So yesterday Cardinal Cupich proposed to add a paragraph from Pope Francis’ Gaudete et Exsultate to a letter from the USCCB.

Gomez disagreed, b/c he said he was trying to keep the letter short, even though he liked the paragraph.

That disagreement was not ideological.

(cont)

During the discussion, Bp McElroy supported Cupich’s suggestion. He lamented that the letter called ending abortion a preeminent priority, and said that was not the teaching of the Church or consistent with the teaching of Pope Francis.

He felt the paragraph would add context.

McElroy did not stand to object formally to the language of “preeminent priority,” for whatever reason. Instead, he lamented that language while supporting Cupich’s proposal, though they were technically 2 different issues.

Chaput rose to object to the idea that prioritizing abortion is contrary to Pope Francis. He argued Bp McElroy’s statement was falsely representing the pope and giving the appearance of disunity between bps and the pope.

The language of “preeminent priority” was never the subject of the motion being debated. Chaput said he liked the pope’s language, and was only responding to what McElroy had said.

The matter got confused b/c Bp Strickland, before Chaput spoke, rose to say that he thought the language of preeminence should “stay in” the letter.

That gave some watchers the impression that’s what the debate was about. But it wasn’t.

So why does that matter? Because the actual vote that was taken was not over the Chaput/McElroy disagreement, it was over the Cupich suggestion of an added paragraph. And agreeing or disagreeing with adding a paragraph is not the same as staking a claim on doctrine.

Making the argument that ppl who voted to add a paragraph (a paragraph Chaput said he liked and appreciated) did so because they don’t prioritize abortion is just confused.

And it makes political a suggestion (adding the paragraph) that didn’t need to be political.

If McElroy hadn’t raised a distinct issue during the debate, and Strickland not muddied the waters of what motion was on the table, no one would have seen a disagreement over adding a paragraph as anything other than what it was.

The point is that we should be careful impugning motives or assigning political/theological meaning to things before we completely understand them.

The McElroy/Chaput debate means a LOT.

but detraction against bishops who voted for the paragraph is ill-informed.

A person could have completely opposed the McElroy argument and still supported Cupich’s suggestion of adding some lines from Pope Francis.

Chaput himself could have made the point he made and still voted for the paragraph, because they simply were not the same issue.

(Incidentally, it doesn’t bother me, but here’s a stat I find interesting: about 40 ppl unfollowed me since I tweeted this.)