The public skirmish that began last month between a handful of bishops and Cardinal Cupich took a very unexpected turn yesterday, as Pope Leo weighed in, and then Senator Durbin withdrew from a lifetime achievement award offered by the Archdiocese of Chicago.
For people watching from the outside, including myself, the divisions exposed profound differences in ecclesiologies, pastoral emphases, and perhaps political dispositions. In an essay I published here at CWR last month, I argued forcefully that Cardinal Cupich was wrong in his approach.
But the cardinal’s Tuesday statement, issued after Senator Durbin withdrew, was reasonable and helpful, even if I disagree with parts of it.
Cupich focused on a call for more dialogue, among Catholics, and seemingly among bishops. I sense that most U.S. bishops are indeed open to dialogue with one another. An Oct. 1 statement from Bishop Michael Burbidge demonstrated that, taking a conciliatory and fraternal tone, even amid clear disagreement with Cardinal Cupich.
In that sense, it appears that an unexpected opportunity has developed through the messiness of the last couple of weeks.
Most bishops I know are reflexively consultative and tend to confer with broad circles of friends when they’re discerning how God calls them. There is maturity in the urge to consult in private before speaking in public—that’s what good leaders do. Because of that, I’ve spoken with numerous bishops over the past few weeks, most of whom reached out for some advice about how they might best respond to the Durbin award in Chicago, which I’ve tried to give in honesty and humility.
Here’s what I’ve observed in broad conversations with America’s episcopate.
While most bishops are open to genuine dialogue among each other, many are also angry that those bishops who lecture about polarization are often the immediate cause of it. And they are frustrated that calls for unity sometimes ignore that the source of unity is orthodox fidelity to Jesus Christ himself.
In other words, if there is a unique synodal opportunity among the bishops today, it will require openness on all sides and docility to the Holy Spirit from all parties.
The lay perception that “synodality” is sometimes a veil for predetermined outcomes is also shared among many bishops. Some of them have felt in recent years that only certain topics are open for discussion, and only certain viewpoints can be heard at the table.
Bishops will certainly talk, when they gather in November, about the rancor of the past few weeks. But some believe they can only be open and honest in side conversations among friends. They fear going unheard or marginalized if they push back against scolding about a synthetic, superficial unity that does not challenge brothers with the truth.
Bishops, like all of us, want more openness and transparency in the Church. The pontificate of Leo XIV seems to offer a fraternal context in which that can happen. And the Durbin affair might offer a start to conversations—but only if those who call most ardently for synodality are willing to embrace both parts: speaking in docility to the Holy Spirit and listening in the same spirit.
In the end, I hope that the divisions that exist among bishops and within the Church more broadly can find a path forward due to the messiness of the last two weeks. I have seen too many necessary conversations avoided due to camps circling the wagons.
Cardinal Cupich has invited dialogue. Bishop Burbidge has taken him at his word and engaged the conversation in a fruitful way. Others should do likewise.
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.
No more Synodaling about abortion. We need “action, not words.”
Let Pope Leo say before we get work: “God will ask us if we have cultivated and cared for the CHILD that he created for the benefit of all and for future generations, and if we have taken care of our brothers and sisters – what will be our answer, my dear friends?” And “We need a true PRO-LIFE conversion.” We must put “pressure on governments.” All should “address deniers” that ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN!”
Whoops. The Pope was speaking about the climate. Never mind.
That raises an interesting (currently unanswerable) question, dear GF.
Is the atmosphere passing judgment on we murderers of the most vulnerable?
Get over this one issue business, already!
Why? Too hot for you?
The screams of the dismembered murdered unborn demand the priority it most certainly deserves.
If only the bishops voices could extend this to all life.
Plus abortion will never be abolished because of the separation of church and state and the d8fferent beliefs held by differen5 people, especially among Catholics.
Brother: Is that what you plan to say to God regarding your prideful aiding and abetting indifference to the mass murder of His created babies?
And to Tondalaya Jeanne Gillespie who had no reply button. There is no constitutional mandate for a seperation of Church and State. And the moral truth of God is not subject to diverging opinions that value the mountains of infant corpses.
Respect for The Sanctity of the Life of every Human Person from the moment they are Created and brought into being at Conception is the foundational issue upon which respect for the inherent Dignity of every Human Person lies. God, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, not Caesar. Those who affirm that God, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, affirm this to be a Divine Truth that every Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith , those who deny this Divine Truth are in a state of schism:
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 751 of the Code of Canon Law states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 stipulates that the penalty for this crime is excommunication “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically upon the commission of the offense.” Furthermore, “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“).
The heteropraxy of this pontificate is more scandalous than that of Franciscus. How so? Not even Franciscus would say that the work of a “hitman” was the equivalent to that of a hangman.
Like an unwanted pregnancy, Leo threw away the “preeminent” issue of abortion into the dustbin of the Church. What he did was horribly wrong.
Why? (That a Fool needs to answer this instead of the Christ’s Vicar is outrageous!)
First, a loving person should know that abortion is the death penalty for a child.
And since Leo asked the question: No, the mistreatment of immigrants is not equivalent to the mass murder of children.
Why did Leo agree to be Pope if he cannot even teach that ending the abortion genocide is the preeminent priority of Catholics?
(Note to the 10 bishops who spoke up for the unborn. Do not feel too bad. St. Athanasius had far fewer with him when he fought the Arians 😉
Yes there is no other way of rationally reading his comments to the whole world other than his saying ignore what defenders of the unborn have to say.
Mr. Henricks states that, ” I sense that most U.S. bishops are indeed open to dialogue with one another.” I always thought that the bishops had a three fold function – to teach, to rule or govern, and to sanctify. I don’t see any obligation to dialogue.
And. what is there to dialogue about? Cardinal Cupich was going to give a lifetime achievement award to one of the most pro-abortion (pro-murder of the unborn) politicians in our country. Do the bishops really have to dialogue about this before coming to a conclusion? This has been a major scandal in the Church. At this writing there have been only Ten bishops (out of 439 in the USA) who have spoken against this.
On top of this moral outrage, it is reported today that Pope Leo XIV has supported the Cardinal in this. I won’t even comment on that today.
It seems that 10 were enough on the pile to keep the ball from flying! 🤭
About real dialogue, we read: “The pontificate of Leo XIV seems to offer a fraternal context in which that can happen.”
Yes, a restored “fraternal context,” or whatever, enabling possible dialogue. But might the Successors of the Apostles—each personally and institutionally accountable—first consider how much of our current abuse festers under the beige and pre-emptive rubric of “fraternal collegiality”? As if a common seminary preparation is something like the lifetime loyalty of a typical college frat house.
Beyond a dialogical approach to theological, moral, and ecclesiological polarization (partly code language for an infiltrated homosexual subculture?), what first about C.S Lewis’ even broader malady of carefully vetted team players: that is, “men without chests”?
And, so, at the level of Rome, awaited dicastery appointments need not be just more of the same. A false unity. How might any new USCCB fraternal dialogue arrive at such a meaningful epiphany, and perhaps a context-setting message reaching beyond the local bubble?
It might be that “learning how the Vatican works” is more the problem than the solution….So, back at the national level, how can the USCCB even pretend to penetrate global and local polarizations without first paying homage to the wise counsel and signaling of Vatican court jester, guru and gadfly Fr. James Martin, S.J.?
And they are frustrated that calls for unity sometimes ignore that the source of unity is orthodox fidelity to Jesus Christ himself (Jayd Henricks).
Otherwise conversation becomes what Alasdair MacIntyre After Virtue called “sentiment that effects adherence to rules”, the changing conceptions of rules that define justice. We have two sets of rules in our Church in respect to orthodoxy – those held by John Paul II, Benedict XVI reflecting Apostolic tradition, and those held by Francis I and successor Leo XIV, the new paradigm based on principles elaborated in Amoris Laetitia.
For those of us, including bishops in the John Paul Benedict camp the object is rightly acknowledged by Henricks as orthodox fidelity to Jesus Christ. Despite the disparity in positions this must be done. Unfortunately it really doesn’t seem feasible that this can be accomplished by reason, scriptural, and traditional evidence including ecumenical councils. There must be a change of hearts, a conversion to the truth that will require prayer, pain, and conviction qualities that seem less than fervid at this moment in our history. Although if possible it should be engaged.
Well reasoned, dear Fr Dr Peter Morello. Conversion-led conversations.
From this lowly layperson:
“A common resolve to both obey and to teach obedience to the 10 Commandments as completed by our LORD Jesus Christ -> resultng in a common infilling by The Holy Spirit of GOD -> providing a perfect unity among our hierarchs, as in The Holy Trinity of GOD -> evoking loving admiration from all of us lay.”
