* Chicago Cardinal Francis George was asked yesterday whether he would follow Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki’s lead and perform prayers of “exorcism” to drive out the evil caused by the pending gay marriage law…
“Well, I didn’t do it, did I? Or I wouldn’t do it, so I guess that’s your answer… I can persuade like anybody can, I can say something as a word of advice, but I can’t command.”
* George did send a letter to his churches that were to be included in their Sunday bulletins…
November 11, 2013
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
As you all know, the State of Illinois has entered into law the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. The Church was part of the public debate, as you also know. We tried to explain that this is not primarily a religious issue, since marriage comes to us from nature as the union of a man and a woman, long before Christ walked the earth or the state came into being.
Nevertheless, there will be consequences for the Church and society that will become clearer as the law is used to sue for discrimination. The law has made some gays and lesbians happy, and that is not a bad thing in itself. The law, however, is bad law because it will contribute over the long run to the further dissolution of marriage and family life, which are the bedrock of any society. The Church will therefore continue and strengthen her ministry to families. We have lived with bad laws before, and we will do our best to adjust to this one for the sake of social harmony.
One of the consequences for our religion is already evident in the misuse of Pope Francis’ words, spoken last summer, about our attitude toward an individual gay person who has asked God for forgiveness. The Pope was not speaking about approving gay marriage. To use his words against his teaching, as they were used on the floor of the State House of Representatives on November 5, is less than intellectually honest.
We are called, by reason of our belief that every person is made in God’s image and likeness, to love and respect all of our brothers and sisters, without exception. But we express this respect within the context of our belief in how God has made us and made the world. This belief and this love is the basis of our joy in living the Catholic faith with integrity of mind and heart.
I thank you for your life of faith. God bless you and those you love.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago
* More on the Cardinal’s letter…
George writes that he believes Pope Francis’ words about same-sex marriage have been misused, and while he does not mention House Speaker Mike Madigan by name, the Cardinal notes Madigan’s use of the pope’s “who am I to judge?” comment during lawmakers’ debate about the bill.
“The Pope was not speaking about approving gay marriage. To use his words against his teaching, as they were used on the floor of the State House of Representatives on November 5, is less than intellectually honest.”
Madigan’s spokesman Steve Brown says the General Assembly altered state law, “not the Bible or the Sunday missal.” Brown spoke in favor of the separation of church and state.
* George was also asked if Democratic leaders who supported gay marriage would be denied communion…
The same day that Cardinal Francis George released a letter predicting Illinois’ soon-to-be same-sex marriage law would help undermine the “bedrock” of society, the normally outspoken leader of Chicago Catholics had little to say about three prominent elected leaders — Catholics themselves — who championed the measure.
“What’s the point of talking?” George told a Sun-Times reporter Sunday after Mass at St. Genevieve Parish, on the city’s West Side.
He made the comment after being asked specifically whether he would seek to deny communion to the trio of Chicago Democrats: Gov. Pat Quinn, who’s expected to sign the bill into law this week, as well as House Speaker Michael Madigan or Senate President John Cullerton.
Further commentary would be “creating a story of good guys and bad guys,” the cardinal said, adding that he feels his words are “sliced up without nuance.”
“So, I don’t see any point in talking,” George said.
- UptownProgressive - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 9:11 am:
If the passage of Marriage Equality motivates the Church to “strengthen her ministry to families” then it is a win-win situation.
- Elo Kiddies - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 9:34 am:
Sounds like the Cardinal gave the Sun Times a long and honest “no comment.”
- Willie Stark - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 9:35 am:
“The law has made some gays and lesbians happy, and that is not a bad thing in itself.” Cardinal, it’s also made a lot of straights happy to know that their friends and family members won’t be discriminated against in matters of CIVIL law, not canon law. You are smart to cease commenting on the issue as, being a politician yourself, you know it’s a loser for the majority of your flock. Now, follow Pope Francis’ example, move out of the mansion in Lincoln Park, and put the focus back on the poor, as Jesus taught and Francis requests, “Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.”
- Whalewatcher - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 9:46 am:
The scripts written YEARS after Jesus death were riddled with the particular writers biases. Cardinal, read the ZEALOT, And THROUGH THE EYES OF JESUS forwarded by the archbishop of Australia…Jesus addresses one of his followers Daniel, READ IT.. What was that discussion about…?
