In the 1999 movie The Matrix, a dark and dystopian vision of the future is presented in which humanity is trapped within a virtual simulation concocted by intelligent computers. The movie, which has become a cult classic, is also famous for its invention of the terms “red pill” and “blue pill”. Anyone who takes the red pill can see beyond the simulation and recognize the ugly truth of reality and of humanity’s enslavement. Those who take the blue pill stay within the world of illusions, blissfully unaware of the truth of reality.
In common parlance, the term “red pilled” has come to mean anyone who believes they have finally seen beyond the façade of the carefully constructed narratives presented to us by those in authority, and to see the real “man behind the curtain” pulling the strings.
The blue pill illusion and crisis
I contend that this phenomenon aptly describes as well the rise of a newly awakened laity in the Church who, in the wake of the priest sex abuse crisis and its various episcopal coverups, have been red-pilled into the clear-eyed realization that the Catholicism they had been taught and formed within was a blue pill illusion.
The “establishment Catholicism” of the past centuries fomented the notion that our episcopal shepherds were almost always conscientious stewards who had the best interests of the laity at heart and who, despite inevitable human mistakes here and there, were truly committed to the Gospel and its moral and spiritual truths. However, as it turns out, this “Bing Crosby Catholicism” of the “father knows best” variety was in many ways a simulated fantasy having little bearing on reality.
To be sure, there were then, as there are now, many fine episcopal shepherds in the Church. I know several, and so I do not want to exaggerate here. But that is, I think, irrelevant to the fact that there was a deep rot within the Church that was carefully hidden away until it exploded in 2002 like a Coldplay kiss cam.
The laity were never the same after that. Only a super-pious few could continue to cling to the blue pill illusion that the vast majority of our Church leaders were worthy of a presumptive level of trust. And this is no mere overreaction of a sensitive laity led by the nose by anti-Catholic media propaganda. That is an insult and implies an ongoing infantilization of the laity as just so many untutored rubes in matters of the faith. The crisis was a real one and was a direct result of episcopal malfeasance, the sin of covering up the molestation of our children by some of our priests and bishops, and thus enabling those clerics to do it again and again and again.
Religious submission in covenantal context
The spell of the simulation of establishment Catholicism was thus broken, and a red-pilled laity demanded accountability. But more than that, it opened up the question of just how far the laity can go in criticizing the Church’s bishops and even of the pope himself. For one fact is now indisputable. To wit, even if the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the hierarchy and especially the pope in their prudential decisions (and I think it does), there is no guarantee that the bishops and/or the pope will listen to and cooperate with this guidance.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Church history knows that popes and bishops have made many egregious mistakes in their prudential decisions. They have also taught some questionable things. Therefore, we should finally put to rest the sentimentalist nonsense that wraps the hierarchy (including the pope) in the glowing orb of infallibility when it comes to their prudential decisions and their low-level magisterial teachings. This is a pious mythology that harms the Church since it implies that somehow the charism of apostolic leadership is mechanically automatic in a magical way and not something grounded in the covenant theology of Revelation, wherein the Spirit guides but does not force cooperation.
In other words, it is not Catholic doctrine that bishops and popes cannot make mistakes. Or even teach something confusing and ambiguous. And that would include even big mistakes and critical ambiguities. The ancient prophets of Israel rose up to criticize their divinely appointed and anointed kings on the grounds that those monarchs had failed to cooperate with God’s loving Hesed and had replaced the covenant and its law with chariots, concubines, and mammon. God, through his prophets, thus pronounced judgment upon Israel, which usually involved a period of testing and persecution, followed by repentance and restoration.
Therefore, the teaching of Lumen Gentium 25 that the laity are to render to the bishops and the pope a “religious submission of will and intellect” needs to be placed within this context of covenant fidelity/infidelity as well. The Latin term often translated, misleadingly, as “submission” (obsequium) is better translated as “respectful deference to” the Magisterium. The Latin is subtle to be sure, and “submission” is one possible interpretation, but the English word submission conjures up images of a master/slave relationship that is out of sync with the rest of Lumen Gentium and its teachings on the empowerment of the laity in the universal call to holiness.
