Last week, I told you about Archbishop Blase Cupich from Chicago – about his rather unfortunate track record as a Catholic prelate, his discomfort with the Traditional Mass and the pro-life movement, and how that uneasiness doesn’t extend to pro-abortion politicians.
I then told you about how Archbishop Cupich drew direct moral equivalency between dismembering the unborn alive and then selling their body parts and far less serious evils like lack of health care, racism, and unemployment.
As I was writing (and to be honest, re-writing, since my initial reaction was a bit more…visceral than my internal editor thought prudent), several others were doing the same. And they weren’t any more pleased.
At Breitbart, Thomas Williams writes:
By insisting on the moral equivalency of many different societal problems, the Archbishop reduces the particularly heinous moral offense of slaughtering the unborn and trading in their body parts to just another social ill, no worse than unemployment or the death penalty.
It would seem that people who are “no less appalled” by the execution of a convicted serial killer than by the ripping apart of an innocent child may be morally obtuse, rather than morally superior. As Congressman Henry Hyde once said, “Show me an unborn child who has been convicted of a capital crime by a jury of his peers, and he’s all yours!”
Phil Lawler was also having none of it:
If Archbishop Cupich means to compare the Planned Parenthood scandal with all the other horrors taking place around the world, it’s curious that he doesn’t mention the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East. If he’s restricting his focus to the US, then his claim that “thousands” of people die “daily” because they lack access to medical care is shameless hyperbole. But it gets worse.
Joblessness? I’ve been unemployed. I’d like to think that upon reading this, you feel a pang of sympathy. But if you would be “no less appalled” to learn that I had been chopped into pieces, and the parts sold to the highest bidder, I’m afraid I can’t count you as my friend.
At Rorate Caeli, New Catholic cites Lawler, then takes the case further:
Not only as Catholics, but as simple human beings, we are appalled by this outrageous and indecent moral equivalency that only tries to give cover to Blase’s (that’s his preferred way of being called) political friends. But this is so much beyond any political friendship!… Can’t he realize that? Can’t he have the decency to at least avoid cheap political equivalencies at such a horrendous moment? Will you, Blase, please?… Respect these chopped up and sold brethren! Please, do not try to score cheap political points with their livers and brains, with their beating hearts and hands, with their crushed skulls! This is not the time, this is not the moment, this is not decent! By drawing such equivalencies, you, Blase, are being indecent and causing grievous scandal. Shame on you.
These are just a few of the reactions. Search the Catholic Blogosphere (well, any of the outlets that don’t rely too heavily on cozy relationships with America’s bishops as part of their business model) and you’ll see more of the same.
But just after Archbishop Cupich offered us a glimpse of his Bizarro World view of human dignity and Catholic morality, news was breaking that he has been invited to participate in this October’s session of the Synod on Marriage and Family in Rome.
I’ll give you a moment to collect yourself.
So now that Pope Francis has invited Archbishop “No Less Appalled” Cupich to Rome — when Archbishop Cordileone, who has fought an intense, public battle in San Francisco to uphold Church teaching on marriage and family was the other candidate put forward by the USCCB — what can we expect? First, there’s this, from Phil Lawler again, in May of this year:
A contributor to the Chicago Sun-Times reports that he had a friendly exchange with Archbishop Blaise Cupich on the topic of same-sex marriage, and reproduces large chunks of that exchange for his readers. Naturally the archbishop says that he does not support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Yet columnist Neil Steinberg observes: “To me, everything the archbishop said, except for his conclusions, is an argument for gay marriage.”
That sounds absurd, doesn’t it? Yet if you read the entire column you may find yourself hard-pressed to cite evidence proving Steinberg wrong.
The archbishop is saying that parents need help, and the laws that give special protection to marriage provide some of that help. Gay activists will immediately counter that same-sex couples should have the same sort of help so that theycan raise children.
As Steinberg recognizes, Archbishop Cupich “isn’t slyly advocating for gay marriage.” But he isn’t making an effective argument against it, either. There’s a hint—just a hint—when the archbishop says that he thinks there’s “something unique about the marriage between a man and a woman.” But what is it? If you can’t or won’t address that question, it may be better not to address the issue at all.
If that weren’t enough to make you wonder if Cupich will be using his super powers for good this October, it gets worse. When it really comes to understanding Cupich’s approach to the Synod, it’s best to go straight to the source. He took the trouble to spell it all out for us in January in an interview with Commonweal:
[Interviewer]: The ethic of accompaniment seems to have guided the pope’s design of the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family. Some bishops expressed some confusion about that meeting—whether it was over the media’s coverage of the synod, or what actually took place.
