Archbishop Charles Chaput

, , , , ,

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput: The religion beat is where 'our defining freedoms meet'

, , , , ,
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput: The religion beat is where 'our defining freedoms meet'

A free press is part of the American identity. It’s also one of our essential institutions. A responsible press and a faith shaped by the God of charity and justice share two things in common: a concern for human dignity, and an interest in truth.

This is why — to be specific — journalism coverage of religion is so important.

Believers and non-believers might define that word “truth” differently, and the differences might be serious. But an honest search for it creates a kind of maturity. And that maturity enables us to build a decent, common future through our choices here and now.

Freedom means that our choices matter. And our mistakes have consequences. That’s why so many people, increasingly today, seem to want a rescue from the burden of personal responsibility; deliverance from the work of thinking critically about themselves, their world, their mortality and the purpose of their lives.

We all struggle with these temptations. Americans as a people are no exception.

So I can imagine an America without a genuinely free and fair press. And I can imagine an America with much less religious faith. We’re well on the way to getting both. But in either case, the result will be a very different America and a betrayal of the generations that built it.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pope's same-sex blessings stunner inspires headlines and firestorms about those headlines

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pope's same-sex blessings stunner inspires headlines and firestorms about those headlines

Catholics around the world — reacting to waves of media coverage — are still debating the decision by Pope Francis to allow priests to bless same-sex couples. 

Many rejoiced in seeing bold headlines about the decision, while others across the doctrinal spectrum argued it could sow confusion and exacerbate tensions further between progressives and conservatives within the church.  

The 5,000-word document — known as Fiducia supplicans and issued by the Vatican’s Doctrine of the Faith on Monday — elaborated on a letter the pontiff sent to cardinals that was published in October. In that letter, Pope Francis had said such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if they didn’t confuse the ritual with the sacrament of marriage.

This new declaration repeated those conditions, but also reaffirmed that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. The Vatican said the blessing of these “irregular” situations — which also includes divorced Catholics — must be non-liturgical in nature and cannot be done at the same time as a civil union. 

As alway, intense mainstream-media coverage played a major role in the firestorm surrounding this Vatican document, with many journalists struggling to define the difference between “blessings” for same-sex couples and rites recognizing the validity of those unions.

The confusion shaped the debates. In the end, the document “will undoubtedly be considered yet another black mark on the memory of this pontificate, according to Steven O’Reilly, who runs a blog called Roma Locuta Est.

“Now, in an effort to defend this document, the Francisapologists or ‘popesplainers‘ will no doubt rely on the fact that the new Vatican document does say that the ‘form’ of the blessings for individuals in same sex relationships ‘should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the sacrament of marriage,’ ” he said. “So, the document in its first few sections appears to be consistent with past teaching.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Does President Joe Biden need 'Catholic safe spaces' in order to receive Communion?

, , , ,
Does President Joe Biden need 'Catholic safe spaces' in order to receive Communion?

Whether some Catholic politicians can receive Holy Communion has been a matter of debate for decades.

The election of Joe Biden — a man constantly identified as as a “devout Catholic” by his staff and, thus, the mainstream press — has put a hot spotlight on this familiar issues. The key is whether his Catholic piety is compatible with his statements and actions that are rooted in progressive politics.

This issue has come into greater focus during Biden’s first 100 days in office. The Atlantic, in a piece written by Emma Green, detailed how some key U.S. bishops — and “many conservative laypeople” — think the president should be denied access to Holy Communion.

Green’s well-reported feature detailed the ongoing battle between Catholics across this country and the current occupant of the Oval Office, a fight that’s expected to worsen over the next four years. Here’s the thesis:

If some Catholic leaders had their way, Biden wouldn’t be able to take Communion at all. A committee of bishops recently gathered to examine the “difficult and complex situation” of a Catholic president who publicly supports expanding abortion rights, contrary to the faith’s teachings. Later this year, a representative of that group will likely offer guidance on Biden’s future ability to take Communion. For now, the cardinal who oversees Washington, D.C., Wilton Gregory, has said the president is welcome to attend any Mass in his archdiocese. “I don’t want to go to the table with a gun,” Gregory told Religion News Service.

Biden, the second Catholic president in American history, is a man of faith who cites Saint Augustine and hymns in his speeches and carries a rosary that belonged to his son Beau. His presidency is a historic opportunity for the Catholic Church. But he’s also a symbol of a Church at political war with itself; Catholic voters are nearly evenly divided between the parties, and the bishops have been squabbling in public over how to deal with his administration. Sinners abound in politics. The question facing the Catholic hierarchy is whether to offer the most famous Catholic sinner in America an invitation to closeness with God, or to withhold Communion until the president falls fully in line with his Church’s teachings.

The story opened with Biden’s arrival at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. to attend Mass, the same place he attended when vice president.

A key detail: Father Kevin Gillespie “checked with Gregory” to make sure he had the cardinal’s backing.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Election-year coverage should focus on Catholics as being ‘politically homeless'

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We’re a month into 2020 and, as expected, it is a year where the presidential election will dominate news coverage. In dominating the news, politics is also — like it or not — the prism in which journalists look at most other issues in society. That includes news about entertainment, economics, sports and, yes, religion.

