Guess What Week It Is??

Are you ready?  It's (drum roll and trumpets, please)

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION WEEK!

If you were ignorant of this momentous occasion, I confess so was I!  But not all were so oblivious!  Certainly the progressives who wear miters aren't.  In the Chicago Tribune appears an editorial by Cardinal Cupich, opining that "It's Immigrants Who Have Made America Great".  Of course it's a screed for blanket amnesty for law-breakers.  Yes, immigrants have played a crucial role - immigrants that have respected the rule of law in the United States and who have earned their way as opposed to those who break laws and expect handouts.  As you read that piece, you'll see how Cupich obfuscates the difference between those who are decent law-abiding people and those who aren't.

Cupich went so far as to have two "immigrants" speak from the altar last Sunday.  Mahound's Paradise points out that one of these "immigrants who have made America great" is a Muslim who just happens to be a follower of a Muslim cleric whose idea of "jihad for the sake of Allah" includes "smashing skulls and severing limbs".  He also approves of Muslim women offering their, uh, "services" to these jihad lunatics.  Doesn't that sound like a dandy recipe for "making America great"?  This is the kind of spiritual poison that Cupich let into his church.  Lest we forget, Cupich wielded much influence at the Synod on the Family at Pope Francis' initiative.

Christopher Manion has some choice words for this politically correct pandering.  He points out that the great majority of American bishops do not stand up for central moral issues of our faith, e.g., abortion, homosexual conduct, but they will wax eloquent about amnesty for illegals and other progressive nonsense (global warming, etc).  He brought up the example of Cardinal Joseph Tobin defying then-Governor Mike Pence on the matter of enforcing immigration law.  Mind you, this is he same Tobin who couldn't be bothered to bestir himself when a Catholic facility in his diocese was being rented out for a "lesbian commitment" debacle, but he could huff and puff in the face of a governor who was simply carrying out his duties of office.  Let us recall that both Tobin and Cupich are recent recipients of the "red hat", again at the instigation of Pope Francis.

The USCCB has been busy on other "important" matters.  A few days ago, one of their task forces released a report to "root out racism".  They developed some recommendations.  The first one is to engage in Masses and rosaries.  They could have stopped right then and there for the other suggestions seem straight out of some Alinskyian play book.  Parishioners should be "trained in intercultural competence"?  Brainwashing much?  There is also "dialogues on racism and dialogue".  Got that?  We get to "talk about talking"!  But they save the best for last: beef up support for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Just put "Catholic Campaign for Human Development" or "CCHD" in the search box at the top left of this blog (by the magnifying glass icon).  You'll see a mountain of posts, with links to excellent material, regarding the inimical origins and nature of the CCHD.  Support for the CCHD has been dwindling throughout the years because decent Catholics are becoming more aware of the ultimate destinations of the money they contribute to the CCHD.  Despite pleas to the USCCB throughout the decades to reform the CCHD, the bishops refuse to address these matters.  The CCHD deserves not one red penny in donations.

How much evil these bishops could root out if they simply decided to return to the Catholic faith and being real bishops.

Amoris Laetitia And Dubia - Separating Wheat From Chaff

Slowly but surely the Dubia that the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis is bringing a lot of dissent and heresy to light.  The head of the Greek Bishops' Conference (I won't even attempt that name) wrote to the four cardinals and flat out accused them of heresy.  One Peter Five has the text of the letter, and it is a beeyute!  He opens the letter by stating that the four cardinals should turn in their red caps (I don't know the proper term) and then accuses them of heresy, apostacy and scandal.  One wonders if he actually read the dubia, for all it does is ask the pope to clarify some passages in Amoris Laetitia that seem to contradict the tradition of the Church.  Or maybe he did read them and is simply trying to frighten others into not considering their input.