BC: The media is not to blame at all. I think the media reported what actually took place. What really took place at the synod was that a majority of the bishops voted for all the proposals that were there in the final summary document. And I think Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that at the November bishops meeting. It’s true that three of the paragraphs [about divorce and gay people] did not get two-thirds majority support, but they got more than a majority. That’s what’s new. That’s the story. Those hot-button topics had been highlighted, and the majority of synod bishops voted for proposals that said we need to consider aspects of these issues.
The pope has a firm belief that the spirit of the risen Lord is working in our midst and is alive in the hearts of people—and we cannot squelch that voice. We have to look for ways to listen to how the Lord is working in the lives of people. That’s why the pope said to the synod fathers, “Don’t come to the synod and say ‘You can’t say that’”—because it may be the spirit of Christ who is calling us to say these things. And we have to listen to that.
[Interviewer]: The Vatican has developed another document for the world’s bishops in advance of next October’s synod, asking them for more input from the people in the pews. How do you intend to implement that here in Chicago?
BC: I have met with my archdiocesan women’s council, the presbyteral council leadership, and my archdiocesan pastoral council. I gave them the relatio of the synod [the summary document] and asked them to propose a way in which there can be an effective—not necessarily widespread—consultation with their various constituencies, so that I can be informed, and our priests can be informed to speak articulately to our people. That will help me respond to the Holy See. It will also help me while talking with my brother bishops about this, since we are probably going to address this at our June meeting.
What I did last year in Spokane I want to do here too. We’re going to have a day-long presentation for priests on two things: First, what are the canonical issues here? A good canonist will tell you that there are multiple ways in which we can be sensitive to our people’s needs. Second, we have to unpack this notion of the theology of the family. Cardinal Walter Kasper gave a talk about this to the cardinals last year, which has been published as a book called The Gospel of the Family. In Spokane, I gave all my priests a copy.
I can’t help but wonder if this was his application for a seat at the Synod. It seems to have done the trick.
Just for contrast, let’s recall Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s somewhat different assessment of the Synod last November:
During the Synod there had been moments of obvious manipulation on the part of some clerics who held key positions in the editorial and governing structure of the Synod. The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem) was clearly a prefabricated text with no reference to the actual statements of the Synod fathers. In the sections on homosexuality, sexuality and “divorced and remarried” with their admittance to the sacraments the text represents a radical neo-pagan ideology. This is the first time in Church history that such a heterodox text was actually published as a document of an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope, even though the text only had a preliminary character. Thanks be to God and to the prayers of the faithful all over the world that a consistent number of Synod fathers resolutely rejected such an agenda; this agenda reflects the corrupt and pagan main stream morality of our time, which is being imposed globally by means of political pressure and through the almost all-powerful official mass media, which are loyal to the principles of the world gender ideology party. Such a synod document, even if only preliminary, is a real shame and an indication to the extent the spirit of the anti-Christian world has already penetrated such important levels of the life of the Church. This document will remain for the future generations and for the historians a black mark which has stained the honour of the Apostolic See.
I don’t know if it’s more honest to say that Cupich was appointed to Chicago or inflicted on it. The same question applies to his invitation to the Synod. And with the coinciding news that the Rev. Msgr. David O’Connell — one of the new auxiliary bishops appointed to Los Angeles — is reported to have said, “women should be ordained and clergy should be able to marry”, the list of “What Was He Thinking?!” papal appointments continues to grow faster than I can keep up with.
If I were to ask a Magic 8 Ball whether this October’s Synod was going to uphold Catholic teaching on marriage, the most accurate response would be, “Outlook not so good.”
Of course, if Pope Francis would just respond to the 445,000 Catholics who signed this petition asking him to affirm that he will uphold the Church’s teaching, we wouldn’t have to wonder.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
I agree with the general thrust of this post, but in all fairness to Cupich, God also reveals himself to be a “moral equivocator”, when his Church affirms that the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance are:
1) murder (Gn 4:10);
2) sodomy (Gn 17:20-21);
3) oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23);
4) defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).
Notice that 1 and 2 are “life and family issues” (abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.) whereas 3 and 4 are “social justice” issues.
Simply because they are sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance does not mean they are equivalent. Correct?
Correct. But talking of degrees of severity, especially when dealing with sins “that cry to heaven”, is a fool’s game: really, what could possibly be gained in judging one less severe than the other? (Let us set aside those with bad faith who merely speak of the poor and social justice to cover their envy and their lack of concern for the unborn and for marriage.)
In truth, however, I think today that sins concerning the poor are condemned in principle by everyone, though the first two sins almost no one condemns.
If +Cupich’s intentions are bad, and he is mentioning those other sins merely to redirect the attention from Planned Parenthood’s abominations to his preferred pet causes, or if he is equivocating out of cowardice, then woe to him. He will have to answer for this behavior.
