Here is one telling quote: "Pope Francis isn’t undermining doctrine. In fact, he is rescuing doctrine from dusty theology books, insisting that human beings, in all our complexity and messiness, must be at the center of the church’s vision." See the problem? Human beings are NOT at the center of the church's vision. God is. In a Freudian slip fashion, Gehring betrays his humanistic, as opposed to Catholic, mental paradigm.
Here's another: "It’s particularly galling that Fr. Weinandy would so condescendingly rebuke the pope given his history of accusing progressive Catholic theologians of disloyalty and dissent." Father Weinandy's actions are not contradictory for in both these circumstances cited by Gehring, Father Weinandy defended the Church's timeless teachings, regardless of the person(s) dissenting from them.
Enough of that. Let's look at Gehring himself. I've made mention of him in previous posts. He is quite the progressive dissident himself, and probably feels the sting of Father's rebukes personally and for good cause. Here's a page devoted entirely to him and the mischief he's wreaked over the years; note that he most likely was the receiving end of George Soros's cash infusions at one time. In that post I made mention of Gehring's twitter page. Here's a current one indicating that he supports the gay lifestyle. No wonder he resents Father Weinandy, for darkness hates the light.
SNL's Che on @pwcdanica victory - her opponent was "in fact so homophobic that he refused to get within 8 points of her." pic.twitter.com/dSb2RhMFbL— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) November 12, 2017
Well of course progressives think that Weinandy is just expressing subjective preferences for one Pope over an other. They are subjectivist in their philosophy. Weinandy on the other hand makes a truth claim that some statements made by the Holy Father are ambiguous. His support for previous papal teachings was because he considered them correct. He considered dissenting theologians as dissenting from clearly restated Catholic truth claims. It is not a matter of personal loyalty
ReplyDelete