![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/Blase_Joseph_Cupich_cropped-2-813x1024.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
So I was doing some digging around on what our archbishop is up to, being annoyed, again, that he seems to prioritize social justice issues over providing spiritual care for his (still-dwindling) flock, and I came across a talk that he gave on Amoris Laetitia<\/em> back a couple months ago.\u00a0 As summarized at National Catholic Review<\/a>, and also incorporating an interview, he again returns to his theme that what matters is \u201caccompanying\u201d people:<\/p>\n Cupich said he does not think the church can propose a general solution for all divorced and remarried persons.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that accompanying means first of all that you have to get to know the person and walk with them,\u201d the cardinal said. \u201cIt would be against the accompaniment model of ministry if in fact you began to speak about particular questions in general ways.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article then goes on to quote Cupich\u2019s speech:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen taken seriously, this definition [of conscience] demands a profound respect for the discernment of married couples and families,\u201d the cardinal states. \u201cTheir decisions of conscience represent God\u2019s personal guidance for the particularities of their lives. In other words, the voice of conscience \u2014 the voice of God \u2026 could very well affirm the necessity of living at some distance from the Church\u2019s understanding of the ideal.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And near as I can tell, Cupich\u2019s main idea seems to be that, sure, God calls some of us to be holy, but as far as most of us are concerned, he\u2019s really pretty OK with sin, because it\u2019s just too hard to strive to avoid it.\u00a0 We should, therefore, discern whether in our particular case, it is easy or difficult to leave our sins, and, if the latter, it\u2019s OK with God if we\u2019re not ready yet.<\/p>\n This sounds absurd, doesn\u2019t it?\u00a0 I mean, yes, God loves us despite our sinfulness, and knows that, however hard we try, we may yet fail, over and over again.\u00a0 We may even, as sinners, be unable to see right from wrong; we may think that our conscience is telling us to do something, or telling us that something we want to do, is perfectly fine (shoplifting, fudging on our taxes, sleeping in on Sundays, cheating on a test, etc.) and not actually a sin, because, well, that\u2019s the very nature of sin.\u00a0 We may indeed not hear God\u2019s call, nor make much of an effort to listen, but it is a core belief of Christianity that all are called to be holy, though all may not be called to the religious life, and that salvation comes from forgiveness of sins when we fall short, not from an all-purpose \u201cwaiver\u201d and permission to sin.\u00a0 In fact, it was the Manicheans<\/a>, a heretical group of early Christian times, who distinguished between the \u201celect\u201d and the \u201chearers\u201d, the latter group not obliged to follow their understanding of God\u2019s law, was it not?<\/p>\n But Cupich\u2019s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia<\/em> is that we are not all called to strive for holiness.\u00a0 Sure, God may be calling some of us to change our lives, but for the rest of us, it\u2019s good enough to maybe make a few little changes, at least for the time being, until God definitively and unmistakeably calls us to reform our lives in more difficult ways.<\/p>\n Of course, what he\u2019s saying, more specifically, is that it\u2019s too difficult for a divorced person who is civilly remarried to abstain from sex.\u00a0 And perhaps it\u2019s also too hard for someone who is cohabitating with a partner who isn\u2019t willing to marry, to leave, such as when there are children in the relationship.\u00a0 And it\u2019s too difficult for a gay or lesbian person to remain chaste.\u00a0 Certainly it\u2019s out of the question that a married couple should refrain from sex on the periodic basis required for the practice of natural family planning.<\/p>\n It\u2019s too hard.\u00a0 Therefore, because God would never ask anyone to do anything that\u2019s too hard, he clearly is OK with it.<\/p>\n One tries to think of counter-examples.\u00a0 St. Augustine was unwilling for many years to become baptized, because he would have to cease cohabitating.\u00a0 Zaccheus the tax collector (\u201ca wee little man\u201d), was called upon by Jesus to leave that life.\u00a0 Dorothy Day broke up with the father of her child upon becoming Catholic. But one imagines that Cupich would respond, \u201cwell, in each such case, Jesus knew they had the ability to make these changes,\u201d that, for example, Zaccheus had the ability to withstand the hit to his finances that giving up his corrupt tax-collecting involved.\u00a0 It\u2019s then an odd sort of pairing of Calvinism and Universalism:\u00a0 all are saved, but only the Elect are called to live out their lives following God\u2019s law.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n And the objective seems to be to provide greater \u201cleniency\u201d, so to speak, while claiming that the moral teachings of the Catholic Church haven\u2019t changed.\u00a0 The \u201cideals,\u201d you see, are still the same, but not everyone is called upon to follow those ideals, and, if you aren\u2019t, then maybe it\u2019s still a good idea to seek guidance on how you can live your Best Life Now<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 and if this added assurance that you don\u2019t have to feel bad about not meeting up to those ideals helps you feel a bit more welcome at church, that\u2019s a little extra bonus.<\/p>\n