By this, I don't mean that they should choose from their brothers, men who are capable of carrying out tasks assigned to them. But when we see the votes that are taken, meaning how many votes a particular candidate received, isn't there a kind of humiliation that accompanies this kind of transparency, especially if the vote isn't anywhere close.
Personally, I am happy that the pro-life bishop who won is the the one who won!
But here is the Chicago Tribune's secular and political take on it--and the only ones responsible for the politicization of this kind of thing isn't the Tribune, but the bishops:
Cupich suffers rare political defeat at hands of fellow U.S. bishops
Cardinal Blase Cupich has often been praised for his political savvy since he was installed in Chicago by Pope Francis. But Cupich suffered a rare setback Tuesday morning when his fellow U.S. bishops rejected him for the post of chairman of the powerful pro-life activities committee, instead electing Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann. The post is traditionally reserved for cardinals, meaning the conservative Naumann’s 96-82 vote victory over Cupich has widely been seen as a snub for the more progressive approach advocated by Cupich and the pope. National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winters — a liberal — went so far as to say the vote by the U.S. Conference of Catholic BishopsContinue Reading by clicking here as the disgraceful Michael Sean Winters uses a vulgarity to describe what the bishops did to make Cardinal cupich suffer so much!
Well deserved setback for the Bernardin wing of the "catholic" Church. I live in the Archdiocese of Chicago and haven't given a dime since Cupich was installed and I have shared my reasons why. I am not alone
TJM, there is an actual Catholic bishop residing within the Archdiocese of Chicago at Our Lady Immaculate Church in Oak Park, Illinois. Do you ever go to that church?
No, but I am aware of this Church. I actually go to St. John Cantius, an oasis in a desert of liturgical mediocrity. Bishop Perry frequently celebrates the EF there. He is African-American which really causes the liturgical "progressives" to throw a nutty. In their world, he is betraying his "culture" whatever that means. He clearly isn't betraying Christ or His Church.
Cardinal Blase Cupich is an "actual Catholic Bishop" who resides in Chicago.
More than that, he is the actual diocesan bishop.
Cupich is nominally catholic, and yes, he is a bishop, one that I ignore since he doesn't teach orthodox Catholic teaching. He's into unions and man made global warming and giving adulterers Holy Communion. Sounds like your kind of guy.
Cupich "suffered?" OMG! LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!!!!!
Cardinal Blase Cupich might be the diocesan bishop, and he might reside in Chicago. But he isn't Catholic.
Cardinal Cupich is Catholic. Other than opinions, neither of you have presented any credible, demonstrable reason to believe otherwise.
Unions and the rights of workers to fair wages, to collective bargaining, etc., are supported by Church teaching. (Quadragesimo Anno (The Fortieth Year ) #71, Economic Justice for All #104, Laborem Exercens (On Human Work) #15, Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year) #35, Rerum Novarum, etc)
Regarding stewardship for the environment, Cardinal Cupich is following closely in the footsteps of Cardinal George (another non-Catholic in some of your eyes, I am sure) who partnered with Energy Star to reduce energy usage in diocesan properties.
This isn't a court where one has to bring forth evidence to support an opinion. This is the comments section of an internet blog. You say Cupich is Catholic; I say he's not. Ultimately no one cares about my opinion or yours.
Cupich is a big-time out of touch lefty, preaching politics not the Faith. For example, his support of unions, like yours, is antiquated. Unions, are passe, and actually harm the people they claim to love. Right to work states have lower unemployment rates than union states like Illinois, and in right to work states, unions reject collective bargaining time after time by the workers. Moreover, unions are strongest in the public employment sector (a massive tax payer rip off). I guess cabbies and waitresses need to pay higher taxes to support the pensions of their "betters" in government. Moreover, St. Franklin de Roosevelt, patron saint of unions, forbad public employee unions because they represent a massive conflict of interests. Chew on that.
