Chaput article (Denver Post)

[sweetchuck]

**Church’s path reflected in fate of bishops

**The Denver Post

**Chicago - **Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., has developed a reputation as a voice for the downtrodden and as a religious leader reluctant to enter the culture wars.

While archbishop in Newark, N.J., he promised that uniforms worn by Roman Catholic schoolchildren would not come from sweatshops staffed with child labor.

McCarrick tried to quiet a controversy last summer over whether dissenting Catholic politicians are worthy of Communion, saying he doesn’t like confrontation.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has gained a reputation as an engaging, articulate and stern shepherd who believes real Catholics should “act Catholic,” follow the church and take their faith proudly into the public square.

Chaput gained national notice for boldly stating that Catholic politicians who advocate for legalized abortion - a conflict with church teaching - should refrain from Communion, the central sacrament of Catholicism.

As 262 U.S. Catholic bishops on Saturday concluded their first business meeting since the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the 74-year-old McCarrick left uncertain whether the Holy Father would immediately accept the resignation McCarrick must tender when he reaches retirement age next month. There’s a chance McCarrick could be asked to serve a few more years.

Chaput, 60, is fending off speculation that his heightened profile as a strong traditionalist voice might propel him to a more prominent job and perhaps to a cardinal’s red hat.

The contrasts between the two men - one in the twilight of his career, the other ascending - are emblematic of a shift in the makeup of the nation’s Catholic bishops, a change that began several years ago and will likely accelerate under the new papacy.

An older generation of leaders with a strong penchant for peace and social work is giving way to a younger, more conservative band of bishops more intent on focusing inward: shoring up the church by boosting Mass attendance and priestly vocations. The latter view is the one advanced by Pope Benedict XVI.

“The church in the U.S. was an immigrant church very much concerned with issues of social justice, and the hierarchy generally reflected that,” said David Gibson, author of “The Coming Catholic Church” and a forthcoming book about Benedict. “Those days seem to be waning. The people in the pews are becoming more suburban, better educated and wealthier than they ever have been before, and the leadership is more socially conservative and focused on purely spiritual issues.”

…cont’d…

 

[sweetchuck]

Church’s path reflected in fate of bishops

The Denver Post

…cont’d…

That shift could not only affect the nation’s 67 million Catholics but also influence the ever-multiplying debates where religion collides with politics.

In many cases, however, personal piety connects with public policy, such as with abortion.

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke went further than any other U.S. Catholic bishop last year by saying he would deny Communion to presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights.

In an interview, Burke said he takes issue with the suggestion that Catholics who oppose abortion rights are by definition weak on social justice issues.

“The truth of the matter is, the respect for human life is the first social justice issue,” said Burke, 50. “And there is no greater injustice being done in our time than the slaughter of the unborn and the attack on the life of the weak and defenseless.”

Burke said he expects Benedict to appoint bishops who are “clear and courageous” in proclaiming the faith.

Abortion, however, has not always been the pre-eminent issue for U.S. church leadership.

From 1965 to 1985, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued statements on nuclear war, peace and the economy, said Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan, also a church historian.

“A new generation of bishops, without questioning the validity of that, would say, 'Wait a minute. Thank God we were able to do that, but we need to make sure we’ve got our internal house in order so that we are able to continue to be a prophet to society,”’ said Dolan, 55, another conservative rising star. That sensibility was evident at the bishops’ semi-annual meeting at the Fairmont Hotel Chicago. Most media attention centered on the bishops’ overwhelming vote Friday to renew, with fine-tuning, reforms adopted in 2002 to combat clergy child sexual abuse.

But most of the agenda was inward looking: a change to a prayer said at Mass, an affirmation of parochial schools, a prayer day for priest vocations.

Some Catholics worry that traditional social-justice issues might get less attention as a result.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, 69, a social-justice contemporary of McCarrick’s, attributed some of the emphasis shift to the fact that he and many other priests of his generation earned social-work degrees, which is far less prevalent now.

Mahony, however, sees the fight for his favorite issues shifting away from the national stage. That also is in keeping with Pope Benedict’s belief, expressed when he was a cardinal, that the power of the national bishops conference ought to be limited.

“This work is most effectively done on the local level,” Mahony said. “For myself, in California, the concern is over the new anti-immigrant rhetoric. We’re continuing to stand up and voice this.”

McCarrick’s impending retirement is being watched as a major statement of what Pope Benedict wants in a key U.S. bishop.

Some within the church have floated Chaput’s name, given his rising public stature, consistency with Benedict’s teachings and experience in talking politics.

“All the buzz is for Chaput to come to D.C., but I don’t know if that’s possible,” said Brian St. Paul, editor of Crisis magazine, based in the nation’s capital. “If he were to come here, he’d have a huge base of support: a growing, vibrant faithful orthodox young Catholic community. He’d get opposition from old guard on the theological left.”

But there are impediments to a Chaput candidacy, including his lack of a doctorate and proficient Spanish. There is a chance Chaput could be elevated to cardinal and stay in Denver, though other prelates are thought to be higher on the priority list.

