I haven't seen the inside but the outside of this week's Catholic Herald reminds me of the words in the document on Christian Unity about the terrible scandal of disunity. "Leaks, intimidation, claims of heresy". indeed seem to be a mark of today's Church, indeed they seem to be more obvious marks of the Church than 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic', and increasingly so, there is a brutality and anti-intellectualism in today's Church, based on ambiguity, confusion and incoherence
It is an irony that the the Pope, himself, 'the minister of unity' should become the focus and source of disunity. Perhaps that is precisely what the Conclave of 2013 desired when it elected Jorge Bergoglio, he was already known as a divisive figure in both the Society of Jesus and his home diocese of Buenos Aires. In Et in Unum Sint John Paul had recognised the Papacy. among Christians in general, was a source of division and invited a discussion on the role of the Pope in the Church of the future. After Francis the Church will need to clarify, again, for its own adherents what is the role of the Pope, in what way is Universal Pastor, in what way should he exercise his jurisdiction, or even voice his personal preferences.
We all speak infallibly when recite creed or when we speak the truth of the Gospel. With the the Orthodox I suspect Pastor aeternus, with its hedging round of and very narrow definition of Papal powers is perhaps less divisive than the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which most (all?) Orthodox would consider as unnecessary novelties. One could argue that the Great Schism only gathered theological significance with the promulgation of Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 until then in practice Orthodox and Catholics believed that which was 'held always, everywhere and by all'.
As the headline says, "The Communion row gets nasty", I fear for many Catholics that rather than as Newman says, "I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first", we must make a conscious choice between Conscience and the Pope, and that choice will have very uncomfortable consequences for those who feel compelled to follow conscience. The Kasper doctrine which the Pope has signified he favour is for many of us a sign of the distancing of the Church from Revelation and the person of Jesus Christ, that is not what the Church is for. When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols 'was displeased' that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response. It is certainly not what the Pope himself calls for, 'open fearless debate' nor is it inline with a Catholic search for truth and is certainly not 'pastoral' to leave Christ's faithful in a state of uncertainty and confusion. Recently someone asked, "Having divorced sixteen years ago in the light of the Pope's new rules, can I look for a new wife?
Another man was just angry that he thought his forty-five years of continence since his own marriage broke down was now considers by the Church as unnecessary.