I apologize as it appears that my words exposing these errors in thinking have caused you hurt and anger. Nevertheless, there is a need for clarifying the confusion so many “spirit of VII” Catholics have in their thinking; especially since all too many are those who derive their authority from the Church and then abuse this authority to proclaim their own mistaken opinions as fact. Some examples of confusion needing clarification:

What you call monism is simply the realization that love is one,…

Sed contra, there is a monistic unity which knows of no distinctions because without Trinitarian metaphysics which allow for unity and difference without contradiction, one distinction gets conflated with the rest. This distictionlessness seems to be the unity you are describing and which I am trying to correct. It is a unity in which eros equates with agape and so where self-satisfaction is equated with love. It is not authentic love in which eros is only authentic when it is purified and fulfilled in agape. The structure of the human person is such that eros expressed genitally can only be purified between a man and woman within the irrevocable commitment of the marital covenant. Genitally satisfied eros outside of the marital structure leads to libinistic utilitarianism and damage to both persons, to the institution of marriage, the family, and society as a whole. The current morass we see in society is ample demonstration of this truth.

beautiful words about charity do not make up for its absence in practice, whether toward theologians and priests (Jacques Dupuis, Franco Barbero), gays, or whole populations (the slaughtered of Nicaragua).

By your definition of love, which seems to be equated with good feelings rather than good of the person (which always means truth and sometimes admonition when the truth is ignored or misunderstood), you are engaging in an expression of hate with your words. Only if you presuppose truth and that this sometimes takes precedence over good feelings about oneself could you engage in such rhetoric without hypocricy. Thus, your very words seems to belie their content. In other words, you demonstrate a lack of charity in presupposing ill will when you suggest that fraternal correction on the part of the Magisterium is in and of itself, unjust.

How ironic that the ratzingerfanclub waited a week before commenting on the Encyclical — despite advance knowledge of when it would be issued and an inkling of its contents.

It appears to me that you are imposing your prejudices upon Christopher’s actions. I see many good reasons that he did not post on DCE for a week. One: he was posting a summary of responses, which came out over a week’s time. There would not have been much to post if he did so the very day of its release. Two: his blog is a sideline; not everyone has the ability to drop everything and devote their entire attention to such an event. Three: the encyclical was not available to him before it came out so it would naturally take time to read and assimilate. It would be irresponsible to post opinions based solely upon “inlinkings.”

I agree that sometimes the rhetoric of B16 fans can become untoward, but I have not found this on Christopher’s blog. Like B16 himself, dissenters too often prejudge orthodox Catholics and pigeon-hole them into their preset caricature of those Catholics of whom they call “the right.” Perhaps, in the spirit of chariy, we can criticise the content of statements with which we disagree and not always assume ill will.

How ironic that the ratzingerfanclub waited a week before commenting on the Encyclical — despite advance knowledge of when it would be issued and an inkling of its contents. Then when the comment came it was a round-up of other people’s comments with scoffing meta-commentary. Very clearly the first Encyclical has been a huge disappointment to the fans. (No smell of napalm there…)