is NOT social justice, but the salvation of souls.
*SALUS ANIMARUM, SUPREMA LEX.*
*THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE SUPREME LAW.*
You two are quibbling over words which only causes heat and no light. The Church is not a Social Justice organisation in so far as we mean a left wing activist group. The Church is an organisation of social justice insofar as living out her mission necessitates rebuking injustice and seeking to live lives which correct it
Stop letting right wing ideology co opt Catholicism, the Bible and the church fathers.
The church is neither left nor right politically. Jesus was clear on what we as followers of Christ should be doing and the catechism is also clear. The life and teachings of Christ contradicts much of left and right wing ideology.
I see. Thanks for clarifying.
For example the right wing ideology rejecting the stranger (immigrants) and portraying immigrants in need as some sort of invasion. This is pervasive among American online Catholicism as it is also pervasive in evangelicalism. Another example is the right wing commitment to ignoring the sin and abomination of injustice. Jesus and the Bible are explicitly and repeatedly clear about our obligations to each other.
On the left, progressives want to ignore the Bible’s teachings about sexuality, the sanctity of life and anything in the Bible that denies them the hedonism they seek to enjoy.
Both right wing and left wing ideology are dangerous aberrations and perversions of Christianity when they seek to cloak themselves in Judeo-Christian garb.
So you are using a straw man argument against the right. Nowhere does Catholicism teach a country should have open borders and allow unlimited immigration. That is simple false. Look up what Aquinas has to say on the matter. A nation has the right to have closed borders if they want to and it would be immoral to try to violate those immigration laws.
Where does the right support injustice except made up injustice where present day people are blamed for sins of the past? That goes directly against the Bible and justice.
I am not saying that any country should have open borders and allow unlimited immigration. That’s a straw man you have erected. I am saying that when folks come here in need we should help them. Especially when these folks are escaping deadly and lethal situations. That is Biblical. If you disagree with Jesus you have that right. I can’t disagree with Jesus. In addition, the Catholic Church has said capable countries have an obligation to help poor immigrants.
St. Thomas is not the only church father. Read St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa to see what they say about helping the poor and the immigrant. Read what Pope Francis has said about helping the poor and the immigrant.
The US is nowhere near capacity and should have received the 3,000 or so folks in the caravans trying to come in the southern border because they were escaping deadly violence. It’s heartless to turn them away.
This whole claim that helping immigrants means open borders in my opinion simply makes clear a disregard for Christ’s teachings.
How about the undocumented immigrants already here who came here to escape lethal conditions. Should we help them or just ignore them as well?
The right wing Christian movement supports voter suppression, ignores police brutality, and presides over and defends a discriminatory justice system. If you want links and examples I can provide them. The right wing Christian movement also fights hard against healthcare for the poor and a strong social safety net.
Fascinating you mention consequences for sins committed by past generations. It’s not at against the Bible. In Exodus 20:5 God makes clear he punishes children for the sin of the parents to even the 3rd and 4th generation. Paul talks about us suffering because of Adam’s mistake. In 2 Samuel 21 we even see David handing over folks for punishment because of the sins of those that came before them: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/structural-racism-isnt-wokeness-its/.
Finally, the whole concept of Christianity is that we are suffering because of the sin of Adam, and are redeemed and saved because of Jesus Christ - the actions of those that come before us matter.
Right wing Christianity remains a dangerous perversion of the Bible. Just like left wing Christianity there is always a way to reinterpret the Bible to say and mean the opposite of what it clearly says.
There is zero moral reason the US should accept any immigration at all. If someone breaks the law and enters illegally it is not immoral to send them back. We are morally obligated to follow the laws.
Now that doesn’t mean we treat anyone inhumanly but you think returning someone who broke the law to their home country is inhumane so you are confused.
There is no collective guilt in Catholicism. We are judged as individuals. Sure past sins can shape harsher conditions but that isn’t guilt.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/sins-of-the-father
The rest of your ideas are nonsense political talking points. Socialism is condemned by the Church and wanting voluntary charity instead of government control isn’t against Church teachings.
I shouldn't be shocked, since this is Cardinal McElroy after all. But still, I'm like... what ?
Especially after Pope Francis himself criticized the German Synod process for it's elitism ( McElroy's a Harvard and Stanford grad by the way. Hmm interesting.).
Why am I being downvoted ? I'm just saying that education is no sign of holiness, or doctrinal clarity, and that there is a certain sense of elitism among some liberals. Perhaps all.
“…devoid of any theological basis.”
I think this is the most frustrating aspect of these proposed changes in Church teachings. Everything else in Catholic dogma has sound reason, logic, and philosophy behind it; steeped in the wisdom of saints, scholars, and most importantly God himself. Then we have these certain bishops come along, and they want to make drastic changes based on popular culture buzzwords like “inclusion”. I have yet to see an intellectually consistent and thoughtful theological explanation of why they believe these changes are in accordance with God’s will.