Cupich is really cutting edge when it comes to gun violence (really gang violence). When responding to Dems shooting Dems on the south side of Chicago, Cupich was quoted in the Chicago tribune as stating "he intends to continue pushing for what he called "sensible gun restrictions," including a ban on "military-style automatic weapons." Cupich fails to recognize that Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the US, that's how out of touch this guy is. What's happening on the south side of Chicago is a moral and spiritual crisis and this is what this "spiritual leader" of the left thinks is the solution. If Cupich focused on the spiritual side, maybe some of this gang violence would slowly recede.
Cardinal George did not believe in man-made gobal warming as Cupich does. Reducing your electric bill is a far cry from supporting man made global warming.
You are comedy gold.
Interesting way of holding the thurible. A good example of ars celebrandi for Chicago?? It looks like he could roundhouse it similar to medieval weaponry. Attention to detail - thank goodness surgeons are still so focused. I cannot wait for Anonymous to lecture me on how unimportant that is - all that matters is that we are gathered in, we shake everyone's hand, we take and eat and we leave on eagle's wings while singing a new song (btw, although I detest the arrangement, I'm not tone deaf to the 'Cry of the Poor' - psalm 34).
I gotta tell you, I'm from Chicago, and I did a little mental "happy dance" and breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the results of who was selected for this post. I for one can't forget what Cupich did while bishop of Rapid City (locking parishioners at an EF parish out of their parish church for the Triduum) and when bishop of Spokane in 2011, discouraging priests and seminarians in his diocese from participating in demonstrations in front of Planned Parenthood clinics or supporting 40 Days for Life.
In general, Cupich's statements always seem to me to be of the carefully worded type, that if read quickly seem support traditional Catholic doctrine, but if read slowly and weighed, are no such thing.
Here's an example:
"...as South Dakota voters considered a referendum that would ban abortion except to save the mother's life, Cupich called for "public dialogue ... marked by civility and clarity". He proposed three conditions for the conduct of political debate: "1. It must be recognized that both the issue of abortion and legal restrictions on abortion are inevitably moral questions informed by moral values.; 2. There should be agreement that any discussion of abortion and the law must recognize both the suffering of the unborn children in abortion and the suffering of pregnant women in dire circumstances.; 3. There must be a commitment to dialogue that is civil, interactive and substantial."
#2 is problematic for me: "..any discussion of abortion and the law must recognize both the suffering of the unborn children in abortion and the suffering of pregnant women in dire circumstances..." The Left's position is that the pregnant woman's "suffering" is what trumps all other considerations. So, was Cupich saying the Church's defense of life can be mitigated by considerations of the suffering of the mother? Does he think that? Does he teach that? I don't know, but the vagueness is troubling.
And "dialogue?" Isn't that Hegelian philosophy: that truth can only be reached by dialogue and dialectic? But I thought the Catholic Church has doctrines it contends are the truth, as revealed by God. Since when do we get to truth via dialectic? Does Cupich think we do? Does he himself derive truth from dialectic?
By the way, the Chicago Tribune used to be the conservative voice in Chicago while the Sun Times was the more liberal voice. Over the last 10 or so years, the Tribune has slowly but surely marched Left, and now, the paper prints articles like the one Fr. McD posted, which subtly touts the Left and criticizes those who would hold traditional interpretations of Catholic doctrine. By innuendo, it was suggested that the UCCB in effect rejected Pope Francis' teaching! I wonder what low information Catholic readers think of that!
I've stopped reading the Tribune. I get all the Leftist propaganda I can take from t.v. and the internet, thank you very much. :-)
"By innuendo, it was suggested that the UCCB in effect rejected Pope Francis' teaching!"
Good! Low info Catholic needs to learn somewhere that our current pope is so far out there as to be suspect even with the Democratic Party at Prayer (aka the USCCB).
TJM - The Church's (and Cupich's) support for unions is not antiquated. It is doctrine. You don't like it, you disagree with it, but it remains part of the Church's teaching. If you can show where, in the Church's teaching, that doctrine has been rescinded, please do so. Not comedy, just fact.
