The most unexpected statement in the pro-gay bishops network scandal has been when the ultimate middle-of-the-road conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, in the Catholic Herald said:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a cuture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."
Where did this post-Vatican II settlement of the culture of lies come from?
It appears to have come from the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state which was a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia in ambiguity.
Liberals and Sedevacantists said it was infallible and explicitly taught that error had rights.
Sedevacantists thought the gates of hell had prevailed and became a type of Catholic Protestant.
Liberals thought this "right" of error allowed them to dissent against infallible Catholic truths.
Traditionalists said it was a facade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually be corrected.
Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Pope agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
But, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought it was defined teaching.
Apparently, Chaput taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth." The Archbishop wrote:
"Error has no rights, but persons do have rights - even when they choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most important important right any human being has." (First Things, "Of Human Dignity," March 18, 2015)
So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if "persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?
In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his "'longtime friend' Cardinal McCarrick" who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: "McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver." ("The Neo-Catholics," pages 154, 159)
What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?
Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?
Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?
On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops" reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he "expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered'" which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, "September 20, 2017)
The "conservative" Chaput is building a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth."
As Schmitz said:
"Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a cuture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."
Where did this post-Vatican II settlement of the culture of lies come from?
It appears to have come from the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state which was a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia in ambiguity.
Liberals and Sedevacantists said it was infallible and explicitly taught that error had rights.
Sedevacantists thought the gates of hell had prevailed and became a type of Catholic Protestant.
Liberals thought this "right" of error allowed them to dissent against infallible Catholic truths.
Traditionalists said it was a facade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually be corrected.
Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Pope agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
But, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought it was defined teaching.
Apparently, Chaput taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth." The Archbishop wrote:
"Error has no rights, but persons do have rights - even when they choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most important important right any human being has." (First Things, "Of Human Dignity," March 18, 2015)
So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if "persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?
In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his "'longtime friend' Cardinal McCarrick" who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: "McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver." ("The Neo-Catholics," pages 154, 159)
What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?
Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?
Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?
On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops" reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he "expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered'" which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, "September 20, 2017)
The "conservative" Chaput is building a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth."
As Schmitz said:
"Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments