The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionLike him or not, Denver's Chaput is a very 21st century bishop
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 05, 2010
Bill Veeck, the P.T. Barnum of sports franchise owners, once said there are only two seasons -- winter and baseball. I’m a convinced Veeckian on that score, so I tend to seek diversions to occupy the long emptiness until Opening Day. One thought exercise I’ve come up with is this: Sit down and try to compile a list of the ten most consequential Catholic bishops in America. By that, I don’t mean the bishops you like most or agree with, but those who seem to have the most impact.
Part of the fun, of course, is that a bishop can be “consequential” in very different ways.
Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, for example, would probably make the list because of his behind-the-scenes muscle -- seeing his protégés named bishops and steering matters through the shoals of Rome. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson might be included for his ability to forge consensus and get things done within the U.S. bishops’ conference. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio and Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento might make the cut because of their leadership among the exploding sector of Hispanic Catholics, while Cardinal Francis George of Chicago would be in the mix as an intellectual point of reference.
To call these prelates “consequential” is not necessarily to endorse everything they represent. It’s rather to acknowledge that they matter.
Archbishop Charles ChaputThat, in turn, brings us to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who illustrates yet another way a bishop can matter: As an evangelist, an opinion-maker, a writer and speaker. Usually seen as a strong conservative, Chaput can be polarizing because he takes clear positions and defends them with relish. He’s consequential in somewhat the same way as politicians and pundits with bold views and the nerve not to pull their rhetorical punches: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, they’re hard to ignore.
Sometimes accused of being a traditionalist, Chaput is actually a very 21st century bishop in at least one sense: Whatever national influence he wields has almost nothing to do with formal ecclesiastical power. He doesn’t hold office in the bishops’ conference, and certainly can’t compete with Rigali as a Roman heavyweight. I mean no disrespect to Denver, especially since my wife and I now live there, but the mere fact of being the Archbishop of the Rockies is hardly sufficient to leave many people outside the Mountain Time Zone with bated breath awaiting his latest pronouncement.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
In an era in which institutional authority of all sorts has collapsed, a religious leader who wants to move opinion has to compete in a secular marketplace of ideas. Chaput does, rarely invoking “because the church says so” as an argument. In a brief talk recently on Catholic education, for instance, he never cited Ex Corde Ecclesiae, but rather Francis Fukuyama, Bill Joy and Neil Postman, with Augustine thrown in for good measure. He called on Catholic universities to beef up their religious identity, not because the pope decreed it, but because a society of great technological prowess and a weak moral compass needs it.
If you want a sound-bite to sum up Chaput’s message, here’s a recent epigram: “There’s no more room in American life for easy or tepid faith.” Like all such formulae, it’s an invitation to debate: What exactly does that mean?
Earlier this week in Houston, Chaput tried to answer that question with speeches on three hot-button themes: health care reform and the future of Catholic health care; Catholic higher education; and the role of Christians in American public life. The last address was delivered at Houston Baptist University, while the other two came at the University of St. Thomas. His arguments are strong medicine, likely to provoke widely varying reactions, but it would be a mistake to underestimate their importance in shaping some sectors of Catholic opinion as well as outsider impressions of the church.
The following are excerpts from those speeches. Full texts of the speeches on health care and on politics may be found here: http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/278/Addresses/
* * *
On Christians in Public Life:
One of the ironies in my talk tonight is this. I’m a Catholic bishop, speaking at a Baptist university in America’s Protestant heartland. But I’ve been welcomed with more warmth and friendship than I might find at a number of Catholic venues. This is a fact worth discussing. I'll come back to it at the end ...
I’m here as a Catholic Christian and an American citizen -- in that order. Both of these identities are important. They don’t need to conflict. They are not, however, the same thing. ... No nation, not even the one I love, has a right to my allegiance, or my silence, in matters that belong to God or that undermine the dignity of the human persons He created.
Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. ... His speech left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate -- and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.
[Kennedy’s speech] has at least two big flaws. The first is political and historical, the second is religious.
Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute.” The trouble is, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Founders and Framers didn’t believe that. And the history of the United States contradicts that. ... America’s Founders encouraged mutual support between religion and government.
The Houston remarks also created a religious problem. ... Fifty years after Kennedy’s speech, we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work, or who even feel obligated to try. The life of our country is no more “Catholic” or “Christian” than it was 100 years ago. In fact it’s arguably less so. And at least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy -- the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don’t really believe. Maybe it’s different in Protestant circles. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I say, “I doubt it.”
As I was preparing these comments for tonight, I listed all the urgent issues that demand our attention as believers: abortion; immigration; our obligations to the poor, the elderly and the disabled; questions of war and peace; our national confusion about sexual identity and human nature, and the attacks on marriage and family life that flow from this confusion; the growing disconnection of our science and technology from real moral reflection; the erosion of freedom of conscience in our national health-care debates; the content and quality of the schools that form our children.
I believe abortion is the foundational human rights issue of our lifetime. We need to do everything we can to support women in their pregnancies and to end the legal killing of unborn children. We may want to remember that the Romans had a visceral hatred for Carthage not because Carthage was a commercial rival, or because its people had a different language and customs. The Romans hated Carthage above all because its people sacrificed their infants to Ba’al. For the Romans, who themselves were a hard people, that was a unique kind of wickedness and barbarism. As a nation, we might profitably ask ourselves whom and what we’ve really been worshipping in our 40 million “legal” abortions since 1973.
The vocation of Christians in American public life does not have a Baptist or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or any other brand-specific label. ... We live in a country that was once -- despite its sins and flaws -- deeply shaped by Christian faith. It can be so again. But we will do that together, or we won’t do it at all.
* * *
On Health Care Reform and Catholic Health Care:
We live in a time when [two] simple words -- “human” and “person” -- have disputed meanings, and the idea of the “sanctity” of human life is sometimes seen as little more than romantic poetry. This cultural confusion, fueled by trends in our science and technology, is magnified in the current debates over health-care reform.
Already in a number of states, the Church has faced government attempts to press Catholic hospitals, clinics and other social service institutions into violating their religious principles. In Colorado, lawmakers recently tried to block the sale of two local hospitals to a large Catholic hospital system unless the Catholic system agreed to arrange for abortions, sterilizations, and other so-called women’s services. This was a fairly bald attempt at bullying, and it failed. ... In a nation built largely by people of faith, with a long history of religious liberty, this is a battle Catholics should never have been forced to fight.
