Cardinal Robert McElroy, in his recent remarks to the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, stated the following:
It is essential to safeguard the deposit of faith. But how do the doctrinal tradition and history of the church restrict the church’s ability to refine its teaching when confronted with a world where life itself is evolving in critical ways, and it is becoming clear that on some issues the understanding of human nature and moral reality upon which previous declarations of doctrine were made were in fact limited or defective?
What does Cardinal McElroy mean by “life itself is evolving in critical ways”, as he does not define what he means by “life” here? We can surmise, perhaps, that he means the cultural context in which our lives are now embedded—and that this context has changed in radical ways. If that is all he means, then I am in full agreement. However, also left undefined is whether this “evolution” is, on the whole, a positive or a negative thing when analyzed from within a Catholic theological vision of life. And I have to think that the good Cardinal views this evolution in a largely positive light since he is lamenting the fact that current construals of Catholic doctrine need to be refined in the light of this new reality. And by “refined” it is clear that he means “repudiated and then reconstructed in line with modernity”.
Refining doctrine?
Before I am criticized for reading too much into his words, Cardinal McElroy himself goes on to say that “it is now becoming clear that on some issues the understanding of human nature and moral reality upon which previous declarations of doctrine were made were in fact limited or defective…” Certain doctrines of the Church need to change in order to keep up with cultural evolution, and the doctrinal tradition “restricts” the efforts of those who now see “clearly” that we need to “refine” these teachings. Indeed, the older doctrines to which he is referring—and he clearly means in the whole context of his speech the sexual doctrines—not only restrict our ability to bless the modern shift in sexual morality, but that they are also in fact “defective” and rooted in a now discredited “understanding of human nature”.
He makes these comments in the context of a discussion of the meaning of synodality, one aspect of which is the all-important category of “inclusion”. He claims that LGBGTQ Catholics have been excluded for too long from the Church and that this needs to change in our new and improved synodal Church which appears, for all intents and purposes, to be nothing more than NPR at prayer. He repeats the line from Pope Francis that the Church must be inclusive of everyone (“todos!”) but without the important qualifier that those who are now so included—and here he means homosexuals—should actually believe that their sexual activity is sinful and that they are in need of repentance.
But this is precisely what he wants “refined”. We must be clear-headed here in our analysis. The Cardinal is not saying that the Church should just drop all talk of sin and repentance and become a simple gathering of those seeking some vague “spirituality”. I assume that he would consider such sins as racism, economic exploitation, and single-use plastic straws as real sins in need of repentance. What he means, and this too is “clear”, is that homosexual acts are not inherently sinful (although some might be, just as with heterosexuals) and that we can now confidently assert this to be so, on the grounds that we now have a better understanding of human nature.
Cardinal McElroy is not alone in making this assertion. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, of Luxembourg has made similar claims concerning the outdated nature of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and in response to the question “are homosexual sex acts sinful” responded:
I believe that this is false. … I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct. What one formerly condemned was sodomy. One thought at that time that in the sperm of the man, the whole child was kept. And one has simply transferred this to homosexual men.
But there is no homosexuality at all in the New Testament. There is only discussion of homosexual acts, which were to some extent pagan cultic acts. That was naturally forbidden. I believe it is time for us to make a revision in the foundation [Grundrevision: “ground revision,” or “foundation revision”] of the teaching.
Cardinal Hollerich later “retracted” this statement, but the retraction was clearly under pressure from the Vatican; he clearly meant what he said. And Pope Francis still made him the Relator General of the Synod on synodality, despite his heterodox views on human sexuality.
Homosexuality is not homosexuality?
The deeper point here is that the claim is being made by Cardinals McElroy and Hollerich, among many others, that what the Bible condemns is not homosexuality as we now understand it. Rather, what are condemned are the various deformations of human sexuality in pagan prostitution cults, pedophilia, the exploitation of slaves, and in sex acts that are nothing more than a form of aggressive male dominance over other males. Indeed, on Fr. James Martin’s webpage and social media accounts are articles that seek to reinterpret the “clobber verses” from Scripture (as he calls them) on homosexuality along these lines and to redeploy them as biblical condemnations of idolatry and exploitation rather than of homosexual acts as such. The claim is then made that homosexual acts as such were never properly understood by the Scriptural authors or later Church interpreters since they did not understand, or have knowledge of, what we moderns now “know”: homosexuality is a deep-seated orientation and those in same-sex relationships really can love each other.
But is this claim about the Scriptures true? I think not. For example, the claim that the ancients did not understand there are people with an inherent predilection for same-sex relations is highly questionable, more of an assertion based on rather flimsy linguistic contortions than a genuine scholarly accounting of the actual historical reality. It is true that ancient cultures did not speak of “orientations” or of “sexual identities” as we do, and preferred instead to focus on the actual act and the role of the participants involved. But to claim that the Scriptural authors and later Church Fathers were of the same mind is dubious since Christianity developed its own independent concept of the morality of sexual acts with an eye toward the normativity of the male-female nuptial embrace in marriage. And they grounded their revolutionary elevation of marriage beyond the pagan understanding of the same in a profound meditation on the data of biblical revelation.
And do we really want to say that the Scriptures are simply parroting the views of pagan antiquity? Because if the new proposals being put forward are true, then it means that the Scriptures do not really give us a specifically Judeo-Christian advance beyond these pagan concepts. But this is demonstrably false and implies that the entire nuptial theology of Scriptural revelation is nothing more than a kind of gloss over what is, in its essence, a pagan understanding of things. Furthermore, to dismiss in such a summary fashion the profound moral analysis of Thomas Aquinas, and the entire natural law moral theory that flows from the Fathers through Aquinas and beyond, as “defective” in its root understanding of human nature, is shocking in its sweeping superficiality.
Furthermore, the claim made by the revisionists involves not only a simple tweaking of our understanding of Scripture on this single issue but also carries within itself a not so latent claim of the defectibility of the Church on the entirety of her sexual and moral teachings. And should their revisionism be accepted as valid, the downstream consequences for Catholic moral theology, not to mention her traditional ecclesiology, are enormous. But this seems not to bother Cardinal McElroy and those who think like him.
What is at stake here is something of constitutive importance. It is telling that St. Paul (1 Cor. 5-6) develops the concept of sexual immorality as a sin against the body insofar as the sex act has a unitive function that, in a real way, binds one to the person with whom one is engaging. Therefore, sexual immorality violates Paul’s anthropological understanding of sex as something divinely oriented to the becoming “one flesh” of husband and wife. He thus also views sexual sin as a form of sacrilegious idolatry as it is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the alleged “new reality” in our time is not really about a more advanced concept of human nature drawn from the modern sciences as it is a philosophical, and ultimately theological, repudiation of this foundational, nuptial understanding of the sex act. As such, it represents a recrudescence, ironically, of the ancient pagan concept of the sex act as a kind of free-floating and rather ephemeral thing without deep anthropological, let alone theological, significance. It represents a movement back into a form of idolatry that the Scriptures explicitly repudiate.
In other words, the entire LGBTQ movement is a counter religion, which accounts for why it is held with a deep religious fervor and why it is always accompanied by a deep loathing for the traditional Christian construal of the sacramental anthropology of the sex act. The rainbow flag is, therefore, much more than a mere symbol of sexual diversity but is also the central icon of a new religion.
