A better way forward: A response to Cardinal Robert McElroy
It is important to recognize and identify that Cardinal McElroy is seeking to revive the discredited theological notion of the “fundamental option” that became popular in the 1960s.
Much ink has been spilled about Cardinal Robert McElroy’s January 24th piece in America on synodality and inclusion. Less attention has been paid to Cardinal McElroy’s follow up interview (Feb 3, 2023), also in America, in which his views on sexual immorality were more explicit and, unfortunately, more concerning.
The Cardinal explains, “We have cast violations for which you need to not go to the Eucharist, or need to go to confession first, largely in terms of sexual things.” It is true that the Church has always taken sexual sin very seriously (more on that from St. Paul shortly). But Cardinal McElroy misdiagnoses the situation in stating the Church is too focused on “sexual things.” The Church is concerned with all grave sin that violates the Ten Commandments (cf. CCC 1858).
For example, it is a matter of grave concern that many Catholics apparently do not think it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, yet it is in direct disobedience of the Third Commandment for Catholics to skip Mass on Sunday without a just excuse, such as serious illness or infirmity. The Church has even told racists that they cannot go to Holy Communion, as the Archbishop of New Orleans did in 1962 when he excommunicated several Catholics who vociferously opposed the racial desegregation of parochial schools in the Archdiocese of New Orleans. If our culture had a widespread issue with theft or worship of pagan gods, the Church would prominently proclaim that these serious sins precluded people from the Eucharist.
But our current culture is infatuated with sexual sin, and so the Church vocally warns of its harm, calls ardently for conversion in this area, and proclaims the beauty of God’s plan for human sexuality.
The Cardinal goes on to say that sinfulness can and does exist within sexual lives, which is an important clarification as many readers interpreted his original piece as condoning all sexual activity. He explains, “Our sexual lives have many areas of sinfulness and I’m not challenging that. All I’m saying is that in the Christian moral life, they don’t automatically represent mortal sin. Mortal sin in Catholic teaching is a sin so grave that it is objectively capable of cutting off our relationship with God. That’s pretty severe.” I won’t quibble by focusing on the fact that the Church makes a distinction between mortal sin and grave matter (mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate choice), and so the Church would disagree that sexual sins “automatically represent mortal sin.”
I would prefer to address the idea that the “framework doesn’t fit” by casting sexual sins as grave matter. The Cardinal seems to be calling for the Church to devalue the gravity of sexual sin, but sexual sin is part of the “framework” found in God’s Word: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9–10, NAB, emphasis added).
Not inheriting eternal life is indeed “pretty severe,” and the Church rightly treats it so. But why did sexual immorality make St. Paul’s list? Because sexuality affects all aspects of the human person (cf. CCC 2332) and, thus, sexual sins have devastatingly widespread effects.
It is important to recognize and identify what Cardinal McElroy is attempting to do here: he is seeking to revive the discredited theological notion of the “fundamental option” that became popular in the 1960s. In moral theology, the concept of the “fundamental option” says that individual acts do not change our basic relationship with God and that only when our fundamental option changes against God do we fall out of the state of grace. In this view, a person can commit particular sinful actions without losing the state of grace.
Pope St. John Paul II addressed the erroneous notion of fundamental option theory in his 1993 encyclical letter Veritatis Splendorin paragraphs 65-70, most notably in this passage:
To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behavior means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. … In point of fact, the morality of human acts is not deduced only from one’s intention, orientation or fundamental option, understood as an intention devoid of a clearly determined binding content or as an intention with no corresponding positive effort to fulfil the different obligations of the moral life. (Veritatis Splendor 67)
In the end, all these disagreements seem to boil down to the Cardinal’s thoughts on sin: “My own view is [that] judgmentalism is the worst sin in the Christian life…. So what the parable of the adulterous woman is about is: Don’t be judgmental.” It is troubling to see the beautiful balance struck by Jesus in this story between an acceptance of the woman but not her behavior flattened to “don’t be judgmental.”