I hasten to offer the caveat that this does not in any way countenance dissent from authoritative magisterial doctrines in faith and morals. What I am saying is that the orientation of our minds and wills to a posture of deep faithfulness to the teachings of the Church does not mean that we are to remain silent in the face of episcopal error and sin. It implies the opposite. Just as with the ancient prophets of Israel, so too here. It was faithfulness to the covenant that impelled the prophets to commit to a critique of leadership, and not some half-baked anti-authority populism.
Papal teaching and respectful critique
For what then is the alternative? Lumen Gentium is certainly not arguing here for a reinfantilized laity that keeps its mouth shut and never criticizes a papal decision or document. This would imply the kind of “infallibility bloat” described by Msgr. Thomas Guarino in his book The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II. And please do not tell me that this is not a reality and that, therefore, the idea that all papal teachings are now immune from any kind of criticism should give us no worries. Because that would not be a Church of covenant fidelity but a Church instead of cult-like and magical notions of authority.
Further, the claim that the pope can teach non-infallibly means that he can potentially teach something that is false. We must still respect the authority of non-infallible teachings since the presumption of truth must always come first. Especially since such errors are rare and often the result of misunderstandings. But it highlights the fact that since a pope can teach fallibly, such teachings should be open to respectful scrutiny. To say otherwise is to imply that there is no possibility of a pope teaching an error, which is tantamount to saying that every papal teaching is infallible.
And how could that possibly be healthy for the Church? To treat the pope’s teachings as completely immune from respectful critique is to treat him as an “Oracle on the Tiber” rather than the servant and guarantor of the Church’s doctrinal patrimony. And the irony, of course, is that such a view of the pope would be heretical.
This notion of respectful critique as something healthy for the Church (and an actual act of respectful fidelity to her magisterial doctrines) becomes especially acute when a pope introduces a new teaching that seems novel. Nobody wants to see the kind of massive theological dissent from long-settled doctrines of the Church, repeated by many popes and reinforced by councils, that is born of a spirit of faithless accommodation to the Zeitgeist. That is the kind of dissent we saw immediately after Humanae Vitae was issued, with some exceptions, since some of the critiques were respectful and sought further clarification.
But when a pope teaches something that is novel and appears, by any reasonable measure, to be out of sync with what has come before, then the notion that even here no critique is possible seems to be a recipe for a papal positivism that knows no limits. And once again, a papal primacy that is immune from criticism of any kind is not an orthodox understanding of the papacy.
Clarity and confusion
In this regard, we must place the current debates about such things in their concrete context. Is it true that all dissent from papal teachings is the same? For example, is dissent from Humanae Vitae the same as dissent from Traditionis Custodes or Fiducia Supplicans? Is this a one-size-fits-all game?
In the case of Humanae Vitae, you have a papal teaching that is simply reiterating a long-established teaching of the Church, and it had the high authority of an encyclical. By contrast, Traditionis is a mere motu proprio and is largely a prudential pastoral document about certain problems with some liturgical communities and the need to regulate their access to a certain liturgy. Fiducia Supplicans is a document of the DDF that offers a fairly standard theology of blessings, but then controversially applies that theology to blessing same-sex couples, not their union as a couple. Or something like that.
Amoris Laetitia, an apostolic exhortation that has magisterial weight (I disagree with Cardinal Burke here), is a beautiful meditation on the nature of marriage and gives us some of Pope Francis’s best. But it then goes on in an obscure footnote to apparently change long-standing Church teaching on the admissibility to communion for some divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Some prelates and theologians rightly asked, respectfully, for clarification on this matter, but were given no answer beyond pointing to a statement from the Argentinian episcopal conference, which did not clarify matters at all.
My claim is that respectful dissent, as we saw from the African bishops concerning Fiducia Supplicans, and from Traditionis and Amoris from some bishops and Cardinals (including the former head of the CDF, Cardinal Mueller), legitimates respectful questioning of some aspects of those documents from faithful theologians as well.
In other words, and once again appealing to concrete context here, it is manifestly the case that the pontificate of Pope Francis represented a unique situation wherein a pope introduced doctrinal novelties which, though capable of orthodox construals, introduced certain confusions that provoked critique. And it is those confusions that red-pilled many formerly conservative Catholics and sent them off into traditionalism.
