To be fair, Cardinal McElroy didn’t call for the Church to ordain women. And, technically, Cardinal Cupich hasn’t called for the Church to condone homosexuality.
Rather, what Cardinal McElroy said is that “the exclusion of men and women because of their marital status or their sexual orientation/activity is pre-eminently a pastoral question, not a doctrinal one.” Likewise, Cardinal Cupich condemned those who would “exclude sinners from fuller participation in the life of the church until they have reformed, out of respect for God’s justice.”
But we all know what that means. What’s more, they know that we know what it means. Their Eminences want everyone to understand that they dissent from the Catholic faith. They’re a fifth column of feminists and LGBT allies, working to recreate the Church from within. Of course, openly calling for such changes might cost them their jobs. So they’re not going to do that. But they still want us all to know they’re on the right side of history. They want implausible deniability.
What’s maddening is that, because progressive churchmen only speak in code, we can’t actually have one of those “dialogues” they’re always going on about.
Every time, it’s the same dance. These churchmen start using phrases like “culture of exclusion.” Conservatives ask them to explain how the Church could be more inclusive—short of changing her perennial teaching, of course. But the churchmen just respond with more buzzwords, like “welcoming those on the peripheries.” Pretty soon, conservatives realize these churchmen really do want to change Church teaching. (And, again, that’s exactly the impression they’re trying to give.)
Yet as soon as the conservatives say so, the progressive Catholic media come out to do their best Freud impersonation. “Why are all these right-wing bigots getting so worked up?” they ask. “Why are they so opposed to including women and welcoming gay people? Isn’t this proof that conservatives are really just a bunch of misogynists and homophobes? Maybe we should have women priests and gay marriage, just to own the trads.”
Some conservatives are accusing the Cardinals of heresy. But I’m not. Just the opposite, really. At the risk of sounding cute, I really don’t think they’re worthy of that name.
When I think of a heretic, I think of Giordano Bruno or Miguel Servetus: brilliant men living—and dying—in the service of some fantastical error. They might be wrong. They might even be damned wrong. But they possess certain virtues a Catholic can’t help admiring: courage, sincerity, a genuine desire for truth.
Objectively speaking, the missives published by Cardinals McElroy and Cupich were neither courageous nor sincere. That’s why my jaw hit the desk when I heard America Magazine praising Their Eminences for respecting “the pope’s wishes for frank conversation” by being “unafraid in sharing their views.” Of course, that’s exactly what they haven’t done. They haven’t shared their views. They’ve hidden them in plain sight. Their opinions are still a secret, albeit an open secret.
Yet, when it comes to heresy, it’s the desire for truth that really separates the men from the boys.
While reading the essays by Cardinals McElroy and Cupich, I thought of a passage from Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett — specifically a bit where he talks about the Docetists, a fourth-century sect that tried to synthesize Christianity with paganism. Mr. Bennett explains that, while there were many sincere Docetists, there were also large numbers of ordinary Catholics who joined the sect for pragmatic reasons.
The Docetists rejected many of the teachings that the Roman authorities found scandalous, like the Incarnation or Transubstantiation. The hope was that, by softening a few of Jesus’ “hard sayings,” they could endear themselves to the government. According to Mr. Bennett,
“What they seem to have wanted (and some of their weaker elders along with them, no doubt) was something all of us are still tempted to want today. They just wanted to belong a bit better.
“The Docetists did not want to drop their faith, they simply wondered whether it would really do all that much harm just to tweak it a little. After all, think of it: with just this one tiny adjustment to just one of the more obscure inferences of the new Christian gospel, all this horrible war between the Faith and the Empire could simply be called off…. If Christians, merely by making this single modest concession, were then allowed to take their rightful place in Roman society, who could say what great victories for Christ might be won? The Church might be able to shed her frightful reactionary image (still lingering from the days of Nero) and work to change the culture from within.”
In other words, these men and women were not true Docetists. They were conformists. And that, I think, is much worse. The heretic makes an honest mistake; the conformist makes a dishonest mistake. The heretic might be a liar, but at least he’s trying to tell the truth. The conformist is like Pilate. For him, truth isn’t a factor.
