One of the primary problems with the implementation of a more “synodal” Church is that there seems to be a double standard in play. Rome speaks a good game about wanting to develop more “collaborative” structures of governance. But it apparently boils down to Rome doing whatever it wants to do, whenever it wants to do it. The reality is more like “synodality for me, but not for thee”, which is to say, no real synodality at all.
This raises the deeper question of what all of this synodal chatter is all about.
A controversial Cardinal with heavy baggage
A case in point is the recent appointment of Cardinal Robert McElroy as the new Ordinary for our nation’s capital. This appointment has provoked, as one could have guessed, both fervent praise and fevered criticism. This dual reaction is no surprise as Cardinal McElroy is a polarizing figure, an outspoken theological progressive who has not hidden his desire for major changes in Church teaching on issues including the ordination of women to Holy Orders and the entire edifice of Catholic moral theology in matters relating to sexuality. He has also proposed a model of Eucharistic discipline that would open the reception of Holy Communion to those Catholics who live in what a traditional moral theology would consider a gravely sinful state. That list would include sexually active cohabitators, the divorced and civilly remarried, and “LGBTQ” Catholics.
All of these groups are specifically mentioned by Cardinal McElroy as folks who, after a period of “discernment”, might be allowed back into Eucharistic communion. He does not say exactly what is being “discerned” but one gets the impression he is talking about a subjectivized theory of the moral conscience wherein we must allow the private conscience to negotiate its own modus vivendi with Church teaching without ecclesial interference. His entire approach is therefore little more than the venialization of most consensual sexual sins as it is hard to imagine the good Cardinal arguing for a radical freedom of private conscience when it comes to racism or the mass deportation of immigrants. Can someone now negotiate in his conscience a form of extreme form of Christian nationalism and to declare its consonance with his Catholic faith? I think not, which means that what Cardinal McElroy is pointing toward is a revisionist project in the domain of sexual morality.
Cardinal McElroy is also on record, in a now famous essay in America magazine, as saying the Church needs to drop the distinction between those who have a same-sex orientation while remaining chaste, and those homosexuals who are sexually active: “The distinction between orientation and activity cannot be the principal focus for such a pastoral embrace because it inevitably suggests dividing the L.G.B.T. community into those who refrain from sexual activity and those who do not.”
All of which implies that Cardinal McElroy does not consider such sexual activity to be of much moral and/or spiritual importance. For example, nobody talks about how awful it is that calling adultery a gravely evil sin drives a wedge into the marriage community by dividing it up between those who are faithful to their spouse and those who are not. This is absurd on its face, but only because everyone agrees that adultery is indeed gravely sinful. Therefore, for Cardinal McElroy’s complaint to have legs, one must begin with the assumption that homosexual sex acts are not gravely sinful.
Once again, what is in play here is the venialization of homosexual sex acts and not just a shift in pastoral tonality.
There is also the fact that Cardinal McElroy has been accused of abandoning the victims sexual abuse in San Diego by moving to declare diocesan bankruptcy, as well as turning a deaf ear to the pleadings of the late Richard Sipe to pay attention to the misdeeds of one (then) Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. But these accusations seem not to have troubled Rome, even as the McElroy appointment to Washington reopens wounds for the victims of clerical sexual abuse in San Diego and elsewhere.
It is not a stretch to say that Cardinal McElroy is a deeply divisive figure, for better or for worse, in American Catholicism. But he is one of Pope Francis’s favored prelates which means that his divisiveness matters little in the big picture. Furthermore, one gets the impression that his divisiveness is viewed by many in Rome as a badge of honor and a point in his favor since the folks he most annoys–tradition-minded Catholics—are the same people that the current powers that be in Rome appear to most intensely dislike. Indeed, just a few days after the McElroy appointment it was announced that the Pope had accepted the papally requested resignation in France of a bishop (Dominique Rey of Fréjou-Toulon) whose only ecclesial crime seems to have been being overly friendly with traditionalist Catholic groups.
Both decisions, in short, were anything but “synodal”. They involved the exercising of Roman authority in a fashion that would have been equally at home in 1925 as in 2025. Cardinal Robert McElroy is elevated, and Bishop Dominique Rey is deposed with a simple stroke of the same papal pen. Roma locuta est, cause finita est.
The talk of synodality not matched by the walk of synodality
Which brings me to my deeper point in terms of my reaction to the McElroy appointment: where is the synodality in this appointment and in the many other moves made by this pontificate about the canonical rights of (now) deposed bishops or of local episcopal conferences and their say in who gets appointed where?
