The pope speaks of unity and fraternity in a similar way to our president. By saying he wants peace and yet acting in a way contrary to peace. He is not willing to dialogue with those who see systemic issues within the church. He rejects those who hold to the beauty of ancient litergical practices. We lack coherence with church teaching on critical matters. It seems that modernism is akin to the time of Arianism in church history. Much like St. Athanasius, Bishops like Cordelione, Chaput, Burke, and Strickland are cast aside (or simply ignored) when they present Catholic teaching. Bishops who share the views of Fr. James Martin (and others of his ilk) are elevated. It is sowing division in the faithful. But as the church soundly rejected Arianism, survived Islam, and Protestantism, we will to pass through this darkness and emerge stronger. I pray this in Jesus’s name.
the sacred pastors are the college of bishops and their head, the bishop of Rome. a bishop does not ipso facto lose his office by wishing to alter the deposit of faith. even if they did, I am not certain that Bishop McElroy wants to alter the deposit of faith, and I am absolutely certain that Pope Francis does not want to alter the deposit of faith.
This is more about the passive aggressive actions of the pope and his delight and encouragement of "making a mess". The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and instead of "confirming" his brothers and sisters in the faith confuses them.
Chaos is a sign of a desire to disrupt both the understanding and practice revealed in Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It does not come from God.
"making a mess" does not mean what you think it means. Pope Francis does not "talk out of both sides of his mouth", and confusion about what he means comes from bad faith interpreters, not from him.
There has been more deference to the idol of Pachamama and the willful disregard of doctrine considering the blessing of the sin that is (and will ever be) same-sex unions in the German conference than there has been to prelates who hold to Catholic teaching. It is scandalous to appoint any cardinal that has a history with McCarrick, most especially one who would willfully give the Eucharist to someone known to manifest grave sin. I hold hope that the past 50 years will be a reawakening for the church. Those who are awakened to the fullness of the faith. The rejection of worldliness. Abortion, contraception, the desecration of the Eucharist, the desecration of marriage, has emboldened those who wish to renew the face of the church. The pontificate survived the Medici, the Avignon exile, the end of the Papal States, it will survive the “Spirit of Vatican II” and emerge stronger.
"But McElroy, Cupich, and Tobin have not proven themselves especially influential among their brother bishops. So while they will have the ear of Rome, the most outspoken American cardinals may find themselves going in one direction, with the majority of the American episcopate going in another."
Pope Franics may be unifying the American bishops, all right -- AGAINST his special favorites. It's possible that he has alienated men who were on the fence. If h+McElroy is know bishop known for fighting with other bishops and making things difficult for them, how likely is it that any of them will welcome his elevation, even if they agree with or are neutral about his views? When you create a cabal, it alienates others not in it -- and by definition, hardly anyone is in it.
In the short term Francis may alienate the current US bishops, but Francis is trying to play a long game in remaking the US episcopate in the form of an abortion tolerant, gay marriage accepting group that will pursue immigration resettlement government contracts as a social services agency over preaching the gospel. Who cares if the pews are empty as long as the USCCB coffers are full of money that can be channeled to one's political allies?
It is clear that this Pope and the new Cardinal-designate are of the same mind; as are the other American prelates who have been given the red hat since 2013. Whether that was intended as a message to the American bishops is something only the Pope knows.
Thanks for the good and balanced analysis, JD, although I have to admit I’m left pretty discouraged about all of this. It’s hard to feel hopeful about the future of the church when the future of the hierarchy is being stacked in only one direction. 😔
Don't forget that the head of the Church is Jesus Christ. There will be much to suffer, but if we remain faithful we do not need to be afraid.
The Church will get holier the weaker it gets. When becoming a bishop no longer is a benefit for selfish men, then only holy men will become bishops. In the meantime, become a saint and the Church will be grateful to you for it.
But what if the tactic of Francis is not to become "weak" but to become the lapdog of corrupt governments like China and thus maintain some modicum of respectability, at least enough to continue to receive government monies to distribute to one's corrupt friends? The church as NGO model is a failure if you think about souls, but the church as government lapdog has a long, long history (e.g., Patriarch Kirill of Moscow). The Pope knows the way the US is headed. Why preach against sin when one can line one's pockets as a social service organization, even as the pews empty?