Let’s be clear, however, that I am puzzled and disappointed by +Cupich’s behavior: why use the revelations of Planned Parenthood’s evil acts to remind everyone about the poor, when almost everyone, at least in principle, is in agreement about helping the poor, whereas very few want to do anything about the unborn?
That said, the equivalency of the four sins holds, if the intention of the person making this equivalency is good.
I suppose the Church is playing a fool’s game then, since she in her wisdom teaches clearly how to gauge severity of sin.
Are we not ultimately talking about salvation? And sin being the obstacle to salvation, would one not want to have a clear understanding of the degree and kind that we are dealing with? If God and the Church have gone through the effort of separating them out in law and teaching shouldn’t we then understand them in order to arm ourselves properly?
You said the “equivalency of the four sins holds, if the intention of the person making this equivalency is good.” An insupportable statement if ever I heard one.
I understand the need to gauge the severity of sins, especially when deciding upon temporal punishment or reparation.
On the other hand, I find it can be a holy thing to mass all sins together into one “no go zone”, if this lumping incites one to avoid all sin (Christ did say that to call a brother a fool is to murder him, was He saying that killing a person is not so bad?)
I am well aware, however, that there could be some who put sins on a par, not to condemn them all harshly, but to trivialize them.
The danger of this seamless garment ideology is that it leads directly to a majority of Catholics voting TWICE for a man who is openly persecuting the Church, not to mention destroying our country.
Ahh now we come to the real issue. Hatred of the President of the United States. Even though we now have an abortion rate at the lowest level in 30 years. Even though Louisiana, where “pro-life” Bobby Jindal is governor, is one of only two states where the abortion rate has increased since 2010.
One should hate the actions of evil men. No surprise there.
As for the data, it’s really not that straightforward.
Sure the data isn’t straightforward and of course there is nuance. Douthat, to his credit, acknowledges the tremendous decline in the abortion rate in Democratic states like Hawaii. I do wonder why he didn’t address the INCREASE in the abortion rate in Louisiana where Bobby Jindal has fully embraced capitalism which Pope Pius XII so forcefully denounced.
‘Hatred of the President of the United States.’……..hmm…..REALLY? That statement reflects ‘hatred’ because the current POTUS does in fact persecute not only ‘The Church’ but Christians in general and is the biggest supporter of no holes barred abortion on demand in the history of the country? Doesn’t mean anyone ‘hates’ him. But only a blind ignorant fool cannot see this. It’s not Harvard Grad stuff. He is the biggest pro abort President we’ve ever had bar none. This current President is the one who voted for termination of the life of botched abortions AFTER birth when he was a US Senator. And a HUGE defender of Planned Parenthood.
Can you directly correlate the decrease in the number of abortions to Obama? Of course not. The point of rat patrol’s post, I believe, was simply to point out the fact that so-called Catholics voted for a man known to be in opposition to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church (and of reason and common sense) which should concern all Catholics and should have been an important factor in electing him.
You said: “I find it can be a holy thing to mass all sins together into one “no go zone”, if this lumping incites one to avoid all sin…”
It is a self-delusion to think that one can simply lump all sins together and then avoid them all. It goes beyond reason, really. I prefer to go with the Church.
Each individual has unique weaknesses that the enemy works on to tempt us to sin. It is certainly mentally and emotionally convenient to “mass all sins together”, but to do so, to act as if they are one and the same in kind and effect, is to ignore the Lord’s teachings and that of the Church and to open oneself to sin. Not knowing one’s enemy and his tactics makes one a victim.
The putative fool, Saint Peter Damien, a Doctor of the Church, taught that sodomy was the worst sin.
As for your claim about social justice, that is a novel category so it probably is better to treat all four sins as simply moral matters; what one must do or not do
Yes, George, but certainly there are degrees within each of those categories. The man who, in a fit of jealous anger, murders the adulterer found in bed with his wife is certainly no John Wayne Gacy. Likewise the confused 18 year old, abandoned by his father and raised effeminate by his mother, is far less culpable for letting himself be seduced into bed one time by an older man who offers him attention and affirmation, than is the middle aged flagrant sodomite who trolls with abandon and preys on minors. The same goes for the guy who gives less to the poor than he should in terms of time and money, versus the villain who exploits the poor by using them as prostitutes or drug mules. And lastly, the man who pays a sub-subsistence wage may well be a crook, but he is nothing to the slaver who works his “property” into an early grave.
Thus, your appeal, while seemingly clever, is ultimately a piece of rather sloppy thinking. For anyone who’s brain has not been turned to tapioca by the dictatorship of relativism, the prospect of dismembering a defenseless innocent, in a painful and gruesome manner, coolly and strategically calculated to maximize the profit margin of the victim’s organs, is a manner of depravity so vile and demonic that it nearly defies comparison.