I think it’s pretty clear that Cardinal McElroy and Cardinal Cupich aren’t driven by a deep love for truth. They’re not renegade intellectuals or reckless mystics rushing headfirst into error. They’re tweakers, includers, belongers, conceders. They would rather lie to God — and to themselves—than tell their neighbor the truth.
It’s pretty clear that Cardinal McElroy and Cardinal Cupich aren’t driven by a deep love for truth. They’re tweakers, includers, belongers, conceders. They would rather lie to God — and to themselves — than tell their neighbor the truth….
Original story in Crisis.
Original title: The Conformist Cardinals
Two men surrounded by the trappings of ecclesial privilege who whine like teenage girls when their massive failings are highlighted.
I give up.
60 years of bad catechesis has taken it’s toll.
If he knew the Catholic faith, he could refute or debate the Cardinal’s opinions or proposals and not have to shift to straw man, ad hominem, mind reading, mischaracterization.
At least he says they are not heretics, but he can’t explain why without making more things up.
I give up.
If I want someone to discuss this intelligently, it ain’t gonna be online.
I may have to write the Cardinals.
The problem is that the cardinals are being deliberately opaque. Their words can be construed as proposing heretical changes in doctrine, and the author of the article is suggesting that’s what they intend to convey discreetly, yet there is enough wiggle room in what they state for them to plausibly deny that that is indeed their intention. Very much like how Fr. Jimmy Martin operates in saying he “has never challenged church doctrine”, yet he never explicitly and unequivocally supports church doctrine about the disorderedness and grave immorality of homosexual acts, and he frequently implies that church doctrine should be changed without calling for such explicitly.
Pastors of the church have a duty to be clear and faithful regarding what Catholic doctrine is and what it requires. When pastors of the church are not both clear and faithful about Catholic doctrine, then regular Catholics are justified in being skeptical about what they mean and what their motives are.
The cardinals and Fr. Jimmy Martin are giving false hope and encouragement to dissenters.
The Catholic Church is not the church of unconditional, open-ended welcome. The Church’s “welcome” is conditioned upon repentance of sin, profession of faith, and adherence to doctrinal and moral principles.
They are advocating for a change in the Church’s teaching that people in mortal sin cannot receive communion. There is nothing opaque about it.
The devil spreads confusion…
He knows his time is short. Be at peace. Consecrate yourself to the Immaculate Heart.
Ignore the evil one who comes to tell you that it is pointless and ineffective.
Pope Benedict warned us about studied ambiguity. In 1986, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger identified ambiguity as a tool of the homosexual agenda:
“A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they [those promoting a change to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality] attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one’s conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word ‘Catholic’ to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of His Church.”
As Fr. Jerry Pokorsky put it recently, “Studied ambiguity, undermining Church teaching but retaining plausible deniability, continues.”
God save us. Pope Benedict, pray for us.
They are advocating for a change in the Church’s teaching that people in mortal sin cannot receive communion.
Not just gay people, everyone…everyone, sir.
Solves all their problems, LGBTQ, divorced and remarried and (unstated) pro-choice Catholic politicians.
If you are Catholic, you can go to communion, no matter what you have done. And you do not need to be sorry for your sins.
You do not need to resolve to not sin.
Not a wise proposal in my opinion.
But nobody is noticing because they are so focused on gay people and speculating that they want to change the Church’s teaching on sexuality.
They want to change the teaching on the Sacraments.
CCC 675-677
I do not want to freak anyone out but remind people that everything that goes on in the Church (and the world) has been foreseen or even ordained by God.
Our job is to love one another, pray, stand firm in the Faith and live peacefully.
We should not be attacking people. We can and should know the Faith and speak it but not attack those who believe differently.
No. God, though He can forsee possible future evil events, respects mankind’s Free Will, which He gave us. God expects us to always stand up and fight against all evils. That is our Christian duty. We must try to answer “Yes” to Christ, Who is always calling us! Through diligent prayers, sacrifices and hard work, terrible situations have been prevented from occurring, all through history. And terrible situations have also been ended, in the same way. As Christians, all through life, we must courageously fight Evil– and seek to help bring Christ’s Light, Love and Truth into the broken, sinful world. Even to die for Him, if called to do so! It takes a lot of maturity, to stand up to those doing Evil in the world, and demand that they stop, and repent of their sins— like St. John the Baptist, calling out King Herod for his wickedness, or Christ rebuking the wicked Pharisees. That is a duty we owe to God. All of us must stand up against Evil! The evil SCOTUS Roe vs. Wade decision finally fell– through decades of back-breaking hard work, prayers, and sacrifices.