A national Church can be a government lap dog. That is the problem with the Orthodox. An international Church will always be too unruly for that to work. You cannot be the lap dog of all the governments at the same time. There is always something new breaking out in another corner of the world. Perhaps with all these new Cardinals, someone non-western will be chosen next. And what he will do is so completely unpredictable because the framework will be different.
Ultimately, the Holy Spirit will do what he is planning, but that spiritual battle is being fought not only in the international field but also in your soul. Whenever you sin, you provide aid and comfort to the enemy. You can fight against the evil that you see by fighting the evil in you. Then the Holy Spirit will be ready to use you for his good purposes. God is looking for soldiers to fight this war, but too many people are allowing sloth and lust and gluttony to take them out of the battle. Become a saint and you will be part of the transformation of the Church.
I am sure that many of the Pillar’ subscribers will be apoplectic over the elevation of Bishop McElroy. They have long considered him an annoying episcopal outlier threatening Tradition. They had hoped he would be marginalized rather than elevated. With the prospect of the McElroy- Cupich- Tobin triumvirate wielding power and influence they are wondering what will happen to the Tradition to which they are anchored. I understand that from their perspective this is not a good development. Unless they are willing to open themselves to what Pope Francis sees as the urgings of The Holy Spirit , they will forever be scandalized/ disappointed. There is nothing one can do to assuage their disappointment because their rigidity prevents them from thinking outside the narrow construct they have fought to maintain as “ The Truth “. In their minds revelation concluded 2000 years ago, and all they had to do is memorize and follow the Catechism and they would be saved. The thought that the Holy Spirit was left to be with us for the purpose of evolving our understanding of God’s will is anathema. Surely, they say, He is only here to protect Tradition. Pope Francis obviously thinks otherwise. As the successor to Peter he wants change. What pushed Francis over the finish line to a elevate McElroy was the majority of U.S. Bishops weaponizing the Eucharist against those not fighting for civil laws to prevent abortion. That was and is a huge tactical mistake. The Eucharist is the resurrected body of Christ given for the life of the world , not a discrete subset. It is Jesus Christ who has invited the guests to His Table. He set the Table. He is the Host. He is the feast which He shares. He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all. If one does not like to sit at the same table with those they consider misinformed, ignorant, not like minded, it is they who should not come to the Table . It is His Table . No one else.
As a Pope Francis supporter myself, (public) revelation did conclude about two thousand years ago. That's the teaching of the Church. There can be a development of doctrine, but no new revelation. I also don't agree that everyone should be permitted to receive the Eucharist in every case. And while I don't have any more access to the mind of Pope Francis than you, I don't think that the elevation of Bishop McElroy is a response to the US bishops' debate on who should be permitted to receive the Eucharist.
Joseph…” that is the teaching of The Church”. Of course. Why do you believe that teaching to be true and immutable? Why was the Holy Spirit created? Do you believe He is the third person of the Godhead? Are their guardrails on where he can go and say.? What is His purpose? You are a supporter of Pope Francis. Do you agree with his decision to elevate McElroy. . Is he sending a message or throwing darts? If His action was purposeful , what might that purpose have been?
The Holy Spirit is not created, He proceeds from the Father. I believe that the teaching on revelation is immutable because the councils, which have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have declared it. I don't have a problem with Bishop McElroy becoming a cardinal, and I don't think choosing him was a rebuke to the US bishops in general; more likely a matter of Pope Francis thinking that he is worthy of the honour, and capable of performing the duties.
"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism #66)
This is an incredibly mean-spirited characterization of people you say you understand. I think it is also a huge misunderstanding of Christ, but I will leave that one up to the more theologically trained.
Gail…I said many of the pillar’s subscribers would be apoplectic with McElroys elevation. You are commended for raising your hand. It always helps to be substantive and explain your understanding of Christ’s intent for what His Church should be. I will never dismiss your comments as mean spirited just because your comments are pointed and I disagree. You would not be a subscriber if you did not care deeply about the Church.
We are all here to express our views of what we think Christ intended His Church to be. If you and I care about the Church, as we both do, we both will be open to what Pope Francis , the Apostolic Successor, thinks the Church should be. For reasons that many of us don’t understand, but yet have to respect, he has chosen to lead through leaving bread crumbs.