The Pope, who wanted the youth to “make a mess” had done so himself, and yet his defenders claim that any criticism of that mess constituted dissent and heresy. When Francis told the youth of Brazil to make a mess, he followed that up by saying that they should also be committed to helping clean up after the mess in solidarity with their neighbor. But Francis did not follow his own advice, and once the mess was made, he simply evaded all criticisms and refused to engage his interlocutors.
However, blue-pill Catholicism is over, and his silence in the face of criticism just fueled the animosity and anger. There is no reservoir of trust from which to draw. The commanded obedience of the laity (and lay theologians) to the hierarchy is an exaggerated and problematical assertion in direct proportion to the lack of episcopal and papal commitment to their own vocational demands as servants of the people of God—servants who should rule with wisdom, transparency, holiness, patience, and humility.
Blue-pill Catholicism is dead
Absent those qualities in the hierarchy and coupled with the various very real scandals of sexual abuse cover-up, it simply rings hollow to suddenly refer to Lumen Gentium 25 as a mandate for the laity alone to bow before authority and to keep their criticisms to themselves. For religious submission of mind and will applies to the hierarchy as well, and part of the submission must be the full acceptance of their needed obedience to the moral and spiritual demands of proper episcopal oversight.
An example of this kind of one-sided obedience that only reinforces a false notion of the relationship between the laity and the hierarchy can be seen in those professional theologians who sought to critique the pope respectfully but who were given the face palm, ignored, and shown the door. Pope Francis made a mess but wanted no part in taking ownership of it or to engage the theological interlocutors who had legitimate questions.
Pope Francis famously also called for a Church where all voices are heard. He called for a transparent and synodal church of open and honest conversation (parrhesia). Yet, the self-styled defenders of Pope Francis are out in force, accusing anyone who dares to criticize Francis of heresy and even schism. They quote Lumen Gentium 25 like a mantra meant to quash all criticisms with which they disagree. They have an enemies list of bishops, priests, and theologians whom they accuse of “dissent” from the Magisterium and of fomenting schism.
Indeed, these self-anointed gatekeepers of blue-pill Catholicism have recently gone so far as to accuse the three respected theologians fired by Archbishop Weisenburger of being heretics. But not even the Archbishop made that claim. Most likely, he just wants to move in a more liberal theological direction. But that has not stopped the “mini-me Torquemadas” from making vicious and unsubstantiated claims of heresy simply because they have a flat-footed, and quite frankly bizarre, interpretation of Lumen Gentium 25 as condemning any and all theological criticisms of a papal document. Which is a claim so silly that it would make even Torquemada blush.
Fortunately for all the rest of us, these vocal inquisitors are not the Magisterium. And I have a lot of confidence in and respect for the wisdom and prudence of Pope Leo. And it is precisely prudence and wisdom from Rome that are so sorely needed, and not the crude denunciations of good and faithful theologians who have asked legitimate questions and raised cogent criticisms. We certainly do not want or need an infantilized laity who must continue to endure episcopal stonewalling on the issue of clerical sexual abuse, and whose legitimate desire for a transcendent and reverent liturgy is respected, be that the traditonal Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo.
Blue-pill Catholicism is dead. And may it stay dead.
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 bitter red pill reality of the Franciscus pontificate might take several generations to correct. In the meantime, we get lesser men, like the new Archbishop of Detroit trying to do the bouncer thing. It’s a serious matter, and yet, his actions are so sophomoric that they remind me of a scene in another movie 🐛🐜
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwEuCxOT2O0
I don’t think any reasonably-informed Catholic would doubt the assertion that we have had a seriously wounded presbyteral state for the past 60+ years (which is not to say that the laity have any less egregiously wounded). And we know for a fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of our episcopoi come from the clerical branch of the presbytery where the wounds are most pronounced. It would seem prudent, then, that our bishops for the next 150 years be chosen from among presbyters in religious orders where obedience and living a comnunity life is the daily norm. It’s not to say that presbyters in religious orders are and have been immune from the woundedness to which I refer. That would be nonsensical. But, in order to begin afresh, we need to look elsewhere in the Church for bishops to take leadership roles in the Church.
