Chaput goes to Philly
July 18, 2011, 5:33 pm
Posted by Lisa Fullam
NCR reports that Charles Chaput, currently of Denver, will take the helm of the troubled Philadelphia archdiocese.
Thoughts? Certainly this will give him a bully pulpit during the 2012 election season.
Now the good people of Philly are being punished because of the malfeasance, incompetence and arrogance of Rigali!
“Chappedlips” most likely has cut a deal with B16: I’ll give you a smaller, purer church of the faithful remnant – and you give me the Grand Poobah’s Big Red Hat ASAP. He can even get all gussied up and look like Burke, ie., the doyen of the Red Hat Society. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5ykYxDhJLh0/TiBO-Y1XF0I/AAAAAAAAFf4/jNKzfX6MXhw/s1600/Cardinal+Burke.jpg
And who says that the clerical version of sucking up doesn’t pay off?
Ain’t it fun being a katlick in these latter days? And, yes, the way things are going, we are seeing the latter days of European-style Catholicism.
Internal politics – rewarding Chaput for LC duty and ridding the Australian church of that dangerous bishop Morris – wonder? Did Francis George and Law weigh in on this along with Burke?
Does anyone know if the job was first offered to Gregory who turned it down?
Inquiring minds want to know?
Now would be a fabulous time for Commonweal to run Fr. Imbelli’s review of Chaput’s recent book:
“The Archbishop’s approach is both pastorally sensitive and theologically cogent. It will help bring clarity to the ongoing conversation and discernment in this delicate matter – one which must be addressed for the sake of the integrity of the faith.
To conclude: Archbishop Chaput has written a book that is informed, measured, civil, and pointed. It should be read, discussed, taken to heart in the United States and beyond. In many ways his message is simple, though certainly not simplistic. He puts the question forthrightly: “What needs to be done by Catholics today for their country?” and his response is equally forthright: “The answer is: Don’t lie. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to prove it. America’s public life needs people willing to stand alone, without apologies, for the truth of the Catholic faith and the common human values it defends (p. 197).”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/render_unto_caesar_answers_crucial_questions_about_intersection_of_faith_and_politics/
I’m from the Philly archdiocese (and still live here). I just hope Chaput doesn’t do and say things to alienate my generation (I’m 29).
Does anyone know how Chaput is on Catholic schools — i.e., on not closing them? If Wichita, Kansas can have free Catholic education for everyone because of their effort to increase donations for it, why can’t we? People here in Philly would DEFINITELY be willing to support that; Catholic school culture is particularly strong here. (I know Chaput isn’t from Wichita; I just cited that as an example, etc.)
Why does Rome think that American bishops can just be assigned to cities thousands of miles apart?
Would they do that for Italian cities?
Out in Denver, Chaput could count on the support of a milieu of fellow mountain reactionaries (ever been to Colorado Springs?). Philadelphia is quite different socially, economically and culturally.
I know I know – the faith is the same everywhere. Right.
Also, I have no idea what the media is like out in Denver, respectful? fawning? Pennsylvania is a politically diverse state so I hope Chaput cans his overt politicking.
And when you’ve finished reading Robert Imbelli’s review, you can look at Douglas Kmiec’s:
http://commonwealmagazine.org/catholic-answers-0
Isn’t viewing EVERYTHING through the prism of politics tiring?
I know that it is tiring to read those who put politics before all else and are apparently wholly incapable of setting aside their partisanship.
And now another selection from The Very Best of Bender:
I thought Bender, the Troll, was excomunicated … oh well.
Philly goes kaput er Chaput -same thing.
Thanks, Grant – find Kmiec’s review to ring true given this specific bishop’s track record.
Also, would cite your own Verdicts blog and Lakeland’s review: http://commonwealmagazine.org/verdicts/?p=215
Especially sections from “The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity”:
Highlights:
- Effective authority is not simply power; but legitimate power which can not be determined merely by documents or appeal to magisterium.
- Leading effectively where people feel obliged to think for themselves is much more difficult than it used to be
- Chapters on Humane Vitae by Cahill, Kaveny, Taylor, Tentler shed light on the limits of both papal and episcopal authority and the costs that come when you fail to recognize those limits. For forty years there have been no discussion or meeting of the minds in regards to sexual morality – including abortion. Eccliastical face is involved and there can be no acknowledgement of error or misjudgment. This has created a divide that has not been bridged.
- Taylor talks about the fact that there are limits to episcopal/magesterial authority – there is a “legalism” involved that does not trust adult catholics to handle complexity. It is based on the authority of the speaker rather than the persuasiveness of the argument; principles involved, etc.
- ideals of the West about human nature and rights took hold long before they took hold in the church. Thus, we need to separate form and forms.
- is the church open to self-criticism? There is a difference between Traditon and traditions?
- Beals chapter about canon law in which some believe there is no crisis of authority – only those who do not obey? But, does this really reflect life in the church?
Great thoughts about the differences between formal and effective authority and better reflections than one finds in Chaput’s recent book.
I don’t think that this appointment augurs well for the Catholic Church in the U.S. My reasons have little to do with Archbishop Chaput’s book, which I found debatable but intelligent at a quick read, but a number of other things that he has said and done. In due time, he will become a cardinal. For now, however, I think people like myself should take a deep breath, count to ten, say some prayers,organize our thoughts, and not give rein to nasty remarks.
Further to what Bill DeHaas said above —–
“A fresh critical look is being taken at the issues of power and authority, and people are beginning to learn, however haltingly, to relate to one another in less coercive and more creatively supporting ways. A new moral principle is emerging, which holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the clearly evident servant stature of the leader. Those who choose to follow this principle will not casually accept the authority of existing institutions. Rather they will freely respond only to individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are proven and trusted as servants. To the extent that this principle prevails in the future, the only truly viable institutions will be those that are predominantly servant led.”
— To be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting. None of us is perfect by ourselves, and all of us need the help and correcting influence of close colleagues. When someone is moved atop a pyramid, that person no longer has colleagues, only subordinates. Even the frankest and bravest of subordinates do not talk with their boss in the same way that they talk with colleagues who are equals, and normal communications patterns become warped. … The pyramidal structure weakens informal links, dries up channels of honest reaction and feedback. … This in time defeats any leader by causing a distortion of judgment, for judgment is often best sharpened through interaction with others who are free to challenge and criticize.”
Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness (Paulist Press, 1977)
Authority involves the ability to secure willing obedience. Hannah Arendt.
“Rev. John Pawlikowski, professor of ethics at the Chicago Theological Union, said the Catholic hierarchy traditionally expects to be treated as a moral authority while modern societies respect those who show real moral leadership.
‘The Vatican has to understand that the new challenge is to move from moral authority to moral leadership,’ he said.
‘Moral leadership doesn’t come just because someone gives you a purple cap, a red one or a white one,’ he said, citing the colors of the skullcaps worn by bishops, archbishops and popes.
March 29, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S4I920100329
I favor this advice as opposed to that of being good little sheep and hoping for the best:
What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
As a lifelong member of the Philadelphia archdiocese, I have 2 words: mirabile dictu.
And other thing. Anyone who would put Douglas Kmiec anywhere near Fr. Imbelli when it comes to perspicacity on all things Catholic owes the reverend an apology. For example, consider this from Kmiec:
“Is a Catholic voter supposed to overlook how the Republican Party has failed to deliver Roe’s reversal in thirty-five years?”
Right. So the Democratic Party has fought tooth and nail at every turn the pro-life efforts of the Republican Party, but it’s the Republican Party that has failed. This is what passes for serious argument in some quarters?
Mr. Proska, it’s been the Republicans — not the Democrats — who’ve promised to achieve pro-life goals over the years. And to date. Nada. Nothin’.
Yes, from a goals standpoint, the Republicans have failed.
Mr. Jaglowicz—
By your definition of success and failure, the logic of your assertion requires the following to be true:
The Democrats have promised to achieve goals that are contra-life, and have succeeded.
