Bishop Thomas Paprocki told The Pillar Tuesday that clarifying doctrinal errors proffered by senior Church leaders is a “necessary” responsibility for bishops, and that failing to address errors in Catholic teaching will see them compounded, not abated, in discussions about the Church’s pastoral and sacramental ministry.
The bishop talked with The Pillar Feb. 28, after he published an essay charging that recent statements from several members of the College of Cardinals are contrary to Catholic teaching, and amount to heresy.
“I thought I would explore some of the canonical implications if you have a situation of a cardinal who is holding to heretical views, or publicly proclaiming and teaching heretical views,” Paprocki said of “Imagining a Heretical Cardinal,” a February 28 essay published by First Things magazine.
“I have heard the word [heresy] used privately, and since it has been coming in private conversations, I thought that perhaps since it’s been coming up in private conversations, [then] perhaps it’s time for us to have some public conversation about that. … There are not just bishops, but theologians and other faithful Catholics raising the question of heresy,” Paprocki said.
“I think the reason I did this is because this debate has become so public at this point that it seems to have passed beyond the point of just some private conversations between bishops,” the bishop said.
Paprocki, the Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, is both a canon and civil lawyer. In November, the bishop was elected chairman of the U.S. bishops’ conference’s committee on canonical affairs and Church governance.
While Paprocki’s First Things essay did not name specific cardinals, it cited directly a Jan. 24 essay in America magazine from Cardinal Robert McElroy, which argued that the Church should “embrace a eucharistic theology that effectively invites all of the baptized to the table of the Lord.”
McElroy later clarified that his mention of “all the baptized” would pertain only to Catholics, and not other baptized Christians.
But the cardinal also said the Church should discard “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist.”
“Unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy,” McElroy wrote, in a text quoted by Paprocki.
Paprocki’s essay said that those statements are “contrary to a ‘truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith,’” and therefore constitute material heresy….
Full story in the Pillar.
There is a response of McElroy’s, maybe not to this, but to his critics in America magazine.
I cannot read it because I hit the paywall.
Maybe some of you can.
Bishop Paprocki has said it out loud, someone had to. Enjoy this link:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vort-bam
I started it but I turned it off when the lies started. Paprocki did not say that McElroy is excommunicated and should be near the next conclave.
I get that this is an entertainment program but why lie so blatantly?
Because most people will never do the homework to find out that they are lying?
I gave up CM a long time ago because of this kind of stuff.
I hadn’t see Voris is years and his appearance is very shocking.
amendment “nowhere near the next conclave”
Why did remove the question about his health?
I still cannot see the article but there is a quote online where he says that Catholic moral teaching is important but it is not supposed to replace conscience.
Huh?
Remember back in the day when people drove after drinking all the time and did not think it was that bad?
Times have changed and some people have a conscience that says “I could have killed somebody.”
Other people (usually drinkers) say “Those were the days when we did not have to worry about that.”
And you’re saying that the conscienceless people are better off before God?
Huh?
It is not OK to sin because you think there is nothing wrong with it. It is still a sin. You may not be guilty if you genuinely do not know it is a sin. If you know and say “It doesn’t bother my conscience.’ that is worse.
I can see the article now. The things I noticed as red flags have all gotten worse.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/03/02/mcelroy-eucharist-sin-inclusion-response-244827
when will the little boy cry out:
“the Emperor has NO clothes !!!”
Big Mac has responded to his detractors with a second essay in America Magazine.
I wish people like Big Mac, Blase and Jimmy would stop evading the central, pivotal issue, which is this:
They want the Church to change her moral teaching about the immorality of divorce and remarriage and same-sex sexual acts, but they are unwilling to say so baldly. Instead, they try to finagle a change by proposing that the Church essentially ignore those sins and pretend that living in sin with no intent to repent is a form of holiness that should not be scrutinized nor judged.
Would Big Mac, Blase and Jimmy be in favor of allowing someone who was baptized Catholic but who has since become a public, avowed atheist to receive Communion? To be consistent with their preferred moral and sacramental principles of unbridled welcome, they would have to be in favor of that.
Yet the logical contradiction between atheism and being a communicant is clear.
So should the logical contradiction between unrepentant adultery or unrepentant homosexual acts and being a communicant be clear.
But Big Mac, Blase and Jimmy obfuscate. That’s because clarity shows them to be charlatans peddling a false Gospel of unrestricted welcome.
You brood of vipers!
You need to be able to refute the bad idea without personal attacks, without mis-characterizing people, without “mind-reading, without changing the idea to something else.
Please.
Don’t you realize yet that internet comment boards are for sport, not for serious discussion?