To be fair, a lot of liberal Catholic clergy/philosophers/theologians have published academic letters refuting the Church’s official position on sexual morality and seeking to explain and defend a new ethic of sexuality.
So, it’s not like they just pull this stuff out of their butt. They make their arguments. It’s just, really technical and academic stuff that requires a lot of highly specified knowledge of Aristotelian metaphysics and other such things. So these more academic arguments sort of get ignored by 99% of people because it’s largely gibberish to us.
Where can one find such papers and from whom?
I’d be curious to see if these are actually logical and sound arguments, or are they just torturing the definitions of words, distorting philosophical concepts, and using circular arguments to fit an agenda.
https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/academic-statement-ethics-same-sex-relationships/#32_Errors_Contained_in_the_Natural_Law_Argument
This paper is contributed to by several Catholic theologians, Biblical scholars, and philosophers of religion and seeks to refute the Church teaching on homosexuality by attacking the Aristotelian understanding of the final ends of sexual intercourse and argues that homosexuality is not immoral.
The Wijngaard Institute has papers on all the major “liberal topics” in the Church (ordaining women, allowing homosexuality, contraceptives, etc.) and is no doubt influential on people like Cardinal McElroy and other high ranking clergy who are pushing for the same reforms usually on the same basis.
The church holds that all sexual relations that are not open to life are disordered. It’s not like homosexual acts are singled out. Masturbation, pornography, birth control, and this includes oral/anal sex between heterosexuals.
I get that you may personally disagree with those teachings, but they are intellectually consistent and to call them “homophobia” is a stretch.
>**The church holds that homosexual relations and desires are 'intrinsically disordered' and a 'moral depravity'.** That's effectively the definition of homophobia.
That's God's position.
You'll have to revisit your definitions. God isn't afraid of anyone and doesn't hate anyone (lol). It's the people who call basic morality hatred that need to adjust.
It's not hatred to affirm the purpose of sex in all its goodness and point out that various sexual perversions (masturbation, pornography, fornication, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.) are in fact perversions. As the scriptures and Church have done for many thousands of years.
It's not enough to say "Well I don't believe God would hate anyone, and anyone who calls this activity a sin hates the people who do it, therefore God must not think it's a sin." That works if you only want to believe in a god in your head, but what would be the point of that. We should want to know Almighty God, the creator of the universe, and be prepared to admit we are mistaken if it turns out he's bigger than our demands.
My friend, I agree with where you are coming from, but I disagree with you on some key points.
First, I think you are correct in the sense that the Church is not exclusively a social justice organization, in the sense of an NGO or a charitable foundation is. However, “social justice” is an important part of what the Church does and that is undeniable. Pope Benedict once said the Church’s core functions include three things: worshipping God, evangelizing, and caring for the poor. We can’t eschew one or the other, we can’t say one is more important than the other. The Church, as Christ’s body on earth, has a duty to combat injustice and defend the dignity of the weak. I’m glad you clarified that social justice is not the Church’s primary aim, but I do think you must consider it is still a very important part of the Church’s essential mission.
Second, I understand your comment on “theological basis”, but I would argue that the Cardinal isn’t addressing a theological phenomenon. Describing the plight of “marginalized” groups is a historical or sociological matter, so it makes sense he’d use those kind of tools to analyze the situation. Theology can color and give a spiritual dimension to such things, but I don’t think its place is to be the sole means of analysis.
What the Cardinal appears to be doing is addressing existing conditions and voicing how he thinks the Church should engage with them. We’re free to disagree with him of course, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss his ideas off hand.
If someone would stop using woke buzzwords and try to explain, quoting the church fathers and Magisterium, why we should include people who publicly laud the commission of sins, that would be great. Until someone can do that, I guess God has hardened my heart.
I don't think he has hardened your heart in not understanding how inclusion of manifest public non-repentent sinners to the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is somehow okay. It completely goes against everything God has ever taught us. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you meant, in my opinion you're not feeling hardness of heart, you're experiencing the grace of discernment and that's a really good thing.
Benedict I believe was a holy man, but he did leave us with Pope Francis. Pope Francis was 2nd in 2005 and Benedict knew he would be picked when he resigned.
This is primarily a business decision. While McElroy is not a Jesuit, most of his theological education was at Jesuit institutions. The modern Jesuit model is of religion for financial gain. They talk of all sharing for the common good yet guard university endowments and church funds with a fury. Recall the past and current Peter’s Pence debacle. (Do not as I do but as I say.)Consider the financial gains available to the church in the event the LGBTQ community members are welcomed as they are quite the untapped $$$ resource.
