Here’s the statement from Blase Cupich, archbishop of the Chicago archdiocese, on the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges:
This week the Supreme Court of the United States issued two rulings with particular meaning for the Catholic Church.
In the first, the Court preserved subsidies for the 6.4 million low-income Americans who depend on them to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We have issues with provisions of that legislation and will continue to advocate to preserve our religious freedom. However, we understand that for millions of individuals and families, most of them the working poor, this decision preserves access to health care and the promise it offers of a healthier, longer life.
In the second decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that two persons of the same sex have a constitutional right to marry each other. In doing so, the Court has re-defined civil marriage. The proposed reason for the ruling is the protection of equal rights for all citizens, including those who identify themselves as gay. The rapid social changes signaled by the Court ruling call us to mature and serene reflections as we move forward together. In that process, the Catholic Church will stand ready to offer a wisdom rooted in faith and a wide range of human experience.
It is important to note that the Catholic Church has an abiding concern for the dignity of gay persons. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.†(n. 2358). This respect must be real, not rhetorical, and ever reflective of the Church’s commitment to accompanying all people. For this reason, the Church must extend support to all families, no matter their circumstances, recognizing that we are all relatives, journeying through life under the careful watch of a loving God.
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.
This will be especially important for the members of our own Church as we walk together, respectful not only of the political demands of equality, but above all else, guided by the higher claims of divine revelation. 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.
As you can see, that’s completely consistent with some of the things you’ve read here before. I found Archbishop Cupich’s statement to be better reasoned and more temperate than the remarks I’ve read from other Catholic prelates.
Many people have very little understanding of the Catholic Church, and this includes many Catholics. At the schools I attended, we were taught very little about Catholic history. For the Church, the issue is based upon the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, but people who do not understand the sacraments are not going to understand why that is important.
For people who operate in iPhone version time, it is inconceivable that something could still be on the v1.0 after almost 2,000 years. The Church is similar to an operating system. It has core beliefs (God created), and it has essential utilities (man created) to administer the core beliefs. Man can only change what man has created.
The civil marriage contract is man created, and therefore, it does not contradict or overlap the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony. They may reside in the same space, but they can never be the same or equal. I understand that this may upset some people. So be it. (Also, a civil divorce has no bearing on a Catholic marriage.)
I think it goes beyond “upset”. My concern is that the activists on this issue cannot achieve their objectives and, consequently, may see their next move as to set out to destroy the Church.
As I think I’ve mentioned here before, if, after graduating from the program I was in at my high school, I had elected to attend St. Louis University, I would have entered as a junior. If, additionally, I had elected a theology major and written a masters thesis, I would have graduated at the end of two years with both a B. A. and an M. A.
They have been trying to destroy or discredit the Church for the past 20 years, and they think they are winning. Worldwide, Catholic membership is growing, but the percentage of the worldwide population seems stable.
They woefully underestimate the vastness of everything. They extrapolate their experiences onto the entire population and project them assuming no changes in the trend. This includes social, economic, and science experiences, and when they crash into reality, “nobody could have seen it coming.”
For the pedophile crimes, the Church needs to be raked over the coals, but these man-made issues are blips in the next thousand years of its existence. The Church will be around until the end, and Church dogma will not have changed. The activists will have become worm food, and all their lovely theories will have gone into the ground with them.
They do not want change. They want unchanging dogma, but they cannot achieve it. This is what really upsets them. Because their dogma is man-made, it can always be changed by man, and while they cannot articulate the concept, they can feel it on a visceral level.
The Church has been around for two millennia and will probably be around for millennia more to come. In its history it has been persecuted by just about every country in the world at one time or another. I just don’t relish the idea of being on the receiving end of the persecution.
” The Church is similar to an operating system. It has core beliefs (God created), and it has essential utilities (man created) to administer the core beliefs. Man can only change what man has created.”
That was a pragmatic yet insightful way of describing the chasm between theological beliefs and the secular demands of gay marriage advocates.
@Dave Schuler
Not to get into a theological discussion, but I try to think of the suffering Jesus voluntarily endured for me. There is also Lot. Honestly, I fail miserably. I thrive in chaos and violence, and I seem to be built for doing Satan’s work. (Sometimes it gets really crowded in my head.)
Many who would persecute the Church and Christians are empty, and they are in need of some faith to fill their emptiness. At some point many of them would convert, but they think their past deeds preclude them from joining and being embraced. The AME Emanuel victims families are an example of Christian forgiveness.
It is no accident that ISIS is getting its converts from the secular West. It is providing the post-historical generation a meaning, and if a few heads need to roll, this generation has been taught that the end justifies the means.
More often than not, the light at the end of the tunnel will turn out to be the headlight of the train that is about to run you over. Youngsters never think about growing old and being replaced by next generation. What happens to “don’t trust anybody over thirty” when you are over thirty? You are either f*cked or a sell-out. Either way, it ain’t pretty.
That was well said by Cupich. Here in Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory issued a statement that also hit the right notes IMO:
http://www.georgiabulletin.org/news/2015/06/atlanta-archbishop-responds-to-us-supreme-court-decsion/
I’m expect the media to highlight the Catholic clergy who are less measured in their responses though.
I will note that no Catholic can object to the civil marriage contract on religious grounds. While civil gay marriages may be frowned upon and not encouraged, refusing to take pictures, bake cakes, or issue marriage licenses is a personal decisions not based upon being Catholic.
As I’ve mentioned before Wilton Gregory is an old acquaintance of mine. I think he’s a good egg. If I’m not mistaken, he was a major figure in developing the Chicago Archdiocese’s policy under Bernardin on accusations of child sexual abuse by priests.
Yes, I know he was president of USCCB when the committee issued the policy revisions to protect kids. My impression of Gregory is entirely favorable too.
Here is a hypothetical based upon a true story. Lesbian teacher at Catholic high school, quietly known to be gay. When her marriage announcement appears in the newspaper, she was fired. As I read the statement, it was considered an unrepentant act, as opposed to just a sin. Everybody sins, the marriage was a commitment to it. It violated the morals clause in her contract.
I don’t think the SCOTUS answered this question, but will this be actionable?
I don’t know the answer to your question, PD, but that is a good example of a potential problem related to the theological concept of scandal. I think for people outside the Church that isn’t well understood (and some choose not to understand and/or to mock it.)
@PD Shaw
The gay lifestyle was the problem not the marriage, and she violated the morals clause of her employment contract. I am sure that a Coke spokesperson has a clause against being caught drinking Pepsi even though they have a constitutional right to drink Pepsi.
When the Catholic adoption services were forced to include gay couples, they closed. I would expect something similar. In the case of schools, I suspect the Supreme Court would rather not suddenly increase the number of public school students.
“They have been trying to destroy or discredit the Church for the past 20 years, and they think they are winning.”
Who is this they? The Church has been doing pretty well on its own. The cover ups in the sex scandals. The financial scandals at the Vatican. The rise of the cafeteria Catholics. I think there are a few radical atheists who would like to destroy the Church. I suspect a few radical gays want revenge. The very large majority of people don’t care.
PD- If that school receives no public monies, they should be able to fire her w/o consequence. If they do, it is another story. A lot of these “religious liberty” cases are ones where religious groups want to receive public money, but not abide by public rules.
Steve
@steve
The “they” are liberals and progressives who want the Church to change its dogma. Perhaps, you have had your head in the sand for the past 20 years. In any case, you sound rather defensive, but if there is no “they”, why become upset?
As part of the secret cabal of Episcopalians devoted to destroying the Catholic Church, I am actually on the offense, not being defensive. More seriously, as I said, most of us aren’t really interested in changing Catholic dogma. Heck, most of us don’t know what it is to begin with. We just want it being put into law.
Steve
@steve
No cabal. Female priest, married priest, birth control, homosexuality, and abortion are a few of the topics that you have somehow missed the other liberals and progressives trying to change the Catholic Church’s position.
The only possible way for anybody to have lived in the US for the past 20 years and missed this is to have their head in the sand, and you are a little too old to be a millennial.
Sure, but this isn’t some kind of liberal conspiracy. Something like 90% of Catholics use birth control. My daughter’s roommate before she got married was head of Catholic Charities in a large Southern state. According to her, 100% of her female employees were on BC of some sort. They paid for it too. The married priest thing is a long running issue. They had married priests in the past, so its not like this is immutable. On abortion, no one care if the Catholics approve, we just don’t think their beliefs should be codified into law.
Steve
In the Catholic Church dogma isn’t determined by consensus, plebiscite, or practice. It isn’t a democracy.
What you’re telling me is that a lot of Catholics aren’t observant. Tell me something I don’t know. There are Jews who eat pork and shrimp and Muslims who consume alcohol. That doesn’t mean that Judaisms dietary laws or the Qur’anic prescription against alcohol have changed.
Dave- Not what I am saying. There is supposedly some great conspiracy amongst liberals to destroy the Catholic Church and change its teachings. No such thing exists. You don’t need it. The Catholics are doing it to themselves. Besides, it is not as if all of the Church’s teaching and practices are immutable. They cancelled limbo, eat meat on Fridays and now accept usury. Like most religions, they supported or tolerated slavery, with the Pope using slaves to row the original Popemobile (aqua version). And as far as marriage goes, IIRC, after years of treating marriage as an unbreakable bond, the Pope can now dissolve some marriages. Shall we talk about the history of indulgences?
Steve
You’re not distinguishing between teachings and practices. Practices change. Teachings not so much. Teachings proclaimed ex cathedra not at all.
So, for example, the practice of not eating meat on Friday was never observed in every country. The United States observed it; Ireland didn’t. It was a practice declared by local bishops.
The only doctrinal issue in your list is that of limbo and it hasn’t been denied it’s just de-emphasized. I don’t know that it was ever proclaimed ex cathedra.