Posted on 11/19/2014 8:50:17 AM PST by millegan
Yesterday, Archbishop Blase Cupich began his tenure as the Archdiocese of Chicago’s 9th prelate. My wife and I were blessed a few weeks ago to attend one final young adult “Pub Night” with the archbishop before he vacated his seat as Bishop of the Diocese of Spokane, where he spoke on the Pope’s encyclical “Joy of the Gospel” and took questions from the audience on anything and everything.
Lots of people have been saying lots of things about Pope Francis’ recent selection – good and bad, Christian and un-Christian, smart and dumb – but at the end of the day, I think Archbishop Cupich is a perfect choice to lead Chicago’s 6 million residents and 2 million Catholics.
Here’s 5 reasons why:
(Excerpt) Read more at churchpop.com ...
Trying telling that to the “conservative Catholics”.
This article means one thing, Matthew Sewell is not familiar with Cupich. He did not support seminarians during his time at Spokane. He also did not support pro-life causes and forbid priests from saying the rosary in front of abortion clinics and would also not let them march in the 40 Days for Life procession. He was selected because he’s a very moderate bishop. He is not a traditionalist and that is exactly what Chicago or any other diocese needs. Someone that will stand up for the Catholic faith and not water it down.
Pure BS. Cupich was not even on the list of candidates the US Bishop’s commission submitted to Francis. Cupich was selected by Francis because he is a FrancisBot. His actions speak louder that words, and Cupich’s actions as Bishop of Spokane demonstrated him to be an ultra liberal cleric.
ChurchPop should read ChurchPOOP.
NKP_Vet, that’s a bold claim. Did you read the article? Or are you just convinced there’s no good to be had with Abp. Cupich and commented based on the headline?
Bishop Cupich oversaw the construction of the Bishop White Seminary while in Spokane—sounds to me like he supports seminarians. Also, supporting pro-life causes isn’t the mark of a good or a bad bishop, especially if the bishop himself is adamantly pro-life, based on multiple homilies and articles.
He was selected because he’s a *pastoral* bishop, and Chicago is a place that needs an abundance of pastoral care (like any diocese). He’s a pastor who can hold his own doctrinally when he needs to (emphasis on *needs*). Cupich hasn’t ever watered the faith down. He may have chosen not to talk about the faith in specific settings, but that does not mean he’s watered the faith down.
Just because a bishop rubs you the wrong way doesn’t make him a bad bishop.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2014/bishop-cupich-a-view-from-spokane.html
“Bishop White Seminary at Gonzaga, which was nothing short of an extraordinary success story until Cupich became bishop, fell quickly into desuetude after his arrival. Moreover, when Gonzaga University refused to continue club status for Gonzaga’s campus Knights of Columbus council, Cupich, it is widely whispered, told the remaining seminarians not to discuss the matter with the press. It has also been widely reported that Cupich did not want his diocesan priests involved with certain pro-life groups that he considered too strident. Cupich may not even know it, but at the time, students involved with Gonzaga’s Right to Life Club felt abandoned, even though they were not his direct target.
I once wrote to him expressing in particular my concerns about the direction of Gonzaga’s core curriculum. His reply was polite, but he made it quite clear that he had no interest in involving himself in such matters. Gonzaga adopted, and is now planning to implement, a core curriculum that diminishes the number of courses that students take in “Catholic or Christian religion” from three to one.
The formerly required course on the Bible is being eliminated and the course in applied Christianity, which often in practice meant Christian morality, is being changed to world religions. Gonzaga students, many of whom belong to Cupich’s diocese, will soon be devoting only a single semester course in four years of college (3 out of 128 credits, or 2.34 percent) to the study of “the Catholic or Christian religion.”
Sadly, those are the very ones who are getting "Burked".
He's a Cardinal O'Malley clone and O'Malley's archdiocese is in a sorry state.
CdMGuy - You’re correct that Francis went “rogue” in deciding to pick the new Chicago Abp on his own. 1) He can do that, because he’s the pope. 2) You’re implicitly assuming that Francis didn’t do his homework on who he was getting for Chicago.
I’m not sure you read the article, either, and at least not with an open mind. You’re judging the book by what you’ve heard about it, not by having actually read it.
Just a few thoughts:
-Going on & on about how someone is ‘humble’, isn’t very humble, is it? If you need to draw attention to it, you’ve missed the whole point of humility.
-Was this written by a P.R. firm? or just someone trying to suck up? Low on details, high on suck.
-Francis’ track record on ‘going rogue’ isn’t very good. Too much confusion, misunderstanding, and distress accompany his ‘going rogue’ decisions. Just the fact that he decided to promote a wild card pick to one of the leading positions in the U.S. makes me nervous. It may all work out well, but Francis’ judgement so far has been (in my opinion) less than stellar, to be kind.
-Just a random, probably unanswerable question to the universe at large: Why is it that only the ‘felt n burlap’ (aka liberal) brigade is considered to be humble? Can’t humility cross all lines, stations, liturgical tastes in life? Just wondering...
SweetAkitoRose, thanks for this reply and for your thoughts. Some great things to consider here.
A response, if I may: I wrote this post under no encouragement from anyone, but instead because I was utterly struck by Bishop Cupich at a talk he gave, namely his demeanor when answering questions, and educated by conversations with a close personal friend of the bishop’s, among other comparisons with other speakers/bishops/priests, etc.
The biggest reason was because I myself had a HUGE bias against the bishop prior to that talk. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I practically mirrored the voice of every “traditional Catholic” who thinks he’s the devil—i didn’t think much of him at all prior to that. My mind was completely changed, and upon further and further research I found that the man spoke the truth, but the way he went about his business WASN’T so much bad practice for a bishop, but WAS in fact just a personal bias and a preference that I didn’t like.
I think that point is important here. For Francis, Bishop Cupich, any of them. We, as Catholics, must TRUST in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and OBEY our leaders in the Church, whether we like them or not. God is God, and we’re not.
That said, it’s okay to talk about another person’s humility, like I am here. If this post was how I would have been a perfect choice for bishop, or if Bishop Cupich had written this about himself, then that would be a problem.
For your last point, I think the “felt n burlap” brigade speaks about their humility and thus explains why we’re hearing about it, while the true Catholics go about their business loving their neighbor, loving and trusting the Church & Christ, and lets the commentators say what they will say.
A final note on Pope Francis: Read what he writes, and read his speeches he gives daily, and you’ll be calmed. The media has so twisted the perception of Francis that it’s no wonder Catholics are skeptical of him. A priest from Colorado said it well: “I’m always worried about Pope Francis until I start reading what he’s writing and actually saying, without a media spin on it.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.