Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Archbishop Cupich Says Yes to Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians


In October of last year veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister wrote of the new path that many believed the Church was embarking upon. Magister observed:

“In Italy, but not only there, it was the cardinal and Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini who represented this alternative orientation to John Paul II, to Benedict XVI…In the United States it was Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin who represented it…The followers and admirers of Martini and Bernardin today see in Francis the pope who is giving shape to their expectations of a comeback.” (Chiesa, 3 October, 2013)

In a homily this past June, Monsignor Henry Kriegel (pastor at St. Patrick Catholic Church in the Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania) referenced an evening spent dining with the well connected Catholic blogger Rocco Palma of Whispers in the Loggia. Regarding the impending episcopal appointment in Chicago, Msgr. Kriegel said at the time:

“…(Palma) told us who’s going to be the next archbishop of Chicago; a position which will be filled in September. And if he’s correct, it’s going to be the beginning of a whole new style of episcopal leadership in the American Catholic Church, away from these bombastic, confrontational, counter-cultural bishops to bishops who are much more conciliatory and overflowing, as Francis says, with mercy.

On Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation, recently installed Archbishop Blasé Cupich demonstrated that Chicago is indeed being introduced to a new style of episcopal leadership. This was nowhere more evident than the archbishop’s response to host Norah O’Donnell’s question regarding pro-abortion politicians and the reception of Communion:

O’DONNELL: So, when you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.

CUPICH: I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or way in which people would be either excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.

In other words, those who persist in mortal sin and public scandal through their continued political support of abortion should still receive the Eucharist. This very topic has been thoroughly addressed by canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters when discussing the specific case of U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

“Canon 915, as I and others have explained many times, is not about impositions on individual conscience, it’s about public consequences for public behavior. It’s about taking people at their word and acknowledging the character of their actions. It’s about not pretending that people don’t really mean what they repeatedly say and what they repeatedly do.


“As a canon lawyer, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion as the just consequence of her public actions; as her fellow Catholic, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deservesto be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly.”

This issue has also been addressed on numerous occasions by Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, and the man who seemed to be the obvious choice for many to replace Cardinal Francis George in Chicago. As the Apostolic Signatura is the Vatican’s highest legal tribunal on matters of canon law, Cardinal Burke’s opinion of canon 915 cannot be ignored. As reported at EWTN News:

“There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins,”Cardinal Burke told the Irish newspaper Catholic Voice…once “a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion,” the cardinal added, “as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion.”


Cardinal Burke said that the local bishop and parish priests must ensure that Holy Communion is properly received to avoid “the grave sin of sacrilege” from those like Catholic politicians who receive Communion in spite of “grave moral evil.” The bishops and clergy must also prevent the “scandal” caused by this kind of reception because it “gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm.”

The cardinal said Catholic politicians have the duty to support all legislation that will “most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage.”


Cardinal Burke stressed that the Catholic Church’s rules on the need to receive communion worthily are based on Christians’ relationship with Jesus Christ.

Someone who persists in “manifest grave sin” should not receive Holy Communion “because of his love of our Lord and his sorrow for the grave sin which he is committing against our Lord and His Holy Church.”

Recognizing this “grave offense” against God will “most inspire a conversion of heart” in Catholic politicians who support abortion, the cardinal said. He cited St. Paul’s admonition in the First Letter to the Corinthians that those who receive communion unworthily “eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Let us hope and pray that Our Lord is not subjected to further sacrilege, and His Church to further scandal, by an outright refusal to enforce Canon 915 in Chicago. The Church loses credibility when she rightly advocates for protecting the unborn, but then gives Holy Communion to high profile, unrepentant, Catholic politicians who support the “right” to an abortion.

Archbishop Cupich, dialogue by all means with anyone who will meet with you in good faith, but please, first and foremost, protect Our Eucharistic Lord from profanation, and those in your flock from further scandal.

(Photo Credit: Charles Rex Arbogast/Pool/AP)

134 thoughts on “Archbishop Cupich Says Yes to Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians”

    • I don’t think it is that they don’t believe in the real presence so much as they don’t believe in one or more of the following: 1) the possibility or existence of sacrilege, 2) the words of scripture about receiving unworthily, 3) that supporting horrible crimes publicly is a mortal sin or that anyone is really in a state of mortal sin, 4) that church law must be followed, 5) that it is their job to uphold church law, 6) that the disposition of the receiver matters with respect to the sacraments, 7) that anyone could be separated from the church by sin or otherwise, 8) that lack of holiness is an obstacle to approaching God, 9) that God is actually offended by anything, 10) that admonishing the sinner is a work of mercy. Add your own….

      Their theology is, by all appearances, sentimental goo from the 1970s. Don’t expect it to be coherent, logical or have any substantial integrity or conformity with past teaching.

    • There is no way one can believe in the Real Presence and either a) receive Communion in a state of mortal sin, or b) knowingly offer Communion to someone in, objectively, a state of mortal sin without, privately or publicly, advising them to go to Confession. Arbp. Cupich is no fool. He knows what the Catechism teaches and he knows what sacrilege and scandal are. I do not know how any sane bishop could say it is okay to offer Communion to people who publicly support abortion, gay marriage, contraception — you name it. In my view, the bishop is saying that the person, the human man or woman, is of more importance than the actual body and blood of Christ Himself and, in effect, the bishop apparently does not care to instruct the person properly so they can strive to follow Church teachings and eventually go to Heaven. If you truly care for a person’s immortal soul, you must tell them the Truth. …. And, no doubt, these Catholic politicians who support abortion and contraception, etcetera, know the teaching of the Church. They are not fools. …. Again, we all have to answer to God, and I with my many sins as well. But we have a choice. We can strive to follow the Truth (and go to Confession when we fall), or we can ignore the Truth or the parts we don’t like or that might interfere with our career. It is better to strive to be holy. Joseph and Mary were poor, but they held to the Faith.

  1. The new Archbishop of Chicago, when announcing he will not allow the communion rail to be used as a place for division and politics, essentially said he is all for using the communion rail to further politics and division. If O’Donnelll was a serious reporter she would have asked Archbishop Cupich if he would refuse communion to segregationists and racists. If he answered yes, then he would be a hypocrite of his own standards; if he said no, the Archbishop would offend the majority of the people of Chicago.

    I think it is safe to say that a majority of our bishops do not believe abortion rises to the level of Mortal Sin.

    • ” if he would refuse communion to segregationists and racists”

      I would hope the archbishop would answer “no”. How can we refuse communion to people?

      P.S. On any given Sunday lots of segregationist and racists receive communion.