It appears that for Cardinal McElroy it is Catholicism’s judgmentalism that leads to exclusion, and not the committed sins. But it has always been the practice of the Church to exclude those actively engaging in grave sin from Communion until they have repented, confessed their sins to a priest, and received sacramental absolution. This is not a demand for perfection (despite the Cardinal’s insistence otherwise), nor is it a punishment; it is a consequence of those chosen actions.
As Pope Francis said in an interview on September 15, 2021 about withholding Communion, “This is not a penalty: you are outside. Communion is to unite the community.”
Apart from the Communion issue, Cardinal McElroy rightly notes that as a Church we need to do a better job of accompaniment because “the grace of God acts progressively in our lives.” The challenge of loving accompaniment is to avoid judging the heart of the other while still judging his action. This is the only way to reconcile Jesus’ statements, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt 7:1) and “If your brother sins, rebuke him” (Lk 17:3).
We are called to accompany the other regardless of his choices while standing in the truth of what is genuinely good for him. This is difficult, especially since as fallen humans we instinctively favor one part of that approach, usually to the detriment of the other.
May we all learn to love more like Jesus so that we can see beyond the sin to the person and lovingly offer him invitation to conversion. In a world so confused about sin, we must do both of those things in pursuing a better way forward.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Bishop Thomas John Paprocki is Bishop of Springfield in Illinois and is Chairman-elect of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Pope Francis waves to World Youth Day pilgrims in Lisbon, Portugal, at the start of a vigil service on Aug. 5, 2023. / Vatican Media
Lisbon, Portugal, Aug 5, 2023 / 16:47 pm (CNA).
Pope Francis on Saturday urged attendees at World Youth Day to … […]
15 Comments
This is all well and good, but it ignores the fact the McElroy simply does the bidding of the one who made him a Cardinal last summer. Until these responses are directed to the source of the chaos and heresy , they won’t have much effect.
Correct Tony. The majority of CWR readers will agree with this article, the problem is that those who read the cardinals article in America Magazine will probably not come across anyone with authority who informs them correctly. Heresy and error go unchallenged under this pontificate.
Thank you SO much, dear Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, for a crystal-clear account of sound, traditional Catholic teaching.
Souls will be saved and can we not hear the Holy Angels rejoicing.
These days, with all the half-truths and heresies spouted by some leading clerics, it’s hard to imagine King Jesus rejoicing over His Church. You, however, have delighted the heart of our wonderful Lord.
Ever in the love of The Lamb; respectful blessings from marty
Cardinal McElroy aligns himself with the secular culture in America — both the country and the magazine. There was a great interview with Bishop Earl Boyea in Catholic World Report last September that instructed us in our responsibility to “change the culture” rather than being “changed by the culture.” More Catholic leaders need to subscribe to way of the good Bishop of Lansing, Michiigan rather than that of the cardinal in San Diego. Thanks to Bishop Paprocki for this clarification.
In full agreement with Bishop Paprocki on the better way forward, yours truly also proposes a few fine points for the conversation—which in sum still demonstrate that Cardinal McElroy seems a sloppy thinker and shepherd (But who am I to judge?):
FIRST, the unstated core to the McElroy ideology seems rooted in CCC n. 2352 which reads, in part: “To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of society, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”
SECOND, McElroy abuses his audience and office when he then would apply this insight not to individual persons, but to a politicized category, or any category of the population.
In 2018 this attempt to enshrine the LGBTQ assemblage into the Synod on Youth drew a perceptive correction from Archbishop Chaput (and after a unanimous “demand,” Cardinal Baldiserri withdrew from his effort to make the insertion): Yet, today, Cardinal Grech recently advocated that the Church “stretch the grey area. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/10/04/archbishop-chaput-tells-synod-to-announce-christ-not-ideologies-and-social-sciences/
THIRD, now stretching the grey area in several ways, Cardinal McElroy (in the embedded article) breezily misrepresents the history of female “deacons” and their non-sacramental role (see instead, e.g., Gerhard Muller, “Priesthood and Diaconate,” Ignatius, 2002). McElroy also misreads St. Augustine, whose conversion was more complete that he (McElroy) implies. After Augustine left his concubine of thirteen years he then lapsed and fell in with another for two years, but then he turned fully around and converted (e.g., Confessions, Book 8, Ch. 11:26). Nothing here supports the thesis of inverting the order of Confession and Eucharist, especially not airbrushing an entire category of however sorely tried individuals.