Simply because there are other offenses which also call out for God’s vengeance does not mean they are therefore morally of a piece with one another.
Apologies, George, I wrote in haste. You raised a thoughtful point by listing the sins which cry out for vengeance; that you didn’t take it the next step is no cause for me to say insulting things, thereby proving that mine is the cranium full of custard.
Thanks. I understand the degrees of severity. But I tend to think that as one approaches perfect charity (and I’m not talking about myself here, but I do *want* to be perfect), all sins, from slightest to worst, blend together into one, single category of “DO NOT DO THIS”.
Which is why Christ made a moral equivocation between murder and calling your brother a fool, or between adultery and looking lustfully at a woman.
So +Cupich may or may not have had the best of intentions when equivocating baby murder and lack of solar panels or whatever — this ultimately, is for someone else to judge. What I’m saying is that I consider such equivocation as consistent with holiness, and not automatically indicative of bad intentions.
God is not a moral equivocator. No one is saying the Church, in speaking out strongly against #1 and #2, are abandoning #3 or #4. How can anyone, with a straight face, argue that the Church has somehow forgotten teaching about 3 and 4? St. John Paul II was deeply involved with supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland AND advocating against abortion, sodomy, etc. Benedict was able to write about economic conditions and the poor, AND begin exorcising our Church of the sodomites that wrecked three generations of Catholics.
The problem we have, is that the supreme pontiff gave his fallible opinion that we don’t need to dwell on 1 and 2 so much. Fine, a tilt towards social justice issues is not a bad thing. What we didn’t expect was the elevation of the planet to a sacrament and the casting of the poor as an idol to kneel before. We didn’t expect a witch hunt against traditional priests and the glorification of secular atheists, gay-theists, and morally bankrupt political bodies and leftist activists. Meanwhile, the world aborts, butchers, beheads, dissects, experiments, euthanizes, persecutes, marginalizes, and for good measure empties the Middle East of Christianity … but ++Cupich thinks we should be equate wanton murder with the minimum wage debate and solar panels. It’s disproportionate to the level of evil at work in the issues that are at the heart of God’s right to create life, preserve life, unify a man and woman as one flesh, and the very existence of the Church in large geographical chunks of the world.
Here, here! Exactly right.
While all four fall species of moral evils fall under the genus of “that cry to Heaven for vengeance,” that does not mean that all are necessarily equal abstractly considered, much less ‘in concreto’.
These four may all be crying out to heaven for vengeance, but the only one that is irrevocable is murder. The other three can be rectified through a change.
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: ” 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good,
or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.”
For Cupich to be invited to the October Synod is certainly sending the wrong message to those who love God and His Catholic Church. Am I wrong to question whether Pope Francis is a good Pope or a bad one? Something is definitely wrong with Rome today.
“Am I wrong to question whether Pope Francis is a good Pope or a bad one?”
You’re still at the questioning stage? I’m pretty sure the answer is clear.
St. John Paul II said basically the same thing in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. If Cupich is wrong, then JPII must be as well.
“The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”
Except that these are clearly lumped into categories, beginning with the worst
violations of the respect due to human life, and moving to lesser offenses.
Category 1 – Worst – those that take human life: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide;”
Category 2 – Bad, and permanently physically or spiritually damaging, but less severe than those things which take human life: “Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit;”
Category 3 – Bad, and possibly (but not necessarily) physically or spiritually damaging, and less severe than those things which always permanently scar or take human life : “Whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children;”
Category 4 – Real evils that can nonetheless be remedied without permanent physical or spiritual damage: “Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons”
Now let’s look again at what Cupich said: “While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.”
So again, the problem with Cupich’s assessment of abortion is that it drastically understates the horror of what we see in the Planned Parenthood videos while falsely exaggerating of the severity of violations of human dignity in the lower categories, which in and of itself carries a certain political and ideological connotation that associates his thinking with the same people who perpetrate abortion in the first place, as they are the ones who most often champion these other issues.
His statement of moral equivalency is a serious violation of truth.
In that section of St. JPII’s encyclical all the acts within those categories are defined as intrinsece malum(intrinsic evil). Archbishop Cupich states that the commerce in the remains of defenseless children are particularly repulsive and then goes on to say that we should be no less appalled by the indifference in our society to other intrinsic evils. There is nothing wrong with that.
Simple question, is the dismemberment of a defenseless innocent, in a painful and gruesome manner, coolly and strategically calculated to maximize the profit margin of the victim’s organs more or less appalling than the man who is passed over for a job because of his skin color or immigration status?
