Skip to main content

Bridge to Hell of Bp. McElroy: "Chasity" not "Central Virtue" in Defending Martin who says Chasity not required of Gays

-Bp. McElroy & Bp. Chaput helping the Heretical Fr. Martin in Building a Bridge to Hell-

Bishop Robert McElroy's San Deigo diocese went bankrupt after it paid $660 million to sex abuse victims.
(The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 10, 2017)

This happened because it's sex abusing priests, a vast majority of whom were homosexuals, didn't have the virtue of chasity.

Unbelievably, McElroy, in defending homosexual activist Fr. James Martin (who refuses to say if he is a homosexual or not), claims:

"But chasity is not the central virtue... Our central call is to love the Lord our God... Many times, our discussion in the church suggest that chasity has a singular powerful role in determining our moral character or our relationship with God. It does not."

"This distortion of our faith cripples many of our discussions of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular."
(America, "Bishop McElroy: Attacks on Father James Martin expose a cancer with the U.S. Catholic Church," September 18, 2017)

Does McElroy believe:

That so long as homosexual priests "love the Lord our God" then sex abusing gay priest's chasity "is not the central virtue."

After all, the "singularly powerful role" of chasity in morality is a "distortion of our faith" which only "cripples many of our discussions of... homosexuality."

The sex abuse victims of the homosexual priests, I am sure, 100 percent disagree with McElroy's claim that chasity "is not the central virtue."

Martin, who McElroy defends, says chasity is not required of homosexuals because it is not a "received" teaching. (YouTube, "James Martin on Same-Sex Marriage, Humanae Virtae and Ex-Gays," September 20. 2017)

It is obvious that Martin is not a Catholic. That is he no longer holds to the moral teachings of the Church.

Is McElroy a Catholic? If he is, why is he defending Martin?

You can't be a Catholic unless you believe all the teachings of the Church.

As Cardinal Sarah said you can not love the Lord our God unless you keep all His commandments and "all the unchanging teachings of Christ."
(Wall Street Journal, "How Catholics Can Welcome LGBT Believers," August 31, 2017)

Cardinal Sarah's call for chasity for LGBT persons contrasts with:

-Bishop McElroy's claim that the "singularly powerful role" of chasity for homosexuals "is not the central virtue" and a "distortion of our faith"

-The heresy that chasity is not required of homosexuals proclaimed by Martin who McElroy and Bishop Charles Chaput defend.

Chaput said:

"Fr. Martin is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire." (First Things, "Civility and Church Life," September 21, 2017)

Martin is promoting mortal sin.

What he is promoting is that persons go to hell by continuing in unrepented mortal sin until death.

Martin is not promoting persons ask God for mercy for their mortal sins and to stop sinning so they can love God.

In defending Martin, Chaput and McElroy are abetting the heresy that chasity is not required of homosexuals.

Chaput and McElroy are helping Martin build a bridge to hell.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more