How does all this relate to health-care reform and the future of the Catholic health-care ministry? I’ll answer with a few simple facts.
- First, while access to decent health care may not seem like a “right” in the same sense as our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the church does see it as a right.
- Second, a government role in ensuring basic health care for all citizens and immigrants can be very legitimate and even required.
- Third, the principle of subsidiarity reminds us that problems should be solved as locally as possible.
- Fourth, no national health-care plan can be morally legitimate if it allows, even indirectly, for the killing of the unborn, or discriminatory policies and pressures against the elderly, the infirm and the disabled. Protecting the unborn child and serving the poor are not unrelated issues. They flow from exactly the same Christian duty to work for social justice.
- Fifth, health-care reform proposals with any hope of advancing remain fatally flawed on the abortion issue, conscience protections and the inclusion of immigrants. But the even harsher reality is this: Whether we get good health-care reform or not, legislative and judicial attacks on Catholic health care will not go away, and could easily get worse.
We need to examine our hearts with real candor. And we need to ask ourselves how “Catholic” we really want to be. If the answer is “pretty much” or “sort of” or “on my own terms” -- then we need to stop fooling ourselves, for our own sake and for the sake of the people around us who really do believe. There’s no more room in American life for easy or tepid faith.
If you’re a doctor or ethicist or hospital administrator or system executive working in Catholic health care, and in good conscience you cannot support Catholic teaching or cannot apply it with an honest will -- then you need to follow your conscience. The Church respects that. ... But conscience, as Newman once said, has rights because it has duties. One of those duties is honesty. It may be time to ask whether a different place to live your vocation, outside Catholic health care, is also the more honest place for your personal convictions. What really can’t work is staying within Catholic health care and not respecting its religious and moral principles with all your skill, and all your heart.
You and I and all of us -- we’re disciples first.
* * *
On Catholic Higher Education:
As a nation, we’ve created a culture that behaves like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Neil Postman once called us the world’s first emerging “technopoly” -- a society where the real organizing principle is technological progress in its narrowest sense, and every other social value is subordinated to it. We have the knowledge to unlock the power of creation, but we lack the wisdom and the humility to use it for real human progress. Our definition of “progress” is limited and confused. It ignores the most vital part of what it means to be really “human”: our spirit. Many of us no longer really believe that a unique and permanent “human nature” exists.
This is why, when Catholic institutions of higher learning soften or dilute their bonds to the Church, or treat Catholic teaching as somehow separate from serious intellectual life, they’re not becoming more progressive or more relevant. They’re choosing to be irrelevant because they have nothing new and confident to say to the world around them. They’re betraying themselves, their students and the culture that Jesus Christ calls them to sanctify.
Be Catholic, really, faithfully, unapologetically Catholic, and the future will have the kind of articulate and morally mature leaders it needs.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
come Chaput to Wuerl, Dolan
come Chaput to Wuerl, Dolan [and a few others] and THEN you'll see who is a 21st Century bishop.
Right on, John Allen -- and
Right on, John Allen -- and Archbishop Chaput! Will the Church have the imagination to put aside ecclesiastical politics for once and make him Coadjutor Archbishop of Los Angeles? I pay that this may be.
and apparently many others
and apparently many others also pay that this may be, and in the brave new 21st century church as in the middle ages it is who pays who wins, not the people of God
Can you imagine if he came to
Can you imagine if he came to Los Angeles? Chaput is vibrant and alive and in touch with people. What a blessing that would be!
Thank you for 'introducing'
Thank you for 'introducing' me to Bishop Chaput. Maybe we do have an episcopal leader after all.
Maybe the College of
Maybe the College of Cardinals should consider this gentleman when Benedict goes to his reward.
With all due respect to the
With all due respect to the Bishop, he misunderstands both the late President Kennedy's words and their context. John Kennedy was speaking to a group of hostile southern bigots. They were afraid that a Catholic president would try to write Catholic sectarian doctrine into American civic law. They were not afraid that JFK might bring his "Christian principles" into his Whitehouse. They were afraid he would, if commanded by the Pope or American Bishops, try to make divorce and birth control against the law, for examples. They feared that his presidency would not be his own, but the Pope's. They also feared that their own religions would face legal harrassment from the U.S. government with a Catholic as president. As far-fetched as those fears might sound to us in 2010, they were genuinely-felt in 1960.
What Kennedy said, in effect, was that his would not be a "Catholic Administration." That he would not appoint people to office because they were Catholic, nor oppose them because they were not Catholic.
Ironically, the Bishop is so free to express himself before a Protestant group, in part, because of the very speech he now says was "wrong." Had Kennedy not gained acceptance by the American Protestant mainstream as it existed in that day, our Bishops might be less free to enter into the American political process in this. The Bishop, and all American Catholics, owe a debt to John F. Kennedy's legacy.
I agree with Santino
I agree with Santino entirely. Archbishop Chaput is obviously a conservative catholic who does not want to admit that the church and its people are changing, and that the church is somewhat out of touch with its people. His most recent comments do not reflect the opinion of the majoity of Catholics, but the Church has never wanted to observe the majority of Catholics. Being a Catholic for the past eighty years I am convinced that the Church has made it too complicated for the average person. Christ's message was "keep it simple, and be good to others" the Church has expanded on that time and time again, until, I am convinced, they have lost sight of what His message really was.
I don't think he does
I don't think he does misunderstand. I think you are quite right in describing the circumstances that Kennedy faced, the barrier. With his speech, Kennedy broke down a barrier. And it was a barrier that needed to be broken down.
But the problem is how he broke it down. Kennedy set a dangerous precedent. Instead of saying that all those fears were unfounded because they were based on misconceptions of what it meant to be a Catholic in the public sphere, he conceded to those fears. Instead of saying that they had nothing to fear from a Catholic with political power, he said they had nothing to fear because there was a divide between his politics and his Catholicism.
He helped set the stage for this notion that there is no place for religion in the public discourse. He set the precedent for other Catholics to act against their Catholic faith in the political arena.
Kennedy was right in what he attempted to do, but wrong in the way that he did it.
