On Giving Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians

It is curious in a non-Catholic country like ours that the question of who should or shouldn’t be allowed to receive communion has become such a hot topic. Seemingly, this kind of question would be considered inside baseball, simply an intra-church matter. Yet, our secular media is dominated by headlines about what this or that bishop (or Synod of bishops) has to say about whether the Church should deny the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried or pro-abortion politicians.

In his interview with Face the Nation’s Norah O’Donnell, Chicago archbishop Blase Cupich was asked to comment on the following issue:

When you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.

Before I give the archbishop’s response and my take on it, I want to acknowledge how easy it is for public figures to misspeak—especially in the contentious arena of the major Sunday talk shows. It happens all the time. Additionally, I understand it must be a challenge to effectively address such a hot-button issue in the space of a sound bite. Thus, while I believe Archbishop Cupich’s answer potentially runs the risk of causing scandal to the faithful, I equally believe such was certainly not his intention.

With that said, Archbishop Cupich answered O’Donnell’s question in the following manner, which I believe to be an unintentional misstatement on his part:

I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or a way in which people would be either [sic] 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.

To examine the archbishop’s response, I believe it is helpful to follow the lead of Cardinal Bergoglio (Pope Francis) and Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on the question of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion should be permitted to receive the Eucharist.

Cardinal Bergoglio is acknowledged as one of the primary authors of the Aparecida Document (the concluding document of the 2007 General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean). Moreover, after being elected pope, Francis wrote a letter to the Argentine Assembly of Bishops directing them to implement the Aparecida Document, saying: “These are the guidelines we need for this time in history.”

Here is what the Aparecida Document—approved by Pope Benedict XVI and reaffirmed by Pope Francis—teaches concerning the matter at hand:

We hope that legislators [and] heads of government … will defend and protect [the dignity of human life] from the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia; that is their responsibility…. We must adhere to “eucharistic coherence,” that is, be conscious that they cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.

Cardinal Ratzinger—in his official capacity as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—sent a memorandum (July 2004) to Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, regarding the worthy reception of the Eucharist. He writes:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Citing a declaration from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Cardinal Ratzinger continues:

When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it….” This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

In light of these teachings, it is likely that Archbishop Cupich either misspoke or was not sufficiently aware of Cardinal Ratzinger and Bergoglio’s teaching.

First, it is clear Catholic politicians who support abortion “cannot receive holy communion” due to their “objective situation of sin.” Moreover, the minister of Holy Communion “must refuse to distribute it” to them (emphasis added).

Second, while Archbishop Cupich is correct in saying the communion rail is not the place to discuss a person’s worthiness to receive Holy Communion, this is not what the Church in fact proposes. Rather, the Church instructs pastors to meet privately with the politician, instruct him on the Church’s teaching, and warn him that he will be denied the Eucharist unless “he brings to an end the objective situation of sin.” Thus, while the communion rail is not the place to have conversations, it is the place to refuse communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion.

It is not difficult to understand and even admire Archbishop Cupich’s desire to welcome and embrace people who are in an objective situation of sin. From what has been said so far, however, it is at least reasonable to conclude that his statement—in spite of sincere intentions—runs the potential risk of causing scandal.

After all, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll reported that 50 percent of Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Thus, the archbishop’s statement, as it stands, will not persuade these Catholics that it is necessary for them to repent: for them to go to Confession, change their position and oppose legal abortion. Whether he intended them to or not, it is safe to assume they will conclude the precise opposite: they don’t need to repent and are in good standing with the Church while continuing to support legal abortion.

Abortion should, however, shock us. It is difficult to imagine a more horrific evil than intentionally dismembering and killing innocent and defenseless children. It should be obvious to every person of good will that supporting the legal sanction of such barbaric acts is an objective grave evil.

In a culture where abortion has become so commonplace, though, we are easily desensitized. And bishops are not immune from this. Unless we make a conscious effort to remind ourselves about the grave evil of abortion, we will no longer be shocked that so many Catholics—while “personally opposed to abortion”—nevertheless believe it should be legal.

Defending the dignity of the human person—and thus opposing the intentional killing of innocent human beings (God’s image)—is intrinsic to our basic Christian vocation: to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourselves. All Christians, including Church leaders, must therefore be careful to avoid giving even the slightest impression that supporting abortion is morally permissible and compatible with the Christian vocation to love.

To highlight just how seriously we must take our responsibility to unambiguously oppose abortion, I suggest we add two simple words to the question Norah O’Donnell posed to Archbishop Cupich:

When you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support ‘after-birth’ abortion rights.

The term “after-birth abortion” was coined by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two philosophers whose proposal to legalize “after-birth abortion” was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They write:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible…. [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Giubilini and Minerva confirm what pro-lifers have correctly said for years: there is no significant difference between the moral status of unborn and born babies. And the arguments used to sanction legal abortion can be used just as easily to sanction legal “after-birth abortions.” (Contrary to what Giubilini and Minerva claim, however, “after-birth abortion” is in reality simply a euphemism for infanticide).

Many who believe abortion should be legal—especially those in the “personally opposed but can’t impose my morality on others” camp—will initially react to the proposal for legalizing “after-birth abortion” with genuine shock and even disgust. They are outraged when someone suggests the logic that underpins their support for legal abortion is the very same logic that underpins support for legal “after-birth abortion” (i.e., infanticide). In fact, they may strenuously oppose legalizing such barbaric acts.

When pushed to move beyond their initial outrage and emotional repulsion, however, they are hard pressed to provide a principled and rational case for their belief that killing unborn babies should be legal but killing born babies should not. Illustrative of this difficulty is abortion-supporter William Saletan’s article “After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide,” published by Slate.

If pro-lifers are correct—i.e., there is no significant difference between the moral status of unborn and born babies, and the arguments that support legal abortion can be used equally to support legal “after-birth abortion” (infanticide)—Archbishop Cupich would have to permit the reception of Holy Communion both to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion and those who support legal “after-birth abortion.” Put in its most trenchant terms, then, the archbishop would have to permit Catholic politicians who support legal infanticide to receive the Eucharist.

The relevant question, then, becomes: Are there any actions sufficiently evil to prevent the Catholic politicians who support them from receiving Holy Communion?

I can’t imagine Archbishop Cupich would allow Catholic politicians who support legal infanticide to receive Holy Communion. However, because there is no significant moral difference between “pre-birth abortion” and “after-birth abortion” in Catholic theology, I can’t imagine the archbishop would advocate allowing Catholic politicians who support “pre-birth abortion” to receive Holy Communion either.

As I began this article, it is likely that Archbishop Cupich simply misspoke when answering Norah O’Donnell’s question. Thus, I would suggest that the faithful of the Archdiocese of Chicago—lay, priests and religious alike—respectfully write the archbishop, requesting that he issue a public statement that clarifies his agreement with the Church’s teaching affirmed by Pope Francis as recently as April 2013:

Catholic politicians who support legal abortion should not present themselves for Holy Communion until they bring an end to their objective sinful situation—failing this, they cannot receive the Eucharist and the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it to them.

 

Bill Maguire

By

Bill Maguire earned his masters in theological studies from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Washington, D.C. With nearly two decades of experience in youth and young adult ministry, he currently writes from Naples, FL.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The proposal of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva is no different to the long-held position of Princeton bioethicist, Peter Singer. In his 1994 Rethinking Life and Death, famously argued “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.”

    Indeed, there seems no reason why the logic of the first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy), “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law,” should not apply after birth, as well as before it.

    • Anything you can seay about “a fetus” can be said about Peter Singer.
      Using his logic, I see his ghoulish moral cretinism as something that provokes this thought:

      “[The argument that Peter Singer is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.”

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Singer would basically agree with your revision.

        For a Preference Utilitarian, “being human” is not a morally relvant category. Hence his support for Animal Rights.

      • R. K. Ich

        The newer advocacy doesn’t even care if it’s called homicide. They embrace it and say, “It’s justified.” The devil is a bastard and his children are full of their father’s lies.

        • Mike Koopman

          I unabashedly promote self-gratifying and egoistic beliefs to undergird the truths of the faith, hey, you mean “I” could have been aborted? As the meme generation of the throw-away, death culture we must know how to parade around in Catholic garb while garbage is dropping from our beastlike bellies as we tread a path of destruction through the lives of those who are less worthy than ourselves. Of course, those who are less worthy than ourselves includes everyone other than me. I love being a me-me generation flycoon and everlasting freak of the week. I protect my brand. We need to be hard East Katholiken, or Westies. Whatever.

    • fredx2

      What is funny about Singer is that he in effect realizes that the pre-born baby is a human being. In his own perverted way, he just flip flops the logic and presumes that if a pre-born baby is not a human, then an already born baby is not human either, because there is no real difference except the location of the baby. So he is led to the ridiculous conclusion that we should be allowed to murder month old babies as well if we don’t want them. His logic is impeccable; his assumptions are fatally flawed. But if we are allowed to murder month old babies, why not two month old babies? Why not 6 month old babies? if their existence depends only on whether the parents “want them”, why the time limit? To avoid seeming completely ridiculous, I assume.

  • ForChristAlone

    It is only unadulterated narcissism that prompts a newly named archbishop of a major diocese to go on a national talk show for an interview a few short weeks after his installation. I, for one, am sick and tired of members of our Catholic hierarchy acting more like politicians lusting for power than churchmen who want to become more Christ-like.

    Cupich is taking his cues in this regard from Bergoglio who thinks it’s prudent to give impromptu interviews in the back of planes on return flights from Rio. These ‘off-the cuff’ interviews need to stop now. Rather, bishops should speak only from their cathedra and when they have well-prepared remarks that address Church teachings. Our Church needs fewer politicians and more martyrs.

    • R a Anayire

      It is very disheartening for us priests (and I hope, faithful priests) to read and hear our shepherds (Bishops/ theologians) speak in words that seem to make Christianity or being Christian a life of compromise or a popularity contest.
      Our creed fundamentally spells our our belief, our commandments provide us with the moral yardstick for Christian living.
      Let us take away emotions and societal presures, and look at this position purely from an earthly point of view.
      A natural motherly instinct is to hold her baby in her arms after birth. Nothing brings more joy to a mothers heart than this moment (the baby whether healthy or not) it is the one moment when the miracle of Gods life in us is made concret before our eyes.
      To suggest then that abortion or after-birth abortion could be an acceptable way of life, and that those who advocate for this “human selection” are in someway right and could be admited to the sacrament of holy communion defeats the fundamental message of the gospel.
      The question I have is: what are we doing preaching from the pulpit at all? Let everyone live by what they see fit in life. Let’s compromise everything so long as it makes us feel good.
      Very disappointing that catholic doctrine today is being shaped by so called minirities or the voices that screem the loudest.
      Who are we? What would Christ answer be to this question? Is Abortion/ afterbirth abortion right or not? Do I need to attempt a response to that? Isn’t it obvious?
      So why don’t some bishops / Catholics see that?
      The truth is definitive, no maybe’s. If our leaders believe the pulpit does not provide them with enough room to reach out to society, let them take off their robes and sign up for political talk shows where they can twist and turn the gospel to suit their audience. The catholic pulpit is and must remain the moral yardstick for Christian morality and we expect our leaders to clearly and unambiguously teach the gospel message.
      Sometime hearing church leadership hesitate on such moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, social justice, human rights rather than being matter of fact straight to the point and say it as it is sickens me.
      What am I doing here?

      • St JD George

        Is it appropriate to quote our beloved Bishop Fulton Sheen at this point? I agree, it’s disheartening, but I believe it is not a uniquely modern issue. So, with cheerful hearts we must find a way to march forward and try as we can hold them accountable. It is human nature to want to avoid controversy even though we know that the truth will set us free. Believe me when I say I get discouraged nearly every day, but I’m uplifted listening to the daily readings and the gospel every morning and when I pray at night.

        • R a Anayire

          George,
          Keep the faith and let us trust in the Lords promise ” I am with you till the end of time”.
          Thank you for your comment. Every single daily mass, the readings, the Holy Eucharist is the reason for my hope and I am happy to hear many Catholics like you feel the same.
          St. John Paul II never missed an occasion to say it loud and clear to the world “do not be afraid”.
          May we all receive the fruits this advent promises.
          The dialogue must continue in Christian compassion but never be afraid to speak and stand for the truth.