Furthermore, the claim that modernity gives us a single view of human nature to which we must now accommodate Church teaching is risible. The question “what is a human being?” is anything but resolved by the modern sciences, for in their reductive formulations they give us a view of the human that is more bestial than angelic. There are also scores of different theories of human psychology within the modern psychotherapeutic disciplines, most of which are mutually exclusive and many of which are motivated by political ideology as much as by science. Against this cacophony of discordant voices I happily place in contrast the Christian humanism of an Augustine, an Aquinas, a Francis de Sales, or a St. Pope John Paul II. Let these be our guide and not the questionable and ever-changing theories of secular, and largely atheistic, modern theorists.
The growing push to change Church teaching
And, so, it is important that we understand that the words of Cardinal McElroy in his speech were not the isolated, idiosyncratic ramblings of a single wayward and confused Cardinal who can be safely ignored. His words are expressive of a powerful movement within the Church by many in the hierarchy and the theological academy to change the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The fact that he uttered such words at one of the largest gatherings of religious educators in the United States, without any evident fear of ecclesial discipline from above, says all you need to know about the increasing sense of empowerment that this movement feels at the moment.
There are some who will claim that the argument I am raising here constitute a form or ecclesial disobedience. Who am I, they say, to criticize in such strong ways a prince of the Church? Well, who do I have to be? A fellow Cardinal? But how clericalistic is such a view and how disempowering of the laity? “Religious submission of mind and will” is owed to the legitimate teachings of the Church and her official magisterial teachings, which have been formally and authoritatively taught. But this obedience does not extend to every utterance by every prelate, especially when those utterances explicitly call for the repudiation of those very same authoritative teachings!
And make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy is not calling for a deepening of our doctrines or their organic development. He is calling for their repudiation and reversal.
It is therefore out of obedience to the Church’s long established teachings that I raise this critique. Would that Cardinal McElroy and prelates who think like him felt the same compunction. Apparently they do not. Furthermore, in the same speech to the LA REC, Cardinal McElroy extolled the virtues of a synodal Church as a Church which is now a listening Church that allows “all voices” to be heard. It is a Church, he said, of co-responsibility between the hierarchy and the laity. And Pope Francis has often spoken of a Church of “parrhesia” which is an invitation to an open and free discussion of all viewpoints without fear of reprisal.
If that is so, then here is my voice added to the synodal listening. I doubt it will have much effect. Because, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the “listening” involved in the synodal way seems strangely deaf to those voices that have not gotten the memo that we are a “Church on the move”.
Related at CWR:
• “On Cardinal McElroy’s misguided ‘clarifications’ on sin, sex, and conscience” (March 7, 2023) by Larry Chapp
• “Cardinal McElroy’s Grand Deception” (January 30, 2023) by Larry Chapp
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.
The title says it all.
Thanks for the clear-eyed analysis of the ruminations of McElroy, Hollerich and company.
The title says perhaps more than you realize.
If one’s doctrine comes from, say, Magisterium the it can be repudiated by any other human. If it comes from scripture then only the Author can repudiate it.
I just checked my KJV (can. 1611) and Romans 1 is still there and understandable. As is 1 Cor 6:9, which begins with a warning even more appropriate today – “do not be misled”.
By the way, we should read and heed the 10th verse as well. If stopping for a drink after work becomes habitual we may get in trouble there, too. as well as at De 21:18-21.
Doug –
Your point is the one of greatest magnitude:
– the issue is not merely about repudiating “doctrine” per se;
– this is about repudiating Jesus lawgiver and judge.
Romans 2:28, And even as they did not like to Retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a Reprobate Mind ( refers to light rejected, is Light withdrawn), to do those things which are not convenient (which is not godly). Verse 32, Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death not only do the same but have pleasure in who do the same. (Proclaims the result of the reprobate mind).
Bergoglio, McElroy, Hollerich, et al will find out soon enough what God’s plan for His creation is. They seem all so very confused but, rest assured, God will make known the Truth to them.
Thank you Larry.
We are all tempted to skip purgation for some secular illumination toward a faux union with God, or even our neighbor.
In the City of God, St. Augustine claimed all truth found in paganism for Christianity. McElroy offers the City of Man, claiming Christianity for the sake of paganism.
The Saints call us to repent and believe the Good News of Christ. This is the beginning of the Faith, where we enter the Interior Castle. One has to wonder if these shills for secularism have even begun to pray.
God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage; to render onto Caesar, what belongs to God, is apostasy.
All acts of Love are rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love and devoid of every form of lust.
Thus we can know through both Faith and reason, that the reordering of human persons according to sexual desire, inclination , orientation, sexually objectifies the human person, in direct conflict with God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, in order to justify the engaging in of sexual acts, that regardless of the actors or the actor’s desires, demean our inherent Dignity as beloved sons and daughters, are physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful, and devoid of Love.
The end goal of atheist materialism is the objectification of the human person.
“Canon 750 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines. 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.[new]”
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
“Undivided Blessed Trinity,”
Undivided? John 17:3. One talking to the other.
John 14:28. One talking about and acknowledging the superiority of the other.
Got much more – scripture – to confirm both, but I doubt that you’re interested. Just reply if you are.
Romans Chapter 1 was removed from the lectionary in the 1960’s so most Catholics have never heard/read these verses. Here is a sample of what they are missing: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” -Romans 26-27.
Perhaps Cardinal McElroy should do a brief review of the chapter.
No ,that is false. Romans 1:26-27 was never in the lectionary BEFORE Vatican II either. And to think that Catholics only know what they hear in church is wrong anyway.
I’ve had Catholics tell me that they hear all of Scripture by attending daily Mass. I doubt someone who believes that spends time reading it at home.
When i was young enough to be made to go to church, the Episcopal Church [US Anglican] was the one I was made to go to. 😄
That group is the proud holder of the original copyrights on two of the most famous English language books – the Book of Common Prayer and the AV or King James Bible (1611). Want my autograph? 😃
Your comment applies to them as well.
The US Book of Common Prayer was never copyrighted and the KJV is in the public domain in the US, though both are under Crown Copyright in the UK.
I guess not all Catholics read the bible at home then – but that doesn’t mean no Catholics read the bible at home. And it’s impossible for any lectionary or liturgy to cover every word in the bible.
I will stand corrected regarding dropping those verses in the 60s. I based that on my misinterpretation of an article that said these verses were “removed.” I took that to mean they were there prior to the current lectionary. Rather, the author was implying the surrounding verses were in the lectionary, but the verses in question were not (removed). However, one source I found noted: “The American 1896 lectionary appointed all of Romans 1 for the Thursday after Ash Wednesday, the 16th of February, and the 7th of August.” I have not been able to verify this claim. And perhaps an actual Bible scholar on this site will clarity. However, I stand by my statement that most Catholics, well over 50%, have never hear the verses in question.
Samton, you write,”And to think that Catholics only know what they hear in church is wrong anyway.”
Unless you omitted a modifier before “Catholics”, you haven’t talked with the same Catholics I have over the years. Just one example: in the fifty years since birth control became a prominent issue in your Church i have met any number who say, ‘Well, the US Bishops said the pill is okay to use [for family planning being understood].
