Archbishop Charles J. Chaput on Nasty Emails

[JPUSC]

Another exchange that caught my attention came between Chaput and Patricia Zapor, of Catholic News Service, who asked the archbishop about the vitriolic nature of so much e-mail about Catholic issues – something I experience in the comments on this blog.

This is what Chaput said:

"I used to get some hate mail before I was online, but not nearly as much as I did afterwards. I think the way that we have immediate access, which means we immediately speak out of our emotions rather than write a letter, send it the next day, you might change your mind. Instead you write it and you push the button to “show them,” you know, that kind of thing.

So I think our immediate ability to communicate has led to a coarsening discourse for one thing. I gave a talk recently – I think it may have been when I was in Toronto, where I said that the Lord reminds us that we are sheep among wolves, but it’s important for us not to become wolves ourselves because of our experience, and I think that often happens.

Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean."

And then, reflecting on the difference between e-mail from liberals and conservatives, he said:

"The left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul."

boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/03/catholics_commu.html

Hey people…be nice!

 

[luminoushope]

JPUSC:
For me, having a computer and email is a mixed blessing. In 1979, a souped-up typewriter with a one-line disply and little data discs was placed on my desk at work. I noticed immediately a change in the writing process and thinking process. I became less thoughtful, less careful. I knew I had crossed a line that I could never cross back over. This is so much amplified now with email. I’ve agreed with my far-away family that anything of real importance will be communicated in handwritten letters.

I deplore meanness in email, whether by me or someone else. It is such a callous form of sin! Many years ago, before I was even a Christian, let alone an aspiring Catholic, I saw a quote from Mother Teresa about how all those who have the pen in their hand must always use it to build up, not tear down, must always use it in love and integrity. I would like to say that these concepts are ever before me…

 

[JReducation]

This is very sad.

"Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write.

The left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul."

Archbishop Chaput has gone on the line for the right to life as much as many other Catholics in this counry. He does not deserve to receive mean e-mails. In addition, this is a very humble friar who has done more than his share to overcome many obstacles and bring the people of Denver together in many times of crisis.

I remember Columbine. He was there for his people. At the time he was a newly consecrated bishop, a young friar and as much in shock as anyone else. He offered all the services that the Archdiocese had at their disposal to the students, teachers and families at that school without any reservation about who was Catholic or not.

He has defended the right to life against some very mean and hard-hearted people. He has doubled the number of Capuchin Friars serving in his diocese, something that the Capuchins did not have to do, but they did it at the request of his brother who wanted the friars to serve the poorest of the poor. He persuaded them to leave other dioceses and ministries among the middle and upper classes and come live and work among the poor of his diocese.

He has supported the crusade to raise the quality of seminary education for secular priests in Denver.

From the time that he was a young brother he was always the most humble and the most sensitive to the needs of God’s people and his brothers. He has always been a kind and honest man and deserves to be treated accordingly.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[rlg94086]

This is very sad.

Archbishop Chaput has gone on the line for the right to life as much as many other Catholics in this counry. He does not deserve to receive mean e-mails. In addition, this is a very humble friar who has done more than his share to overcome many obstacles and bring the people of Denver together in many times of crisis.

I remember Columbine. He was there for his people. At the time he was a newly consecrated bishop, a young friar and as much in shock as anyone else. He offered all the services that the Archdiocese had at their disposal to the students, teachers and families at that school without any reservation about who was Catholic or not.

He has defended the right to life against some very mean and hard-hearted people. He has doubled the number of Capuchin Friars serving in his diocese, something that the Capuchins did not have to do, but they did it at the request of his brother who wanted the friars to serve the poorest of the poor. He persuaded them to leave other dioceses and ministries among the middle and upper classes and come live and work among the poor of his diocese.

He has supported the crusade to raise the quality of seminary education for secular priests in Denver.

From the time that he was a young brother he was always the most humble and the most sensitive to the needs of God’s people and his brothers. He has always been a kind and honest man and deserves to be treated accordingly.

