Recently, America Magazine published an essay by Robert W. McElroy, the cardinal archbishop of San Diego. Here are my reactions, Fr. Z.-style.
Cardinal McElroy on ‘radical inclusion’ for L.G.B.T. people, women and others in the Catholic Church
What paths is the church being called to take in the coming decades? While the synodal process already underway has just begun to reveal some of these paths, the dialogues that have taken place identify a series of challenges that the people of God must face if we are to reflect the identity of a church that is rooted in the call of Christ, the apostolic tradition and the Second Vatican Council.
Many of these challenges arise from the reality that a church that is calling all women and men [Notice his disordering the traditional usage of, “men and women”] to find a home in the Catholic community contains structures and cultures of exclusion that alienate all too many from the church or make their journey in the Catholic faith “tremendously burdensome. [McElroy appears to take a corporate, customer service approach to the Faith: If the customer doesn’t like the product, change the product so it will sell. This evidences a lack of supernatural faith, a desire for others’ approval, and a resentment of Christ’s call to take up one’s cross and follow Him.]
It is important at this stage in the synodal process for the Catholic community in the United States to deepen our dialogue about these structures and cultures of exclusion [That phrase now repeated two paragraphs in a row. Echos of Marxism, of segregating people into “oppressors” and “the oppressed;” Echoes of “critical race theory” and its “systemic this” and “systemic that” language. Also we get that his US focus is appropriate for a magazine called “America,” but McElroy seems to subjugate the universal Church and the “Synod on Synodality” to the Church in the US] for two reasons. The first is to continue to contribute to the universal discernment on these issues, recognizing that these same questions have surfaced in many nations of the world. The second reason is the recognition that since the call to synodality is a call to continuing conversion, [I have never seen “synodality” defined as a call to continuing conversion. I’ve seen several definitions, none consistent, it’s like a Rorschach test that you can project your own definition onto] reforming our own structures of exclusion will require a long pilgrimage of sustained prayer, reflection, dialogue and action—all of which should begin now.
Such a pilgrimage must be infused with an overpowering dedication to listen attentively to the Holy Spirit [The recurring claim that the Holy Ghost is pulling the puppet strings of councils, conclaves, and synods denies man’s free will. It is also a useful mechanism for those employing it to justify their dishonest endeavors to promote sins and errors as, “God’s will] in a process of discernment, not political action. It must reflect the reality that we are part of a universal and hierarchical church that is bound together on a journey of faith and communion. It must always point to the missionary nature of the church, which looks outward in hope. Our efforts must find direction and consolation in the Eucharist and the Word of God. And they must reflect the understanding that in a church that seeks unity, renewal and reform are frequently gradual processes.[The drip, drip, drip of creeping incrementalism]
“Enlarge the Space of Your Tent,” the document issued last year by the Holy See to capture the voices of men and women [Now we’re back to the traditional order, “men and women”] from around the world who have participated in the synodal process, concluded that “the vision of a church capable of radical inclusion, shared belonging and deep hospitality according to the teachings of Jesus is at the heart of the synodal process.” We must examine the contradictions in a church of inclusion and shared belonging that have been identified by the voices of the people of God in our nation and discern in synodality a pathway for moving beyond them.
Polarization Within the Life of the Church
[This is where McEnroy lays out “the problem”]
An increasingly strong contradiction to the vision of a church of inclusion and shared belonging lies in the growth of polarization within the life of the church in the United States and the structures of exclusion that it breeds. In the words of “Enlarge the Space of Your Tent,” “the wounds of the church are intimately connected to those of the world.” Our political society has been poisoned by a tribalism that is sapping our energy as a people and endangering our democracy. [To me this is clearly a swipe at Trump, MAGA, adherents to the Apostlic Roman Rite, and others in his basket of deplorables – but not at the tribalism and poison of groups on the left] And that poison has entered destructively into the life of the church.
This polarization is reflected in the schism so often present between the pro-life communities and justice-and-peace communities in our parishes and dioceses. It is found in the false divide between “Pope Francis Catholics” and “St. John Paul II Catholics.” [How is that divide “false?”] It is found in the friction between Catholics who emphasize inclusion and others who perceive doctrinal infidelity in that inclusion. [It’s all in their heads! Don’t take them seriously! Expunge any notion of including them in “the vision of a church of inclusion and shared belonging.” They are to you, dear reader, what Africans at the Synod on the Family were to Cardinal Kasper; They “should not tell us too much what we have to do.”] Even the Eucharist has been marred by this ideological polarization, in both the debates about the pre-conciliar liturgy and the conflicts over masking that roiled many parishes during the pandemic of the past several years.
