Posted on 10/04/2025 3:27:50 PM PDT by ebb tide
Serious Catholics around the world have justifiably criticized Blase Cupich’s attempt to provide a Catholic award to the pro-abortion Senator Richard Durbin, as well as Pope Leo XIV’s defense of Cupich’s effort:
“I’m not terribly familiar with the particular case. I think that it is very important to look at the overall work that the senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate. I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church. Someone who says I am against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says I am against abortion, but I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life. They are very complex issues, I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.”
Catholics have a right to look to the popes as a truth-tellers, but in moments like this the pope sounds like a public relations agent defending the indefensible. Perhaps worst of all, the final words in this quote positively deny any claim to possessing the truth about pro-life issues: “They are very complex issues, I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.”
This is yet another confirmation of what Michael Matt said shortly after the world learned that Cardinal Robert Prevost had been elected to the papacy — the revolution continues. The implications should be clear: the disorder that has plagued the Church since Vatican II persists, and those who love the Faith must contend with the disorder in various ways, just as they have for the past sixty years. The only “breaking news” from Rome that could truly change that reality would be if the pope were to renounce the Vatican II revolution, and we have now gone roughly 22,000 days without that happening.
If we want the papacy to return to what it should be, it seems that we must confront the fact that Vatican II itself — not merely the problematic interpretations of it — bears responsibility for this situation in which Rome no longer speaks clearly about the Faith.
Still, episodes like this can serve a useful purpose if we decide to look at them in the proper light. How, in particular, would we have wanted Leo XIV to respond to the situation? Many of us would have applauded a statement to the effect that neither Cupich nor Durbin are actually Catholic, coupled with a firm defense of Catholic teaching as being the truth given to us by God. We want the pope to defend the entire Catholic Faith with the same conviction and fervor with which the pre-Vatican II popes defended the Catholic Faith. Why would we want something less?
However, if we want the papacy to return to what it should be, it seems that we must confront the fact that Vatican II itself — not merely the problematic interpretations of it — bears responsibility for this situation in which Rome no longer speaks clearly about the Faith. To recall what it would mean for Rome to speak clearly about the Faith, and about the errors opposed to it, we can consider the words of Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on religious unity, Mortalium Animos:
“But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.”
Pope Pius XI clearly defended Catholic teaching: non-Catholics are on the wrong path and we cannot take part in their assemblies or support their work. To say or do otherwise, he asserts, would be to compromise divinely revealed truth.
So when Leo XIV says that nobody has all the answers about pro-life matters, he is speaking like a loyal son of the ongoing Vatican II revolution.
If Pius XI was wrong, then the entire Catholic religion is not what the popes prior to Vatican II thought it was, and we can quite reasonably conclude it is a fraud. However, if Pope Pius XI and the other pre-Vatican II popes were correct then we must condemn ecumenical madness that was enshrined in Rome with Vatican II. For those who may not be familiar with how the Council’s documents contributed to the ecumenical madness, we can merely consider the following passages:
Catholics have accepted, and defended, these positions for so long that few of us can detect anything wrong with them. Why, though, would we take issue with Leo XIV making excuses for Cupich and Durbin if we are comfortable with Vatican II praising Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Protestantism? Is the theory that those false religions are properly pro-life? Or perhaps the theory is that Cupich’s award, and Leo’s interview response, are somehow more authoritative than the Vatican II documents?
We can pray that Leo XIV will eventually cooperate with God’s grace to oppose the Vatican II revolution, but his failure to do so should not shake our Faith in the least. We know from Our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and He would have had little reason to tell us that if there would not be times in which we might be inclined to doubt it.
The reality is that for several decades some serious Catholics have defended Vatican II’s documents with ostensibly noble motivations but without adequate consideration of the issues at stake. It is not sufficient to claim that one can look at the documents in just the right light — a dim light, with blindfolds is best — to avoid seeing statements that compromise the Faith. All such defenses of the Council have contributed significantly to a practical rejection not only of what the pre-Vatican II popes said (such as in Mortalium Animos) but also of how they thought and spoke about Catholic truth. So when Leo XIV says that nobody has all the answers about pro-life matters, he is speaking like a loyal son of the ongoing Vatican II revolution.
