Archbishop Charles J. Chaput on Nasty Emails

[RobbyS]

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 would never “disrespect” the President of the United States to his face or even in an e-mail I certainly would not do the same to a bishop, even one whom I disrespected.

 

[JReducation]

I would never “disrespect” the President of the United States to his face or even in an e-mail I certainly would not do the same to a bishop, even one whom I disrespected.

Showing disrespect is not a solution to any problem. I agree with you. As our holy father Francis always modeled for us, along with many other saints, the fact that something is effective does not make it right.

The old excuse that Jesus chased the money lenders out of the temple and turned over their tables doesn’t work. Exegesis tells us that Christ was chasing out those who were usign the house of God to exploit and hurt the poor and the simple man. In reality, Christ is not protecting a building, but the real temple of the Holy Spirit, man. This action is consistent with Christ’s action on the cross.

We want to punish those who do not follow the rules, but forget that the rules must protect man. Therefore, we must defend human dignity as Christ did.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[rlg94086]

But liberals probably do not like the fact that he says that their side is more vulgar.

Only Catholic liberals. Secular liberals seem to revel in their vulgarity.

 

[RobbyS]

Only Catholic liberals. Secular liberals seem to revel in their vulgarity.

Vulgarity may be going out of style. Clean comedians are making a come-back. People have been hearing blue comedy since Lenny Bruce and Red Foxx. It gets old. The funny thing is that many young people think that Jack Benny is funny. I don’t think that Benny ever told a dirty joke in his life.

 

[JReducation]

Only Catholic liberals. Secular liberals seem to revel in their vulgarity.

I had not stopped to think about this. You may be right.

On the other hand . . . maybe secular liberals don’t revel in their vulgarity as they would like others to think.

Durng my own life I know there were moments in my past where I reveled in things that were wrong. Now that I can look back I realize that I really did not revel at all. Instead, I was empty and this was a way of filling my cup with something that looked like sweet wine, but was really vinegar. Once I realized the difference between the taste of wine and vinegar I also realized that my reveling was not real. It was a smoke screen for the emptiness that I felt from within, but did not want to own.

Man has a strange way of covering up his nakedness. Adam hid behind the bushes in the garden. Moses covered his face before the burning bush. Peter asked Jesus to leave him becaues he was not worthy. Paul stood back and cheered the martyrdom of Steven. Were any of them really happy with their brokeness? I doubt it. They were ashamed of it. They wanted to hide from it. The best way to hide from your own brokeness is to put it on a pedastal. As long as you keep your eyes focussed on the ground, the world can see it as a monument, while you go about your business pretending it’s not there.

You can put that distance between you and that which is a reminder of your emptiness by filling your chalice with vinegar and offering it to others as priceless wine. But in your heart you know that it’s just vinegar. However, you’re to hurt, too broken, too weak and too afraid to ask for wine. So you hurl your cup of vinegar into the face of your brother in hope that he too will have a taste, a share of what you feel. It’s the old saying again, “Misery loves company.”

It may look like reveling, but is it really that or is it a cry for help from the bottom of a soul that is in a state of despair? Been there, done that.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Well, the thing is that we shouldn’t *have *“meanness in our hearts,” right? Even when we disagree with someone, we should still have that love for Christ in the other.

I agree with you about saccharine stuff, but you are setting up a false dichotomy between saccharine and mean. A person can express disagreement without being mean, even serious disagreement.

 

[St_Francis]

…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 don’t think he was talking about emails which only called him to task, he seems like a good man who would know the difference. I have seen some mean conservative emails, and I always cringe when I see that–we should be better than that.

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.

One of the reasons that excommunications are not happening is that the bishops are working as a group on this, since the involvement of politicians means that the excommunications would involve more than one diocese.

But what I really wanted to comment on was your long list of “bad things bishops have done.” Not all the bishops have done all these things! In fact, in a lot of them, very few bishops were really involved. In the northeast, church-going Catholics are retiring (just considering the demographics) and moving to the south, so the northeast has parish closings and the South has parish building drives. And I can see the sadness of closing the parishes, but if people aren’t going there, how can they keep it open? I read about one parish where there were only about 30–35 people attending on Sundays!

And then they move south, and are confronted with a building drive, and in 30 years or so, that church will be closed because the children of the retired people don’t live there…

The whole thing is a mess, but it certainly isn’t the fault of the bishops that the laity is moving away! In fact, if you are going to blame anyone, blame the government, who with its tax structure has totally increased this moving around.

 

[Darryl1958]

Well, the thing is that we shouldn’t *have *

 

[johnnykins]

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.

The truth can be harsh. Trust is generally earned. The Bishops have been, at best, inept. Some have been downright evil. That Bishop Chaput finds reminders of that disturbing is not surprising. That he would prefer not to have to deal with it, is not surprising. That he would not want to be identified with those Bishops is not surprising. But, he is because he is a Bishop. he needs to deal with it. He needs to re-establish trust and not whine about it.