As “Enlarge the Space of Your Tent” observes, we find ourselves “trapped in conflict, such that our horizons shrink and we lose our sense of the whole, and fracture into sub-identities. It is an experience of Babel, not Pentecost.”
A culture of synodality is the most promising pathway available today to lead us out of this polarization in our church. Such a culture can help to relativize [Freudian slip?] these divisions and ideological prisms by emphasizing the call of God to seek first and foremost the pathway that we are being called to in unity and grace. A synodal culture demands listening, a listening that seeks not to convince but to understand the experiences and values of others that have led them to this moment. A synodal culture of true encounter demands that we see in our sisters and brothers common pilgrims on the journey of life, not opponents. We must move from Babel to Pentecost. [So the problem is polarization in the Church in the US, and the solution is “synodality” and “listening.” Again, the corporate, customer service approach, “Jesus is my buddy, not my Lord” anthropocentric mentality. Let’s be honest – this is all really a one-way street. McElroy and his like do not want to listen to pro-lifers telling them that the right to life is preeminent; that the Apostolic Roman Rite attracts young people and helps them live the Gospel and should be freely available anywhere and everywhere; that many US Catholics are revolted by the papal claimant’s promotion of and participation in heresy, error, and sexual perversity, including appointing McElroy a cardinal amid evidence he covered up McCarrick’s homosexual predations.]
Bringing the peripheries to the center
“Closely related to the wound of polarization,” the U.S. report on the synod concludes, “is the wound of marginalization. Not only do those who experience this wound suffer, but their marginalization has become a source of scandal for others.” The continuing sin of racism in our society and our church has created prisons of exclusion that have endured for generations, especially among our African American and Native American communities.
Synod participants have testified eloquently to the sustained ways in which patterns of racism are embedded in ecclesial practices and culture. [Sigh] These same patterns infect the treatment of many ethnic and cultural communities within the life of the church, leaving them stranded on the periphery of ecclesial life at critical moments. [Huh?] Piercingly, the church at times marginalizes victims of clergy sexual abuse in a series of destructive and enduring ways. [Like McElroy himself covering up for McCarrick sexually propositioning seminarians and priests?]
The poorest among us, the homeless [I thought we had to call them “unhoused” now?], the undocumented [illegal aliens], the incarcerated [AKA criminals in jail] and refugees often are not invited with the same energy and effectiveness as others into the fullness of church life and leadership. And the voice of the church is at times muted in advocating for their rights. [A lot of US Catholics would argue the opposite. A listening Church would acknowledge that…]
Faced with such patterns of exclusion in our church and our world, we must take to heart the message of Pope Benedict [You’ve heard of “weaponizing the Eucharist?” This is “weaponizing Benedict” against those Trads poisoning and polarizing the Church in the US] speaking to the people of Latin America on the wounds that marginalization inflicts: “the church must relive and become what Jesus was; the Good Samaritan who came from afar, entered into human history, lifted us up and sought to heal us.”
One avenue for lifting us up and healing the patterns and structures of marginalization in our church and our world is to systematically bring the peripheries into the center of life in the church. [Unless those on the peripheries are attached to the Apostolic Roman Rite, or to eternal moral values, or “Make America Great Again” nationalists of European descent, etc] This means attending to the marginalization of African Americans and Native Americans, victims of clergy sexual abuse, the undocumented and the poor, the homeless and the imprisoned, not as a secondary element of mission in every church community, but as a primary goal. [No room under the tent for stopping the slaughter of the unborn, violations of the sixth commandment, etc]
Bringing the peripheries to the center means constantly endeavoring to support the disempowered [not a real word but revealing – more echoes of class struggle, power struggle, us versus them as he launches into his campaign for female ordination – it’s about power, not service] as protagonists in the life of the church. It means giving a privileged place in the priorities and budgets and energies of every ecclesial community to those who are most victimized and ignored. [Unless they like the Apostolic Roman Rite or eternal moral values, etc] It means advocating forcefully against racism and economic exploitation. [Oppressing the poor and denying the worker his wages are two of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance – sodomy’s another one – but there’s no calls to advocate forcefully against sodomy.] In short, it means creating genuine solidarity within our ecclesial communities and our world, as St. John Paul repeatedly urged us.
