New Chicago archbishop weighs in on politics and the church

[boar2roar]

The problem with your analysis is that anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is on the left wing.

Making a comment such as this borders on the equivalent of saying that he is not faithful to the Magisterium - a comment, I will presume in charity you are not making.

And if I am mistaken, and you do intend the comment, then facts are needed to substantiate your commentary; otherwise, you are engaged in libelous behavior.

Nothing the bishop said is outside the range that a bishop, faithful to Christ and the Church could say. I would submit that it is likely you would have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever if Archbishop Cupich has ever met with any politician promoting abortion or homosexual marriage, let alone what he might have said to them in those private meetings.

I am reminded of the scene in the Gospels where the Pharisees bring the woman caught in adultery to Christ. In that scene; Christ never denied that the law said she was to be stoned; nor did He condemn the law or make any comments as to its validity.

Likewise, we seem to have a number of Catholics who want to have our bishops pick up the stones and use them; and when the bishops do not do that, their accusers imply or openly condemn the bishops of not following the law.

Their accusers seem to have no understanding whatsoever of the Gospel account. Who was the person who was without sin in the account? Oh. It was Christ.

Who did not pick up the first stone? Wow - Christ Himself did not follow the law which He did not condemn… sorry if that is too subtle.

Go and read what Cardinal George said in a most recent interview about “left and right” in the Church. Then read it again, paying particular attention to his comments about “left and right”.

I’m not playing your stupid game of pretending that all bishops or clergy men are robots with exactly the same views and approaches to everything. Take a hint why don’t you I don’t need a confession from the archbishop to analyze statements and actions of his, what are you going to bully anyone who can analyze something without an official declaration from that person.

You throw this disrespecting tag a lot for the wrong reasons. This is an internet forum believe it or not and your supposed comment on things. All I said was that he’s on the left wing of the spectrum in comparison to other BISHOPS also in good standing in the church. If you want I could list other reasons why I would classify him there but this thread should be a good start for you.

 

[WilT]

OTJM: *You forgot *the most important part of your example of the Woman caught in adultery it goes like this- GO AND SIN NO MORE The sin has to be corrected for true repentance to occur and it should be done Immediately not just whenever. just sayin

 

[zz912]

OTJM: *You forgot *the most important part of your example of the Woman caught in adultery it goes like this- GO AND SIN NO MORE The sin has to be corrected for true repentance to occur and it should be done Immediately not just whenever. just sayin

This, this and this!

 

[zz912]

Very interesting observation.

But then, it is so much easier and simpler just to label someone with a broad brush of “they’re (liberal) (conservative)” without taking the time to actually think, listen, ponder, consider the source (public media with its own agendas). Lazy thinking wants to put people in boxes, nice and neatly sorted out, without the messy business of actually trying to understand the circumstances, the possibility that something is not exactly as it is being pictured, and that life is not really black and white. Sometimes it is varying shades of grey, some times it has several colors, some of which we don’t see.

Oh for Heaven’s sake! Is it too much to ask for clarity and conciseness?

Brevity is the soul of wit, and if I need to spend an hour dissecting things you’ve said to get a decent handle on your views, the problem is with you. We use labels to make the world make sense, and to be able to digest what is going on around us. You wouldn’t be able to have a discussion with someone for more than 5 minutes if you didn’t use labels. A label gives you a decent idea of where a particular person is coming from, and a general idea of what their views are.

If a person claims to be a NY Yankees fan, but wears Boston Red Sox gear, they aren’t a Yankees fan. We don’t need to have a long, drawn out discussion with that person to comprehend their life story, and where they’ve come from, to be able to determine they really aren’t a Yankees fan.

And if a bishop (and I’m not referring to the Chicago archbishop) claims to be faithful to the Church, but obstinately refuses to impose NON-NEGOTIABLE Canon 915 on a known, manifest, objectively sinning person, they are NOT faithful to the Church. We don’t need to have long, drawn out discussions about the issue. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (I seem to remember someone important who said that.) Allowing a person’s soul to be put a risk of eternal damnation is NOT mercy.

 

[otjm]

OTJM: *You forgot *the most important part of your example of the Woman caught in adultery it goes like this- GO AND SIN NO MORE The sin has to be corrected for true repentance to occur and it should be done Immediately not just whenever. just sayin

No, I did not forget it in the least; it simply has nothing to do with the point I was making. Sorry for being so subtle.

