CNA Staff, Jan 20, 2021 / 05:04 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, used Twitter to issue a scathing criticism of the USCCB’s official statement on the inauguration of President Joe Biden.
In his four-part Twitter thread on Wednesday, Cardinal Cupich said that “the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration. Aside from the fact that there is seemingly no precedent for doing so, the statement, critical of President Biden, came as a surprise to many bishops, who received it just hours before it was released.”
“The statement was crafted without the involvement of the Administrative Committee, a collegial consultation that is a normal course for statements that represent and enjoy the considered endorsement of the American bishops,” he said.
“The internal institutional failures involved must be addressed, and I look forward to contributing to all efforts to that end, so that, inspired by the Gospel, we can build up the unity of the Church, and together take up the work of healing our nation in this moment of crisis,” the cardinal said.
The overt criticism of the USCCB came after Cardinal Cupich published a separate statement on his website that did not include these critiques. It follows a flurry of public reactions from his fellow U.S. bishops, who have supported the USCCB statement.
Three different bishops speaking on background to CNA said they were aware that Cardinal Cupich wanted a more supportive, clearly pro-Biden statement, and that he spent most of Wednesday trying to get the support of other bishops to come up with an alternative statement.
The USCCB statement to which Cupich was responding was originally expected to be released at 9 a.m. Eastern time. However, it was delayed and published only after Biden was sworn in to office and around the time Pope Francis published a message to the new president.
The statement was from Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the bishops’ conference.
Gomez stressed that the bishops’ job is not to be political, but to preach the truth. He said that while there are numerous issues of concern to the bishops’ conference, abortion is the preeminent issue that cannot be ignored.
Gomez said that “abortion is a direct attack on life that also wounds the woman and undermines the family. It is not only a private matter, it raises troubling and fundamental questions of fraternity, solidarity, and inclusion in the human community. It is also a matter of social justice. We cannot ignore the reality that abortion rates are much higher among the poor and minorities, and that the procedure is regularly used to eliminate children who would be born with disabilities.”
“Rather than impose further expansions of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will. My hope is that we can begin a dialogue to address the complicated cultural and economic factors that are driving abortion and discouraging families,” he continued.
“My hope, too, is that we can work together to finally put in place a coherent family policy in this country, one that acknowledges the crucial importance of strong marriages and parenting to the well-being of children and the stability of communities,” Gomez said. “If the President, with full respect for the Church’s religious freedom, were to engage in this conversation, it would go a long way toward restoring the civil balance and healing our country’s needs.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Fr. Richard Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, dresses in Roman prisoner garb as he holds a copy of his newest book, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” Fr. Cassidy’s eighth scholarly work, the book explores the subversive nature of St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, which the apostle wrote from behind bars in a Roman prison cell. / Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic
Detroit, Mich., Apr 30, 2022 / 08:00 am (CNA).
It was a tough decision for Rick Cassidy as he began graduate studies at the University of Michigan in mid-1960s. Would he take the course on Imperial Rome, because of his love of history, or the course History of Slavery, because of his deep concern for social justice?
The Dearborn native chose the course on slavery. The insights he acquired have helped to guide Fr. Richard Cassidy’s scholarly work for three decades, including his latest work, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians“ (Herder & Herder, 2020).
Paul’s letter, composed in chains and secreted out of his Roman jail cell, is intentionally “counter-slavery” argues Father Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary since 2004, as well as “counter-emperor.” At its core, Philippians is an underground epistle that subverts the Roman power structure and the “lordship pretensions of Nero.” Reviewers praise the “distinctive thesis” of Father’s groundbreaking work as “fresh and illuminating,” making for “fascinating reading.”
This is Father Cassidy’s seventh book that examines the influence of Roman rule on the writers of the New Testament, and his eighth book overall. He returned to Ann Arbor on a rainy afternoon in late June to discuss his newest work.
Dan Gallio: St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians is most known for its soaring declaration of the divinity Christ, before whom one day “every knee must bend,” and “every tongue proclaim” his universal lordship (2:6-11).