It is not what I had hoped for or would have recommended, but given the left/ right polarization in the Church, I understand his approach as striving to maintain, not blow up, unity. When I see his elevation of MCElroy , I see it as a new crumb to be deciphered. I decipher it as explained. How do you decipher it ? However that might be, I will respect your view, no matter how pointedly you explain it. So tell us your view.
We all speculate on what Pope Francis really thinks. He is confounding. In any organization a leader who is not able to articulate a clear policy leaves employees and associates unsettled. They lose confidence in his/ her leadership. Many leave. Those that stay hope clarity will be forthcoming. They cite certain of the leaders comments as supportive of what they believe to be the truth. They claim statements the leader makes to which they disagree as misstatements or twisted by others. Many who stay tune out the dissonance to avoid upset. Many feel they have no place to go…. there is no alternative better than what they have. They ride it out hoping for the best as they see it. That is the Catholic Church of 2022 and perhaps this millennium.
This is a pretty judgmental take on people's opposition to McElroy, while completely ignoring his complicity in the McCarrick affair. Can you name one bishop who has been held accountable for enabling McCarrick predations? How could a man whose predatations were so well known that a monk in New Mexico knew about them become the Sunday morning talk show spokesman for the USCCB on how seriously the bishops were taking the sex abuse crisis?
"He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all." This is such an ignorant take on Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, one doesn't know where to begin. Is it merciful to lead people to damn their own souls?
Here’s a question: Do you believe (or not) that Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the 1974 Declaration on Abortion, Dignitas Personae, and Humanae Vitae were inspired by the Holy Spirit? The “traditionalists” you castigate believe they were, and have reason to suspect that some in the Episcopate do not. Where do you stand?
I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that it is an affront to the Creator to destroy life. I believe not everyone believes as I believe, or does believe but is dependent on God’s mercy. I am not God.
I did not answer your question with specificity because it was rhetorical
having seen my earlier comment.
But let me ask you the same question with specificity.
( 1). Human Vitae . You believe that contraception is immoral because the communication of love, commitment and unity without sperm/ egg connectivity is against God’s will ?
(2) . Veritatis Splendor. You believe the Magisterium is the sole proprietor of speaking the Truth on Moral issues and they never get it wrong?
(3). Dignatas Personae. You believe that parents that cannot procreate other through in vitro fertilization are defying natural law and their offspring are immorally created ?
(4). Evangelium Vitae . You believe that contraception and abortion are equally egregious since they are on the “ fruits of the same tree” ?
I know a lot of Traditionalists . But I know none who would answer yes to each question without condemning themselves, their offspring or children.
I have read accounts today from Catholics in San Diego praising the work and pastoral approach—including profound teachings on the Eucharist—of Bishop McElroy. Yet no mention of that in this article, which is largely a political piece from a particular ideological viewpoint.
As an admirer of all of our recent popes, who have graced the Church with their unique charisms, I am saddened by articles such as this. A look at the disrespect and contempt for the Holy Father in some of the comments should be a calling for reflection by the authors.
Contradictory diversity strikes me as an accurate diagnosis for the state of our Church. But what is the way out? If you are implying that Pope Francis is to blame for our contradictory diversity (or that McElroy is to blame for contradictory diversity among the bishops) and the solution is to reject him, I'd urge you to ponder: would that be your prescription for a marriage afflicted by contradictory diversity (to take up the analogy of Fr. Thomas Dubay you share below)? I think we would agree that the proper course of action is not to eliminate the contradiction by eliminating the person expressing a conflicting viewpoint but rather to help them to see the truth--or, more modestly acknowledging the possibility in principle that you yourself may be mistaken, to seek the truth together. That does start with respect and taking the time to understand where a person is coming from, though it certainly does not end there (as some liberals might suppose).
It sounds like we are in agreement. Prayer and conversion are fundamental to getting in contact with truth. (I trust that you would also recognize a role for learning, reason, and dialogue, that you are not saying prayer and conversion suffice on their own. But they are the ingredients most often undervalued in our culture.)
Archbishop Quinn was accommodationist to the regnant culture, as is McElroy. The homily, while beautiful in its Biblical meditation, confirms this. John O’Connor also witnessed heroically to AIDS patients, but never wavered in defense of the unborn, or in challenge to “personally opposed, but..” Catholic politicians . He’s just one example.