          • St JD George

            My courage is growing daily, but I am humble to realize that it is much easier to comment than to confront. I would love to say I had the courage of the Saints to stand without fear, but I too am aware of the consequences of living in a secular world and so temper my boldness at work for example where I know I could potentially lose my livelihood. My heroes are those who do boldly stand up for their faith at great cost, be it the Christians who give their lives in the Middle East, or military chaplains increasingly marginalized and reprimanded, etc. I do feel like we are at a critical juncture in our time though, and cowardliness must be viewed as a sin.

            • fredx2

              Do one small thing.

              • JimC51

                …like start acting like a christian instead of a moralizing pharisee.

                • GG

                  Only left winger dissenters say that.

                  • CCIG

                    Do left wing dissenters know what moralizing Pharisee are? I know they know a lot of stuff, but the problem is that most of what they know just happens to be untrue.

            • CCIG

              You are already a whole lot stronger than you realize. When the time comes, you will step up! (After all, you already have the Saint thing going on!) Merry Christmas!

          • fredx2

            And never forget that alone among our institutions, it is the church that has consistently argued against abortion. It is the church alone that has told us that it is a sin. It is the church alone that stands up for the vulnerable life in the womb that has no advocates, not even its own mother. It is the Church alone that has the moral clarity to see this situation for what it is.

            The media has been telling us for 50 years that eventually the church will have to change. But in fact, the church is now winning the argument. More and more people are against abortion. Young people in particular, who realize that THEY might have been aborted, and who have had brothers and sisters aborted, are the ones that now reflexively feel the injustice that is abortion.

            • St JD George

              It’s a worthy footnote to add too that despite the chattering class praise for choice, the Christian foot soldiers have been doing great deeds in the states and localities bypassing the unwanted attention garnered at the federal level to effect positive change in closing clinics, shining a light on the disgusting practices and helping to reduce the numbers over time. We should all pray for them.

              • tom

                No members of the Democratic Party should be considered Roman Catholic. It’s that bad. Their names are on the voting rolls and they need to be amputated from the Mystical Body of Christ to save the rest of us. Any association with them is repugnant.

                • St JD George

                  Given that roughly half of Catholics in this country voted for this monstrosity I expect more folks to come here and offer a defense on Crisis, surely some must peruse, are supportive, and can articulate a rational for this behavior.
                  My interest is always piqued when I read the anointed one uncomfortably cite scripture (even when botched) to defend a position, and then in the same breath ridiculing and mocking Christians, and quite happy to release his attack dogs to remove all reference of Christ from public discourse. And remember the rally cry of the DNC convention to add a citation of God in their platform “All in favor say eye … boooooo”.

                  • tom

                    The Democratic Party is obviously anti-Catholic but gets close to half the “Catholic” vote regularly. The poor leadership has hollowed out the once great American Church. it may be time to start electing our bishops so we get a wee bit of backbone?

                    • Micha Elyi

                      The Democratic Party is obviously anti-Catholic but gets close to half the “Catholic” vote regularly.
                      –tom

                      I blame the bishops for their poor catechesis and frequent bad examples. But don’t gloat, not only bishops are being fitted for millstones.

                    • tom

                      You’ve entered a No Gloating Zone.

                    • CCIG

                      Since Adam and Eve, man has the knowledge of right and wrong built into his being. “Through my fault, through my fault, through my own most grievous fault” is all any of us can say. A snake is a snake is a snake – don’t be listening to him!

                    • CCIG

                      Nah, we don’t need to elect Bishops – or we’d be even worse off! Our problem was the “election” of John XXIII. Since he was not a valid candidate and wasn’t the original selection, the Church lost its moorings at that time. Lots of evil followed him into the Church. But that has happened before, maybe not quite as badly as this situation. Still the Church is Christ’s and He will not allow her to be sullied for too long. He is coming! Come, Lord Jesus, Come! “Watch!” as we were commanded by Him.

                • CCIG

                  That “amputation” is in effect and self imposed. Separation from God is operative and their own choice. They can blame others for not warning them, but Almighty God has given them (through their own disobedience) the knowledge of right and wrong. While it would be good for everyone for the leaders of the Church to point that out, it is still just as effective. The “leaders” will have some accounting to do!

                • Elizabeth Levesque

                  amen

      • I sincerely hope that the younger priests I observe that speak with faith, fervor and clarity retain those qualities as time goes on and aren’t worn down by their “superiors”.

        Tempus Fugit. The actuarial tables will catch up with the mealy-mouthed effete social workers that masquerade as Bishops and Cardinals (and the occasional Crisis poster) and who seem to be on a mission to turn the Church into “just another NGO” . Their time will be brief as is all of our times.

        What are you doing here? Saying Mass, confecting the Eucharist, hearing confessions and visiting the sick and dying, holding up the dam as best you can, grabbing the hands of those caught in torrents and blinded by its turbidity, and hanging on to some piece of flotsam. This is what you are doing until you are handed a bag of mortar and a transit and you can begin repairs and most importantly, drainage.

        There are those of us in the pews tempted to despair as well.

        • tom

          Nothing worse than having inferior superiors.

      • FreemenRtrue

        you must bear your cross. The bishop is an a$$ – double entendre intended.

      • Jim

        are you a Catholic priest?

        • R Anayire

          is it not obvious.
          yes i am

          • Jim

            No sir, it is not obvious. That is why I asked. Thank you for your reply. The reason for my post is that I have a hard time with lay people who stir up debate using poor logic. Particularly the author of this article, Bill Maguire. His profile indicates that he is a Master of Theology, but his freshman-caliber thesis says otherwise. I listened to every word of Archbishop Cupich’s interview– several times– and he is very clear in his remarks. Particularly that “the Communion Rail is not the place to have those discussions”, and his hopes of emulating the Holy Father’s example of dialoging with people and building relationships across controversial issues. I see toxic articles like this as being ego-fueled rabble-rousing. The Holy Father and the Archbishop are far above these debates. As was our Lord when He was “Interviewed” to see how His answers would satisfy (or disappoint) his human judges (laymen). Discussions like this one among armchair clergy is a very sad thing to behold.

            Saint Maximilian– Patron of the media– Please pray for us all.

            Respectfully,

            Jim

            • R Anayire

              Thank you Jim.
              May the Spirit guide us all, even those of us unworthy of having an opinion.

              From an armchair clergy.
              God bless His word in our hearts

            • Augustus

              It’s quite clear who the intellectual adolescent is. The author answered all your objections but your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing the obvious. 1) The question was, should pro-abortion politicians be deprived of the Eucharist as REQUIRED by Canon Law? The archbishop essentially said no, defying the official teaching of the Church reaffirmed by both Pope Benedict AND Pope Francis. Apparently the author has considerably more theological training than you do. 2) The author answered the archbishop by stating correctly that the altar rail is NOT where these discussions take place anyway. Any honest and competent prelate would know that. The discussion takes place in private. Only after the teaching is explained and the consequences of defying that teaching is made clear, would a politician be denied the Eucharist. The author stated this. Apparently the facts are irrelevant to you. Is it the case that you are perfectly okay with the murder of the unborn? Wouldn’t surprise me.

              • Jim

                I have blinders on, but everything is clear to you– oh anonymous one.

                “Is it the case that you are perfectly okay with the murder of the unborn? Wouldn’t surprise me.”

                Says the rabble-rouser, “Well what else COULD it be?”

                This is what you derive from your perverted logic? How sad. Who do you hate anonymous one? The Archbishop? The Holy Father? Me? I merely read Bill Maguire’s article and wished to comment on the poison caused by incorrect logic– but I see you are a fan, so there is no point. I’ll yield, and depart from the thread. You win. Good day.

                And by the way, you are incorrect. Pro-abortion politicians are not addressed in Canon Law. And I am completely Pro-Life.

                Regards

                • Augustus

                  You made no argument. You offered no evidence. You have demonstrated no knowledge of Catholic teaching. You say the article is illogical but refuse to demonstrate how it is so. You have nothing of substance to say other than to dismiss those who disagree with you. Nor have you shown how the position of the archbishop has ever succeeded in turning a pro-abortion politician into a pro-life one. It is a policy that has utterly failed in every case. Rather than engaging is a reasonable debate, you accuse others of hate. This is evidence enough of your utter ignorance and dishonesty.

                  • Jim

                    1. Engaging in dialog with someone who accuses me of being “perfectly OK with the murder of the unborn” is pointless. That speaks of hate. But I still love you.
                    2. Knowledge of Catholic teaching… Read again: “But I still love you”
                    3. Everyone is entitled to disagree with me. And I still love everyone. Never said I take offense to anyone disagreeing with me, so your accusation is a cruel fabrication indicating dishonesty on your part.
                    4. Turning a pro-abortion politician into a pro-life one. Never claimed it could be done. Might never happen. Who cares?
                    5. You accused me of being “perfectly OK with the murder of the unborn”???

                    There. Are you satisfied? The serpent is laughing. Two people who do not even know each other are trading flames. This is the evil thing that Bill Maguire intended. My dialog was not even with you, anonymous one. Mine was a respectful, though passionate post about my view regarding this article. You were lurking in the shadows waiting for someone to disagree with this hatred of the Archbishop. The serpent is laughing.

                    But hey, I love you anyway.

                    Peace.

                    • Augustus

                      You are clearly incapable of rational thought. I suppose the most charitable thing to do is ignore you.

                    • CCIG

                      You have PROVEN you are not a man of your word – you said you were going away, “departing from the thread”. And here you are! Defending the indefensible and acting all orthodox. God gave you a brain – use it. (not true, not true, I am sorry, I am sorry, He gave you a sheep’s brain and you ARE using it.)

      • CCIG

        Hang in there, Christ is coming soon! He wants to find you doing the hard work of carrying on His mission, and we need you to do it. Many will fall away, but EVERY spot in Heaven is either taken or has a name tag on it. Think of it – there is a finite number of people since Adam and Eve who have or will live and die. Therefore, there is a finite number of people in Heaven. No one who is meant to be there, will not be there. Because many priests and bishops fail, is no real reason for us to become frustrated. It is a highly teachable event. All is well and all will work out as it should, for as we pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven!”, so it is. And so it will be! Every man gets to choose. Pride or humility. It will be WONDERFUL to see who we see when we get there. In it, we will know the mind of God much better than we do now. And we will SING His praises! Let’s SING them now! Come, Lord Jesus, Come!

    • AcceptingReality

      I definitely think cardinals and bishops would do well to avoid these kinds of sound bite interviews with secular media. They often end up pandering to the culture when they give them. It’s as if they are indulging some narcissistic tendencies to want their 15 minutes of fame.

      • St JD George

        I get that, but I also see it as a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario. If the focus is Christ’s message and not their vanity then I think that there is value in not disengaging because of distrust. Best to be wise in the games they play though and try to avoid being set up for a “got you” sound bite.

        • tom

          The simple-minded Norah O’Donnell wants Russian cops in Russian-American areas, Hispanic cops in parts of LA etc. But capturing a bishop should be left to the chessboard, Norah.

    • fredx2

      Come now. You would not have been opposed if a sold Conservative had been going on TV. What you really object to is the content of what he said, not the fact that he was on TV. Actually, I thought Cupich was very restrained in his appearances on TV. Since the media has been duped into thinking he is their darling liberal boy, they must be flooding him with requests for interviews. They usually give as much PR to people they presume are liberal,so as to advance their agenda. But Cupich, to his credit, has just given the one, rather restrained interview.

      • ForChristAlone

        Fred, Better to have asked me the question than to inform me that I would not have opposed a “sold Conservative” going on TV. To answer the question you DID NOT deem to ask, I oppose these instances of public grand-standing for all bishops. It amounts to self-promotion rather than Christ-promotion. And Cupich ought not worry since he’s assured of being given the red hat so he can one day sit in a conclave. I think the same can be said about the public posturing of bishops surrounding the Synod From Hell. It was all an unseemly display. The episcopacy has become as undignified as politics but, then again, I expect more from churchmen.

        Also, I do not even acknowledge this Conservative v Progressive Catholic nonsense. You’re either teaching with the mind of the Church or you are not. The same can be said of the laity – your praxis conforms to Church teaching or it does not.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        How likely is it that a “solid conservative” is ever going to be similarly interviewed? If they’ve talked to Cardinal Burke, I’ve certainly missed the occasion.

