Liberal Spinners & Bishop McElroy

 I’m not so sure why the liberal spinners are doing what they do. They won the battle. Why are they all still spinning so incredibly hard? It’s looking a little manic at this point.

Lamb, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of the lapdogs are putting ridiculous things out there.  Examples? They’re still trying to deny that the Pachamama is Pachamama, even though the Pope and about 100 people from the Vatican have already admitted it to be so.

Next, they’re still trying to desperately convince us there’s this huge devotion (similar to Our Lady of Guadalupe) to “Our Lady of the Amazon”, because  Charles Lamb found a little chapel in South America with that title. He suggested you Google the title. I second that, because it gives you zip except what comes from them. Guys, the VATICAN has said it is not “Our Lady of Anything.”

They are even trying to say that nobody was bowing down to anything. I’m still scratching my head on this one. Again, the VATICAN put it out on video. Hello! Are they trying to insinuate everyone was down on their knees with head to the ground just looking for a contact? Smelling the flowers? Doubled over in pain?

The most ludicrous thing I’ve seen come across my screen is this tweet from Luke Hansen, SJ (with bonus video in the link!): https://twitter.com/lukehansensj/status/1188565636227747842?s=20

Luke Hansen

Uh, hello. To clarify, it was “the majority of the bishops” INVITED TO THE SYNOD. For those not paying attention, this wasn’t some open event. Attendees were carefully chosen to vote on something that the masterminds of this ridiculous synod wanted.  They wanted married priests and they wanted women deacons. When the majority you invite are your voting bloc, you are going to win the vote. Duh.

If you watch the video, Bp. McElroy says something we already knew: he’s not an expert on women in the diaconate.  Some of us would argue that he’s really only an expert on dissent, but whatever.  Let’s just look at this typical Bp. McElroy transcript from Youtube.

The core what the synod is about, I don’t see challenges to an authentic reception.

This reception idea is some knew reality the liberals are trying to float for a year or so. If it’s not received, it’s not really binding. If it is, it is.  It’s totally subjective.

Now I do think there will be peripheral issues of substance and some that are of caricature that will become a focus of debate around the synod but those are different questions. Those who were advocating for viri probati interventions specifically said we are in favor of celibacy and maintaining celibacy.

Um, sorry?! You cannot be both advocating against maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood and saying it should be maintained. Talk about double speak!

So they were bringing this forth not as a as a contrast with celibacy or as an alternative to celibacy they kept reiterating “This is an emergency situation for a faith communities that only get the Eucharist once a year.

They’ve created the “emergency situation” themselves by being such poor catechists that they’re not making converts, much less priests!  This, however, is what good liberals do. They create emergencies all of the stinking time so they can implement horrible measures to “save people.”

The key to me is what holds together the commitment to celibacy that was the consensus you know among the bishops and the wider body of the church.

Uh, no.  Can we stop this ridiculous lie that this somehow was representative of the Church at large? There is no “consensus” among bishops and cardinals around the world. Let’s all remember that Cardinal Kasper couldn’t wait to get rid of the Africans because they were an obstacle to his plans. So, if you don’t normally pay attention and something seems a little off about this synod, let me clarify: it was a complete and utter power play. Nobody went into this wondering what the outcome would be, barring a complete and utter miracle that would have had to include a lot of fire and brimstone to convert these guys.

On this question that’s that seems undiluted at the Synod it was not opened at all.

Pause. There were really two questions here. One small group asked, “How can we save the Church in the Amazon?”, but the overwhelming majority’s question was, “How can we use the Amazonian region to get what we want?” Let’s remember the infamous quote of Bishop Krautler that he has not baptized an indigenous person in 30 years.  And then there’s Bishop Mori, who lived in the forest with the indigenous people for a month but never taught them, because he needed their help to survive.  And our problem is that we don’t have married priests? Yeah, give me a break.

The sentiment among the bishops of the Synod (emphasis mine) was in favor of, the majority bishops were in favor the permanent, employment of women in the permanent diaconate. My own view is that I’m in favor of opening any ministry we have in the church to women which is not clearly precluded doctrinally so my own assessment of it is, and I’m not an expert in this field (Thanks for stating the obvious which is why we were wondering why you were there at all.) that what has come out so far indicates that the current diaconate for women is not clearly prohibited by doctrinal considerations so they, my hope would be that they would find a way a pathway to make that a reality and I think there’s a good possibility that’s the direction it’s gonna head. I, I don’t see, the Pope added his comments yesterday. The fact he did that makes me think there’s a good chance that some positive action will come out of that.

Honestly, how many more of these “Studies of Women in the Diaconate” are we going to have to endure? In 2002, their conclusion was that women were excluded: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/clarification-on-itc-study-on-the-diaconate-2276 2016? No consensus that this was allowed: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/women-diaconate  It has been done to death already!  I know, how about a synod on it where we only invite Sr. Mary Pantsuit and friends to attend and vote? Sigh. 

I would hope the discussion will be about the substance of the questions not about caricatures because if it’s about caricatures then we all lose it’s about the substance of the questions that that’s very legitimate and I think we should have that set of discussions.

I’m not sure Bishop McElroy would know what substance is. He’s an ideologue, a caricature himself.  Believe me, we all lose when he has a hand in it.

So, please, dear liberal spinners, you’re over selling. Just say you were able to run away with it and admit the truth. It’s been refreshing (yes, refreshing, but disgusting) seeing the prelates saying it like it is. “So what if it was a pagan rite?” “Yes, it is not Mary and is Pachamama!”   Follow the admission train and just admit it is what it is.  You’ll get a lot more sleep at night when you can be free from trying new ways to spin EVERYTHING.

I for one can quite peacefully say that this synod was the disaster many of us thought it would be. No surprise in the least. There is a positive take-away.  Everyone’s cards are on the table (well, except the poor lapdogs who know that’s not the best thing for them) and the slumbering are awake now – like they just had a bucket of ice-water dumped on their heads. Ice bucket challenge, anyone? We pick ourselves up off the battlefield, nurse our wounds, and live to fight another day. We know how the war ends so we can have peace.  Ivereigh, Lamb and Faggioli? They’ll just keep spinning until they crash. We’re just called to fight the battles of our age, win or lose. Discouragement and bailing are not an option. I will wake up tomorrow and do exactly what I did today. I’ll pray and hope that I get it right.

 

 

Make it so!

I was right in the middle of a rather long piece delineating the back and forth between Austen Ivereigh and Matthew Schmitz (I probably gave it more attention than I should have) when I ran across an interesting development.  I really came late to the family dinner due to “mom stuff,” so it was pretty much a “What just happened?” moment and it took me a wee bit of time to look up the voluminous back and forth and Al Jazeera TV.  My disappointment in Crux was rivaling Patheos.  Sigh. 

I’d just like to say kudos to John Allen for this.  I must say I did find him to blame for allowing another hit piece by Ivereigh (previous ones dealt with here and here). While we probably don’t agree on everything (I’m positive we don’t), I’ve always found him to come from a charitable, even-tempered position with the best of intentions.  I’m sure he prayed long and hard on this one and I totally respect him for trying to keep to quell the circular firing squad.

I do think Allen comes from a “I’m a uniter, not a divider” kind of slant.  While I’m sure that he has much more patience than I, sometimes I think it’s misplaced and I have to ask what he’s uniting with sometimes.  How’s the saying go? “Unity for the sake of unity…”

I would like to say, while I was happy with a critique of Fr. James Martin’s latest book in Crux (https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/06/17/father-james-martin-lgbt-community-bridge-far/), I would love it if Crux would never, ever post a thought from Fr. Martin again as they did last here  and that John Allen would not do a forward in his books or let him write for Crux as show here until Fr. Martin ditches the moral ambiguity and “The Church is mean!” stance.  I don’t care if the blind squirrel does find a nut on occasion, it lends credence to his, more often than not, “strange notions.”  That little “blind squirrel” has led many others into darkness.

So for now, let’s just give a thumbs up to Crux’s new editorial policy.  Here’s hoping it gets even better!  Make it so, John Allen!  Make it so! (Yes, you could say I’m in the “Next Generation”…)

Let’s Just Set Reality Aside, Shall We?

I’m glad to see John Allen weighing in on this one, but I’m not exactly sure what he’s saying.  Maybe you all can help?  It seems as confused as the reactions to Amoris Laetitia itself. https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/17/thoughts-turning-heat-amoris-debate/

Thoughts on turning down the heat in the ‘Amoris’ debate

John L. Allen Jr.December 17, 2016

EDITOR

Someone trying to remain objective about today’s debates over ‘Amoris Laetitia’ would probably have a hard time concluding that either side has a strong claim to the moral high ground, since both are charging the other with virtually the vilest crime in their respective vocabularies.

First of all, is the debate really about Amoris Laetitia or is it about how it’s being interpreted (one could say muddled) by Cardinal Kasper and club?  I mean, I’ve seen many good bishops around the world give pastoral directives on Amoris Laetitia. Not one has said to ignore it.  They have said, “This is how is should be implemented!”, but it’s not in the way Bishop McElroy, Cardinal (that still hurts to say) Cupich, and Cardinal Kasper seem to want.

As most everyone knows, Pope Francis has both fans and critics within the Catholic fold. For those with long memories, that insight rates up there with “water is wet” and “the sun came up this morning” in terms of news value, since every pontiff in the long history of the Church has faced much the same situation.