I don't know much about Quinn (or McElroy), so I'll just speak for myself. I oppose accommodation to culture if that means failing to duly challenge wrongs or otherwise lacking courage in proclaiming the truth. But (1) in terms of prudence, the cultural context can be an important consideration--what course of action is going to most effectively protect the unborn (or most effectively get through to Catholics with poorly formed consciences on abortion). (2) More fundamentally (and here I have in mind questions around homosexuality), particularly in the case of novel cultural practices, part of seeking the truth courageously is to be open to the possibility that we may be confusing a human tradition for the command of God. We ignore the witness of Sts. Peter and Paul at our peril (e.g. Acts 9-10).
How else are we going to properly set sail on Vatican II without bold selections of Cardinals. The resistance to Vatican II is just not going to go away with anything other than concrete appointments.
Thank you for this story and analysis. I am disappointed but not at all surprised. Some feelings of anger towards the Holy Father and this Bishop that I will need to pray about. I live in one of those Diocese with an older, faithful Bishop. I have some concern about our next shepherd. Personnel as policy? I know that every Pope is dependent on his advisors for these selections. But it seems born of very worldly, ideological motives in my likely uninformed view. I want to be “a man without fear”, and that’s something I need much grace to help with. Saint Matthew Murdock, intercede for me🙂
"But if McElroy did pass on Sipe’s letter to Rome, it’s not clear what more the bishop could have done."
No. It is very clear what else he could have done. Be a man and a bishop for starters. It is exactly this attitude which must be defeated. If the pope whom McCarrick wanted has chosen three Cardinals all caught up in the scandal (just in the US), then we will absolutely need pastors who believe that they can do something more than forward a letter. There is no absolute proof that all four men are part of a "lavender mafia" but the alternative options (they are unusually stupid or unusually cowardly) are not very promising.
Or, Rome could look into the many allegations of coverup, financial and personal malfeasance, retaliation and lack of empathy and pastoral approach, resulting in priests leaving and ignored faithful. And, if justified, act. Nah.
Even if Fr. Spadaro prophesied that a new cardinal would bring balance to the Force to the tune of three more bad Star Wars movies, I would be untroubled (Psalm 46). If the Pope wants to send me a clear message, he can write it down and have my parish's pastor announce it at Mass, as one does; otherwise I will just continue to live a life of prayer and penance like any sensible peasant in the Church in the United States, on the general assumption that this is very much needed for reasons beyond my own sins (which, to be fair, would already be reason enough).
This is bull. What should make us hope this guy will do anything other than what he already has.
If he admitted it’s likely bishops didn’t investigate sexual abuse because they are sexually active themselves it’s because he doesn’t see what’s wrong with it and knows nothing will happen to change what they are doing.
He stonewalled Sipe. That should tell all one needs to know.
You can take the boy out of Harvard, but you can't take Harvard out of the boy. Bob McElroy's views are very much aligned with those of his elite cultural and socioeconomic class. The Cupich-Tobin-McElroy vision for the Catholic Church in America already exists in the form of Episcopal Church USA (i.e., favoring women's ordination, approving of homosexual acts, open to same-sex marriage, tolerant of legalized abortion and the politicians who favor it, etc). Sadly, at this point, it's clear beyond of a reasonable doubt that the powers that be in Rome very much favor that direction as well. But ultimately the ordinary faithful vote with their feet. The Episcopalian model is an abysmal failure, and that sect is headed for oblivion. And there's nothing that Bob McElroy et al. can do to make it succeed for Catholicism. You can't put lipstick on a pig. When I think of the future of the Catholic Church in America, I think of young priests who are still learning the traditional Latin Mass, and young Catholics like the guys who made the splendid Mass of the Ages documentary that has racked up hundreds of thousands of views.
The pope speaks of unity and fraternity in a similar way to our president. By saying he wants peace and yet acting in a way contrary to peace. He is not willing to dialogue with those who see systemic issues within the church. He rejects those who hold to the beauty of ancient litergical practices. We lack coherence with church teaching on critical matters. It seems that modernism is akin to the time of Arianism in church history. Much like St. Athanasius, Bishops like Cordelione, Chaput, Burke, and Strickland are cast aside (or simply ignored) when they present Catholic teaching. Bishops who share the views of Fr. James Martin (and others of his ilk) are elevated. It is sowing division in the faithful. But as the church soundly rejected Arianism, survived Islam, and Protestantism, we will to pass through this darkness and emerge stronger. I pray this in Jesus’s name.
you cannot dialogue with the devil
No you cannot. But who is the devil in this context?
the devil is behind those who refuse to submit to the sacred pastors, and those who favour calumny and rash judgement
But who are the sacred pastors? Those who wish to alter the sacred deposit of faith, or those who hold to it?
the sacred pastors are the college of bishops and their head, the bishop of Rome. a bishop does not ipso facto lose his office by wishing to alter the deposit of faith. even if they did, I am not certain that Bishop McElroy wants to alter the deposit of faith, and I am absolutely certain that Pope Francis does not want to alter the deposit of faith.
