The Pitfalls Of Talking To Heretics
As I write this, the final document is circulating and the Synod Father are digesting it.
It says here that father Lombardi has stated that the Synod father are satisfied with the text. Which probably means they aren’t.
What I find notable in the article is the “inclusive” cut that will probably be given to the text.
Let us imagine a paragraph states: “A minority of Fathers is of the opinion that we should give communion to adulterers, but the majority rejected the proposal”. Rinse and repeat concerning homos, decentralisation of the Church, or whatever you like. Do you vote the paragraph down? These are the crude facts, not a matter of opinions.
Of course, such a document would be stating that heretical discussions are taking place within the Church; discussion in which heresy is not called by name, and is treated like a legitimate “minority opinion”. But again, this is the simple truth. This is what happens when you debate with heretics and accept them as interlocutors.
It would have been better to walk out of the Synod when it was clear that it was being used to even propose a heretical platform – no matter how clearly in the minority – than to have the media the world over repeat that the Church is discussing whether to change doctrine.
Prepare yourself for a long V II waffle full of double-edged swords – say: “the Synod Fathers are persuaded of the necessity for the priest to do all he can to allow adulterers to become able to receive communion”, which can be read in both a perfectly orthodox and a perfectly heretical sense – and pray that it does not get worse than that.
If Sunday Evening arrives and there is no atomic mushroom in the Catholic skies, I for myself will go to sleep more relaxed, and dream of Pope Pius XIII in better serenity that I had in the last months.
But I still think it was a big mistake not to walk out of a Synod of Heresy.