When I was a young seminarian I studied moral theology under the tutelage of the late, great Germain Grisez (1929-2018). I did not agree with all aspects of his “new natural law” theory, but his deep devotion to Catholic orthodoxy and his stout defense of Humanae Vitae in the face of fierce criticism impressed me. But what impressed me even more was his unwavering commitment to rigorous, free, and open scholarly debate, which gave him a deep charity toward proportionalist moral theologians with whom he was engaged in debate. This led him to instill in us a sense of deep intellectual fairness to our interlocutors, eschewing all forms of “straw man” argumentation and having a rigorous devotion to accurate representation of all pertinent theological data.
Unfortunately, Cardinal Robert W. McElroy’s “latest “clarification” of his views on Catholic moral theology in matters of sexuality displays none of the qualities of fairness, rigor, and accuracy championed by Grisez. I think that should matter. Furthermore, there really is nothing in his latest missive that clarifies anything at all and is rather a mere doubling-down on, and a repetition of, what he has said before. He does not, in any specific way, deal with the substance of his critic’s arguments, but simply does an end-run around them by proffering the same straw man arguments as in his previous America magazine essay.
McElroy’s primary issue is with the moral conclusions that have been drawn within the Church’s traditional moral theology.He once again explicitly rejects the notion that all sexual sins have as their moral object acts which constitute “grave matter”:
The moral tradition that all sexual sins are grave matter springs from an abstract, deductivist and truncated notion of the Christian moral life that yields a definition of sin jarringly inconsistent with the larger universe of Catholic moral teaching. This is because it proceeds from the intellect alone.
The clear agenda is to legitimate the view that most sexual sins are “merely” venial, if indeed sins at all in many cases. Should the Church adopt his views, McElroy has to know that the net effect would be, on a practical level, that most Catholics would now simply adopt an utterly relativistic and latitudinarian approach to sexual morality. They would, rightly, deduce that the Church had now finally “come to its senses” and baptized the sexual revolution.
McElroy creates a straw man in his use of Pope Francis’s remark that the Eucharist is not a “prize for the perfect” but “medicine” for the sick. The pontiff’s remark is, of course, a true statement. But who actually thinks this way, that is, views the Eucharist as a “prize for the perfect”? Who actually espouses such a Pelagian view? I don’t know one single Catholic—and I’ve known many in my sixty four years of existence—who holds that view. And, prescinding from whatever it is the Holy Father was trying to say, Cardinal McElroy employs it as a tool for advocating for open Eucharistic table fellowship, in particular for sexual sinners. Because, after all, who among is perfect? None of us. Ergo, all should be allowed communion no matter their moral status.
This flimsy argument allows McElroy to equate traditional sexual morality—and the Eucharistic discipline that goes with it—as a form of pharisaism that self-righteously seeks to “exclude”. Meanwhile, his own advocacy for the veniality of most sexual sins and for open table fellowship is presented as the “merciful” and properly “Christian” inclusive view.
But this is clearly contrary to both Scripture and Tradition. Saint Paul clearly disagrees, as he lists sexual sins as of a kind, along with other serious sins, that exclude one from the Kingdom (cf Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5). This means that when Paul warns against receiving the Lord’s body and blood while in a state of serious sin, he is surely including sexual sins (1 Cor 11:27ff). But McElroy never references Paul in this regard, for obvious reasons, and never once addresses the fact that his views represent a radical novelty in the entire history of the Church going back to the apostolic era.
His use of straw man arguments against the traditional view gives the appearance of being mere rhetorical devices in the service of a set of conclusions in search of an argument. It would seem that it is the good Cardinal who is claiming that he has all the answers in advance, drawn not from the Church’s tradition, but from the sexual ethic of secular, Western Liberalism. Because if he was truly interested in honest theological discourse, he would not engage in such vacuous caricatures of the theological reasoning behind the Church’s traditional Eucharistic discipline. And if he was truly interested in positioning his views within the normative categories for Catholic theology (i.e. Scripture and Tradition), then he would do more than quote a few rhetorical, off-the-cuff statements from Pope Francis.