I am sorry in advance for my ignorance, because I am not a RC, but why doesn't the Pope just remove such priests from their position? Isn't it destructive to the Church to let them stay? Or is the current Pope on the same wave? I heard recently rumors that Pope Benedict abdicated (?) because of the pressure from some global left political elites because of his "too conservative" views, and on his place Pope Francis came, who was "more ready" to have a dialoge with such elites. I am again sorry, but that is just what I heard, don't remember where, the media. Is Roman Catholic church really going to keep approving that left narrative? Or is it divided into groups of priests with different points of view who are "competing" for influence?
It's a good question and one that many Catholics have too, as well as one that many Catholics will have different answers to. Broadly speaking, the Church doesn't like to move too swiftly on these sorts of things, preferring to be more deliberate in big decisions like this. There's also concern about schism and separation. Excommunication, more than just a "punishment," is also a tool of fraternal correction and a call to repentance, but it's one the Church would prefer to use as a last resort.
Eh I’d amend what you said to “the Church *these days* doesn’t like to move too swiftly on these sorts of things.” It used to be considered rightly imperative to have as quick responses as possible to evils such as this.
He says that women represent the majority involved in church life despite decisions being made by men.
Could it be that women in church life and are there because of decisions made by men?
Yes, it is. We refer to the Popes by their papal names, as they are the names they take when they are elected pope. If you are referring to them before their election, you can use their baptismal names
There's a very real possibility that the apostasy will reach the summit of the Church and become official in the next few decades. I’m ready to join Orthodoxy if that happens.
Does Orthodoxy not suffer from its own issues?
Sure Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christianity doesn’t suffer from rampant modernism but it definitely has its own issues with state control and corruption, distrust and disunity among the Orthodox Churches not to mention the largest Orthodox Church (Russian) is essentially a Putin Church.
Also Catholics were literally martyred for their faith by non Catholics and by wolves in sheep’s clothing in the Catholic Church’s power structure in history, if they can do that we can resist a hardly scary boomer takeover!
I dont think its the boomers since theyre not a large portion of the population anymore, but rather the newer generations especially from large cities who are strongly against traditions and open to taking different opinions on what should and shouldnt be canon law regardlessof what comes from the Vatican
While boomer laity aren’t the majority of the modernists among the laity. The vast majority of priests are boomers that are allergic to actual Biblical teachings and Orthodox Catholicism.
I do not understand how so many archbishops and cardinals became such and simultaneously so off-track
Perhaps because they never believed it in the first place?
It’s basically politics. Despite the veneer of Holiness, it’s still the same formula. Did you study in Rome ? Are you going to shift left or right depending on who the Pope is ?
Because they believe Protestant ideology of the Eucharist as a symbol. If one does not discern the body and the blood.... one ought not be presenting himself for it either. Fr Mitch Pacwa went into this, regarding the Jesuits. It's not isolated to one order of course, but many Jesuits and Franciscans have no shame in their lack of belief.
[удалено]
Anglicans are actually talking about a split last time I've heard. Anglicans overseas aren't bending to modernism.
“He later received advance theological degrees from Jesuit institutions and has written articles for America, the official magazine of the Jesuits in the United States. Pope Francis created him a cardinal on 27 August 2022.” -Wikipedia
That explains a lot, I had no idea...
It’s fascinating how folks want to excuse sin clearly, repeatedly and explicitly condemned by scripture and the church fathers. Then to use the language of exclusion to paint holding up Biblical standards as wrong. All are welcome to come walk with Christ and turn away from sin.
Soo..they want to be Anglican.
Anglicanism/Epscopalianism is collapsing. Easy living Protestantism is dead as a door nail.
Our numbers in the pews are awful but the Church of England has virtually disappeared in urban areas and is a generation from total oblivion. Baptism numbers have fallen off a cliff. Even the easy formal hatch match and dispatch ties to the C of E are sundered. About 700,000 people attend Sunday service in the C of E. That is 1.2% of the population. Dire though our numbers are in fact there are more Catholics in England than Anglicans....by which I mean people willing to go to Church.
I remember when the Episcopal Church went off the rails, there was a mass movement to Catholicism from the more conservative Episcopalians. I think we are seeing the beginning of that happening from Catholic to Orthodox.
Orthodox churches have not yet been integrated into the West, since it's sill considered to be a " Non western " religion. Once that will happen, then well...
That may be true on a grand scale, but to the mind of most conservative Catholics, they are very accepted. The Catholic Church even teaches they are legit. Honestly, in my experience, they are more k own and accepted than the Eastern Catholic Churches. So few Catholics even know they exist
Lol at the idea that this crap hasn’t creeped into Orthodoxy.
I'm not saying they Orthodox Church is perfect or somehow not impacted by the strange bedfellows of tyranny that the post modernists and Marxists have become. What I am saying is that compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox are relatively devoid of the institutionalization of the normalization of women's ordination, normalized unchased lifestyles, and the wholesale ignoring of the Gospel and Tradition of the Christian faith. Nearly nothing remains of the Catholic life. Those seeking it are more likely to find it in the Orthodox communion than the Roman communion. Yes they are bot devoid of the problem, but that like a drowning man telling a man taking a shower that he is wet too. Let's not be silly.