A few things happened in January that have set the mood for the Iowa caucuses that took place Monday, the official start of the primary season. One of the biggest took place about 1,000 miles east of Des Moines, in Philadelphia, when Archbishop Charles Chaput was replaced by Nelson Perez.

The decision by Pope Francis, although ultimately not a surprising one, was largely portrayed in the mainstream press as the replacement of a conservative cleric with a largely progressive one. In other words, discussions of doctrine were framed and discussed in political terms.

This is how The New York Times framed the decision:

Archbishop Chaput, who was appointed to the position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011, has long been known as a theological and political conservative, often at odds with Francis’ mission to move beyond the culture wars dominated by sexual politics.

Francis recently acknowledged that a good deal of the opposition to his pontificate emanated from the United States, telling a reporter who handed him a book exploring the well-financed and media-backed American effort to undermine his agenda that it was “an honor that the Americans attack me.”

Archbishop Chaput’s departure was expected, as he had offered his resignation to Pope Francis when he turned 75 in September. Church law requires every bishop to tender his resignation at that age, but the pope can choose not to accept it, often allowing prelates to remain in office for several more years.

In this case, the pope did not wait long before saying yes.

A theological and political conservative. Really?

Theological absolutely if you mean Chaput upheld the teachings of the church. The accuracy of this political judgement is up for debate. Is a Catholic a political “conservative” if he backs Catholic doctrines on the death penalty, abortion, marriage, immigration and other hot-button issues?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chaput-Martin feud a case study in news media misrepresentation of Catholic teachings

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who is made a cardinal — and who isn’t — can sometimes be loaded with intrigue. It’s why the Vatican (and much of the Catholic church) is covered more like a political institution (akin to the White House and Congress) and less like it’s part of a global religion. It is this dangerous tendency, largely on the part of the secular press, to reduce most theological positions to political ones that has fueled divisions within the Catholic church during the era of Pope Francis.

For everyday Catholics, the ties to the Vatican are religious, not political. Like Mecca for Muslims and Jerusalem for Jews (and Muslims), Rome is a place of pilgrimage and prayer. Everyday Catholics don’t concern themselves with the backroom politics. The consistory of this past Saturday (where Pope Francis “created” 13 new cardinals) wasn’t a part of Mass or discussion among parishioners in my church the past few weeks. The attitude generally seems to be that these cardinals don’t really affect our lives.

Or do they?

They do. Those chosen to take part in the Amazon Synod taking place at the Vatican starting this week are a good example of this. These men not only elect the next pope, they also guide the flock in their particular metropolitan areas. They help set the agenda. They can influence local and national politics. In other words, they are a big deal. And most metropolitan newspapers, large and small, in this country cover them that way. This is big news, no matter how your define that.

It wasn’t lost on The New York Times, who was giddy in this news story about Pope Francis’ legacy that ran on the eve of the consistory. Add to that this fawning opinion piece posted to the website on the same day under the headline “Pope Francis Is Fearless.” The subhead, on the newspaper’s website, read like this: “His papacy has been a consistent rebuke to American culture-war Christianity in politics.”

This takes us to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and why who will replace him matters. It’s the best example of the fight currently going on between those on the doctrinal left and right.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What's better for Catholic leaders, silence or hanging your own lantern?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The body blows just keep coming.

That’s how many Catholics — on both left and right — have to feel right now, after the daily meteor shower of news about falling stars in their church. All of this was, logically enough, the backdrop to the very open-ended, wide-ranging discussions in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast” (click here to tune that in).

One minute, and it’s new revelations linked to the wide, wide world of ex-cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick. In the latest chapter of this drama, there were revelations at the Catholic News Agency and in the Washington Post that — forget all of his previous denials — Washington, D.C., Cardinal Donald Wuerl did know about the rumors swirling around McCarrick and his abusive relationships with boys and seminarians.

Want to guess which of these newsrooms dared to note that this fact was a key element of the infamous expose letters released by the Vatican’s former U.S. ambassador, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano? You got it. It was a branch of the alternative Catholic press (must-read Clemente Lisi post here) connecting those controversial dots — again.

Then, on the other doctrinal side of the fence, there were the revelations about Father C.J. McCloskey, a popular conservative apologist from Opus Dei. Here’s how Phil Lawler of CatholicCulture.org opened a post entitled “A bad day’s lament.”

Yesterday was “one of those days” — a day that found me hating my work, wishing I had some other sort of job.

The first blow, and by far the worst, came with the news, released by the Washington PostMonday evening, that an old friend, Father C. J. McCloskey, had been disciplined for sexual misconduct involving a married woman, and that Opus Dei, of which I was once a member, had (not to put too fine a point on it) botched the handling of his case. Father McCloskey has done great things for the Catholic Church, drawing many converts to the faith and encouraging many cradle Catholics like myself to deepen their spiritual lives. The charges against him, however, reinforce my fear that every “celebrity priest” is vulnerable to special temptations, and just one misstep away from scandal. …

But long ago I resolved that I want to hear all the truth, good and bad. It will be a painful process, exposing all the rot within our Church. But it’s the only way to begin the necessary process of reform.