Bravo, Bishop Chaput! At
Bravo, Bishop Chaput! At last, a man who thinks and says what he thinks. There are others out there who do the same, can't they get together and say things together? Or is there, once more, just a heumenutique of dysfunction?
John, if a Bishop "who thinks
John, if a Bishop "who thinks and says what he thinks" but was not in agreement with what you think, would you see it as the great quality you seem to see it in Bishop Chaput?
Wow, what a speech. He says
Wow, what a speech. He says it all with a direct candor that is resreshing. It is scary to realize that our country is falling apart morally and this speech alerts to that fact once again.
Our country is falling apart
Our country is falling apart morally? Nonsense. Just old fuddy-duddyism, a staple of preachers since the country began because things don't stay the same as when they were children. Americans are spilling blood and treasure to build freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending millions of dollars to Haiti, working hard to cure cancer and other diseases, trying to enact universal health insurance coverage, and on and on. This is falling apart morally? Your comment is absurd.
And yet, we also find the
And yet, we also find the divorce rate hovering at 50% for all marriages, 41% for first marriages, 60% for second marriages and 73% for third. We find increases in homosexual behavior and activity. We see increasing amounts of teenagers, and even pre-teens, engaging in sexual activity. We see increases in greed, so much so that one man stole tens of billions of dollars from those who trusted him. Television and movies regularly use language that would result in many kids getting their mouths washed out with soap. Music lyrics advocate sex outside of marriage and encourages people to think of women as less than human. Video games glorify murder, theft, and other criminal acts. Young people (and older as well!) have little sense of respect for elders, for each other, for themselves. This nation, in the last 37 years, legalized the deliberate and intentional murder of over 50 million children while still in their mother's wombs. The traditional family is under assault from all directions. Need I go on?
Objective morality is pooh-poohed in the press and denigrated by those who advocate the philosophy of "If it feels good, do it". People who stand up for traditional values are called "fuddy-duddies". No one can dispute the charity and compassion of Americans, but, despite what people may have us think, there is more to life in a civil society, there is more to morality, than simple compassion and charity.
The entirety of Western Civilization, the greatest civilization ever to exist in the history of the planet, is suffering from a decline in traditional morality and is embracing a secularized philosophy that advocates only two moral goods: tolerance and self-gratification. This is not surprising, given the move in society to push religion and faith to the fringes, to deny it a place in the public square. Without faith there is no grounds for objective morality, and that is the point that Archbishop Chaput was trying to make.
Clint chauvinistically
Clint chauvinistically claims: "The entirety of Western Civilization, the greatest civilization ever to exist in the history of the planet . . ."
Dude.
Get a grip.
and, anyway, read Cardinal Bernadin's Moral Vision for America.
His influence goes beyond the
His influence goes beyond the USA. He produces talking points in France (http://lesalonbeige.blogs.com/my_weblog/2010/03/lunion-des-chr%C3%A9tien...) and Italy (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342344?fr=y and
http://www-maranatha-it.blogspot.com/2010/03/archbishop-charles-j-chaput...).
Congratulations on another
Congratulations on another excellent analysis, Mr. Allen!
However, permit me to make one suggestion. You conclude your article with the following:
"His arguments are strong medicine, likely to provoke widely varying reactions, but it would be a mistake to underestimate their importance in shaping some sectors of Catholic opinion as well as outsider impressions of the church."
While I agree that Archbishop Chaput's "arguments are strong medicine, likely to provoke widely varying reactions," they are nonetheless excellent lessons in catechesis. I further submit that Archbishop Chaput does not shape "Catholic opinion"; rather, his opinions are shaped by Catholic teachings. As Archbishop Chaput himself has said, "If you are Catholic and you disagree with your Church. What do you do? You change your mind."
All in all, however, this is an excellent piece. Thank you!
"If you are Catholic and you
"If you are Catholic and you disagree with your Church. What do you do? You change your mind."
Like the leopard you change your spot, and pray for a return to the collegial ecclesiology, not the totalitarian which demands REpublican votes.
You come to the desert, to a place apart and pray for rain, and peace, and love and salvation.
You pray to realize the Reign of Heaven is at hand.
Firm in the Faith, never changing to please the politics of the moment.
"Firm in the Faith, never
"Firm in the Faith, never changing to please the politics of the moment."
What a wonderful description of Archbishop Chaput. Good job, Frere!
Thank you very much, The
Thank you very much, The Nebulous Cathode, but your attempt here fails.
How renewing to read in his
How renewing to read in his remarks on Catholic Higher Education an endorsement of the forty years of laudably unyielding academic labors of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien. We do well to support the archbishop by beginning anew a reading of this work, beginning with "Who Is A Catholic?" and earlier.
How disturbing nevertheless to find the remarks of then Senator Kennedy so horribly misinterpreted. Chaput may now have the luxury of feeling himself more welcomed among Baptists than among Roman Catholics; it was not so in the days of the Kennedy Campaign when Protestants directly accused him of planning to turn over the USA to the Vatican's control. Intersting to read here how directly Chaput would turn the USA over to his ecclesial control, but in 1960, Kennedy had to clearly and unequivocally draw the distinction between Church and State in order to have any holy ghost of a chance of getting elected. The slanders then said against him were so great, that he would be a puppet of the Pope (the Pope at the time being Roncalli, it might not have been such a bad thing, but the Baptists never would have bought in!) equal to the slanders which have been said about our present President, particularly now on his drive to provide all of us with health care and not just being sickly profit making units for Wall Street.
The slanders now said about him by Chaput are equally unjust, despite de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Let us look carefully at one of the candidate's responses in particular made impromptu in response to several hard and unwelcoming questions posed after the delivery of the prepared speech (and please look at who crafted that great and eternal speech, which will last long after Chaput is forgotten). This is drawn from the New York Times transcript of that day, which has been generously and thoughtfully republished in the 1979 Prometheus Book: John F. Kennedy: Catholic and Humanist by Albert Menendez.
On page 132 of that necessary book we find this question raised by a minister of the Church of Christ: "Pope John XXIII only recently stated, according to St. Louis Review dated December 12, 1958: 'Catholics must unite their strength toward the common aim and the Catholic hierarchy has the right and the duty of guiding them.' Do you subscribe to that?"