Fraternally,

JR

I agree. He does not deserve mean emails at all - left or right. He is very calm and charitable in his demeanor. My experience when he was my Archbishop is that he also has a sort of presence of holiness when you meet him in person.

I think his insight about the “immediate speaking out of our emotions” is dead on. I, for one, will take his comments to heart and try to do better in my responses by email in and in CAF posts.

 

[JReducation]

I agree. He does not deserve mean emails at all - left or right. He is very calm and charitable in his demeanor. My experience when he was my Archbishop is that he also has a sort of presence of holiness when you meet him in person.

I think his insight about the “immediate speaking out of our emotions” is dead on. I, for one, will take his comments to heart and try to do better in my responses by email in and in CAF posts.

The bold is mine.

I believe that you have picked up one of the most important lessons to be learned from this report. I too shall keep it in mind. Thank you for pointing it out.

We are not each others masters, but each others brothers and sisters.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Darryl1958]

I find his contrast between the negative e-mails of the right and the left very interesting. He notes the crudeness, the foulness and the name-calling on the left, but finds the conservative negative e-mailing nevertheless to be meaner than this, in spite of the fact that the such e-mail lacks the profanity of the former.
As somewhat of a conservative myself, I find this to be quite gratifying. A negative argument made without name-calling, without foulness, but instead relying on impassioned venomous arguments alone really ought to cut deeper and aim more accurately than one that flies off the handle without aim or direction. Such an argument really ought to pierce to the core better than one that is rage without substance. If the aim is negative then such an argument ought to be like a scourge, an arrow piercing the very heart of the subject who is the target of such wrath.
It is satisfying to hear that this is exactly the effect that such an argument has on the one that you disagree with.

And it is not a bad thing either to hear that the bishops himself finds his response to such an e-mail to be rather unkind. As long as the bishop himself does not begin to employ the leftist tactic of profanity and name-calling, there is a chance for a real discussion in such an exchange.

 

[JReducation]

I find his contrast between the negative e-mails of the right and the left very interesting. He notes the crudeness, the foulness and the name-calling on the left, but finds the conservative negative e-mailing nevertheless to be meaner than this, in spite of the fact that the such e-mail lacks the profanity of the former.
As somewhat of a conservative myself, I find this to be quite gratifying. A negative argument made without name-calling, without foulness, but instead relying on impassioned venomous arguments alone really ought to cut deeper and aim more accurately than one that flies off the handle without aim or direction. Such an argument really ought to pierce to the core better than one that is rage without substance. If the aim is negative then such an argument ought to be like a scourge, an arrow piercing the very heart of the subject who is the target of such wrath.
It is satisfying to hear that this is exactly the effect that such an argument has on the one that you disagree with.

And it is not a bad thing either to hear that the bishops himself finds his response to such an e-mail to be rather unkind. As long as the bishop himself does not begin to employ the leftist tactic of profanity and name-calling, there is a chance for a real discussion in such an exchange.

I don’t find anything gratifying about either being foul or mean. Foul is ignorant and a crude and ineffective way of coping. Mean seeks to hurt Where is the virtue on either side? No one deserves either.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I don’t find anything gratifying about either being foul or mean. Foul is ignorant and a crude and ineffective way of coping. Mean seeks to hurt Where is the virtue on either side? No one deserves either.

Fraternally,

JR

Definately not. Personally, I can’t help but agree with the Archbishop: Liberals being nasty tend to wind up sounding like twelve-year olds using dirty language to shock their parents, and I wind up shaking my head over that kind of behavior for its absurdity. But conservatives being nasty. :: Shudder:: That you can’t laugh at since they’re much more coherent and it’s a more cold-blooded sort of hostility.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t find anything gratifying about either being foul or mean. Foul is ignorant and a crude and ineffective way of coping. Mean seeks to hurt Where is the virtue on either side? No one deserves either.

Fraternally,

JR

That is a good response.I can understand it.