      • Jesus dispensed The Holy Eucharist to Judas because, at the moment, he was a secret sinner whereas pro abortionists and those who succor sodomites are notorious/public sinners.


        St. Thomas Aquinas:

        Article 6. Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?

        Objection 1. It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it. For Christ’sprecept is not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (Matthew 7:6) our Lord gave this command: “Give not that which is holy to dogs.” Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it.

        Objection 2. Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him.

        Objection 3. Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in the Decretals: “It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these words: ‘May the body of Christ prove thee today.'” And further on: “If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act imputed.” But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ’s body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.

        On the contrary, on Psalm 21:30: “All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored,” Augustinesays: “Let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of the earth,” i.e. sinners, “from eating at the table of the Lord.”

        I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): “You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church’s modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion.”

        But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord’s table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, “If he who is called a brotheramong you,” etc., Augustine’s gloss remarks: “We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.” Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord’s table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: “Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God.”

        Reply to Objection 1. Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but are to be left to the Divine judgment.

        Reply to Objection 2. Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Quæst. super Gen. 42): “It is a most dangerous exchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil.” But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord’s table unworthily.

        Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatryby believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as Augustine says on Psalm 98:5: “Let no one eat Christ’sflesh, except he first adore it.” Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De Homine) it is said: “Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it.”

        Reply to Objection 3. Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: “The Sacred Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men.” And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.

        • Mighty Joe Young wrote: “Jesus dispensed The Holy Eucharist to Judas because, at the moment, he was a secret sinner whereas pro abortionists and those who succor sodomites are notorious/public sinners.”

          That is unclear among the Gospel writers. ONLY in Luke 22: 3 – 23 is Judas Iscariot identified after the Establishment of the Eucharist. In the other 3 Gospels, Judas Iscariot is clearly and publicly identified as the betrayer before the Establishment of the Eucharist. And in John, Judas is clearly dismissed before the Discourse which includes the blessing of the Eucharist.

          • It will take me some time to work through the Aquinas materials.

            Here is my review of the Gospels, using the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition.

            Judas in the timeline:

            Matthew 26: 20 – 29. 20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[c] 21 and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.”25 Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.” 26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke
            it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the[d] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

            Judas is identified as the betrayer prior to the Institution of the Eucharist.

            Mark 14: 17 – 25 When it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And when they had taken their places and were eating, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” 19 They began to be distressed and to say to him one after another, “Surely, not I?” 20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me. 21 For the Son of Man, goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

            Judas is identified as the betrayer before the Institution of the Eucharist.

            LUKE 22: 3 – 23 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; 4 he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him to them. 5 They were greatly pleased and agreed to give him money. 6 So he consented and began to look for an opportunity to betray him to them when no crowd was present. … 14 When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves;18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of
            the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is
            on the table; 22 For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” 23 Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this.

            Judas Iscariot is not identified or dismissed until after the Eucharist has been instituted.

            John 13: 26 – 30 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon
            Iscariot. 27 After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him.
            Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival”; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out.
            And it was night. 31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him.

            John 14: 18 – 24 “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

            Judas is dismissed before the Eucharist is established.

          • Marie. Judas was not identified before receiving holy Eucharist. If he was, why did the others ask if Jesus was speaking about them? That is, only Jesus knew; thus, he was a secret, not a public sinner.

            Your use of John is way off.

            Stick with Catholic Tradition when it comes to exegesis;believe it or not, the Saints and Doctors of the Catholic Church are more reliable then are we

          • Marie. Either you are right in your claim that Judas did not receive Holy Eucharist and two Doctors of the Church are wrong or the two Doctors of the Church are right and you are wrong. Guess which ones M.J is trusting?

            Here is Catena Aurea on your mistaken claim:

            AUG. As if to say, There is one among you who will not be blessed, nor does these things. I know whom I have chosen. Whom, but those who shall be happy by doing His commandments? Judas therefore was not chosen. But if so, why does He say in another place, Have not I chosen you twelve? Because Judas was chosen for that for which he was necessary, but not for that happiness of which He says, Happy are you, if you do them.

            ORIGEN. Or thus: I speak not of you all, does not refer to, Happy are you if you do them. For of Judas, or any other person, it may be said, Happy is he if he do them. The words refer to the sentence above, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither He that is sent greater than He that sent Him. For Judas, being a servant of sin, was not a servant of the Divine Word; nor an Apostle, when the devil had entered into him. Our Lord knew those who were His, and did not know who were not His, and therefore says, not, I know all present, but, I know whom I have chosen, i.e. I know My Elect.

            CHRYS. Then, that He might not sadden them all, He c adds, But that the Scripture must be fulfilled, He that eats bread with Me, has lifted up his heel against Me: strewing that He knew who the traitor was, an intimation that would surely have checked him, if anything would. He does not say, shall betray Me, but, shall lift up his heel against Me, alluding to his deceit and secret plotting.

            AUG. Shall lift up his heel against Me, i.e. shall tread upon Me. The traitor Judas is meant.

            CHRYS. He that eats bread with Me; i.e. who was fed by Me, who partook of My table. So that if injured ever by our servants or inferiors, we need not be offended. Judas had received infinite benefits, and yet thus requited his Benefactor.

            AUG. They then who were chosen ate the Lord; he ate the bread of the Lord, to injure the Lord; they ate life, he damnation; for he that eats unworthily, eats damnation to himself (1 Cor 11:27).

      • The Archbishop of New Orleans in 1968 not only threatened to withhold Holy Communion to segregationists but he also threatened excommunication. Archbishop Rummel wrote, “”Racial segregation as such is morally wrong and sinful because it is a denial of the unity and solidarity of the human race as conceived by God in the creation of Adam and Eve.”

        A priest or bishop, in good conscience, cannot give Holy Communion to an unrepentant sinner. Yes, many unrepentant sinners go to Communion. But, if the priest has no knowledge of it then he isn’t responsible.

    • There will be no UNITY within the Catholic Church until all Bishops encourage all literate LAITY to read at home:
      1) Sacred Scripture (Catholic Bible) which is the speech of God (CCC 81;
      2) Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition (1997 with dark green cover).

      Just because Cupich, Wuerl, Kicanus, and a few others are evil does not mean the majority are.
      Cardinal Wuerl is now on the Committee to make recommendations to Pope Francis regarding Diocese appointments for new Bishops, etc. Cupich is one of them. We can expect evil for sometime to come.

      Let’s all call them what they are: “HERETICS”. Eventually word will get back to Rome.

      • You would do much better avoiding any post Conciliar catechism, and instead relying on either the Baltimore or Trent editions.

        • Sorry michael m. That would be heresy.

