Should Cardinal Cupich apologize?


Yesterday, Cardinal Cupich, speaking on Pope Francis and those criticizing the latest events in the Church, said in an interview on Chicago’s NBC affiliate…
“Quite Frankly They Also Don’t Like Him Because He’s a Latino”

I find this comment HIGHLY offensive. It is playing the race card and is horribly and wrongly judgmental. Are all those that were opposed to any of St. Pope John Paul 2’s policies “anti-Polish”? Are those who opposed Pope Benedict “Anti-German”?

Not to mention, Pope Francis isn’t technically a Latino. His heritage is Italian.

An apology is needed. He has labeled many people racist and is WAY out of bounds on this.


I think it is too quick an assumption to assume racism in the situation. I believe perhaps the Cardinal had in mind that he comes from a different perspective in terms of culture and background then they would prefer. It brings a different set of priorities and experience to the papacy. This isn’t racism.


Cardinal Cupich was direct and pointed in this comment. I see nothing “ambiguous” in what he is trying to insinuate. I don’t think he’s making an “assumption”. I think he is playing the race card in an extremely unwise manner…and I find it offensive.


Do you have a link?


Either he was direct and pointed or he was insinuating. It’s can’t be both, as they are opposites.

Anyway, I always find it appropriate to charitably assume the best, especially when given such a small bit of information . Since Pope Francis is not, in fact, a Latino, it seems likely that the Cardinal simply misspoke and meant to emphasize that he is from Latin America.


Yes, more context would be helpful.


The statement comes at about 1:10 into the video


The Holy Father is a Latino, if by Latino we mean Spanish speakers from Latin America. Latino is a very broad term. Argentina is primarily “white”…most of the population is of European descent. Bolivia or Peru, on the other hand, have much more indigenous populations. Countries like Mexico are mixed with most people claiming both European and indigenous descent. Caribbean Latin countries like the Dominican are home to people who are primarily a mix of European and African descent. Yet all of these peoples are “Latino”.


Hopefully, he just misspoke. My question is when did “Latino” become a race?


it’s really irrelevant to the conversation as to what the meaning of the word “Latino” is. Let’s not get off the point. The point is that a Cardinal of the Church has insinuated that people that disagree with the Pope are racist. That is the lowest form of argument. Again, was anyone who disagreed with Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict anti-Polish or anti-German?




Jorge Bergoglio is not Hispanic, he is Italian. Fake race card.


There are far worse things to be concerned about now than racism.


Meh :woman_shrugging: I don’t really think so.

The fact is, racism DOES exist. Against Latinos, as well. Reverse discrimination exists as well, so I think you can argue facts in this case. He may or may not be right.

As far as apology goes, you apologize for clear and proven wrong doing. Not for other people having the OPINION that you have done wrong.

Or he may choose to apologize for upsetting people. But I don’t think he should apologize if he sincerely expressed his belief in what he said and there is no real way to prove him right or wrong.


“Latino” is a term I try to avoid using myself because it can too easily be misunderstood. Different speakers use the term to convey different meanings. In the case of Cardinal Cupich’s remark, would anyone have objected if he had said, “Quiite frankly they also don’t like him because he’s a Latin American”? That’s obviously what he meant. The question that then needs to be asked about that statement is, simply, “Is it true?” Maybe there are people who would rather the last conclave hadn’t elected a Latin American pope, though I have never met anyone, as far as I know, who holds that opinion.


I think he needs to apologize for saying the Pope’s “got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants” as if these were more important than the abuses and corruption in the Church up to the highest levels. It comes off as trying to tickle the ears of the liberal media to divert attention from the scandals, and especially allegations that impugn the two men supposedly most responsible for his promotion and prominence.

At this point, the laity deserve transparency and an investigation–even if it means less talk about the environment for a little while–as so many other bishops have called for. Even if they are completely innocent, the time for the “act of trust” Pope Francis and Cupich want is long gone, sadly.


Latino is not a race. It describes someone from South and Central America.


Not much worse though. You’ve stooped pretty low once you’re a racist.


Cardinal Cupich is just angry because he was named in Vigano’s document. (Not as a pedophile or gay priest, but as a beneficiary of McCarrick et al, and as not facing facts.)

The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims. During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that“in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit