Chaput’s challenge
Archbishop Charles Chaput has been reviled by some liberal Catholics, here and elsewhere, for suggesting that Catholics who vote for prochoice politicians will have to answer to the unborn victims of abortion.
But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
Some of the archbishop’s critics seem to be put off by the strangeness of this thought experiment; and it is strange, or at least unusual, to find this kind of eschatological speculation in a debate about politics. That does not make it ridiculous—or useless. In a comment about a very different subject, a reader of our blog, Ann Olivier, ventured a similar speculation about how moral responsibility will play out in the life to come. “I have my own personal belief about Purgatory,” she wrote. “It will be right here on this Earth, and we will literally have to face everyone whom we have injured, and if we try to lie or make unjustified excuses Jesus will set off some sort of siren, adding another level of humiliation.” Absurd? I don’t think so, and maybe not so speculative either. The church has always taught that, whatever else the Last Judgment consists of, it will require us to face the hidden or forgotten consequences of our actions. So, while I understand why unbelievers might find the archbishop’s reference to the next life fanciful or sectarian, I think Catholic voters—to and about whom the archbishop was writing—ought to take it seriously.
But as soon as one does take it seriously, one notices some strange features of the archbishop’s argument. First, there is its imprecision. Maybe the archbishop meant that a Catholic who votes for a prochoice candidate will have to face those who were aborted because the candidate he voted for was elected. But that of course is not what he wrote. He wrote, without qualification, that such a voter would have to explain his actions to “the victims of abortion.” Why? In some cases, if not most, a prolife voter may reasonably believe that the election of a particular prolife politician over his prochoice opponent will probably not have the effect of decreasing the number of abortions, or even of changing the laws that permit or encourage abortion. If the voter is wrong about this, then it may make sense to imagine what he would say to the victims of his error. It makes no sense to imagine that he is therefore answerable for every abortion. This lack of rigor turns what might have been a useful thought experiment into little more than a rhetorical conceit.
If the archbishop’s speculation is in one way inadequately specific, it is in another way too specific. Why would the Catholic voter have to answer only to the victims of abortion, and not also to the victims of every other injustice his vote may have facilitated? The
So what counts as a “compelling, proportionate reason” to vote for a candidate in spite of the fact he or she is prochoice? It is worth noting that the archbishop acknowledges that there could be such reasons, at least in theory. And here he is in agreement with the
When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Many conservative Catholics brush this off by saying that almost no reason—and certainly no reason available to voters in this election—is proportionate to the evil of abortion. But most of these conservatives happen to agree with the Republican Party about most, if not all, of the big issues that are at stake in this election. It is easier to say that abortion always trumps all other issues when, for you, it never needs to trump anything. This is not the archbishop’s own position: he has spoken often and eloquently about some of the other grave injustices Catholics in this country need to address, including poverty. He simply doesn’t believe that any of these injustices are more serious than abortion. Nor do I. But that doesn’t mean that in a given election other issues may not be as politically important as abortion. It is, after all, possible to believe that the unlimited abortion license is a uniquely grave injustice in our country and to believe, at the same time, that while this presidential election is very unlikely to have much effect on our abortion laws, it is almost certain to have an effect on other important issues. Thoughtful voters may have to make a hard calculation, and they won’t be able to demonstrate conclusively that they’ve made the right calculation until after the fact. Practical judgment almost always involves some uncertainty. But to some prolifers, every disagreement about practical judgments is a disagreement about principles, and one is either a single-issue voter or a squish. The problem with such prolifers is not that they care too much about abortion, but that they care too little about anything else.
on August 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Insightful commentary. It is difficult for me to accept the archbishop and his stance. His record against victims of sexual abuse; opposition to Colorado’s changing its statutes of limitations; his pseudo-theological diatribes and justifications, etc. mask a man who is interested in power & authority. Granted, over the past 18 months his public pronouncements have shown a growing sense of balance; sensitivity to both sides; and an awareness that issues are more nuanced such as the position statements you reference. But, where there is smoke, there’s fire! You don’t change overnight.
See these links about his history: Shortcut to: http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_letters/2006_letters/050106_bishops_colorado.htm
Shortcut to: http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_letters/2006_letters/042406_denver_archbishop.htm
Shortcut to: http://reform-network.net/?p=1815
on August 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I think Archbishop Chaput’s thought experiment depends on something that, as far as I know, is not contained in Catholic teaching on abortion. As I have argued on dotCommonweal briefly before, it seems to me Catholicism deems abortion wrong because no one (but God) has the right to deliberately take an innocent life. I don’t think the Catholic Church argues that abortion is wrong because abortion procedures would be difficult for almost anyone to watch and, in fact, are disturbing to think about. Nor does the Church argue that the fate of aborted babies is worse than if they had been born. Along with unbaptized babies who die before the age of reason and (presumably) all the embryos that are lost within the first few days after conception, I presume the Church dares to hope that aborted babies go to heaven. (On the other hand, those who survive to the age of reason, according to very solid Church teaching, have a real risk of going to hell. So Archbishop Chaput presumes the aborted babies in heaven have a grievance and will confront Democratic voters, in the unlikely event they make it to heaven, saying, “How could you have done this to us?” It strikes me that it is a fantasy rather than a thought experiment. I can think of absolutely nothing to justify trying to impose guilt on potential voters with a scenario like that.
And assuming for the sake of argument that we will have to justify ourselves to others in the next life, something like 6 million children around the world die of starvation or malnutrition, and America’s biggest nutritional problem is obesity. Plus the average American wastes quite a bit of food. I would be much more concerned about confronting, in the next life, the people who starved to to death and answering the question, “When you had so much, and we had so little, why didn’t you do more to help us?”
on August 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“He simply doesn’t believe that any of these injustices are more serious than abortion. Nor do I”
Matthew, you have some great skills in reasoning and developing thought. At the same time you feed into the right wing trap and buy things, I maintain, you should not buy. The abortion issue is something the right wing latched on in desperation as they had no moral ground at all. Ridicule of gays is a close second.
This is a non issue because there is no logic to support it. As I have tried to point out, liberals are the ones who give this issue life by acknowledging this is an issue.
1. Pedophilia coverup is an issue
2 5 million children a year dying of malnutrition is an issue
3. Bishops living luxury lives is an issue.
4 The annual cardinal appeal is an issue. It is the only preaching that is consistent.
5 Most of the hierarchs sitting on the sideline at the holocaust is an issue.
6 The millions of poor families without food, medicine and guidance in this country is an issue.
7 The Catholic Church’s marriage with the very wealthy is an issue.
8 International trafficking in children and women is an issue
9 Much much more.
Abortion is a fraud issue and the topper is liberals feed it more than conservatives.
on August 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Bill,
I can accept that the abortion issue has been manipulated and magnified by republicans to their political advantage.
I’m not sure if you’re Catholic, but it is the infallible teaching of the Church that abortion, as well as the legal license of it, are moral evils that Catholics are bound to oppose.
Can you offer some support for how, from a Catholic perspective, the million abortions a year, and the legal license thereof, are a “fraud issue.”
I should mention that you do not give yourself additional credibility my saying that Republicans latch on to “ridicule” of gays. Again, I will acknowledge that Republicans have shown more interest in using the issue of same sex marriage for political gain than in supporting marriage. But I haven’t seen that take the from of “ridiculing” gays.
on August 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“He simply doesn’t believe that any of these injustices are more serious than abortion. Nor do I. But that doesn’t mean that in a given election other issues may not be as politically important as abortion. It is, after all, possible to believe that abortion-on-demand is a uniquely grave injustice in our country and to believe, at the same time, that this presidential election is very unlikely to have much effect on our abortion laws, while it is almost certain to have an effect on other issues of very great importance. This is the sort of hard calculation that thoughtful voters have to make, and they can never demonstrate conclusively that they have made the right calculation until after the fact.”
Completely agree, Matthew. We as voters are called to weigh the issues and the candidates in the light of our faith and the church’s teaching. “Faithful Citizenship” contains a strong section on the objective evil of abortion; but this is not intended (in my reading) to order Catholics how to vote; it is simply the bishops fulfilling their teaching office by stressing the magnitude and urgency of the problem. In the final analysis, we the voters are called to make our best prayerful and informed judgement.
I hope I never criticize a person who approaches their voting decision this way and votes the opposite of the way I vote.
