One of the most pernicious slogans used both by the Synod liberals and the Synod's apologists is that "doctrine will not be changed, only the discipline". It is a slogan calculated to lull Catholics into complacency -- after all, whatever happens, the doctrine is not gonna change, right? It is a slogan, a talking point, that reveals how well the liberals understand the modern Catholic mentality, with its unwarrantedly sharp distinction if not de facto divorce between "doctrine" and "discipline", between "Tradition" (big T) and "tradition" (small t), between the "letter" and the "spirit" of laws and doctrines, and between the "essence" of Church teachings and the "language" in which these are expressed.
Thankfully, Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, President of the Polish Bishops' Conference and acknowledged mouthpiece of the Polish hierarchy, has published a short note (October 17) on the website of the Polish Bishops' Conference, succinctly exposing this slogan, this mantra, for what it is: a deception, a lie. (Our thanks to Toronto Catholic Witness for the translation).
Archbishop Gądecki: they are trying to push through changes in doctrine
Changes proposed in discipline, by some Synodal fathers regarding communion for the divorced represent in these assumptions the attempt to smuggle changes into the very doctrine of the Church. This is addressed by Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki who is participating in the Synod of the Family.
"Practically all are repeating that there will be no doctrinal change, but this is understood in different ways. For if you add to this first group that disciplinary changes are possible, this means, in practice, that doctrinal stability is being nullified. In my opinion one cannot speak of the separation of the practice of the Church from her doctrine, from her teachings. The two are inseparable. I have the impression that many supporters of this modernity, are in fact thinking about changing doctrine, yet calling it a change in Church discipline. It is a disturbing point in these discussions, for it is strongly emphasized: "we accept the entire doctrine", but there immediately follows a suggestion that doctrine has nothing to do with it. This is greatly worrying me, for one and the other are saying that they want no change in doctrine. From where then, are arising these practices opposed to doctrine?