The point, since you seem to not have understood it, is that Christ was a Jew, and as a Jew He was subject to all the Jewish law. - As He said, “I I came not the change the law, but to fulfill it”.

So it is the law we are talking about - whether it is the law of excommunication of a politician, or the law of stoning to death a woman caught in adultery. We are not talking about what Christ said at the end, but I will get to that if you wish, since you brought it up.

The point I am making is that we accept Christ making a prudential judgment (although I am inclined to think that most people don’t catch that In the story) and He does not pick up the first stone - even though that was the law, then we have to see where this will go.

So if Christ can make a prudential judgment on a matter of significant importance (adultery and execution for committing it), then why is it wrong for a bishop to do likewise - make a prudential judgment about the imposition of excommunication?

And since I ask the question, please answer the question, rather than bringing up something which does not apply.

But you want application, so: if the bishop says "I forgive you your sin, go and sin no more (meaning, of course, do not back abortion or enforcement of ABC against Catholic activity groups), we now are in a similar situation with Christ and the woman.

So the next question I want you to answer: If the woman were to fall back into adultery, and the situation arose that she was caught and brought to Christ a second time, what do you think Christ would have done? Would He have stoned her? By His own comment, the first stone was to be cast by the sinless one - which is self identity for Christ. Christ never said the law was wrong. He never repudiated the law. So on the second time of adultery, the law would still apply. What would He do?

I don’t think you will tell me that Christ would stone the woman; I don’t even think you will say He would approve others doing so.

That means He would use prudential judgment again, and not stone her.

But you seem to hold the position that bishops - who are to model Christ, would effectively pick up that stone.

So it appears to me that you have a problem aligning what you propose the bishops are to do, with what Christ would do. Perhaps you can explain why I am wrong; but please start with answering my questions.

 

[otjm]

Oh for Heaven’s sake! Is it too much to ask for clarity and conciseness?

Brevity is the soul of wit, and if I need to spend an hour dissecting things you’ve said to get a decent handle on your views, the problem is with you. We use labels to make the world make sense, and to be able to digest what is going on around us. You wouldn’t be able to have a discussion with someone for more than 5 minutes if you didn’t use labels. A label gives you a decent idea of where a particular person is coming from, and a general idea of what their views are.

If a person claims to be a NY Yankees fan, but wears Boston Red Sox gear, they aren’t a Yankees fan. We don’t need to have a long, drawn out discussion with that person to comprehend their life story, and where they’ve come from, to be able to determine they really aren’t a Yankees fan.

And if a bishop (and I’m not referring to the Chicago archbishop) claims to be faithful to the Church, but obstinately refuses to impose NON-NEGOTIABLE Canon 915 on a known, manifest, objectively sinning person, they are NOT faithful to the Church. We don’t need to have long, drawn out discussions about the issue. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (I seem to remember someone important who said that.) Allowing a person’s soul to be put a risk of eternal damnation is NOT mercy.

People want simple answers to complex questions - and the simple answers given do not truly answer the question; they simply shove it away so we don’t have to deal with it. As in, " don’t ever have to listen to that bishop because he is a LIBERAL and we all know that LIB ERALS never follow God’s laws or the laws of the Church. And we also know that because he is a LIBERAL, there is no way the Holy Spirit will ever use him to teach me or lead me closer to Christ.

I don’t mean to be tedious, but you obviously are neither a Canon lawyer nor one paying attention to this matter for the last 30 or so years. So I will say it again.

You seem to think Canon 915 in non-negotiable.

Guess what - we are now on our third Pope (who by the way happens to run Rome), and for 30+ years, Rome has known that the bishops of the US in general will not impose what you seem to think has to be automatic, and that should be message enough. However, the point seems too subtle for many who want to do what Rome does not do - and that is, keel haul the bishops who won’t impose the Canon the way people in this thread want it imposed.

It isn’t like this all is brand new and we (or rather, the bishops) are trying to sort this out. I know Rome can be slow, but after 30 years of allowing the bishops to exercise prudential judgment, it is clear that Rome does not agree with you.

Of course, there are some who choose to paint Rome with the paint brush of LIBERAL and simply dismiss them all.

Sorry I tried to make you think. You are right - that was my fault.

And by the way - I most certainly can have a conversation with someone for more than 5 minutes and not use labels. And that is usually due to clarity and conciseness, rather than the use of sloppy and dismissive categorizations.