However, the problems with McElroy’s analysis goes beyond straw man caricatures and also involves glaring inaccuracies. For example, he claims the Church never treated sexual sins as grave matter until the 17th century: “For most of the history of the church, various gradations of objective wrong in the evaluation of sexual sins were present in the life of the church.” But this is not the case at all. All of the Church Fathers, including Augustine and Aquinas, viewed sexual sins as gravely sinful (albeit in varying levels of sinfulness, depending on differing elements in their moral object). It is true that, in the 17th century, we see the rise of moral casuistry and a reemphasis from the Jesuits—who had been accused of laxity in their theological approach to sexual morality—that sexual sins do indeed involve grave matter. McElroy apparently (he never cites a single historical source) concludes that is the first time the Church had so defined sexual sins, which allows him the rhetorical space to engage in his moral revisionism. But this is just so wrong on a historical level that it is actually painful to read from a Cardinal of the Church who one would expect to know better.
McElroy uses this faulty historical analysis (apparently rooted in a bad interpretation of Charles Curran’s analysis of the history of moral theology) to imply that we can now treat homosexual sex, in the main, as only venially sinful because prior to the 17th century matters were more open to such thinking. But how so? McElroy is clearly trying to put the fig leaf of tradition over his naked dissent from 2,000 years of clear teaching on homosexual sex as gravely sinful. (There is a reason why the Catechism states, very clearly: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'” [par 2357]). And he then uses that fig leaf as cover for turning tradition on its head, accusing those of a more traditional view of violating the “ethos” of the broader Catholic moral tradition. It takes a lot of chutzpah to make such a claim, especially given the fact that his views on homosexuality are completely contrary to the entirety of the tradition.
A further inaccuracy is McElroy’s claim that only sins against the sixth and ninth commandments are “automatically” considered to be grave matter, while sins against the other commandments are not. The last time I checked my freshman year notes from “Moral Theology 101,” any deliberate act against one of the ten commandments involves grave matter. (And, again, the Catechism says: “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments…” [par 1858]). Idolatry was considered as involving only a parvity of matter in the tradition? Really? And what of murder?
Is McElroy seriously asking us to believe that the Church has never considered idolatry and murder as “automatically” involving grave matter? Or gross disrespect for one’s parents? Or violations of the commandment to worship God on the Sabbath? Hasn’t the Church always taught that deliberately missing Mass on Sundays is a grave sin?
McElroy then goes on to list a series of sins that the Church, allegedly, does not “automatically’ consider to be grave sins. Among those he lists are spousal abuse, employee abuse, and abandoning your children. But the Church does indeed teach that these sins involve grave matter when they are at a level of abusiveness that causes grave harm. Therefore, McElroy’s argument here borders on the incoherent and deflects from the central issues at hand. Is sex outside of lifelong heterosexual marriage sinful or not? And if it is sinful (even if only venially so, as he suggests), then the best counsel is to avoid it, and not to treat it with a moral insouciance that sees it as “no big deal”.
McElroy’s treatment of the role of conscience is also so tendentious as to constitute an inaccurate description of its role in moral living. Space precludes me from analyzing this at length since it is indeed a complex topic. But suffice it to say that McElroy’s approach has more in common with overly subjectivist views of conscience than it does with the Church’s traditional approach. It also plays in the sandbox of modern notions of the therapeutic self, coupled with a rather oracular view of conscience as some kind of generator of self-made moral norms. The net effect is to reduce all moral decisions in the sexual domain to something wildly idiosyncratic, owing to my peculiar, unique, and “enormously complex circumstances”. McElroy does pay lip service to the importance of the Church’s role in forming conscience, but it rings hollow.
A final inaccuracy is McElroy’s rather breezy description of Christ’s pastoral approach as beginning with love, followed by healing, and only then followed by a challenge to do better. I call this “breezy” because it only describes some of Christ’s pastoral encounters but not all. Think of the story of Christ’s encounter with the rich young ruler, when Christ leads with the challenge—”If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor…and come, follow me” (Mt 19:21)—and not with “accompaniment”.