It’s clear to me that the Church needs a different strategy for choosing bishops. Why? Because the well of trust and filial respect of laity for bishops is indeed very shallow. For many of us, we are indeed like sheep without shepherds. That just will not work because sheep left unattended has predictable consequences. And, God know, taking the crook and banging the sheep on their heads doesn’t result in sheep who follow but in sheep who stand dazed and confused and so stunned that they freeze in place.
It’s hard to disagree with this in principle.
There are no amendments to the Gospels.
“What is truth?”
Pontius Pilate
I am a recent convert to Catholicism, having been received into the Church at Easter 2022 at the age of 69. (I had been a lukewarm Protestant, never satisfied with what I knew was not the “true” Church somewhere deep down, but that is another story.) I am dismayed that Dr. Chapp felt it necessary to write about the clergy abuse. Yes, it was a horrific time in our past. But, hopefully, and prayerfully, it is in our Church’s history. I could not have committed to and joined our Church if I did not believe in the significant changes made within the Church. It is not necessary to constantly pick at the sore: it only reopens the wound and refuses to let it heal. Dr. Chapp knows this, and I must question his motives in writing this piece. We should rejoice: we have a new Pope, one who is joyful and leads with love, kindness, and a spirit of hope for the future. I choose to focus on Pope Leo XIV and his message for the future of our Church, not on the past. May we all live in love and harmony in the spirit of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen!
I do think, though, that the bulk of this essay was simply a build-up to the story of the three fired Detroit theologians. The new archbishop is simply wrong and doesn’t deserve any deference on this matter. It is a new open sore that in terms of episcopal errors looks like past sores. And calling the critics of the theologians ‘blue-pilled’ is an understatement, given Dr. Chapp’s analysis of Lumen Gentium.
“I could not have committed to and joined our Church if I did not believe in the significant changes made within the Church.”
I think we are seeing significant changes in the making, and the ‘red-pilling’ is part of it. Pray that Leo will fulfill the hopes we have for him. Pray that we all remain faithful to the Gospel.
I think he was just pointing out that many members of the Church no longer trust the hierarchy because of the scandals.
I am a nurse, and I will tell you that wounds that are not debrided, cleansed, and allowed to heal from the inside out do not seem to do well. “Blue pill Catholicism” is an infected cyst that has no hope of healing unless it is lanced and drained. Thank you for a brilliant article Dr. Chapp. The past twelve years have been rough for me and you, in many ways, have been a beacon of hope. Thank you sir.
Rebecca, I gather that you or no one close to you was the sexual object of predatory clergy. If so, we rejoice. But you should know that many of us have been living with this wound inflicted on the Church and its cover-up for a very long time. I don’t know if you’ve had suffering of any kind in your life. But, if so, the last thing you’d want someone to say is “Just move on.”
Rebecca, Happy you have joined the Church! I too would like to put this sordid chapter behind us, but the church operates on time frames expressed in decades and centuries, not months or years. We really can’t close this chapter until most/all the priests, bishops, and cardinals complicit in this crisis have retired, died, publicly repented, or laicized. At age 70, I hope I live long enough to see that day.
To tell the truth, I am not aware of the self-styled defenders of Pope Francis who are out in force quoting Lumen Gentium 25 as a mantra.
(hadn’t heard of L.G. 25, so figure that is a particular verse).
I tend to see Bps. Weisenburger and Martin as the last gasp of “the spirit of VII”, the same as Pope Francis and his diehard defenders.
Bravo!
The principle that this article articulates is indisputable, but the problem with the anti Francis contingent is that they are coming from the “blue zone”. Francis is thoroughly red pilled, but our traditionalist brothers and sisters are not, but continue to peddle the blue pill, as you describe it here. The three professors of Sacred Heart are not heretics per se, but they are stuck within a certain ideological “blue bubble” and they are influencing young impressionable seminarians, so many of whom peddle the blue prescription as they wear their cassocks and berettas and answer all our questions with clarity and precision and for whom liturgy is everything. I can understand why some argue that the three are heretical, but it is more likely the three are just so stuck in their own way of seeing things that anything outside of that framework is labelled heterodox and confusing. Hence, their anti Francis rhetoric.