“O Little Infant Jesus, my only treasure, I abandon myself to Your every wish”.
Happy Feast of St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus.
The conversation among bishops needs to include discussions of what it means to be an orthodox successor of the Apostles. Begin there.
When I was engaged in government auditing, the results of my work were expressed in “findings”, which were succinct declarations about the subject of the audit-whether that be effectiveness, efficiency, conformity to some standard-etc.
The first part of a finding is the criteria, which can be summarized as “what should be”. I have precious little faith that the Cupichs and McElroys inter alia could express any statement of orthodoxy to serve as criteria-in large part because many don’t care and don’t consider it binding.
We’re still paying for the colossal stupidity of “mnusical parishes” and the decline marches on.
Thanks, dear Jayd Henricks, for this charitable Christian common-sense.
I’ll second that Dr. Rice!
There can be no authentic unity with the Francis wing of the Catholic church. It’s been tried and has failed many times. The appalling episcopal appointments of the John Paul II papacy have been mostly explained as attempts to give the modernist (use whatever term you prefer) block a seat at the table. In hindsight, it’s pretty clear how that turned out. They have never been interested in cooperation and compromise. Domination and suppression are their goals. The results were in long before March 2013. Probably, the only thing to do is wait these people out. For the most part, they’re old and certainly exhausted intellectually. It could take a long time, especially since few of Pope Leo’s are going to make any major changes for the better.
Jayd Henricks misses the point entirely by suggesting that bishops simply need more conversation or dialogue. The crisis in American Catholicism is not clerical miscommunication, it is the moral collapse of right‑wing “abortion only” single issue “pro‑life” Catholic voters who are, in truth, only “pro‑birth” or at best “anti-abortion..” They weaponize the unborn while ignoring Christ’s command to defend life from conception to natural death, from womb to tomb. Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching demand – as sharply implied by Pope Leo XIV in that interview the other day – advocacy, action, and appropriate voting that protect all human dignity, not the hollow, partisan counterfeit propped up by a white Christian nationalist worldview. A genuine consistent ethic of life embraces all the un’s: the unborn, the undocumented, the unwelcome immigrant, the uninsured, the unfed, the unhoused, the unemployed, the uneducated, the unhealed, the unprotected, the unheard, and the unjustly condemned on death row. Until bishops and faithful alike embody this full spectrum of life, instead of shrinking “pro‑life” into a partisan slogan, the seamless garment will be shredded into rags of hypocrisy.
Jayd Henricks misses the point entirely by suggesting that bishops simply need more conversation or dialogue. The crisis in American Catholicism is not clerical miscommunication, it is the moral collapse of left‑wing “abolition only” single issue. Catholic voters who are, in truth, only “pro‑abolition” or at best “anti-slavery”, weaponize slavery while ignoring Christ’s command to defend all freedoms. Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching demand – as sharply implied by Pope Leo XIV in that interview the other day – advocacy, action, and appropriate voting that protect all human dignity, not the hollow, partisan counterfeit propped up by an abolitionist Christian nationalist worldview. A genuine consistent ethic of freedom embraces every freedom. Until bishops and faithful alike embody this full spectrum of freedom, instead of shrinking “pro‑abolition” into a partisan slogan, the seamless garment will be shredded into rags of hypocrisy.
Voilà, dear Fool!
You have effectively dominated our leftwardly pretzeled Dom.
Not at all. Deacon Dom has come to CWR to taunt us pro-life types because Leo has ruled with his buddy Blaise to deemphasize the abortion issue. Now there is no difference in the Catholic Church between the teaching of Jesus Christ against the murder of the innocent in the womb and any other life issue. Vote however you want. Just keep sweet and Synodal. Etc.
After several years of his pontificate, Franciscus realized that he had to say something anti-abortion on occasion to silence his critics. Hence his outrageous statements about “hiring a hit man”, etc. He promoted and pampered those who did not care about abortion, or worse, some who even were pro-abortion. Pure Peronism.
Pope Leo went much further in his interview before his environmental boondoggle at the Castle. Deacon Dom knows that Leo killed any debate in the Church about abortion being a “preeminent” issue. Going forward, Leo has made the seamless garment of Chicago the universal position of the Catholic Church.
And so, those who believe that violation of the sixth commandment to murder millions of children each year is still of paramount importance should not look to Leo for leadership.