          The Baltimore is merely a local catechism but great for kids.
          Trent was written in 1566 AD, and does not cover voluntary sterilization, natural family planning, and many additional teachings that were not considered at that time.

          If you throw out all teachings after 1566 AD, you get the Trent catechism.
          The Trent btw is included in the CCC.
          (I own both.)

          For more info on the CCC from Popes JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis on the net search:
          “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.

          The CCC was promulgated by Apostolic Constitution.
          If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.

          • Why do we need to consult that site when we already have the Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas, and the perennial Magisterium from which to learn.

          • Because the site quotes the Popes, and gives official links to prove to you that you are wrong about the CCC.

            The CCC is from the Magisterium, and includes teachings from Trent, and St. Thomas.

            You are the one who was bad mouthing the CCC.

          • True, but it makes–if memory serves–exponentially more references to the patently modernist Second Vatican Council.

          • What would be heresy? Anyone who believes that the JP II catechism does a better job of conveying the truths of the faith as it was taught “always and everywhere” {at least prior to Vatican II} either does not truly know the faith or is prone to modernism. The Trent catechism is easily applicable to todays world, as the sins you speak of are merely different infringements upon the 6th Commandment, which–quite obviously- pre dates the 16th century. P.S. There are no “teachings after Trent”, as Revelation was completed with the death of St. John.

          • St John died approximately 100 AD.
            So according to you anything that the Church teaches after 100 AD is modernism?

            The Catechism of the Council of Trent was written approx. 1566 AD, including many of those of St. Thomas Aquinas who lived in the mid 1200’s.
            And I guess you’d throw out the teachings of the Vatican I Council (1869-1870)? And all the Encyclicals written after 100 AD by all the Popes ?

            I don’t have time or space to help you with this.
            You are wrong. Talk to your Priest or Diocese Bishop.
            You are a heretic if you do not accept the CCC.

            CCC: ” 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
            Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

          • You are a perfect illustration of the archetypical neo-con Catholic who has just completed his Theology 101 course {“a little knowledge being a dangerous thing”}. It is an article of Divine Faith {i.e dogma} that Revelation was completed with the death of St. John. Consequently, any teaching, regardless of its theological character, subsequent thereto must be based on said Revelation. In other words, all the works of St. Thomas, Trent, Bellarmine, Augustine, Suarez,etc stem from the first century. You throw the “H” word around pretty loosely. Do you mean to call me a formal or material heretic. But I guess anyone who believes JP II to be “great”, Vatican II to have produced wonderful fruits, or who fails to see the inconsistencies between the modernism so frequently spewed from today’s pulpits and that which Holy Church taught up to 1965 probably does/can not appreciate the distinction.

          • You make far too many assumptions about me. And we all know what they say about “assuming”.
            You are wrong again.
            Out of choice, I attend the EF Mass.
            It is not good when you mix fact with fiction in your posts.

            I also suggest you read the words of Jesus regarding the teaching authority of the Pope (who promulgated the CCC) – Mt 16:19.

            Yes, using the Church definition of heresy (CCC 2089), and based upon your posts AGAINST the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” promulgated in Aug. 1997, you are a heretic.
            The CCC must be taken in entirety. Just what do you think is wrong in the CCC – be specific with paragraph numbers.


          • In addition to your modernism, you also appear to suffer from a strong case of papolotry. What, exactly do you mean by “Taken in its entireity?” I will say this s-l-o-w-l-y. Not everything contained in a Catechism carries the wait of dogma or infallibility, as there are different degrees of authority or theological notes attached to their various teachings on various subject. Kindly indicate what DE FIDE teaching I have pertinaciously denied that compels you to calumny.

          • Everything in the CCC carries the weight of “DOCTRINE of the FAITH”.

            When you deny the legitimacy of the CCC, you deny Doctrine of the Faith which it contains.

            “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.” – Pope John Paul II

            Regarding “ENTIRETY” – ” This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety.
            It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (CCC pg 11)

          • And you take this preamble to mean that EVERY proposition in the new catechism carries the theological note of “Dogma”. Not even JPII would make that assertion.

          • Are you blind ? I said “Doctrine of the Faith” not dogma.
            There are many things even in the TRENT catechism which are not dogma.
            Catholics are required to adhere to the Doctrine of the Faith.
            Check with your Priest or Bishop.

          • Really? “Dogma of the faith {de fide Catholica}” is EXACTLY the same theological note as “dogma”. If you didn’t know this, why are we even having this discussion?

          • You just acknowledged that not all of the new catechism is dogmatic {i.e Doctrines of Faith}, now you make an ambiguous statement in declaring that “the CCC…contains the Doctrine of the Faith”. Do you mean to back track and say the entire CCC is dogmatic, or only certain portions? Obviously, there are sections which comport with the Church’s perennial teaching, including subjects upon which She has never DEFINITVELY {i.e dogmatically} taught. On the other hand, there are topics where it diverges from tradition . That is where I object. BTW, the new catechism contains 806 citations from the VII docs; that’s about 1 every three and a half paragraphs–so much for my “memory”. P.S. Traditional Catholics have MANY arguments to make to Benedict and FRANCIS.

          • It does not matter.
            If you are a Catholic and not a troll, you are required to adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church in entirety.
            Ask your Priest or Bishop.
            You are arguing with the Magisterium of the Church (of which I am not a member).

            ” This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (CCC pg 11)

            If you choose to be a heretic, the choice is yours.

            JESUS said: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”
            Mt 13:52.

          • Just keep ignoring my question. And I am certainly not going to be lectured on the tenants of the faith by someone who appears to view VII and the new catechism as some type of uber dogma. You demonstrate the same hubris and misunderstanding as the heresiarch Luther. I will pray for your conversion to the one true Church, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULA SALUS. P.S. the new catechism would not have seen the light of day prior to VII.

          • It is also important to note that you point to Luther – I find that interesting because he also would not adhere to Church teaching by the Magisterium – much like you.

            That is why he started his own Church, with no Pope.

          • Again, WHICH article of faith have I denied? And on which planet, asylum, or playground do you live?

          • Again, you have denied the “Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (1997) as containing the Doctrine of the Faith – which all Catholics must adhere to.

            Repeat that sentence about 5 times out loud and perhaps you will remember it.

          • For the fifth time, which “doctrines of the faith” do claim I deny. It is customary for the accuser to specify just how the transgressor is culpable. You still have not done so. I assent to every dogmatic teaching contained in every catechism. But, as even you have acknowledged {at least on those occasions where you have not flip-flopped}, not everything stated in a catechism, any catechism is dogma. So, again, where do you feel I have fallen away?

          • Go back and read your own posts.
            You clearly oppose the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains the Doctrine of the Faith.