Joseph, can you give proof of these statements?
Hasn’t the pope already done as much by altering the catechism on the subject of the death penalty?
This is more about the passive aggressive actions of the pope and his delight and encouragement of "making a mess". The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and instead of "confirming" his brothers and sisters in the faith confuses them.
Chaos is a sign of a desire to disrupt both the understanding and practice revealed in Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It does not come from God.
"making a mess" does not mean what you think it means. Pope Francis does not "talk out of both sides of his mouth", and confusion about what he means comes from bad faith interpreters, not from him.
There has been more deference to the idol of Pachamama and the willful disregard of doctrine considering the blessing of the sin that is (and will ever be) same-sex unions in the German conference than there has been to prelates who hold to Catholic teaching. It is scandalous to appoint any cardinal that has a history with McCarrick, most especially one who would willfully give the Eucharist to someone known to manifest grave sin. I hold hope that the past 50 years will be a reawakening for the church. Those who are awakened to the fullness of the faith. The rejection of worldliness. Abortion, contraception, the desecration of the Eucharist, the desecration of marriage, has emboldened those who wish to renew the face of the church. The pontificate survived the Medici, the Avignon exile, the end of the Papal States, it will survive the “Spirit of Vatican II” and emerge stronger.
Amen
Pastors, being men, are not per se sacred.
"sacred pastors" is just what the code of canon law calls them in a couple of places, I think that makes it a legitimate way of speaking
based pope
There are so many points to comment on in this news that I'm simply vapor locked ~ and heart sickened.
My main concern (of several) comes from this:
"But McElroy, Cupich, and Tobin have not proven themselves especially influential among their brother bishops. So while they will have the ear of Rome, the most outspoken American cardinals may find themselves going in one direction, with the majority of the American episcopate going in another."
Pope Franics may be unifying the American bishops, all right -- AGAINST his special favorites. It's possible that he has alienated men who were on the fence. If h+McElroy is know bishop known for fighting with other bishops and making things difficult for them, how likely is it that any of them will welcome his elevation, even if they agree with or are neutral about his views? When you create a cabal, it alienates others not in it -- and by definition, hardly anyone is in it.
In the short term Francis may alienate the current US bishops, but Francis is trying to play a long game in remaking the US episcopate in the form of an abortion tolerant, gay marriage accepting group that will pursue immigration resettlement government contracts as a social services agency over preaching the gospel. Who cares if the pews are empty as long as the USCCB coffers are full of money that can be channeled to one's political allies?
It is clear that this Pope and the new Cardinal-designate are of the same mind; as are the other American prelates who have been given the red hat since 2013. Whether that was intended as a message to the American bishops is something only the Pope knows.
If nothing else, it's the message "This is who and what I approve of and want more of."
Thanks for the good and balanced analysis, JD, although I have to admit I’m left pretty discouraged about all of this. It’s hard to feel hopeful about the future of the church when the future of the hierarchy is being stacked in only one direction. 😔
Don't forget that the head of the Church is Jesus Christ. There will be much to suffer, but if we remain faithful we do not need to be afraid.
The Church will get holier the weaker it gets. When becoming a bishop no longer is a benefit for selfish men, then only holy men will become bishops. In the meantime, become a saint and the Church will be grateful to you for it.
But what if the tactic of Francis is not to become "weak" but to become the lapdog of corrupt governments like China and thus maintain some modicum of respectability, at least enough to continue to receive government monies to distribute to one's corrupt friends? The church as NGO model is a failure if you think about souls, but the church as government lapdog has a long, long history (e.g., Patriarch Kirill of Moscow). The Pope knows the way the US is headed. Why preach against sin when one can line one's pockets as a social service organization, even as the pews empty?
