A Bad Day For The Catechism

"Der Katechismus ist nicht in Stein gemeißelt. Man darf auch in Zweifel ziehen, was da drinsteht."

"The catechism is not set in stone. One can also question what is in it."

Reinhard Cardinal Marx Stern

Using our God given power of reason to ask questions, to discover God's will by encountering His Truth in His revealed word and to respond to His Presence in His Sacraments, is required of any serious disciple of Jesus Christ. There is no option to the contrary, however. For the faithful disciple, in order to be considered faithful, must habitually think with the Church (sentire cum ecclesia).

Luther 2.0

So then, what was Cardinal Marx thinking by issuing such a silly statement that draws others into rebellion? If one intends to serve the mission of Christ, it is difficult to impossible to imagine how questioning revealed teaching of Christ captured in the Catechism, for starters, and preached continuously by God's saints, serves the mission of Christ. While there are gradations of teaching - unchanging dogmas such as the Holy Trinity versus doctrines that permit debate in order to derive greater understanding, limbo for example, or the legitimacy of the state's right to employ the death penalty - the Church's teaching on human sexuality may not (can not!) be modified.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

The Church has no authority to change the received teaching concerning human sexuality. Some may try to marginalize Saint Paul's teaching, or smear the same teaching in the Hebrew Covenant with the acid of absurd interpretations that are configured to defend absurd ideas. The Church's teaching on human sexuality will not change because a misguided cardinal decides that he is more enlightened than the Church.

Love the sinner not the sin.

The idol of inclusivity, i.e., inclusivity as defined by proponents of progressive ideology that rests on a demand for accommodation of mortally sinful behaviour, drops human beings down to the level of beasts that are unable to reach out to God for the grace to respond to God's invitation to rise above fallen human nature. That highly intelligent people supposedly well-schooled in the Christian theological arts can dismiss Apostolic teaching is nothing less than astonishing, unsettling and appalling. Cardinal Marx's comments prove, yet again, that theologians can lead people astray, sow division, and add to the weight of Christ's suffering on the Cross as much today as in former times.

The proponents of progressive ideology demand the acceptance of a shabby definition of love. That is, 'Love is love'. They might as well be saying that the phrase 'I love ice cream' is equal to the God-designed love of a man and woman for each other. God has revealed that His design for human beings is of a certain quality. For anyone remotely acquainted with the four loves - agape, philia, eros and storge - 'love is love' is not an argument. Disordered love is destructive. Catholics should challenge and dismiss attempts to rebrand love in the distorted image of some cheap slogan that contributes to confusion and the embrace of a lie. To the 'love is love' slogan, the Catholic could reply 'disordered love is not love', or more succinctly, 'lust is not love'.

Before attempting a wholesale revision of doctrine, if that were possible, Cardinal Marx and those of his ilk would do well to peruse a section in Saint John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: Section 1. First Note of a Genuine Development—Preservation of Type.

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter5.html