Skip to comments.'Oppose Gay Marriage, But Accept All,' Urges Chicago Catholic Cardinal
Posted on 01/02/2013 10:55:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On the first day of 2013, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George issued a letter to priests state-wide, urging Catholics to inform their state legislators of their opposition to same-sex marriage, the legalization of which is to be introduced in the coming days.
"Civil laws that establish 'same sex marriage' create a legal fiction," George wrote in a letter sent to priests on Jan. 1, according to the Chicago Tribune.
"The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible," George continued.
"Good pastoral practice encourages families to accept all their children and not break relationships with them," George added in the letter, urging Catholics not to alienate members of the gay community, even though they should oppose homosexual practices.
George's comments come days before state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) and state Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) are expected to introduce same-sex marriage legislation in the upcoming legislative lame-duck session.
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have both voiced their support for the upcoming bill. Additionally, U.S. President Barack Obama recently expressed his approval of the legalization of same-sex marriage in his home state of Illinois, pushing lawmakers to pass a measure early next month which would make the Prairie State the 10th in the nation to legalize gay marriage.
"While the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect," White House spokesman Shin Inouye recently told the Chicago Sun-Times.
"As he has said, his personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the president still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally," Inouye added.
Should the upcoming January legislation pass both Senate and House, Illinois will become the first Midwest state to approve same-sex marriage by legislative vote.
In his Tuesday letter, George provided priests the opportunity to publish the letter in their respective church bulletins this upcoming weekend.
What a wuss. How about ***ORDERING*** them to?
Yeah, like Fr. Phlege *(Phlegm) would listen to him. George is a nice man, but not fierce enough.
And anyone who says, You fool! will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Jesus called those in opposition to his mission much, MUCH worse. And he is our model.
The verse you plucked for convenience refers to invective in selfish defense of self, as in a heavy traffic situation where someone cuts you off.
There is a difference. The former --- judging words as to true or false, judging actions as good or evil --- is a universal duty. These things you MUST judge. That's what all those many Biblical references of "justice and judgment" are about.
The latter --- judging the person's inner self --- is most perilous. It's this kind of judgment about which Our Lord says, "Judge not."
"And He has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man"
"This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."
So you can judge words as "foolishness," or actions as "foolish," but you act unwisely when you judge the person's self, as in "You heretical moron."
It's not clear from your post who is the target of your contempt here: Cardinal George (who opposes "gay" speudomarriage and counsels families to maintain a pastoral relationship with their erring children) or White House spokesman Shin Inouye, who supports "gay" pseudomarriage.
If the former, you are wrong to call him a heretical moron, because his stance is in line with the precept and example of the Lord Jesus. The Good Shepherd seeks out the erring sheep, the Prodigal's father looks for the return of his wayward son: he does not cut off or expose to contempt the one who wandered farthest from Himself.
If the latter, you may well say Inouye's words are heretical and moronic. There's nothing in this world that makes LESS sense than the legal recognition and cultural mainstreaming of sodomy.
I think it is safer, and more biblical, to live by the axiom that a good tree produces good fruit and an evil tree produces evil. Of course, culpability comes into play here, but you can safely bet that a grown man with supposedly years of ecclesiastic study would know the precepts of the Lord.
And, no, Jesus does not reserve the only spot for making distinctions based on behavior. The disciples and apostles did so as well - Paul excoriating Peter and others who had fallen from the main precepts of the faith.
I don't think the word “moron” falls under the rubric that you've established. The word was originally a diagnostic term to denote someone of a specifically-low intelligence.
Although the word ultimately took on a perjorative meaning, it still basically means “stupid.” It is not beyond human capacity to judge specific persons as having low intelligence. As well, a person's intelligence is not an attribute of the inner self, hidden away in the recesses of each human heart. Also, one’s intelligence isn't correlated with one’s moral worth or standing before God.
This is similar to the word “idiot.”
Neither of these words directly calls into question a person's worth, dignity, moral goodness, or standing before God.
As for “heretical,” that's an adjective. In giving your blessing, as it were, to words like "foolish," which is merely the adjectival form of fool, it seems difficult to now say that one may describe a person as “foolish,” but not has “heretical.”
However, although one should be careful about using the term, I wouldn't say that we may not justly apply the word “heretic” to..., ahem,... heretics. Some Catholics clearly espouse heresy. If they do so persistently, consistently, then they are heretics. It may be that, not having had proper catechesis, some Catholics don't know any better. That's why there is the term, “material heretic,” for someone who is materially in heresy, but doesn't mean to be a heretic.
