In his recent response to “critics on sexual sin, the Eucharist, and LGBT and divorced/remarried Catholics” Cardinal Robert W. McElroy defends the morality of some instances of sex between LGBT and divorced and remarried Catholics.
I reply here to four problems with his defense: it proposes 1) a misleading conception of conscience; 2) a misrepresentation of the history and content of the Catholic Church’s absolute condemnation of all non-marital sexual acts; 3) a misunderstanding of the relationship between the doctrinal and the pastoral realms; and 4) a non-Christian understanding of conversion, accompaniment, and discipleship
Conscience
McElroy says, “it is conscience to which we have the ultimate responsibility and by which we will be judged.” He goes on to conclude: “For that reason, while Catholic teaching has an essential role in moral decision-making, it is conscience that has the privileged place.”
This warrants careful consideration. Conscience in the relevant sense is one’s last and best judgment about the morality of a particular act. One is always obliged to follow one’s conscience judgment, since the alternative is to do what one judges to be morally wrong to do, or to fail to do what one is morally obliged to do. The obligation to follow conscience remains even when one’s judgment about what morality requires is erroneous, for one is obviously not in a position to know that one’s last and best judgment about the morality of a particular act is erroneous. Thus, inasmuch as we are always morally obliged to follow conscience, McElroy is correct that it is to conscience that we have the ultimate responsibility.
It is essential to bear in mind, however, that one’s erroneous judgment of conscience can be either blameless or blameworthy. If a person is not responsible for the error, then even though what the person does in following conscience is objectively wrong, he incurs no guilt; he has a blameless erroneous conscience. For example, parents may sincerely but wrongly judge that God wants them to disallow a blood transfusion without which their child will die. If they honestly tried to form their consciences properly, they are guiltless in following conscience despite its error.
But the point of morality is not just to follow conscience, but to arrive at and follow a true judgment of conscience lest damage be done to human goods and human persons. Although a person with a blameless erroneous conscience incurs no guilt for the objective evil he does in following conscience, that is cold comfort to those who are harmed by the choices made under the influence of the erroneous conscience. The parents who refused to authorize the transfusion may be blameless, but their child will be no less dead.
Morality, then, is about doing what one can to reach and follow a true conscience judgment.
The point does not apply only to obvious cases like the one just mentioned, but to the cases of sexual morality with which Cardinal McElroy is concerned. Adultery (i.e., sexual acts between the divorced and civilly remarried) and sexual acts between same-sex partners—and indeed, all non-marital sexual activity—are morally wrong not because God arbitrarily says so. Rather, God forbids such acts because they are at odds with the good of marriage and the good of the persons affected by choices to engage in those acts. For that reason, true concern for the welfare of people tempted to engage in non-marital sexual activity should move us to want help them live chastely even if we could know that they were not culpable for such acts.
But we have no window into the consciences of other people. Although in some cases we may have strong reasons for thinking that people are unlikely to be culpable for such acts—just as in other cases we may have strong reasons for thinking people are blameworthy—we have no way of being certain of where they stand morally. We cannot know and should not make assumptions about their guilt or innocence. Most Christians seem to grasp the importance of not assuming that others are guilty of sin, but it is less clear that most realize what a terrible mistake it is—indeed, what a gross failure in pastoral charity it is—to assume that those who do what the Church teaches to be gravely wrong are not culpable. For unless we know what we cannot know—i.e., that they are inculpable—we cannot exclude the possibility that they are culpable, in which case they have placed their souls in grave danger. The worst pastoral response in such a case is for a pastoral minister to fail to warn them. Indeed, such a failure is disastrous for both the one entrusted to the minister and the minister himself, as Ez. 33:1–9 makes strikingly clear.
Cardinal McElroy’s statements that we will be judged by conscience, and that conscience, rather than Church teaching, has the privileged place in moral decision making, must be evaluated in light of the truth that a person with a blameworthy erroneous conscience—whose conscience is in error, but the error is his own fault—will be culpable for whatever objective evil it leads him to do, despite the fact that the person remains morally obliged to follow conscience. The Cardinal’s statements misleadingly suggest that those who follow their conscience are inevitably, by virtue of doing so, morally justified. That suggestion is dangerously false in the case of a person who is at fault for having an ill-formed conscience. As Gaudium et spes, 16, teaches: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said when someone cares but little for truth and goodness, and conscience by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of a practice of sinning.”
We are not judged by conscience detached from truth; rather, we are judged by truth and our sincere efforts to live by it. Insofar as one is not morally justified by following a culpably ill-formed conscience, it does not have the privileged place in moral decision making. Rather, in this respect it is truth, which is discoverable by the proper exercise of reason and humble recourse to Church teaching, that holds the privileged place in moral decision making by enabling one to come to an objectively true judgment of conscience.
Finally, astute pastors know the serious temptation that all experience to rationalization and self-deception, and the tendency for those habituated to certain sins, especially sexual sins, to wrongfully tolerate their sin, when in truth what is necessary is a salutary effort of will. It would be pastorally perilous to conclude that because “under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently” (Amoris Laetitia, 302), that they are thus inculpable for their behaviors. The presumption should be that if a person knows the Church teaches that a kind of chosen behavior is gravely immoral, and he continues to choose that behavior, that he should sacramentally confess every instance of that behavior and leave the question of the certainty of culpability to divine judgment.
Catholic moral teaching’s absolute condemnation of all non-marital sexual acts
McElroy is quite bothered by the Catholic teaching that all freely chosen non-marital sex acts are gravely sinful. He deplores the fact that the Church condemns every freely chosen contraceptive act, while other worse acts, he claims, are not considered objective mortal sins:
It is automatically an objective mortal sin for a husband and wife to engage in a single act of sexual intercourse utilizing artificial contraception…[But] it is not automatically an objective mortal sin to physically or psychologically abuse your spouse. It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to exploit your employees. It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to discriminate against a person because of her gender or ethnicity or religion. It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to abandon your children.
To vindicate his charge that the Church is unreasonable in teaching that non-marital sex acts are always grave matter, McElroy packs as much gravity as possible into his list of acts that he says are not always grave matter. As a result, some of his claims are simply false. When mistreating one’s spouse is light matter, it is not called abuse, and when leaving one’s children is justified, the object of one’s choice is not abandonment. Truly abusing one’s spouse and abandoning one’s children are gravely contrary to the virtue of justice. Ironically, far from showing that the Church’s teaching that non-marital sexual acts are not always grave matter is unreasonable, McElroy’s list raises the question of whether the Church should not teach that other acts, properly defined, also are always grave. Exploitation and discrimination, if serious, are also gravely contrary to justice. I say “if serious”, because some of what may be considered exploitation and discrimination are not serious offenses against human good. If I gruffly ask my administrative assistant to get me a cup of coffee each morning, she might feel this is exploitative; and if I choose to yoke myself in trusted friendship only to other committed Christians, this is a kind of discrimination; but neither is seriously harmful to human goods.
But Catholic moral tradition has judged that intentional sexual acts always are gravely related to and impactful on human goods. And thus that every freely chosen sex act is morally serious; that it admits of no parvity of matter; that there is never a little bit of adultery or a minor act of sodomy; that if chosen freely and with sufficient reflection, non-marital sex is always mortally sinful (i.e., ex toto genere suo).
The Cardinal claims this moral judgement is a novelty of 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 in the 17th century, with the inclusion in Catholic teaching of the declaration that for all sexual sins there is no parvity of matter (i.e., no circumstances can mitigate the grave evil of a sexual sin), we relegated the sins of sexuality to an ambit in which no other broad type of sin is so absolutely categorized.