Candidate Kennedy answers impromptu in the midst of that unwelcoming crowd, with a majority WASP nation listening in, thinking on his feet: "Well, now, I don't, I couldn't describe guiding them in what area. If you're talking about in the area of faith and morals, in the instructions of the church, I would think any Baptist minister or Congregational minister has the right and duty to try to guide his flock. If you mean by that statement that the Pope or anyone else could bind me by a statement, in the fulfillment of my public duties, I say, 'No.' If that statement is intended to mean, and it's very difficult to comment on a sentence taken out of an article which I have not read, but if that is intended to imply that the hierarchy has some obligations, or has an obligation, to attempt to guide the members of the Catholic Church, then that may be proper. But it all depends on the previous language of what you mean by 'guide.' If you mean direct, or instruct, on matters dealing with the organization of faith, the details of the faith, then, of course, they have that obligation. If you mean that anyone could guide or direct me in fulfilling my public duty, then I do not agree."
Kennedy is eminently correct. Chaput is wrong, and "wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life." Moreover, "Today (in this new century) we’re paying for the damage" of the very wrong Chaput promotes, and the morality he denies.
Wrong? We have a Catholic
Wrong? We have a Catholic Speaker of the House, a Catholic Vice President, Catholics in senior leadership positions (like the late E. Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, John Kerry), Catholics up and coming (like Bob Menendez), and not one has done a single thing about THE civil rights issue of our day--the murder of unborn children--while all have hidden behind the mantle of "personally opposed Catholicism" sewn by Mario Cuomo, blessed by Joseph "Seamless Garment" Bernardin, and all owing its dodgy paternity to John F. Kennedy and his gutless response in Houston.
Neither will Grondel document
Neither will Grondel document his allegations here, nor provide the late and very venerable Joseph Cardinal Bernardin his proper ecclesial title, his garment, seamless or otherwise, here stripped as was our Lord's at Golgotha.
I humbly suggest in reparation and repentance JMG read the works of this greatest American Cardinal, for one the Georgetown University Press 1998 publication edited by the Reverend Father John Langan SJ entitled Joseph Cardinal Bernadin: A Moral Vision for America, now so favorably priced on the amazon, with one copy collectible as signed by this learned editor.
Candidate Kennedy in Houston had greater guts than Grondelski shall ever know, facing brilliantly and faithfully an extremely hateful, hostile and anti-Catholic crowd of Christians, the same guts as on the PT 109, the same guts as in that convertible drifting through Dallas.
It takes no guts to attack Catholics, as the raging anti-Catholic lynch mob seems wildly in fashion this dry season, particularly when that Catholic is dead.
De mortuis nil nisi bounm.
One question: When Baby Bush clearly controlled all three branches of our government, and the media, why did he not stop abortion?
When faced with the choice of
When faced with the choice of being elected or being Catholic, candidate Kennedy--like most of the other politicians I named in my earlier blog--opted for the former. Had he not made his schizophrenic comments in Houston ("I am Catholic, but don't expect THAT to affect how I might lead") he might have had the opportunity to address issues as President like: (a) school prayer/Bible reading; (b) aid to parochial schools; and (c) the incipient spread contraception with federal dollars movement. JFK did none of those things, giving the Supreme Court a green light to advance a secularizing agenda while the 35th President piously announced that we needed to obey the Supreme Court's decisions, even if we disagreed with them (precursor of "I am personally opposed but....") without using the Bully Pulpit of the Presidency to recast the debate.
Would Ted Kennedy EVER have lost a Massachusetts Senate election, even if he became the Democratic Jesse Helms on pro-life matters? No--the fact that he sought to pander to the abortionists shows that in the choice between being Catholic and being a "mainstream" Democrat, his decision was clear.
As for "repenting" about Joseph Cardinal Bernardin: sorry, but I have nothing to say 'sorry' about. Bernardin was a decent man but profoundly naive, especially about politics, and his naivete contributed to setting back the pro-life movement in America by giving sham "intellectual" defense to the "personally opposed" Catholics of the 1980s through his seamy garment. Personally, he may have been wonderful; intellectually, he was wrong.
First of all, dear Frere, any
First of all, dear Frere, any claim that you might have had to criticize someone for not referring to an ecclesiastical personage by their proper title is forfeit, since you yourself have done this on this very website, in reference to ecclesiastics you do not like, nor respect; indeed in an earlier post ON THIS VERY TOPIC, you refer to His Grace, Archbishop Chaput, merely as "Chaput" no less than six times. Thus by evidence of hypocrisy is your attempt to stifle discussion by virtue of this straw man is negated.
Secondly, dear Frere, there is no need whatsoever to provide documentation regarding the facts presented concerning Speaker Pelosi, Senators Dodd, Kerry, and Leahy, Congressman Kennedy, Vice President Biden, et al. By their own words, they have demonstrated a complete lack of concern for, and interest in, defending the most basic of all human rights, the right to life, for the most vulnerable Americans, the unborn. That former Governor Cuomo coined the phrase of being "personally opposed", but then doing nothing about the issue is a point of fact that is well-known by anyone who has studied the political environs of the abortion issue. Finally, that Cardinal Bernardin's "seamless garment" theory has damaged the pro-life cause by muddying its waters, conflating absolute moral evil (abortion - the direct, intentional and willful murder of the most innocent human life) with prudential matters (war, death penalty, etc.) is also well-known and widely accepted in educated Catholic circles.
As penance, I suggest that you read Professor Michael Meaney's excellent work "Metaphysics Shreds Cardinal Bernardin's Seamless Garment - This is More than Sartorial Satire, It Has Life Consequences" (http://abyssum.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/metaphysics-shreds-cardinal-bern...). I would also suggest that you read "The Seamless Garment Revisited" by Joseph Sobran (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050816.shtml) in which he states:
"the 'seamless garment' has turned out to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything, it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legal abortion — that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle".
(Oh, and regarding President Bush, who, despite his being far more consistent with Catholic teaching than Senator Kerry, President Obama, or even the late President Kennedy, was dedicated to ending the scourge of abortion. Under his presidency, he appoint two Catholic justices to the US Supreme Court, both of whom oppose abortion, thus bringing the total of pro-life justices to four, plus one who tends in that direction most of the time. It was also under President Bush that the most vicious and cruel form of abortion, the so-called "partial-birth" method, was outlawed. His pro-life legacy is undisputedly excellent.)