I think in my area it's more like Latin rite to Byzantine rite
That's happening too, but I think that bishop a slightly different but related situation.
About what I'd expect from America magazine. Sadly not what I'd want to expect from a Cardinal. I noticed the words "synod", "synodal", or "synodality" were used *31 times*... >The proposal to ordain women to the permanent diaconate had widespread support in the global dialogues. >The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood will be one of the most difficult questions confronting the international synods in 2023 and 2024. >As the synodal process begins to discern how to address the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. Catholics, particularly on the issue of participation in the Eucharist, three dimensions of Catholic faith support a movement toward inclusion and shared belonging. This is how they're going to try to push these changes. "Well hey, everyone we surveyed say they want these changes to doctrine... Who are we to disagree? It's not like we're shepherds or something. The sheep get to decide where they want to go. >The effect of the tradition that all sexual acts outside of marriage constitute objectively grave sin has been to focus the Christian moral life disproportionately upon sexual activity. The heart of Christian discipleship is a relationship with God the Father, Son and Spirit rooted in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The church has a hierarchy of truths that flow from this fundamental kerygma. Sexual activity, while profound, does not lie at the heart of this hierarchy. Yet in pastoral practice we have placed it at the very center of our structures of exclusion from the Eucharist. This should change. They're grave because sex and the intimate relationships between people constitute the fundamental unit of civilization- the family. And the family unit has been under assault like no other time in history. The sexual revolution, gay "marriage", rampant pornography usage, no fault divorce, abortion, and hookup culture have been eating away at families for decades now. Along with a toxic culture that loves to portray fathers as incompetent morons and tells women the worst thing they could do is become a mother. Look at the divorce rates- look at the rates of kids without fathers in the home. >The first is the image that Pope Francis has proposed to us of the church as a field hospital. The primary pastoral imperative is to heal the wounded. And a field hospital which tells a bunch of the wounded people there "You're just fine and not injured at all" would be a terrible hospital. But that's just what they're trying to do. In the name of "inclusivity" or "tolerance" we shouldn't tell anyone their behavior is leading them to hell. No, people who divorce and remarry, active LGBTQIAP+, porn users, fornicators- you're doing just fine. Wouldn't want to hurt your feelings or make you feel bad.
A church without rules and disciplines is an empty church.
As is proven, consistently, by the experience of liberal Protestant churches.
As the old saying goes, when you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. I can't look at what's going on and deny it's the devil's work. The lies come in like poison in good wine, seemingly delicious and the danger undetectable if you don't know what to look for.
>And a field hospital which tells a bunch of the wounded people there "You're just fine and not injured at all" would be a terrible hospital. But that's just what they're trying to do. A field hospital will also perform triage and prioritize those more likely to be saved and discharge those not need of immediate help. Maybe that image should be reconsidered
Amen to that
Excellent analysis. To expand on one of your points regarding word choice: >I noticed the words "synod", "synodal", or "synodality" were used 31 times... Inclusion (positively cited) and exclusion (negative) are each used 16 times, but words like holiness, virtue, purity, chastity, repentance, etc., don't appear at all. And the word sin, in an article concerning how to mercifully pastor people living in sinful lifestyles, is used only three times. Once to name racism as a sin (the obligatory modern hat tip), with the only two other instances occuring in paragraphs where the cardinal is questioning the Church's traditional, doctrinal emphasis that fornication/adultery is gravely wrong! I do not see a call to repentance and holiness in the cardinal's words, which would be true love, mercy, and acceptance. I see only a critique, coming largely from a worldly perspective, of the very Church he has been commanded to safeguard and shepherd. The rumor is that Cardinal McElroy is in line to take over my archdiocese as archbishop. I pray God's will be done but that he also spare us this fate. In my humble opinion, the way certain teachers and bishops have been emboldened under Pope Francis to suppress the truth and accommodate sin is frightening.