FOURTH, McElroy & the Tribe then appeal to what they presume to call the “pastoral” approach. An approach which apparently includes fostering, indirectly, the viral expansion of the numbers of afflicted persons (a curiosity, since biological reproduction is off the table). This wedge of accompaniment and accommodation (!) is directly addressed by the Magisterium:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
Which brings us back to Bishop Paprocki’s better way forward…
Cardinal McElroy presents the fundamental option in a highly intellectualized appeal that softens the penalty for sin due to extenuating circumstances discussed by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.
My interest here is not to offer analysis of Bishop Paprocki’s unassailable criticism. Rather, the enigma of the excellent theology of Pope Francis “This is not a penalty: you are outside. Communion is to unite the community” quoted by Paprocki in support of his critique of McElroy. Bishop Paprocki is entirely justified in presenting that quote. My interest, best said my concern are Francis’ contradictions to that, as well as other very excellent, one would assume final moral judgments.
Confessionally speaking, it’s increasingly evident that the overshadowing conundrum we’re facing in the Church are not so much the McElroy’s, Hollerichs, Cupich’s, Paglia’s among the hierarchy. It’s the overall effect on these same men and the entire Church. The reason is the subversion of settled doctrine, the very Deposit of the faith by the pontiff by his duplicitous presentation of excellent orthodox theology as quoted in this essay, and the consistent rationale for their mollification.
It cannot be ignored if we expect to educate the faithful, especially at a juncture when knowledge of the faith among the faithful is dismal. Most, as experienced, will take away what is said by Pope Francis in his dual form of orthodoxy followed by heterodox response.
My object is not to speculate motive, or what might be construed regarding the person of Francis. Rather, if it were to be hypothesized, is there a more precocious way to subvert Catholic doctrine? Admitting that, it should be evident that it must be addressed directly and with urgency.
We are called to meet sinners where they are, all are clear on this. Jesus broke bread with them. However, we forget the essential second part. Once at table, Jesus taught, He showed sinners the Way to the Father. So we must also meet them where yhet are and work to get them out of the muck and mire that we find them in. No judgements just instruction and loving help.
Thank you Bishop Paprocki. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the US bishops went on record critiquing the erroneous ideas expressed by Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, etc. Instead, they have been tasked by the Vatican to drive underground the TLM and the good Catholics who are devoted to it.
Saying what needs to be said. Doing what is required to honour the Lord!
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:13-19 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, …
1 Thessalonians 2:2 But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.
This is all well and good, but it ignores the fact the McElroy simply does the bidding of the one who made him a Cardinal last summer. Until these responses are directed to the source of the chaos and heresy , they won’t have much effect.
Correct Tony. The majority of CWR readers will agree with this article, the problem is that those who read the cardinals article in America Magazine will probably not come across anyone with authority who informs them correctly. Heresy and error go unchallenged under this pontificate.
Thank you SO much, dear Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, for a crystal-clear account of sound, traditional Catholic teaching.
Souls will be saved and can we not hear the Holy Angels rejoicing.
These days, with all the half-truths and heresies spouted by some leading clerics, it’s hard to imagine King Jesus rejoicing over His Church. You, however, have delighted the heart of our wonderful Lord.
Ever in the love of The Lamb; respectful blessings from marty
Thank you, Bishop Paprocki.
A much-needed corrective to Cdl. McElroy’s dubious theology.
Cardinal McElroy aligns himself with the secular culture in America — both the country and the magazine. There was a great interview with Bishop Earl Boyea in Catholic World Report last September that instructed us in our responsibility to “change the culture” rather than being “changed by the culture.” More Catholic leaders need to subscribe to way of the good Bishop of Lansing, Michiigan rather than that of the cardinal in San Diego. Thanks to Bishop Paprocki for this clarification.
Pray God for the good, courageous Bishops!
Plus the good faithful priests and deacon! Thank you for your service.
