Crazy? Angry? You decide and I couldn’t care less!

+Cupich & His Unreasoned Allegiance to All Things +Cupich

Cardinal Cupich warns against the Church entering partisan politics

Christopher White

Jan 27, 2020

Translation? Don’t vote for Trump. Honestly, I’m so tired of being lectured endlessly by our clergy about partisan politics. Do they actually know what that means? Do they actually think we are stupid?

Here’s the definition of partisan:

1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person

especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

We all do what we do every time we enter into politics. We do the best we can to stop the worst evil. There are no perfect candidates. And, despite Cardinal Cupich’s best efforts, we look at the preeminent issue first and then, when we find two candidates with the same stance, we start weighing the rest of the important factors. Why do we do this? Because, as the Holy Father said just last week,

if you’re not alive you can’t do anything else.

Just a few blog posts ago, I asked how Cardinal Cupich was going to spin the Holy Father’s words.  Guess we know now.  He can’t, so he’s just going to act like they don’t exist.

NEW YORK – One day after President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to address the March for Life, Cardinal Blase Cupich cautioned that “the Church’s job is not to discern which political, partisan or military force we should support in order for good to triumph,” but to see Christ as the “starting point” for the Church’s social ministry.”

What in the what? So at this point, is he just telling us not to vote at all??? The last time I checked, he and his ilk told us ad nauseum that we are the Church. Suddenly no? I saw this tweet today. It’s completely true and I immediately thought of the contrast between Archbishop Chaput and the guy who actually does infantilize the laity at every turn.

It is certainly the job of the clergy to help Catholics rightly form their consciences so they can freely make the best choice possible regarding Catholic teaching. That being said, in case you didn’t know, the Church actually has a doctrinal note on “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” It doesn’t say anything different than Pope Francis on the issue. You probably won’t hear about it from Cardinal Cupich, though. He must have a harder time twisting that one to make it sorta appear as if, somehow, the documents are at odds. Regardless, Cardinal Cupich appears to want people to think there are “fresh” ideas out there. Sorry. Same old, same old. The only person who seems clueless on the issue of life is Cardinal Cupich. He’s been fighting against it since he was a lowly bishop and told his priests to stay away from the 40 Days for Life campaign https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/confusion-as-spokane-bishop-asks-priests-not-to-join-40-days-for-life-vigil . Seriously, let that sink in. He wanted people (especially his priests) to stay away from praying for the babies and their moms about to go in for abortions. He’s always had some weird conflict of interest.

“What is needed is an integrated and consistent approach, with the priority being our attention to what Christ is doing, saving us by bringing us together, bringing about the Kingdom of God by creating a people,” said the archbishop of Chicago.

Well there’s a bit of psychobabble for you. What does “creating a people” mean? It’s so simple: TEACH CATHOLICISM! Honestly, if you made sure to teach the faithful, would we really have to worry? If you simply gave your faithful the Truth, they could move mountains.

His remarks were delivered to the Catholic Social Ministry Gathering on Saturday, an annual event in the nation’s capital, organized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Department of Justice, Peace, and Human Development.

The four-day event includes workshops on Catholic social teaching, followed by in-person lobbying on Capitol Hill on behalf of Catholic legislative priorities.

Honestly, who invited him? He can’t even clean up the mess in his own area. People are dying on the streets of his town and he hasn’t been able to do a darn thing about it, yet we’re supposed to take advice from him on Justice, Peace, and Human Development? Please.

In his keynote address, Cupich highlighted the teachings of the Second Vatican Council that provided “a new way of being church and of understanding our baptismal call.”

“It makes us more aware of the need for a consistent ethic as we promote human dignity and justice for all,” said Cupich. “It also helps us achieve a proper balance as the Church engages the world of politics and as we take up our ministry to the least in our midst.”

YOU CAN’T HAVE DIGNITY IF YOU DON’T HAVE LIFE!!! You don’t even get to have a “baptismal call!” Dignity and justice don’t trump life!!!  Even Pope Francis agrees. As we pro-lifers always say, “Social Justice begins in the womb!”

