Subterfuge Unmasked

OTTAWA, Ontario, October 5, 2009 ( – The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has responded to criticism against their choice of a plenary speaker by posting a letter of rebuttal from the speaker, Dr. Richard Gaillardetz, and reaffirming his invitation to address them at their October 19-23 plenary assembly in Cornwall. A few Catholic academics, however, have responded to Gaillardetz’s claims and are asserting that there is indeed good reason to question his faithfullness to Catholic teaching.

Regarding his position on women’s ordination, Gaillardetz maintains, “I have never challenged the truth of this teaching in any of my work.”  Instead, he says, he has “critically analyzed the claim of the CDF’s Responsum ad Dubium that this teaching has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.”

However, Gaillardetz did not respond to the fact that he has allowed his article questioning the infallible status of the teaching on women’s organization to be used by a website devoted to promoting the practice.

According to John Allen, Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter, at the 2005 Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, Gaillardetz called into question the Church’s handling of the issue. Allen wrote: “Large numbers of laity, Gaillardetz said, are not persuaded by the theological rationale for mandatory celibacy or the ban on women’s ordination, and there is little serious effort to consult either the laity or theological and Biblical scholarship across a wide range of perspectives.”

Read the lengthy report by Patrick Caine here.

Notice how these theologians work it? 

Large number of laity are not persuaded by the theological rationale for …the ban on women’s ordination…”

This is how Gaillardetz is able to travel freely in the Catholic Church today and spew his doubts in people’s minds.  If you were ever to call him on his not-so subtle, implied support for women’s ordination, he might become indignant and claim that he was just reporting what others think about the issue and their views are not necessarily his own. He might also say (in response to any accusation that he is supporting women’s ordination)…


In fact, that’s what he effectively did in his interview with LifeSite:

In his response, Gaillardetz objected in particular to the allegation that he had advocated women’s ordination.  “I have NEVER written that I support women’s ordination,” he said.  (emphasis mine) (Source)

Notice that he says that he has never written that he supports women’s ordination.  But he doesn’t tell you what he actually believes, does he?  Of course not.  That’s how the “clique” operate in the Church today.  They’re very careful not to step over the line.  They just walk right next to it, moving it in their direction, but never actually stepping over it. 

Sooner or later, however, these theologians expose themselves AND do indeed step over the line, as Gaillardetz has done in presenting himself in open dissent from an infallible declaration by the Pope.

We’ll find out in a couple of weeks if the Canadian Bishops accept a presentation from a so-called Catholic theologian who is in open dissent from Rome.

It’s not like the Canadian bishops have a lot of credibility going for them these days. One would think that they would like to save the little they have left and not waste more of it on such a needless scandal.

But, hey, if they’re game to go ahead with this sham spectacle, then I’m game to keep reminding them of their infidelity to the Holy Father…and to the Catholic Faith itself.

Sometimes, folks, I think we are living in the Twilight zone when the bishops won’t or can’t discipline, and the faithful laity are the only ones left holding the bag.  It’s an inversion and a perversion of how it should be, but that’s the position which we find ourselves in today.

Do we not have one bishop in this country – just one – who will have the courage to call it as it is?

God help us all.

3 thoughts on “Subterfuge Unmasked

  1. Gaillardetz states in “Who’s the Boss” regarding contraception and invitro fertilzation that they’re prohibition is not infallibly taught. This is false and he should be disinvited on these grounds. Contraception and invitro fertilization are both matters that are contrary to divine natural law, that which “we can’t not know”. To teach that Church may err in her teaching regarding these matters is heretical. The Church upholds the fullness of the truth on the natural law. She didn’t invent the teaching on contraception and invitro. She reaffirms this teaching of divine natural law.

    What a scandal and hardness of heart. This is why the Winnipeg Statement has got to be recalled.

    Keep up the good work!

  2. The truth is: the whole system does not take orthodoxy seriously. It’s exactly as you say John: they don’t step over the line. But behind the line, anything goes. It’s about treating the Word of God like some kind of proposition, not like it’s revealed.

  3. The choice of words of Gaillardetz with respect to contraception is almost identical to what was written in the Winnipeg Statement. No surprise he’s been invited…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
23 × 12 =