- cermak_rd - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 9:58 am:
He’s just learning now how not to make incendiary comments that are going to get in the press? Well, I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
- downstate commissioner - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:04 am:
Not a Catholic, but his letter seems reasonable to me. Hold fast to your own beliefs, but accept what you can’t change, and build on it. And sometimes, a “no comment” is the right answer to a reporter’s agitating question.
- A guy... - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:05 am:
The Cardinal struck the right tone.
- Richard - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:06 am:
George is more politically savvy than most think, and certainly more savvy than the Bishop of Springfield. In his heart, he would probably love to deny Quinn and others communion, but he seems to understand he would be doing them a favor politically.
- Cheswick - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:11 am:
Friday night I was reading the comments to a Chicago paper’s article about the upcoming Springfield exorcism, and it was all the usual stuff. But then I got to a comment that went something to the effect of (paraphrasing): “Well, you know, those people don’t really know any better since they are from down south.” And I was more upset with the bishop, who I understand is from Chicago, than the commenter for making us sound like a bunch of unsophisticated hicks. (But I’m okay now.)
- Robert the Bruce - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:26 am:
“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” - Pope Francis
The church can share its views on homosexuality, abortion and other issues, but should not “interfere spiritually” with the lives of gays and lesbians — Pope Francis
“One of the consequences for our religion is already evident in the misuse of Pope Francis’ words, spoken last summer, about our attitude toward an individual gay person who has asked God for forgiveness.” - Cardinal George
Is George certain that Catholics are only supposed to have positive attitudes toward gay folks after they ask for forgiveness? Who might be misusing the pope’s words?
- Demoralized - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:28 am:
I like the ending of the letter, which is basically the mantra of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” That sentiment has always bothered me. I find that most people that say that are not able to follow through with the “loving” part.
Also, I’m disturbed by this continued talk that gay marriage will somehow harm families. How exactly will it harm families? Apparently some believe that gay people are not capable of having loving families.
Some of you might think the “right tone” was struck. I think he just said “we still hate gay people” in a pleasant way.
- wordslinger - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:40 am:
–We tried to explain that this is not primarily a religious issue, since marriage comes to us from nature as the union of a man and a woman, long before Christ walked the earth or the state came into being.–
Okay, so it’s not primarily a religious issue. Let’s then not treat it as such.
But the history of marriage over the centuries and in different cultures is much more complex than the cardinal suggests. Religious groups and civil society have repeatedly altered its definition and have at times found themselves in conflict. Just like today.
- Wensicia - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:42 am:
==“So, I don’t see any point in talking,” George said.==
Indeed, the smartest comment he’s made in months.
- Anonymous - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 10:50 am:
Increasingly, it appears Bishop Paprocki is taking a shine to the spotlight. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but perhaps a check on his ‘Humil-o-Meter’ may be in order.
- GA Watcher - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 11:05 am:
It sounds as if Cardinal George and Bishop Paprocki are engaged in a good cop/bad cop strategy.
- Ghost - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 11:29 am:
In illinois, and World Wide, their are far more children in need of homes, then their are homes for them. The Foster/orphaned children problem is pandemic.
with SSM new families can now from, many of whom are adopting orphaned and foster children and providing those once without families, families and homes. So how is this destroying and diluting family? Last I checked providing more of something, such as famlies, does not diulte it but thickens/supports it.
- Anyone Remember? - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 11:46 am:
Demoralized -
==How exactly will it harm families?==
Lewis Black has a NSFW video on You Tube that deals with that subject. Watch it from the safety of your home (even if you get video on you personal cell, it is still NSFW).
- TJ - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 11:47 am:
If the Cardinal doesn’t want his statements minced up and used to create a good guy/bad guy rhetoric, maybe he should stop expressing such antiquated and hateful statements.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 12:09 pm:
I don’t know what this means: “since marriage comes to us from nature as the union of a man and a woman…”
- Tilt - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
“since marriage comes to us from nature as the union of a man and a woman…”
It is an appeal to “the Natural Law” school of philosophy and jurisprudence. America has a long association with Natural Law thinking dating back to the Declaration of Independence and other documents.
Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law since the ordinary purpose of marriage is for a couple to form a family to procreate and raise children.
- Richard - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 12:58 pm:
Chavez, you make a good point…does that mean when a man and woman have sex they are “married” in nature?
- Anonymous - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:01 pm:
George is a product of the 20th century, he can’t turn the page. Where was he when his fellow priests were praying on children?
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
“the Natural Law”
So the Cardinal is a deist?
- Capitol View - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:17 pm:
Richard 10:08 - are you aware that Sen Dick Durbin has to go to Chicago in order to receive communion? The last bishop barred him from it for voting pro-choice in Washington. The fact that Dick could receive it in Chicago makes no sense to me… I haven’t heard if the local bishop has threatened our governor about signing the legislation concerning gay marriage.
If we are all made in G-d’s image, doesn’t that mean that 10% of godliness is also gay?
- Demoralized - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
==Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law since the ordinary purpose of marriage is for a couple to form a family to procreate and raise children. ==
Oh please. That argument is baloney. We better prevent all of those people who don’t want to have kids from getting married too.
Thank goodness this type of thinking is being slowly beaten back by rational thought.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
===Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law===
Is Natural Law something like English Common Law? Because I’m not sure why that has anything to do with Illinois state law.
- wordslinger - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:40 pm:
–We tried to explain that this is not primarily a religious issue, since marriage comes to us from nature as the union of a man and a woman, long before Christ walked the earth or the state came into being.–
This is a very interesting, if confusing, statement coming from the cardinal.
Procreation is one thing. Marriage was many different things in many different cultures prior to Christ and “the state.”
He can’t possibly be saying that there was a universally accepted definition of “marriage” prior to Christ — or for a long time afterwards, for that matter.
If so, at the very least, we owe the old Mormons an apology for persecuting them over polygamy and arranged marriages with girls under the age of consent.
Because those pre-Christ definitions of marriage are well-documented in the Bible as being practiced by the prophets.
- wordslinger - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
–Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law since the ordinary purpose of marriage is for a couple to form a family to procreate and raise children.–
You, also, are confusing marriage with procreation. Unless you view as violations of “natural law” marriages in which procreation is not possible.
If so, file the bill. Clerk, call the roll.
- olddog - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 3:25 pm:
=== Is Natural Law something like English Common Law? Because I’m not sure why that has anything to do with Illinois state law. ===
Rich —
Natural law, as I understand it, is a theological term that derives from the ancient Greeks and St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. It influenced the development of English common law, but it has no direct bearing on contemporary statute law — including Illinois law. I’m not sure why it’s being cited in this thread.
Pretty good summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
- wordslinger - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 3:40 pm:
–Natural law, as I understand it, is a theological term that derives from the ancient Greeks–
Well, if it’s from the ancient Greeks, it’s not theological in any Christian sense, obviously, because they weren’t Christians.
Old Aristotle and Plato had no problemo with same-sex relations, including those with underage boys, if you do the reading. Neither did the Romans.
Good reasons to change the “natural law” of marriage as understood “before Christ and the state” as the cardinal put it.
See? Civil society, by law, has changed over the years as it comes to marriage. No cousins. No children. No polygamy. All sorts of things that were celebrated in the Bible.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 5:50 pm:
That was meant to read above “…condone anyone to….”
- Anon - Monday, Nov 18, 13 @ 6:54 pm:
Selective argumentation, Wordslinger.
The Romans engaged in some house cleaning after Augustus became emperor. Try checking out an episode of “I, Claudius” some time. Actor Brian Blessed played Augustus in that series and he had some choice words for Roman males who refused to marry women. If memory serves, the speech called such types “Murderers of Posterity…” The show ran on the BBC and WTTW several times.
Additionally, St. Thomas Acquinas “harmonized” Aristotle with Catholic theology in “Summa Theologica.” That occurred about six hundred years ago.
- wayne - Tuesday, Nov 19, 13 @ 9:38 am:
Here are 2 “dire consequences” of gay marriage, which Massachusetts has had for 10 years. It has the second lowest divorce rate in the nation and a lower than average rate of juvenile delinquency.On the other hand, Arkansas bans gay marriage and has the second highest divorce rate.Seems to me the Arkansas bishops are the ones who should be writing “letters”.