On Saturday, Aug. 27, in front of thousands in St. Peter’s Basilica and millions around the globe, 20 men from five continents will hear their names read aloud by Pope Francis, announcing to the world that they have been elevated to the College of Cardinals. All of them will serve as advisors to His Holiness; 15 will be future electors of the next pope. Among those cardinal-electors will be San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy.
Bishop McElroy will be the first person named a cardinal from the diocese and will be the only voting member of the College of Cardinals west of Houston. As a cardinal, he will continue to lead the San Diego Diocese.
Bishop McElroy, 68, was born in San Francisco. He was ordained a priest for the San Francisco Archdiocese in 1980 and was consecrated as an auxiliary bishop for San Francisco in 2010, later becoming the bishop of San Diego in 2015.
Long-time friends described a man gifted with extraordinary intelligence and superior communication skills, yet humble and friendly. Most of all, they talk about his passion to serve. “All of us who knew and worked with (Bishop McElroy) knew he would become a cardinal some day,” said Santa Fe Archbishop John Wester, who has known and worked with Bishop McElroy for more than 40 years. “The only question was where and would he have to move to New York, Boston or some other major see in order for that to happen. Happily for him, he gets to stay in San Diego, a city he dearly loves.”
Like Bishop McElroy, Archbishop Wester began his vocation as a priest of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, with the two men becoming close friends and colleagues as they each moved through their assignments. Both attended Our Lady of Mercy Grammar School in Daly City and St. Joseph high school seminary, both served as parish priests and both men served as auxiliary bishops in San Francisco. Archbishop Wester headed first to Salt Lake City and then Santa Fe, while Bishop McElroy came to San Diego.
“In his heart, he has never stopped being a pastor,” Archbishop Wester said, reflecting on the 14 years Bishop McElroy spent in his final parish assignment as pastor at St. Gregory Parish in San Mateo. “It’s the lens through which he sees the world. He is genuinely humble. It’s not a puton, not a false sense of humility. Of all the bishops who might receive ‘a red hat,’ he’s probably the least desirous of it than anyone.
“He has never been ambitious for himself. For him, it’s always been about service and what he can do to serve the people of God.
“He wants to shepherd people. I think Pope Francis sees that, and he also sees his brilliance,” continued Archbishop Wester. “I could easily see the pope saying to himself, ‘This is great. This is marvelous. We can have both of these in the same package.’”
Instead of attending college seminary immediately after high school, Bishop McElroy decided to attend a secular university first and then return to seminary to pursue his vocation. The results were a bachelor’s degree from Harvard in American History, and two degrees from Stanford; a master’s degree in American History and a Ph.D in Political Science. Upon graduation from St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, he was granted a master’s in Divinity (M.Div), followed by a Licentiate in Theology from the Jesuit School of Theology and a doctorate in Moral Theology (STD) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
As a San Francisco auxiliary bishop and as bishop of San Diego, Bishop McElroy played an active role in the California Catholic Conference (CCC), which represents all 12 California (arch)dioceses on public policy matters in the State Capitol. There he met and worked with Ned Dolejsi, the former executive director of the CCC.
“Bishop McElroy is a deeply pastoral man, who is dedicated to helping people live their faith more fully,” said Dolejsi. “His ability to communicate and explain complex issues, while weighing the moral, theological and political factors involved, is uncanny and shows what a gifted communicator he is.
“Whenever the bishops met to create public statements or major policy papers,” said Dolejsi, “The first thing they did was to draw Bishop McElroy into the conversation to see if he would prepare the first draft.”
Father Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and expert commentator on national and international issues affecting the Church, said Bishop McElroy first came to national attention 10 years ago when he was a San Francisco auxiliary bishop attending meetings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“The bishops would be debating issues on the environment or faithful citizenship or other matters of public policy,“ Father Reese said. “And Bishop McElroy stood out. He was intelligent and articulate. He held their attention. Over time, it was clear the other bishops wanted to hear what he had to say….”
The above comes from an Aug. 7 story in the Southern Cross.
I’m sorry, but McElroy is no E.F. Hutton.
Then they all rose as one Rainbow and serenaded McElroy with “Y.M.C.A.”
It’s amazing to me how much the left worships their chosen ones. They did it with Clinton and Obama. On a smaller scale, that’s what this piece of hagiography is about McElroy by a local newspaper.
Omg the right worships an auxiliary bishop from a small diocese with 20 times more Muslims than Christians just because he criticizes the Pope and Vatican II.
Not the right… only Trads worship Bishop Schneider. Sensible conservatives dismiss Schneider, but Trads love him just as they love the TLM for the same reason: they are vehicles of expressing their hatred of Pope Francis and the postConciliar church. That’s why the TLM must be suppressed.
Fair enough, suppressed.
Who. Is surprised
You own the paper, you praise yourself.
And, what right bishop is that?
Reese a truly despicable person
Damn right. I sat near him at a dinner at the Gregorian in Rome. All he talked about was who were the most “powerful” bishops. JPII forced his resignation as editor of “America” magazine after it published too many articles questioning Church teaching. Both Reese and McElroy are just politicians at heart—but at least McElroy has a Stanford[?] Ph.D. in political science.