I don’t agree with the argument that “Blue Pill Catholicism” is dead or even on its last legs. A lot of conservatives underestimate the vitality of liberal Catholicism. I have heard similar rhetoric for the past 25 years and yet in 2013 we saw the emergence of an assertive form of liberal Catholicism which successfully remade a lot of the Church’s public image.
It’s also curious that Dr. Chapp mentions the abuse scandal of 2002 but only puts the blame on unnamed bishops. No mention of the reigning pontiff of 2002 who appointed almost all of those bishops including some real doozies like Theodore Mccarick. Chapp does call out the marginalized Cardinal Burke in this piece though. So we know is he capable of naming names when he wants to.
You’re actually describing a progressive mindset here, not a traditional one. Progressive ideology is not Christianity.
Thomas James: Are you so thoroughly familiar with the writing, teaching, lecturing and thinking of all three theologians and their views that you feel so comfortable making your assertions about them?
Mr. Chapp says, “And I have a lot of confidence in and respect for the wisdom and prudence of Pope Leo.” So far it seems to me that we have heard what I would call typical routine papal statements i.e. We want all wars to end, end arms sales, pray for this, pray for that, all given in a pleasant manor. What I haven’t seen is actions. Pope Francis advocated making a mess, and he did. That being the case I would look to Pope Leo to start cleaning it up. I haven’t seen any evidence of that so far. For those who say he has only been pope for almost three months, I would say that Trump took many actions in his first three months. Actions speak louder than words.
Other than that, a typical good article by Mr. Chapp.
“About the three firings, “shut up,” he explained.
Thomas James above (6:52) – Maybe it’s me but I’m afraid I don’t “get” your comment.
Well, then I will try to explain myself more clearly. Note the first paragraph: “I contend that this phenomenon aptly describes as well the rise of a newly awakened laity in the Church who, in the wake of the priest sex abuse crisis and its various episcopal coverups, have been red-pilled into the clear-eyed realization that the Catholicism they had been taught and formed within was a blue pill illusion. The “establishment Catholicism” of the past centuries fomented the notion that our episcopal shepherds were almost always conscientious stewards who had the best interests of the laity at heart and who, despite inevitable human mistakes here and there, were truly committed to the Gospel and its moral and spiritual truths. However, as it turns out, this “Bing Crosby Catholicism” of the “father knows best” variety was in many ways a simulated fantasy having little bearing on reality.”
This is a great paragraph, and it is so true. I could talk about our own local bishop, or our own Chancery office, our own pastors in my parish for the past 20 years, but I won’t, except to say that it has been an unbelievable display of administrative incompetence, selfishness, laziness, and pastoral indifference. I’ll keep it general, but without any doubt in my mind, the faithful are not first. Protecting clergy, especially clergy friends (suck ups), is the top priority. Exotic vacations, great cooks, renovations of the rectory, elaborate vestments, altar candles, that’s priority. One lady above commented that clerical sex abuse is in the past. No it isn’t. I know a priest whose job it is to receive complaints about priests that are of a sexual nature. You’d think it was twiddling his thumbs, bored to death. No, he’s very busy. There is no doubt in my mind that when the bishops are gathered for an ecumenical council to discuss matters of faith, the Church will be protected from serious error, but this pertains to statements of faith that have a bearing on our salvation. Outside of that, I’m sorry, but you’d have to be completely and utterly “blue pilled” (as it has been employed in Chapp’s article), living in la la land, to think that every magisterial statement or every word from the mouth of a pope or every administrative decision coming out of Rome was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. How infallibility works is very hard to determine, but there is no doubt in my mind that the way we were made to believe how it works is utter and complete nonsense, rooted in the age-old need to control. The more you study Church history through a very honest and non-triumphalistic historian, the more obvious that becomes. The humanness of the Church is very real. Ask any lay person who works at a Chancery office and they’ll tell you.