Marc - Courts are not the only place where evidence should be given to support opinions. You may be of the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but that opinion, without evidence, is worthless. And our words, even here, do have impact. That's precisely why they should be truthful and evidence-based. To Catholics, it matters.
Byz - I say one can hold the thurible chain however one wants, as long as the coals stay in the thing and don't fall out, burning holes in the carpet!
I am sure priests like you were all in favor of updating the Mass but not in favor of updating labor pronouncements which NO longer fit the reality (or justice) on the ground. You can't even being to respond to the facts (I thought you believed in the scientific method, so why not answer why right to work states have a lower unemployment rate, and I didn't mention this, that their wage increases are higher). Jimmy Hoffa was a thug, a criminal, and even Robert Kennedy went after him. Answer my direct challenge about the reality of labor unions instead of relying on antique labor views from the 19th century which are no longer grounded in reality. When the Catholic Church adopts a living wage and benefits for ITS employees I will take their little bon mots seriously. Until then, they are hypocritical windbags like you and the political left.
I find myself agreeing with Father Kavanaugh. It is good that the Church support the right of workingmen to organize and strike for a just cause. It is good to insist on well-reasoned arguments in any discussion, at least with men. Cupich is clearly a bishop of the Catholic Church, although one with a weak disposition.
TJM - So, you have determined that the Church's teaching (not "views," but teaching) on some topic (in this case, unions and the rights of workers) is "no longer grounded in reality," then you are free to ignore it.
Using your process, one is left to imagine that some (not me, by the by) may determine that the Church's teaching on justification, on the Real Presence, on the operation of grace, or some other doctrinal matter may reach a similar conclusion on those teachings and declare them to be not grounded in reality.
There's more than a little resonance with the Protestant Reformation going on here, don't you think?
Nice attempt at deflection, but epic fail. There is a world of difference between doctrines regarding the divine nature of the Church and pronouncements on economics for which the Church lacks proven competence. There have been many economic systems since Christ founded his Church, including feudalism, mercantilism and capitalism, just to name a few. The Church generally had the good sense to stay out of the way other than invoking the 10 Commandments "Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's goods, etc." Remember those?
Socialism and communism violate those Commandments (See Venezuela). I insist YOU begin to pay YOUR employees a real living wage and benefits before pontificating to us about economics.
Dialogue, obviously you have not been on the receiving end of union intimidation and thuggery.You further are ignoring, like Kavanaugh, the indisputable documented facts that right to work states have lower unemployment rates and their workers receive better wage increases then their counterparts in union good (Blue) states. But ignore facts if that makes you feel good and virtuous.
"There is a world of difference between doctrines regarding the divine nature of the Church and pronouncements on economics for which the Church lacks proven competence."
So, then, one must conclude from your reasoning that a person (not me, by the by) may determine that, in certain areas, the Church's teaching authority "lacks proven competence."
Isn't that exactly what Luther said about the Church's interpretation of Scripture?
Oh, and I'm not pontificating about a thing. I set before you the Church's own teaching - doctrine - regarding the rights of workers to organize for to bargain collectively. You choose to ignore that teaching.
And you reject the science behind this. Funny how liberals are for science but then against science what it destroys their delusions. Right to work states have lower unemployment and higher wage growth than union, goon states. If the Church truly cares about workers, they should revisit their tired, outdated and nonsensical positions in an area where they clearly lack competence. When the Pope gets an MBA, let me know. And they should revisit whether it is "socially just" for cabbies and waitresses to be paying higher taxes to support their betters in government lavish pensions. If you think that the right to collective bargaining is on par with the Eucharist or the right to life, you're beyond help. But you are a victim, of left-wing indoctrination in the seminary. Sad
TJM What you're missing is that the Church's doctrine on unions and collective bargaining isn't about economics or economic systems. It is about human rights.
In the area of human rights the Church most certainly has "proven competence."
In Pacem in Terris, St. Pope John XXIII wrote, "An orderly and fruitful social life is based on the principle that every human being is a person, that is, a nature endowed with intelligence and free will; and therefore is subject to rights and duties that derive immediately and simultaneously from his very nature: rights and duties which are, therefore, universal, inviolable, inalienable. If one goes on to consider the dignity of the human person in the light of divine revelation, then it will appear incomparably greater, since men have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and with grace have become sons and friends of God and the heirs to eternal glory".
Kavanaugh, So the Church can use "human rights" to disadvantage and harm the people they claim they want to help? You never address the science behind my remarks. The Church was wrong about Galileo and they are wrong on economics. FYI, the Church under the current pontiff is doing next to nothing about human rights. Christians are being slaughtered in the Mideast whereas Francis is standing with the left-wing fringe are their faux concern we might not "like" the Muslim invaders. Sorry, you're out to lunch and so is Francis. The seats continue to empty under this pontificate, even with the "New and Improved Mass" and Francis' show of "mercy"
TJM - How does the Church's teaching on human rights harm anyone?
Regarding Galileo, he ran afoul of the Church due to what seemed to Church authorities at the time his conclusion that the Scriptures were in error.
But, we know that the Scriptures were not in error, since the Scriptures are not directed to explaining scientific facts, including the science of astronomy. We know that now, but in the time of Galileo this was not apparent to, I suspect, Galileo or the Church authorities.
A very helpful and relatively short piece is St. Pope John Paul II's address to the participants of the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 31 October 1992 on this very question.
The link is http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze.html
You really can't be this dense. Collective bargaining results in less jobs and lower wage increases. How does this help the little guy you claim to love when the empirical evidence points to the fact that less collective bargaining, equals lower unemployment and higher wage growth. I guess you really are anti-science and devoid of the ability to get outside your ideological cage.
"When the Pope gets an MBA, let me know."
When he gets an MD degree, only then can he teach about medical ethics?
When he gets a degree in Psychology, only then can he talk about marriage/divorce?
When someone pins a star or two on his shoulders, only then can he talk about the morality of wars?
You're misunderstanding the nature of the Church's teaching.
"Whether unions positively or negatively affect the labor market depends on whom you ask. Unions say that they help increase the wage rate, improve working conditions and create incentives for employees to learn continued job training. Union wages are generally higher than non-union wages globally. According to a 2013 study, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, " Salaries for private industry union workers averaged $18.36 per hour while those for nonunion private industry workers averaged $14.81 per hour." As well, the study found that union workers have more access to employee benefits than nonunion workers.
Unions: Do They Help Or Hurt Workers? https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/unions-workers.asp#ixzz4ydRAc6Ij
Kanaugh at 5:12,
Here read this and educate yourself:
Conclusion: Church supports higher unemployment by supporting unions
TUM - So your conclusion is that the Church's doctrine regarding collective bargaining is wrong? Doctrine, mind you.
I favor the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not favor each and every use of such arms.
I favor the right of workers to organize and strike for a just cause, but I do not favor each and every labor union or each and every labor strike.
Dialogue - Indeed.
However, TJM is rejecting the Church's teaching which he finds "antiquated," "outdated, "nonsensical," and "no longer grounded in reality."
TJM concludes the doctrine is in error. He rejects it.
And, as we all know, that, for a Catholic, is highly problematic.
Kavanaugh, thanks for the laughs. You of all people shouldn't be lecturing on what is problematic. Your world view, which supports the Abortion Party, is enough to discredit you. You really should consider the Episcopal Church, they NEED you.
TJM - I've not lectured you. I've given you the Church teaching - doctrine - on the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.
This has nothing to do with the "Abortion Party" or the Episcopal Church. Those are diversions you throw out to make your position seem credible. It is not.
You reject the Church's doctrine. That's the bottom line here.
Post a Comment