In full agreement with Bishop Paprocki on the better way forward, yours truly also proposes a few fine points for the conversation—which in sum still demonstrate that Cardinal McElroy seems a sloppy thinker and shepherd (But who am I to judge?):
FIRST, the unstated core to the McElroy ideology seems rooted in CCC n. 2352 which reads, in part: “To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of society, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”
SECOND, McElroy abuses his audience and office when he then would apply this insight not to individual persons, but to a politicized category, or any category of the population.
In 2018 this attempt to enshrine the LGBTQ assemblage into the Synod on Youth drew a perceptive correction from Archbishop Chaput (and after a unanimous “demand,” Cardinal Baldiserri withdrew from his effort to make the insertion): Yet, today, Cardinal Grech recently advocated that the Church “stretch the grey area. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/10/04/archbishop-chaput-tells-synod-to-announce-christ-not-ideologies-and-social-sciences/
THIRD, now stretching the grey area in several ways, Cardinal McElroy (in the embedded article) breezily misrepresents the history of female “deacons” and their non-sacramental role (see instead, e.g., Gerhard Muller, “Priesthood and Diaconate,” Ignatius, 2002). McElroy also misreads St. Augustine, whose conversion was more complete that he (McElroy) implies. After Augustine left his concubine of thirteen years he then lapsed and fell in with another for two years, but then he turned fully around and converted (e.g., Confessions, Book 8, Ch. 11:26). Nothing here supports the thesis of inverting the order of Confession and Eucharist, especially not airbrushing an entire category of however sorely tried individuals.
FOURTH, McElroy & the Tribe then appeal to what they presume to call the “pastoral” approach. An approach which apparently includes fostering, indirectly, the viral expansion of the numbers of afflicted persons (a curiosity, since biological reproduction is off the table). This wedge of accompaniment and accommodation (!) is directly addressed by the Magisterium:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
Which brings us back to Bishop Paprocki’s better way forward…
Cardinal McElroy presents the fundamental option in a highly intellectualized appeal that softens the penalty for sin due to extenuating circumstances discussed by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.
My interest here is not to offer analysis of Bishop Paprocki’s unassailable criticism. Rather, the enigma of the excellent theology of Pope Francis “This is not a penalty: you are outside. Communion is to unite the community” quoted by Paprocki in support of his critique of McElroy. Bishop Paprocki is entirely justified in presenting that quote. My interest, best said my concern are Francis’ contradictions to that, as well as other very excellent, one would assume final moral judgments.
Confessionally speaking, it’s increasingly evident that the overshadowing conundrum we’re facing in the Church are not so much the McElroy’s, Hollerichs, Cupich’s, Paglia’s among the hierarchy. It’s the overall effect on these same men and the entire Church. The reason is the subversion of settled doctrine, the very Deposit of the faith by the pontiff by his duplicitous presentation of excellent orthodox theology as quoted in this essay, and the consistent rationale for their mollification.
It cannot be ignored if we expect to educate the faithful, especially at a juncture when knowledge of the faith among the faithful is dismal. Most, as experienced, will take away what is said by Pope Francis in his dual form of orthodoxy followed by heterodox response.
My object is not to speculate motive, or what might be construed regarding the person of Francis. Rather, if it were to be hypothesized, is there a more precocious way to subvert Catholic doctrine? Admitting that, it should be evident that it must be addressed directly and with urgency.
We are called to meet sinners where they are, all are clear on this. Jesus broke bread with them. However, we forget the essential second part. Once at table, Jesus taught, He showed sinners the Way to the Father. So we must also meet them where yhet are and work to get them out of the muck and mire that we find them in. No judgements just instruction and loving help.
Thank you Bishop Paprocki. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the US bishops went on record critiquing the erroneous ideas expressed by Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, etc. Instead, they have been tasked by the Vatican to drive underground the TLM and the good Catholics who are devoted to it.
Saying what needs to be said. Doing what is required to honour the Lord!
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:13-19 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, …
1 Thessalonians 2:2 But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.
Thank you, Bishop Paprocki! Keep up the great work. Praying for you and your ministry.
Poor McElroy has been in over his head since he was appointed Bishop.
Thank you Bishop Paprocki! All the way from Australia…..