Pachamama is a lifeless piece of wood. Jesus Christ is Lord of Life. All shall be well. (1 Kings 18)
Sir you are wrong. I reject your a priori categories therefore I reject your conclusions.
Jayd Henricks misses the point entirely by suggesting that bishops need more conversation or dialogue. The crisis in American Catholicism is not clerical miscommunication, it is the moral collapse of right‑wing “pro‑life” single issue “abortion only” Catholic voters who are, in truth, only “pro‑birth” or “anti-abortion.” They weaponize the unborn while ignoring Christ’s command to defend the full spectrum of life from womb to tomb, from conception to natural death. As sharply implied in that interview of Pope Leo XIV the other day, Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching demand advocacy, action, and voting that protect human dignity of both the unborn and born, not the hollow, partisan counterfeit propped up by a white Christian nationalist worldview. A genuine consistent ethic of life embraces all the “un’s”: the unborn, the undocumented, the unwelcome immigrant, the uninsured, the unfed, the unhoused, the unemployed, the uneducated, the unhealed, the unprotected, the unheard, and the unjustly condemned on death row. Until bishops and faithful alike embody this full spectrum of life, instead of shrinking “pro‑life” into a partisan slogan, the seamless garment will be shredded into rags of hypocrisy.
You seem un hinged.
You need far less politics and more Reason, real Rational Thought. Less (de)formation by modern day de-educated socialists and communists, and authentic formation from Scripture, Tradition and the saints. So does everyone, most especially our bishops, priests, seminarians, and yes, our new Pope, too. You are… way, way deep in Left field, Sir…
Deacon Dom:Right on target about the moral collapse of the right- wing. I will qualify with the EXTREME right (wrong) wing!
How can something that does not exist collapse?
🗿
Repeat that.
What utter nonsense. Aside from your bigoted characterizations of “right wing” phenomena that does not exist, your clouds of hatred fail to make the intelligent distinctions that avoid treating groups of humanity as unique individuals. Can’t cover all bases of your absurdities, but when you use a euphemism like “the undocumented” to virtue signal superior compassion, you fail to deal with such things like why sex slavers are just as innocent as the young girls they drag by the hair across the American border. Why is this?
The thing that always amuses me about those that use crass, deceitful verbal engineering (that is lie, in the way the prince of lies usually goes about it, distortion) to diminish illegal entry into a country (not just the United States, but every nation -they all have requirements for authorized entry) would never countenance the intentional disregard of Title 26, i.e. the Tax Code.
They would never militate for a general amnesty for tax evaders-not even for those whose breach was unintentional-none of them would coin the phrase “undocumented taxpayers”. And this is in spite of the tax code, and associated Treasury Regulations, Revenue Rulings, Revenue Procedures, and case law is fraught with inestimable volume, complexity and change. Instead they demand every more extractions as they fetishize “the poor”.
The Catechism is very clear. The right to entry is not unlimited, it is subject to prudential decision making and capacity-and entrants are to be grateful and productive. Our capacity is gone and we see some groups attempting to exert dominion over conquered territory.
And yet the biggest proponents of immigration anarchy are usually people like bis who have precious little experience trudging off to a field, barn, lab, office, mine or mill. Most will never experience a job loss, having too much month at the end of the money or the joy of trying nurse the old jalopy through year wondering if it’s going to nickel and dime them to death, until a head gasket goes.
Instead their petty fiefdoms are financed by a government abdicating its protective responsibilities for base political and commercial interests.
“Deacon Dom” and “Br. Jacques”, to the extent that are what they say they are, are political activists masquerading as religious. Their posts to my memory have never lamented the lack of Mass attendance, the prevalence of non-marital cohabitation, respect for the Real Presence, our cultural anti-natalism or any spiritual matter, instead they are filled with contempt for political opponents.
Invariably their posts read like Antifa screeds-and in my estimate they are frauds and there’s a lot of frauds among the religious-many with collars or croziers.
“And yet the biggest proponents of immigration anarchy are usually people like who have’
I really need an editor.
A useful topic that requires much attention and effort… and much response.