When Archbishop Chaput states that he knows of no proportionate reason to vote for a pro-choice candidate, he’s no longer teaching what the bishops as a national conference have taught – he’s venturing beyond the text. In a sense, he’s taken off his bishops’ miter and is applying the teaching of the church as an individual citizen. So should we all.
on August 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I don’t see why the commendable aspects of Chaput’s thought experiment are negated by the imprecision. He is asking that we think about justice echatologically. B16’s Spe Salvi puts the same question without the naive images. “Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever some has done on earth ends up being of equal value. dostoevsky was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened.” (section 44)
None of that is to say that voting for the pro-choice candidate makes one the evildoer at the table. But it’s necessary to think about the lives of those who were aborted, as well as the lives of the parents and so on through many degrees of connectedness. A main theme of the encyclical is that we work out our salvation in connection with the lives of others, not individualistically, as in “I’ve got mine.” (Benedict is scathing on that front.) “Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into that of others: for better and for worse.” (section 48) Whether imprecise or naive, there’s much to be said for taking the long view.
on August 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
What about this for the rough side of a tongue?
From Cardinal Newman:
“It would be better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail and for all the millions on it to die in extremest agony than that one soul, I will not say be lost, but should commit one venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse”. [Apologia 324].
You see, Newman believed in God, and in His watchful eye over us, and His great concern for us. One sin, even venial, is spitting in His eye.
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Matthew–What an interesting and thought-provoking post. The thought I have is what if there are only pro-choice candidates to choose from? We cannot forfeit a vote because other issues do need to be considered. In the absence of optimal candidates, we are obligated to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
James–The quotes from Benedict on the entertwining of our lives are so pertinent. Thanks to the thought-provoking responses already received.
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Thank you, David Nickol, for pointing out another tragedy that we allow to happen – not feeding the hungry. Maybe we can’t feed them all, but we could do much better.
If we are going to be confronted when we stand for the final judgment, I am concerned about the millions of kids who starved to death on our watch. If anyone will have a right to challenge us, it will be their mothers, standing behind them, since they held their child as he or she died because they didn’t have the food to feed them.
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Sin involves choice, which is what makes this such a difficult issue. As John noted above “it is the infallible teaching of the Church that abortion, as well as the legal license of it, are moral evils that Catholics are bound to oppose.” What happens if we have to choose between these two evils, abortion and the legal license of it?
Is outlawing abortion the best way to oppose it? Does illegality diminish abortion, or encourage it? These issues about legality are the core of any discussion of making abortion illegal, but I rarely see them addressed. (perhaps because I rarely follow abortion discussions?) So if someone believes that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is to keep it legal and provide support, then is voting pro-choice immoral? Is the moral evil of providing a legal license for abortion great enough that we accept greater numbers of abortions in order to make it illegal?
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
If Chaput is correct that voters who supported a pro-choice candidate will one day have to face the victims of abortion to explain themselves, would it not also be true that Jesus will expect the victims to forgive these voters?
“How often must I forgive my enemy: seven times?”
“No, you must forgive your enemy seventy times seven!!!”
I think we’re looking at a two-way street here.
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Would the same number of people get abortions whether it was legal or illegal? It depends on how driven the person was to end the life of the unborn child. Statistics before Roe vs. Wade on abortions may be sketchy, since not recording such information was the point of the illegal abortion.
on August 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
His approach is . .. . eclectic.
The standard he’s using, as I’ve stated repeatedly on this blog, is not one from moral theology–that’s not the way the manuals understand the proportionate reason requirement. Furthermore, the Catholic moral teaching would say that all the victims of unintended side effects are all equal in value ==and should be considered equally. So this focus on what the unborn would say–and the idea that they are functioning as judges in some way–is well, extraordinarily odd.
The standard he’s actually using, it seems to me, is a bowdlerized version of an American constitutional law test. In order to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right, state action needs to be justified by a compelling state interest and as narrowly tailored as possible. Here, the focus is on those whose rights are being violated, and the compelling interest of the law weighed over against that violation. Very, very hard to survive a constitutional challenge at this level. In contrast, remote material cooperation –justified by proportionate reason — is the most lax standard used by the manualists.
So here’s my hunch: Someone–probably a lawyer–helped him reframe the proportionate reason test for cooperation with evil in Catholic moral theology in terms of the compelling interest standard of constitutional law.
Not very successfully.
on August 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
We’ve already been over several time the usefulness of Chaput’s kind of approach and whether it is effective -not here a question of truth/ values, etc but effectiveness.
The problem is that Chaput is a darling of the Catholic right here in the West and despised by others for his involvement on sex abuse issues and particular;ly SOL legislation.
The Cardinal George deposition thread today shows how deeply Catholic leadership is wounded by heirarchical behaviour by folks at the top of the bishops’ worlds here -not only George but Gregory, Kicanas, Skylstad, the residue of Law and the Philly bunch – just to name a few.
Chaput is part of those looked at through that prism too and his classic JPII the great theology adds to the perception (right or wrong) that he’s a quintessential company man.
So we can argue about his approach here til the proverbial bovines come home, but the message is already soiled in a number of ways that the so called current “apoloigists” will have a hard time even getting a hearing.
on August 14th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Cathy:
I actually think that a distinction you’ve drawn in the past–between the “casuistic” and “prophetic” traditions in moral theology–may be more helpful in understanding Chaput’s thinking than what you suggest above.
One of the things to bear in mind about Chaput is that he attended seminary in the late 1960s during a time when the manualist/casuistic tradition had come under increasing criticism. Under the traditional standard, for example, a bomber pilot who used reasonable care to avoid civilian deaths but nevertheless caused them would still be morally excused because the consequences were “outside his intention.” At a time when saturation bombing had become key aspect of American military strategy in Vietnam, this conclusion was deeply unsatisfying to many moral theologians. The crisis over Humanae Vitae only accelerated the collapse of the manualist tradition.
As you know far better than I, the generation of moral theologians that were writing during this period attempted to recast Catholic moral theology in more personalist and scriptural terms. They wanted to develop a moral theology that moved beyond the confines of the confessional and its need to determine degrees of culpability. They sought to recover the links between ethics and spirituality. They criticized a “two speed” morality in which holiness was the goal of priests and religious while the laity could be content with avoiding sin. They often embraced an approach to ethics where the imitation of Christ was at the center.
I think that Chaput is very much a child of this approach to moral theology. I’m reviewing his book for another publication, so I’m not sure I can give away all of my thoughts for free. But I’m struck by how much he draws on “prophetic” models–Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Franz Jaggerstatter, etc. and stresses that a key aspect of the lay vocation is to grow in holiness.
What I want to suggest is that while Chaput is often thought of as a “conservative,” he is a particularly “post-conciliar” and American one. He appears to operate from a set of assumptions about how to follow Christ that many people on the Left share as well. He has no nostaglia at all for the confessional states of Europe and–like Stanley Hauerwas–seems to relish the idea of Christians being a distinct, oppositional “counter-culture.”
Like you, I suspect, I think there is more life left the casuistic tradition than many seem to believe. I’m skeptical that the deep and rich tradition of Catholic moral theology can be reduced to a WWJD bracelet. But while Chaput’s approach to some of these questions may be eclectic, I think that some of the principles he is operating from are widely shared and not just among “conservatives.”
God bless,
Peter
on August 14th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Japanese religion has lots of services for mothers asking their children whom they’ve sent back to the gods to forgive them.
” it is the infallible teaching of the Church that abortion, as well as the legal license of it, are moral evils that Catholics are bound to oppose.”
That abortion should not be legalized is hardly an infallible teaching. Even the moral teaching is of quite recent vintage. Did not Alphonsus Liguori argue that abortion was morally justified on such grounds as the damage to a brother’s marriage prospects arising from a sister’s scandalous pregnancy?
on August 14th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Peter, as a matter of fact, I just finished a long article entitled “Retrieving and Reframing Catholic Casuistry.” I use MacIntyre and Anglo-American common law as models.
On my use of “eclectic,” well, I was trying to be polite. But maybe I just need to put my argument out there more straightforwardly:
Four points:
1. I’m not sure the Catholic causistical tradition ever operated withe the purely subjectivist account of intention that you’re talking about. Intention, in the Thomistic tradition, is purposeful causality. The manualists are guilty, many times, of forgetting the “purpose” part –say, in defining the object —so that the object of the act (the finis operis) is defined without reference to the acting agent’s immediate purpose in acting, but only with reference to its immediate, physical result. The danger in the Catholic manualist tradition is physicalism. Who, specifically, among Catholic moralists justified casualties in the way you’re talking about? As I’m sure you’re aware, many Catholic moralists were deeply influenced by an article by John Ford in TS in World War II on the morality of obliteration bombing. The person most responsible for defending Vietnam War(for a time)-and working through intention carefully was a Protestant with deep Catholic sympathizers–Paul Ramsey–and he did not operate with such a purely mentalist view of intention.
