Raised in a Fundamentalist Protestant home and Bible chapel, I held to more than a few incorrect (and even wildly false) notions about the Catholic Church. Most of these involved Mary and the papacy. Catholics worship Mary! Catholics believe Mary is the fourth Person of the Trinity! Catholics worship the pope!
We believed, based in part on the magisterial writings of Presbyterian theologian Lorraine Boettner (1901-1990), the equally magisterial comics of Jack Chick (1924-2016), and the rightly interpreted King James translation of the Bible, that the Catholic Church was a massive and mysterious pseudo-Christian organization built on the false teachings of various popes. And popes, we thought, could make up and change Catholic beliefs on an unholy whim. If Pope A said, “Worship Mary,” then Catholic worshiped Mary. And if Pope B said something different, Catholics reversed course with dutiful and unthinking obedience.
Some thirty years ago, in the course of studying actual Church teaching, as well as a fair amount of history, I discovered just how woefully wrong, even bizarre, were those perceptions. The writings of Church fathers and doctors, and the documents of the many councils were instructive. Chapter II from Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, for example, put several pieces in their correct places:
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (par 10; cf Lumen Gentium, Chapter III)
How curious, then, to find that one of the more “progressive” prelates in the Church, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, apparently subscribes to some form of the Fundamentalist understanding of the papacy. In a recent and lengthy interview with the Croatian weekly Glas Koncila, Hollerich was asked about the possibility of women being ordained priests. He answered that Pope John II’s 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was “surely is a true teaching for its time, and we cannot just push it aside. But I think that there might be some space to expand the teaching – to see which of the arguments of Pope John Paul II could be developed. But for the moment, if Pope Francis tells me it is not an option, it is not an option.” And then:
If it is so, how can we ever certainly know if a Pope is right in his teaching?
There is no way you can strictly go against the Pope’s teaching, yet sometimes there is a development in thought which can lead to different conclusions. But if I were the one to jump to those conclusions, it would be preposterous. It is the whole Church together with Peter that must acknowledge there was a development.
The use of “development” here is, most likely, an appeal to Newman’s famous writings on the topic, which state—put simply—that authentic development of doctrine is a cohesive maturation, not a change or rupture. Keep in mind that John Paul II, in his rather terse and quite clear Letter, stated that “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium,” but that because some were still making hay and saying otherwise, he would settle the matter:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
But, according to Hollerich, that was then, this is now, and his finger is to the wind, however politely. Yet it’s much more serious than just saying, “I disagree with that Pope on this matter of faith and morals,” because, as John Paul II notes in referring back to a 1975 text by Paul VI, this teaching about the ordination of woman is rooted in Sacred Scripture and Tradition—that is, in divine revelation. And popes, in the end, are servants of the divinely revealed Word of God.
Does Hollerich therefore believe that divine revelation might be mistaken? Or, does he think that the Magisterium has gotten it wrong on certain matters of faith and morals? Further, does he really think that if the “whole Church” and the Pope suddenly decide that the Church was wrong for 2000 years on X, Y, or Z (and that is a substantial, delusional “if”), that the Church can really continue to be what she has always said she is—the Body of Christ, “the household of God,” and “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15)?
Of course, Hollerich is clever enough to avoid these questions directly. Yet he is audacious enough to put forth sorry sophistries when it comes to what is, by all appearances, his favorite project: undermining and completely remaking the Church’s teachings on sexuality. Thus, the Church’s perennial doctrine on homosexuality is outdated, he says, because “the term homosexuality did not even exist [in the early Church]. Homosexuality is a new word; even in the time of Saint Paul people had no idea that there might be men and women attracted to the same sex.” That is, put simply, false, as Anglican biblical scholar N. T. Wright pointed out nearly two decades ago.
