….The attempt at total narrative control via the redeployment of the slogans of the original failed Great Revolution back in the Sixties and Seventies…. requires the airbrushing out of the enemies of the Great Revolution—Popes John Paul and Benedict….
An example of this airbrushing revisionism can be seen in some recent remarks from Cardinal Robert McElroy:
“Pope Francis has made the pope and the papacy more immediate to people. It is not formal in the same way it had been before. Now, certainly Pope John Paul II had a wonderful way with people and engagement, but this is a different thing. This is speaking with groups, people, journalists, individuals, immediately, about the problems that exist in their lives and in the world and in the life of the Church. That sense of immediacy is a different kind of papacy. It is one of more direct encounter, person to person encounter, than it has been before.”
I am so glad that a Cardinal of the Church finally had the nerve to point out that John Paul was still too “formal” in his dealing with people, and that he did not as a rule speak with personal immediacy to ‘journalists and people’ about the problems in the world or in their personal lives. These words are so flamboyantly fallacious that they could only have been written by either an Apparatchik devoted to the methodology of the “Big Lie” (my vote) or someone who was in a coma during the 25 years of John Paul’s pontificate. But it is necessary for the Great Revolution that the Dear Leader be shown in all respects superior, even to the point of not just a revision of history but a total rewriting of it altogether. That is not a tweaking of history. This is its destruction in the furtherance of the Revolution….
From essay by Larry Chapp in Catholic World Report
Well, now. It seems that Cardinal McElroy and Pope Francis have a lot in common, other than their love of all things secular. They both speak with duplicity. In 2015, Pope Francis, in his informal and cuddly (and more “immediate”) way, said that good Roman Catholics do not need to breed like rabbits and should practice responsible parenting. Just the other day, Pope Francis obviously had an immediate and informal epiphany when he declared that Italians need to boost their birth rates — to have more children and not pets. There’s more where this came from. Cardinal McElroy was out and about on the pro-life trail, but had this to say: “The death toll from abortion is “immediate”, but the long-term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger ….”.
What an absolute head-banger for us Catholics.
Hogwash. Pope Francis did not make the papacy more immediate to people. The internet did that. More specifically, Twitter did it. We live in times when anything spoken by a public figure appears on Twitter seconds later.
Doesn’t matter who is Pope at all.
Part of what Pope Francis has done is attempt to absolutize JPII’s nuanced and restricted teaching about the limited moral permissibility of the death penalty. Since Francis is neither a nuanced nor a deep thinker, Francis has attempted to teach the death penalty is intrinsically evil without saying it thusly. He has not succeeded.
One embarrassing example of how the death penalty and life sentences are necessary even in the United States is the recent story about a Chicago man whose sentence was commuted by President Obama (bleeding heart liberal against the death penalty and against life imprisonment); the man has been charged with attempted murder in a new crime of shooting someone on a freeway. Some criminals need to be executed and some need to be in prison for life.
Pope Francis never talks about criminal recidivism. He doesn’t live in the real world where people can threaten him. Every single one of us lives with that threat every day.
Pope Francis does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. He has never said it was evil at all.
“Francis has attempted to teach the death penalty is intrinsically evil without saying it thusly.” So your reply to Francis and death penalty is in agreement with what Francis and death penalty actually said. For Francis to directly assert that it was evil would be to contradict 2000 years of Church history and make him a heretic. For a thorough discussion of the issue, see Capital punishment and the law of nations on Ed Feser’s blog for Wednesday May 17.
Just a warning people, Fesser’s treatment on the Church’s teaching concerning the death penalty is deficient, unreliable, and slanted. Therefore, if you want a solid Catholic teaching on the death penalty, it’s best to go to the source itself; go to the CDF’s “Letter to Bishops Regarding The New Revision Of Number 2267 Of The Catechism” which came out on February 8, 2018. Do not rely on these so-called “intellectuals” to explain to you the Church’s teaching. Look it up yourself.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
“Just a warning people, Fesser’s treatment on the Church’s teaching concerning the death penalty is deficient, unreliable, and slanted. ” I trust in the intellectual capacity of Cal Catholic readers to decide for themselves on important issues Feser raises both in his blog and in his book co-authored with Joseph Bessette. I invite jon to specify why he thinks Feser is deficient, unreliable and slanted–specifically, showing where Feser is uninformed, ill-informed, or illogical. Failing this he should suspend judgment.