Personally I prefer meanness when it comes from the heart rather than a saccharine coated response that hides what is in the heart. Saccharine does not enable deep conversation but inhibits it. It is like slogging through a beach full of mush when you are having a conversation with a person who feel compelled to give sugar and hide what is in the heart. It hides what is in the heart rather than reveals it. Passionate anger over a Father Jenkins for example, and an anger directed toward a church either unable or unwilling to deal with its church members complicit in evil may certainly come off as mean, and is mean.
But that is not the central question. The central question is whether or not it is mean, but wheter or not it is true.

A mean response can be is real. A saccharine response is not.

And foulness, I agree is immature, uncivilized, and inneffective. The bishop is not the first to notice how much the ‘f’ word is definining the communicaton of the left.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think when Jesus spoke the truth His Words often came across as judgmental and quite mean. Yet, were they mean, or just simply the truth?

Perhaps, and I say clearly “perhaps,” some of those emails from the right hit home with the good Bishop and he took them as being mean. After all, few people react well to well targeted and mature criticism at first thought. It sometimes takes time to reflect on the criticism in order to realize the truth, and when one finds he is convicted by that criticism, they cease thinking it is mean.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think when Jesus spoke the truth His Words often came across as judgmental and quite mean. Yet, were they mean, or just simply the truth?

Perhaps, and I say clearly “perhaps,” some of those emails from the right hit home with the good Bishop and he took them as being mean. After all, few people react well to well targeted and mature criticism at first thought. It sometimes takes time to reflect on the criticism in order to realize the truth, and when one finds he is convicted by that criticism, they cease thinking it is mean.

Of course I agree with this. the issue is were the words in the e-mail designed to injure the bishop, or was the intent to express the truth. And while we can never fully discern the intent of the heart, it is nevertheless telling to note that the bishop states that there was no name-calling aka ad hominem involved in this type of e-mail. The vitriol was a burn against the bishop’s decisions then more than against his character.

The focus of the attack was on behavior and not character .It leaves it open to believe that the intent was to modify behavior rather than to hurt the bishop.

 

[irishpatrick]

Of course I agree with this. the issue is were the words in the e-mail designed to injure the bishop, or was the intent to express the truth. And while we can never fully discern the intent of the heart, it is nevertheless telling to note that the bishop states that there was no name-calling aka ad hominem involved in this type of e-mail. The vitriol was a burn against the bishop’s decisions then more than against his character.

The focus of the attack was on behavior and not character .It leaves it open to believe that the intent was to modify behavior rather than to hurt the bishop.

I agree and I think it is at least possible that the Bishop does not want to make changes people clamored for, so he calls their emails mean. We are all human and fall towards our own weaknesses more often then not.

 

[JReducation]

There is an assumption here that what the writers are asking the bishop is good or right. We should not make those assumptions based on a few posts online.

In addition, we have to look at the person. In this case Archbishop Chaput. The man has a history that is impeccable. His credibility is good. If he says that the e-mails are mean and the other side are vulgar, it is more likely than not that they are.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[irishpatrick]

There is an assumption here that what the writers are asking the bishop is good or right. We should not make those assumptions based on a few posts online.

In addition, we have to look at the person. In this case Archbishop Chaput. The man has a history that is impeccable. His credibility is good. If he says that the e-mails are mean and the other side are vulgar, it is more likely than not that they are.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

JR

I seriously doubt that all of the emails from the left or right were as the good Bishop said. I am guessing that some of them from the left were vulgar as he said, and some of them from the right were mean as he said. Yet, the Bishop did make some sweeping generalities with his statement.

 

[luminoushope]

It’s discussions like this that tempt me to throw my laptop in the trash. As an aspiring Catholic, overwhelmingly drawn by the Church’s teachings on love and sacrifice, I’m especially grieved to find such contentious stuff in a Catholic venue.

For Archbishop Chaput:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[johnnykins]

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Let’s see what the Bishops have done/not done over the last few years that might have something to do with nasty emails.

1.They have largely allowed - and often pushed - the Mass into a banal show where few, often including the priest, actually believe what the Church teaches about the Mass. (Go to Mass at almost any parish in the country)

2, They put dissenters into Pastoral Associates positions - and often even Pastorates. Often they leave them there even when the dissent is brought to their attention. (How many sister PA’s and gay pastors can we name?)

