The heretics lined up to "dialogue" with him - and oh how glad he was - and how fruitful too, he says!
This is unacceptable.
He is not clear enough.
We're all for dialogue...but two things happen at the end of it.
1. The Bishop makes it clear in a public statement to the parishes and dioceses these heretics are working with - - that at the end of the dialogue they were told no more dissenting.
2. The Bishop puts out an ambiguous statement about how fruitful it was - and the heretics hijack it to go back to the parishes and dioceses to use the Bishop's statement as a license to say the heresy is truth and the Bishop was the one "enlightened".
Thirdly, both bishops and politicians most struggle with the virtues of prudence. Differences arose, not about clear church teaching, but about how to make wise faithful, prudent decisions about applying it.
I think it's fair to say - with all due respect - - that with few exceptions - Bishops' *prudence* STINKS. It's a fancy word for cowardice. Those who are using the word *prudence* to defy 890 in the Catechism of which he speaks is being disingenuous.
Furthermore - if anything - their prudence is the cause of the entire mess.
Another Bishop handing the flock over to Ceasar and Pilate and goes on his merry way.