All of this left me thinking about a question that I hear — year after year, decade after decade — whenever I have private meetings with clergy and religious leaders.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Who will protect sheep from shepherds? Inquirer and Globe team spotlights sins of many bishops

, , , , , , ,

I’m not sure that we’re talking about a true sequel to the massive 2002 Boston Globe “Spotlight” series about sexual abuse of children and teens by Catholic priests.

Still, there’s no question that journalists at The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Globe have — working together — produced a disturbing report documenting the efforts of many U.S. Catholic bishops to hide abusive priests or, at the very least, to avoid investigations of their own sins and crimes during these scandals.

The dramatic double-decker headline at the Inquirer says a lot, pointing readers to the key fact — that U.S. bishops keep stressing that only Rome’s powers that be can discipline bishops, archbishops and cardinals::

Failure at the top

America’s Catholic bishops vowed to remove abusive priests in 2002. In the years that followed, they failed to police themselves.

For the most part, this report avoids pinning simplistic political and doctrinal labels on Catholic shepherds who are, to varying degrees, involved in this story.

If you know any of the players mentioned in this report, you will recognize that it offers more evidence — as if it was needed — that this scandal is too big to be described in terms of “left” and “right.”.

I am sure that critics more qualified than me will find some holes and stereotypes. Experts will be able to connect the dots and see the networks that protected abusers or even produced them. Informed readers can do this, because the Globe-Inquirer team consistently names names. We will come back to one interesting exception to that rule.

Another point: It really would have helped if editors had acknowledged that there are valid theological, as well as legal, issues in this fight. Yes, there are bishops who have used centuries of theology about the role the episcopate plays in the church as a defense mechanism to hide their actions. However, this doesn’t mean that the theological issues are not real. Maybe call a theologian or historian — or several?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Clergy sex abuse in Pennsylvania: Media scramble to unearth bombshell report

, , , , , ,

In newspapers across Pennsylvania, many Sunday editorial pages were filled with angry protests against the Catholic Church and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The reason?

Everyone had been waiting for a huge grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse in six dioceses (Greensburg, Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, Allentown and Scranton) across the state.

In this case, it's crucial to note that even the leaders of the various Catholic dioceses -- not to mention the victims -- wanted this 800-page report released. But then last Wednesday, the state supreme court ordered it sealed.

I’ll start with an excerpt from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, for which I freelanced briefly for in the early 1990s. They weren’t into religion reporting back then, but sexual abuse stories aren’t just about religion. They’re about the courts, about the police, about sex, money and power.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse and their attorneys were stunned last week at news that the report would not be made public. The grand jury investigation examined decades of allegations of abuse and cover-ups in six Catholic dioceses across the state, including Pittsburgh and Greensburg.

“They're hurt, and a lot of them will say to me, ‘Mark, this is what they have done to me from day one. When I finally was able to talk about it, they hired an investigator to silence me,' ” (State Rep. Mark) Rozzi said of other victims.

Rozzi was raped at the age of 13 by a priest.

(Altoona lawyer Richard) Serbin, who identified 106 suspected predator priests for the Attorney General's investigators, set the stage for many of the state's early laws involving child sexual abuse when he filed suit against the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese 31 years ago. The suit established Serbin as a victims' advocate. He said he went on to represent nearly 300 victims of clergy sexual abuse over the next 30 years.

If anyone doesn’t believe people are angry about this, try looking at all the comments (34 at present, which is a lot for this blog) underneath my Cardinal Theodore McCarrick post from last Thursday. The anger out there is as strong as it ever was.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Were many journalists right when they blamed 'white Christians' for Charlottesville riots?

, , , , , , , , ,

On the face of it, the riots in Charlottesville didn’t have a religious component. Yes, there were pastors marching in protest against the white nationalists, but so were lots of other people.

Then, everything went very wrong very fast. What I saw next, mainly on Twitter, were people demanding that white clergy nationwide condemn the white nationalist protest in their Sunday sermons. I was fascinated by how some media – who wouldn’t be caught dead implicating certain other groups when one of them does an act of violence – decided that all white Christian clergy have to answer for the violence in Charlottesville.

Do you think I’m painting with too broad a brush? Read this NBC News opinion piece blaming all of Christianity for the Ku Klux Klan and – by extension – the events in Charlottesville. 

I saw a lot of lecturing at evangelical Protestants – who are reminded nonstop that 81 percent of them polled as voting for Trump last year – that they are responsible for what happened this past weekend. Much of this came in the form of opinion pieces ranging from an essay on Fox News’ site by a white Southern Baptist seminary professor to an essay in the Washington Post’s Acts of Faith section – written by a black clergyman – telling white pastors to speak up.


Please respect our Commenting Policy