1. They have largely failed in catechesis for 40+ years.(Just ask a Catholic in the pews a question about the faith.)
2. They enabled, sometimes participated in, sexual abuse of minor, seminarians and those under their care. (Don’t need to go too far for this one.)
3. They often have acted repeatedly in a highhanded, brutish manner in parish closings. (Have they even thought of actually planning and meeting - but it’s so much simpler to just force the issue)

7.They have largely ignored implementing various directives of Vatican II - preservation of Latin, e.g. (The web with access to English versions of the documents of Vatican II clearly show the lie they perpetrated as the “Spirit of Vatican II”)

1. Their lack of backbone, even when they are actually orthodox which is not always the case, in reining in dissenters, abusers, heterodox teachers and pastors over 40+ years is wearing thin.
2. Deflecting blame to others - especially the laity - for their own lack of alacrity in defending the faith, teaching the faith and preserving the faith - is wearing thin.
3. SOOO often they react only to money - or rather the lack of it. Cardinals promise to shed their blood if necessary to defend the faith. Red blood they willing promise to shed (of course that’s a very small likelihood), but RED INK - heaven forbid!! (try the Caritas contract controversy that is swirling. e.g.)

Don’t get me wrong, Bishop Chaput and many others are trying to turn a battleship here that’s been off course for some time. Many Bishops, such as Bishop Chaput, are simply seeing the results of their predecessors acts/omissions.

Also, I’m not saying that emails are not and cannot be inappropriate, but I honestly fear many “inappropriate” ones are probably “inappropriate” because they call the Bishop to task - and he doesn’t like it! What he really dislikes is someone telling him he’s wrong - especially if he’s conflicted.

I suggest the Bishops start doing their jobs as a group. It’s starting, but there are plenty of questionable Bishops still out there. there are plenty of questionable actions/non-actions of good Bishops out there. Vatican II called for involvement of the laity - so was the claim - welcome to the laity questioning you, Bishop.

 

[JReducation]

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Let’s see what the Bishops have done/not done over the last few years that might have something to do with nasty emails.

1.They have largely allowed - and often pushed - the Mass into a banal show where few, often including the priest, actually believe what the Church teaches about the Mass. (Go to Mass at almost any parish in the country)

2, They put dissenters into Pastoral Associates positions - and often even Pastorates. Often they leave them there even when the dissent is brought to their attention. (How many sister PA’s and gay pastors can we name?)

1. They have largely failed in catechesis for 40+ years.(Just ask a Catholic in the pews a question about the faith.)
2. They enabled, sometimes participated in, sexual abuse of minor, seminarians and those under their care. (Don’t need to go too far for this one.)
3. They often have acted repeatedly in a highhanded, brutish manner in parish closings. (Have they even thought of actually planning and meeting - but it’s so much simpler to just force the issue)

7.They have largely ignored implementing various directives of Vatican II - preservation of Latin, e.g. (The web with access to English versions of the documents of Vatican II clearly show the lie they perpetrated as the “Spirit of Vatican II”)

1. Their lack of backbone, even when they are actually orthodox which is not always the case, in reining in dissenters, abusers, heterodox teachers and pastors over 40+ years is wearing thin.
2. Deflecting blame to others - especially the laity - for their own lack of alacrity in defending the faith, teaching the faith and preserving the faith - is wearing thin.
3. SOOO often they react only to money - or rather the lack of it. Cardinals promise to shed their blood if necessary to defend the faith. Red blood they willing promise to shed (of course that’s a very small likelihood), but RED INK - heaven forbid!! (try the Caritas contract controversy that is swirling. e.g.)

Don’t get me wrong, Bishop Chaput and many others are trying to turn a battleship here that’s been off course for some time. Many Bishops, such as Bishop Chaput, are simply seeing the results of their predecessors acts/omissions.

Also, I’m not saying that emails are not and cannot be inappropriate, but I honestly fear many “inappropriate” ones are probably “inappropriate” because they call the Bishop to task - and he doesn’t like it! What he really dislikes is someone telling him he’s wrong - especially if he’s conflicted.

