I'm not sure a modernist considers ambiguous compromises a problem.
With Ecclesia Dei priests specially trained to explain away all the problems with conciliarism to Traditionalists, they can say, SEE, CARD. KASPER sees the problem - THINGS ARE IMPROVING!
That's what I was thinking. It's a bit like B16's hermeneutic stuff. It all depends
on how you look at it.
So there are two ways of looking at it, one being the Modernist's "Oh, well, so
what, he's making an ambiguous compromise, but we don't have to pay any
attention to that, and besides, this will make the Neotrads happy while we
continue to smother them."
The other way, is that we can hang on to this to use as we see fit, either to
remember that the opposition is weakening or to make it
BIG NEWS like Anthony Benedict says in the OP. My hunch is, the former is okay, but if
we take the latter method, we might end up DISCOURAGING this kind of
slip-ups in the future -- see what I mean?
By grabbing their flub-ups and rubbing it in their faces, we effectively make
them shy away from similar things in the future, but if we quietly collect them,
then present the collection judiciously, it has a very powerful effect.
IOW, I am recommending 'prudence' to not be too trigger-happy.
A fellow like Weigel could care less about Catholic doctrine.
I'm frankly surprised, Tele. A guy like you should use
proper English:
A fellow like Weigel couldn't care less
about Catholic doctrine. Because if you say "he
could care less," then one may well ask, "Just how
much less
could he care, then?"
Some idioms make you sound like an idiot. Don't go with the excuse that it's
just a popular expression, because it is a STUPID popular expression. We
can rise above stupidity. I don't think you'll find +W saying "could" in this way.