Nothing exposes the ignorance and evil of “progressivism” quite like discussions of the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Nothing exposes the hollowness of leftist claims to care about social justice, the poor, and the weak like their eagerness to keep the slaughter of humans in the womb legal.

Nothing exposes the loathing of leftists for those deemed “other” by the powerful than their seething rage at the possibility they may lose the right to kill those they “other.” Leftists view humans with defects and humans created by the criminal acts of their fathers as undeserving of existence. Leftist “othering” of imperfect humans and humans conceived through evil acts is so extreme that they shriek apoplectically at the claim that even these tiny, innocent humans are part of the human family.

Adam Serwer writing for the Atlantic described the possibility of Roe being overturned as “stripping half the country’s population of a fundamental constitutional right.” He didn’t expend a single word to try to prove that killing one’s unborn baby is a constitutional right. He didn’t point to where that purported right is found in the Constitution. He didn’t refute the numerous claims from liberal constitutional scholars who assert that no such right can be found in the Constitution.

(As an aside, hasn’t Serwer heard the news from feminists that men are not entitled to speak on the issue of abortion—not even when their own children are being killed?)

In America Magazine, Illinois’ morally repugnant and theologically ignorant U.S. Senator Dick Durbin whined like a narcissistic teen that “it is fundamentally unfair” that he is denied Communion in the Springfield diocese, a decision that he calls “not a happy experience.”

He also believes this about Communion:

I think the standard for receiving Communion is a well-formed conscience, and where you come down as a result of that. And that is personal to the individual standing at the rail. … In the end it is a personal decision to stand at that rail, and I think with very few exceptions, Communion is offered to anybody if the person believes that they are worthy of it.

Really? The Catholic Church has an obligation to serve the Lord’s Supper to anyone who finds himself or herself “worthy of it”? And that obligation applies even to Catholics who intentionally use their voices and power to promote sin as good in direct violation of Catholic teaching?

Clearly, Durbin thinks he’s worthy of Communion despite the fact that he supports the legal right to slaughter humans in the womb from conception to birth for any or no reason.

Durbin goes on to point out what he views as hypocrisy by Catholic leaders:

[H]ere we have Trump in the closing days of his presidency executing more people on federal death row than any time in modern memory, just right and left, and we couldn’t stop it, the courts couldn’t stop it. …  And to think that these same Catholic leaders didn’t express horror at that outcome, or at least as much as they should have from my point of view, is troubling.

Point of clarification from America Magazine:

[The Trump administration carried out 13 executions over its last seven months in office—five in its last month. …]

In Durbin’s moral blindness, he believes that thirteen executions of adults found guilty of serious crimes warrant expressions of horror from Catholic leaders. He believes five executions of criminals in one month are horrific. Meanwhile, 1,700 abortions per day in the United States warrant approval and legal sanction—in Durbin’s view. That is 1,700 innocent human lives snuffed out every day because their mothers don’t want them to live.

No worries though because Durbin assures his constituents that his faith “means a lot to me”:

My faith has been a big part of my life and I’ve thought about it a lot because I have been forced to.

Apparently, thinking “a lot” about his faith is about all Durbin’s done with it. And apparently, all that thinking was done under duress. No voluntary thinking about his faith. No siree.

In service of proving themselves singularly committed to compassion for the weak and oppressed, leftists are fond of redefining and revising. So, here’s an idea on how Planned Parenthood and other cheerleaders for calculated carnage should revise the conclusion of Emma Lazarus’ famous poem “The New Colossus” to suit their mission:

Give me your flawed, your poor
Your parasites with no right to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Bring your unwanted, tempest-tost to me,
I lift the lamp beside the cold steel door.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Fools-and-Hypocrites-Defend-Abortion.mp3

Remember last July when CNN’s homosexual “journalist” Don Lemon said, “Here’s the thing, Jesus Christ—if … you believe in Jesus Christ—admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this Earth”? Apparently, Lemon forgot these verses about Jesus:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Well, Lemon’s at it again—that is, demonstrating his biblical ignorance. This time, in response to a question from Meghan McCain about the Vatican saying it won’t bless same-sex unions, Lemon responded,

The Catholic Church and many other churches really need to reexamine themselves and their teachings because that it not what God is about. God is not about hindering people or even judging people. … I would say to the pope and the Vatican and all Christians and Catholics … go out and meet people and try to understand people and do what the Bible and what Jesus actually said—if you believe in Jesus—and that is to love your fellow man and to judge not lest ye be not judged.