I suggest the Bishops start doing their jobs as a group. It’s starting, but there are plenty of questionable Bishops still out there. there are plenty of questionable actions/non-actions of good Bishops out there. Vatican II called for involvement of the laity - so was the claim - welcome to the laity questioning you, Bishop.

If we read the Bishop’s comments, he’s not complaining about people expressing concerns or asking questions. He’s simply saying that there have been e-mails that are mean and others that are vulgar.

Why can’t we give the man the benefit of the doubt? All people deserve this.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[johnnykins]

No doubt foul language is inappropriate.

What exactly “meaner” is, is unclear. Certainly “meaner” could be inappropriate.

I simply no longer give the benefit of the doubt to Bishops - the Bishops as a group have squandered that good will. I question them and their motives - their bona fides. The sex scandal indeed was a watershed.

Everything I have read about Bishop Chaput indicates he is a good man, a good Bishop. However, he is tarred with the same brush as those who are/were not. I know there are many who also will not give the benefit of the doubt until that trust is re-earned. Bishop Chaput is, perhaps, one who will help re-establish that trust. But, I for one am not ready to go down that road, yet.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

BTW, try reading the documents of Vatican II - and see if you can get to the state of the liturgy actually performed. Has your parish seen to it that Latin is preserved and the laity know the responses? Has Denver implemented a program for that purpose as set forth in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

**Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
**(emphasis added)
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

I sure haven’t see it in my parish - though it does use some Latin.

And, I note the references to Latin only because they are so easy to implement. Nothing except inertia is holding any Bishop back, including Bishop Chaput, from implementing it. There are many other examples in the Vatican II documents.

Tell you what, when I hear that Bishop Chaput has started implementing the preservation of Latin and teaching the laity the Latin prayers as set forth above, I will start giving him the benefit of the doubt. Until then, he still has to earn it as far as I’m concerned. Until then, he hasn’t even bothered to actually implement Vatican II.

 

[rlg94086]

No doubt foul language is inappropriate.

What exactly “meaner” is, is unclear. Certainly “meaner” could be inappropriate.

**I simply no longer give the benefit of the doubt to Bishops - the Bishops as a group have squandered that good will. ** I question them and their motives - their bona fides. The sex scandal indeed was a watershed.

Everything I have read about Bishop Chaput indicates he is a good man, a good Bishop. However, he is tarred with the same brush as those who are/were not. I know there are many who also will not give the benefit of the doubt until that trust is re-earned. Bishop Chaput is, perhaps, one who will help re-establish that trust. But, I for one am not ready to go down that road, yet.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

BTW, try reading the documents of Vatican II - and see if you can get to the state of the liturgy actually performed. Has your parish seen to it that Latin is preserved and the laity know the responses? Has Denver implemented a program for that purpose as set forth in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

I sure haven’t see it in my parish - though it does use some Latin.

And, I note the references to Latin only because they are so easy to implement. Nothing except inertia is holding any Bishop back, including Bishop Chaput, from implementing it. There are many other examples in the Vatican II documents.

Tell you what, when I hear that Bishop Chaput has started implementing the preservation of Latin and teaching the laity the Latin prayers as set forth above, I will start giving him the benefit of the doubt. Until then, he still has to earn it as far as I’m concerned. Until then, he hasn’t even bothered to actually implement Vatican II.

That’s pretty harsh johnnykins. I guess I can understand what Bishop Chaput was getting at when he mentioned “mean” emails.

Perhaps God isn’t going to give you the benefit of doubt and will judge you harshly for your sins? I certainly hope I don’t get what I deserve.

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to try to show a closer image of the Archbishop Chaput, but what I’m going to say about him can apply to anyone.