The American bishops, as a group, and indeed, most around the world, have long been “infected” by the “spirit of the world” that was so openly embraced after the Council, in spite of Scriptural warnings from Our Lord Himself, from Saint Paul, and from saints down to our own times (the saintly Archbishop Sheen spoke very deeply, credibly, and powerfully on this subject many times). Most of our bishops, although called to be spiritual “fathers,” are mentally and psychologically emasculated, not having the relationship with Our Lord that we see in His male saints, not willing or able to be “in the world but not of the world.” And sadly, it is seeming to be ever more obvious that this also applies to our new Holy Father…
In addition to (real, true, full) “openness,” much Truth is needed:
The concept of synodality seems merely a further yielding to worldly practices and, indeed, a further embrace of socialistic/communist ideology — there are no examples I am aware of it in action that have have ever produced a legitimate “development of doctrine” deeper into The Lord Jesus, in to the life lived by His saints (which is the ONLY correct path — and yes, we CAN and MUST say that). As Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict himself pointed out more than once (and which ALL ordained men should take to heart), Bishop’s Conferences are NOT “of the Gospel,” are NOT legitimately part of the Church as founded by God The Son and The Holy Spirit. Rather, they have proved overwhelmingly to impede the individual man’s exercise over his own diocese, entrusted to him alone (with and under Peter, and as a member of the Apostolic band). They are a failed experiment of Vatican II, and hopefully will be abolished. Again, this is a subject that EVERY ordained man should know much more about, and should beg Our Lord to free his mind and his will from any worldly entanglements over.
What this “movement” has led us to is (again, in the all-too-credible saintly words and teachings of JPII, Ratzinger, and the all too few faithful and authentic prelates, priests, and theologians) is to bishops who act — collegially, and synodally — as practical athiests. Yes — Ratzinger used those very words!! Practical atheists! And any properly educated and catechized Catholic knows this and can see this.
Nowhere is this more evident and opainfully obvious than in the treatment of The Holy Mass and everything related to It — to Him Who Is There.
Our bishops are involved in everything political, strive “not to offend” in the most worldly of ways, which proves their non-credibility in all matters (remembering that we ARE bound to obey them in all things but sin). However, at the same time, they permit Our Lord and His Mass (which is the FIRST PLACE where His people DIRECTLY meet Him, listen to Him, and –should be– directed to go deeper into His Living In Them, where they receive Him in the most intimate manner that could ever be conceived)… The Mass of Jesus Christ is…almost ancillary, regardless of whatever lip-service might be paid to It.
Vatican II taught that all persons are called to holiness, to the life of the saints. The Central Reality of the Church, of the Christian, of the world, of the entire universe, is The Holy Mass. This is objective reality. ALL were (SUPPOSED) to be much more deeply educated and catechized about It and about AUTHENTIC pariticipation in It (in the manner of the saints, not exterior-focused “doers” of “things”). Again, JPII and most epecially Ratzinger, saints who were involved deeply in the Council and in its true intentions and desires, and who lived through the tragic destruction caused by false interpretations and the very shallow attempts at worldly implementations, these men were raised by God to “lead the way,” and “point the way,” to the true Council… and how to be a REAL man, a REAL bishop, a REAL spiritual father.
Instead of being “synodal,” return to the way of the saints.
Rise up, O MEN of God! FATHER your own diocese with all your might!!
“Synodality” as it is being promoted is a surrogate created by those who do not understand a notion of a relationship, between God and a human and between a human and a human. Our Lord incarnated so we all could have a true relationship with Him (and with the Holy Trinity Who are a paradigm of a perfect relationship) and with each other, through Him. An inner life of a Christian, in essence, is getting rid of everything that is not compatible with Christ and with a paradigm of a healthy relationship. I find it useful to employ the terms of clinical psychology here. If Our Lord is self-sacrificial Love, then someone who is extremely, clinically selfish is His natural opposite. The extreme opposite is someone with a narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder (the two often overlap). This is a diabolical extreme. However, all of us have some narcissistic qualities, to various degrees. As I see it, a soul has a potential marked by the opposites, Jesus Christ and the Devil (the ultimate psychopath/narcissist). Narcissism is a disorder of the Self; a so-called fake self is being created at an early age for a purpose of survival (this fake is entitled, lacks empathy, etc.). A fake self lacks emotional depth and is unable to engage in true relationships. The true Self remains encapsulated like a foetus which stopped developing.
Our Lord said “Whoever wants to follow Me must reject himself”. I read those words as a demand to reject one’s own fake self which has nothing to do with Christ indeed; it opposes Him. Now to the situation in the Church: for centuries it was well-understood that a function of the Church is to help a person to come to a close relationship with Christ. The Church has not been treated as a parliament or whatever. The Church has always been about a transformation of a human psyche = deification = spreading that deification, transforming the creation. Nowadays the Church seems to forget that its task is to usher the souls into a living relationship with Christ via itself being in that relationship with its Head (like a Bride and a Bridegroom) and from here come all perversions. How can one who has no relationship with Christ help the other to know Him? She cannot.
