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: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-cupich-again-insists-people-in-homosexual-unions-can-receive-com

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.” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm

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. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_niederauer_apologizes_for_giving_communion_to_sisters_of_perpetual_indulgence_at_san_francisco_parish/) 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.