has this article<\/a>:<\/p>\nAlthough he cites Sungenis at one point (just to say he reported on the story), he seems to raise some valid questions.<\/p>\n
So, I\u2019d like to hear what more mainstream Catholic voices like you and Jimmy Akin have to say about this, and what it would mean if it were true.<\/p>\n
Anyway, I\u2019d love to know what you think.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You know Phil too? Small world! A very fine man. We\u2019ve had lunch on a couple of occasions, if memory serves, when he\u2019s made the haj out to Seattle. And we have a mutual friend, a Chestertonian, who spent a happy evening once years ago, wandering around DC with Bob Sungenis, smoking cigars (if I recall the story correctly).<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know how \u201cmainstream\u201d I am nor what my view is worth particularly, but since you ask\u2013and I *am* Irish\u2013here it is: Meh.<\/p>\n
From what I gather, Kasper\u2019s remarks about ambiguity signal to folks like Phil that lefties were at work in the Council watering things down and allowing dissent to seep into the Church. That\u2019s one possible read and I can respect their jitters. But I don\u2019t share them. Certainly, there were all sorts of conflicting agendas at the Council as there have been at every council the Church ever held. Councils are moments in the life of the Church where, in the fine phrase of Fr. Robert Barron, the Church \u201cholds herself in suspense\u201d while she makes up her mind about something. While that process goes on, all sorts of things are in play and one of the things that happens is that the Church sometimes puts off for another day certain definite statements or plans. That\u2019s because (particularly at an intensely pastoral council like V2) what the Church is attempting is nothing less than this:<\/p>\n