And also how disturbing that
And also how disturbing that this Archbishop, who speaks on Catholic education, directed that a preschooler in Catholic School not be allowed to come back next year because it was discovered that his parents are lesbians.
This man is polarizing and
This man is polarizing and not in a good sense. He always focusing on our pelvic areas. On war, when does he invoke Jesus' call to love your enemies. He always refers to Church teaching, but seldom if ever to the Gospels. Sad for a Franciscan who vowed to live according to the Gospels. That is why he is so partisan.
I agree. Bishop C. might
I agree. Bishop C. might well study "We Hold These Truths" by John Courtney Murray, SJ. He may discover the philosophical and theological bases for real and important separation of church and state.
Bravo. Bp Charles is a clear
Bravo. Bp Charles is a clear voice for explaining the ties between our heavenly and earthly citizenships.
Why, thank you, CoCat, and
Why, thank you, CoCat, and thank you very much!
Oh, wait a minute.
You mean B(p) and not B(r)?
BP?
British Petroleum?
Is that in fact who ultimately owns Charles Chaput?
Excellent article on Chaput.
Excellent article on Chaput. I would like Chaput to comment also on liberty, religious freedom, accountability to ALL constituents, respcting the others' point of view. etc.
I really like to see Chaput integrating these issues without ignoring the other issues.
To be honest, Archbishop
To be honest, Archbishop Chaput is basically right on target. I find myself agreeing with every principle that he articulates in these excerpts. I know that I am not always in agreement with how he applies them. That's another thing. But the notion that faith is not simply a private reality that has no impact on how we live in the public sphere is ludicrous.
John, now that you're in
John, now that you're in Denver maybe you can fill your off season with the Colorado Avalanche and won't be tempted to use your column as vehicle to spread the views of your Archbishop. Did he give you and exclusive interview for this?
While some of the points
While some of the points Archbishop Chaput has stressed over the years have merit, there is virtually no issue on which he doesn't have an opinion and which he voices with relish. He craves media attention and seeks it like a moth drawn to the flame.
During the last two presidential campaigns he had the chutzpah to spout off by naming those Catholic candidates whose views he did not care for and announcing that he would deny them communion - one of only two or three bishops who like to use the sacraments as a disciplinary weapon. While the American cardinals are well able to speak for the Church, there is no evidence that they have requested his advice and comment on every issue confronting the Church.
While he is a Capuchin friar, an order following the spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi, Chaput is a prickly personality who bristles when referred to as a Franciscan.
That he has not been elected to office within the bishops' conference speaks volumes on how he is regarded by his peers.
Can you give examples of him
Can you give examples of him not liking to be referred to as "Franciscan"?
Brother Ed might be very
Brother Ed might be very interested to read this very disturbing address given last year by Chaput in the Air Force Academy "CHAPEL (OMG!!)" to the cadets in which he DARED draw parallel between military obedience and religious, and in which he, an alleged Franciscan, the Saint of Peace, dares justify bloody warfare.
In part he spoke:
============================================
Referring to his past time as a Capuchin Franciscan, Archbishop Chaput said religious orders can only achieve their mission by practicing obedience, humility, discipline and self-mastery.
“When the members lose those qualities, the community begins to unravel,” he explained. “Leadership in religious life is very explicitly a form of service, not power – and the best leaders never forget what they learned about leadership by first subjecting themselves to the leadership of others.”
Granting the “very different purposes” of the Air Force and the Capuchins, he noted that both depend on “proper obedience to authority, the habit of self-mastery and a commitment to a mission larger than the selfishness of their individual members.”
The cadets’ training, he said, teaches them maturity through being obedient and being tested.
=================================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2204033/posts
thank God for making me Hermit, the ultimate, the most trying, the most testing, the most peacemaking obedience!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Thank you Brother Charles! I
Thank you Brother Charles! I am very grateful for the 17 miles that separates me from the Archdiocese of Denver, and the fact that I live in a diocese in Nebraska that IS NOT the diocese of Lincoln. Ironically enough, my son is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and he WOULD NOT subscribe to Archbishop Chaput's comparison of the Capuchins to cadets, nor would I.
You forgot Sarah Palin! She's
You forgot Sarah Palin! She's "consequential" too, no?
It's not what you said that troubles me - it's what you left UNSAID!
In effect, by inference, you said: "The Archbishop of Denver must have faults-being human we all do. But I must admit I've never noticed his, perhaps because of the honesty and integrity of his transparent personality."
Really?
You're right, I don't like
You're right, I don't like him ... even while I respect and appreciate much of what he says and envy his unambiguous self assurance. But, while it takes great talent to MAKE complicated matters simple, it takes rather less talent to PERCIEVE them as simple.
Archbishop Chaput appears to be the "Sarah Palin" of Catholic bishops and if he really is the model 21st Century bishop then we can anticipate that the 21st century American Catholic Church will be just as bitterly divided as the 21st Century American (secular) body politic.
(Sigh!) Makes a guy want to revive the old "Happy Death Society' and pray for an invitation to the "Church Triumphant" before we get too far into it.
God bless Archbishop Chaput.
God bless Archbishop Chaput. Here is a man who deserves to be created a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church for his strong and unambiguous leadership, and for his intellectual strength.
The final quote from Archbishop Chaput says it all: "Be Catholic, really, faithfully, unapologetically Catholic". May we all live up to that call!
Clint, how about just trying
Clint, how about just trying to be a Christian? Ever thought of that?
I like "Denver's Chaput"
I like "Denver's Chaput" because he has "the courage to be Catholic".
If only he also had he
If only he also had he courage to be Franciscan and denounce warmongering.
If he only had the courage to be Christian . . .
if only I did . . .
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Anne/Nancy: you talk about
Anne/Nancy: you talk about “the courage to be Catholic.” Shall we listen to a former pope?
When Pius X died, the conclave of 1914 elected Benedict XV, who immediately issued an encyclical calling on Catholics “to appease dissension and strife" so that "no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith.”
“There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism,’ he concluded. ‘It is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname’ “
"...there is developing within me, an inborn and profound opposition to what is usually regarded as the form, the hopes and the interests that are Christian. What can you expect: in the Christian world as it is presented in our ecclesiastical documents and the catholic gestures or conceptions, I suffocate absolutely, physically...We are no longer in fact ‘Catholic’; we are defending a system, a sect."
attributed to Teilhard de Chardin, 1926
Well, John, What does it
Well, John, What does it really mean for universities to-
"Be Catholic, really, faithfully, unapologetically Catholic, and the future will have the kind of articulate and morally mature leaders it needs"?