It is important to look at the Archbishop’s roots. Charles Chaput is a Capuchin Franciscan Friar. When the Church decided to consecrate bishops from among the Capuchin friars she knew of their tradition, their history and their rule of life. She approved of it and she expected them to continue to live by it, even if they are bishops. This was always the agreement between the order and the Holy See. This dates back to the time of St. Bonaventure and Pope Nicholas IV, both friars who lived in the same century as St. Francis and knew the mind of Francis through first generation contact with him and Pope Honorius who approved the final edition of the rule, as well as Gregory IX who had been the Cardinal Protector of the order while he was Cardinal Hugolino.

All that historical background being said, let’s look at what the issue seems to be here. The Archbishop is saying that some of the e-mails he gets are mean and others are vulgar. He does not say that all are, but many. Some may not like the fact that he says the conservative e-mails are the meaner of the two. But liberals probably do not like the fact that he says that their side is more vulgar.

Traditionally, Francis opposed all rebellion against the hierarchy. He strongly believed that the priesthood, the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance were to be pre-eminent. Therefore, it was for the friars to promote the Eucharist, to promote respect for priests and bishops and to promote the frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance. It is inconsistent with Francis’ demands of his friars that they condemn individuals. Rather, their mission is to be brothers to those who need the Eucharist, the priesthood and reconciliation, to brign men back by reaching out to them as they are. They were to bring these brothers and sisters to the Church through their own adherence to the faith. In Francis’ mind there is a clear difference between faith and discipline. He is not against discipline, whether they are ecclesial disciplines or other. But he does not put them above faith in the efficaciousness of the sacraments.

It stands to reason that a Capuchin Franciscan friar who is a bishop is going to promote faith over discipline and use faith to draw men back to Christ, not the rod… Why not? Because this is not the way of his spiritual father and it is forbidden to him by his spiritual father to use this method.

During Francis’ times there were other orthodox movements that condemned the errors in the Church. Francis wrote his brothers to focus on the Gospel instead. In the Gospel they would find the Church as she should be.

They should submit to priests, bishops and popes regardless of how sinful they may be. Because the Church in the Gospel was a Church built upon the faith of Peter, not upon the virtues of man. It stands to reason that a Capuchin bishop would live by this rule. If he did not, he would be a failure at his primary call, to be a Franciscan.

When he was elevated to be a cardinal St. Bonaventure clarified to his brothers that he was first a friar and the rest was a call within the call. He had accepted to be a bishop out of obedience. It was not something that he sought or that any friar should choose or aspire to. This is forbidden in the rule of St. Francis.

Bishop Chaput’s demeanor is very consistent with that of Bonaventure. Bonaventure fought errors through his writings, but in his person he was the servant of all, especially the most sinful. When he was superior general of the order he worked in the kitchen as the cook. With Aquinas and others, he was the most humble of the Church’s giants, judging what is wrong, but dealing with each person in a humble way. Look at someone like Fr. Groeschel. He speaks one way, but interacts very differently. He too is part of the Capuchin Franciscan tradition.

In his letter to the faithful, which he wrote to his faithful sons and daughters, not to the entire Church, Francis wrote that they must fight errors and heresies by being Catholic. For Francis, the response to the call to love is the personal conversion of each of his sons and daughters, not a campaign. Others who see them will follow by their example, not their hostility or harshness. Bishop Chaput lives this in his manner of speaking and dealing with those who are at odds with the Church. He models for them the Catholic life, even admitting that he often fails to be as charitable as he ought to be in his responses.

It should come as no surprise to the laity, that if the Church chooses to consecrate Capuchin friars as bishops, they are going to be very different. They are not going to be authoritative. Instead, they are going to be like Francis, Brother Guardians. Being authoritative is not part of their way of life. These friars are going to be fraternal. They are going to be popular in the sense of belonging to the common class, which is consistent with their vocation to the Capuchin Franciscan life. They will combat error in their lives by being Catholic, allowing others to see their gentle example.

Like this, I’m sure that there are many other bishops, who are not Capuchins but who come from a very similar spiritual model. If the laity has a problem with this model, then it should request of the Holy See not to consecrate Capuchin Franciscan friars as bishops.

Like the first Christians, we often have to accept that the apostles are not perfect, but they are trying.

Fraternally,

JR