Crud Interviews Cardinal Wuerl

Crux is an online "katholyc" propaganda site, controlled at least in part by the Bostom Globe.  I haven't had issue with it until now, but some blogging colleagues have.  Owing to its obvious progressive bias, "crux" on this blog will hereafter be called "crud".

Today they did a piece on Cardinal Wuerl.  Right off the bat they called him a "moderate" (hint: that's what progressives call each other!), signaling their own biases.  They opined that owing to his position on the Congregation for Bishops, he was influential in having Cupich (another "moderate" of course) appointed Archbishop of Chicago.  I suspect on this point they are correct.

The rest of the article appears to be a forum for Cardinal Wuerl to spew some nonsense.  He said of the proceedings thus far: "It's one thing to doctrinally state the obvious.  It's another thing to take that and get it to work in the concrete order where people live".  Two points immediately spring to mind.

First, in order for people to obey the Church's teachings, they have to be taught Christ's teachings.  By and large, that doesn't happen.  I cannot recall when I've heard unambiguous preaching about the horrors of contraception and abortion.  When have we heard homilies about the Last Four Things?  I could go on and on.  Many years ago, when these matters were proclaimed, "getting them to work in people's lives" was not nearly so arduous as it is today.  Our clergy must preach the truths of the faith.  In order for them to do that, they must believe and embrace these truths themselves, bringing me to my second point.

Over two years ago, St. John Neumann had a priest stationed therein named Father Marcel Guarnizo.  He clearly was a priest who knew and embraced the truths of the faith.  He also proclaimed them from the pulpit, raising some feathers from the progressives - uh, excuse me, I meant "moderates" - in our parish.  Right before Lent he denied Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian.  For his obedience to Canon Law, he was tossed from the Archdiocese of Washington, with the knowledge if not instigation of Cardinal Wuerl.  So I ask Cardinal Wuerl, how does punishing a faithful priest "get doctrine to work in the concrete order where people live"?  I'd be most curious to hear a cogent answer to that, assuming such exists.

So far there's been such nonsense coming from this SinNod and it hasn't been a week yet.  Will there be some voice of sanity issuing forth from that gab-fest?