 

[zz912]

Sorry I tried to make you think. You are right - that was my fault.

Personal attacks now? Letting the hate flow through you? (in my best Emperor Palpatine voice)

 

[otjm]

Personal attacks now? Letting the hate flow through you? (in my best Emperor Palpatine voice)

No - just a response to you.

People want simple answers to complex questions, and in the real world, there are no simple answers. Labeling a prelate as a liberal is just as dismissive as someone else labeling another as a Conservative. It is used to pigeonhole someone so the labeler does not have to deal with them; anything the prelate does will be criticized as ""well, what do you expect of a (liberal) (conservative), rather than actually trying to understand why they may be doing, or not doing, whatever is currently in discussion.

We have non-Canon lawyers saying what has to be done, what is mandatory, and for 30 years, Rome has not been saying that. There has been no definitive action or statement out of Rome, and Rome knows what is going on. To say that Rome does not know, or is not effectively allowing an alternative simply denies reality.

If Rome did not want to allow the bishops to use prudential judgment, there are several ways Rome could go about the matter. and at this point, Rome isn’t doing so. That does not mean they can’t; it only means they are not.

And as another poster noted, who said they listened several times to the actual interview, it sounded as if the Archbishop was saying less than some are interpreting.

He was not chosen for being not so bright. And any bishop still making a mark on the mirror is well aware of what the secular press does, how they go about their business, how they look for an angle and what they will do with it when they find one, and how they look for a sound bite that they can broadcast either as favorable to the secular world position, or as a means of smearing someone; bishops only have to look at what the press has sent spinning about either Benedict or Francis.

While we had Archbishop George only for a year, I watched what he said and did. I find a label of “conservative” to be hilarious. What he was, was brilliant; having met him personally, it was like the air crackled around him. His concern was bringing Christ to people. He was true to the magisterium, and for some, that would be seen as liberal, and for others, as conservative; and both groups were simply trying to pigeonhole him so they could dismiss whatever he said. It would be worth reading his farewell interview; he expressed frustration with labels, noting, if I recall correctly, that matters were neither liberal nor conservative in the Church.

I have that same frustration.

 

[WilT]

No - just a response to you.

People want simple answers to complex questions, and in the real world, there are no simple answers. Labeling a prelate as a liberal is just as dismissive as someone else labeling another as a Conservative. It is used to pigeonhole someone so the labeler does not have to deal with them; anything the prelate does will be criticized as ""well, what do you expect of a (liberal) (conservative), rather than actually trying to understand why they may be doing, or not doing, whatever is currently in discussion.

We have non-Canon lawyers saying what has to be done, what is mandatory, and for 30 years, Rome has not been saying that. There has been no definitive action or statement out of Rome, and Rome knows what is going on. To say that Rome does not know, or is not effectively allowing an alternative simply denies reality.

If Rome did not want to allow the bishops to use prudential judgment, there are several ways Rome could go about the matter. and at this point, Rome isn’t doing so. That does not mean they can’t; it only means they are not.

And as another poster noted, who said they listened several times to the actual interview, it sounded as if the Archbishop was saying less than some are interpreting.

He was not chosen for being not so bright. And any bishop still making a mark on the mirror is well aware of what the secular press does, how they go about their business, how they look for an angle and what they will do with it when they find one, and how they look for a sound bite that they can broadcast either as favorable to the secular world position, or as a means of smearing someone; bishops only have to look at what the press has sent spinning about either Benedict or Francis.

While we had Archbishop George only for a year, I watched what he said and did. I find a label of “conservative” to be hilarious. What he was, was brilliant; having met him personally, it was like the air crackled around him. His concern was bringing Christ to people. He was true to the magisterium, and for some, that would be seen as liberal, and for others, as conservative; and both groups were simply trying to pigeonhole him so they could dismiss whatever he said. It would be worth reading his farewell interview; he expressed frustration with labels, noting, if I recall correctly, that matters were neither liberal nor conservative in the Church.

I have that same frustration.

Well, let’s see if I can get all down. Now As you recall the Jewish laws that were in place in the time of Christ were flawed. So we too in this day in age we can make similar errors as well in our Church. Wrong understandings of set rules and laws can go wrong. I recall one time I believe Christ has said let your No be a no and your Yes be a yes. Everything else is from the evil one. So keeping it simple is what is asked of us as Christian. Once one complicates it, it goes into the hand of the Devil.
At this point we are concerned about 1 Cardinal only and because I don’t agree with his interpretation or certain direction he takes has no affect on all others.

