One could already judge from the excerpts initially cited in the initial reactions to the Cupich lecture in Cambridge last week how appalling the entire
thing must be - which I do not intend to read as persons far more qualified than I to demolish it have done that and already crushing Cupich's tract on AL
for its overall typically Bergoglian mendacity - but should we expect otherwise from someone who could not possibly be more Bergoglian? Two unflinching
critiques here...
Does Cardinal Cupich think 'Humanae Vitae' has been replaced?
The cardinal's much-discussed lecture contained numerous errors
by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith
CATHOLIC HERALD
February 14, 2018
Cardinal Cupich’s lecture in Cambridge last week has generated some commentary, and having read it myself, one feels the need to add to it. The lecture is diffuse and hard to summarise, though this magazine tries its best, as one can read here. The whole thing can be read here.
It would take far too long to do a point by point refutation of everything the Cardinal says, so I am not going to try to do so. Instead, I will just pick out two or three points that strike me as extremely misleading, sticking, if you like, to the low hanging fruit.
First, an error of fact. The Cardinal says:
“The bishops gathered at the synods on the family were united in this regard, in the end voting for all the proposals by over a 2/3 vote and in most cases nearly unanimously.” [In which Cupich simply repeats a lie Bergoglio has said publicly more than once, as if to cover up - I don't know why he thinks he has to - that AL, which was supposed to convey the thinking of the two 'family synods' he convened in order to facilitate his general laissez-faire on the sacraments of matrimony, penance and the Eucharist, simply rode roughshod over the synodal consensus against such a laissez-faire to be an exposition of Bergoglianism as the Religion of Nice and forget-what-Jesus-said-I(Bergoglio)-am-here-and now].
Actually, at the first synod the proposals to admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion were not passed by a 2/3 majority. As the ever valuable Wikipedia reminds us:
Of the three paragraphs that failed to get a two-thirds majority but were included in the final report, two deal with the question of whether in some circumstances to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to be admitted to the Eucharist, and the third discusses pastoral care for gay Catholics. Paragraph 52 won the least support (104 in favor, 74 against) and described the disagreement among the participants on “the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. The paragraph gave no indication of the proportion between those who favored the idea and those who rejected it, but said further study was needed. Paragraph 53 had very similar content and presentation got a slightly better reception: 112 votes in favor, and 64 against.
Paragraph 55 was the third paragraph that failed to get a two-thirds majority and was headed: “Pastoral Attention towards Persons with Homosexual Tendencies.” … It came close to a two-thirds majority, getting 118 votes for and 62 against. Odd that the Cardinal should have overlooked this.
But let it not be forgotten that the Synod did not endorse communion for the divorced and remarried.
Secondly, in his opening paragraphs, the Cardinal talks of a holistic approach, using that word holistic numerous times. What does it mean? Usually, it is taken to mean the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole. That is not a bad principle in itself.
However,
parts are important too, and there is no whole without parts. In moral theology, no whole can ever justify an action that it is intrinsically evil. That is the thrust of the teaching of Saint John Paul II, particularly in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. But that was not an innovation on the part of the Saint. Blessed Paul VI also has something to say about the holistic approach, except back then it was called “The principle of totality”.
In Humanae Vitae, the Pope asked:
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? (HV3)
He answered his question thus:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.
Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (HV14)
It is inconceivable that Cardinal Cupich is not aware of these passages, which must lead one to the inevitable conclusion that
he thinks, for no reason I can fathom, that the “paradigm” of Amoris Laetitia, as he interprets it, somehow replaces the thinking behind Humanae Vitae. [Oh no, Father – nothing to fathom here! Cupich thinks that, because like the most fanatic Bergoglians, he has effectively been Bergogliobotomized and brainwashed to the point that Bergoglio has replaced Jesus as their Lord and Master and Amoris laetitia has replaced the Gospel as the 'word of the lord' in the parallel universe that is the church of Bergoglio. One however that superimposes itself on the one true Church of Christ by the simple fact that Bergoglio was elected to be the leader of that Church, however much he has tried since Day 1 to convert it to his likeness and image.]
Please note – the thinking behind Humanae Vitae, as opposed to the practical application of that thinking. For
the thinking behind Humanae Vitae is the thinking of the Catholic Church as it has been for centuries. [And the thinking behind Amoris laetitia is what the secular world has wanted to impose on the Church since the Enlightenment in order to trigger its destruction.]
Is this what Cardinal Cupich wishes to sweep away? If so, let him tell us clearly. Are Aquinas and Augustine and Alphonsus Liguori all wrong? Or is there another possibility? Is it possible that the person who is wrong is Cardinal Cupich himself?
There are several other startling shortcomings in the Cardinal’s lecture which I will address in further articles.