In particular, he emphasized that the Council taught that holiness and salvation is not an individual exercise, but one that must be understood in relationship to the community.

You’d think he would pony up a quote or two from “the Council” to prove his point, but no. It is glaring in its absence. It’s always absent.

“This teaching stands in stark contrast to the not-so-subtle message of so much American public discourse today – namely that what matters most is the individual person, choice, personal freedom,” he said on Saturday. “What the Council Fathers wanted to underscore was that it is in our relationship with one another as a human community that we are saved.”

Again, got a quote from the Church Fathers for us?

“Such an approach also subverts any attempt to fragment our Catholic social teaching, pretending to offer so-called non-negotiables, which ends up reducing our moral tradition to a single set of issues,” he said.

The only person fragmenting our Catholic social teaching is you, Cardinal Cupich. You keep suggesting that people who believe in the “preeminent” moniker somehow live in a complete vacuum and that’s all they can see and that’s all they do. Ridiculous. You’re using a tactic that the pro-aborts use. “You only care about abortion and do nothing to help women!” Baloney. We are all into creating a culture of life. Let me ask you a question I’d normally ask a pro-abort, Cardinal Cupich. If a person engages in a mission like, say, breast cancer prevention and put their efforts into raising money for it, does that mean that they don’t care about other cancers??? Does that mean that don’t support other cancer fighting organizations? Does that mean they wouldn’t’ give someone they find hungry on the street some help? Does that mean they don’t take care of their elderly parents? Yeah, that’s the idea that you’re trying to put forth. If you really buy this, how come you’re not telling Sr. Helen Prejean she’s wrong?  Hmm… Do you really think that because her main thing is the death penalty that she doesn’t also work as much as she can in other areas? Of course not. That line of thought apparently applies only to those whose main work is stopping babies from being ripped apart. Maybe you should spend a little more time encouraging people to find an apostolate that encourages building a culture of life rather than tearing people down for not addressing every social issue on the planet at the same time. Nobody can do that. But to assume that faithful Catholics are somehow a one and done crowd is ridiculous. I have NEVER limited myself to only fighting abortion, but that is my preeminent issue because the Church consistently says it should be. Why don’t you jump on the real bandwagon rather than this fantasy one you’ve created?

This year’s Social Ministry Gathering was intentionally scheduled to take place immediately following the annual March for Life in an effort to focus on bridge-building across a spectrum of social justice issues, ranging from migration, human trafficking, abortion, and poverty.

OK, but I’d better hear that each and every topic got exactly equal time, otherwise the faithful are fragmented!!! But seriously, I’m going to keep bringing up a question I had for the annoying high school teacher who got his MA from Cracker Jacks. It applies to you, too, Cardinal Cupich. If you saw a child (or make it a lady) about to be killed by a man, and a homeless person a little ways away in the same proximity, who would you tend to first?!?! It’s just that easy. That’s what we are called to do. We are called, if it is in our ability, to fight for the life of the person in the closest proximity to death first.

Turning to Pope Francis, whom Cupich pointed out is the first pope to be a “son of the Second Vatican Council,” he said that Francis helps reorient the focus to see where Christ is already active in the world and how Christians might best engage that work.

So we’re supposed to ignore the areas where Christ isn’t active? What does this even mean? We’re supposed to go and make disciples of all nations. That would certainly be the way to overcome much of the evil in the world. But you? You want to focus on grand statements and obnoxious lectures instead of teaching the Faith, which ultimately is going to be THE solution (although, thanks to satan, some will always reject that.)

“Instead of starting with what we are doing or should do, his attention is on what Christ is doing,” he said. “He understands that the pursuit of a holy life is about encountering this Christ who is already active and present, and joining in his saving work.”

“This is what it means to read the signs of the times,” he continued.

More complete babbling.

Drawing heavily from Francis’s 2018 apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exultate, Cupich quoted at length a passage that in November he attempted to have the U.S. bishops include in their new introductory letter to their voting guide, known as Faithful Citizenship.