    • publiusnj

      This is absolutely on point. The off-the-cuff interviews may delight some, but they and Francis’s support for the Kasper proposal have caused this Catholic of 68 years to sincerely doubt the truth of the Catholic Church. The Pope is supposed to be the assurance of fidelity to Christ’s Gospel. Instead, he is rapidly becoming a mere media darling (like, say, his fan-boy, Sir Elton John). By entertaining the Kasper Proposal, he is saying that all the Church’s teachings are up for re-interpretation even if they have been carefully considered and firmed up in definitive Catholic teaching such as Section 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Faith on withholding communion from remarried people.

      i have dropped my reading and EM responsibilities in my parish and will not support my parish until this Pope convinces me he is NOT “Pope Maybe” (as in: “is the pope Catholic? Maybe….”) Yesterday, he blew off the growing opposition to his stance on the Kasper proposal saying that it is good to have such opposition. Wow!

      Now, some may say: how can you call yourself a Catholic if you are not even following such a hard rule of the Church as going to Weekly Mass? ANSWER: Why not? If “Pope Maybe” can toss out Christ’s explicit scriptural teaching on the adulterous nature of sexual relations with a “second spouse” while the first is alive, then the requirement for Sunday Mass, which is not found in Scripture, must be no less dispensable. The problem with Francis’s ignoring of Christ’s teaching is that people will start ignoring him. I hate being like this because I have always gotten so much from being Catholic, but this pope is going off the rails and causing shameful scandal.

      • jacobum

        Can empathize with you completely. Been there. With respect please don’t allow yourself to get played by the games, scandal and confusion being created in Rome. Leaving the Church will solve nothing. It will compound the problem. The answer is humility, prayer, resistance and positive action. Double down and really learn the faith as taught and practiced pre-vatican 2. In other words arm yourself. Great place to start is with “Pascendi” encyclical condemning “Modernism” by St Pope Pius X; “Syllabus of Errors” by Blessed Pope Pius IX, and any of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s talks/books….All of which are readily available on the internet. We are living/suffering through the “diabolical disorientation” mentioned by Sister Lucy, one of the seers of Fatima which is more than likely to get much worse before getting better. However, This too shall pass. It’s still the OTF and Christ’s Church protected by His Mother. There is still no salvation outside the RCC. This dogma has not changed
        despite it being ignored in the name of the V2 brand of “Ecumenism”. The heretical Modernist, condemned by SPPX in Pascendi triumphed at Vatican II. The heretical “Spirit of Vatican II” has infected and dominated the Church since then. This is/has been the worst crisis in the Church since the Arian heresy during the time of St Augustine. V2 was a “pastoral council” in comparison to the previous 20 councils which were “dogmatic”…and thus protected by the Holy Spirit. However, V2 has been allowed to be misrepresented to the faithful as being “dogmatic” when both PJ23 and PP6 both said it was a “pastoral council”. Translation? Nothing is in stone. It is advisory and “pastoral” versus “dogmatic” which requires assent and belief. Therefore, It is not a coincidence that the first non-dogmatic council in the history of the church has been followed by 50+ years of chaos and self destruction in the Church. This should not be a surprise when the emphasis of the Church founded by Christ is deliberately changed from being “Christ-Centered” to “Man-Centered” from it’s liturgy to it’s mission aka from “saving souls” to “social justice”. The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated even though one was led to believe so by the actions, sanctions and sacrileges that followed (and continue) with the equivalent of a Protestant Communion Service known as the Novus Ordo Mass. We are now faced with the resignation of a Pope replaced by another whose actions, pronouncements and language are seemingly incongruous from the Chair of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. Lord Have Mercy on us. To quote Archbishop Sheen:

        “Who is going to save our Church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the Bishops.It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be
        priests and our Bishops to be Bishops.”

        And a more recent quote from Msgr Charles Pope

        “A steady diet of, …”God Loves You and all is well no matter
        what’..has emptied our pews”.. Why? Well who goes to a spiritual
        hospital if all they hear is that nothing is wrong and that their
        salvation is secure no matter what?

        Amen!

        The solution to this mess begins with each of one of us individually. We can control what we do and how we interact with our circles of influence.
        Become holy ourselves and pray, pray and do penance for the Pope and the OTF

        • publiusnj

          It is the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope or nothing for me. I have an excellent and in large measure pre-Vatican II education in the Catholic Religion and am not going off into any schismatic entity. If this Pope, though, propounds the Kasper Proposal, I am going to walk away from belief in the Catholic Religion. I would come back if Francis’s approach is quickly and definitively knocked down by the Faithful because that would show that even in the hands of a Pope Maybe (as in: “is the Pope Catholic? Maybe….”), the Church remains indefectible. Otherwise, for me, it is the institutional church in communion with the Holy See of Rome or nothing. Anything else is Protestantism.

          Although I certainly like and am comfortable with the Latin Mass, I never considered any of the changes post-VII to be problematic until the Kasper Proposal. That is dogma, not a pastoral decision, as in Mass in the Vernacular, etc.). The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets forth the impermissibility of communion for the remarried and it is an inevitable corollary to Christ’s specific words on the issue of Remarriage in Mark 10:2-12.

          And for Card. Kasper’s benefit (who loves protestantisms so much): “here I stand, I can do no other.”

          • jacobum

            Again with respect and understanding. As to your statement..to wit:…”Although I certainly like and am comfortable with the Latin Mass, I
            never considered any of the changes post-VII to be problematic until the
            Kasper Proposal. That is dogma, not a pastoral decision, as in Mass in
            the Vernacular, etc.)”
            Please don’t take this the wrong way….but you have been asleep if the above is accurate. Again, I have been there. We are from the generation of Catholics taught by the “Tiger Nuns”. Translation? We were taught to “Pray, Pay and Obey”. The key to everything is understanding the “who, what, why, where and how” the “man made” Novus Ordo Mass was created out of whole cloth. “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi” always rules…aka “We pray as we believe and live” How does one explain Catholics’ 75% Sunday Mass attendance pre Vat2 versus 25% now with less than 50% of the 25% (12.5%) believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? It’s not an accident. The key is the Mass. The Modernist could not change “dogma” so they change the Mass…aka “How we pray”. Allow me to recommend 5 excellent books to read:
            1) The Incredible Catholic Mass by Fr Martin Van Cochem. A classic reprinted by Tan Books. A life changer and a “must” read in order to understand what the Latin Mass is. You wind up praying and reading this book.
            2) The Second Vatican Council – An unwritten story by Prof Roberto de Mattei.
            3) The Liturgical Revolution by Michael Davies. This is a 3 volume set…#1 Cranmer’s Godly Order; #2 Pope John’s Council; #3 Pope Paul’s New Mass.
            I have read many other books on the subject but the preceding are very readable, thorough,and well documented. They explain the last 50 years in English. If your experience is like mine, be prepared to become very upset. Truth has a way of doing that. Then get equally prepared to do something about it. After all it’s only our soul and those of our families. Take care and God Bless

            • publiusnj

              There are benefits and detriments to the Mass in the Vernacular. Having had four years of Latin, two brothers who were altar boys and myself a choir boy during the Pre-V2 period, I am intimately familiar and comfortable with the Latin Mass. When the Pope of Rome, though, changed the language of the Mass for pastoral reasons, I accorded him the respect due him. I have a strong belief in the hierarchical church and territorial parishes and give my Pope and bishops their due. So, if they wanted to change the language (and some prayers) in the Mass, so be it. I’ll still go to my local church. Same with fish on Friday, etc.

              Changing dogma though is different. Popes don’t have the authority to change the Faith handed down from the Apostles. Any change in the rule on no communion for the Remarried would be a slap in the face of Christ’s own words and the Church’s Tradition on the issue.

              I will never go to any church that is NOT in communion with the Holy See of Rome. The Bible and 2000 years of Ecclesiastical History convince me of the importance of the Holy See to Christ’s Plan and Commission. If anything is true about Christianity, it subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the Holy See. However, this Pope is calling into question the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and that is very concerning.

              • St Donatus

                The Church does not teach that you have to believe everything the Pope says. There have been Bad popes in the past who even said things that were totally false BUT the Holy Spirit never allowed those false understandings to become part of Church teaching (from the Magesterium or part of the Catechism). We can’t walk away from God because a sinful human whose thinking has been seduced by Satan, even if it be the Pope. This is why I go to an FSSP parish that is in good standing with the Catholic Church and under the authority of the diocese bishop. They teach the traditions of the Church of all time, not the fads of today or the false words of a Pope. They are not like the ‘reeds that blow in the wind’ whose ‘ears are tickled by every new word’ as the Bible says. I find it better to ignore the Pope just as our ancestors did because they didn’t have world wide communication. They had to follow the faith of the ages. God Bless you in your journey. Please keep close to our Lord Jesus Christ, not a pop star Pope.

              • jacobum

                Again been there. Pre Vat2, 4 years of Latin, 1 year of Greek, 6 years altar boy in grade school, 4 years in high school plus being on Archbishops Server Team for 3 years while in High School. Bottom line is this: The Tridentine Mass was formalized at the dogmatic Council of Trent under St Pope Pius V. Trent took 18 years and was the Church’s answer to the “Reformation” aka the “Deformation”. The Mass was promulgated under a dogmatic anathema’ by SPPV to anyone who CHANGED it. In short it was and is in perpetuity. As a result It was and never has been abrogated.Period. Unless one knows this (which most Catholics didn’t and still don’t know even now) you would think that it was forbidden after V2 and had been replaced by the N.O. We were deliberately allowed to believe this. The Tridentine Mass is just not another opition. It is struck in dogma. It is the Liturgy of How we pray…It is no small thing. It is simultaneously the highest and most basic form of glorifying God in the Church which is the number one duty of His Son’s Church. It is fundamental. It is foundational. It is the cornerstone of sacramental prayer. Get it wrong and everything after it will be out of sync. All the Synods, New Evangelization, etc, etc will be for naught unless it is corrected. In short? Fix the Liturgy. Fix the Church.
                Btw, my recollection of the second & third duties of the Church are to “Evangelize the Truth aka Proselytize” and “Handle the temporal needs of the Church and Faithful” respectively.
                Clearly, the first 2 have been ignored to the almost exclusive inclusion of the third one. In effect Vat2 voluntarily switched from Christ-Centered to Man-Centered. Even though Popes for the previous 200+ years condemned/censured/warned about precisely what was implemented by the modernist at V2. Is there any surprise as to the results for the last 50 years? Is there any surprise as to actions of a Pope Francis? The solution is literally..”Back to the Future” and the Traditions and Dogma’s of the Church. Nothing short of it will suffice. Until then the prophesies/warnings apostasy from Our Lady at Quito, La Sallete, Fatima, and Akita will continue to unfold before our very eyes. Take care. God Bless. Lord have mercy on us.

                • publiusnj

                  Sorry. It is the Pope or nobody. Rule No. 1: I am NOT going to follow any church that is not in communion with the Pope (Adversus Haereses 3:3:2). Rule No.2: I am not going to follow the Pope if he adopts the Kasper Proposal because that means he does not take the dogmatic pronouncements of his predecessors as binding.

                  • jacobum

                    Nobody is asking you to nor should you. As to your Rule No 2? All of the Popes since Pius XII have deliberately NOT followed their predecessors on Major issues/doctrines/encyclicals/bulls etc. Particularly, the Novus Ordo Mass is exhibit # 1, Not to mention the V2 documents on “Religious Liberty”, “Collegiality”, “Ecumenism” “Pastoral Care”…for openers. All were condemned by previous popes prior to Vat2. Yet all were incorporated into Vat2 i/n/o “updating” and “pastoral concerns”. This fever and infectious virus of the Modernist heresy has spread right up to and including Pope Francis. Cdl Kasper is/has been called a heretic by none other than the then Cdl Razinger as head of the CDF. Again, not a surprise. Unfortunately, it has taken the actions of a Cdl Kasper apparently abetted and supported by Pope Francis together with a scandalous in-your-face Synod to finally get the attention of good folks. The truth is that it has been going on for 50+ years obscured in the language of “pastoral care” and the “Spirit of Vat2” It did not happen overnight and will not end overnight….barring an act of God.