What God does, is up to God. I certainly have to deal with people and groups who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. It’s life. It’s a true pity that Catholic Bishops are now one of those groups. However, they have no one to blame but themselves for failure to do their jobs, live their vocation, teach and defend the faith as well as coddling child abusers and generally failing to act as a shepherd and preferring to act as a CEO.

No doubt we must not judge anyone as to their salvation - but in day to day life, we MUST judge people as to our interactions with them otherwise we invite death, disaster, poverty, fraud, and loss of salvation. If someone is doing evil - we must avoid them, oppose them and watch them. I am not saying Bishop Chaput is evil - or any particular Bishop is evil. That judgment is certainly up to God alone. I am saying they have done evil, failed in their obligations to teach and defend the faith and often been arrogant, irresponsible and downright boobish. You bet it sounds harsh - they have acted in a manner that makes harshness truthful.

 

[johnnykins]

But what I really wanted to comment on was your long list of “bad things bishops have done.” Not all the bishops have done all these things! In fact, in a lot of them, very few bishops were really involved. In the northeast, church-going Catholics are retiring (just considering the demographics) and moving to the south, so the northeast has parish closings and the South has parish building drives. And I can see the sadness of closing the parishes, but if people aren’t going there, how can they keep it open? I read about one parish where there were only about 30–35 people attending on Sundays!

And then they move south, and are confronted with a building drive, and in 30 years or so, that church will be closed because the children of the retired people don’t live there…

The whole thing is a mess, but it certainly isn’t the fault of the bishops that the laity is moving away! In fact, if you are going to blame anyone, blame the government, who with its tax structure has totally increased this moving around.

No one woke up one morning and said - hey only 35 people are coming now. It happened over time. It was known. The problem was not acting on it early enough. The problem was the cramdown. Of course some folks would never accept any closure as under any circumstances. However the mass closure of churches all at once is the clearest indication of administrative incompetence and human disregard for the parishioners - all in honor of the Almighty Dollar. If t were simple administrative incompetence, I , for one, would say - that’s the trade-off for a caring shepherd. The cramdown tells another story, however. Perhaps AIG or a bank would’ve been a better vocation for far too many Bishops. At least in one archdiocese the Bishop sold the chancery. The again, he really had no choice - so was that truly an act of solidarity with the laity? Or merely a necessary act to pay off the lawsuits?

 

[johnnykins]

You bet it sounds harsh - they have acted in a manner that makes harshness truthful.

This reminds me of Robert Townsend’s book, Up the Organization. In one place he says every organization needs a person whose sole job is to tell the CEO that the CEO is an idiot, doing the wrong thing, etc. Such a person can be fired only for being nice. The CEO would not have to agree with this person, but must listen everyday for several minutes. Such a person would keep the CEO grounded and informed. Harsh - yes. At least one prominent American businessman thought it necessary!

Perhaps our Bishops need such a person, too?

 

[sauce]

As you sow, so shall you reap.

I suppose that God is allowed to correct the situation. He does house cleaning every now and then.

The email thing is out of control. I get frustrated because I think people read into and add something to what somebody has said. Emails do not provide a tone of voice, meaningful silence or facial expressions.

It’s not really communicating I must admit. There is so much missing from it.

Also, I think it’s OK to tell the truth. But that can get you into problems. And perhaps a lot of people have adopted different etiquette practices. What insults one person is a breath of fresh air to another. What is abrasive to one is welcome engagement to another.

Computers have now introduced the rapid interaction of different cultures, different upbringings. And text messaging and ABBREVIATIONS. I guess it costs too much to spell something out.

They abbreviate a lot where I work. I have no idea what they are trying to say.
It’s a sign of the times I think. And not particularly a good sign.

 

[luminoushope]

Durng my own life I know there were moments in my past where I reveled in things that were wrong. Now that I can look back I realize that I really did not revel at all. Instead, I was empty and this was a way of filling my cup with something that looked like sweet wine, but was really vinegar. Once I realized the difference between the taste of wine and vinegar I also realized that my reveling was not real. It was a smoke screen for the emptiness that I felt from within, but did not want to own.

Man has a strange way of covering up his nakedness. Adam hid behind the bushes in the garden. Moses covered his face before the burning bush. Peter asked Jesus to leave him becaues he was not worthy. Paul stood back and cheered the martyrdom of Steven. Were any of them really happy with their brokeness? I doubt it. They were ashamed of it. They wanted to hide from it. The best way to hide from your own brokeness is to put it on a pedastal. As long as you keep your eyes focussed on the ground, the world can see it as a monument, while you go about your business pretending it’s not there.

You can put that distance between you and that which is a reminder of your emptiness by filling your chalice with vinegar and offering it to others as priceless wine. But in your heart you know that it’s just vinegar. However, you’re to hurt, too broken, too weak and too afraid to ask for wine. So you hurl your cup of vinegar into the face of your brother in hope that he too will have a taste, a share of what you feel. It’s the old saying again, “Misery loves company.”