It’s just a game, for entertainment. Nobody takes these comment threads seriously. Maybe in the early days of the internet, but not anymore.
Just have fun. Post something to see if it gets a reaction.
Post something you disagree with. Post something you don’t believe. Pretend to be someone else. Try to goad someone into responding. See how many responses you can get by posting something inflammatory.
It’s a game.
huh????!!!??? Not a game to me. If it is to you maybe you would enjoy a different playground.
Boring
That is so sinful.
We all have problems with the tongue-that is part of human nature and the tongue is a wicked member. (James 3)
Matthew 12:34-37
For from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.
A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. t I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.
No. Let people express their outrage at these false, heretical clerics. They are doing horrific damage to our Church. Let these poor, faithful, defrauded Catholics speak up and be listened to. None of your nit-picky Cancel Culture. Want to hear my goofy, snarky pet name, for horrible clerical heretics, like Big Mac? And do you have one, too? Such evil, phony clerics need to be kicked out of the Church. When, oh when, will this constant heretical garbage ever end? “Oh, you brood of vipers,” as Christ Himself said.
OK. Everybody expresses themselves the way the do. When you call names and become disrespectful, say things that are not true, they win.
This is a form of spiritual abuse.
Abusive people like to upset people. They like to make their victims go nuts so that the victims look bad and look like the crazy ones.
A Cardinal is supposed to defend the faith as is a bishop.
It should not have even entered his mind to write what he wrote.
When it did, he should have rejected it.
What their desired result was, we do not know.
Maybe they just wanted to stir things up or get attention.
The magazine needs to be monitored by the Vatican as it was when Father Reese was editor.
No. Catholics have been abused severely by these bad clerics. Can you not understand that? This is not serious, sinful “name-calling,” to harm someone, for cruel purposes– it is just letting off steam, because we are all so stressed-out, lied to, betrayed, and hurt.
Let me give you an example.
Father James Martin posted a quote from Cardinal McElroy that got people mad and, according to him, they started calling him names.
Now maybe he got some thoughtful tweets in response, too, but what does he do?
Plays the victim. Makes the “opposition” look like jerks and makes himself look the good one.
Don’t play the game.
Let off your steam at home.
Then when you are composed and have something smarter to say, say it.
Stefanee,
I agree. Instead of changing the Church, the immoral ought to instead change themselves as Christ commanded.
Bishop Paprocki is correct. When some bishops publicly question the teachings of Christ and His Church, we’re beyond the point of private discussions among brother bishops. It’s time for bishops to publicly address heresy, as Saintly bishops have done throughout the ages. And, please, don’t accuse Bishop Paprocki of being divisive. He is not the one departing from the Faith which comes to us from Christ and the Apostles. Archbishop Nestorius didn’t like it when Saint Cyril, archbishop/patriarch of Alexandria, accused him of heresy. Yet, most heresies are started by clergy. Clericalism is a problem. Don’t put us on pedestals. The truth is the truth. Lay faithful like Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena have called popes and others to the truths of Christ and His Church. We are all in this together, even in different vocations and states of life.
In the interview (big red youtube thing on the other Bishop Paprocki story) he siad that his article was the second in a three part series. The first was in America; the third will be in Commweal.
He also said that he is advocating for a change in the Church’s pastoral theology.
Absolutely, Cardinal McElroy should not have written the piece he wrote. The proper response (before the internet) would have been to write a letter to the editor of America magazine. Bishops should contact him and correct him or a committee of the USCCB should address it.
Everyone is missing the main point and the point from which the error occurs.
The Church is not a welcoming community. It is a communion of believers.
Bishop Paprocki’s essay “Imagining a Heretical Cardinal” has good information and quotes about heresy. I did not use Cardinal McElroy’s name. The quote he used about Eucharistic coherence is ambiguous.
However in November of 2021 the bishops of the US issued a document which restates the Church’s teaching that one cannot receive communion while in mortal sin. Sacramental confession is necessary.
https://www.usccb.org/resources/mystery-eucharist-life-church
Paragraphs 46-47
Bishop Paprocki’s excellent response brings to mind a quote from another very holy man, Archbishop Fulton Sheen: “Who is going to save our Church? It is not our bishops, it is not our priests and it is not our Religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes and the ears to save our Church. Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the Religious act like Religious”.
Thank you to all the good bishops, priests, deacons and lay people who have the courage of their convictions. We need you.
We had to pray hard during the 1980s and early 1990s. Pray, pray, pray.
Didn’t work, did it?
Yes. It did.
Bishop Paprocki is an outstanding bishop, very faithful to Christ. Raymond Arroyo interviewed Bp. Paprocki about his recent essay, on the Thursday March 2nd edition of “World Over Live”– just broadcast tonight! Excellent interview! The “Pillar” is also an excellent online news source.