On this we can concur.  However, that hardly leads to the “dissent” label being thrown around as of late.

Fans of Francis, however, often insist that the dynamic under this pope is different than the previous two, St. Pope John Paul II and emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, because today papal critics generally are not being accused of dissent, and thus are not being threatened with possible ecclesiastical sanctions.

Well, that may or may not be the reality.  I mean, a whole lot of the liberal members of the clergy have said that Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Pell, etc., have all been “demoted” or fired from their spots.  So, which is it?

For now, let’s set aside the fact that this assertion isn’t even true anymore, since here at Crux our own Austen Ivereigh recently leveled precisely the charge of dissent against at least some critics of Francis’s document on the family, Amoris Laetitia, though certainly without any call for sanctions.

RIGHT!  He just heaped on where the liberal clergy left off.  His condescension was really on display.  Why are we setting this aside, though?  It happened, yet it would seem you don’t want to deal with it.

Let’s also set aside the truth that the number of people subject to formal censures, gag orders, publishing bans and the like during the John Paul and Benedict years was remarkably low – zero, in fact, under Pope Benedict – and the idea of papal “thought control” was mostly a fiction.

There were occasional hints of tighter discipline, such as the requirement for a mandate for Catholic theologians in John Paul’s 1990 document Ex Corde Ecclesiae, but for the most part those decrees, in time-honored Catholic fashion, were implemented with great latitude and patience, and very few heads actually rolled.”

Again, why are we setting aside what you acknowledge as reality? Or what is reality?

So, onto your point …

The main point is this: It’s true, so far as it goes, that at this point most defenders of Pope Francis haven’t accused critics of being dissenters, nor have they suggested that people who uphold contrary positions on the substantive positions associated with the pontiff, such as opening Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, are thereby committing heresy.

Yeah, hardly anyone has done that. Just the guy at your publication, the dean of the Roman Rota, the head of the Greek bishops, Cardinal JOSEPH Tobin, etc.  I think you need to narrow it down just a bit.  People in high places are scourging them, or at least hoping it’ll happen and doing their best to make it so.  The average person in the pew, probably not so much.  The average person in the pew doesn’t know who these people even are, but we are told some very public people are making very public statements and it should be glossed over.

The implication seems to be that fans of the pope are more generous, less vicious, and less inclined to question people’s bona fides as Catholics. There is, in other words, often a presumption of moral superiority in the observation that “we don’t talk that way.”

Reality, John, it’s a beautiful thing.  Embrace it.  The truth will set you free.  And, more importantly, calling a spade a spade might actually keep people from doing it again.

Simply as a descriptive matter, that proposition seems a bit disingenuous. Many in the pro-Francis camp don’t invoke concepts such as “heresy” and “dissent,” because frankly, it’s not the worst insult they can think of with which to slur an opponent.”  Instead, they use terms that Francis himself also regards as abhorrent, such as “rigid,” “inflexible,” “legalistic,” “clerical,” and, of course, worst of all, “anti-Vatican II.”

Seriously?  You’re simply fanning the flames here, John.  In the Catholic world, what would be a stronger “slur?”  You can keep stating the “no big deal” fantasy or you can accept that it actually is a big deal.  How is it that you can say out of one side of your mouth that Francis supporters are much kinder, and then turn around and list the slurs they use?  It seems disingenuous because it is!  It’s a typical liberal tactic.  “Let’s throw every horrible label possible at the likes of the four Cardinals and maybe the laity will believe it!”

In effect, what’s on display here is one of the defining differences between the Catholic left and the Catholic right over the last fifty years.

On this sentence, I can agree.  The left will twist reality and try to get everyone on board, while the right will call a spade a spade and put it in writing to boot so there’s no possible wiggle room.

For the right, “heresy” and “dissent” are about the worst things imaginable, so when they want to say “x is terrible,” that’s the language that comes naturally.

Uh, who’s been using these terms???  It ain’t the right who’s been attacking the four cardinals.  That would be the left.  You seem quite confused.

For the left, the equivalent horror is “rolling back the clock” on the Second Vatican Council, so when they want to call something or someone awful, that tends to be the verbal packaging in which the complaint comes wrapped.

So you’re saying the guy who writes for you is “left” and that he’s using that to win an argument because he’s paranoid about the people who actually wanted Vatican II implemented properly?  I missed where these four cardinals said they wanted anything other than that.

Someone trying to remain objective about today’s debates would probably have a hard time concluding that either side has a claim on the moral high ground, since both are charging the other with virtually the vilest crime in their respective vocabularies.

