[ad_1]
The debate has been open since the closing, but even before we wondered what was the future of the “outgoing Church”, the Catholic Church promoted by French Pope.
me progressive They have not stopped hoping that the future will be what they have always hoped for. A reformist future, where changing the doctrine does not represent a taboo. Because the changing world needs adaptations. The conservative belief, as is well known, is the opposite. The chronicles of the background tell how Jorge Mario Bergoglio was chosen with this premise: to set the tone for the reform. The one for whom Ratzinger, after all, was not willing. But for months, some media have focused on how the one who has stopped Catholic civilization he called it “propellant thrust.” The magazine directed by Father Antonio Spadaro -not that one- does not believe at all that the papacy is the object of a “sunset”, as it has instead Paper.
When he greeted his successor for the first time, Benedict XVI gave the new pontiff a dossier, an investigation carried out by three cardinals, after the scandals that animated that season. Let’s talk about the curial scandals. Here we never knew what conclusions the three cardinals identified at that time by Benedict XVI for the internal investigation had drawn. And we do not know, therefore, if Francisco intervened or not. This is just one item. The question of the Apostolic Constitution has often been raised, on which the C9 works and which should give new impetus to the rules of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but for now nothing. The “traditional front” that originally expected Bergoglio to continue operating because of what Ratzinger could not do thinks that there was never a “motor”, and that many of the expectations derived from communication. The media, in short, would have deceived. But the traditionalists, as we know, are biased in this story.
From the point of view of progressives, things don’t change much: Bergoglio’s openings, after all, were half openings. At least by the parameters of the ecclesiastical left. Francis did not open himself to married priests, deaconesses, to the ecumenical Mass, to gender theory, to the relativistic revision of the bioethical platform, to the secularization of ecclesial management, to the Protestantization of the rite, etc. The inaugurations, which characterized these first seven years of his pontificate, affected other tables, such as the diplomatic or the media-communicative. Anyone who thought that, with Francis, the Church would occupy the cultural terrain of doctrinal orthodoxy in another way, has found himself an ecological bishop of Rome, yes, but not willing to do so. Revolution strictly speaking. The progressives par excellence are the Germans, who have organized a special “Synod” to try to approve the substantial changes that Rome does not want to yield. A good indicator of how not even progressives, after all, are encouraging the bad situation too much.
Two fronts emerged: the conservative, who considers that what Bergoglio did too much to the left not to be criticized; the progressive, who considers that what Bergoglio did is little left for him not to try to do something else. They are simplifications that in Vatican They are not to the liking, because they reduce the Church, which is of God, to a political context, but the meaning of what is happening within the lion’s walls and in other places in recent months will have to be simplified in some way. And each of the two fronts presses. If the Teutonic Church continues undaunted in its autocephalous march, the conservative party, in clear contrast to the indications given by the pontiff in these seven years, is organizing rosaries for Donald Trump. Between the two fires, resides the supreme summit of the Catholic Church.
