Cupich: He’s back!

I guess Archbishop Blase Cupich wasn’t getting enough attention and wanted to make a big splash. What’s the matter, Archbishop, were the Vatican light show and Cardinal Turkson stealing your thunder? So what has he said now? In case you haven’t heard the collective groan of the faithful, try this on for size:

When asked if the same “internal forum” could be used to secure Communion for sexually active homosexuals, he said that it could. “When people who are in good conscience working with a spiritual director come to a decision, then they need to follow that conscience. That’s the teaching of the Church. So in the case of people receiving Communion in situations that are irregular that also applies. The question then was: Does that apply to gay people? My answer was: they’re human beings too. They have a conscience. Thy have to follow their conscience.

He continued: “They have to be able to have a formed conscience, understand the teaching of the Church, and work with a spiritual director and come to those decisions. And we have to respect that.”
“It’s not up to any minister who is distributing the Eucharist to make a decision about a person’s worthiness or lack of worthiness. That’s on the conscience of those individuals,” he added.”

There are sooooooooooooooooo many things wrong with this one. First and foremost, the “internal forum” was brought up in regards to the annulment process. It was not brought up in regards to active homosexual relationships, nor even to the simple divorced and remarried case. To even imply that these are in any way comparable to each other is totally and utterly ridiculous. Cupich is pretty much trying to nullify sin in general.

So what is all this “internal forum” talk in regards to annulments? I didn’t know what the heck it was, but there was a very narrow possible scenario given to me as an example. I’m sure there are others examples, but at least it explains to me why anyone is even still using it in a sentence. I was thinking about giving the scenario, but it was conjecture at best, even though I suspect good conjecture from a knowledgeable Catholic.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that Cardinal Burke has said the Synod did not and cannot approve the internal forum for divorced/remarried to receive Communion. Marriage is indissoluble.  And, here’s the biggie, the Pope hasn’t put forth any document yet.  Cupich is speaking WAY out of turn and trying, once again, the old “put the cart before the horse” method of trying to sway the Holy Father.

The “internal forum” regarding annulment scenario presented to me was a “failure to administer justice” scenario. Sorry to be vague but I wouldn’t want to lead anyone into error by stating the scenario knowing that there is a possibility it might be incorrect, even if I think it sound.

If my friend’s scenario is correct, suffice it to say, it would be super rare (as any use of the “internal forum” would be) and it would be limited to something that COULD be a rectifiable situation IF the annulment were eventually granted. It does nothing to alter the indissolubility of marriage, though. In contrast, there is NOTHING that could ever rectify an active homosexual relationship. There is nothing that can make homosexual acts not intrinsically depraved, and, as the Catechism states (Archbishop Cupich might want to crack it open every once in a while), “Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Do you see the difference in the two scenarios? There’s a gap the size of the Grand Canyon in between them. In one scenario, a couple would be trying their best in accordance with the teachings of the Church to live in accordance to the Church teachings. The scenario with a couple continuing in an active homosexual relationship is them failing the teaching of the Church (and, really, them failing themselves).
Cupich is floating something not even close. He’s saying, if a couple doesn’t think the teachings of the Church are correct, they can just use their very poorly formed conscience to decide if they are committing a sinful act. I guess he’s also saying they need to shop around for a spiritual director like him who goes with the “I’m OK. You’re OK.” mantra. It’s just a tad bit different.

Next, the “minister” distributing Communion certainly does have the duty to protect the Eucharist from defilement. If someone walks up with an “I’m an atheist!” t-shirt, they have made a public statement and shouldn’t be given the Communion. Remember a few years back when the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence approached Archbishop Niederauer for Communion in full clown drag dress? It was a “gotcha” moment where he failed, and he admitted that. ( Yes, the minister can and should protect Our Lord’s Body and Blood from the sacrilege of the Eucharist. Public obstinate sinners are in a special class. So, you see, the “I’m sinning and I’m going to keep sinning no matter what the Church says” without public repentance club can be denied Communion to avoid scandal. The “minister” denying Communion to the public obstinate sinner, despite what Cupich might decree, might REALLY be where the “internal forum” comes in.