2. In my big article (part of my book) Prophecy and Casuistry, I do talk about these two forms of discourse. I also talk about how each form can be abused. One form of abuse, I argue, is when prophets conscript and distort casuistical categories for prophetic purposes (and vice versa). They thereby, in my view, seriously harm the tradition of practical deliberation that they claim to be protecting. The highest and most subtle casuistical categories are those developed in accordance with cooperation with evil. My (one of my) problems with Archbishop Chaput is that he is misusing the tradition on this–I explained how. The category of proportionate reason in manualist theology isn’t the same as the category of compelling interest in con law. To teach–which he is doing that this is the case is, in my judgment, not accurately to present the tradition.
3. More generally, I think Archbishop Chaput has consistently distorted the moral tradition in order to make his point. 1) His first presentation of cooperation with evil confused formal with material cooperation; 2) He distorts the meaning of proportionate reason; 3) He misuses the golden rule analogy; and 4) His “Method” ==and he’s presenting it as a “method” of moral analysis is not one that the tradition uses.
So he obviously doesn’t place a high priority on REASONING with, or within, the tradition. It’s simply a sharp weapon of the culture war, which he can use to batter people who don’t see things the same way that he does. It’s, well, deeply disturbing to see a bishop of a church that is committed to the possibility of practical reasoning operate in this way.
4. You’ve put a lot of people together in your list that I don’t think belong together. Hauwerwas and King are not the same in their use of prophecy, or in their view of the church’s relationship to the state. Hauerwas does not think that Christians should devote their attentions to changing secular law and policy. Kng’s prophetic work, obviously, is more concerned with that task.
Chaput’s focus on imitation of Christ is deeply admirable. But he wants to do more than than imitate Christ –he wants to shape American law and policy. Most of the people concerned with imitation of Christ in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II weren’t concerned with that. Even at the time, Catholic moralists who moved in this direction were deeply sensitive to the fact that you can’t move directly from what imitatio Christi requires to what American law and policy should require. The tradition requires much more when it comes to influencing law and public policy. A good place to start would be a close reading, for example of Aquinas’s treatise on law. Which King drew heavily upon, as I’m sure you know.
On so many counts, I just cannot put Chaput in the same category as King. I teach King in my Faith, Law, and Morality course–and the degree to which he saw–and insisted his followers see– his acts of civil disobedience as a form of loving self-sacrifice for both victims and oppressors is not something I see in Chaput. I think the only people he sees are the unborn. No one else counts.
on August 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I read Archbishop Chaput’s statements as an effort to personalize our decisions–something like Mitch Albom’s “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” type of deal, if you were able to read that without barfing.
In reality, I’m PRETTY sure that Archbishop Chaput knows no more about the Hereafter than I do. So I don’t see the need to split hairs about WHICH aborted lives we might have to answer to, since the original premise is highly theoretical.
I’m also pretty sure that Archbishop Chaput would admit–and perhaps does so willingly–that if we have to apologize to aborted children who died for our political mistakes, that we will have to apologize to, say, the men in the Tuskegee syphilils experiment, the soldiers who died from radiation sickness during nuclear testing, those who have died because they were unable to afford health care, and so on.
The better question, which Joseph J. seems to suggest above, is not whether those in Heaven will forgive us, but whether we can forgive ourselves.
on August 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am
A sincere question on a point of eschatology/theology: I always assumed that only God judges, in the here and now and in the hereafter. Is offering a role to aborted babies, and by extension, other victims, and even to me to judge others who have done me wrong and who come after me (should I make the supernal grade) a standard part of the “economy of salvation”? If so, I’m clearly in trouble. Then again, so might be the Archbishop.
on August 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
David,
Who knows?
Then again, we have the parables of judgment in the Gospels, including Bill Mazzella’s favorite, the separation of the sheep and the goats. The Son of Man does the sorting, of course, but the sorting is made on the basis of His identification with “the least ones.” Did you make them suffer? Did you neglect them? Did you feed them? Jesus literally takes these actions personally.
Of course the parables of judgment are not the only parables. The parables of forgiveness and reconciliation are there as well.
Another parable of judgment is of course the rich man and Lazarus. Again, did you neglect him? That will be the question.
on August 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Interesting thread – appreciate your analysis, Cathleen, and look forward to your article. I would again suggest that you reveiw the links I provided in the first blog response. A few thoughts:
a) Marci Hamilton’s recent book has a full chapter on the SOL issue played out in the Colorado house/senate. Simply, Chaput fought these changes by saying that private (e.g. churches) and public entities must have the same penalties if this law was to be fair. (public schools, etc. have state liability award limitations in terms of sex abuse, etc.) Ms. Hamilton is a legal expert and she quickly and concisely punches holes in every legal gambit that Chaput spent millions trying to enforce – statistics prove that widening and giving a window to victims does not result in any more financial costs. It DOES permit victims time to come forward and it DOES identify and remove pedophiles from society;
b) Given this, Cathleen points out the fallacies in Chaput’s legal arguments – unfortunately, he wraps this in a mantel of morality, church being under attack, etc. and becomes a poster child for EWTN, The Wanderer, Catholics United for the Faith, etc. As I said in my first response, he is a smart man; but not a moral theologian; he is more invested in preserving the authority of the bishop than caring for victims; and he does use pseudo-moralistic and philosophical language to mask his true intent – he is a single issue bishop who prides himself on his orthodoxy – he now has colleagues in Colorado Springs and Pueblo dioceses that follow his very narrow lead;
c) Cathleen points out the use of proportionalism – I was trained in this in the late 60’s and 70’s. It is interesting that this issue came up in the June USCCB John Jay report as a possible reason (among many) for why pedophilia happended in the Catholic church – talking about grasping for strings and pseudo-analysis. Pedophilia became a recognized American Catholic church problem in the 1950’s – most pedophiles acted or were trained in the pre-Vatican II world; proportionalism is a moral system methodology – pedophilia is a crime. They exist in different arenas;
d) Personal opinion/gripe about Chaput and folks such as Francis George – Chaput is a Franciscan – George is an Oblate – religious order priests who at one time followed the simple vows, missionary ideals, and option for the poor that motivated their founders. They have served in foreign countries and known the missionary environment and the 3rd world situation. Yet, unlike Sean O’Malley who chooses to continue to live the life of a Franciscan monk, Chaput and George enjoy the trappings of being “princes” of the church;
e) which brings me to my last point – Chaput freely uses the phrase “counter-cultural” – his definition means orthodoxy vs. the relativism of today’s society. I would suggest that today counter-cultural means: supporting any and all SOL legislation; supporting and meeting with victims; moving from a single issue stance to a consistent ethic of life (immigration and hispanic rights are a huge issue in Colorado – where are you, bishop? paying lip service to the bishops’ recent Faithful Citizenship document); doing more than paying lip service to the Dallas Charter; spending more time with his priests and people than traveling the world to beef up his resume for a potential elevation.
on August 14th, 2008 at 10:34 am
A terrific post by Bill. The entire episcopla leadership would do well to apply the counter-cultural argument to themselves and their fpor the most part princely lifestyles and career ladders.
I’d add it needs be said that Rome and the curial ties do little to promote that kind of “counter cultura;ism;” they’re far too happy talking about obedience to all that emanates from there as being liberating and fulfilling.
Right.
on August 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“On so many counts, I just cannot put Chaput in the same category as King. I teach King in my Faith, Law, and Morality course–and the degree to which he saw–and insisted his followers see– his acts of civil disobedience as a form of loving self-sacrifice for both victims and oppressors is not something I see in Chaput. I think the only people he sees are the unborn. No one else counts.”
If Chaput changes American Law does that mean that American life will be as corrupt as the hierarchy? At least we have an accounting from the government which we in no way have from the Catholic episcopacy; the next big scandal. True, Chaput is not in the same league with King.
Peter, I look forward to the review. Hopefully, you will spare us the cheer leading that other Catholic writers are doing about his book.
on August 14th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Dear Mr. Mazzella,
You have still failed to explain how abortion is a “fraud issue,” which another poster has asked you to clarify. Moreover, you’ve also implied there is “no moral ground at all” (see your first post above) on which conservatives might stake their claim on the abortion issue. Do you really believe this? No moral ground at all for a passionate defense of the unborn?