The Cardinal’s claims are utterly false. There certainly are sexual sins that are objectively venial, as is clear from Aquinas (IV Sent., d. 31, q. 2, a. 2, ad 2; ST, Supp. q. 49, a. 5c). And although McElroy correctly reports the judgment that freely chosen sex acts that are non-marital in kind admit of no parvity of matter, this judgement is by no means novel to the 17th century. The great Jesuit moral theologian, Henry Davis, S.J., wrote in 1935 that the historical evidence in support of this Church teaching is so compelling that no theologian would venture to deny it (Moral and Pastoral Theology, v. 2, pp. 180-181).
Expounding the teaching in, for example, De Malo, q. 15, a. 2c and ad 18, Aquinas makes clear that it stems from saintly reflection not only on what is said about sex in Galatians 5:19, 21, Ephesians 5:3-4 and Matthew 5:28 and on the fact that sex in its integrity is the matter of a sacrament, but also on the reality that willing to engage in any of the varieties of non-marital sex is incompatible with the integral respect for marriage that is needed for the wellbeing, temporal and eternal, of new persons.
Yes, the 17th century saw the first of a series of statements of the Holy Office on the question, but they looked back to statements by Popes in 1054 and 1254, and addressed the doubts of a few theologians about supposedly borderline cases such as solicitation, or seeking sexual pleasure from a socially accepted public kiss. By mid-17th century there was no longer any theological support for the idea that maybe some marginal kinds of chosen non-marital sex admit of parvity of matter (see John Connery, S.J., The Morality of Incomplete Venereal Pleasure, dissertation, Rome:1948, pp. 276-278).
But McElroy’s wider project is not to address marginal cases, but as stated to defend instances of full-on sex acts between LGBT or divorced and “remarried” or other unmarried Catholics. He ignores the very ample Scriptural witness, which tells against his position: on adultery, Mk.10:2-12: “if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (see also Matt. 19:3-9, Lk. 16:18, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 7:10-11); for sodomy, Rom. 1:26-32: “though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them”; and again 1 Cor. 6:9-10: men “having sex with men … will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Jesus’s condemnation of divorce and attempted remarriage as adulterous is infallibly affirmed by the Catholic Church at Trent when the Council defines sacramental marriage, even in cases of adultery, as absolutely indissoluble (Canons on the Sacrament of Marriage, nos. 7 & 5). The Gospels do not report Jesus condemning sodomy explicitly, because he was addressing Jews in Palestine who knew that the Old Testament treats it as worthy of death (Lev. 20:13; “an abomination” before the Lord: Lev. 18:22-30; etc.). Only when St. Paul was dealing with Gentiles who practiced homosexuality was its contrariety to natural law/reason and to God’s prohibition expressly restated in the New Testament. Trent infallibly defined this prohibition when the Council includes “fornicators, adulterers [and], sodomites” among those “who commit mortal sins and … separate them from the grace of Christ” (Denz. 1544, 1577).
In a statement that seems to express an animosity towards the Church’s settled, apostolic teaching on sex, the Cardinal claims:
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 too is false. The Catholic contextual “universe” for the Church’s ancient, apostolic judgment on sexual sins is not 17th century deductivist rationalism, but rather the important human and Christian values at stake in willed sexual acts. In 1975, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote: “sexual morality encompasses such important human values that every violation of it is objectively grave” (Persona Humana, 10). The Church has soberly asked what is required for the upholding and flourishing of the good of marital friendship, a good that Christianity and Judaism have always known to be especially vulnerable; which even receives two divinely revealed precepts in the Decalogue directed towards preserving its integrity in every human will (Ex. 20:14, 17).
“The whole Catholic Church,” Germain Grisez writes, “all the faithful, from the bishops to the least of the laity, held [until very recently] the same sexual morality”; this is because the Church, morally measuring every sex act according to whether anyone choosing to engage in it has a will integral/consistent with monogamous, faithful and fruitful marriage, has concluded that every chosen non-marital sex act is harmful and so immoral; “although the Church has not solemnly defined the teaching … that teaching has been infallibly taught [because it] meets the conditions which Vatican II articulated for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium” (Living a Christian Life, ch.9, E, 6).
Pastoral vs. Doctrinal
In his final paragraph, the Cardinal claims that those who oppose “the pastoral mission of Pope Francis” place an undue emphasis on the doctrinal to the neglect of the pastoral. He insists that “the pastoral cannot be eclipsed by doctrine”.
This assertion also deserves careful consideration. Doctrine (Lat.— doctrina) simply means teaching. With respect to the two teachings at hand—on adultery and homosexual acts—the doctrines are grounded in divine revelation and so are definitive, settled, non-negotiable, infallible. This definitive nature derives chiefly from the witness of Sacred Scripture, as we have seen, but also from the writings of fathers and doctors of the Church, the teachings of popes and bishops, the example of the saints, and the doctrines handed on in catechisms and approved manuals for centuries.
The Cardinal says this teaching cannot eclipse pastoral practice, but the pastoral mission of the Church is to shepherd the flock of God according to the will of Christ. When Scripture and Church teaching set forward a definitive moral judgement, they are setting forth the will of Christ for human behavior. They are doing something eminently pastoral; they are guiding behavior, inviting disciples to avoid actions that set them out of communion with Christ by departing from his will. Is the Cardinal saying that the will of Christ must never eclipse the task of shepherding persons according to the will of Christ?
His complaint only makes sense if he doesn’t think that adultery and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. He doesn’t say this outright because he has the weight of infallible moral teaching opposing him, and such assertions will be seen for what they are: denial of divine and Catholic truths. But if he accepts the teachings, then, as a shepherd of the Church, he cannot but reply: avoid these sins; if you don’t, then repent; if you don’t repent, you presumptively set yourself outside the friendship of Jesus and so outside communion with his Church.
Christian conversion, pastoral accompaniment and discipleship
McElroy wants a conception of Christian conversion that does not require as a condition for its fulfillment repentance and a firm purpose of amendment. He repeats the phrase that the pastoral theology of Pope Francis privileges the “concrete reality of human life”. He obviously thinks that homosexual sex and sex with someone other than one’s valid spouse, even when freely chosen with sufficient reflection, are, because of people’s concrete realities, at least sometimes consistent with communion with Christ.
He continues saying the circumstances of such people are “enormously complex”. The statement in context clearly means that pastoral accompaniment does not require repentance here and now, and that “mercy” tolerates marital infidelity and homosexual promiscuity.
This conclusion is not new. It has been the major premise of doctrinal dissenters for well over fifty years: large numbers of baptized Catholics struggle with sexual sin; therefore, we ought not to consider these unrepented sins as incompatible with full communion with Christ and his Church.
But although the experience of the divorced and civilly remarried and those with same-sex attraction may be complex, the moral status of sexual activity outside of marriage is not. Freely chosen sex acts are, like all free choices, subject to a person’s agency and can either be resisted or engaged in. When they are engaged in, unless addiction is present, a person knows what he is doing and can do otherwise. Though mastering one’s urges and ordering one’s relationships may be extremely difficult, with grace–which God never fails to offer—one can do both.
Therefore, also at the heart of the Catholic moral “universe” is the biblical admonition that grace is sufficient, indeed is perfected in weakness (cf. 2 Cor. 12.9). When one yields to grave sexual temptation, he violates his body’s capacity for self-giving and the sacramental significance of human sexuality; he morally mutilates himself, weakens his will, harms his children, and entangles himself in disordered committed relationships, all making himself less apt to reverence the good of monogamous, faithful, and fruitful marriage. And, if he knows Catholic truth, he also alienates himself from Christ and his Church. The Cardinal—and his coreligionists such as James Martin, S.J.—don’t seem to believe that every act of adultery and every choice for homosexual sex is bad for people, harmful, and impactful on salvation, and that justifying such acts, even given complex situations, is therefore never merciful or loving.