35 thoughts on “Cupich: He’s back!

  1. Thanks for your explanation! I knew that Grand Canyon was there but every time I’ve tried to discuss it I had a hard time putting it into words.

    Hmm. Maybe we should take up a collection and send Abp. Cupich a carton of Catechisms!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. OMM,I saw the Lifesite article earlier and was anticipating your post. Thanks for your honest and excellent assessment. It is extremely disheartening to realize that we in the Chicago Archdiocese are stuck with Cupich. I hope the Pope moves him to Rome. I think he’d be at home there.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Join an Eastern Rite Catholic church in Chicago. They have -separate Bishops & press and B annual appeal.. Our Catholic Transcript monthly AD, paper in Ct. featured a glowing article on CRS and Ms. Woo in its monthly feature no mention of her and Salesians scandal condom promotion etc. of the faith in Africa . You should do what I did in Ct.. Join an Eastern Rite church. Then Send a letter to local AB Cupich in your case and the Diocese paper in Chicago as I did in Ct. to the AB and Catholic Transcript Recently, telling them to STOP asking you or me for money or sending me their publication since I am a East Rite Catholic since Labor Day 2014..Be thankful SF Cal has AB Cordileone. Rest of nation largely has Holy fool -church of nice ,3 monkeys of Hear speak or say no evil , 3 blind mice ,Like Gomez, Cupich, Weurl, O’malley and scandal homosexual riddled Dolan as alleged AB.


    2. Not sure if my previous post was listed or why not. To seeker -Join an Eastern Rite Catholic church. They have Separate bishops and annual appeal and press. I did this in Ct. sending separate letters to AB in Hartford and Catholic Transcript(Featured glowing article on Woo and CRS despite their and Salesian scandalous actions condom promotion etc. in Africa) telling them to stop asking me for money and sending me Catholic Transcript of Ct.. I joined East rite Catholic church Labor Day 2014. Sf Cal are lucky they have AB Cordileone. We in most of the USA Sadly are stuck with Cupich Gomez Weurl etc.. These liberals are the Three blind mice or see hear and speak no evil Holy fools from the church of nice.


      1. Hey, we didn’t always have Archbishop Cordileone. We took a stand and fought for him (and his predecessor). I get why people leave for other rites and that’s really something they have to decide. I just warn people to watch the bunker mentality. I’m just a stay and fight kind of gal!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. When we have an archbishop like Archbishop Cordileone, one we can rally behind, we will stay and fight! He has some wonderful priests and we must support them, too!

          I have heard rumors of good things to come. At least from my point of view. I’m sure there are some who will cringe…and I will pray for them.


      2. Ed, you aren’t the only Catholic who did the side step to another Rite seeking the reverence and piety the rebels tried to destroy. You should share your commitment to the Catholic Church with others. It is an option more should utilize simply because so many get seduced into Sedevacantism, Traditionalism, the SSPX, the More Catholic Than The Pope crowd and all other places in between and some that seem more anti-Catholic in their hatred than some Protestants I’ve met! Yeah you should share more who you made you peace with the heresies and schisms that abound. Ever go to Church Militant? It may interest you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I do not put my faith and hope in the clerical Church or their followers among the laity, that is, the ones who rationalize modernism and sin. I stand with the Remnant. We are in a de facto schism, like it or not.


  4. Well Mad Mom, wanna get madder? Have you read this yet?

    ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE, November 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — On the plane returning from his journey to Africa today Pope Francis made his clearest remarks in condemnation of ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics.

    “Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” Francis said, as reported by the National Catholic Reporter’s Vatican correspondent, Joshua McElwee, and similarly by other journalists on the plane. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.”

    “They do evil,” said the pope. “I say this because it is my church.”