Your latest post again, for the umpteenth time, blasts the hierarchy as “corrupt.” Who? All of it? Some of it? The Pope? The Cardinals? No human organization is free of corruption. Moreover, as a young Catholic, I can recognize the problems in such a hierarchy, but I can also recognize its great blessings. The point is: if you’re going to criticize the institutional Church as regularly and as publicly as you do, readers deserve more precision in your comments than they’re now getting.
on August 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Matt,
I guess the question put most simply is how much more time do the Republicans claim they need to end abortion in the United States? And how many more times do those who would like to support the Democratic party but for abortion have to feel compelled to vote for Republicans?
Abortion opponents who voted for four years of Ford, eight years of Reagan, four years of George H. W. Bush, and eight years of George W. Bush are still waiting for some results. Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by pro-life Republican presidents. Five of those justices, including the Chief Justice, are Catholic. If an anti-abortion stance is not merely an obligatory Republican position to get the votes of the party’s base but an actual commitment, where are the results? In fact, what have the efforts been?
Voting Republican in the hopes of Republican presidents eventually appointing the right justices to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, and then fighting the battle state by state seems an awfully long-range, leisurely strategy for those who claim abortion is the equivalent of the Holocaust. But it’s a strategy that must suit the Republicans just fine, since they can keep on expecting the anti-abortion vote for decades to come.
on August 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
David,
I acknowledged Republicans have shown more interest in using abortion to gain votes than in doing something to protect the unborn.
What was asserted is that abortion, not just the Republcans’ treatment of it, is a “fraud issue,” and should fall behind issues such as the bishops’ lifestlyes, and how some bishops responded to the Holocaust 60 years ago on Catholics’ list of concerned.
I there is a defense for such a position that is not reliant on a contemtuous attitude toward the bishops, I’d be interested to see it.
on August 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Matt,
I do remain a Catholic. If you are reading all my posts you would see the detail. Why don’t you answer the challenge of Garry Wills which no right to lifer has answered.
Certainly, not all bishops, nor all popes. Yet the lack of courage among bishops is startling. They are rich while Jesus was poor. The hang out with the rich and demean women while Jesus was killed for hanging out with the poor and women.
What do you do to challenge the corruption in the church? Pedophilia was going on for a long time and had been repeatedly addressed to the bishops. They commissioned their own study appointed a priest who they disowned when he reported that the problem was widespread and serious.
Remember the bishops would still be in denial if it were not for the Boston Globe and the courts.
What is your answer to Garry Wills?
on August 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
A good [excellent?] review of Abp. Chaput’s book is that by our own Fr. Imbelli. It can be found at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206226?eng=y
Mr. Mazzella,
One does not answer Mr. Wills because he is not worth the answering. He has been repeating the same stuff over and over and over … The bishops are bad, the popes are bad, the priests are bad [curious he does not dare attack nuns] which leaves one with Only Gary Is Good.
He is, as it was remarked, the New York Review’s house Catholic.
You want to know how bad the Church was? Read Newman. Bad because we are human. But the Church is divine, nonetheless. It has survived two millennia of bad bishops and bad priests and bad popes [and quite a lot of bad laymen].
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
There are so many things wrong with that one scarcely knows where to start.
“Hang out with the rich?” — I suppose, due to the Church’s reliance on charitable giving.
“Demean women”? — Wha?
“Jesus was killed for hanging out with the poor and women”? — Probably the most absurd of all. Do you have a whit of evidence for this?
I suspect the lifestlye form most bishops is comparable to the university professors who post on this blog. Could they more fully embrace poverty? Sure.
For us as laity, should that be a greater concern than abortion, as you say? Certainly not. And if our bishops are corrupt, it is more a reflection of the corruption in greater society than a matter of “bad bishops.” And reforming greater society is our job, regardless of how good or bad the bishops are. And yes, part of that, is working to end the legal license for killing the unborn.
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Kathy has rightly drawn attention to Jesus’s own eschatological scenario, and we may note that when the sheep and then the goats ask Jesus when they had seen him hungry, naked, etc., his reply may indicate that he has the hungry and the naked, etc., right there alongside him: “As often as you did (or didn’t) do this for one of THESE the least of my brethren, you did (or didn’t) do it for me.” It’s almost as if he is gesturing toward them.
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
FWIMBW, the institutional church will remain corrupt unless/until the folks (still) in the pews either (a) sever their ties to the institution or (b) stop putting their shekels into the collection plates. Money speaks. Power corrupts. Money enables continued corruption.
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Certainly not. And if our bishops are corrupt, it is more a reflection of the corruption in greater society than a matter of “bad bishops.”
Read the Magnificat, John McG. Who are the rich who will go away empty. Catholic philosophy and theology devolved from an initial explanation that certainly rich people can be saved to a ridiculous, Calvin like, attitude that the Rich are favored more than the poor.
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I don’t know if Matt Emerson will take up the Garry Wills challenge Bill M. threw down, but there have been many reviews of Mr. Wills’ book “Head & Heart” that have critiqued his reasoning on abortion. I wish I had time to create a list of weblinks to such critiques, but I’m traveling on vacation and occasionally making use of WiFi hot spots along the roadways, so I’ll rely for now on Thomas Berg’s comments in his recent review (see the 7/18/08 issue of Commonweal) of Mr. Wills’ book:
“Wills is most tendentious on the subject of abortion. He says that because Scripture and early creeds do not condemn it (he does not mention sources like the Didache and Tertullian), the matter must be ‘decided by natural reason’; and since ‘the majority of experienced and conscientious people’ remain unconvinced that abortion should be prohibited, the ‘religious proscriptionists’ are simply trying to impose their theology on others. But the case for fetal personhood continues to be made on rational philosophical grounds, as in recent books by Robert George and Francis Beckwith; and prolifers are perfectly entitled to try to persuade more people in the future (remember, too, that Roe v. Wade has severely hindered the prolife movement’s efforts to pursue regulation through the democratic process). Some of Wills’s other points-for example, that many embryos are naturally “aborted” in miscarriage, or that criminalization of abortion would be very difficult to enforce-may militate against criminalization, or against treating abortion exactly as we treat other kinds of killing, but they hardly show that the prolife case is unreasonable.”
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
More evidence that if I think the bishops are living too richly, it’s not really my problem.
on August 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“I think the only people he sees are the unborn. No one else counts.”
I can’t see how anybody could think that, unless they viewed Archbishop Chaput as nothing but a potential obstacle to voting for pro-abortion candidates.
on August 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
It’s quite simple. Because the test he sets forth only mentions the unborn as potential judges. He does not set up similar tests for, those voting for a candidate more likely to keep us emmeshed in an unjust war, or dying of starvation, or harmed in other ways.
It’s quite significant to me that he has not formulated a similar test for the unintended victims of immoral policies for those voting for a Republican candidate–although the doctrine of cooperation evil would require it here no less than in the otehr case.
And significantly, there’s no cooperation with evil test on abortion applied to candidates that are pro-life. There’s no test on consequences for them, although there should be according to the doctrine. ONe might for example, judge that that the Republicans have not and will not be effective in changing abortion. If this is the case, then even on his own terms, one might say that one ought to justify to the babies voting for a candidate with a very slim possibility of making a change regarding the legal status of abortion, as opposed to a a candidate that had more possibility of actually saving more lives, by preventing more abortions.
Bottom line: For Archbishop Chaput, you can vote Republican in the presidential election with a clean conscience. No justification, to the babies or anyone else required.
I
on August 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that people are changing the subject to attacking the person of Abp. Chaput rather than responding to the challenge.
As a pro-life person contemplating a vote for Obama, I would answer thusly:
* It had been my experience that voting for pro-life candidates was not effective in bringing about change to abortion policy.
* It had also been my experience that presidents can be very effective in enacting other policies, most notably war policies
* In my judgement, the impact of the difference between Obama and McCain’s policies on war would be greater than the impact from their abortion policies.
–
I should also note that Abp. Chaput’s 2004 words may have been harsher because the situation he was addressing was a pro-choice candidate who was himself Catholic, rather than Catholics voting for a pro-choice candidate.
on August 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Bill M: I never questioned whether you were Catholic.
More important, your latest post still fails to explain why abortion is a “fraud issue.” If the exhortation to take the “Gary Wills challenge” was supposed to be that justification, that is tremendously unhelpful. What is that challenge? Where can I find it? And how does it relate to your statement? And does it even answer my point? I wasn’t intending to justify the Republican platform on abortion, still less my own view. My point was to discover the philosophical and theological data that sustain your sweeping assertions. Cryptic and hasty references to an author with a well known antipathy to the Church do not clarify.
