Below is a copy and paste of the best comment I have seen thus far on the real and serious theological difficulties posed by the latest Jesuit word salad to have emanated from the Vatican. You know, the one that tries to change immutable Church doctrine on “irregular couples” without admitting that is its purpose. This came from a regular commenter named Jason on The American Catholic, a blog I frequent. Here goes:
“It seems to me that it is metaphysically impossible to give religious submission of mind and will to this. After all, the same authentic magisterium (and even the same supreme pontiff) that promulgated the 2021 document saying that the Church cannot bless SS unions is now saying in a 2023 document that the Church can bless SS unions.
Whatever Lumen Gentium means (and it’s clearly going to need to eventually make sure that Biff puts on the full second coat of gloss), it cannot mean that the principle of non-contradiction doesn’t apply. Will follows intellect, and thus one cannot willingly submit to a contradictory proposition anymore than one can willingly submit to the notion that 2+2=5. It is metaphysically impossible for the intellect to hold (not simply assert) that A is not A or that 2+2=5. The only way by which to do so is to hold an anthropology in which intellect follows will, which is voluntarism, which has also been condemned by the Church. Although, to be fair, much of the hierarchy seems more than happy to act as if it hasn’t.
On a practical level this is another example of papacy by ouroboros. If the pontiff can contradict not only his predecessors but also himself, then why assume anything the pope says (including the current one about the current thing) has any authority, when he himself by his actions demonstrates that at least some of things he says do not. I imagine the popesplainers might offer the rejoinder that Ladaria was behind the 2021 document, which, sure, is true, but Francis signed it and at any rate is the supreme pontiff and could have stifled its release, immediately disavowed it, or any number of other ways to express disapproval. Besides, this is (it seems to me) the double-edged sword of universal jurisdiction- universal jurisdiction implies universal responsibility. He allowed his curia to release it, he owns it. Anyway, the question then becomes- if I’m supposed to give religious submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium, then what happens when the same authentic magisterium says one thing now and then says the opposite later? Branch you’re standing on, meet saw.
I think it’s becoming clear that VI and VII have been basically complete disasters and it’ll probably take another Aquinas-level figure to synthesize the way out of this and another Gregory the Great to have the vision, sanctity and fortitude to lead the way. It also wouldn’t hurt to get another St. Louis, but we are probably WAY past the point of having nice things.”
Thanks, Jason. I couldn’t have said it better.
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
In Ministerium Maiorum 