    Ooops dare I risk excommunication via Fisichella and state that’s not the way God sees it? Ummm, goes like this: The very first lesson in how to be a Pope, given by Jesus in front of 11 other witnesses and verified by many others thru the years as this – “Thou are Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” So, how did this very basic lesson in whose Church the Servant of the Servants of God belongs to? Ooops. out current Pontifex Maximus has forgotten a few basic lessons in how to be a good Pope. Maybe its a bad case of jet lag or something? Waddaya think there Mad Mom?

    Have another cup of coffee. It’ll get the rest of the day off to the bright start every Saturday should have.

    God bless. Ginnyfree

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh,I read that one. The problem is, I have no idea what he is saying. Moratorium on soundbites I say! I could actually agree with the comment you posted in regards to some people. You really have to know who it applies to to know if it’s good or bad.


      1. Clarity. Confusion is a tool of the devil. Keep ’em guessing or talk way over their heads. Purity has no shades to it. It is absolutely pure. When the spring of eternal wisdom is flowing from the lips of one who is anointed for the purpose of preaching, every word comes in crystal clear. It is one of the hallmarks of authenticity. Think back to when you heard St. John Paul II speak, how easy it was to grasp exactly what he meant no matter where in the dialog you picked him up. You could walk into the last three sentences of his talk and get something from the wellspring of Christ. It made theology easy. Benedict XVI was also gifted with some of this but he had an ebb and flow to some of his stuff. Sometimes you just weren’t as tuned into the same page. He did leave clouds in the sky about certain things, but it was done like a good professor who needed you to think, think, think and then think a little more. I love it when I get challenged that way, but that is just me. Pope Francis has not got these charisms and it shows. I learned quickly that #1 being a convert and coming into the Church under JP2 that he was a gift to the Church and a living Saint and I got SPOILED in a way by this. #2 All Popes are different and some aren’t Saints at all. Some get sanctified by the Office during their reigns. I thought perhaps Pope Francis would be one of these, but I’m still a bit disappointed. However, God is in charge and we get what we need. I was spoiled by JP2 and Benedict. I’ve been challenged by Francis to exercise new spiritual muscles. But I sure could use some clarity soon. I’m not looking forward to the Exhortation awaited in the wake of the Synod. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  5. So, like, when Paul said that you were condemning yourself when you take communion when in a state of sin, that don’t count. And when Jesus said, getting married a second time is actually adultery, that don’t count.

    But, like, the only thing that counts, man, is what you think about it. Like, you go talk to that liberal priest, and you both decide, together like, that it’s totally cool for you to take communion, like because who is the bishop to tell you anything about Catholicism anyway? He’s just harshing your mellow.

    Let it all hang out.

    That Cupich is one groovy cat.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. The Relatio Synodi, like ALL Modernist documents, does not clearly advance heresy with trumpets and call to battle. It opens the door to heresy so that it can be advanced through smoke, subterfuge and confusion.

    One phrase, among others, was key for me to see this document as a fatal opening for Modernist immorality. That was in Paragraph 85, in which the “orientation of the Bishop” was placed NEXT TO the “Teachings of the Church”, for the purpose of assisting poor souls’ discernment of conscience.

    The orientation of this particular Bishop Cupich is clear. He is in favor of loving homosexual relations and loving adulterous re-married relations. He interprets scripture and Church Tradition his way according to his “orientation”. Another Bishop another way. Orientations for one and all.

    The key point? THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL ORIENTATION OF ANY BISHOP! There is only the “Teachings Of The Church” and Bishops who evangelize the their flock with it.

    This document was loaded with similar trap-doors. They will be used quickly and aggressively to establish their legality. We will have heresy without knowing how, when or if it occurred. THAT is the game. Parishioners will be scratching their heads in the pew, one day so, wondering “this don’t seem right”!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Here’s the rub: when a soul, such as an active sodomite, is in a state of moral sin, their conscience is dead. It was like that for me during the time I lived in mortal sin too. My ‘conscience’ did not hurt me a bit when I sinned. Thanks be to God, I did not die during that time for my eternal place would have been hot.

    The sodomite priest who ‘came out’ in pride with his lover just before the synod, thinking he could get away with it, is an example to saying too much too soon even if you think confirmation is just around the corner.

    Cupich is a danger to the faith and will do much damage unless he converts to Roman Catholicism. And we know what they say about what paves the floor of hell….

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Very good. A true testimony to those of us who turned away from sin not because we wanted Heaven, but because we could feel the HEAT of HELL! Welcome home. Now don’t blow it!


  9. Maybe AB Cupich is giving us a peek of the new, yet unpublished Exortation or Encyclical from the just concluded Synod. You know Francis and Blase are thick as thieves and he’s allowing Blase to field test the new “internal form” process.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Peters, a canon lawyer, has written a new article wherein he responds to Cupich’s detractors, who claim he is making heretical statements. He is not a heretic, just misguided on certain points. I’ve read Peters enough to conclude that he is a form over substance kind of guy and he does so in order to maintain bjectivity, which is important in order to be of use to those who pay him (on all sides). Of course, the laity, the brain dead uneducated, mindless robots in the pews, do not pay him and lack understanding of the complex motives and thoughts of the upper echelon. How is it that us folks down here in the muck know that sin is a sin when we see it, touch it, feel it, and like it, and constantly struggle with it, but the smart ones above us do not see as we see? In fact, if Cupich is not trying to systematically and deceptively overturn Church doctrine on Faith and morals and slowly removing sin and confession from the Church, then exactly what is he trying do do, if it is not bordering on the heretical?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. His sense is perfect but keep in mind he is speaking from a view point of a Canonist. Formal heresy is different from making heretical statements or practicing in a heretical way or promoting error, etc. He is well aware of the boundaries laid upon him as a Canonist. He cannot say someone is a heretic like you or I can. Once Cupich is charged, then his language can flow in a different manner. He is well aware of the potential impact a statement like “Cupich is a heretic” would have if he, Dr. Peters, said it rather than me, Ginnyfree, saying something to effect that “I think Cupich simply is speaking heresy when he talks and I generally disregard most of what he says and lay none of his words up in my heart.” If he were my instructor in my RCIA class, I’d be home checking much of what he passes off as Church Teaching in said classes against what literature I have that contains the Truth, both the CCC and my Bible as well as few other trusty rusty sources. If my children were in a Pre-Cana Class with him at the head of it handing out instructions, I’d grill them afterwards for a few hours making sure they got the Truth told to them plainly, etc. Foxes and henhouses don’t go together. I’m quite a bit freer to speak this way then I’d be if I had the degrees and positions of a Dr. Peters. I can say what I’m thinking and how I feel about all that matters to me as a layperson, There is a Canon that provides guidance in this regard as well as some Authentic Pastoral advise for this contained in the documents of the Second vatican Council. We as laypersons are to carry our concerns and feelings and input to our pastors and priests whenever and wherever this may be necessary. The Canons specifically call this a DUTY and obligation placed upon us via our Baptism. (see (Canon 212, 1,2, & 3 and the & The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity in the V2 Docs.) So, to me that means speak up and let them know what I think or I’m in the wrong and not living out my Baptismal Promises as I should in their fullness.

      Think of it this way: Cupich has a different perspective on things. The secret to his ability to be as lenient as possible under the appearance of pastoral concern, etc. lies in his heart. He is doing what he feels in right at this time in his spiritual journey. If enough people complain and he gets charged or even simply warned officially to tone it down a bit, he may re-evaluate his position and/or simply speak differently so as to get out of further distress with the disciplinary branches of our Church. But until then, the words a man such as Dr. Peters uses have to be chosen differently than you or I.

      Hope this helps. God bless. Ginnyfree.


      1. No, most of your response is a more formal way of saying what I said about Peters. If I need to reference Peters on a technical point I have no problem doing so. By defending Cupich on canon form Peters misses the “PR” aspect that by defending him he gives the appearance of supporting him. As to Cupich I care less about his ways and means of presentation and personal desires. I absolutely do not believe that his primacy of conscience supersedes the will of God as it has been revealed to us over time and that it is OK to disobey the commandments of the Church and instruction given in the RCC because it really feels good in his heart. If he doesn’t like the Church he should leave. Period. Not so hard to understand. I do not feel a need to be nice to bishops, priests, and nuns who say and do things that are contrary to Church teaching. They should use their “primacy of conscience” to know better.


        1. Very good Raymond. Everyone knows that it is the well-formed conscience that is to be the guide and not the type that is passing for such these days. Peters isn’t defending Cupich. He is simply speaking about him. He isn’t a formal heretic yet, but he may get there. Until then, Peters will be limited in the words he can use to describe his public acts. I on the other hand am not bound and can speak a little freer as a laywoman. That has a certain advantage. I only have the usual cautions: deliberate and/of malicious slander, calumny or detraction and toss in plain ole gossip too. Avoiding these will sharing my own thoughts of matters such as these is also a fulfillment of my responsibility as a layperson and member of the Body of Christ by my Baptism. THAT is m point. It has little to do with defending any particular person’s theology or position. See what I mean? God bless and thanks for the feedback. Ginnyfree.


          1. I think you entirely missed my point because you fail to understand the impact that words have in mass circulation. The average person in the pews does not know or care or understand if Peters is limited by legal restraints and that Cupich is speaking from conscience. What they see are “Catholic” men in high positions pronouncing on the latest, arguably anti-Catholic or heterodox views, and implying that they are “OK” for all the wrong reasons, namely, Cupich’s nice, pastoral ones that conflict with Church teaching or Peter’s mumbo-jumbo built into canon law. What other inference can the average person make? You believe that trusting persons like this since 1960 has served the Church well? Cupich is like the captain steering the Titanic into an ice berg while Peters rearranges the chairs on the deck. Only a non-thinking Catholic can believe that the consequences of more talk like this will not lead to further erosion of the Faith. I see no reason to give either person a pass.


          2. LOL! I do not know a Sr. Peters. Actually, I do not want to tell you personally. It’s simply that you responded to my points and i am counter-responding. You do not like rebuttals?


          3. No, Raymond. I don’t mind mincing words up a bit, I’m just too tired today and have too many other people asking me to mince words today. Yeah. Now about Sis Peters – unfortunately there is no edit option here and I’m usually in need of one. I saw it right after hitting post at the bottom. Oh well. Glad it made you laugh. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  11. On a side bar to all of what I just said, persons such as Mad Mom providing a place to simply chat it up among laypersons, etc. actually helps us do exactly what both the Canons and the Decrees of V2 are asking of us – simply express how we feel, what our questions and concerns are and what we think about it all. Participation IS the Key to Harmony! Thank all those in the Land of the Lay Catholic Blog-o-sphere who are actually fulfilling this actually sacred duty as laypersons. They are providing for both and are living their own Baptismal Promises in a fully way by doing so. Thank them often and pray they keep places open to expression and discussion so all of us can have the say that is ours too. This negates the falsity of religious elitism and promotes growth and sanctity among us all. Thank you very much Mad Mom for providing for the venue whereby we can all live out our Baptism a little better in this regard. Just one big happy family.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, you’re most welcome. I love a good chat which is why I pretty much let all comments through (minus profane or xrated ones). This blog was pretty much started because I am not one to sit on my hands and keep my mouth shut. It was just an exercise in releasing my ever exploding thought process and my husband told me to go for it. He likes chatting with me and is immensely in love with my sarcasm but he probably loves me ranting in some other forum and not quite so much to him. LOL! That may have backfired on him though because he’s now my editor too. What a guy. Glad you it’s a benefit to you too!


      1. Hell, now you know you’re simply living your Baptismal Promises a little better by supplying a chatty place. Must be some Holy Fire kindled by your own loving environment or something. Can I interest you in some Montfort Spirituality? It shows how we live our Baptismal Promises to their fullest. I’d start with the Secret of Mary or Love of Eternal Wisdom. They’re short and sweet, to say the least.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s