In a letter distributed through the 11/11 parish bulletins
to all Catholics in the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George
reiterated his stance on same sex marriage; i.e., he said that the law passed
by the Illinois legislature legalizing such unions “will contribute over the
long run to the further dissolution of marriage and family life, which are the
bedrock of any society.”
No surprise there.
But it was his proclamation that
“We have lived with
bad laws before, and we will do our best to adjust to this one for the sake of
social harmony.”
that was amazing.
Depending on where one stands on the issue of gay marriage,
this is either profound progress or outright surrender on the part of the
Cardinal. No matter where one stands on
the issue, however, one has to be shocked by the Cardinal’s concession to
social harmony and has to ask one’s self what happened to bring about such a
change in the Cardinal’s attitude.
Perhaps Pope Francis talked with the Cardinal and his colleagues about framing
one’s opposition to gay marriage or maybe Cardinal George and his confreres
simply got the message that, yes, opposition to gay marriage remains a tenet of
the faith but that how one opposes gay marriage, or stands up for any of the
Church’s beliefs, has consequences for the Church, for the world, and for
fulfilling our missions as disciples of Jesus Christ.
Note that the Cardinal minced no words in decrying gay marriage
as an assault on the bedrock of society.
So some of those who share his belief that such unions are abominations
before God are doubtless confused, angry, or both. Why, they might ask, isn’t the Cardinal
standing up for his beliefs and the beliefs of the Church? Is he backing down just to keep the
peace? If so, wouldn’t that run counter
to the way the Cardinal, and the Church, normally operates? They might even argue that Jesus never
backed down. Jesus stood up for what He
believed in regardless of the consequences; after all, that is what got Him
crucified and, ultimately, what led to our salvation.
Those who make that argument are for the most part correct;
Jesus did stand up for what he believed.
But He also picked his fights carefully.
When it really mattered, he fought, fought hard, and suffered the
consequences. But discretion was often
the better part of valor for Jesus. He
didn’t fight for the sake of fighting; that would be very unlike Him, though
not, it would appear, unlike many in the Church hierarchy, but I digress. And when it didn’t really matter, or didn’t
matter all that much, Jesus didn’t bother.
It simply didn’t make sense to make enemies over tangential issues.
The best example of this can be found in Matthew 17,
24-27. The collectors of the temple tax asked
Peter if Peter’s “teacher” (Jesus) paid the temple tax. Peter, being the impetuous guy he was (see
my 11/21/12 piece, WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC?), first answered “yes”… and then
checked with his teacher. Jesus first firmly
made the point that He and his disciples, the “subjects” of the kingdom
of God
“But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and
take the first fish that comes up. Open
its mouth, and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.” (emphasis mine) Matthew 17, 27
This is more than an entertaining, humorous, some might say
cute, story. And, like every miracle
story, it tells us a lot more than that Jesus was capable of doing
miracles.
The story was designed to tell the people for whom Matthew
wrote, largely Jewish Christians, that, yes, as Christians they indeed no
longer had to pay the temple tax. They
were no longer subject to the law and rarely, if ever, worshipped in the
temple, and thus were under no obligation to pay for the temple’s upkeep. But, even though members of Matthew’s
congregation, if you will, were under no obligation to pay the temple tax, they
should do so anyway because it wasn’t worth the fight, wasn’t worth the price
they’d pay just to make an ancillary point.
Why make the Jewish authorities angry over something that, in the great
scheme of things, wasn’t all that important?
Did it make sense to antagonize devout Jews, or even not all that devout
Jews, and thus lose any chance of winning them over to Christianity, just to
make a point about something that didn’t go to the core of the faith?
While some might argue about whether civil gay marriage goes
to the core of the faith, the message that Matthew and Jesus were sending to
the early Jewish Christians is the same message that Jesus is sending us
today: Don’t sweat the small stuff. Even if you are right, is it worth it in the
larger scheme of things to send a message of intolerance to our brothers and
sisters in Christ? Wouldn’t we be
better off promoting harmony among our brothers and sisters than we would be
promoting misunderstanding, and even hatred, by standing firm in order to make
a point?
Yours truly, for one, applauds the Cardinal on his desire to
promote harmony rather than make a point on civil same sex marriage. That I feel that civil same sex marriage is,
at best, an ancillary issue for the Church doubtless contributes to my warm
feelings toward the Cardinal’s new approach.
What is important is the greater emphasis the Cardinal places on
promoting harmony in society, which is without a doubt one of our duties as
followers of Jesus Christ and indeed goes to the core of our faith.
