Bishop's Ax Falls on Obama. And on the Vatican Curia

[lemonbeam]

Chiesa (chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it)

In a bombshell article published in Rome, the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, criticizes the American president and the churchmen who praise him.

ROME (Chiesa) – “I will always forcefully defend the right of the bishops to criticize me,” Barack Obama pledged just before his meeting with Benedict XVI last July 10.

Indeed. About 80 of the Catholic bishops of the United States are in open disagreement with him on crucial questions, in primis the defense of life. Among these is Cardinal Francis George, president of the bishops’ conference and archbishop of Chicago, Obama’s city.

And there’s also the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, 65, member of a Native American tribe and a Capuchin Franciscan. Last year, he published a book that starts getting its point across right from the title: “Render unto Caesar. Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.” It is right to give Caesar that which belongs to him. But one serves the nation by living one’s own Catholic faith in political life.

More: catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34593

 

[Eucharisted]

Vatican Curia

Yeah, whoever wrote that article isn’t credible.

 

[livi]

The bishops certainly have cause and the right to disagree with Obama. He promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and does he support gay marriage? I wouldn’t be surprised.

 

[rlg94086]

I thought about starting another thread, but perhaps the best place to put this is here. This is the article written by Archbishop Chaput:
archden.org/index.cfm/ID/2718

The real source of Catholic frustration with President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was his overt, negative public voting and speaking record on abortion and other problematic issues. By its actions, Notre Dame ignored and violated the guidance of America’s bishops in their 2004 document, “Catholics in Political Life.” In that text, the bishops urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters.

Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama’s views – which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood.

Third, the Cardinal wisely notes points of contact between President Obama’s frequently stated search for political “common ground” and the Catholic emphasis on pursuing the “common good.” These goals – seeking common ground and pursuing the common good – can often coincide. But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice. So-called “common ground” abortion policies may actually *attack *the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. **The common good is *never ***served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn.
…
The habit of doubt fits much too comfortably with a kind of “baptized unbelief;” a Christianity that is little more than a vague tribal loyalty and a convenient spiritual vocabulary. Too often in recent American experience, pluralism and doubt have become alibis for Catholic moral and political lethargy. Perhaps Europe is different. But I would suggest that our current historical moment – which both European and American Catholics share – is very far from the social circumstances facing the early Christian legislators mentioned by the Cardinal. They had faith, and they also had the zeal – tempered by patience and intelligence – to incarnate the moral content of their faith explicitly in culture. In other words, they were building a civilization shaped by Christian belief. Something very different is happening now.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

1. The ‘bishop’s ax’? Was that the headline? What authority does the bishop have over the president?
2. Archbishop Chaput is at this point well-known for political statements.

 

[Dale_M]

Yeah, whoever wrote that article isn’t credible.

It was written by Sandro Magister, whose first language isn’t English. He actually is pretty well informed, having multiple connections in the Vatican. And his blog, chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it, is considered a “generally reliable source” by CAF.

That said, he has been known to come up with some strange interpretations.

At any rate, here is the link to his translation of Abp. Chaput’s article:
catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34594

1. The ‘bishop’s ax’? Was that the headline? What authority does the bishop have over the president?

Yes, it apparently was the title. But please remember that Mr. Magister is a blogger and not a journalist, so editorializing in the headline isn’t too usual.

 

[rlg94086]

1. The ‘bishop’s ax’? Was that the headline? What authority does the bishop have over the president?
2. Archbishop Chaput is at this point well-known for political statements.

The article written by Archbishop Chaput is titled **Politics, morality, and a president: an American view. **It doesn’t claim any authority over the president. It is a response to something written by a Cardinal at the Vatican. Archbishop Chaput is indeed very well known to comment on political concerns. He even wrote an excellent book about Catholics’ role in the public square called *Render Unto Caeser. *

His response to Cardinal Cottier is well thought out and very well written. There is nothing contrary to Church teaching, of course. He also clearly states “Note that I speak here only for myself. I do not speak for the bishops of the United States as a body, nor for any other individual bishop.”

You are of course free to disagree with him, but what point are you trying to make? Point number two you listed sounds more like an *ad hominem *than a response to anything he wrote.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You are of course free to disagree with him, but what point are you trying to make?

I thought the ax falls when you fire someone.

Point number two you listed sounds more like an *ad hominem *than a response to anything he wrote.

Nope. The statement goes to credibility. This is a ‘Catholic News’ forum and the bishop’s statements really should be in the Politics forum. At some point a person becomes a* political* commentator – not saying that he has reached the point or not.