As Pope St. John Paul II wrote, “all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”
Your refusal to answer the question demonstrates that you know just as readily as any other morally well adjusted person, that while all are certainly disgraceful, not all are of equal disgrace. If you are seriously struggling with this, and not just trolling, see my lengthier reply to George on this same thread.
I’ll agree he shouldn’t have used the phrase “no less appalled”. Of course, this wasn’t an encyclical and I’m sure if he was asked to clarify, he would of course say he is more appalled by the taking of innocent human life whether through abortion or immoral wars.
Sorry, but that is a meaningless emphasis that does not support your viewpoint. Just because “all these and the like” are bad, does not make a judgment on their degree.
Excuse me, he stated that the “commerce” is particularly repulsive. He said nothing about how they got to the point of being “dead”.
As Phil Lawler pointed out, being unemployed is bad, but if you think me being unemployed is just as bad as me being chopped up for parts, you aren’t my friend.
Nobody is saying being unemployed “is just as bad”. Red herring.
Come on. “Just as appalled” by X as by Y means we should view X as just as bad as Y if words have any meaning. But it is morally impossible to be “just as appalled” by people being out of work as by people being murdered, cut into pieces, and their pieces sold for profit. The false equivalence is all the more absurd in a country where unemployment benefits and welfare encourage people not to work even if they can, and where no one is starving in the streets for lack of a job.
Actually, yes he did. But proceed anyway.
Just a side note, as I see this misunderstanding often. When JPII refers to “deportation” he is not talking about justly removing people who have entered a country illegally, such as occurs in the U.S.. Rather, this refers to a situation where LEGAL citizens of a country are deported, usually due to political persecution. Living in a communist country such as Poland at the time, JPII witnessed this quite often.
I hardly believe that Cupich and JPII have anything in common. JPII was loyal to church teaching on matters of faith and morals, Cupich is not.
That’s a serious charge. If you can show me one instance of Archbishop Cupich denying even one article of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, I’ll stop defending him.
How many Souls will be lost because of Cupich, and others of his ilk ?
(His omissions and commissions)
CCC: ” 2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized.
It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others.
Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. “
O, bad citation, brother.
Two times – TWO TIMES – the Catechism teaches that Jesus gave scandal and there has never been anyone alive in Earth who has had His level of authority so, according to the crummy catechism, Jesus twice sinned gravely.
And men wonder why Jesus is not showering His Bride on Earth with His grace; she is talking trash about Him and lying abut Him and Telling the entire world that Jesus gravely sinned two times.
Any real Catholic can cite Jesus saying…that we may not scandalise them…but the crummy catechism objectively teaches that Jesus gravely sinned – TWO TIMES
And those entries alone are enough to justify burning every single copy of that crummy catechism.
Imagine telling the world that your spouse is a scandal. What person would do that? A mentally unbalanced, unprincipled person, perhaps, but the Bride of Christ telling the world that Jesus gave scandal twice?
Insanity is what it is; madness.
Jesus did give Scandal to the Pharisees (clergy) of his day.
Perhaps it was another but I thought it was you who was told – to read all the Bible references relating to this at the bottom of the CCC – page 151.
Since the owner, Steve. has asked me not to work with the Sedevacantists, heretics, and schismatics because he appears not to like my style – – –
Steve, this guy is your problem to deal with – so that he does not continue to proselytize against the Catholic Faith on your web site.
And thanks for letting me off the hook. My temperment is not built for those who demean the Faith.
Dear Mike. You prolly are a young man who was never learnt the difference twixt active and passive scandal, but, to give scandal is active and, thus, always sinful.
That is just another way of writing that, objectively, the crummy catechism teaches Jesus sinned, two times; GRAVELY SINNED according to its own definitions and internal “logic.
IANS was born into the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in 1948 and he is in full union with His Bishop and Pope but he will not remain silent while the truth of Jesus is aborted by His very own Church; that you do not know the difference twixt active and passive scandal should give you pause the next time you chose to label another a sedevacantist or heretic.
Some fateful day IANS will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and were to Jesus ask me why the silence about the scandalous treatment of Him in the crummy catechism, IANS would hate to have to explain that.
Now it is quite clear that you are far more scandlsed by my confronting the catechetical indifference/errors of an official publication than you are scandalised by the crummy catechism twice teaching that Jesus gave scandal, i.e, gravely sinned.
You appear to be confused (one hopes) by the crummy catechism so let me come at this another way – name ANY Catechism that identified one man – say nothing about Our Creator, Redeemer, Lord. and Savior – as he who gave scandal.
It took the modern revolution within the form of Catholicism to drag us down into this quicksand of indifference and invisibilium within the Hierarchy is one possessed of Tradition with such puissance and courage that it could be applied as a force against our inertia into indifferentism.
