Sunshine Bandit

There is a growing incoherence at the heart of Pope Leo XIV's appointments which is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. As I posted yesterday @Pontifex appointed Josef Grünwidl Archbishop of Vienna last October. Grünwidl has since publicly expressed his desire for the ordination of women, suggesting that such a change would require a decision by the universal Church. Yet John Paul II definitively taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. This is not comparable to the discipline of priestly celibacy, which the Church has the authority to change. It concerns the limits of the Church's authority over the sacraments themselves. Now we learn that Pope Leo has appointed the Chilean theologian Claudia Leal Luna as an undersecretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, just seventeen days after appointing her to the International Theological Commission. Leal previously criticised the Vatican's 2021 rejection of blessings for same-sex unions, questioning the distinction between blessing individuals & blessing their relationships; a reasonable question that reveals the inconsistancy at the heart of Cardinal Fernandez controversial & unecessary document. Her published reflections on Amoris Laetitia also raise legitimate questions about her understanding of objective moral norms. In 2021 she criticised the reasoning behind the prohibition of blessings for same-sex unions. In 2022 she welcomed changes in the pastoral treatment of LGBT Catholics she also delivered a presentation hosted by CRISMHOM, discussing the recognition of LGBT people within Catholic life. In 2023 she "taught" priests about pastoral care of LGBT people and same-sex unions. Anyone else see a pattern here? So why would the Pope promote & individual who is clearly agitating for a position at odds with Church teaching? The concern here is not that theologians should be forbidden from asking difficult questions, or that the Church should refuse to welcome those struggling with her moral teaching. The concern is that men & women whose public positions raise serious questions about their fidelity to established doctrine are repeatedly entrusted with positions of ecclesiastical authority and theological influence, apparently without those questions being publicly resolved. Meanwhile, traditional Catholics are punished simply for believing what the Church teaches & frequently subjected to intense scrutiny over their adherence to established liturgical forms, their interpretation of the Council and their relationship with ecclesiastical authority. Why does attachment to Tradition, that is, fidelity to the Catholic Church, so often appear to require explanation, while the desire to adopt the morals of the work & to revise established teaching can be treated as evidence of enlightened pastoral sensitivity? Is this not fundamentally incoherent? Pope Leo speaks of unity, fidelity & the need to preserve the Church's teaching. But unity cannot be sustained by appointing people who regard settled questions as matters awaiting reconsideration & constantly push for a progressive agenda irreconcilable to Church teaching. A bishop is not appointed to reinvent the Catholic faith & a Vatican theologian is not entrusted with influence merely to make the Church more acceptable to contemporary culture. If the Church has no authority to change a teaching, why appoint people who publicly suggest that she should? This is not about questioning the legitimacy of the Pope or diminishing the obedience owed to his office. It is about asking the Successor of Peter to exercise that office with the doctrinal consistency it demands. Loyalty to Peter cannot require silence when his appointments appear to undermine the very teaching he is entrusted to safeguard.