A national Church can be a government lap dog. That is the problem with the Orthodox. An international Church will always be too unruly for that to work. You cannot be the lap dog of all the governments at the same time. There is always something new breaking out in another corner of the world. Perhaps with all these new Cardinals, someone non-western will be chosen next. And what he will do is so completely unpredictable because the framework will be different.
Ultimately, the Holy Spirit will do what he is planning, but that spiritual battle is being fought not only in the international field but also in your soul. Whenever you sin, you provide aid and comfort to the enemy. You can fight against the evil that you see by fighting the evil in you. Then the Holy Spirit will be ready to use you for his good purposes. God is looking for soldiers to fight this war, but too many people are allowing sloth and lust and gluttony to take them out of the battle. Become a saint and you will be part of the transformation of the Church.
As it was during JPII’s papacy
God help us
I am sure that many of the Pillar’ subscribers will be apoplectic over the elevation of Bishop McElroy. They have long considered him an annoying episcopal outlier threatening Tradition. They had hoped he would be marginalized rather than elevated. With the prospect of the McElroy- Cupich- Tobin triumvirate wielding power and influence they are wondering what will happen to the Tradition to which they are anchored. I understand that from their perspective this is not a good development. Unless they are willing to open themselves to what Pope Francis sees as the urgings of The Holy Spirit , they will forever be scandalized/ disappointed. There is nothing one can do to assuage their disappointment because their rigidity prevents them from thinking outside the narrow construct they have fought to maintain as “ The Truth “. In their minds revelation concluded 2000 years ago, and all they had to do is memorize and follow the Catechism and they would be saved. The thought that the Holy Spirit was left to be with us for the purpose of evolving our understanding of God’s will is anathema. Surely, they say, He is only here to protect Tradition. Pope Francis obviously thinks otherwise. As the successor to Peter he wants change. What pushed Francis over the finish line to a elevate McElroy was the majority of U.S. Bishops weaponizing the Eucharist against those not fighting for civil laws to prevent abortion. That was and is a huge tactical mistake. The Eucharist is the resurrected body of Christ given for the life of the world , not a discrete subset. It is Jesus Christ who has invited the guests to His Table. He set the Table. He is the Host. He is the feast which He shares. He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all. If one does not like to sit at the same table with those they consider misinformed, ignorant, not like minded, it is they who should not come to the Table . It is His Table . No one else.
As a Pope Francis supporter myself, (public) revelation did conclude about two thousand years ago. That's the teaching of the Church. There can be a development of doctrine, but no new revelation. I also don't agree that everyone should be permitted to receive the Eucharist in every case. And while I don't have any more access to the mind of Pope Francis than you, I don't think that the elevation of Bishop McElroy is a response to the US bishops' debate on who should be permitted to receive the Eucharist.
Joseph…” that is the teaching of The Church”. Of course. Why do you believe that teaching to be true and immutable? Why was the Holy Spirit created? Do you believe He is the third person of the Godhead? Are their guardrails on where he can go and say.? What is His purpose? You are a supporter of Pope Francis. Do you agree with his decision to elevate McElroy. . Is he sending a message or throwing darts? If His action was purposeful , what might that purpose have been?
The Holy Spirit is not created, He proceeds from the Father. I believe that the teaching on revelation is immutable because the councils, which have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have declared it. I don't have a problem with Bishop McElroy becoming a cardinal, and I don't think choosing him was a rebuke to the US bishops in general; more likely a matter of Pope Francis thinking that he is worthy of the honour, and capable of performing the duties.
"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism #66)
The ad-hominems are not helpful. We need not ascribe sinister or foolish motives to various bishops to acknowledge disagreements.
This is an incredibly mean-spirited characterization of people you say you understand. I think it is also a huge misunderstanding of Christ, but I will leave that one up to the more theologically trained.
Gail…I said many of the pillar’s subscribers would be apoplectic with McElroys elevation. You are commended for raising your hand. It always helps to be substantive and explain your understanding of Christ’s intent for what His Church should be. I will never dismiss your comments as mean spirited just because your comments are pointed and I disagree. You would not be a subscriber if you did not care deeply about the Church.
We are all here to express our views of what we think Christ intended His Church to be. If you and I care about the Church, as we both do, we both will be open to what Pope Francis , the Apostolic Successor, thinks the Church should be. For reasons that many of us don’t understand, but yet have to respect, he has chosen to lead through leaving bread crumbs.