            Yet you refuse to point to any specific paragraph numbers that you personally disagree with – which means that you are merely spewing falsehoods.

          • See above for the examples. What, precisely, does the statement “doctrine of the faith” mean to you. To a Catholic, it connotes a specific theological note or definition. Specifically, when a teaching is declared to be DE FIDE or dogma, we are duty bound to accept it as a truth revealed by God. Not every teaching in a catechism contains this level of authority. It is truly staggering that you are unable to digest this relatively simple concept.

          • There is a difference between Dogma and Doctrine.
            Contact your Priest or Diocese Bishops for further information.

            Catholics are bound by both.

          • Wrong. In terms of theological notes, there is NO difference between “Doctrine of the Faith” and “Dogma”. For “further information”, contact ANYONE who has more than a 101 level understanding of theological definitions/classifications.

          • Sorry, but I have several advance degrees in Theology, would you like to compare mine to yours ?

            Also you complain a lot, but never point to any specific paragraphs (providing number is sufficient) that is not Doctrine of the Faith.

          • If you were not schooled in a traditional Catholic seminary, your degree are worth less than nothing. I will stick my J.D. up against your back of the cracker jack box diploma any day. And, unlike your refusal to point out which article of faith I have denied, I will answer your question. For starters, troubling positions are taken on Baptism {p.847,1261,1682}, salvation {518,819, 838-843, 2104, 2283}, “ecumenism” {820, 1399,1401}, “collegiality” {879-885}, “religious liberty” {2106}, the “dignity of man” {225,369,1700, 1929}, the priesthood of the faithful {873,1547,1140}.

          • Remember that per instruction of the Magisterium everything in the CCC must be taken in ENTIRETY.
            Due to space, etc., I will do what I can to very generally answer your concern in several posts as I get time – Posting by topic in the order you presented them.

            # 847 – “Through no fault of their own..” Let’s state where there is agreement. One must be in the state of Mortal Sin to be sent to Hell. One can not be in the state of Mortal Sin if he does not know it is a Mortal Sin.
            See Mk 9:38-41 “Another Exorcist”; not to mention Mt 18:18.
            Those of us who know what Jesus taught will definitely be held accountable.

            #1261 – there is nothing wrong with “hoping” for God’s mercy for unbaptized children.
            Although the Bible states Heaven & Hell and references Purgatory, there is no place such as Limbo. In addition those people who were good in the Old Testament were not baptized either but a few were promised high places in Heaven.
            (Over 56 million children have been aborted in the USA alone since 1973.)
            God can do anything He wishes, and we have no authority to tie His hands – so to speak.

            #1682 – I don’t see an issue with #1682, if/when you remember that instructions from the Magisterium require us to take the CCC in entirety.
            See CCC #1022-1023 on Particular Judgment; #1023-1029 on Heaven, #1030 – 1032 on Purgatory; and on Hell #1033-1037.

            (Will get back to you soon.)

          • On Salvation –
            #518 I don’t see the concern when read with #517.
            #819 should be read with 817 & 818.
            #838 – 843 Jesus died for all mankind, however when you read the Bible, St Paul had to argue this point with St. Peter.
            Thank goodness that St Paul won or none of us would be following Jesus today except those with Jewish ancestors
            Start reading with 836 through 848.
            #2104 What is issue with this paragraph ?
            This does not mean we should stop teaching the Gospel.
            It simply means that we should love our neighbors.
            (Jesus never taught us to only love those who believe as we do.)
            #2283 Suicide is a mortal sin. #2281, 2282. As stated in 2282 some people suffer from grave psychological disturbances etc. They will not be held to the same standard as the rest of us. It would be different for us if we merely decided things were not going well, and we decided to pack it in.
            (Euthanasia is also a Mortal sin – CCC 2277, and 2324.)
            Will get back to you.

          • It’s times like this that I really wish Welsh had become the dominant language of England after the eleventh century.

          • Are you suggesting Paul the Sixth and his successors have done nothing to dismantle the loopholes the heretic Bugnini cunningly snuck into V2? I will agree with anyone that they have been doing so faaaaar too slowly and cautiously, but to say they have merely gone along with it is a falsehood. When Bugnini’s crimes were revealed to his Holiness, the liberal turd was flushed to the Iranian foothills. I believe, although I cannot prove it, that Paul, and then St. John Paul were building a case against him for a formal, public excommunication. If they had been able to, Bugnini’s influence could have been swept aside in one swift stroke, allowing for the false reforms to be removed aggressively in a few years. Unfortunately, the devil came to the rescue in the form of Ayatollah Komani. The hostage crisis allowed Bugnini an opportunity to negotiate on their behalf. A public excommunication at that point would have backfired on his Holiness, the liberals would have claimed him “heartless”. By the time Bugnini could have been obscure enough to have A serious go at him, the old weasel had gone to hell. His Chapel has since been bulldozed and his grave forgotten. But without the political leverage of a formal excommunication with a mountain of evidence, Rome has felt compelled to pry apart the Trojan Horse using a carving chisel. The degree of caution is actually an older problem then V2, stemming back to the aftermath of the fall of the Papal States.

      • What’s with the antipathy toward Cardinal Wuerl? He is a solid catechist and oversaw the creation of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults — a good if imperfect resource. I understand his grasp of the liturgy is wanting, but … evil?

        • Cardinal Wuerl supports giving Holy Communion to those in the obstinate state of public Mortal Sin (example: Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Cuomo, Jerry Brown, etc,; the divorced and remarried who choose to continue committing adultery with the valid spouse of another, etc) with the justification that it is Recpetion of Holy Communion is merely Pastoral not Doctrinal.

          He is in direct opposition to 1 Cor 11:27-30;
          and CCC 2120; and Canon 915, and on Scandal CCC 2285, 2286, 2287; and therefore participates in the sins of others CCC 1868.
          I am going to try to send you a few links in his own words, immediately following – but I don’t know if this site allows links.

          Lastly Wuerl is responsible for making the recommendation to Pope Francis regarding Blasé Cupich for Chicago.
          Cupich also publically gives Holy Communion to those who choose to remain in mortal sin, and refused to let his Spokane Diocese Priests pray outside of abortion clinics to save lives; however he said his first priority is immigration reform.
          – – – –
          I have a question for you. Do you know why the US Catholic Catechism for Adults was even commissioned by the USCCB in the first place, since we have the CCC which contains the Doctrine of the Faith ?

          • No, it did not. Only for those who due to differences in culture, age, maturity, etc. would need local catechisms (CCC #24, pg 11.)
            This does not fit a literate American adult.