Yes, he said that—all of it. Why, oh, why does someone so biblically ignorant pontificate repeatedly on Christianity?

For the umpteenth time, God judges both people and actions. While God loves his creation, he hates many things that his fallen creatures believe, desire, and do. We learn that in Scripture. We learn too that Christians are to discern properly and to discriminate—that is, judge—between right and wrong actions. We learn that we are to “judge with righteous judgment,” to “expose the unfruitful works of darkness,” and to “declare the whole counsel of God.” God instructs individuals, church bodies, and civil authorities repeatedly to make judgments regarding right conduct.

We also learn in the Old Testament that God does, indeed, hinder and judge people. And as we learn throughout Scripture, God will judge us all.

The words of Jesus that Lemon attempted to quote, Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” are often misunderstood, misused, or abused by those who affirm homoeroticism as good. This admonition from Jesus means several things. What is does not mean is that Christians are prohibited from making distinctions between right and wrong acts. This verse means that,

1.) Fallen humans should not presume to judge the hearts of others,

2.) We are not to presume to know who is saved and who is not, and

3.) We are not to condemn hypocritically a sin in which we ourselves engage. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct (i.e., to judge). Neither Lemon nor anyone other than sociopaths believes people should refrain from making moral judgments. Lemon and his ideological allies regularly judge the beliefs, feelings, words, and deeds of others. Has he ever watched CNN?

With pomposity, scorn, and nastiness, leftists regularly judge theologically orthodox Christians. If Christians believe what God’s Word says about sexuality, they are called ignorant, intolerant, hateful bigots—or worse. If “judging people”–in the sense of judging the beliefs, feelings, and acts of people–is wrong, as Lemon says it is, then Lemon and other leftists shouldn’t be judging and condemning Christians as “homophobes” and “transphobes.”

Every civilized human makes judgments every day between right and wrong actions. When Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.—to whom Lemon referred favorably—condemned racism, he was judging. When he said the church was “blemished and scarred” by racism and rendered “weak” and “ineffectual,” he was judging. There is no mistaking that Rev. King heartily endorsed judging. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Rev. King wrote,

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Lemon doesn’t really mean Christians shouldn’t make judgments about right and wrong. He really means Christians shouldn’t make any judgments he hates.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Bible-Expert-Don-Lemon-Opines-Again.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

~UPDATED on 8/28/2018 at 10:00 a.m.~

Warning: not for younger readers

As the Catholic Church is rocked by yet another sex scandal involving priests who abuse children and teens, the bizarre claim that these scandals have nothing to do with homosexuality continues to spread, primarily by those most personally invested in white-washing the pederastic deviance intrinsic to homosexuality.

The most recent scandal emerges from six dioceses in Pennsylvania where an investigation brought to light that over the past 75 years, 300 predatory priests sexually abused over 1,000 children and teens, the vast majority of whom were male.

Some of the victims “were made to masturbate their assailants, or were groped by them. Some were raped orally, some vaginally, some anally.” One 17-year-old was anally raped with such force his spine was injured, which led to his addiction to pain meds and death at age 46. (Not to worry, the Church paid for his funeral.) To compound the stomach-churning evil, church leaders concealed the abuse to “protect the abusers and their institution above all.”

This investigation followed a 2016 investigation that revealed 50 predatory priests in the Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania diocese. In 2014, the Chicago Archdiocese released files on 63 predator priests who sexually abused 352 children and teens since 1950. A 2005 investigation of the Philadelphia Archdiocese revealed 60 predatory priests. And in 2002, the Boston Archdiocese revealed 150-200 perverse predatory priests. In all investigations, most of the victims were male.

In 2002, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York was hired by the “full body of Catholic bishops of the United States” to “conduct research, summarize the collected data, and issue a summary report” on clergy abuse in the Catholic Church. The report, titled “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010,” revealed that 81% of victims of Catholic priest abuse were male, and that 78% were pubescent or post-pubescent boys between the ages of 11-17 (51%  were between ages 11-14, 27% were between ages 15-17). The remaining 22% were between 1-10.