Given that, how can a good Catholic vote Democratic?
Peter (7/18 7:31 pm):
Well, the American Church has been a great problem for the Vatican in recent years, and John Allen says Chaput is a personal favorite of the Pope’s, so it could be that Benedict sees this as a step toward righting a listing ship. But the American church will likely continue to be split four or five ways no matter what the Vatican does. I’m afraid to them we’re largely a lost cause – off arrogantly romping through our relativist, materialist playground, thumbing our nose at the establishment, always shouting down Daddy and demanding that we get what we want.
Hello Brian,
Why does Rome think that American bishops can just be assigned to cities thousands of miles apart? Would they do that for Italian cities?
Well, the Pope just *did* do that with two Italian cities when he appointed Cardinal Angelo Scola, archbishop of Venice, as Archbishop of Milan last month.
Milan and Venice are much closer geographically than Denver and Philly, but culturally, they’re arguably even farther apart.
There is something to be said (or so I have thought) for the early patristic prejudice against transferring bishops from one see to another. But that ship sailed a long time ago.
Who said that things couldn’t get much worse?
Chaput’s appointment is just another increment in the plan to wreck the church so that any thinking, mature Christian will leave the hierarchs to retreat behind their Vatican walls for a century or two, propped-up by their Vatican bank(s) with their dirty money, when there will be no one around anymore that can remember how corrupt and complicit the hierarchs have become.
It’s long past time that American Catholics chart their own future by setting these hopeless hierarchs adrift.
Hello David,
…I’m afraid to them we’re largely a lost cause
Actually, there’s a significant body of opinion in Rome that the U.S. is more salvageable – for lack of a better word – than most European conferences at this point. There’s a sizable contingent on the U.S. bishops bench that’s visibly on the same page as the Pope (whether you think that is a good idea or not), and there are few places in Europe where that can be said to be true. Likewise, divisions may be deep (just as they are in most of the West), but resort to the sacraments and vocation rates are still considerably higher here than in much of Europe.
How the U.S. stacks up (in Rome’s eye) versus various parts of the developing world is fodder for a separate discussion.
R.M. Lender:
Thanks for tip about Italy. Wow, if now Italy is being handled the same way, well, that says something about today’s hierarchy; it’s a self-generating club or something.
Yeah, too bad bishops can’t be found among the locals, especially of major cities.
Thanks again.
whispersintheloggia calls Abp Chaput not just “outspoken” but also “fearless”. Can someone explain to me how he is fearless? When has he gone out on a limb and taken risks?
“Yes, from a goals standpoint, the Republicans have failed.”
Actually this is far from true.
Pres. Bush signed into a law a ban on so-called partial birth abortions that has fared surprisingly well through the federal appeals process (which is a double accomplishment: passing the law and the appointments made). Pro-lifers are essentially a vote away on the Supreme Court for significant re-casting of Roe. And a host of state legislatures have passed common sense restrictions on abortion. So I would not say that Republicans have been a total failure on this issue.
And it really is amazing just how polarized our Church seems to be. A Native American Franciscan is appointed Archbishop of Philly, and you’d swear (pick your bogeyman/dictator/lame analogy) had just been installed. Sad really.
If you wanted to describe Chaput in a headline (e.g., O’Malley: experienced scandal fixer; Dolan: memorable on TV; Gomez: nice smile and speaks Spanish) you would say “aggressively political and overtly partisan.” Is this a sign that the Vatican wants to play power politics in America as they do in Italy?
It could complicate life for Senator Casey.
“Pro-lifers are essentially a vote away on the Supreme Court for significant re-casting of Roe.”
I am 37 years old; I remember hearing this argument for the first time when I was 14, when George Bush (the Elder) was running for president. Then Casey v. Planned Parenthood came down, with the decisive votes AGAINST gutting Roe cast by Reagan and Nixon appointees. Then Souter was made a Supreme Court judge (by Bush). The statement that we were a vote away was false then, and false again four years later, and again, and again; when does it just become a lie?
Mr. Proska:
Republicans have supported oppressive immigration policy, corporate greed, and cuts that eviscerate social programs for children, the elderly, and the disabled. They have started and supported unjust, indeed baseless, wars. All these things go against Catholic social teaching.
So how could any good Catholic vote for a Republican?
Maybe, since there is no Catholic Party (and a good thing, too), Catholics should vote for the person they believe will do the job well.
RML (8:46 pm), perhaps only part of the American church is salvageable. How much? Interesting that Europe is likely lost.
The attraction of relevatism seems to have been irresistable, at least in the West. An idea appeared out of the blue and swept away a huge swath of humanity. Had such a sudden large change in mankind’s way of thinking ever happened before? Can we imagine its happening again?
Relativism. Where’s spell check when you need it?
I believe it is terrific that Chaput has been appointed to Philly. We will now see what he’s got. He will not have the obeisance and obsequiousness he has now. He will be challenged to deliver. I wish him well but I doubt he will pass muster. As for the book “Render Unto Caesar”, I wrote that it was puerile when it came out and have not changed my view. Kmiec is being kind when he praises the book. It is a book which could have been written in one day without picking up at the top of one’s head. I read it with pain and could not believe anyone would consider it important. As far as I can see it was a staged book with a staged review coming out of Osservatore Romano, no less. Out of restraint I will not comment further on the book.
The people of Philadelphia are in a fighting mood. They feel acutely betrayed. I think it is a good thing that Chaput is in a place where he will be severely tested. It can be a learning experience for him. As far as I can tell Chaput believes that being “Catholic” is more important than being good. It is a formula for We shall see if he comes in with humility or arrogance. Maybe I should count to ten. I don’t think we have than luxury.
ARCHBISHOP CHARLES CHAPUT’s record, per SNAP:
— He has been accused of underreporting abuse in his diocese
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/usccb/natureandscope/dioceses/denverco.htm
— He has attempted to sidestep the transparency of the court system by bullying victims into a church-run mediation. The mediation had no promises of discovery, disclosure, or public release of sex abuse cover-up documents.
— He fought against anti-crime legislation that would reform the statute of limitations for child sex offenders.
— He has not confirmed whether or not he does background checks on priests in the archdiocese. They don’t do them on volunteers.
—They do check on some international priests:
http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/2010-International-Priests.pdf
— Because of anger at their exposure of child sex crimes and cover-up, Chaput held a childish and punitive six-year grudge against the New York Times, refusing to speak with reporters about sex abuse in his diocese and his Vatican-appointed investigation for serial predator Marcial Maciel.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/archbishop-chaput-whacks-media-in-speech-defends-his-nyt-boycott/
Same old, same old arrogance.
So those all those people who think Apb. Chaput are wrong about some thngs should “Stop lying”? Oh, wow, how Christian of him — calling people he’s never even met “liars”.
catarinas–
You are saying your prudential judgment does not allow you to, in good conscience, vote Republican. Ok, but that doesn’t answer my question.
Peter, I think it will be interesting to see if Archbp Chaput does indeed get a red hat. The geographical center of the church in the US is shifting away from our “Rust Belt” dioceses and the Vatican seems to be taking note by making Houston’s archbishop a cardinal while withholding (so far) the biretta from sees like Baltimore and Detroit where they were once fairly regular. I think Chaput’s promotion is what it is, and he will be on the front burner for sure. But there may be an argument to be made that his successor in Denver will have a better chance of becoming a cardinal than Chaput will in Philly.
Very interesting point, David.
I’m curious. What has been Archbishop Chaput’s record in Denver? We are more familiar with his political stances than with his local success in fostering vital parishes effective clergy, witness and assistance to those in hardship, plus increasing the numbers of young adult Catholics active in their church and community life. Denver is growing so I think such measures have to be examined not simply in absolute numbers. And while there’s a place for anecdotes of the good and the bad, I wonder if there are any ways of getting beyond that to overall patterns of his local leadership?
