Saturday, October 18, 2014

Progenitor of Pope Francis' Views? The Milwaukee Connection

Chiesa (Sandro Magister) published an essay on the Synod which claims that the likely progenitor of HH Francis' views on matters of sexuality is none other than Cdl. Martini, SJ.

...There followed in October of 2013 the convening of a synod on the family, the first in a series of two synods on the same issue in the span of a year, with decisions postponed until after the second. As secretary general of this sort of permanent and prolonged synod the pope appointed a new cardinal with no experience in this regard, but very close to him, Lorenzo Baldisseri. Beside whom he placed, as special secretary, the bishop and theologian Bruno Forte, already a leading proponent of the theological and pastoral approach that had its guiding light in the Jesuit cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and its major adversaries first in John Paul II and then in Benedict XVI: an approach explicitly open to a change of Church teaching in the area of sexuality.....

Forte was the one who released the highly controversial "report" which caused a revolution at the Synod.

Wiki's brief take on Martini's theology includes this:

In his book Credere e conoscere, published shortly before his death, Martini set out his disagreement with the Catholic teaching against homosexual civil unions. “I disagree with the positions of those in the Church, that take issue with civil unions”, he wrote. “It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men, that two people have a certain stability” and that the “state could recognize them.” Although he stated his belief that "the homosexual couple, as such, can never be totally equated to a marriage", he also said that he could understand (although not necessarily approve of) gay pride parades when they support the need for self-affirmation

Familiar language, no?

To Milwaukee Catholics, the name of Martini is already quite familiar.  He was a special friend of Rembert Weakland, O.S.B.

This begins to add up.


Anonymous said...

Of course, Forte was a member of the drafting commission and not the author of the draft. BIG difference.

And, of course it doesn't help the argument that Pope Francis is a Thomist of the strict observance (pace, Evangelii Gaudium).

Dad29 said...

Forte was ID'd as the principal author, and since HH has not opened his mouth about this, his Thomism is irrelevant.

Maybe you have something worthwhile to contribute?

Anonymous said...

Nowhere has Forte been identified as the main author of the document. You should both read *and* understand your sources. ;-)

Nor can one attempt to make a worthwhile contribution on the theme of the "Progenitor of Pope Francis' Views" when (a) "HH has not opened his mouth about this" and (b) the real progenitor of his views is nowhere discussed within the purportedly 'worthwhile contribution.'

But, why try to speak intelligently with idiots?

Dad29 said...

Let me help your memory:

"When presenting the "Relatio post disceptationem" this Monday, Cardinal Erdo was asked by reporters about the scandalous paragraphs on homosexuality, homosexual unions, and the raising of children by homosexual "couples", that are in most aspects a 180-turn away from the 2,000-year-old permanent doctrine and practice of the Church, as taught even more strongly in the last two pontificates. Instead of explaining them, he refused to do so, and told Abp. Bruno Forte, the extreme liberal theologian who is acting as his assistant, to explain the passage, since Forte had authored it."

--LaStampa newspaper account.

Anonymous said...

You do understand the differences between a document, a paragraph, and a passage, right?

At any rate...

Again: Forte was not the author of the draft, but a member of the drafting committee. BIG difference. He might have been tasked with *compiling* the text of paragraphs 50ff of the Relatio Post Disceptationem. But, he did not *compose* them.

Pace, AP: "Officially speaking, the draft report was a *synthesis of the interventions from more than 200 bishops,* a starting point for small working groups to propose amendments, elaborations, additions and subtractions to the drafting committee..."

From this, we can infer nothing about the role or place of Forte's personal theology in the composition of the paragraphs. Any inferences are merely circumstantial and logically fallacious.

As you point out, "HH has not opened his mouth about this." Since he has not, we cannot make intelligent claims about the progenitor(s) of his views. Absent some fanciful conspiracy theory, there is no reason to suppose that HH's sources have changed. Again: Those sources are Thomistic.


But, that having been said, consider this - again from the AP:

"Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo, the main author of the report or 'relator,' ... told Vatican Radio that the 16 officials who drafted it struggled to synthesize the positions of 30-40 bishops on any given topic"

So, maybe some 30-40 bishops are Martini-esque in their theology??

I'll leave the conspiracy theories and logical fallacies to those less equipped to handle fact.

Dad29 said...

No conspiracy theory here, even if that's what you'd really like to read.

Forte was the author of the controversial passages. Further, reliable reports tell us that the "synthesis" did not fully present the views of all 200 Bishops. Not because it was too difficult; but because it seems that orthodox interventions were minimized in the "synthesis."

HH's post-Synodal sermonette was rather interesting. Perhaps in the fever-swamp imaginations of the super-sensitive souls, 'orthodox' Catholics are mean and nasty.

But I'll leave the over-wrought handwringing to those who are ill-equipped to judge character.

Anonymous said...

"Reliable reports" is a nebulous term. But, I'm sure you wouldn't want to suggest that Archbishop Forte and Cardinal Kasper are unorthodox.

Dad29 said...

Wrong-O, Anony.

I'll suggest that Kasper has suggested a reformation of praxis which is, de facto, a reformation of doctrine.

So has Forte.

Saint Revolution said...

TO: Anon:

So, Anon, according to your hippocampi-challenged very limited logic behind your flawed dissertation diatribe(s), then every Apostle was responsible for Judas' betrayal and, thus, every Apostle was an betrayer, i.e., Judas did not "author" his own betrayal but such betrayal was an team effort.

Logically, to wit, then The Catholic Church does not even exist because every Apostle was an betrayer of Christ, Who is God Incarnate, Who is Holy Mother Church.

How can an betrayer or betrayers be an founder, an Apostle, and an something they betrayed?

"A house divided..." and all that, said Christ.

And, yet, Holy Mother Church foundationally exists from an complete point of strength.

Be careful of the one unforgiveable sin...that which betrays The Holy Ghost.

Trying to defend the unholy indefensible, you are damn close...

Stop trying to proffer self-righteous pseudo-intelligence for its own sake and start trying to be humbly holy...

You, sir, are an idiot.

Saint Revolution said...

"Pastoral" is as monumental an bullshit term as is "homophobia"...terms coined via pretzel logic by those whom would twist TRUTH to self-serving sin.

Regarding Martini, et. al., you can blow off TRUTH as what you term conspiracy theory but that doesn't make it your eyes: <A HREF=">AA-1025: The Memoirs Of An Anti-Apostle</A>

Saint Revolution said...

Repaired link:
AA-1025: The Memoirs Of An Anti-Apostle