That was my original plan, too, but then I kept seeing all this stuff.... I wonder why they even needed to release an interim version in the first place. It seems like an effort by the manipulators to get PR momentum. Wish the all-to-human Church didn't work like that.

Wish the all-to-human Church didn't work like that.

Well, it's the reason we're all still here probably. Or at least, it will be that way as long as we're here.

See Craig, you tried to spare me from this, but here I am.

AMDG

As you probably remember, that letter of Ratzinger's provoked anger because of its use of the term "disordered."

"The general result, I expect, would be a widening non-compliance with the law, motivated by a tacit understanding that it's not really going to be enforced, or even that there is no law per se." Which of course is exactly what's happened in liberal Protestantism on these matters.

That "law of gradualism" stuff in the document is quite weird. Granted, I am not well-read in theology, but I'm pretty sure I've never run across such a "law" before. It's a weird way of making the valid point that you shouldn't expect people to go from non-belief to full embrace of the entire faith and all it entails in one quick leap. A very questionable bit of rhetorical over-reach.

I've been trying to ignore the synod, which has proven impossible!

I think the "law of gradualism" is nonsense, although anyone with commonsense knows that most people do only change their ideas gradually.

"Wish the all-to-human Church didn't work like that."

Yep.

And there was some nonsense last week from an Australian married couple who told the "heart-warming" story of a couple accepting the "gay partner" of their son "into the family."

Nup. Sorry. I'm not going to do that kind of thing in the name of "mercy." I've already made myself very unpopular in my family in simply not budging on the question of recognising adulterous "partnerships." If anyone is in need of mercy, it's the stalwart Catholics who cop endless bullying on all sides merely for having our beliefs (even when we don't actually "shove them down other people's throats"). My FB page and former blog are not anything to go by, btw! IRL I hardly ever mention morality etc. Indeed, Australians have so little patience with religion that I hardly ever mention God. The mere fact that I *am* religious causes my irreligious countrymen to have conniptions. It's very tedious.

Im lovin it

Actually it will seem worse than damage control. Any attempt to pull back from the suggestions and implications of this interim document will be seen as a cowardly retreat after a bold step forward, and a victory of repressive forces over liberating ones.

John L. Allen Jr. does a pretty good job of presenting some background on gradualism and on its emergence at the synod: The synod's key twist: The sudden return of gradualism

About that return:

Ferment over gradualism, and what its implications may be, tends to arise whenever the Catholic Church ponders sexual morality.

The last time the Vatican staged a Synod of Bishops on the family, which was almost 35 years ago in 1980, talk about gradualism was in the air, too. Pope John Paul II was sufficiently concerned about where it might lead that he included a warning in a homily he gave for the closing Mass of the synod, a line he then also dropped into the meeting’s concluding document, Familiaris Consortio.

“What is known as ‘the law of gradualness’,” John Paul said, “cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law’.” The gist was there’s just one set of rules for everybody, and they’re not going to change.

I think perhaps that use of "law" was the doing of John Paul II. At least that's what I get from what a professor of theology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. wrote:

According to an official Vatican press briefing on Tuesday, Oct. 7, the discussion at the Synod over proposals for communion for divorced and remarried persons has shifted to “gradualness.” It seems that some are now arguing from the principle of gradualness that those who are not yet able to live according to the Church’s teachings could still receive Holy Communion as a step on the way towards a more perfect conversion. ...

What John Paul called “the law of gradualness” does not refer to a “gradual” turning away from sin, but to the perennial Christian doctrine that we are not yet perfect in the first moment of our conversion. When we receive a grace of conversion, we break definitively from evil and then gradually advance in holiness. We may even fall back into grave sin, but, helped by grace, we repent and start anew. Here, the sacrament of Penance has an important role to play: it calls us to renounce our sins definitively with a firm purpose of amendment. In effect, he who will not yet repent, will not yet accept God’s mercy, and so is not forgiven.

One problem is that a lot of people who get their information from the press think that current Church teaching is that homosexuals are icky and shouldn't be allowed through the doors. All the synod needs to do is repeat actual Church teaching in a way that people hear and they'll think the teaching has changed.

Much as they thought Francis had discovered the concept of love, unknown to his immediate predecessors.

For the gay rights etc. movement, however, with its demand for active approval, actual Church teaching is not significantly different from "homosexuals are icky and shouldn't be allowed through the doors."

Regarding that "law of gradualism"--I never did think real highly of John Paul's prose. I guess I can forgive this, though.