No, Mr. Proska, I am using a rhetorical reversal to show that your question is irrelevant to the reality of American politics, to the complex moral reasoning one needs to make principled choices in a messy and complicated secular polis, and to the occasional need to hold one’s nose and vote. The illusion of total purity is possible only if you are a one-issue voter. (It is my hope that Catholicism will never be entirely reduced to a one-issue faith.)
My last sentence made my position clear, but I will restate: my conscience and my understanding of the balance of faith and citizenship in a secular democracy lead me to the belief that I cannot require a political candidate to share every one of my views. I would rather vote for a person of integrity and ability who opposes me on significant issues than for an incompetent or an ideologue who agrees with me. I only wish every election gave me a choice between two capable, credible people with differing views.
To be a lost cause to/for the Vatican may indeed be one of the first steps of rebirth as a church that has found its way back home to the gospel of Christ and away from arrogance, clericalism, authoritarianism, syncophancy and immorality masking as “preserving the good name of the church.” THOSE are things that have scandalized the faithful!
One can only hope.
Some street corner sociology from Mark Twain:
“In Boston they ask, how much does he know? In New York, how much is he worth? In Philadelphia, who were his parents?”
Patrick –
WhAt does he know? I see in Wikipedia that none of his degrees are in either theology or canon law.
Should all bishops or at least archbishops be required to be theologians? Their primary function is, after all, preaching, and it would seem to be wise to have bishops at least as well educated as their priests and theologians
I asked it earlier, but I wanted to ask again — does anyone know how Archbishop Chaput is on Catholic schools, i.e., on not closing them? Any chance that he might see them as a good tool for the new evangelization, and thus be willing to keep them open and pour more resources into them?
1. Philadelphia will indeed get another cardinal in accord with a ninety-year-old tradition. Probably Detroit too after sixty-five years. The Vatican has a very old map of the United States. Galveston-Houston was indeed an unexpected recognition of a population shift. And perhaps the same will happen in time in Atlanta or Miami. But still the “old” East Coast and central Midwest figure very large on that dated map.
Baltimore, “the premier see,” as a cardinal’s see is now so mixed as to provide no guide at all — Cardinal Gibbons (1877-1921, the clear leader of the US hierarchy in his time): Archbishop Curley (1922-47, a brilliant contrarian): Archbishop Keough (1947-61, rather unhappy and missing Providence); Cardinal Shehan (1961-74, a great friend from his Washington days of Amleto Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate from 1933-58 and Vatican Secretary of State in 1965 when Shehan was named in Paul VI’s first consistory); Archbishop Borders (1974-89. unjustly thought to be a maverick); Cardinal Keeler (1989-2007); Archbishop O’Brien (2007 -, now too old). Baltimore, a cardinalatial see? It seems to depend on how favored the incumbent is at a given moment.
And so with several of the other “traditional” sees. There is some evidence of flux, but those bishops thought to be deserving of reward are still getting moved to the old favored Sees, with a Red Hat to come. Archbishop Chaput is clearly now among them, though he will likely have to wait till Cardinal Rigali turns eighty in 2015.
2. Philadelphia is indeed unique. I believe it to be the most “provincial” among US archdioceses. That’s not meant to be pejorative, but simply a recognition of the reality. I have been greatly influenced by the “Philadelphia tradition,” though I grew up in Washington. My excellent teachers in grade school were the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and my teachers in high school were the Augustinians, founded in the US in Philadelphia from Ireland in 1796. I did undergraduate and graduate studies at Villanova, established in 1843 by the Augustinians in the Philadelphia diocese.
3. I don’t see how Denver and Rapid City are a preparation for the unique Catholic culture and tradition of Philadelphia. John Allen makes much of Archbishop Chaput’s Capuchin seminary studies in Pittsburgh in the late 1960s and his work there in Capuchin ministries in the 1970s. Close to forty years ago! Though in the same state, they are at very opposite ends of it. Pittsburgh is altogether different in its ecclesial and secular traditions from Philadelphia.
$. I think Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville, a priest of Allentown (part of Philadelphia till 1960), would have been the better choice. But I wasn’t asked.
And perhaps in time Seattle.
To John Page — I’m very interested/intrigued by your sketch of Philly (since I’m from and am still in the Philly archdiocese); could you say more about what you think makes it unique? I naturally have a sense of it myself, but it’d be interesting to see some of my intuitions / inchoate observations confirmed or modified. If you were educated by the Augustinians here in high school, I’m guessing you went either to Bonner or to Malvern Prep? (I’m Jesuit-educated — St. Joe’s Prep and Georgetown. And when I went to Notre Dame for my MTS, I found a Jesuit. ^_^ )
To give some of my own impressions of Philly; perhaps you could confirm or modify — I’d say that Catholic schools play an enormous role in the identity and culture of the archdiocese (hence my immediately wondering which high school you went to — Philly is still a place where it matters where you went to high school, particularly in the case of Catholic high schools, and perhaps even more so, particularly in the case of the private Catholic high schools, all of which are single-sex). For my generation, the schools are often what’s keeping us/them from leaving the Church; it’s their tie to it. This I think is particularly the case when it comes to the private Catholic schools. Speaking of which, I think that may be another distinctive thing — I could be wrong, but I think perhaps one thing that’s unique to Philly is the important distinction between parochial and diocesan schools, vs. the private Catholic schools. The parochial and diocesan ones tend to be much more traditional and/or conservative — in their leadership, that is, not necessarily in their students and their families. In contrast, the private Catholic schools tend to be more liberal. In one of the diocesan high schools, a teacher could get in trouble for favoring women’s ordination. In one of the private Catholic high schools, a teacher could get in trouble (or at least, run into problems) for NOT favoring women’s ordination, or at least for speaking out against it.
I’d say the “ordinary Catholics” as a whole are not attuned to theological or liturgical controversies — e.g., I could be wrong, but I think most would not really notice or care about a traditional vs. liberal liturgy. (However, many ordinary Catholics WOULD be upset by a homily that tried to push the Church’s teaching on contraception, and even on abortion. We’d probably agree with the Church on abortion, but it’s like, “don’t push it in a homily.”) Along those lines, I think that traditional devotions (e.g., the rosary, adoration, statues, Miraculous Medals, saints, etc.) do not have the political or ideological connotations that they have for others. E.g., my Mom loves the rosary, the Blessed Mother, etc., and is in favor of women’s ordination, contraception, dislikes the hiearchy in general, etc. The rosary here is just the rosary; Mary is Mary. The same thing with the church buildings in general — there are still communion rails, side altars, the original high altars behind the now-moved-up altar, statues, etc., but they’re not politically charged like they’d be elsewhere. Young Catholics would probably want a beautiful church like that for their wedding, and not see it as somehow aligned with a conservative stance.
Anyway, I know this is sort of rambling, but perhaps someone might find these observations on the Philly archdiocese interesting.
Someone at America mentioned that Chaput’s been making young-people’s sermons available as podcasts (search for chaput in iTunes). I listened to one and a bit of another. To my ear, far from brilliant – rather bland, pedestrian, I thought. From that little exposure, I deduce that there’s no charisma. That’s not bad, of course – few people have that gift – but I wonder what his particular appeal may be. Just a good bureaucrat? If so, that’s not bad, either, but I wonder whether more might not be called for in a troubled diocese. Maybe not – he may have exactly what it takes.
Hello Ann,
What does he know? I see in Wikipedia that none of his degrees are in theology or canon law.
Chaput earned an M.A. in Theology from the University of San Francisco in 1971.
Catarinas–
Have you ever considered the possibility that your willingness to vote for candidates that you have fundamental disagreements with–I assume you are pro-life–perpetuates the condition of always having to compromise your principles?
Brendan–
I believe the liberalism you’re seeing in private Catholic high schools in Philadelphia is a function of Jesuitness–my sense is that other prep schools are not nearly as liberal. Agree with you, mostly, about diocesan high schools.