Do condom packets still carry the admonition “Sold for the prevention of disease only”? Just wonderin’.
I was being VERY generous with the 50% in my reply above. My guess is that 90-95% of Catholics have only heard/read scripture at Mass on Sunday. And since perhaps 1-2% (a guess) attend daily Mass, they ONLY hear/read the Sunday readings. I think Catholics, that actually attend Sunday Mass, do have a good knowledge of the Gospels, but OT and Epistles – nope.
It’s accurate to say that they “hear” the readings, but otherwise they take little or no substance from them. Try conducting a poll sometime among those leaving Mass on any given Sunday morning, and ask how many recall the subject of the second reading.
Ron,
Thank you for that insight and Scriptural reference reminder!
I also thought: Jesus said, “I Am,” not I was or I will be. He abolished nothing in the Law, but foresaw…
Nothing new under the sun with this nonsense, but souls are being lost.
Romans 1 also went on to include (20-31): “They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ”
They are gossips!
But then in Romans 2, Paul wrote: “2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”
So the message is…. DON’T JUDGE OTHERS! Because you too do the same thing and are in need of repentance as well.
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Jesus Christ, Luke 12:57
Failing to discern the difference between judging the behavior of others, a duty we are compelled to engage in as Christ exhorts, and judging their souls, a duty which belongs to Almighty God alone, is but another example of the exercise of poor judgment by those who adhere to the gospel of moral relativism.
If heterosexual couples were called to account on fornication/contraception/sodomy/abortion/IVF, the other would be minimized.
I don’t see that happening any time soon.
“the entire LGBTQ movement is a counter religion, which accounts for why it is held with a deep religious fervor and why it is always accompanied by a deep loathing for the traditional Christian construal of the sacramental anthropology of the sex act.”
Dr Chapp nails the heart of this problem in noting that the counter religion pits natural law against human proclivities as though they are enemies, when rather the former is the lens through which the latter is understood. Natural law was initial rejected so that contraception might be acceptable, and the current whirlwind of depravity is simply downstream of that: the joy of sex in sterile and uncommitted unions.
In order to be effective counter witnesses, the Church must be fervent in her insistence on chastity in all of her members. This means to find ways to “accompany” the flock in rejecting every temptation to abuse the gift of the sexual union (masterbation, pornography, promiscuity, cohabitation, second marriages without the proper foundation, and same-sex activity). To show that they all, to varying degrees, degrade the participants would go a long way to reviving the proper anthropology, as shown above, and would lessen the perception that the LGBT community has a special target on their back.
Oh, right, McElroy. Poor St. Paul and Jesus were not nearly as insightful and advanced as you are.
I can see now that the purpose of sex isn’t bringing new life into the world. It’s giving us orgasms of delight on demand.
Now, come on, do abortion.
(Emoji face palming.)
We know that vast numbers of the hierarchy and priests in the western world are practicing homosexuals. We have known this for a long time. Is it surprising that their deformed and burning consciences wish to reshape doctrine and culture to affirm themselves and let themselves off the hook? They love the world and they love power; and the enemy has convinced them that these disordered loves are actually virtuous. May we all pray for them more earnestly.
You said just what I was thinking–perhaps they want to justify their actions and still think that is going to make it right in the Catholic Church. Look in the mirror McElroy— read the bible!!!
You should write us some new scripture, McElroy. You could call it the Newer Testament.
Be sure to have “Love is love,” be a verse entirely unto itself.
And have something like, “St. Paul and Jesus weren’t as advanced and insightful as I am. Thanks be to me.”
“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.’ Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.’” (Matthew 16:21-28)
The Gospels do not tell us how the other Apostles reacted to Peter’s misguided mercy, his howler, attempting to talk Christ out of the Cross. Did this episode convince Judas to betray Jesus as a failed revolutionary messiah? Likely, the Apostles behaved like their successors toward this pontificate. Regardless, Our Lord put Peter in his place. And we can trust that Our Lord will correct the pastoral heresies of this pontificate.
Stay Catholic. Happy Lent!
Can you imagine if the good cardinal had been around when the Aztecs and Incas were practicing child sacrifice? Would that have resulted in a human nature and moral reality in which the church would’ve considered changing her moral doctrine? My goodness, abortion has proven itself to be a part of our human nature and moral reality, is the good cardinal going to suggest that the church change its teaching on abortion next? We must pray for the good Cardinals conversion.
What you say is completely true, but don’t forget that at a USCCB conference a few years ago, it was His Eminence Robert McElroy who objected to calling abortion the “pre-eminent” concern of our time. Another step on the slippery slope?
He already has. He is little different than the late Cdl. Martini.
The illuminati McElroy speaketh of social evolution, as he bends ever forward (not a “backwardist”!) to accommodate the political thrust of the homosexual agenda. But, when so-called “evolution” reverses itself within a single generation, the “limited or defective” outcome is known as a degenerate mutation, not evolution.
And, about mutation, in 1993 the mentioned Pope St. John Paul II already anticipated today’s bottom-feeder clerics, and all of “consequentialism, proportionalism, and the fundamental option”–including McElroy’s sucking up to the 1960ish Sexual Revolution….Here, three points:
FIRST, from Veritatis Splendor, in no more than one “refined” sentence: “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this encyclical and which today is being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the REAFFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF THE MORAL COMMANDMENTS [italics], particularly those which prohibit always and without exception INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS [italics]” (n. 115).
SECOND, McElroy isn’t even a well-groomed lapdog…
As Chapp notes, even the loose-lipped Cardinal Hollerich has backed down, but only halfway—since he still said that he was looking for a change of “attitude.” About such an ambiguous attitude, the real gambit now is to decouple human morality or whatever from the doctrinal Faith (which is then reaffirmed, on paper). In anticipation of this predictable novelty:
“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…!’]” (n. 56).
THIRD, about McElroy’sso-called evolution, G.K. Chesterton explains how Saint Francis did invigorate the Church but without narrowing it to an ideology.
“Every heresy [actually] has been an effort to narrow the Church [….] what heresy always does, it set the mood [attitude!] against the mind” [….] If the Franciscan movement had turned into a new religion [!], it would after all have been a narrow religion. The mood was indeed originally the good and glorious mood of the great St. Francis, but it was not the whole mind of God and even of man [….] [Of the Fraticelli:] And it is a fact that the mood itself degenerated, as the mood turned into monomania” (“St. Francis of Assisi,” Image 1957, p. 154).
Holy Mackerel, Cardinal McElroy’s red hat fails the red-face test!
Great comment. It could be argued that the Franciscan movement did become a new religion, Menno Simons was a Franciscan priest who decided he wouldn’t believe in transubstantiation any more and founded a new Protestant splinter group and I think this is the root of the Anabaptist focus on pacifism among other characteristics. I was once a Mennonite and have given some things much thought.
A “Church on the move” — but where to, exactly? Those who relish this phrase never tell us, but considering their stand on issues such as those raised in the article, I don’t think it’s anywhere I’d care to go.
There is no doubt that sodomy committed by both sexes is intriniscally evil as well as other disordered sexual acts by both parties.