            I was asked the question by a convert, and did not have a good answer. He understands the CCC, likes it very much, and has no problem with it.
            As a revert myself, prior to, an encore of this Nun on TV said to read the CCC, turned out to be Mother Angelica, I read it and came back to the Church.

            The CCC was even written for non-Catholics.
            “….the CATECHISM has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)

          • The word “only” doesn’t appear in the CCC. Read note 4 to Fidei Depositum, where the CCC is referred to as a reference text for the creation of local catechisms. Moreover, America isn’t exempt from differences in age, maturity, and culture across the universal church.


          • For those who are unable due to age, culture or whatever to read and understand.

            Plz see: “What Catholics REALLY Believe Source” on the net for quotes from Popes JP II, Benedict XVI, and Francis regarding the CCC.

            Plz see: “What Catholics REALLY Believe Source” on the net for quotes from Popes JP II, Benedict XVI, and Francis regarding the CCC.

            It appears quite arrogant for the Bishops to assume literate American Adults can not understand what is in the CCC.

            I just found the Wuerl video for you will be sending within 5 min. or so.

          • If you find the CCC sufficient for your catechetical needs, good for you. But it is hardly “arrogant” for bishops to perform a task that *at the very least* is envisioned and accommodated by it.

          • CCC in the universal Church Catechism and contains the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated by Apostolic Constitution.

            “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. ” – Pope John Paul II, CCC pg 5.

            For more Pope quotes about the CCC:
            “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”

          • The arrogance is that involved Bishops believe that US literate adults are too stupid to understand the CCC.

            Most don’t actively encourage the at home reading of the Bible either (check out Diocese web sites for their matters of importance).

            The two most important books in the Catholic Faith are:
            1) Sacred Scripture (Bible) is the speech of God (CCC 81);
            2) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) which contains the Doctrine of the Faith.

            Why would anyone want to deprive Catholics of these gifts !

        • Rich, do you agree with:

          CCC: 81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. ”
          And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
          It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

          If so, please also read Sacred Scripture – 1 Cor 11:27-30.
          ” Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
          Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
          Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
          For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
          That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. ”

          This is all Doctrine of the Faith, no matter what Wuerl says.

      • Research needs to be done to find out if any prospective bishops were fans of the false priest Bugnini before his well deserved exile. Any who showed positive feelings in highschool, college or seminary towards that foul betrayer and his friends should be refused the miters, or have them taken away.

    • Quite possibly, the majority of our Bishops do not really believe in ‘Sin’ at all, at least not personal sin. I do believe the ‘modernists’ believe that all ‘sin’ is relative to the pit falls of just ‘being human’, that we have no control over. In other words, nothing is REALLY our fault given our particular circumstances. Why do you think they through Confession under the bus after Vat ll? After all, to them anyway, Confession was just a silly outdated practice that should be put to rest. They wanted us to ‘grow up’ in our faith, and ‘realize’ that nothing was really our fault and that Christ died once and for all to erase any failing past, present or future, ‘sin’ was put to death 2,000 years ago. The only ‘sin’ they see is ‘collective sin’ of the here and now. Righting the wrongs of the oppressed and down trodden. After all like Pope Francis himself said: ‘We are all going to meet in heaven, every one of us!’ The only thing that matters is taking care of the here and now of our lives, and how comfortable we can make everyone. It smacks of paganism if you ask me.

  2. Why won’t the Pope stop this? It is our responsibility to understand the Canon Law. I have been taught that, but those of the younger generation have not had the correct teachings of our Holy Mother Church. Who is to help them understand if not the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope.

  3. No surprise. Arbp. Cupich refused to allow priests in his diocese to participate in the 40 days for life campaign. And now he is ignoring Canon 915 and allowing sacrilege and public scandal. It is his free choice, but he will have to explain his choice to God — as we all do.

    • One may legitimately question whether this archbishop is pro-life at all. Nothing points to that; rather his actions seem to be as one who supports abortion and also all those others who support abortion. He gives every indication of looking the other way to other intrinsic evils as well….all in the guise of ‘mercy’ and ‘being pastoral’ of course. This was a disasterous appointment. I am sorry for the faithful in Chicago. And for any of those with a more traditional bent—you will likely be in the bull’s eye. Rainbow sash folks can breathe easier and come to communion in full regalia and with impunity for their sacrilege. All will be made comfortable in their sins. Who is helping souls get to heaven is what I would like to know?

      • You should see how Relevant Radio has been fawning all over this apostate. Most don’t know that Michael Sean Winters, from Fish wrap (national Schismatic Reporter) is good friends with Cupich, and b even wrote most of his installment “sermon” for him.
        And most poor relevant radio listeners don’t even know how mislead their being!

        They are shining examples of the Catholic Establishment Media, supporting the church of Nice, before any shred of Catholic traditional piety, or Christ the King.

  4. A “Delightful” Meeting With A Mass Killer?

    Chicago, Il – ( – 11 28 2014 – In a shocking statement, new Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich was quoted as saying he recently had a “delightful” meeting with President Obama who is the most pro-abortion President in American history. Obama is well known for his support for killing children in the womb at every stage of life including late term abortions, partial birth abortions, and even voting not to protect from death babies who are born alive when an abortionist failed to kill them in the womb.

    No reasonable person can see any difference between a Catholic Bishop who would meet with a Commandant of a Nazi concentration camp then calling that meeting “delightful” and Archbishop Cupich calling his meeting with a man who supports the murder of 55 million children by abortion “delightful.”

    What a horrific and spiritually deadly situation when a Catholic Bishop has a “delightful” time meeting with man who is responsible for the mass murder of “the least” of God’s people.

    Please contact the Archbishop about this scandalous situation. We are the only voice the unborn have.

    Office of the Archbishop
    Archdiocese of Chicago
    PO Box 1979
    Chicago, IL. 60690-1979

    Phone: 312-534-8230
    E-Mail: [email protected]

    • Thanks Maggie. I just wrote him.
      Although, in the new “age of mercy”, the letters will fall into the trashbin.
      These men are pure evil, and likely involved in homosexual sodomite activity.
      They have lost the faith and Francis, I believe, will be shown by history to be an antipope.

  5. The Eucharist is NOT the sacrament of forgiveness and reconciliation; Penance is. Good old, overlooked, ignored for 40 years of Vat II silliness…CONFESSION.
    And yes, I DO think these bishops and priests doubt the Real Presence. They could not celebrate the insipid, profane “liturgies” they have foisted upon us for 45 years without doubting it.
    Thank God for the TLM Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    • Exactly!
      It comes down to these liberal heterodox prelates not believing in the grid presence.
      Although, the novus ordo helped me in leaving the church, as I couldn’t see any difference between it and Anglicans, with their communion in the hand, closed off, priest becoming “presider” facing the people from a Cranmer table, with altar girl priestess especially and virtually the same prayers.
      Then, I found the TLM in my thirties, and now I’m back, even now studying the faith I never learned in the 1980s and 90s.