Cardinal Cupich seems to be mouthing similar things - almost as if they were all given "talking points".  I have written about the sword-crossing between him and Archbishop Chaput when the latter reaffirmed Church teaching in his own diocese.  In an interview, he told Edward Pentin that those who have "doubts and questions" regarding Amoralis Lamentia need "conversion in their lives".  I and others have written extensively about Cupich's dissidence many times.  Please read that list for yourselves for I haven't time nor space to detail just why Cupich may be the one needed conversion.

One wonders if that head of the Greek Bishops' Conference might have such strong words for his German counterpart.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch openly declared his belief that "Christ did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."  He believes that Jesus only offered "solidarity with the poor."  Now that is heresy.  Will the Greek head say anything about that?  Will the Pope have a rebuke for this heresy-spouting bishop?  I think we'll hear crickets and Zollitsch will retain his post.

However, it does seem that the four cardinals are not standing alone.  Polish Bishop Josef Wrobel says "the four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia".  He added that AL "is not written well".  He offered that as a potential excuse reason for its lack of clarity.

Two American bishops share the same last name: Tobin.  That's about all they share.  Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island opined last July that AL was "marked by ambiguity and that's intentional on the Holy Father's part, I think...so people can do just about whatever they want."  This bishop has consistently stood for the truth.  On the other hand we have Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In the previous link I detailed some issues we've had with him.  He called the four cardinals "troublesome".  Well, it might actually be a good thing to be regarded as "troublesome" to a progressive.  We know now why Joseph Tobin received his red hat!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a letter in which he defended the dubia and the four cardinals as a "prophetic voice."  In his letter, Schneider takes aim at the progressive syncophants who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the four cardinals without offering any real clarity, comparing the current situation to that of St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope Liberius.  The letter is worth careful study.

Then there is Bishop Jan Watroba, also of Poland.  He remarked on the ambiguity of AL, saying that he "preferred the clarity of Pope St. John Paul II".  I pray that these three bishops retain their posts and aren't sent to "diocesan siberia", if you get the drift.  I also pray that many more bishops join them to stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews is conducting a petition effort to ask the Holy Father to respond to the dubia.  Please sign and pass along.

Skullduggery In The College Of Cardinals - Sarah Sidelined, Three New Progressives In

Cardinal Robert Sarah is a faithful prelate who did much to oppose the wreckage of the Magisterium that was the purpose of the two sin-nods on the family.  This blog and others have been shining the light on theses sin-nods and their resultant mess that is named Amoris Laetitia.  I have renamed it Amoralis Lamentia.

It seems that His Eminence is beginning to share some of the fate of Cardinal Burke, another faithful prelate.  Cardinal Sarah is currently Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  He had been scheduled to open the academic year for the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family on October 27 in Rome, but the pope basically expelled him from that role, saying he'd do it himself.  This comes after the pope apppointed two progressive prelates to head that institute.  That institute had also opposed the progressive juggernaut at the two sin-nods.

In August, I wrote about one of those progressive prelates, Archbishop Paglia.  His appointment is solid evidence that the pope does indeed intend - as stated in Amoralis Lamentia - to allow divorced Catholics who are living in adultery to commit the mortal sin of sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion without the requisite repentance from mortal sin.  In that post, I wrote about another progressive prelate who has done damage to the faith - Bishop Farrell.  I will be addressing him in the next paragraph.

The pope just announced that he named 17 new cardinals, to be elevated on November 19th.  Three of them are US prelates and one of them is Bishop Farrell.  Another is - Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago.  Yes, this Cupich!  As you can see, he has occasioned a whole series of blog posts with his dissidence and insults to the Faith.  Read that anthology and consider the progression of events.

The third US prelate is Archbishop Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In January 2015, we learned that a Knight of Columbus council in his diocese rented their hall to lesbians so they could celebrate their sinful relationship.  We contacted him to have this debacle stopped; we heard crickets from him.  He is not to be confused with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence RI, who is a faithful prelate.

