Im a blue pill person myself.
I am referring to the first example of the article, which refers to most bishops refusing to endorse Biden or Trump. The latter part refers to Bishop Barron with Fr. Martin vs. traditionalists.
In which case, red-pilling means making bishops endorse candidates (any or specific ones?) or make them defend Sacred Tradition by arguing that some will be damned through a common ground.
What is that common ground?
Finally, red-pilling in the movie refers to realizing that the world is a virtual run created by aliens, and where human beings are used as fodder. It’s unpleasant not only for Neo but also for Morpheus. In this case, what unpleasant truths do “we” who want to meet bishops on some common ground also realize?
he defends Archbishop José Gomez, what issue do you have with that?
nope, I don’t see it that way at all.
this has to do with a lot more than an election.
I don’t think you and the author have the same meaning for red-pill, the unpleasantness is simply that they are on the wrong side of the issue, a wake-up call to them.
as he says
We can address them calmly and respectfully, hoping, not to thwart them, but to win them over.
Are you sure we’re reading the same article? He criticizes Archbishop Gomez for jumping the gun on Biden being the next President, for cleverly hedging and referring to Biden as one who professes the Catholic faith, and for congratulating Biden prematurely even as his orthodox views run contrary to those of the politician.
See that in light of the next set of paragraphs, starting with, “There are 271,” followed by the writer’s conclusion:
In fact, most U.S. bishops didn’t weigh in one way or the other. That’s probably because they don’t think it’s fitting for a bishop to endorse political candidates. We may disagree with them on that point; I certainly do. But, if so, that doesn’t mean the bishops are evil. It doesn’t mean they’re secret Biden supporters. It just means that… well, they’re wrong.
Now, connect that to the next two points: a center-right bishop who can’t deal with problems in his diocese because he has no control over it, and that bureaucrats run it, and most people not realizing that they have no control because of too many pressures involved, but that’s not meant as an excuse but only to show that they’re not really “evil.”
And in light of that, see the points about Bishop Barron, Fr. Martin, Balthasar, Fr. Nichols who praises him but accuses Pope Francis of heresy, and the option of either being a sedevacantist or working with the bishops. And doing so means to “call wayward fathers back to the Truth” and thus “protect our fellow laymen from error”. And according to the same article, that truth is “the Sacred Tradition.”
Do you now understand the article? The positions of liberalism and conservatism or traditionalism are clear, with the Sacred Tradition acting as that middle ground.
At the same time, notice contradictions in criticism of the bishops by the flock. The flock is supposed to be “bigger men,” but they have to protect each other from error, and probably need help from bishops who are literally “bigger men” because they are part of authority, but also the opposite because they have no control over the same flock and are part of bureaucracy.
What makes matter worse is that the metaphor or red-pilling is raised. Your third point is correct: we don’t have the same meaning. That’s because I find it bewildering to compare the Sacred Tradition to taking a red pill.
In the movie, by taking the red pill Neo realizes the unpleasant truth that the pleasant life he had was actually a virtual one, and that his real world is horrible. Morpheus, who gave him the red pill, also presumably realized the same.
But what does that mean in this case? “[S]lip a red pill into a bishop’s wine.” What unpleasant truth do the bishops realizing after taking that pill? And what unpleasant truth do critics realize after taking the pill themselves?
Finally, do you now see the connections between that and my first post?
yet, he didn’t stop there. he goes on to support . Gomez
That Archbishop Gomez didn’t endorse Mr. Biden may actually come as a pleasant surprise to those of you who know His Excellency as a trenchant critic of President Trump’s border policy. But Archbishop Gomez is vast; he contains multitudes. He’s solidly orthodox on a range of issues: abortion, homosexuality, gender ideology, and contraception, to name just a few. In fact, after his phone conference with President Trump on Catholic education, America magazine’s Father Matt Malone accused His Excellency of “being too chummy” with the President.
did you miss this?
you are reading more into it than the point he wants to get across. you have to let the movie meaning go
You’re reading the article backwards! You’re referring to the fifth paragraph of the article. I referred to the eighth paragraph onward.
Why let go of the movie meaning when that’s the source of the phrase?
I’m an Ike and Mike or Jelly Babies person meself.
what do you think is the point of the article?
“Red Pilling” sounds inherently disrespectful.
I see no need to browse an article that uses such a term towards our bishops.
I think he wants bishops to become “an invaluable ally in the cause of Sacred Tradition,” to “be faithful to their sacred office”, and to “welcome the advice of wise and respectful laymen.”
That’s why I find the reference to red-pilling illogical. That refers to realizing unpleasant truths about one’s situation, but I don’t think that’s the author’s intentions.
“Sacred tradition” refers to the passing down of “apostolic faith,” of which understanding deepens in time. How do we apply that idea to the three examples given: that out of 271 bishops, only three spoke for one candidate or the other, that bishops have no control over their dioceses because of bureaucracy, and that Bishop Barron responded to critics’ cruelty by “by closing ranks and seeking out allies to oppose the ‘RadTrads’ (his words)”? Given that, I don’t think the solution to these problems involves red-pilling.
Finally, is Sacred Tradition that common ground?
Crisis Magazine is one of my favourite Catholic sites, they have great articles and are very orthodox, however occasionally they have an article that is just a little off - critical of Vatican II, borderline schismatic-y language, which is so unfortunate. The article in the OP is not one of their better ones.
There is nothing that can be done about them.