In the ever-shifting sands of social “science,” pedophilia is defined as sexual interest in prepubescent children. Therefore, adults who sexually molest pubescent children or post-pubescent teens are not deemed pedophiles. Adult males who are sexually interested in pubescent boys are called hebephiles, and adults who are sexually interested in post-pubescent boys are called ephebophiles. They’re still perverse, just less perverse than pedophiles. Formerly these forms of perversion were called pederasty. Priests who sexually abuse pubescent and post-pubescent male children and teens are homosexual. They are pederasts.

It is common to hear homo-activists and their collaborators make the strange claim that priests who are sexually interested in and sexually abuse pre-pubescent male children are most definitely not homosexual pedophiles. They will concede they are pedophiles, just not homosexual pedophiles. How can that be, you may be asking yourself. Here’s how homo-activists rationalize that claim:

• First, they assert that the “sexual orientations” are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.

• Second, they assert that “sexual orientation” refers only to adult-adult attraction (also known as “telieophilia”).

• Third, they argue that if a man is attracted to only prepubescent children—let’s say male children—then he has no “sexual orientation.” Abracadabra, adult men who are sexually attracted only to prepubescent male children are not homosexual because homosexual is a sexual orientation, which they don’t have.

Arguably the world’s preeminent scholar on the topic of the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, explains this tortured reasoning:

It is a semantic sleight of hand and pure sophistry to define a homosexual person solely as one who has a primary attraction to adult males (denoted in the scientific literature as “homosexual teleiophiles” or “androphiles”) and then to proclaim proudly that we have discovered that homosexual persons, so defined, do not do much molesting of children. If a pedophile is defined as a person who shows “little, if any, erotic interest in adults” and a “homosexual” as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in children, then, by definition, no homosexual can be a pedophile and few homosexuals will ever engage in a pedophilic act.

So you see, the priest in the Pennsylvania report who admitted molesting boys but denied the accusations of two girls because girls “don’t have a penis” couldn’t possibly be homosexual so long as the boys are 9 rather than 12.

Not everyone uses this doctrinaire theoretical framework. It’s easy to find “progressive” websites that refer to “heterosexual pedophiles.” And this article originally published by the Mayo Clinic refers to both heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles, providing disturbing information about both, but worse about homosexual pedophiles:

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%). This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children…. Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts…. A study… of 377 nonincarcerated, non-incest-related pedophiles… who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.

The scope of the problem of homosexuality among priests is revealed not just in child abuse scandals. In his book The Changing Face of the Priesthood, published in 2000, Catholic priest Fr. Donald Cozzens estimated that 50% of priests and seminarians are same-sex attracted. In that same year, Jesuit priest Paul Shaughnessy wrote about the infiltration of the priesthood by homosexuals which had resulted in scores of priests’ deaths from AIDS between the mid-1980’s to 2000:

AIDS has quietly caused the deaths of hundreds of Roman Catholic priests in the United States…. The death rate of priests from AIDS is at least four times that of the general population…. [P]riests routinely gloat about the fact that gay bars in big cities have special “clergy nights,” that gay resorts have set-asides for priests, and that in certain places the diocesan apparatus is controlled entirely by gays. What is significant is that these are not claims made by their opponents, not accusations fired off by right-wing Catholics in a fit of paranoia; rather they are gays’ words about gays themselves.

In 2001, a website for homosexual priests and seminarians called St. Sebastian’s Angels was exposed:

Featured on St. Sebastian’s Angels were names, photos and email addresses of openly homosexual priests, a disturbing selection of pornographic images, and a forum for participants to discuss anything from their open rejection of Church teaching to their perverse activities and fantasies.

In 1996, shortly before he died, former archbishop of Chicago Joseph Cardinal Bernardin—long-rumored to be homosexual and accused of sexually molesting Steven Cook—asked the Windy City Gay Men’s Chorus to sing at his funeral.

In 2007, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a huge “blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church” that depicts “semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals [i.e., men with women’s breasts], prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.” Paglia was appointed by Pope Francis “as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.” The mural remains even today despite controversy. 

In the summer of 2017, Vatican official Monsignor Luigi Capozzi’s “palatial” apartment was raided after complaints from neighbors. Inside the police found a homosexual orgy fueled by drugs and alcohol in progress.