I just touched upon the three US cardinal-designates.  I'd be willing to bet that the fourteen from other countries are just as problematic.

There can be no doubt that the pope is deliberately stacking the College of Cardinals with progressive cronies while marginalizing truly faithful Princes of the Church.

Pope Enables Progressive Bishop To Select Other Heterodox Clerics For Episcopal Ordination

Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago ranks as one of the most progressive (if not heretical) bishops in the United States.  His disdain for Catholic morality is all-too-well known.  To wit:

• As bishop of Spokane Washington he forbade his priests from participating in the 40 Days for Life campaign.
• When the Supreme Court passed a ruling on "gay mowwidge", the statement he uttered was, at best, limp-wristed lip service to marriage.
• He issued a statement claiming that gun control and immigration are equal in importance to baby-slaughter.
• He advocates violations of Canon 915.

Despite all these serious and blatant shortcomings, the pope personally invited him to participate in the sin-nod, where he opined that de facto unrepentant adulterers could receive Holy Communion..  Now it seems that the pope is doubling down on promoting this man to high position in the Church. It was announced today that the pope has named Cupich to the Congregation for Bishops  Yes that is the same committee from which the pope ejected Cardinals Rigali and Burke and also placed Cardinal Wuerl.  LifeSiteNews and Church Militant TV both have additional commentaries.

Ladies and gentlemen, this pope knows what he is doing  He knows very well that Cupich will lobby to have clerics of his own low caliber ordained as bishops.  They will most likely offer poor leadership to their own flocks.

I'm calling upon my willfully naive friends to cease their denial regarding this pope.  Yes, others have made mistakes during their pontificates.  But when "mistakes" happen with alarming frequency, common sense dictates that these "mistakes" are deliberate.

Cupich's Dissidence At SinNod - Another Reason To Sign The Canon 212 Petition

I and other faithful Catholic bloggers have written copiously about the many travesties perpetrated by Archbishop Cupich of Chicago.  Recall that he is now at the sin-nod, at the express direction of Pope Francis.  Some may have wondered how the Pope could have named Cupich to the sin-nod in light of his flawed moral compass.  I don't; in fact I believe the pope knew full well Cupich's proclivities and that was the reason he brought Cupich to the sin-nod.

We are now hearing that Cupich is using his new-found bully pulpit to finagle the admittance to Holy Communion those embroiled in flagrant mortal sins: adulterers and sodomites, to be precise.  These would be people currently and unabashedly continuing in their sinful situations, not those who have repented and made good Confessions.

LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family recorded an interview given by Cupich in which he outlines his diabolical proposal.  Let's look at a few salient points.

• Those adulterers and sodomites who feel marginalized do so because they have marginalized themselves by their embrace of mortal sin.  Let us thank God for these "feelings" as they might be the impetus that these people need to repent.  Let us pray that they do repent soon before they're marginalized for all eternity.
• "Conscience is inviolable"?  No - not if it moves in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Everyone of us - adulterers and sodomites included - have the solemn duty to form and inform our conscience in conformity with the Church.

Church Militant TV has added commentary.  I'll be candid.  Unless he's a complete dunderhead, the pope knew precisely what Cupich's pet causes were before he appointed Cupich to the see of Chicago and invited him to participate in the sin-nod.  He didn't seek out Cupich despite his leanings; he sought Cupic because of his leanings.

They are trying to use the sin-nod to "mainstream" the gay lifestyle into acceptable Church practices, and allowing sodomites to come to Holy Communion would be a major step for them.  Unfortunately it would also be a major step towards hell, for receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is its own mortal sin.  Austin Ruse wrote a piece on the way that high Vatican official maltreated Kim Davis.  They seem to harbor malevolence towards anyone who stands in the way of these goals or who exposes their malfeasances by virtue of their own proper conduct - thus their utter contempt for Kim Davis, a courageous lady who puts these Vatican officials to shame.