The Cardinal says he’s emulating Jesus’s example: “First, the Lord embraces the person, then he heals them. Then he calls the person to reform”—three apparent moments of “encounter” with Christ. And “their order,” he says, is “essential”: merciful love, then healing, then call to repentance, as if these were three phenomena stretched out in time.
But this really is not Jesus’ example. Christ did not say: accept God’s love, remain in that love, and repent/convert later. It is true that Jesus sometimes says, “Your sins are forgiven” to people who have not repented, but in so doing, he is not bestowing forgiveness on them without their repentance. Rather, he is unilaterally offering forgiveness, which has the power, albeit resistible, to elicit the repentance necessary for them to appropriate that forgiveness.
Jesus’ first words at the genesis of his public ministry were “repent/convert” for the kingdom of God has drawn near in him (cf. Mk. 1:15). Conversion means following him to the cross; it is not a future project, even though the depth of conversion grows. It does not progress trans-temporally in three steps: first mercy, then healing, then repentance. It’s one integral encounter with Christ. The woman caught in adultery was loved, offered forgiveness, and called to repentance all at once. It is unthinkable that Jesus would say: your sins are forgiven; go, and don’t worry about a little prostitution; your life is enormously complex; you don’t need to repent now and resolve to sin no more. Jesus didn’t say to Matthew: I know you struggle with financial exploitation, theft and disloyalty to your people. It’s okay; we all struggle. Life is hard. Just know my love, and I’ll accompany you as you gradually disentangle yourself from your knot of deceptions, coercions, and disordered relationships. You can repent later. He said: follow me, now. If Matthew had followed McElroy’s pastoral plan, we’d never have a fourth evangelist.
Jesus didn’t accompany Matthew as a converting tax collector, but as a former tax collector; and the adulterous woman did not follow Jesus as a not-yet-repentant prostitute, but as a former prostitute. Both became disciples because and only because they accepted God’s grace to renounce their former lives. True discipleship requires repentance and firmness of resolve to sin no more.
Does this mean Matthew never again struggled with dishonesty or theft, or the woman with sexual sin? Of course not! We are all weak sinners. But that weakness must always be met with sincere repentance and firmness of resolve to change. Defending a return to Holy Communion without these—without a resolve hic et nunc to cease homosexual (and all) promiscuity and cease having intercourse with anybody other than your valid spouse—is a pastoral failure and a failure of love. Instead of helping the people entrusted to their care, pastors who adopt such an approach make their people’s already difficult struggle far more difficult.
As for the field hospital image, although it can be poignant, it also allows for much misinterpretation. Properly understood, in the present context, it refers to healing and supporting those who are engaged in the battle against concupiscence and basic selfishness in a sinful world, a battle in which salvation is at stake.
Call to action
Given the example of Amoris Laetitia, and given that McElroy was handpicked for the cardinalate by Pope Francis, it is fair to assume that the Cardinal’s ideas chart a partial itinerary for the upcoming Synod on Synodality. The Synod—and Francis through the Synod process—will likely seek to do for those engaging in homosexual and contraceptive acts what Amoris did for the divorced and civilly remarried with respect to returning to the sacraments. Appealing to a misleading conception of conscience, mitigated responsibility, and pastoral accompaniment, homosexual sex and contraceptive practices will probably be put forward as being “enormously complex”, the “concrete situation” of so many Catholics, and ultimately, compatible—at least sometimes—with full communion with the Church and reception of Holy Eucharist.
All concerned, and especially priests and bishops, should do what they can to prevent this from happening.
(I thank Peter Ryan S.J. and John M. Finnis for their significant contribution to this article.)
Further reading:
John Finnis and Germain Grisez, “The Misuse of Amoris Laetitia to Support Errors Against the Catholic Faith” (2016)
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.
The Cardinal has a significant kink in his logic and needs to be removed from office. Humans are capable of rationalizing any number of evil actions on the basis that they “felt” it was ok to do it. Adultery, theft, assault. What about sincerely felt polygamous marriages? Threesomes? And other perversions? What about a badly needed abortion? Are these all ok too? Because a person feels strongly about an action in their own mind does not make it right. Some truths are absolute, and not open to debate. The church will regret going down this slippery slope and had better wake up and take action sooner rather than later. If this man has moved up the ranks to Cardinal not knowing this, there was something deficient in his training. Maybe the man spent no time at all in his priestly career in listening to confessions. If he had, I would imagine he would not be so blithe about giving “anything goes” the “ok”. His position is an untruth , and a scandal to the church.
Much needed response. A one-two punch w Larry Chapp article. Brilliant, thank you!
With “leaders” like this, we are well on the way to schism.
Lj, from who and/or what would you derive an absolute power of authorisation to remove Cardinal McElroy from office?
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Jesus Christ, Luke 12:57
Who?? Why I would imagine the Pope would have that authority. He made him a Cardinal and I imagine can remove him from office, or excommunicate him. For creating a Public scandal and gross distortion of Catholic belief. Was not Uncle Ted McCarrick stripped of his office?? However since the Pope has not lifted a finger regarding the sexual sins, abortion, gay blessings, that so many of these Bishops, etc want to ratify, I doubt that will happen. The pope may soon discover that in his wish “not to judge”, that he has opened Pandora’s box. The results will not be pretty.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, dear Dr. E. Christian Brugger (with Dr Peter Ryan S.J. & Dr John M. Finnis).
It’s SO encouraging to find that there are still Catholics with intellectual integrity, combined with a deep understanding of Church dogmatics, and with lively faith that obedience to God’s commandments is a non-negotiable for all those setting up to teach the rest of us.
“Happy the one who never follows the advice of the wicked,
or loiters on the way that sinners take, or sits with the scoffers,
but finds their pleasure in the Law of The Lord God.”
“It is nothing like this with the wicked, nothing like this!
No, these are like chaff, blown away by the wind.”
“For The Lord takes care of the way of the virtuous,
but the way of the wicked is doomed.”
Ancient serious truths that have only gotten sharper with time.
Blessings on all who obey the Word of God; in the love of Jesus Christ, from marty
Dr Rice, do you mean “are” Catholics in identity or do/act in Catholic roles?
It’s a disgrace that Bishop McElroy has to be schooled in the fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. He should be sent to a re-education camp and forced to attend RCIA classes at some parish in Mongolia. There, he might be exposed to what the Catholic teaches and professes to believe. Bergoglio and his minions make a mockery of the office of bishop.
I sympathize with your frustration. We all argue a lot about whether it’s VII itself or the post VII culture that has diluted the faith, but only the certifiable would deny it’s been a post VII process of entropy that led us a place where the we witness a self-confident idiocy in a Cardinal capable of being so morally blind. Every one knows struggling with sin isn’t easy. Whenever anyone acts like they are the first one to take note of whatever everyone who has ever lived knows, we know we are dealing with a fool. The first concern of any Christian should not be the easing of a guilt ridden conscience but with the victims of sin. The sex revolution has given us the abortion holocaust. How can anyone not prioritize the connection. Well, McElroy seems to have take care of that for hismself, just don’t care about all those crushed baby skulls.
Deacon Peitler, do you mean “faith” or in uncertainty belief as the keeping or allowing in uncertainty the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking and having faith?
Yes
If the cardinal’s latest effort to defend his erroneous views is a trial balloon to test our reaction, it appears that with this article his balloon has met the fate of the three recent newsworthy balloons.
Charles Flynn, do you mean “views” or in uncertainty belief as the keeping or allowing in uncertainty the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking and having faith?
Are you an apologist for Bob McElroy, Oliver?