 

[jay29]

For one thing, I can’t believe there are Catholics that are pro-choice and see no problem with abortion. This is an EPIC FAILURE of the Catholic Church. How in the world can you be a Catholic and believe in the murder of the innocent? There is no subject more important to the Gospel of Life of Jesus Christ than the right to life itself!

Every Catholic that is pro-choice, including politicians, should be ridiculed and denied the Eucharist, PUBLICLY, until they repent.

 

[rlg94086]

I thought the ax falls when you fire someone.

Nope. The statement goes to credibility. This is a ‘Catholic News’ forum and the bishop’s statements really should be in the Politics forum. At some point a person becomes a* political* commentator – not saying that he has reached the point or not.

The OP title is not from the Archbishop. His “ax” didn’t fall on anyone from a firing perspective. I can’t believe you didn’t figure that out. Take it up with the blogger…not with the Archbishop.

As far as which part of the forum? That also isn’t the Archbishop’s duty. You can talk to the moderator about that.

However, I don’t understand your question about credibility. Are you saying that Bishops should not make any political statements? If so, then you are in error. The Archbishop teaches according to Church teaching. The fact that you don’t agree with some of his statements does not mean he is not credible.

If you are familiar with Archbishop Chaput, and it is apparent that you aren’t, you would know that he takes stances on both sides of the aisle when it comes to issues. He will take a Republican to task on war and immigration issues just as much as he will take a Democrat to task on abortion. The fact that you question his credibility is just another example of your blind support for pro-choice politicians. If you would like to point out something the Archbishop said that is contrary to Church teaching, have at it.

 

[JReducation]

The name of the article is a play on words by the author. I read the original article in Italian. The writer goes on to explain that the Archbishop is a Native American and that’s why he uses this title. This is left out in the English translation; therefore, making the title of the article sound misleading. He’s referring to the fact that the Archbishop has a ax to grind with the President and the Cardinal.

As to the comment made by some posters that the article belongs in the political sub-forum, there is a mistaken notion here. The current Holy Father and every pope before him, back to Peter, have made it very clear that the Church has a place in the political arena. It is the Church’s job to guide the faithful, this includes political leaders and their citizens.

Canonically, the Archbishop has no authority over the President of any nation. But spiritually, his has authority as a successor of the Apostles. As Paul clarifies for us, Christians are not to be divided by who belongs to what bishop and what local Church (diocese). When an apostle speaks the Catholic population should listen. Unless he says something that goes against the faith, he should be taken very serioiusly.

One can disagree with a bishop’s perspective on popular or political issues. But you cannot dissent from a bishop’s statement on faith and morals. When a bishop comes out and say sthat abortion is a grave evil and that the Presdient or the ruler of any nation has a moral obligation to confront that evil head on, that bishop has to be heard and obeyed. He is speaking with the authority of the Apostles. It was to them that Christ gave the mission to go out and make believers of all men. It was to them that Christ gave authority to forgive sins and to withhold sins. Any bishop who speaks out against a sin is well within his rights and any Catholic who hears him is bound by communion with the Church to obey. Moral law is not optional for anyone. It is certainly not a matter of perspective. Perspectives are many, but moral truth is one. Until the Church says that there is another point of view that one can take on a specific moral question, we don’t have that freedom.

One of the problems that the Archibishop addresses head on is that American Catholics believe that their right to individualism and freedom of choice applies to the moral law. This is not truth. The only freedom that man has is the freedom to sin or refrain from sin. There is no freedom to define morality or to relativize it so that it applies to Catholics, but not to the President. The President does not enjoy freedom from moral responsibility any more than any citizen of any faith. One can use his freedom to be morally irresponsible, but that’s not true freedom as it is defined by Christ in the Gospels.

Finally, if the Cardinals and staff of the Roman Curia do not understand the American reality, it is apporpriate for American bishops to clarify for them what we are dealing with in the United States. The Archbishop is not attacking the Cardinal. He is filling in the gaps that the Cardinal may not be aware of.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The current Holy Father and every pope before him, back to Peter, have made it very clear that the Church has a place in the political arena. It is the Church’s job to guide the faithful, this includes political leaders and their citizens.

Yes and no. John Paul II instructed the clergy to remove themselves from politics, hence the resignation from Congress by Father Drinan. At this point I think the archbishop is bordering on becoming a political commentator; not a churchly guide to the laity.

When there were bishops who were very active in South American politics, the conservatives wailed that they were too involved in political subjects. Now, when a prelate’s politics seem to reflect some conservative views, it seems to me that the comments are much more acceptable to some.