Who are the objective ones in this little play you’ve got running in your head?  You? Objectivity is based in facts, John.  Not seeing a whole lot of correct ones listed thus far.

To be clear, this tit-for-tat isn’t especially widespread among the Catholic rank and file. Walk into most ordinary parishes and ask what people make of the debate over Amoris Laetitia, and probably, people would stare back with uncomprehending expressions.

I agree with you on this statement.  We can only address those participating in the debate.  That’s why have trouble with your use of “many”, “most”, etc.  They are inaccurate if you are simply looking at those involved in the debate.

That said, there is nevertheless an increasingly nasty cycle of finger-pointing in print, online, in social media, and sometimes even face-to-face, and if there’s to be an end to it, perhaps what we need is the equivalent of a verbal truce.

Great.  Call off Ivereigh.  Probably not going to happen, though, so then it’s a very one-sided truce, right?  John, you’re trying to play middle ground here.  You can’t be the “Can’t we all just get along?” guy and decide who is for or against Pope Francis, who is the left or the right, and who has been nice and who has been naughty.  That makes you a commentator, not objective.  Cardinal Burke, time and again, has said that those who label him as anti-Francis are incorrect.  That would be the same for those who support their quest to have the dubia answered.

If conservatives troubled by some aspects of Amoris Laetitia and other aspects of the present papacy could at least concede that, in the main, those on the other side are not enemies of the faith, and that their positions are not a blatant rupture with Catholic tradition, that might be a powerful confidence-building measure.

Likewise, if supporters of Amoris Laetitia could stop insisting that everyone who raises legitimate questions, either about its content or its binding force, are therefore obstructionists suffering from assorted forms of psychological dysfunction, that would help too – as would acknowledging that there are various readings of Vatican II, and that not everyone who doesn’t quite share theirs is necessarily “rejecting the council.”

Read what you wrote here, John.  Where have the “conservatives” said that those “in the main” are enemies of the Faith?  It seems like you understand that there is a small group doing this, and since the four cardinals have never opposed supporting Amoris Laetitia, you are arguing against the reality of the situation. They simply want clarity.

Now, as for the other side, it would seem that you think that only bizarre accusations are being made (and by your publication to boot).

It would also likely be a balm if both sides could abandon their pretense of not only being right on the issues, but having the more virtuous motives.

Wow!  So glad you are omniscient to know their motives!  We’re talking about two diametrically opposed versions of Truth.  Only one of them can be right, but you seem to want everyone just to give in a little.  You don’t give in on Truth.  You grab onto it as hard as you can.  So, when you have one group saying that the misinterpretations are a jeopardy to the faithful and another group saying “They’re just crazy!”, it should give you pause.

Granted, this cycle of charge and counter-charge has become so habitual over the last five decades that abandoning it now may be little more than a pipe dream. Granted, too, the fact that these terms are wildly over-used doesn’t mean there no longer really is such a thing as dissent, or openly rejecting the teaching of a council.

Really?  This is your take away?  Again, you have people who are totally and utterly willing to back up every charge they make with Church teaching and tradition, and another group that says “They’re just stuck in the past!  The Church is living and breathing and you just don’t like this Pope!”

To reverse Thomas Aquinas’s famous dictum, however, the fact that a thing may be legitimately used does not negate the very real possibility of abuse.

In the end, there are serious questions raised by Amoris Laetitia regarding the Church’s pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried persons, and just in terms of betting odds, it’s a long-shot that one camp possesses all the right answers and the other absolutely none.

I’ll take that bet!  That said, you’re acting as if people are saying the whole document should be ditched.  Is this the case with Archibishop Chaput, who has expressed support for the dubia?  https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/11/18/chaput-says-issued-amoris-rules-pope-asked/  It’s all about the interpretation!

For the pro-Amoris Laetitia side, there are important values at stake, including the authority of the synodal process that led to the document as well as that of the pope who issued it. For the camp with doubts, it’s the broader tradition of the Church with regard to marriage and divorce.

I don’t know what common ground between the two might look like, but I suspect it begins by accepting all of the above as valid, as well as a “cease and desist” order on impugning people’s integrity.

Who’s questioning the authority of the pope????

Over time, the Church will almost certainly evolve towards one of its classic “both/and” solutions to what were initially seen as “either/or” problems. How long it takes to get there, however, may in part be determined by whether in the here-and-now, the rhetorical heat can at least be turned down.

Yes, the slowly boiled frog does die much easier.  Sigh.  What can a guy say who’s just published a scathing review of the four cardinals say?  “Let’s all turn it down while my publication just turned it up!”  Come on, John.  It would have been better just to say “Whoa!  I didn’t read before I published!”  Trying to play the middleman now is rather hypocritical.

I think what you might have meant to say, John, was “Mea culpa.”