John Paul the Great was a constant proponent for what he termed The Culture of Life. Many of his pastoral writings focused attention on the urgent priority of stopping Moral Relativism from infiltrating Church Doctrine. Though he had a stubborn personality, he demonstrated extraordinary tolerance for dissention. Toward the end of his papacy, he had doubts about whether or not he was firm enough in his enforcement of Truth in the Deposit of Faith. Because the ideal of unity and efforts at ecumenism are often at odds with this enforcement, how could one person balance advocacy for both at once? It seems that steadfast adherence to core values forces polarization rather than promotes unity. Can the pope and the prefect for the CDF afford to proceed indefinitely in roles of 'good cop' / 'bad cop' as it pertains to enforcement? Was the Church ever intended to be "collegial" in the parlance of "modern" thought?
The See of Peter has now passed to the former Doctrinal Enforcer, to the chagrin of liberal thinking Catholics who are enthralled with the "spirit" of Vatican II. How will the tenets of faith avoid secular corruption? How will the true "letter" of Vatican II directives be implemented without continual misinterpretation by revisionists?
The very seeds of Moral Relativism promote a doctrine of laissez faire within the Church as it pertains to the lives of individuals with respect to free will. Moral Relativists, when they are masquerading as Catholics, believe that there is no body of humans that should be telling them what to do. They think free will means that there should be no rules - that no one should intervene or impinge upon their "freedom" until Jesus decides particular right from wrong at the Final Judgment.
I believe the philosophical options have been fully explored and the only answer is polarization. Being afraid of the title, "fanatic for Jesus", is nonsensical. If one is really a believer, he/she is called to fanaticism. Compromise with proponents of Islam or any other religion in the name of quasi-truth is at best, a stalling tactic.
I hope my bias has not skewed the wording of the poll.
The See of Peter has now passed to the former Doctrinal Enforcer, to the chagrin of liberal thinking Catholics who are enthralled with the "spirit" of Vatican II. How will the tenets of faith avoid secular corruption? How will the true "letter" of Vatican II directives be implemented without continual misinterpretation by revisionists?
The very seeds of Moral Relativism promote a doctrine of laissez faire within the Church as it pertains to the lives of individuals with respect to free will. Moral Relativists, when they are masquerading as Catholics, believe that there is no body of humans that should be telling them what to do. They think free will means that there should be no rules - that no one should intervene or impinge upon their "freedom" until Jesus decides particular right from wrong at the Final Judgment.
I believe the philosophical options have been fully explored and the only answer is polarization. Being afraid of the title, "fanatic for Jesus", is nonsensical. If one is really a believer, he/she is called to fanaticism. Compromise with proponents of Islam or any other religion in the name of quasi-truth is at best, a stalling tactic.
I hope my bias has not skewed the wording of the poll.