I wonder what Pope Francis thinks of all this, since McElroy is his man, and McElroy’s sentiments appear in somewhat similar form in the Continental synodal document. The Jan 27 edition of The Pillar has a nice discussion of the tension between the two, but without drawing any conclusions.
All that is said is not reported in the media from which we get information, yet what has been reported is this: Pope Francis is addressing the political realm with his personal views that homosexuality should be decriminalized; Robert McElroy is addressing the theological realm with his personal views that homosexuality is not mortal sin and that conscience rather than Divine Revelation should guide a person’s decision to engage in sex; and James Martin is addressing the realm of masses with his personal views supporting homosexuality. Francis has met personally with Martin several times Francis has named McElroy as one of his cardinals. It could be seen as a three pronged coordinated effort to establish homosexual behavior as normal for Christians. I don’t want the personal views of those who were ordained to preach Jesus and all that He taught. I’ll stay with Jesus’ teaching in the Holy Bible and in the Sacred Tradition instead.
Even priests can’t obey the 10 Commandments.
I have been trying to read the article but the paywall has come down and now I have read it and I am very upset but honestly he never says the homosexuality is not a mortal sin.
And he does not say that conscience rather than Divine Revelation should guide a person’s decision to engage in sex.
It is a lot worse than that.
Here is the link:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/03/02/mcelroy-eucharist-sin-inclusion-response-244827
McElroy’s sentiments are not in the Continental document. Not at all.
“McElroy’s sentiments are not in the Continental document. Not at all.”
I did use the word “somewhat,” a word that can be variously interpreted.I was thinking of section 31, which I have copied:
31. The vision of a Church capable of radical inclusion, shared belonging, and deep hospitality according to the teachings of Jesus is at the heart of
the synodal process: “Instead of behaving like gatekeepers trying to exclude others from the table, we need to do more to make sure that people know
that everyone can find a place and a home here” (remark by a parish group from the USA). We are called to go to every place, especially outside the
more familiar territories, “leaving the comfortable position of those who give hospitality to allow ourselves to be welcomed into the existence of
those who are our companions on the journey of humanity” (EC Germany).
The mention of radical inclusion is noteworthy, and makes me wonder if your “not at all” really applies. To be fair, section 39 moderates the enthusiasm for radical inclusion as we see here:
39. Among those who ask for a more meaningful dialogue and a more welcoming space we also find those who, for various reasons, feel a tension
between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationships, such as: remarried divorcees, single parents, people living in a polygamous
marriage, LGBTQ people, etc. Reports show how this demand for welcome challenges many local Churches: “People ask that the Church be a refuge
for the wounded and broken, not an institution for the perfect. They want the Church to meet people wherever they are, to walk with them rather than
judge them, and to build real relationships through caring and authenticity, not a purpose of superiority” (EC USA). They also reveal uncertainties
about how to respond and express the need for discernment on the part of the universal Church: “There is a new phenomenon in the Church that
is absolutely new in Lesotho: same-sex relationships. […] This novelty is disturbing for Catholics and for those who consider it a sin. Surprisingly,
there are Catholics in Lesotho who have started practising this behaviour and expect the Church to accept them and their way of behaving. […]
This is a problematic challenge for the Church because these people feel excluded” (EC Lesotho). Those who left ordained ministry and married, too,
ask for a more welcoming Church, with greater willingness to dialogue.
Given a fluid understanding of the word “somewhat,” I think the observation is correct, somewhat.
Abuse comes in many forms and the impact is often silent and unseen. Those who are subjected to abuse experience a level of trauma that is difficult for others to comprehend, in part because each victim and survivor experience it differently. The harmful events touch their soul and spirit in unique and undefinable ways.
This is the reflection on the Apostleship of Prayer’s website as we pray this month for those who have been abused by members of the Church.
It is very apropos to Cardinal McElroy’s essay.
Remember, those of us who are upset and are arguing, rejecting, debating are the least harmed.
Those who read the article and think it is something they should do or believe are the most harmed.
They may be fellow Catholics with which we disagree with their spiritual or life choices, but they do not deserve to be told that something that will harm them, maybe eternally is OK or good or harmless.
The one thing that really doesn’t help and that is used to distract from the abuse is how people react to it.
We need to pray for Cardinal McElroy. We need to offer our Communions for him. We need to pray for those that might be misled by him. We need to persevere in prayer.
Pray for the intercession of the Immaculate Heart, St. Joseph, St. Michael,
Pray for him to be given the gift of the Holy Spirit- a fresh outpouring.
Pray for the Synod, because this is not at all what it is about. There is a prayer online for it.
