Two weeks ago, Chicago’s Cardinal Cupich gave the opening prayer at the Democratic National Convention. It was in one respect, quite fitting, since it was held in Chicago, but at the same time, it merits asking whether his decision was wholly appropriate, or, rather, whether the contents of the prayer was appropriate.
And, no, I’m not upset that Cupich didn’t make any mention of Jesus. Instead, well — on the one hand, party conventions are a part of our democratic system, and whether any particular part of a party’s platform is in keeping with Catholic teaching, the overall objective of our system is to enable the will of the people to be heard, even that system is imperfect. And it is certainly fitting for a religious leader to pray, or, more precisely, to lead others in prayer that their deliberations and actions might be oriented towards doing God’s will. But that religious leader should not by any means be “taking sides” or affirming specific candidates or partisan positions, let alone ones which are divisive or go against that religion’s principles. And quite honestly, a larger pet peeve of mine is the “non-prayer” — statements of exhortation or assertation of doctrine which are not, in fact, addressed to God, but to the hearers. It just bugs me, and you know you’ve heard this sort of thing: “Lord, we know that Climate Change is real and it is incumbent on all of us to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. We know that solar and wind power are the best forms of renewable energy and that nuclear energy is too risky.” Grrr. I find it sooo annoying when we get a sermon rather than a prayer.
With that in mind, here’s the text, which is found at the Archdiocese website.
We praise you, O God of all creation. Quicken in us a resolve to protect your handiwork. You are the source of every blessing that graces our lives and our nation.
Eh, this is fine, I guess, albeit somewhat disjointed, to include a reference to creation/environmentalism alongside a generic reference to blessings.
We pray that you help us to truly understand and answer the sacred call of citizenship. We are a nation composed of every people and culture, united not by ties of blood, but by the profound aspirations of life, freedom, justice, and unbound hope. These aspirations are why our forebears saw America as a beacon of hope. And, with your steady guidance, Lord, may we remain so today.
This is starting to veer into non-prayer “statement” territory.
In every generation, we are called to renew these aspirations, to re-weave the fabric of America. We do so when we live out the virtues that dwell in our hearts, but also when we confront our failures to root out ongoing injustices in our national life, especially those created by moral blindness and fear of the other.
We pray for peace, especially for people suffering the senselessness of war. But as we pray, we must also act, for building up the common good takes work. It takes love.
This is getting into sermonizing. “As we pray, we must also act” is a statement directed at the audience, not at the object of the prayer, that is, God.
And so we pray: May our nation become more fully a builder of peace in our wounded world with the courage to imagine and pursue a loving future together. And may we as individual Americans become more fully the instruments of God’s peace.
This is fine, I guess, though I have the feeling Cupich is trying to be vague about things. Is he referring the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and elsewhere, and praying that the United States would “build peace” abroad? What is a “loving future”? I suppose that just strikes me as an odd turn of phrase, meant to reference his prior rhetoric that “building up the common good” takes “love” — which is perhaps meant to reference “love your neighbor as yourself” but in the bigger picture of ending injustices, I think the idea of “love” isn’t really the right path. Too often the desire to be “loving” generates bad public policy: we increase government spending because it’s the “loving” thing to do and cutting the deficit doesn’t make the cut because there’s no “love” there, just fiscal responsibility.
Guide us, Lord, in taking up our responsibility to forge this new chapter of our nation’s history. Let it be rooted in the recognition that for us, as for every generation, unity triumphing over division is what advances human dignity and liberty.
This is where it really starts to grate on me. Why is the 2024 Democratic National Convention a “new chapter of our nation’s history”? It’s a party convention, and these occur every four years. For this to be a “new chapter” and for it to reflect “unity triumphing over division” is to endorse the Democrats’ rhetoric on these points, that Kamala Harris, despite being the current Vice President, represents a “change” from the Biden-Harris administration, which is a misstep Cupich shouldn’t have made.
Let it be propelled by the women and men elected to serve in public life, who know that service is the mark of true leadership.
This isn’t partisan but just a bland statement of fact that doesn’t belong in a prayer.
And let this new chapter of our nation’s history be filled with overwhelming hope, a hope that refuses to narrow our national vision, but rather, as Pope Francis has said, “to dream dreams and see visions” of what by your grace our world can become.
Ugh. This is another reference to the candidates’ theme and an implicit endorsement, that this is a “new chapter” and is “filled with overwhelming hope,” and is made worse by a random reference to Pope Francis, for no value other than a sort of name-checking. I’m not opposed to a religious leader leading a prayer with reference to that religion’s deity, but to avoid Jesus’s name but toss in Pope Francis? This goes back to Cupich’s statements in the past that he is all about “following Pope Francis’s teachings” rather than the teachings of the Catholic church.
We ask all of this, trusting in your ever provident care for us. AMEN
And that’s that.
Are all Cupich’s public prayers this lousy? I don’t know, though it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s not the end of the world. He’s not expressly endorsing a candidate, nor is he hosting any particular candidate at the cathedral. And perhaps it’s bad prayer-writing rather than intentionally aligning himself with the candidates and convention-goers. But it’s still annoying.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In