 

[Ender]

The point I am making is that we accept Christ making a prudential judgment (although I am inclined to think that most people don’t catch that In the story) and He does not pick up the first stone - even though that was the law, then we have to see where this will go.

I’m not up on ancient Jewish law but I suspect that while people were allowed to stone someone they were not required to. The fact that Jesus did not pick up stone says nothing. More significantly, however, is that none of the other Jews there could have stoned her either, for while stoning might have been required by Jewish law it was forbidden by Roman law.

So if Christ can make a prudential judgment on a matter of significant importance (adultery and execution for committing it), then why is it wrong for a bishop to do likewise - make a prudential judgment about the imposition of excommunication?

This is wrong on several levels. First, excommunication is not involved here. Being denied communion is not the same as being excommunicated. Second, Jesus does not ignore the sin. That he pardons the woman is based on his understanding of her repentance, but let’s recognize that even he could not pardon an unrepentant sinner, which is precisely what it means to “obstinately persist” in sin.

But you want application, so: if the bishop says "I forgive you your sin, go and sin no more (meaning, of course, do not back abortion or enforcement of ABC against Catholic activity groups), we now are in a similar situation with Christ and the woman.

If the individual goes to confession, repents, and makes a public retraction, then yes, the situations would be the same.

So the next question I want you to answer: If the woman were to fall back into adultery, and the situation arose that she was caught and brought to Christ a second time, what do you think Christ would have done? …That means He would use prudential judgment again, and not stone her.

This is beyond fantasy. Do you really believe you can speak for Christ? In any event the two situations are still utterly different. It is one thing to try, fail, and repent - even repeatedly, but quite another never to repent in the first place.

But you seem to hold the position that bishops - who are to model Christ, would effectively pick up that stone.

To model Christ is not to be Christ, and yes, we expect a bishop to live what the church teaches and not decide for himself which doctrines he will follow. Prudential judgment does not extend to everything without limit; what use are doctrines that are nothing more than suggestions?

Ender

 

[mlz]

Anyone who partakes in the Eucharist unworthily puts condemnation on himself.

Giving tacit approval to people publicly preaching mortal sin is putting the communicant’s soul, and the souls of those around him who see callous Church discipline that acts it doesn’t matter, in clear danger.

Yes, it’s a cop-out, and a disastrous one.

Also, if they want forgiveness of sins, that’s what confession is for.

Yes, I agree. We need to be praying for him.
mlz

 

[mlz]

Withholding Communion from one in Mortal Sin is an act of mercy.

Yes it can be.
mlz

 

[ProVobis]

Individuals denied communion in one parish can usually find it easily enough in another. That puts the burden entirely on them, but at least in the parishes where they are known it will be understood why communion has been denied, and there is no scandal involved.

Ender

You make good points and I’m not trying to debate you but what happens when a priest spots someone in the congregation who is on the exclude list? Does he tell all the extraordinary ministers quietly about it just before communion?

 

[mlz]

I had to restrain myself yesterday because this story truly upset me. I, after giving it a few thoughts, know now why abortion continues on after 40 yrs. This type of response from are leaders allow it to continue on indirectly by their laxness to such a horrific and disasterous issue of abortion. God will be taking an accounting of this. Also, it scandalizes the Faithfull to it’s core. I’ll stop there for now!:banghead: before I say things I shouldn’t say

Yes, I agree with your view. It is upseting when you know what is at stake…
mlz

 

[Ender]

You make good points and I’m not trying to debate you but what happens when a priest spots someone in the congregation who is on the exclude list? Does he tell all the extraordinary ministers quietly about it just before communion?

I don’t know how that would be handled in real life, but in my church there are several communion lines and the priest chooses which one he will serve. I should think he would assume the burden himself and serve the line that would include the impenitent recipient.

The important thing is that the priest has a moral obligation to act, not simply observe. The burden lies with him and the state of his own soul is involved.These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” (St. Chrysostom , Homily LXXXII) ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXVIII.html
Ender

 

[WilT]

I don’t know how that would be handled in real life, but in my church there are several communion lines and the priest chooses which one he will serve. I should think he would assume the burden himself and serve the line that would include the impenitent recipient.

The important thing is that the priest has a moral obligation to act, not simply observe. The burden lies with him and the state of his own soul is involved.These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” (St. Chrysostom , Homily LXXXII) ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXVIII.html
Ender

agreed.