Along those lines (lines of vagueness), in your latest post, you write: “Catholic philosophy and theology devolved from an initial explanation that certainly rich people can be saved to a ridiculous, Calvin like, attitude that the Rich are favored more than the poor.” Again, what are you relying upon to make so condemnatory a statement? Encyclicals? Vatican II documents? Modern Catholic theologians?
David N: As I note above, my intent wasn’t to justify Republican thought and action on abortion. However, since the issue is raised, I’ll provide a few thoughts.
If the goal is to end abortion, then I agree: Republicans have failed. However, I’m not sure whether that has really been the Republican goal. I do know that Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, appointments which would not have come about in a Democratic administration. Had a Democrat President had those two appointments, it’s likely that Gonzalez v. Carhart would have been decided the other way. The current decision is a small and perhaps mainly symbolic victory, but important nonetheless. These victories, however minor, are what tempt me to favor Republicans on the abortion issue (assuming, for the moment, other issues–e.g., the war, torture, etc.–are not in play). Most Democrats–at least the ones in power–seem totally opposed to anything that has any influence or impact on an absolute right, at all stages and for whatever reason, to abortion. That troubles me deeply.
on August 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Bill M:
Meant to add this, but I thought my previous post was already too long. However, just to be complete:
I think you raise a good question, i.e., how do we respond to corruption in the Church? My response is evolving, however I think that the Church, like individual laymen and laywomen and clergy, is in constant need of purification. When one facet of the Church seems to be oblivious to the pain it’s causing or the suffering it’s abetting (as in the pedophilia scandal), other Catholics (and non-Catholics) must speak up and cry out.
However, what seems an inappropriate response is to offer blanket denunciations of people simply because they are part of one group or another. There are corrupt bishops and there are corrupt laypeople. There are also very holy and devout bishops as there are laypeople.
on August 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
While it would, of course, be foolish to maintain that in the sayings Fr. Komonchak refers to, Jesus was limiting himself to the hungry, the thirsty, strangers, the sick, the naked, and prisoners, he was clearly talking about people who were suffering. (It does appear to be an open question, in my commentaries, whether “the least of my brethren” refers to everyone, or to the disciples of Jesus.) Some pro-life people seem quite distressed by the suffering of the unborn, but it is difficult for me to imagine what it is, if there is any.
I can certainly understand, if human life (in the sense of personhood) begins at conception, that abortion is wrong because it is the “unjust taking of innocent life.” But I just don’t understand those who seem anguished because people are “killing babies,” and particularly those who speak of abortions as equivalent to the Holocaust. So in Archbishop’s Chaput’s scenario, I wonder what the victims of abortion would say to people who vote for Obama, and once I figure out what that would be, then I can figure out what the response would be.
on August 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“Wills is most tendentious on the subject of abortion. He says that because Scripture and early creeds do not condemn it (he does not mention sources like the Didache and Tertullian),…”
William,
I’ll grant you that you are making iffy stops for the internet and that may account for this apparently weak post. Unlike you. Tertullian did leave the Catholic church. So which Tertullian do we quote? And which part of the Didache do we accept? The real point is if that is all you got, then what do you have?
On the whole Thomas Berg gives us mere generalities. Not worthy of you, I offer.
on August 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
“However, what seems an inappropriate response is to offer blanket denunciations of people simply because they are part of one group or another.”
Matt,
The problem is that the bishops are calling the shots. And, as a rule, very badly. Of course, “lay people” ( a very confused term) have problems and it seems we regularly criticize each other. Why should we exclude the bishops? The reason is we were falsely taught that this was some kind of sacrilege.
on August 14th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“If the exhortation to take the “Gary Wills challenge” was supposed to be that justification, that is tremendously unhelpful. What is that challenge? Where can I find it? And how does it relate to your statement? And does it even answer my point?”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-wills4nov04,0,7799993.story
on August 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
David Nickol,
I don’t see any reason to think that Jesus was talking about suffering, per se. He was talking about the needs of life and he put them in very concrete terms, not pie-in-the-sky but food, clothing, welcome. He came that we might have life–did we cooperate with that project or not? He came to serve and save, to leave the 99 and go after the 1–did we do that? That is one way to hear the question.
on August 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Kathy,
It’s interesting that it took The New Jerome Biblical Commentary to jog my memory regarding the Corporal Works of Mercy, which I am certain I memorized as a child:
Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Welcome the stranger
Clothe the naked
Visit the sick
Visit the prisoner
Bury the dead
I heard someone explaining on the news today that the reason the price of houses continues to drop sharply is that we have an oversupply of housing. We also have, by a recent estimate, 744,000 homeless people in the United States. Of course, it’s too easy to say put the homeless people in the surplus houses. Nevertheless, there’s still irony to be found in the situation.
The most unpopular one has to be visiting the prisoner. We have far too many people in prison, and they are treated terribly, but it’s a rare person concerned about their plight. Helen Prejean comes to mind, and a man named Richard Shelton who was profiled on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june08/prisonpoetry_06-16.html
on August 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Cathy:
I appreciate the thoroughness of your response and I certainly concede that your expertise in these matters exceeds mine by several powers of ten. Let me just make a few points to clarify my argument.
First–just so we’re clear–I’m not comparing Chaput to King. I don’t think it’s any criticism of the Archbishop to state plainly that he is in no way comparable to King. What I was trying to say was that Chaput draws on prophetic models in presenting his ideal of how Christians should be in the world and specifically cites King as such a model. Whether Chaput got King right is a separate question. I do think, though, that Chaput is somewhat comparable to Hauerwas even if the latter is skeptical of efforts by Christians to engage the liberal state. Both, though, are first and foremost concerned with the integrity of Christian witness rather than seeking policy change per se. Both are very impatient with the hard work of casuistry.
Secondly, I concede that my whirlwind tour of some of the themes of Catholic moral theology in the late 60s and 70s was lacking in specificity. I was trying to capture a sense of the “tonality” of what was going on at that time. In a way, I’m more interested in how this was playing out in seminary formation and parish practice than in the academy per se. When confessional practice was regular, both priest and penitent were getting regular “practice” in the use of casuistic reasoning. Have I sinned? What is the degree of my culpability? Is this sin a moral sin? Those of us who came of age in the 70s and 80s were generally taught a different way of thinking about our sins, one that was less act-centered and focused more on stable dispositions to good or evil. Am I a racist? Do I have concern for the poor? What would Jesus do? I think this way of thinking is more open to a “prophetic” approach to social ethics.
If you read Chaput’s book, large portions of it could easily have been written by a left-wing Catholic social justice advocate. Lots of talk about the importance of taking our faith into the public square, of being prophetic witnesses for justice, of not just being “Sunday” Christians, etc. One difference, of course, is how Chaput ranks the issues. But I’m not sure Pax Christi is any more tolerant of the casuistry of the just war tradition than Chaput is of the casuistry involved in making a decision to vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that Chaput isn’t completely eclectic. He is drawing on ways of thinking about these issues that resonate with contemporary Christians of different ideological hues. I think it’s important to contextualize Chaput rather than see him as an isolated case.
on August 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Dear Peter,
That helps. A few thoughts.
1. I wasn’t trying to compare Chaput to King in terms of moral standing -who of us could look good –but in terms of use of prophetic rhetoric. One of the issues I’ve been pondering is whether there are criteria to identify the good–helpful use of prophetic rhetoric, and to distinguish it from unhelpful use. King, here, is the gold standard of prophetic rhetoric. In part, because he envisions a community going forward that is reconciled “Little black children and little white children holding hands.” I don’t see any of that in Chaput. I think his rhetoric is splitting the church apart, and I think a consequence of this will be the further marginalization of the Church in the public square.
2. What I object to methodologically about Chaput is his willingness to break apart, distort, and even destroy the moral tradition for prophetic ends. He’s not merely using prophetic language- (to be a bit prophetic myself) he breaking the casuistry of the manualists and bashing people over the head with its sharp edges. He’s not just a parish priest. He’s an Archbishop. And he’s trying to be the moral voice of Catholicism in this country. He ought to know better.
on August 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I also think Abp. Chaput’s challenge cuts both ways.
Will the unborn be impressed that I hectored my bishop to deny communiion to politicians I don’t like? If the extent of my advocacy for the unborn was voting Republican every four years, will that be enough?
I think we’re going to have to explain a lot more than just our presidential votes.
on August 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Bill–
Alas, “weak post[s],” like weak knees, are a genetic predisposition in my family. I can only hope against hope that the defect was not passed on to my children. In the future, I will try harder to meet the very high standards you have set for me. I know you will also work hard to meet the standards I have come to expect from you.