I think it is a little presumptuous to believe that the curia does not have a thorough understanding of US politics, too. Who is to say?

 

[rlg94086]

Yes and no. John Paul II instructed the clergy to remove themselves from politics, hence the resignation from Congress by Father Drinan. At this point I think the archbishop is bordering on becoming a political commentator; not a churchly guide to the laity.

Archbishop Chaput is not running for office or a political activists. He is a Bishop instructing his flock on Catholic teaching. John Paul II did not instruct clergy to remove themselves from being a voice in the public square.
Beau Ouiville:

When there were bishops who were very active in South American politics, the conservatives wailed that they were too involved in political subjects. Now, when a prelate’s politics seem to reflect some conservative views, it seems to me that the comments are much more acceptable to some.

Strawman. Some conservatives also “wail” about Archbishop Chaput’s comments on immigration. That’s a political issue…do you think he has no credibility there, as well? Should he stop speaking out about immigration? He was also vocal about his disagreement with the war in Iraq. I guess he shouldn’t have spoken about that political subject either? Or, does he just need to keep quiet about abortion and leave your pro-choice politicians alone.
Beau Ouiville:

I think it is a little presumptuous to believe that the curia does not have a thorough understanding of US politics, too. Who is to say?

It is a little presumptuous to think you know more about the curia than an Archbishop.

 

[JReducation]

What we have to keep in mind is that a moral issue is just that. The Church has the right to speak out in the public square on moral issues. If politicians want to play games with moral issues or support policies that are immoral, they are going to hear from the Catholic Church. It is the role of the Church to raise her voice in opposition to any immoral action. There ae two ways that the Church can do this.

She can raise her voice and let it be heard through the media and from the pulpit. In a society like our own where free speech is tolerated, there is no reason not to do so. If the Church perceives that this method may be dangerous to human lives, as has been the case in some countries, she can present moral truth by her actions and support of those who are victims of immorality, such as she did Nazi Germany and does in China. In either case, the Church will speak.

The best speakers are those who are in the trenches, the local bishops. We cannot assume that the Roman Curia know every detail of what happens in every country where the Church is present. They can’t keep up with that much detail. They get broad reviews and communiques from the nunciature in each country or from the conference of bishops. But they don’t get these everyday nor do they get a blow-by-blow description, unless something is very wrong and they local bishops need help from Rome.

What I see Archbishop Chaput saying to the Cardinal is giving him a warning, “Everything is not what it seems.”

Those of you who can read Italian should read it in that language. The editing into English causes the tone of the article to suffer. The article is a warning to the Roman Curia, in a very subtle, respectful, but factual way.

That’s not engaging in national politics. That’s calling a spade a spade. The Archbishop is saying, “The President did X right and he has failed to do Y.” He’s really informing the Curia of the issues as he sees them, being in the trenches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

The name of the article is a play on words by the author. I read the original article in Italian. The writer goes on to explain that the Archbishop is a Native American and that’s why he uses this title. This is left out in the English translation; therefore, making the title of the article sound misleading.

Are you saying that the original author implied that Chaput “scalped” the Curia Cardinal (because of Native American blood)?? Seriously? This is 2009, right?

 

[JReducation]

Are you saying that the original author implied that Chaput “scalped” the Curia Cardinal (because of Native American blood)?? Seriously? This is 2009, right?

I think they were trying to be humorous. In the introduction to the article the writer goes on to refer to Archbishop Chaput as the “Redskin from Denver”. We have to remember, that to Europeans this is not offensive. I went to school in Italy and when I was there, the most beloved movies were John Wayne, in Italian or course. They even made a few cowboy and indian movies. They love that whole concept. They just don’t understand the political issues. But knowing Charlie personally, I had to chuckle at the Redskin for Denver, because when we were young, we would tease him about his Native American roots and his Kansas roots. I think Charlie doesn’t care about that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

I understand that Euros may not consider it offensive. But I’m still amazed that they take the attitude that THEY get to decide what is or is not offensive to another group of people.

Maybe my 80s’/90’s liberal education took hold of me more than I like to think, but to me no ethnic joke is funny unless the folks it is ABOUT think it’s funny.

Which is why I can still tell Polish jokes!

 

[JReducation]

I understand that Euros may not consider it offensive. But I’m still amazed that they take the attitude that THEY get to decide what is or is not offensive to another group of people.

Maybe my 80s’/90’s liberal education took hold of me more than I like to think, but to me no ethnic joke is funny unless the folks it is ABOUT think it’s funny.

Which is why I can still tell Polish jokes!

OK, but let’s not get derailed here. The thread is about the Archbishop’s article, not the publisher.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF