Denver, Colo., Apr 17, 2020 / 05:12 pm (CNA).- It has been one month since most schools across the US closed their doors due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The solution to shuttered schools may seem simple, on the surface: move curriculum and teachers online. Teach classes on Zoom videos, assign and receive homework through Google Classroom, and send communications and grades via email or an online school portal.
But what happens when students, sent home to learn from their bedrooms or kitchen tables, do not have access to the internet at their house? Or when the whole family is studying or working from home, and the one computer in the household is needed by several people at once?
These are the questions Catholic schools have grappled with after the coronavirus forced the shutdown of schools across the nation, many of them for the rest of the school year.
The Archdiocese of Denver made the decision to close its schools on the night of Thursday, March 12. The following Friday had already been a planned day off for students and a working day for teachers, which was to the schools’ advantage as they figured out how to shift completely to distance learning.
“All Thursday night we figured out, okay, what would have to be true to make distance learning successful in the next two weeks?” Abriana Chilelli, director of curriculum and instruction in the Denver archdiocese, told CNA.
“Certainly, technology rose to the top, but also that children had internet access, that schools were able to get devices out to students. So we put together a think sheet, if you will, about a school’s capability of distance learning,” she said.
Originally, Chilelli said, the Catholic school system was planning for a two-week closure, but with some thought that it could be extended in a more long-term way.
During those two weeks, Chilelli said, some teachers “chose the paper-based route,” sending home packets with two weeks worth of materials with students.
During those initial two weeks, schools worked to get in touch with every family to evaluate their technology and internet needs for a longer-term closure.
“We realized…that we were short about 500 devices for students and 50 for teachers, plus 200 hotspots,” said Carol Nesbitt, director of schools marketing and communications in the Archdiocese of Denver. Those were the numbers after the archdiocese’s schools had already lent out whatever extra laptops and devices they had on hand.
“I heard of a student up in Glenwood Springs at St. Stephen’s school. The principal said he was trying to use his mom’s burner cell phone to get his assignments,” Nesbitt told CNA.
“We’ve heard from other principals who have said that (student’s families) have five people in one house, and mom and dad are both trying to work from home and they have one computer. So the kids can’t get on their Zoom call because mom has a call with her boss and different things,” she said.
The shortage motivated the office of schools to send out two emails, asking Denver Catholics to contribute to an emergency relief fund. So far, Nesbitt said, the fund has received $220,000 in donations, “which I think is incredible.”
It’s enough to start buying more computers and distributing them to families on a lending basis, Nesbitt said.
“The first 50 came yesterday…and we delivered to three schools right away, and the rest are coming in over the next few days. And we’ll turn those around as quickly as possible,” she said. “(It’s) all hands on deck to try to deliver those, of course, using social distancing measures,” she said. Families have also been able to pick up supplies from schools.
Chilelli said she thinks when it came to setting up long-term distance learning, Catholic schools were at an advantage because of their smaller sizes.
“I’m watching these large districts that, still a month later, don’t have contact with such huge percentages of their students. So I just think it’s a huge advantage of Catholic schools that we’re smaller, we can be more nimble and we have this one-on-one relationship with all of our families,” she said.
Dr. Brooke C. Tesche is the chancellor of education for the Diocese of Allentown, which has already announced that its schools will be closed for the remainder of the school year.
Tesche said while they’ve had some students who are lacking computers or tablets on which to do their work, the Catholic school system has been working to accommodate these students any way they can. One way, she said, has been through lending out existing technology at the schools to families.
Two local internet providers are currently offering free services in order to help students continue their education, which has also helped in Allentown.
“So many families who would not have been able to connect, are able to connect,” she said.
Still, Tesche added, there are students who do not have computers on which to complete their homework. For these students, teachers are putting together paper learning packets with two weeks of materials at a time. Parents and students can either pick up their packets in person, or see the packets mailed to students.
