I have been thinking more about the Bishops' Conference's reluctance to back +Egan (see my previous post, here).
I have a hunch. It is no more than that, but it is my current working hypothesis about what is going on.
The Bishops do not wish to be clear that those who are out of step with Catholic teaching on SSM should not present for communion for a reason.
That reason, I suspect, is that it might raise a question they really don't want to face. That is: should those who don't follow the Church's teaching on artificial contraception also refrain from receiving?
That, I suspect, is the Elephant in the Conference.
It seems to me that there are some in the Conference who are uncomfortable with Humanae Vitae; and there are more who fear the consequences of preaching on it. Due to their, and their predecessors', failure to teach this, and also to instil any sense of obedience and teachability in the Faithful, they know that huge numbers will rebel against any such teaching.
So it is much easier and safer to keep everything nice and ill-defined, and not rock the boat.
Who was it who said that the first act of episcopal collegiality was the one recorded in St Matthew's Gospel, 26:56?
I may be quite wrong: indeed I hope I am: someone please give me a more plausible explanation...
Evilness - My goodness! How can they do such things? God made piggies to have little feet... trotters if you will. He did not make them to wear sling-backs or brogu...
12 hours ago