Um ... no. That's your imagination.
These abuses of power lead to intellectual dishonesty among Catholics who feel themselves bound to defend them by trying to draw square circles. The abuses therefore have an especially bad effect on theological discourse and ecclesial coherence. Many feel forced to choose between being a "good Catholic" and being intellectually honest. It is an unfortunate situation.
I don't think that all of them are intellectually dishonest. Some are. Some are quite clever about it. But then some good people just can't believe that the Vatican could go so far off the rails. They can't see the Vatican going off the rails. So for them FS just HAS TO BE orthodox. No matter what. They can only read it that way. And of course FS did say some orthodox things before they innovated some impossible false things. So these people latch on to those things and don't read further the document for content to see that it's not really orthodox. Or they talk themselves into fun with words to convince themselves that blessing couples has nothing to do with blessing unions. Or how inventing non-liturgical blessings makes a lick of sense.
The Orthodox, the evangelicals, the Muslims all see this as an epic failure. And within the Church resistance to this is snowballing. Pope Francis has a window of opportunity to dismiss cardinal Fernandez and withdraw FS for further study and correction. I think instead he will double down. And thus we have incoherence and damage to Catholic witness.
It's intellectual suicide. It's also a suicide of faith. As if Fides et Ratio do not belong together any more.
What would you know about my conscience and whether it is troubled or not? You tell me I am a bad Catholic and then you tell me it's really my conscience that is bothering me. What I have seen from you is a crazy attempt at explaining how the blessing of couples is not a blessing of their union. I haven't seen you defending the publishing history of cardinal Fernandez yet but I expect you are ready to do that.
I never told you that you were a "bad Catholic". I told you that you some of your beliefs were incorrect, just as you told me that I am incorrect. You "being a bad Catholic" is entirely in your own head.
No, what you have seen from me is a correct reading of the document, which many "crazy" bishops and priests all over the planet Earth have also been able to do.
I have not read the document. If you take issue with it, feel free to do so. It is irrelevant to me because I am not bound by it.
No, "that is your conscience speaking to you" is an indication that I have not accused him of being a bad Catholic, but the issue must be in his own mind because he feels accused of it.To say, "that is your conscience speaking to you," is an indirect way of accusing someone of being a bad Catholic. It's this idea that, "I'm not accusing you of being a bad Catholic, your conscience is."
Oh dear. You are the one who made it personal in the first place. See:No, "that is your conscience speaking to you" is an indication that I have not accused him of being a bad Catholic, but the issue must be in his own mind because he feels accused of it.
I have it down to either a bot or someone sent by the Vatican to try to convince us all that same sex blessings are great.
My question about being a bot or not was not to call anyone a bot but to ask how I would know, given reference to ChatGPT, that I was not getting a ChatGPT answer. No more than that.I have it down to either a bot or someone sent by the Vatican to try to convince us all that same sex blessings are great.
