In order for prelates to monkey around with theology, they must first attempt to redefine basic terminology, that is, they must twist the meanings of specific words. Whoever controls the language controls not only the debate but ultimately the thinking of unsuspecting listeners. To that end, I write this post to expose some linguistic chicanery.
First we take a look at remarks made by Cardinal Reinhard Marx. He gave an interview to America magazine two weeks ago. In it he validated homosexual relationships. Of course that's impossible since the sin of homosexual conduct is always evil. But he didn't stop there. He went on to liken people yearning for traditional mentality with terrorists. Here's the quote from LifeSiteNews. "I had a discussion with some of the students, 'Cardinal is it true that the younger people are more traditional?’ And that’s true. But that is not dangerous. I have no problem with tradition. But we have also the tendencies that the people want to be clear in their positions. Black and white populism is growing in Europe. And that is the beginning, perhaps, of populism, of terrorism, that’s clear. The atmosphere of reducing the complexity of the world, to give simple answers, to give black and white answers, is growing, and I think that is very dangerous,”
Got that? If people want the truth of Jesus Christ, that is the "beginning of terrorism. Let's address this bugaboo regarding "simple answers", shall we? The truth usually is simple; it may not be easy to implement as it often goes against sinful natures, but the meaning is simple. Such is God's prohibition against homosexual conduct, for instance. But progressives often like to make the truth seem more convoluted than it is, to allow themselves an excuse not to conform their lives to it.
Closer to home, we read a blog post by Cardinal Donald Wuerl entitled The Pope, Touchstone Of Faith And Unity. In the second paragraph, he alludes to "an interview and an article by brother bishops." Might that brother be - Cardinal Burke? He voices discontent at those who differ from various popes. Some things are worth noting. First, not all examples he cites involve matters of faith and morals. For instance, there were differences of opinion regarding clerical vesture and proper protocol in crowd situations. There is also Cardinal Wuerl's own blatant disregard for Canon 915, as he takes it upon himself to aid and abet sacrilegious Holy Communions by dissident Catholics AND punishing priests who uphold the Canon (as happened to Father Guarnizo three years ago).
A key to understanding his blog post might be found in his peculiar definition of dissenters: those who "disagree with the pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position." Not quite! Dissenters are those who willfully diverge from the Teachings and Traditions of Holy Mother Church and her Lord Jesus Christ. These are two very different definitions; there can be congruence between them if the pope is himself faithful to these Traditions of the Church. But if the pope diverges from the Church's teachings and faithful Catholics call him on it, these Catholics disagree with the pope precisely because in that instance it is the pope who is the dissenter.
So there you have it! Cardinal Marx calls the yearning for the Church's teachings as "terrorism". Cardinal Wuerl thinks it is "dissent" to object to papal violations of canon law, tinkering with the sin-nod interim report, etc. Might it just be part and parcel of the "maturation" that the pope wants to have accomplished before the next synod?