In a stunning written statement, released on August 22, 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò reveals that Pope Francis lifted the canonical sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on now-disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for his decades-long sexual abuse of both male children and seminarians. In his statement, Viganò also identifies Washington D.C. Cardinal Donald Wuerl and far-left Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich—a Francis appointee—as complicit in the cover up of McCarrick’s egregious sins.

Pope Francis ruffled the feathers of theologically orthodox Catholics again by his appointment of José Tolentino de Mendonça to be Vatican archivist and librarian of the Holy Roman Church. Concern over this appointment arises in part from Mendonça’s enthusiastic support for the heretical, feminist Benedictine nun Sr. Teresa Forcades who wants the church to change its position on homosexual activity (as well as abortion and female ordination). Not surprisingly, Forcades, who has “become one of the most influential left-wing public intellectuals in Europe,”  says, “I don’t believe every sentence in the Bible is the word of God.” 

Forcades praised Pope Francis’ efforts to change the attitude of the Church on homosexuality:

I think that Pope Francis attempted to make a step forward in this sense with the Synod on the Family; he did not succeed in doing it, but it is not the same atmosphere now as it was when there was not Pope Francis. For example, Sr. Jeannine Gramick, who worked in the United States for many years for acceptance not only for being homosexual but also for homosexual activity, for physical homosexual love, has said that from the time Pope Francis arrived she no longer faced the pressure she had endured previously to not do this type of apostolate.

This is the woman for whose book, Feminist Theology in History, Mendonça wrote an enthusiastic preface. And Mendonça is the priest Pope Francis wants in a Vatican leadership position. 

Some are astonished that the cover-up of sexual abuse committed by priests has continued even after the shocking Boston exposé. They ask, “Didn’t the Catholic Church learn anything from that scandal?” The real question should be, “Didn’t the Catholic Church learn anything from the first homosex scandal to hit the Catholic Church 400 years ago: the Piarist scandal?”

The 2004 book Fallen Order by British historian Karen Liebreich chronicles the sex abuse perpetrated and covered up in the Order of the Clerics Regular for the Pious Schools, also known as the Piarist Order, in 17^th Century Italy. The order was founded in 1597 by Jose de Calasanz and was “dedicated to educating poor children.” Two of the priests in charge of Pious schools were Fr. Stefano Cherubini and Fr. Melchiorre Alacchi, both of whom were pedophiles. When confronted by Calasanz, Cherubini, who came from a Vatican-connected family of attorneys, threatened to sue and besmirch the reputation of the Piarist Order and the Church all the way up to the pope, so Calasanz relented and promoted him. Some years later for reasons related to Vatican politics and unrelated to Cherubini’s pedophilia, the Vatican banned the Piarist Order. Twenty years later, the order rose from the ashes.

There is nothing new under the sun. Saint Peter Damian wrote this in in The Book of Gomorrah in 1051 AD:

[A] certain most abominable and exceedingly disgraceful vice has grown in our region, and unless it is quickly met with the hand of strict chastisement, it is certain that the sword of divine fury is looming to attack to the destruction of many…. The cancer of sodomitic impurity is thus creeping through the clerical order and indeed is raging like a cruel beast within the sheepfold of Christ.

In more prosaic language, Janet E. Smith, philosopher and professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, echoed Damian’s sentiment from 850 years ago:

Many people think the sexual scandal in the Church is that bishops knew about McCarrick and did nothing about it…. The deeper problem is the presence of homosexual networks in the Church — likely in dioceses all over the world and certainly in the Curia…. Eradicating the homosexual networks from the Church would do a lot to purging the Church of immoral priests.

Pervasive cultural acceptance and affirmation of homosexuality puts boys at serious risk. In every society throughout history that has accepted homosexuality—from Celtic Ireland to ancient Greece and Rome to ancient and medieval Japan—the dominant form it has assumed has been pederastic. Adult men had sexual relationships with pubescent and post-pubescent boys. This is what we will see in America unless we can recover moral virtue and sexual sanity.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Homosexuality-in-the-Catholic-Church-2.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

A cursory look at recent words from prominent homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan who self-identifies as Catholic illustrates the ways homosexual Christians attempt to remake Scripture in their own image to serve their own desires.