        • CCIG

          Very well put by one who has been there and remains faithful. May God Bless you, your family and your friends. Keep up the great work of the service of your life! See you on the other side! Merry Christmas!

      • Jim

        “i have dropped my reading and EM responsibilities in my parish and will
        not support my parish until this Pope convinces me he is NOT ‘Pope
        Maybe’…”

        You’ve chosen the selfish but honorable exit. But remember, when you are ready to come back after having learned how to love as Christ loves… then you will be welcome with open arms and there will be much joy in Heaven.

        • publiusnj

          No, I chose an honorable exit. I did it because the Catholic Church needs a Pope who is not contemplating heretical changes. My exit makes that point. You can consider it :selfish” but I am actually very UNcomfortable about leaving the Catholic Church. I think all Catholics who are opposed to what Francis is prepared to do on the Kasper Proposal must protest it in a way they think effectual.

          • CCIG

            There is no “honorable exit” from the Truth. Loss of salvation is as dishonorable as it gets. Something wrong, FIX it, don’t throw it away!

            • publiusnj

              The basis for calling the Catholic Church THE TRUTH is the assumption expressed in Irenaeus of Lyons’ Adversus Haereses 3:3:2 and in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History that fidelity to the teaching of the lineal descendants of the Apostles and in particular to the Bishop of Rome is our assurance of staying faithful to the Apostolic Faith. When a Pope goes off the reservation and overrules the prior teaching of the Church (as would be the case if he forces adoption of the Kasper Proposal), though, that raises the possibility that the Bishop of Rome can’t be relied on to profess the Catholic Faith.

              Then the next question becomes: so where do we turn? We could become Scripture Alone-ists, but then that reduces us to Protestants (Heaven forfend). Or we could go the SSPX way, but that reduces us to schismatics. So, it clearly has to be the Catholic Church or nothing. And the CatholicChurch means the Papacy.

              You say: “fix it.” The Pope is the only one who can fix it. He needs clear dissent because he will, perhaps wilfully, misunderstand anything less than the rudest “no way.” So, if the Pope is going wack job as this Pope seems to be doing, he needs the clearest indication that we are not buying his “stuff.” He can claim, as he apparently has, that the people who are leaving are doing so because they don’t buy his teaching on the poor, but in his heart of hearts he must realize that many of us are saying: we are NOT going to belong to a Church run by Pope Maybe (as in: Is the Pope Catholic? Maybe….) I am sitting out this Liturgical Year because I want the hierarchy to know that some of us will not go along with this effort to destroy the Apostolic teaching, no matter how much this Pope is loved by Elton John.

              • jacobum

                The basis for “Truth” is the words of Jesus himself..to wit..”I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Since He founded His Church for our salvation, it has to be the One True Faith and the One True Church…or else Jesus lied which is impossible! St Thomas Aquinas said it best…”Truth Himself speaks truly or there is nothing True”! STA had a way with expressing Truth in Philosophy and Theology. That’s why the liberals/modernist hate him and have tried to destroy Scholastic Philosophy/Theology. STA is all about intellect and Objective Truth. Liberals/Modernist are all about “feelings” and “evolution”

    • Simple & Plain

      Yeah, and it’s a problem since most of these people giving the interviews are speaking their own opinion, not doctrine.

    • bonaventure

      Amen.

    • Isabel Kilian

      “Unadulterated narcissim” seems to be spreading among many members of the Hierarchy. I have noticed it especially affecting our Holy Father. It is always all about him. Every story, every day is all about him. When do you think he will begin to decrease so that Jesus may increase?

      • ForChristAlone

        When John the Baptist’s head grows back (with apologies to the saint whom you have quoted)

        • CCIG

          As Jesus told us, John the Baptist is not “just” a saint – he is an angel and no longer needs a human head. He has a head and a beautiful necklace and a crown.

    • R. K. Ich

      He is a wolf and hireling. He has to know there’s nothing keeping God from opening up the ground beneath him and swallowing him.

      Nobody is perfect, but this is outright rebellion.

      • KimberlyPax

        Your holy cards are obviously out of order again. I’d stick to fixing that situation.

        • R. K. Ich

          Clearly the tacit approval of belief in the slaughter of children by a ruler of the Church is among the gravest infractions. Like I said, wolf and hireling.

          • Ah, Ah, ah.. he’s not a “ruler”. in either sense of the word. His powers are not plenary.

            Oh course if he believes that he is a ruler, then that would explain much.

            • R. K. Ich

              Touché.

    • Jdonnell

      Many are sick and tired of people who make abortion the be-all and end-all of morality. Your criticism of a bishop because he makes impromptu comments implies criticism of a Pope who does so frequently. You don’t like the comments, which is why you criticize the manner.

      • ForChristAlone

        “Many are sick and tired of people who make abortion the be-all and end-all of morality” That’s easy for you to say as I notice that you made it through your mother’s birth canal unscathed.

        No, I am not implying a criticism of a Pope who makes impromptu comments. I am appalled at the lack of discretion, judgment and prudence on the part of the bishop of Rome who is Primus Inter Pares for demeaning and diminishing the awesome office he holds in this Catholic Church by making off-the-cuff remarks pertaining to Church teaching. I apologize if my criticism at first was only implied.

      • CCIG

        God is sick and tired of abortion. He even commanded it away. If baby killing isn’t the end all on morality, I’d like to know what, in your world view, is? Income inequality, racism, homophobia, littering?

        • Jdonnell

          Your comment is non-responsive to mine.

          • CCIG

            Reread your first sentence then consider your response. You just don’t like the criticism of you couching your dissent by implying it appropriate for people being the determinants of being the end-all on morality.. In fact, I have you pretty well figured, to which I do not expect you to be responsive, but that is ok. I have heard enough. GL with that.

            • Jdonnell

              You presume to read God’s mind–and mine; I am not so presumptuous. Your comments are both vapid and foolish–without substance.

    • CCIG

      We have plenty of martyrs. 65 million American babies! It appears that our whole Church is being martyred. But, not to worry, Christ is coming soon! Come, Lord Jesus, Come!

    • Albert8184

      Maybe what’s happening is that the qualifications for becoming “one of the hierarchY” include acting like a politician. And of course, we all know what the qualifications of a politician are. Including: The “gift” of compromise.

  • Blaise Pascal

    I lived in Spokane, Washington. It’s not unfair to question Blaise Cupich’s orthodoxy.

    • russell snow

      In my view the orthodoxy of the bishops is not in issue, but mainly, perhaps, their zeal for the salvation of souls on the road to damnation and to focus on the justice of God, as well as His mercy and love, and their apparent unwillingness to proclaim the fullness of the Gospel: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

      • GG

        So, they are “orthodox”, but just do not care? Not much of a distinction.

        • Jacqueleen

          He is a product of poor formation which was rampant, post Vatican II.

          • GG

            Perhaps but no excuse. Would you go to a surgeon who never kept up with continuing education? Or, only took course from liberal kooks?

            There is ample opportunity to improve one’s defeciencies today. In fact, never in history has there been such an opportunity. What will we say to Jesus when he asks us what we did with our talents?

            • Jacqueleen

              The fact is that poor formation happened over the past 50+ years. These old codgers are educated but grew within liberalism. This is not excuses but reality and that does not mean that it is right. Can’t you see when at a Catholic church the difference between the holy priests and the not so holy priests? The Holy Spirit is the root of all holiness….some have it and some cast it aside.

              • GG

                Oh, I am not disagreeing with you at all. I was emphasizing the fact that poor formation is no excuse and is not inculpable ignorance.

        • I have it on good authority being lukewarm is probably the worst possible career move.

    • Washington (well, both of them) seems to be begging to have one of its massive super calderas cleanse it of its iniquities.

      • St JD George

        I’m not sure THEY are begging, but a lot of others … i think I can say with near certainty. If you hear rumblings … run.

    • fredx2

      His orthodoxy or unorthodoxy will be revealed in time.

  • He will nor clarify because Cupich is a dissenter on this issue himself.

    • fredx2

      Cupich’s stand is the same as many, many other bishops in the US. I am sure that most bishops do not refuse communion for this stance. There are practical problems with denying communion. Once you start doing it, then they say “What about that guy? He and his wife use contraception”. It leads you down a messy road that eventually gets everyone’s undies in a knot and causes more heat than light. Priests start having to be communion wardens, and this would destroy the whole tenor of communion. I would suggest to people that the effort they put into demanding that communion be denied to politicians be redirected to win the war against abortion itself.

      • Without drawing a bright line between the Way of Death and The Way of Life, how do you suggest we win the war against the Way of Death? And yes, I think people with a contraceptivery mentality should abstain from communion.

      • Once you start doing it, then they say “What about that guy? He and his wife use contraception”.
        And how do you propose to know that? Nobody but the couple involved knows if they are contracepting or not.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        But it’s really pretty clear-cut in the case of the likes of Pelosi and other public figures, isn’t it? Nothing complicated there at all, and it doesn’t involve asking anyone his stance on abortion – it’s already well known. Failure to refuse them communion is inevitably going to look like approval isn’t it?

  • Aliquantillus

    There’s hardly a bishop in the Church nowadays who’s not a master in double-speak. They all fear public opinion. To counter this craziness their own flocks should despise them and spit them in the face, openly. That’s the only way these dreamers will come back to reality.

    • ROB

      I can think of many words fitting these men but dreamers isn’t among them

      • Aliquantillus

        I meand dreamers in the sense this word is used in the Epistle of St. Jude, i.e. lawless persons who live in the illusion that they’ll get away with their lawlessness in the final judgment.

    • fredx2

      Would Jesus have recommended that we spit in the face of anyone, let alone our bishops? Would he have recommended that we despise anyone?

      • Aliquantillus

        You don’t seem to realize how serious this is. These bishops or whatever they are, are not Catholic or Christian at all according to any objective traditional criteria. They don’t belong in the Church and should be thrown out. And nowadays faithful Catholic lay people should make clear that they don’t accept such leaders. They should run away from them as from deadly poison and never set foot in their chapels or churches or wherever they hold sway.

        Should we despise them? Yes, in the sense of despising their wicked mentality. This is not hatred, but charity, intended to bring them to their senses. For this is the only language they understand.

  • russell snow

    I do not think it is possible for priests, deacons, and Eucharistic ministers to refuse to give out communion under current conditions to anyone., What the presiding minister can and should do is to announce, before mass, that anyone who is mortal sin, such as publically supporting abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia might be eating and drinking the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to their own damnation. This would apply to any unrepentant mortal sin under the three conditions set forth in the CCC,1857. Of, course, the presiding minister would need to believe that hell actually exists and people who die in unrepentant mortal sin actually go there. They should also keep in mind the words of Saint John Paul II, that priests who teach invincible ignorance got to hell, not the invincibly ignorant. The CCC points our that “it also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of sin.” Perhaps the bishops and priests should take to heart the words of Pope Saint John Paul to some US bishops about 20 years, “that priests who teach invincible ignorance go to hell, ” and the report of Saint Faustina, having claimed to visit hell, that most people in hell did not believe that hell exists. Or in the words of Padre Pio, they will no hell exists when they get there.

    • Tim Danaher

      Here is a simple test to gage whether your pastor is concerned with the salvation of the souls under set his care.
      1. Did he mention that willfully missing the Feast of the Immaculation Conception is a mortal sin?
      2. In the past, has he ever advised this flock not to present themselves for communion if they willfully skipped the recent holy day of obligation? Check for this one come Sunday.

      • fredx2

        I suspect that 3/4 of the parish would be inelgible for communion next week. At the beginning of the Immaculate Conception mass on Monday, our priest wryly observed “Well, I see you all have lots of room to stretch out”

        • ForChristAlone

          They would be ineligible if they missed Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation without sufficient cause.

    • JP

      “I do not think it is possible for priests, deacons, and Eucharistic
      ministers to refuse to give out communion under current conditions to
      anyone.”

      They would be fools if they tried. Fools for Christ, that is.

    • fredx2

      But if he did this, he would have to do it for every mortal sin. There is no way he could excuse those with certain mortal sins and allow others with other mortal sins. So the communion process becomes a public shaming spectacle of who has been are perhaps committing sins versus those who are not. Then you would have the whole church erupting with “He went to communion last week! And yet, I know that he did X, Y. or Z!” Others would counter with “No, he didn’t!” They whole thing is just asking for one big mess,and for messing up the communion process.