“So it’s definitely a challenge right now, but (teachers are) responding and using I think as many options as possible to make sure that the kids continue to move forward,” she said.
Tesche emphasized that schools are moving forward in their curriculum – rather than providing students with busy work or enrichment activities, teachers are working to prepare their students to be ready for the next grade level, whether schools will resume in-person in the fall or not.
The Diocese of Allentown is also unique in that it has the only Catholic high school for students in recovery from substance addiction, Kolbe Academy.
The school is in its first full year of operation, and so while it is “unfortunate” that the coronavirus closed the school’s doors in its first year, Tesche said those students have been able to move their instruction, and their counseling and therapy, completely online.
“We just had a student this week celebrate 100 days clean and sober,” she said. “I’m really proud of that. They are doing really good work.”
Additionally, the school system has also partnered with Catholic Charities at this time in order to be able to address any mental health or social-emotional needs that families might have, Tesche said.
“We’re just dovetailing really nicely to make sure they have support of Catholic Charities,” she said.
In Ontario, the Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board said in a meeting this week that the district has been accommodating students without access to technology by providing them with weekly paper packets. Teachers have adjusted instruction so that each week is planned out in advance, and students can complete the weekly work at their own pace.
“…(the students) enjoy having the freedom to complete their work (on their own schedule)…they can do all their Monday and Tuesday work on Monday. I’ve heard nothing but good things about the work. Surprisingly, no complaints,” Anthony DeLorenzi, an H-SCDSB student representative, said during a board meeting this week, according to local news source SOOTODAY.com.
Rose Burton Spohn, H-SCDSB director of education, told the board that about 70 students in the district were lacking either computers or access to the internet, and that the packets were being delivered to students on an ongoing basis. Teachers have also made themselves available via phone calls to students who lack internet access, she said.
Catherine Thompson is the Superintendent of Catholic Schools for Diocese of Las Vegas. Thompson told CNA that while the district has had some students who lacked access to computers at home, educators were able to fill those needs with what the schools had on hand.
Thompson said that the schools prepared for the impending closures as they watched the development of the pandemic, and particularly how it was affecting some harder-hit states on the East Coast.
Part of that preparation included a couple of surveys sent to parents, asking them about their technological needs as well as what they would like to see out of the distance learning experience.
“(What) we needed to know was what type of devices would be available – iPads, tablets, are they Windows people, are they Mac people. So they provided us with that,” Thompson said.
“Then the next thing we wanted to know was their shared access amongst the entire family. Then we were looking at what is your internet access like? Was it excellent? Like would you rate it as reliable or average, it’s mostly reliable or very, very low quality or very limited? We needed to know if they had a printer, we needed to know if they had a scanner. Then we also wanted to know were they comfortable with us using things like YouTube with the children,” Thompson said.
She added that they also asked about access to non-technology materials, such as paper, pens, or markers. Another part of the preparation included training teachers as well as some parents on how to use platforms such as Zoom or Google Classroom.
Thompson said the teachers and schools also focused on how to make distance learning most effective without students having to spend every moment of their day in front of a screen.
“There are a lot of different pieces that you can do both online and offline,” she said. Some teachers have instruction time and then offline time for students to work.
Other teachers are getting creative and assigning things like “exercise or a drawing a picture or recording something, or just make a tent and go inside and read, little things that they could do both inside and outside,” she said.
Chilelli, too, added that the Denver Catholic school system has always emphasized that technology should not be used in education for its own sake.
“When we were figuring out what must be true about distance learning, we wanted to make sure that yes, it happened at home, but it was also philosophically aligned with what we believe about education and specifically Catholic education,” she said.
“We would always say that we don’t think that education should happen behind a computer screen, and that children should be engaged with texts, with great texts, they should be engaged in human interaction, and with primary documents. So we always promoted distance learning as being necessarily very simple – that it should not be just attempting to take on a technology just simply because it was out there,” she said.