The 'clarity' of Cardinal Cupich
by FR. GEORGE W. RUTLER
CRISIS Magazine
February 14, 2018
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago is all for clarity. It has been a consistent theme:
- In September of 2017 he issued a decree banning guns in all parishes, schools and other facilities across the archdiocese “so there would be absolute clarity on our position.” His official statement put “clarity” in italics.
- When he was bishop of Rapid City, he called for “civility and clarity” in discussing legislation that would limit abortion, but he was somewhat unclear in explaining that the law “must recognize both the suffering of the unborn children in abortion and the suffering of the pregnant women in dire circumstances.” The bill was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent.
- As bishop of Spokane, he spoke clearly in prohibiting the use of the traditional Latin liturgical books in the Paschal Triduum.
- He made very clear his disapproval of seminarians and priests demonstrating against Planned Parenthood: “Decisions about abortion are not usually made in front of clinics.”
- In 2012, his pastoral letter on a state referendum to legalize same-sex “marriage” said: “I also want to be very clear that in stating our position the Catholic Church has no tolerance for the misuse of this moment to incite hostility towards homosexual persons or promote an agenda that is hateful and disrespectful of their human dignity.”
Clarity requires effort because it requires honesty, which can be a costly commodity. So George Orwell said:
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
Clear expression issues from clear thinking, which in turn requires conforming thought to reality. [Which is why Bergoglio's words are so often muddled – his mind is muddled, and instead of conforming his thought to reality, he conforms it to what he thinks reality ought to be, by his standards.]
This was a primary concern of the Master in his holy agony, for he prayed to the Father that his Church never fudge the truth:
“Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). [When the pope, Bergoglio, demonstrably lies so often and in public for self-serving purposes, what 'truth' can we expect from him?]
The Superior of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, seems wary about the unclear tenor of Christ’s teaching about marriage
(Mt 19: 3-9), because “no one had a recorder to take down his words.” Consequently, what Christ said must be “contextualized,” because human reality “is much more nuanced” and “never black and white.” Jesus did say, without the benefit of recorders other than the Evangelists: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”
(Mt 24:35). There is nothing nuanced about that, but Jesus was not a member of the Society of Jesus.
In an interview the day before he lectured on the exhortation of Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia at the Von Hugel Institute for Critical Catholic Inquiry in Cambridge England, on February 9,
Cardinal Cupich hoped that his words “might bring some clarity for people who have raised questions, and then also to raise a challenge for them to also take a second look at the document.”
In the lecture itself the cardinal quoted Amoris Laetitia, n. 38:
“Many people feel that the Church’s message on marriage and family does not clearly reflect the preaching and attitudes of Jesus, who set forth a demanding ideal yet never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals.”
A year earlier, on February 14, 2017, Cardinal Cupich said that
“the pope’s exhortation “expresses with absolute clarity marriage doctrine in full fidelity to traditional Church teaching.”
One supposes that Cardinal Cupich’s lecture in Cambridge was intended to explain why the Exhortation’s clarity was unclear to so many around the world, even though they have the benefit of recording machines and all the social media, which Jesus lacked, although his voice could be heard by thousands on hilltops and seashores.
In the Von Hugel lecture, which was recorded and thus cannot be nuanced, Cardinal Cupich said by way of apophasis that “It goes without saying…” and then went on to say that
“Amoris Laetitia will also mean rejecting “an authoritarian or paternalistic way of dealing with people that lays down the law, that pretends to have all the answers, or easy answers to complex problems, that suggests that general rules will seamlessly bring immediate clarity.” There is Cupich's 'clarity' again, in all its frustrating opaqueness.
And after rejecting authoritarianism and paternalism, the cardinal invoked Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 25, to declare that
“an innovative interpretation of Amoris Laetitia by the bishops of Buenos Aires, which, by virtue of “the publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedes [sic]” of the papal letter commending it, qualifies as an official Church teaching “which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”
It should be, and I think it is, clear as night and day, that Jesus would not have been crucified had he been more nuanced. There are those who have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to make clear by subtlety, with their own frail command of classical letters, that the official Latinity of Amoris Laetitia proves that it is faithful to authentic doctrine, and is not as flawed as its critics claim. This is on a par with Edgar Nye’s opinion that Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.
Excuses like that are defeated by Pope Francis himself who told those Argentinian bishops that their eisegesis “explains precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII.”
Cardinal Cupich called Amoris Laetitia a “radical change” and Cardinal Parolin said “It’s a paradigm shift and the text itself insists on this, that’s what is asked of us — this new spirit, this new approach!” The exclamation point conveys His Eminence’s enthusiasm.
Cardinal Cupich asks for a more “holistic” application of the Gospel, in fact using the term ten times without a clear definition of what it means.
There have indeed been paradigm shifters in Christology, but there have been no Doctors of the Church among them, and none has been salubrious in the annals of grace. To skim the surface, they have included Arius, Nestorius, Priscillian, Montanus, Mohammed, Waldo, Luther, Calvin, Jansen, Joseph Smith and Phineas Quimby who coached Mrs. Eddy.