I don’t think the excerpt from Thomas Berg’s review of Garry Wills’ book contained “mere generalities,” but be that as it may, the Didache and Tertullian were quite explicit that abortion is wrong. True that Tertullian had a rough relationship with the Church in later years (e.g., his defense and possible embrace of montanism), but what he had to say about abortion does not conflict in any way with what the Church’s position was then or now.
Didache:
“[T]hou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born.” (Chapter 2.2)
(The Epistle of Barnabas uses almost the exact same language to condemn abortion and infanticide: “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born.” (Chapter XIX))
Tertullian:
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.” (Apology 9:8).
“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.” (Apology 27).
IMHO, “[t]hat is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed” is a powerful statement about the beginning of each person’s humanity, especially in light of what we in the 21st century know about the transmission on a molecular level of our human genotype from generation to generation.
Tertullian was also persuasive, at least to me, in linking respect for unborn life to Biblical events and passages. For example, Tertullian found clear signs of God in the unborn Jesus and the unborn John the Baptist when John “leaped for joy” at the sound of Mary’s voice, and, by extension, at the recognition of the presence of God within Mary. As Luke says:
“During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of My Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.’” (Luke 1:44-45)
It seems apropos that these verses immediately precede the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), the Gospel reading for today’s Feast of the Assumption. You’ve expressed great admiration for the Magnificat. That’s something we can agree on. (As well as the Yankees)
on August 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Interesting in these exchanges is the ferocity with which many will defend the Democratic Party, often using mere opposition to the Republican Party as a guideline. Newman noted this about many [most?] of the Anglican divines; they no clear idea of what the Church of England was about, but they did know that they disliked Rome.
Although I doubt that many here are for abortion, there is that element of “if the Republican Party is against it, there must be some good in it”. What one hears from the Democratic Party seems to be a repetition of so many failed ideas, so many hopeless projects; “pro-choice” which is to say abortion as birth [control] prevention is hardly an inspiring program.
There have been comments and complaints about comparing the Indian ['Native American'] Abp. Chaput with Martin L. King. Dr. King was against abortion, recognizing it for the attack on the poor that it is, the controlling the number of blacks and other ‘unfits’.
But this still misses the point. The Church is less concerned about the fate of the murdered babies, than about the souls of the murderers. God will take care of the former. But the latter are left to stew in their crime.They need the Church which alone can dispense forgiveness.
on August 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Well it is also notable that it is usually men who are waxing eloquent on abortion. To wit, Tertullian on women:
Chapter I.-Introduction. Modesty in Apparel Becoming to Women, in Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman.
upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” 1 and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence 2 she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,-the ignominy,
I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords It over thee.” 3 And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve?
The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: 4 the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer 5 of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law:
you are she who persuaded 6 him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack.
You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert-that is, death-even the Son of God had to die.
on August 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Here is a link to Chaput’s new book and a review by Fr. Imbelli that was in L’Osservatore Romano: Shortcut to: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206226?eng=y
This moves a little past the opening question which focused on Chaput’s use of a question to voters who vote pro-abortion and would have to answer to the souls of these children.
It appears that his new book and the reviews touch on some of the threads here:
a) he is taking a very high profile approach to this year’s election and challenging Catholics to be prepared – the private and the public are one. Your beliefs echo in your vote;
b) His high profile approach is interesting as we await new cardinals for Detroit and New York City (what timing);
c) the book repeats but does not elaborate on the question this blog started with;
d) but what is really disturbing to me is his proclamation of the social gospel without ever mentioning one of the most significant social issues in the church and society today – sexual abuse, pedophiles, and the statute of limitations. He continues to obstruct and resist and yet sees no conflict with this position and his emphatic calls for a true Catholic vote that respects life????
on August 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Not sure if anyone is still checking this thread. But Archbihsop Chaput has an article on the First Things website that is perhaps the most overtly political thing I’ve seen him write – he’s pushing the envelope on non-endorsements.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1151
on August 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Doesn’t surprise me. Only confirms what I said in my earlier blog response. Notice his complete focus on a single issue…..notice that he never references the USCCB Faithful Citizenship document; in fact, he actually violates a number of that document’s recommendations and examples for the ordinary Catholic to use when making a voting choice.
He is trying hard to win that orthodox approval and be elevated to the Detroit or NYC sees and get that Red Hat. Hope selling his soul to his ambition lets him sleep at night but then his type normally are so narcissistic that they have convinced themselves that they are right and holy.
First Things – not a very noted Catholic publication; right wing, bigotted, and headed by a man who flip flops worse than a member of Congress. It confuses orthodoxy with truth.
on August 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Bill,
I’m not sure what you mean by “complete focus.” Archbishop Chaput’s short essay is obviously about abortion, but he does mention other issues (”No, we can’t spend money like hedonists and outrun our debts forever. No, we can’t ignore the poor of the Third World and expect to be loved abroad.”) He also makes it clear that he understands that to be a good Catholic is not the same as to be a good Republican. (”Plenty of very good Catholics inhabit both major political parties.”) His is not the last word on the subject, but you cannot answer his arguments simply by accusing him of ambition and narcissism. Idle speculation about “his type” does not advance the conversation.
I’m also puzzled by your closing remarks about First Things — “not a very noted Catholic publication.” In fact, it’s not a Catholic publication at all, though many of its writers and editors are Catholic. Right wing, maybe, if by right wing you just mean conservative. But bigotted? I was an editor there for a couple of years, and though I often disagreed with my colleagues about this or that issue, I never encountered any bigotry. And how, exactly, has Fr. Neuhaus flip-flopped? I assume you are not referring to his decision to become a Catholic.
on August 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Mathew – you make good points but we disagree in terms of Chaput’s emphasis, intent, and focus. Agree he mentioned those “other items” but, let’s be real, his main focus in the single issue, abortion. Thank God, he is NOT the last word on this subject. In many earlier posts I have enumerated where I disagree with his approach; his ignoring hundreds of years of Church theology about human life, personhood, and conception. Science, biology, bio-ethics, genetics can lead one ot different positions but I do not see Chaput trying to educate rather to convert – my comments using ambition and narcissism may have been too strong – but I don’t think so.
Respect your previous employment with First Things – I use the term “bigot” in a wider sense than just race. It is interesting to me that he moved from a very liberal Lutheran priest to an neoconservative Catholic priest and forms the holy triumvirate with Weigel and Novak. (disclosure – I probably resent the role he has via this publication; his ability to shift and yet be ordained a good Catholic priest while many I know and respect lost their priesthood when they themselves went through personal struggle and conversion/change).
Can you explain the connection between Neuhaus and JPII – the long hours spent in Rome from 2000 on when the pope’s health was deteriorating and Neuhaus adamantly denying that the pope was slowing down? It appears that he frequently used his friendship and position to slam others who were trying to provide objective views or even progressive stances on important issues. It seems to even have raised concerns within the Curia given his unlimited access and influence. Yes, I will give you the right to express conservative views but two things come to mind: a) Neuhaus speaks as if he has an exclusive claim to the papacy especially when directed to progressives (you would think that they were evil incarnated); b) question his support of folks such as Mother Teresa who basically called Cardinal Mahoney’s Eucharist letter heretical…his quote about this matter sounds like his favorite phrase and name calling technique – “fraudulent Catholic!”
on August 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Interesting post on CNA today: Shortcut to: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13571
Not sure he would be the best choice to present at any political convention – that is not the role of pastoral bishops. He would only polarize more.
on August 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Matthew, thanks for the sanity in your August 19 post. I just finished the Chaput book, and found it pretty good. And why would we automatically assume ambition and ill will on Chaput’s part? Ambition for what — Detroit? Is that a joke?
on August 21st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Never said that Chaput wasn’t a smart person; a good writer; can explain an analysis well. You need to look deeper. Detroit – agree; sounds like a joke but NYC is there and Detroit historically is another way to the red hat.
But that gets us off the main focus – my earlier questions about Nuehaus and Chaput were not answered or responded to?
on August 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Bill,
I’ll give this one more try.