This perspective need not be particularly distressing, for it primarily confirms the need for Catholics to insist on the unadulterated Catholic Faith that has been under attack for over sixty years. God permits this crisis to continue for our good and surely part of that involves an opportunity for us to realize that the pre-Vatican II popes were correct. With Francis, it was relatively easy to attribute his anti-Catholic behavior to a real distaste for the Faith; but with Leo XIV, we see a man who appears to genuinely want to be a good Catholic. The problem is that he has presumably had little reason to question the tenets of the Vatican II revolution. If we accept that revolution, then we really have little logical basis for opposing Leo XIV’s defense of Cupich and Durbin.
We can pray that Leo XIV will eventually cooperate with God’s grace to oppose the Vatican II revolution, but his failure to do so should not shake our Faith in the least. We know from Our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and He would have had little reason to tell us that if there would not be times in which we might be inclined to doubt it. Moreover, the unadulterated Catholic Faith is under attack because it alone stands in the way of Satan’s aims, and we know that God wins in the end. As such, our patient and charitable fight against the anti-Catholic Vatican II revolution is the way in which God calls us to become saints and serve the Mystical Body of Christ, no matter what Leo XIV might say. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Ping
“Someone who says I am against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.“
Yeah? Tell it to God who has no problem with a death penalty according to any Bible I ever read. But He damn sure considers abortion a towering evil.
Vatican 2 has to be true....why?
Because Rome is adamant about saying that only pass on what has been believed everywhere by everyone.
If he is wrong then Rome's claimed "teaching authority" is negated.
Of course you pull the wrong quote from “the remains” article. Nothing new there, ebby. The more “important” quote, which demonstrates the articles falsehoods is:
If Pius XI was wrong, then the entire Catholic religion is not what the popes prior to Vatican II thought it was, and we can quite reasonably conclude it is a fraud.
This is illogical, violates reason and tries to throw the baby out with the bath water. But what is to be expected from your Cartoon Network, ebby?
Certain things do change ebby. Do you still believe in the deicide charge?
So you think scummy liberals like Turbin should receive lifetime achievement awards even though they voted against protections for babies up until the moment of birth? Yeah, things have changed. The Church is run by cowards, and millions of sycophants like you have helped contribute to the destruction of the Church for the last forty years.
Said like a true modernist! You sound like one Bergoglio's homo frankencardinals.
It's no wonder that you have defended Jimmy Martin, S.J. blessing sodomite "couples".
You know who else was big on change, foister?
I wouldn't at all be surprised that you had voted for Barry.
I posed no opinion on Turbin. Neither did Pope Leo. In fact your Pope said he was only vaguely familiar with the situation. I believe Pope Leo when he said what he said.
I did comment on the opinion of the article, the remains. Its posturing and posing is fake, ridiculous, and illogical; the quote, which is par for the course from this rag, is proof. There are other sentiments in the article that are also ridiculous.
Here’s a change for you, ebby, and it relates to the article. Mortalium Animos while maybe not formally “repealed,” it is often considered diminished or set aside as is rarely cited in official teachings. In other words, practically speaking, it has become an historical document rather than a current guide. ImagineThat!
How’s your belief in the deicide charge treating you, ebby? Is that too much change for you?
It's you who doesn't get it, foister.
The quote indicates that Pius XI was correct, as were all his predecessors; and it is the most recent two post-concilar popes who are wrong on the legitimacy of the death penalty.
Pope Leo need our prays, badly.
You need to pray for him, rather then defending any heretical statements that he may make.
So you are picking which Pope is correct and whom is a heretic, ebby? Sorry, I’m not playing that game. The Catholic Church is not playing that game, either.
That's because of VC II and the modernists who hijacked it.
Have you not noticed that the post-conciliar popes rarely quote their pre-conciliar predecessors. They either quote themselves or their post-concilar predecessors.
Humble Jorge, the Dictator Pope, almost exclusively, quoted his own nonsense rather that other popes.
He was in his own little world and boy did he sucker you.
I'll go with hundreds of past popes, oystir, not the most recent two.
How about you? It's not a game, you must choose who's correct. Pope Leo XVI or Pope Pius XI and every single one of his predecessors?
It looks like a few of y'all still exist: and are still outside the Church.
Do you still believe in the deicide charge, ebby?
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.