“As for the field hospital image, although it can be poignant, it also allows for much misinterpretation. Properly understood, in the present context, it refers to healing and supporting those who are engaged in the battle against concupiscence and basic selfishness in a sinful world, a battle in which salvation is at stake.”
A very good article, well-argued on every point. In this last, it can be furthered to note that the very need for a hospital is that sin wounds all of us. Truth is the medicine administered to all within, else they would worsen and die. The Cardinal admits that we’re in a hospital, yet seems to want to decorate the walls and pretend it’s a holiday resort.
Genivieve, do you mean “Truth” or in uncertainty belief as the keeping or allowing in uncertainty the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking and having faith?
Let’s apply the Cardinal’s logic to Alex Murdaugh. Gee, once he got started into opioids he sure needed a way to pay for them, because he was stuck in a very difficult thing to leave behind. And then there was his land and his vacation home and his vacations and all that needed to be tended and he couldn’t just stop doing all of those fun and pleasant things. So he needed lots of money to finance the satisfaction of those needs, and who could condemn him if he started to cheat little people here, and then there, and then more and more and soon he was quite mired in a big mess and it was very difficult for him to just extract himself from it, for it would have involved broken family and societal relationships, so he continued in the sinning. And then his son had that accident and there was more money needed and how was he supposed to just remove himself from that tangled web? If he had thrown in a little adultery or sodomy he might have gained the Cardinal’s sympathy I suppose, after all mistresses are expensive and money is needed for that also and family members who don’t approve about some or all of it are inconvenient. Accompany that, dear prelates.
Mark, do you mean “doing” or in uncertainty belief as the keeping or allowing in uncertainty the inseparability and qualitative equality of ‘doing’ thinking and having faith?
It is unbelievable that this man was elevated to the level of a Cardinal. Catholics are required to form their conscious to the moral teachings of the Church. The morals in question involve intrinsic evils (always wrong). McElroy is touting “cafeteria Catholicism.
Agree, unbelievable!
I suspect that Cupich successfully pushed this elevation, getting red hat company with another friend of Uncle Ted. Very distressing to think what this says about the Vatican these days.
Not any more unbelievable than Roger Mahony there in the photo with him. A good choice of photo, two men who bring shame to the church. It is hard to find good cardinals these days.
Alan G. We can’t even adequately vet new priests, which is the true point of the Church’s future. I want to see the day when there are many more dedicated women Cardinals. How bad can I be? Don’t wildly condemn.
“Obligation to follow conscience remains even when one’s judgment about what morality requires is erroneous” (Christian Brugger). Although, technically Brugger is correct, in respect to the faith he is not.
Aquinas on conscience and responsibility says regards sin [here I’m specifically addressing grave matter or intrinsic evil], evil in general we nonetheless, despite the standing responsibility we owe to God who endowed us with conscience, we are responsible for what what we should know – only that which is beyond the competency to know is forgivable by God.
If, for example, we presume our conscience tells us we should not abide by revealed doctrine, we are obliged to follow that doctrine. Conscience is acting with knowledge, and the knowledge we possess, which is our personal understanding of a moral issue cannot be assumed to possess priority. Otherwise, Christ would not have warned of condemnation of those villages the Apostles would visit and preach the Gospel who “refused to believe”.
Brugger argues that one should know, following Aquinas, but nevertheless affirms that McElroy’s false conscience is sacrosanct. Meaning that McElroy bears no moral responsibility or sin for repudiating revealed doctrine. Brugger’s argument is a very good, excellent one as to why we should conscientiously affirm Church doctrine based on revelation that homosexuality is intrinsically evil – and why McElroy should believe that. If Brugger were a priest and McElroy confessed his sins adding he cannot abide by Church doctrine on homosexuality Brugger presumably would absolve him [as a priest I couldn’t in respect to my own conscientious understanding of sin, conscience, and responsibility].
We must accept that while conscience is generally considered inviolable, that is not always the case in fact. “For one is obviously not in a position to know that one’s last and best judgment about the morality of a particular act is erroneous”(Brugger). When it come to intrinsic evil such as homosexual behavior the very basis for development of conscience, the Natural Law Within informs us homosexuality is contrary to nature, and is indeed sinful always and in every instance. There is always a willful suppression of the interior knowledge of good and evil in the development of a false conscience – in respect to intrinsic evil.
“A blameworthy erroneous conscience—whose conscience is in error, but the error is his own fault—will be culpable for whatever objective evil it leads him to do, despite the fact that the person remains morally obliged to follow conscience” (Christian Brugger).
Here Brugger approaches what would be in agreement that we can never justify committing an intrinsically evil act, such as adultery, murder, homosexuality, false witness. There, however is no moral rationale that would excuse a person who commits such acts, that he could justifiably convince himself that such acts are good, that an erroneous conscience regarding such acts can be innocent, rather than blameworthy.
To clarify the above, I’m in complete agreement with Christian Brugger that even if one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, they’re morally responsible for the evil of the act.
Although a Christian or practicing Catholic has an obligation to form their conscience in compliance with necessary Apostolic doctrine. For example, a Catholic when reciting the Nicaean creed on Sunday is obliged to believe what the creed says, despite a difference in belief, similar to requirement of belief in dogmatic doctrines.
Dignitatis Humane failed to make this explicit, the consequence was the enshrinement in Amoris Laetitia of conscience as the ultimate arbiter of truth and belief. It’s the revealed Word alone that has absolute viability and requirement for belief. The rule to which reason is the measure and conscience must comply.
And because of this obligation to truth we can never claim, in abrogation of dogma that an intrinsic evil is a good. Card McElroy’s position cannot be considered conscientiously justifiable because it defies his responsibility to the faith. He is wrong both in substance and in conscience.
Many thanks for that clarification, dear Fr Peter.
bBlessings Fr Peter and thank you.
Your claim that there is “no moral rationale that would excuse a person who commits such acts” seems to be distinctly at odds with Church teaching “1746 The imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified by ignorance, duress, fear, and other psychological or social factors.” Similarly, “1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.” And “2352 […] To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” That kind of stuff affects innocent people from the day they’re born, and perhaps even before they’re born.
And yet, dear Chris, all the sins defined by The New Testament and by The Catechism of the Catholic Church ARE sins no matter what the circumstances.
As such they have to be admitted by the sinner, repented of, together with a sincere resolution to as far as is possible put right the wrong done to another (“Leave your gift at the altar & go be reconciled with those you have offended, first; then return to offer your gift to God”).
Again – irrespective of the circumstances of their sin – sinners must make a firm resolution to cease sinning, out of reverence for God..
Confusing the degree of personal responsibility with the commission of the sin is what is leading some of our (apparently ill-informed) Church leaders into the heresy of proposing that sin is not always sin! They really should know better!
Sin is sin. It is ungodly, unbefitting of the children of God. If we are thinking of sinning, Christ always says: “Don’t do it!”
If we are sinning. Christ always says: “Stop it; repent & come back to Me with all your heart!”
Christ always welcomes sinners who come to be taught by Him, but He never asks them what made them sin; never teaches them that maybe their sins are not sins at all!
Sin is always an indication that the devil has a stronghold in the sinner’s life. Christ was manifest in world history to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8); irrespective of how sins arise.
The compassion of Christ (& our compassion, too) for people caught in difficult situations must be kept separate from the Gospel call to repent from all sin, and be renewed by the washing of water and the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
Helping someone get free of sin (however caused) is merely the prelude to their entering the joys & freedom of Real Life in Christ.
That a cardinal or any other cleric would impede this is surely an abomination.
Ever in the grace of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Martin, words and the words used to define them are always subject to interpretation. Frankly, I doubt any two people on earth ever have exactly the same understanding of anything, and whether their understandings are sufficiently similar seems to also be a matter of opinion. Perhaps you and the cardinal aren’t exactly eye to eye on what he was “actually” saying by his words.