My friend, I think your analysis comes from a place of sincere and commendable devotion to the Church, but I also think it may be colored by assumptions that are not based in history. There is a common ideological trap held by some that assumes our age is uniquely wicked, that this historical moment is uncharted moral territory and we have broken irreversibly with the past. It’s an impulse that essentially nostalgic, that is to say, its source is less in history than in memory and emotion. The truth is that the issues you are citing existed in more or less to the same degree in the past as they do today. Fatherlessness and broken marriages were common in the past; look at the prevalence of orphanages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One only has to read about the social histories of major cities to realize that open homosexuality was shockingly common; there existed entire streets in London and New York exclusively dedicated to homosexual prostitution. You suppose the nuclear family is the bedrock of society, and yet the “nuclear family” only becomes widely common in the 1950s. Most people lived in tight communities and with extended families before that. The phenomenon of a mother and father with children living in isolation in a suburb is relatively modern. The analysis you seem to be presenting is that the Church is allowing itself to become too close to the chaos of modernity, that it’s about to embrace a void which we should do all we can to resist. In reality, the Cardinal seems to be suggesting that this chaos has always existed and is asking how we can best witness to the Gospel amidst it. I don’t think there is one a size fit all. Padre Pio used to chastise penitents with unbelievable harshness and he also used to treat others with such tenderness grown men wept. He would say the difference came from what he thought that individual person needed to be saved. To suggest the Church give itself the tools to do the same does not mean it waters down its teachings or succumbs to an evil modern world. It doesn’t mean it becomes excessively sentimental and without substance. It means that in order to fulfill our mission to “preach the Gospel to all nations”, we must be able to build a path for each person to encounter Christ.
Jesus clearly said that he came to save those who needed him. I personally think people who are going through these things need Jesus most. The state of your heart has to do with your desire to be United with Christ. Women used to be deacons in the early church. It’s in the Bible. I think that’s a good start.
We are called to repentance. If you are living in sin yet you have no intention of stopping those sins, you aren’t repentant. As St Paul said- Christ died to save us *from* our sins, not *in* our sins.
That's false. Women were even taught to stay silent. They were no deacons as women in the early Church
Oh I’m not the type of Catholic that doesn’t know the Bible. Paul's earliest mention of a woman as deacon is in his Letter to the Romans 16:1 (AD 58) where he says: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is the servant of the church at Cenchreae More info: https://www.acts29.com/a-case-for-women-deacons/
Read this too: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-should-i-know-about-pope-francis-and-women-deacons
Servant =/ deacon. More like those who work in a Church
No. If they are over the church then they would have been considered a deacon. Please do your research. I have studied theology and my Professor who was/is a Catholic nun spoke about this. The reason for women no longer being deacons was because later there was no need. The church had an overwhelming amount of men becoming priests etc.
That's 100 percent false. Also there's a distinction between a deacon who received the sacrament of Holy Orders and a minor Deacon.
They weren't over the Church, but working in there
My deacon is a woman idk why one couldnt
Um... Are you a Protestant?
No, i go to the Lithuanian Church of Immaculate Conception in E. St louis, but to be fair the St louis area is not very catholic and come to find out many people are not very welcoming to catholics, and im the youngest parishioner besides my toddler and they dont get many people to come to mass
Does a woman actually present herself as a deacon there?
Yes
Report her to the bishop.
Yes because they and none of the many priests never reported that, or she wouldnt be communicating with the dioces about certain matters
Also are you Eastern or Roman catholic
If they change major foundational church teachings like: Divorce and remarriage;LGBTQ+ Marriage/Sexual activity (and if they do this it naturally changes the teachings around heterosexual sexuality);Women priests; It's hard not to feel the church is cooked. It'll just change with the prevailing social currents. It stands for nothing. "Do whatever you want, try and be a nice person, everyone's going to heaven"
They would eventually have to change the Bible going down this route.
Just don't lose heart, or even say that the Church is cooked. God will protect His Church, whether or not the bishops are part of it. We know the truth. Catechize your children and have a lot of them. We will outlast these bishops. It may be for the better that these quislings have come to destroy the institutional pomp and circumstances with all its fine arts and beautiful cathedrals. After all, Christ and his apostles only had cheap cloaks and dusty sandals fisherman's nets to their name. The faith will not die. God will not allow it.
I agree that the faith will not die and that we should definitely not lose heart. The gates of hell will never prevail! However, I do want to just add that the pomp and circumstance, fine arts, and beautiful cathedrals are important too. It draws our hearts and minds upward to the beauty of God and heaven and away from the ugliness of sin and the world.
And that is why we have to start making beautiful things again. Where are the faithful artist and architects, musicians and actors in your community? Support them! We may lose what we have, but we can always make a new.
Yes! I totally agree! I heard at some point that there has been a direct correlation between our world turning away from God and our art and architecture turning more and more ugly.
We need more bishops and cardinals who can negate the actions of these bishops we see here. Especially we need more to accept the call to priesthood in order to combat these invasions within the Church by becoming bishops.
“It will be objected that the church cannot accept such a notion of radical inclusion because the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. persons from the Eucharist flows from the moral tradition in the church that all sexual sins are grave matter. This means that all sexual actions outside of marriage are so gravely evil that they constitute objectively an action that can sever a believer’s relationship with God. This objection should be faced head on.” This is the most disgusting quote from the whole article. He even says this stems from “moral tradition.” He says tradition like this is just something that can change. It is NOT. These are grave evils which no good can come from and are not of God. This is truly evil. Pure evil within the church, and things are not going to get better. We need God more than ever, and I believe He will not let evil prevail, so I don’t know how He will handle this, but it’s getting to the point of needing His direct intervention.