It is not what I had hoped for or would have recommended, but given the left/ right polarization in the Church, I understand his approach as striving to maintain, not blow up, unity. When I see his elevation of MCElroy , I see it as a new crumb to be deciphered. I decipher it as explained. How do you decipher it ? However that might be, I will respect your view, no matter how pointedly you explain it. So tell us your view.
We all speculate on what Pope Francis really thinks. He is confounding. In any organization a leader who is not able to articulate a clear policy leaves employees and associates unsettled. They lose confidence in his/ her leadership. Many leave. Those that stay hope clarity will be forthcoming. They cite certain of the leaders comments as supportive of what they believe to be the truth. They claim statements the leader makes to which they disagree as misstatements or twisted by others. Many who stay tune out the dissonance to avoid upset. Many feel they have no place to go…. there is no alternative better than what they have. They ride it out hoping for the best as they see it. That is the Catholic Church of 2022 and perhaps this millennium.
This is a pretty judgmental take on people's opposition to McElroy, while completely ignoring his complicity in the McCarrick affair. Can you name one bishop who has been held accountable for enabling McCarrick predations? How could a man whose predatations were so well known that a monk in New Mexico knew about them become the Sunday morning talk show spokesman for the USCCB on how seriously the bishops were taking the sex abuse crisis?
"He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all." This is such an ignorant take on Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, one doesn't know where to begin. Is it merciful to lead people to damn their own souls?
Here’s a question: Do you believe (or not) that Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the 1974 Declaration on Abortion, Dignitas Personae, and Humanae Vitae were inspired by the Holy Spirit? The “traditionalists” you castigate believe they were, and have reason to suspect that some in the Episcopate do not. Where do you stand?
I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that it is an affront to the Creator to destroy life. I believe not everyone believes as I believe, or does believe but is dependent on God’s mercy. I am not God.
Yes, we’re all equally dependent on God’s mercy. But as for my question, you’ve answered it by dodging it.
I did not answer your question with specificity because it was rhetorical
having seen my earlier comment.
But let me ask you the same question with specificity.
( 1). Human Vitae . You believe that contraception is immoral because the communication of love, commitment and unity without sperm/ egg connectivity is against God’s will ?
(2) . Veritatis Splendor. You believe the Magisterium is the sole proprietor of speaking the Truth on Moral issues and they never get it wrong?
(3). Dignatas Personae. You believe that parents that cannot procreate other through in vitro fertilization are defying natural law and their offspring are immorally created ?
(4). Evangelium Vitae . You believe that contraception and abortion are equally egregious since they are on the “ fruits of the same tree” ?
I know a lot of Traditionalists . But I know none who would answer yes to each question without condemning themselves, their offspring or children.
I have read accounts today from Catholics in San Diego praising the work and pastoral approach—including profound teachings on the Eucharist—of Bishop McElroy. Yet no mention of that in this article, which is largely a political piece from a particular ideological viewpoint.
As an admirer of all of our recent popes, who have graced the Church with their unique charisms, I am saddened by articles such as this. A look at the disrespect and contempt for the Holy Father in some of the comments should be a calling for reflection by the authors.
Could you explain the phrase “contradictory diversity”?
Contradictory diversity strikes me as an accurate diagnosis for the state of our Church. But what is the way out? If you are implying that Pope Francis is to blame for our contradictory diversity (or that McElroy is to blame for contradictory diversity among the bishops) and the solution is to reject him, I'd urge you to ponder: would that be your prescription for a marriage afflicted by contradictory diversity (to take up the analogy of Fr. Thomas Dubay you share below)? I think we would agree that the proper course of action is not to eliminate the contradiction by eliminating the person expressing a conflicting viewpoint but rather to help them to see the truth--or, more modestly acknowledging the possibility in principle that you yourself may be mistaken, to seek the truth together. That does start with respect and taking the time to understand where a person is coming from, though it certainly does not end there (as some liberals might suppose).
It sounds like we are in agreement. Prayer and conversion are fundamental to getting in contact with truth. (I trust that you would also recognize a role for learning, reason, and dialogue, that you are not saying prayer and conversion suffice on their own. But they are the ingredients most often undervalued in our culture.)