Does it mean to challange the status quo in the public forum with Catholic beliefs and doctrines? Does it mean to challange the Catholic forums with the same beiefs and doctrines? Does it mean to 'step out' of the 'given' (as, say, Mary did? Jesus did? Mary Magadelene did? Peter? Paul? Joan of Arc? and thousands of other saints?)
I am Catholic. I believe I am REALLY faithful and unapologietically Catholic when I question and not just follow.
And, of all places, universities should be about that. (Oh right, Thomas Aquinas was another ... and he was called a hertic by many. Only earned his good respect after he died.)
So really, John, What does "Be Catholic, really, faithfully, unapologetically Catholic, and the future will have the kind of articulate and morally mature leaders it needs" mean?
Don't we have to listen and talk to one another? Where do we find the answer? Who gives us the answer? I think it just must be study, pray, reflect, discuss, question, and act. We must have the courage to think, reflect, listen, speak, and question.
The major institution that's
The major institution that's been under attack - marriage - is one that Chaput can proudly be accused of defending against those who favor divorce and "gay" whatever. I'll be eating turkey this Thanksgiving this year, too.
Who favors
Who favors divorce?
Anglicans, founded (or floundered) upon the rock of a king's divorce?
For whom some say divorce thusly became a sacrament?
Have you ever actually heard of anyone favoring divorce?
Anyone who has, actually, been through it?
The children?
Who favors divorce?
Will you be eating that turkey alone?
Pass me that tofu please . . .
Who favors divorce? The
Who favors divorce?
The Catholic Church effectively gives tacit approval to divorce with what has become the charade of annulment. In their 2002 book, “Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments”, Joseph Martos and Pierre Hegy state:
“Because the grounds for annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as ‘virtual divorces.’ After all, the same grounds for divorce in a civil court have ‘become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court.’ (Page 23) To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid – that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.”
In other words it is the Catholic game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Abp. Chaput says: “We need
Abp. Chaput says: “We need to examine our hearts with real candor. And we need to ask ourselves how “Catholic” we really want to be. If the answer is “pretty much” or “sort of” or “on my own terms” -- then we need to stop fooling ourselves, for our own sake and for the sake of the people around us who really do believe. There’s no more room in American life for easy or tepid faith.”
The issue, of course, is who defines what it means to be Catholic and to what degree of narrowness or broadness it is defined. Bishops break out in a cold sweat in the face of ambiguity; laity live with it each day in their homes, jobs and social life.
"When Pius X died, the conclave of 1914 elected Benedict XV, who immediately issued an encyclical calling on Catholics ‘to appease dissension and strife" so that "no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith.’
‘There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism’ he concluded. ‘It is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname’ “
David Gibson, “Who Is a Real Catholic?” The Washington Post, Sunday, May 17, 2009
“Some of us, supposedly standing for law and order, are merely clinging on to old habits, sometimes to a mere parrot vocabulary, its formulae worn so smooth by constant use that they justify everything and questions nothing.” George Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest.
“There is always a temptation for church authorities to try to use their power to stamp out dissent. The effort is rarely successful, because dissent simply seeks another forum, where it may become even more virulent. To the extent that the suppression is successful, it may also do harm. It inhibits good theology from performing its critical task, and it is detrimental to the atmosphere of freedom in the church. The acceptance of true doctrine should not be a matter of blind conformity, as though truth could be imposed by decree. The church, as a society that respects the freedom of the human conscience, must avoid procedures that savor of intellectual tyranny.
Where dissent is kept within the bounds I have indicated, it is not fatal to the church as a community of faith and witness. If it does occur, it will be limited, reluctant, and respectful.”
Avery Dulles http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm
“It is not so much the authority one questions in the Roman Catholic church as the lack of the qualities of good leadership, including respect for the persons involved, the efforts at persuasion, and the explanations to which associates and subordinates are entitled - in fact, the lack of ordinary good manners.”
Abigail McCarthy, Mending Catholic Manners/Of Several Minds (article), Commonweal, January 11, 1991.
“Authority has simply been abused too long in the Catholic Church, and for many people it just becomes utterly stupid and intolerable to have to put up with the kind of jackassing around that is imposed in God’s name. It is an insult to God himself and in the end it can only discredit all idea of authority and obedience. There comes a point where they simply forfeit the right to be listened to.”
Thomas Merton in a letter to W. H. Ferry dated 1-19-67, as quoted in a letter to the Editor in 10/2/98 NCR.
“The Catholic Church’s certainty with regard to its own position runs the risk that Rome will believe that it is not being heard when it is simply being listened to (respectfully) but not then being obeyed. It is always tempting to blame the inability of the messenger to reach an audience rather than to acknowledge that the (truthful) message lacked enough persuasive force.”
Conor Gearty, “Uncomfortable Truths,” The Tablet, 13 February 2010
"Be Catholic, really,
"Be Catholic, really, faithfully, unapologetically Catholic, and the future will have the kind of articulate and morally mature leaders it needs."
But a Catholic leader can not be articulate and morally mature while taking a stance of having, unapologetically, nothing to learn, no room to grow, no need to evolve, or no opening to be influenced by the other.
There is more complication here than the bishop seems to allow.
Morally mature leaders grow
Morally mature leaders grow through conflictive moral dilemmas.
Not the sort of moral certitude that Chaput dictates here, which leaves no room for thought, discussion, perspectives, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, growth, maturity, only for sheep baa-ing the pre-approved response.
The kind of teaching which leads to mature moral leadership requires gifted moral theologians like the Reverend Father Charles Curran, priest and professor.
You might be interested in reading, for example, his contributions to the Readings in Moral Theology series and other works on issues in Roman Catholic Moral Theology, including his analysis of Pope John Paul II.
Being a bit cheeky, I know
Being a bit cheeky, I know why John and his wife live in Denver now - to be close to 'material.'
But seriously, I enjoy John Allen's work because it is true journalism, not pseudo-journalism, wreeking of the journo's personal opinion and the agenda of the ones who issue his/her pay-cheques.
How long he will last at NCR with his refusal to print opinion I'm not sure, but he has my ear each week.