This sin-nod is, at best, an abysmal joke.  Please consider signing this petition.

From The Maturation Department - Scandal At The World Meeting Of Families

About 2.5 months ago, Lepanto Institute alerted us to the fact that a lesbian activist would be in a key role in deciding what entities would be allowed to set up exhibits at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia next month.  We also learned at about the same time that Philadelphia Archbishop Chaput said that "non-traditional families" would be welcomed at the meeting.  My blog post at that time gives more details.  At this time I have received no indication that these two matters have been rectified.  I must assume that they haven't.

Lepanto Institute has once again done stellar work in exposing a more significant scandal, one that centers around the president of the World Meeting of Families, Robert Ciaruffoli.  Over the years he has made contributions to various pro-abortion candidates for political office, including to the campaign of a former Planned Parenthood director.  See the above link for more details.

Now you might wonder about the "maturation department" reference in this post's title.  Recall that after last October's extraordinary sin-nod, Pope Francis said that we had a year to "mature" in preparation for this upcoming ordinary sin-nod.  Almost immediately a barrage of meetings, pronouncements, appointments and firings etc occurred, all with the theme of undermining the Church's teachings on family and life.  I firmly believe that the retention of the dissidents in the structure of the World Meeting of Families is part and parcel of this "maturation".

One of these "appointments" is Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago.  He was dissident when he was Bishop of Spokane and then was appointed to Chicago by the Pope.  Last Sunday he was invested with the pallium at Mass.  He preached on the family at Mass, saying that "we must not settle for solutions that no longer work".  Given past history we can surmise his meaning.  Yes, that link is to the New Ways Ministry blog, and they in turn link to the entire homily.  It is a sad day for the Church when an organization that foments mortal sin waxes lyrical about the preaching of an errant bishop.  By the way, the pallium signifies unity with the pope.  Regrettably this union is real.

I suppose because the sin-nod is less than two months away, that all stops will be pulled in last-minute "maturation" measures.

Storm Clouds Gather In Preparation For October's Sin-Nod

As we saw last week, Archbishop Cupich was appointed delegate to next October's sin-nod almost immediately after he twisted Catholic moral teaching about in his statement that abortion was no more of an evil than capital punishment.  Most Catholics with at least two working brain cells know that while abortion is always intrinsically evil (and thus a mortal sin), capital punishment is not so and in fact can be morally licit.  My intention is not to reignite that debate in my com-boxes but to illustrate how Cupich prostituted his high office to push a progressive agenda.  I suspect that qualified him immediately as a delegate in the eyes of the sin-nod perpetrators, so off he'll go to the Vatican come October.  But there are more storm clouds.

Recall the "shadow synod" that happened last May.  I suppose they believe that it was such a rousing success that they want to repeat the damage benefit.  Who is a papal adviser that is invited to that?  Why, it's none other than Cardinal Maradiaga (ht to Lifesitenews)!  You've seen enough of Maradiaga's name on this blog, as well as a rundown on the mischief he's wrought in the Church (to date).  Read the Lifesitenews piece for the rundown on the other heretics who will be spreading their bile at that meeting in hopes of poisoning influencing the sin-nod.

Many good people are sounding alarms.  The Instrumentum Laboris for the sin-nod is out, and Voice of the Family finds within it reasons for grave concern.  As you read it, go all the way to the bottom where Voice of the Family states that we faithful Catholics "have a duty to oppose the direction being taken at the synod".  Bishop Athanasius Schneider has also sounded an alarm regarding the working document, saying "one is left with the suspicion that the authors of the Instrumentum Laboris try to push forward the agenda of a certain clerical pressure group in order to change the Divine law of the non-admission of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion."

The battle lines are being drawn.  I thank the Lord for courageous prelates like Bishop Schneider.  Pray for him and his fellow faithful priests and bishops, that they be protected from those who wish harm upon them.  Pray also for those who carry on like wolves in sheep's clothing for theirs' will be a horrible punishment if they don't repent.

