Although much has already been written concerning Pope Francis’s elevating Bishop Robert McElroy to the College of Cardinals, I believe a critical aspect of Bishop McElroy’s appointment is missing. It appears to many that by bestowing a red hat upon McElroy, Pope Francis has slighted Archbishop José Gómez of Los Angeles, who is, after all, the shepherd of the largest diocese in the United States, a diocese that contains multiple ethnic populations and diverse cultures.
Moreover, he is a man of authentic Catholic faith, upholding the conciliar and magisterial teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals. He is esteemed among the American hierarchy – currently serving as the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Given these, and other credentials, it would seem that he meets the criteria needed to be a cardinal. The fact that he has now been passed over by Pope Francis on a number of occasions gives rise to bewilderment. Has Pope Francis insulted Archbishop Gómez?
Even if Pope Francis has his own defensible reasons for not elevating Gómez to the College of Cardinals, yet there are many other capable American bishops and archbishops from whom Francis could have chosen. These prelates are, again, men of authentic Catholic faith who have boldly spoken out in promoting and defending the Church’s teaching, teaching that is vital to the present American cultural setting – evangelization, racism, immigration, abortion, gender theory, etc. The question arises: Why were none of these men chosen by Pope Francis? Is the passing over of these men also a not-so-hidden insult?
With regards to Archbishop Gómez and other bishops and archbishops of similar stature, it would appear, as some may conclude, that it is precisely their loyalty to the Church’s perennial teaching, especially with regards to its moral teaching, that disqualifies them from Francis’s consideration. They bear the hallmarks of conservatism and traditionalism. And, therefore, they are incapable, in Francis’s eyes, of discerning the present working of the Spirit within today’s Church.
Pope Francis is correct in that bishops, as well as the entire Church, should clearly discern the contemporary work of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that Francis never clearly articulates where the Spirit is leading the Church – such knowledge remains an ambiguous unknown. One might discern the mind of Francis and thus where he believes the Spirit is leading, however, in what he does – like appointing Bishop McElroy, and others of like mind, to the College of Cardinals.
It is common knowledge that:
•McElroy does not see abortion as the preeminent evil scourge of our age – a scourge that fosters other forms of violence within our American society, including the daily mass shootings
• Moreover, McElroy is in favor of ordaining women deacons, though the ordination of women to the diaconate inevitably suggests a course for them to be ordained to the priesthood and episcopate. But then, maybe he does realize the consequences, and so wishes to advance women to the presbyterate.
• Then, there is his ambiguous attitude toward the morality of homosexual acts, an ambiguity that he shares with other like-minded bishops, priests, and lay organizations who appear to have Francis’s approval.
• Lastly, there is McElroy’s early relationship with Theodore McCarrick, a man who is not known for his staunch support of the Church’s teaching.
Thus, is McElroy, for Pope Francis, a living concrete example of where the Spirit leading the Church? It would appear to many that he is, and if this appearance is true, then Francis has not only insulted Archbishop Gómez and the American hierarchy, but also, without intending to, the faithful American Catholic laity.
Many, if not most, of the laity are not aware of the ecclesial, theological, and political significance of papal appointments. They presume that the universal Church is being governed properly. Their primary concern revolves around the needs and life of their local parishes.
The faithful Catholic laity, who live, champion, and defend the Church’s teaching are also most often those who are most active in their parishes and other Catholic organizations. They are on the front lines of the pro-life movement, the food pantries and soup kitchens, the advancement of Catholic schools and education, the fostering of racial and ethnic equality, and members of their parish councils.
It is precisely their traditional Catholic faith that inspires and motivates them to be so ardently active. Although many are unaware of the ecclesial implications of a so-called “progressive” bishop being raised to the College of Cardinals, such appointments do not represent this faithful Catholic laity. Thus, it appears, unbeknownst to them, that they have been slighted by the McElroy appointment.
The heart of the problem may be that Pope Francis’s seeming distaste for the American Catholic Church is founded upon a misconception. Because the United States is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, one gets the impression at times that Francis perceives it as being selfish and bullying. There may be some truth to this, but the American Catholic Church, as I have attempted to demonstrate above, is hardly selfish and bullying.
Rather, it is, on the whole, most generous and caring. Moreover, the American Catholic Church as such is not aligned with any particular powerful political party or any class of wealthy and prestigious elite – the media or industry. Actually, it is the more “progressive” Catholics, clergy and laity alike, who are in league with the formidable liberal, and often anti-Catholic agenda active within mainstream American culture.