Pope Benedict’s first consistory, when new cardinals are announced, is set for this fall.

Chaput, however, is not easily pigeonholed as a conservative in the culture wars. He recently criticized those who used a tragedy - the fatal shooting of a Denver police officer in which a Mexican immigrant is accused - to perpetrate an “anti-immigrant backlash.” In recent months Chaput also has dedicated a new facility for homeless women and written against the death penalty.

Chaput said he dislikes the speculation about his future, calling it not based in reality and a potential distraction to his work in Colorado. He said he wants to serve in Denver until he retires.

“It’s about the right size of diocese if you really want to be a pastor,” he said. “Anything bigger than that and it’s more of a bureaucracy.”

Chaput is more willing to talk about perceived shifts in the priorities within the brotherhood of U.S. Catholic bishops, a debate in which he is often cited. “I hope that I am a faithful, orthodox bishop,” Chaput said. “Orthodoxy doesn’t exclude social justice but includes it. Because you’re not orthodox unless you preach the entire Gospel, which has huge social implications. I think all bishops should strive to be, simply, orthodox, which isn’t always conservative.”

 

[Richardols]

sweetchuck':

Chaput said. “Orthodoxy doesn’t exclude social justice but includes it. Because you’re not orthodox unless you preach the entire Gospel, which has huge social implications. I think all bishops should strive to be, simply, orthodox, which isn’t always conservative.”

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

Who is against social justice? I mean defined as the Church defines it, not as liberal democrats define it.

 

[Maranatha]

Richardols:

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

I consider you neither and appreciate your posts. I understand American liberals can also be Orthodox Catholics. I do believe most liberals are anti-Catholic or at least against some core teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

Good Lord, excusing pro-abort politicians is Orthodox?? I REALLY don’t think you are a liar or freak of nature for your anti-war, anti-death-penalty, pro-high-taxes, pro-government-program liberalism. I might think you are wrong, but not a BAD Catholic. Thankfully you are pro-life, which certainly adds to your credibility as an orthodox Catholic, but then you throw it away when you continuously vote for the DEATH candidates!! Materially cooperating with abortionists is NOT an orthodox position.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

Who is against social justice? I mean defined as the Church defines it, not as liberal democrats define it.

Err…the point is about orthodox not equating to consevative, not about a particular brand of social justice.

 

[Richardols]

jlw:

I might think you are wrong,

A fair criticism, just as I consider most of you guys to be wrong about certain issues. No complaint here.

when you continuously vote for the DEATH candidates!! Materially cooperating with abortionists is NOT an orthodox position.

I avoid voting for pro-choice candidates, but we differ otherwise in that I consider pro-death penalty candidates as much Death candidates as the abortionists. Just because the Church barely tolerates the death penalty doesn’t mean that it’s not covered under the Death Camp’s umbrella.

In any case, that makes two of you. .

 

[amantoan]

Richardols:

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

Richardols, I think the problem that is that on this forum most people use the term liberal to mean pro-abort, pro-gay, basically pro-culture-of-death. They are not really referring to the whole spectrum of the liberal platform. Same for ‘conservative.’ People generally mean pro-culture-of-life when they use that term here. At least is seems that way to me. Based on your posts that I have read, you are probably more of a conservative, as the term is used on this forum. I hope you don’t take that as an insult !

 

[amantoan]

Chaput, however, is not easily pigeonholed as a conservative in the culture wars. He recently criticized those who used a tragedy - the fatal shooting of a Denver police officer in which a Mexican immigrant is accused - to perpetrate an “anti-immigrant backlash.” In recent months Chaput also has dedicated a new facility for homeless women and written against the death penalty.

It amazes me how the media cannot see that orthodox Catholicism doesn’t fit the model of American two party politics. I mean, didn’t we just cover this ground when John Paul II died? I kept hearing, “John Paul is an enigma, he opposes abortion AND the death penalty,” and other such nonsense. Don’t journalists do research anymore? Being Catholic really isn’t about being liberal or conservative, those labels, as they are used in American politics, simply don’t fit.

 

[Richardols]

amantoan:

Based on your posts that I have read, you are probably more of a conservative, as the term is used on this forum. I hope you don’t take that as an insult !

Well…I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Richardols]

amantoan:

Being Catholic really isn’t about being liberal or conservative, those labels, as they are used in American politics, simply don’t fit.

They shouldn’t fit, yes, but, the religious conservatives on this Forum do, in fact, almost universally presume that true Catholic equals Republican supporter.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

They shouldn’t fit, yes, but, the religious conservatives on this Forum do, in fact, almost universally presume that true Catholic equals Republican supporter.

I think many here find it hard to see how a Catholic would identify as a democrat seeing as how that party embraces the culture of death more than the other party. I belong to neither party.

 

[JP2ImissU]

Richardols does have a good point. Conservative and orthodox are NOT the same thing. I’m a fairly conservative Republican and have never supported a Democrat in my life and even I know this. I know a few Democrats who are good and faithful pro-life Cahtolics. I know several Republicans who are terrible Christians, the fact is Jesus’ message dosen’t fit perfectly with either party.