From The Maturation Department: Cupich, Harbinger Of Looming Sin-Nod Disaster

I have documented the ways in which Bishop - now Archbishop - Blaise Cupich has disgraced his miter and crosier.  The latest crack that was supposed to be his statement regarding the Planned Parenthood videos was simply the latest.  I needn't rehash it all here; please review this anthology of posts.

Several of my blogging colleagues have expressed their dismay over Cupich's words and deeds:

• From ChurchMilitant.TV
• From Tenth Crusade
• From St. Corbinian's Bear
• From Vox Cantoris

No doubt we are just a sampling of those sounding the alarm regarding Cupich.  In the light of the evidence regarding Cupich's progressive, as opposed to truly Catholic mindsets, what does Pope Francis do?

Pope Francis appointed Cupich as a delegate to next October's Ordinary Synod on the Family.  We all knew that he would be an alternate delegate to replace any regular delegate who might be rendered unable to attend.  But now he's a full delegate.  Is this disgusting appointment part of the "maturation" that the pope said we had to undergo at the close of last October's sin-nod?  If nothing else, this appointment is a harbinger of the mess that will the sin-nod that will happen two months from now.

Apologies To The Archdiocese Of Washington

In my post yesterday, I intimated that the reaction of the Archdiocese of Washington to the #mowwidge ruling was the most disgraceful that I read.  I must now correct that impression.  As unimpressive as Cardinal Wuerl's statement is, it's a few steps above the one I just saw from Archbishop Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago.  Here it is, in all its putrid equivocation.

The court redefined nothing.  All it did was perpetuate a lie, a pretense at marriage.  That's why I'm calling it #mowwidge.  When our bishops start condemning this crap from hell and call it what it is, perhaps then we'll see this culture restored.

New Chicago Archbishop - A Harbinger Of Disaster For The Church

In many ways, the Church hierarchy in the United States was already a mess, with liberals occupying the Sees of key dioceses.  By appointment of Pope Francis, one more such individual, Bishop Blaise Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago to replace the ailing Cardinal George.  Many of us recalled his abysmal wafflings in not standing for true morality.  I wrote over the years about his derelictions, including the forbidding of his priests' participation in the 40 Days for Life campaign and being one of the cowardly bishops who refused to protest Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in 2009.

It didn't take him long to get started on his progressive rampage.  He apparently wasn't pleased that more women weren't involved in his installation Mass and made quite plain that he wants more women involved in "leadership".  Well that should just inspire more priestly vocations (yes, that is sarcastic)!

This past Sunday on Face The Nation, Cupich said of pro-abortion Catholics receiving Holy Communion that "the grace would be instrumental in bringing them to the truth".  What grace?  Is not Holy Communion a Sacrament of the Living?  I'm no moral theologian, but it seems that no grace could accrue to someone in a state of mortal sin until that sin is properly confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Otherwise, instead of grace comes the guilt of the sin of sacrilege.

Two other things that he said during that interview are, to be frank, whoppers.  First he stated that "I would not use the Eucharist, or as they call it 'the Communion rail', as a place to have those discussions in which people should be excluded from the life of the church."  This language has a very familiar ring to it!  Go back five years.  When Cardinal Wuerl was asked about denying Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, he said he wouldn't because the Church "doesn't use communion as a weapon".  My!  They do have those talking points down pat, don't they?

Then Cupich said that "the Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion; it's also a time of forgiveness of sins".  It sure does sound like His Excellency is getting some sacraments confused with one another.  The "time of forgiveness of sins" particularly mortal sins (as is the support of abortion), is within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  It is that authentic forgiveness of sin (requiring real repentance, by the way) that is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily.  Else what you have is an occasion of the mortal sin of sacrilege.  Period.