I think speculation about Chaput’s ulterior motivations is a way of changing the subject. I also think it’s uncharitable and fruitless. Of course it’s possible that the archbishop is driven only by a desire to curry favor with the Vatican. I think that’s unlikely, not to say absurd; you don’t. In any case, it’s unknowable. There are arguments to be had with the way Chaput has framed certain important questions — hence this post. And there’s more than one honorable way to disagree with him; my own position and Cathleen Kaveny’s, for example, are not the same, though we both have doubts about Chaput’s approach. But every productive critique begins by taking one’s opponent’s position — and not just his intelligence and his writerly talents — as seriously as it can be taken. I do think your critique, insofar as I understand it, fails to do that. You claim that Chaput is engaging in partisanship because he has focused on abortion, an issue on which the Republican platform appears to be closer to the church’s teaching than the Democratic platform. But if another bishop’s prophetic witness emphasized prisoner rights, say, or torture or distributive justice, would you accuse him of being a Democratic operative just because his main cause was associated more with the policies and platform of the Democrats than with those of the Republicans? Chaput’s formulations may lend themselves too easily to appropriation by those Catholics who would like to tell their coreligionists that they are not allowed to vote for Democrats. And that is a serious problem. But the solution to that problem is not to attack Chaput’s ambition or zeal. The solution is to show that (and why) the church’s legitimate commitment to defending the unborn does not force Catholic voters to support Republican candidates in every election. Between the general principle and the particular practical judgment there are a number of complicated steps to negotiate, and these require consideration of other principles and of particular political circumstances. Those who translate Chaput’s statements into a binding directive about how to vote in this election are being sloppy or opportunistic.
Maybe that is enough for now. I have my reservations about some of Fr. Neuhaus’s political and economic ideas, but I have no doubts about his intellectual integrity. Like Chaput, he has invested much of his energy in defending the rights of some of the most vulnerable members of the human community. Along the way he has made tactical calculations that are open to criticism, but that criticism had better be at least as careful as his calculations if it’s going to do any good. Dark suggestions about his relationship to John Paul II just don’t cut it.
on August 21st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Well written and I take your comments/criticisms to heart. You probably best catch my reservation with your statement that those who translate Chaput’s views into a binding directive about how to vote in this election as being sloppy or opportunistic. That is my point and my concern – becase of his current position and link to the papacy, I can see folks footnoting his book, his op-ed pieces, etc. to justify avoiding hard work and thought. Yes, you are correct – Chaput can’t make people do that. On the other hand, as you said above, he does not really start by taking the opponent’s position and laying out a case for folks to apply the fullness of Faithful Citizenship.
Agreed with the approach that Cathleen and you were using in terms of questioning some of his reasoning; the image of aborted children passing judgment; convenient but leaves some holes. Some of what I was trying to say was borrowed from Marci Hamilton’s new book which has a chapter detailing and reviewing Chaput’s defense of the SOL in the state of Colorado – again, he is very powerful in defending life from conception but his consistency when you get to victims of abuse – well, his passion gets lost somewhere. I would probably have the same reservations about folks who were single issue on euthanasia or the poor or poverty, etc. if they were not consistent in their defense of life across the board.
Not sure you and I will ever get close on Fr. Neuhaus.
on August 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Bill, there’s no guarantee that Detroit will be a cardinalatial see in the future, now that Houston/Galveston has a red hat. And it’s a mess. As for New York, Chaput is an outsider, and plenty of equal or bigger (and more likely) names are in the east. Chaput isn’t an intellectual and doesn’t pretend to be one. He’s an intelligent pastor interested in results; at least that seems to be the clear theme of his book. Again, the book is actually quite good, and some of the comments here need to be re-examined in light of its content.
on August 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
You make good points ….agree, he is an intelligent leader; he is interested in results; and his book and its content are valued contributions to the issue.
But, my concerns start with my first blog response above:
a) would suggest that at this time in our history both as the Church in America and politically, what we need is more effort to reach a common ground; less partisanship; more dialogue;
b) my concern is that each bishop can write a book or diocesan statement or highlight their interpretation of what is “foundational” for Americans and the RESULT is more division; less listening; more polarization. would suggest that a statement about the consistent ethic of life from the USCCB including principles and how Americans can make this happen in society (not unlike the approach the Kmiec is currently espousing) would be more acceptable than another US bishop telling American Catholics why abortion is evil – so, again, I focus on the multiple ways we can struggle towards the common good and react to those who focus on single issues;
c) Chaput’s legal manuveurs in the statute of limitations battle in the Colorado state house lost him my respect. I found his arguments to be illogical; intelligent but in the sense of trying a bait and switch philosophy to justify his stance; and a complete dismissal of all victims – so, those actions compel me to discredit his words about abortion. I am looking for a bridge builder – Chaput and his fellow Colorado bishops don’t seem interested in that.
on August 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
PS Bill. I’d be very, very wary about taking Marci Hamilton too seriously on the SOL issue. She and plaintiffs’ attorneys have an interesting and intimate relationship.
on August 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Thanks but have done my research on that issue…typical knee jerk response used by numerous dioceses and bishops.
Okay, follow the money…….documented and proven fact is that without plaintiffs’ attorneys not one victim would have gotten attention; there would be no settlements; there would only be secrecy; denial; more passing the buck, etc.
Yes, there is a relationship between Marci Hamilton and some attorneys……obviously, you have not kept up with her latest presentation to a Congressional committee because for her, church sexual abuse is only part of a world-wide and American wide issue – sexual manipulation, sex slavery, child abuse, etc. Yes, she has worked and supported Jeff Anderson but speak with some of the plaintiffs attorneys – many are very good Catholics who eventually chose litigation because of a bishop’s decision to litigate first.
I take her most recent book about SOL a lot more seriously than I do this recent book by Chaput.
on August 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Let me ask you another question – do you know how much money was paid by the Los Angeles archdiocese to its lawyers to stonewall and delay its $660 million dollar settlement over 7 years? It adds up to the millions – you will not see that payment in any archdiocesan financial report; it is hidden and covered up.
The same goes for Chicago; Philadelphia; Boston was forced to publish because of the media and the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
P.S. Ms. Malone – I would be very, very wary of taking the bishops seriously on the issue of SOL – it all about money, the institution, bella figura, power, and authority.
on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Bill, your tone really makes you less effective. I have three mentally disabled children and grandchildren, all in public schools. How about you? Do you know that experience? As a mother, I have no sympathy at all for abusing priests or indifferent bishops. But the problem is just as bad, or worse, in other institutions, including public schools. And if you have a “retarded” child, Bill, the problem of abuse isn’t theoretical. It’s a real anxiety every day. Marci Hamilton and company haven’t done anything — and I mean, nothing — to candidly and aggressively address exactly the same sex abuse problem in public schools. Why? Because there’s no cash in it. Whatever his other shortcomings, bravo to Chaput for highlighting that inequity.
Save the “knee jerk response,” language, Bill. It makes you sound like you don’t think.
on August 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Bill, the problem of abuse isn’t theoretical.” That isn’t knee-jerk?
on August 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Ms. Malone – please excuse my tone. I am truly impressed with your struggle and commitment to your children and it gives me an insight into your statements about Chaput and Ms. Hamilton. I asked the questions about following the money because there is enough guilt and non-accountability on both sides.
I am not sure you understand that Chaput used the public schools sexual abuse liability limitation issue to defend his stance against changing the state of Colorado’s statute of limitations because entities such as the Catholic Church would not have the same liability limitations. His point was NOT to address the public school shortcomings – it was to protect his church. His fear that victims could take the church in Colorado for a financial ride is not supported by the facts nor by our national experience over the last 20 years. Settlements have been made because there were actual, convicted priest pedophiles. I am sorry; but Marci Hamilton was not against public schools exposing and fighting sexual abuse, falsely protecting teachers, making gestures of teacher investigations about sex abuse, etc. In fact, she testified in Congress three weeks ago about these very issues (did you see Chaput or another Catholic bishop doing the same?). She was asking Chaput to take the lead on this issue – he did not.
My outrage (that is what it is) about Chaput’s legal tricks is that his legal manuveurs where just that – manuveurs. My expectation of the Catholic Church is that it clearly take a stance against sexual abuse – starting with the statute of limitations is the best way – the Dallas Charter is a weak, bishop written document that is completely within their control and does not address the issue of accountability for bishops that move, protect, or delay finding out the truth. In fact, currently the Catholic Church/bishops are no better than public schools on this issue.
Then, by setting an example (vs. fighting legal delaying tatics), the Church could speak out and encourage public entities (school districts, colleges, cities, towns that have state liability limitations) to aggressively deal with sexual abuse.
I understand your fear and frustration with public schools – I am a vendor for Dallas Independent School District and my children attended that district for years. Their record for integrity, financial record keeping, grade distortion, sports that are out of control, lack of support for the handicapped and mentally disabled makes the Dallas news almost every day and has for the last 7 years. Principals move, transfer, and protect abusing and poor teachers with just as much immunity as bishops who transfer and protect priest pedophiles.
I just don’t think that Chaput’s approach is any different than a public school district’s. Los Angeles’ school district averages almost one sexual abuse incident per day – that is shocking. Marci Hamilton is well aware of this statistic and is trying to make a difference.
I will save the “knee jerk language” but unfortunately I think too much per some folks.
on August 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The settlement from Kansas City just announced; high points:
NON-MONETARY COMMITMENTS
OF
THE DIOCESE OF KANSAS CITY – ST. JOSEPH
1. Through a press statement to the secular media and through publication in The Catholic Key, the Diocese will continue to publicly acknowledge the wrongfulness of sexual abuse by the perpetrators, and will acknowledge that its own response to reports of sexual abuse has, in the past, been wrong.
8. The Diocese and its representatives shall not refer to plaintiffs or other tort claimants and their claims as “alleged” victims, “alleged” survivors, or “alleged” claims.
10. The Diocese will continue to offer and implement a Victim Advocacy Program consistent with VirtusTM guidelines, in order to maintain safe , strong communities for children and vulnerable adults.
11. The name and contact information of the Diocesan Victim’s Advocate will be published on the Diocese’s web site and will be included in parish bulletins along with the names of parish staff.
12. The Missouri Abuse Hotline phone number shall be prominently posted in every parish school, office and workplace.
13. The Diocese shall prominently display in each diocesan school a placard stating: “The Abuse of the Spiritual, Emotional and Moral Development of the Young Men and Women of [Name of School] shall not be tolerated.” The placard will include the telephone numbers of the Missouri Abuse Hotline, the local police department, and the Diocesan Victim’s Advocate.
14. The Diocese will continue to follow mandatory state reporting requirements and VirtusTM guidelines in reporting the suspected sexual abuse of minors to law enforcement and child protection authorities. At the request of the victim or other party reporting childhood sexual abuse to the Diocese, the Diocese will report such abuse to law enforcement and child protection authorities regardless of the age of the victim at the time the report is made.
17. The Diocese will not enforce the confidentiality provisions of any prior agreement with a sexual abuse claimant who now or in the future desires to make his/her claim public.
19. The victims have requested that the Bishop of the Diocese personally visit any parish where sexual abuse of minors occurred. The victims have further requested that at these meetings the Bishop publicly identify the perpetrators, encourage other victims to report the abuse, provide an opportunity for discussion with the audience, and invite victims or their families to speak. The Bishop has stated that he will consider this or some other process that will achieve the same goal.
Please note a number of these points highlighting that the diocese can NOT hide behind “alleged” language; that the bishop must personally visit any parish where victims are; that the parochial schools must report, train, and implement a rigorous program; that no prior settlements have to remain sealed or secret and that any victim can file a separate civil suit.
Compare that to Chaput’s moves against the state of Colorado’s efforts to change its SOL laws and then his own diocese’s recent settlement. Note that his settlement does not require any of the 19 non-financial penalties of the Kansas City settlement. In fact, victims in Kansas City wanted these 19 points more than any type of money award.
Archdiocese settles sex-assault suit for $300K
By Mike McPhee
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/10/2008 05:00:47 PM MDT
Timothy Evans (Jefferson County D.A.)Related
Jul 25:
Another Colo abuse suit involving ex-priestJul 16:
Deceased priest accused againJul 3:
Church’s aim: Save priest’s careerJul 2:
Church settles 18 suitsDec 29:
Affidavit: Church official admitted fondling teenJul 16:
$660 million church abuse settlement in L.A.Apr 19:
Briefs: Archdiocese loses move to dismiss suitsMar 28:
Judge lets suits against archdiocese go forwardJan 5:
Archdiocese settles sex suitsAug 19:
Archdiocese sued for sex abuseThe Catholic Archdiocese of Denver has agreed to pay an Ohio man $300,000 for having been groped by a Fort Collins priest nine years ago.
Nick Gerber was groped twice by former priest Timothy Evans, who served as pastor at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish from 1998-99.
Evans was convicted last year of sexually assaulting Gerber, as well as another teenager in Arvada, and is serving 14 years to life in prison.
Gerber, who is now 27 and lives near Columbus, Ohio, said the money doesn’t mean that much to him. “It helps to bring some closure, but it doesn’t do a whole lot for the betrayal and anger I have against the archdiocese and Evans,” he said.
“It’s pretty disgusting what the Catholic Church did. It’s still disturbing to know they won’t admit they made mistakes. They still maintain they did everything by the law and by the book.”
A spokeswoman for the archdiocese, Jeanette DeMelo, responded to Gerber: “The archdiocese is hopeful that Mr. Gerber does find healing and closure. The archbishop met with him, listened to him and offered his sincere regret for the pain caused by the situation. However, I reiterate that the archdiocese responded immediately the moment it received any allegation of sexual misconduct between Timothy Evans and minor.”
Gerber testified at trial last year that Evans, who is now 44, stuck his hand down Gerber’s pants while the two were rough-housing on Evans’ bed in the church rectory. On another occasion, Evans grabbed Gerber’s buttocks while the two drank beer and watched a Denver Broncos game in the rectory.
Evans was convicted last year of two sexual-assault charges and sentenced to 14 years to life in prison. A month later, he was convicted in Jefferson County of another sexual assault that took place in 1996 while Evans was assigned to Spirit of Christ Church in Arvada. He received an additional four-year sentence.
Evans was the first priest to be convicted in Colorado after the church was accused in 2002 of a nationwide coverup of alleged sexual assaults. Evans was ordained in 1993, served in Arvada until 1996 or 1997, then transferred to Fort Collins, where he remained until 2002, well after accusations were made against him.
Gerber’s attorney, Jeff Anderson, said he has 12 other lawsuits against the Denver Archdiocese stemming from alleged assaults by the late Harold White, a priest who was defrocked in 2003 and died last year. Anderson said the dozen suits are in various stages in Denver District Court. He said an offer to settle two years ago by the archdiocese “was a failure.”
Notice that Chaput continued to say – “alleged”; obviously, moved a number of priest pedophiles from parish to parish, etc.
Here is the summary and high points of Marci Hamilton’s testimony before Senator Reid’s Congressinal committee on July 24th:
The United States Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearings on Sex Abuse Crimes: What Needs to Be Done at the Federal Level to Protect Children from Abuse and Neglect
By MARCI HAMILTON
Thursday, Jul. 24, 2008
The first sentence of Section 1964(c) of the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § § 1961- 1965 should be amended to include the bolded language:
‘Any person injured in his business, property, or in his person if a victim of childhood sexual abuse or neglect by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962.’
II. Encourage the States to Eliminate the Statutes of Limitations for Child Sex Abuse So that More Organizations and Perpetrators Are Publicly Identified and Made to Pay for the Harm that They Have Caused
Child abuse and neglect have cost the United States billions – from physical and mental health care costs, to opportunity costs from underperformance and the inability of victims to fulfill their full potential. It is inevitable that some of these costs will have to be absorbed by public social services, but that does not mean that organizations should not be held liable for their part.
Right now, the vast majority of states have statutes of limitations on child abuse that are so short that victims are not able to come forward before the courthouse doors have been locked shut. As I argue at more length in my book Justice Denied; What America Must Do to Protect Its Children, the federal government should create incentives for the states to eliminate the statutes of limitations to create such opportunities. Only then will more of the organizations and perpetrators responsible for the abuse be publicly named and only then will they be forced to pay for the harm they have caused, both through penal fines and through civil lawsuits.
III. Revoke Nonprofit Tax-Exempt Status for Organizations that Foster or Further Child Abuse or Neglect and Prohibit Federal Agencies from Doing Business with Organizations Furthering or Fostering Child Abuse or Neglect
The tax law governing tax-exempt status needs to be clarified to plainly deter child abuse and neglect. The following is suggested legislative language regarding the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that foster or further child abuse or neglect:
on August 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Here is a pertinent op-ed piece written at the time of Chaput’s objection to the state of Colorado changing its SOL:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/01_02/2006_02_15_Spencer_DeflectionsMake.htm
on August 25th, 2008 at 8:41 am
David, regarding your post of August 14th-
The Sacredness of Life, from conception until death, is a Doctrine that must be accepted with Faith. It is also a Doctrine of the Catholic Church that Christ, at the hour of our death, will determine if we are worthy of His Kingdom. Christ has revealed what is necessary for our Salvation in Christ, the Word Made Flesh.
“The Church, through the Magisterium, has been entrusted with the task of authoritatively interpreting what is contained in Revelation so that all that is proposed for belief, as being Divinely revealed, is drawn from the one Deposit of Faith.”-Catechism of the Catholic Church,page 133.
on August 25th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Christ has revealed what is necessary for our Salvation.. should be God has revealed what is necessary for our Salvation…