McElroy’s Pastoral Proposal is not Francis’s
I wrote an article for Where Peter Is addressing Cardinal McElroy’s most recent article about morality and pastoral care. Here’s an excerpt:
I agree with Cardinal McElroy that “categorical exclusion” from the sacraments because of an objective situation that is contrary to the moral law is not consistent with Francis’ pastoral approach. Indeed, Francis teaches:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305).
However, proposing that gravely harmful actions may not in fact be gravely harmful is not in line with the law of gradualism as taught by Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. Both pontiffs are clear that the law of gradualism describes the progressive process of an individual being healed and empowered by grace in order to live in greater and greater conformity to the objective moral law, not a graduality in the objective gravity of moral evil.
***
Read it all here:
https://wherepeteris.com/mcelroys-pastoral-proposal-is-not-franciss/
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 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.