The McElroy appointment makes this issue a burning one since all indications are that McElroy would not have been the choice of many influential American bishops and was not the recommended candidate from Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the apostolic nuncio to the United States. According to The Pillar, not even Cardinal Wilton Gregory or the retired Cardinal Donald Wuerl wanted McElroy appointed to Washington. Cardinal Pierre apparently thought McElroy was too polarizing a figure, but offered the pope no clear-cut front runner as an alternative.
If all of this is true, then this was a decision made “from above” in Rome in a manner standiung in sharp contrast to all the rhetoric about a more synodal Church, wherein local episcopal conferences are given a much greater role to play in the choosing of episcopal candidates. Instead of collaboration and broad consultation, what we have is just old-fashioned Roman curial lobbying of the pope by a few episcopal influencers.
To be sure, the Pope retains the right to appoint anyone he wants to any position he wants and whenever he wants. He has universal jurisdictional authority over the Church and can do as he pleases. Pope Francis has not been shy about exercising that authority in a unilateral way, and I have no problem with that. But I do take issue with acting in this fashion even as there is an endless stream of pronouncements from Rome about the brave and bold new model for a synodal Church that putatively moves us beyond the bad old days of autocratic Rome. But these recent moves display, not a synodal Church, but rather an exercise in papal authority that is autocratic and little different from how, say, Pius IX would have done things.
After all, we are not talking here about an appointment to some tiny diocese in the middle of nowhere. This is the capital of the United States in an era of deep political division. And yet the American bishops apparently had little or no say in this decision. What American Catholics needed in the current hour of political acrimony–both inside and outside the Church—was a conciliatory centrist bishop who is adept at diplomatic negotiation and building bridges across the political and theological divide. What we got instead was a pro-LGBTQ liberal culture warrior with all kinds of dubious theological baggage.
Therefore, I repeat: where was the synodal listening and collaboration? Where is the synodal empathy for the “lived experience” of American Catholics who have grown weary of divisive prelates?
Have we not been told endlessly over the past three years that the new synodal model for the Church is one characterized by a deeply spiritual “listening” to the “people of God”? Have we not also been told that this new synodal model is the culmination of the ecclesial vision of Vatican II where bishops are not to be viewed any longer as branch managers of a papal corporation, but are fully vested partners in the apostolic governance of the Church? Why then does this pontificate treat some bishops, usually traditional, who have committed no canonical offenses, as just so much ecclesial flotsam and jetsam to be disposed of at the slightest papal whim? And then elevate other bishops, usually progressive, to high office over the clear distaste of the local episcopal conference?
The cynicism grows because of the double standard imposed
Once again, the suspicion begins to arise that the entirety of the “synodal process” is nothing but an empty word game meant to deflect attention away from the true agenda at play. And that agenda is the ongoing efforts, dating back to the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, to accommodate Catholicism to the prevailing Zeitgeist of the secular West.
For example, one week after the ending of the first Synod on Synodality in late October 2023, the Vatican, without warning or consultation with the world’s bishops, issues Fiducia Supplicans. How to explain that decision? The Synod participants had been led to believe that the issue of how best to minister to homosexual Catholics was a topic for the synodal process. Much energy was expended, and much ink was spilled, and many collars were ruffled in the rough and tumble of the debates on the topic at the Synod. Delegates debated just what the final document should say on the topic, if anything at all, and the issue was seen as still open and in need of further synodal discussions.
And then … Fiducia Supplicans emerges as a Roman sky hook deus ex machina that undercut the entire synodal process.
This cynicism about the true aims of the promoters of synodality is even more justified when one reads comments from Pope Francis, as we see in his newly released autobiography, wherein he says that those who like the old Latin Mass are suffering from “backwardism” and “rigidity”. Such folks, in their preference for “elegant and costly tailorings,” says the Pope, may well suffer from “mental imbalance, emotional deviation, behavioral difficulties…” Perhaps there are some in that crowd who are mentally imbalanced. But there are also many in the crowd of those who love the Novus Ordo who are mentally imbalanced. Therefore, the comment from the Pope as such tells us next to nothing beyond the fact that this Pope dislikes the old Mass and really dislikes those who favor it.
