Archbishop Charles J. Chaput on Nasty Emails

[JReducation]

That was what the role of the fool in the king’s court was all about.
Only do the perfect not need the scourge of harsh criticism. Only when it doesn’t hurt is it irrelevant. If it hurts, then it very likely hit the target.
Probably the bishop is a very good man.

I believe that part of the problem that some people are having with Bishop Chaput’s style is not a meaness as much as a lack of understanding of the fact that he is a Capuchin Bother…

We cannot change or undo what Christ has called someone to be. When the Church consecrates a religious to be a bishop, she accepts him with the charism that he brings from his religious family. Even Canon Law is very claer that religious who become bishops do not cease to be members of their religious family.

Their religious family or heritage is part of their charism as bishops. To understand Bishop Chaput it may be hepful to understand a few points in the rule of the Capuchin order to which the bishop is bound to obey until death.

1. He is called to follow Christ in the footsteps of St. Francis of Assisi,to be humble before all, even the most sinful and proclaim the Gospel by his life.
2. He must make present the charism of his Seraphic Father in his episcopate and in the mission of the Church so that is ministry reflects the spirit of St. Francis and the goals of St. Francis.
3. Every friar is organically and inseperably joined to the Francican Order. He cannot act in any manner that failes to represent the spirit of the order or its rule approved by the Chuch.
4. He must go from gospel to life and life to gospel.
5. A friar must always see the living and active person of Christ in every brother and sister, regardles of their sin.
6. A friar must live in full communion with the pope, bishops and his Franciscan brothers. He may not act or think unilaterally, but must act according to the mind of the order and as the order has come to know Christ, in the manner approved by the Church.
7. He must be a true contemplative, not a social activist, always engaged in prayer and contemplation for conversion.
8. United to the redemptive obedience of Jesus, the friar must faithfully fulfill the rule and duties that are proper to a friar.
9. All friars must purify their hearts from the desire to have power and authority of any kind, in the order, in the Church or in the world. They may never seek it or exercise it except when it is commanded of them by the pope, Saint Francis, the rule or the brothers.
10. The friar must accept all people as a gift of the Lord and an image of Christ, correcting human weakness through fraternal correction and example.
11. The friar must place himself on equal basis with all people. He works for the conversion of others from the ground up, not from above.
12. The friars are to exercise their responsibilities in a spirit of service.

This is a juggling act for a Capuchin who is a bishop, but still a religious brother. We have to understand this. This happens to many bishops who are religious, especially if they are monastic.

Those of us who want compassion and understanding in our own lives, as we struggle to navigate between our duties and our specific vocation, should be as supportive as possible of others in the same situation.

We are focussing on one fact, that the man is a bishop. We are leaving out the other important part of the picture,which in his mind is his identity. He is a religious brother. We can’t take people and compartamentalize them. We have to take them as a whole.

In Bishop Chaput’s case this is what we have, a Capuchin Franciscan religous brother who was consecrated bishop, but mandated to continue being and thinking as a religious brother so that be becomes our brother the bishop.

Let us be careful not to pigeonhole our bishops. This is not fair to anyone, whether you’re a bishop or the father of a large family. Embrace the whole person, with all the gifts that the person brings to the Church. And keep in mind that there is no such thing as someone who will ever meet all of our expectations. We are different from each other and we have different emphases in our spiritual lives.

By the way,Charlie Chaput IS a very good and holy man. I have had the privilege of knowing him personally since 1980. He is a very deep man, intelligent, and courageous. I have learned a lot during those times that I have been in the same room with him.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Those 12 points in the post above mine, go for all Christians - for all of us. Let’s copy them and frame them as our life motto and aim of life. We can’t be Christians without.

 

[Shin]

The issue about communion is being taken out of context. If one goes back to the Archbishop’s statement, he said that people are told before mass the rules regarding receiving communion.

As to whether to give communion to Mr. X who should not ordinarilly receive communion, that is the judgment call of a bishop. There is no sacrilege if a bishop dicides to do so.