Said otherwise, JESUS IS YOUR SAVIOUR not this crummy catechism which scandalses, or ought to, all men who love Jesus.
O, IANS has not only written to his Bishop about this (and told by his secretary that he thinks this is just peachy) he has both emailed and sent a copy to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – YEARS AGO – but even when sending it he knew there would be no response.
The One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church today only apologises for the actions of long dead Catholics in the past; about its own manifest scandals, outrages, heterodoxy, perverse papal praxis etc etc , nada….
That this “Teaching” is not opposed/rebuked by Catholic men is one sign of just how confused and flummoxed we have allowed our own selves to become.
Obedience, even to scandal, is thought more important than the truth about He who is truth.
Lord have mercy….
Steve, please take care of the Sedevacantists, heretics and schismatics who are using your web site to PROSELYTIZE.
Dear Mike. Google
Need for Theological Precision – Unam Sanctum Catholicam
and, after reading it, you will then have some knowledge that could prevent you from publicly embarrassing your own self.
Your posts do have the advantage of evincing, on a personal level, what has happened to the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church; thee and it has no fear of the Lord and little love for Him for what the Catechism teaches about Him is simply indefensible for any man who loves Jesus.
One sees no fear of the Lord and no love for Him when it comes to the Lil’ Licit Liturgy for that assembly meal has reduced His presence to a virtual disappearance; it is as though the revolutionaries who invented that new rite by destroying the Real Mass had this as its working motto:
He must decrease, we must increase.
And the Catechism entries on Scandal and Jesus giving scandal is just more evidence of there being no Fear of The Lord and no love for Him.
One does not treat of Our lord and Savior in such a cavalier and indifferent manner if one loves Him; hell, you wouldn’t treat your spouse with such lack of love and blasphemous incivility.
Whomever it was who wrote these entries ought be made to publicly apologise and do penance for these scandalous teachings but we all know nothing will be done about it.
So, don’t keep accusing yourselves of being the cause of Jesus not pouring about upon His spouse the graces he died to give her, for she is, currently, an ungrateful spouse who will not teach what He taught or preach the Gospel to all men/nations, and a spouse which is currently striving to undermine His teaching on Divorce and remarriage, and a spouse which strives to drain condemnation out of sodomy.
There are 13 paragraphs on “Fear of the Lord” in the CCC.
Here is only one of them.
CCC: ” 1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.
They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.
Let your good spirit lead me on a level path. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God . . . If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.”
Please don’t bother me with your error filled personal opinions and come back after you have read the CCC in full.
And your last paragraph is insane. It makes no sense what-so-ever about me, or about the CCC.
Steve, please take care of the Sedevacantists, heretics and schismatics who are using your web site to PROSELYTIZE.
Did someone pray to our Lady of Good Remedy? 🙂
MIKE – give it a rest. I have a lot on my plate, and comment moderation is low on the list. I expect our guests to act like adults and fend for themselves. I rarely remove someone unless they’re being abusive or blasphemous.
IANS is doing neither. He’s presenting you with theological positions that aren’t easily answered by your rote recitation of the latest Catechism. But they are things which have merit and weight and should be considered.
My general rule of thumb about all things post-conciliar is “trust warily, but verify with prior teaching.” The new Catechism is the product of post-conciliar theology and was put together by prelates deeply influenced by modernism, not least of whom was Cardinal Schönborn.
While I have not taken the time to study the language that IANS presents, it does bother me. It bears further investigation.
While I don’t respond to most comments, I do read most of them. IANS has, I think, certain sympathies for the sede position, but I do not believe he has embraced it, and I certainly don’t believe he’s promoting it. His rhetorical eccentricities aside, he’s done nothing to warrant being booted.
You, on the other hand, have a habit of swinging your citations like a club. I actually find that MORE abusive. Please, refrain. If you are unable to persuade someone intellectually, maybe go pray for them instead. A rosary would do wonders, no doubt. Like I tell my kids every day: don’t come running to me unless it’s an emergency. Figure out how to work it out amongst yourselves.
Check with a trusted Priest or your spiritual advisor. You are providing a media stage for those who wish to PROSELYTIZE against the Catholic Faith.
]I do understand that you can’t do everything. Perhaps you might consider holding all posts until you get a chance to review them.
It is not my job or anyone else’s to monitor your site for you. Nor to spend my time correcting sedevacantists or heretics.
You have taken on that responsibility by not controlling the posts on your site before they become public.
I didn’t ask for your advice, MIKE. Last warning. If you can’t keep the moral superiority problem in check, find another comment box to haunt.
Are you aware that people with far more authority and responsibility than Steve when it comes to matters of religion are neglecting their duties in regards to suppressing scandal, heresy and immorality? There is heresy being preached from the pulpit today in many a diocese. Have you done something about that?
