Archbishop Chaput named to head Philadelphia see [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh for Heaven’s sake, the man is a Bishop of the Church. Whatever football team he roots for has NO bearing on the stateof his soul or his ability to get into Heaven…

…except for Dallas:D
True, God is a Cowboys fan.
 
Oh for Heaven’s sake, the man is a Bishop of the Church. Whatever football team he roots for has NO bearing on the stateof his soul or his ability to get into Heaven…

…except for Dallas:D
If Satan ever tires of the Oakland Raiders Dallas would be his second choice.
 
Oh for Heaven’s sake, the man is a Bishop of the Church. Whatever football team he roots for has NO bearing on the stateof his soul or his ability to get into Heaven…

…except for Dallas:D
Agreed…not enough hail mary’s will ever be able cure that stain upon one’s soul.
 
Congradulations to the wonderful people of Phili. Now as for the Archbishop Chaput’s replacement i can only hope that it is Bishop James Van Johnston of the diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. He has proven to be a great bishop and at least in my opinion he is ready for the pallum.
 
This is an interesting article. I would like see a greater examination of “evangelical Catholicism” and this new paradigm of Church the writer claims some bishops are operating from. How does it differ from the “Counter reformation Church” he says that others operate out of and what are the implications of this new change? He says that this new vision of Church is the true heir of the work of Vatican II. I would like to know why he thinks so. I wish the article had more detail.
 
According to what I read, a committee presented the Pope with 3 names of bishops who were possible successors to Rigali in Philadelphia. Chaput was not one of those names. The Pope decided to ignore the list and appoint Chaput instead. This speaks volumes in terms of confidence and can only be seen as a promotion for the Archbishop. Clearly, the Archbishop’s voice is one the Pope hopes to hear more of, and the fact that he has been moved closer to the Washington establishment means he will be more difficult for Catholic politicians to ignore. I don’t know what to make of Chaput personally, but it is obvious that the Pope thinks highly of what the Archbishop has been saying and doing. I think Chaput’s appointment points to the Holy Father’s desire to see a more enhanced political voice on the part of U.S. bishops. This is a very interesting turn of events for the U.S. Church.
I saw on Utube Archbishop’s address at the Baptist college in Houston. His style is not the least oratorical, and he is a really little guy. So in some ways he is like the pope. IAC, he has a tremendous ability to relate to Evangelicals. he literally speaks their language. Very good speech, even if he does read it. Not an academic, not the least bit pedantic. His manner is anything but “clerical,” Good humor, but steel underneath. More than any other saints, he brings to mind Phillip Neri and Francis De Sales.
 
This is an interesting article. I would like see a greater examination of “evangelical Catholicism” and this new paradigm of Church the writer claims some bishops are operating from. How does it differ from the “Counter reformation Church” he says that others operate out of and what are the implications of this new change? He says that this new vision of Church is the true heir of the work of Vatican II. I would like to know why he thinks so. I wish the article had more detail.
Look up Archbishop’s speech in Houston. There is nothing “baroque” in his vocabulary. He and John Wesley could have had a very long and fruitful conversation.
 
Congrats to archbishop Chaput. I was hoping he would get Boston, and if he had, some of the insanity might not have happened.
He can’t get Boston. There is already a Capuchin Franciscan Friar heading Boston. The Capuchin General Minister would not allow the two brothers to compete that way and the Holy Father would not consider creating such a conflict. Cardinal Sean has been good for Boston. We have to remember that Boston is a very tough place. I don’t envy anyone who has to run that diocese. There is too much going on.

The idea of putting Franciscans as bishops in certain places is to put in men who are faithful to the Holy Father, faithful to their religious order, are non confrontational, but are orthodox and willling to speak the truth to whomever will listen. There is another Francisan appointment. This one is a Conventual Franciscan to one of the Carolinas. I heard abou it two or three days ago.

Dominicans are also being given a number of diocese around the world for the same reason. They are faithful, good teacher, but they are not authoritarian or confrontational. They are intellectual. They appeal to the intellect of the people. The Franciscan appeals to the conscience. They have one thing in common, they are gentle.