[A Hall of Infamy to which Jorge Bergoglio would be a most worthy addition. Mrs. Eddy is Mary Baker Eddy, 1821-1910, who founded the 'Christian Science' religion and its church, the Church of Christ, Scientist]
Those who have studied the early Modernist period, might assume that the Von Hugel Institute has as its eponym the Baron Friedrich von Hugel, mentor of the Modernists Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell. Actually, it was named for his brother, Anatole, who was a distinguished naturalist. The baron himself managed to keep his balance, while using the active if neurasthenic minds of younger theologians like guinea pigs, watching them degraded while maintaining his own claims to fidelity.
The tedious von Hugel (even his English writings are cadenced as impenetrably German) visited John Henry Newman at least three times, and
on each of these occasions he found Newman melancholy, concluding that Newman could not be a saint since saints must be joyful. “I used to wonder how one so good, and one who had made so many sacrifices to God, could be so depressing.”
One biographer remarked with astuteness beyond the reach of the humorless baron, that
the only evidence we have of Newman being demonstrably depressed was when he was visited by von Hugel.
This writer writes these words hastily, and knowingly exposes himself to imputations of illogic, irascibility and uncharity. Of only the last I vitally excuse myself, for I mean no irreverence or ill intent as a parish priest commenting on superiors. In the fullness of charity, I suppose that Cardinal Cupich is so occupied with the essential works of mercy incumbent upon a spiritual leader of many, that he may have availed himself of the advice of others inadequate to the task of preparing his attempts at clarification.
The one complaint I invoke, albeit a strong one since much of my life’s studies have been nurtured by an intuitive friendship with John Henry Newman, who in an unworthy simile is to me as Philip Neri was to him, is that Cardinal
Cupich has cited Newman on conscience to represent the very opposite of what Newman lived and exhausted himself to declare: that [dim]=12pt]conscience must be informed by the Holy Ghost and not left to wander about like a ghost of the subjective human ego, validating uninformed impulses.
In his famous Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Newman distinguished between the operation of conscience and the exercise of private judgment. Such distinctions may be too delicate for hasty doctors of theology, but they are matters for which men were made martyrs.
Errors must not be the template for the formation of consciences innocent and malleable.
Chesterton warned:
“The more doubtful we are about whether we have any truth, the more certain we are (apparently) that we can teach it to children. The smaller our faith in doctrine, the larger is our faith in doctors.”
In his revision of his book
The Arians of the Fourth Century,
Newman explained in more detail what he meant by consulting the faithful on doctrine, and it is far different from soliciting the views of confused people who think truths are ideals beyond their reach. As a beacon of clarity, Newman knew that Christ is a Saviour and not an Idealist.
The word “consult” is, in its Latin root, to consult with or
to take counsel in the sense of submission to a truth, as one consults a barometer or takes one’s pulse. Newman said this himself.
Conscience is not a license for invention or epistemological fabrication, and consultation of the faithful is not a survey to warrant a “paradigm shift.”
Ronald Knox prefaced his translation of the Bible:
“The teaching office of the Holy Spirit does not consist in imparting to the Church the knowledge of hitherto unknown doctrines, in addition to the deposit of faith, but in making our knowledge of doctrines already revealed fuller and more precise.”
Cardinal Cupich likes the term “cherry picking” as a reproach. On February 1 in Holy Name Cathedral, as he had done in 2004 in Rapid City, he faulted Pro-Lifers for “cherry-picking” instead of accepting the entire “seamless garment” theory. In 2017, he spoke against “cherry picking” in immigration issues. But Amoris Laetitia cherry-picks in citing only one part of the Summa Theologica II-II, q. 140, in a way that posits the exact opposite of what Aquinas meant, just as Cupich cherry-picks Newman on the “aboriginal vicar of Christ.”
[And just as Bergoglio flagrantly cherry-picks when he quotes Jesus!]
Cupich cites Gaudium et Spes, no. 16 which calls conscience
“the most secret core and sanctuary of a man … (where) he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.” As Newman was one of the greatest masters of English prose, that kind of lame
poesie would have appalled him. It also is sourced from a document parts of which Pope Benedict once called downright Pelagian.
The clarification of doctrine is a risky business. In his novel
Loss and Gain, Newman invented a “little, prim, smirking” character, a preacher in Oxford University named the Reverend Dr. Brownside:
“As a divine he seemed never to have had any difficulty in any subject; he was so clear or so shallow that he saw to the bottom of all his thoughts: or, since Dr. Johnson tells us that 'all shallows are clear', we may perhaps distinguish him by both epithets.”
Let us be perfectly clear: Dr. Brownside existed only as a sketch on paper, unlike
the Bridegroom of the Church who, even without the corroboration of a recording machine, is believed to have “taught as one having authority and not as the scribes.”