When the young man walks away, Christ does not go after him but turns to the crowd and issues a rather harsh assessment of the distorting effects of wealth on the soul. And what are the first words of Christ in his public ministry? “”Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15). In point of fact, in Christ’s earthly ministry the loving and healing often come simultaneously with the challenge of repentance. But in McElroy’s pastoral approach the challenge to repentance is bracketed as something onerous, even at odds with the loving and healing. Which bespeaks a fundamental belief that the challenge to repentance is not itself an act of loving mercy. Which means, as he himself says, that such a challenge is indicative of a cold, gnostic logic of a “law” divorced from mercy.
Finally, there is an aspect of this entire debate which is too much on the level of abstraction. And that is the effect McElroy’s words will have on same-sex attracted Catholics who are struggling to live out lives of sexual continence, in line with Church teaching. Not out of some slavish obedience to “rules,” but out of a recognition that the Church’s teaching is life-giving and truly liberating. But, according to McElory, that same teaching lacks mercy and imposes real pain on struggling LGBTQ people, the clear implication of which is that the teaching is false—at least in part, if not in whole. Where is the affirmation for such faithful same-sex attracted Catholics in anything McElroy has written? It is nowhere to be found, as if he finds it embarrassing, which leaves such Catholics hanging out to dry.
Since my original essay on McElroy, I have received numerous emails from same-sex attracted Catholics who want to live out the Church’s teaching, but who feel thrown under the bus by McElroy and his allies. As one person wrote to me, “I am surrounded by gay friends who are sexually active who mock me mercilessly as a sap and a fool for following the Church. And now they have more ammunition with which to mock me, as even a Cardinal of the Church calls the Church’s call to sexual continence as overly painful and burdensome.”
And what of faithful Catholic catechists, teachers, and priests, who have fought the good fight on this issue with compassion, but also with fidelity? Who have been persecuted for their views and who are often on an island in an ocean of angry dissenters, many of whom are in ecclesial positions of authority? Who must now deal with being accused of standing against the “new” moral paradigm of “mercy” in the Church? McElroy’s words will now be weaponized against them from people within their own Church and their position will now become untenable to the point of unbearable. Where is the accompaniment for such people?
“Well,” a friend remarked to me, “at least McElroy is starting a conversation we need to have.” I said to him, “Wrong. It is a conversation we have already had and do not now need to relitigate.” It is almost as if Veritatis Splendor was never written. But that is a conversation for another day.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
McElroy is still a Cardinal in good standing with the Pope, unlike so many faithful priests and nuns who are cancelled. So please, continue to try and convince me there is no crisis in the Catholic church.
do you think Chapp is trying to convince you of that?
Now it’s time for the wolf’s claws to show off
“After all, who among is perfect? None of us. Ergo, all should be allowed communion no matter their moral status” (Chapp paraphrasing Card McElroy on radical inclusion). “Forgive, forgive whether the penitent repents, forgive always” (Pope Francis’ first premise for radical inclusion).
Intrinsic evil, argued by Chapp is always mortal sin. What they are saying, in effect, is that all, whatever their beliefs or practices, mustn’t be refused admission into the Church and access to its sacraments.
Besides the dire implications for wavering heterosexual Christians, Chapp addresses the rarely mentioned dynamic of negative effect on those faithful struggling with homosexual tendency. What McElroy, Hollerich et al actively promote is in reality, Catholicism reduced to an amoral sexual social network.
Personally, I cannot envision anything more Antichrist.
I believe it’s a good deal more amoral than just sex. I’ll repeat here what I struggled to finally get posted in the comments section at America magazine, which they finally did when attention declined to nothing:
McElroy’s entire “pastoral” outlook seems to be premised on the notion that people seldom lie to themselves about their sins. Self-deception is only one of the most common of human experiences. Our “struggles” would be less if it were not, which is why Our Lord said the truth will set us free. This may come as a shock to many, but God is smarter than us. God gives us moral absolutes because He knows all the repercussions of our actions better than our cunning self-accommodating minds can imagine. And when Francis, whose reasoning McElroy endorses, implicitly tells us that it’s all right for a man to “discern” that his “concrete circumstances” and “limitations” in “today’s world” where he can abandon his family to run away and start a second family, it is not really a “new’ form of “mercy” or pastoralism to provide approval. In fact, it is rather merciless towards the victims of sin. It’s just the same old phony sin and rationalization process humanity has practiced for thousands of years with new attempts at sophistry and new verbal engineering for which sophists will have to give a final account of themselves before God.