There are tons and tons of evils to fight, daily! Go do it, for Christ! That is real Christian Love! Not cowardly pretenses of “agreeing” with those doing terrible evils.
Man wants to win by his own power.
You are correct that we must say “yes” to Christ.
Where did He ever say to stand up and fight against all evils?
What did He say?
Have you never read the Gospels? Christ was constantly calling people to repentance of sin, and to follow Him. And that means, to fight Evil, daily. Say No to sin. Reform your life.
OH OK. Yes, you are supposed to fight against your own evil.
“We should not be attacking people.” The idea of attacking is a slippery one. Am I attacking someone by criticizing his ideas or actions, giving reasons for my criticism and, if called for, inviting a response? Was Paul attacking Peter when Peter came to Antioch? He withstood Peter to his face, and publically. And why? Because he stood condemned, Gal 2:11. At stake was the very essence of the gospel, and Peter was compromising on the essential truth. It would have been much better, commentator, if you had defined what you meant by that key term “attack.” For as I read the posts to which I am guessing you are making reply, I see, with one glaring exception (“whine like teenage girls”) the battleground as that of ideas, which I regard as fair game if the criticism is responsible. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me if you care to do so.
I meant attack. Like aggression or assault.
Criticizing is not attacking.
The person I replied to has not understood what the whole thing is about.
Honestly, I am becoming afraid of someone deciding that violence is the answer and it is not. It is just more demonic behavior.
Evil, deviant, snake-y, lying, deceitful, heretical, corrupt, false clerics like Cupich and McElroy ought to be excommunicated and defrocked. These men are doing much harm to the Church, and to our society! They open wide the gates to Satan and his ugly lies, deceits, deviance, perversions, corruption, and filthy sins. Next week, on March 16th and 17th, Disney will host the “Disney in PRIDE Concert” series, at Boston Symphony Hall, with the infamous Boston Gay Men’s Chorus and Orchestra. They will perform iconic Disny songs, with “diversity” (LGBT-slanted) storytelling. This deviant, deceitful, filthy, corrupt, sinful trash ought to be illegal for children and families! Disney should be sued and run out of business!
I just mentioned in a comment, that Disney is hosting a “Disney PRIDE in Concert” series, March 16th and 17th, in Boston. Well, they are doing the same thing, in San Francisco, March 16th and 17th, at Davies Symphony Hall, with the infamous SF Gay Men’s Chorus and Orchestra! Shame on them all! There ought to be a law against all of this evil, deviance, and filth, seeking to corrupt children!
Well, I don’t see my original comment. Anyway, in my original comnent, I noted that corrupt, immoral clerics like deceitful, snake-y McElroy and Cupich, destroy the Church and society, and pave the way for filth, corruption, and sin, everywhere. It just makes me cry, to think of beloved Disney characters like Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Cinderella, Snow White, Bambi, etc. etc., to be corrupted by the deviant, filthy LGBT agenda– and presented to children, in a wrongful, corrupted manner!
Oh–I see that my original comment of March 10 at 11:10am, just got printed! O.K., then!
Upon investigating, I found out that many major cities are holding “Disney in PRIDE Concerts!” Same exact program of Disney songs– and deviant, LGBT-slanted storytelling. With music provided by local gay mens’ chorus and orchestra groups. Evil! Children need to be prohibited from this deviance and filth!
I honor the Navajo Code Talkers of WWII.
I have no use for “catholic code talkers.”
Say it straight or keep walkin’.
Most of us are high school graduates….. If our leaders want to change things in the church, speak to us in the clear and in words we can understand. Enough already with fancy language we don’t all understand. When speaking to us, be clear on what you want or the point you want to make. As soon as we hit words that are not clear, we STOP reading and move on. This concept is taught in school … “speak to your audience in a language they will understand” … otherwise you have failed to communicate….
Do you mean words like snake-y?