Women in the Life of the Church
[Here we go…]
The synodal dialogues in every region of our world have given sustained attention to the structures and cultures that exclude or diminish women within the life of the church. Participants have powerfully pointed out that women represent both the majority of the church and an even larger majority of those who contribute their time and talents to the advancement of the church’s mission. [Two conflicting sentences back-to-back, first claiming structures and cultures EXCLUDE women, the second claiming they’re the ones doing the most in the Church.] The report of the Holy Land on its synodal dialogues captured this reality: “In a church where almost all decision-makers are men, there are few spaces where women can make their voices heard. [A woman who is a mother has more power over the future of the Church than any other role or job title could give her.] Yet they are the backbone of church communities.”
The synodal dialogues have reflected widespread support for changing these patterns of exclusion in the global church, as well as for altering structures, laws and customs that effectively limit the presence of the rich diversity of women’s gifts in the life of the Catholic community. There are calls for eliminating rules and arbitrary actions that preclude women from many roles of ministry, administration and pastoral leadership, as well as for admitting women to the permanent diaconate and ordaining women to the priesthood. [McElroy embraces clericalism.]
One productive pathway for the church’s response to these fruits of the synodal dialogues [letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”] would be to adopt the stance that we should admit, invite and actively engage women in every element of the life of the church that is not doctrinally precluded.
This means, first of all, eliminating those barriers to women that have been erected at all levels in the church’s life and ministry not because of law or theology, but because of custom, clericalism, bigotry or personal opposition. [Eliminate clericalism with even more clericalism!]
Second, the call for inclusion challenges the church to examine with care the juridical barriers to women’s leadership in the life of the church. Pope Francis initiated reform in this area when he loosened the mandatory tie between episcopal identity and leadership roles in the Roman Curia, including directing major Roman departments. This re-examination should also include questions such as the legal limitations on laity in diocesan leadership, including tribunals, as well as the nature of jurisdiction in a parish, which presently prohibits any layperson from being the administrator of a parish community. [“And now, please welcome our new Parish Administrator, Susan from the Parish Council!”]
The proposal to ordain women to the permanent diaconate had widespread support in the global dialogues. While there is historical debate about precisely how women carried out a quasi-diaconal ministry in the life of the early church, [No there isn’t. There’s lots of lies being spread, however. ] the theological examination of this issue tends to support the conclusion that the ordination of women to the diaconate is not doctrinally precluded. [Women cannot be ordained. It is as impossible as a woman becoming a man.] Thus, the church should move toward admitting women to the diaconate, not only for reasons of inclusion [Ecclesial participation trophies] but because women permanent deacons could provide critically important ministries [like what?], talents and perspectives. At the Synod on the Amazon in 2019, the bishops of the Amazon region in prayer and discernment overwhelmingly supported this pathway, stating that it would be an enormous grace for their local churches that are so desperately short of priests. [A solution looking for a problem. Can’t talk about contraception – how many priests are we missing because they were never conceived? Can’t talk about seminaries kicking out young men discerning the priesthood because they prayed the rosary or read Ratziner and were “too rigid,” or those who discerned out of seminary, in some cases, losing their faith, when they encountered rampant, open homosexuality and doctrinal confusion. But ordain women and we won’t have polarization anymore. Sure.]
The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood will be one of the most difficult questions confronting the international synods in 2023 and 2024. [I’m interpreting this to mean there will be a hard, hard push to advance this, and we’ve just been warned] The call for the admission of women to priestly orders as an act of justice [as “an act of justice,” implying they have a right to it, which they do not, and furthermore incurring the dual blasphemy of accusing Christ of injustice by not instituting a priesthood of women and accusing God of injustice by not instituting an Israelite priesthood of women for Temple worship] and a service to the church was voiced in virtually every region of our world church. At the same time, many women and men who participated in the synod favored reserving the priesthood for men in keeping with the action of Christ and the history of the church.
It is likely the synod will adopt this latter stance because of its rootedness in the theology and history of the church. Whichever position emerges from the synodal discernment on this question, the reality remains that the synodal dialogues have asked the church to move in two contradictory directions on this question. During the synodal process over the next two years, God will have to grace the church profoundly if we are to find reconciliation amid this contradiction. [He implies that the Bride of Christ lacks grace, needs more grace, is deficient in grace.]