Noteworthy, a close relationship with God is achieved by the same means a close true relationship with a human being is achieved i.e., being very sincere; exercising empathy; repenting when offended the other etc. If there is no seeing one’s own sins/no repentance for an offence, there can be no true relationship. And here is the major stumbling block, for anyone with a narcissistic personality disorder: he cannot repent. He refuses to see his sins. Hence, a narcissistic church cannot repent and thus it falls away from its Head, Christ and from each other as well.
But the Christian Church is expected to show love, care, humility, unity etc. so the surrogates of those notions are being created. Instead of compassion and empathy which happen heart to heart privately and then give a shape to an action, “listening” and “inclusivity” are being created to use in public. What happens in the depth of human heart in relation to other heart, being directed by Christ (i.e. painful seeing of own sins, perception of other’s pain and a desire to help) is now swapped by “listening” in the group of people sitting around the table with Christ non-existent even as a dry reference.
To put it bluntly: a human psyche is corrupted as a result of the Fall; we cannot do anything good unless our psyche is being purified by Christ’s via a close relationship with Him. It is, essentially, a painful burning up of the fake self = narcissistic self/features incompatible with Christ, via seeing oneself as we are in the light of Christ (an awful sight, really). But this is not just a purification of a person by Christ – it is a destruction of a false mode of a relationship, with Him and with others.
“Synodality” thus is nothing else but an attempt to go around that incredibly painful process, around seeing ourselves as we are, around repentance. It is a veiled refusal to relate to others (to people and to Christ) in truth. It is something that appeals to a narcissist immensely because it preserves and enhances his fake self.
The needed bishops’ conversation in a nutshell: we need to repent of our sins and failures, recommit ourselves to the faith, and start shepherding the flock again. It’s not complicated.
Coming together in dialogue has been important since the First Council of Jerusalem. What needs to be addressed in the attacks on the four pillars of the Church that have been ongoing since the early 1960s, at least.
Holiness is under attack because of the abuse scandal and the concerns about homosexuality in the Vatican, and other issues of immorality. The issues of financial impropriety added to this. Pope Paul VI spoke of the smoke of Satan in the Vatican. It may be that there is now fire and not just smoke. How many dioceses have gone bankrupt from payments to abuse victims, putting that burden on the backs of the faithful?
Catholicity has been under attack, very openly in recent years, due to the lack of clarity and the confusion caused by the documents issued under Pope Francis, which led to entire churches, like the African Church, rejecting them outright. We cannot claim we are catholic when different churches are in disagreement. It is also evidenced by Francis’ push for so-called synodality, participated in by everyone under the sun. A synod of bishops, fellow Apostles, as advisors to the Pope is fine, but Jesus established His Church with a flat and wide hierarchy. My son, pastor of his parish and dean of his deanery, reported to the bishop, and the bishop reports to the pope. This clarity of the chain of authority and responsibility must be maintained. IMHO, Pope Francis was the most divisive and vindictive pope in history, and the effects are still being felt.
Oneness has been under attack in the same way as catholicity. They go together. We cannot claim to be One unless we have true universality of doctrine, dogma, and a way of worship. The attacks on the TLM should have no place in the Church. When Francis issued Traditiones Custodes, he did so by making false claims. He said it was the Mass of Vatican II, which it was not. If it were, it would have conformed to Sacrosanctum Concillium, which it ignored completely. He also supported it by claiming a survey of bishops supported the suppression of the TLM, which has since been shown to be a false claim. We also see that where it is available, the biggest supporters of the TLM are young families and young priests. In issuing Traditiones Custodes, Francis saw that he was in conflict with Quo Primum from Pope St.Pius V, and Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict, so he needed a saint to support him. On the basis of only one alleged miracle, supported by the flimsiest possible evidence of a true miracle, he canonized Pope Paul VI, who had reluctantly issued the Novus Ordo.
Apostolicity has been under attack, as evidenced by the number of bishops who do not act like Apostles. They hold apostolic office but lack apostolic courage and fidelity to true doctrine. They are like Pharisees of old. Thankfully, they are not the majority. But in each case, they have enormous authority over all the faithful under their charge. Many let secular politics influence their comments and decisions more than the true doctrine given us by Jesus. Truth, clarity, and doctrinal purity get lost in the shuffle.