      Some things are just unworkable on a practical level, and therefore need to be addressed in other ways.

      • russell snow

        You are probably right. Sometimes we take positions to their logical conclusion in order to find the implications that we might not want. Maybe this is what Bishop Cupich and others were concerned about and sees that not refusing communion to anyone as the lesser of the evils.

      • JP

        I take it you don’t take Saint Paul’s admonition about taking Communion unworthily? The Sinner brings twice the condemnation. To put it bluntly, the Sinner is put on a path straight to Hell. A century ago, Catholics in general would never have considered taking Holy Communion if they were in a State of Sin. Unless the communicant committed a public sin, no one not even the priest would know. But, you do bring up a valid point. And one should ask, does anyone really believe that Hell is a definite possibility? Can even sacrilege of the Eucharist be considered a Mortal Sin in these times?

        By our actions, I would say the answer is no.

      • ForChristAlone

        Let’s not confuse things. The matter at hand is giving PUBLIC SCANDAL. That’s the issue with Catholic politicians supporting abortion and receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We’re not talking about monitoring people’s consciences – defective as they are in our present Church.

  • GG

    How many actually accept abortion is murder? How many actually accept the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus?

    Truthful answers to those questions would explain the entire problem.

    • fredx2

      How many now go to communion because everyone else does?

      • Stilbelieve

        Back in the 50’s half of the people sat in the pews to allow the rest of us to go to communion. A decade or so later, when I returned to the Catholic Church, nobody sat during Communion, everybody was in line. I remember thinking to myself: Are Catholics that much more “holier” now? I don’t think so.

        • Vinny

          “A decade later” is post Vatican II. Whoopee! Do whatever you want!

          • tom

            The politicians in the Church, ordained or not, do endless harm. They break moral strictures to push a temporal agenda and usually sell out for a bottle of good whiskey or an invite to a Georgetown dinner party. They’d be better off rolling around with pigs in a sty.

        • Jacqueleen

          In the 50’s we went to Confession every week before Communion and if we could not get to Confession, we did not receive Communion…plain and simple. We knew that we had to have the right inner disposition to receive into our bodies, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer and Lord. Today, people don’t care what state their souls are in. They think they are entitled or else they don’t believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.
          Would we invite Jesus to our homes if they were cluttered and dirty, dusty and upset? The answer is “No!” We would clean the house and put everything in order before His visit. So, then, why do the lukewarm Catholics think they can receive the Eucharist in a sinful state? Clearly, many Catholics do not KNOW THEIR FAITH. This is the result of the liberal Hierarchy removing the Catechism from Catholic Schools and CCD classes. What a shame that two or more generations are ignorant of the faith because of the poorly formed Bishops? Who would think this could happen? Pray for the liberal Bishops/Cardinals especially Donald Cardinal Wuerl who refused to NOT DISTRIBUTE COMMUNION TO PELOSI, BIDEN and the like. The Contributions mean more than the state of their souls, unfortunately for those Bishops who will pay a huge price for this action. BTW, not only did Pelosi’s Bishop from her Diocese in San Francisco speak to her but so did Pope Benedict XVI during her visit to the Vatican, but she still finds clergy who will give her the Communion. Is this her fault or is this the fault of the poor formation of the clergy?

          • Simple & Plain

            I can only imagine how many people haven’t been in a confessional for ages and get in line. Especially at Christmas Eve and Easter Mass. But to be fair, most of them probably have no idea what they are really doing and why it isn’t right.

      • GG

        Many I would think.

        • tom

          That could be a positive spiritual path if the recipient is correcting sinful behavior with a vow to sin no more.

          • tom

            …followed by confession, of course!

    • CCIG

      I do. Still, here I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling. Having eyes to see can be pretty painful! God expects much of us!

  • Stilbelieve

    I find no difference between a political organization that supports abortion and Catholics who endorse with their names and votes that organization giving it the electoral power to keep the murdering of unborn babies legal. Catholics are the largest single group in the Democratic Party. They gave Obama twice the margin of victory in his re-election; that even after his direct attack against the Church concerning birth control and health insurance causing Catholics to spend millions in litigation to try and prevent having to comply. Without Catholic support for the pro-abortion Democratic Party, that party would not have the power to keep abortion-on-demand the law of the land. They don’t have to join another political party – just remove their name and support from the pro-abortion party until they change their position on that issue.

    It is a mortal sin against the 5th Commandment, according to Catholic teaching, to join an organization that supports and promotes racial or religious prejudice, with no extenuating circumstances exonerating them. So, if it is a mortal sin to merely join the Nazi Party or the KKK, why is it not a mortal sin against the 5th Commandment to join the Democratic Party which is the main force in promoting the legality of abortion? Certainly, the murdering of innocent unborn babies is more in line with the direct teaching of the 5th Commandment; so why are the U.S. bishops and clergy silent on this fact? Are they afraid they will lose half their flocks? They already lost them – for which their own souls are at risk.

    • TrilFicat

      Check out CCC 2272: Anyone who supports an abortion is automayically excommunicated. Public sins of politicians ought to cause specific public repentance or shaming.

    • In my “neck of the woods”, voting Democrat was considered the eight sacrament.

      It is only in the last five years that my upper ninety something Great Aunt has begun to question the utility of that allegience.

      Unfortunately, she doesn’t realize that when she was born, Woodrow Wilson and the so-called progressives had begun to erect the great temples of god administrative superstate.

      • St JD George

        Interesting, I may use your termite analogy in the future.

    • Jacqueleen

      We would be surprised if we knew how many priests and nuns voted for Obama. If I was able to research the Internet on Obama’s background to discover that his mother, father, white grandparents and his black mentor, Frank Marshall Davis were Communists and all of his personal records were sealed (big red flag) pardon the pun…I knew that I could not vote for him. When this was sent around to family and friends, I was told to stop telling them who to vote for…So, you are absolutely correct that the Catholics were mesmerized by Obama as they were with JFK except that Kennedy was a true patriot. We desperately need an intelligence test for voting besides voter photo ID.

      It is mind boggling how the Bishops condone sinning from time to time and think that nobody is watching!

  • Harry

    Every age has its bigotry. Children of God who are clearly human to those not blinded by contemporary bigotry just “don’t count” to those afflicted with the bigotry of the times.

    Bigotry is powerful. One becomes so blinded to another’s humanity that they aren’t even aware of their blindness. Bigotry is a spiritual blindness that is necessary for slavery, Jew-gassing, and today, the brutal dismemberment of thousands of innocent children every day, to become the status quo.

    The dark clouds of bigotry are always eventually dispelled. Just as we are now horrified and disgusted by the buying, selling and breeding of human beings like they were livestock that took place in the South before the Civil War, the day will come when we will be looked on with horror and disgust because we tolerated children being murdered by the millions only because some jackasses in black robes said that was “legal.”

    Pregnancy used to be called being “with child.” Everybody knew Mom had a child within her, so, of course, the life of the child in the womb had the protection of law. What is frightening is after a few black-robed jackasses denied what everybody knew, how easy it was for the godless ruling class to intimidate those who knew better into silence with propaganda that made Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur. One would think Americans wouldn’t be so easily intimidated.

    Of course, many Americans refused to be intimidated. Unlike what happened in Germany, the American Pro-Life movement sprang up, remains strong and is growing stronger, even though the American Bishops mightily undermine their efforts to dispel the bigotry by legitimizing — when they allow to receive communion — the advocates of the greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world.

    • rjo

      I usually refer to them as “9 men wearing dresses.”

  • AcceptingReality

    Bill, forgive me if I sound a bit cynical, but I think you’re being too kind here. I think the statement was made to signal left wing Catholic politicians that they will get no resistance from him if they want to persist in their sin.

    • fredx2

      Or, it could mean that they are going to have to come to the chancery and have a discussion with Cupich about whether they should be taking communion or not.

  • Elaine Steffek

    Beautiful piece! The problem with this archbishop’s interview and many other bishops is lack of clarity. It is harming the Church and misleading and confusing the faithful. I appreciate your charity in assuming Cupich misspoke. However, in 2012 he did tell his priests NOT to pray in front of abortion clinics. There is a connection between that and not applying Canon 915.

    • JP

      Don’t you agree that this lack of clarity is intended? Let’s stop treating our Bishops like children who have yet to find their way. Today’s bishops, as a group, are highly educated and well versed in the dark “media arts” (i.e. spin). They know exactly what they are doing.

    • fredx2

      His comment about priests praying in front of abortion clinics was made because he felt that abortion could be better opposed by other means. He felt that a different approach would be more effective than merely engaging in political style protests. Since ultimately we have to change the human heart, not force it to do something, perhaps he is right. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He also said that any priest who really felt that their conscience was calling them to pray in front of abortion clinics should go and do so.

      • Elaine Steffek

        When a bishop loses faith in the power of the Rosary to change both hearts and behavior, he is no longer worthy of being called a Successor of Peter

        • Jacqueleen

          Correction: Only God through the power of the Holy Spirit can change hearts….! When protesting in front of an abortion facility, we pray to the Holy Spirit first..to “change hearts of everyone inside the facility and all those entering and leaving the facility.” Then, we pray the Rosary….for Our Blessed Mother’s unfailing intercession. We have been surprised by the many times people approach us in other places, deli restaurants, etc. asking if we are the protesters and then tell us that they had a “change of heart:” and decided to deliver the baby instead. Praise God!

          • Elaine Steffek

            The Rosary is intercessory prayer to the Holy Spirit through Mary. I didn’t think on this site I needed to spell that out.

            • Jacqueleen

              I never saw that in print….but I did see that Mary leads us to her Son.

        • FrJohn43

          Maybe my versions of the RSV and my copy of Kittel’s Theological dictionary of the NT is too old, but where in the NT did the apostles pray the “rosary”?

          • ForChristAlone

            She said nothing about the apostles praying the rosary, wise guy.

          • Elaine Steffek

            The same place where Canon 915 is laid out. Or the St Michael prayer. Or any novena. Or where they celebrate the Assumption. Or the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

          • GG

            You are Catholic?

      • GG

        Would he think the same if the issue were racism or so called homophobia? The idea he even made the statements he did is beyond concerning. Shocking in fact.

        The constant nuanceing and redirecting the issue is terrible.

        • Jacqueleen

          It is just as shocking to discover that the Bishops clamored for Universal Healthcare and look what we got? We got a higher, unaffordable premium and an impossible deductible to fill in 1 year resulting in NO HEALTHCARE FOR THOSE PAYING THE TAB only free healthcare for the illegals. Then, this admin slapped the Bishops in the face by taking away religious freedoms. Little by little, we will be completely dominated by the Communist take over that the Bishops are enabling….supporting Obamacare and Amnesty when millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed and falling into despair. At the same time, the Bishops have the nerve to ask Catholics to pay for their healthcare???? The liberals have infiltrated the church and will cause a schism….Be prayerful and watchful while faithful to Jesus.

          • St JD George

            No only was it made un-affordable, it was also made un-accessible. Imagine the outrage that will grow when all the poor saps realize that there are hardly any Doctors to see, the ones that are take months to get in, and given the overload one has to wonder what the quality of care will be when you do. So, will more go to the emergency room for routine care like are already doing though weren’t supposed to? The only ones getting well under this take over are the swelling ranks of administrative overlords who add no value to delivering care.

            • Jacqueleen

              Liberals/Progressives/Communists have made a mess of everything….They are about 3 and half steps ahead of everyone else. Everyday we wake up to another startling revelation, Executive Order, crisis or distraction that this admin creates. Lord, have mercy on us poor sinners!

          • “It is just as shocking to discover that the Bishops clamored for Universal Healthcare and look what we got? ”
            Cardinal Pell recently commented that the reform of the Vatican bank is being accomplished with the help of secular experts. Too bad the American Episcopacy, with its profound and boundless ignorance of such things doesn’t feel the need to solicit such counsel, especially the ones that would tell them what they desperately NEED to hear, but do not want tp hear.

            I sometimes think these guys think the Lord’s Prayer starts, “Our Government who are in Washington.”

      • JP

        Except that he forbade the priests to pray in from of the clinics. And any priest who valued their career, they threat was made loud and clear.