Chilelli said the shift to distance learning also forced teachers to evaluate what the most essential learning standards were for each subject matter, and to focus their time and lessons on those most essential things.
“Let’s make sure that everything we’re asking students do is really worthy of their time, which we would always say, but even more importantly now,” she said.
Overall, Thompson said she’s been very impressed with the work both teachers and parents have done to make this new system work.
“I want people to know that our teachers are absolutely amazing. They are the lifeblood of our schools and they have just …the way and the manner in which they have risen to the occasion, the positive feedback that we’ve heard from our parents,” she said.
“They appreciate all the work that we’re doing on behalf of all of our students. Our schools – while our campuses are closed – our schools are very much open,” she said.
“The amazing teachers and principals, they’ve just done an amazing job working on behalf of our students. So I can’t say enough good things. I think that there will be so many more positives to come out of what’s been such a difficult situation.”
[…]
Having matriculation from the Mr McCarrick school of pink collegiate, His Eminence, McE is the last one to speak about creating an atmosphere of polarization…
Nothing says “PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY” any better than having a panel discussion on “civil discourse” involving His Eminence Cardinal McElroy, a man who asserts that he is a Christian Shepherd, and denounces all Christians who accept the teaching of Jesus and his apostles as tantamount to being “deplorables,” simply motivated by what McElroy declares to be nothing other than “animus.”
So if anyone fails to conform to the sexual revolution ideology held by His Eminence Cardinal McElroy and His Holiness Pontiff Francis, and dares instead choose to obey the Son of God, it is because such people are motivated not by devotion to Our Lord and The Truth and the well-being and salvation of others, including their own family and friends, but are simply “haters” (to quote their mutual spokesman Rev. Martin) and “backwardists” and “children” and “stupid” (to conjure just a few labels employed by the Pontiff Francis).
As to taking sides in matters where some “new-office-holding-members” of the CHURCH DIVERGE from “the mind of Christ,” a quote from one of the Pontiff’s earlier predecessors comes to mind:
“Whether it is right for us to obey men rather than obey God, you be the judge.”
Interesting “weather” we’re having, isn’t it?
It’s REMARKABLE that the very men who spent the last 10 years showing their contempt for those who would remain “united” in Christ, and reject the alternative on offered to “unite around them instead,” are now looking to the near future, and are suddenly concerned about “unity.”
What could possibly motivate such a course change? Are they looking ahead and worried they’ll be out-voted on something coming up soon?
It’s a pity that, not only do the above men fail to appreciate the divine word, but they even fail to voted appreciation for mere irony.
But Eminence McElroy does have the consolation that some of his audience reading Harvard Magazine this month will esteem him for “distancing himself” from Christ.
More dialogue? How about just stop persecuting us for wanting the Traditional Latin Mass, and leave us the hell alone? Would that work for you guys?
Tim, amen brother!
Very gutsy (or not?) to place Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy at the same table–actually two parallel and different universes, like the collision between matter and antimatter. And what do we get from this encounter? The ideological harmony of “dialogue”!
Good so far as it goes, but the missing ingredient, even more than mutual respect, is fidelity.
Barron is too bland and McElroy is too much of a company man. For both to suggest that what divides the Church today is only “ideological differences” seems an ideological attempt at some sort of middle ground.
So, yes to “civility,” and “dialogue” and “love” . . . but as the realist Fr. Werenfried van Straaten said, in reference to the mid-20th-century Vatican, and of such a dance step during the geopolitical Cold War: “No peace without justice, and (!) no justice without truth.”
Was it the clericalist balm of “fraternal collegiality” that enabled the spreading and unchecked Sexual Abuse Scandal?
More dialogue? How could there be more dialogue when, in fact, at least 70% of those who claim a Catholic identity don’t believe in Catholicism?