 

[buffalo]

I am a orthodox Catholic first who happens to vote Republican because the current GOP aligns themselves more closely with Catholic teaching than the Dems. If the GOP becomes the party of death, I will vote differently.

 

[Hildebrand]

Richardols:

I avoid voting for pro-choice candidates, but we differ otherwise in that I consider pro-death penalty candidates as much Death candidates as the abortionists. Just because the Church barely tolerates the death penalty doesn’t mean that it’s not covered under the Death Camp’s umbrella.

This is where you are not orthodox. You can never equate killing the innocent with a state’s authority to kill the guilty.

And I don’t remember any doctrine stating the government must tax half your income to redistribute it to government programs. Of course there is a call by Christ for every Christian to be very generous to the poor, sick, etc.

If the Catholic Church seized half of everyone’s income, it would be an outrage across America. The government does it and you are fine with it. Mind you, the Catholic Church is far more efficient with money than the government is. Take for instance public schools vs. Catholic schools.

There were once Catholic orders running hospitals and the poor had access to health care. Liberals throughout history have tried to weaken and destroy the Catholic Church. And did it with some success. They stole Church lands and more importantly they destroyed Catholic influenced society (which was an advocate of the poor) and replaced it with a selfish, hedonistic, and secular society. Those liberals, for the most part did not truly care about the poor, they only cared about enriching themselves. Now you have a new group of liberals (secularists and socialists), as hostile to the Church as the previous liberals and they have added new and far worse evils to their goals (abortion access for all women, et al). Their solution is always government. “Government will take care it this, government will take care of that. Government will take care of nearly everything.”

The old group of liberals (today’s conservatives) have been infiltrated by Catholics and like-minded Christians and is much more pro-Catholic than ever before.

The new group of liberals are getting worse and worse every year.

Catholics have had for years been stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have been forced to choose between the lesser to two evils.

 

[Richardols]

Hildebrand:

This is where you are not orthodox. You can never equate killing the innocent with a state’s authority to kill the guilty.

Abortion is authorized by the state, executions are authorized by the state. The two are certainly equal legally. The result is dead people either way, and it takes away God’s perogative to determine when our lives begin and when they shall end, and substitutes man as the determiner or life and death. Both are, in my estimation, part of the Culture of Death, where the value of life is diminished or negated.

I also believe it to be real hypocrisy for a “pro-lifer” to oppose abortion, but to relish the prospect of putting another person to death

The old group of liberals (today’s conservatives)

Mr. Bush is one of today’s conservatives, and no one would confuse him with an old-time liberal.

 

[Maranatha]

Richardols:

Abortion is authorized by the state, executions are authorized by the state. The two are certainly equal legally. The result is dead people either way, and it takes away God’s perogative to determine when our lives begin and when they shall end, and substitutes man as the determiner or life and death. Both are, in my estimation, part of the Culture of Death, where the value of life is diminished or negated.

I also believe it to be real hypocrisy for a “pro-lifer” to oppose abortion, but to relish the prospect of putting another person to death

Mr. Bush is one of today’s conservatives, and no one would confuse him with an old-time liberal.

I agree, people would see the intrinsic evil of abortion easier if we consistently uphold the sanctity of life. Yes he is guilty of horrible crimes but his life is still sacred.

 

[buffalo]

Hildebrand:

This is where you are not orthodox. You can never equate killing the innocent with a state’s authority to kill the guilty.

And I don’t remember any doctrine stating the government must tax half your income to redistribute it to government programs. Of course there is a call by Christ for every Christian to be very generous to the poor, sick, etc.

If the Catholic Church seized half of everyone’s income, it would be an outrage across America. The government does it and you are fine with it. Mind you, the Catholic Church is far more efficient with money than the government is. Take for instance public schools vs. Catholic schools.

There were once Catholic orders running hospitals and the poor had access to health care. Liberals throughout history have tried to weaken and destroy the Catholic Church. And did it with some success. They stole Church lands and more importantly they destroyed Catholic influenced society (which was an advocate of the poor) and replaced it with a selfish, hedonistic, and secular society. Those liberals, for the most part did not truly care about the poor, they only cared about enriching themselves. Now you have a new group of liberals (secularists and socialists), as hostile to the Church as the previous liberals and they have added new and far worse evils to their goals (abortion access for all women, et al). Their solution is always government. “Government will take care it this, government will take care of that. Government will take care of nearly everything.”

The old group of liberals (today’s conservatives) have been infiltrated by Catholics and like-minded Christians and is much more pro-Catholic than ever before.

The new group of liberals are getting worse and worse every year.

Catholics have had for years been stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have been forced to choose between the lesser to two evils.

One thing to not lose site of - abortion has killed over 47,000,000 innocents, the death penalty a few innocents and perhaps 1,000 guilty over the last 40 years.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

One thing to not lose site of - abortion has killed over 47,000,000 innocents, the death penalty a few innocents and perhaps 1,000 guilty over the last 40 years.

Is it only a matter of numbers? Suppose there were 47 million executions and only 1,000 abortions. Would that make it acceptable?