    • Stilbelieve

      There is some insight into the Archbishop’s mind when he framed the issue this way, ” When you say ‘we cannot politicize the communion rail,'” that’s assuming the interviewer quoted him correctly. Abortion is not a political issue; it is a spiritual one. It was only made “political” by the Democratic Party. For all Catholics, abortion should be thought of as a spiritual matter – do Catholics really believe God is the giver of life? Do they really want what they pray for in the Lord’s Prayer standing before Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist – praying for God’s will to be done on earth? Is it God’s will that he create life so that it can be aborted? That’s not political, that’s spiritual. Catholics own salvation is at stake in how they answer and act on those 3 questions.

  • St JD George

    It seems to me that throughout history there have not been too many who could speak with similar boldness, fearlessness and clarity as Christ did. We are definitely in an age where it seems there is nobody who has those gifts sadly and so messaging is gets muddled. I do think it’s helpful to think of our clergy as being Godly men, but men first and foremost who are not above reacting to the world around them and are not angels sent to us from heaven. They are certainly more learned and have devoted their lives, but in the end we are all in the same barque, must all help each other and collectively figure out the best way to share the good news with others … and boldly.

  • JP

    “Second, while Archbishop Cupich is correct in saying the communion rail
    is not the place to discuss a person’s worthiness to receive Holy
    Communion, this is not what the Church in fact proposes.”

    In other words, Archbishop Cupich is guilty of using the informal fallacy known as disambiguation, also known as a Straw man. Saint Paul would have argued that Bishops who forbade sinners from taking Communion are in fact performing an Act of Mercy.

    If you want the truth, I am really tired of this debate. In the end, the Bishops will do as they damn well please, irregardless of the eternal consequences. I would not be surprised if Archbishop Cupich welcomed and encouraged that question so he could be put on record of supporting abortion (which, when it comes down to it, is exactly what he is doing). How many souls are being steered towards Hell by our bishops only God knows.

    • fredx2

      I don’t think it is fair at all to say that Cupich is in favor of abortion.

      • JP

        For the record, he and every Bishop are not in favor of abortion. Officially, they are all against it. However, there is a 40 year paper trail of our bishops equivocating, issuing muddied statements, refusing to fraternally correct, teach, at times discipline their flocks that I used to think they were just meek and defensive on this issue. It is rare to find a well known metropolitan bishop like the late Cdl O’Connor, who openly threatened not only Governor Mario Cuomo, but Rep Ferraro with excommunication if they continued to publicly support abortion.

        In recent years I get the impression that many of our Bishops look at abortion like they do the use of artificial birth control. My impressions are that most bishops no longer believe its use rise to the level of Mortal Sin. But, no one dare admit it. Instead, they just don’t teach it. Humanae Vitae, in their eyes is about as dated as the old belief in Limbo. And I believe if you were to get get them to admit it, I think a majority of our Bishops do believe that abortion no longer should be treated as something intrinsically evil. That is, there are a few case where it should be allowed. But, again they would never admit that in public. Hence, you have the actions and words of Bishop Cupich.

        • disqus_NvJwtmmluz

          Cupich and other clerics, like him, are luke warm. And we know what Our Lord said about the “luke warm” in Revelation.

      • RufusChoate

        He is clearly a tacit supporter from his action in his previous see. It is obvious.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        I don’t think that he is. But I’m wondering just what he thinks we ought to do about it: does he favor the “seamless garment” approach, for example?

  • Felix Martin

    There is no need to condemn the archbishop for expressing his belief on Christ and His command to break the bread in memory of Jesus Christ . I could not accept the comment that the archbishop is recently installed bishop who needs more maturity to talk in public . I strongly endorse his view on Eucharist which is a sacrament that brings grace , conversion and forgiveness of sins . These words have come from Biblical expert who has long meditated on the subject , and has not spoken any theoretical understanding. God bless him.

    • GG

      The Eucharist does not forgive mortal sin.

      • JP

        You picked up on that too.

        • GG

          That was the most shocking part of his answer.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you Catholic?

      • ColdStanding

        I believe that asking that question was made illegal at VII. Certainly answering yes makes one suspect.

      • Felix Martin

        Yes I am a true Catholic like the archbishop.

    • Augustus

      The archbishop is misrepresenting sacramental theology and ignoring canon law. By endorsing his errors, so are you.

      • ForChristAlone

        Well put, Augustus!

      • Felix Martin

        I am convinced that the archbishop’s statement is based on Pauline theology and scripture . Scripture is written under the divine guidance of Holy Spirit . So , I don’t think that the archbishop has done errors. The scripture is more important and it should be guide to other theologies. Even the church which condemned the scientist who said that the the earth is globe amended its mistake later. The archbishop’s error may be tomorrow’s foundation for new theology. Please don’t condemn the archbishop , please .

        • GG

          Huh ???

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      So we don’t need the Sacrament of Penance anymore?

      • Felix Martin

        Please read Matthew 26:28 ,”This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins “. Paul also says that everybody has fallen short of perfection . Therefore everyone needs the grace of God ,and we are saved not by our righteousness but by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ . Please understand that Jesus is the most gracious Lord . Can we say with certainty that all the catholics including me will reach heaven

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          It’s for God to decide who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and I hope it includes the two of us. But once again, are you saying that the Sacrament of Penance is now superseded?

  • ColdStanding

    Ah, yes, not at the communion rail… no, indeed that’d not do to make a scene there.

    If only there was some other piece of furniture in the church that could be pressed into service. Oh, the want!

    Wait a minute! What about using the pulpit!!

    • fredx2

      Or the confessional.

      • ColdStanding

        Lion in the pulpit. Lamb in the confessional.

        The place for frankness is in the pulpit so that the sinner comes to recognize his short comings and heads to the confessional.

  • Vinny

    Alright! I don’t have to go to reconciliation anymore. If I sin I can just receive communion and I’m all set. So, I guess being in a sinful state actually gives more meaning to receiving communion, otherwise it’s kind of a waste of the sacrament.

    • GG

      Yes, apparently in the new morality that is correct. It is contrary to the teaching of Christ but it suffices for the effete.

    • fredx2

      Well that is a reasonable interpretation of Pope Frnacis’s “The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, it is medicine for the weak”. That seems like a distortion of what the Eucharist really is. If it is medicinal, then the worst people in the world are the most deserving of the Eucharist and the best people need not take it at all.

      • Vinny

        It’s a prize for those who strive to be perfect – who have that unattainable goal in this world. It’s not medicine for those who wallow in weakness.

  • Siwash

    I’m pleased whenever a priest withholds communion in this kind of instance. It sends we faithful the message that our faith really DOES means something in human life.

    In 2014/15 USA, we’re still stuck in the “I’m OK, you’re OK” rut. Well, sometimes people do bad things, wrong things. Abortion’s a nasty business, a killing field, and only the weak-minded think it’s an issue that doesn’t matter.

    I say this, and I’m not one of the big pro-life activist, kind of guy. I think most people think abortion’s nasty stuff.

  • Siwash

    I agree with the columnist’s call for Chicago Catholics to send a note to the guy.

  • Cindy

    I do not reside in the Archdiocese of Chicago but as a Catholic, I feel it is my duty to write the archbishop. I feel strongly the holy father, our bishops and priests should stop giving interviews to secular media, and even to Catholic media if they are publicly known for consistently causing scandal. While the Catholic Church is meant to be salt and light for the world, as our own leaders themselves have admitted, it is mostly the laity that will go out and do the much of the evangelizing in our daily contact in the world. The holy father, bishops, priests and deacons are servants of the laity. Their primary duty is to feed us, the flock. If they focused on their primary duty, instructing, guiding, feeding and strengthening the flock, then the flock would more successfully to out into the world and take the Gospel to those who are not yet in the fold. These interviews to secular media rarely ever have any positive effects. First, they usually end up confusing the flock and sometimes cause scandal. Second, a common result is prelates find themselves needing to be vague, indirect, and unclear to avoid the hot button issue while simultaneously trying to put on a “good face” for the public. It fails because most of the secular world already distrusts them and know they’re purposely avoiding answering the question directly. People are not stupid. Those in positions of power smile at situations like these because they know these bishops are too scared to directly and clearly answer the question.

    Archbishop Cupich did not answer the question here. Everyone knows he purposely tried to deflect and avoid the topic. It is a yes or no question. He knows that what she and everyone else really wants to know is: Will you defy the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the reception of Holy Communion? That’s the real question, which he dodged as best he could. He knows what they’re really asking. So, neither did he go as far as they wanted, neither are any politicians encouraged to change their ways, and now the laity are more scandalized and reaffirmed what they’re doing (if they support abortion) is not grave enough to be unable to receive Our Lord. Wonderful result! Not.

    • ForChristAlone

      Cindy, In my opinion your have given us the most cogent comments on the “Cupich Matter” yet. Thanks for this well-thought out position.

      The only thing I might add is that Cupich seems to have gone to the Jonathan Gruber School of Public Relations and taken tips from the latest Leftist huckster about how to obfuscate.

    • MatensTS

      I’m writing to him too – I am going to encourage him to continue speaking publically and thank him for the wonderfully christian rejuvenation of the Diocese.

      • Augustus

        What’s the point of speaking if you don’t say anything? You must be confused. Cupich has been archbishop for less than a month. The rejuvenation you refer to must be credited to his predecessor Cardinal George. If only Cupich was more like him we would not have this debate.

      • ForChristAlone

        Giving aid and comfort to the enemy

  • fredx2

    I think you have misinterpreted Benedict’s statement:

    “…understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”

    This appears to be aimed at the politician who is a real eager beaver advocate for abortion, who is out there advocating for it on a regular basis – a booster of abortion. It does not say “campaigning OR voting for permissive abortion laws” Both have to be met.

    Since most politicians do not run around campaigning for abortion, they just mindlessly approve laws that they do not understand and have not read, presumably this would lessen their culpability. I suppose that in some circumstances, their ignorance would lead to no mortal sin having been committed. I stand ready to be corrected on this if somebody has a fuller knowledge of the requirements for mortal sin than I do.

    Furthermore, the article elides an important point. From the standpoint of those who advocate abortion, they simply do not believe that a life is taken by abortion. They believe that it is merely a clump of cells. They have been conditioned by media and one sided presentations to believe this is true. Therefore they are fine with abortion, because they do not believe a human life is involved. Again, this lessens the culpability.

    For there to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” Since they quite simply do not believe a human life is involved, does this lessen their culpability?

    • “From the standpoint of those who advocate abortion, they simply do not believe that a life is taken by abortion. They believe that it is merely a clump of cells”

      I don’t buy that for a minute and neither should you.

      That’s the public posturing advanced by practioners of the big and repetitive lie used to make a cold and crass political calculation. It provides them pseudo-intellectual cover to auction their positions and votes on on various measures knowing full well that part of the expenditures they authorize from us will flow generously into their campaign coffers. It’s advertising, not a statement of conscience.

    • JP

      So, are you saying that Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, and a host other Catholic politicians, many who were educated in Catholic high schools, do not understand or are not aware of Church teachings- Especially something as highly publicized as abortion? According to our Catholic Bishops, they have met with these recalcitrant Catholic politicians privately in order to teach them the Truth.

      You’re really stretching it.

    • RufusChoate

      Nonsense, the Left has been obsessed about sterile sex, contraception and abortion since the progressive age of the first decade of the 20th Century. It started as an eugenic program that ended in the gulags and death camps of the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s. It has been refashioned into complete devaluation of sex and an environmental concern.

  • WRBaker

    The new archbishop isn’t alone, has there been even one politician corrected in at least recent memory?
    Perhaps there isn’t an errant politician in every diocese, which I doubt. Perhaps the bishops have never heard of Canon 915 or CCC2272. Perhaps the bishops never heard what the popes have said about their obligations in this matter, despite Cardinal McCarrick’s “forgetfulness.” Perhaps they’ll have another synod, on abortion this time because the Church needs to update itself with Modernity. Perhaps we can all become like the Church of England and have all the bishops votes on what they think everything should be, regardless of what the Magisterium has always said. Perhaps….

  • Something germane to the issue — although slightly tangential to the main point of this article: I wonder whether “shock” or “outrage” or “disgust” are really what’s called for here? Those reactions suggest to me someone completely knocked off his or her balance — someone nobody perceives to be — someone who in fact cannot be — an effective cultural warrior. How much energy is righteously to be expended on such extravagantly passive emotions? Rather, don’t the times call for cool, saavy, experienced adult Christians who well understand what bad things go on in this world — and who stand perfectly and calmly poised to oppose them?