This article on Bishop Chaput is proof of that.
I am an old and retired
I am an old and retired Catholic Priest. But more and more Bishops like Chaput embarrass me and the Faith I believe in. John Kennedy in his speech to the Protestant ministers expressed the concept that as a Politciian a Catholic or other Christian may express and work for his own and his Church's principles as he understands them, but he is a representative of the people who elected him or her.
Bishop's like Chaput and those few others who would use access to Communion as a means to force people to go against their own conscience and follow the conscience of the particular Bishop do exactly what the Protestant Ministers feared about electing a Catholic to public office -- They make "Roman Law" take precedent over "American Law."
God bless you, Archbishop
God bless you, Archbishop Chaput--maybe I need to move to Denver: Seattle doesn't do it currently.
Move to Mexico. Move rather
Move to Mexico. Move rather to Bolivia, which definitely does do it, currently.
There is much to like and
There is much to like and admire about Archbishop Chaput. He is intellegent, reaads widely, writes well, is a good pastor, humble and approachable. He has been on the friont line of apromoting treating illegal immigrants humanely (not separaqting them from their children when they are deported!!), and giving them a path to citizenship. (I am sure that as a person, he is most compassionate; I would not be reluctant to confess to him)
But...but: In his tenure here, abortion has trumped every other issue. He said he "approved" when our very conservative Bishop Sheridan in Colorado Soprings said he would deny communion to anyone voting for John Kerry!!! (not verbatim..from memory).
The latest contre-temps in the Archdiocese is that a Catholic School in Boulder has told a pre-scholer (maybe kindergartner) not to return next year because her parents are a lesbian couple. I thought we no longer accepted that the "sins" of the parents are visited on the children. The Archbishop's office backed up the school. The parents behavior violates the Catholic principles that they (implicitly, I guiess) are required to accept and follow if their child is to be enrolled in a Catholic school. My question: does the school check the Marriage Certificates of the parents to make sure they are married in the Church, or at least properly married? My direct experience is that their are plenty of communicants who are living together as couples, but not married. I"ll bet five bucks that some of those same folks have children in Catholic schools. Let's hunt 'em down and week 'em out.
And, of the issues mentioned in the Archbishop's talk in Houston, abortion and sexual orientation top his list. If you Google "Archbishop Chaput and Abortion", you get twice as many hits as on any other issue, and several times more if you pair the Archbishop with world hunger, War in Iraq or even Immigration. I did this exercise a while back, and, lately, he has been less strident on abortion. (I am not a pro-choicer, but I do question the Church's absolutist position. (See, for example, the Brazilian Bishop who excommuniced thje family and physicians who abouted ther twin babies of a 9 year old girl-- yes, 9 years old who had been repeatedly raped by her father then eventually impregnated by him!!!)) Church teachings seem to trump compassion.
Archbishop Chaput does a lot of good in Denver, but cafeteria-Catholics feel a bit marginalized.
Keep up the good work, John.
Dick Jonsen
Whenever "Church teachings
Whenever "Church teachings seem to trump compassion" the church really needs to regroup.
Nothing ever in the mission of Jesus ever trumps compassion.
The teaching of Jesus Christ IS compassion.
You are wrong: Jesus called
You are wrong: Jesus called himself the way, the truth and the life. He did not call himself the compassion. Study some more, you'll eventually learn the truth. But stay away from McBrien. Why do you like that dissenting priest so much? He will just cloud your thinking.
Stephan on Mar. 09, 2010. You
Stephan on Mar. 09, 2010.
You stated:
"You are wrong: Jesus called himself the way, the truth and the life. He did not call himself the compassion. Study some more, you'll eventually learn the truth. But stay away from McBrien. Why do you like that dissenting priest so much? He will just cloud your thinking."
------------------------------------------------
And what 'way, truth and life' is Jesus showing us? In the Gospel of John, Jesus, being rejected by the leaders of the Jews, states (John 10:37-38) "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Jesus is asking these leaders to look at his works (miracles of compassion) as evidence of his unity with the Father, with God.
And in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus clearly tells us that the works of COMPASSION will be the criteria for entrance into the kingdom of the Father.
(Matthew 25:32-41).
"All the nations will be gathered before him (Jesus), and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me,' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?
And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you? And the king will answer them, Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'
If we want to follow Jesus, who is the "Way, the Truth and the Life" we MUST BE COMPASSIONATE. As far as Fr. McBrien is concerned---he's clouding nobody's thinking. But you are the one in the dark, my brother.
Perhaps your EWTN edition
Perhaps your EWTN edition does not contain the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, the Final Discourse, and other teachings of Jesus?
An excellent guide for these essential Gospel readings, if the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien Doctor of Divinity (Greg.) does not meet your refined theological sensibilities, would of course be hand in hand with the Reverend Father John Dear, SJ., including his treatise in Christology, Jesus the Rebel.
You are exceedingly wrong,
You are exceedingly wrong, Stephan. Let me suggest that you get up off your hands and knees and quit begging for the next directive from the hierarchy and let ----Jesus---- and not the pompous buttheads you adoringly adulate to.
Bishop Chaput needs to
Bishop Chaput needs to revisit Civics class.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. In the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
YES, we DO have separation of church and state in our country — government IS secular. There is a reason that this established law of the land was put in place to protect us from the tyranny of theocracy being imposed by the most powerful religious group that might arise over time as demographics change. Theocratic government has the power to impose imprisonment, torture or death to those who fail to abide by its tenets, or for the practice of one’s own faith. Check out the brutality of nations entirely controlled by Islam — then read history about the horrors that “Christians” have imposed on those of other faiths.
.
Bishop Chaput admits that his FIRST and primary allegiance (by sworn oath) is to the Vatican and the person of the Pope, and he relishes the notion of a Catholic theocracy in America. Frightening thought, that. Read your history of Catholic Christianity forcing entire nations into submission to Rome with hideous brutality. Human nature doesn’t change where unbridled power is involved.
.
Just notice the cold-heartedness of the Church toward a 60 pound, 9 year old child who was pregnant with twins via rape and incest, and whose very own life was endangered by allowing that pregnancy to continue. Imagine the fate of all concerned if the Church had the theocratic governmental power to do more than excommunicate… such as impose imprisonment or a death penalty to the child’s mother and her physicians. The majority of Christians would have placed the life of the already born child first — but the Roman Catholic Church insisted on the letter of the law, not unlike the Pharisees of old. That is the theocracy that Chaput would impose on everyone without exception.