Another group that is like this is the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, very gentle and very pastoral.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I saw on Utube Archbishop’s address at the Baptist college in Houston. His style is not the least oratorical, and he is a really little guy. So in some ways he is like the pope. IAC, he has a tremendous ability to relate to Evangelicals. he literally speaks their language. Very good speech, even if he does read it. Not an academic, not the least bit pedantic. His manner is anything but “clerical,” Good humor, but steel underneath. More than any other saints, he brings to mind Phillip Neri and Francis De Sales.
When I was a young friar, I lived with Charlie Chaput and Sean O’Malley. They were a few years older. I mention the cardinal, because they both have the same background.

They have a tremendous ability to relate to non-Catholics, because they are Capuchin Franciscans. This obedience was carved out of the larger Franciscan Order during the Reformation. They were given three missions: 1) To do penance, 2) To convert Catholics to Catholicism and 3) To rescue Protestants. Notice, they were to rescue, not convert the Protestants. They had a very clear idea that the lay Protestant of the time was really a Catholic who was following a leader that was misleading them. However, in order to bring these Catholics back into the fold, they had to get the other Catholics to knock off the nonsense that they were pandering and live the Catholic faith. They were to refer to Francis of Assisi as their example of how to live the Catholic faith. Everythng they teach is what they believe Francis would say to today’s world, in order to bring it back to Christ.

Archbishop Chaput is an academic. He was a university professor of Social Science. He also holds a doctorate in theology. He is a well known researcher in Catholic Social Teachings. His area of stongest interest is the rights of the unborn.

He has a wonderful sense of humor. He is very gentle in his approach. He is also a very good listener. He is very obedient to the Capuchin community and yes, he’s very short. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Many prayers for Philadelphia and Archbishop Chaput…

IF the liberal press was praising this appointment this week, then we’d know he wasn’t do his job as a shepherd!

May he continue to defend the Church and the Truth.
I hope he ratchets it up a notch.
 
According to what I read, a committee presented the Pope with 3 names of bishops who were possible successors to Rigali in Philadelphia. Chaput was not one of those names. The Pope decided to ignore the list and appoint Chaput instead. This speaks volumes in terms of confidence and can only be seen as a promotion for the Archbishop. Clearly, the Archbishop’s voice is one the Pope hopes to hear more of, and the fact that he has been moved closer to the Washington establishment means he will be more difficult for Catholic politicians to ignore. I don’t know what to make of Chaput personally, but it is obvious that the Pope thinks highly of what the Archbishop has been saying and doing. I think Chaput’s appointment points to the Holy Father’s desire to see a more enhanced political voice on the part of U.S. bishops. This is a very interesting turn of events for the U.S. Church.
I would take this with a grain of salt. No one really knows how this happens. The pope is given several names by the Nuncio and along with those names is a CV for each. That much is true. It is also true that the two American Franciscan bishops, Cardinal Sean of Boston and Bishop Chaput hold important Vatican assignments.

Cardinal Sean was to head of a team to help deal with the Irish problem, having the experience of Boston, this would make sense. Archbishop Chaput led the visitation of the women religious and he toned it down, because it was becoming like an investigation, which was not the intent.

He is very active in pro-life work. He is also very active in promoting vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood. He is very knowledgeable of religious life. Philadelphia, which has always been a seat of vocations for women religious, may also see many vocations to the male religious life, not necessarilly to the priesthood, though Bishop Chaput attracts those too. But the number of men coming out of Denver to join the different Franciscan brotherhoods went up significantly, the same for Boston.

One thing that people have to understand about the friars, regardless of which community they belong to, they are very faithful to their charism. This is very attractive to people, in part, because it’s a novelty. Most bishops are secular priests who come out of societies or dioceses. Very few bishops are friars.

A friar walks, talks, acts, thinks, prays, works and interacts like a friar. The difference is the charism. The Dominican, Franciscan or Carmelite, each one has a different charism, but they are very different from other Catholic men. Philadelphia will have its own friar.