Excellent piece.
McElroy seems to think that sins are sins because God arbitrarily picked some of the really most fun things and forbade us from doing them just to test us.
But God forbade us to commit sinful acts because they are themselves toxic. Destructive. Deadly.
How would loving would God’s “radically inclusive love” be if it resulted in lives interrupted, people being used like objects, families and marriages destroyed?
And so it’s clear that the distinction between “radically inclusive love” and “judgmental” traditionalism is a false dichotomy.
As Dr. Chapp says, one would expect more from a cardinal of the Church than to make such a transparently specious argument.
Even as a heretic, then, McElroy is a lightweight. A buffoon.
It is quite telling that this insistently unimpressive thinker received his red hat from our perhaps even less impressive pope.
The good news is, the evil one seems at this point to be scraping the bottom of its bottommost barrel.
One thing has become abundantly clear to me in my dotage: sin clouds the intellect. While it is true that all whose intellect is fundamentally challenged are not necessarily inveterate sinners, I would say that all sinners have impaired intellects. Draw your own conclusions.
Well said, Deacon Edward.
The conclusion we might draw: the same as given us by the Beloved Apostle, direct from Jesus Christ & The Holy Spirit of The Father:
“Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning since the beginning.” 1 John 3:8a.
Mainly through the high caliber of CWR articles & perceptive comments over this last year or so, one gradually discerns the materialism of Pope Francis and his clique, who find it convenient to twist scripture eisegetically for their socio-political objective.
Their core error is allowing themselves to be blinded to the spiritual realities that these Holy Scriptures teach us. Are our ‘leaders’ unspiritual, still in the flesh?
“And this is the judgment, that The Light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” John 1:19.
It is lent. Maybe we could offer our prayers and fasting for the opening of the eyes of misguided leaders.
Ever in the unshakeable love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Dear Dr Marty:
Blessings as you honour our Lord and Saviour. To develop a closer walk by studying His word can never hurt us.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Good input equates to good output, let us be diligent!
In the name above all others, the Lord Jesus.
Brian
Beautifully stated. Thank you.
Let’s face it, zer has the scarlet because he is of the ilk of his appointee…
Its hard to imagine that a person with this mindset will be voting on the next pope..
Its Mr mccarrick lite…
Thank you, Larry, for yet another excellent article.
McElroy’s views are, as you point out, historical fabrications and clearly contrary to Scripture and Tradition. The church he wants is one that will celebrate a craven surrender to the secular culture.
The question I keep coming back to is who would need or bother with such a church. Just do your own thing.
Thanks, dear Larry, for a lucid, comprehensive, and well-referenced annihilation of Cardinal Robert W. McElroy’s Church-destroying equivocations.
One could, perhaps, add that the aim of our life in the Church, including obedience to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that we should have a new way of life: the way of Jesus Christ. We are not obeying for the sake of obedience, alone.
McElroy’s is NOT that way. His is NOT the way we have all learned in Christ.
Ephesians 4:21-24 seems to address McElroy’s apostacy: “For surely you have heard about Him and were taught in Him, as truth is in Jesus. You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourself with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
In addition to your helpful discussion of mortal sin, Larry, one might add reference to our being included or excluded from Christ, such as in Ephesians 5:5 “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one that is greedy (that is, an idolator) has any inheritance in The Kingdom of Christ and of God.”
The everlasting rewards of being in Christ are infinitely desirable but McElroy and Co. are lying by trivializing the impassable impediment of unrepented sins.
Thanks again, dear Larry, for your excellent analysis of the shockingly incompetent prognostications of a ‘prince of the church’ who seems to be pretty close to ‘the prince of this world’.
Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.
Ever in love of The Lamb of God; blessings from marty
Have to wonder how much McElroy is driven to his position to justify his hacking for pro-abortion democrats. He has backed himself into a corner and must not permit any parameters for communion. After all, he never brings up the mortal sin of murder, does he? His insistence that we Catholics are obsessed with sexual morality is a distraction from his inviting pro-abortion Catholic politicians to line up for communion. Whatever his madness, no one must overlook Bergoglio’s blessing of it. We are in perilous times.