San Diego diocese paper praises Bishop McElroy.
Fish swim in the sea.
Stand by for other breaking news.
It’s the official newspaper of the Diocese of San Diego or as they describe it “the Southern Cross is the exclusive Catholic voice for the faithful in San Diego and Imperial Counties.”
Where’s the non-exclusive or even inclusive voice for the faithful down there?
You’re reading it!
SouthCoast, he meant CCD.
Meant Southern Cross. Obviously reading this site!
Well, that is some kind of insight.
in other words … McElroy praises himself
But, in a humble way. As noted, “In his heart, he has never stopped being a pastor,” Archbishop Wester said, “It’s the lens through which he sees the world. He is genuinely humble. It’s not a puton, not a false sense of humility. Of all the bishops who might receive ‘a red hat,’ he’s probably the least desirous of it than anyone… He has never been ambitious for himself. For him, it’s always been about service.” Great insight from another bishop from San Francisco who wants to baptize the children of “same-sex couples.” Maybe they’ll want to make Nancy and Gavin cardinals. When bishops make our heads spin, do they provide motion sickness bags for the faithful?
What is wrong with baptizing the children of gay couples? Is it against church teaching? Is it a sin to be gay? Is it a sin to be the son or daughter of a gay couple? Are they not born in the image and likeness of God? It is always good to look at what the church teaches vs. our own opinions about a subject when commenting. Where in the catechism does it say that we should not baptize these children of God?
The problem is chiefly that there is little hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith by same-sex guardians who are manifestly and obstinately living gravely contrary to Catholic faith and morality: the home life will be a sign of contradiction to Catholic faith. A secondary problem is that if the baptism is done publicly at Mass, you have the scandal of presenting to the faith community, and to impressionable children in the pews, two people of the same sex pretending to be wed and pretending to be parents of a child together. A third problem is that the same-sex “family” such as it is would not be able to be incorporated into parish community life. Baptism is not a one-and-done thing. It’s initiation into the Church community, and no parish should be welcoming a same-sex couple with children because of the scandal it presents. I would leave any parish that welcomed same-sex couples publicly and integrated them into parish life as if they were normal or as if what they are doing isn’t gravely sinful.
Look, there are standards. Same-sex couples don’t make the cut. That’s just the way it is. All are not welcome to force the Church to approve of their sins. The fact that they are abusing a child by raising him in an abnormal, deviant household makes it even worse. The church should not give its stamp of approval to such a thing. Bishop Wester is 100% wrong.
Canon Law provides what you’re looking for:
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
Is there really any hope that a child being raised by people who reject Catholic morality and doctrine about marriage and sex will be raised in the Catholic faith? No, there isn’t. Case closed. No baptisms for children being raised by same-sex couples.
Canon Law, I demur to your conclusion. Canon 868, section 1, n.2 provides that the baptism of a child of a gay parent is licit only when there is a “sens fondanta” [founded hope] that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion; and baptism is to be refused/delayed ONLY when “such hope is ALTOGETHER lacking”. Note the word “altogether”. It has major force in a canon law context. Mightn’t there be cases in which the gay parent would clearly support the child’s grandparents’ or other close relatives’ promise to raise the child in the Catholic religion? If such or similar conditions are met, would you refuse the child this gateway sacrament to all other sacraments—in violation of the canon you cite? Be mindful that canon law instructs that a provision restricting rights must be applied narrowly.
By the way, I am a canon lawyer [by virtue of a graduate degree from the Gregorian in Rome]. Do you hold any such degree?
How about if the same sex couple signs a statement to the effect of: “We promise to teach our child that same-sex unions and homosexual acts are gravely sinful because they contradict God’s will and contradict Catholic faith and morality, and we will teach our child that his parents’ living situation is immoral”? They’d have to promise something to that effect, otherwise their promise to raise the child Catholic is insincere. They can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they’ll raise the child in Catholic faith while providing a home environment that is a daily living contradiction of Catholic faith. It doesn’t work that way. Any intelligent and prudent person can see that.
As the Scriptures and the Church teach, marriage is between one man and one woman. Sex outside of marriage, whether straight or gay, is wrong. A “couple” living in violation of the teachings of Christ and His Church are unlikely to raise their child (or in the case of a gay couple, one of their children) according to the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that a necessary condition for baptism is that, “There is a reasonable hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic Faith.” If both “parents” are not living Christian sexual morality, that’s extremely unlikely. God loves all three of them. But, baptism is significant and meaningful and has responsibilities that go along with it. I hope that helps explain it.
Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the sacrament of baptism to these children, but there must be a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents
What’s wrong with it? Because gay is wrong. The church should be protecting children from being raised by gay couples, not affirming them in that choice and pretending it’s normal or okay. A Baptist school made the news for telling two lesbians that the girl they are raising may not enroll in kindergarten at the Christian school because their household arrangement is unbiblical. How sad when the Baptists are more Christian than some Catholic bishops.
Alphabet people are attention-seeking narcissists and tyrants. No, I won’t bake the cake. No, I won’t baptize your “kid”.
God has been merciful to you. Why not extend mercy to innocent children who have only the stain of original sin against them.
Because, YFC, the gay narcissists pretend it’s about the child when it’s all and only about them. It’s about the gay couple wanting to be seen as normal, as being like all the other families, as being publicly affirmed by the community and the priest. They are using the kid to get public affirmation. They don’t care one whit about baptism nor Catholic faith. If they cared about Catholic faith, they wouldn’t be in a gay union to begin with. It’s all a lie and a fraud and a ploy to get public affirmation, to coerce public affirmation by making disingenuous appeals to mercy. I see right through you and them.
YFC, should we baptize others not old enough to give consent (and who don’t have parents and godparents living the Faith)?
Maybe a fly-over baptism of China, Saudi Arabia or a Trump rally?
Wow “don’t care” you certainly presume an awful lot about people you don’t even know. Maybe search your own conscience before you so visciously judge people you don’t know.
No we shouldn’t do fly over baptisms. The issue of delaying baptism until the child is old enough to consent/have reason/adult is a timeless question and the west has quite definitively said no it is not necessary to wait. Flyover baptisms? No. There is no consent. No reasonable hope of being raised in the faith.
To others who think canon law confuses the difference between being raised Catholic and being raised by perfect Catholics, you seem confused. I’d like to ask which of your parents were perfect models of Catholic Christianity, or only one of them? Let’s name names. Which of your parents were perfect sinless and pure vessels of Christ?
Can we move the discussion on Cardinal Hollerich to this thread?
The other one has gotten so long on the Pope story.
It is important that people read -not just headlines- but the story themselves.
Within the story it is important to be able to tell what the Cardinal actually said and what someone else is interpreting it to mean.
The latest comments there are so sinful maybe for the good of souls we should just drop it.
from the prior discussion by a poster named dishonest who is calling jon and another poster dishonest: why? Because the person doesn’t like the truth so they call the truth dishonesty.
And jon will be first in line to get the next flawed papal document resulting from the dishonest “Synod on Synodality,” and “preach” it to everyone. Simply to be first. Not to be an honest Catholic.
TEven if you disagree with the Church on something that can be disagreed about (a lot of things can’t be), a Catholic should be accurate in telling what is going on in the Church. You can’t ad lib.
Look at all the false teaching in the posts above about baptism. You don’t get to make things up.
You can easily correct your problems of skepticism and ignorance, by educating yourself, reading good Catholic publications regularly, keeping up on the news. And avoid reading sensational material– read only publications of high quality, that are objective, and present the truth.
Suppose a child being raised by a gay couple is baptized. What next? Do they join the parish parents’ club and go on outings with all the normies? Where does it end? What if the gay couple goes up to receive Communion? The scandal then? What then? Where does it end? They push and push and push to coerce acceptance of their deviancy. The kid is just a pawn in their game.
What if the child dies?
Should we just baptize everyone then, even if they don’t ask for it, in case they die? God is merciful and just. He will judge such children with mercy, including babies whose mothers had miscarriages.
The mortal sin of presumption is presuming on God’s mercy.
And no, you cannot baptize someone that has not asked for it. Which is different than refusing to baptize someone which sometimes is necessary for their spiritual good.
I don’t presume people are in heaven (or “on their way”) or in hell. Neither you or I know. Only God knows, as I noted. And, He is both just and merciful. Baptism is the ordinary means God has provided for entrance into eternal life. But, He is God and, as the Catechism teaches in # 1257: “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. ‘Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by His sacraments.”
God knows, we don’t-Thank you for posting that.
We are permitted to hope for heaven for unbaptized babies but we not presume it.
What is the San Diego Diocesean newspaper supposed to do? Print a story condemning Bishop McElroy? Get real.
I have also seen parents who are lapsed Catholics refused Baptism of their child. Because it is obvious to the Pastor, the parents are insincere– treating the Sacrament of Baptism like a mere social event to fulfill. When you tequest to have your child baptized, you must be a sincere Catholic practitioner, leading a good life in accord with Catholic teachings. And you must promise to bring up the child in the Catholic Faith— and be good Catholics yourselves, attending Mass regularly, belonging to the parish. I also have heard of cases of pastors refusing Baptism to illegitimate children of young, lapsed Catholics “living together,” with no intention to marry. In those cases, a good priest will insist that the couple first separate completely, live chastely, go to Confession, and set their lives right with God. Next, make the decision to either marry, or go their separate ways. No sex before Marriage. Next, if they go their separate ways, whoever is raising the child (usually the mother) must become a practicing Catholic, and join the parish. If they decide to marry, then the Baptism of the child will occur after the couple is married in the Catholic Church and has joined the parish and are practicing their Catholic Faith. If the couple had only a civil marriage ceremony– they must have their marriage convalidated, with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in the parish church, and become Catholic practitioners.
I know a young couple who were living together that were refused baptism for their baby. (Honestly, they were only living together for the baby. They would not have been living together if not for the baby. They were not living together before.)
The mother’s father found a priest that would baptize the baby and who worked with the couple (accompanied them) until they were ready to commit to marriage.
Nazi newsletter praises Hitler