Cupich: 'Respect must be real, not rhetorical'

[Seamus_L]

Cupich immediately pointed out that the Supreme Court had redefined civil marriage, which has no bearing on the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, he said.
“The rapid social changes signaled by the Court ruling call us to mature and serene reflections as we move forward together,” he said in the statement. “In that process, the Catholic Church will stand ready to offer a wisdom rooted in faith and a wide range of human experience.” chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-archbishop-cupich-supreme-court-met-20150628-story.html
Sounds like a rather unclear response.

 

[OraLabora]

Link doesn’t work.

 

[Della]

Cupich immediately pointed out that the Supreme Court had redefined civil marriage, which has no bearing on the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, he said.
“The rapid social changes signaled by the Court ruling call us to mature and serene reflections as we move forward together,” he said in the statement. “In that process, the Catholic Church will stand ready to offer a wisdom rooted in faith and a wide range of human experience.” chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-archbishop-cupich-supreme-court-met-20150628-story.html

                                              Sounds like a rather unclear response.

He is probably trying to calm fears and abate any unChristian reactions aganist SS people, and that is commendable. But I agree that his statement gives wiggle room for interpretation that many could misinterpret as approbation.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry, link works now, seems like a glitch at my end.

I can’t say I find anything particularly ambiguous in his statement though it is what I would call “carefully worded”.

Essentially what he said is true: civil law redefined civil marriage, and the Church alone can define sacramental marriage.

The Church and its members may not like the fact that we can’t dictate secular policy on the issue, but the fact is, we can’t dictate secular policy on the issue.

The Truth meanwhile, survives within the Church protected by Jesus’s promise to Peter and the authority of the Keys. Of that we can be reassured by our faith.

 

[Elizium23]

Error has no rights.

 

[OraLabora]

Error has no rights.

Speeders have no rights either, but people still speed on the highway.

Given that the highest courts in both our countries (Canada and the US) have ruled on this issue, what do you propose we do to correct this “error”?

Mine idea is rather simple, but may take a very long time: catechize Catholics and evangelize non-Catholics.

It’s the only hope we have of making others see the beauty in Truth.

 

[Della]

Speeders have no rights either, but people still speed on the highway.

Given that the highest courts in both our countries (Canada and the US) have ruled on this issue, what do you propose we do to correct this “error”?

Mine idea is rather simple, but may take a very long time: catechize Catholics and evangelize non-Catholics.

It’s the only hope we have of making others see the beauty in Truth.

I agree that doing those things are essential but as citizens with the responsbility of voting for our representatives, we can’t simply shrug our shoulders and pretend it has nothing to do with us. We need to mobilize people of faith to vote out those who are imposing such evils on us all as well as pray and evangelize.

 

[LittleFlower378]

He is probably trying to calm fears and abate any unChristian reactions aganist SS people, and that is commendable. But I agree that his statement gives wiggle room for interpretation that many could misinterpret as approbation.

I thought the same thing. Alot of times these pressure groups which they talk about in the link I provided below try to make the bishops and everyone else feel guilty. Its an easy ploy and boy does it work with same sex attraction. If you are speaking the truth in love there is no reason to feel guilty. Justified anger is good as long as you dont take it to an extreme. If this court decision doesnt make your blood boil!!!

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[SWolf]

Speeders have no rights either, but people still speed on the highway.

Given that the highest courts in both our countries (Canada and the US) have ruled on this issue, what do you propose we do to correct this “error”?

Write your state leaders exhorting them to nullify and refuse to honor the ruling.

Mine idea is rather simple, but may take a very long time: catechize Catholics and evangelize non-Catholics.

It’s the only hope we have of making others see the beauty in Truth.

We can do that too. It makes it harder when our tax money is being used to promote immoral causes like this.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree that doing those things are essential but as citizens with the responsbility of voting for our representatives, we can’t simply shrug our shoulders and pretend it has nothing to do with us. We need to mobilize people of faith to vote out those who are imposing such evils on us all as well as pray and evangelize.

Easier said than done though. There is absolutely nobody in Canada running for office who is willing to reopen this issue.

And I’m not sure that we can vote in or out people based on this issue, when the Supreme Courts in both our countries have ruled same-sex “marriage” a constitutional right.

In our country changing that would require a constitutional amendment, or using a temporary opt-out clause in the constitution that has only been used once, but with great political damage.

Sometimes we have to face an unpalatable reality, shake the dust off our sandals, and move on. When this issue was hot on the Canadian agenda, I did my bit by writing to my MP and the Prime Minister of the day, to no avail. Nobody I could vote for made this an election issue.

 

[Della]

Easier said than done though. There is absolutely nobody in Canada running for office who is willing to reopen this issue.

And I’m not sure that we can vote in or out people based on this issue, when the Supreme Courts in both our countries have ruled same-sex “marriage” a constitutional right.

In our country changing that would require a constitutional amendment, or using a temporary opt-out clause in the constitution that has only been used once, but with great political damage.

Sometimes we have to face an unpalatable reality, shake the dust off our sandals, and move on. When this issue was hot on the Canadian agenda, I did my bit by writing to my MP and the Prime Minister of the day, to no avail. Nobody I could vote for made this an election issue.

Still, we can’t give up because this happens to be the temper of the times. As Chesterton once wrote: “We don’t want a Church that moves with the world, we want a Church that moves the world.” We are the Church in our times. Even if our efforts seem like a “foolish hope” to quote J. R. R. Tolkien, we still must do whatever is in our power to do. God doesn’t ask us to be successful, he only asks us to be faithful, yes?

 

[OraLabora]

Write your state leaders exhorting them to nullify and refuse to honor the ruling.

I’m in Canada. And as I said, I’ve been there, and done that when this issue was being debated here about 10 years ago.

Still, we can’t give up because this happens to be the temper of the times. As Chesterton once wrote: “We don’t want a Church that moves with the world, we want a Church that moves the world.” We are the Church in our times. Even if our efforts seem like a “foolish hope” to quote J. R. R. Tolkien, we still must do whatever is in our power to do. God doesn’t ask us to be successful, he only asks us to be faithful, yes?

Being of a Benedictine spirit, I think we can best be faithful through being a good Christian witness which requires our own inner conversion, which is a life-long, ongoing process. At my age I’ve learned to pick my moral battles, and my most urgent ones hit much closer to home.

It’s much easier working on what I can influence directly, which is myself, and hope that my efforts can somehow influence others. Being faithful means heeding the call to inner conversion and living the true Gospel in a spirit of love and charity which is also the Benedictine way of evangelizing.

It’s true that even with our own sin, God doesn’t require perfection, but He does seek our best effort, and I think it is that effort that is the most important defence we have against the moral decline of our societies.

We also have to recognize grudgingly that the people involved in this “evil” are no more, nor no less, evil than we are, as we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God in one way or another. They are simply following the dictates of their own conscience no matter how misguided and ill-formed those consciences are. If we start with respecting that fact rather than throwing epithets and accusations of evil against them, we have a much greater chance of being heard.

 

[LittleFlower378]

One of the quotes from his letter is “respectful not only of the political demands of equality?”
Does he mean human dignity?

 

[LittleFlower378]

By the way here is a list of many many many Bishops responses. Thank You Bishops!

marriageuniqueforareason.org/2015/06/26/usccb-statement-on-marriage-ruling/

 

[johnnyc176]

Still, we can’t give up because this happens to be the temper of the times. As Chesterton once wrote: “We don’t want a Church that moves with the world, we want a Church that moves the world.” We are the Church in our times. Even if our efforts seem like a “foolish hope” to quote J. R. R. Tolkien, we still must do whatever is in our power to do. God doesn’t ask us to be successful, he only asks us to be faithful, yes?

Yes a key mission given to the Church by Christ is the salvation of souls. The identification and condemnation of sin is necessary in that mission. Unfortunately we did not hear too much about it from the pulpits prior. Nevertheless souls are in jeopardy so there is no such thing as too little, too late. The government legalized the killing of innocent human beings but the Church still fights on. The same with this issue.

 

[Brendan]

It’s true that even with our own sin, God doesn’t require perfection, but He does seek our best effort, and I think it is that effort that is the most important defence we have against the moral decline of our societies.

Exactly, which is why their is such an error. Those who promote gay marriage can certainly do better, but are choosing not to.

We also have to recognize grudgingly that the people involved in this “evil” are no more, nor no less, evil than we are, as we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God in one way or another. They are simply following the dictates of their own conscience no matter how misguided and ill-formed those consciences are. If we start with respecting that fact rather than throwing epithets and accusations of evil against them, we have a much greater chance of being heard.

I can ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that they are following their consciences, but there is no moral requirement that I should respect it.

The followers of Westboro Baptist, Klansmen and those that entice women into prostitution are all following their consciences. What level of respect is due in those circumstances? Does the fact that someone follow a deformed conscience automatically require respect?

 

[OraLabora]

He is probably trying to calm fears and abate any unChristian reactions aganist SS people, and that is commendable. But I agree that his statement gives wiggle room for interpretation that many could misinterpret as approbation.

The actual statement of the archbishop is actually far more clear than the media-sanitized version, particularly with respect to the Catholic view on Marriage:

It is also important to stress that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of civil marriage has no bearing on the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, in which the marriage of man and woman is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church. In upholding our traditional concept of marriage, we are called to support those who have entered into this sacred and loving bond with God and each other.

Also of note:

Our aim in all of this will be to hold fast to an authentic understanding of marriage which has been written in the human heart, consolidated in history, and confirmed by the Word of God.

There doesn’t seem to be too much wiggle room there, though it is worded in a very polite manner.

I think folks should stop relying on the media to tell us what the leaders of the Church are trying to tell us, and instead we should read the official statements.

 

[OraLabora]

I can ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that they are following their consciences, but there is no moral requirement that I should respect it.

The followers of Westboro Baptist, Klansmen and those that entice women into prostitution are all following their consciences. What level of respect is due in those circumstances? Does the fact that someone follow a deformed conscience automatically require respect?

Let me rephrase myself: we should respect the person following his conscience, but I agree we shouldn’t countenance error. But we must be charitable in how we approach error, as St. Paul advises us, and dialogue is usually much better than scolding. We should approach these folks as the Church approaches other faiths, through dialogue. And dialogue means different things depending on one’s formation, and skill. For some the best dialogue is simply listening with sympathy, though not always agreement, to those with differing views. I know there are times I best keep my mouth shut because I’m likely to say something that will hurt and make matters worse and further drive someone away.

Of course there are situations where dialogue is impossible. As Jesus said, if we encounter hostility best is to move on and shake the dust of that place off our sandals and try to find a more receptive milieu for our message.

That more receptive milieu might in fact be a rapprochement with other Christian communities that share our concern about SSM. For example many Anglicans are not happy about elements in their community that seek to bless SSM, and the Ordinariate may in fact offer them an opportunity have them enter into formal union with Truth. I know several Anglicans who have become Catholic because of what goes on in their ecclesial community (but I also some who have decided to stay and fight for truth within their community). These are people open to dialogue and the more allies we have the better; we can help nudge them closer to Rome.

 

[Elizium23]

Let me rephrase myself: we should respect the person following his conscience, but I agree we shouldn’t countenance error. But we must be charitable in how we approach error, as St. Paul advises us, and dialogue is usually much better than scolding. We should approach these folks as the Church approaches other faiths, through dialogue. And dialogue means different things depending on one’s formation, and skill. For some the best dialogue is simply listening with sympathy, though not always agreement, to those with differing views. I know there are times I best keep my mouth shut because I’m likely to say something that will hurt and make matters worse and further drive someone away.

It may be hard to believe, but I present an altogether different face online than I do on the bus or in the office or out on the street or in my parish.

On these forums and other similar media, I am emboldened to speak my mind at the expense of other people’s views. I am mindful of the fact that I am on a soapbox, and employ rhetoric, and I tend to exaggerate my positions and take my point far further than I woukd dare to do face-to-face with another person. At least, another person who is disagreeing with me. I am a social butterfly, but with strangers I am shy and reticent, and I will often cede a point or acquiesce charitably rather than continue an argument or come to a shouting match.

Forum rules on charitable posting here and elsewhere have been extremely good for shaping my habits. I always count up to 3 or more before lashing out at someone, and whenever I feel my adrenaline rising, I employ ejaculations such as “Jesus loves you” or “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” I force myself to smile and greet strangers, even when I am having the most horrible thoughts against them.

I feel that adapting a vocal and strident tone here on CAF suits me well, as I can blow off some steam and at the same time form my own opinions in ever-more eloquent terms, while reaching out to change hearts and minds that might be open to Truth. I style myself as Defender of the Faith here, and there are no shortage of interlocutors who seek to tear down the Church and denigrate her teachings, it only makes sense that some of us should stand firmly in the way.

 

[boar2roar]

For all those who are confused, its not a big secret that Bishop Cupic isnt cut from the same cloth as his predecessor Cardinal George. He said as much himself.