.
The very fact that His Eminence can speak publicly to advocate his theocratic ideas is because we have separation of church and state, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Were our country an Islamic theocracy, the good bishop would likely be in prison, or worse, for stating his ‘my way or the highway’ Catholic theology which would be construed as treason against the theocratic state. He would likely fare no better in a Fundamentalist Protestant theocracy.
.
Those who insist on forcing their religious beliefs and prohibitions upon others as a matter of law, should think very long and hard about the dangerous implications of what they desire — that pet attack dog will turn around and bite you. The issues and legal precedents are far more complex than any naïve notions of creating a “Christian nation”.
Perhaps Aileen needs to
Perhaps Aileen needs to discover that "civics" is not necessarily as univocal as she thinks, and that there is considerable reason to hold that the First Amendment was adopted to prevent the establishment of a particular denomination in the United States (like, e.g., Anglicanism had been established in colonial Virginia). The Founders did not intend for one church to have a monopoly through federal establishment, though the First Amendment did nothing to change STATE establishments (which existed into the 19th century). Yes, Aileen, the XIV Amendment did apply the Bill of Rights to the states (but not wholesale, as a current Supreme Court case is exploring). But even if the First Amendment is wholly obliging on the States, the intent of the Founders in writing that amendment was clearly to prohibit establishing a CHURCH, not/not/not to abolish ANY RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE on public life, a notion that would not have been accepted by any of the Founders except maybe Thomas Paine and in very private moments (because the hypocrite of Monticello usually knew how to maintain diplomatic silence when his prejudices might incur public hostility, especially from his fellow Virginian planters) Th. Jefferson.
I hope the line about "the
I hope the line about "the mere fact of being the Abp. of the Rockies" was itself a mere flippancy that tripped too smoothly off a word processor. I AM outside the Mountain Time Zone and I DO wait with bated breath for Chaput statements...because they are cogent, firm, and faithful. Talk about "Caritas in Veritate"! Perhaps the Spirit "merely" enjoys higher elevations.
Thanks for the reprinting of
Thanks for the reprinting of Archbishop Chaput's remarks. Real food for thought here. The failure of a number of "Catholic" colleges and universities to live up to catholic moral teaching, or even to teach the Church's position on ethics (such as Humanae Vitae or other encyclicals of the last century) is one of the continuing scandals of our times. It bothers me more that catholic parents will sacrifice to get their children into schools that purportedly teach our values, then are betrayed by the teachers (and perhaps the administrators) of these schools as to the values communicated by classroom teaching and by example.
Again, thank you
TeaPot562
He is certainly consequential
He is certainly consequential if his current dictum requiring a parochial school in his diocese to expel children because their parents are homosexual becomes widespread in this country. Consequential, bigoted, and lacking in compassion and gospel justice.
Rarely do we see a bishop so
Rarely do we see a bishop so wrong on all his points. Unbelievably he uses Francis Fukuyama and Neil Postman as authorities. They are certainly yesterday's savants, Fukuyama, especially. History, of course, has not ended.
Let's start with his last argument about Catholic Higher Education. It is hard figuring out his own experience of Catholic higher education. He is a graduate of Capuchin College and Fidelis College. They are mostly unknown places and it is doubtful they offer any kind of exposure to what is usually termed Catholic higher education. And the unnamed colleges and universities he complains about are strawman colleges. Let him point out, say, a Boston College or a Villanova and let him point, chapter and verse, to their catalogues and show they are not as Catholic as Fidelis or Capuchin College.
His attack on John Kennedy is also wrong. His argument is really not with Kennedy but with John Courtney Murray and Vatican ll (which he probably abhors). The Council in "Gaudium et spes" declared "The role and competence of the Church being what it is, she must in no way be confused with the political community, nor bound to any political system. For she is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendence of the human person. In their respective spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing"
Finally his claim that the Founders did not consider there is a separation of church and state is a recent rightwing claim not embraced by the vast majority of American historians, in fact, the historical record overwhelmingly points to the opposite. He ignores Jefferson on this very point who said about First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation"[ between church and state.
Submitted by John F. Kane
Submitted by John F. Kane (not verified) on Mar. 05, 2010.
While I agree with some of what John Allen has to say about Chaput, and while he is very careful with all sorts of caveats in his piece, I nonetheless find his essay's title and tone dreadful. Since John is lately joining those of us who live in Denver, perhaps he might listen to comment from someone who has been here for a long time and has watched the changes wrought in our church by Patrick Stafford, Chaput's predecessor, and now by by His Eminence Charles himself. It might also help a national audience get some perspective on Allen's piece if they knew that he's been one of Chaput's invited speakers on several occasions, not something open to many. All that aside, if Chaput is a 21st Century Bishop in any sense, then it does not bode well for the rest of us. This Archbishop of Denver is, to put the matter with great subtlety, a bully to those under his control, and a coward to those he can't control. His strong views are invariably given to carefully selected audiences. He refuses even polite conversation with those who differ, much less serious discussion or (perish the thought) open debate. As Allen says, he has strong views and is not hesitant to push them in carefully selected forums -- and loves to see them touted in the national media (perhaps why he invites John onto his preserve). This is what we can expect of a 21st Century Bishop? With his recent book, Allen is in the business of prediction, so he may be onto something -- polarizing absolutists are perhaps what we can expect, and bullys and cowards when it comes to actually dealing with their own people. Reminds me more of the 19th and early 20th Century "prince bishops" of the American church. John F. Kane, Professor of Religious Studies, Regis University,Denver
Thank You Professor Kane.It
Thank You Professor Kane.It was very informative to receive views from the people on the local front...Adds a needed perspective....Hope one day true dialogue and mutual respect will permeate the Church in Denver.
I'd suggest Bishop Fabian
I'd suggest Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz for your list.
He demonstrated that muscular ecclesial bullying can be practiced on his own flock without serious intervention from the USCCB or from the Holy See.
And because his activities went on unchecked, he is now being imitated in all four corners of the country and across the middle.
I do not agree with him often, but by the standard of consequential you set forth,to our shame he qualifies.
Post new comment