Now you did it, Dean. I was hoping to avoid the specific situation. You know how we can get fixated on such things.
That said, Dr. Peters' comments are probably too valuable to overlook. Thank you for the link.
Thinkers should be able to jump from the specific situation to the general principles that are applicable, and everywhere in between, without focusing on that one issue. We both know Dr. Peters is using the issue that prompted his blog post to address the larger issue of what "properly disposed" means.
Some people speak about a "hierarchy of doctrine," as if it's ok to dissent from doctrines lower in the hierarchy (which not coincidentally always seem to be the moral teachings on sex and marriage, or the doctrinal teaching on the ordination of women) as long as you are in agreement with the "biggies." My problem with this hierarchy is it seems the line between those essential things and the "non-essentials" is rather zig-zag and arbitrary.
Which brings me again to the conclusion that a candidate for confirmation is declaring he is prepared to witness to the faith that was handed on from Christ to the Apostles and is continued to be handed on to the Church through the Holy Spirit. If a candidate is publicly witnessing to something contrary, which he knows is contrary, then he is giving good indication that he is not prepared to witness to the faith.
There need to be consequences for our actions before our particular judgment, in order to warn us that we are on the wrong path and to give us time to rethink how we are living.