We need to make sacrifices as well.
https://uscatholic.org/articles/201606/hats-off-to-change/
https://uscatholic.org/articles/201606/hats-in-church-a-heady-issue/
https://blog.adw.org/2012/04/i-miss-women-wearing-hats-and-veils-in-church-a-brief-reminiscence-of-days-gone-by/
https://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/in-the-old-days-most-us-catholic-women-wore-hats/
Post uploaded before I could write my thoughts.
I posted 4 articles on the requirement of women to wear a headcovering in church.
Some of the authors are too young to remember those times and are trying to reconstruct it from internet sources.
At some point during Vatican II, it hit the media that Catholic women no longer had to wear a headcovering and poor- they were gone. There were a few ladies who continued to wear them but not many.
The same thing happened with eating fish on Friday. Somehow, word got out that the Church was changing that and people did not do it anymore. I know more people continued to abstain from meat on Friday for their own personal piety.
I am mentioning these things because this is exactly what will happen to Confession if they change the rules on it. People are not going to do what is uncomfortable and inconvenient if they don’t have to. Some will but most won’t.
Oh, and the Church never said that women did not have to wear headcoverings or that you could eat meat on Fridays, either.
From ancient times, women traditionally wore head coverings, so did men. A man was supposed to remove his hat in church, and a woman traditionally wore a pretty mantilla, scarf, or hat, in church. This tradition of women and girls veiling in church was also in the 1917 Code of Canon Law– updated in 1983, during Pope St. John Paul II’s pontificate. After Vatican II, some Catholic women began to follow more secular influences, and many followed secular feminism. Many of them also did not take the new Novus Ordo Mass as seriously, it was more casual, with many tragic abuses, at times. Some women began to dress more casually for Mass, even in pants, discarding wearing “Sunday best” lovely dresses, along with pretty hats or mantillas. Today, many women and younger ladies especially, yearn to return to our beautiful, holy Catholic traditions, dressing up for Mass, attending a reverent Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass, complete with lovely hats and mantillas! I still have all my hats and mantillas from over 60 years ago– and wear them, still, along with a few new ones.
(derived from a book in progress called: “The Unveiled Woman”)
During the second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in the churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women’s veils were not on the agenda.
The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.
Another source says this happened in 1969 which was after Vatican II.
Before Vatican II, a woman or girl had to be wearing a dress, and have a mantilla, hat or scarf handy, to go inside a Catholic church, for any reason. We all carried a mantilla or scarf, along with a Rosary, in our purses. In that era, women and girls almost always wore dresses anyway, they only wore pants for sport. The Vatican had a strict Dress Code, too. In that era, Catholic churches were open 24/7. You could enter at any time for a Visit to the Blessed Sacrament, to light a candle, say a prayer, say the Rosary, etc. It was also a custom, to make the Sign of the Cross, whenever you passed a Catholic church– because the Blessed Sacrament was there. These Catholic customs and traditions are lovely, and very excellent! There is no reason why we still could not have them.
A long time ago, before Vatican II, the veneration of Our Blessed Mother was very strong in our Church. Our Lady was–and is– the Role Model for Catholic womanhood. Many of us had a deep devotion to Our Blessed Mother, and sought to learn to imitate her virtues. Devout Catholic girls and women of long ago, were not worldly, secular, and crass. They had good manners and good morals. They did not drink (except a glass of wine at a special family dinner, maybe), smoke, or try to allure boys, nor go to “sexy” prohibited movies or plays, nor read prohibited books, nor listen to low-class music that was objectionable. They led good lives, followed Catholic teaching, and were good wives and mothers, and good nuns. I think many young Catholic women today, want to return to this older, and much better way of life! Complete with modest, lovely dressing up for church, and prayerfully veiling, honoring and adoring Christ, Our Lord, and imitating His Most Blessed Mother. Today’s Catholic world is in desperate need of the older traditions, and Church discipline to lead a good spiritual and moral life, and to avoid all that is sinful.
In 1966, after Vatican II, the law of Friday abstinence– uvder pain of mortal sin– was changed, and left up to the decisions of local bishops’ conferences. The U S. Bishops, of the NCCB (National Conference of Catholic Bishops– now called the USCCB) abolished mandatory, strict Friday abstinence, leaving it optional for individuals.However, Friday abstinence was retained during Lent, along with fasting on Ash Wed. and Good Friday. Changing the ancient, strict weekly Friday abstinence rule — under pain of mortal sin– was quite a shock for Catholics, for awhile! Friday abstinence was an integral part of being a Catholic.
The point of this was: if they get rid of the requirement for those conscious of grave sin to confess before receiving communion, confession will go the way of hats and fish on Friday.