Believe it or not you can blame Augustine for Chaput. Augustine believed you can overcome and be forgiven anything as long as you are Catholic. Same way with Chaput. Those who criticize the Church are heretics. Cover-ups are necessary because the Church is really holy and admitting fault is contrary to the perfection of the church. Orthodoxy is everything. You can force people to come in or you can persecute (they used to kill them) and harass them since you are doing people a favor by bringing them into the confines of the Sancta Romana Ecclesia.
The true Catholic tradition is solid and admirable. Protestants recognized this at the Council how the pope can be a unifying force. But the desire to admit no fault within the hierarchy, despite all the words, has led to pedophilia priests being resent out to prey on children.
So the talk here of whether Chaput will become a Cardinal is relevant in a strange way. The position of Cardinal is the quintessential political and power position of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy rather than charity covers a multitude of sins. The thinking that orthodoxy overrides everything is the root cause of the abuse of power and children in the church.
John Allen has the exclusive interview with Chaput. http://ncronline.org/news/people/exclusive-interview-archbishop-charles-chaput
” As an example, I certainly want to be faithful to the Holy Father and his teaching about the traditional expression of the Roman liturgy in the Tridentine form. I supported that and will continue to support that. It isn’t, however, my personal interest or direction.”
This is one controversy that Chaput will avoid.
Peter,
Yes, it certainly would be good to know what sort of local successes Chaput fostered in Denver. He can’t spend all his time railing against political positions he finds inimical to Catholicism. Who knows whether we’ll get a broader picture of that pastoral record? There is also the question, not unrelated, of what kinds of policies he’ll enact in Philadelphia. Last year, you’ll recall, he was criticized for barring the children of gay parents from attending Catholic schools. He went on to say, through a spokesperson, that the decision wasn’t just about gay people, but applied to all parents who “don’t respect the belief of the Church or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs.” He didn’t provide examples.
For those interested in Philadelphia seen from the underside, I would strongly, strongly recommend Father John P. McNamee’s Diary of a City Priest (Sheed and Ward, 1995). An extraordinary book by an extraordinary priest of an inner-city parish with its own school (St. Malachy) — who is also a poet. (Still available on Amazon).
I wrote a review of it back in the 90s for my local diocesan paper, but they did not print it — either because we’re too far removed from Philadelphia, or because Father M. had some not entirely complimentary views of Bevilacqua’s reign over Catholic Phladelphia.
Hello Bill,
Believe it or not you can blame Augustine for Chaput. Augustine believed you can overcome and be forgiven anything as long as you are Catholic.
“How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” St. Augustine, Homilies on John, xlv, 12
In addition to John Allen, Chaput also granted a new interview to Sandro Magister at La Chiesa yesterday. Link here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1348740?eng=y When asked who are his teachers of reference, Chaput responds: “Augustine and Francis. You can’t do better than that.” He also singles out Paul VI, interestingly.
from John Allen’s interview:
Allen: “Could we say that, granted a distinction between the Bernardin years and the John Paul years, the right Catholic attitude is both/and?”
Chaput: “It’s both/and. I’m sure Cardinal Bernardin believed ‘both/and’ too. When you move through time, you see different things. In one era, if the church and the world isn’t paying attention to a given dimension of the Gospel, you emphasize it. As you move forward, it may be that because of the preaching and activism in that area, there’s been a loss of focus on others, so then you emphasize those. You have to preach all of them, and all together.
“If you’re a sincere Catholic, you’ve got to be committed to the transformation of the world in terms of justice and peace.”
R.M,
Augustine is an elusive character unless one studies the whole picture. I don’t think there is anyone you can quote both sides of an issue more than he. His actions tell a different story as his persecution of the Donatists showed. Not that the Donatists were innocent either.
Hello Bill,
St. Augustine was a complex man – no doubt – whose theology evolved in no small way over his life, but it is extremely hard to imagine a Roman Catholic Church without him. If the goal is more than just critical engagement with his thought, that is to say, to “de-Augustinize” the Church … I’m not even sure that possible. But perhaps that’s not what you’re really proposing.
John Page –
Interesting sketch of Philadelphia Catholicism. I always thought of Philadelphia as thoroughly conservative. The most conservative Caholic I’ve everknown was from there. It was a matter of upbringing, not temperament. She said thAt if a priest entered a room and people were smoking, they would quit. Also, if it was a dance, when a priest appeared they would quit dancing. Janssenistic in the extreme.
Mr. Lender –
Thanks for the info.
Paul VI ???? Yes, that’s very interesting. Perhaps there is still hope for the City of Brotherly Love.
I wish we could all exercise a little more reticence to judge, and perhaps more openness to the Spirit and to the guidance of Benedict.
I recall the fury of the days following Benedict’s election. Suffice it to say, he has surprised many, and I would rate his administration of the Church superior to that of JP II.
On that point, I think his appointments in the US (and elsewhere) have been impressive: who would have thought Wuerl would get DC? DiNardo is very good, as is Dolan. Scola in Milan is a masterpiece.
Of course to those on the far extremes, nothing will suffice, but based on Benedict’s track record I hope and pray that this appointment will serve Philly’s needs, as well all American Catholics. I’ve listened to Chaput in a podcast interview and read the Allen interview; he struck me as straightforward, but not overly arrogant or condescending. I’ve head him disagree without deriding those with whom he disagrees, a lesson we could all learn better.
The attacks here on his intelligence, his intentions…the condemnation, the judgment, the derision…all very strange for some who consider themselves progressive and tolerant. I say, trust the Spirit, and, yes, trust the Church.
Here’s an interesting reaction: Rocco! Yesterday the dear boy was gleefully anticipating the installation of a native Philadelphian. Today he is just asking prayers from Mother Katherine Drexel and Fr. Newman!
Jeff Landry, thanks so much for not being judgmental…
@Ann O: Newman or Neumann?
The Archbishop boycotted the NYT, at least for a while, and that sin against holy journalism is the unforgivable sin in the prestige media. Don’t expect fair and balanced reports until the NYT grants official absolution in exchange for an apology by the Archbishop and a Canossa genuflection in the snows (or heatwaves).
http://www.getreligion.org/2010/09/bam-chaput-boycotts-the-nyt/
I just read John Allen’s interview. Chaput comes across as an interesting, multi-dimensional man.
My favorite part: his assertion that bishops needs to be held accountable, both as citizens in civil society, and in their role as bishops within the Church.
My least favorite part: his assertion that gay marriage is “the” issue of our times, which I think is wrong, and which he backs up briefly with the need for children to have a father who loves his mother and a mother who loves his father: an obvious pointer, in my mind, to divorce as “the” issue of our times!
My most surprising read: his repeated note that he is 66, at the age where people in other professions retire, and his worry that he won’t have the stamina needed for the job.
The answer to my earlier question about his “fearlessness”: he is fearless in the sense that he is not afraid of criticism by the people or the media. I can see how that takes some amount of courage, yet, with the support of the Vatican (and of the evangelical branch of the church), it’s not the kind of courage where you feel compelled to do things that can get you into actual trouble – such as going against unjust civil laws or openly criticizing your boss and doing things in a way that he disapproves of. He does not put himself at any risk. I do not criticize that (it can be wise to be diplomatic around those who can get you fired or jailed!), but I object to his being called “fearless”. John Dear is fearless, not Abp Chaput.
My general impression: some of the most frequently occurring words are “faithfulness” and similar words. There is an imbalance between his stress of that aspect and his lack of focus on “love”. Once he mentions that love of the poor is fundamental, but in general love gets a lot less attention that faithfulness, which is a theme that keeps coming up over and over again. It makes him sound more like a committed politician (someone with ideas, an agenda, and a voice) and less like a pastor.
Dolan-Chaput. Dream. Team.
Hello Ann,
Janssenistic in the extreme.
That sounds puritanical, not Jansenist. The two are, unfortunately, often conflated, especially in glosses of the Irish Church on both sides of the Pond.