True, however, In repenting, and answering God’s Call to Holiness, a same -sex sexual relationship can never be restored in Christ.
What difference homosexuality and bestiality? The snake like whispers of a McElroy are revolting in the extreme. ‘Evolution’ is a myth and an evolved human nature is laughable beyond absurdity. We have more murder, sin and corruption than any time in History. Just ask the 1 billion liquidated babies. There is no compromise with evil. Evil never stops- is never appeased. McElroy is no Prince of the Church to me / let him be anathema.
Both Fr Henri de Lubac and Fr Hans Urs von Balthasar have paved the way forward to setting boundaries for the proper means to embrace the devolopment of doctrine. For anyone that doubts the reality of this point I would suggest reading Pope Benedict XVI’s book “Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life” written as Joseph Ratzinger.
I wouldn’t worry about criticizing the bishop of San Diego, Larry. There are plenty of other bishops, a large majority I suspect, who also disagree with him. I even allow myself a few amusing moments considering how Dante might have treated him and Martin and Hollerich.
I also want to add a criticism of another bishop who mostly gets praise from conservatives – the archbishop of Los Angeles who year after year allows such talks at the “education” conference, and not always from prelates whom it might be difficult to exclude.
The Gospels contain “clobber verses” about more than one variety of sin. Everyone seems to want to protect their own preferred vice. Human nature doesn’t changed much.
It doesn’t change at all.
Good point, Mrscracker.
Please read 1 Cor 6:9,10 for this. It warns ‘them perverts’ about the coming judgements, AND covers drunkenness and reviling as being in line for the same punishments. (‘What? No reviling? Does that mean I can’t laugh along with the studio audience when the host zings a politician?’)
I wonder how many of these cardinals will come out of the closet if the church changes its teachings on homosexuality. They must be waiting with baited breath.
Thank you, Larry, for your usual spot on analysis and commentary.
It is simply mind boggling to me that the response of members of the hierarchy like McElroy and Hollerich to the recent and now almost ignored moral and financial clerical sexual abuse scandal, the root cause of which was gay clerics preying on adolescent males, is to make gay OK in all circumstances (including presumably among the clergy as long as they don’t run afoul of criminal laws).
Their views, as you point out clearly, cannot be reconciled with Sacred Scripture and the Church’s true Magisterium. We either follow their “counter religion” or the Holy Spirit.
I thank Larry Chapp for stating the truth in strong terms.
Cardinal McElroy and Cardinal Hollerich are promoting gravely evil things, that indicate that they repudiate Jesus Christ as lawmaker and judge. It is clear that they do not see Jesus as “The Authority” and “Head of the Body of Christ.”
I have a close friend who has escaped from what he has described as “the living hell” of the “G” portion of the LGBTQ+ “refined” lifestyle, now marketed so energetically by Cardinals McElroy and Hollerich, and which they obviously do in behalf of their producer and director, The Pontiff Francis.
My friend has been suffering the psychological and physical ravages of the living the G lifestyle that these 3 wayward men brazenly promote. And my friend, justifiably, declares his resentment and disgust toward the Pontiff Francis, and his like-minded clerics (etc) in The Church establishment, for throwing onto his back the spiritual cross that he now must bear, on top of all of his other suffering.
My friend says this about men like the Pontiff Francis, and Cardinal McElroy and Cardinal Hollerich etc: “It is insane for adults to teach children that it is OK for a man to inseminate another man’s intestines.”
It is insane.
And further, it reveals that these men do not have “the mind of Christ.”
These three men are repudiating Jesus Christ, and his apostles who died to proclaim Him.
These men are intent on what Fr. Robert Imbelli warned against in the apostasy in The Church (his article in the Journal Nova et Vetera, entitled “No Decapitated Body”), now openly declared by the Church hierarchs: they intend to “decapitate the Body of Christ.”
This is outright evil.
These men need to be repudiated.
In faithfulness to Jesus, I must in turn repudiate them.
McElroy simply repeats the tired stuff of 1970s revisionist theology, i.e., that “historicism” has displaced a “classicist” view of human nature, which is “changing.” No: the structures in which people act — the politico-social context — may change, but human nature is a constant. What is “defective” is not how the Church understood human nature, which is really NOT THAT COMPLEX, but the false concepts of nature under which some theologians want to operate. What is new? That man’s capacity for procreation is something some people want but can’t have (because their same-sex “unions” are sterile) while some have but don’t want (because their different sex unions have a reference to parenthood they dislike). THat’s what it comes down to, Cardinal McElroy: once upon a time, it could be assumed people given the red hat understood that.
Meanwhile, for some reason the ranks of the LGBTQ continue to multiply whilst they clearly (clarity!) do not procreate. This new phenomenon accelerated by the scandal afforded by the McElroys of the Church, whilst these fully devolved clericalists can be found “walking together” with millstones fitted to their necks.
Oh, the embarr-ass-ment that Jesus Christ was not born a fully evolved and therefore non-binary hermaphrodite.
When Catholics discover they lost their faith or discover they never had one, either can be on a subconscious, or barely aware level, their lack of honorability almost always leads them to act this out with adolescent spitefulness. We all know lay Catholics sitting on a barstool who handle this by merely expressing their secular ignorance of the faith in resentful ways, but it’s much harder for a faithless ordained man, especially a high prelate. It’s hard to just leave. Their solution is pride, to become revolutionaries, to try to tell the Church what it needs to do, even if it means telling God to mind His place with His “immutable truth” while insulting Catholics who retain the honor of God, whom they resent, especially Catholics who consider that chastity and other God given virtues, are not evil. For anyone to remain oblivious to the origins of and the massive human damage from the sex revolution is like standing in the middle of a bombed-out city, among mountains of corpses and rivers of blood, and saying war can be good, after all, there are many who enjoy it and find it fulfilling.
Unfortunately, McElroy may well have received the Red Hat precisely because of his “enlightened” understanding of traditional teaching.
Who are you [Chapp] to question the Princesses of the Church? I can say that if I agree with Prince of the Church Card McElroy’s rationale that the sexual act’s natural promiscuity [notwithstanding biology] is evidence that it doesn’t define us as male or female specified by opposite sex attraction, rather that the warranted correction of an historically outdated sexual identity belief held by the Church simply defines us as male and female persons. “In other words, the entire LGBTQ movement is a counter religion”.
Might it be too absurd within this new age Church that the King may be called the Queen? Yes. There’s a better way and it’s being developed before our bedazzled eyes. If we can teach on the one hand that transgenderism is a great danger to humanness because it destroys identity, then we may likewise teach that the concept of transgender presumes a biological identity that is itself a false premise. That sexual proclivities are typical to the person’s inherent freedom of choice whatever their biological gender. That a man or woman may raise a family and also engage in same sex as a natural expression of friendship if they or so inclined. That is the cultural scenario that already exists.
To further explain, Chapp’s description of the LGBT idea is that the sexual act isn’t specified by nature, rather it’s promiscuous, or “free floating” to use his words. Consequently, our biological specification doesn’t completely define us sexually. So a female person may call herself a man in accord with her sexual predilection for other women. “It represents a movement [without deep anthropological or theological specification] back into a form of idolatry that the Scriptures explicitly repudiate”. Although, from this writer’s perspective, representatives for change within the Church such as McElroy and Hollerich, consistent with Pope Francis don’t advocate this ideological transgenderism and its vocabulary.