“Pope Francis warns against such an ‘ideological error found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend,’” said Cupich, citing Francis.

“He goes on to say, ‘our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.’”

And??? You’re suggesting that anyone disagrees with the fact that all lives are sacred. This is a strawman. We simply believe that you must deal with the preeminent issues, i.e., the most life-threatening ones, first. It’s not the people that are weighed differently. It’s their proximity to having their lives being snuffed out. How anyone is fooled by Cardinal Cupich’s faulty logic is beyond me.

“What is needed is an integrated and consistent approach, with the priority being our attention to what Christ is doing, saving us by bringing us together, bringing about the Kingdom of God by creating a people,” he continued.

So, is he saying you don’t save the child or woman in imminent danger of being killed before you address the housing situation of the homeless guy??? Seriously? No, you can’t always address both situations in an “integrated” fashion. Some situations require attention before others. I think his lack of desire to focus on the life and death issues is kind of telling.

“Absent this focus, we risk our call to holiness. ‘We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness,’ Francis observes, ‘that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.’”

Who is doing this?!?! Maybe Cardinal Cupich could give us an idea of who he’s hinting at? I mean, I’m assuming the talk was for the Catholic laity. So which of us is he accusing? How about his palatial estate? I mean, the Holy Father did talk about people living for consumer goods while people are in abject poverty.  Maybe he should start with the Archbishop’s mansion?

This talk was a waste of time. By all means, please, please, answer the Call to Holiness. Don’t abandon it because you cannot fix every moral and social issue that exists.

In the end, the bishops voted to include only the first section of passage 101 from Gaudete et Exultate, citing concerns about its length.

…and the fact that it was already taught and a big “DUH!”

In pointing the way forward, Cupich said that bringing salvation to the world will first come from a “deep and loving respect for the poor,” where Christ is already alive and at work.

Really? First? It would seem like bringing salvation to the world might require a knowledge and belief of the One True Faith. Might be why the current missionaries have had trouble bringing people to the Church.

“Those we serve are not objects of our charity,” he said. “They don’t exist to make ourselves feel better by offering our help. Rather, as Pope Francis often reminds us, we must see the poor for who they are: protagonists, subjects of their own history, but also worthy contributors to society, precisely because their unique experience has taught them what it means to belong to a people.”

The problem is, dear Cardinal Cupich, there will never be respect for the lives of anyone when we, as a world, are killing our most vulnerable. We can’t keep committing offenses against life itself and expect to be blessed in any regard. Abortion has led people to devalue life at all stages.  And, sadly, a good portion of the people in the pews are aborting their children and seeing them as objects rather than their own flesh and blood. Maybe, just maybe, if our pastors actually taught people about the evil of abortion, birth control, and the destruction of the family, we might have a shot at showing them the dignity of the human person, because that dignity starts in the home.

“If we do not help those in need, we have failed Christ, precisely because of the way persons are related – not only to one another, but also to God. If we do not understand this fundamental Gospel truth, then we do not understand the call to Christian holiness,” he said.

If you don’t preach the TRUTH, YOU have failed Christ. Don’t lay this at our feet.

In his closing remarks, he turned once more to warn against compromising with worldly powers for political success, and in the process, losing the fullness of the gospel.

Name names, Cardinal?

“When we fail to make what Christ is doing the starting point as we take up the social ministry of the Church, we end up with a distorted view of the Church and our very call to holiness,” he concluded. “So too, losing sight of Christ’s saving action as our point of reference, risks fragmenting our approach to social justice by giving priority to one issue or a set of issues according to our standards or worse yet, our compromises with worldly powers.”