JR

To JR: Beautiful. I’ve never seen this put so well. This should be what the internet is for. And, living in the freedom with which Christ has set us free, why should we in any way take up again the yoke of bondage?

To All: Christ died for the people with whom you disagree. He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What is there in that, that allows us to have any “meanness” whatsoever? Also, I hope you all are addressing yourselves with at least equal vigor to a situation that you might actually be able to affect: Notre Dame. How do a few comments about emails stack up against honoring the Abortion Advocate-In-Chief at a Catholic college?

Peace be with you.

L.H.

 

[Fitz]

I do hope that the Archbishop understands it is not what we think but how God would judge the situation. I do think the there is a clear right and wrong, and if the Archbishop is counseling his congregation correctly then mean or not mean should not be an issue.

What is mean anyway? Some sermons sound mean, let’s face it. Eternal damnation can not be said in a nice way. I pray that he would not make statements like that again and that he would stick to God’s work. Political comments are not going to help anyone.

 

[irishpatrick]

Many people think Father Corapi is mean. Yet, is he mean, or simply truthful?

 

[didymus]

On one of his Catholic Answers minutes Fr. Vincent Serpa mentioned disputes about the liturgy and how they can degenerate. He summarised, “When charity leaves, nothing of value remains.”

 

[jmf83]

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]

On one of his Catholic Answers minutes Fr. Vincent Serpa mentioned disputes about the liturgy and how they can degenerate. He summarised, “When charity leaves, nothing of value remains.”

Fr. Vincent is a true son of St. Dominic. Dominic told his preachers that preaching without a smile, without gentleness, without thoughtfulness, and without forgiveness was a fruitless task. Therefore the Brother Preachers (Dominicans) were to be hard on themselvs while they treated others as a cut of fine glass…

This is what Dominic said when he wrote “When charity leaves, nothing of value remains.” Fr. Vincent is quoting his spiritual father.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

I do hope that the Archbishop understands it is not what we think but how God would judge the situation. I do think the there is a clear right and wrong, and if the Archbishop is counseling his congregation correctly then mean or not mean should not be an issue.

What is mean anyway? Some sermons sound mean, let’s face it. Eternal damnation can not be said in a nice way. I pray that he would not make statements like that again and that he would stick to God’s work. Political comments are not going to help anyone.

First, I fail to see how this is a political comment. It was simply an observation that he was making about e-mails that people often send him regarding his response to the abortion problem and politcians. For those who do not know his response, his book would be very helpful, Render Unto Caesar .

Second, we obviously do not understand the terms and conditons under which a Capuchin Friar or any religous accepts to be a bishop. The first term is that they must always remain faithful to the manner of life and ministry of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars Minor. The Church understands this. For centuries, popes never consecrated Capuchins as bishops, because of their gentleness.

When they began to do so, the popes wanted these gentle friars to be bishops, because they wanted gentle men as shepherds. I fail to understand, why some lay people have difficulty understanding this.

The same applies to religious of other orders. Now that the consecration of religious as bishops has become more commonplace, after the reform of canon law in 1983, we are going to see different styles of bishops and leadership. Because they bring with them the emphasis of their religoius communities.

A Dominican is going to preach and teach, as is a Jeuit bishop. A Carmelite bishop is going to focus on the mystical and ascetical life of his diocese. A Vincentian is giong to look at the social needs of his people and so forth.

The Holy Spirit has raised up in the Church each of these families to bring forth a different gift. The more religious who are consecrated bishops, the more diversity in their style and their focus. This is natural.

If the laity is not comfortable with this, it can petition the Holy See to consecrate only secular priests as has been the practice for almost 2000 years. A secular priest brings a more administrative and priestly emphasis to the episcopacy. Those are his roots.

Archbishop Chaput’s roots are monastic and fraternal, because that is the spiritual and theological focus of his order. That is going to be the style of his leadership. Another good example of a Capuchin Franciscan bishop is Cardinal O’Malley of Boston. He too approaches ministry in a very gentle and contemplative manner.

We cannot change people’s vocation. We have to work with them. That’s part of unity. My own bishop is a secular priest. He is very much an educator and administrator. Some people do not understand this is his background and find him cold. Those of us who know that he is a secular priest who spent his life as a high school principal understand his approach and the method to his practice of ministry. This is part of loving your bishop too.

They are not angels. They are human beings with different gifts. We must show an appreciation for the gifts they bring and help in the areas that are not their strength or their vocation in life. Sinful or saintly, the bishop remains a successor of the apostles and our brother.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CapIV]

I don’t know if anyone got to this part in the article, but this is a big deal:

“I’ve given communion to people who come up who aren’t Catholics. We kind of joke that every time there’s a funeral, you have a lot of first communions because you don’t embarrass people when they come to communion and chase them away because that’s a terrible pastoral decision. But to tell them beforehand that it’s not appropriate unless you’re a Catholic is appropriate.”

It’s certainly nothing to joke about.