[We’ve already got sanctuaries full of women, serving as altar boys, lectors, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, ushers, etc. If the problem in the US Church is polarization and synodality is the answer and synodality means letting women act like men in the Church – which they’re already doing, arguably, and we still have polarization, how will this result in less polarization, and more unity? Notice that the largest marginalized group on the periphery of the Church in the US doesn’t merit mention or radical inclusion inside McElroy’s tent? Heterosexual males, irregardless of skin color.]
The Christological Paradox
The report of the synodal dialogues from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops points to an additional and distinct element of exclusion in the life of the church: “Those who are marginalized because circumstances in their own lives are experienced as impediments to full participation in the life of the church.” These include those who are divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity from the church [He never uses the word “adultery”], members of the L.G.B.T. [Normally you would use the actual words then the abbreviation, but instead he decided, “don’t say gay,” and definitely don’t say “gender dysphoria”] community and those who are civilly married but have not been married in the church.
These exclusions touch upon important teachings of the church about the Christian moral life, the commitments of marriage and the meaning of sexuality for the disciple. It is very likely that discussions of all of these doctrinal questions [They are settled doctrine. We can talk about why people question them, and how to answer them. But the doctrines themselves should not BE questioned or cast as questionable] will take place at the synodal meetings this fall and next year in Rome.
But the exclusion of men and women because of their marital status or their sexual orientation/activity is pre-eminently a pastoral question, not a doctrinal one. [Didn’t St. Paul warn that we eat and drink to our own condemnation if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? Is that not doctrinal?] Given our teachings on sexuality and marriage, how should we treat remarried [No – not remarried, dummy, that’s the whole thing – they ARE married, and they’re committing adultery. If either spouse dies, the widow or widower may freely remarry and receive the Eucharist.] or L.G.B.T. men and women in the life of the church, especially regarding questions of the Eucharist? [Treat them the way we’ve always treated Catholics in a state of mortal sin and their unworthiness for reception of the Eucharist]
“Enlarge the Space of Your Tent” cites a contribution from the Catholic Church of England and Wales, which provides a guidepost for responding to this pastoral dilemma: “The dream is of a church that more fully lives a Christological paradox: boldly proclaiming its authentic teaching while at the same time offering a witness of radical inclusion and acceptance through its pastoral and discerning accompaniment.” In other words, the church is called to proclaim the fullness of its teaching while offering a witness of sustained inclusion in its pastoral practice.
As the synodal process begins to discern how to address the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. Catholics, [And this is where we’ll see the weaponization of the Holy Ghost to justify mortal sin and sacrilege, they’ve already greased that slide] particularly on the issue of participation in the Eucharist, three dimensions of Catholic faith support a movement toward inclusion and shared belonging.
The first is the image that Pope Francis has proposed to us of the church as a field hospital. The primary pastoral imperative is to heal the wounded. [not the salvation of souls because Modernists believe everyone goes to Heaven anyways, unless they’re Hitler or Trump, …or traditional Catholics who attend the Apostolic Roman Rite Mass] And the powerful pastoral corollary is that we are all wounded. It is in this fundamental recognition of our faith that we find the imperative to make our church one of accompaniment and inclusion, of love and mercy. [Again, “some restrictions may apply,” see previous comment] Pastoral practices that have the effect of excluding certain categories of people from full participation in the life of the church are at odds with this pivotal notion that we are all wounded and all equally in need of healing. [The Bride of Christ is not the means for salvation as much as she’s a social worker, apparently]
The second element of Catholic teaching that points to a pastoral practice of comprehensive inclusion is the reverence for conscience in Catholic faith. Men and women seeking to be disciples of Jesus Christ struggle with enormous challenges in living out their faith, often under excruciating pressures and circumstances. While Catholic teaching must play a critical role in the decision making of believers, it is conscience that has the privileged place. Categorical exclusions undermine that privilege precisely because they cannot encompass the inner conversation between women and men and their God. [What McElroy and others (James Martin) who like to play the Conscience Card don’t understand is, once you let that genie out of the bottle, you can’t put it back in. “But muh conscience” can then be used to justify anything. Like sedevacantism. Or denying the validity of the Novus Ordo. Denying that people with dark colored skin are equal to people with light colored skin. Dumping chemicals into aquifers. Special military operations to remove Nazis from neighboring sovereign nations. Etc.]
The third element of Catholic teaching that supports a pastoral stance of inclusion and shared belonging in the church is [word salad follows] the counterpoised realities of human brokenness and divine grace that form the backdrop for any discussion of worthiness to receive the Eucharist. As Pope Francis stated in “Gaudete et Exultate,” “grace, precisely because it builds on nature, does not make us superhuman all at once…. Grace acts in history; ordinarily it takes hold of us and transforms us progressively” (No. 50). [Cardinal McElroy, if you’re in a state of mortal sin, you are devoid of grace, and receiving the Eucharist will not provide you with grace. You need to confess your sins to a priest and receive absolution first.]
Here lies the foundation for Pope Francis’ exhortation “to see the Eucharist not as a prize for the perfect, but as a source of healing for us all.” [Straw man argument] The Eucharist is a central element of God’s grace- filled transformation of all the baptized. [No, not all baptized. Not Protestants for example.] For this reason, the church must embrace a eucharistic theology that effectively invites all of the baptized [even Protestants, even atheists, who cares about boundaries and sacrilege! Big tent!] to the table of the Lord, rather than a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist. Unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy.
It will be objected that the church cannot accept such a notion of radical inclusion because the exclusion of divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. persons from the Eucharist flows from the moral tradition [Deliberately uses the word “tradition” instead of “teaching” because “traditions” can evolve or be abandoned] in the church that all sexual sins are grave matter. [Pay attention to this:] This means that all sexual actions outside of marriage are so gravely evil that they constitute objectively an action that can sever a believer’s relationship with God. This objection should be faced head on. [And he wonders why there’s polarization in the Church in the US…]
This means that all sexual actions outside of marriage are so gravely evil that they constitute objectively an action that can sever a believer’s relationship with God. This objection should be faced head on.
Cardinal McElroy
The effect of the tradition [there he goes again, “tradition” instead of “teaching”] that all sexual acts outside of marriage constitute objectively grave sin has been to focus the Christian moral life disproportionately upon sexual activity. [Relativism of sin, especially sexual sins, always strikes me as self-incriminating] The heart of Christian discipleship is a relationship with God the Father, Son and Spirit rooted in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The church has a hierarchy of truths that flow from this fundamental kerygma. Sexual activity, while profound, does not lie at the heart of this hierarchy. Yet in pastoral practice we have placed it at the very center of our structures of exclusion from the Eucharist. This should change. [Lord, let the scales fall from Cardinal McElroy’s eyes that he me say the errors of his ways and stop leading Catholics to Hell.]
It is important to note that the synodal dialogues have given substantial attention to the exclusions of L.G.B.T. Catholics beyond the issue of the Eucharist. There were widespread calls for greater inclusion of L.G.B.T. women and men in the life of the church, and shame and outrage that heinous acts of exclusion still exist.
It is a demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the L.G.B.T. communities. [No. It is a natural revulsion to filth that even demons understand and share] The church’s primary witness in the face of this bigotry [It’s not bigotry. It’s not bad. It’s not born out of ignorance. It is a natural, healthy fear of evil] must be one of embrace rather than distance or condemnation. 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. [What the f] Rather, the dignity of every person as a child of God struggling in this world, and the loving outreach of God, must be the heart, soul, face and substance of the church’s stance and pastoral action.
The Italian synodal report stated “the church-home does not have doors that close, but a perimeter that continually widens.” We in the United States must seek a church whose doors do not close and a perimeter that continually widens if we are to have any hope of attracting the next generation to life in the church, [Again, the corporate customer service-oriented, “Target the product to the consumer” mentality devoid of supernatural faith or zeal for souls. Zero acknowledgement that the Apostolic Roman Rite, reverence, tradition, proclaiming hard truths does appeal to young people. Nope, we’re a polarized Church here in these United States, and the only fix is for the universal Church to embrace sodomy and ordain women. Then Boko Haram will stop killing Nigerian priests and laity! Then Nicaragua’s government will stop arresting and persecuting bishops!] or of being faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ [except for “Go and sin no more” stuff]. We must enlarge our tent. And we must do so now.
St. Charles Borromeo, patron of cardinals, pray for Cardinal McElroy.
Like this:
Like Loading...
The Four Marks 