Once again, where is the synodality? Where is the “listening to the people of God”? You want to kneel for communion? “Get up, you narcissist and move along properly and efficiently!” You are a pastor who wants to install altar rails because your parish wants it? “Not on our watch, you indietrist scoundrel!” Therefore, it does seem that as far as Rome is concerned, it is “synodality for me but not for thee” with the “thee” being anyone of a more traditionalist persuasion. “Todos! Todos! But not you people! We meant the other Todos!”.
I think the McElroy appointment represents more of the same that we have repeatedly seen from this pontificate. This pontificate is marked by a deep bifurcation, if not an open contradiction, between what it says and what it does. It talks big about synodality and collaboration and listening, but then does whatever it wants in largely old-fashioned, non-synodal, autocratic ways. And all it is going to do is breed more cynicism, more division, and more rejection of the so-called synodal way as at best an irrelevance and at worst a Trojan Horse for progressive causes.
Cardinal McElroy may turn out to be a stellar prelate in Washington. We should all pray for his success, and in meaningful ways that go beyond lip service. But his appointment, in my view, was non-synodal. And in a Church in which we are being lectured every day from Rome about the need for us all to get on board the synodal train, I think it matters that Rome itself seems to ignore its own advice and does not seem willing to board the same train and pursue the same track.
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.
I have only two questions for the prelate McElroy:
#1. Do you have a personal Spiritual Director whom you meet with on a regular basis? If so, how often do you meet with him?
#2. Do you have a personal confessor to whom you go regularly to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation? If so, how often do you avail yourself of the Sacrament?
These are questions that should be asked of every ordained minister of the Church – especially those whose ministry is to govern and teach.
I would add a few more questions to yours.
#3. Do you experience same-sex attraction and have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior?
#4. If not, then why are you trying to change church teaching on sexuality?
Thank you Mr. Chapp for spelling it out for us, but you were to kind. Our Lord who always speaks the Truth called them hypocrites.
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you;“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Mt.15.7
Very well articulated.
Synodality, synodality, synodality!!!! I am sick to death of this word which has become a groundhog day for Catholics!!! Oh to have a reminder of the halcyon days of Easter 2005!
The Apostasy began 60 years ago.
Post-Conciliar “catholicism” is undergoing freemasonic-instigated liquidation. It is painful to watch.
For the record: At the outset, the disease HIV had its greatest (highest) incidence in practicing homosexuals. So how can this be called normal? As time passed, of course, it spread to the general population. (Make up your own scenario.)
Mentioned are “todos” and even Pius IX who once famously announced: “I AM Tradition!”
About “todos”. . . this reminds us of the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy remarks to her dog, “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore!” Indeed. Very traditional and even “backwardist,” for sure, a clericalist channeling from a 1939 Hollywood script…
But, why not?
Synodality is simply the curtain in front of the backstage levers and buttons and such. Stand by in June for 15 Study Group reports on the “hot button issue” spirited away from the scripted, self-validating, and window-dressing Synod on Synodality.
Awaited in a better day is, yes, greater harmony between the (distinct and) ordained “hierarchical communion” of Lumen Gentium and the (equally distinct and) baptized laity also living the “universal call to holiness.”
The public apostasy of “Eminence” McElroy regarding the authority of Jesus regarding sexual morality (etc) is not a “political” or “negotiable” matter that can be resolved by finding someone else who is “a centrist,” with some careful calibrated “theology.”
One problem with McElroy in particular, and our Catholic in general, is that we show ourselves to be great “respecters of persons” (especially persons who hold teaching authority, if you get my drift), and fail to respect the person Jesus of Nazareth, who we (supposedly) believe is God-Made-Flesh.
“Eminence” McElroy exists to serve one purpose, and obey master: to demonstrate to the world that our Catholic Church is taken over by men who have “the mind of McCarrick,” and NOT “the mind of Christ” (per St. Paul the apostle); and to serve the master served by McCarrick.
This “situation” has nothing to do with something as profane as “politics.”
Thank you Larry. This pontificate is a predictable mess. Who is better than McElroy to fulfill the agenda?
Short of some radical conversion to Sacred Tradition, his Eminence is guaranteed to implement the pastoral heresies of Synodaling in DC. George Weigel lists these ideologies as “the affirmation of the teaching authority of national bishops’ conferences, the endorsement of a female diaconate understood as part of Holy Orders, the LGBTQ+ program, proportionalist moral theology that dumbs down the moral life.”
McElroy is also a safe choice to continue the cover-up of McCarrick’s wrongdoing and share the assets of DC with his predecessors.
Stay Catholic! God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. His Mercy is Justice.
I’ve long felt that going from Benedict XVI to Francis is a perfect illustration of the old saying that it’s a short step from the sublime to the ridiculous. The article presents another reason why I stopped listening to the current pontiff years ago; instead, I look at what he does. My 5th-grade teacher, Mrs. Flynn, was fond of quoting the addage, “Show me your friends, and I’ll show you what you are.” Mrs. Flynn, RIP.
Thanks, Ken (and Mrs Flynn).
My experience ( in the military, academics and especially from many decades in the corporate world) is that when putative leaders abuse and betray their position and responsibilities by what they say and do, they thereafter get ignored permanently. That applies as well, in the Church and with the papacy and is, I believe, mandated by the Holy Spirit (see 2 John: 9-11).
Scripture abounds in contradiction to and warning about the modernist perspective of sexuality and sin. Just a few examples: The Pharisees approached him (Jesus Christ) and asked about divorce. He responded, “…but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female… (Mark 10:6). Elsewhere, Jesus reiterates that he has not come to abolish but fulfill the law and the prophets, clearly and distinctly asserting: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches other to do so will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…and (then) unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5: 17-20). Jesus speaks of the false love towards a mother or father, son or daughter “more than me” as “not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). Jesus speaks of marriage not being for everyone, as well. Praying for our clergy! However, my heart goes out to all those families trying to steer their children, some quite errant, towards Truth and Agape, while candidly–bluntly–some clergy are deceiving them.
You say: “Pope Francis has not been shy about exercising that authority in a unilateral way, and I have no problem with that.”
Well, obviously you do, and you should. Most people do have a problem with that. I think you’ve made a good case that there should have been consultation with the US bishops conference at the very least. This recent move perhaps was not at all consistent with the fundamental principles of synodality. Habits (centuries of clericalism) are hard to break. At least there is an attempt to break them and to begin listening more. The solution is to keep going in this direction, not go back to 1925.
I did listen to a recent interview with Cardinal McElroy and I was rather impressed. I suspect that he’s been misrepresented by the toxic right. You suspect that synodality is an underhanded way of changing basic moral teaching. I’d say this is a case of typical American paranoia. I could be wrong, of course. Time will tell.
The “toxic Right”? Do you mean the people who have obeyed the teachings of Jesus and wish the church to continue down that road? “New” and “different” doesn’t always mean “better”. With empty churches, legal abortion endorsed by “catholic” leaders like Biden and Pelosi, and the sex abuse scandal, I do not see anything positive which has come out of Vatican II, and cannot imagine anyone with eyes to see thinking that going further in that direction will be a good thing for the church or its people. If anything, the church’s leaders have been bamboozled into following secularism. Recall how fast church “leaders” closed down our churches during covid at the behest of the state . Even the murderous Roman empire and earlier plagues could not manage that trick.
The old Testament has plenty to say about homosexuality, as did St. Paul. And while Jesus does not address it specifically, he didnt tell the woman caught in adultery that what she did was ok. He told her to go and sin no more.
Those of us church members on the “toxic Right” will continue to obey Jesus, which means in part recognizing that sexual sins are indeed sins. No matter what society would rather hear on that score. Those folks like McElroy and his ilk who push sexual perversion will one day have to account to Jesus for their action.
Obviously the professor doesn’t care about authoritarian decisions; he’s merely pointing out the hypocrisy of this Pope acting unilaterally on some issues or appointments, and trying to wean us onto synodality at the same time.
Is there a “non toxic” Right?
🙂
There is a demonic left.
Right and wrong.
The Right Hand of God.
Mr. James:
Your comment indicates that you want readers to understand that any view opposed to your own view is fit to be dismissed as “paranoia,” and that you want readers to appreciate that you are particularly bigoted regarding any opposing opinion expressed by an American.
Is this above, if you so intended, your maximum contribution to “dialogue.”
Aww, the “toxic Right”, once again the scapegoat for any and all things considered incompatible with one’s own stand on an issue. Could it just be that the ‘good’ Cardinal was just blowing smoke at his first interview?
I did listen to a recent interview with Cardinal McElroy and I was rather impressed.
And what did he say that you found so impressive?
Of course, there is such a thing as a negative impression.
Not very clever camouflage, the toxic left is always rigidly pharisaical t O those right on the Narrow Way of the Well-Beloved and so refuse to hear and obey or love, Him and so say, live and pursue,'”go and continue to sin” for we do not live by doctrine but what our passions and modern social raggoirnamento intimate’…
One wonders if the prelate has seen ‘Conclave’.
Some, even the learned, say this appointment amounts to nothing. Whereas Cdl McElroy’s new see [seat] is a declaration of independent intent as alluded to by Chapp. It is what Chapp says, an “agenda to accommodate Catholicism to the prevailing Zeitgeist”. Synodality the vector.
A clear and present declaration. Most significant is what this appointment to Wash DC means, because DC is the Nation’s capital city as well as the world’s focus of attention. McElroy, articulate, intelligent, academically credentialed is the foremost spokesman for the Francis agenda. The declaration: A man whose heterodoxy is persuasively purveyed whose contradictions to revealed Christianity are widely known, that this man represents the Catholic Church to the US capitol, to the Nation, and to the world.
PF is a politician that that lacks intellectual gravitas. His attacks on orthodox Catholics are disgusting. His “who am I to judge” comment turned out to be gross hypocrisy. Some popes elevate the office and faith. Some do not.
Anyone who can justify homosexual sins and activities is simply not Catholic, whether he is a prelate or not. Accepting this behaviour reveals a total lack of the sense of sin which Jesus and the Gospels constantly warn us agains, from which the Lord himself came to save us. Accepting this behaviour reveals also a complete and total denial of Catholic anthropology of the plan of God for man and woman to live in harmony. It denies the order of creation as God has planned it and any sense of the dignity of the sexual act in its proper context. There is no way anyone who holds to this can in any way be considered Catholic. Is that what ‘synodol’ means: shedding two thousand years of teaching since the Apostles? Seems that way. So it shouldn’t be for ‘todos’ or anyone who knows and cherishes the Catholic faith. The appointment of McElroy is ‘bizarre’.
“I did listen to a recent interview with Cardinal McElroy and I was rather impressed. I suspect that he’s been misrepresented by the toxic right. You suspect that synodality is an underhanded way of changing basic moral teaching. I’d say this is a case of typical American paranoia. I could be wrong, of course. Time will tell.”
“A controversial Cardinal with heavy baggage”
“And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?”
It does seem like Cardinal McElroy has some “baggage”, but let’s try to help him carry it.
For the 10,000th time–on this website we’ve actually kept count!–please consider that the gambit is not one of “changing basic moral teaching,” but rather one formally affirming these doctrinal teachings while at the same time insinuating “pastoral” exemptions, as for those advocating, living, and imposing the LGBTQ subculture.
The toxic “rite.”
So, Cardinal FERNANDEZ, for example, clearly reaffirms his belief in the nature of real marriage as between a man and a woman, but without rescinding his half-blessing upon irregular “couples” of all stripes. And, as for the notion that “time will tell,” all of this double-speak transpires under the axiom that “time is greater than space” (Evangelii Gaudium, 2013). And, as for helping MCELROY carry is “baggage,” perhaps he IS the baggage.
So, a fraternal prayer, surely, but not a helping hand.
The great prophet WINSTON CHURCHILL said it this way: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” St. JOHN PAUL II, yet once again, said it this way, in a curiously neglected encyclical:
“A separation, or even an opposition [!], is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium [!], and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 56).
But, “who am I to judge,” or instead “decide,” or maybe synodalize, or whatever?
Paranoia??? So when a man of the toxic left says, unambiguously, without qualification, that morality does change over time, and, in contrast, the Roman Catholic religion has said, for two thousand years, no it does not change, this would be impossible because it would be impossible for God to be a buffoon to alter human nature, you believe the opinion of first man, who happens to be Cdl. McElroy in this case, and you prefer to reject the Catholic religion?
My father often encouraged each of his seven children to ignore the words of others and focus on what they do. He was scrupulously honest, and his world was based on trusting others – after verifying that they were worthy of trust. He did not condemn those who said one thing and did another, but he just avoided putting himself at their mercy.
I hold the seat of Peter in high esteem and have a deep respect for the title. However, I am still learning to separate the person who occupies the chair from the position itself. My aim is to accept their humanity and recognize that they are as flawed as I am. One thing I am certain of is that this is not the pope’s church or any other human’s church. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, and he governs as he wills.
Agree!
“Cardinal McElroy may turn out to be a stellar prelate in Washington.”
That’s hilarious.
Perhaps the reference is to a black hole, the collapse of a star where normal laws of reality are thought to disappear into interminable nothingness.
that’s quite a sentence; made me lol
Larry omits that McElroy was made a bishop in 2010 that is the later halycon days of Chapp’s 2nd Communio school Pontiff Benedict XVI. Why did the Communio Popes saddle us with so many horrible men as bishops? Francis never appoints Traditionalists who undermine his vision he at least appointments men who share his vision.
Careful. Even Our Lord chose a bad apple among His hand-picked band of Apostles. God permits these things for His own good reasons. As for what the popes do, the Holy Spirit keeps them from ruining doctrine, but beyond that, He cannot control them like puppets. The history of the papacy is full of weak and even evil men who nonetheless did not bring down the Church. Pray for the one currently in office, and for those who come after him, and for those who came before him. If we don’t pray for good clergy, we will get what we didn’t ask for and we’ve had enough of that, Lord, have mercy.
I think it will end up with married clergy.
Yeah, we can picture it—McElroy beside the other star whose light wasn’t quite bright enough for him.
“outspoken theological progressive”
So, a heretic?
Christ said I know my sheep and my sheep know me. This “Shepherd” has the unmistakable lupine smell.
Chapp is spot on, especially about the “venialization” of sexual mortal sin and the double standards/double talk of the synodalists in Rome and elsewhere, who deny what anybody who has eyes to see can.
“…To be sure, the Pope retains the right to appoint anyone he wants to any position he wants and whenever he wants. He has universal jurisdictional authority over the Church and can do as he pleases. Pope Francis has not been shy about exercising that authority in a unilateral way, and I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT…”!
HUH???
I do!
Christ made it very clear in his rebuke of Peter that every word out of Peter’s mouth, every opinion of his is NOT authoritative! “Get behind me, Satan”!
In the military, higher-ups have their authority as well. Lt. William Calley found out too late after he carried out his orders at My Lai in Vietnam that he had a firm obligation, which he did not follow, to stand up against
unlawful orders under the UCMJ.
In our hearts we all have a law we are all obligated to follow as well – the Natural Law. And we are obligated to actively not follow any “authority” who “commands” us otherwise. Just as I have a MAJOR problem with the Amish-like practice of “shunning” that Bergoglio practices on good Catholics like Bishop Dominique Rey and countless others, I have a MAJOR problem with his appointing one of the 2 leading homosexualists in our hierarchy here to impose his will on DC.
Bergoglio has no right to “do as he pleases”, any more than the officers over Lt Calley had any right to give any order that pleased them. Bergoglio is subject to God’s law and the Natural Law written in all our hearts. When the Pied Piper plays his pipe and wants to lead me into the sea – count me out!
All I meant by that comment was that I accept the doctrine that says the pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church. I do indeed have no problem with that. Therefore, of logical necessity, I can have no theological problem with the pope actually exercising that authority. All that said, as the entirety of my essay should have made clear to you, it is possible to disagree with some of the decisions popes make while exercising that authority.
When Pope Francis observes that President. Trump’s immigration policy is “disgraceful,” I wish that he and like-minded prelates would use that same word in a sentence that includes China/Xi, Russia/Putin, Venezuela/Maduro, Iran/Khameini. Also, predatory “immigrants” who seek countries where they fully intend to prey on citizens. Please.
I previously responded to Mr. Chapp’s editorial and commentary and agree with him. This is about the Catholic Church, today another major figure in our Church heirarchy has resigned, Cardinal Schonborn. We continue to lose the voices of reason, Catholic teaching in all aspects and I am concerned that we will soon have few (if any) who a profess the actual Faith of the Catechism, of Jesus Christ words and actions and of the Commandments of God. The next pope is likely to at least as liberal if not more so than Francis, the Church will grow with new members yet, it will shrink with those who actually practice and believe in our foundation as Pope Benedict foretold. We pray it will not be so, yet, too many of the true leaders are aging, retiring or being forced to retire and we are left with the McElroy, Cupich and too many others who prefer secular faith to actual Catholic faith.
Thank you for your your analysis. The major problem with part of the hierarchy and the Pope himself is their deep rooted clericalism. They figure themselves as chiefs and incarnation of the Church and they understand pastoral ministry as a political government of the Church and they treat the Christian people as politicians treat their people. Humility is not part of their ministry and they forget Luke 22:24-30. The game of power, whether soft or hard, is their main concern. Our Pope often (not allways) acts as a peronist leader and our liberal bishops as Democratis wordly foolishness.