Cardinal Bernardin and Church Militant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t speak personally, but justly or not, I think his mixed reputation comes mostly from the fruits of things he came up with. The “seamless garment” metaphor–which, properly understood is a good one–is often used to disproportionately minimize or equate the unspeakable crime of abortion with other lesser threats to life or even matters of political judgment with multiple moral answers. Likewise, the CCHD he started tends to have issues with compromise with the world.

The more out-there stuff comes from the idea that one of the characters in one of Malachi Martin’s books was based on him. Unfortunately, there are people who take that as Gospel truth.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The fact that the late Cardinal is the subject of irrational criticism does negate rational criticism of his public record (not the man himself, RIP).
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it does negate any reason to pay attention to the irrational, such as CM. If there is a more rational discussion of his record, maybe we should discuss that.

To echo what others have said, why this continued focus on a guy that passed some time ago?
 
Genesis315 said:
, I think his mixed reputation comes mostly from the fruits of things he came up with. The “seamless garment” metaphor–which, properly understood is a good one–is often used to disproportionately minimize or equate the unspeakable crime of abortion with other lesser threats to life or even matters of political judgment with multiple moral answers. Likewise, the CCHD he started tends to have issues with compromise with the world.
Click to expand...
Fruits.

In my diocese people who took the step “legal abortion is wrong but we have to give equal attention to every issue” later took the step that abortion should be legalized.

Prolifers are the only ones who are warned against focusing on an issue.

We live in a time when countless Catholics have been led, by Bernardin and others, to embrace the morality of the Secular world. He didn’t exactly lead them all the way over the cliff, but led them to follow the media rather than the Natural Law, not only on abortion. The media and college led them the last step over the cliff.

Many went on to take the next steps.

Bernardin wasn’t the only one, but he was influential at a crucial moment.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
why this continued focus on a guy that passed some time ago?
Click to expand...
A lot of problems people blame Vatican 2 for really began with people like Bernardin, and more so, his powerful mentor(?) Cardinal Dearden, who was first president of USCCB.

It should be noted both these men were formed and educated before V2. We should give some attention to how we got where we are now. But even good people with good intentions can misread the situation and help cause long range problems as they did.

You are right about avoiding excessive fixation on the past, or any one person. Focus on catechesis and Evangelism in the present.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is exactly correct, and the heart of the matter.

Cardinal Bernardin gets bashed for being too liberal. He was a good and holy bishop.

There’s nothing wrong with the Seamless Garment, it doesn’t claim that capital punishment or euthanasia are equal to abortion; but rather that a consistent ethic on life is what we need.
Anyone who can count understands there is no comparison between 60 million babies killed by abortion compared to maybe a few hundred executions in the same time period. We should be against all of these attacks on life, but, obviously abortion [correctly] gets the lion’s share of the attention. That’s what preeminent means, more important than the other issues, not that the other issues don’t matter.
Click to expand...
Also, Cardinal Bernardin was on the cover of the Chicago papers dozens and dozens of times with allegations against him regarding sexual impropriety. Years later, when the young man admitted it was false guess how many times the newspapers corrected their stories, and guess what pages they were featured on?

Chicago is among the most difficult Sees in our nation to manage, and regardless of who the Cardinal Archbishop happens to be, he is always criticized from both sides. It’s been that way at least since Cardinal Mundelein. Cardinal George was hammered for being too conservative and authoritarian, and now Cupich for being too liberal and too ethereal.

Not even Ditka could run that See.

Deacon Christopher
 
Diaconia said:
Also, Cardinal Bernardin was on the cover of the Chicago papers dozens and dozens of times with allegations against him regarding sexual impropriety. Years later, when the young man admitted it was false guess how many times the newspapers corrected their stories, and guess what pages they were featured on?
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt what you’re saying, however I do remember when the Cardinal died, the national TV news made a point of saying he’d been accused and then cleared when the purported victim recanted his accusation. I remember this really clearly because I never spent much time in Chicago and had no idea who Cardinal Bernardin was, but the story about his vindication and heroic death stuck in my mind. So at least the television news announced this loud and clear even if written sources did not.
 
I’m glad that you verified what I concluded from afar. I read two of his books, Consistent Ethic of Life, and his autobiography, The Gift of Peace. I was impressed that the first book included the responses of several of his critics. That showed a willingness for dialogue. The autobiography, written when he was already battling cancer, told, among other things, his side of the allegation of sexual impropriety and the resolution. I was convinced that he was telling the truth.

Though I never met Cardinal Bernardin, I have met our own retired Cardinal Mahony, who has also been embroiled in controversy over the years. But the man of God that I met was certainly not the one-dimensional villain that he has sometimes been portrayed to be by his critics, and I am certain it is the same with Cardinal Bernardin.
 