Last week I observed that the USCCB and many bishops seem to have forgotten that their first job as bishops is to save souls.  Read this post, particularly the first paragraph that quotes the Baltimore Catechism on this matter.  It seems that not only has Bishop Cupich forgotten that basic truth, especially with regards to so-called "immigration reform" but he even had the unmitigated audacity to declare that "immigration reform", as defined by progressives, is God's agenda!  In his nonsensical statement, he says that "God has called us to a better life".  What defines this "better life"?  A life lived for God, marked by obedience to His laws, prayer, reception of the sacraments - or merely a more advantaged life?  The two aren't necessarily opposed to each other, but neither are they equivalent to each other.  It seems His Excellency doesn't get it.

Under this current pontificate, must we dread similar episcopal appointments in the future?

This Papacy - Troubling Incidents Continue To Increase

A few weeks ago, I wrote of "Obvious Questions Regarding This Papacy".  Since then, more questions have surfaced.  First, I recommend to your reading "The Rise Of Bergoglianism" by Christopher Ferrara.  While I look a bit askance at the term "bergoglianism", Ferrara reminds us of some things that should cause us to have great concern for the future of the Church.

I won't rehash what Ferrara wrote, please read for yourselves.  I will mention that Ferrara missed a few things.  For one thing, there was the multi-marriage extravaganza that occurred earlier this month, and the plethora of issues raised with that.  There is the bizarre treatment meted out to Cardinal Burke; see here and here.  There is the rather nauseating appointment of Bishop Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago.  I haven't written about this (yet) but other blogging colleagues have.  See here and here.  There is also the troubling dismissal of Bishop Rogelio Livieres of Paraguay.  He was an opponent of liberation theology (quite the fad in Paraguay) and one who managed to fill his seminaries with numerous vocations.   More troubling is that Pope Francis has refused to receive the bishop when he came to discuss his dismissal, as no reasons had been given to him beforehand.

Then there is the matter of Cardinal Walter Kasper.  He is reputed to be a close friend of Pope Francis' and will most likely wield much influence at the Extraordinary Synod of the Family to be held next month.  He has stated that he favors the allowance of Holy Communion to those Catholics who are divorced and who have civilly remarried without obtaining a Church annulment.  Now mind you, he's not about "changing doctrine", but just "pastoral practice".  Got that?  Gotta love that "pastoral" word - it allows for all sorts of double-talk chicanery.  Kasper had the gall to insinuate that his proposal "was agreed" ahead of time by the Holy Father.  I pray that's presumptuous double-talk for the only other explanation is horrifying.

Kasper is also on record as favoring a "reinterpretation of the Church's ban on contraception".  He says that  "so-called natural family planning, which is promoted by the Church as an alternative to contraception, also has an artificial element", according to the Telegraph.  Read John Kippley's analysis of this statement.  So in addition to a major theological failure, we also have from Kasper a biological gaffe as well.

So Cardinal Kasper wields Vatican influence and Bishop Cupich takes the See of Chicago, while Cardinal Burke and Bishop Livieres have been given the proverbial boot.  It makes sense, and I'm not being sarcastic.  There seems to be a move to marginalize authentic tradition for intellectual and theological slop, and sentimental notions of "mercy" and being "pastoral".

We need to pray for this upcoming Synod.  Again, the Vicar of Christ cannot solemnly promulgate error.  But other sorts of havoc, almost equally damaging, can be visited upon the Church.  I join my friend Carol in stating that this blog also refuses to be silent regarding the increasing number of "elephants in the living room".  We must see clearly in order to pray properly.  We will pray as we sound alarms.

Why I Believe Cupich's Appointment To Chicago Bodes Ill For The Church

As most people know by now, Pope Francis has appointed Spokane's Bishop Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago to succeed the ailing Cardinal George.  This appointment, particularly on the heels of the de facto sacking of Cardinal Burke to the hinterlands, causes much consternation to faithful Catholics.