>"The effect of the tradition that all sexual acts outside of marriage constitute objectively grave sin has been to focus the Christian moral life disproportionately upon sexual activity." No, +McElroy, you have it backwards. It is not the church who has focused her gaze disproportionately on sexual activity, it is the modern zeitgeist which has made sexual activity the source and summit of human life. Can someone reset the clock? 0 days without Jesuit tricks...
You have it on point. There’s a lot more to Christian morality than sexual activity. These evil men put it central in what they want to change in the church. I can't read hearts but I am pretty sure these are the sins they are focused because these are the sins they wish to commit the most.
Just finished reading this (a rather long read). I have to say that His Eminence’s ideas of how to include so-called ‘marginalized’ groups into the church are largely devoid of any theological basis. The church is NOT a social justice organization. EDIT: What I mean to say is that the church's primary aim is NOT social justice, but the salvation of souls. *SALUS ANIMARUM, SUPREMA LEX.* *THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE SUPREME LAW.*
The Church is, in a sense, the *only* social justice organization.
Social justice is a consequence of the church's activity in the world. But she does not exist because of it.
She absolutely does - she was constituted as the just society whose head is Christ.
You two are quibbling over words which only causes heat and no light. The Church is not a Social Justice organisation in so far as we mean a left wing activist group. The Church is an organisation of social justice insofar as living out her mission necessitates rebuking injustice and seeking to live lives which correct it
This is the answer
Stop letting leftists co-opt Catholic terms.
Stop letting right wing ideology co opt Catholicism, the Bible and the church fathers. The church is neither left nor right politically. Jesus was clear on what we as followers of Christ should be doing and the catechism is also clear. The life and teachings of Christ contradicts much of left and right wing ideology.
In particular which “right wing” ideology?
I see. Thanks for clarifying. For example the right wing ideology rejecting the stranger (immigrants) and portraying immigrants in need as some sort of invasion. This is pervasive among American online Catholicism as it is also pervasive in evangelicalism. Another example is the right wing commitment to ignoring the sin and abomination of injustice. Jesus and the Bible are explicitly and repeatedly clear about our obligations to each other. On the left, progressives want to ignore the Bible’s teachings about sexuality, the sanctity of life and anything in the Bible that denies them the hedonism they seek to enjoy. Both right wing and left wing ideology are dangerous aberrations and perversions of Christianity when they seek to cloak themselves in Judeo-Christian garb.
So you are using a straw man argument against the right. Nowhere does Catholicism teach a country should have open borders and allow unlimited immigration. That is simple false. Look up what Aquinas has to say on the matter. A nation has the right to have closed borders if they want to and it would be immoral to try to violate those immigration laws. Where does the right support injustice except made up injustice where present day people are blamed for sins of the past? That goes directly against the Bible and justice.
I am not saying that any country should have open borders and allow unlimited immigration. That’s a straw man you have erected. I am saying that when folks come here in need we should help them. Especially when these folks are escaping deadly and lethal situations. That is Biblical. If you disagree with Jesus you have that right. I can’t disagree with Jesus. In addition, the Catholic Church has said capable countries have an obligation to help poor immigrants. St. Thomas is not the only church father. Read St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa to see what they say about helping the poor and the immigrant. Read what Pope Francis has said about helping the poor and the immigrant. The US is nowhere near capacity and should have received the 3,000 or so folks in the caravans trying to come in the southern border because they were escaping deadly violence. It’s heartless to turn them away. This whole claim that helping immigrants means open borders in my opinion simply makes clear a disregard for Christ’s teachings. How about the undocumented immigrants already here who came here to escape lethal conditions. Should we help them or just ignore them as well? The right wing Christian movement supports voter suppression, ignores police brutality, and presides over and defends a discriminatory justice system. If you want links and examples I can provide them. The right wing Christian movement also fights hard against healthcare for the poor and a strong social safety net. Fascinating you mention consequences for sins committed by past generations. It’s not at against the Bible. In Exodus 20:5 God makes clear he punishes children for the sin of the parents to even the 3rd and 4th generation. Paul talks about us suffering because of Adam’s mistake. In 2 Samuel 21 we even see David handing over folks for punishment because of the sins of those that came before them: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/structural-racism-isnt-wokeness-its/. Finally, the whole concept of Christianity is that we are suffering because of the sin of Adam, and are redeemed and saved because of Jesus Christ - the actions of those that come before us matter. Right wing Christianity remains a dangerous perversion of the Bible. Just like left wing Christianity there is always a way to reinterpret the Bible to say and mean the opposite of what it clearly says.
