Archbishop Chaput calls for resistance to intolerance of Christianity [CNA]

[CNA_News]

feedads.g.doubleclick.net/%7Ea/AG-NCebZhSI92aGs_nUz1Bm0wFc/0/di
feedads.g.doubleclick.net/%7Ea/AG-NCebZhSI92aGs_nUz1Bm0wFc/1/di
Spisske Podhradie, Slovakia, Aug 25, 2010 / 05:48 am (CNA).- Addressing the first session of the 15th symposium for the Canon Law Association of Slovakia on Tuesday, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver called for Catholics in America and Europe to oppose the rise of a “state-encouraged atheism” which reduces religion to “an individual lifestyle accessory” incapable of influencing the world. The archbishop exhorted Christians to respond to these trends by rediscovering their historic faith as the only sound basis for a just society.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/l8RGHk6SW38

Full article…

 

[timotheos]

Hmmm. Could it be said that only in a Judao-Christian nation, any and all beliefs have the best-defended protection, freedom and opportunity to seek truth? And if you change the Judao-Christian underpinnings of a nation to any other basis (eg. secular atheism, or Islam), some protections, freedoms and opportunities would become lost to some degree?

Why is it wrong to defend our Christian national identity when it provides the best situation for the existence of a pleuralistic society? Shouldn’t tolerance have limits, set precisely at those points where our Christian national identity is in danger of being lost?

Are we to be so tolerant as to, through numbers or intimidation, hand the reins of power over to a non-Christian identity for our governance, and hope they govern us with the same tolerance?

Are we so self-assured of our system that we think this could never happen? Are we so naive as to think that none of these groups actually seek this scenario?

 

[GraceSofia]

I thought this was a brillian speech by the good archbishop!

Why is it wrong to defend our Christian national identity when it provides the best situation for the existence of a pleuralistic society? Shouldn’t tolerance have limits, set precisely at those points where our Christian national identity is in danger of being lost?

Are we to be so tolerant as to, through numbers or intimidation, hand the reins of power over to a non-Christian identity for our governance, and hope they govern us with the same tolerance?

Are we so self-assured of our system that we think this could never happen? Are we so naive as to think that none of these groups actually seek this scenario?

They use our laws against us in the free West. The first problem is that the secular humanist types are not on the same page with us at all, and don’t seem to see that everything is being chucked down the memory hole.
If we could get enough people convinced of the danger threatening Western freedom, then what? In some Muslim countries they say that Islam is the truth and anything that threatens Muslim culture or tradition is either illegal or so frowned upon that it is only done in private.
I wonder whether we in the West could make laws that safeguard Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions, and outlaw religions that are a threat to our freedom. As I’m writing, I’m thinking to myself, in your dreams. I think we have to wait until things get much worse before people realise what the situation was and is.

I think we are already at the point that the civil religion is “inhuman humanism.”

 

[rlg94086]

Like Communism, he explained, today’s secularist ideology envisions “a society apart from God” where “men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves,” sharing no higher guiding principle than “satisfying their needs and desires.”
…
The Denver archbishop also underscored** the difference between “freedom of worship” and the “freedom of religion,” **noting that the former is a “much smaller and more restrictive idea” in which religion has a place “but only as an individual lifestyle accessory.” On the other hand, “freedom of religion” includes “the right to preach, teach, assemble, organize, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith.”
…
A comprehensive attack on religious freedom, and specifically upon Christianity, the archbishop explained, has already begun. He told the Slovakian audience that this attack promotes an “aggressively secular political vision and a consumerist economic model.” Its end goal, he said, is to replace God and the Church with technology and social engineering

I need to find the full transcript of this speech. It appears that Archbishop Chaput has, once again, clearly articulated today’s societal trends. I know there are fans of radical secularism on our forum, and I hope they will open their minds and hearts to what the Archbishop is saying.

 

[rlg94086]

I need to find the full transcript of this speech. It appears that Archbishop Chaput has, once again, clearly articulated today’s societal trends. I know there are fans of radical secularism on our forum, and I hope they will open their minds and hearts to what the Archbishop is saying.

Here is the full speech: archden.org/index.cfm/ID/4396

Today’s secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.

 

[Milesius]

Full text is well worth reading.

 

[rlg94086]

Full text is well worth reading.

I agree.

Archbishop Chaput is my favorite Bishop! I would move back to Denver just to be in his diocese again, but with my luck he would be elevated to Cardinal and leave right after I got there.