Catholic revisionist Sullivan, a well-known cultural commentator, offered a fanciful and childish reinterpretation of Scripture when he wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips. It should be noted from the outset that Sullivan hopes Phillips wins, but also hopes he wins based on expressive speech arguments—not religious free exercise grounds.

Sullivan not-so-carefully constructed an ugly straw man that he then went about pummeling with weak, floppy punches that couldn’t knock down a thin man of straw let alone God’s enduring Word:

Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid ‘contamination’ from ‘evildoers’ that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a type of union that is the antithesis of marriage in no way constitutes “sealing oneself off,” placing oneself “above others,” or avoiding “contamination” from “evil doers.” Nor is such a refusal impelled by fear of having one’s faith weakened. In reality, such refusal both reflects deep faith and strengthens faith through the trials (both figurative and literal) that ensue.

For Christians marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. Its essence is complementarity. Christ the bridegroom and his bride the church are different in nature and role. Therefore, a union of two people of the same sex would suggest that there is no difference in nature and role between Christ and the church. In addition, Christ himself explicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Moreover, God detests homosexual activity. A ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates an intrinsically non-marital union that is “consummated” by activity that God abhors is heretical. Those, like Jack Phillips, who own businesses that serve only sinners—including homosexuals—everyday, aren’t sealing themselves off by refusing to serve a heretical celebration that mocks marriage. They are serving and honoring God.

Nor is such a refusal indicative of lack of humility as Sullivan claims it is. Humility does not require Christians to refrain from making distinctions between right and wrong. And making distinctions between right and wrong actions does not constitute or reflect pride, arrogance, or a sinful sense of superiority. When Sullivan decries actions that he believes are wrong or when he refuses to be a part of some activity that he believes is wrong, is he guilty of unbiblical lack of humility?

Pastor and theologian John Piper writes this:

Humility begins with a sense of subordination to God in Christ.… Humility asserts truth not to bolster ego with control or with triumphs in debate, but as service to Christ and love to the adversary.

Truth is integral to biblical humility.

Sullivan then makes the tiresome claim that because Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, there should be no boundaries regarding the types of events that Christians serve, facilitate, or celebrate. This criticism implies that Christians who refuse to be part of homosexual faux-wedding celebrations also refuse to eat with homosexuals. Does Sullivan have any evidence for such an ugly claim?

Jesus did, indeed, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not, however, serve, facilitate, celebrate, or participate in celebrations of prostitution or of the exploitation of the poor through excessive, unjust taxation. Nor did he just hang out chewing the fat with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who favored other forms of sin.

Rather, he told them to “go and sin no more,” to repent and follow him. He told the sinners he spent time with that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” and “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

At the feast with tax collectors, Jesus described them like this:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, calling them sick and in need of healing and sinners in need of repentance. Sullivan left out those inconvenient details about the time Jesus spent with sinners.

Sullivan is wrong again. God did, indeed, establish boundaries for his followers. In Ephesians 5:11, the apostle Paul commands Christians to:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Sullivan is right too. We should go to sinners. We should eat with them. And we should to the best of our ability and in humility emulate Christ by sharing the gospel message.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Homosexual-Catholic-Gets-Scripture-and-Jack-Phillips-Wrong-2.mp3

Editor’s note: Laurie is the featured guest on this week’s Illinois Family Spotlight podcast.  Check it out HERE.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

The Illinois Family Institute has warned repeatedly about the failure of faith leaders to lead properly on matters related to homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. These failures are found in most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church. A recent interview with Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich reveals part of the reason many Catholics lack biblically informed views on these matters.

Cardinal Cupich was asked about Pope Francis’ controversial and confusing Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” to which Cupich offered this controversial response:

[Amoris Laetitia] asks people to have an adult spirituality….to realize that in some way you have the grace, by God, to discern truth in your life in terms of where the Lord is calling you to the next step. It does put the responsibility on each individual, rather than an outside authority telling people what to do as if they were children. What the Holy Father is calling us to, what the Church is calling us to now is to be able to take responsibility for our lives and that means making sure people understand the freedom of conscience but also the responsibility that goes with it. So, this really, I think, is a movement to moving out of adolescent spirituality into an adult spirituality. That’s a big significance and it’s been going on since the Second Vatican Council. 

