‘Catholic’ Bishops Gear Up to Beat Trump in 2020

CP&S comment – Yes, you read that title right! It’s unbelievable but true. On top of aiming to alter Catholic social teaching to suit their own agenda, Cardinal Blase Cupich and the “Pope Francis faction” of progressive bishops are waging war on this outspoken defender of Christianity and the most pro-life President the US has ever had, whilst contriving together on how to get rid of Trump by 2020. Shame on them!


By Deal Hudson on NEWSMAX (and also posted on LifeSiteNews)

.Cardinal Blase Cupich speaks at an end of school year peace rally on June 15, 2018, in Chicago, Illinois.

The Catholic bishops met in Fort Lauderdale a few days ago. The dominating topic of discussion was politics, specifically, their official guide to Catholic voters, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
The Pope Francis faction, led by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, called for a complete rewriting of the document since it no longer represented “the new body of teaching” as taught by the present pontiff, specifically mentioning climate change, poverty, and immigration.

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego went a step further saying the present document doesn’t represent “Catholic teaching as it is now.”

These two are not the only ones who believe that in the space of five years, since Bergoglio’s 2013 election, the moral and social teaching of the Church has been so fundamentally altered Faithful Citizenship no longer speaks with the true voice of the Church. So much for an institution considered slow to change.

Other leading bishops, however, including Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles, opposed writing a new document, arguing what was needed was a more straightforward, significantly redacted version of Faithful Citizenship along with an accompanying video for YouTube, etc.

When the votes were tallied, 77 percent of the bishops voted for the creation of shorter materials — a letter, video, and other “resources” to supplement Faithful Citizenship.

During this discussion there was no mention of Trump being the most pro-life president in our nation’s history. It should not surprise us at that omission since the intent behind the beefing up of Faithful Citizenship is to deny Trump a second term in office.

The bishop’s present silence about the president’s achievement is only another iteration of their attempt during the campaign itself to camouflage Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion stance by arranging with moral indictments Trump about “The Wall.”

The strategy didn’t work. Faithful Catholics would not be bullied into seeing moral equivalence between killing the unborn and insisting on secure national borders.

Trump/Pence won 52 percent of all Catholic votes and 56 percent of mass-attending Catholics. In the election aftermath, the weeping and wailing at the USCCB must have matched that of Hollywood, the EU, and the mass media.

As it stands, the 2015 version of Faithful Citizenship is a flawed document. A close reading of it offers the Catholic voters several loopholes allowing them to ignore a candidate’s abortion stand if other “morally grave reasons” prevail. It remains to be seen, whether the new supplements will magnify these flaws or keep them buried in theological mumbo-jumbo where they belong.

We can fully expect, however, the redacted version of Faithful Citizenship to put the immigration issue front and center. This placement will create the impression of a de facto moral equivalence with settled life issues such as abortion. The bishops approved language that virtually guaranteed these new shorter materials will “apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.”

But just as in 2016 when the bishops pressed the immigration issue, it won’t work in 2020. For one thing, Pope Francis has spent all the capital of good will created by his election and his successful U.S. visit. Pope Francis, as it were, has no ‘coattails.’

If the bishops produce election materials that recast Faithful Citizenship to fit the Pope’s vision, it will only create greater distance between the bishops and their faithful. They will be relegating themselves to becoming just another cadre of grumpy Never-Trumpers.

At the very least, the bishops could have expressed common ground with the Trump administration on his efforts to defuse the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. After all, doesn’t this come under the rubric of “world peace”?

The bishops, instead, focused on the president’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement. The USCCB itself has been asked to sign the Paris declaration by its own Catholic Climate Covenant created in 2006. How much money will it cost Catholics if the bishops decide to play in European politics on that issue?

Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, the bishops ignored the opportunity of voicing solidarity with the president’s pro-life agenda and his the quest for peace between North and South Korea. Instead they prepared to sharpen their knives for the 2020 election. Is this what we now call “evangelization”?

[Emphasis in bold is ours]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to ‘Catholic’ Bishops Gear Up to Beat Trump in 2020

  1. Mary Salmond says:

    The bishop’s conference with their literature to oppose Prez Trump will confuse faithful Catholics that agree with his administration. Unless, of course, those Catholics have watched conservative news and see how things are going well.
    Whereas, Modernists will gleefully pronounce that they agree with the bishops and we should all follow the bishops’ statement.
    Let’s see how this plays out. Will those bishops figure it out?