What advocates Hollerich and McElroy are finessing then is not a right to call oneself a man when you’re a biological woman, rather that you have a natural right to express your sexuality apart from a Church sponsored, historical opinion proved to be outdated in lieu of [evolved] advanced knowledge. That homosexual acts and heterosexual acts do not differ in kind regardless of whether both are subject to moral law. What they are leading up to is the normalization of same sexual relationships.
As an aside, I find it terribly interesting that the same people who insist on the evolving moral sensibilities of mankind are usually the same ones who love to refer to the early Church as a model for its superior liturgical norms (even with the unenlightened ethics that informed those rites). Can’t have it both ways!
A remarkable observation Genevieve.
It is essential to safeguard the deposit of faith. But how do the doctrinal tradition and history of the church restrict the church’s ability to refine its teaching when confronted with a world where life itself is evolving in critical ways, and it is becoming clear that on some issues the understanding of human nature and moral reality upon which previous declarations of doctrine were made were in fact limited or defective?
Chapp and the increasingly beleaguered Communio types are now SHOCKED and OUTRAGED that the Concilium wing has broken ranks and more effectively uses the same arguments and methods both schools applied in their war on the traditional teaching of religious liberty, ecumenism, the liturgy ect. The same basic modus operandi applies to both: antiquarian appeals coupled with declarations of a “new context” that amazingly produces a new teaching that perfectly conforms with the current Western liberal zeitgeist. Whether it is JPII championing human rights and interreligious dialogue or Cardinal McElroy’s embracing gender ideology the same pattern plays out. What do you expect?
This is Dr. Chapp’s blind spot. He can’t explain how the Church’s teachings on ecumenism or “no salvation outside the Church” or religious liberty can be “reinterpreted” to mean essentially the opposite of what they once did, but the same cannot happen for the Church’s teaching on sexual morality.
PsuedoISE:
It is neither a persuasive nor strong form of argument to “carpet bomb” the people of the Communio movement with by lumping them together with the dissidents and apostates of Concilium. Doing so just makes it seem like your underlying points are too weak to defend, so you are left with nothing except attacking.
It is seems a fundamental mistake about the mission given to to the Church to assert that men don’t have the right of freedom in religion. That seems tantamount to “Christian-Sharia,” which profanes, distorts and disorients the Church from the commission given us by Jesus.
I can well understand opposition to Concilium ideology. Your suggestion that the people in Communio have the same “MO” seems just a reckless comment.
Heretics beget heretics!
Excellent article Mr. Chapp.
The musings by McElroy and Hollerich border on the demonic. One wonders how they ever came to be in high places in the church. Oh, Pope Francis, I forgot.
We all see through their jibber jabber. Essentially, they would be quite pleased to completely destroy the Catholic faith. They are not stupid men. They know their positions undermine EVERYTHING about the faith, and reduce sacred scripture to the status of a “to be forgotten” set of ramblings by some ancient, long dead culture. Such men simply do not believe in God, or the Church.
Also as to modern “science”: If you look at any of the “modern science” about homosexuality, you will find that almost all of it is done by professors and scientists who are themselves homosexuals. They only advance in their careers if they justify and normalize homosexuality. The second they are remotely critical of it they are kicked out of their jobs. So the modern science is all faked, invented and constructed with one aim in mind. It is not science, it is political advocacy and it is garbage.
The filthiness of highly placed Cardinals and other Vaticanistas is shameful and degenerate. Remember when The Pillar found that many people in the current Vatican were using Grindr all day long to set up homosexual trists with people they had never met before? The level of filth in the Vatican today is overwhelming
I like Calvin Robinson’s response to this nonsense at the Oxford debate: “ People will argue, “we know more about homosexuality now than we did then” maybe so. But are you then suggesting God knew less than we do now? For either all Scripture is God-breathed, or it isn’t. Either we believe Christ, or we don’t.”
Cardinal McElroy’s assertion that the Church’s “understanding of human nature and moral reality… (is) limited or defective” is stated baldly in his address as indisputable fact. I want to thank Larry Chapp for adroitly challenging the cardinal’s claim, which should be made within the context of academic debate so that the give-and-take of immediate pushback allows an audience to appreciate the intellectual foundation — or lack thereof — of such a claim. In the postmodern era, however, actual debate is discouraged. Assertions must go unchallenged else one hasn’t really “listened.”
Let us not be deceived. This attempt to normalize mortal sin is not the doing of an isolated cardinal.
It is the objective of that entire misguided Jesuitical enterprise, the Bergoglian papacy.
Now, at least, the mask is off. The face of the Beast is now finally visible, its features writhing, its blood-stained and ravening maw snarling and snapping at souls.
The courageous Mr. Chapp is right in his description of the synodalist effort to obsolete sexual sin: “…shocking in its sweeping superficiality.”
As is the case with all progressives, the ‘Catholique’ churchmen never provide reasoned arguments for their novel ideas.
Only warmed-over truisms and bumper-sticker neologisms.
As is so often the case when progressive ideologues flaunt their novelties so openly and arrogantly, I am left appalled that they think I am so unutterably stupid that I would believe their ridiculous cant.
I am most grateful to Mr. Olson, Mr. Chapp and all of the CWR crew for keeping the spotlight on this pathetic grotesquery of a papacy and its heretical emissaries, dressed so appropriately in scarlet.
Information only….the link from New Advent goes directly to a personal gmail page and not to this story…don’t know if it’s a glitch with my account or not…
It appears to be working now. Thanks!
When one steps back and looks at the big picture after 11 years, it is apparent that legitimizing homosexual relations has been the primary goal of the Francis papacy from the beginning. The Lavender Mafia triumphed the day Benedict XVI resigned. They elected their man. He went slowly at first, as he had to make sure all the pieces were in place, which takes time.
I am having a hard time seeing how the Lavender Mafia can be stopped at this point. Too many of them have been elevated to the highest positions in the Church and even Francis now seems to believe he has reached the point where he can move more openly on the issue since most of the resistors have been sidelined, marginalized, or have died off.
Articles by Dr. Chapp and others pointing out the obvious may help us psychologically but they are not going to save the Church from being coopted by the new rainbow religion. Those cardinals and bishops who could have done something to stop it before it was too late but chose to remain silent and took no action will have much for which to answer.
Pope Benedict’s resignation will go down, at a minimum, as the greatest papal miscalculation of all time. Supposedly he thought for sure that Scola would be elected and would have the energy and determination to clean the Church curia, episcopacy and presbyterate of the filth in which it was mired. That notion seems sadly laughable from today’s vantage point. People don’t like to hear it, but Pope Benedict will have much to answer for, having ultimately “fled from the wolves,” as he acknowledged was possible from the day he was elected. I am sure he made his peace with God before he passed and I pray that he is in heaven now, but we are sure suffering with the consequences of his decision.
I’m sorry to have to agree, as I am a big fan of B16, but I do think he made a big mistake.