So the principle that Chapp puts forth here is indisputable. He complains, however, that certain people are appealing to LG 25 against those who question Francis and the direction of his papacy. I believe I know who he’s referring to, and I am in agreement, even though the person I think he’s referring to is a brilliant man and who understands the problem. It’s just that this person has probably gone a bit overboard, arguing that the three amigos in Detroit are heretics. They’re not heretics. But, I don’t think they understand Francis’ vision, and I don’t buy their criticisms of Francis. And they would challenge me to explain my position, which is a good thing. Whether taking up the challenge would do any good, I highly doubt it. In any case, what I am saying here is that many traditionalists would take issue with Chapp’s description of the “blue pilled”. And not everyone who has questions about Francis’ papacy or his writings can be slotted in the category of “blue pilled”, but the vast majority can be. Francis had a great deal of pastoral experience, and experience provides us with information that one just cannot get from academics, from theological discourse that takes place on a relatively general level. I don’t think Larry Chapp is blue pilled, and he does have legitimate questions regarding a number of things Francis has said and done. Great. But I don’t think he understands Francis precisely because he’s primarily an academic, not a pastor, and as I said, pastoral experience brings with it a world of information and an understanding of factors that allow one to see the inadequacies and deficiencies of neat and tidy solutions. It’s very hard to convince an academic of this. I’ve tried. It’s very frustrating. But I think the majority of the congregation get it. So many of them are married, have lived in the real world, have had to earn their keep as opposed to having everything handed to them, they’ve had to save, pay bills, deal with job loss and the anxieties such situations bring, they’ve raised kids and have had to deal with those difficulties, have had to make great sacrifices for their families, they’ve encountered unexpected set backs and difficulties, and many of the newly ordained (not all) have had 8 years of seminary, paid for, every day fed nice meals, never had to worry about bill payments, etc., and after ordination are sent to a nice renovated rectory, meals, paid retreats yearly, are about as busy as a semi-retired layman (there are exceptions), and many of them walk with an air of “father knows best” and we have all the answers, and the laity are there to pay, pray, and obey. This is generally the case–I say generally. I’m not sure if I’ve explained myself any better.
I agree that there is no store of trust left for the Church hierarchy, and that there is no reasonable or justifiable reason to expect it.
My assumption is that none deserve to be trusted until they prove themselves trustworthy.
That includes the current Pontiff, Leo XIV.
If he does justice to Libero Milone in the financial frauds of the Secretariat of State matter, and brings Rupnik to justice in the sex abuse case and other such, and restores the TLM to priests and faithful who so desire, gets rid of the psycho-sexually disoriented Cardinal Fernandez, among others, and openly supports good shepherds among Bishops and priests persecuted under the Francis-regime-cult, he will show by his actions that he is a good shepherd.
If not, it’s just the Francis-NGO-cult 2.0.
That’s all it comes down to.
Chris in Maryland: You took the words right out of my mouth!
I think a lot of Pope Francis’ defenders are not even Catholic, or at best, non-practicing Catholics or Catholics who don’t know (or don’t accept) what Holy Mother Church teaches.
And I think we hear more from his defenders because so many of them are on TV or the radio or the evening news or in multiple online platforms, while many of us don’t bother to listen to any secular newscasts (I do!), and have never been on social media and limit our online communications to emails with family, friends, business dealings, and a few religious forums like this one.
Another reason why we hear more from his defenders is that faithful Christians know that disparaging people, even when those people may be “in the wrong”, is not very “Christian” and actually does more to tarnish and upset the work of Christians than it will to change people’s minds who have already become convinced that their own ways are “good.”
And it’s just not “our place” to criticize the POPE, who was appointed by a group of holy men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit! (There are places in the Bible that appear to denounce the practice of maligning the clergy, and sadly, in the past, in Protestant churches, these passages have been used to justify not reporting various offenders, including sex offenders).
It is really sad when sinners (like me!) cling to the idea that they are not sinning. I do this to a certain extent with my struggles with overeating (gluttony)–I keep telling myself that it’s OK to have a little treat once in a while–and then I devour a large DQ Blizzard on a day when I’ve already had too many “little treats.” (I am currently working with a good counselor to help me overcome this.)
Just like all of us, Pope Francis did many good things, and some kind of confusing things, and IMO a few really questionable things that have caused others to call sin “good”. But his heart was in the right place, I think.
