Archbishop Chaput and Clericalism

I know for a fact that Bishop Chaput is super conscious about his image, will go over any critic's head to his or her boss/bishop, to complain. Don't let his toughness on priest abusers fool you. He is smart enough to know that abusive priests are a liability so he acts faster that Rigali, which is a plus in sort of a negative way. He uses the bully pulpit because he knows the louder you get, the more power you get in the church and in the American political arena. In Philadelphia, only his voice will speak for Catholics and only his opnion will the accepted. There is alway the chance he'll be a pleasant, unexpected surprise, but don't bet on it.

A terrible Bishop spun well.
Jump for Joy, Denver.

He says he is now "married" to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as he was just "married" to the Archdioce of Denver. Now, that sounds a little strange. I thought marriages were unbreakable. One more thing that applies only to the layfolk, I guess.

However, time will tell what he accomplishes in Philadelphia. I love the Church, grieve over her self-inflected sorrows, and wish him the best.

Thank, Mr. Briggs for you comments about the new bishop in Philadelphia. I agree with your assessment of AB Chaput. He has the authority and will decide what is right an wrong regardless of the situation. God Bless anyone who dares to challenge him in the "City of Brotherly Love."

May Archbishop be the pastor Philadelphia needs and not just another sheep herder.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.

So true of Chaput, and of other more liberal bishops over the years as well. In particular, bishops of every stripe have made it clear that their dealings with abuse survivors will be entirely on their terms, not the term of those who were wronged. The fundamental mind-set is "I am the bishop; I am in charge; my ordinations first to priest and then to bishop changed me ontologically." Add that to a sense of entitlement both to a certain lifestyle as well as a certain level of deference (it's easy to get used to) and pretty soon nuns who allowed a pregnant mother of four's life to be saved find themselves demoted and excommunicated.

The interesting thing is that these same guys seem to feel entitled to throw their minions under the motor-coach the moment that they as a bishop has been shown to have bungled things and dropped the ball. They are, after all, bishops, and are also entitled not to be prosecuted for ignoring mandatory reporting laws.

The final, and perhaps worst, sense of entitlement is the sense that they have a right to be believed. When Bp. Chaput, as he wears secular priest garb while striding into his opulent digs, talks about how he is at heart a humble Capuchin, we're supposed to buy it.

This is rather harsh. It seems like you could present your criticisms or observations without resorting to giving His Excellency a pejorative title ("The Decider"). He has an awfully hard job, being a bishop, but I guess you've already made up your mind about him, even before he takes his new position.

"he appears to carry too much of the baggage of clericalism."
This would make him rather irrelevant to me as a "pastor". I expect a priest/bishop to be a pastor first and foremost, and not someone who mostly dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's". Life is not that simple; not much in life is carved in stone.

The Archbishop need to be 'squeeky clean'if he comes out the the City of 'Brotherly' Love and starts with the homophobic rhetoric. Especially, when there is that alleged liaison with his Denver limo driver. The last thing we need as Catholics is have him found out as a homosexual hypocrite. That, would destroy the faith in just about all of us.,

Jim Oss
Wa Keeney, Kansas

Mr. Briggs writes "He is, in brief, The Definer who believes moral doctrine need no discussion, let alone from the unordained."

Reading his abundant quotes in the book "the Streetwalking Jesus" about a Chaput directed ministry to diverse urban young men trapped by disease, hopelessness and the rest, we find a similar top down definition imposed, recreating an ersatz Catholic Worker GOP style which serves no one and which is a horror to read of.

That is the sharpest and clearest assessment yet, on Chaput, redifining his immovable stand during his latest interview

Wow! An open handed swipe at +Chaput and the return backhand to John Allen for not forcing him to embarrass himself. You are making friends in house and out of house on this one though you may get by because it is put in rather polite terms.

This article does its very best to undermine itself.

"But the way I understand love is that it involves thinking the loved one has something valid to say."

The above quote is how the article concludes and thus I should imagine is the author's opinion. Yet the whole article is an attack against what the Archbishop has to say, that he has nothing valid to say himself.

I guess the Archbishop is not one of the author's beloved.

A Phillies cap?

