Basicamente o desenvolvimento da doutrina em tempos do Papa Francisco é o que ele acha certo e sem debate teológico, que ele costuma considerar fútil.
O mais renomado teórico sobre desenvolvimento da Doutrina Católica é o beato John Henry Newman, que se converteu ao catolicismo depois de estudar muito os patriarcas da Igreja. Newman estabeleceu um ideia de desenvolvimento muito lento e profundamente erraigado na Tradição e no magistério da Igreja
Mas hoje em dia todo tipo de mudança que querem fazer na Doutrina, mesmo aquelas que rasgam as palavras de Cristo, são chamadas de desenvolvimento e até invocam Newman.
Eu mesmo sofri isso na própria terra de Newman, Oxford.
Em 2017, eu fui apresentar um artigo em Oxford e um dos palestrantes defendeu que Cristo tinha tendências gays (pode acreditar). Quando eu comecei um debate com ele, o mediador (um padre anglicano), disse que a Igreja Católica, usando o "desenvolvimento" e Newman, ainda iria aceitar o casamento gay e o aborto. Não tive espaço para dizer que Newman não era isso.
O padre inglês John Hunwicke, que assim como Newman é de Oxford veio da Igreja Anglicana e é teólogo renomado, comentou a ditadura do desenvolvimento do Papa Francisco, comparando com a lentidão exigida por Newman.
Padre John condena a mudança do Papa Francisco em relação à pena de morte, chama de "pretty nasty" (que pode ser traduzida por nojenta, maligna). E cita que anteriormente o Vaticano já invocou o tal "desenvolvimento" para mudar a Igreja de forma radical sem qualquer debate.
Vejam abaixo o que disse o padre John.
How and how speedily does the Teaching of the Church "develop"?
We've had this cheap trick before. I don't know if you can still find it on the Vatican TV player ... the News Conference at which the Graf von Schoenborn 'introduced' Amoris laetitia. Right at the end, Diane Montagna, with an air of puzzlement, asked whether the new papal teaching contradicted that of Familiaris consortio.
With a sweet smile which has undoubtedly served him well in the Graf's rise within the hierarchy, he answered that No it did not; but it developed it. And he advised his questioner to go away ...
... and read Newman.
(1) Familiaris consortio was published in 1981; it repeated the Biblical precepts which for centuries had underpinned the Church's conviction that the Holy Euchatist ought not to be administered to "remarried" divorcees.
(2) Sacramentum caritatis, 2005, repeated this teaching.
(3) Amoris laetitia is dated 19 March 2016, and was released 8 April 2016.
(4) On 5 September 2016 'Guidelines' published by a group of Argentine bishops reached PF. These guidelines are commonly interpreted as allowing some 'remarried' divorcees to approach the Sacraments.
(5) On the same day, PF replied to this group of bishops praising their 'Guidelines' and saying "There is no other interpretation".
(6) On 5 June 2017, PF formally instructed Cardinal Parolin in audientia to have these texts published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as being "Authentic Magisterium".
(7) They duly appeared in AAS together with the Rescriptum ex audientia Sanctissimi.
(8) Cardinal Kasper, a Great Theologian, subsequently explained that the question was now authoritatively closed. Roma locuta est ...
JOHN HENRY NEWMAN ...
... gave a rather different, and more painstaking, historical perspective. I expect he was a Silly Fellow, too.
" ... the Church of Rome has originated nothing ...
" ... all through Church history from the first, how slow is authority in intervening! Perhaps a local teacher, or a doctor in some local school, hazards a proposition, and a controversy ensues. It smoulders or burns in one place, no one interposing; Rome simply lets it alone. Then it comes before a bishop; or some priest, or some professor in some other seat of learning takes it up; and there is a second stage of it. Then it comes before a university, and it may be condemned by the theological faculty. So the controversy proceeds year after year, and Rome is still silent. An appeal perhaps is next made to a seat of authority inferior to Rome; and then at last after a long while it comes before the supreme power. Meanwhile, the question has been ventilated and turned over and over again, and viewed on every side of it, and authority is called upon to pronounce a decision, which has already been arrived at by reason. But even then, perhaps the supreme authotrity hesitates to do so, and nothing is determined on the point for years; or so generally and vaguely, that the whole controversy has to be gone through again, before it is ultimately determined."