On the other hand, there are people, like Nazi Pelosi, who have been specifically and privately instructed by their bishops to correct their heretical views. Some of these people, like Nazi Pelosi, obstinately persist in their heresy. They are formal heretics.
Only God can read the heart, but we can say of such people that they are in danger of damnation specifically for their manifest formal heresy.
Now, as to the term, “heretical moron,” I'd say that if someone is truly of low intelligence, there should be a heavy presumption that the individual’s heresy is most likely material, and could well be beyond correction.
As for Cardinal George, I don't know whether he's a heretical moron or not. I don't pay much attention to him. If he is like other bishops, then there may be some legitimate question about his intelligence. The actions of bishops in the United States in the aggregate often suggest either stupidity or malevolence. It's more charitable to think someone is stupid rather than evil, at least until the latter is more conclusively demonstrated.
And, before you object to calling someone, “evil,” I hasten to add that I'm not saying that any person is intrinsically evil, as that's not possible, only that the person lives a life that is manifestly permeated through-and-through with evil.
Bu wo are you talking about? Cardinal George?
The person being exposed to contempt is Archbishop George. The reason for it is that he took the occasion --- while in the very act of morally and politically condemning gay pseudomarriage--- to say that parents,for pastoral purposes, ought not to break off contact with their children.
Calling him a heretical moron, in this context, is unjust and stupid and vicious.
That's my judgment. A judgment I am entitled to make.
“It’s a pretty fair bet that if somebody is calling somebody else a ‘moron,’ an ‘imbecile,’ or even a ‘retard,’ they are not making a neurological diagnosis of developmental cognitive delays: they are expressing personal contempt.”
Or, they may be expressing contempt for the theological correctness and intellectual capacity of the individual.
There are folks I know whom I love who are, nonetheless, morons. They are not literally morons as once defined by psychologists, but their actions are so gosh-darned stupid, exasperatingly stupid, wrong=headed, self-damaging, that all one can do is shake one’s head and love them. But they are still morons.
I could tell you stories...
“The person being exposed to contempt is Archbishop George...Calling him a heretical moron, in this context, is unjust and stupid and vicious.”
As I previously, stated, I don’t pay much attention to Cardinal George, so I’ll withhold judgment.
“That’s my judgment. A judgment I am entitled to make.”
Sure. No problem. But others might differ. Not sure they don’t have the same rights you have. Although I’d be careful with the word “vicious,” as, depending on the meaning, that could easily care with it judgment about intent that is not readily manifested.
And THAT would be unjust.
“care” should be “carry.”
My (earnest, obstinate) point remains: you've got a right, even a duty, to judge ideas, words, actions. But it is not right to display contempt for the person.
Especially not right to display contempt for a person who, in context, has said and done no wrong.
Easy contempt is not a heaven-inspired impulse. It's one of the besetting sins of our age. It --- I can testify to this --- gets to be a bad habit. And it's way too emotionally self-indulgent. (I would know about this as well...)
“My (earnest, obstinate) point remains: you've got a right, even a duty, to judge ideas, words, actions. But it is not right to display contempt for the person.”
I agree. I guess my (obstinate, maybe less earnest and at least mildly tongue-in-cheek) response is, you're focusing on the words, and I don't think the words are what matter so much.
I think it's the attitude. Look at what Jesus says:
“* But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, Raqa, will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You fool, will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”
I don't think Jesus is just talking about the words but about an attitude of anger - I'm guessing that self-righteous anger for which we all have a seemingly infinite source - that we often bring to the table.
“23Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,p 24leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.q Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
“26Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
This isn't just about words, or even angry words. It strikes me that in context, it's about reconciliation, or rather, the failure to reconcile. I'm not sure it's about comments one makes about someone not present, into the air, so-to-speak. My sense is that Jesus is talking about angry confrontation.
“Especially not right to display contempt for a person who, in context, has said and done no wrong.”
The difficulty here is that different people may have different views of what the cardinal has said. The difficulty here is that not every member of the hierarchy has conducted himself with the highest honor when speaking publicly, before, and the past keeps trying to break into the present, as we remember transgressions that have gone before.
And well we should, since, even as we must forgive, it behooves us not to forget.
The bishops have torched their moral authority over the past decades, and now, people view their words with suspicion. Not many give them the benefit of the doubt. And frankly, collectively, they've gotten that skepticism the old-fashioned way - they've earned it.
So, sometimes folks are leery of the words of bishops, and do not give them the most generous reading possible.
It's tough to criticize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.