One of the hallmarks of liberals in the Church is that they are always portraying themselves as being champions of changing Church teaching for the sake of the poor, or the oppressed or those in "difficult" situations.
"Pastoral" they call it — and it always has the happy side-effect of making them look good, as if they are objective third-party observers and have discovered a flaw in the theology.
But the very serious question needs to be asked, just how "objective" are they? Are their motivations really for the sake of "the other" as opposed to a quiet personal concern?
For example, could, say, a hypothetical liberal Catholic reporter who has, say, fathered some children out of wedlock, be pushing for a change in Church teaching for his own personal reasons, although he paints it as concern for others?
Or maybe, could another, say, hypothetical Catholic reporter who, say, took up with a mistress and dumped his wife — could such a hypothetical man be championing the cause of changing Church teaching for himself, rather than others?
See, as we all know, all of this stuff is always personal — always. Nobody gets their knickers in a bunch over just an idea, but rather how that idea plays out in the real world, and then how it plays out in their own personal life. That's just the reality of being human.
One of the more revolting realities of the Left dominating the culture, including in the Church, is the sheer hypocrisy of these men and women. The agents of change dress themselves up as being so humanitarian and concerned for the poor and the environment and the immigrant, but much of what they agitate for is to produce a culture where their own sexual immoralities are excused and then accepted.
If the Left cared so much about the environment, why do they fly around in private jets while preaching to the rest of us about our carbon footprint, like Elizabeth Warren — supreme champion of saving the environment — taking a private jet to New Hampshire fresh off the Iowa debacle, and then hiding behind one of her aides to avoid the camera?
Or, if they care so much about the poor immigrants and the need to take down all walls, why do they all live behind such giant walls on their own estates? You would be hard-pressed to find a Hollywood celebrity not living in luxury, ensconced behind high walls and gates.
If guns are such a horrible thing for you to possess, why do they get to have armed security guards all around them, like the various Democrat members of Congress — who have access to armed security — and/or secret service who, last time we checked, are packing heat?
All these types and their allies in the Church use all these kinds of issues to whip up low-information voters, making them feel morally superior. The whole game, however, is little else than providing cover for personal immorality, creating a substitute morality to cover over their sins.
In the Church, the political liberals never waste a moment demonizing traditional and faithful Catholics as "rigid" or "slaves to dogma" or "homophobes" — charges commonly heard from the morally superior James Martin — posing as a priest who cares for homosexuals, but in the end, is only concerned about using them to get the Church to normalize sodomy.
These types of probing questions must be asked, and deep research must be done when necessary. What precisely in these people's lives is making them agitate for the overthrow of Church teaching, because it's not what they pretend it is.
It's singularly weird, for example, that James Martin refuses to answer any questions about his own sexual orientation. His fallback response is, his Jesuit superiors have forbidden him from talking about his orientation. Seriously? Why? If he's straight, what's the big deal about saying so?
Ah, but if he himself is gay and people know that, now his morally superior grounding turns to quicksand, as he is exposed as nothing but a gay priest hiding behind his collar to get the Church to accept his sin, or at least his embrace of sin.
This crowd loves painting themselves as being for the little guy, while they secretly are for no one except themselves. And one of the constant refrains is that faithful Catholics need to develop a "personal relationship" with Jesus and not be so married to dogma and the letter of the law.
What they fail to grasp is that traditional Catholics do have a personal relationship with Christ because they love the truth and want the lies and corruption stopped. They pit the truthful teachings of the Church against an imaginary personal relationship with Christ. To set Christ in opposition to His own teachings is absurd, but it's precisely what this boils down to.
Our Blessed Lord Himself — of Himself said, "I am the Truth," and likewise: "Anyone who hears the truth, hears My voice."
This is precisely why they do their darndest to undermine Scripture, going straight at the reality of Our Lord's Divinity, subtly putting out there that Jesus wasn't really sure who He was, at least some of the time.
Undermine the Scriptures and/or the Divinity of Our Lord and it's game over.
The reality is this: For faithful Catholics, this is all personal, just as it is for these hypocritical offspring of the serpent. The only difference is, the person faithful Catholics focus on is Christ, while the person the destroyers focus on is themselves.