Nevertheless, it seems obvious after 11 years that the underlying episcopal and ecclesial establishment was and is packed to the gills with frauds, apostates and comfortable, cowardly do-nothings.
And among the frauds was Cardinal Bergoglio, who should nevertheless have been made a bishop or Cardinal by JP2.
What I wrote was “should never have been” but unfortunately, the “Auto-Unintelligence-spell-check” was programmed to override and contradict my own typing.
Sorry I missed that error…
Chris, my spellcheck always prints “autopsy” when I type “autopay”. Now, i just leave it. 😄
Doug:
I take it from reading other comments that you are not Catholic? If not, may I ask what church, if any?
Chris, I just now saw your question about my religion. I hope this reply is visible in the appropriate place on the thread.
I’m not RCC, but I was required to investigate it as a condition of marrying my first [Catholic] wife years ago. (The rules on interfaith marriages change from time to time I’m told.)
It was a bad marriage; not your church’s fault.
Had some interesting conversations with a young priest at the Newman Center across the street from Pasadena City College. Back to our story.
Some thirty years ago I became interested in the Bible when I discovered that its teachings are not at all what I was told by Amy of the mainstream churches.
Ex. ‘Good guys go to heaven. Bad guys go to Hell.’ Compare that with Ps 37:28,29 which is consistent with the first command from God to us at Gen 1:28. Isn’t that a wonderful prospect? I think so. “Good news” indeed!
I try to be evidence-based when investigating anything, including religion. That means Bible-based of course. As a result I find myself adhering to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which you may have guessed.
You can judge me by your understanding of what we believe, in which case you may not have a clear view of a comment I might make. Instead, why not judge by comparing with Scripture, which you should find cited by me. (If not, just ask.)
Thank you for asking.
Indeed. Even if BXVI had been reduced to a minimum work load, his mere continuance would have prevented the election of a successor. And he himself could have continued to appoint new men to the College of Cardinals, hopefully unlike those chosen by Francis.
McElroy’s arguments favoring LGBT can also be advanced by pedophiles: it’s just another form of loving which is for now frowned upon unjustly.
I received a link to this article through a New Advent email to my gmail address. I tried a few times to click through, and instead of getting to this article I was given a page on Google preferences. So in order to read it I went to New Advent on my browser of choice, Brave, created by Brandon Eich after he was fired from Netscape for his support of marriage. One shouldn’t have to go through all that to avoid the censorship of big tech.
When he was confronted by the accusers of the woman caught in adultery, he eventually told the women ” Go and sin no more”. SIN. Get it? He didn’t say “whatever”. He didn’;t say ” different stokes for different folks”. He didn’t say “don’t worry about it, just love the one you’re with”. He called simple male/female unmarried sex a sin. What then do we then imagine He would say about male/male sex or female/female sex? Its a good bet he would condemn it. Frances and his cohort can continue to try to spread the tyranny of “nice”. For many Catholics their arguments will never fly.
Cardinal McElroy appears full of damnable pride. Unnatural sexual abandon is devoid of love, and it devolves into an abject implosion of the soul and body.
He claims that LGBGTQ Catholics have been excluded …
There is no such category of persons. In terms of human anthropology, there are Catholic men and there are Catholic women. To anssert otherwise, as McElroy does, is to lisp heresy.
To add more to what Mr. Chapp has gifted us would be to gild the lily. For my part I would only magnify his critique and I am afraid it would be found unpublished. Recently I read McElroy is considered the “intellect” in the American episcopate.
Does that not say everything?
It is not merely our mitered compatriots, but our global episcopate which finds itself on the most dangerous ground.
We are as sheep without temporal shepherds, for the “shepherds” have tossed their compass — Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.
Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever.
How this man was given a Cardinal’s hat is beyond me, much like so many others from our Pope who IMO was not led by the Holy Spirit but rather, an attempt to create a Catholic Church that changes doctrine to meet secular society morality. Sad, prayers for he and all of them who are failing the body of Christ daily.
The behavior of the modernist wing of the Church illustrates the reason why God and the Virgin Mary seek out the simple and the lowly to give messages to. They are the ones most likely to faithfully perform their missions, and avoid corrupting the messages with their own spin or personal agendas. I doubt that God could get a word in edgewise with modernists. They would be too busy delivering their monologues to give Him any kind of hearing.
Do the People of God have a right to know if Cardinal McElroy struggles with SSA? Hear me out.
If hierarchs like McElroy, Hollerich, and Bergoglio are regularly tampering with orthodox Catholic teaching regarding the disordered nature of homosexuality, couldn’t we suspect that such thinking might have some connection with their own personal interior moral struggles? Doesn’t it stand to reason that a cleric who’s found to be stealing from the Church coffers might turn aside from chastising the sheep who violate the 7th Commandment? Do the Faithful in Ireland have a right to know that their bishop is using church funds to support a child he fathered and the child’s mother living in Ridgefield CT? Do the Faithful have a right to know that their pastor in the Bronx is stealing money from church funds to pay for a beach condo in NJ that he uses to frolic with his homosexual boyfriend and to procure drugs?
So, I ask again: do the people of God have a right to know when their shepherds are struggling with particular vices because those struggles potentually impair their ability to teach the Catholic faith as Tradition and Scripture dictate?
Yes, people absolutely have a right to know. I would add James Martin to the list, although that’s kind of obvious.
Deacon Edward,
Agree with your point that the views of these prelates may be affected by their own personal issues. But my concern is with prelates who don’t really struggle with this personal issue but rather have embraced it and seek to normalize it within the Church. I don’t believe that Cardinal McCarrick and Msgr Burrill were outliers or exceptions within the hierarchy. They were just the ones who got publicly exposed.
I agree: we must identify the outliers on the issue of homosexuality even if they themselves do not struggle with SSA. Still, the question must be asked of ALL who do: “Do YOU struggle with SSA? We, the Church, need to know.”
Everyone is well aware that the interest in SSA has been amplified not by any pastoral concern, but by a political/cultural movement. Its goal, the repudiation of the moral code, to place the condition in the face of the populace, to wreck personal revenge for perceived injustices. I recall well the chant to be heard in Manhattan at the end of every June during the SSA celebration, “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.” The anger, the rage, palatable. It is not some altruistic impulse that this condition is not the interminable topic of conversation in the ecclesial sphere. The boys have an agenda. It is dishonest, manipulative and exercised with a degree of subterfuge and mendacity that marks it for what it is.
Bad, very bad.
No one is being helped by this — least of all those who carry the cross of same-sex attraction.
It’s almost as if there’s a simple reason why moral theology seems to have been undersold with strategic silences, in the seminaries for so many decades. And, why clerics with the involved moral challenges are no longer permitted to teach theology in seminaries. And, why prospective seminarians are screened.
But it’ll take a while to rinse out the higher/hierarchical front offices.
In the meantime, the African bishops are quarantined and patted on the head as an “exceptional case.” Along with Kazakhstan, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Peru, and parts of Argentina, France and Spain….And now the Eastern Orthodox Churches–this new twist while the “synodal” format was largely intended to advance interreligious unity!
All this at the price of a “couple” of predictable and overly-clever word choices in the monologue from the DDF. And, now, Cardinal McElroy is still lip-syncing what Cardinal Hollerich already said a few years back and then retracted, sort of.