However, that is just one problem. “But how can you condemn people who cannot love except the same sex?” he says. “For some of them it is possible to be chaste, but calling others to chastity seems like speaking Egyptian to them.” Who cannot love except the same sex? Love, it seems, is both a sacred and fatalistic emotion that simply cannot be denied. Is Hollerich a Catholic bishop or a transgressive romance novelist? Does he not believe that Christ’s grace is sufficient? Furthermore, if chastity is impossible for some, then could it be that refraining from racism, pederasty, polygamy, dog fighting, and intolerant neo-Pelagianism is just as impossible for others?
But the Cardinal, who has never hidden his love for the Gospel of Trendy Sociology, insists, “A homosexual person will always love people of the same sex.” To quote a famous musical squad from New Jersey: “You give love a bad name.”
Further, Hollerich says, “homosexual people must feel welcome in our house. Otherwise, they will go away.” It is, of course, always about feelings. It brings to mind the sentence, “When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions” (Mt 19:22). Let’s cut to the chase: emotions and passions are the great possessions of our time. Many will forsake the King and the Kingdom because of their passionate desires and obstinate proclivities. Sadly, Hollerich seems convinced the Church will eventually catch up to his 1960’s vision of sexuality and love. Honest to God, he seems intent on being the John A. T. Robinson of our time, treating sexuality with a sort of weaponized naivety (or, perhaps, calculated ideology).
Having misrepresented doctrine, theology, and history, Hollerich turns to Scripture:
When Jesus meets somebody like Zacchaeus, he does not say: ‘You have to change your life, my boy, and then, perhaps, if you do penance, I might consider visiting you.’ No; his look on such a person puts them at ease and makes them feel accepted. Then Jesus goes to their house, and only then do they change. I do not exclude change, but it comes after meeting Jesus.
Note, again, the emphasis on “feeling”. This is polemical silliness, intended to smear orthodox Catholics as haters who insist that Jesus will have nothing to do with sinners until they’ve cleaned up properly before meeting Him. Zaccheus, in fact, is presented by St. Luke in purposeful contrast to the rich, young ruler. The latter had kept the commandments, but could not give himself over completely to Christ, withholding that one thing he yet desired to keep for himself.
Zaccheus, viewed by all as a sinner, receives Christ with joy and offers all that he has, with complete abandonment. The juxtaposition is both moral and soteriological. Morality is rooted in authentic love—not feelings, but willed gift of self; salvation comes through death to self and life to God. All of us are called to abandon something; Cardinal Hollerich would like to make exceptions for certain people. Why? Is it because he is captive to the zeitgeist?
Finally, let’s note that Hollerich, in addressing these various matters, directly undermines St. Pope John Paul II. This is obvious with the matter of women’s ordination. His remarks on sexuality go completely contrary to John Paul II’s theology of the body and, of course, the Catechism, which the late pontiff promulgated in 1994. And Hollerich’s remarks on feelings and love, as well about Zaccheus, throws shade on Veritatis Splendor as well as Dives in Misericordia and other texts. (The obsessive dislike of Veritatis Splendor by nearly everyone within Pope Francis’s inner circle is obvious and important, as I’ve indicated before.)
In the end, the deepest problem is that Hollerich and Co. have such a distorted understanding of divine revelation, the Papacy and Magisterium, and the development of doctrine. As well as sexuality, moral doctrine, and conscience. In obvious ways, it’s the same old progressive nonsense of the 1960s and onward; in other and less obvious ways, oddly enough, it is downright Fundamentalist.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Homosexual people must always feel welcome in our house.”?
Partially true – it’s not our house, it’s CHRIST’S house.
And HE makes the rules.
Perfectly stated.
Thank you.
Yes, and He also cleansed the temple. Jesus Christ is Lord and King. We come to Him at His invitation on His terms or not at all.
And what did Christ say about homosexuals in his house?
You tell me. If you answer “Nothing,” I assume you have the same to say, so why do you bother?
The Magisterium of the RC Church includes faith and reason in its perennial teaching. If one wishes to argue with the best RCC thinkers of the past two millennia and with God Himself, one had better have a few truthfully good and beautiful words of faith and reason to proffer.
“I do not condemn you, but sin no more.” The great Prophet Moses said: ” “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” (Leviticus 19:22). “The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God!” (St Gregory of Nyssa, Church Fathers).