Early this month, in a comment to an article on this blog (“Archbishop Cordileone confides in Sacred Heart students”) “Dan” here linked to an article by Fesser. In response to his comment, I posted a response which showed a major factual error in Fesser’s article and “treatment” of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, which Fesser repeats throughout the article. There were other deficiencies and biases in Fesser’s article, demonstrating that at best he doesn’t think with the Church on this issue. I don’t have to repeat my comment here, people. Go to the article to see my comments in response.
The readers of this blog do indeed have to decide for themselves what to believe concerning issues like the death penalty. But telling readers to read a deficient point-of-view (like Fesser’s) instead of going to the Church’s document itself is not right.
Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
Thank you, Jon. God bless you.
Even if Francis said the death penalty is evil and you thought it contradicted 2000 years of Church history-that would not make him a heretic.
It would be a serious thing because it would say the one or the other was wrong and then you lose infallibility on morals.
But none of that happened so it is moot.
There have always been saints who did not agree with the death penalty.
Before the Gospel of Life, St. John Paul II had a Vatican commission study it in terms of what level of teaching it was.
That information used to be online but I cannot find it now.
To moot: If Francis was to claim the death penalty was evil (intrinsically evil) he would in fact be contradicting 2000 years of Church teaching, but I think you may be right that in the strict sense he would not because of this be a heretic as I understand the term as there is no de fide proposition he is willfully denying. At least I think so. To muddy the watters, the Catholic Church has always taught that capital punishment can be legitimate under certain circumstances. Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and every pope who has commented on the topic up to Benedict XVI have all clearly and repeatedly affirmed this teaching. Even Pope St. John Paul II, who held that it is better rarely if ever to use the death penalty in practice, nevertheless explicitly reaffirmed that it can be legitimate in principle. So the issue is, could the Church reverse this doctrine, consistent with her claim to preserve intact the deposit of faith? Pope Francis approaches the matter tangentially, stating the death penalty is inadmissible, and per force not evil, without examining the relationship between the two ideas. By so doing he considers the deposit of faith uncompromised. Despite jon’s protestations, the issue is substantial and is not easily set aside.
The Pope has indeed called the death penalty “evil,” and rightly so, because that which is “inadmissible” is evil. The death penalty is part of the culture of death, and that culture is evil.
As proof that the Church teaches that using the death penalty today is evil, in February 2019 Pope Francis said to the 7th World Congress Against The Death Penalty: “The aim of the worldwide abolishment of the death penalty is a courageous affirmation of the principle of the dignity of the human person and of the conviction that the human race can address crime, and likewise reject evil, by offering the convict the opportunity and the time to mend the damage caused, to consider the act committed, and thus be able to change his or her life, at least interiorly.”
The death penalty is not “intrinsically” evil because until the reign of Pope John Paul II, it was a legitimate way of defending society against an unjust aggressor. But its use is not legitimate in our time. To use the death penalty in our time is inadmissible because it is evil to violate the dignity of human life.
Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
jon, in the quote you are using, he is calling crime evil.
Inadmissible does not translate ‘evil”.
Sorry but “inadmissible” is wrong because if we take his/her proposed interpretation of the Pope’s words, it wouldn’t make sense because it doesn’t follow from the sentences that preceded it (that capital punishment is a grave violation of the right to life, and that the abolition of the death penalty is a courageous affirmation of human life’s dignity) plus it makes the Pope’s words redundant (people already know that crime is evil).
Instead, the Holy Father has called the death penalty “evil” as proven also by the subsequent phrases which show how the “evil” of the death penalty is addressed: “by offering the convict the opportunity and the time to mend the damage caused, to consider the act committed, and thus be able to change his or her life, at least interiorly.” People, a sure way you can give the convict more time to transform his/her life and to mend the damage caused is by abolishing the death penalty. Therefore “inadmissible’s” interpretation is deficient.