 

[Servulus]

Are we to be so tolerant as to, through numbers or intimidation, hand the reins of power over to a non-Christian identity for our governance, and hope they govern us with the same tolerance?

Good point. G. K. Chesterton seemed to be addressing the same question when he wrote, “Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

 

[JW10631]

Archbishop Chaput is an excellent speaker and communicator.
I wish he were more welcoming of the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[rlg94086]

Archbishop Chaput is an excellent speaker and communicator.
I wish he were more welcoming of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Has he turned down requests for the TLM and/or made negative comments about it? I did a search before one of my trips, and noticed an FSSP parish in Littleton. I don’t know if people have run into roadblocks or not.

In our Archdiocese (Seattle), the TLM is slowly spreading. Our Archbishop is supportive, but the FSSP priest I spoke with told me to be patient and *not *to contact the Archdiocese about expansion to my area. There is a plan. It will be here in the future, but they are looking at gradual expansion.

 

[Janet_S]

I liked his speech.

At this time, the secularists are tolerant of Muslims, but intolerant of the Christians. If the secularists can get rid of the Christians, and society becomes Muslim/secularist what will that be like?

What is it that secularists see in the Muslims that they like so much?

Or is it that the secularists hate Christianity so much they will be friends with anyone the Christians oppose?

 

[Milesius]

Archbishop Chaput allows the FSSP to operate in his territory and there are 4 locations where the Latin Mass is available which I am aware of in his territory, they are Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Littleton (15 Latin Masses here a week). That covers most of the major places in Denver seems to me.

 

[Tigg]

Archbishop Chaput is my favorite Bishop! I would move back to Denver just to be in his diocese again, but with my luck he would be elevated to Cardinal and leave right after I got there.

One of my favorites, too. Well, let’s hope it happens so he can be in the same court as Ouellet!

 

[JW10631]

Archbishop Chaput allows the FSSP to operate in his territory and there are 4 locations where the Latin Mass is available which I am aware of in his territory, they are Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Littleton (15 Latin Masses here a week). That covers most of the major places in Denver seems to me.

I am referring to a quote the good Archbishop made where he said that he prefers the “creativity” of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. My comment was not meant to be a criticism of the good Archbishop. I wish more were like him. I do wish he were more welcoming of the Extraordinary Form in his own personal view.

 

[rlg94086]

I am referring to a quote the good Archbishop made where he said that he prefers the “creativity” of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. My comment was not meant to be a criticism of the good Archbishop. I wish more were like him. I do wish he were more welcoming of the Extraordinary Form in his own personal view.

Could you provide a citation for that? I’d be curious to read the comment in context.

I’m personally torn between the EF and OF. If done in Latin and ad orientem, then I actually prefer the OF; however, that is rare. Due to the consistency of the EF, I am drawn to it more and more…even though I’ve only heard it once. If we were to move away from our current parish (not perfect, but we chant the Common prayers in Latin and have an excellent Schola) or if our parish dropped the Mass we attend, we would go EF.

 

[GraceSofia]

What is it that secularists see in the Muslims that they like so much?

They see what they want to see. If they examined Islam closely, they wouldn’t be so thrilled with it.
Part of the attraction is that it seems novel, dangerous, exotic, different (Westerners have a fascination with other cultures which most other cultures do not share), and because the mainstream media has glamourised the Palestinians, possibly because of latent anti-jewish feelings. The Palestinians have been the darlings of the MSM for decades now, and their atrocities are usually given a pass.

Or is it that the secularists hate Christianity so much they will be friends with anyone the Christians oppose?

I think so, yes. Somehow, Christianity has become incorrectly identified in some people’s minds as a white man’s religion (hence conversion of black Americans to Islam), a Western religion, the establishment; it is cutting-edge cool to be against it in the elite worlds of politics and higher education. However, what that animosity really shows is that these people have little understanding of their own culture’s history and achievements.

 

[Santi2]

I liked his speech.

At this time, the secularists are tolerant of Muslims, but intolerant of the Christians. If the secularists can get rid of the Christians, and society becomes Muslim/secularist what will that be like?

What is it that secularists see in the Muslims that they like so much?

Or is it that the secularists hate Christianity so much they will be friends with anyone the Christians oppose?

Secularists do not favour one faith community over another. I am inclined to believe that they only seem to be “tolerant” of Muslims because they fear the violent repercussions of past events, which were brought about by conduct offensive to the Islamic faith and culture.

Would Islam take control of society as a result? Unlikely. Simply because secularists will never be rid of Christianity.