Nor any sin for that matter, right? It's all dependent on the "prior beliefs and values of the beholder", isn't it? That's the essence of moral relativism, I believe.
For lurkers, The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as:
...an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
Aquinas defined scandal in exactly the words I gave you: word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
So enjoy your self-sourced definition of scandal. The Catholic Church and Aquinas work for me.
Cardinal Bernardin was installed by the members of that organization, including the Pope. I believe he led the USCCB. That would mean he led them, not opposed them.
Uh-huh. And Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve.
Well?
I believe he was a gentle pious man that empathized with the poor and brought the beatitudes to life.
I guess one could say the same about someone like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Lots of people already do.
I think a little history lesson is in order.
Bernardin did untold damage to the Catholic cause and there is no better example than his "seamless garment" theology regarding life issues. This theological argument claimed that we needed a wide-reaching life ethic which included not only the issue of abortion but also the issues of warfare, capital punishment, healthcare, and various other things. Sounds good, doesn't it? The liberals certainly thought so and immediately fell in love with it. However, the problem was, it made abortion just one of a whole parcel of life issues and not necessarily the most important one. This is classic Bernardin; appearing to be supporting something while in fact, undermining it.
If one wishes to trace the origin of the current Catholic political malaise which leads large numbers of Catholics to support and vote for anti-life abortion promoters, Bernardin's "seamless garment" theology can be found lurking at the root of much of it. This thinking says that when weighing one's vote, one can in good conscience vote for an abortion supporter, providing he or she is "pro-life" on other so-called "life issues", such as health care, capital punishment, etc. because after all, abortion is not the only life issue.
Of course, if there is no right to life, then there is going to be no right to healthcare or anything else but that is lost on most of the sheep who dutifully vote for Obama and Pelosi et al.
Then there's Bernardin's treatment of homosexual ministry. Bernardin became archbishop of Chicago in 1982 and for 6 years he was happy to support the organization Dignity which was was given use of a parish church for its liturgies. Dignity is not an organization which promotes chastity among those afflicted with same sex-attraction disorder. On the contrary, it affirms and supports gays in their lifestyle. This was too much for Rome and it eventually demanded that something be done. Bernardin complied and in 1988 demanded that Dignity issue a statement affirming Catholic teaching on sexuality. They refused and as result, were given the boot.
Sounds good, right?
Not quite. Bernardin then set up an organization named AGLO(Archdiocese Gay and Lesbian Outreach) to replace it. Read their ambiguous mission statement. This again was classic Bernardin; appear to be supporting something while working to undermine it.
Are we making progress?
Then there's the issue of the Mundelein seminary where the archdiocese trains its priests. Michael Rose in his book Goodbye Good Men examined the issue of homosexuality in seminaries and based on interviews with former seminarians concluded that this seminary under Bernardin was one of a group of seminaries which became known as the "pink palaces"; hotbeds of homosexuality where orthodox Catholic men were made to feel unwelcome. Rose quotes a former Mundelein seminarian, Joseph Kellenyi, as saying: "The issue was never one of my suitability for ordination. Rather it was that the gay clique had been given veto power over who got ordained."
Do I need to go on?
In light of these things and many others, it's absolutely no surprise that "The Gay Men's Chorus" sang at his funeral. Why a group of openly gay men? Why not a group of school children or a group of war veterans or a group of disabled or handicapped people?
"Gay men"??
As they say on that sports program......."C'mon man!!"
The subject of this thread is the filthy defamation of the man. No evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass, was a homo, engaged in homosexulality, promoted homosexuality, or became ordained to perform satanic rituals for promises of "fantastic gay sex". Do you have any such evidence?
I never made those claims. My initial intervention on this thread, to which you objected, was directed at his selection of openly gay men to sing at his funeral which was and still is a scandal.
"Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve. Well?
Judas was not ever chosen as respected leader of the 12.
"I never made those claims. My initial intervention on this thread, to which you objected, was directed at his selection of openly gay men to sing at his funeral which was and still is a scandal."
K. I replied, because of the characterization of his Mass for the dead as, " This was essentially a celebration of open, unrepentant homosexuality." It was not. They simply sang a song, or songs.