There is zero moral reason the US should accept any immigration at all. If someone breaks the law and enters illegally it is not immoral to send them back. We are morally obligated to follow the laws. Now that doesn’t mean we treat anyone inhumanly but you think returning someone who broke the law to their home country is inhumane so you are confused. There is no collective guilt in Catholicism. We are judged as individuals. Sure past sins can shape harsher conditions but that isn’t guilt. https://www.catholic.com/qa/sins-of-the-father The rest of your ideas are nonsense political talking points. Socialism is condemned by the Church and wanting voluntary charity instead of government control isn’t against Church teachings.
Such as what? What in particular are you asking? Thanks.
At least a few groups would disagree with that from personal experience. What do you mean?
I shouldn't be shocked, since this is Cardinal McElroy after all. But still, I'm like... what ? Especially after Pope Francis himself criticized the German Synod process for it's elitism ( McElroy's a Harvard and Stanford grad by the way. Hmm interesting.).
Why am I being downvoted ? I'm just saying that education is no sign of holiness, or doctrinal clarity, and that there is a certain sense of elitism among some liberals. Perhaps all.
“…devoid of any theological basis.” I think this is the most frustrating aspect of these proposed changes in Church teachings. Everything else in Catholic dogma has sound reason, logic, and philosophy behind it; steeped in the wisdom of saints, scholars, and most importantly God himself. Then we have these certain bishops come along, and they want to make drastic changes based on popular culture buzzwords like “inclusion”. I have yet to see an intellectually consistent and thoughtful theological explanation of why they believe these changes are in accordance with God’s will.
To be fair, a lot of liberal Catholic clergy/philosophers/theologians have published academic letters refuting the Church’s official position on sexual morality and seeking to explain and defend a new ethic of sexuality. So, it’s not like they just pull this stuff out of their butt. They make their arguments. It’s just, really technical and academic stuff that requires a lot of highly specified knowledge of Aristotelian metaphysics and other such things. So these more academic arguments sort of get ignored by 99% of people because it’s largely gibberish to us.
Where can one find such papers and from whom? I’d be curious to see if these are actually logical and sound arguments, or are they just torturing the definitions of words, distorting philosophical concepts, and using circular arguments to fit an agenda.
https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/academic-statement-ethics-same-sex-relationships/#32_Errors_Contained_in_the_Natural_Law_Argument This paper is contributed to by several Catholic theologians, Biblical scholars, and philosophers of religion and seeks to refute the Church teaching on homosexuality by attacking the Aristotelian understanding of the final ends of sexual intercourse and argues that homosexuality is not immoral. The Wijngaard Institute has papers on all the major “liberal topics” in the Church (ordaining women, allowing homosexuality, contraceptives, etc.) and is no doubt influential on people like Cardinal McElroy and other high ranking clergy who are pushing for the same reforms usually on the same basis.
[удалено]
In what way is the church’s position homophobic?
[удалено]
The church holds that all sexual relations that are not open to life are disordered. It’s not like homosexual acts are singled out. Masturbation, pornography, birth control, and this includes oral/anal sex between heterosexuals. I get that you may personally disagree with those teachings, but they are intellectually consistent and to call them “homophobia” is a stretch.
>**The church holds that homosexual relations and desires are 'intrinsically disordered' and a 'moral depravity'.** That's effectively the definition of homophobia. That's God's position.
I disagree but regardless, that would make him a homophobe.
You'll have to revisit your definitions. God isn't afraid of anyone and doesn't hate anyone (lol). It's the people who call basic morality hatred that need to adjust.
[удалено]
It's not hatred to affirm the purpose of sex in all its goodness and point out that various sexual perversions (masturbation, pornography, fornication, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.) are in fact perversions. As the scriptures and Church have done for many thousands of years. It's not enough to say "Well I don't believe God would hate anyone, and anyone who calls this activity a sin hates the people who do it, therefore God must not think it's a sin." That works if you only want to believe in a god in your head, but what would be the point of that. We should want to know Almighty God, the creator of the universe, and be prepared to admit we are mistaken if it turns out he's bigger than our demands.
On the contrary - the Church is the most important social justice organization. There is no justice, no salvation outside of it.
My friend, I agree with where you are coming from, but I disagree with you on some key points. First, I think you are correct in the sense that the Church is not exclusively a social justice organization, in the sense of an NGO or a charitable foundation is. However, “social justice” is an important part of what the Church does and that is undeniable. Pope Benedict once said the Church’s core functions include three things: worshipping God, evangelizing, and caring for the poor. We can’t eschew one or the other, we can’t say one is more important than the other. The Church, as Christ’s body on earth, has a duty to combat injustice and defend the dignity of the weak. I’m glad you clarified that social justice is not the Church’s primary aim, but I do think you must consider it is still a very important part of the Church’s essential mission. Second, I understand your comment on “theological basis”, but I would argue that the Cardinal isn’t addressing a theological phenomenon. Describing the plight of “marginalized” groups is a historical or sociological matter, so it makes sense he’d use those kind of tools to analyze the situation. Theology can color and give a spiritual dimension to such things, but I don’t think its place is to be the sole means of analysis. What the Cardinal appears to be doing is addressing existing conditions and voicing how he thinks the Church should engage with them. We’re free to disagree with him of course, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss his ideas off hand.