Something about reading the goat entrails of “sociological and cultural evolution.”
Now they’re giving us strategic sciences!
And require us to be docile not faithful.
The Church does not have an official “list’ of exclusion. If conversion & redemption from living in sin is exclusionary, then these progressives must do away with sin. If sin is done away with then Christ’s immaculate conception. birth, teachings, ordaining the apostles, torture, death & resurrection were for nought.
Well… not quite true… there are plenty of canonical crimes which warrant excommunication. That’s a list of that sort, in a way.
As for the sin in question… one might give Lateran III a read. Canon 11… Sure, it was abrogated, but it is right there in our tradition. Worth a thought.
Chapp got it from the gate, THE redefine what is now realized as “in fact limited or defective”.
The “now realized” is a double lie; since 1. the very issue is long addressed by the Church and 2. the limited and the defective is in the sin to be detected.
Resisting it is called obstinacy but Pope Francis insists that the real problem is a rigidity from being doctrinaire. This is a false connection. Doctrinaire is a problem but it does not make the doctrine limited and/or defective. He is setting up a guard of the double lie using a sham as a shield.
Further, doctrinaire by Person X does not make doctrine by Person Y doctrinaire; neither does it make Person Y doctrinaire or Person Z.
Chapp points out the religiosity of the wrong-headed wrong-hearted fervour. There is no necessary religiosity by people who just want to find the true faith.
But again there is nothing truly new here. The new thing is the Modernist angling. Even the public ganging up in the name of the Church by its hierarchy is not new.
Which brings me to my contribution. The Book of Tobit instructs what we need to know about purity and marriage. God is telling us the necessary things and at the same time showing us how HE does that and what we must set upon with singularity. Pope Francis and team are at odds with God.
Emphasizing, alongside Fr. Morello’s highlights, the question of “fervour”: these so-called “new” ideas are THEMSELVES getting set up (or, “are THEMSELVES set up”) as doctrinaire. I am not speaking “theoretically”, there is on-going adherence in the different fields of action where it can be very closed out so that you can only guess at what is coming to pass. It’s a breakdown in sincerity and true participation.
https://newdailycompass.com/en/vatican-revolution-yes-to-euthanasia-and-artificial-insemination?fbclid=IwAR10v52a_hsD74DVJrsCVMZXpvlDcyR7AVvbLW2_DGs9j7O0-kRVQXYYSVU
One of the mysteries of Fr. Malachi Martin’s “Windswept House” is called the “Prevailing Time”. Even after multiple readings, there’s no clear definition of what that term means and why it seems to be the answer to many of the things that you have spoken of this morning.
Two of the main characters, Fr. Slattery and Fr. Gladstone, are clandestinely commissioned by ‘the’ main character, the Slavic Pope, to investigate the prevalence of homosexuality and satanism in the clergy and hierarchy of the Church. The results of their investigation by just a few examples given in the book indicate that both of these, homosexuality and satanism, were rampant in the Church.
The book, “AA1025”, gives us a huge clue as to how that occurred; but it does not explain why in “Windswept House” there was still a great sense of urgency on getting things done in the “Prevailing Time”. Slattery and Gladstone’s investigation would seem to indicate that the satanic and homosexual forces in the Church already had the situation well in hand… The satanists,homosexuals and supporters were already well advanced in destroying the foundation of the Church, if not the Faith itself.
In fact, the picture that Fr. Malachi Martin paints of the resistance forces at the Vatican indicates a relatively tiny band of loyalists who had remained true to the “Papacy” and the Faith. (Sound familiar?!)
So what is this “Prevailing Time” and the hurry, even by Francis? Why has the Sankt Gallen Mafia held Francis’ feet to the fire ever since he was elected? We have to go back to 1884 to get the true picture of why. The challenge that Pope Leo XIII overheard, the smug Lucifer challenging God with, is the answer to the question. Satan’s boast was that if God gave him enough time … 100 years … and enough power over those who would give themselves over to him, Satan, he would take His Church away from Him. 1884 plus 100 was the deal. God agreed and the clock started ticking. And thus the “Prevailing Time” was defined!
1984 was the deadline!
IS THAT THE REASON WHY POPE JOHN PAUL I HAD TO DIE? He was after all a staunch defender of the Church and the Faith. Since God, Himself, as we are told in St. Matthew 16 verse 18, had put the challenge to Lucifer that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church, the battle for our souls became for Lucifer, his “laser focus”, and that of his minions.
Can we even imagine the pressure that John Paul II was under in 1978 when he was elected Pope?… T minus 6 years! After all, Lucifer had been at work since the time of St. Matthew 16 verse 18 in this “winner-take-all” battle for souls … for all the marbles!
SATAN LOST!!
Can you imagine the frenzy that he’s in NOW to try to minimize his losses?! Apocalypse 12 verse 12 gives us an indication:
“Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down onto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.”
The “PREVAILING TIME” IS HERE!
IT’S NOW OR NEVER for Satan to get the rest of the marbles. Guess what, folks. WE are those marbles!
In 2 Peter 3 verses 11 and 12, God admonishes us through St. Peter:
(11) “Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved,” (see v 10) “what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness?
(12) “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat?”
All you have to do is a thorough reading of the Ten Commandments and then an honest look at how our generation is/is not keeping God’s Commandments and we will be able to imagine in our own lives who is ahead on the score … God or Satan. From this we can determine what our eternity, and where we’re going to spend it, looks like as of today.
2 PETER 3:14: “WHEREFORE, DEARLY BELOVED, WAITING FOR THESE THINGS, BE DILIGENT THAT YOU MAY BE FOUND BEFORE HIM UNSPOTTED AND ”’BLAMELESS”’ IN PEACE …”
We have two weeks left in Lent. we admonish you, our brothers and sisters, please make it count. Please make it the pattern for the rest of your life during this “Prevailing Time”.
Amen Brother … me thinks we are at Revelation 10 and the Mighty Evangelion (a veiled Christ) is reassuming direct authority and about to order the 7th Trumpet blast.
Great comments.
BTW, I’ve heard others speculate that the 100 years did not begin at that moment, but later — possibly the 1929 request of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart or another appearance of the BVM to Sr. Lucia of Fatima.
In 1931, Jesus said to Sister Lucy: “Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune.” This referred to Christ’s request to the French king Louis XIV to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart in 1689. Since the king did not comply, one hundred years later the French Revolution devastated France, the monarchy, and the faithful there.
God bless you & yours, and may he send the Holy Ghost to guide us into all truth, virtue, and charity.
Larry, when we see this assault on the Absolute Truth of our Catholic faith, we members of the Church Militant have to think like military leaders.
The moral high ground (Truth in Charity) is Key Terrain. Our unbeatable weapon is the New and Everlasting COVENANT, i.e., the Precious Blood that Jesus Christ shed on Calvary.
The OT Ark of the Covenant was this awesome power, and the staff that Moses held aloft on the high ground during the battle with the Amalekites shows the effect of abiding trust in God’s promises.
The standard and the banner is witnessed as one of the Seven Old Testament Names of Jehovah, Jehovah Nissi—the Lord is My Banner.