IFI’s good friend and faithful Catholic Daniel Boland (PhD), offers this analysis of Cupich’s words:

Cardinal Cupich’s statement, however well-intentioned, is a worrisome summary of present day Catholic relativism. Indeed, he adds significantly to the magisterial relativism which is unraveling the Church at all levels, from Baltimore’s Fr. Joseph Muth and his celebration of lesbian marriages to Cardinal Cupich’s notions of an “adult” Catholic to Pope Francis and his oft-confusing commentaries.

As a psychologist for fifty years (with a theology background), I believe the comments of Cardinal Cupich are astonishingly naive and reveal incomprehensible ignorance of 1) human nature (even so-called “adult” human nature), 2) the deep and enduring impact of our morally-tattered culture’s agencies and their profound effect on moral and intellectual growth, and 3) fundamental psychological facts relating to human development (e.g., in the realm of psycho-sexual identity, many persons continue to evolve well into their adult years, not to speak of the plethora of moral aberrations which are now commonplace).

These and a dozen more reasons clearly reveal and starkly underline the fact that we humans need the guidance of the organized Church all the years of our lives. We have only to look at the morally derelict conditions in our United States for stunning evidence of the corrupting results of relativism in public and private realms, corruption and violence wrought by educated “adults,” many of whom claim to be Catholic, many of whom claim both maturity of years and purity of “discernment.” But any experienced and candid spiritual director will attest that discernment is an elusive and often precarious quality which is so often missing even among those who are spiritually motivated and deeply prayerful.

In the world of human realities, Cardinal Cupich opens the door to moral nihilism and calls it “adult” Catholicism. This is astonishing. It is a recipe for institutional disaster for the Catholic Church and for the society which the Church supposedly is called to evangelize. It is also a recipe for moral isolation of individuals, as is (or should be) already evident to those who have eyes and will see.

The notion of “discernment,” in the generic, come-get-yours manner in which ecclesial relativists are using it, is a near-frivolous example of a lack of discernment, a psychological and moral anomaly. It is a misguided, if well-meant, idea (“offensive to pious ears” as older moralists used to say) to suggest that at some point in life, we can safely detach from the theological traditions and moral restraints of Catholicism because we have, at last, decided that we have attained Our Responsible Adult (transgendered? thrice-married? GLBTQ? goat-loving?) Self.

Given the topsy-turvy morality of our culture, one cannot fathom why Cardinal Cupich would promote the probability of even greater moral anarchy. The cumulative evidence over many decades now strongly indicates that major elements within the Magisterium (i.e., the Church’s official teaching authority of the bishops in unison with the Holy Father) are, at the very least, profoundly confused about their prophetic role in our culture. They seem to be in substantial doctrinal flux or in a state of political correctness about their fundamental moral responsibilities to the Church, reluctant to attest forthrightly to their Christocentric pastoral responsibilities to Catholics and to the larger secular culture in which the Church supposedly evangelizes (or used to).

A contrary condition of moral, doctrinal, and canonical relativism is what is involved in and represented by this Cupich statement. He and a number of Francis’ appointees to the Magisterium are changing the Church in radical ways. One cannot but be concerned about the degree to which relativism has been embraced by the first ranks of the teaching authority of the hierarchical Church Christ founded. Laity are unable to make any impact or even be listened to, and yet it is clear that the laity can offer profound enlightenment to Church leadership.

Perhaps the Church is meant to devolve into a state of dispirited chaos about 1) its moral and doctrinal identity and 2) about the reliability—if not the stability and validity—of its leaders, following the model of the Episcopalians and other morally fragmented assemblies. If so, we are clearly on that path, and it is the relativism, silence, and passivity of ecclesiastical and clerical leadership that are taking us there.

Written by Rod Dreher

“In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness.  And tenderness leads to the gas chamber,” said Flannery O’Connor. Her point was that sentimentality cannot restrain the darker forces in human nature. Which brings us to the Catholic bishops of eastern Canada.

They recently published a pastoral document indicating how, in their opinion, Catholics who commit suicide voluntarily, through doctor-assisted euthanasia (which is now legal there), should be treated by the Church. The full document is downloadable here. It is a masterpiece of Francis-speak. The document can be summed up like this: “Yes, euthanasia is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church, but we know that some people are going to choose it anyway, so we intend to offer them all the sacraments to help them along the way, because who are we to judge?”

