I wonder whether the issue Cdl McElroy raises is not worthy of a new look. Surely what we now know about the LGBTQ state is far from what we knew when the current teaching was developed. Moreover, as a further example of the gravity assessment obsessing over sexual sin while failing to even recognize the sin of slavery for almost 400 years raises serious gravity issues.
I think these are good theological questions for theologians to continue hashing out because that's the vocation of theologians. But Cardinal McElroy wasn't acting as a theologian in academia, he made these proposals publicly as a bishop, a pastor and teacher. He also invoked Pope Francis to justify it, when Francis's teaching doesn't support it.
I read this and read the article that you wrote for Where Peter Is. I had read Cardinal McElroy's statement and had been disappointed by it and had intended to write to him, which I have not done. I do not know if he would have read my letter, since I am a nobody. I appreciate the point you make in Where Peter Is. My criticism would have followed along the same lines. I do appreciate Cardinal McElroy and continue to think that his voice is an important and non-heretic voice as some have charged him, but your disagreement with him on this point is correct.
I don’t see it that way. I think he made these comments in the context of the continental round of the synod preparation. As such they should go into the discernment process allowing the Holy Spirit to move as it will.
I disagree. Because it was in a public forum, and because he made claims that his ideas were consistent with the pope's, I think he did more harm than good. I think that there are better ways to raise these questions and have these discussions that confuse the faithful less and respect the pope more.
I wonder whether the issue Cdl McElroy raises is not worthy of a new look. Surely what we now know about the LGBTQ state is far from what we knew when the current teaching was developed. Moreover, as a further example of the gravity assessment obsessing over sexual sin while failing to even recognize the sin of slavery for almost 400 years raises serious gravity issues.
I think these are good theological questions for theologians to continue hashing out because that's the vocation of theologians. But Cardinal McElroy wasn't acting as a theologian in academia, he made these proposals publicly as a bishop, a pastor and teacher. He also invoked Pope Francis to justify it, when Francis's teaching doesn't support it.
I read this and read the article that you wrote for Where Peter Is. I had read Cardinal McElroy's statement and had been disappointed by it and had intended to write to him, which I have not done. I do not know if he would have read my letter, since I am a nobody. I appreciate the point you make in Where Peter Is. My criticism would have followed along the same lines. I do appreciate Cardinal McElroy and continue to think that his voice is an important and non-heretic voice as some have charged him, but your disagreement with him on this point is correct.
I don’t see it that way. I think he made these comments in the context of the continental round of the synod preparation. As such they should go into the discernment process allowing the Holy Spirit to move as it will.
I disagree. Because it was in a public forum, and because he made claims that his ideas were consistent with the pope's, I think he did more harm than good. I think that there are better ways to raise these questions and have these discussions that confuse the faithful less and respect the pope more.