Jeff Landry
Cardinal DiNardo was appointed coadjutor (which now always means with the right of succession) archbishop of Galveston-Houston in 2004 by Pope John Paul II.
Cardinal Spellman had two coadjutors WITHOUT right of succession: Archbishop James Francis McIntyre, later cardinal of Los Angeles, and Archbishop John Maguire, who continued as coadjutor of New York till he reached retirement age.
Wethout being facetious:
Rigali is outand Chaput is in because of the sex abuse mess in Philly.
Rigali apparently gets to go off to a quiet Tennessee retirement (the best we can hope for -he’s gone.)
Chaput comes in with not the greatest rep on sex abuse issues.
His appointment signals same old same old on Church policies from top down and he comes via the church politics of George, Burke, Law etc.
The Allen interview (will John A. now move to the Phily area too?) says Chaput (notified July 5) hasn’t read the Grand Jury report from Philadelphia.
I would have thought it would have been among the first to dos, but it could have been a disingenuous response.
While he’ll be more out front than Rigali, it’ll be more of the same conservative Catholicism Mark and his buddies here lap up. I think Peter is right that it’s no great deal though (in our divided Church.)
I thought his ideas on catholic schools were antiquated and slanted – an important issue for the furture. Also, seminaries, like most diocesan seminaries, the game is indoctrination into the smaller purer(?) Church.
Rocco claims he was part of the”vibrant post VII evangeical Catholicism” of the west.
I’m not sure how deep Rocco’s knowledge of the West is -he should stick to Philly IMO.
Out here, will be interesting to watch the church poltics fight for Denver.
Given the appointment in Philly, I don’t expect more vibrancy this way.
Last word, post Cloyne, are we any better off on sex abuse despite all this hoopla????????
Janssenism, as understood in New Oeans, has emphasized that the flesh is at best suspect and its pleasures should be minimized. Yes, there is a noticeable strain of Janssenism in New Orleans. We got it early from the Ursulne nuns. The Philadelphia Irish Catholics sound as though they agree, hence they’re “janssenistic”.
“…it is extremely hard to imagine a Roman Catholic Church without him…”
Exactly, R.M. That is the point. The telling point is that it is nowhere the same in the Eastern church. The singular paradox is there is no doctor or saint which the church has corrected on so many issues. Yet he remains, really, the architect of the Western church. There have been many movements to get away from Paul and back to Jesus. Paul does preach the real Jesus. The real move is to get away from Augustine and back to Jesus. At any rate to get on subject Chaput, Benedict, JP II and so many others follow Augustine more than Jesus. We do need to de-Augustinize the church.
Was Rocco Palmo being deliberately disingenuous yesterday? I wonder. In his earlier post his words seem imply that the new Archbishop was originally from Philadelphia and is serving elsewhere.
“In one sense, Phils fans, this is a return to our roots… in another, it’s a reflection of the best gifts our own have given to the wider church…. “
“…thanks to the heavens for your “yes” to us, and welcome home.”
Later in the day when the announcement of Chaput was confirmed, he wrote rather gloatingly (Of course, he know it all the time!):
“OK, gang, so — despite trying to keep it down as long as possible out of deference to the ways of things — the news is out… For what it’s worth, keeping lid since Friday night was no mean task.”
Mr. Proska: I am of the opinion that “pro-life” is not simply (or even always) “anti-abortion” and the religious and ethical concern for human life does not end at birth. Wikipedia has an adequate article about a “consistent ethic of life” and a few of its possible nuances. It can be hard to find the line between integrity and rigidity, between openness and license: it is our job to approach difficult questions with prayer, humility, and hard work.
In that vein, my hope for Chaput is that he will tend to his very hurt new diocese rather than simply transferring a political campaign from one place to another. Having seen the diocese of Baker lose people (including myself) to the demands of a bishop who explicitly put his particular notions of purity ahead of the living community of faith, I have gained an increased appreciation for the Jesus who healed when the need arose, put people ahead of rules, and said to render unto Caesar. Despite that experience, I still believe that if a leader takes time to know the people and responds honestly and prayerfully to them, everyone will grow in faith and wisdom.
As for the appointment itself: given that Vasa refused full implementation of the USCCB guidelines about abuse and was then kicked upstairs to Santa Rosa, which had been devastated by abuse cases over the past couple of decades, one has to wonder how much the Vatican is taking the needs of the people into account when appointments are made.
As the archbishop is over 65, perhaps he has a Medicare card. That is proof enough for free senior fare on the subways, trolleys, and buses of Philadelphia. Regional rail fares within Pennsylvania are a flat $1 with the Medicare card. I’m sure his excellency will give up any private car service. He does not have to show his miter or pallium to the conductor or driver, just proof of age.
Helen McDevitt-Smith
I wondered if Rocco got it wrong, thinking that Archbishop Kurz from Louisville was going to Philadelphia as had been rumored. Maybe he too was surprised by the news.
Hi Ann,
Janssenism, as understood in New Oeans, has emphasized that the flesh is at best suspect and its pleasures should be minimized. Yes, there is a noticeable strain of Janssenism in New Orleans. We got it early from the Ursulne nuns.
I would just say that Jansenism (a condemned heresy, we should be clear) is quite a bit more than that; it is ultimately about the nature of grace, and the kind of moral rigorism it tended to create was a secondary (if very real) concern.
At any rate, I can’t speak to New Orleans in this regard, but it would not be too surprising to see elements of Jansenism in traditional Catholicism there (does such even still exist?) given that it was founded as a French colony at a time when there was still a strong residue of Jansenism in the mother country. The mistake is to assume that all examples of moral rigorism in the Church are due to Jansenism. The Church in Philly, as in most of America, was largely Irish in origin, and Irish puritanism derives more from English influence of the 19th century.
Alan C. Mitchell:
I don’t think so. He claims he knew since last Friday, but kept the lid on.
I used to think that he would be the next Xavier Rynne.
Not so much any more!
As another commenter mentioned, I’m reminded of the reaction to Cardinal Ratzinger’s election in the Spring of 2005. I include myself among those who was too quick to judge, and so, despite my visceral discomfort at this announcement, I am explicitly summoning the grace of the Holy Spirit to help me trust that God has a plan. I would’ve loved to welcome Bishop Gregory from Atlanta, but I shall have to hope that Bishop Chaput will allow himself to be used as part of the Divine design for this hurting Archdiocese.
May the Lord bless and guide Archbishop Chaput in this daunting and important task.
I think Rocco pretends to know and in this sense is a very practiced tease.
Mr. Proska, please speak for yourself. I’ll do my own defining.
TO: Jeff Landry and Jim Keane, perhaps the proof is in the pudding? While I acknowledge developments mentioned by Jeff Landry, I must also agree with Jim Keane’s suggestion that it remains to be seen if Republican steps will eventually play out in legislative or SC gains. I’m not convinced they will, but, who knows???
R.M.lender –
Yes, there are still quite conservative Catholics here but not so conservative as some of the Eastern American conservatives I’ve known. I’d say that generally we’re more on the liberal side. That can be explained largely by the French men who were often enough free-thinkers, quite different from their wives. I’d say we’re not extreme about our liberalism either. Maybe that has saved us from being assigned one of the extremely conservative bishops.
But the losses in membership here have been great, as everywhere. So it’s hard to say what the practicing Catholics generally believe. It would be interesting if the sociologists checked out just what the practicing Catholics believe.
Louisiana Catholicism is “conservative” in the best sense: it is not shocked or aroused at examples of human frailty, particularly those of the flesh, and for that reason does not eagerly jump at every new idea promising to save humanity (or human institutions) from itself. It is not unthinkingly opposed to change; change happens, but slowly and in a more open-ended haphazard way. Whether this is due to the French, the insufferable heat, or the lived experience that beginning every June until October everything can literally be blown away and re-settled is anyone’s best guess.