Here are some passages from the document. This is the opening paragraph:

In our Catholic tradition we often refer to the Church as our Mother. We perceive her as a mother who lovingly accompanies us throughout life, and who especially wishes to support and guide us when we are faced with difficult situations and decisions. It is from this perspective that we, the Bishops of the Atlantic Episcopal Assembly, wish to share with you this pastoral reflection on medical assistance in dying.

Come sit on Mama’s lap and let her tell you how she’s going to help you kill yourself. More:

Medical assistance in dying is a highly complex and intensely emotional issue which profoundly affects all of us. It makes us aware that some people have become convinced that, at a certain point, there is no longer any “value” in their lives, because their suffering has become unbearable or they cannot function as they once did or they feel a burden to their family and society. People with such a conviction or in such circumstances deserve our compassionate response and respect, for it is our belief that a person’s value arises from the inherent dignity we have as human beings and not from how well we function.

True enough — but watch those weasel words “highly complex and intensely emotional”. They are not meant to clarify but to obscure. More:

The example of Jesus shows us that pastoral care takes place in the midst of difficult situations, and that it involves listening closely to those who are suffering and accompanying them on the journey of their life situation.

Pope Francis also calls us to practice this “art of accompaniment”, removing our “sandals” before the sacred ground of the other (cf. Ex 3:5). The Holy Father writes that this accompaniment must be steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness and our compassionate gaze which heals, liberates and encourages growth in the Christian life (Evangelii Gaudium – The Joy of the Gospel, no. 169). He says that to accompany requires prudence, understanding, patience and docility to the Spirit. He focuses on the need to practice the art of listening which requires the opening of one’s heart to a closeness which can lead to genuine spiritual encounter (Evangelii Gaudium – The Joy of the Gospel, no. 171). Pope Francis reminds us that the one who accompanies others must realize that each person’s situation before God and his/her life of grace are mysteries which no one can fully know from without. Consequently, we must not make judgements about people’s responsibility and culpability (Evangelii Gaudium – The Joy of the Gospel, no. 172).

See what they’re doing there? Invoking the compassion of Jesus and the counsel of humility and mercy of Pope Francis to lay the “who-am-I-to-judge” groundwork. But wait, doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that suicide is a grave moral wrong? The bishops knew you would say that:

Especially within the context of the Church’s teaching on suicide, this pastoral approach of accompaniment is extremely important in our contact with, and ministry to, those who are suffering intensely and who are considering asking for medical assistance in dying. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us that God is the sovereign Master of life. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of (CCC, no. 2280). The Catechism teaches that suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate one’s life (CCC, no. 2281). However, the Catechism also notes that “grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (CCC, no. 2282). Such circumstances can sometimes lead persons to so grave a feeling of desperation and hopelessness that they can no longer see the value in continuing to live, this desperation and hopelessness diminishing their responsibility for their actions. Only attentive pastoral accompaniment can bring us to an understanding of the circumstances that could lead a person to consider medical assistance in dying.

This is diabolical. They’re saying, “Yes, we know, the church says it’s wrong, but in certain instances, it can be right, because circumstances may “diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.” What this teaching of the Church intends to do is to encourage hope for the soul of the suicide, that God may not hold him responsible for the great sin he has committed — a sin from which there can be no repentance. It does not justify euthanasia. But, having made a hole big enough to pilot a supertanker through, the Canadian bishops deliver the real goods:

The Sacrament of Penance is for the forgiveness of past sins, not the ones that have yet to be committed, and yet the Catechism reminds us that by ways known to God alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance (CCC, no. 2283). The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is for strengthening and accompanying someone in a vulnerable and suffering state. It presupposes one’s desire to follow Christ even in his passion, suffering and death; it is an expression of trust and dependence on God in difficult circumstances (CCC, no. 1520-3). The reception of Holy Communion as one approaches the end of this life can assist a person in growing in their union with Christ. This last Communion, called Viaticum, has a particular significance and importance as the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection (CCC, no. 1524). As for the Church’s funeral rites, there are a number of possibilities available. However, in discerning the type of celebration most pastorally appropriate to the particular situation, there should always be dialogue with the persons concerned which is caring, sensitive and open. The decree of promulgation of the Order of Funerals states that: “By means of the funeral rites it has been the practice of the Church, as a tender mother, not simply to commend the dead to God but also to raise high the hope of its children and give witness to its own faith in the future resurrection of the baptized with Christ” (Prot. No. 720/69).