Now two essays? The general rule is, “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
One might simply point out that McElroy is simply calling our Lady of Fatima a liar.
Did she not tell the children that most of the hell bound souls have fallen for sexual sin?
Did she not reveal to them that a village girl would be in purgatory until the end of the age? Now what sin could she have committed to so be punished?
Do self absorbed ‘intellectuals’ as McElroy have the humility to appreciate miraculous apparitions or miracles? Perhaps that is not Modern.
Bravo, Larry!
I hope I can phrase this delicately enough to not get deleted, and I’ll understand if this comment is deleted or censored. The “unpleasant” (understatement) and in some cases, dangerous and/or life-threatening physical consequences of certain homosexual acts, especially between males, should indicate that this is not what God intended the “act of love” to be. Also, homosexual sex between multiple partners in various settings (e.g., certain nightclubs) does not seem to indicate romantic love, but rather, uncontrolled lust, which is not love at all. And yes, I do realize that many people with same-sex attraction do not get involved with these behaviors but are only seeking one person to love and commit themselves to–that doesn’t make their sexual acts righteous, but I’m sure that this “argument of monogamy” will be one argument that deceives Christians into believing that homosexual sex is not always sinful.
If McElroy can’t see the absolute horror family life and the culture have become because of the acceptance of his values then he is a moral midget. The “lived experience” of the lifestyle he thinks we should be open to (meaning that we should encourage) is loneliness, broken families, poverty, ignorance – the list goes on and on and ALL of it is bad. None of these fruits are of the Holy Spirit they are the opposite of the Holy Spirit. What world is this guy living in?
Yes, an enjoyable article! Thank you.
But I want to be one of those you have never heard or believed this: the Eucharist is BOTH a “prize for the perfect” and a “medicine” for the sick. HE/It is the eternal reward of the Perfect in Heaven, having had Him as our medicine for our sickness to journey to Him the Eucharistic Lamb Feast of Eternity…
It is not either/or, it is both/and, but this is only possible if we are in communion with Him the Holy One when we are receiving Him. Otherwise we will make our selves sick and even cause our death while coming to the field hospital unprepared for the Eucharistic Physician and Medicine Lamb…we cannot receive any medicine with something wrong in the one receiving: an adverse reaction either in body or soul occurs, we will only become sick, more sick or even die – maybe one can say that it is like a bodily or spiritual anaphylaxis/anaphylactic shock takes place, sometimes deadly.
The Eucharist Triune Lamb is not even for the sick, He is for the sick properly disposed for the Eucharistic Doctor and Medicine. The sick who come for Him not properly dispose will become more sick and even die.
Lent’s blessings, mercies and miracles, Father
Saint John of God, Patron of hospitals and the dying, pray for us!
Yes, an enjoyable article! Thank you.
But I want to be one of those you have never heard or believed this: the Eucharist is BOTH a “prize for the perfect” and a “medicine” for the sick. HE/It is the eternal reward of the Perfect in Heaven, having had Him as our medicine for our sickness to journey to Him the Eucharistic Lamb Feast of Eternity…
It is not either/or, it is both/and, but this is only possible if we are in communion with Him the Holy One when we are receiving Him. Otherwise we will make our selves sick and even cause our death while coming to the field hospital unprepared for the Eucharistic Physician and Medicine Lamb…we cannot receive any medicine with something wrong in the one receiving: an adverse reaction either in body or soul occurs, we will only become sick, more sick or even die – maybe one can say that it is like a bodily or spiritual anaphylaxis/anaphylactic shock takes place, sometimes deadly.
The Eucharist Triune Lamb is not even for the sick, He is for the sick properly disposed for the Eucharistic Doctor and Medicine. The sick who come for Him not properly dispose will become more sick and even die.