    • The root of this evil, whether we agree or not that Rome is trying (albeit FAR too slowly and cautiously) to remove it, is the Trojan Horse of the false Priest Bugnini, his vial Liturgical time bombs!
      I believe St. John Paul and Benedict 16 have tried, but a culture of extreme caution when opposing powerful corruption has permeated Roman policy since the loss of the Papal States. We need bolder, risk taking Bishops, willing to rock political boats, especially now that the it has been revealed that the IRS is a paper tiger when it comes to the so called “exemption clause”. American bishops have been afraid of that canard for too long!

  6. The sly and wry wise guy (certainly not M.J.) could construe this as an almost perfect form of hatred in that the Bishop will be dispensing Holy Communion to the mortal sinner who will be drinking judgment unto himself and, thus , intensifying his punishment in Hell.

    So, maybe the Bishop is THE most Pro life Bishop ever.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket….

  7. The bishop’s position must be what it is or else he cuts the foundation out from under the position for allowing divorced and “remarried” to receive the Eucharist. There is no going back. The “progress” of Modernism will only end when the King Himself shortens the days for the sake of the few faithful believers. I hope and pray I and those I am responsible for are counted among the faithful ones.

  8. Ummm…..I believe that it is the duty of the Church to shepherd her flock on their pilgrimage towards heaven. I think 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is pretty clear on what the consequences are to receiving Eucharist unworthily:
    1 Corinthians 11:27-32 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
    Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[a]without discerning the body,[b] eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[c] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[d] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” There have been times that I have decided that I am not in a state of grace. On those occasions, I do not receive Eucharist; rather, I ask for a blessing from the priest.

  9. I continue to be surprised why so many people have energy about this topic. Nancy Pelosi is wrong about abortion, but is that a reason to deny her communion? Have any of you ever witnessed someone come forward for communion only to see the minister turn him or her away? It doesn’t happen. A substantial portion of regular Mass-attending Catholics agree with Pelosi’s political stance on this topic – they are wrong, but they are still in church and in the communion line. Do you all propose that we start turning away tens of thousands of people from communion every week?

    • YES, one must not confuse the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) with the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
      If you wish to be Catholic you adhere to Catholic Church teaching – otherwise there is the door. You have a free will to be Catholic or not.
      And of all those at Mass, you truly have no clue who does and does not believe in the murder of innocent human beings for the convenience of others.
      Nor do you personally know who has been to Confession recently.

      This is the way that Canon 915 is written.
      ” Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty,
      and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

      (People such as Pelosi, Cuomo, Biden, etc, frequently and publically admit that they advocate for the mortal sin of abortion.)

      For a sin to be forgiven one must have the RESOLUTION NOT to SIN AGAIN –
      CCC: “1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is sorrow of the soul
      and detestation for the sin committed,
      together with the resolution not to sin again.”
      CCC: ” 1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

      Both Cupich and Wuerl are heretics since these are Doctrine of the Faith which was defined at the Council of Trent.

    • Because it is a sacrilege JenniO to receive communion when not in the state of grace. Nancy Pelosi and other politicians or public pro-proponents of abortion are public sinners and give scandal to others by reception of Communion. If the Bishops did their jobs by refusing communion to them it would send a message to others that they shouldn’t be coming to communion either.

    • JenniO,

      Please be serious. No-one is advocating mass refusals of Communion.

      Canon 915 should help clear this up for you:

      “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

      “…others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” is the key passage here.

      It is doubtless true, as you claim, that a “substantial portion of regular Mass-attending Catholics agree with Pelosi’s political stance” on abortion, but in order for Canon 915 to apply to them, their opinion would have to be a matter of public record. Pelosi’s (or Kerry’s, or Biden’s, or Cuomo’s) abortion advocacy is about as obstinate and manifest as you can get. By Church law, people in their positions should certainly be refused Communion.

      On the other hand, few people have any idea what John Q. Catholic ahead of them in the communion line thinks about abortion, same-sex marriage, or racial segregation, so there is no question of refusing them Communion. John Q. *might* have the most awful opinions imaginable, but I find it helpful just to assume that he, along with everyone else, is much holier than I am until they demonstrate otherwise.

    • The entire leadership of the National Socialist party who were Catholic were excommunicated before they killed a single Jew in 1933.
      “The documents indicate that any Catholic who joined the Nazi party, wore the uniform or flew the swastika flag would no longer be able to receive the sacraments.
      This policy set three years before Hitler was elected chancellor made clear that the teachings of the Church were incompatible with Nazi ideology.”

      Apparently ~48 Million murdered Children is too low a bar for you to morally sanction and call to repentance. wicked people.

    • They MAY BE GIVEN a blessing when they come up to a priest or deacon to receive the Holy Eucharist, IF the priest or deacon knows that they are politicians AND whether or not they have voted or otherwise acted to promote abortions. According to Canon 915, they may not receive the Holy Eucharist. EMCs, however, seldom have that training, knowledge or faculty to give a blessing and are far less likely to refuse the Holy Eucharist, thus adding to the profanation of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

  10. CUPICH: ” I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or way in which people would be either excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.”

    When has committing the additional mortal sin of Sacrilege brought people back to the Faith (- receiving Holy Communion while in the State of Mortal sin of any kind) ?
    When has committing the Mortal sin of Scandal brought anyone back to the Faith ?

    Since Sacred Scripture in entirety is the speech of God (CCC 81) –
    Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
    Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
    For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
    That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. ” 1 Cor 11:27-30.

    So Blasé Cupich and Donald Wuerl think they know more than God ! ! !

    When any Bishop (or Priest) knowingly gives Holy Communion to those publically obstinate in Mortal Sin of any kind, they participate in the sin themselves.
    They aid and abet in the sin by affirming the person in their sin; and by committing scandal to others; and participate in Sacrilege.
    CCC: regarding our responsibility for the sins of others # 1868; and Bishops (and others responsible to teach committing scandal #2285).

    It is not Merciful, Charitable, or Pastoral to affirm, condone or ignore anyone in the state of MORTAL SIN of any kind.

  11. The way the “GRADUALNESS” as APPLIED by Cupich and Wuerl is heresy.

    This is proper – ” It is a principle used in Catholic moral and pastoral theology, according to which people should be encouraged to grow closer to God and his plan for our lives in a step-by-step manner rather than expecting to jump from an initial conversion to perfection in a single step.”

    See “FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO” – Apostolic Constitution by Pope John Paul II on the Vatican web site.
    “…cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy.”
    And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.

