Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Cardinal Cupich: not a liberal
America Magazine has a post on Cardinal Blase Cupich ... Chicago's Cardinal Cupich: Saying gay, lesbian and L.G.B.T. is a step toward respect. Here's the beginning of it ...
Cardinal Blase Cupich waded into a debate about how the Catholic Church should interact with gays and lesbians, telling a crowd in Chicago that at minimum they should be called by the phrases they use for themselves ...
I do think the church does wield the word" homosexual" like a weapon and that Cupich is right about how important words are. But what's bothering me is Cupich himself and the way he is seen as a liberal in the church. Ever since "reforming" Pope Francis noticed him, Cupich has been touted thus ... Pope Francis names Spokane bishop to Chicago, dashing conservative hopes ... but if Cupich is no liberal.
When Cupich was bishop of Spokane, Washington, and a vote on marriage equality came to his state, he wrote against it in Some Reflections on Referendum 74, warning that if the referendum passed, it could lead to incest marriages and polygamy ...
[...] If there is anything we have come to appreciate and value more fully in this modern age, it is that men and women are not the same. That is true not only biologically, but on so many other levels. Men and women are not interchangeable. They each bring something of their difference to complement each other. In a marriage union, a mutual sharing of each other’s difference creates life, but it also nourishes that life in a family where sons and daughters learn about gender from the way it is lived by their mothers and fathers. The decision to unhinge marriage from its original grounding in our biological life should not be taken lightly for there are some things enacted law is not capable of changing. Thoughtful consideration should be given to the significant consequences such unhinging will mean for children, families, society and the common good .....
If marriage is only about relationships, why limit unions to two people? Why does the new law include the traditional prohibition of close kinship unions for both opposite and same sex couples? The threat of genetic disorders in children is not an issue for same sex couples. Is it not reasonable to assume that a closely related same sex couple will in time successfully challenge this prohibition as an unreasonable imposition? .... In the coming weeks I will provide through the Inland Register, and our websites (dioceseofspokane.org and thewscc.org) materials based on what we believe God has revealed to us about creation, the meaning and value of marriage and family, and the way we are called to live as Christ’s disciples.
I didn't post this just to pick on Cupich, but use him as an example of our false complacency ... to all those moderates who like to think of Francis as a reformer and of themselves as liberals, he isn't and you are not.
The few actual liberals in this church have been silenced like Fr. Tony Flannery or excommunicated/laicized/tossed out like Fr. Roy Bourgeois. Our church is run by someone with grandfatherly charisma, but let's be honest about where we really stand under his conservative banner: gay people can't have their relationships recognized within the church, women will "never" be priests (or deacons), there will be no official change in communion for divorced/remarried people, contraception is still wrong, and sex abuse by priests and the cover-up of that still has not and will not be effectively addressed.
I suppose it is fitting, then, that Cupich, our "liberal" champion, is in the news because of words, not deeds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Crystal, if you're in charge of deciding who's a liberal, the Democrats are going to lose another 20,000,000 votes.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't care if Cupich is a liberal or not. All I know is, he's light years preferable to Crdl. Burke, et.al. who have presented the infamous dubia. Which brings us to one of the reasons why change happens at glacial pace, if it happens at all. We think of the pope and the hierarchy ruling by fiat, whatever they say, goes. Reality is a lot more complicated. We have the pope suggesting, not a change in teaching, but a more pastoral approach to admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion. The reaction to that very incremental change has been some people basically threatening open schism. The wounds from the schism that happened in the 10th century have not yet healed. The rule of physics that any action has an opposite and equal reaction seems to apply here.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that has changed is that nobody but hard core sedevacantists believe that there is no salvation outside the church anymore. There are other expressions of Christianity if people find that they can't square the circle of living inside Catholicism. That is in no way meant as "don't let the door hit you in the back on the way out". It is pointing out that there is more than one brand, and people have to find a relationship with God however they can.
This denomination is effectively already in schism, just won't admit it:
Deletehttp://religionnews.com/2017/07/17/catholicisms-two-party-system/
We should distinguish between news stories about words and those about deeds. The America story was about words, and only words.
ReplyDeleteThe stories about Cardinals Pell and Muller are about deeds. To quote Rocco Palmo:
"Long story short, apart from the days surrounding B16's resignation and the Conclave that followed, this scribe simply can't recall a more dramatic nor impactful news-cycle than the one suddenly sprung over the last 10 days: to top it off, of what're now the three principal dicasteries of the Roman Curia, two of their heads were wiped out within 48 hours. "
There is change going on in Rome. Look at the people whom Francis is appointing as Cardinals, where they are from; look at all the people in important dioceses throughout the world who are not being appointed as Cardinals.
