PopeWatch: And So It Begins
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Of course, McElroy along with Cupich and Tobin are among the surviving members of the pro-“Uncle Ted” McCarrick closely connected wing of the American hierarchy, McElroy having been fully informed of McCarrick’s lengthy and appalling list of crimes by letter by the late psychotherapist Richard Sipe in 2016 long before they had become publicly known—and McElroy kept mum. Writer Leila Miller has been a thorn in the side of slippery eel McElroy for a long time, but nonetheless P Francis couldn’t get over what a fine wrecking ball for the Catholic Church (like himself) the well-educated and urbane McElroy is, so his red hat was fait accompli.
Bishop Aquila’s article is a fine apologetics.
Our priest, with whom I generally agree, went on one of his tirades last evening for the lack of young people joining the priesthood/monasteries/nunneries, etc. He did note “the scandals,” but chalked it up to “human sin” that we should learn to live with/get over/not be bothered about (I have forgotten his exact words–something along those lines). I thought that seemed a bit mild for the horror stories about which I have heard/read.
.
And then the Church has proven She can and will impose unwanted experimental medical treatment and clergy and lay employees alike, even when said treatments goes against Her own doctrinal statements.
A fine article, and we should be grateful for its author having the wherewithal to publish it.
My only critique (which is one of tactics rather than substance) is that it at times grants the terminology- and thus the premise- of the left in terms of “radical invlusion.” To his credit, he scare quotes it for at least half of the piece, which is good, but then tiptoes near the trap that non-leftists often fall into of granting the terminology and premise but then saying “yes, but we are the ones who really do X.” Radical inclusion is a term specifically designed and employed to bring about particular outcomes; it should either be a priori rejected as terminological nonsense or shown to be utterly vacuous, although the latter is only rarely effective. I saw this leftist tactic used all the time back when I was a protestant working in a not-so-United Methodist church, and it can’t be defeated by granting or accommodating it.
Archbishop Aquila ignores the elephant in the room by quoting Pope Francis as though Francis is the solution and not the problem. I could just as easily quote Francis and prove that he doesn’t believe the quotes the Archbishop cites. More importantly, Francis has acted and failed to act in ways that confirm his unbelief. So, the article is nice as far as it goes, but Cardinal McElroy, like the German Synodal process, is simply a symptom of a much bigger cancer in the Church, which is Francis. He could clear all the confusion, tomorrow. Yet, Francis is the reason McElroy wears the red hat. Certainly, Francis did his due dilligence and knew what McElroy’s views were. So, if anyone should have left the Church because of what they think, it should have been Francis. The Archbishop is not brave for failing to say so.
Francis says one thing and his actions another.
Arch. Aquila is being properly deferential yet also noting the issue. It would appear his approach is more seemly than rantings of those who assume the role of some modern new thinker.
“The shepherd should smell of the sheep.” Sounded good. In practice, however, the “smell of the sheep” would seem to be the smell of mutton on the shepherd’s breath. But it occurs to me, that we, the faithful (whatever our merits or faults), may feel betrayed, but Our Lord was betrayed long before us. And if we, by our shepherds, are being offered up as a burnt offering to their “God of Surprises”, we are going where the Cross has led before. I apologize if this is facile or incoherent, but it just came to me reading this post, and I haven’t fully sorted out what is only, as yet, an intuition.
It would be helpful to know what is the end game of these liberal bishops? I mean, what exactly do they hope would be the consequence with their full 180degree assault on the Truth? I’m talking about the end game for their souls, their peers and the the faithful. Because as I see it, they understand full-well that sin cannot get a person into heaven no more than a pig can fly. This they know. Even someone like McCarrick knows. So do they actually believe that by revising the notion of what is sinful it will then change the pre-requisites of entry when you are standing at the Pearly gates of Heaven? Will St Peter suddenly say, you’re good to go right in even though you’re as filthy as mud? Either they don’t comprehend the implications of what they are doing (which I don’t believe is the case), or they actually don’t care. If it’s the latter it’s because they don’t fear death and they don’t fear Gods judgement on them. But judgement will come on them regardless and I don’t want to be in their shoes. Are they not afraid of this? Imagine not caring if you ended up in Hell for all eternity. That’s beyond any fear one could ever possess on earth.
Bingo. But as one of the 3000+ supervisors of Vatican I, S.A., Regional Manager Aquila believes he has precious little wiggle room. But there is no question that McElroy is precisely in line with the CEO’s agenda.
Expect an identical process to suppurate in your diocese once your pre-Francis bishop is replaced with someone as docile as McElroy.
DP, too late for me. I live in the SD Diocese. Just one more reason that I am leaving California.