The truce of 1968?

Is it worth preserving?

Maybe it was a bad idea to begin with.


He challenges the bishops to crack down on those who challenge them? Who does he think they will crack down on first?

1 Like

The truce is alive and well on CAF. No one wants to touch the subject. When people do discuss it, they like to say things like, “well that’s fine for you, but…”

1 Like

Interesting article, one that’s hard not to agree with. I wouldn’t mind if the pendulum swung in a more authoritarian direction for a while. It’s hard for lay people on the outside to know what’s going on, but it doesn’t look good!

1 Like

What a dumb article. So many logic leaps and contradictory proposals.

Expect more garbage like this in the future. People are going to come out of the woodwork looking to take advantage of this “crisis” in order to further their own agenda.

He claims there was a truce, but what was the truce?

We [the Pope, ex cathedral] speak, y’all go ahead and do what you want? Some truce!

And a far cry from Roma locuta causa finita.

The article is poorly written. It tries to squeeze in more rhetoric than substance. There was no war, so the idea of a truce cannot apply. The author provides no documentation of any written truce, or whatever he is talking about. It seems more of the old liberal approach of letting no crisis pass without using it, so he is trotting out his pet issues and kind of tying it to “bad stuff.”

Yes. The “truce” is we all “agree” on the rules, but no one is expected to strive to live up to them. No accountability. Further, the people who don’t agree with the rules are given leadership positions in the church (teaching and music ministry immediately come to mind). No one is challenged (because there is this truce, you know) to leave the church, even if they agree more with Calvin, Luther, or even Satan than they agree with Aquinas or even Jesus.

And yes there are faithful teachers and music ministers in the church. I am not claiming all are unfaithful. This is just an area where I personally have run into many unfaithful.

1 Like

The problem I have is that unless this “truce” is documented (and not from some opinion) then it does not exist in reality. The article does not do this. Can you?

I am probably dense but I don’t see a connection to the recent crisis.

Maybe eyewitness testimony is not good enough for you, since you claim to need to see this truce in writing. No one claimed it was written down. So let’s not engage in a straw man argument. This is a lived experience. Take for example, the presenter at my church women’s retreat who wanted us to know that God is a woman… She remains in our church, no one calls her out (I walked out of the session and spent a holy hour at home instead), AND she is still allowed to give presentations, despite the fact that my pastor vigorously disagrees with what she said. I call that a satisfactory example of a de facto "truce."I can give hundreds of examples, and I am sure others can as well.

1 Like

I think we should make a distinction between hearing vague rumors and actually being complicit in sin.

Then it is empty rhetoric. That adjectives like “de facto” must be used, along with anecdotal evidence tells me that this article, and its bizarre perspective, is best ignored. Hundreds of examples in a church of billions would not persuade me. The way the word “truce” is used is empty of any meaning. So there is rhetoric without substance presented trying to show some causation to the child abuse crisis.

I have read it twice and still cannot give a summary except liberals are to blame. There is too much propaganda in it. I would say the best summary is an attempt to blame “liberals” (the target is vague as such diverse issues as pronouns, birth control, virginity of Mary) using the technique of latching on to an emotional story and muddying the water enough to make some guilt by association. That is my take.

I like the Catholic Herald, but this is the worst piece I have read from them.

Could someone make a summary? I don’t know what’s supposed to be going on.

Your response is likewise full of the rhetoric you complain of.

I gave you a concrete example, which is my eyewitness testimony, which you have chosen to ignore.

So you are not convinced. That does not mean the situation the referenced article calls a truce does not exist.

I addressed that in this statement, “along with anecdotal evidence.” There are all sorts of Catholics that believe weird things, some even teach. Heck, there is a whole group of priests that don’t even thing the Pope is really the pope. My own experience is that nothing presented in the article has happened. But that is just my own anecdote

You think my rhetoric is the same as in this article, you are welcome to your opinion. Both are here for comparison, and I pointed out specifics. I do believe my reasoning is more sound.

Liberals bad.
Just short of sedevacantist good.


hawk, trying not to bite his tongue as it reaches for his cheek

Well, there is a difference between liberalism and doctrinal dissent. Post-1968, dissent was widely tolerated, from theologians, Catholic universities and academics, priests, and even bishops. No longer was the Church doctrinally unified. I think the authors point is that many of the dissenters also turned out to be morally corrupt.

1 Like

I think the point was that dissent was morally corrupt, leading to further moral corruption. And moral corruption leads the author to dissent against the bishops’ leadership…

It is a tricky position, and the author really does not make his case. Motal corruption has been here for a long time, and harsh discipline is not always the answer.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit