November 14, 2017 headlines
Canon212.com has updated its USCCB general assembly reports.
The last time I recall posting anything bylined Michael Sean Winters was back in the blessed pontificate of Benedict XVI when he wrote something
especially nice about the Pope, although I cannot recall what it was. Not that I had posted much from Winters before that, since he writes for
the NCReporter from which, even then, the only writer whose material I used (not without much fisking) was John Allen.
Anyway, in view of Winters's smug pre-vote statement yesterday that "Everyone is sure the vote will be a quasi-referendum on support for
Pope Francis", whereby he did not seem to doubt the outcome would favor Cupich, one could almost savor his post-vote report in which he uses
indecorous language to describe what the bishops 'did' by voting Naumann over Cupich.
US bishops, electing Naumann to lead
pro-life committee, break tradition
This amounted to the bishops giving the middle finger to Pope Francis
by Michael Sean Winters
NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER
Nov 14, 2017
The U.S. bishops broke tradition this morning selecting Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, to serve as chairman of the Pro-Life Activities Committee. He defeated Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago on a vote of 96 to 82. Not to put too fine a point on it, but
this amounted to the bishops giving the middle finger to Pope Francis.
The Pro-Life Activities Committee has always been led by a cardinal, a way the bishops have signaled the priority they assign to that committee.
[Oh, now I see what tradition Winters means was broken! Mons. Naumann is not a cardinal. Imagine that - a 'mere' bishop beating the reigning pope's #1 protege in the Americas! BTW, this is not the first election Cupich has lost in the USCCB since he was anointed Bergoglio's mini-me in the USA. Remember they did not vote him as one of their three delegates to the family synod, so Bergoglio had to name him one of his personal appointees so he could attend.]
The outgoing chair is Cardinal Timothy Dolan who, like Naumann, is a protégé of Cardinal Justin Rigali.
[See how Winters manages to insinuate that Dolan as well as Naumann have presumably been 'ruined' by Rigali, or at least 'tainted' by association.]
In giving his committee report on Monday, Dolan singled out Naumann for praise. It was a none too subtle placing of his finger on the scales.
The contrast between the two candidates for chair of the Pro-Life Activities Committee was the starkest of the choices the bishops faced. Naumann and Cupich are both representative of the two divergent understandings of how the church should interact with the ambient culture. Naumann is a culture warrior. Cupich champions engagement and dialogue.
In 2008, Naumann told Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that she should not present herself for Communion because of her pro-choice position. This interpretation of Canon 915 was first advanced by Cardinal Raymond Burke but it was never the position adopted by most bishops who thought it a mistake to politicize the Communion rail.
Naumann also ordered his parishes to cease hosting Girl Scout troops over concerns they were somehow involved with Planned Parenthood.
He is not exactly a poster child for the culture of encounter. [Really, now!]
'
Cupich, on the other hand, has openly embraced
the consistent 'ethic of life' approach first introduced by his predecessor Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
[I already remarked earlier how deceptive the tag 'ethic of life' is, as it used by Bernardin and his followers. As usual with these relativists, they practice a selective 'ethic of life': In simplest terms, Humanae Vitae no, abortion is not always evil, and abolish the death penalty.] Many of the
zelanti in the pro-life movement deeply resented Bernardin's effort,
wanting a singular focus on abortion. [Singular focus, no, but focus, yes. Unlike the reigning pope, we zelanti can never talk enough about the evils of abortion.]
I recall an auxiliary bishop telling me that after he gave a talk that advocated the consistent ethic of life, his ordinary called him and told him, "We don't use that language here."
[Good for that extraordinary ordinary! You don't use deceptive language ever, in the Church, unless you happen to be Jorge Bergoglio and his minions.]
Underneath the issue of how to approach pro-life issues was a deeper issue: How do the bishops feel about Pope Francis? Cupich was plucked out of the relatively small diocese of Spokane by Francis and sent to Chicago, his first major appointment in the U.S. hierarchy. Francis also named Cupich to the Congregation for Bishops which vets candidates for the episcopacy and, consequently, is
charged with shaping the next generation of leaders in the church. [So, how do the bishops who voted for Naumann feel about someone who, in Winters's words, they have just given the middle finger to? (pardon the indecorousness!_]
Fr. Z's comment on Winters's post-vote piece:
It is revealing that Comrade Winters would think like this: Catholic bishops elect for their PRO-LIFE committee someone whose priority would be defense of the unborn and against euthanasia… and that is considered an insult to THE POPE.
[Just another indication of how mentally unhinged the Bergoglians are, for whom nothing matters about the faith - their faith, Bergolianism, that is - except what is A-OK by JMB!]