Let’s not pretend (like +Cupich) that he’s not talking about Trump. What if it was Christ himself who is bringing about the conversion of a man once so vile that STDs were his biggest worry? Why is it that everyone doubts that he could possibly reform?  I mean, seriously, shouldn’t we all be hoping and praying for that?  It seems like he’s got one issue nailed down. Did I even expect to hear the speech I heard from him on Friday? Nope, but I didn’t rule it out and prayed for it daily. Talk about “losing sight of Christ’s saving action.” Apparently with Cardinal Cupich and gang, salvation is possible for a variety of sinners, but not at all possible for Trump. Sorry, I have a little more faith in God than that. And this upcoming election – you know, the one you have no partisan feelings about – is about further stopping murder. How about you stop being so completely jealous that a non-Catholic has more sway with Catholics than you? It’s really quite sad.  Why don’t you start chastising all of those Democrats, who are supposedly the only ones who care about the poor and downtrodden, to stop advocating for the murder of children through all nine months of pregnancy and now even after birth? You’d think that might get priority, but not in your very troubled mind.

 

 

 

 

 

Critiquing James Martin, SJ All Year Long

Well, now that the holidays are behind me and “Pro-life Weekend” is over (that’s a huge, busy deal in my house), I can finally write again.  Once again, I’d like to thank my go-to guy, Fr. James Martin, SJ, for providing me a bit of fodder just in the nick of time.  How kind of him!

Ah! There’s the perennial martyr I know and love! As usual, however, his comparisons are a bit off. Let me, once again, try to help him out.

In January I’m usually critiqued by the left for advocating for the unborn.

First of all, babies are being ripped apart all year long, so this should be the preeminent priority of all priests. Having your ego bruised by your normal groupies for doing so isn’t going to kill you. Really, I promise. The babies still have it worse. Now, I totally thank you for standing up against abortion, even if it’s in the usual seamless garment way, but maybe offer up the trauma to your pride for, you know, the ones actually being killed.

In June I’m usually critiqued by the right for advocating for LGBT people.

Next, you are not “advocating for LGBT people.” There is no such thing. There are simply humans made in the image and likeness of God. What you are advocating for is a completely immoral lifestyle.  You’re encouraging people not to repent of their sins, but to embrace the sins as godly. You are rightfully critiqued by those in the Body of Christ, and you will someday be judged by God, too.

Unlike you, though, I’m actually the one advocating for those with same-sex attraction. I want them to be treated with the dignity we are expected to show as the Body of Christ. I do not act as if they are incapable of overcoming sin. I do not teach them that sin is relative. I do not teach them that their sin is special. Those are your tricks. Instead, I ask them to join the rest of us in our struggle to overcome our stupid selves. I’m trying to keep them from throwing in with your complete loss of hope in this arena. I’m trying to keep them from thinking they can’t live as the Church teaches we ought. They can, and by joining us in the struggle, they can vastly improve their lives and the lives of the rest of the Body of Christ.

But it’s the same advocacy: for the dignity of all human life. All life is sacred.

And that’s a big fat “Nope!” It’s not the same advocacy.  While you might be advocating for an end to abortion, you are not advocating for the dignity of the same-sex attraction. Maybe take a look at the Catechism once in a while, Father?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1.htm

CHAPTER ONE

THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

That points out one big difference right there.  Infants in the womb cannot contribute to their safety. There is no self-determination. Their freedom is eviscerated.

And more that follows up the same point:

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.“7”

Those suffering from SSA and, really, any other sin is capable of directing himself toward his true good. This is the not the same for the child in danger of abortion.

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.”9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

BAM! So what does NOT living a moral life do, Father???

1707 “Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.”10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:

Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.11

And that just gets worse every time we give in to temptation. Don’t you think it might be a good idea, James Martin, SJ, to advise people to avoid and fight against temptation?

Then there’s a whole part on freedom AND responsibility.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.“28

That’s where you’re helping to lead sinners, Fr. Martin, straight into the slavery of sin. We all have free will, but you might want to let people in on the fact that, just because people are free to choose sin, it doesn’t mean they should.

Of course, this section on the “Dignity of the Human Person” goes on and on with a lot of good stuff. I highly encourage a read. It tells of all the threats against it. Interestingly enough, most of the threats are from within ourselves. Nowhere does it advocate for or against the “LGBT” lifestyle or equate it with dignity, because lifestyles have little to do with human dignity. In fact, they are most often an attack on it.