JR

It is, if the bishop decides to do so improperly. You have brought up some incidents that have scandalized a good deal of the faithful, and have not been properly in fact explained – and I don’t think can be. You can’t close down discussion on the issue by simply saying, this is within their authority – when they are in error, it is not and it is right to speak out about what has been done.

We do not have impeccable membership in the Church in this life. Nor in matters so extreme as these, do we have no discussion, especially considering them in the light of tradition and some very basic fundamentals.

Now I have found the original article about Chaput that seems to be the source for all this and I have the words here again:

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.

I was not there, I do not know how he said this, but, I do not think he can complain that people could take this badly.

Because if he knows they can’t receive, and he gives it to them, it -is- a sin. For both.

A child could tell a person this.

Let me quote something about one of the politicians mentioned that he will not excommunicate:

As Governor, Ritter has pledged that overturning abortion laws would not be part of his agenda, and has stated that he would veto any bill prohibiting abortion that did not provide for an exception for rape, incest or fetal anomalies. Ritter has further stated that he would restore state funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and would reverse the veto of a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense the emergency contraception known as the morning-after pill.

I don’t know the politics of the state, and I don’t know the details of this matter, but – I do hope if he is not going to excommunicate the fellow that at least he is doing something else about it, because again, here is another place where the sin of scandal can and likely is occurring.

That is the sin of scandal here in both the traditional and contemporary sense of the word.

 

[JReducation]

Excommunication is a disciplinary action. It is highly unlikely that any Capuchin bishop will excommunicate anyone. This is in conflict with the Rule of St. Francis. The usual process is to preach preach preach until you drop. The Holy See knows this about the Capuchins and approves.

What usually happens in these cases, if the Holy See feels that an excommunication is warranted, it takes it upon itself to do so. The one thing that popes have always wanted of the Capuchins is to preserve their obedience to the rule. The rule calls for fraternal correction, penance, prayer and preaching, never disciplinary action. It has never been done by the order in its 800 year history.

There have been censures, clarifications, catechesis, penances, and other forms of asceticism imposed on those who sin, but not excommunication. That is something that Francis did not allow his friars who became bishops. The reason was to work toward reconciliation and unity as the higher good, as long as it takes. I know this takes long, but it does work through time and much prayer and penance on the part of the friars.

Even Frater Reinero, the Holy Father’s personal preacher, who is also a Capuchin brother, does not support the friars taking such actions. If they believe this is needed, they are encouraged to refer it to the Holy See The only time that a friar who is either a bishop or a major superior applies to excommunication is in the case of a Franciscan who violates the vow of obedience and refuses to back down. Even that requires a vote from the council after three calls to conversion, three written notices, and three meetings with the person in authority before two witnesses who must both be members of any of the Franciscan orders. It is not a measure that is taken lightly or rushed into.

This does not mean that a Capuchin cannot and should not correct an error. For example,Archbishop Chaput spoke publicly about Nacy Pelosi’s interpretation of moral law and abortion. He also wrote a book on abortion the moral obligations and limits of the state.

Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, also a Capuchin has said that he will not agree to any contract with the state that is not approved by the Catholic commision on bioethics.

Other Capuchins who are bishops in other dioceses around the world have made similar delarations and are working with the individuals involved to bring about a proper understanding of their moral obligations as Catholics.

This do get done, even though we do not know about it.

As to communion, we have already said that this precedent was set by Benedict XVI. He did not want admission to the Catholic faith denied to Blair or communion denied,because of his views on abortion and gay marraige, even though he and Blair disagree. Pope Benedict gave him communion and said it was an act of charity. Just as he gave communion to Protestants as masses at the Vatican.

Another precedent set by the Holy Father himself has been to stay uninvolved in the Notre Dame issue. He alone has the authority over the Congregation of the Holy Cross, but he prefers to let them handle it as an internal matter, even if it takes longer. He can solve it with one letter. He is their major superior.