Secondly, the word “inadmissible” is indeed equivalent to evil, sin, wrongdoing. Those who disagree with this are fooling themselves. The Church has judged several actions as “inadmissible.” Are they all sinful and evil? Yes!
For instance in Catechism 2296, the Church judges causing mutilation and death in order to harvest a person’s organs for the benefit of another person as “inadmissible.” This “inadmissible” act (mutilation) is evil and sinful. One can even say it is “intrinsically” evil (meaning it is wrong and evil at all times and in any circumstance).
However, the death penalty, sinful and evil as it is in our time, was not wrong in the year 1928 A.D. nor in the year 289 BCE (up to the reign of Pope John Paul II). Therefore it is not “intrinsically” evil. It is evil now because of a change in circumstances (the achievements in the penal system as pointed out by Pope John Paul II). But not “intrinsically.”
flamboyantly fallacious
Awesome turn of phrase…def gonna use that….
The attempts by Catholic progressives to gaslight faithful Catholics are unreal. In his recent essays and in this quote, McElroy is saying in effect, “If you don’t want church teaching to change about gays and trans, you’re the one with the problem, and you’re the disobedient one, and you’re the one who’s not with the people like Pope Francis and I are.”
They are trying to erase the accomplishments and good work of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.
Big Mac!
Maybe a quantifiable measurement would be in order. How many men were inspired to explore a priestly vocation based on the example of Pope St. John Paul II? And how many based on the example, teaching and writings of Pope Benedict? And finally, how many by the example and teaching of Pope Francis and locally of the cardinal? I don’t have the numbers, but I can make an educated guess.
I have a friend who is a vocations director. He says when you visit seminaries these days, you see almost all JPII and BXVI posters in the dorms.
That seems like Pride.
Why would you do that?
Because you don’t like Pope Francis?
At the end of the day, those that suffer the most from ‘nuancing’ life terms and the death penalty are the poor. I’m a faithful Catholic that makes a 6 figure salary and I don’t live where horrible crimes touch a lot of people. Soft on crime policies and repeat offenders don’t impact me meaningfully at all. I’m for the most part pretty safe and therefore so is my family. I’m in a solidly Red State. My kid’s opportunities for success are unmatched in human history. I can’t help that and I am thankful to God and my country and act out my Christian faith by deed and generosity.
I give a lot of money to the Church and to charities, volunteer in the prisons and am at the service of my pastor and bishop. But I’m completely insulated from progressive thinking and it’s consequences because of where I live. So when I say poor people suffer from McElroy et al being ‘pastoral’ I can say that with complete confidence. I only suffer from his absurdity inasmuch as I am a member of the Body of Christ and when one suffers, all suffer.
But I’m doing just fine, really.
People like McElroy really do think we’re all stupid…like we weren’t alive for the past 45 years. This is the problem of all the aging-hippie Catholic clergy. They think the world began with them in the late 1960s, can’t see how their efforts have been fruitless disasters, still think they’re “the future”, and that 86 year old Francis is leading them into their long-awaited moment of triumph, while all indications are that orthodoxy among the young and their embrace of Tradition are what is truly in ascendancy. Twenty-six years of JPII’s beautiful, passionate witness to the world…families, young people, the oppressed, those yearning to follow Christ in joy…as far as McElroy and his ilk are concerned…it never happened. I pray for his enlightenment with the truth.
You are not stupid. But you are not on the same page. You have not gotten to this point, yet.
Your sentence about orthodoxy and Tradition indicates that you may not even understand those concepts.
Many people, especially people who attend the Latin Mass, are in a completely different space than the Church.
Pope Francis is immersed in the Church. I am sure that the prayers of all former Popes are helping him and we should be praying for him, too.
After reading the interview in America, some questions came to mind.
Why does the Cardinal refer to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit,” rather than using the Biblical, traditional and specific Name, the Holy Spirit?
Did he not know Saint John Paul II?
The Cardinal said Pope Francis “has great knowledge, and a specific knowledge of various issues of the church in the United States.” So did Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, maybe even more so.
How can he be serious about decentralization when the current Pope has unilaterally changed the Catechism and Canon Law, without consulting his brother bishops?
“Pope Francis says our moral and pastoral theology must be substantially informed by the realities of people’s lives and what they encounter.” If someone’s reality includes promiscuity, what does that mean? If their reality is exploiting their employees or dumping toxics in our water, what does that mean? Why is it that only sexual sins are so readily excused?
And, how could the Cardinal seriously claim, “Pope Francis has erected a substantial campaign for accountability on these questions; not only accountability for those who abused directly, but also for those who tolerated and sustained it through reassignment patterns or cover-ups” when he brought the predator McCarrick out of “retirement” and still has the former Jesuit priest Rupnik, who abused many Religious women and others, on the Vatican payroll?!
It seems that you are asking dishonest questions. You are not looking for answers but using a question format to show your disloyalty and lack of confidence in the Pope.
Can you or anyone provide answers to my questions, related to the Cardinal’s statements? How are my questions dishonest?
You’re deflecting, rather than addressing the issues the Cardinal raised and that I questioned. Somehow you feel qualified to judge my motives. There is One before Whom we both will stand. He knows our motives. My loyalty the the Pope does not mean I am compelled to deny reality and not question evil behavior. The Cardinal praises the Pope for requiring accountability when a known abuser is kept on the Vatican’s staff. If that’s accountability, the Cardinal has a different definition of it than anyone I know of. Confidence in the Pope is weakened when McCarrick and Rupnik are promoted and kept in positions. There are some real reasons for a lack of confidence.
Why is she wearing that short skirt to Mass? is a dishonest question. The proper answer is “I know, right?”
You are not really asking why she wore that skirt, you are saying she should not have worn that skirt. It is a judgement not a question.
Wait…did you just say the Pope has evil behavior?
Thank you for admitting lack of confidence.
I am not deflecting because how would anyone on this website know the answers.
if your questions are sincere, you should send them to America magazine.
I think your motives are obvious.
“Wait…did you just say the Pope has evil behavior?…” I have read and reread the anonymous clergyman’s two posts, and cannot for the life of me find evidence for his saying what you seem to think he is saying. A lack of confidence in leadership does not equate to evil behavior, but it does indicate the pope’s actions have given rise to the view of some that he has exercised poor judgment on some prudential matters (We are not talking about decisions ex cathedra). And if one has such a view, it is not inappropriate in light of Cdl McElroy’s own estimation of Francis’ dealings with people to pose these questions in respectful reply to the cardinal. I think the anonymous clergyman’s motives are quite sincere and while he might ask his questions to Cdl. McElroy directly, remember this is an educational forum and asking questions provides an important opportunity for insight.
A member of the Catholic clergy is unlikely to have said question 1 or question 3.
The other statements would be weird for a Catholic clergyman to say also.
Maybe he is SSPX or another sect’s clergy.
I was wronged by some Church going Catholics, people who had been lectors, Eucharistic ministers, RCIA leaders, Catholic organization executives etc.
Now I am a good Catholic. I am ready to forgive them.
They don’t want forgiveness. They want pretense. They want to pretend they did not do it and I am expected to pretend along with them.
“I am ready to forgive them.” If you are a good Catholic, you will have already made the first efforts to forgive them, be they the greatest of scoundrels. I say “made the first efforts” because to forgive from the heart those who have wronged you is not always easy and can in fact be so contrary to nature that it takes time and patience to overcome internal resistance. I know because I have been there. You have no control over their pretensions– only your forgiveness.
I actually have forgiven and I believe it was a gift from the Lord.
There are steps to asking for forgiveness (which they never did.)
Acknowledge your wrongdoing.
Make restitution.
Say that you are sorry sincerely, not just to manipulate.
Ask for forgiveness.
Accept that the person you wronged may not forgive you. If they don’t, say you understand.
If the person forgives you but leaves the consequences, you have to accept that, too. (Like in confession, where the sin is forgiven but the punishment remains)
Reconciliation takes even more. it takes a commitment to not do the wrongdoing again. It takes a rebuilding of trust. ( I know I cannot trust these people because of how I saw them treat others, too.)
I do not need them to do the steps. The Lord has shown me 1 Corithians 5:11. I need to love, forgive and not associate with them.