 

[SWolf]

You make good points and I’m not trying to debate you but what happens when a priest spots someone in the congregation who is on the exclude list? Does he tell all the extraordinary ministers quietly about it just before communion?

Yet another mess caused by too many EM’s

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253]

 

[boar2roar]

No - just a response to you.

People want simple answers to complex questions, and in the real world, there are no simple answers. Labeling a prelate as a liberal is just as dismissive as someone else labeling another as a Conservative. It is used to pigeonhole someone so the labeler does not have to deal with them; anything the prelate does will be criticized as ""well, what do you expect of a (liberal) (conservative), rather than actually trying to understand why they may be doing, or not doing, whatever is currently in discussion.

We have non-Canon lawyers saying what has to be done, what is mandatory, and for 30 years, Rome has not been saying that. There has been no definitive action or statement out of Rome, and Rome knows what is going on. To say that Rome does not know, or is not effectively allowing an alternative simply denies reality.

If Rome did not want to allow the bishops to use prudential judgment, there are several ways Rome could go about the matter. and at this point, Rome isn’t doing so. That does not mean they can’t; it only means they are not.

And as another poster noted, who said they listened several times to the actual interview, it sounded as if the Archbishop was saying less than some are interpreting.

He was not chosen for being not so bright. And any bishop still making a mark on the mirror is well aware of what the secular press does, how they go about their business, how they look for an angle and what they will do with it when they find one, and how they look for a sound bite that they can broadcast either as favorable to the secular world position, or as a means of smearing someone; bishops only have to look at what the press has sent spinning about either Benedict or Francis.

While we had Archbishop George only for a year, I watched what he said and did. I find a label of “conservative” to be hilarious. What he was, was brilliant; having met him personally, it was like the air crackled around him. His concern was bringing Christ to people. He was true to the magisterium, and for some, that would be seen as liberal, and for others, as conservative; and both groups were simply trying to pigeonhole him so they could dismiss whatever he said. It would be worth reading his farewell interview; he expressed frustration with labels, noting, if I recall correctly, that matters were neither liberal nor conservative in the Church.

I have that same frustration.

You are right I’m starting to have trouble with labels myself. Am I even really catholic, do I want to pigeonhole myself into that ladder I mean when does Catholicism even start or get defined , Baptism? Well thats just to restrictive who is anyone to tell people whether they are catholic or not jesus said let the one who doesn’t sin to cast the the first stone so I don’t think religious labels should prejudge people either. How do I vote I mean can I even assign a complex person into some arbitrary political spectrum when people evolve, change, have nuanced views. Political parties can’t fit all that either really they should be abolished too…

Can you see how silly your war on labels is when taken to your extreme?

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

You are right I’m starting to have trouble with labels myself. Am I even really catholic, do I want to pigeonhole myself into that ladder I mean when does Catholicism even start or get defined , Baptism? Well thats just to restrictive who is anyone to tell people whether they are catholic or not jesus said let the one who doesn’t sin to cast the the first stone so I don’t think religious labels should prejudge people either. How do I vote I mean can I even assign a complex person into some arbitrary political spectrum when people evolve, change, have nuanced views. Political parties can’t fit all that either really they should be abolished too…

Can you see how silly your war on labels is when taken to your extreme?

Catholic = Baptism and the following belief:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[otjm]

You are right I’m starting to have trouble with labels myself. Am I even really catholic, do I want to pigeonhole myself into that ladder I mean when does Catholicism even start or get defined , Baptism? Well thats just to restrictive who is anyone to tell people whether they are catholic or not jesus said let the one who doesn’t sin to cast the the first stone so I don’t think religious labels should prejudge people either. How do I vote I mean can I even assign a complex person into some arbitrary political spectrum when people evolve, change, have nuanced views. Political parties can’t fit all that either really they should be abolished too…

Can you see how silly your war on labels is when taken to your extreme?

Then I assume you consider Cardinal George, in his exit interview, was silly too. Perhaps you live in Chicago, and therefore have more experience with Cardinal George than I do - he was our Archbishop only for a year. But my own personal opinion, based on my personal experience, including meeting and talking with him, reading his weekly commentary in the Sentinel, other observations of him, and commentary by priests who served under him, was that he was not silly.

And if saying that we are wrong to judge bishops by terms like conservative and liberal is silly, then, since he said it, I will accept it.