One would expect Pope Francis to be pleased and proud of the American Catholic Church for being such a vibrant bulwark against such a secular gospel. Yet, he seems to perceive it as a hindrance and foe to his own itinerary, and so he appoints men to prominent ecclesial positions who are of like mind to his own.
Archbishop Gómez, and other bishops of his caliber, will probably never be made cardinals by the pope. They, nonetheless, humbly remain faithful shepherds who proclaim, defend, and promote the apostolic faith. And for this we can give thanks.
The above comes from a June 10 posting by Father Thomas Weinandy on The Catholic Thing.
Infiltration.
Dr. Marshall is schismatic.
Because you say so?
I don’t care what you think of Dr. Marshall. He has exposed a lot of corruption in the Church. The real schismatics today are operating in the hierarchy of the Church.
He may be. But, infiltration is a word that he doesn’t have a copyright on. It’s a real word with a real meaning. Most don’t like it when words like “pride” and “choice” are taken over and given another meaning. Maybe James just means infiltration and isn’t twisting the word to identify it with a book (or even idea) by Dr. Marshall. And, what does he have to do with this story?
What does my point have do with Dr. Marshall. The infiltration and corruption in the Church hierarchy is obvious and well documented.
It’s a dog whistle. You don’t like being called out on it. The thing about dog whistles is you can deny it was being used as a dog whistle while still having intended it to be a dog whistle all along.
Single word without context that is an obvious allusion to a well-known book among trads.
It’s like posting a rainbow and denying it has anything to do with LGBT.
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops.” Message from our Blessed Mother at Akita. Care to label her a schismatic?
Ad hominem
The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.
A long time ago, in a Council far, far away
And today the Bugnini stormtroopers are all over the place. McElroy has just been elevated to the Emperor’s high council.
Mark my words. The Trads have latched onto “Bugninism” as their new favorite word. You’re going to see lots of things derided as being related to Bugnini. They have nothing, literally nothing so they make up stuff like Bugnini being the bad guy of the Novus Ordo.
Please read Murder in the 33rd Degree, by Charles Murr, for insight into Bugnini. It will be an education.
Books like Marshall’s twist the words of Pope Paul VI. By “smoke of Satan”, Pope Paul VI was not referring to Vatican II nor the “Ordinary Form” as some might claim. Rather, at a homily in June of 1972, on the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Pope was referring to the “smoke” of mistrust of the Church, the “smoke” of dissent against the Church, unrest, this “smoke” of a confrontational attitude against the Church which I daresay is evident in forums like this one. The “smoke of Satan” is found among those who would “suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council” (Pope Paul VI’s exact words). Do read the Holy Father’s words for yourself; look it up. Pope Paul VI was blunt about what the “smoke of Satan” represents, and it’s not what folks like Marshall would have you think. The smoke is the attitude of desiring to thwart the fruits of Vatican II; the smoke is dissent against the Church. Do not let pseudo-intellectuals like Marshall deceive you. He could very well be part of the “smoke” himself.
Jon, I encourage you to read Murder in the 33rd Degree, The Gagnon Investigation Into Vatican Freemasonry. a recent publication by Fr. Charles Murr. Archbishop Gagnon compiled an exhaustive dossier for Pope Paul VI on corruption in the Curia, specifically, that it was infiltrated by men associated with Freemasonry, notably Archbishop Bugnini, architect of the Novus Ordo, and Cardinal Baggio, responsible for the appointment of bishops throughout the world. The idea of the smoke of Satan came to embrace the idea of internal corruption in the Curia itself. Sadly, Gagnon’s efforts have heretofore come to naught, more or less. The dossier has never been made public,
Because they have grossly misrepresented Pope St. Paul VI’s words concerning the “smoke of Satan”, why should the Catholic world now believe them and their fantastical narratives of “freemasons” and the like “infiltrating” a “corrupt” Curia? We resist their falsehoods against traditional institutions like the Catholic Church. Stand strong, Catholics.
Maybe Pope Francis has seen videos of the Anaheim Religious Education Congress and he doesn’t approve.
The Church in the United States is dying. 70% Baby Boomer. That won’t last long. In fifteen years, the number of Americans identifying as Catholic will be halved.
Maybe in dioceses like McElroy’s, but not a few of the others. In my parish, you can barely hear the homilies at a couple of masses for all the chirping infants and toddlers. Why? The Bishop plain and simple.
Is the Church contracting? Sure. Doesn’t bother me one bit. It’s contracting like muscle contracts.
Isn’t the RC in a diocese different from Abp Gomez’s?
Great piece without a lot of vitriol. Just the reality.
Interesting insight about the Pope’s ‘distaste’ for the American Church and it’s being based on misconceptions (to put it charitably).
