Illinois bishop calls a cardinal heretical, says he has disqualified himself from voting in a papal enclave, argues with alarming consistency. Harbinger of very bad things? . . . .

Serious business here . . .

The bishop is Thomas Paprocki of Springfield IL, the cardinal is Robert McElroy of San Diego. They are not to be invited to the same party.

Paprocki, in First Things:

Imagine if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to publish an article in which he condemned “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist” and stated that “unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy.” [McElroy’s words] Or what if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to state publicly that homosexual acts are not sinful and same-sex unions should be blessed by the Church? 

The bishop explains.

Until recently, it would be hard to imagine any successor of the apostles making such heterodox statements. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon today to hear Catholic leaders affirm unorthodox views that, not too long ago, would have been espoused only by heretics.

“Heretic” and “heresy” are strong words, which contemporary ecclesiastical politeness has softened to gentler expressions such as “our separated brethren” or “the Christian faithful who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

But the reality is that those who are “separated” and “not in full communion” are separated and not in full communion because they reject essential truths of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Thus, it is deeply troubling to consider the possibility that prelates holding the office of diocesan bishop in the Catholic Church may be separated or not in full communion because of heresy.

National Catholic Reporter, “Illinois bishop's provocative essay suggests Cardinal McElroy is a heretic”:

‘Paprocki . . . does not mention McElroy by name . . . but quotes . . . from a Jan. 24 article the cardinal wrote [in] America magazine. Repeating a phrase in an October document from the Synod of Bishops, McElroy had called for a church that favors "radical inclusion" of everyone, including those whose personal situations may not strictly conform with church doctrine.’

Depends on what you mean by “strictly” and “conform”?

‘Paprocki further argued that the pope has the authority, and the obligation, to remove a heretical cardinal from office, or dismiss him outright from the clerical state, or else risk "the unseemly prospect" of a cardinal who was excommunicated latae sententiae due to heresy voting in a papal conclave.’

‘this debate has become so public at this point that it seems to have passed beyond the point of just some private conversations between bishops," Paprocki told The Pillar.’

The Pillar, “The Friday Pillar Post”:

Paprocki told us he wasn’t trying to call out individuals or brand them as heretics, per se, but his essay opened with a quote from a recent essay by Cardinal Robert McElroy, and the tone of the piece was more concrete than hypothetical.

It was . . . destined to make l. . . considerable waves around the conference, and seems to mark a new depth in the theological and ecclesiastical rift which has opened up between bishops in the United States and further afield.

He believes that some . . . arguments being made about . . . grave sin and reception of the Eucharist amount to a denial of Biblical teaching:’

Paprocki:

We say the Bible’s the Word of God. So if you’re basically saying, ‘Well, St. Paul was wrong and we shouldn’t follow St. Paul,’ that suggests to me a rejection of something that's taught in the Word of God.

I thought I would explore some of the canonical implications if you have . . . a cardinal who is holding to heretical views, or publicly proclaiming and teaching heretical views. . .

This debate has become so public at this point that it seems to have passed beyond the point of just some private conversations between bishops. . . .

The Pillar:

“Unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy,” McElroy wrote, in a text quoted by Paprocki.

Paprocki’s essay said those statements are “contrary to a ‘truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith,’” and therefore constitute material heresy.

The Pillar’s dire conclusion:

Paprocki’s essay is the shot heard round the conference.

And while many bishops will be reticent [sic] to discuss this, few likely harbor the illusion that the debate doesn’t pertain to them. Indeed, it will shape much of what happens among American bishops, and their conference, in the years to come.

The standard American episcopal allergy to internecine conflict might keep the sharpest debates behind closed doors, but likely not for long.

So what will happen?

Possibilities:

Paprocki’s essay will embolden both sides of the debate. Some bishops will invariably suggest he’s the heretic. Some will claim he’s opposed to the leadership of Pope Francis, while Paprocki and his allies will suggest that they’re ones faithful to the pope’s teaching, in continuity with all that has come before it.

Someone will probably argue that Paprocki has committed the delict of c. 1390 §2, and ought to be sanctioned.

By which he would be punished.

Cardinals will likely lobby the Vatican to intervene, and if that happens, there will be cycles of debate about what the Vatican’s intervention actually meant. The bishops will be likely unable to discuss nearly any issue of leadership or collaboration which goes untouched by their escalating division.

Chaotic.

And let's say that the issues Paprocki raises go unaddressed ahead of the next papal conclave.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church, she will endure all tests of time.

But consider if the issue he raises go unaddressed, and a conclave happens - in our social media era - in which a number of cardinals accused of heresy were participants.

We’d rather not.

If you think the periodic and isolated challenges to the validity of Benedict's resignation were just a one-time blip on the radar, you're probably wrong. Broader challenges to the credibility of a conclave could become a very live issue for the life of the Church, and for the pastoral ministry of American bishops.

All that might seem dramatic. Perhaps even melodramatic. After all, it was just an essay.

But an American bishop accused his brother bishop of heresy this morning, so the fierce debates of recent years will probably seem like prologue to what’s coming next.

Not a happy prospect.

As I’ve said before, in debates over Sacred Revelation, there is a right answer and a wrong one. Truth is being debated, not preference or prudential judgment. But if history is any guide, that means the debate will be neither short, nor, for many people, especially comfortable.

I don’t hyperbolize, readers – By disposition, I'd rather be measured and correct than inflammatory or exaggerated. But I don’t want either to downplay the magnitude of the conflict in which American bishops are now engaged.

As the history of the Church in America is written, Feb. 28, 2023 will likely be a day well-noted.

Read all that and weep.