But your main concern is this website?
Has it occurred to you that if the preaching of heresy and indifferentism from highest places of the Church were put to a halt, then Sedevecantist and other similar “schismatics” would not even exist?
P.S. I do think that sedevecantism and other forms of schism on these issues are a problem. But we cannot forget that these recent schisms would not exist if the Church did not keep doing everything to offend the piety that the Church herself built before Vatican II.
No my main concern is not only one website.
It is the lack of education, heresy and schism – including among some clergy of all ranks being propagated in some media.
Quoting from the Bible. and the Doctrine of the Faith (CCC) is the best way I know how to educate or stop heresy, because it is not my opinion, or any other individual’s opinion, – but from the Magisterium.
One can have a wonderful article, and then have it negated in the comments section by error which is allowed to stand.
(Differences of opinion are not always error.)
Most Catholic sites, including larger ones with some staff, don’t allow posts to become public immediately to stop those intent with propagating violations of the Faith. When this is not done, the owner has the added responsibility to make certain errors do not stand and are corrected – which is even more immediate work for him or her.
Most Catholic sites, especially larger ones with some staff, actively filter the news to create confirmation bias. They obfuscate and hide much of what is going on in the Church, either to protect the pope, the concept of the “Hermeneutic of Continuity,” the post-conciliar experiments in liturgy and theology, etc.
Again: I treat our guests as adults. This is a place where people can hash things out, and as long as they are not actively promulgating error or blasphemy or abusing other guests or making it impossible to have a constructive conversation by incessant trolling, I let people discuss.
This is how intelligent people form opinions. There must be give and take.
IANS has been around for a long time. He’s no heretic. He’s not a sede, either. Your limited frame of reference, which seems to be only a) scripture, b) the 1992 Catechism, and c) occasional references to the Baltimore Catechism does not take into account the large body of other teaching that presents obstacles and even apparent contradictions when compared with some of what came after the Second Vatican Council.
Talking about these incongruities is fair game here. Questioning what the pope or the bishops are doing is fair game here. Catholics are asking themselves these questions, but have become afraid to do so in public lest someone start browbeating them with bleats about their lack of docility.
We’re in the middle of an enormous disaster. This is a place to analyze it in slow motion.
I gained my love of the faith around the large dining room table at my uncle’s house, where the extended family would sit around and argue about things and talk about problems and try to figure things out in the Church and the world. I honed that instinct when I began debating with atheists and others online 25 years ago. I forged it in a theology class that employed the Socratic method, where my teacher told us to “go after the truth like rabid dogs.” I’ve been doing that ever since. That is the ethos I bring to 1P5. We’re not like other sites, and I aim to keep it that way.
Precisely. If you have quick/open blogging being posted, you need to respond to their statements and questions that are in error in a timely manner – using official Church documentation. (Links are always helpful.)
Many people read but never post, and errors can lead them astray.
“ 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.
” It is in this sense that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” – Pope Benedict XVI (Porta Fidei, Motu Proprio Data, starting with paragraph #11.)”
Go start your own site, Mike. I’m sticking with my formula. It’s worked out pretty well so far.
Btw, the very best way to know when/if the Pope is blowing smoke and mixing his own opinions with the Faith, rather than sticking to the Faith, is to know what’s in the CCC.
Watch Fr. Z pick up Pope Francis’s “smoke” on the Pope’s statement of sins “against the world”.
Note that he uses official Church Doctrine – the CCC.
What is the point of being concerned about websites (one or many) when the primary sources of learning Catholic doctrine are compromised? i.e. the pulpit, Bishop’s speeches/comments etc.
I am just pointing out that your concern seems odd.
As for the CCC being the best way to educate and stop heresy, that is arguable, at least on certain important topics (ecumenism, religious liberty etc).
Dear Steve. Thank you. I have written honestly that I am in full communion with my Bishop and Pope (thus neither schismatic or Sedevacantist) and there is not even the remotest hint that I have posted material that could be construed as even a material heresy, say nothing abut a formal heresy.
You have my permission to share my email with Mike. That way, he could contact me and the two of us could agree to meet at a certain place at a certain time and IANS will settle this matter of his serial public calumnies against me.
A brief check of our exchanges will reveal that I have responded to his public slanders with patience but we Irish-Algonquins can not to be counted on to patiently ape Ghandi for an extended time period.
We all have limits and Mike has pushed me past mine. We shall see what kind of a man he really is.
” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty,
but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. ”
“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION, General Principles” – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) 2004.
Abortion is the (torture and) murder of INNOCENT human beings for the convenience of others.
