I am currently writing something about the Synod to be published as an Ad Rem. Meantime, here are some thoughts that I should not attempt to fit into that piece, which I am trying to keep concise.
The Relatio that came out a week ago is a masterstroke of the progressivist approach to doctrine. For the progressivist, truth changes and dogma evolves, as Cardinal Reinhard Marx explicitly stated at the end of the Synod. Their interest is not preserving what was handed to them via tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23, 1 Cor. 15:3), but, rather, making up something new. Because of that, they are operating outside the limits of Catholic doctrine. And since they cannot have the sanction of the infallible magisterium for their novelties, they tell doctrinal conservatives that the changes are “pastoral” measures or alterations in Church discipline.
But this is disingenuous. They are revolutionaries, who are simply pushing the envelope on doctrine. They will use whatever underhanded means or specious arguments will work to achieve their ends — including lies and threats.
Here is an illustration of a more “innocent” form of theological progressivism. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, who was one of the editors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and who has a clear and outspoken record of favoring homosexual relationships, mentioned the need to go beyond the very Catechism he edited in favor of a more positive outlook on aberrant sexual unions.
One of the editors of the Catechism wanting to go beyond it? Isn’t that bizarre?
No, it’s not. The language in the Catechism was somewhat vague and attenuated in parts, e.g.:
They [“men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies”] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [2358]
The language is not specific. What constitutes “unjust discrimination” against one with this tendency? Evidently it does not extend as far as ordaining them to the Catholic priesthood, which is still forbidden. But, as one who has been accused of the very crime for simply standing up to scandalous practicing homosexuals trying to force their way onto our private property, I can tell you: it is not clearly enough defined.
But alongside this vague language, the Catechism says that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered,” “contrary to the natural law,” and which “do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” [2357]. It further calls on people with these temptations to “unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” [2358], and concludes that
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. [2359]
All that is good.
But for a progressivist, the vague language is a victory and the traditional sounding condemnation of homosexual acts is something that can be worked on later, which may explain why Cardinal Schönborn “predicted that John Paul II’s version [the CCC] wouldn’t last as long as the one that followed the Council of Trent.”
The Cardinal’s desire to push beyond his own work is reminiscent of Bill Clinton rejoicing over the downfall of “don’t ask don’t tell,” which he signed into law, or Obama’s “evolution” on the matter of homosexual “marriage” (the pre-evolved Obama was in favor of civil unions only — as a stepping stone which would not jeopardize his candidacy). For political revolutionaries, stasis is the enemy. They want change, and they will get it incrementally if necessary, as the “art of the possible” will allow for the moment. Then they will move beyond when times are more propitious. And on this issue, sexual deviancy, the times are getting ever more propitious as the homosexual agenda moves apace.
In Cardinal Schönborn’s case, the revolutionary alteration of doctrine is done in the name of “doctrinal development.”
Compassion, mercy, the desire to heal: these must all be part of the Church’s pastoral care — for everyone, including prostitutes, rapists, and murderers. To turn these Christian virtues into buzzwords in favor of the zeitgeist is disingenuous and destructive of authentic Christian compassion. Jesus’ words to the woman taken in adultery and to the Samaritan woman show us genuine compassion and mercy. In neither instance was the woman given sanction for sin.
One of the most sobering comments about this whole affair came from an anonymous commenter on a blog, who suffers from homosexual temptations:
I’m a Catholic and I struggle against homosexual temptations. I’ve found priests to be welcoming and supportive, except for one who suggested that I should just accept a gay lifestyle.
And, with this background, I feel betrayed by this Pope and his Synod collaborators. They give no encouragement to someone who is trying to be chaste.
(By the way, if you have not read it, Roberto de Mattei’s critique of the Relatio that came out a week ago is very worth reading.)