    ” The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us,
    consists of requiring a decisive break with sin
    together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God
    and with his loving demands [Vademecum for Confessors 3:9]”.

  12. Please refer to Archbishop Cupich as the Pro-Abortion Archbishop of Chicago. He has shown repeatedly where his heart is in the protection of the innocent unborn. He is with their murderers.

    I suspect that there is more moral rot in this odious little man than merely being pro-Abortion.

  13. Archbishop Cupich is just dusting off and donning the “Seamless Garment” that has been sitting in the closet in Chicago since Cardinal Bernadin was Archbishop there.

  14. Archbishop Cupich has decided it is time to get the old “Seamless Garment” out of the closet left by Cardinal Bernadin.

    More philosophically; Does the Church ever deny communion to anyone or do we deny it to ourselves by our thoughts or deeds?

    • Yes, Cupich is a follower of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin – not only of Seamless Garment fame but who also aided and abetted Priests in sexually abusing children by moving them from parish to parish based upon 2013 released Diocese Court Documents.

      For those who may not know, at FORDHAM University on Dec 6, 1983, Bernardin stated that those who are against ABORTION (murder of the innocent for the convenience of another) must be equally visable in support of the undocumented (illegal) immigrant, and tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy. etc.
      (Bernardin half heartedly pretended to correct this heresy in March of 1984 at St. Louis University but it never got much coverage.)

      It is our responsibility not to go to Holy Communion until we have confessed our own Mortal Sins. This is our responsibility.

      However, if the Bishop/Priest is aware of someone publically obstinate in the State of mortal sin, he is not to provide Holy Communion to that person – Code of Canon Law 915,
      or the Bishop/Priest participates in Sacrilege and Scandal and the potential loss of Souls.

      • Mike,

        You must have missed the updated 915 which states everything you said but then in small type is as follows:

        ..unless it will result in public controversy and result in the Bishop being called a big meanie and not being invited to the parties with all of the cool people in his diocese. In such cases Canon 915 does not apply, nor do any of the Ten Commandments and other doctrinal/dogmatic teachings of the Church.

        My sarcasm, along with my blood-pressure, is elevated today.

        • I understand, but be careful when you joke, it could mislead the ignorant.

          There are ignorant because Bishops like Cupich, Wuerl, Kicanus, and others refuse to do their first task – which is teaching the Faith according to the Bible and CCC.

          • True. If someone read and listed to half of the stuff coming from Cardinal Kasper they might assume it is a parody of Catholic teaching.

  15. At what point do we, as faithful Catholics, stand up and say “enough is enough?!” How dare a “shepherd” of the Church publicly affirm sacrilege and profanation of Our Blessed Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar! These people “dialogue” and dine with obstinate heretics and unrepentant politicians all while persecuting and undermining faithful traditionalists and universal Truth. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison!

  16. Remember this….. brothers and sisters in Christ…and think of the bishops response as you kneel in church and watch that devout and attentive man or woman who comes to mass every week and sings praise to God, recites every prayer aloud with the congregation, and because they are the victim of a failed marriage assume, under current restrictions, they have no right to receive the Eucharist .letting “all the others” pass them by to communion. I see it all the time… and It hurts my soul. How say you?

    • Absolutely not. I am a revert who was divorced and remarried outside the Church, and my civil spouse and I live up to the teachings of the Church which can be found in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” # 1649, 1650, 1651, and 2380 – 2386.
      If you cared about their eternal salvation, you would never encourage Sacrilege, Scandal, or continued Adultery.
      Love of neighbor is not emotional; it is wanting them to get to Heaven.

      People who choose to continue committing adultery with the valid spouse of another should not receive Holy Communion. Until they repent of their sins, and promise to sin no more.

      “Thou shall not commit Adultery” – God’s Commandment
      Ex & Deut
      “Thou shall not covet thy Neighbor’s wife” – God’s Commandment
      Ex & Deut
      Teachings of Jesus about divorce and remarriage – Mk 10:6-12; Mt 5:32.
      Teaching of Jesus about adultery, mercy, and required repentance – “Go and Sin no more” Jn 8:11.

      • Catholics who are Divorced and Civilly Remarried have 3 choices-

        – – 1. If they believe that their first marriage was NOT VALID, they
        should contact their Diocese office of Marriage Tribunal for further
        information and needed forms.
        (Remembering that truthfulness is important because we can deceive other human beings, but not Jesus at our particular judgment.)

        – – 2. They can repent and live as brother and sister, and receive the Sacraments. (CCC #1650)

        – – 3. They can choose not to repent, and continue committing adultery with someone else’s valid spouse,
        and NOT receive the Sacraments, but must raise
        their children in the Catholic Faith. (CCC # 1651)

        The choice is theirs.
        We must all take responsibility for our own sins.

      • Letter of the Law Mike, You certainly are to be commended for your Chasity and knowledge of scripture. However. I simply said it hurts to see those a little less fortunate than you with problems more complicated yet with a heart full of love for the Faith and Church have to remain in the pews while heartless politicians worshiping on Nancy Pelosi’s sacred ground of abortion are being summoned to the table of the Lord. If that is sacrilegious you can keep casting your stones. They worn’t hurt me near as much.

        • Christ’s Commandments, not mine.
          Never think you know more than Christ. – This is the ultimate sin of Pride.
          “If you love me, you will keep my Commandments”. – JESUS
          Jn 14:15.

          All Catholics have choices. They can choose the will of God, or their own.

          Just because Pelosi or other scandalous Catholic politicians choose to continue committing mortal sin, does not mean that others should follow in there footsteps.
          Since I had to take the log out of my own eye, I would hazard a guess that you had no such problem.

          Jesus told us to take the log out of our own eye PRIOR to taking the splinter out of our brothers so that we will not be hypocites, and will SEE CLEARLY to take the speck out of our brothers.
          Mt 7:5; Lk 6:42.
          And that we should “Judge with Right Judgment” – Jn 7:24.

    • It’s not about your soul. It’s about Christ. See the Gospel of Saint Matthew Chapter 19, and Paul’s warning about taking Communion unworthily.

      • I am in no way campaigning for open reception of the Eucharist. Far from it. I live and love the Catholic faith too much to suggest such action.

        However, when it comes to worthiness we must remember it can subjective.

        The sacrament of reconciliation is a wonderful gift for us
        but it can be abused with no visible sign of fraud on the part of the
        “penitent” who appears so reverent at communion. He may escape recognition from his confessor and his fellow parishioners but certainly not our Father in heaven. Our Father also knows the heart of all Christian sinners who truly love him and have no avenue to the sacrament due to their church affiliation. These people,as they say, “go directly to God” for the forgiveness they seek trusting in his infinite mercy. Many of these are in their second or third marriage with mixed families of children who all attend church regularly.