Your new book presents a unique argument: Paul’s letter is primarily a “subversive” document of resistance against the Roman Empire—particularly against emperor worship and slavery. How did you arrive at this against-the-grain interpretation?
“A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians” (Herder & Herder, 2020) is Fr. Cassidy’s eighth book and a follow-up on his 2001 work, “Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul”. Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic
Father Cassidy: These insights were the result of long hours with the text, spending a lot of prayer time for guidance, as to Paul’s situation.
The issue of slavery came into play strongly. I now saw that Jesus was executed as a violator of Roman sovereignty, condemned by Pilate, executed under Emperor Tiberius—and that this was the slave’s form of death. This is a crucial point.
In regards to the two topics you mention, I had the intuition that the Letter to the Philippians was “counter-emperor cult” and “counter-slavery.” First, the self emptying of Christ from on high—descending downward into human form, downward, downward to the point of the slave’s death on a Roman cross—and then you have St. Paul’s wonderful words in chapter 2, verses 9-11.
My insight was that there is going to be a redressing of what has happened. Because of the great faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the Father intervenes and begins the lifting up, the ascending of Christ, where the Father exalts Jesus and bestows upon him “the name above every other name.”
So I can now speak about this famous passage in terms of a kind of “drama”: four scenes that represent the descent of Jesus, and four scenes that represent his ascent, akin to a medieval passion play. The Father intervenes on Christ’s behalf, conferring upon him the name of “Lord.” Now all of creation, including the emperor, the governor, the imperial personnel, are all subject to Jesus. They have to prostrate themselves before the name of Jesus.
DG: So, essentially, Philippians is subversive because it makes a political statement as much as a theological one.
FC: Yes, but for some, it is a great privilege to genuflect at the name of Jesus. This includes slaves! Paul had integrated slaves into his community in Philippi. They were empowered now to proclaim the name of Jesus, standing alongside free men and women. They are standing alongside the Roman imperial power structure, all involved in the same process of bowing before Christ and proclaiming his name.
A security guard at Sacred Heart Major Seminary helps Fr. Cassidy don his “prisoner’s clothing” for a photo shoot promoting Fr. Cassidy’s latest book, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians,” which details Paul’s experience behind bars and the conditions under which he wrote his Letter to the Philippians. Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic
And that name is “Lord.” Jesus is being acclaimed as Lord, and not the emperor, to the glory of God the Father. This is the decisive element of Philippians 2:6-11, blended together in this one passage.
DG: You provide a forty-four-page introduction to the social situation of the Roman colony of Philippi. Why did you feel such an informative but lengthy introduction was necessary to support your thesis?
FC: I had to establish that conditions at Philippi mirror conditions at Rome. This is important. Philippi was like “Little Rome.” When Paul is speaking of conditions at Philippi, his is also experiencing the same oppressive conditions at Rome as a chained prisoner. I had to establish that emperor worship was everywhere, in Philippi’s renowned amphitheater, in the streets, in public artifacts. That is why I had to go into an extensive introduction to set the stage of what Paul is doing in his letter.
DG: Your appendices are extensive, too, like bookends to the introduction, driving the thesis home again using illustrations.
FC: There is one illustration of a monument where slaves are chained, and a slave trader is proclaiming his prowess as a slave trader. This monument to the degradation of slavery was at a city adjacent to Philippi. Paul almost certainly passed by it on his way to and from Philippi. It was discovered back in the 1930s and almost destroyed in the war by Nazi bombings.
DG: Paul is sometimes criticized by revisionist commentators for not rejecting the institution of slavery in his letters. Is your book an answer to these critics?
FC: Paul’s approach to slavery is complicated. There are some letters where he seems to envision the imminent return of Christ. Possibly he minimized the importance of slaves being freed in these letters. However, in Philippians, his final letter before his death, he addresses the issue definitively. It is very undermining of slavery.
I intended to de-establish the idea that Paul acquiesced to slavery. He did not acquiesce. The laudatory prepublication comments by scholars make me think the book will have a decisive role in re-imaging Paul.
Against a prevailing notion that St. Paul “acquiesced” to the idea of slavery in his writings, Fr. Cassidy’s book aims to counter the idea by showing how St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians actually served a subversive purpose in a Roman empire dominated by emperor worship and tight controls. Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic
DG: Back to Philippians 2:6-11. Why do you maintain this passage is not a hymn or baptismal catechesis, as is customarily believed, but is an original composition of Paul? Is this position another example of your counter exegesis?
FC: This is not some other preexisting hymn. No! This is fresh imaging. Visceral imaging. This is intensity from identifying with Christ as the “slave crucified.” No one else could have composed this passage. And Paul could not have composed this passage until he was in Roman chains and could see the threat posed against Jesus by the counterfeit claims that Emperor Nero is Lord.
DG: It’s almost like the passage is “supra-inspired,” that he would get such an original insight while in such dreadful circumstances.
FC: Correct. And there is a real question as to how this letter could be transmitted from prison, with the security and censorship. In garments? In pottery? It is possible the original written letter was confiscated. So how is Paul is getting his subversive thoughts past the Roman guards?
I suggest in my book that Paul was drilling his associates, Timothy and Epaphroditus, to memorize his letter, given the role of memory in early Christian life.
DG: With your busy teaching and pastoral duties, where to you find the motivation and energy to produce such a thoroughly researched, and beautifully written, work of scholarship?
FC: It’s Spirit driven!
DG: Is the Spirit driving you to another book?
FC: I would say so. After a book comes to publication, there is always a kind of mellowing period. So right now I have not identified the next project. I am appreciating the graces I have received from this book, and trusting that the same Spirit who has shepherded me through this sequence will still stand by me, guiding me forward.
Protestors with the group New York City for Abortion block Witness for Life prayer walk in Brooklyn / Jeffrey Bruno
Washington D.C., Jul 13, 2021 / 18:01 pm (CNA).
Pro-abortion protestors blocked a pro-life procession in Brooklyn, New York on Sa… […]
13 Comments
I always thought I understood that to support or encourage the sin of another was also a sin. And I thought that having a prominent Catholic speak out in public attacking church teaching was a serious offense called “giving scandal”?? If this is so, what is the problem that Cardinal Cupich sees with the USCCB not being sufficiently pro-Biden? Why does a Catholic Cardinal want to support a pro-abortion candidate by cloaking him with apparent church approval anyway?
Gomez’ statement was pure fluff, and Cupich’s throwing in his (unasked for) 2 cents just makes it that much more absurd.
If one were to ask for a clear reason why many Catholics are leaving, I would cite this silliness – and that’s exactly what it is – as a contributing factor.
If Cupich couldn’t support the USCCB’s well-crafted, balanced, responsible statement, then the red he wears is more symbolic of the devil than of being a Cardinal. Thank God I’m not in Cupich’s archdiocese.
Despite the prayers and anthems of the inauguration yesterday, isn’t the elephant in the living room the generational genocide that has continued on with public support since 1973? The practice of procured abortion is an unjust and violent assault on innocent human life in which young minority women are most affected.
Archbishop Gomez, President of the USCCB, proposes a Coherent Family Policy as a point of engagement between natural law and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and a national public policy incoherence gone off the rails. But adolescent Cardinal Cupich whines that he has a problem (probably still smarting from his success in sidelining Cardinal DiNardo, then President of the USCCB, on a strategy to correct a pattern of sex abuses, and then not being elected to any USCCB offices?).
The balanced and coherent CST centers on the transcendent Dignity of the Human Person (without 60 million exceptions) within the Family, plus Solidarity with Subsidiarity, plus Rights with Responsibilities, plus Faithful Citizenship with Informed Conscience (the Biden challenge), plus an Option for the “poor” with the Dignity of work, and all of this with long-term care for God’s Creation (and pre-born creations?).
But why propose the comprehensive coherence and depth of the CST when we can settle for a more politically-driven nexus of incoherence?