What about more catechesis? Accurate catechesis by faithful accurate catechists. If an exchange is required during that process well and good. What are we to “dialogue” about otherwise? Premarital intimacy? Divorce? Same-sex attraction? Abortion? Beyond accurate catechesis those issues are proper to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to spiritual direction, or simply an exchange and counsel between a parishioner and their parish priest.
What actually requires dialogue? The reality of the Incarnation? The Divinity of Christ? The nature of the Most Holy Trinity? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption? I’m unfamiliar with too many individuals, ordained or otherwise, who can plumet these Mysteries beyond what we have from the perennial Magisterium and the reflections of the saints.
Or shall we dialogue regarding the proper role of the papacy, the episcopate and the clergy class in their role to be evangelists, upholding the perennial Magisterium? Or are they to be the primary agents of the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism as they appear to regard themselves? At least the ones not hiding under their desks.
Why not just do your jobs — ecclesiastics and academic “theologians” — and otherwise be still? No one requires your sophomoric speculations. Just be and model utter fidelity to our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. We don’t require too much beyond utter fidelity, total conviction and genuine piety.
Very good, James. The only element missing is virtue—authentic virtue. Most dialogue would benefit by guardrails (also provided by the Magisterium) based on good and evil, virtue and vice, and how to imitate Christ. If Christian life were still the pursuit of holiness instead of the quest for affirmation and self-expression, the dialogue would open a world of beauty to the confused masses.
Accurate comprehensive catechesis inherently addresses the abandonment of vices and the acquisition of the virtues. The content of catechesis not directly bearing upon moral behavior in light of the Decalogue and the Beatitudes is provided to support the individual — the child, the adolescent, the adult — in conversion — in adopting a Roman Catholic perspective on human existence and its purpose. Catechesis is evangelization, it is the call to conversion and provides the rationale for such a life stance.
Both Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy, though distant on some mutual issues, have much in common insofar as intelligence and repartee. Fireworks are unexpected. Endless discussion on options is. Synodality in its ordinary table talk form is always the choice to end conflict and achieve unity when the players, at least these two know well east is east and west is west and the twain shall never meet. Not until the majority of the Church agrees on one baptism and one holy Catholic doctrine.
For that to occur at this stage of mutual polarity on the key issues, disordered sexuality, marriage and family, sin and repentance, personal sanctification v secularization there will be no peace since reconciliation is too incompatible. It cannot be done incrementally. There must be complete conversion. We’ve become two distinct churches within the Church united by name only. A reunification cannot be achieved by civil discussion as one bishop suggests. A strong willed pontiff firmly dedicated to Christ might succeed.
I wonder if Catholicism will fracture like Judaism, with Orthodox, Conservative and reform versions? Yes, we are polarized, but cracking the whip and issuance of ultimatums will not work. When you employ ultimatums, people might take you up on them. And not in the way you want. Do you really want for half the laity to walk?
Will, I think half the laity in the West have mentally walked away already. But that’s much more a First World issue. Elsewhere,the Church is growing and flourishing. And more orthodox.
If half of the laity are progressives, then yes, they should walk and not let the church door hit them on the way out. Then the church could get back to the business of being the church.
So we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Although I respect Bp Barron, I must demur when he says that theological differences in previous eras were carried on in a civil manner.
Let us consider the “dialogue” between Polycarp and Marcion: Marcion asked the bishop of Smyrna, “Do you recognize me?” Polycarp answered, “I recognize you as the first-born of Satan.”
Or, what is one to think of St Nicholas whacking Arius?
In eras when Christians took doctrine seriously, everybody didn’t always play nicely in the same sandbox.
Yo, Fr. Stravinskas, why so negative? Here, have a smiley button for your lapel!
And, more about Arius…Yes, the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) was about faithfully evaluating and then excluding (!) his contradictory ambiguity and doctrinal reductionism, not about syndodal inclusivity and forwardism…
A clarifying moment for the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea in 2025 and, likewise today, discerning truly the ambiguity of ecclesial and moral reductionism. But, who are we to judge? Or dialogue, or monologue, or whatever?
Don’t forget St. Jerome, especially to Pelagius!
Dear Fr. Stravinskas,
I agree with Bishop Barron’s desire for greater civility in theological discourse. You are correct, though, that there are many examples in Church history of uncivil theological exchanges.
The example of St. Nicholas whacking Arius at the Council of Nicaea is probably a legend as this article explains: https://aleteia.org/2021/12/06/did-st-nicholas-punch-arius-at-the-council-of-nicea/
Professor Christian D. Washburn, however, described a memorable example of uncivil discourse from the Council of Trent in his article, “Transformative Power of Grace and Condign Merit at the Council of Trent,” published in The Thomist 79 (2015), 183–184. Here’s the incident:
“From July 15th to the 23rd [1546], the council fathers discussed the issues dealing with the second and third stages of justification in eight general congregations. As they did, the theological battle among the council fathers over justification and merit became increasingly antagonistic, as illustrated in the infamous behavior of two bishops. Already in late June, Dionisio de Zanettini, known by his nickname Grechetto, the Franciscan Bishop of Chironissa, had accused the entire Augustinian Order of being infected by the teachings of Luther. Then during a speech to the general congregation of July 17th, 1546, Tommaso Sanfelice, the Bishop of La Cava, reasserted the theory of double justification and explicitly denied the value of merit. This only confirmed some of Zanettini’s suspicions about the extent of the infection. As the council fathers were preparing to leave, Zanettini insulted Sanfelice to another bishop, muttering under his breath that ‘he is either a knave or a fool.’ This sentiment was encouraged by the Bishop of Bertinoro, who added that he had often told Sanfelice that he ‘does not understand these things at all.’ Sanfelice overheard these remarks and reproached his insulter by asking, ‘What are you saying?’ Zanettini repeated his words: ‘Yes, you are either a knave or a fool.’ Sanfelice grabbed Zanettini’s beard, shaking him so violently that he was left with a handful of hair. Zanettini, unruffled by the violence done to his person, shouted, ‘I have said that the Bishop of La Cava is either a knave or a fool, and I shall prove it!’ Sanfelice had struck a bishop, a crime punishable by excommunication, and was immediately imprisoned in a local monastery.”
A colorful account of dialogue during Trent. And I think I get your surprising meaning…
Surely we are to notice how, instead of overly-demonstrative dialogue in centuries past, the equivalent today–instead of beard-pulling and imprisonment and possible excommunication–is banishment from the Vatican. As with Cardinal Burke. Or maybe Cardinal Muller when he was still Prefect for the CDF, and who was told to fire three of his best priests for no stated reason except that “I’m the Pope, I don’t need a reason.” Some dialogue! Some civility! “Backwardists” begone! As the adage goes: “Shut up, he explained!”
As you say, “there are many examples in Church history.” Thank your for this tutorial!
Well…considering some of those involved have been at the heart of spreading division and and even depend on it. How many times has McElroy demonized groups of the faithful? And America mag. routinely does the same. And the Jesuits? And Purvis is becoming a Catholic Al Sharpton, fomenting the narrative there is “systemic racism”, including in the church. (With no data to back it up with.) She basically has carved a niche for herself as self-appointed activist in this regard and it depends on furthering such narratives no matter what. It also includes now frequently inferring people who disagree with her are racist, etc. That’s not divisive right? Good luck with that! How about discussing the basics such as heterodox vs. orthodox, the most basic source of division.
I used to enjoy listening to Gloria Purvis on EWTN radio. I don’t know what happened but whatever the reason it’s a shame. She shared some really important things about her faith.
Everything isn’t about racism and “race ” isn’t even real science. But people really can treat each other differently according to our ancestry. If my ethnic make up was more apparent I don’t think I would have been hired for a single one of the jobs I’ve held. And I wouldn’t have had an opportunity to hear the sort of really distressing comments about “race” that people say when they think it’s safe to do that.
“Race” is bogus but racism is not. However it’s becoming generational. Young people care less and less about that. Thankfully.
On the contrary, I believe people of my generation care very little about race. We expect life to be a meritocracy. But the “woke” young people of today are obsessed with race and any other difference or identity they can twist into a rationalization for their failure to cope and succeed.
I see many young people today marrying folks of other ancestries and having families. No one seems to pay much mind to it except the elderly. And I live in the Deep South. Things change.
I hear what you say about Wokeness but that’s not as much a concern here and it’s seen as a separate issue I think.
I remember once while at the University I brought my composition to my teacher. My concern was a technique. She said “Anna, when you really have something to say, you will find the way how to say it – even if crudely it will be convincing”. My composition was empty and this is why it was unconvincing. I learnt that lesson and I believe it is universal. Rephrasing it, one does not need to proclaim “we need a dialogue in the Church”. It is as stupid as my composition because it has real substance. If one is desperate to discuss the matter he does, in whatever way.
I do not recall that iconoclasts (people who destroyed the holy imaged out of wrong theology) wanted to have a dialogue with those who defended the imaged. The first camp removed the icons and burnt them, the second hid them, often ricking own lives. Both caps believed they did the right thing. It took the Ecumenical Council to settle the matter via proclaiming that it is right and proper to depict Our Lord and that such images must be venerated.
From here follows that there is no such a thing as a vague “dialogue” and even worse “mutuality with synodality” (or synodality with mutuality, whatever you prefer) but the disagreements are examined in the light of truth (revelation). For example, there is no need for the opposite camps to engage in “a dialogue” about a possibility of ordination of women because we have an answer, in the revelation. There is nothing to discuss here! It is all about determining who is right and who is wrong via applying the objective measure, of the Person of Jesus Christ and the revelation.
But this is precisely what most people do not wish to do, i.e. to surrender own view to the examination against the revealed Truth. To surrender to the truth means losing all that this world esteems so highly – own “nicety” and own significance. The revealed Truth makes everyone very small and this is unbearable.
This is why when I hear the words like “we must engage in a dialogue” I feel like throwing up. For Christ’s sake, engage if you want, stop talking about that engagement.
They are now disturbed by the problem of division in the Church that they themselves created by tinkering with the perennial Teaching of the Church as well as its Tradition? These are the ones eho ought to be looking in a mirror: Bergoglio, McElroy, the USCCB, the Jesuits, America magazine, etc. Hypocrites all.
Bingo!
In my simple terms, the cultural divide is over the definitions of evil and sin, what is Right and what is wrong hence the Church must define the definition of Kingdom Building to either conform the world to God or conform their god to the World.
The TLM was and is the “loving” dialogue. Maybe some of those attending were ideologically harsh, but so what? The obvious problem for the other side of the “dialogue” is that the TLM was quietly, and one might say lovingly, taking over. The relative youth of the participants with their large families and children have been such a stark contrast with the septuagenarian-and-up attendees at the “ordinary form” masses that the handwriting was on the wall for anyone with eyes to see. Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.
What a nice, lukewarm panel. They are inadmissible. Revelation 3:16
At least the Pope still has a bit of the old bouncer: http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
A fish rots from the head…
What a boring thing to cover with a story, more bishops talking dialog. If they are talking political divisions, politics has no business being discussed, past reinforcing teachings of past 2000yrs and telling people to vote for the candidate they see as aligning closest with those teachings. And reminding them no party can be trusted to not turn on a dime for votes and power.
As for dialog with those within the Church who disagree with the same 2000yrs of constant teaching, they can dialog all they want from outside the Church until they can accept those teachings and be readmitted. Dangerous species are best studied and possibly tamed outside the home. To bring them inside has predictable results which we see in the Church today.
Dialogue. Smh.There can be no dialogue in re: chastity, sin, damnation. These things are clear and have been clear since the beginning.