His Eminence said, “I would like to see women ordained as deacons because I think it is not doctrinally precluded.I think the history is sufficient now to show that there was a form of diaconal ministry in the life of the church with a ritual to formalize that.” That could use some clarification. While the Church has had deaconesses, including some Saints, they were not women deacons. He is correct that there was a ritual for that, ordination. Ordination was not, and is not, limited to Holy Orders. (There’s more to all of that than can be easily posted here.) A quick look at the difference in the ordination rites for deacons and deaconesses make the difference clear. As an Eastern deacon, I was ordained with my head on the holy table (the altar). That was not the case for deaconesses. While many of us would like to see the restoration of deaconesses (as happened with the restoration of consecrated virgins), that is not the same as ordaining women to (major) Holy Orders. The Church has never done that.
O Deaconess Phoebe, pray to Christ God that His Spirit may enlighten our souls.
(Troparion of the commemoration of St. Phoebe. See Romans 16:1-2)
“It is one of more direct encounter, person to person encounter, than it has been before.” I see. Cdl. McElroy, tell that to the traditionalists who are the object of the pontiff’s ire. Tell me he is listening to their wants and desires. Tell me of his encounter with Cardinal Zen, and the Chinese Christians he shepherds. Tell me of his encounter with Biden and Pelosi and his efforts to change their minds on abortion and transgenderism. You’ll do that for me, won’t you?
Good points. I’m not a trad, but where is the accompaniment for those who prefer the TLM? The Cardinal said, “Pope Francis says our moral and pastoral theology must be substantially informed by the realities of people’s lives and what they encounter.” What if the realities of some people’s lives include love for and edification from the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Why does it seem “accompaniment” usually means only those left of center are to be “accompanied?” It’s too bad a good word and concept, accompaniment, has been politicized and ruined.
You need more education in the Faith and better formation.
I am struggling with how to say this and it may come off badly.
This is just really immature.
I really would encourage you to learn the Church’s mission.
You do have to go on to first grade..second grade etc.
You can’t stay in Kindergarten finger painting.
“This is just really immature.” May I ask, what is the”this” to which you are referring? And a related question:
“You can’t stay in Kindergarten finger painting.” What exactly represents finger painting in your thinking? Thanks in advance for clarifying things.
The mission of the Church is to evangelize.
You can’t just stay going to Mass, enjoying the hymns or incense or peace or reverence or whatever you enjoy.
You have to join in the mission of the Church.
A mature Catholic understands the sacraments. There is no sacramental difference between the forms of the rite.
To ask to be accompanied when you are already there is a lack of understanding.
We accompany people into the Church which means you don’t just say “Go to Church” you say come to Church and if they have a reason that they are afraid to come to Church you walk with them until they are OK.
If people are attending Mass but not able to receive the sacraments because of an impediment, you accompany them until they are able to.
People attending the licit Latin Mass are already at Mass and receiving the sacraments so they would not need to be accompanied. They may need liturgical formation so they may need accompaniment to the ordinary form.
These commenters seem to think it means being indulged in their personal preference.
This is just plain silly! Everyone has a different personality and popes are selected by the College of Cardinals with guidance from the Holy Spirit to accomplish different goals for the Church. St Pope John Paul II had many gifts as does Pope Francis; comparing the two and claiming one is “better” than the other is an exercise in absurdity. This article belongs in a junior high school student newspaper.
Is is not strange that McElroy, a Bishop in the Diocese of San Diego, was appointed a Cardinal by Pope Francis while the two large Archdioceses in California, San Francisco and Los Angeles, continue to not be headed by a Cardinal as in the past. While I miss no longer living in San Diego, I am glad not to have to live under McElroy.
For example, we see the authority of the local bishop taken away when it comes to allowing for the Old Mass in Traditionis Custodes and its follow-up-up dubia, where Rome asserts authority even over the minutiae of what can and cannot be published about the Old Mass in parish bulletins
To correct this rewriting of history implication-No bishop could authorize the Latin Mass without permission of the Holy See prior to John Paul II’s allowance of it after the SSPX went into schism so that those who were attending those would be able to go to a Latin Mass without joining the company of schismatics.