Regarding the Oct, 2015 Synod – it is NOT Pastoral, Merciful, or Charitable to ignore, condone, or confirm anyone in mortal sin of any kind.
Did Cupich give each of his Priests a copy of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997 which contains the Doctrine of the Faith so they will accurately know and teach the Doctrine of the Faith ?
Or is Cupich trying to foist his own beliefs (and those of Kasper) on his Diocese Priests so that they too will teach error ?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
DOCTRINE of the FAITH:
– – – Requirements to receive Holy Communion, CCC # 1415, 1451, 1355;
(Sacred Scripture: 1 Cor 11:27-30).
– – – Regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, CCC # 1650, 1651;
(Sacred Scripture: “Thou shall not commit Adultery” – GOD’s Commandment
Ex 20:14 ; Deut 5:18.
“Thou shall not covet thy Neighbor’s wife” – GOD’s Commandment
Ex 20:17 ; Deut 5.20.
JESUS about divorce and remarriage – Mk 10:6-12; Mt 5:32.
JESUS about adultery, mercy, and required repentance – “Go and Sin NO more” Jn 8:11.)
– – – Regarding homosexuality, CCC: # 2357, 2358, 2359, 2396;
(Sacred Scripture: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7.
– – – Regarding social issues that must ALSO be incorporated into social justice issues:
CCC: # 2411, 1883, 1885, 1894, 2209;
(Sacred Scripture: “Thou shall not steal” – GOD’s Commandment
Ex 20:15; Deut 5:19
“Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods” – GOD’s Commandment
Ex 20:17 ; Deut 5:21
Both Cupich and Kasper must have the blessings of the Church to teach their heresies or neither would have been elevated to Archbishop and Cardinal.
Not the Blessing of the Church. We are all the Church.
Blessings from some high ranking Clergy.
The high ranking clergy are Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis who elevated them both to positions of greater authority and influence.
Time to call the Papal Nuncio in D.C. and request that the Pope disinvite Bishop Cupich to the Synod on the Family. 202-333-7121.
I have passed your suggestion on to others as well. Thanks.
Cupich is a maliciously arrogant, stupid, destructive fool.
This may be detraction, but it is not calumny.
As a warning to the unwary, it’s an act of positive charity.
You are to be commended for your self control.
If you were commending me, I thank you for your graciousness and prayers.
May you, your spouse and your 6 children and entire family be blessed and protected.
Actually, I was serious in commending Steve for allowing his “inner editor” to control what he wrote. I admire that because I am NOT particularly gracious when discussing the poor shepherds in the Church today.
I do thank you for your kind blessings for my husband and children.
Then you may leave the really forthright and acerbic critical remarks about bad clerics to the likes of me.
After all, a mother should be an exemplar of all things excellent.
But don’t forget to pray for me and those like me.
By the way, you should look up sometime the language St. Thomas More used in regard to personages whom he judged to have harmed the Church.
His phrases make me feel as though I am perhaps much too mild.
St. Thomas More is one of my most favorite saints. Love the movie, “A Man for all Seasons.” “…finally it is not a matter of reason, finally it is a matter of love.” “…I die the King’s good servant but God’s first.”
Then you are in good company . . .
Excuse me, but is “unemployment” even a sin? And whose sin is it?
As if the Church never answered THAT before.
“And what of a regime in which capitalism is dominant? Does it offer a prospect of real welfare for woman? We have no need here to describe the economic and social consequences of this system. You know its characteristic signs and you yourselves labor under the burden it imposes: the excessive crowding of the population into the cities; the ever-growing and all-invading power of big business; the difficult and precarious condition of other industries, especially the crafts and even more especially agriculture; the disquieting spread of unemployment.” Pope Pius XII QUESTA GRANDE VOSTRA ADUNATA
That’s certainly a legitimate criticism of dog-eat-dog capitalism. But to equate a social problem arising from an economic system with the direct murder of innocents is absurd. Furthermore, even as to individual sins there is no excommunication for failing to pay a worker just wages, but there is for participation in abortion.
It is sad to see good Catholics arguing when they both have the intention of following the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and morals.
Chris is a good Catholic. I remember interacting with him on message boards BEFORE the internet and he always stuck me as someone who put his religion before his politics. Unfortunately, many “conservative” Catholics do exactly the opposite.
Good Post! I think this is the age of the laity. When the Shepherds fail to protect the people, God sends in the sheep dogs! Good boy! God bless you. Susan Fox http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com
Steve, in addition to yourself and the other commentators you mentioned who critiqued Archbishop Cupich, it seems as if Archbishop Chaput in Philadelphia published a response a few days ago, entitled “There is no equivalence”: http://catholicphilly.com/2015/08/think-tank/archbishop-chaput-column/there-is-no-equivalence/