The fault lies in all of us, but it is up to the bishops to teach the fullness of the faith.
They haven’t done it, not for decades.
Also, lex orandi, baby. What happened to the lex orandi? Vatican 2.
“Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.”
It all depends on the next conclave. Could be interesting!
We’ve spent 50 years in “dialogue,” which is why we are in the mess we are in: the failure to teach clearly because that’s “rigid,” so let’s fudge everything. A Francis-McElroy specialty in “discourse,” but not in practice, where it’s VERY CLEAR where they are.
Being nice is not enough to achieve unity. Being charitable is not enough to achieve unity. We can be (and hopefully are) charitable even to enemies with whom we never reconcile.
Unity comes from One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.
If you reject One Lord by allowing syncretism and Pachamamas and admitting other religions as equivalent means of pursuing God, you won’t have unity.
If you reject One Faith through heresy (a.k.a. cafeteria Catholicism), intercommunion, and ambiguous teaching on faith and morals, you won’t have unity.
If you soften the need for One Baptism by speaking and acting as though the unbaptized are as likely to be saved as those baptized Catholics seemingly in a state of grace, you won’t have unity.
If you have that framework, then all the liturgy wars and disagreements can be worked through rationally and charitably and with a lot of liberty in diversity. If we don’t agree on that framework, there is no means but force and tyranny.
Only Bishop Barron has the ears of the Gen Z Catholics and non-Catholic Christian youths, the rest of this motley crew of ex-hippies can sing “Kumbahyah” all they want but in 20 years it will be as if they never existed. The rallying song of my Gen Z kids and their peers is, “And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love”.
One of the great quips, made about “dialogue,” came from Joseph Ratzinger, in an aside to a friend when Rev. Rahner was holding court at another interminable meeting or conference:
“More monologue about dialogue.”
Newsmax tickertape reports Bergoglio says: “US Catholic conservatives “have a suicidal attitude.”
Dialogue?
With who?
The process of constant discussion on doctrine, praying for spiritual discernment, questioning perennial doctrine, never reaching a just revelation based resolution is in effect the Protestantization of the Catholic Church. Since the Roman pontiff supports this process, Synodality, bishops and cardinals are obliged to speak the truth of the faith for sake of the faithful, and press His Holiness on what’s occurred and continues to deteriorate the faith. That the Roman pontiff has with the office of the Chair the commission to defend and uphold the faith.
The choice of words needs a little correction.
When they say “polarization,” they should say “alienation.” When something is polarized, like a magnet, there is still a basis for unity and fruitful interaction.
When they say politics, they should say defined doctrine, or sacred teachings. Politicians may compromise on debatable policies. Apostles give the truth in it’s fullness.
When they say ideology, they should say the Catholic Faith.
When they insist upon civility and dialogue, I think of the example of Jesus cleansing the Temple, or the prophet Elijah meeting with the 400 prophets of Baal.
Bishop McElroy is a divisive presence in the Church because of his philosophies that are polar opposites of Church teaching.Ms Purvis show on EWTN was taken off air because of her stances on BLM.Bshp Barron is controversial in his teachings as well.They are part of the problem.
Bergoglio has striven hard to polarise the Church for political gain and to advance his Synodal Superlodge project for NWO, unhindered by Catholics.
How?
1) Bergoglio initiated the German Synodal Disaster with his C9 left-hand man Cardinal Rainbow Marx. Bergoglio is entirely responisible for millions of Germans fleeing the Rainbow Synodal Madness.
2) Bergoglio iniated a purge on Freedom to Worship for Catholics attending TLM first in China and then shortly after, the China-Deal went world-wide with Traditionis Custodes.
Bishop Daniel Flores got it wrong – he “emphasized the need to remember what Christ would do” he should have emphasized, what did Jesus teach us to do in the Gospels? Jesus is the Teacher, we are the students, it is up to us to get it right.