Unholy Alliance

Roman Catholic blog has a post that talks about an unspoken agreement that the vatican had concerning Humanae Vitae and those theologins who dissented from vatican teaching. He quotes George Weigel

Recall that the Truce of 1968 was put in place when Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, then archbishop of Washington, D.C., attempted to discipline those who had openly rejected the teaching of the encyclical, only to have the rug pulled out from under him by higher authority in Rome.

Weigel writes that “everyone involved understood that Pope Paul VI wanted the ‘Washington Case’ settled without a public retraction from the dissidents, because the pope feared that insisting on such a retraction would lead to schism—a formal split in the Church in Washington, and perhaps beyond. The pope, evidently, was willing for a time to tolerate dissent on an issue on which he had made a solemn, authoritative statement, hoping that the day would come when, in a calmer cultural and ecclesiastical atmosphere, the truth of that teaching could be appreciated. The mechanism agreed upon to buy time for that to happen was the ‘Truce of 1968.’” We are still, according to Weigel, living with the consequences of that decision:

So what we are left with is a church in the U.S. and Europe poorly educated and confused on
A) obedience to the Holy See and
B) the value of human life.

The reasoning behind this is that Pope Paul VI was afraid that this would cause a split in the church, and felt that eventually the atmosphere would calm down and the truth could be brought forth. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The atmosphere has been poisoned with whole dioceses in rebellion, (the USCCB's reluctance to speak forcibly or deal with politicians who call themselves catholic but promote abortion, or euthanasia) to the vatican.

Now the vatican is present at another cross road. Should another agreement be made concerning homosexual priets, knowing how the first "agreement" came out? Roman Catholic blog has posted ,"A Failure to Discipline" a link to an article in First Things that states that there is a possiblity that another such agreement concerning homosexuals in the priesthood could be taking place as a Jesuit priest comes out of the closet and chides the vatican document released on homosexuals in the priesthood.

Father John Coleman, S.J., is acclaimed by some as one of the leading intellectual lights among contemporary Jesuits. He teaches at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and is a frequent contributor to America and Theological Studies, a Jesuit quarterly. He recently addressed the annual meeting of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. “I am, simultaneously, a gay man, a professional sociologist, and an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church,” he said. “Not surprisingly, these different, even conflicting, roles and their expectations sometimes cause me to experience intense cognitive dissonance.”

The dissonance, he said, results from “the universal love and outreach of Jesus to all, even sinners, versus a sense that homosexuality, if practiced, is against the teaching of Christianity.” When people succeed in integrating their identities, Fr. Coleman said, it “will lead to something new, and for some, an oxymoron: a GLBT practicing Christian and practicing homosexual.” That gives rise to the questions, he said, “Can you ordain them? Can you have holy union ceremonies?” The Jesuit policy, he said, is not don’t ask, don’t tell, but, rather, do ask and do tell. “You’re not going to have integrated, mature sexuality unless you process it—and therefore yes, ask; yes, tell; yes, process.”

So the question becomes, will the vatican enforce what it has proclaimed or allow another "Agreement" to take hold. I remember when the holy father first was elected, that someone quoted him as saying that the church may need to shrink before it can re-evangelize. If true (I don't remember the source), then such an "agreement" would be out of the question.

Is there hope? Lamentations 3: 22 - 26 reads

21
But I will call this to mind, as my reason to have hope:
22
The favors of the LORD are not exhausted, his mercies are not spent;
23
They are renewed each morning, so great is his faithfulness.
24
My portion is the LORD, says my soul; therefore will I hope in him.
25
Good is the LORD to one who waits for him, to the soul that seeks him;
26
It is good to hope in silence for the saving help of the LORD.

God bless. :)