And I often think that Pope Francis’ communications were misinterpreted by many Americans (we are not especially fluent in languages other than our own American English!) and Pope Francis was probably relying on his interpreters to “get it right”–I hope they did. But in the meantime, people heard what they wanted to hear from Pope Frances’ “mercy and acceptance messages” and were led to grab onto the (incorrect) idea that their sinful life choices are not “sin” at all.
Just for the record, as a musician, I have many gay friends who are more serious in their Christianity than I am and put me to shame with their generosity and kindness to the less-fortunate and marginalized people in this world.
The hope for all of us Christians is purgatory, where our attachment to our venial sins will be purged and we will eventually be welcomed into heaven as pure and holy. Or the ultimate hope is that while we are still alive on this earth, we will achieve sainthood (I can’t even imagine that happening to me, but I keep working on it with God’s help!).
“Just for the record, as a musician, I have many gay friends who are more serious in their Christianity than I am and put me to shame.”
Just for the record, one cannot be living an actively gay lifestyle and be “seriously” living the Christian life. Appearances aside, those are incompatible.
Thank you for the excellent article. The greatest test for those who teach absolute acceptance of everything a Pope says is Humanae Vitae. Ask them if they dissented from it’s teaching re the immorality of artificial birth control? The Pope is not an oracle of God as Mormons consider the President of their church…the prophet, seer and revelator.
Martin: You’re raising a very interesting point. When the Bergoglian Apologists rush to defend Francis for so much of what he said and did and admonish us for chastising a Pope, all we need to do is ask them whether they have ever criticized Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae and whethet they disregarded its teaching. The silence should be deafening.
A tenable position presented by Chapp offering valid reasons to dissent from Amoris. I wish to offer a different perspective on the same conclusion that focuses on the validity of Vat Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin’s dictum that the entry of the Argentine bishops letter of enquiry, whether their interpretation was correct, and Pope Francis’ letter in response saying “There’s no other interpretation” – that the said letters entry in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis made the ‘doctrine’ alluded to binding magisterial doctrine.
Dr Edward Peters said at the time he questioned the validity of this becoming binding doctrine when all we have from the Pontiff are the words to the effect, “There is no other interpretive conclusion”. Peters asked, What does that mean? Suggesting what do the Pope’s words state with exactitude what we should be bound to regard interpretation?
Peter’s argument refutes the presupposition that the Pope’s words, not anyone else’s opinion, do not possess any form of definitive teaching. From this writer’s perspective that is irrefutable. To take an example if one wished to argue that the Argentinian position is that a priest, after due discernment may offer the Eucharist to a divorced and remarried [outside of Church sanction] Catholic couple. A key component to this formula is what level or form of discernment suffices for such a judgment? How can it be compared for validity with the judgments for or against by other priests? Does it become a matter of feeling?
Amoris Laetitia is beautiful on the surface. Beneath it has the air of morbidity. That it approaches marriage as burdensome, something ideal and unreachable. Rather than a reality man and woman must live and fight to make it a beautiful truth strengthened by grace.
Larry Chapp does address the point I make, that “Some prelates and theologians rightly asked, respectfully, for clarification on this matter, but were given no answer beyond pointing to a statement from the Argentinian episcopal conference, which did not clarify matters at all. My claim is that respectful dissent, as we saw from the African bishops concerning Fiducia Supplicans legitimates respectful questioning” (precis of paragraph).
The major premise in this is that mistakes can be and are made by hierarchy and that we may rightfully dissent – although while doing so remain faithfully in unison with the revelation of Christ and the institution of the Church. It’s in misunderstanding this major premise that many Catholics gravitate to opposing extremes.
From what I can tell, people who think Pope Francis was wonderful get their information from the secular media. This includes many Catholics.
I’m sorry, I only could read to the part where you write…
“Only a super-pious few could continue to cling to the blue pill illusion that the VAST majority of our Church leaders were worthy of a presumptive level of trust.”
I capitalized “Vast”.
So essentially you’re saying that the vast majority of our leaders are NOT worthy of a presumptive level of trust.
On want Valid premise can you make such an old statement on so many people that have not had any allegations against them.
I’m a retired cop work, unfortunately, had the bad experience of working with a couple of bad apples.
Now, due to the media, many people hate cops and think that the VAST majority are bad.
I see the same ignorant thought process here.
I meant BOLD statement.