Lent’s blessings, mercies and miracles, Father
The Eucharist Triune Lamb is not even for the sick, He is for the sick properly disposed: the sick not properly dispose will become more sick and even die (cf. 1 Cor 11:27)
The sick must make an examination before the Eucharistic Doctor makes His examination. He may have to proclaim to us, ‘surely you have died’ for ‘eating when it was forbidden’ (cf. Gen 2:17). Those pretending to be the Eucharistic Doctor and Medicine, say, take and eat, surely you must eat for you will not die, you will be like God’. These are the doctors of lies and death from the outset (cf. Gen 3:1c-3). They ‘say and do the dark deeds with their father’, saying with him, ‘you must always eat Holy Communion from the Tree of the Cross, it is your medicine! “You will surely not die or become sick, you will live and be like God! It is not forbidden” ‘!
Lent’s blessings, mercies and miracles, Father
Cardinal Robert W. McElroy has joined the ranks of the inexplicably high-ranking prelates of the Catholic Church with whom I would not entrust the selection of a dimmable LED lightbulb, let alone the treatment of issues affecting the eternal destiny of souls.
Thank you for this. =)
It’s the silence from Rome on this and the machinations of the German episcopacy etc. that worries me.
“The Eucharist, although it, is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
This phrase has a tone of objectification of the Eucharist. In our common dialogue we use the work “It” to describe the Eucharist. I believe a more appropriate pronoun for the Eucharist is “Him.” The Eucharist is Jesus, whom we worship. The Eucharist isn’t a token, a reflection, a reminder. No! The Eucharist is Jesus, and as such the Eucharist is the most important person in our existance.
We build cathedrals to house Him. We make golden boxes for him to rest in. It would be wholly inappropriate to through Christ into toilet, or in a coffin with a decaying body, or in the mouth of an unrepentant sinner.
Thank you, Larry. Beautifully stated.Keep illuminating us!!
Thank you, Larry. Beautifully stated.
The Cardinal is incoherent and divisive. He preaches for an amplification of great pain and suffering from a following of what he preaches. The fallen world entails enough pain and suffering as it is. Thank God for God and His path to Joy.
“I am surrounded by gay friends who are sexually active who mock me mercilessly as a sap and a fool for following the Church. And now they have more ammunition with which to mock me, as even a Cardinal of the Church calls the Church’s call to sexual continence as overly painful and burdensome.”
This is exactly how Joseph Sciambra felt from his experience with dozens of California Catholic clergy. His leaving the Church for Orthodoxy should cause the McElroys of our time to hang the heads in shame.
You are right, TomD,
McElroy & Cupich & same-thinkers (all the way to the seat of Peter) are betraying not only Virtue, as taught by Christ and His Apostles, but also betraying those numerous Catholics who, under testing circumstances, have striven to live virtuously.
What of the millions of souls of priests and nuns, who have bravely kept their vows of celibacy, purity, and faithful obedience?
Surely there is an immense outcry before the throne of God.
Let Larry & all the good commenters here take heart. We are not alone in our protest.
Kept by the virtues of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
He also conflates grave matter with mortal sin. Grave matter is just one element. Thus even when grave matter is in play, that does not “automatically” result in mortal sin as the Cardinal seems to think. Talk about moral theology 101.
McElroy is a prime example of trying to solve a problem by telling a lie about its root cause. Too many in the Church are trying to dictate pastoral care when, in truth, they are only putting a band-aid over a symptom while ignoring the root cause. The cure will never come if we use that approach. Love without Truth is not Love. In other words, McElroy is reacting to his own false (bio-chemically induced) compassion. In this case, true science helps us to arrive at the Truth of Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA). Solid science is reaching the conclusion that SSA is a result of epigenetic plasticity.[1]
To help visualize the epigenome’s role in changing genetic functions, think of our DNA as a computer. The genes within the DNA molecule are the hardware of the computer. The epigenome is the software that tells the computer (our genes) how to function. In our biology, the software (the epigenome) will alter the computer’s function without changing the DNA sequencing of the nucleotides, aka the steps of the DNA ladder. Epigenetic programming changes in response to environment, behaviors, food & drink, traumas, compulsive behaviors, etc.