Now does all this action mean that Francis is a liberal? Is that even a good way to describe what he is doing?
At Vatican II the bishops emphasized the church governance needed to be more collegial, that the Curia needed to be reformed, and the bishops needed to have a greater role in the governance of the universal church. Popes have struggled with that issue ever since. The electors of Francis told him again that they wanted change in Rome.
Francis is going about making institutional changes. The council of cardinals. Open debate in the Synod of Bishops. Changes in the manner of appointing cardinals. Maybe a five year term limit on positions in the Curia.
I am sure that many cardinals probably thought the problems could be solved by the appointment of the right people. Some may have wanted "liberals" some "conservatives." Francis seems to be set on a deeper structural reform, far more so that previous Popes.
If this deeper structural reform opens the church to better dialogue between center and peripheries, then that is probably progress. I am more concerned with progress than with ideology.
In the church of the blind, the one-eyed Cardinal has had cataract surgery.
ReplyDeleteI think most Catholics don't really care about how the church treats other people, as long as they themselves are satisfied with what they get out of it. This isn't a good thing. Someday those people that aren't us .... those gay people, those divorced people, those women who thought they had a calling, those child rape victims .... will get some justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
ReplyDeleteCrystal, I don't think that is fair at all. Most of them Catholics I know struggle with the issues you mention. Just because they're not waving signs or leaving the Church doesn't mean they only care about their own spiritual comforts. You know most of us here are Catholics (even ambivalent, lapsed ones like me). Is this what you think of us? A bunch of deniers of justice?
ReplyDeleteJean, you are right that we all struggle with issues, and don't just insouciantly consider our own comfort.
DeleteIs this what you think of us? A bunch of deniers of justice?
ReplyDeleteNo. When I saw the article at America about Cupich it just bothered me that he is thought of as such a sport for daring to suggest that maybe it would be ok to use the words "gay" and "LGBT". And many of the comments there were about how he had just gone off the rails for suggesting such a liberal idea.
But the irony is that he isn't a liberal at all, it's just that in our reactionary church, an organization that still believes the relationships of gay people are "objectively disordered", that fires LGBT employees for getting married, that disingenuously takes advantage of gay men to make up a (probably) majority of its priesthood, can't even consider changing a word without having a conniption.
Why do Catholics put up with this crap? Who among us would belong to another organization that discriminated against LGBT people or women without leaving or speaking up?
Somehow people have the idea that because a practice or a belief is religious that means it's beyond judging. If that were true, US Mormons would be polygamists and US Muslims would be practicing sharia.
OK, got that off my chest ;)
Why do Catholics put up with you, Crystal? We have to. That's what Jesus said and the Church teaches.
DeleteJesus also spoke out against the abuses in his church ... Matthew 23:13
Delete"Why do Catholics put up with this crap?"
ReplyDeleteLast word on this because I am the last person who ought to play Defender of the Faith.
Plenty of Catholics have spoken up. And I don't know many Catholics who have rejected their gay children, their divorced siblings, or their friends who have had abortions. And I think that's because most Catholics have inculcated the notion of dignity and mercy. From the Church. And every Catholic prays form the Church every Sunday because the Church is imperfect.
I also know Catholics who have left the Church because they believe it is hurting people. Those Catholics followed their consciences--consciences formed in the Church
It's one thing to point out what you see as hypocrisy in Church hierarchs, but to extend your criticisms to all or most Catholics seems very unfair and, frankly, offensive at times.
There are some Church teachings that make no sense to me, either. But I also don't expect the Church to adopt my liberal standards as the new norm. I take what I can into the world and use it to follow Jesus. What I don't get, I leave to God.
Jean, I know a lot of Catholics have left because of this stuff and many do speak out. Some of them are my heroes, like Fr, Bourgeois, Fr. Tom Doyle, Fr. William Barry SJ, Fr. John Dear, etc. And polls show that most Catholics are in support of marriage equality, most are upset about the sex abuse crises, most Catholics think women should be allowed to be priests. But they accept the status quo, they don't don't care to the point that they will try to change things.
Delete"And I don't know many Catholics who have rejected their gay children ..." If you would have been a member of Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco's Castro District in the early 1980s at the height of the AIDS epidemic, you would have encountered a LOT of gay men whose parents had rejected them. Luckily the parish had quite a few elderly Irish and Italian widows who became "gramma" to many of these "grandsons" and accompanied them on their last days' journey. The abandonment by the nuclear family members was shocking. LGBT people learned a long time ago that your chosen family can be a lot more reliable than those related to you by birth. I hope that things have gotten much better now, but I don't know a lot of LGBT people under the age of 50 and can't verify one way or the other.
Delete"Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population. The Center for American Progress has reported that there are between 320,000 and 400,000 homeless LGBT youths in the United States. Meanwhile, as societal advancements have made being gay less stigmatized and gay people more visible – and as the Internet now allows kids to reach beyond their circumscribed social groups for acceptance and support – the average coming-out age has dropped from post-college age in the 1990s to around 16 today, which means that more and more kids are coming out while they're still economically reliant on their families. The resulting flood of kids who end up on the street, kicked out by parents whose religious beliefs often make them feel compelled to cast out their own offspring (one study estimates that up to 40 percent of LGBT homeless youth leave home due to family rejection), has been called a "hidden epidemic." Tragically, every step forward for the gay-rights movement creates a false hope of acceptance for certain youth, and therefore a swelling of the homeless-youth population."
Delete- The Forsaken: A Rising Number of Homeless Gay Teens Are Being Cast Out by Religious Families (2014)
Jimmy, I know in times past there was rejection, and it was terrible. I am glad those adopted Gramma's filled the void. There must be a special place in heaven for them. Catholics in groups like Fortunate Families, I hope, helped push back against that trend. And, yes, our "chosen" families are often more reliable and loving.
DeleteCrystal, I just reread the section of Cupich's thoughts you included, and I wonder. Must liberals embrace multiple partner marriages, like polygamy and menage a trois, to maintain their credentials? Should they endorse ending restrictions on kinship unions? Must they swear that there are no differences between men and women? Cupich making, in part, a slippery slope argument, but I'd like to know which of his concerns are illiberal, i.e., what do you approve of on his slope that he worries about?
ReplyDeleteTom, No, I think most liberals would *not* support polygamy or incest marriages - I don't support them. When Cupich writes that allowing gay people to marry would be like allowing polygamy or incest marriages, he is putting those three things in the same group, and they are not. That's why what he wrote is so disingenuous.
DeleteCrystal, and others:
ReplyDeleteThe concept of hurch being used is often an America Protestant concept where one joins a voluntary organization whose membership is defined by going to meetings, a pastor, and share beliefs and practices.
Sociologists have long recognized that Catholicism works more like a ethnicity. I conceptualize this around three dimensions: human capital, social capital, and cultural capital.
The Catholicism (better word than Church or denomination) to which I belong consists of my Catholic family, my relatives who are mostly Catholic, Catholics friends that I grew up with, and went to college with, or worked with, or went to Mass with, etc. How do you “leave” those people even if you wanted to? Why would you want to leave them over a particular belief or practice endorsed by the clergy when many (or in the case of contraception most) other Catholics whom I know don’t endorse those beliefs?
The Catholicism that I belong to consists of many institutions (i.e. social networks) not only parishes, but the Jesuits (where I was a novice for two years) and the Benedictines (where I went to college) and Notre Dame (where I got a masters degree in spirituality). All those institutions generate potential relations, e.g. Ignatian spirituality with Crystal. Again how does one leave all those things? And why would one want to?
Finally Catholicism is wonderfully diverse culturally over time and space. When I pray the Divine Office I am both a Byzantine and a Roman Catholic, and even part Anglo-Catholic. In terms of spirituality, I am a solitary(e.g. Merton), a Benedictine, and Jesuit Catholic. How would I leave all those things?
The solitary in me knows that Catholicism existed in the desert without the Mass, the Sacraments, parishes clergy, etc. solely with the Divine Office which largely consisted of psalms known from memory. The desert solitaries not only left the still pagan cities, they left the city churches which did not satisfy their desire for the gospel. But they still prayed for churches, and were careful not to consider themselves spiritually superior, they were humble and hospitable.
The Benedictine in me knows that Catholicism existed as lay monastic communities for centuries. An ordained person who entered was ranked with the rest of the monks according to the day of their entrance. Benedict says priests are only to do what the Abbot (a layperson) tells them to do. Benedict as superior defined what the Divine Office would be for his community.
So single people as individuals and as communities were Catholics without paying much attention to bishops and clergy. And of course most of them had no idea who was bishop of Rome.
There is no reason I would give up this rich experience of Catholicism for anything; not the apostasy of a Pope, the sexual abuse scandal, the worldliness of bishops (when have they ever not been worldly?). Maybe I might withdraw into solitude or a community of like Catholics if the Catholic world around me gets terrible. Quite frankly it seems impossible, like giving up American citizenship and still living in America.
Jack, I think you are right about Catholicism being like a family more than like a club. Maybe that's why I feel differently, because I wasn't born into it but instead I did join it like a club.
DeleteWhat I don't understand though is the idea that it doesn't matter what the church does, even enabling the sexual assault of children. If someone found out that their uncle raped a little girl, would they say "oh well, he's family" or would they go to the police?
Crystal, the analogy is ethnicity which is not the same as family.
DeletePeople often tolerate bad behavior in fellow ethics, and especially in ethnic leadership. They know they cannot escape their ethnicity easily. They don't feel responsible for fellow ethnics in the way they are responsible for fellow family members.
Catholicism is not the only religion that functions as an ethnicity. So does being Muslim. I can't find it now but I recently read an article by an atheist Muslim who says he feels attacks on Islam are attacks on his ethnicity. He says many other "liberal" Muslims feel that way. They still want to preserve their culture, feasts, fasts, etc. even as they have changed their beliefs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGrrrr - typos.
DeleteI can understand that. But there are Muslims who have actually spoken out against badness among those of their own ethnicity, like Maajid Nawaz who spoke out against the attacks on women in Cologne - Why We Can’t Stay Silent on Germany’s Mass Sex Assaults
The truth is that Catholicism is not like an ethnicity because it can be voluntarily changed. But even if it couldn't, there are serious problems with the idea that one owes complete loyalty to one's in-group at the expense of others. This is what fuels stuff like police corruption and the cover-up of sex abuse in the church. If Jesus had believed about his religion what you do about yours, there would be no Christianity.
It is hard to get out. It is easy to stay out.
DeleteI find it more than a bit reductionist to boil faith down to a handful of sexual issues. I am ambivalent about them. What I'm not ambivalent about are the core beliefs: the Gospel, the articles of the Creed, the Mass, the sacraments, the saints. Good people can have disagreements about how the teachings of Christ apply to living out one's sexuality.
ReplyDeleteI should add that my ambivalence doesn't apply to sexual abuse. There is a good series this week in the National Catholic Reporter on that subject.
It looks interesting. I'm trying to keep track too of Cardinal Pell in Australia.
ReplyDeleteAll the things or most of the things that are core don't depend on Catholicism - they are the things of Christianity and they can be found at other churches or even by oneself with God, I think. As that saying goes, the kingdom is bigger than the church.
Crystal, I'm not trying to be snarky, but are there any good things that you see about the church?
DeleteI do see stuff that is particular to the Catholic church that I like - Ignatian spirituality, for instance. That is how I learned to pray and I still pray hat way. I like Francis of Asissi and his love of animals and nature. I like Teresa of Avilla and her relationship with Jesus. I like some of the art.
ReplyDeleteBut the church is just an institution made of of fallible people, it's not Jesus/God. It does good but it also does damage.
Well, this won't be the only cheap shot on this thread. But I feel a need to pass on Andy Greeley's advice: If you find a perfect church, join it. But, remember, as soon as you join it won't be perfect anymore.
ReplyDeleteHahaha! That reminds me of Groucho's comment when he was denied membership at a country club for being a Jew: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.
DeleteWhen I converted, all my Catholic girlfriends who were reluctant cradle Catholics went back to Mass. Why? "Because if YOU joined up, maybe there's something besides guilt and boredom in there we missed."
An eternal truth!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any church is perfect. It is like a country. You may love it and you may think it;s the best place for you to live, but that doesn't mean you won't see flaws and speak up about them. What I don't want to do is to accept the bad stuff as just the way things are instead of trying to change things for the better. The world, and our church, is what we make of it.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the problem for the RC Church is the institutional element. Can you get an institution to be human centered and not eventually become self serving and aggrandizing? That's been the scandal of the pedophilia thing, that bishops were more concerned with preserving a spotless image for the priesthood than protecting kids. I know people who left the RCC for other denominations. They have their own problems, too. I guess, no matter where we go, there we are.
ReplyDeleteYeah, human nature (and Buckaroo Bonzai).
ReplyDelete