Thanks for replying, dear Chris.
It used to be that ordinary Catholics like us could rely on the moral integrity of leading clerics and their dedication to prayer and their immersion in sacred scriptures and the lives of the saints & martyrs. No longer, Chris. Today, too many ‘leaders’ are ambitious men of the world, steeped in luxury, immersed in netflix (and many in porn & immorality). These are the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ Jesus warned us to be alert for.
We must give thanks to God for such well-informed and dedicated, true leaders as Carl Olson, Larry Chapp, Christian Brugger, Peter Ryan S.J., John M. Finnis, Peter Morello, Peter Beaulieu, and many others who have kept faithful. These are true shepherds & their words must carry weight for us.
In our era, right now, a great sieving is taking place.
Stay awake & always praying good bother Chris. Ever in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
You omitted the following attached phrase, “that he could justifiably convince himself that such acts are good, that an erroneous conscience regarding such acts can be innocent, rather than blameworthy”. Take note that I’m citing someone making a completely free decision.
Furthermore, the wording of a theological opinion in the Catechism is not necessarily infallible doctrine. On that score, regarding mitigation John Paul II warned of making mitigating circumstances a category, in which culpability is entirely determined by external factors such as duress, fear, although, which can in instances of, let’s say abortion reduce, perhaps remove culpability. Whereas persons who commit sodomy [unless physically forced] are most often making a willful, unmitigated decision.
Then there are some sins, false witness for example, or murder of the innocent that are always intrinsically evil. There are no mitigating circumstances that can justify these acts. Insofar as persons who from the moment they enter life are handicapped by severe conditions, external influence that largely shapes their psyche, I agree with you. As a priest, I cannot in the confessional determine, by making an in depth psychological assessment whether mitigation may reasonably nullify culpability. When such cases are apparently manifest I can counsel the penitent to relieve their anxiety. I offer absolution in either instance since it’s virtually impossible to be assured of complete innocence in most cases [although some cases are clearly mistaken self judgment and absolution is not required]. Absolution for all other instances will remove any degree of culpability and assure the penitent they’re forgiven.
I did not include the “attached phrase” because it doesn’t save your claim in regard to (always) being “blameworthy”. You wish me to take note that you’re “citing someone making a completely free decision,” but in fact it cannot be established that the persons we’re talking about are making a “completely free decision”. And while “the wording of a theological opinion in the Catechism is not necessarily infallible doctrine,” I take note that the Church teaches that the Catechism is a “sure norm for teaching the faith”, a “sure and authentic reference text,” and “a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message”. As to your opinion that “persons who commit sodomy [unless physically forced] are most often making a willful, unmitigated decision,” my own interviews with many homosexual persons “most often” find possible mitigating factors. In addition, I’d say most report that, to use your words, the “Natural Law Within” does not and has never “informed” them that all (or even any) of their homosexual acts are always “morally wrong”. And while the Church teaches that “ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility,” that does not say it’s always so, and “often” might not even be most of the time.
Chris, you’re making a strong case for the conscientious liceity of homosexual behavior. Whether you don’t sense the natural law within, the overwhelming majority of Mankind does. Christ in his prophetic presence prior to the incarnation, and when physically present confirmed same sex acts are intrinsically immoral.
There may be, and are instances, as I acknowledged, when persons with same sex attraction have always believed it was natural for them. Although, from long experience prior to and as a priest much of what I observed indicated it was learned, or adaptive behavior [such as an inverted attraction to femininity]. That most homosexuals may say they never sensed a law within, doesn’t of itself validate their claim.
If there’s any doubt Church Apostolic tradition teaches it’s a moral disorder. And when there’s inner doubt, we know the act itself is a grave sin.
So the real question about your posts is why you are feeling the need to minimize or justify homosexuality? What is your agenda here? Just curious.
Nah, it’s just one of many ways of contributing to, as the Church teaches, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” And clearly, if the majority senses or claims something, that doesn’t of itself validate it, whether it’s the majority of homosexual persons or the majority of mankind. After all, the vast majority of mankind might sense if not used to believe that the earth is flat. Peter says “when in doubt we know that the act itself is a grave sin,” but I’m not sure what anyone “knows,” if anything. I hear seemingly contradictory claims, even from the same person. For example, in one post, Peter wrote “There, however is no moral rationale that would excuse a person who commits such acts,” seemingly in reference to (all) “intrinsically evil” acts, and yet in a subsequent post, he wrote “external factors such as duress, fear, although, which can in instances of, let’s say abortion reduce, perhaps remove culpability”.
There are no mitigating circumstances that can justify acts that are always immoral.
For sake of edification on the limitations of mitigation, to begin, we’re called by Christ to resist sin, whether there is danger, fear, suffering similar to the early martyrs of the faith. Mitigation does not overcome grace, that on the premise that God would not allow us to be tempted beyond our strength.
However, the Church justly acknowledges instances in which mitigation due to ignorance, fear, suffering can diminish and also nullify culpability. An instance might be a woman living in dire poverty, suffering fear of reprisal, and ignorant of the fullness of the immoral act of abortion.
Nevertheless, there are intrinsically evil acts that can never be justified under any circumstances considered mitigating. Examples are: Killing of the innocent outside of justified self defense or war. Dishonor of mother or father. Adult sexual acts with children. Incest in all forms. Parents sexually abusing their children. Mutilation of another under any pretense. Men engaging in same sex activity. Women engaging in same sex activity. Stealing, especially acts that knowingly compromise the welfare of another [secretly taking a good required for survival is not stealing]. Torture. Rape. Lying, especially lies that cause injury [a falsehood for the sake of protecting the innocent and helpless does not rate as malevolent]. False witness. Calumny, the defamation of another person.
Another sin, the most egregious insofar as purview, is sin against the Holy Spirit, who informs and clarifies the good and inviolability of truth.
On abortion. What’s addressed here are acts that comport with the conditions for culpability, which includes a freely made decision. Theologians, canon lawyers identify circumstances in which an abortion may not comply with a freely made decision due to external pressures that comprise an undue burden. While abortion always remains a sinful act, the woman who aborts when serious external circumstances affect her decision to act freely, the opinion is that the abortive act may not incur the penalty of mortal sin.
Whereas the other acts named above normally considered in context of freely made decisions [for example not made at gunpoint] cannot be considered in similar context.
Peter, how do you interpret your claim (“Whereas the other acts named above normally considered in context of freely made decisions [for example not made at gunpoint] cannot be considered in similar context”, i.e. “circumstances in which [the act] may not comply with a freely made decision due to external pressures that comprise an undue burden”) in light of the following CDF statements: “It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject’s responsibility.” (Persona Humana) “Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.” (Letter to the Bishops… on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons) I don’t assume you were intending to share a tautology such as “acts when considered free cannot be considered as acts that may not be free.” So how do you interpret your claim that I’ve quoted in light of the CDF statements I’ve quoted?
Yes, Chris , there are many variables in most acts as well as sexual. In that context a woman under stress regarding a pregnancy is seeking to diminish adverse consequences. Whereas sexual acts are by nature inclusive of a pronounced desire for pleasure.
As a priest, it’s understood a penitent who enters the confessional has the presumption of confessing sins. Acts that are objectively sinful when confessed, or perhaps presented for evaluation my judgment remains focused on the objective. Confession, the sacrament of penance isn’t intended to be a psychiatric session, although knowledge and counsel assists both priest and penitent. Whether subjectively the penitent may not be culpable is God’s judgment.
We’ve revised Persona Humana in the area of subjective dynamics, personal conscience particularly during the previous two pontificates. The 2nd ed on homosexuality for example,
“CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
This is the judgment of the Church which I remain faithful to. My personal views on mitigation may not comply with others, mitigation is a reality the understanding of which is largely conceptual. We cannot determine, or measure precisely how and to what extent mitigating dynamics alter a person’s desire or culpability.
We can envision, opine, from our own experience how it may affect another person in similar circumstances. So Chris, there are two premises I must follow, first what the Church teaches, second what is objective.
Also, you equate liceity of homosexual acts with compassion. Your arguments, which focus on opposing possibilities are relativistic, to wit relativism. We can always find matter for argument in that context, nevertheless the effort to form counter argument realizes a permanent first premise. As you present reason to dilute an objective judgment on sexual acts citing a CDF opinion that the freedom of such acts are susceptible to impediments, because “in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given” – this statement is not intended, nor can it be understood as a lever to dismiss culpability in the confessional, or before the divine tribunal. To the extent that it has a place in the formation of conscience it cannot be reasonably identified in most cases. One benefit of the confessional in the sacrament of penance is to resolve ambiguity and guilt. Certainly, when a penitent reveals related dynamics in their behavior the priest should offer good counsel.
No argument can be made to relativize sin when the consequences of sin are so pronounced in our world, in our personal lives. Compassion and love for others, whatever their behavior is a firm Christlike posture for priest and laity. Denial of a moral disorder is not.
No, Peter, I do not “equate liceity of homosexual acts with compassion.” If you’ve interpreted things I’ve said in that way, that’s your doing, not mine. It is likewise with your allegations of relativism, dilution of objective judgment, denial of a moral disorder, etc. Perhaps your focus is on what you do in the church confessional, but that is not mine. As to your claim that “sexual acts are by nature inclusive of a pronounced desire for pleasure,” that’s not always the reality for everyone. For example, I work with people (whether single, married, in or out of relationship, straight, gay, bisexual, asexual or whatever) who are distinctly disinterested in sexual acts, who may even find them displeasurable or worse, and with people who very much struggle with saying “no” against the sexual interests of others. Often Catholic and often all the more miserable when they come across the blaming mentality so readily found on Catholic forums.
At peace, happy with their lives, lives that included struggles, and at times heroic, at peace more than the average man I’ve known with same sex attraction were encountered in that confessional. Some saintly. Otherwise both laity and priests were usually not, often prone to suicide.
The Church and its teachings didn’t appear the cause. Although it may be with those, I presume you counsel. Chris, if the majority of your clients, assuming you’re a professional, or not have little interest in sexual acts it wouldn’t be very difficult to find solace in the embrace of the Church body. To discover a fulfilling raison d’etre. To realize they’re not necessarily victims, that they can be loved.
Fr, thank you. It is disappointing that a man of Cdl McElroy’s accomplishments should need several PhDs to assist him in understanding what is clearly stated in the Catechism (1770-1794).
The Protestants do not have Jesus’ tremendous gift of His Sacrament of Reconciliation to have Jesus absolve them of their sins on earth. The Protestants simply carry the full weight of their sins upon their souls to the judgment seat of Jesus after their deaths. The Protestants expect to enter into heaven on Jesus’ mercy alone (faith alone), without any need of love for God through obedience to God, or repentance, or absolution of their sins from Jesus on earth. Why doesn’t Cardinal McElroy simply go be Protestant, and let Faithful to Jesus Catholics focus on loving God with all our hearts, minds, strength and souls, through obedience to God, as Jesus Commands us too.
John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Luke 18:18
“Good teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life? “Jesus said to him, “Why call me ‘good’? None is good but God alone. You know the commandments:
‘You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not kill.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear dishonest witness.
Honor your father and your mother.'”
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. If I had not works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
John 5:27
“The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned.”
This comment is unrelated to the topic of the article and is theologically false, adding insult to injury. McElroy is Catholic.
Dear ‘Athanasius’, I think Steven Merten’s point is that McElroy’s disobedience to Gospel instructions may make him a protest-ant in the literal sense.
Certainly, the ruminations out of Rome and out of an international clique of cardinals and archbishops, etc. speak of flouting Christ’s unequivocal instructions and negating almost 2,000 years of Catholic moral instruction.
According to McElroy and Co., millions of Catholics, saints, martyrs, the Apostles, and The Lord Jesus Christ, have been misguided in their moral teaching.
The New Testament scriptures referred to by Steven Merten appear apposite.
Ever in the love of The Lamb of God; blessings fom marty
Dr Rice, do you mean: “… Catholics … in their moral teaching”,
or
‘persons in Catholic procreation gift roles … in their gifts of sustaining their rights to families in their identities in need of union’?
Steven Merten, do you mean “… Faithful to Jesus Catholics…,
or
‘persons in Catholic roles in uncertainty believing in Jesus…’?
Dear Steven:
It has taken a time to collect a response to your point. We may ask ourselves what is the surefire and only remedy for sin? Many will say Jesus Christ and we will most likely agree!
Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Romans 3:24 And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Ephesians 4:32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Acts 13:38 Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
God bless you as you contemplate these verses.
Yours in Christ,
Brian
Possessing Faith in Jesus great enough to Move Mountains, Yet Jesus burns them in hell as ‘evildoers’, V.S., Martin Luther’s, “Faith Alone”, “Sin Boldly, ‘No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day’”
Matthew 7:21 The True Disciple.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. When that day comes, many will plead with me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ have we not prophesied in your name? have we not exorcized demons by its power? Did we not do many miracles in your name as well? Then I will declare to them solemnly, I never knew you. Out of my sight, you evildoers!
2 PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.
Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.
Hello Lyle,
Yes, there are verses from St. Paul which clearly seem to directly oppose Jesus’ teachings on eternal life.
John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Can you confirm that you agree with Martin Luther who opposes Jesus’ teachings that Jesus will judge us according to our conduct? Do you reject Jesus’ teachings that He will judge us into Eternal Life through His Blood on the Cross, based on our conduct, which means that Jesus will judge us based on our love or hate for God?
Revelation 2:22
“I mean to cast her down on a bed of pain; her companions in sin I will plunge into intense suffering unless they repent of their sins with her, and her children I will put to death. Thus shall all the churches come to know that I am the searcher of hearts and minds, and that I will give each of you what your conduct deserves.”
Mark 10:17
“Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?” Jesus answered, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments:
‘You shall not kill;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
You shall not defraud;
Honor your father and your mother.'”
John 12:50
“Since I know that his commandment means eternal life, .
John 15:10
“You will live in my love if you keep my commandments, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and live in his love.”
John 5:27
“The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned.”
Revelation 22:12
“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”
Dear Steven:
Your are to be commended for bringing scripture to the table. Yes, it enriches all who love Jesus Christ.
When we are in Christ we will not “sin boldly’. Not only does the Lord save us, He transforms us conforming us into His image. Your Luther remark is an empty suit! Luther uses hyperbole just as Jesus used it when He said “pluck out your eye of cut off your hand”. Sometimes being sardonic simply underscores a point. Yet, Luther has nothing to do with our salvation, just as his words can’t put us into hell.
Jesus is preeminent in all. We either accept His free gift of salvation or reject it according to who we are. We are never to condemn the soul of another person for that is the role of God alone. We are to rebuke wrongdoing in ourselves and others, laws accompany our earthly journey as does God’s Holy Spirit, convicting us of our sins and causing us to repent. Praise God.
Matthew 17:5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
Romans 9:30-31 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
Romans 10:3-4 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Acts 22:14-16 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
God bless you for your words help others.
In Christ’s glorious name,
Brian
Hello Brian,
To obey God is to love God. To sin is hatred for God. The only thing in existence worth allowing free will, through which all hatred, sin, death and damnation flows, is the glorious free-willed gift of love to God. To love God through obedience gives God great joy. To hate God through disobedience causes God great pain and sorrow. To love God is our purpose in life.
John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father
Baruch 4:11 With joy I fostered them; but with mourning and lament I let them go. Let no one gloat over me, a widow, bereft of many: For the sins of my children I am left desolate, because they turned from the law of God, and did not acknowledge his statutes; In the ways of God’s commandments they did not walk, nor did they tread the disciplined paths of his justice.
1 John 5:3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome
Spiritual ‘pastoral’ advisers Satan, Martin Luther and Cardinal McElroy, lead mankind to “Sin Boldly, ‘No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day’”. Martin Luther, placing his hatred for God of killing and committing adultery thousands of times a day, into his heart, and into the hearts of billions of his followers, is the work of Satan. Cardinal McElroy replacing God’s Commandments of love for God through obedience to God, with his ‘pastoral’ Liberal Progressive will, to accept and teach hate for God through sinfulness, is the work of Martin Luther and Satan. It is God’s Will that we must follow, out of love for God, not man’s will. It is our obedient love for God, produced on free-willed earth, which will be our precious treasure in heaven, where God does not allow us to choose hatred, thus no love is able to produced in heaven either.
Matthew 11:20 Reproaches to Unrepentant Towns.
Then he began to reproach the towns where most of his mighty deeds had been done, since they had not repented. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum: ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’ For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
Deuteronomy 7:9
“Understand, then, that the LORD, your God, is God indeed, the faithful God who keeps his merciful covenant down to the thousandth generation toward those who love him and keep his commandments, but who repays with destruction the person who hates him; he does not dally with such a one, but makes him personally pay for it. You shall therefore carefully observe the commandments, the statutes and decrees which I enjoin on you today.
Dear Steven:
Your latest response is appreciated. We are striving for godly understanding so that we may comprehend Him and serve with willingness. It encourages us to know that scripture interprets scripture. Context is important and we must recognize our sinful condition before God. He is righteous and we are not. We have the imputed/credited righteousness of Jesus Christ, Yet, we sin because we are still sinners and consequently we have confession. It always better to follow the command of God, yet when we fail we are follow the command to confess and repent.
God is patient and long-suffering and we praise Him for He understands our plight.
Romans 8:1-There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. …
Romans 7:24-25 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Romans 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Luther uses uses gross exaggeration to demonstrate God’s grace and Paul illustrates how we must fight sin.
Romans 6:1-23 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. …
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
We are under the Covenant of Grace ushered in by the perfection of Jesus Christ (His death and resurrection) and our belief in Him.
God richest blessings to you Steven,
Brian
Oh dear, dear Brian.
Many of the verses you’ve piled up have a different exegesis when viewed in the context of the whole Pauline corpus (& also within the complete New Testament revelation). Texts out of context are a pretext, we were taught.
Dear brother Brian, in future please do not simply list strings of scriptures. It will be more helpful if, in each case, you say what you believe and precisely how each scripture subtends your belief.
Blunderbussing one another with miscellaneous texts does not properly honor God’s Word.
The freedom one has, once one is saved into The LORD Jesus Christ is not freedom to sin but freedom to live as: “. . imitators of God, as beloved children, living lovingly as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, as a fragrant offering & sacrifice to God. But fornication & impurity OF ANY KIND, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints.” Ephesians 5:1-3.
Please carefully read The Holy Gospel according to Saint John, chapter 10, verses 27 to 30. As appointed by The Father, King Jesus Christ alone is the One who gives eternal life to all those who pay attention to His words, faithfully following Him.
How sad that so many joyously confess Jesus as LORD and then are lost (see, e.g. Matthew 7:21-24). Think of the multitudes who confessed Christ at Katherine Kuhlmann’s and Billy Graham’s rallies; the millions who flocked to Papal masses and to Medjugorje, etc.
In Matthew 13:1-9 Jesus specifically overturns the common Protestant concept of ‘once saved, always saved’. James 2:14-26 also emphasizes the tragic misunderstanding of presuming that faith alone saves. As James tells us in verse 19, even the demons (shudderingly) believe.
How many Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox & Protestants in our churches are thought to belong to Jesus Christ but actually have multiple allegiances. They believe in pagan superstitions, satanism, witchcraft, freemasonry, Buddhism, and so on.
How few clergy preach the absolute exclusiveness of true faith in The LORD Jesus Christ (see, e.g., Matthew 10:34-39). Many (clergy & lay) are throwing away their eternal life in Christ because of their divided loyalties.
Stay strong in the LORD Jesus Christ, dear Brian.
In the indescribable joy of serving The Lamb of God; love & blessings from marty
https://wherepeteris.com/reflections-on-the-mcelroy-proposal/ – Good article discussing the issue from various views – learned a new term – ‘Parvity of matter ‘ – more at length here too – https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sins-mortal-otherwise
Our culture – media overstimulation included ,leading to the weakness of the will – even unto the realm of obsessive weakness in certain areas – the Crdnl thus likely trying to convey the need to asses matters in such a light – not to condone sins per se , but on the need to see same in the context of the whole assault on the brain in various ways and its adverse impact as subtle and often unrecognised inflamation with its varied behavioral sequels …Seeing someone as stubborn and willfully trying to be greedy / unjust/ lust filled , thus perverted etc being harder to forgive ..where as much easier when one can factor in that one might be dealing with issues such as O.C.D . / mild encephalopathy etc: – the pandemic likely having brought the need to be aware of such even more ..
True , ideally we all are expected to be in oneness with The Lord in The Spirit …yet, the fear that without absolution in confession , one has lost everything – would not the enemy use the same as a legalistic tool toaccuse and bring more despair and alienation ..and deprive many from the true encounter The Lord desires in the Eucharist -who comes to hug His wounded child with all of heaven ..human hearts being what they are , would it not take so much more trust to accept that a Lord who had turned away His Face , just a while ago , becuase of – the grey areas of what could be a mortal sin – such as an angry outburst or similar occasions would be there to let one trust in Him , to bring all wounds unto Him ….to also let that Love and mercy be extended to the other – seeing the other too , in the loving embrace of an all holy God – the healing balm for unruly passions ,the bitterness of unforgiveness ..
A Church that becomes ever holier that even the shadow of each other as was with St.Peter to bring healing and deliverance – may The Spirit ever hasten the times of same as The Church joins our Lord in the desert, binding and casting out the enemy spirits for the Reign of His Kingdom in all hearts !
FIAT !
https://wherepeteris.com/reflections-on-the-mcelroy-proposal/ – Good article discussing the issue from various views – learned a new term – ‘Parvity of matter ‘ – more at length here too – https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sins-mortal-otherwise
Our culture – media over stimulation included ,leading to weakness of the will – even unto the realm of obsessive weakness in certain areas – the Crdnl thus likely trying to convey the need to assess matters in such a light – not to condone sins per se , but on the need to see same in the context of the whole assault on the brain in various ways and its adverse impact as subtle and often unrecognised inflammation with its varied behavioral sequels …Seeing someone as stubborn and willfully trying to be greedy / unjust/ lust filled , thus perverted etc being harder to forgive ..where as much easier when one can factor in that one might be dealing with issues such as O.C.D . / mild encephalopathy etc: – the pandemic likely having brought the need to be aware of such even more ..
True , ideally we all are expected to be in oneness with The Lord in The Spirit …yet, the fear that without absolution in confession , one has lost everything – would not the enemy use the same as a legalistic tool to accuse and bring more despair and alienation ..and deprive many from the true encounter The Lord desires in the Eucharist -who comes to hug His wounded child with all of heaven ..human hearts being what they are , would it not take so much more trust to accept that a Lord who had turned away His Face , just a while ago , becuase of – the grey areas of what could be a mortal sin – such as an angry outburst or similar occasions would be there to let one trust in Him , to bring all wounds unto Him ….to also let that Love and mercy be extended to the other – seeing the other too , in the loving embrace of an all holy God – which would be the healing balm for unruly passions ,the bitterness of unforgiveness ..
A Church that becomes ever holier that even the shadow of each other as was with St.Peter to bring healing and deliverance – may The Spirit ever hasten the times of same as The Church joins our Lord in the desert, binding and casting out the enemy spirits for the Reign of His Kingdom in all hearts !
FIAT !
J.P.G/M, do you mean: “The Church joins …”, or consecrated family members of consecrated marriages either male female vowed to God or celibate vowed to man in Christ join …”?
Many thanks for a masterful exposition of Cdl. McElroy’s shoddy thinking.
Gilbderta, do you mean “thinking” or ‘in uncertainty belief’?
Sadly, it is as if the mandate to be able to “bind whatever shall be bound and loose whatever shall be loosed” is now applied to all manner of illegitimate pursuits and behaviors. In the best case scenario, it means a failed interpretation of that (literally) awesome responsibility and in the worst case scenario it suggests a capacity to dictate moral rights and wrongs here (that will echo in eternity) as one wills; certainly not as God wills. In all frankness, I fear the latter with respect to the “progressive” elements in the church.
Mark Tabish, Do you mean “with respect to the ‘progressive’ elements in the church”
or
‘respecting family members of consecrated marriages either celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God keeping or allowing the inseparability and qualitive equality of their process procreation role gifts and progress in their meeting need of union of their identities’?
Oliver Clark: are you asking these ridiculous sets of questions for the purpose of inquiry or just to be manipulative? What is your intent here?
Thanks for explaining the situation. Gluttony is also a serious sin and people will be going to hell for sinning. I just need to let you know. God bless.
Oh cool. A variation of Tu quoque fallacy.
On the other hand, gluttony is an exaggeration of a natural act and therefore the act is suject to individual judgements, which are subjective. What is gluttony for the small or the inactive may be insufficient for a large active person engaged in physically demanding work.
On the other hand, sexually deviant acts are more analogous to pica, which is when people eat things that are not properly food and are intrinsically disordered. There used to be a show about this condition, which is usually the result of compulsive mental infirmity and there were people eating light bulbs and drinking gasoline. The objective was always to foment the will to reject the behaior with therapeutic intervention as appropriate behavior.
There are no movements to celebrate gluttony (although “fat acceptance” is perilkously close to it) or relentless organizational propaganda to encourage those destructive behaviors.
David Embleton, do you mean “going to” or ‘not believing in’. Do you mean “just need to let you know” or ‘in justice offer you my gift of in uncertainty my belief’?
Religions ensure their procreation gift roles. Family members insure the need of union of their identities.
This ensuring and insuring are inseparable and qualitatively equal.
Consecrated married either celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God exercise an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of their ensuring and their insuring.
This absolute power is that of the multiplier in economics as to process role and progress identity first tested for developing countries worldwide by Colin Clark from 1931.
Clark’s conclusions were a reference point for Pope Francis in his accountability and amends for failing previously in his ensuring and his insuring by making amends on or just after 10 June 2021:
1. in the case of his Vatican state alleged embezzlement by the group of Vatican state ten citizens/employees, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, of his ensuring procreation role gift tax-exempt charity donations as a helper of his family within his family,
2. and the case of his Italian state Parliament “Zan” anti-homophobia bill as an unacceptable risk of fraud on his insuring his need of union of his identity as a consecrated celibate married by vows to Christ.
Cardinal McElroy and his supporters/critics should note before engaging further in debate that all their procreation gift role activities are combined and advantageously so if in their identities and roles having by them their inseparability and qualitative equality kept or allowed in uncertainty of their belief they exercise this resulting absolute power of their simultaneous authorisations of their applications of their ensuring and their insuring on the reference point of Pope Francis of his ‘to his own face’ withstanding extreme tensions in these cases of the Italian state Parliament and the Vatican state.
Presently this combining as would be advantageous of all their procreation gift role activities is only possible for those being accountable and making amends for their complicity in this embezzlement and fraud on the example of Pope Francis from his inaugural Mass on the Feast of St Joseph, 19 March 2013, and before him Colin Clark from 1946 and Mary, inseparably and qualitatively equally mother of man in Christ and Mother of God.
Mark, on “Alec Murdaugh”, do you mean “doing” and “thinking” or in uncertainty belief as the keeping or allowing in uncertainty the inseparability and qualitative equality of ‘doing’ thinking and having faith as I see Cardinal McElroy keeps?
David Embleton, are you inverting need and gift? do you mean “going to” or ‘not believing in’. Do you mean “just need to let you know” or ‘in justice offer you my gift of in uncertainty my belief’?
Steven Merten, do you mean “… Faithful to Jesus …,
or
‘persons in roles in uncertainty believing in Jesus…’?
Dear Mr Clark:
Is not fidelity to Jesus consistent with believing in Jesus?
May I ask you for a succinct and direct response? My mind is still numbed by after-effects of Covid?
God bless you,
Brian Young
There are far too many popes these days. Cardinal McElroy behaves like he’s one of them. A real pope is unoriginal, a conservator of the Apostolic Tradition. His Eminence (and a host of others) should immerse himself in Saint John Henry Newman’s writings, especially An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
A conscience detached from reality tends to fold in upon itself and attach itself to a host of fantasies. A conscience emancipated from the Gospel can’t distinguish between heaven and hell.
Thank you, Dr. Brugger, for your fine article!
Well said, dear Gilbert.
1. Openness to, and persistent tolerance of, this sort of evil anti-truth and anti-love is what was brough to us by the Vatican II pastoral council.
2. Before that pastoral council of 1962-1965, for the whole history of the Church from the days of St. Peter and St. Paul right up to Pope Pius XII, bishops would be pastorally ushered out of their officee in about 24 hours and sent away to a monastery after saying evil, corrupt things like thee bishop in this article said.
3. We don’t usually recognize what weird, abnormal times we are living in within the Church because of the Vatican II pastoral council. It is really hard to think straight and see straight in the dense fog of these times.
QUÉ POCO SENTIDO DE LO CONCRETO TIENE EL CARDENAL.No se puede discutir o objetivo (la ley), pero tratándose de un acto, son muchas las cosas a tenerse en cuenta y cabe distinguir lo intrínseca de lo extrínsecamente pecaminoso. Adulterio y sodomía son siempre pecado (relación materia y forma). Lo demás es extrínseco (relación entre causa y efecto) y se debe tener en cuenta el esta
do de necesidad, la fuera mayor, la jerarquía de los valores, circunstancias de tiempo y lugar, todo materia jurídica de la que el cardenal no tiene noticia.
Thank you and God’s blessings!
A blessing on all Abrahms descendents
Thanks, dear Donna.
You comment caused me to read (again) chapter 11 of ‘The Letter to the Hebrews’ (possibly composed by St Prisca & her husband St Aquilla), in my New Testament. This is an unparalleled panegyric to the faith of great men & women. That, then, led me to these opening verses in chapter 12:
“With so many witnesses in a great cloud on every side of us, we too, then, should throw off everything that hinders us, especially the sin that clings so easily, and keep running steadily in the race we have started.”
“Let us not lose sight of Jesus, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection: for the sake of the joy which was still in the future, He endured the cross, disregarding the shamefulness of it, and from now on has taken His place at the right of God’s throne.”
“Think of the way He stood such opposition from sinners and then you will not give up for want of courage.”
“In the fight against sin, you have not yet had to keep fighting to the point of death.”