Cardinal Cupich declines to comment on Bishop Paprocki's decree

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
Later that evening, Cardinal Cupich appeared on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” to discuss gang and gun violence in the city. He declined to comment on a newly promulgated document in nearby Springfield, Ill., in which Bishop Thomas Paprocki told priests that gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages should not receive Communion or be given Catholic funerals.
Click to expand...
“That is not our policy,” Cardinal Cupich said, adding, “as a matter of practice, we don’t comment on the policies of other dioceses.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I’ll give him credit for not saying anything and criticizing another bishop, as I’m sure that he vehemently disagrees with Bishop Paprocki’s guidance.
 
StudentMI said:
Good for him. The topic was gang violence.
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with the show in question, it’s a local PBS news magazine. I’m sure it was a side question that was not intended to corner him. Basically the show does journalism the “old” way. Either way the Chicago Bishops have always had a decent relationship with the public, certainly in my lifetime. This Cardinal is no exception, indeed he does not live in the Bishop’s Mansion but the rectory at the for the Cathedral.
 
Although Chicago and Springfield are in the same State, they are light years apart in many ways. Upstate and Downstate Illinois are two different worlds—actually, anything south of Interstate 80 is very different than the Chicago area.

I’m not sure how the Cardinal could “dispute” much of what the Bishop of Springfield said. Bishop Paprocki’s statement is clear, concise, and based on Church teaching. For the Cardinal to dispute what Bishop Paprocki said wold be to dispute that teaching.
 
Operalan said:
I’m not sure how the Cardinal could “dispute” much of what the Bishop of Springfield said. Bishop Paprocki’s statement is clear, concise, and based on Church teaching. For the Cardinal to dispute what Bishop Paprocki said wold be to dispute that teaching.
Click to expand...
I always feel like there should be an emoji that’s a gavel with the words “A CAF poster has spoken!”

That’d be cool. 🙂
 
Peter_J said:
I always feel like there should be an emoji that’s a gavel with the words “A CAF poster has spoken!”

That’d be cool. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not sure of your “intent” or “meaning”. What I said is pretty easy to understand.
 
The original document was nothing more than an interoffice memo reminding staff of church doctrine on these matters. Not a decree.
 
Sorry I shouldn’t have used the word “decree” in the thread title. (I think the segment of America – not to mention its media – that has been hanging on Bishop Paprocki’s every word has rubbed off on me a little.) Instructions pertaining to the Springfield diocese is what I should say.
 
Peter_J said:
Sorry I shouldn’t have used the word “decree” in the thread title. (I think the segment of America – not to mention its media – that has been hanging on Bishop Paprocki’s every word has rubbed off on me a little.) Instructions pertaining to the Springfield diocese is what I should say.
Click to expand...
Heh. :cool: After posting that, I discovered that there’s another thread on the Catholic Answer Forum titled “Bishop Paprocki: My Decree–Explained to Answer Misunderstandings”. Small world eh? 🙂
 
tseleehw said:
I’ll give him credit for not saying anything and criticizing another bishop, as I’m sure that he vehemently disagrees with Bishop Paprocki’s guidance.
Click to expand...
Most any bishop would never publicly criticize another bishop. Honestly, I cannot think of any time I have seen a bishop do such a thing.

A good lesson for all of us, I think.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Most any bishop would never publicly criticize another bishop. Honestly, I cannot think of any time I have seen a bishop do such a thing.

A good lesson for all of us, I think.
Click to expand...
One relatively recent example that I can think of is when then Cardinal-elect Kevin Farrell publicly criticized the guidance Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia released for his archdiocese on Amoris Laetitia:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29968
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29971

I suppose one could make the argument that since Cardinal Farrell is in charge of the dicastery for the Laity, Family, and Life that he might have more standing to criticize bishops’ guidelines on such matters, although I am unaware of any authority that he has to influence the decisions made by bishops of other dioceses on these topics. Nor was Archbishop Chaput’s guidance rescinded to my knowledge so even if he did have some kind of authority he apparently chose to do nothing about it. But I guess my point is that Cardinal Cupich handled such a situation much better and more tactfully, IMO.
 
tseleehw said:
I’ll give him credit for not saying anything and criticizing another bishop, as I’m sure that he vehemently disagrees with Bishop Paprocki’s guidance.
Click to expand...
It would be wrong of the good cardinal to disagree with the bishop, or even think of saying anything against his decision.

After all, I’m sure Bishop Paprocki was guided by his conscience, and as Cardinal Cupich has said, a person’s conscience is inviolable.
 
ARSpade said:
It would be wrong of the good cardinal to disagree with the bishop, or even think of saying anything against his decision.

After all, I’m sure Bishop Paprocki was guided by his conscience, and as Cardinal Cupich has said, a person’s conscience is inviolable.
Click to expand...
Ha - I actually thought about this when I first read this story. Hey, if Bishop Paprocki is just following his conscience, then Cardinal Cupich should be saying, “Who am I to judge?” 😃
 
ARSpade said:
It would be wrong of the good cardinal to disagree with the bishop, or even think of saying anything against his decision.

After all, I’m sure Bishop Paprocki was guided by his conscience, and as Cardinal Cupich has said, a person’s conscience is inviolable.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Cardinal Cupich (and all bishops) should wholeheartedly agree with Bishop Paprocki’s decree. It’s what the Church teaches. But it’s what Cardinal Cupich is NOT saying regarding reception of Holy Communion for adulterous couples, or gay married couples, is more curious…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top