Wherein homsexualist activist Jesuit Fr James Martin is schooled
Libs attempt to defend their dissent from doctrine – especially about morals (read: sex) – by claiming that the Church’s teachings have not be “received”. That is, if a large number of people say they don’t agree with the Church on some point, therefore the Church can’t claim that people must accept it. Moreover, because the teaching hasn’t been “received”, the Church ought to change it’s teaching. That’s liberal dissent in a nutshell. It’s pretty much an exercise in dishonesty.
I see today at First Things a piece by Gregory Brown of the Witherspoon Institute which vivisects Jesuit homosexualist activist Fr James Martin’s claim in his new (bad) book about building “bridges” between the Church (the institutional Church, of course) and homosexuals. Martin claims – wait for it –
“Theologically speaking, you could say that these teachings have not been “received” by the L.G.B.T. community, to whom they were directed.”
Hence, the Church should change her teachings.
Martin, as the First Things article points out, makes an appeal to the sensus fidelium in his claims about the need for teachings to be “received”. Martin:
To take a theological perspective, a teaching must be “received” by the faithful. It’s a complex topic (and I am no professional theologian) but, in general, for a teaching to be complete [?] it must be appreciated, accepted and understood by the faithful. The tradition is that the faithful possess their own inner sense of the authority of a teaching. That’s the sensus fidei or sensus fidelium. You can find out more about it in the Vatican document Sensus Fidei.
No. That isn’t the sensus fidelium.
The sensus fidei fidelium is real and serious. However, the problem with lib claims about the sensus fidei fidelium is that the sensus has to be that precisely of the fidelium… the FAITHFUL. You have to be faithful to the Church and her teachings to have the “sense/grasp/perception” of the Faith. To