So, yes, Fr. Martin. All life is sacred. That said, not all lifestyles are consistent with the dignity of the human person and many lead to the slavery of sin. This is why your January activities should be praised and your June activities should be shunned.

How are Cardinal Cupich & Bishop McElroy Going to Spin This?

Gotta say I love it when Pope Francis contradicts the position of Cardinal Cupich, Bishop McElroy and club.  I especially love it when it’s done after Cardinal Cupich tries to accuse those who favor the “preeminent” language as being discordant or undermining Pope Francis.  Oops, guess they were wrong.

https://osvnews.com/2020/01/16/pope-speaks-to-u-s-bishops-about-pro-life-issues-transgender-ideology/

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Protecting human life is the “preeminent” social and political issue, Pope Francis said, and he asked the head of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities to convey his support to the pro-life community.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the bishops’ committee, told Catholic News Service Jan. 16 that the pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.””

“His response to that was, ‘Of course, it is. It’s the most fundamental right,’” Archbishop Naumann recalled the pope saying. “He said, ‘This is not first a religious issue; it’s a human rights issue,’ which is so true.

Seamless garment hearts are breaking right now. To paraphrase Obi-Wan, “I felt a great disturbance, as if dozens of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

Archbishop Naumann was one of 15 bishops from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska making their “ad limina” visits to the Vatican in mid-January to report on the status of their dioceses. He and other bishops spoke to Catholic News Service Jan. 16 after meeting with the pope for more than two hours.

Archbishop Naumann said he told the pope that since the Roe v. Wade court decision legalized abortion, an estimated 61 million abortions have taken place in the United States.

“I think the pope was truly kind of stunned by that number,” Archbishop Naumann said. “Sadly, our abortion policies are one of the most liberal in the world. The fact is that it really is literally for all nine months of pregnancy. Most other nations don’t permit (abortions) at least at a certain point in the pregnancy.”

Sadly, cardinals and bishops like Cupich and McElroy are some of the reasons we’re in this predicament. They don’t believe it is a preeminent issue and they’ve given license to the faithful to ignore it, too.

Archbishop Naumann said that while Pope Francis has “elevated issues like the care of refugees and migrants,” he also understands that the situation in the United States is different compared to other countries.

“I think sometimes as he elevates those things, people mistakenly think, ‘Well, that means that the abortion issue will become less important,’” he said.

Oh yeah, they do! And we don’t have to look further for an example than the seamless garment club.

Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis told CNS it was “beautiful” when the pope explained why life was the number one, most important issue, “because if you’re not alive you can’t do anything else.”

It really is as simple as that. And, oh, I think I mentioned that here

Archbishop Carlson said they also talked about the importance of supporting pregnant women and making sure they have the resources they need to support that life.

For sure! There is no other way than to give support. Women in crisis pregnancies are under a tremendous amount of pressure. They’re scared.  They don’t know how they’re going to get through it. They see no help.  (This is the norm. We’re not talking about women simply sacrificing their children to advance their Golden Globe chances.)

While Pope Francis “certainly talked about abortion as a preeminent issue,” Archbishop Carlson said, “at the same time he said there’s another significant issue and that would be ‘transgender’ — where we are trying to make all human beings the same, it makes no difference, you can be whoever you want to be.”

The pope, he said, brought the issue up as an example of “another significant issue in our day.”

Asked whether the pope then gave the bishops any advice on how to handle the transgender debate, Archbishop Carlson said the pope touched on the way proponents believe people are “all one and that there’s no difference, which would fly in the face of what (St.) John Paul II talked about on complementarity and it would fly in the face of the dignity of the woman and the dignity of the man, that we could just change into whatever we wanted.”

Oh my!  Hey, America Magazine, National catholic Reporter, and friends, did you catch that? I’m anxious to see how you’re going to try to spin this one.