Jeff–
I largely agree with you, but, as in other matters, I think New Orleans is religiously more liberal than the rest of the state. Politically, for instance, we haven’t gone Republican, and not just because of the large black population. I don’t really know what the particular influences on the Cajuns were. I can only speak about the Creoles, who largely established the basic character of New Orleans as an easy-going, tolerant, non-evangelical Protestant place. But the Cajuns are also a colonial group, and they too have a reputation (deserved, I think), for enjoying life. But politically they’re generally
more conservative.
This is one mixed -up state:-)
Perhaps some of you have gotten emails from this firm commenting on the Chaput move. While many of us may agree with the comments it is not easy not to suspect personal interest on the part of this law firm. On the other hand if it were not for the attorneys would any of the victims have ever gotten justice. And I don’t mean in only a financial sense but just simple vindication that they were violated. There have been powerful voices like Andrew Greeley, Tom Boyle, Snap and others militating for victims. But without the legal advocates we may well still be adrift in the eighties. Above all it shows that we were not able to stand up to the hierarchy when they are wrong. It may still be true. While we have meeting, blogs, conferences about it, we have no plan of action. Without the attorneys it would be business as usual. This is why the structure of the church must change.
http://andersonadvocates.com/FirmOverview.aspx
Molly:
“practiced tease”
Now that’s a nice way to put it.
The first thought that comes to my mind is “deceptive.”
Helen: I take it that you are no longer a reader of whispers?
http://catholicmoraltheology.com/chaput-and-the-issue-of-our-time/
Those of us who are denizens of the Bay Area now have a better idea of what to expect as a replacement for San Francisco’s Niederauer when his “let me out of here no matter what” letter of resignation finally is acted upon.
We are already surrounded by troglodytes: Cordileone in Oakland; Vasa in Santa Rosa; and Daly as auxillary in San Jose (not requested nor, from what I hear, wanted by McGrath, the current ordinary.)
The entire Northern California church can easily be turned into a “smaller, purer” church of the “faithful remnant.” Then there won’t be a priest shortage and people can say that God answered their prayers.
MS Winters, Barbara Blaine of SNAP and someone from Holy Cross on WHYY in Philadelphia —-
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/
“Without the attorneys it would be business as usual.”
While, as an attorney I agree that the legal system proved some benefit in moving the church to dealing with the sex abuse crisis, it also likely forced the bishops into a defensive stance that caused more harm.
And don’t forget that plaintiff’s victims firms are a BIG business; they care about making a profit at the end of the day, just like any other business. And they operate just like many other businesses at the end of the day.
Jeff Landry, Jeff Anderson was a lone attorney with a one man office over a store. No big business there! Some little guys both in body stature and business stature turn out to be Davids.
Jeff, the bishops were always about “avoiding scandal”
That approach is what still causes harm!
Bishops’ law firms are also “big business.”
The incoming bishop of Philly hardly has a wonderful record in this matter and the usual defenses abou tlawyers, media etc. don’t wash anymore except to loyalists to the hierarchy.
Jimmy Mac:
Of course, I will continue to read Whispers in the Loggia, but I will be a bit wary. (What the heck, he is the same age as my son, who is also a young journalist with HuffPost.)
Interesting WHYY interview. Did you notice that the interviewer gave the proper pronunciation of Chaput near the end? (It did not seem to register with M. S. Winters and the professor from Holy Cross.)
The Archbishop said “CHAP yew” was the proper pronunciation in response the last journalist’s question at the press conference this morning. He seemed very gracious about the fact that few people pronounce it correctly.
” — it also likely forced the bishops into a defensive stance that caused more harm.”
It was the bishops’ defensiveness, obfuscation, arrogance and (in some cases) truth-stretching, not the legal profession, that caused the harm.
You can’t blame sunlight for exposing rot.
Correction:
I meant “SHAP yew” not “CHAP yew.”
But maybe, some would like to see it pronounced “Ka Put”
“I am of the opinion that “pro-life” is not simply (or even always) “anti-abortion” and the religious and ethical concern for human life does not end at birth.”
Catarinas–
Except, I think, for the “or even always” part, I agree completely, but you’ve not addressed the question. After all, no one would vote for Hitler if he had had a consistent ethic of life, except for his “problem” with Jews. I understand the Church’s teaching to be similarly proscriptive with respect to the unborn. I won’t pursue it any further, since I imagine it may cause pain for some people.
I do think the sexual abuse situation in Philadelphia may have had something to do with the Vatican accepting Rigali’s tendered resignation. I agree that no Bishop should put his particular notions of purity ahead of his flock, but at the same time as shepherd he has an obligation to guide us towards purity. It would be good to hear more about Chaput from the people of Denver but it does not appear that the up and coming Denver has any Commonweal bloggers, unlike that rust belt city, Philadelphia, which has several. Oh well.
P.S. Hope it was the diocese of Baker you left, and not the church.
Mr. Jaglowicz–
I know I was speaking for myself and think I was using your definitions.
Jimmy–
Thanks for the link. It’s an interesting show, but unfortunate that all 3 of the guests Miss Moss-Coane invited on her program were from the same side of the political spectrum. Wonder why she would do that.
“The incoming bishop of Philly hardly has a wonderful record in this matter and the usual defenses abou tlawyers, media etc. don’t wash anymore except to loyalists to the hierarchy.”
I’d like to think it possible to have a balanced view of things, plaintiffs’ lawyers included, without automatically being considered a shill for whatever nefarious evil you see lurking on the other side. These days its harder and harder to think it possible, however.
I am curious: Do those of you fulminating (for or against) Chaput think this is the country’s and the church’s most serious challenge?
More reactions from Philadelphia:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/125793908.html
Margaret, pardon, would you please clarify the antecedent of “this” in your 8:50 comment? Not sure what you mean.
MS: “I am curious: Do those of you fulminating (for or against) Chaput think this is the country’s and the church’s most serious challenge?”
Though I don’t think my previous comment could be described as fulminating, I’ll hazard a response…
I think it matters in two prominent ways:
1) Immediate response to the latest abuse crisis in Philadelphia: the most recent round of indictments impugned the integrity of every single prelate in this country. Privately, I think more than a few of Bishop Rigali’s colleagues were fuming that their own efforts would be so unfairly maligned due to the failures in Philadelphia. The John Jay Report was greeted with skepticism and scorn. How Archbishop proceeds (for instance, if he fights the Pennsylvania legislature on statute-of-limitations laws, as he did in Colorado) will bear enormous import for the credibility of this ostensible reform on the part of the entire American Church.
2) Election 2012: If Archbishop Chaput decides to issue press releases re: the denial of communion, it will be a major story. (One the NYTimes will be only too happy to bump to the A Section.) Part of me is cautiously optimistic, though, that being sandwiched between two more moderate miters in Dolan and Wuerl, who thus far have explicitly eschewed the denying of communion to politicians, will restrain (constrain?) Chaput. I simply don’t think Archbishop Dolan would be pleased to see Archbishop Chaput’s name above the fold of the NYTimes, and it strikes me as unlikely that Chaput would take to that pulpit without Dolan’s approbation. Not now that he’s an Acela ride away.
So to answer your question: no, this isn’t the single largest issue facing the American Church. But it’s still enormously significant beyond the local and parochial. Whether the people (and courts) of this country believe the American bishops ARE serious about the issue of sexual abuse is a big deal.
I will believe that the bishops in this country are serious about the full ramifications of sexual abuse when someone of them – any one of them – publically challenges the likes of Bruskewitz and Vasa and their “up yours” attitude toward the Dallas Charter and what it represents. When one of them – any of them – publically disagrees with a bishop who is obviously covering up in order to protect the clericalist structure of his realm. Oh, I know that to do that would be to “break form” for bishps, until, of course they retire. Then they will timidly and opaquely vent (sort of) about something that is wrong. Fine – break form! Prove that you are indeed more concerned about what is going on than with the “circle the wagons” attitude of the USCCB and the individual members.
Why are we finding this to be an increasing activity of some few bishops outside of the US? When not here IN the US? Are they all so concerned about their bishops that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity for another touch of scarlet, old lace and ermine?