In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says: “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.”. Then, we could cite Leviticus 18:22 (“You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing”)
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
Proverbs 23:22 Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.
“Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Nothing, s far as I know.
He said nothing.
Why are so many hierarchy of the church so confused? Read “AA1025 Memoirs of the Communists Infiltration into the Church” revealed by Marie Carrè.
Thank you Carl, we’ll said!
John, unfortunately I don’t think that they’re confused at all. They’ve simply abandoned the Faith of our Fathers, and simply don’t have the honesty or integrity to admit it.
Spot on.
His house, His game, His rules.
It is what it is, Darlin’.
One thing about “walking together,” as in Cardinal Hollerich’s synodality, is that you often end up walking in a line. And, his ecclesial and a moral “new paradigm” comes at the end of such a line. What now with cadence-caller Hollerich as he steps us toward the Synod on Synodality in 2023, or 2024 or whenever (“the endless journey”)?
Exhibit #1: The historian and short-time Catholic, Gibbon (for one year in his early life), said the apostasy came with Constantine in the 4th Century.
Exhibit #2: Islam says it came with the heretical retooling of triadic polytheism at the early 5th Century Council of Chalcedon and the articulation of the Triune One (as for Judaism, they lost the divine connection with the Old Testament apostasy of the Golden Calf).
Exhibit #3: Mormonism detected the corruption throughout, but places the turning point earlier, at about A.D. 200 (James E. Talmage, “The Great Apostasy,” 1909).
Exhibit #4: Joachim de Fiore discover that the new Age of the Holy Spirit began in his 12th Century (succeeding to the Old Testament Age of the Father, and then the Age of the Son).
Exhibit #5: Modern Europe left the cathedral world for more of a life on the streets in the later centuries, when it was scandalized by the “bad popes” (E.R. Chamberlin, “The Bad Popes,” 1969), especially the 14th-century Western Schism (one pope and two pretenders) and then the probably most notorious and late 15th-century Alexander VI)—
NONE of whom actually taught heresy…except now possibly for Hollerich (?), as the rumored favorite successor of Pope Francis (?). But Hollerich clarifies that he remains in step with Pope Francis, who clearly proclaims that female ordination is a “closed issue.”
But what might Hollerich insinuate or even accommodate (still NOT teach!), as a possible future pope, on the same controverted (not controversial) subject—then reminding us, as his own in-step/synodal following, of his pious obedience to the current pope? After all, Hollerich has already signaled that, following the arc of history, our grounding in the natural law and the Catechism should be coffined, buried, and replaced.
“Time is greater than space!”
Forgiving others and taking up your cross are two of the most difficult facets of Christianity.
Temptation and the ‘glamour of evil.’
Hollerich, McElroy and the rest seem to be drawing from the same unimpressive playbook:
Jesus loves everybody, and being judgmental is a sin, so it’s wrong for us to expect people to actually change their behaviors (except for us judgmental people, of course; we need to change immediately).
Thank you, Mr. Olson, for exposing the shortcomings of this position and helping to steel us against the coming onslaught.
I know you’re fighting well below your weight class here, but please continue to stand strong and give us confidence in our opposition to evil.
Subhead from this story:
“Is the prelate from Luxembourg a Catholic bishop or a transgressive romance novelist?”
Excellent question!
I would like to add a third possibility:
A creepy elderly uncle who is always hanging around with the kids.
Brineyman,
Your third possibility may be spot on. And I’m afraid there are others in the progressive hierarchy who fit this description as well.
Thank you, Carl, for this excellent and much-needed information and analysis.
You conservative Catholics are absolutely insane.
Mr. Olsen provides a brilliant critique of the bizarre notions of Cardinal Hollerich. While I was reading it I could not help but recall my pre-conciliar catechesis at the hands of erudite and faith filled Sisters of Christian Charity. We were diligently introduced to the faith, versed well in defense of it from widely held hostile misrepresentations and provided a realistic picture of the Church’s vulnerable position in a broadly Protestant society. It is a great consolation that Mr. Olsen demonstrates what I have perceived for last ten years – that those now holding positions of gravest responsibility are fulfilling the long held and worst misunderstandings about Roman Catholicism. Thankfully others of greater acumen than I do see it as well.
Hollerich, the German episcopate, bold and shameless members of the American hierarchy, their groveling confreres at the Vatican and around the globe, debase the laity and obfuscate the Gospel in order to promote their own gravely flawed personal conceptions nurtured in the egoism of the atheistic academy. It is grotesque. It is absolutely unacceptable.
It would be well indeed if the episcopate, emboldened as they are by the notion of collegiality, presently utilized only for the aggrandizement themselves, would exercise it for the advancement of Christ’s Gospel accurately embodied in perennial orthodox Roman Catholic theology. Having abandoned the perennial Magisterium they have no credence, immolated as it is in the hallows of egoism and pride. The least among us can detect the fragrance from that altar. It is unmistakable and it is not pleasant.
Excellent article, and very interesting and informative references.
This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed (LG III). “The whole Church together with Peter that must acknowledge there was a development” (Card Hollerich).
Although Card Hollerich appears to contradict settled doctrine in context of Olson’s citing of LG III, the strength of his arguments on women priests, acceptance of homosexual relationships is his, on face value, wholly orthodox quote, “The whole Church together with Peter”. That strength lies in the current pontiff’s putative [by a plethora of indication] agreement with the homosexual issue, and his permission to allow female priesthood to be discussed during the Synod in which Hollerich is the Relator.
“I do not exclude change, but it comes after meeting Jesus” (Hollerich). In the Zacchaeus passage Hollerich suggest acceptance, meeting Jesus and the Holy Eucharist are synonymous. We find this suggestion in Amoris Laetitia as a “first step” leading to full doctrinal communion. Hollerich is indeed clever couching his arguments on what has already been proffered by Pope Francis. The thesis that embrace first, rather than disciplinary barriers and access to the Eucharist is what brings conversion. A contention that the Eucharist, regardless of a desire to repent is magical.
That separation of a willful intent to repent from receiving the Eucharist is the cause of the apostasy affecting Catholics worldwide. When people see at Mass and hear from Rome that repentance is not required, the inevitable assumption is, If I can receive the Eucharist whatever my practices, why bother attending Church services since my life choices are acceptable to God?
Card Hollerich SJ exemplifies the definition of clericalism, a clericalism that assumes their office ipso facto confirms the truth of their sentiments as alluded to by Carl Olson. A corruption of the distinction between good and evil replacing good with diversity and inclusion, evil with discrimination and repentance.
And PF has made him General Relator of the blasphemous Synod and appointed him to his inner-circle Council of Cardinals. PF must be removed. And his entire “magistrium” of the past 10 years must be erased. And most of the cardinals he has appointed must have their red hats taken away. I will not pray for the death of the pope but honestly I am greatly tempted to do so. God save us.
Great, thanks Mr. Olson. Now I’m going to have Bon Jovi in my head all blasted day….
If Hollerich thinks people were unfamiliar with homosexuality ages ago, he is ignorant of history and has no business being in his current office.It’s of ongoing concern that this Pope continues to say and do NOTHING about a Cardinal (or other high clergy) who is spewing untruths about the acceptability of homosexuality. Or any other sexual sin he appears to deem ok. “Because I want to” has never been an acceptable excuse to commit a sin. This kind of hands off approach to priests who are misleading the flock in the area of morality and church rules ( women priests? No thanks) has gone on for much too long and has done immense damage to our church.We can only pray that the next Pope has a different point of view from the current one.
The Pope has far more pressing concerns to address, such as suppression of the Latin Mass.
“Sinners must always feel welcome in our house”
Listening to the Word of God changes people. Better for sinners to sit in Church and listen to the Word of God, than to lock them out. What better way to love your neighbor than by helping them become a follower of Christ.
Come on!, dear Gerald Grosek.