It was exactly three years ago when Cupich forbade his Spokane priests to participate in the 40 Days for Life Campaign.  I wrote rather extensively about that disgrace.  Moreover, when the Messiah Most Miserable polluted the once-holy grounds of Notre Dame University, he did not join the protests of other US bishops against that debacle.

My friend at Les Femmes reported on what some progressive rags are saying about Cupich.  They are ecstatic.  Given what I wrote above, their glee (from their perspective) has basis.  Now we read how the gay rag, the Advocate, chortles over this appointment.  Ladies and gentlemen, they advocate mortal sin to the detriment of their immortal souls.  Why do you think they gloat?  Because they believe that they have in Cupich someone who won't trouble their consciences with the truth!

There also seems to have been some considerable - how do I say it? - political maneuverings within the Vatican to secure this appointment.  Rorate Caeli believes that Cardinal Oullet and the Congregation for Bishops were sidestepped by Pope Francis at the suggestion of the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.   Missing from the Congregation of Bishops, of course, is Cardinal Burke - removed by the Pope and replaced by Cardinal Wuerl.  Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia has key points to ponder (his post is long, but work your way through it).  He seems to think that Cardinal O'Malley and Cardinal Wuerl gave support to Cupich's nomination (I can see them also lobbying to keep Cardinal Burke away from that see).

There have been way too many ominous signs from the Vatican to ignore.  The enemy lies within and his minions wear clerical garb.  While we know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, in this struggle the forces of hell can wreak much havoc and cause the eternal damnation of countless souls.  Pray your Rosaries and beg God's mercy on His wounded Church.

More "Clarification" From The Spokane Bishop

From LifeSite News we see more of what is transpiring behind closed doors at the Spokane chancery.  While it was announced (in a most wishy-washy fashion) that priests are permitted to pray at abortuaries, the bishop has privately reiterated suggestions that they not do so.

The LifeSite article gives contact information for Bishop Cupich.  Please suggest to him that if he himself doesn't hold the pro-life cause as top priority, that he at least stop trying to muzzle his priests who are inclined to act as, well, priests.

This Is A "Clarification"??

Bishop Cupich "clarified" his position on his diocesan priests participating in 40 Days for Life.  Well, kinda!  I'm not sure how clear this "clarification" is.  Read it from the diocesan website.

Here's the first paragraph; I'll interject my comments in red.

"Surveys show that Catholics by and large mirror the general population when it comes to attitudes and decisions made about life issues.  That's because the clergy have failed abysmally in their God-given missions to teach Faith and Morals. The present political environment has become very toxic no more toxic than is abortion to babies and polarizing  Truth by nature is polarizing, for truth and falsehood are polar opposites.  Polarization is nothing to be avoided, to the point that people have become fixed in their positions the pro-life side SHOULD be "fixed in its position" because it is the truth, especially in regard to abortion, and are unwilling to talk to each other. The pastoral challenge is to get people to take a second look at the issue of abortion. Actually, the "challenge is to TEACH the truth of abortion clearly and courageously."

"While the 40 Days for Life program is not a Catholic initiative nor endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he concluded that participation in it and in vigils by individuals or associations of Catholics was possible My!  Isn't it pecular how "ecumenism" can so easily be jettisoned, when the effort in question is pro-life! . At the same time, he indicated that he would not consider it under the umbrella of the respect life efforts of the Diocese. The Catholic Church is concerned about a broad range of respect life issues Sounds like the "seamless garment" hoax is again providing a cloak for inaction by the chancery and has a pastoral tradition which shapes its approach. It is critical that we rely on programs initiated by the Church, lest our concerns and our pastoral approach be defined too narrowly. I strongly suspect that the unborn babies would appreciate a narrow definition of approach here"

"When visiting with the presbyterate, the Bishop asked the priests to approach respect life issues as teachers, for that is what they are. Teachers create new openings for learning and reduce obstacles. They must boldly proclaim the truth unabashedly, vigorously and often.  Their intense passion to share the truth leads them to greater patience and prudence and not frustration with and disdain for students who fail to respond appropriately. Their witness to the faith through teaching becomes all the more powerful when the presbyterate works together in unity and solidarity.  They also must teach by example.  That means going out to the abortuaries, where the crying need is.  That is REAL solidarity."