Until and unless I see some bishops who are human first and bishops second, then I will simply write them off (as I have) as a group of wastrels.
“Fulminating” seems a bit over-the-top. Is this taking a leaf from another well-known blog?
“It would be good to hear more about Chaput from the people of Denver but it does not appear that the up and coming Denver has any Commonweal bloggers, unlike that rust belt city, Philadelphia, which has several. Oh well.”
I’m in Denver. My whole house reads Commonweal.
Fr. Keane–
What do you see as Chaput’s most significant accomplishment in Denver?
Yes, “fulminating” is probably over the top–but not too far over. I wouldn’t have even entered the fray except that having read John Alan’s book-length interview with Chaput, I was struck by references to C’s age and energy, to the fact that he seems to be leaving behind a coterie of friends and allies with whom he’s worked for a long time, and an acknowledgment that Philadelphia is not Denver. I couple these with my observation that Philadelphia conservatives are not members of the Tea Party, and that Catholic laity in Philadelphia have a certain independent streak.
My bottom line (at least at the moment): it’s going to take Chaput several years to get the lay of the land and he will have his hands too full to carry on as he has previously in the political realm. Since dotCommonweal seems to give him even more air time than the NYTimes, we’ll soon find out if that’s an accurate view!
Abp Chaput only has a voice in the political arena if the opinions he expresses represent the opinions or influence the vote of Catholics in his diocese.
His views are representative of the opinion of an unknown number of Catholics
What he says will influence the vote of an unknown number of Catholics
With no way of knowing what those numbers are (Catholics don’t have any way to express themselves within the Catholic church), I would guess the first number to be a small minority and the second number to be a vanishingly small minority.
As a politician, that would make him an unimportant, marginal oddity who can safely be ignored.
I am still surprised (although I shouldn’t be) that he said that gay marriage was “the” issue of our times. It’s so far out there on my list of things to worry about in this society! It sounds wacky to me. My own short list of the issues of our times for a bishop:
- the sexual abuse crisis
- the large number of young people who turn away from the Catholic faith
- the problem of poverty, particularly for children. In a rich society like the US, one might want to call it the scandal of poverty.
We know from SNAP that Chaput’s record on the sexual abuse crisis so far has been dubious. Does anyone know what he has done for evangelizing the young and addressing poverty?
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels:
Although I have not lived in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for some time, I still consider myself a Philadelphia Catholic, because that is where I was “bred and buttered.”
Normally, I would not agree with your comment about Catholic laity in Philadelphia having a certain independent streak. That was not my experience. But I think that the recent scandals and leadership lapses may have changed all that.
I was surprised when I spoke with a rather traditional Philadelphia Catholic yesterday. He said:
“If he (Chaput) starts to get political, interfering with how I vote, I’ll just ignore him.”
“If he (Chaput) starts to get political, interfering with how I vote, I’ll just ignore him.”
That’s pretty much what happened in the last election cycle and it will probably happen in the next one too.
First, I forgot in my last post to congratulate Kathy -she would make a fine cheerleader.
I se George Weigel (at National Review online) has weighed in about the usual suspects make tedious complaints about the appointment -it’s funny that he doesn’t see himself as a usual suspect making tedious comments.
I think it’s clear that Chaput was BXVI’s man for this job.
Given all lthe continuing hubbub re Cloyne -now the Justice Minister in Ireland is deeply unhappy with the Pope’s spokeperson, Lombardi, about the work the Vatican had done on sex abuse!
If Rigali was ousted on that subject, and I think it’s also clear that he was, it’s hard to see (beyond the PR) what he really brings to the table on this besides the same old.
But that’s why he’s appointed: a pleasant articulate well read and well spoken defender of the party line.
Not unlike the “briain” of the US hierachy, Cardinal George, as John Allen dubbed him and who has a major two part interview for Commonweal by our own David G.
They aret he PoPe’s Curia’s men there because they can well intellectualize the traidtionalist line.
Unfortunately, it’s hardly clear that that’s what’s needed. Weigel has proclaimed the Bernadin hierarchy gone (see Peter’s anlysis of that) and on our own blog’s Verdicts, “Mourning Becomes the Catholic Church” seems to indicate the days of VII Catholiocism are on the wane here.
But it strikes me that on the continent and in Australia, the Curial Church is in deep difficulty (except maybe Poland -and even there;) In the East, inculturation issues seem always to be in tension with the cutial insiders. only on the dark Continent where Father still has lots of juice is the Church of Rome making big waves.
And here the Law. Burke, George Church (I hope David asks the cardinal about his role in epscopal appointments) I think the Church is suffering a problem of “expendibility”
VII Catholics may have gone or are going or soldiering on with help from their fellows, maybe to stay – or maybe not.
The lpylaists have undermined the policy makers’ credibility by refusing to engage and for many the guidence of the policy makers is expendible..
So for Philly, I think the appointment doesn’t offer a lot on dealing with sex abuse.
For the US Church, the appointment of BXVI’s man signals a Cartholic Chutch that is surely a more Roman Catholic Church, but for many, a Church less like the Church of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, that’s the frame I see this through and if that’s “fulminatng,” so be it/
Bob,
Do you have a link to the Weigel article? It’s not turning up on the NRO listing of Weigel articles, and I’ve been unable to find it by manually searching.
Re: gay marriage and Chaput’s comment -
I wonder if we’re reading too much into it; in other words, it’d be helpful to hear his intonation rather than just read the words. He could simply be saying, matter of factly, “this is the issue of our time” meaning, “this is the debate everyone is having right now and we (the Church should be involved).” Or he could be saying (which is how I think it’s been interpreted) “this is the single most morally pressing concern we should have right now and we should invest everything into this fight.” If he intends the former, it’s hard to disagree with him in light of the near endless laurels the NY Times and other liberal media outlets threw at Cuomo et. al. for seeming days on end (only the specter of Murdoch’s fall seems to have gotten them on to something else). The posts here on same sex marriage generated (if I recall correctly) twice the usual number of comments; so as a matter of fact, same sex marriage DOES seem to be the debate of our times. If he means the latter, I disagree with him, as I think there are other more pressing issues.
I was interested to read how “anti-clerical” he is. I do have to say, he doesn’t strike me as anything like Burke in tone, temperament, clerical garb festishness, etc., etc. I think the continued allusions to Law, Burke, etc. are a bit tired and worn. There is an interview with him by various media leading lights, such as EJ Dionne, on the Pew website that I found engaging.
I am curious as to why Cardinal Rigali will retire in the diocese of Knoxville TN. At the press conference yesterday, he said:
“I will begin my retirement in the diocese of Knoxville, where I have been invited to live.”
With a little googling, I discovered that the bishop there, Bishop Richard F. Stika, is from St. Louis and was chancellor of the Archdiocese of St. Louis from 1994-2004, during Cardinal Rigali’s time as Archbishop (1994-2003).
OK, but still why not a position in Rome where he has spent about half of his priestly life and where he is on some high-powered commissions in the Curia?
My sources in Philadelphia tell me that as Archbishop of Philadelphia he was known to have spent half his time in Rome. (If Rocco Palmo can have anonymous sources, why can’t I?) So I am wondering why he is not retiring in Rome.
Another point that interests me is that Cardinals Krol, Bevilacqua, and Rigali were/are Canon Lawyers while Archbishop Chaput has an M.A. in Religious Education and an M.A. in Theology. Chaput’s background may be very good for Philadelphia. Maybe the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has had enough of canon lawyer leadership.
This has been the posture of most Catholics for at least the last 15o years. I recall a history professor in my undergraduate who studied the Catholic church in Canada in the 1800′s.
He noted that there was not empirical evidence to support the mythology of priest going door to door and forcing ignorant peasants to vote the party line. This was a perception, politicians acted on this perception but it was, at least according to him, largely myth.