Why settle for Gomez’s CST—the negation of all ideology—when we can bundle all of our ersatz ideologies onto one letterhead? The Cupich faction has got it all worked out (!), from a national and historical perspective–the railroad (pun intended) nexus of cattle stockyard slaughterhouses in 19th-century Chicago. Hamburger moral theology, anyone?
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Baklinski in LifeSite). Bishops pleas be courageous and pleasing to God, not man. Do your work as defenders of the faith!
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Blazinski in LifeSite). Bishops be pleasing to God, not man. Be courageous and do your obligatory and necessary work as defenders of the faith!
Read a good Catholic author refer to the Vichy Bishops. Perfect definition for Cardinal Cupich. HE is perfectly Modernist. Sad thing is he and his side could whine to the Vatican and get heard.
I always thought I understood that to support or encourage the sin of another was also a sin. And I thought that having a prominent Catholic speak out in public attacking church teaching was a serious offense called “giving scandal”?? If this is so, what is the problem that Cardinal Cupich sees with the USCCB not being sufficiently pro-Biden? Why does a Catholic Cardinal want to support a pro-abortion candidate by cloaking him with apparent church approval anyway?
Gomez’ statement was pure fluff, and Cupich’s throwing in his (unasked for) 2 cents just makes it that much more absurd.
If one were to ask for a clear reason why many Catholics are leaving, I would cite this silliness – and that’s exactly what it is – as a contributing factor.
“Cardinal Cupich wanted a more supportive, clearly pro-Biden statement”
Yeah, I’ll just bet he did.
If Cupich couldn’t support the USCCB’s well-crafted, balanced, responsible statement, then the red he wears is more symbolic of the devil than of being a Cardinal. Thank God I’m not in Cupich’s archdiocese.
Biden on his first day already signed an EO to fund abortion s with taxpayers money overseas. He starts his presidency killing the more unborn.
Cardinal Cupcake is a disgrace to the Catholic Church. He should resign from office and turn in his red hat.
Despite the prayers and anthems of the inauguration yesterday, isn’t the elephant in the living room the generational genocide that has continued on with public support since 1973? The practice of procured abortion is an unjust and violent assault on innocent human life in which young minority women are most affected.
Cupich. Of course.
Archbishop Gomez, President of the USCCB, proposes a Coherent Family Policy as a point of engagement between natural law and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and a national public policy incoherence gone off the rails. But adolescent Cardinal Cupich whines that he has a problem (probably still smarting from his success in sidelining Cardinal DiNardo, then President of the USCCB, on a strategy to correct a pattern of sex abuses, and then not being elected to any USCCB offices?).
The balanced and coherent CST centers on the transcendent Dignity of the Human Person (without 60 million exceptions) within the Family, plus Solidarity with Subsidiarity, plus Rights with Responsibilities, plus Faithful Citizenship with Informed Conscience (the Biden challenge), plus an Option for the “poor” with the Dignity of work, and all of this with long-term care for God’s Creation (and pre-born creations?).
But why propose the comprehensive coherence and depth of the CST when we can settle for a more politically-driven nexus of incoherence?
Why settle for Gomez’s CST—the negation of all ideology—when we can bundle all of our ersatz ideologies onto one letterhead? The Cupich faction has got it all worked out (!), from a national and historical perspective–the railroad (pun intended) nexus of cattle stockyard slaughterhouses in 19th-century Chicago. Hamburger moral theology, anyone?
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Baklinski in LifeSite). Bishops pleas be courageous and pleasing to God, not man. Do your work as defenders of the faith!
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Blazinski in LifeSite). Bishops be pleasing to God, not man. Be courageous and do your obligatory and necessary work as defenders of the faith!
Read a good Catholic author refer to the Vichy Bishops. Perfect definition for Cardinal Cupich. HE is perfectly Modernist. Sad thing is he and his side could whine to the Vatican and get heard.
“Gomez stressed that the bishops’ job is not to be political, but to preach the truth.”
That is NEWS. Let’s check back to see if a walk follows such amazingly new, different, and curious talk.