  2. catholicstrongblog says:

    Of course these socialist communist liberal Soros WOLVES are doing their damnedest to defeat Trump! They want to make sure they destroy what little faith Catholics have left, just like when pathetic liberal “Catholics” are the ones who got Obama elected. TWICE!


  3. Bishops have lost their credibility. They should just be quiet for about ten years.


  4. kathleen says:

    @ catholicstrongblog

    Yes, those statistics (if correct) via the link above, that only 56% of practicing Catholics voted for Trump puzzled me a lot too. How could the other 44% vote for the ferociously anti-Catholic, anti-life, godless policies of the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton? It’s unbelievable!

    Fortunately President Trump appears to be pretty unfazed by this mounting aggression against him. He is really Pure Grit and doesn’t back down on his programme and policies. But can his supporters keep the “SOROS wolves” at bay? They are so powerfully entrenched in all the major institutions in the country.


  5. The good bishops have to be careful. The exemption from taxes that is granted to religious bodies in the United States depends on their leaders adhering to an obligation not to advance any particular political point of view.


  6. johnhenrycn says:

    Many people hold Trump in contempt because he is a yuge New Yawk version of Louisiana’s Huey Long roughly 100 years later. Gov. Long in the 1930s was supported by a segment of Catholics (including the notorious Msgr Charles Coughlin, which is by-the-bye) as I too support Trump for reasons which do not include any respect for his moral character. He is a conservative’s version of Lenin’s useful idiot.

    Some good results out of the Supreme Court these past two weeks, thanks to Trump.


  7. johnhenrycn says:

    I just saw RJB’s comment, and yes, tax exemptions can be lost when charitable organizations promote political causes. That might be the best thing for our Holy Catholic Church. We cannot serve two masters.


  8. John says:

    They are obviously concerned that Trump is threatening women’s right to choose whether or not to murder their baby and refusing to leave national borders leaky for terrorists to enter not to mention not supporting climate change.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mary Salmond says:

    RJB does make a very good point about tax exemption and no political affiliation! Some bishops are progressive and pushing political viewpoints under the guise of the Gospel.


  10. Brother Burrito says:

    I take issue with the “56% of mass-attending(sic) Catholics” statistic.

    Simply follow the link, and in the second table you will see that it refers to those people who attend “worship services” at least once a week. There is no mention of Holy Mass attendance.

    These 56% could be soccer, baseball, rugby, or even devil “worshippers”, as well as Wiccans, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Non-Catholics, or Non-Protestants (like me 😉 ).

    Statistical quotes are terribly prone to be re-forged into ammo for false-news warriors


  11. Brother Burrito says:

    Actually this post and many other examples also gives me cause to take issue with a general editorial problem on this blog.

    The preface starts with

      “CP&S Comment”

    as though this is an agreed opinion/article by all of us who contribute here.

    This strikes me as a bit shabby, because I certainly didn’t provide any input into it!

    In the early days of the blog, publishing an article under the CP&S authorship was used for posts which were not written by any of us individually. Often, these posts were either plainly copied, highly sourced from other sites, or simply re-blogs. The CP&S label was used to indicate that what followed was not the original work of any of us. I know I certainly published many posts using the CP&S moniker.

    The danger is that “CP&S” is becoming a groupthink flag around which people huddle in the midst of battle. We risk losing our individual responsibility, thus becoming a mere baying mob, through such group-thought.

    A remedy might be if whoever prepares such posts in future preface them with

      “XXX Comments”

    where XXX is the individual’s online posting name.

    For instance,

      “Brother Burrito Comments”

    , etc.


  12. kathleen says:

    Top of the morning to you BB!

    But have you got up on the wrong side of your bed? …. (as the nuns used to ask grumpy girls at my school 😉.)

    I think you should take up your “issues” with the (56% of Mass-going-Catholics-voting-for-Trump) statistic with the author, Deal Hudson; they are his, not mine.
    Having said that, I am, admittedly, slightly wary of statistics too. So much depends on who is making them, for many sources are not always honest and objective in their research and try to push their own agendas, as you say:
    Statistical quotes are terribly prone to be re-forged into ammo for false-news warriors
    Indeed, so perhaps the true figure is even lower!

    I’m sorry you think your old team-mates are a bit “shabby” 🙄! The “CP&S comments” on reblogged articles from other sites are usually written either by mmvc, Gertrude or me (mostly me). We are, I believe, of like mind, i.e, traditionalist and orthodox thinking Catholics, The Raven and GC too, not progressives. Our (very outdated) “About” page describes us thus.