    • Harry

      I would add a little to your advice: If we put into our Pro-life efforts only human wisdom and effort, we only get human results out. In the end we lose because we, by ourselves, using the wisdom of the world, are no match for the Prince of this world, the deceiver, who offers “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” to our human opponents — whether or not they are consciously aware of it

      If our Pro-life activism springs from fervent prayer, and if we genuinely abandon ourselves to God’s plan (instead of sticking to our own safe, not too uncomfortable plan) we put the same human effort into it, but get divine results out. In other words, when we prayerfully go with God’s “out of our comfort zone, faith is required” plan, we go with God’s power. The Prince of the world is no match at all for God’s power. But faith on our part is required. Christ mentions all through the Gospels that it was someone’s faith that brought forth the miraculous power of God.

      For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” — 1 Jn 3:8

      But faith on our part is required.

      This isn’t just the pious imaginings of an old man. I have seen this approach (faith-is-required Pro-life activism that springs from fervent prayer) get amazing results here in Kansas.

      • Right on, plus a certain equanimity is called for. As in: “Love NEVER FAILS.” The saints — for instance, look at St John Paul II — are always coming from a place of knowing the ground they stand on is infinitely more solid than the ground on which their opponent stands. I’m not claiming this such an easy place to find — but we must understand it’s the NECESSARY place to find as cultural warriors. We must prayerfully work our way beyond those admittedly perfectly natural learning stages of being “shocked” and “outraged” etc.

  • hombre111

    Something that pro-life people consistently fail to grasp is that a pro-choice person might not be pro-abortion. You cannot confuse the two. That lack of mental sophistication reduces the value of this article. Many, like my Presbyterian minister friend, are typical Americans who believe that freedom is the highest of all values. He is consistent with his belief and argues that the government should not block choice. But he also believes that abortion is immoral. The issue in this pluralistic society should be contested in the cultural, and not the political arena. The decision to fight it out there contributes to the division that is destroying our society.

    • John Albertson

      And where is the limit? Freedom to kill at three months gestation but not six months, or six months but not ninth months? And, to be consistent, should there be freedom to kill at the moment of birth or even after? What a tangled web we weave. It is hypocritical of many whom claim to be “pro-life” yet want to legalize abortion which is an intrinsic evil, to nonetheless insist on prohibiting capital punishment which may prudentially be opposed but which is not an intrinsic evil..

    • ForChristAlone

      Please just stay away. The fact that you are a Catholic priest gives scandal.

      • Objectivetruth

        I don’t believe he is a priest. Look at his posts. They consistently read like a cut and paste from a liberal, anti Catholic website.

        • GG

          To quote the great and holy nun who reformed Catholicism in America… He might be a priest but he ain’t Catholic.

        • ForChristAlone

          I would hope that were the case. But if he says he’s a priest, then those who are on the brink of entering the Church might be dissuaded on account of his presenting himself as such and at the same time giving moral scandal.

    • JP

      Well, if we must parse words I suggest we use Pro-Abortion to describe those who support and perform abortions.

    • GG

      There is no such thing as pro choice. That is a demonic lie. Are you pro choice on rape? Genocide? Racism? Give us all a break and stop with the propaganda terms. Pro choice is always and everywhere pro abortion.

      • hombre111

        It is really hard to have a discussion with readers who live within a closed loop. I put in my time during the forty days in front of our local Planned Parenthood. Did you? (Interesting discussions with the Evangelicals screaming and hollering down the street. They kept yelling, Mary will not help you!).

        Anyway, my point was, when we repent and are honest, there are a lot of pro-choice people who would never consider abortion.

        • GG

          What is the coherent logic in any of what you wrote?

          Pro choice is a lie. It is a cover. Pro choice is always pro abortion. To deny that is dishonest. That some are blind to the truth does not change the objective nature of the lie.

          There is no moral choice to murder. Again, are you pro choice on rape? I mean you may chose not to take but if someone else does who are you to judge?

          The idea “pro choice” is a legitimate position or use of language is facile and manipulative.

          The only one stuck in a loop is you. Your close minded and subjectivistic view of reality precludes you from seeing what is right before you…murder.

          • Objectivetruth

            Excellent.

            • GG

              Note the logic and moral reasoning he presents. Simple relativism.

              It is as if 1972 is still going on. There is no excuse in this day and age to bind oneself to passé and childish subjectivism.

        • M.J.

          Apologies Rev.Father, on behalf of many who seem to misunderstand your good intention and efforts , to bring out the point that one has to be very careful and discerning , not to become a murderer through hatred, of those who seem to be sinners .
          The debt of gratitude towards priests through whom The Lord makes His very Presence to us and in the grace of repentance , wiping away our debt of often being lukewarm and indffrent to His Presence and of His mercy on behalf of all in our lives – may The Lord bless you and all in your life, for the Fathelry heart that want to bless those who persecute too !

          • hombre111

            Thank you.

          • GG

            Save it. Those who spread error and lies do not serve the Truth. To defend error is a sin.

          • ForChristAlone

            Hombre, it’s bad enough that you’ve returned. Now you’ve brought your friends with you (M.J)

        • Objectivetruth

          “I asked her, “is this what Jesus would do?”

          Don’t you think (if you truly are a priest) the priestly and pastorally correct thing would be to tell a young, frightened girl looking for clear guidance from someone with spiritual authority “this is not what Jesus wants you to do.”

          • hombre111

            My style is to put the answer to the question into the mouth of the person, because that person already knows what I would say. The woman’s answer revealed the depth of her depravity and self-deception. As soon as she said that, I knew her mind was totally closed, and further discussion was impossible.

        • ForChristAlone

          You know this one, you know that one, you know another one.

          The one thing that you should know but don’t is that you promised to go away and stay away. You know that you are not keeping to your word. Get lost.

          • hombre111

            Heh, heh. ForChristAlone is uncomfortable outside his closed loop.

            • ForChristAlone

              From a man whose word is not worth the bytes on this page.

        • Objectivetruth

          “The girl, whose father hated blacks, was pregnant by a black member of the football team. the mother looked me in the eye, and answered, “yes.”

          C’mon hombre…….seriously??

          • hombre111

            Yep. I can remember that as if it was yesterday. The girl went to California and went through a series of abortions.

    • Objectivetruth

      “Something that pro-life people consistently fail to grasp is that a pro-choice person might not be pro-abortion. You cannot confuse the two. ”

      Diabolical ventriloquy. I believe you might be a demon.

    • Right on cue, the poster boy for wishy washy chimes in.

      Yeah and a Nazi might not actually have favored the “final solution”.

      Your friend doesn’t believe in freedom, he believes in license.

      Still can’t abide your promise not to post, huh?

    • RufusChoate

      Shallow sophistry and pretentious hubris is tedious. It is easy to extend the same ethical formulation to support murdering the poor.

    • Harry

      Your Presbyterian minister friend’s position is incoherent. To see this, substitute slavery for abortion:

      Something that abolitionists consistently fail to grasp is that a pro-choice person might not be pro-slavery. You cannot confuse the two. That lack of mental sophistication reduces the value of this article. Many, like my Presbyterian minister friend, are typical Americans who believe that freedom is the highest of all values. He is consistent with his belief and argues that the government should not block choice. But he also believes that slavery is immoral.

      So your Presbyterian minister friend, regarding slavery, would be saying, “If you are opposed to slavery, don’t buy one. But respect the choice of others to buy one.”

      • GG

        Exactly, it is an intellectually dishonest position.

        Ask the baby their view on this.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      But father, how many people, especially if they are confused or ambiguous, actually note that distinction?

      • GG

        There is no distinction.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Yes, that’s my point as well.

      • hombre111

        It is an important distinction to make, to avoid slander. Seeing reality from within a closed loop is not just something conservatives do when it comes to Right to Life. Liberals do it when they reduce our moral struggle to an “attempt to control women.” I see this all the time in the New York Times and in other secular online magazines, such as Salon. I challenge it when I can. Right now, I am in an argument with feminists on this issue over at the Daily Beast. They also cuss me out as a troll.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          I haven’t done that, just wanted some focus. i think that it’s also different if private individuals are “pro-choice,” but “anti-abortion,” as opinion polls often seem to indicate. BUT……… I argue that it’s a different order of magnitude when that position is espoused by highly visible Catholic politicians, who seek the mantle of the Church’s legitimacy while inevitably providing cover for something that is, and always will be, intrinsically evil in the eyes of the Church. And if Nancy Pelosi is “personally opposed” to abortion, it comfort me enormously if she’d actually elaborate that position. So far she’s never done so, nor has any other public Catholic like her.

  • TERRY

    Life begins at conception and abortion is never permitted, no matter what the circumstances. Why is it even a question?

    ‘Catholic’ politicians who take positions favorable to abortion – funding, etc. – should not present themselves for communion. (Kerry, Biden, Cuomo, Pelosi, Sibelius, etc.) The fact that they do so so shamelessly is on their souls. Their Bishops should contact them privately and tell them not to go to communion, and then instruct the priests in their dioceses to refuse them communion. If it causes a stir, it causes a stir. Next up is the blather about separation of church and state – let’s be ready for that argument.

    OMT – one of Joe Biden’s favorite arguments is that he would never impose his ‘beliefs’ on others. I would settle for his defending them, and in today’s democratic party that is NOT going to happen.

  • ptmurphy

    Has the bishop issued a retraction/clarification? If not, this piece seems like wishful thinking.

  • ColdStanding

    Isn’t it odd that the 100’s of times the time the bishops have told people to repent and believe in the Gospel, it is in one ear and out the other. The minute there is even a hint of permission off their lips and certain types are suddenly all ears.

    • Yes, quite the opinion shoppers aren’t they?

  • Guest

    This open letter Archbishop Cupich asks questions it would be impossible for him answer.
    http://prolifecorner.com/an-open-letter-to-archbishop-cupich/

  • Maggie Sullivan

    This open letter to Archbishop Cupich asks questions he could not possibly answer.

    http://prolifecorner.com/an-open-letter-to-archbishop-cupich/

    Please consider contacting the Archbishop and ask him about this.

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

    Phone: 312-534-8230
    E-Mail: archbishop@archchicago.org

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. ”
    Not mortal sins! Forgiveness for those take place in the confessional, not the altar rail.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “In light of these teachings, it is likely that Archbishop Cupich either misspoke or was not sufficiently aware of Cardinal Ratzinger and Bergoglio’s teaching.”
    Yeah, that’s it.

  • Brian L Duffy

    Why do we continue to give these guys a free pass and not storm the
    buildings and throw them out on the street like Catholics would have
    done centuries ago? The author of the article gives Cupich a free
    pass, yet Cupich has higher degree of intelligence than most, and no
    doubt said what he really meant. Stop defending the undefendable.

    • GG

      What makes you think he is smarter than most?

    • Augustus

      The author is using diplomacy to encourage the archbishop to do the right thing. Bishops are human like the rest of us. They are less receptive to demands made in anger, even if the demand is in principle right. If the archbishop refuses to do the right thing once given an opportunity, we will know that he meant what he said.

      • Brian L Duffy

        Pope St Pius X said in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” that it’s not worth being nice to a modernist. We are living in an epoch that was long ago predicted and people still want to play diplomat. We are not called to be diplomats, we are called to be the Church Militant, soldiers; it’s time we started to get serious about this supernatural combat we are engaged and stop playing tiddly winks.

        • Augustus

          In general, I don’t disagree with you. Our difference is over tactics. We need to first establish beyond doubt that Cupich is a modernist. Once this is fully accepted by all honest observers, then we as laity can speak plainly about his cowardly policies. Of course, it’s difficult to defy in practical terms the actions of a sitting archbishop. But we can certainly speak frankly about his scandalous leadership. Unfortunately, he will not be removed until his retirement at age 75. Pray for Chicago.

  • Michael Bukala

    This bishop is WRONG! He calls it the communion rail or communion. The
    communion rails have been removed long ago to discredit Christ’s REAL PRESENCE
    in the EUCHARIST. It is not communion, it is HOLY COMMUNION because it is CHRIST
    HIMSELF. HOLY COMMUNION IS THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS
    CHRIST. NO person in a state of MORTAL SIN should approach Holy Communion. This
    bishop will be held accountable for his lack of TRUE compassion to the LOST
    souls entrusted in his care. He is also NOT defending the HOLINESS and INTEGRITY
    of CHRIST’S TRUE PRESENCE in the EUCHARIST. This bishop and his minions will be
    judged by GOD, for allowing such SACRILIGE and the loss of those MISGUIDED
    Catholics, who support the evil sin of Abortion.

    • R. K. Ich

      If a self-professed Catholic asserts that women have a right to murder their children, that is a worse heresy than Arianism or gnosticism. It is a heresy against the character of God and nature. That is no Catholic.

  • RufusChoate

    If you are really curious about the integrity and morality of Cupich please go to the National Catholic Reporters and search for his name to discover what the assorted odd boys (“married” homosexuals etc..) heretics and Priestesses think of him. They all give him a two big thumbs up.

    Cupich is a Leftist and pro-abortion and I suspect his weasel like visage conceals other sins.

  • Vincent

    Communion rail? When’s the last time anyone has seen one of those…. Haven’t they along with traditional catholic teaching been politely removed from our churches?

    • R. K. Ich

      Thankfully not all removed. But you are right – traditional structures and doctrine were more offensive in their mind than the cultural chaos they accepted.

  • Tony

    What is the most disappointing moral failure of the Church in the twentieth century? Was it not that the German bishops did not heed the Vatican on the evil of Nazism, that they thought Catholics could be Nazi supporters in good conscience? Exactly how many Nazis do we believe converted from their evil by being welcomed to receive Communion while wearing the swastika? How many pro-abortionists have been converted from THEIR evil by being welcomed to receive Communion, while wearing shirt sleeves stained in the blood of children? None, none at all.

    Now we hang our heads in shame at THEIR inaction. What will future Catholics say about us?

  • Jdonnell

    Good for Cupich. We need more bishops who are alert to the realities of life. Those who oppose his remarks on politicians and Communion are silent about politicians who support making wars and vote against help for the poor and hungry or keep the death penalty in place. The selective manner of making abortion the sole criterion of what state a soul is in vis a vis reception of the Eucharist is blatant hypocrisy.

    • ForChristAlone

      Wrong on all counts.

      • Jdonnell

        Your unsupported claims are meaningless, though one would not expect you to be aware of that.

        • ForChristAlone

          You’re still wrong on all counts.

          • Jdonnell

            Saying so doesn’t make it so. Repeating your empty claim only further exposes your idiocy.

            • ForChristAlone

              You continue to be wrong.

    • Harry

      Hello, Jdonnell,

      You are wrong. Support of abortion is not the same as supporting what one believes to be a just war, or supporting the death penalty in certain situations where one believes it is necessary:

      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.
      — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 2004

      The above is an excerpt from Ratzinger’s letter to Theodore E. McCarrick, then archbishop of Washington and head of the “domestic policy” commission of the United States bishops’ conference. The letter included precise instructions for the American bishops prohibiting giving communion to pro-abortion politicians who persisted in their refusal to repent of openly advocating abortion rights.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Just as one is not obliged to support unproductive “antipoverty” programs which, beyond their labels, may or may not be effective. The disastrous Great Society initiatives of the 1960s, which “progressive” Catholics at the time instructed us to endorse, are an especially glaring case in point.

        • Harry

          Right. People need to stop thinking in terms of “left” and “right” and think in terms of “self serving ruling class” and “everybody else.”

          Immigration is an issue where looking at things this way is needed. The heart of the problem is that many people live in countries with an elite, self serving ruling class that has no interest in the common good. The ruling class leaves everybody else in such countries in poverty with no prospects of changing their situation — so they want to come to the U.S. And they do.

          This increases the size of the American work force tremendously. The law of supply and demand then inevitably drives down wages for American workers and drives up unemployment among American citizens. This increases American poverty.

          The reduced wages benefits the “establishment Republican” wing of the ruling class who serve the interests of multinational corporations, not America. The increase in poverty and government dependency benefits the Democrat “godless social engineering,” anti-life, anti-family wing of the ruling class. More people on government assistance means more Democrat voters to keep these godless social engineers in power.

          America, like a family with children, can only welcome so many needy people into its “house” before its own children are reduced to poverty. If nothing changes we will end up exactly like the countries those immigrating to the U.S. are fleeing from.

          All of the above appears to be lost on the American bishops. There are many ways to help the needy of other countries besides inviting all of them to “come live in our house,” which, albeit indirectly, but nonetheless forcefully, promotes the anti-life, anti-family agenda of our godless ruling class as was described above.

          The American bishops need to exhort Americans to make use of other traditional means of being charitable to the needy in other countries. They should also point out that the heart of the problem is injustice perpetrated by self serving ruling classes on ordinary people, instead of continuing with their stupid, politically correct promotion of the the notion that every needy person in the world ought to come to America, and that any Catholic who points out that there is a limit to how many people can live in the American “house” is a heartless sinner.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            I think they’ve forgotten that charity can exist and serve noble purposes APART from some federally-funded program. Take for example the invisible acts of mercy that neighbors rendered to neighbors of family members to each other during the Great Depression, wholly apart from the New Deal programs of the Roosevelt administration. In one instance I’m familiar with, three sons joined the US Navy in 1932 at $21 per month in pay. Every cent of it was sent home every month to Ma and Pa and the younger children still at home, and kept the family afloat during the rough years of the era. The corporal works of mercy in action, you could say.

    • GG

      Such nonsense. The hypocrisy os claiming fidelity to Christ while rejecting His teachings.

      • Jdonnell

        The nonsense is making claims about Christ’s teachings that aren’t his and in addition are lacking in charity.

        • GG

          No, I refer to the teachings of the Church, not left wing ideologues who substitute their 1972 superficial ideology as Church moral theology.

          • Jdonnell

            No, you specifically referred to Christ’s (“His teachings”) which are not exactly the teachings of the Church–like being damned for eating meat on Fridays, one of those on-off teachings.

    • RufusChoate

      You and Cupich are really not that unusual. People who wish to ignore mass murder while supporting the comprehensive Socialist state control of charity, the destruction of normative private institutions and the theft of the economic wealth of a nation while advocating against the use of capital punishment for crimes against individuals are a quite normal type of Leftist.

      The Soviets outlawed Capital Punish, legalized Abortion and outlaw Charity and 68 to 100 million innocents died (not including the untolds millions of children killed in the womb) while sensitive enlightened people like Jdonnell and Cupich grew fat on the spoils.

      • Jdonnell

        You ignore the bishops condemnation of the US going to war in Iraq or their opposition to capital punishment.
        But, you talk like a madman and are not worth responding to. Your remarks about history are fantasy.

  • FreemenRtrue

    McCarrick the heretic was exultant when PF started all his inane statements.

  • Florian

    Dec. 11th…we have too long been using a word that has grown limpid: abortion. A pilot can ‘abort’ a flight because of engine trouble; a gala event can be aborted because of inclement weather but these can begin again as soon as situations change. In the case of the human baby in the womb, once that life has been aborted, it can never be restarted. We need to begin using the phrase: “termination of human life” – this presents a more graphic reality of what is taking place. Would Nancy Pelosi stand before the masses and declare that, although personally opposed, she would continue to aggressively and publicly promote unlimited access to the termination of human life? And we should go further and speak forcefully about the mass ‘extermination’ of human life since Roe vs. Wade. And would our Bishops declare that those who promote the termination of human life are nonetheless Catholics in good standing with the Church and therefore should receive the Body and Blood of Christ? We are horrified by what ISIS is doing and by accounts of torture carried out by the CIA – why are we not so horrified by what takes place in the wombs of mothers when human babies are cut to pieces – especially after watching a video of that baby trying to back away from the abortionist’s scalpel? Why would anyone be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion if those who aid and abet the mass slaughter of humans babies are not prohibited?

    • Tony

      I use the phrase “baby snuffing.” It is time to call things by their proper names.

  • M.J .

    ‘ I confess to Almighty God , to you my brothers and sisters ..’ – thus Holy Mother Church invites us , to enter into the Holy Presence, for all occasions when we have failed to live up to the dignity offered to every life, made in The Image of The Father , even as we recieve The Eucharist , in awe and gratitude for the very palpable Presence of the Father’s love and mercy , for each and every person in our lives too ..for the little one in the womb , waiting for the warm acknowledgement of the parents , in how the baby too , is the tiny image of the Father ,in turn, to bless the parents , those in the lives of those parents , including the Father reps in the churches , with that very awe inspiring truth !
    Many might be familiar with the Church approved apparition and request for a Feast , in honor of The Father ; would same help atleast a good many , to have more of an awareness of The Father ‘s Presence in their own lives such that any deep hidden fear or hatred in the depth of own hearts thus get washed away , to allow them to be persons who cherish life !
    True , The Lord does reveal to us The Father and those who vehemently refuse to hear the words – ‘ wwhy are you persecuting Me !” – efforts to discern and deal with such hardness of hearts , through regular prayers /petitions , in churches , in honor of life as a gift , to honor The Father and to bring His goodness io others as well – such means of conversion including prayers for deliverance at parish wide levels all might be needed where such desecrations take place publicly even though hidden forms of same , in all the Sauls who agree with the murders also would need to be addressed !
    Parish wide courses in the well known detrimental effects of abortion on the parents as well as even family lines , to be offerd through fliers and video presentations can be another means to bring light and repentance and compassion .

    The faithful can always pray and fast , including Divine Mercy prayers – ‘ have mercy on us !’ to include the parents and babies as well as family members of the offender who all have been affected .
    Trusting in The Lord’s promise of grace , by helping to promote the Image of Divine Mercy – to have same in churches , that every life may be seen in and through the Son also is another neglected aspect !
    http://www.divinemercyart.org/

  • Micha Elyi

    Pro Tip: Prepare before appearing on headline-bait TV talk shows.

    This applies as much to Princes of the Church as to Princes of Politics. (Duh.)

  • ITBWTW

    This biship is a doozy! That because there were not enough Altar Girls and women presiders at his induction ceremony. Forget the Faith, We need more feminization to take cown the Church he is supposed to protect and grow. Cupich is leading us straight into Polilitcal correctiness, a temproal level of Hell, and the manifestation of the 8th Commandment…though shalt not bear false witness. We need everyone, especially MEN to stand up against this wayward prelate and defend the faith and its morals..

    • Kathwick

      Because obviously, women have no place in the Catholic church and feminization is a terrible thing.

  • TERRY

    Recommended reading

    “Confronting the Language Empowering the Culture of Death – The Thoughts of John Paul II.”

    Ave Maria Press.

    It’s really not complicated at all – either you support abortion or you don’t.

  • cnmarrelli

    Archbishop Cupich is confirming the continuation of “un-Catholic” cafeteriaism! It gives credence to the Catholicism of anti-Catholic behavior. It’s the kind of attitude that helps perpetuate the slaughter of our pre-born American citizens; we’ve been depriving Christ of his little ones for 41 years, and counting, and with not one Bishop martryed.
    Writers for Life at prolifedigest.com.

  • Kathy Wickward

    Let’s take this stance to its logical conclusion, shall we? If a politician is to take the stance to make sin illegal in order to fulfill the commandment to receive Holy Communion as commanded by Jesus Himself in Scripture, then they should also be similarly spiritually coerced to introduce bills to make divorce, adultery, non-Christian religions, and conspicuous consumption illegal. But that would be insane, wouldn’t it? If a politician decides that it is God alone who should judge certain sins, it is not the business of the church to use Holy Communion to change his or her mind. That puts the Catholic politician in an unfair double bind. You might as well excommunicate that person and be done with it, as was done in times medieval. That way we’ll keep the church “pure” and we can safely call anyone who disagrees with us “not Catholic.”

    • craig

      As far back as Augustine it was understood that it is not always wise to outlaw a particular evil, because attempting to enforce such a law may introduce more evils than it prevents. So whether to advocate for a particular bill is a matter of prudential judgment which is rightly the sphere of the laity. The necessary distinction is between advocacy for a particular law that tolerates evil, and advocacy for the evil itself. Plenty of Catholic politicians already deserve censure for the latter, and don’t get any of it from their bishop.

MENU