We are indeed friends to all, even our enemies – that goes without saying.
However, it is an entirely different matter to say that unrepentant sinners share The Holy Eucharist and are part of The Body of Christ with us. That’s blasphemy.
Mark 13:14 gives us a strong lead – that the faithful will then flee from the decaying body.
Ever in the Word of God; blessings from marty
So, who decides whom is an unrepentant sinner?
Why do you ask? Why are you equivocating? Why are you trying to defend the indefensible ? Why are you trying to excuse sin? Are you just trolling here?
That is easy. The conscience of the person attending the House of God, listening, reflecting, converting. Then that person decides to go to the Act of Reconciliation, or not. If yes, she or he can go to share in the Eucharist. It is not for others to judge the repentence and conversion of someone, but it IS for the Church to proclaim what is mortal and what is grave sin. And to not repent and convert, to purposefully continue in mortal sin, without any attempt to repent and stop, well, then there is no act of contrition, there is no reconciliation. That is who we are, as Catholics. To believe otherwise, yet believe one is following Jesus, means to not fully participate in a Catholic Church. There are other Christian Churches that do not believe as Catholics, but follow Jesus the best they can. I suggest anyone who wishes to follow Jesus but can not fully participate in the Catholic Church, attend one of those Churches, until, when, and if s/he wishes to fully convert to Catholic. Which, to be fair, very few of us are fully converted, but I believe at least most of us are trying.
The sinner does, by refusing to repent and do penance. That, of course, takes the most grievous of all sins, Pride.
Dear Gerald Grosek: “So, who decides whom is an unrepentant sinner?”
That question has two answers: First, King Jesus Christ is the judge of our obedience to God’s Word; especially our loving obedience to the teachings of Christ & His Apostles in The New Testament, which is our Cornerstone.
Some churchgoers may keep their sins secret and only God knows that they are unrepentant mafiosi, freemasons, witches, or Satanist, etc. There is nothing that can be done about that until God sorts it out (see Romans 2:5-11).
The second answer refers to serious sin churchgoers are known to be committing. Such as having sex before marriage, having sex with someone who is not their wedded spouse, males having sex with males and females having sex with females, incestuous sex, and suchlike. Approving others sinning is equally serious, whilst encouraging others to sin is maximally serious. Publicly known, unrepented sin excludes a person from membership of the Body of Christ and from Holy Eucharist. See 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.
The body of believers can’t do anything about hidden sins but we are required to take action when serious sins are known.
Jesus our LORD is reported by John 8:34 to warn us that to sin is to be a slave of sin (that is of the devil).
It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness with which Jesus Christ views sin. See Matthew 5:29-30; 18:8-9;Mark 9:43-47.
Regular homilies and missions are needed to keep that is our minds, so as to counteract the corrupting influence of a brazen society that relishes sin & celebrates & promotes it in the social media, movies, music, netflix, etc.
In short: the Church is required to discipline known unrepentant serious sinners. Judge Jesus Christ will deal with all the unknown ones.
Dear Gerald, hoping that makes good sense to you.
Ever in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
But they ought not feel comfortable in God’s house if they refuse to repent of their sins.
And yet he remains, holding his current responsibilities, thanks to Francis’s permissive will.
Since Cardinal Hollerich is parroting many voices from the German Synod, a similar criticism of him is in order. This criticism is based not only on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but also on the reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in response to a dubium on the non-changing infallible character and deposit of faith status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
The sad fact that Cardinal Hollerich even considers the possibility of women’s ordination demonstrates an apostate state of mind that should be dealt with harshly by Rome since it involves heresy. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
Nevertheless, any chance of women’s ordination was completely eliminated once-and-for-all time and in all places with the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994 wherein Pope John Paul II made it clear that the Church’s teaching on and practice of male only priestly ordination is indeed an infallible doctrine of the Church without possibility of ever being changed.