Did you note that that song was uploaded by "thepopesmokesdope94's channel"?

That's great, Robert. Very nice exercise for their imaginations.

No, I didn't notice that, Marianne. I guess it would be wrong of me to call it providential...:-)

I hate to be so negative (seriously, I do). But finding out that it isn't an earthquake will only increase the anger and disdain. Either they believe the false version, and think "Well, those lunatics are finally coming around," or they don't believe it, and think "So what if the trains bound for Auschwitz are marginally more comfortable."

I spent a while yesterday reading the comments on a story about this at NPR (American liberal radio network), and that's pretty much the way they ran: either this is a first tiny step on the way toward completely dropping our absurd and evil morality, or it's just window dressing and no one should be taken in.

No. As you suggest, that would be a more severe penance than I feel able to undertake. This was purely for investigative purposes.

Several months ago, the movie Angels & Demons (which followed on The Da Vinci Code), was on TV here in NZ, and I watched a few scenes. The way the Catholics were portrayed actually shocked me -- they were simply monsters.

Scary to think about how many people have been schooled in that kind of thing. Add that to the cultural push to present sexual activity as central to a good life, and it's easy to see where those NPR commenters are coming from.

My gut reaction on the document. It doesn't really state anything new, just restate some common sense stuff. For example, it claims that homo couples have something positive to contribute. I'm fine with saying that, as long as you add the mental reservation "when they are not committing unnatural acts."

In the age of Pope Francis, you can never forget that he is a Jesuit and messages are delivered with many mental reservations.

Pauli's comment was stuck in the spam catcher for several hours. Nice to hear from you again, Pauli.

My hypothesis about Francis is not so much that he uses mental reservations etc. as that he's just sort of, to use my wife's description, loosey-goosey. But then one can't disregard the way he apparently stacked the committee working on that document with Kaspar-ites.

And the Martins' relics are coming to Memphis on Nov. 1.

AMDG

I imagine it's pretty close to what the press said after Humanae Vitae. This is exactly what the scripture tells us to expect.

AMDG

Right. What's frustrating is the way the synod set itself up for that. I wonder if it was engineered that way: to be either a victory for progressives, or, if that failed, a flogging in the press for the opposition.

Somebody said to me six months or so ago that this was going to be a repeat of the Humanae Vitae moment.

From that LA Times article:

In a speech to prelates at the end of the synod, Francis drew a line between a temptation by prelates to reject change because of “hostile rigidity” and a temptation to be overly “progressive and liberal.”

The debate seen at the synod was positive, and there is another year to reach conclusions before the next synod, he said. But though his speech received a four-minute ovation from prelates, the synod may yet come to be seen as the moment Francis’ papacy faltered.

The article also says that two Germans, Cardinal Walter Kasper and Cardinal Reinhard Marx, are both allies of the pope. I read that after I read Damian Thompson's post on the synod in which he says the liberal faction in the Church is dominated by Germans. Why is that?

I'm not playing the game, just watching. It's the hierarchy who are playing. Maybe it's good that so many of them don't play it very well.

"...the moment Francis’ papacy faltered."

[snort] That political paradigm is the only one they know. Along the same lines, I'm always amused and irritated by journalists referring to Church teachings as "Vatican policy".

That sounds very like simony.

It does sound like simony. And it's especially shocking to the American sensibility, brought up on strict church-state separation.

I saw some speculation the other day that this is part of the reason why the German bishops are so keen on relaxing the divorced-and-remarried discipline: too many people in that situation saying "If I can't receive communion, why should I put myself in the position of being taxed?" That would be understandable in people who weren't deeply committed to the faith.

Interest. As Paul said, that really does seem to come close to simony.

Why didn't you include a link? :-)

Yes, I had seen it, and one thing I thought bears a lot of emphasis is "we have reflected on how to accompany those who have been divorced and remarried". I think maybe the effort to accompany the people in these problematic situations (I'm thinking of homosexuality here as well) ought to be a very high priority, higher than the doctrinal discussions.

Oh, I thought that was the whole thing. Anyway, that's a very good post. (Note to others: the link is to Janet's blog--you should go read it.)

I like this bit, The love of man and woman teaches us that each needs the other in order to be truly self. Each remains different from the other that opens self and is revealed in the reciprocal gift. because I think it hints at the necessity of the complimentarity of the sexes. Just hints. I started to write more about that, but I didn't have time to get that involved.

AMDG

One would like to think that this is not a huge factor. Still, you can't help noticing that rich people tend to get treated very well by the Church, and by Church-affiliated institutions.