Archbishop Chaput has summed up the hazards of listening to Father Spadaro very nicely:
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...lica-article-was-an-exercise-in-dumbing-down/
You should always read the
primary sources if you want to be honest and avoid mischaracterizing what someone says, like you did here with
both Fr. Spadaro and Archbiship Chaput.
So if you are going to make a comment at least read the original article in La Civilta Cattolica:
And then read the Archbishop’s actual response to it:
A recent Rome-based journal article is an exercise in dumbing down the nature of Catholic/evangelical cooperation on religious freedom and other key issues, writes Archbishop Charles Chaput. We should thank God for this unity in common cause.
catholicphilly.com
Having read both myself, I would say that the Archbishop’s objections make me wonder whether he gave any thought at all to the central issues raised by Spadaro and Figueroa in their article. My reason for saying this is that
he doesn’t actually address any their concerns or explains why he thinks they are unfounded. Instead, he just doubles down in defense of the agenda he has been pursuing and dismisses the article by taking a few phrases out of context and applying them in a misleading way.
The Civiltà Cattolica article takes issue with what the authors see as
three troubling developments in American Catholic thought that they would like to push back against, because they run counter to the direction Pope Francis would like to take the Church. These are: 1) Manichaeism, 2) the Prosperity Gospel, and 3) a theopolitical agenda under the guise of a defense of Religious Liberty.
Of these three, the only one Archbishop Chaput addresses in any way is the last - the concern that a theopolitical agenda is what is really driving the Religious Liberty defense. Unfortunately, he offers a very weak argument to contradict this claim.
Chaput writes,
“As an evangelical friend once said, the whole idea of Baptist faith cuts against the integration of Church and state. Foreign observers who want to criticize the United States and its religious landscape – and yes, there’s always plenty to criticize — should note that fact. It’s rather basic.”
Given what I know about the Southern Baptism Convention, this statement makes me scratch my head. If he were talking about an
Anabaptist friend, I would wholeheartedly agree with him.
Baptists, however, have strayed far from their Anabaptist roots and many today adopt a Calvinistic world view. Among them are those who see it as their duty, as members of the elect, to shape society through the political process. The Southern Baptist Convention specifically calls to its members to be politically engaged.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1188/on-political-engagement
That’s why I think Archbishop Chaput really missed the forest for the trees on this one.
