Get out your hankies.
I received this from the indomitable Raphaela in her translation:
“We Are Church” group faces crucial test
KATH.NET Excluxive: Vatican II texts threaten to drive wedge into movement
The “We Are Church” movement is evidently faced with internal conflict in connection with the “Vatican II Petition”, which is being intensely promoted by the movement. Church representatives describe the true goal of the petition as a campaign against Pope Benedict XVI against the background of the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. However, even the title of the petition unmistakably calls for the “unqualified acceptance of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council”.
According to well-informed sources, this is where the potential for conflict originates. Former supporters of “We Are Church” now feel cheated of their aims. [awwww] For instance, certain passages from the conciliar constitution “Gaudium et Spes” are absolutely irreconcilable with one of the five basic demands with which the movement was launched in 1995.
In GS 47, the Second Vatican Council describes divorce and premarital sexual relationships as “disfigurements” of the nobility of marriage and also views contraception as a “profanation”. This has nothing to do with the “positive valuation of sexuality” and “responsible decisions of conscience in questions of sexual morality (e.g. contraception)” which the petition for a church referendum included in its list of demands. There are similar discrepancies in other matters.
“One cannot support the aims of the church referendum and call for the recognition of Vatican II at the same time,” a visibly frustrated priest [ROFL! It finally gets through. On the other hand, the rupture theologians, such as their icon Kung, have been saying that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough.] says in a private communiqué on file with kath.net. Anyone who does so “has never read the texts of the Council.” He said that “We Are Church” should never consider the resolutions to be anything more than simply “voting results”, adding that what was at stake was the “spirit of the Council”, [See? The "spirit" is a "super-dogma" for these people.] but certainly not the Council itself, which is “completely tied to the old tradition of the Church”.
So out of it.
So unaware of how far out of it they are.