    Personally speaking, I do often put my own name on articles that are mostly re-blogs where it seems more honest to do so. And occasionally of course, time permitting, I write and sign my own pieces.

    It might have been kinder of you to have aired your differences with us on the group emails behind the scenes, as we usually do.
    God love you all the same.


  13. mmvc says:

    BB @ 09.43

    Internal editorial matters should remain precisely that – internal.
    As you well know, we have a forum to air, discuss and agree on any such issues.

    Having said that, thank you for your recommendation which the team will no doubt ponder prior to coming to an agreement before long.


  14. mmvc says:

    It might have been kinder of you to have aired your differences with us on the group emails behind the scenes, as we usually do.

    Precisely, Kathleen. Kinder not just to fellow team members but also to our readers who would surely prefer to be spared such public spats.
    Btw, I hadn’t seen your reply before posting mine, but we’re certainly in agreement. :o)


  15. Brother Burrito says:

    Dear mmvc and kathleen, dear ladies,

    My asinine comments have clearly caused offence to you both and broken the protocols of politeness and kindness somehow.

    Alas, I am an ass! I am unskilled in such things, but the cat is out of the bag surely.

    If this blog is to be taken seriously, it has to publish by high standards of Truth, don’t you/we think?

    It seems to me that editorial matters about this blog in the future should appear in the the same open way as our posts do. That way, nobody can accuse any of us of having hidden agendas.

    Christ came and spoke to us in the “clear”*. Should we not communicate amongst ourselves likewise?

    It would at least prevent us being accused of “gnosticism”!

    *In cryptology, the study of secret messaging, “in the clear” denotes the original message before it has been rendered unreadable by encypherment.


  16. Gertrude says:

    I enter this conversation reluctantly and somewhat late. I am deeply saddened that Burrito chooses such a public forum in which to air his differences, but, they are just that. In Burrito’s long absences from this blog, which has always been a group effort, there have been multitudinous changes occurring in the Pontificate of Francis. Those who have remained regularly contributing to this blog have rightly reflected this, and vigorous and intelligent conversations have been held, whilst respecting all opinion. I see no reason to change this. Burrito has his own blog, and equally is free to express his opinions in that way. CP&S reflects thinking in the Roman Catholic Church in these troubled times, and provides a forum which, while raising awareness of these tribulation s also serves as a reminder of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and it’s Apostolic Tradition formed over almost 2,000 years. If Burrito thinks that this tradition is no longer relevant than that also saddens me, and I am sure all who contribute to this blog, but he has freedom to choose.

    I will make no further comment here on what is obviously a deep practical problem Burrito has. This will be resolved (as rightly said) elsewhere as has been the practice since the first post appeared on this blog, and I thank our readers for their forbearance in this private squabble.


  17. johnhenrycn says:


  18. Gertrude says:

    John Henry: We normally do!!!


  19. mmvc says:

    Well said, Gertrude.

    BB, the following overlaps with Gertrude’s response, but as it took me a while to draft it ;o), I’ll post it nonetheless:

    …the cat is out of the bag surely.

    That appeared to be your intention from the outset.

    If this blog is to be taken seriously, it has to publish by high standards of Truth, don’t you/we think?

    Indeed. Catholic Truth is always at the forefront of our minds when we choose or write items for the blog. Clearly CP&S readers recognise and appreciate this, as their steadily increasing numbers from all over the world testify. The fact that many visitors and regulars, readers and commenters return again and again, suggests that most of them, bar a few exceptions (pace Toad and Kehoe), appreciate the combination of Church news/development updates, inspiring devotional posts and the occasional light-hearted piece – all in one place. I’m open to correction on this, but I also feel that CP&S is a bit of a refuge for many Catholics who have experienced increasing bewilderment, disappointment and sadness throughout the pontificate of Pope Francis.

    Frankly, if CP&S were not being taken seriously our stats would look very different.

    I’m sorry you chose not to respect our request to keep editorial discussions in the internal forum where – until now at least – blog matters have been dealt with and resolved by the team in a sensible, friendly and ‘democratic’ way. No one has anything against informing readers about blog changes/developments once these have been decided upon, but for us to be thrashing such things out in public is unedifying, unpleasant and totally uncalled for. Full involvement of our readership would entail everyone casting their votes/expressing their views on each and every matter – most impractical!