As people of faith, and ministers of God’s grace, we are called to entrust everyone, whatever their decisions may be, to the mercy of God. To one and all we wish to say that the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of the sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites. Persons, and their families, who may be considering euthanasia or assisted suicide and who request the ministry of the Church need to be accompanied with dialogue and compassionate prayerful support. The fruit of such a pastoral encounter will shed light on complex pastoral situations and will indicate the most appropriate action to be taken including whether or not the celebration of sacraments is proper.

There’s more in the bishops’ statement, but that’s the heart of it. Notice how they have proposed something monstrously anti-Christian by slathering it with buttercream icing of tender verbiage. From the pen of these bishops, Bergoglian “who am I to judge?” tenderness leads to the euthanist’s needle. That’s not Church as Mother; that’s Church as Mommie Dearest.

Fortunately, there is at least one morally sane Catholic bishop in Canada: the mighty Fred Henry, the Bishop of Calgary, who addresses the assisted suicide issuewith straightforward, muscular prose, and lays out Catholic moral teaching with great clarity. Excerpt:

For Catholics, in order to receive the sacraments, one must have the proper disposition. The deepest meaning of receiving sacraments is that man entrusts himself to God’s loving mercy. Consciously and freely choosing euthanasia or assisted suicide implies that one is not entrusting oneself to God’s mercy, but is rather controlling the conclusion of one’s own life. Such a position is incompatible with the surrender to God’s loving mercy and it denies, so to speak, the strength that is inherent in the sacraments. Through the sacraments one participates in the suffering, the death and the Resurrection of Jesus and in the unconditional “yes” He spoke to His Father.

From this perspective, it is impossible to comply with a request for the sacraments when someone has planned to end his life or to have it ended actively. Such a person does not have the proper disposition.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are not a “solution” to suffering, but an elimination of the suffering human being. It is therefore the confirmation of despair, of the overwhelming feeling that all suffering can only end when the human person himself ceases to be. If the pastoral caregiver were to support the request for euthanasia, he would be capitulating to despair, which is contrary to the hope alive within him which he wants to proclaim. If the Church’s minister were out of a false of compassion accede to such a request it would constitute an enormous situation of scandal and denial of the truth, “You shall not kill.”

This article was originally posted at TheAmericanConservative.com

Written by Anugrah Kumar

The New York Times is being criticized for having double standard by allowing a full-page ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) against the Catholic Church in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, while the newspaper had rejected an “anti-Muslim” ad in 2012.

“Remember when the New York Times rejected an ad aimed at one religion?” asks journalist David Harsanyi of The Federalist on Twitter, with a link to the Think Progress blog post from 2012 that drew attention to how the newspaper “rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.”

But on Thursday, the Times carried an FFRF ad denouncing “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The Times had responded to the “anti-Muslim” ad submission. And the Media Research Center quotes Geller as describing the newspaper’s response: “Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to inflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in ‘a few months.'”

Matthew Balan, a news analyst at MRC, notes that while the Times is entitled to choose what ads to run, its response simply proves one of Geller’s points that “almost no Catholics are likely to respond violently even to harsh criticism of the Catholic Church – but enough Muslims are likely to respond violently to harsh criticism of Islam (whether the response is against the critic or against others) that the Times itself views such criticism as unsafe.”

There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, but “unfortunately there are also enough extremist Muslim thugs to affect what the Times is willing to publish,” Balan adds. 

In a statement, Catholic League‘s Bill Donahue on Tuesday cited examples of “the reaction of bigots to the Hobby Lobby case.”

“‘Court’s Catholic Justices Attack Women’s Rights’ is the headline of Margery Eagan’s Boston Herald article (it’s those Catholics again). The American Humanist Association issued a statement with a picture of a rosary next to birth control pills. Cute,” Donahue said.

He also referred to The Huffington Post, in which Ryan Grim noted that “these men [the five judges who voted for religious liberty] are Christians.” He also said, “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special.”

Donahue concluded by saying, “Catholics are 25 percent of the population and comprise two-thirds of the high court. Jews are 1.8 percent of the population and comprise one-third of the high court. Note: only the former is a problem.”

This article was originally posted at the Christian Post website.