When
conciliar teaching precluded such deviant “reforms,” an appeal to “the spirit
of Vatican II” was made by the defectors. Religious themselves were sent to
seminars, conferences, and think-tanks which pressured them to abandon
hierarchical structures in favor of the “democratic,” to question traditional
doctrinal certainties, and to demand reasons for those things formerly regarded
as sacred, the most important of which was the basis for their vocation to the
religious life. They became exposed to new anthropologies under the influence
of psychology, sociology, and other social sciences, acceptance of which many
sisters were naturally compliant under obedience — all this in spite of the
obviousness that such changes were not approved by Rome and threatened the
existence of their communities. In other words, the desired ressourcement of the council Fathers, rather than providing the guiding
atmosphere in which aggiornamento was
to occur, was ignored in favor of “updating.”
Back in June of this year I wrote about Pope Francis' view of Gender identity : " Gender ideology is demonic!’” said the Holy Father. One thinks of this statement wonders what the New York Times thinks of t his statement by a Pope they admire after running this piece on gender identity . The article tells of how there are not only man and woman, but also other ‘genders;' furthermore: every person can choose his or her gender . Fr. Longenecker stands this on its head: " Well, call me old fashioned, but remember Humanae Vitae? The underlying teaching was a defense of the essentials of human sexuality. Basically “sex is for babies” and if you separate sex from babies all sorts of monstrous things will come about. When sex becomes more about recreation than pro creation people become confused about what sex is for, and if they’re confused about what sex is for, then they soon become confuse...

Comments
Post a Comment