Saturday, 5 April 2014

Further Musings

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...

1 comment:

Celia said...

I suspect it comes down to the post-Vatican II interpretation of the word 'pastoral'. No longer is the shepherd required to guide and protect his flock; rather he must make the sheep feel good about themselves and not judge them when they decide wander off and spend time with the wolves.

And then there is the misunderstanding of Vatican II's call to engage with the world: the bishops are afraid of losing their cosy relationship with the political/social establishment which allows them to think they have some influence.