Research has shown that epigenetic programming can also be manually changed through the instrumentality of biologically produced electromagnetic energy, structured biological water, soundwaves (e.g., voice and pulsating human heart), and other factors. This is not merely hypothetical. Scientists have already achieved a limited ability to reprogram the epigenome.[3] Servant of God Maria Esperanza has seen the future. Michael Brown writes:
[quote] A new type of music (i.e., soundwaves) will be discovered [actually, it has been discovered], which, when combined with light (i.e., electromagnetic radiation), will heal the human body of illness and dysfunction. [end quote][2]
Based on my research, I believe the science already exists to come close to fulfilling Esperanza’s prophecy. However, it has not yet developed sufficiently to cure Same-Sex Attraction. It’s only a matter of time and research before it can. Currently, agenda-science is so busy trying to find the “gay gene” that nobody is funding the cure for SSA. Instead of trying to get the Church to bless SSA and so-called marriages (German bishops — are you paying attention), the Church should lobby the scientific community to undertake the research necessary to reprogram the epigenetic software of those predisposed to disordered SSA?
ENDNOTES:
[1] https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?born-with-it–does-god-will-it–part-1-of-3.
[2] Michael Brown, “In Startling Language, Mystic Claimed a Message About ‘Future’ of Technology,” SpiritDaily, https://www.spiritdaily.org/esperanzatechnology.htm, March 2004.
[3] They are currently having success changing a differentiated (heart, nerve, liver) cell to a stem cell (non-differentiated), and then back to a newly differentiated cell.
You’re assuming the behavior is material and not learned. Would you also contend a material basis for a 98 percent pro-abortion rate among gays or inclinations for a refusal to assume normal adult pattern behavior reflected in such things like clothing style affectations that retain a little boy appearance?
Cardinal McElroy’s statements are in sync with those of the German Bishops and Synod recent vote; though not in official schism their statements, votes for change in Church teaching and tradition are schismatic. McElroy together with his supporters in the USA, throughout the ranks of Cardinals and Bishops are also preaching schism. The church is and will continue to shrink, these schismatic statements and teachings will achieve official schism. The Vatican now says “we need to talk with the German Bishops”, sorry, too late the horses are out of the barn and will not return. This Pope and “if there is another” will need to strengthen the Church that remains for those who leave its teachings have left the Truth that is Christ.
Thanks, dear David.
Let’s join in prayer that there will be no more schism (East v. West, & Protestant v. Catholic are surely more than enough!).
Let’s pray God will cure the current insane flouting of the commandments, and remove the current deception of hubristic innovation, so those privileged to lead will serve us all by returning to follow the clear instructions of Jesus Christ & His Apostles.
Keep praying. Always in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Deeply enlightening.
God neither sleeps nor slumbers over our salvation. Like the allusion of God raising stones to praise him if his own men refuse to, God has inspired this clarification which ordinarily should be the position of one who has been raised to the revered position of the “Prince of the Church”.
Anyway, this article is a testament to the promise of Christ that, “the gates of hell shall never prevail…”.
Many thanks and God bless!
Larry Chapp wrote: “In point of fact, in Christ’s earthly ministry the loving and healing often come simultaneously with the challenge of repentance. But in McElroy’s pastoral approach the challenge to repentance is bracketed as something onerous, even at odds with the loving and healing. Which bespeaks a fundamental belief that the challenge to repentance is not itself an act of loving mercy.”
I don’t think that’s a fair representation of what Cardinal McElroy wrote, which is this:
“First, the Lord embraces the person, then he heals them. Then he calls the person to reform. Each of these elements of the saving encounter with the Lord is essential. But their order is also essential. Christ first reveals the overpowering merciful and limitless love of God. Then he moves to heal the particular form of suffering that the person is experiencing. And only then does he call the person specifically to a change in that person’s life.
This pattern must become ever more deeply the model for the church’s proclamation of the faith and healing action in the world. This must be the imitatio Christi for a pastoral church in an age that rejects abstraction, authority and tradition. The clear recognition of sin and the call to change one’s life to conform more fully with the Gospel is essential to Christian conversion and the achievement of true happiness in this world and the next. But that call must be expressed in the tender, compassionate welcome of a church that patiently ministers over time, as Christ did.”
Please note that “Each of these elements of the saving encounter with the Lord is essential” and “The clear recognition of sin and the call to change one’s life to conform more fully with the Gospel is essential to Christian conversion and the achievement of true happiness in this world and the next.”