There are many things that we don’t always understand. But charity and patience require that we trust the pope and those whom he trusts. Sometimes, things have a way of happening slowly.

None of these bishops or the pope are saying that these people are right. They are chipping away at the problems. That’s all.

Fraternally,

JR

It is, if the bishop decides to do so improperly. You have brought up some incidents that have scandalized a good deal of the faithful, and have not been properly in fact explained – and I don’t think can be. You can’t close down discussion on the issue by simply saying, this is within their authority – when they are in error, it is not and it is right to speak out about what has been done.

We do not have impeccable membership in the Church in this life. Nor in matters so extreme as these, do we have no discussion, especially considering them in the light of tradition and some very basic fundamentals.

Now I have found the original article about Chaput that seems to be the source for all this and I have the words here again:

I was not there, I do not know how he said this, but, I do not think he can complain that people could take this badly.

Because if he knows they can’t receive, and he gives it to them, it -is- a sin. For both.

A child could tell a person this.

Let me quote something about one of the politicians mentioned that he will not excommunicate:

I don’t know the politics of the state, and I don’t know the details of this matter, but – I do hope if he is not going to excommunicate the fellow that at least he is doing something else about it, because again, here is another place where the sin of scandal can and likely is occurring.

That is the sin of scandal here in both the traditional and contemporary sense of the word.

 

[Shin]

Excommunication is a disciplinary action. It is highly unlikely that any Capuchin bishop will excommunicate anyone. This is in conflict with the Rule of St. Francis. The usual process is to preach preach preach until you drop. The Holy See knows this about the Capuchins and approves.

I will quote St. Francis to you in this regard. “If any brother by the instigation of the devil should commit fornication, let him be deprived of the habit of the Order which he has lost by his base iniquity and let him put it aside wholly, and let him be altogether expelled from our religion. And let him afterwards do penance for his sins.”

I cannot think of swifter action than the above. Certainly one is to preach and admonish, but when this fails – Excommunication is a penalty that the Church has established, and automatically in certain cases. Nothing I know of in the Rule contradicts it being properly applied, and not applying in certain cases would certainly be contrary to the spirit and letter of it.

What usually happens in these cases, if the Holy See feels that an excommunication is warranted, it takes it upon itself to do so. The one thing that popes have always wanted of the Capuchins is to preserve their obedience to the rule. The rule calls for fraternal correction, penance, prayer and preaching, never disciplinary action. It has never been done by the order in its 800 year history.

If the above penalty I have just cited of St. Francis has been changed, let me quote the finish of the rule:

“I, Brother Francis, strictly command and enjoin that no one subtract from those things that are written in this life, or add anything written to it over and above, and that the brothers have no other Rule.”

So there is the spirit of St. Francis in that regard if there is some new letter. Are you truly testifying to me that no brother has of the order has ever been penalized according to the Rule St. Francis laid down above? Or that the above cannot be interpreted as excommunication or its effective spiritual equivalent?

There have been censures, clarifications, catechesis, penances, and other forms of asceticism imposed on those who sin, but not excommunication. That is something that Francis did not allow his friars who became bishops. The reason was to work toward reconciliation and unity as the higher good, as long as it takes. I know this takes long, but it does work through time and much prayer and penance on the part of the friars.

Really, St. Francis did not allow ‘his friars who became bishops’ to excommunicate? Please source this for me. From his pen.

Even Frater Reinero, the Holy Father’s personal preacher, who is also a Capuchin brother, does not support the friars taking such actions. If they believe this is needed, they are encouraged to refer it to the Holy See The only time that a friar who is either a bishop or a major superior applies to excommunication is in the case of a Franciscan who violates the vow of obedience and refuses to back down. Even that requires a vote from the council after three calls to conversion, three written notices, and three meetings with the person in authority before two witnesses who must both be members of any of the Franciscan orders. It is not a measure that is taken lightly or rushed into.