"As for the specific question of the priests’ participation in the 40 Days for Life vigils, the Bishop recognizes that a given priest in good conscience may feel the need to participate in the vigils and he should never be forced to go against a good and informed conscience.  The bishop sounds like he's giving a reluctant concession to his pro-life priests, instead of commending these priests for their concern and zeal!  Sheesh!"

Talk about a namby-pamby back-peddling!  In the bishop's meandering verbiage, we see reason why the Church has been so ineffectual in stopping abortion.

An Interesting Coincidence Regarding Two Bishops In Recent News

Unless one has had their head in the sand, one could not have missed all the kerfuffle about Father Pavone being called back to his home diocese of Amarillo and away from Priests for Life.  Jill Stanek has much to say about this matter on her blog.  Here's more from LifeSite News.  The bishop of Amarillo is His Excellency Patrick Zurek.  Shortly after the bishop released his letter, he left for his vacation in the Rio.  He was gone when Father Pavone arrived.  But that is not the "interesting coincidence". 

The other bishop of interest is Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, who is forbidding his priests from engaging in pro-life activism (see yesterday's post).

So what do these two bishops have in common (besides squelching pro-life activities of their priests)?  Well, let's go back to May 2009, when the Messiah Most Miserable occasioned the University of Notre Dame's act of disdain of its Catholic heritage.  Although most of the bishops could not bestir themselves to utter a protest, 83 of them did so.  A list of these was compiled by LifeSite News.  Take a look - you will not find these two bishops listed thereon.  Surprised?  Don't be!

Spokane Bishop Forbids His Priests From Engaging In Pro-Life Activism

Today, on this Solemnity of the Triumph of the Cross, comes the news that Bishop Blaise Cupich of the Diocese of Spokane (WA) has forbidden his priests and seminarians from engaging in pro-life activism.  I suspect Peter Kreeft had him in mind when he made the statement featured in my post from yesterday.

They are forbidden from praying in front of Planned Parenthood or any other abortion mill.  Moreover, they are forbidden to promote such activities.  He went so far as to name the "40 Days for Life" effort as one of the forbidden activities.  He went on to forbid the distribution of any pro-life materials on church grounds, save for those published by the Washington Catholic Conference.  I suppose that means that advertisements for post-abortion healing are also forbidden?  Such materials are allowed in my church; they fly off the literature racks.  That should give us an idea of how many Catholics hurt from abortion.  Is the bishop really cutting off that avenue of help for these poor people?

Now what are his reasons?  He allegedly said that he doesn't want anyone who "represents him"  to be associated with "extreme" pro-lifers who use graphic pictures of aborted babies.  If this is true, this statement is an utter disgrace for a bishop.

It is supremely ironic that news of this is breaking on this Solemnity of the Triumph of the Cross.  We celebrate the Cross today, with His Precious Blood shed for us.  We do not flinch from the Cross, in all its raw pain and brutality, for such was the price paid for our redemption.  How then does a bishop of Jesus Christ order his priests to turn from the babies who are being slaughtered in his diocese?  He doesn't want his priests to be "extreme"?  Does he not realize that Jesus seemed "extreme" to Caiaphis and the other religious leaders of Jerusalem?  With whom does Bishop Cupich identify - Jesus or Caiaphis?

In all fairness to the bishop, there has been no public statement from his diocesan offices.  However, it would be incumbent upon him to clarify any misunderstandings (if indeed this is merely a misunderstanding).  To that effect, I urge all to contact him.  The diocesan site is http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/; contact information is found therein.  First let's ascertain the truth and then we'll go from there.  More later.