The irony there being that there are a ton of conservative evangelicals that would agree with the Pope.
Seeing that Fr. Thomas Weinandy OFM Cap. wrote that, I felt compelled to read the entire article (thanks for the link). Among other accomplishments, he was the theological adviser to the bishops of the U.S. for a number of years. His articles are always thoughtful and thought-provoking (and he never resorts to name calling or distortion). I encourage other readers here to read the entire article as well.
Full disclosure: Fr. Tom was my patristics professor in graduate school (many years ago!). He is one of the wisest and holiest persons I have ever met. Taking a class from him was life-changing and I’m eternally grateful to have had that opportunity.
Always a good idea to click on the links at the bottom of these articles posted by California Catholic Daily and read the complete article.
To throw McElroy’s insidious words back at him, the Pope has just weaponized the College of Cardinals.
Terrible choice for a Red Hat!!!
I’ve concluded that the clergy by and large don’t care about the church and don’t care about Christ. It’s just grifting for them. They have a cozy life, they have their boy on the side. It’s a total farce. The collapse of the Catholic church cannot happen soon enough, but it will happen soon because of the clergy.
McConclave-packing scheme.
All these years, I have watched McElroy do his destructions to the Church, and her schools and institutions, and to society. All his radical, activist work, especially in regard to the LGBT-agenda. And he couldn’t care less about doing badly-needed priestly work, to support Pro Life, and Catholic marriage, home, and family, and Catholic schools for children, K-12 and college. How awful are his rewards for all of this destructive, immoral, heretical, anti-Christian work. And now– God help us– McElroy is rewarded with the red hat.
Again, how are the good priests within the Diocese of San Diego dealing with this?
I’ll tell you this. I don’t see much of God’s influence in the church these days. The church has had 2,000 years to get its act together.
Meanwhile, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla — all companies that didn’t exist fifty years ago — run circles around the church in terms of bettering human life.
Imagine what the church could accomplish if it were run as effectively as those tech companies have been.
What is gained by “bettering human life” if souls are lost?
Apple, Tesla and Microsoft have all agreed to cover costs for fly- in abortions. Their ” betterment” is now about to have a deadly cost in precious human life. The end never justifies the means. Anything beyond this principle bends the cross into a swastika.
I have a bad feeling about the McElroy appointment…I don’t think he will be in San Diego long. I see him being positioned on the east coast to be able to cut a few hours off many future trips to Rome….or even moved to Rome soon to be in place for moving the Bergoglio agenda along faster. There’s a good chance he is already at work in many ways in the Deep Curia. His ghost authorship and strategizing probably have proven his usefulness .for Francis, he is papabile.
California will be rid of him in the not too distant future.
He will replace O’Malley in Boston. O’Malley is 77.
Bishop McElroy as a cardinal can’t be worse than Cardinal Burke who likes to really “dress up” for Mass and court wealthy patrons to support his opulent lifestyle.
Harry, what do you mean by “dress up” for Mass?
And, how is his lifestyle more “opulent” than Bishop McElroy’s?
I mean those as sincere questions.
The link takes you to a different article.
Look on the left side, under recent columns.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/06/10/the-american-catholic-church-a-defense/
“He is esteemed among the American hierarchy” (in reference to Gomez) — not saying much… Here is what our hierarchy looks like:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/what-the-mcelroy-appointment-says-about-the-churchs-commitment-to-sex-abuse-victims?utm_source=Crisis+Magazine&utm_campaign=fa00a287ad-Crisis_DAILYRSS_EMAIL&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a5a13625fd-fa00a287ad-28248354&mc_cid=fa00a287ad
What has McElroy done about Fr. Bertrand??
If you like to paint in pastels, upholding Church unambiguous teaching-wise, Gomez is your man. There is NO excuse for the extension past the Mahony days of the Rel. Ed. Catechetical Conference, aka “Three Days of Darkness.” The best thing we can say is he’s not as bad as some others? Meh, big meh on his non appointmen. Cordileone is one of the few we can count on, there’s a better Red Hat.
Latin Americans Francis and Gomez have at least one thing in common: When it comes to the USA, they both suffer from Freeness Envy.
I just found out how good it is to click on the link posted at the bottom of these CCD articles. The link takes you to the most recent posting on The Catholic Thing. For the complete text of the article above by Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM, Cap., go to the sidebar and find the title, “The American Catholic Church: A Defense.”
The pope is advancing clergy of his ilk to the rank of cardinal. He is setting up the College of Cardinals for the election of the next pope to carry his horrible type of changes to the church.