Archbishop Durocher: "we have done for family life what the Second Vatican Council did for liturgy and ecumenism"

The above quote contained within the title is from Canadian Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher. It comes from his assessment of the final relatio from the Synod. I still come away after reading his review not knowing where he stands on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried (those living in adultery); nor do I know where he stands on homosexuality. He seems to tell us that there is more to discuss... he does not tell us how he voted. 

But the archbishop is onto something here, when he compares the Synod to the work of the Council and post-conciliar period on liturgy and ecumenism. Where I differ is my assessment of the results. The Second Vatican Council opened the door to so muddy the waters, to so confuse the issues on ecumenism, that most Catholics no longer know what to think. How many are aware that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation? Ten percent, five percent....And of those who know, how many believe? Again, ten percent.... and so on. 

And what of the liturgy? Is it not true that the way we pray is the way we believe? Most people's belief is utter confusion, brought on by a liturgical mess. Was it not Pope Benedict and others who have consistently said over the years that the liturgical crisis has led to a crisis of Faith. We should be scared to death that a leading Archbishop in Canada does not see this. 

Unlike the issues of liturgy and ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council did not contain ambiguities on the family. Pope John Paul II used the Council documents as his template to compose his authoritative (and now very inconvenient Letter to Families in 1994). Durocher, knowing this, is aware that a mini-council (this Synod) is needed to make the changes needed by the innovators. The tone, language and themes are strikingly different from 1994 to this past Saturday. No where, in the rejected re-written section on homosexuality is there any mention of sin or disorder.... the ambiguity continues. 

We should be deeply disturbed, therefore, that the two non-issues that the secular media obsesses with is "not dead", but will continue on it all its noxious ambiguity for another year. No doubt, as in previous crises a polyvalent solution will be sought between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. And all will be happy. Well, no. This will only explode in another crisis a few years down the road. The Catholic Church cannot remain healthy in ambiguity, She cannot tolerate a virus, a cancer...

And no further example of ambiguity, confusion could be imagined with Vincent Cardinal Nichols' interview on BBC Radio 4.