“Of course, he said, a pope or a bishop or any religious leader must focus on a variety of issues and concerns, but “there are some people who are one-issue people and so they’re never satisfied if you don’t focus totally on that.”

I can agree with this. There is confusion, however, when people don’t understand the preeminent thing, like Cardinal Cupich and Bishop McElroy. As I said in my last piece linked above, proximity to death gains priority, but we should be multifaceted in our efforts to further the dignity of each individual. I really don’t know one person in the pro-life movement who isn’t multifaceted, even if the bulk of their efforts are to save babies and their moms.

<snipping for brevity>

Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City, Missouri, said that on the issue of abortion, Pope Francis “simply reiterated what he’s already said in many different ways,” which is that “without life, what other rights are there? So, you have to begin with that. It’s not the only issue — I don’t think anybody has ever said that. But when you’re looking at the core beliefs and the more essential rights, the right to life of the unborn is very important.”

EXACTLY!

The pope, he said, “put it in a very beautiful way: Do we always want to simply eliminate those who are inconvenient? And, unfortunately, that’s part of our culture in the United States — the practice, the habit, if you will, of just eliminating the uncomfortable, the unwanted, as the solution. And we’re called to be better than that. We as a country are better than that.”

When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue’” in Catholics’ political concerns, “that word is carefully chosen,” Bishop McKnight said. “Because we want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue — because it is not.”

Exactly again, but this flies in the face of the story the liberal spinmeisters at America Magazine and National catholic Reporter would have you believe.

<snipping the rest as it goes onto the abuse scandal>

So, despite the best efforts of the usual seamless garment suspects, the Pope clarifies that their logic is quite faulty.

 

 

Why Abortion Is Preeminent

Since high school theology teacher Rich Raho decided to call out Bishop Strickland, I decided to give him a little attention. (Before I start – parents, if you have kids in his school, find another school, your money is wasted.) I don’t mean to besmirch Raho’s educational accomplishments, but a BA in Psych and a Master of Divinity don’t make him equal in knowledge of the Faith to the likes of Bishop Strickland. So, when I see Raho trying to take Bishop Strickland to task, I have no choice but to point out that he is not in the same league.
Raho has fallen prey to pride in the same way as the America Magazine or National catholic Reporter folks. They’re trying desperately to quiet those who champion an end to abortion, and in doing so try to paint those who do as somehow opposed to Pope Francis.
Let’s first take a look at Raho’s latest folly:
raho1
My response?
raho2
Let me help Rich out and explain the whole “preeminent” language voted on by the USCCB, because he really doesn’t seem to have a clue. Sadly, Cardinal Cupich and Bishop McElroy have aided and abetted his confusion, too.
“Preeminent” has nothing to do with valuing one life more than another. This is what the dissenting liberals (who really couldn’t care less about stopping abortion) try to tell you. “Preeminent” has every thing to do with who is in the most danger of death at the time. Barring a miraculous event, ever single baby who goes through whatever abortion procedure is chosen will die if that procedure takes place and they cannot fight for their lives. This is not the same for any other tragedy, although I suspect out and out euthanasia is on the horizon. Does this mean that any life is worth less than any other? Nope. It means that the danger of death is assured for this evil like no other. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, etc., etc., etc., are all tragedies, but death is not assured. Should we fight to help all? Absolutely! But, seriously, it is ridiculous to downplay the fact that thousands of children are being killed every day in this country simply because there are other tragedies going on.
Rich would have some serious issues proving the “preeminent” wording of the USCCB is in any way deficient or falling short of anything. Always wonder if he actually knows what the definition is.

pre·em·i·nent
/prēˈemənənt/
adjective

  1. surpassing all others; very distinguished in some way:

Being proximate to death makes abortion THE preeminent issue of our world. Rich hasn’t answered my little question to him on Twitter, though. Why? He knows he can’t, because I’m pretty darn sure he might have a heart and would save the child in danger of death first. That admission blows his lame argument out of the water. I’m pretty sure Pope Francis would do the same in that instance. That’s the reality of abortion.

%d bloggers like this: