The moral theologian Fr. Eberhard Schockenhoff is said to be the mastermind behind the challenge to Church teachings by the German bishops. He is deeply involved with the Synod on the Family. He is on the record as an opponent to Humanae Vitae and the Church’s prohibition against artificial contraception. He is an apologist for gay clergy and wants an overhaul of Catholic sexual ethics. He has argued that the “permanence” and “solidarity” in same-sex relationships is “ethically valuable” as is its growing public acceptance. He would discard or “liberate” Catholic teaching from an association with natural law, emphasizing the subjective experiences of the faithful. He would also openly readmit remarried divorcees to take Holy Communion, adultery or not. How is such a man counted as an expert? What even makes him a Catholic?
Infiltrated Vatican set to accept Same Sex Unions??
Filed under: Catholic, Church, Contraception, Divorce, Homosexuality |
Blogger Priest 
A couple months–and a lot of research and reflection–later and I’m checking back in to say I have come around to thinking that I was indeed being “too generous and naive” in my approach to this question.
I really just did not realize the fervor and depths of dissent present in (or laying claim to presence in) the Church. I couldn’t model the mind that would want to reject Catholicism and yet retain the name “Catholic”. Actually, I still can’t model it but I’m more aware of its actual existence. (It was encountering the so-called “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” [sic] that finally did the trick.)
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned reply, Father Joe. I would counter, however, that even the “hopeful dissenters” against “settled doctrine” can have value in the larger scheme. Times change and, while doctrine in itself ought not change with it, it is useful to rearticulate the truth in the language of the times. Towards that end, however misguided and distorted their personal views, the dissenters do the Church a service. Whether there *should* be confusion or perversion of understanding, the brute fact is that there *is*–and figures such as Schockenhoff & Co. [does anyone remember when the Germans *weren’t* troublemakers?] at the very least draw attention to the direction in which the dangerously wayward are wandering; all the better for us to find them and bring them back into the fold. Perhaps in this I am being to generous or naive but I believe that, at bottom, even dissenters as tragic as Luther have been men of good will.
And I sincerely hope you were making only a dramatic rhetorical flourish in directing the lost to turn towards schism, heresy, and apostasy. I pray every morning for the reunion of all Christians and should like to think you do too.
How is he an expert and what makes him a Catholic… Excellent questions, Father.
We’re in such need for severity instead of false mercy from Holy Mother Church. It seems the wolves are allowed to run free among the sheep.
God bless you Father. I enjoy reading your blog posts.
Isn’t this, at least in part, a case of the problem of “seeing the sausage get made”? Every Council and Synod has had its opposing voices, even (and especially) among those who were not schismatics in the end. Trent for instance, which even the most ‘traditionalist’ Catholics recognize, was far from a model of unified thought and faith. Nevertheless, decisions were reached and the misguided submitted (except the Protestants, of course, but it’s hard to imagine how they could have been folded back in at that point anyway).
I’m not supporting the meeting’s (rumoured) position but I do see the valuable role dissenting opinions play in the development of doctrine. ‘Wrong’ answers, with their genuine and well-intentioned advocates, are necessary if only to highlight points of ambiguity by bringing arguments to the floor. The only way clarity is increased is by raising new, even scandalous, questions.
I suggest that the best course is not pre-emptive condemnation but prayer that the Spirit guide the conclusion, and save these souls from carrying their needful burdens too far…