These cardinals have been very clear about what they stand for. Have you not read the sermon on Brokeback Mountain? We must denounce a culture of exclusion and embrace those on the peripheries, with major exceptions for those who think there are two genders, prefer the TLM, voted for a prolife candidate or office holder or otherwise are unworthy of tolerance. We must turn to the wisdom spark within each of our hearts and trousers and be true to ourselves, whatever we think ourselves to be (biology and anthropology notwithstanding). We must follow the river of blessings to the margins and denounce the privilege of tradition and Saints “canonized” by predominantly dead White males. We must denounce microaggressions, while adopting certain macroaggressions. We must promote social justice, but need not be concerned with justice (as understood by previous unenlightened generations). We must recognize that gay priests and women priests are inherently superior. If you have any questions, you should follow the advice of the experts with SJ (Society of Justification) after their names; especially James Martin, Jean-Claude Hollerich and Marko “gotta love those nuns” Rupnik. Or, their boss who appointed them to positions in the Vatican. Clear enough now?
Whose side are these guys on anyway? Please help a Protestant understand. My buddies Marty (a good German), Menno, Henry and like, we don’t go for blessing sodomy. It’s pretty clear in the Bible that that can’t happen. Sodomy isn’t about a lack of hospitality. When I was a Catholic, a long time ago, this stuff was quite clear to everyone, Catholic or not. But, it’s clear where we stand. Marty even called your pope the antiChrist. We’re not sure if we want these guys to start a new religion. Even heretics have standards. And, perversion is not our cup of grape juice.
“Sodomy isn’t about a lack of hospitality.” Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, and all their Protestant pals, would just die to see the Catholic Church of today. “Perversion is not their cup of grape juice!” So funny! There are very few Lutheran, Anglican or Presbyterian (Calvinist) clerics ever in the news, accused of gay sex abuse crimes (sodomy). But some liberal branches of these denominations now accept sexually-active gay ministers and gay “marriage.”
You are right. Menno’s followers generally still seem Christian. But, those who followed Marty, Henry and me seem to be more of the spirit of the age than the spirit of the Reformation. The Wesley brothers would not recognize what has happened to most of Methodism. There now is a Method to the madness. I guess once we started down that heresy road (holding to some truths, but abandoning others) we were destined to fail.
Or, should I say predestined or even doubly predestined?
People now think I’m a comic strip character, but I was a pretty serious guy in my day.
Weird person to pose as considering…
If you don’t know, google Jean Cauvin gay
google him, are you claiming that John Calvin (the “Reformer”) was gay? Apparently, there was a Catholic priest of the time named Jean Cauvin who engaged in homosexual behavior. Calvin was a Catholic layman, who married and had multiple children. Any real evidence of your claim? Some claim that Alexander the Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Anne Frank, CS Lewis, Catholic clergy during the Soviet era, Sam and Frodo and even King David and Jonathan were gay. Someone posting something on the internet doesn’t make it true. A heretic and rather cruel man, for sure. But, a person engaging in gay sex? Not everything is about gay or bi or even sex.
I didn’t know the guy. Historians dispute the story on which it is based. There is an allegation of a dissolute priest with the same name. I just said it was a weird choice.
And he had no children. Some sources say he had a child that died in infancy; some also say there were others. His wife was a widow with 2 children.
It appears he had multiple children, but they died in infancy.
One source, Encyclopedia Britannica, is below:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Calvin
and, children really aren’t essential to the point. The point is there is no evidence he was gay. And, he was either straight or bisexual (with no evidence for the latter). We live in a sex-obsessed culture where almost everything is made to be about sex. The 16th century found people fighting over different ideas.
So what if he was? He led a chaste life even in marriage.
I think there is a letter he wrote where he said that he had a son died in infancy and one of his enemies used that to taunt him as if it was his punishment from God for his heresy.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/02/21/cardinal-cupich-and-the-hermeneutics-of-the-abyss/
The writing referred to:
https://www.chicagocatholic.com/cardinal-blase-j.-cupich/-/article/2023/02/15/a-church-called-to-love-perfectly
Time for the Laity to choose and fire their own Bishops.
The time for Rome to do it is over.
It is evident that hidden agendas ruin the faith when Bergolio is the mastermind behind all this disaster.
You could join a Congregationalist “church” and do that. Jesus didn’t poll his followers. “How many of you would like me to keep those betrayers Peter and Judas?” “How about that tax collector?” And, some among the laity and clergy would promote and vote for heretical bishops. I understand the frustration, Rey, but your solution isn’t the answer.