Further, a dubium was presented on the status of and assent owed to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and this dubium and the primary conclusion of the Response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approved by Pope John Paul II and dated October 28, 1995 read as follows:
“Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: Affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”
_______
Bottom Line: Any member of the Catholic Faith, from the laity to the highest clergymen, who declares that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible and can be changed is spouting heretical beliefs that must be completely rejected without entertaining the slightest possibility that the heretical beliefs may contain even a tiny kernel of truth for consideration.
Looking back to the beginnings with Christ and the Apostles to the present I’m not aware of a suggestion, perhaps proposal [as distinguished from a formal Magisterial pronouncement] by a Roman Pontiff that invites all to the table of the Lord, which is inclusion within the Church – absent of initial compliance to Christ’s call for repentance.
His first words, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near” Mt 4:17. His last instruction after the resurrection, “See that it is written that Christ would suffer and on the third day rise from the dead. And that in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all the nations” Lk 24:46-47.
Strange times indeed, dear Fr Peter, when we are having to defend the core of Christ’s teachings against those who have somehow managed to grab the steering wheel.
Ever in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Nothing but rubbish from Hollerich. He is an embarrassment. Spare me. Just spare me.
Perhaps Edward Pentin can ask Hollerich – and any other ordained clerics attempting to rationalize homosexual behavior – to go on the record and publicly confirm or deny that he himself is a homosexual
Mr. Olson…. People such as yourself who have studied and discerned their way into the Church are truly admirable. It seems that your honest inquiries have ignited the Holy Spirit. Your solid defense of our suffering Church against internal heretics is also highly commendable.
Personally I find homosexuality to be repulsive and disgusting. Of course in the madness of todays zeitgeist that leaves me as a homophobic bigot.
A question for Cdl Hollerich and all
Of PF’s nest of light in the loafers clerical malefactors is … what difference is there between homosexuality and bestiality?
Some one might ‘love’ their dog after all and love is love.
The hard part for me is coming to the realization that many of our bishops do not know the Faith. Moreover, they seem unintelligent and juvenile in their thinking. When I converted when I was a university student in the 1990’s I so looked up to our Cardinals and bishops. It’s probably my fault for putting them on a pedestal, but the last few decades have revealed many of them to be empty suits (and deeply immoral/corrupt ones). They truly are a disappointment.
Love and Truth are one: Love without Truth is hopelessly sentimental, naïve and easily mid-led; Truth without Love is hopelessly dry, rote and rigid. I am the “Way the Truth and the LIFE”. Indeed, the way -the perfectly ordinate guide for the will and the moral life; the Truth – the perfectly ordinate guide the Mind can contemplate for an eternity; the Life: the perfectly ordinate object of the soul without which there is “no life within you.” Thank you, Jesus!
The real end goal is that these clerics want to be able to openly marry other men without repercussions. But God is not to be mocked.
Yes, and the sinner is suppose to hear the Word of God and sin no more. Cardinal Hollerich leaves the ‘sin no more’ part out. He would much rather you just go and do what you ‘feel’ is right. Relativism at its finest.
Good point, dear Paul.
Maybe one could add that, for a Christian, doing whatever we want rather than what our Creator & Savior command is worse than relativism.
Then: someone needs to research when and how the teaching function of the Church came to fail so catastrophically. Jesus taught us that we have only one teacher – The Christ (Matthew 23:10). It’s the sacred duty of Catholic teachers to faithful represent Christ in all that they teach. The Marist Sisters who taught me in the 1940s were true to that. When did we lose the golden thread . . ?
Take care. Ever in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
An inclination is not a person. It is a sin to not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations and become transformed through our acceptance of Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy.
Christ welcomes repentance and reconciliation. Let those who falsely claim Christ desires we remain in our sin, be Anathema.
https://www.amazon.com/Charitable-Anathema-Dietrich-Von-Hildebrand/dp/0912141077
You were there? Or do you ignore where the Gospels say about themselves that they do not contain all that Jesus said as well as the fact that Jesus upheld all the moral laws of Judaism. Ritual accretions that distorted moral understanding were different, but moral truth is immutable as Jesus affirmed.