        I thank God we have a God who can and will be a just judge but most importantly is the author of Divine Mercy. Even we, with all our church doctrines and scriptural knowledge at our side, hold not the final vote on who can or will be welcomed into the Fathers house on the Day of the Lord. We may have the right to make judgments within our societal structures as they currently exist but we must never forget His mercy is greatest for those who cherish not judgment but show mercy among His people.
        Peace to all of you.

  17. THAT IS THE BODY OF CHRIST! One must approach the Holy Eucharist after you confessed your sins and in a state without sin. Anything less is a disrespect for the Lord!

    • Yes, and Sacred Scripture says he will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord, and will bring judgment upon himself. – 1 Cor 11:26-30.

      Do you think Cupich and Wuerl are Catholic ?
      It does not sound like they belong to the same Catholic Church as the rest of us.

  18. Sorry archbishop, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    “‘The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the Church,’ it MUST BE PRECEDED by evangelization, faith, and CONVERSION. It can then produce its fruits in the lives of the faithful: new life in the Spirit, involvement in the mission of the Church, and service to her unity.” CCC 1073

  19. Shes the same one who just interviewed Cardinal O’Malley. Did she bat her eyes and say how MEAN it was to exclude people from Communion?

  20. The follow up question to Cupich then should be: So how far do you go? Do you allow murderers to take communion? Or are you saying that it is good for murderers to take communion because this will help them heal or something?

  21. “Thou Shall Not Kill” – God’s Commandment.
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    and before you were born I consecrated you; ” Jer 1:5

    CCC: ” 2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law.
    The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life. ”

    CCC: ” 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
    Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”
    This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. ”

    CCC: ” 2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God.
    Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist,
    for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. ”
    (See: 1 Cor 11:27-30 – regarding condemnation for receiving unworthily.)

    Cupich does not teach the Catholic Faith.
    He teaches the mantra of the Democratic Party.
    Support for Abortion, homosexual marriage, and embryonic stem cell research is contained in their Democratic Party Platform which states their goals.
    The new California Democratic Party State Platform of 2014 also includes support for euthanasia (coded death with dignity).

  22. On the issue of denying doctrines indirectly, such as in the case here or with the remarriage issue, there is an interesting term used by the great Belgian Thomist, Billuart in the first volume of his Summa: presumptive or illative heretic. It is used to describe a person who doesn’t deny a doctrine directly, but denies a statement that follows logically from doctrinal statements. So, when discussing an objection that uses a syllogism to show that Christ is risible — every man is risible; but Christ is a man; therefore Christ is risible — Billuart writes: “He who would deny this conclusion would be a formal heretic, I deny, for it is not of the faith [that Christ is risible]. Presumptively or illatively, I concede. Since he who denies any conclusion denies it either because he cannot perceive the connection between the conclusion and the premises or because he denies the premisses. And since in this syllogism the connection between the premises and conclusion is necessary and evident, he who would deny the conclusion presumes to deny the premise, ‘Christ is a man’ [which is of the faith]. And so I say that he would be presumptively or illatively a heretic.”

  23. There can be no peace without Truth.
    There can be no justice without Truth.
    There can be no unity without Truth.
    There is no right to life without Truth.

    Without Truth, all is empty and vain.

  24. The question: Is there any sin or any UN REPENTENT person who should not be admitted to Holy Communion? What about Hitler? He was a Catholic? What about Pol Pot? What about Jeffery Dahlmer? Or simply what about me when I am in a state of Mortal Sin?

    I think it is apparent that Communion is the new Confession and Confession is now dead since there is no such thing as SIN!

    • Well said Jim, well said.

      Most Communion lines are very long while Confession lines, (if there is one), are very short. We are either the most Holy generation in a 2,000 years or, as you noted, we just do not think sin really exists.

  25. How foolish those who reject the Message of Fatima become as they fulfill the words spoken there. Such is the fate of the puppets of satan.

  26. The underlying principle is that no one who is on a state of mortal sin may receive Holy Communion.

    If a priest has good reason to suspect that someone presenting for Holy Communion is in such a state of grievous sin, then he, (or any lay distributor for that matter ) has a moral obligation to do something to remedy this. Public refusal without prior warning, could be problematical.

    If someone continues to present after such appropriate action then of course the priest may and should refuse, otherwise he would be complicit in the mortal sin.

    On the other hand, a Catholic politician might well choose not to publicly oppose Communion for adulterers – perceived freedom of conscience etc.
    What he cannot do is advocate such a policy . That would be advocating mortal sin an. In that event, since he has acted publicly then he should publicly be refused since he is publicly advocating an action which is grievously sinful and that is being complicit in mortal sin.

    This of course raises questions such as what does a Catholic GP (General Practitioner, Doctor) do if someone request the “morning after” pill or some other aborticide. If suppose the answer is get another job, perhaps looking after the elderly, a growing market after all.

  27. Sorry to say, but if this bishop does not make a stand against sin at the altar rail then what does he expect his flock to do? Go along with the crows of course. Oh, if these bishops only realized what they are responsible for then they would tremble in their boots. The “Spirit of Vatican II” is certainly alive and well, and I do not mean that in a good way. Sorry your Excellency, but it seems that you are not up to the job. When good compromises with evil, evil always wins.

  28. “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
    St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 45

  29. “But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”
    Pope Leo XIII

    (Pope Leo Quote: The quote is taken from SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE and is often quoted on Catholic blogs as: “when circumstances make it necessary, it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith.” )

  30. “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
    St. John Chrysostom attributed.

  31. “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
    St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

  32. Giving Communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin is prohibited by Canon 915 BECAUSE DOING SO IS A MORTAL SIN. Even if Canon 915 were removed from the Code, the act would remain a mortal sin.

    The denial of Communion is not a penalty. I.e., it is not a measure that a bishop may CHOOSE to take. Rather, denial of Communion to those described in Canon 915 is OBLIGATORY.

    In 2004, the bishops voted to approve a document titled “Catholics in Political Life,” which says that a bishop may “legitimately” give Communion to pro-abortion politicians.

    You read that right. The majority of bishops in America voted to authorize themselves to commit mortal sin.

    The majority of American bishops are walking around in a fog of moral imbecility. The Pope seems to like it that way, because he has been appointing bishops who are KNOWN to believe they have the authority to commit mortal sin. Cupich was one of these. Archbishop McElroy in San Diego is another–a man whose only claim to fame was an article in AMERICA mag in 2006 promoting Communion for abortionists.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...