For those looking for a less political perspective on McIlroy, Rocco Palmo suggests this homily of his: https://www.cal-catholic.com/bishop-robert-mcelroy-delivers-homily-at-vigil-for-archbishop-john-quinn/
Archbishop Quinn was accommodationist to the regnant culture, as is McElroy. The homily, while beautiful in its Biblical meditation, confirms this. John O’Connor also witnessed heroically to AIDS patients, but never wavered in defense of the unborn, or in challenge to “personally opposed, but..” Catholic politicians . He’s just one example.
I don't know much about Quinn (or McElroy), so I'll just speak for myself. I oppose accommodation to culture if that means failing to duly challenge wrongs or otherwise lacking courage in proclaiming the truth. But (1) in terms of prudence, the cultural context can be an important consideration--what course of action is going to most effectively protect the unborn (or most effectively get through to Catholics with poorly formed consciences on abortion). (2) More fundamentally (and here I have in mind questions around homosexuality), particularly in the case of novel cultural practices, part of seeking the truth courageously is to be open to the possibility that we may be confusing a human tradition for the command of God. We ignore the witness of Sts. Peter and Paul at our peril (e.g. Acts 9-10).
How else are we going to properly set sail on Vatican II without bold selections of Cardinals. The resistance to Vatican II is just not going to go away with anything other than concrete appointments.
Thank you for this story and analysis. I am disappointed but not at all surprised. Some feelings of anger towards the Holy Father and this Bishop that I will need to pray about. I live in one of those Diocese with an older, faithful Bishop. I have some concern about our next shepherd. Personnel as policy? I know that every Pope is dependent on his advisors for these selections. But it seems born of very worldly, ideological motives in my likely uninformed view. I want to be “a man without fear”, and that’s something I need much grace to help with. Saint Matthew Murdock, intercede for me🙂
I will file this intriguing St Matthew Murdock next to Saint Poet of the Miraculous Eyeball...
"But if McElroy did pass on Sipe’s letter to Rome, it’s not clear what more the bishop could have done."
No. It is very clear what else he could have done. Be a man and a bishop for starters. It is exactly this attitude which must be defeated. If the pope whom McCarrick wanted has chosen three Cardinals all caught up in the scandal (just in the US), then we will absolutely need pastors who believe that they can do something more than forward a letter. There is no absolute proof that all four men are part of a "lavender mafia" but the alternative options (they are unusually stupid or unusually cowardly) are not very promising.
Or, Rome could look into the many allegations of coverup, financial and personal malfeasance, retaliation and lack of empathy and pastoral approach, resulting in priests leaving and ignored faithful. And, if justified, act. Nah.
Even if Fr. Spadaro prophesied that a new cardinal would bring balance to the Force to the tune of three more bad Star Wars movies, I would be untroubled (Psalm 46). If the Pope wants to send me a clear message, he can write it down and have my parish's pastor announce it at Mass, as one does; otherwise I will just continue to live a life of prayer and penance like any sensible peasant in the Church in the United States, on the general assumption that this is very much needed for reasons beyond my own sins (which, to be fair, would already be reason enough).
Woof.
This is bull. What should make us hope this guy will do anything other than what he already has.
If he admitted it’s likely bishops didn’t investigate sexual abuse because they are sexually active themselves it’s because he doesn’t see what’s wrong with it and knows nothing will happen to change what they are doing.
He stonewalled Sipe. That should tell all one needs to know.
You can take the boy out of Harvard, but you can't take Harvard out of the boy. Bob McElroy's views are very much aligned with those of his elite cultural and socioeconomic class. The Cupich-Tobin-McElroy vision for the Catholic Church in America already exists in the form of Episcopal Church USA (i.e., favoring women's ordination, approving of homosexual acts, open to same-sex marriage, tolerant of legalized abortion and the politicians who favor it, etc). Sadly, at this point, it's clear beyond of a reasonable doubt that the powers that be in Rome very much favor that direction as well. But ultimately the ordinary faithful vote with their feet. The Episcopalian model is an abysmal failure, and that sect is headed for oblivion. And there's nothing that Bob McElroy et al. can do to make it succeed for Catholicism. You can't put lipstick on a pig. When I think of the future of the Catholic Church in America, I think of young priests who are still learning the traditional Latin Mass, and young Catholics like the guys who made the splendid Mass of the Ages documentary that has racked up hundreds of thousands of views.