Coming together is essential and must be done. My concern is that the failure to recognize that the four pillars established by Jesus for the governance of His Church will get lost in the rancor.
About the canonization of Paul VI, the delicious irony is that he also gave us Humanae Vitae, the Credo, and the credible Evangelii Nuntiandi (Evangelization in the Modern World) where we read, for example:
“…evangelization risks losing its power and disappears altogether if one empties or adulterates its content under the pretext of translating it; if in other words, one sacrifices this reality and destroys the unity without which there is no universality, out of a wish to adapt a universal reality to a local [synodal!] situation” (n. 63).
Very relevent, dear Peter D. Beaulieu.
But then it seems our 2 most recent popes have found this true doctrine incompatible with their desire to imitate the Dalai Lama & Greta Thunberg in seeking the world’s approval, with whatever shallow, populist stance comes to hand. (what do we know of the Pope’s PR advisors . . ?)
Why do they think this is easier than simply believing in, living in, faithfully teaching, & lovingly witnessing to GOD’s clear commands . . .
In effect: our Church is being misled into worshiping the ‘golden calf’.
There is not much point in being one of the “good guys” if you are too spineless to say what you really believe out loud. Good that there was enough pressure to stop the award to the pro-abortionist, which would have been a scandal. Otherwise, the Bishops should be ashamed. I am guessing they will be supporting Gay marriages and trans priests any second now. As for the new Pope, what a huge disappointment. I suppose he has been deep in the jungles so long that he has forgotten a Pope needs to LEAD and to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus.
The dearth in vocations over the past sixty years has resulted in a dearth of men with the instinct, the heart and the brains, for authentic leadership. Narcissistic personality disorder can be mistaken for the capacity for leadership and it is becoming apparent that substitute is firmly in place. The result is catastrophic.
Charlotte, for example.
This is a really important point. Narcissists are often intelligent, articulate, and savvy. They also fly under the radar, which makes them particularly dangerous. Somehow, they know how to work the system and get positions and power.
dialog
/dī′ə-lôg″, -lŏg″/
noun
Definition: I’ll pretend to listen to you, then do what I always planned to do in the first place.
Another rant from the so-called ‘Deacon Dom’.
His new Archbishop should defrock DD (& Co.) for rebellion against the very clear statement of Catholic orthodoxy found in ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’ #2268 to #2275 on pages 547 to 549.
If DD (& Co.) will not repent; why then: “Away with this hell-bent impost!”
Exactly. One cannot be a deacon and nurture a spirit of deep hatred in his heart, as is the case with the person in question.
It is just Terrible what is happening in our Catholic Church! Our “Leaders”, the Bishops, and the Pope with their squabbling and their “Political Pronouncements” and very liberal statements and positions are shaking my life long beliefs in our Church and my respect for our “Leaders”
Francis J. Tepedino
Attorney at Law
San Diego, Ca.
The Church needs purification. It is coming.
Pray for the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests to be enlightened to the Truth, that God has ordained them to be Spiritual leaders called to lead all souls to heaven. Do as Jesus did. Instruct souls to Repent from sin. The two main sins since the call of Abraham, child sacrifice and man laying down with a man. Today these are still the most grevious sins. Abortion, pedophelia, homosexuality, transgenderism, promiscuity, yet there isa tremendous lack of instruction coming to the masses. God is not pleased.
It is telling, that you chose not to print comments.
Huh?
“The conversations that need to happen among bishops”
Do you think we ought to give this Catholicism thing a try?
Bíblia Católica Online
Luke 13:26 states:
“Then you will begin saying, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'”
This verse reflects the theme of repentance and the urgency of faith, emphasizing that mere familiarity with Jesus does not guarantee salvation. It serves as a warning that many may claim to have been part of Jesus’ ministry but will ultimately perish unless they repent.
As young man watching “The Ten Commandments”, I used to think “thank God we are past that” when the scene with Aaron using the “temple arts” to fashion the golden calf came on. What a blind fool I was then.
We still have Aarons fashioning a golden calf, not with molten metal, but statutes, regulations, writs, opinions, codes. The indivination of government was best expressed by the invader mayor of New York.
“no problem too large for government to solve”
Omnipotence is a divine attribute.
Gotham will pay for electing an idolater.