Friday, October 16, 2015


Adfero, "Gentle Bishop Blaise: Sin all you want -- I'll still give you Communion" (Rorate Caeli, October 16, 2015)

As reader JM writes: "Did we not see this coming years back. Gay marriage is not 'premier' or 'best,' but it is something on which conscious is 'inviolable.' And now we must not only accompany but integrate and reconcile. Ambiguity always, always leads top erosion, which leads to foundational crumbling. Thankfully there is a strong media and lay attention to the Synod. But with rhetoric like this positioned against a traditionalist response that keys to calling remarrieds 'adulterous,' who do you think is going to win the ad campaign."

[Hat tip to JM]


DJR said...

Here is an example of a "stable relationship" envisioned by the good bishop. If any of these guys are Catholic, why should they be denied Holy Communion?

This was predicted, and the future is now here.

Chris Garton-Zavesky said...

Cupich said : “If people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that.[Would this apply to those who refuse to serve a "gay wedding". If we disagree with the decision or the pastoral approach, are we being disrespectful?] The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that [Antecedent unclear. What is "that"? We have to respect the inviolability of a conscience? Or we have to respect the decision these people made, and respect (i.e., value ) it] when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”

When asked by LifeSiteNews if the notion of accompanying people to "the Sacrament" who had a clear indication of conscience to do so also applied to gay couples in the Church, Cupich indicated an affirmative answer.

“I think that gay people are human beings too [And those who disagree with the Archbishop clearly think that gay people aren't human beings by implication]and they have a conscience [ I think the Archbishop has a conscience. It might be a dead one, but he still has one. Every living human has a conscience, so the purpose in asserting that they have a conscience is to assert that ... what exactly?] And my role as a pastor is to help them to discern what the will of God is by looking at the objective moral teaching of the Church and yet, at the same time, helping them through a period of discernment to understand what God is calling them to at that point” ,[because the objective moral teaching of the Church is not what God is calling them to?] he said. “It’s[Again, what is "it' referring to ?] for everybody. I think that we have to make sure that we don’t pigeonhole one group as though they are not part of the human family [ Aha! if we uphold the objective moral law, we're treating these people as if they're not part of the human family? "Pigeonhole" is a polite way of saying " show prejudice against, or be bigoted against" ], as though there’s a different set of rules for them [ He expects to exempt from the moral law anyone who doesn't feel bound to it, in conscience. Two sets of rules is precisely what he wants to set up. The orthodox opinion, on the other hand, is that the moral law's validity doesn't depend on one's state in life]. That would be a big mistake.”[Indeed, it would be very bad mistake to say that the moral law didn't really apply to those who wanted to be exempt from it.]

Pertinacious Papist said...

Good analysis, Chris.

Anonymous said...

If conscience rules, then the Schonborn catechism is postmodern plummage. Which explains a lot about the Schonborn catechism, actually.