Ah, now, wait you are contradicting what you have just said and ruining the work I have done above in replying. First you said, ‘never disciplinary action.’ and then you said St. Francis forbid it, and now you say that it can and is attempted.

This does not mean that a Capuchin cannot and should not correct an error.

Frankly, this ‘speaking without enforcing’ is exactly what has demolished the Church in these modern times. I say this aside, but anyone can see it is the case. It has no effect to tell a murderer who has broken into your home, “Please stop” while he’s busy stealing the cutlery and killing your child in the crib.

 

[Shin]

For example,Archbishop Chaput spoke publicly about Nacy Pelosi’s interpretation of moral law and abortion. He also wrote a book on abortion the moral obligations and limits of the state.

Actions speak more powerfully than words. That’s from St. Francis of Assisi too.

Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, also a Capuchin has said that he will not agree to any contract with the state that is not approved by the Catholic commision on bioethics.

That is very good to hear, as long as the commission is actualy enforcing anything.

Other Capuchins who are bishops in other dioceses around the world have made similar delarations and are working with the individuals involved to bring about a proper understanding of their moral obligations as Catholics.

This do get done, even though we do not know about it.

Now it’s all sounding like words again, I would prefer to hear of the effect.

As to communion, we have already said that this precedent was set by Benedict XVI. He did not want admission to the Catholic faith denied to Blair or communion denied,because of his views on abortion and gay marraige, even though he and Blair disagree. Pope Benedict gave him communion and said it was an act of charity. Just as he gave communion to Protestants as masses at the Vatican.

We have a much longer precedent set against any such action, so I do not really call what Benedict XVI has on a few occasions allowed, overlooked or done (which by the way the real details of which I have never seen clearly sourced and explained, care to provide?) a precedent – rather more than a glitch, mistake, or exception at best. Until I see a real detailed explanation that is clearly reliably sourced this is for the most part what can be said. Again do you have them? I truly would like to see so I can clear up in my mind exactly what the motivations and reasons are as well as real circumstances of these matters.

I must add if Benedict XVI were trying to set a precedent he would issue a document explaining why and how doing such a thing is permissible when in fact, many Catholics and Popes of earlier times as well as now would call it words far less pleasant and are scandalized by hearing of it. As it is generally the way this stuff passes from what I have heard (for some in any case) is simply due to ‘we do not know what was going on behind the scenes that somehow clears it up’ rather than ‘this is setting a precedent’ of some kind.

Another precedent set by the Holy Father himself has been to stay uninvolved in the Notre Dame issue. He alone has the authority over the Congregation of the Holy Cross, but he prefers to let them handle it as an internal matter, even if it takes longer. He can solve it with one letter. He is their major superior.

Actually, from the perspective of politics it’s clear he has to cautiously get involved or not in stuff like this if it is necessary. He has to carefully pick and choose his occasions, so again I don’t call this a ‘precedent’ so much as a single reaction to circumstances. He’s already paid a high price in some ways due to so-called ‘faux pas’.

There are many things that we don’t always understand. But charity and patience require that we trust the pope and those whom he trusts. Sometimes, things have a way of happening slowly.

None of these bishops or the pope are saying that these people are right. They are chipping away at the problems. That’s all.

Charity is love of God before all else – Patience – For the sake of God and His love and law. It is my desire to sacrifice no thing of God to human respect, though I may often fail.

And very many people high and low do so too, this much we can clearly see.

Popes, bishops, priests, laypeople like you and like me. We sin and make mistakes a very great deal. There’re quite a few things the hierarchy have failed at, as well as succeeded at – mistakes as well as successes.

JR

It’s been a long time since I’ve been to Chaput’s diocese. Is deacon Jim Breazile still in the neighborhood?

A blessed Good Friday to you and all.

The immensity of the sacrifice shows us the terribleness of sin. God bless us I pray and keep us from sin and show us our faults so they may be repented.