    As for your point about ‘Christ speaking in the clear’, is it not likely that even Our Lord and His disciples discussed and agreed many an issue internally so as to better bring His Word to the world? That has nothing to do with clarity. Just wisdom, prudence and common sense.

    We welcomed you back with open arms after your years of absence during which we kept the blog running from day to day. You immediately baffled us with your rabble rousing talk of starting bonfires and all sorts of conflagrations on CP&S. We gently tried to let you know that that is not necessary or desirable.

    Catholicism Pure and Simple is about clarity of Catholic Truth.

    It’s not about smoke, fog and blazes.

    And it never will be.


  20. Brother Burrito says:

    Dear mmvc, Gertrude, and kathleen,

    Thank you for giving me the dignity of replies to my troublesome comments earlier. Yes Gertrude, I do maintain my own poor secular blog elsewhere, but I guess none of the regulars here would enjoy reading it.

    Are readers still going to be submitted to anonymous “CP&S Comment” in future?

    Is Deal Hudson’s misrepresentation of the Truth going to be allowed to stand unchallenged?

    These are simple “dubia” requiring simple answers, are they not? What is good enough for Pope Francis is good enough for CP&S surely.

    Believe it or not, I still want CP&S to be the breakfast reading of Bishops, just as I did back in 2010. Yes, I am such a naive fantasist, thank you Geoff.

    BTW, Toad is up for parole on 14th July. If I still have admin rights here by then, I shall set him free for the simple reason that he has not been commenting ad nauseam into our trash bucket in the meantime. Every good boy deserves favour.


  21. johnhenrycn says:

    Deal Hudson. Ah yes. I saw his name on this thread, but my favourite source of Catholic news in the USA warned me – 12 or so years ago – to be wary of him. An orthodox Catholic news source.


  22. johnhenrycn says:

    As for Toad, he and I have a lot in common, except the One True Faith. I don’t think he belongs here, but I would never black-ball him, even if I could.


  23. johnhenrycn says:

    As for Yoda, he’s lost the plot, as has the whole Star Wars franchise.


  24. mmvc says:

    Are readers still going to be submitted to anonymous “CP&S Comment” in future?

    Ok, let’s try again:
    I’m sure the team would be happy to resolve this particular dubium.
    You have the necessary contact details, BB.


  25. mmvc says:

    Is Deal Hudson’s misrepresentation of the Truth going to be allowed to stand unchallenged?

    Clearly not, as you have already challenged what you believe to be Deal Hudson’s misrepresentation of the truth. Simples.


  26. kathleen says:

    BB @ 22:34 yesterday

    Is Deal Hudson’s misrepresentation of the Truth going to be allowed to stand unchallenged?

    Mmvc nails it: are you not challenging Deal Hudson’s views right now? No one is stopping you. Be our guest and carry on “challenging” (with calm) so we can all debate the topic together. Obama. Clinton, Soros, Cards. Kasper, Marx, Cupich and all the other liberal bishops would surely be right behind you.

    But why say the article is a “misinterpretation of the Truth”? Don’t you mean an “interpretation” that you disagree with? First you have to show it’s a “misinterpretation” (IYHO) before ruling it out and complaining.

    Of course it is Our Lord Jesus Christ alone Who is The Truth. His Words are The Truth that He imparted to His Church to safeguard and preach to “all nations” till the end of time. Only orthodox Catholics (despite all their human limitations and failings) believe and uphold the fullness of this Truth.
    The others just cherrypick the parts of Catholicism that suit their liberal ideas and lifestyle, and discard any uncomfortable teachings. Our Blessed Lord strongly condemned this behaviour!

    No, Trump is no saint – we all know that – but he and his administration are protecting the values of Christians, especially Catholic Christians, in a way no US President has ever done before. To vote for an anti-family, pro-LGBT-‘rights’ political party that activity promotes the unrestricted killing of millions of unborn babies is (IMHO) a purposeful denial of those values.


  27. larryzb says:

    It is sad what has happened to the Catholic Church since Vatican II. We do not know what the 3rd or 4th secrets of Fatima were, but I had read that in one of the apparitions, Mary warned that the Church should not convene a council and that this secret was to be made known by 1960. Pope John XXIII made his decision to call for a council around 1960.

    The Catholic faith is a beautiful thing, and it is most unfortunate that the institutional Church, that is the Church men (clerics, prelates), tend to muck things up in various areas. (I have several areas of contention with the Church where it does not stand on solid ground and takes positions that go against common sense and reason, but I will not air them here.)


  28. Francis Kosmalski says:

    I don’t believe this.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s