I would have been more impressed had Archbishop Chaput been pictured accepting official copies of the 2011 Philadelphia Grand Jury Report like the 2005 PGJR he refused to accept from then Duputy District Attorney Charles Gallagher III some years back in Harrisburg.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims Advocate
maturlishmdsnd@yahoo.com

Regarding: "If it doesn't work out, however, the cause might be that he appears to carry too much of the baggage of clericalism."

- The Definer ought to know, or should be told, that clericalism is a grave and serious matter. As I understand the language of this phrase this means that clericalism is a grave and serious sin. It helps the rest of the faithful that his clericalism is out in public, thereby giving the faithful reason to scrutinize his motives, decisions, and teaching for evidence of the Gospel.

- As I recall from the interview with John Allen, alluded to in the above article, Archbishop Charles appears to be unconcerned with critiques of his role as teacher, governor, and sanctifier; meaning that he has chosen to be immutable regardless of the harm he does, or the good the Holy Spirit would call him to do. None of this bodes good for Philadelphia.

Lack of dialogue and all people having a deliberative opinion is one small aspect of clericalism. In fact, I think it is the least damaging aspect of this sex, money and power based attitude towards others. The presumption of superiority because of religious status that translates into the basest forms of physical, spiritual and emotional damage against our most vulnerable, coupled with a sense of immunity from justice, is much higher on the list. I have walked with Native American survivors of clergy sex abuse who have endured the most brutal combination of raw beatings, serial rape and sodomy in parishes and residential schools. Similar barbarities were committed by Roman Catholic clergy against children in Ireland, and likely elsewhere. While all of this happened, the "good priests and bishops" stood silent and did nothing significant to stop the atrocities. Civil authorities stave off organized crime by going after a criminal enterprise's middle management and leadership. Clericalism is no longer an academic description of a religious class system. It is a clear and present lethal force that must be confronted by good and decent people.

A person who endorses mass murder should go to communion?

That's what your liberal friends do, endorse abortion which is mass murder, is it not? Why wont the NCR start with basic facts?

Woe to the people of Philadelphia. If they didn't like Rigali they will really dislike Chaput. He is an arrogant, clerical, authoritarian archbishop.
But what else could we expect? After all, somebody has to get those "confused"
Catholics in Philadelphia in line!

Ken,
When you get one fact wrong, it makes the rest of what you say unravel quickly.

You wrote, "The same proclivity to proclaim the whole truth without a shred of doubt also came into play in his fiat that children of gay or lesbian couples wouldn't be allowed in Denver's Catholic schools, a move widely seen as a rebuke to Boston's archbishop who allowed such children to enroll."

When you say "widely seen", by whom was it "widely seen"? How could it be "widely seen" as a rebuke, when his policy came first, and the Boston policy came later?

The Denver decision came in March of 2010, and the Boston situation didn't arise until several months later, in May of 2011, with the final policy decision announced more than six months later in January of 2011. If anything, according to your logic, it would be Cardinal O'Malley's policy (that came later) "widely seen" as a rebuke to Denver.

So, what you actually mean, I think, is that Denver policy was "narrowly seen" by you, as against your viewpoint, and when you're looking for darts to throw at Chaput, you conveniently revise history and it becomes "widely seen" as a rebuke in your presentation of that revised history?

This should cause readers to question the rest of your conclusions as well.

I suppose he'll deal with clergy who have children to take into account, I'm sure there would be more than a few there too, being a "human thing" to father same.
My understanding of love also means, the loved one has someting valid to say.
Let's hear it for the fathers and their kids, where Rescripts of Legitimation, Canon 1139 have been requested and rejected to preserve the priesthood and inheritance rights.

Not mentioned in this particular article but important to note about the Chaput appointment (as mentioned elsewhere) is his stance on denying (or potentially denying) communion to those in the political and public life with respect to the issues of life and marriage. However, my question is when are those in the Church hierarchy, Chaput included, going to issue the same condemnation and refusal of the sacraments to those in the political and public life that do harm to lowly in life (i.e. the poor and infirmed, the sick, homeless and lame)? When will Chaput or Dolan deny communion to those in the business and political world that prey on the "lowliest of my brothers and sisters"?