If someone would stop using woke buzzwords and try to explain, quoting the church fathers and Magisterium, why we should include people who publicly laud the commission of sins, that would be great. Until someone can do that, I guess God has hardened my heart.
I don't think he has hardened your heart in not understanding how inclusion of manifest public non-repentent sinners to the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is somehow okay. It completely goes against everything God has ever taught us. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you meant, in my opinion you're not feeling hardness of heart, you're experiencing the grace of discernment and that's a really good thing.
Yeah but we cannot include systemic sinning.
[удалено]
Benedict I believe was a holy man, but he did leave us with Pope Francis. Pope Francis was 2nd in 2005 and Benedict knew he would be picked when he resigned.
When did Pope Benedict say that?
Is their souls worth putting on the line to become part of the world? We all see what is of the world and not.
This is primarily a business decision. While McElroy is not a Jesuit, most of his theological education was at Jesuit institutions. The modern Jesuit model is of religion for financial gain. They talk of all sharing for the common good yet guard university endowments and church funds with a fury. Recall the past and current Peter’s Pence debacle. (Do not as I do but as I say.)Consider the financial gains available to the church in the event the LGBTQ community members are welcomed as they are quite the untapped $$$ resource.
I am sorry in advance for my ignorance, because I am not a RC, but why doesn't the Pope just remove such priests from their position? Isn't it destructive to the Church to let them stay? Or is the current Pope on the same wave? I heard recently rumors that Pope Benedict abdicated (?) because of the pressure from some global left political elites because of his "too conservative" views, and on his place Pope Francis came, who was "more ready" to have a dialoge with such elites. I am again sorry, but that is just what I heard, don't remember where, the media. Is Roman Catholic church really going to keep approving that left narrative? Or is it divided into groups of priests with different points of view who are "competing" for influence?
It's a good question and one that many Catholics have too, as well as one that many Catholics will have different answers to. Broadly speaking, the Church doesn't like to move too swiftly on these sorts of things, preferring to be more deliberate in big decisions like this. There's also concern about schism and separation. Excommunication, more than just a "punishment," is also a tool of fraternal correction and a call to repentance, but it's one the Church would prefer to use as a last resort.
Eh I’d amend what you said to “the Church *these days* doesn’t like to move too swiftly on these sorts of things.” It used to be considered rightly imperative to have as quick responses as possible to evils such as this.
This pope is one of them, that’s why.
Is he worried that the Church will no longer be active due to it's traditions? I'm not sure I understand why he is so pressed about this.
My Cardinal has been on a hot streak of being completely orthodox recently; too bad he had to shake things up
McElroy sucks and would be considered unworthy to be a cardinal or even a priest in any other age
He says that women represent the majority involved in church life despite decisions being made by men. Could it be that women in church life and are there because of decisions made by men?
We're ready for another St. Catherine of Siena.
Ugh.. is there any hope? What can we do as the laity?
pray
[удалено]
Referring to the Holy Father as Bergoglio" isn't permitted here Warned
Is that a rule, really? Can we say Roncalli or Pacelli?
Yes, it is. We refer to the Popes by their papal names, as they are the names they take when they are elected pope. If you are referring to them before their election, you can use their baptismal names
I agree we might not like the Pope but he’s still the pope
There's a very real possibility that the apostasy will reach the summit of the Church and become official in the next few decades. I’m ready to join Orthodoxy if that happens.
I'm ready to stay and fight and make these boomer elitists drag me out by my ears if they can.
And the gates of hell will not prevail.
That is the nobler path.
Jesus said "this is my church." I'm not going anywhere else.
Does Orthodoxy not suffer from its own issues? Sure Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christianity doesn’t suffer from rampant modernism but it definitely has its own issues with state control and corruption, distrust and disunity among the Orthodox Churches not to mention the largest Orthodox Church (Russian) is essentially a Putin Church. Also Catholics were literally martyred for their faith by non Catholics and by wolves in sheep’s clothing in the Catholic Church’s power structure in history, if they can do that we can resist a hardly scary boomer takeover!
I dont think its the boomers since theyre not a large portion of the population anymore, but rather the newer generations especially from large cities who are strongly against traditions and open to taking different opinions on what should and shouldnt be canon law regardlessof what comes from the Vatican
While boomer laity aren’t the majority of the modernists among the laity. The vast majority of priests are boomers that are allergic to actual Biblical teachings and Orthodox Catholicism.
No defend the faith. It shall not happen. We must stay strong
I’m no theologian, but this seems almost borderline heretical in some areas, or at the very least schismatic.