Savannah is also getting its own Franciscan Friar, Friar Gregory Hartmayer, OFM Conv. Someone wrote me and told me this. I was pleasantly surprised.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
According to what I read, a committee presented the Pope with 3 names of bishops who were possible successors to Rigali in Philadelphia. Chaput was not one of those names. The Pope decided to ignore the list and appoint Chaput instead. This speaks volumes in terms of confidence and can only be seen as a promotion for the Archbishop. Clearly, the Archbishop’s voice is one the Pope hopes to hear more of, and the fact that he has been moved closer to the Washington establishment means he will be more difficult for Catholic politicians to ignore. I don’t know what to make of Chaput personally, but it is obvious that the Pope thinks highly of what the Archbishop has been saying and doing. I think Chaput’s appointment points to the Holy Father’s desire to see a more enhanced political voice on the part of U.S. bishops. This is a very interesting turn of events for the U.S. Church.
If you have a reference, I would be interested in reading it…

…with the appropriate grain of salt.
 
There are a few things that we must understand here. They are not necessary to become bishop, just interesting tid-bits.

The Holy Father has a very special affection for the Franciscan family and the Jesuits. They hold a very special place in his heart. He has given both families a lot of personal attention. He does not ignore other religious families, not at all. The Jesuits and Franciscans were very powerful in sustaining German Catholics during WW II. He has gone out of his way to be with them and to talk to them.

The Franciscans and the Dominicans are very well known for their preaching. Though they do it differently, they are good communicators. Right now, the Church needs bishops who are good communicators. I think we’re going to be seeing more bishops who are skilled in that area, not just Franciscan and Dominican.

There is a genuine need for the bishops of the USA to become more vocal in the political scene. The Holy Father wants to see this. He definitely wants to see the bishops tell the politicians what is right and wrong. He wants to see the bishops tell the laity how to deal with the politicians in a way that protects the right of the Church to be free of influence from the State, but does not leave the state room to be free of the Church’s moral guidance.

Catholics in the USA have allowed the government too much freedom. Bl. John Paul said this to American Catholics on several occasions. I remember when he came to Baltimore, he blasted American Catholics for allowing the State to regulate morality. He argued that American Catholics had not made good use of democracy by making it a goal in life rather than a means for evangelization. Pope Benedict feels the same way. When he speaks to American clergy and religious, this is his constant theme.

We live in a society where religion is to be free from the interference of the State. We should take advantage of that freedom to tell the State what is right and what is wrong and to guide the State. We have misunderstood. We have supported the myth that says there is such a thing as separation between Church and State. This is impossible, because the men and women who make up the Church are citizens of this nation. We have the right to demand that the State listen and that the State not trespass in areas of faith and morals.

The Founding Fathers never said there was such a separation. In fact, Jefferson said that the state could not exist without religion. The State was to stay out of religion, not religion out of the State. The Constitution does not say separation of Church and State. The presidents who have governed our nation have always invoked God. Congress begins the day with prayer. In fact, it’s new chaplain is a Jesuit priest, theologian and lawyer.

This brings us back to the Archbishop. Archbishop Chaput has a good command of the concept Church-State relations. He has a good understanding of the Church’s rights over citizens of every nation. At the same time, he communicates it with great love. He is very much like St. John Bosco who said, “Tell them that you love them by loving them.”

We now have several bishops in key dioceses who are not afraid of the State and who are not afraid of Catholics. They come with courage, but also with trust. Archbishop Chaput is one of those men. These men trust God and they also trust the American Catholic.

They know that the American Catholic can be loud, rude, arrogant, disobedient, and at times immoral. However, beneath all of that bravado, the American Catholic has a history of work, sacrifice, suffering and success. Our ancestors came to this country as poor hungry immigrants. We have survived against the odds. I believe that men like Archbishop Chaput know how to speak to that inner man hidden inside every American Catholic.

Some people already hate him. The majority of those who hate him are Catholic. Fortunately, very few people hate him, so it’s a small majority. He’s a very holy man and a strong man. I think he will be good for the East Coast. I’m finding the lineup in the key dioceses of the East Coast to be very interesting. They are all bishops who are not afraid of criticism, each one, in his own way, is an advocate for the most vulnerable.

Just take a look:

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington
Atlanta
Miami

Each is very different from the other, but they all have two things in common:

a) compassionate

b) not afraid of the State

I do believe we’re seeing the beginning of a face-off between the State and the Church in the USA and at some point, Catholics will have to make some tough choices. I believe we’re going to see many Thomas Mores and unfortunately, a few Cardinal Wolseys.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top