Read on Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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.)