We see this again in the US when there is discussion of a so called “Catholic” vote. When it is unpacked Catholics vote basically along the same patterns and demographics as the larger cohort of voters according to what I have read.
Even during the Iraq war, Pope John Paull II railed publicly against it but it did not stop George W Bush and Tony Blair who were otherwise in sympathy with other teachings from engaging in the war.
I think that it is possible to respect the voices and perspectives of Bishops and I think as Catholics we are obligated to listen respectfully and put those teaching in practice as best we can. However, we also have to form our own prudential judgements around for example gay marriage. Of course this is tied to the broader political question of the role of the state in public life (is marriage something that the state needs to be involved in at all!).
But it is legitimate for Catholic bishops to ask if there is no distinctly Catholic public and political identity are they not performing their role. My personal observation is that of the practicing Catholic I know most are socially conservative (even if privately) but economically liberal.
Still I don’t think we should criticize too much as it is tough being a bishop in this day and age.
As a total aside, I am not a fan of this moving around of bishops. It feels careerist, corporate and political. I think there is something to the monastic value of stability at least as far as bishops are concerned but that is a separate issue.
Thanks George D
You comment is very informative. Gives me much food for thought.
I am reminded of something a good friend told about the 2008 presidential election:
“I’m pro-life but I went into the ballot box with my rosary and pulled the lever for Obama.”
Michael, I linked to that through (of all things) Bishop accountability today
FWIW, my take on Chaput at Religion News Service, my new journalistic home as of this week:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=10130
Chaput’s appointment is more sorrows upon the land, especially for Philadelphia.
I wonder who the people of Philadelphia would have recommended for their pastoral leader if the Vatican had ever bothered to consult them.
The only way given the all-male feudal oligarchy that presently holds sway in the Vatican that Catholics can exercise their voice is to vote with their feet and charity donations.
The future looks bleak, indeed.
Jim–
Take a step back from the ledge, it’s really not that all that bad. For the record, if had been consulted, Chaput would have been on my short list.
DG – thanks for a repeat of the papal bobbleheads. But how about a link to your new home page?
A last word on the new Abp, actually more of a question.
David”s report on the Abp. is quite thorough.
He notes the native American roots, but it’s hatdly clear how much, if at all, those roots play a part in the Abp.’s thinking.
It strikes me that native American Catholicsim has always been a bit syncratic ( and I don’t use the word pejopratively),
I think this might be an interesting topic to look at further.
Bob Nunz:
This comment of mine may not be appropriate for this kind of blog but I can’t resist.
People in Philadelphia are asking: “Do you know was Archbishop Chaput was named Archbishop of Philadelphia?
Answer: He’s a relative of Chief Halftown.
See: http://www.broadcastpioneers.com/chief.html
Probably, only a person with roots in Philadelphia will get the joke.
Well, Mark Proska, who’s really whistling past the graveyard?
The point being is that you, or any of the people of Philadelphia, weren’t consulted on who should be their pastoral leader!
Much of what ails the Catholic Church today could be cured by LETTING THE PEOPLE DECIDE – about everything from parish to pope.
And, BTW, if the truth be known, when you step out and away from the “Chaput-dream-of-life,” there is NO ledge, no fall, no threat to one’s spiritual life.
To paraphrase John Lennon, if you want a revolution in the church, you have to first free your mind instead!
Jim–
But I don’t want a revolution, I think that was John Lennon’s point. Do you really think giving parishioner a say is better? Wouldn’t it lead to campaigning among the “candidates”? That’s the last thing we need. I don’t think the problem is poor selections from the Vatican per se, it’s that too often there are not well-qualified priests to choose from.
Mark – there are well-qualified priests who never become bishops because they do not meet the “Romanita” standards of that papacy or national/regional power bias. There is a litmus test that is administered and some more than qualified priests are never even considered.
There is an on-going historical debate about the “Jadot” episcopal choices in the US versus the subsequent JPII choices. You would find “failed” bishops in either camp ….. suggest that a more open system that was transparent might provide a wider number of candidates; at least bring to the surface the “hidden” litmus motives; and raise some issues that might be overlooked by the current, narrow process. Fact – no process will ever be perfect. A candidate might be overly qualified and still fail as a bishop.
For another (less flattering) view from a reporter -Kenneth Briggs at NCR talking about the new Abp. as”the Definer,.”
Actually, it’s the critrique of him as the intransigent Rome’s man.
Jeff, wants us to trust BXVI and the Spirit(?) but that’s really the question at stake -how much trust is there and should there be in a world apinning more and more to the smaller “purer” Church.
Mark Proska:
You’re not wanting a revolution is exactly the point.
Yes, unlike folks like yourself, I think that democracy is always preferable to the alternative: an all-male feudal oligarchy.
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE! We are adults. We share the same baptism, the same access to the Holy Spirit.
If the people make a mistake, at least it will be our mistake and not some paternalistic feudal lord as is not the case.
The quality of priest candidates will improve once the more open-minded “People” have a say.
Jim–
The subtext comes across to me as, “We, the people, come not to serve, but to be served.” How can we fault the hierarchy for being obsessed with power if what we really want is that power for ourselves?
ISTM that many of the people who criticize the hierarchy’s command/control power issues are themselves involved with service! And that Mark’s argument is just another sophistry to defelct from a problem!
Bob – relevant to your point from the second part of David Gibson’s interview with Cardinal George:
Some interesting comments:
- last part of his comment about the JJ Study and sexual abuse: “…..The report hasn’t received a lot of attention, and in some ways that is surprising, unless it doesn’t say what people want it to say. Because there’s a meta-narrative in all this. It’s the usual meta-narrative: individuals harmed by institutions and authority, particularly religious authority, that is a priori oppressive. That’s a media mandate, sort of, for every story. And while there are elements of truth to that story, that’s not the whole story. Facts that don’t enforce that story, don’t corroborate it, tend not to be reported.
- “I lived in Rome [1974-1987] and when I came back I had a sense that something had happened but I didn’t understand very well—not about this but about a lot of things.” (This should be underlined and highlighted…given this, why was he quickly raised to the level of archbishop/cardinal of Chicago. He speaks volumes here but no one seems to pick up on it.)
-”…the relaxation of protections for celibate living that had been taken for granted as part of priestly life for so many generations. That struck me as something I should have given more thought to. I’m grateful for that.” (Really, this was an issue in formation and assignments dating way back – if this is a “new” issue for him; he was really out of touch)
- “It’s not a question of asking “Who’s Catholic?” It’s a question of starting with the bishop as the center of ecclesial communion. How can we establish the relationships of ecclesial communion before there is a crisis? Before we have to say “you are Catholic” or “you aren’t”? That’s an atomic bomb in ecclesial communion…so before you get there—and obviously there are problems that are more acute, as you’ve pointed out, than in the past. So my question was—and I think the conference is following up on it—What can we do as bishops to take the initiative to reach out so there are relationships within which we’ll talk about who’s Catholic and who’s not, how are they Catholic, and what do they understand by “Catholic.” (always amazed at his comments – notice that almost every response is from and about the institutional church and the bishop as the “center”…..no reference to Jesus Christ, scripture, sacraments, liturgy – only as a “company and institutional man”? This also speaks volumes about his values, mindset, etc. Contrast his comments with the parables and stories of Jesus in the gospel. They appear to be worlds apart just as he is a world apart from the every day catholic in the pew, in their homes, jobs, families.
Sad commentary – let me know if you see any notion of “service” in this cardinal’s responses.
Today’s Phhily Faily News has a similar take on the new Abp. by David O’Brien a Philadelphian.
I’m sorty, but the story has legs still, because Philly press got hold of the (awful) grand jury testimony of Bevilaqua – now sealed, but continues to write about it and wondering what difference the new Abp. will make – and that is a very good question!
Just to let you know, the story goes on in Philly – Philly magazine has a piece on why Abp. chaput is not the answer )because he comes from the same old Roman approach.)
Stay tuned til we get a new thread from there.