At its best, the Church reaffirms and emphasized those truths that are, at the moment, in danger of being forgotten. When a genuine prophet speaks out, the response is not “How dare he say that!” nor “Yeah, that’s exactly what’s on our minds lately”.

The response to an actual prophet is “Why is he still bringing up that old issue?” or “Wasn’t that already decided some time ago”?

Cardinal O’Connor of NYC was an actual prophet. He didn’t deny the truths then current in the Mass media, he chose to emphasize truths that, at the moment, were omitted.

Cardinal Bernardin, especially at the USCCB, and in his sees, didn’t teach heresy but emphasized truths that were very prevelant in the media. He de emphasized truths that were still important, but were being forgotten in America at that time (like the Natural Law).
 
Last edited:
Some object to his Seamless Garment approach or Consistent Ethic of Life as they (wrongly in my view) view that as a moral equivocation of abortion to other life issues.

Not me… pro-life for the whole life. Bernadin was very good and ahead of his time.

PS - Voris proves once again that he is not interested in doing any thing constructive.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know him personally, but read a fair amount of what he said and did.

I also knew an awful lot of seminarians, young priests and sisters and lay teachers whose views were the same as his, in terms of the Church, politics, and the media.

That generation has mostly passed away, or are close to retirement. Sure, there’s a whole lot of young Catholics who share Bernardin’s views on politics and the media, though they may not know his name, but they aren’t going into priesthood, the convent, or lay ministry. Unlike Bernardin, they are prochoice. He didn’t intend that development but he facilitated it.

The few who are going into priesthood and religious life tend to be much much more doctrinal, much more skeptical of the media than the earlier generation.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
40.png
yankeesouth:
40.png
John9:
robust debate
Click to expand...
I don’t think CM or other orthodox Catholic media are looking for debate. There should be no debate on the teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...
CM is not in union with its bishop Ordinary. Thus, it isn’t a Catholic media, or Catholic ministry, at all.

Confer Pascendi 50 - 53; Vatican 2 Document on Social Communications; Code of Canon Law, among other sources.
Click to expand...
The fact that they obeyed their Ordinary and changed their name to comply with his decree indicates that they are on better terms than some who simply refuse the same order.
 
I think if they didn’t changed their name there could be legal actions.
 
Doesn’t seem to be any legal consequences for NCR.

To the topic: it seems the biggest battles we fight are based on two different conceptions of what is good. Bernardin acted according to his vision of good, and so does CM. CM would do well to remember that. In fact, so would all Catholic media.
 
Whether there were really legal consequences or not doesn’t matter much, as it has to be pushed by the Church.

Maybe CM thought there would be effective legal consequences, while NCR refused to comply and was simply ignored by the Church’s lawyers.

What is important here would be to ask a lawyer (I know there are plenty here) if a newspaper can be lawsuited for taking a Church’s name.
 
Last edited:
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
CM would do well to remember that. In fact, so would all Catholic media.
Click to expand...
Not a Catholic media.

In civil law there is no legal protection for the word “Catholic”. It is used by groups on the Left (National Catholic Reporter), on the right (Catholic Family News) and fundamentalist (Mission to Catholics) all without permission of the Church.

But in Canon Law, which has only moral force, Catholics are forbidden to operate religious media without permission of their local bishop Ordinary, whether they include the word “Catholic” or not.

It’s not better, but rather a little less bad, for them to drop the word Catholic. To their slight credit, they changed their name to Church Militant (I mean, who’d ever think that term implies Catholic, doesn’t everybody use it?)

But the real issue is not just the word “Catholic”.
 
Catholicculture also reported on allegations that Bernardin made by the late Richard Sipe, who was an expert on sexual abuse in the Church.


Also, James Grein (who was abused by McCarrick) also alleged that Bernardin molested him.

Whatever the truth of these allegations, they should be investigated, not ignored.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
Whatever the truth of these allegations, they should be investigated, not ignored.
Click to expand...
Why? The man is dead. Do you think some sort of evidence is preserved in some vault to be found? Even when civilization was just beginning there was a requirement that there be two witnesses to the same act find guilt.

Exactly what good is going to come of investigating a crime that cannot be proven and is now irrelevant?
 
That wasn’t my point, sorry if unclear. I mean to say a fair amount of Catholic media and commentary tends to assume ill intent on the part of those they disagree with, be it traditionalists vs progressives, or vice versa.

The reality is that the vast majority are just trying to serve the Church in the manner they think best. Perhaps they are wrong, but to cast aspersions on their character as if they want to tear the Church down is probably ineffective and ill advised, in my opinion.

Whether or not the word Catholic appears in their name, truly doesn’t matter a whole lot.
 
I see that Church Militant has another piece about Bernardin today, in which Voris explains why he objects to the late Cardinal.
 
This article was from 16 years ago, FYI.

I’m sure it has been looked into over that span of time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top