Without a Covenant Awareness Banner, we are incapable of rallying the remnant. Words are soon forgotten. Great articles like yours barely reach the masses. A banner is cut from the heart of the people and it is the animating principle (soul) for any military force engaging in mortal combat.
Emperor Constantine, St. Joan of Arc, St. John of Capistrano, Roger I of Sicily, what do they have in common….A BANNER
What don’t we have?
A BANNER
I am saddened and disgusted and confused by these people.
At the lowest point of the Arian controversy, Saint Jerome commented, “The whole world was astonished to wake up and find itself Arian.” Something similar seems to be attempted in our time. Athanasius, call your office!
The host of the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics once called this new religion “sexular paganism.”
I have not received a New Advent email since they posted a link to this article. I have filled out the subscription form twice since and clicked the link in the verification email they sent me, but it appears that I will no longer be able to get their email thanks to Google and Metro PCS. I couldn’t find a contact link on their website.
It is telling, though, that long before significant advocacy for equality for LGBTQ+ people the “New American Bible” (first published in 1970) included a footnote for each of the six alleged references to LGBTQ+ people (three in each of the new and old testaments) stating that the term “homosexual” was translated from the Greek word “catamite.” A “catamite” was a grown man who paid under age boy prostitutes for sex. Clearly, the vast majority of LBGTQ+ men and women do not fit that definition, leaving the bible wanting of any references to LGBTQ+ adults in the sort of committed, long-term relationships that are relatively common today.
Murderers are oft-times “committed” to their violent acts.
How is long term deviancy preferable to short term? And define “under age” in the ancient world.
You do know that McCarrick was an influential editor of the NAB, don’t you?
Doug, if a Catholic says it is doctrine that the Most Holy Trinity is God’s Revelation it is not inviting you to feel you got judged on the spot and got deemed unworthy forever by him or the faith.
In as much as Jehovah’s Witnesses reject Catholicism, we Catholics do not feel put down or out-judged; and telling us to judge you doesn’t do it either.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity and as I understand it, Catholicism regards their baptism as invalid. Meaning, if you wished to convert you must be baptized in the RC Church according to the Trinitarian formula. For Catholics then Jehovah’s Witnesses claim baptism but they are not baptized.
They also do not believe in hell or the immortality of the soul. They say that if you will not attain to the promised afterlife you cease to exist. If you gain it, it is not because you are inherently immortal but because God “saved” you. It puts you either right back here on earth in some enhanced earthy construct or in an enhanced spiritual modality depending on how elect you are.
Noting misunderstood there and I don’t find it unique let alone most unique. Seriously unattractive patchwork that got stitched together late in the timeline of man.
‘ Finally, Witnesses also hold that there will be a physical resurrection and a spiritual one. The 144,000—or “spirit-anointed Christians”—will be resurrected as spirits. For these chosen few, their spirit resurrection is thought to be instantaneous upon their death. Those faithful ones who are not part of the 144,000 are thought to be destined to live upon the earth in paradise forever. This group will enjoy a physical resurrection during the Millennium and are anticipated to have their personality and all their memories and completely restored.
While all Christian denominations have certain elements of their soteriology that may be unique to them, Witness teachings about salvation are perhaps the most unique and certainly the most prone to misunderstanding. ‘
https://rsc.byu.edu/life-beyond-grave/condition-dead-jehovahs-witness-soteriology
https://www.aceconcretefargo.com/best-concrete-repairs-service
Elias, thanks for your considered reply
You write, “While all Christian denominations have certain elements of their soteriology that may be unique to them, Witness teachings about salvation are perhaps the most unique and certainly the most prone to misunderstanding.”
Indeed, as you have misunderstood some of them here.
We do believe in life, and in death. Immortality, or deathlessness, is a gift from Jehovah, on his terms. Not for me to worry about for myself.
Life is what Adam and all his descendants were promised IF they obeyed their Creator’s commands. Adam disobeyed, and died.
He lived, and then he died.
Gen 3:19 “… till thou return unto the ground, for out of it thou wast taken, for dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return.” ‘Ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ is what we say, right?
He existed, then he ceased to exist.
He had no immortality.
Gen 2:7, KJV: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Man did not have a soul, he was a soul.
That is Witness teaching.
It is also biblical- scriptural- Godly teaching.
Is it open to misunderstanding? You yourself have said it. Your misunderstanding led to this:
“They also do not believe in hell … They say that if you will not attain to the promised afterlife you cease to exist. If you gain it, it is not because you are inherently immortal but because God “saved” you. It puts you either right back here on earth in some enhanced earthy construct or in an enhanced spiritual modality depending on how elect you are.”
First, “promised” is your opinion; Jehovah promised no such afterlife to disobedient ones like Adam. As we have seen. He promised life for obedience and death (non-existence) for disobedience.
Moving on.
“Hell” is an English word that did not exist on Jesus’ day. Therefore it was a construct of Jacobean or earlier times that cannot be called a translation of any Greek word of biblical times, that Jesus might have used in teaching. (Source: of England’s OED) A word he did use often was gehenna, properly Gehenna since it was a place name. I’ll leave proof of that to your own research; it will benefit you.
You’ll learn it was a real place of destruction, not torture or temporal punishment. So “hell” as you (mis)understand it is non-existent.
Time for a useful summary. “The wages of sin is death” and “the dead know nothing”. Can a corpse be tortured to any purpose? Heb 6:24; Ec 9:5,10.
We have a proverbial phrase that covers that foolishness: ‘like flogging a dead horse’.
One of my favorite quotes about Chas. Russell (the Bible student, not the 19th cent. essayist or the renowned western artist) is ‘He’s the man who put the hose on Hell’.
Well, you’ve made my day; I do enjoy language study.
BTW “soteriology” I had to look up. Turns out it means simply “salvation”, a word I did know. My advice is to eschew obfuscation. (Language joke.)
I do appreciate the temperance in your reply. Many of our outright opposers feel that sarcasm and sloppy research are appropriate responses; you did not. 😀
He’s a good guy, Moderators. Didn’t hurt my delicate feelings. 😀
“BTW “soteriology” I had to look up. Turns out it means simply “salvation”, a word I did know. My advice is to eschew obfuscation.”
Hmmmm. Of course, the term is very biblical in that soteria is a Koine Greek word, meaning “salvation” or “deliverance,” used over 40 times in the NT.
In my experience, having talked with a few Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years, substantive knowledge of NT Greek is lacking. More importantly, their constant appeal to the NT, which is a Catholic book, to attack the Catholic Church is facile and tiresome.
Says who? How do you know what same-sex couples do or don’t do in the privacy of their bedroom? A same-sex relationship is simply a relationship or friendship between 2 men or 2 women. Why aren’t you and others on this forum so concerned about fantasising about the sexual lives of unmarried heterosexual couples? – No-one knows if they are having sex or not, and it’s no-one’s business to know.
God created Life. He defines Life and sustains Life. We do not. God knows our hearts. Guard your heart,for everything you do flows from it. Come clean with Him. God is true Love in all things. The heart can love or turn inward. Life and Love are co-terminal. They go together. With your heart, will what God wills, in both soul and body. Don’t lose your Life in all its fullness with God. God enlightens and inspires towards the perfection of love, with no fallen or selfish imitations.