Posted on 05/02/2014 7:54:12 PM PDT by ebb tide
An email from a friend:
>>Worry less about Francis on economics, but sweat the upcoming Synod on the Family instead. To paraphrase George Gilder, economic growth can get switched back on in an instant. All we need to do is set in place the right policies.<<
>>But the family? Don’t mess with that. Damage to the family would be permanent. You couldn’t repair that with lower tax rates. The upcoming Synod on the Family looks to be Humanae Vitae all over again. The 1968 crowd is getting ready to make their final push before they expire.<<
I wish he didn’t, of course, but I’m very much afraid that my friend has a point. The effort within the Church to persuade Pope Paul VI to overturn the Church’s traditional teaching against birth control back during the 1960s proved immense—a majority of the panel of experts the Pope convened to advise him on the matter recommended that he permit birth control, which, of course, would have altered the Church’s very conception of married love, marriage, and fidelity. Only a minority report, and the Pope himself — in a display of what might be termed holy stubbornness— led instead to the publication of Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s historic teachings. (If you’ve never read Humanae Vitae, by the way, you’re in for an intellectual shock. With astonishing accuracy, Paul VI predicted the ills to which the breakdown of marriage would lead. Even if you think we Catholics are crazy—a view I share from time to time myself, I admit—Humanae Vitae is worth a read.)
Now Pope Francis has called a Synod on the Family, and another major effort to alter historic teachings appears to be underway—an effort to make annulments easier to obtain, for instance, or to permit those who have remarried without annulments to receive communion. Here again, this sort of talk may strike a lot non-Catholics as crazy. But what’s at stake is the Church’s ancient and unchanging teaching that marriage is indissoluble—and the fundamental commitment that makes possible the permanence of the family.
Someone—anyone—tell my friend why he’s wrong. Tell him—and me—why we don’t need to sweat the Synod.
“Someone—anyone—tell my friend why he’s wrong. Tell him—and me—why we don’t need to sweat the Synod.”
Why should someone care if you “sweat the Synod”?
Maybe spouses should “sweat” before the pope officially condones adultery, as he has been suggesting in interviews and via his mouthpiece, Kasper.
“Maybe spouses should “sweat” before the pope officially condones adultery, as he has been suggesting in interviews and via his mouthpiece, Kasper.”
Maybe people who falsely claim the pope “officially condones adultery” should sweat hell since that’s where liars go.
What part of “before” do you not understand?
St John Paul II lied and he’s obviously not in Hell.
>>There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading of the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.<<
Inaestimabile Donum, 1980.
“St John Paul II lied and he’s obviously not in Hell.”
Where’s the lie?
“What part of “before” do you not understand?”
What part of “falsely claim” do you not understand?
” Why should someone care if you “sweat the synod”?
If it weren’t for expending perspiration toward the synod, trust me, it would be directed to something else— possibly the length of the pope’s robe. That has been my experience here, with what I’ve seen so far, anyway. Thx, vlad.
I am not sweating it because I have no control over it, but I’m also not telling those that do that they have nothing to be concerned about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.