Archbishop Chaput: "Renewal begins not in vilifying others..."

Veil-tip Deacon's Bench.

An excellent homily by Archbishop Chaput given this morning at the opening Mass for the Knights of Columbus convention taking place in Denver right now.  It is brought to us in full by the Salt + Light blog.  It's a worthy read, and one that invites reflection.    Read slowly and carefully.

The dynamic in Family of Moses is not so different from the dynamic in the family of today’s Church. God has chosen to lead his people. Miriam and Aaron, the sister and brother of Moses, resent his taking a Cushite wife. But the disputed marriage is merely a pretext for the siblings. What they really resent is Moses’ elevation above themselves, his special relationship with God. Moses if very much a flawed human being. By this point in scripture he may be “meek,” but he is not without sin. Nonetheless he is chosen by God. Therefore, Miriam’s and Aaron’s criticism – which flows out of their own rebellious pride – is really a criticism of God himself. Miriam, as the instigator, is struck with leprosy, but at least there is a kind of negative dignity to her own willfulness. Aaron is almost worse: a portrait of male spinelessness. This is the man who went along with the Golden Calf. Now he goes along with Miriam, and when Miriam is punished, he becomes obsequious with Moses.


Something similar can be said about conflicts in the modern church. Bishops, priests, and deacons are too often weak and sinful. They need to be held to high standards. Some deserve to be chastised. The clergy’s leadership in the Church should always be marked by humility and service, and never by a sense of entitlement. But men and women didn’t found the Church, they don’t own her; and they have no license to reinvent her. The Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and the different roles with the Christian community – clergy, laity, and religious life – have equal dignity but different purposes. Sin and failure, including by the clergy, need to be named. But when people deride their bishops and priests out of pride and resentment or some perverse desire for they perceive as “power,” they undermine the Church herself, and they set themselves against the God whose vessel she is. And that, as Scripture suggests, leads in a painful direction.


All real reform in the Church requires two things. Today’s Responsorial Psalm – Psalm 51 – gives us the first thing. We find it in the lines “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow;” and “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.” Renewal begins not in vilifying others, but in examining ourselves honestly, repenting of our sins and changing ourselves. This applies to every baptized person, from the Pope to the average man or woman earning a wage. We are all sinners. We are all in need of repentance and God’s mercy. When we really understand that, we can speak to each other with both honesty and love, and restoring the mission of the Church can begin.


Today’s Gospel gives us the second thing needed for any lasting reform: faith. Not faith as theology, or faith as a collection of doctrines and practices; but faith as a single-minded confidence in God; faith as the humility – and in a sense, the imprudence, the passion, the recklessness – to give ourselves entirely to Jesus Christ. That kind of faith changes people. That kind of faith shifts the world on its axis, because nothing can stand against it. As long as Peter keeps his eyes and his heart fixed on Jesus Christ, he can do the impossible – he can walk on the water. The moment he gives in to doubt and fear, he begins to sink. So it is with our personal faith, and so it is with life and the health of the Church.


In light of our Gospel reading, it’s fitting that our Mass today commemorates the French priests and saint from the 19th century, Peter Eymand. Eymand was a friend of Sts. Peter Chanel and Jean-Mare Vianney, and the founder of the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament. He was an intriguing man. The great French sculptor, Auguste Rodin, once entered Eymand’s congregation as a lay brother, having given up art after the death of his sister. Eymand served as Rodin’s spiritual spiritual counsellor, and eventually sent him back to his work in the world as a sculptor, because he believed that Rodin glorified God more truly through the beauty of his art. The focus of Eymand’s life was an intense love of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. He was tireless in preaching a deep devotion to the Eucharist as a key to re-igniting the vocation of Christians in the world. The Church honours him as “the Apostle of the Eucharist,” and his most famous line is worth remembering. When he decided to leave the diocesan clergy to become a religious priest, his sisters begged him to wait and reflect just a little longer before he acted – even just one more day. He answered, “God calls me now. Tomorrow will be too late.” God is calling each of us here today – clergy, lay, and religious – to love him with all our hearts and to renew the life of his Church. God is calling us now. Tomorrow will be too late. So let’s pray for each other, and support each other – and begin.

More info about the convention can be found here and S + L live broadcast schedule here.

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Updated: Archbishop Chaput leaves the Rocky Mountains for Philly (lots of links)

Freshly "snipped" from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia at 6:00am this morning

Update July 24, 2011  Happening now ....Archived video from Archbishop Chaput's address in Philly added.

Update: July 20, 2011 - See the embedded video just added from the presser with Archbishop Chaput's statement.  Also, if you read anything, read the two interviews, one by John Allen, the other in the list at the bottom by Sandro Magister.

Savannah, Georgia wakes up to the news that Franciscan, Rev. Gregory John Hartmayer, OFM will become it's next bishop, and the people of Philadelphia got confirmation that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver will succeed the outgoing Cardinal Justin Rigali.

Archbishop Chaput had been rumored more than once to be headed to a cardinalatial see from his Denver post which he has held since 1997, and it finally happened this morning with his appointment today to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia by Pope Benedict XVI.  He will be installed on September 8, 2011 - the day on which we celebrate the Birth of Mary. At the same time, the Holy Father accepted the resignation of Cardinal Justin Rigali who held that post since October of 2003.  The two will be at a 10:00 press conference which can probably be watched live at the diocesan website.

I, like other Catholic bloggers, was watching the rumor mill swell until it finally could not contain itself any more yesterday and the near certainty was winding it's way through Philly papers and the  blogosphere before the embargo which would have been Noon time today in Rome.

The Philly-bound bishop was the second Native American (Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe) to be ordained a bishop in the United States, the first Native American to be archbishop, and God-willing, the first Native American to become a Cardinal.  It is unusual for a bishop to be named Cardinal while his predecessor is still alive, and under 80.   Upon reaching the age of 80, they are no longer considered among the Cardinal Electors who chose the next Pope.  Cardinal Rigali just turned 76 a few months ago.  Archbishop Chaput would be likely be elevated to Cardinal in a consistory at some point after April of 2015 if Philadelphia keeps it's red hat, and depending on other limitations there may be on overall numbers and distribution.

You can read Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's full bio and curriculum vitae at the Archdiocese of Denver website.


"A Conservative Bishop"?

That is a label for Archbishop Chaput you will see in many sources.  But, how would people describe "conservative"?  Is he politically conservative, socially conservative, liturgically conservative? 

In looking around the web this morning, I found an exclusive interview that reporter, John Allen had with Archbishop Chaput about his appointment to Philadelphia.  In that interview they talk about everything from politics, to baseball, and the Latin Mass.

Why, oh why is this respectable reporter still writing for the dissident rag, the National Catholic Reporter. Now, considering that the NC Reporter has writers advocating everything from liberation theology to abortion I recommend looking at the reaction of their readers in the combox to the news of Chaput's appointment.  The dissident wing of the Church is throwing an absolute nutty.  Thomas J. Reese, SJ, of the Woodstock Theological Center [I'm not making that up], had this reaction in Philly.com:

"I think that with Chaput you will see a much more politically active archbishop than we saw with Cardinal Rigali," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit magazine America and author of numerous books on the Catholic hierarchy.

Reese described Chaput as an "in-your-face" leader who is "going to be a real pain in the neck for the Democratic Party."

It's not the Democratic Party that Archbishop Chaput is confronting; rather it is Catholic Democratic Party politicians and other democrats who exploit their "catholicity" for agendas that are contrary to Catholic teaching which he confronts.


In an article written yesterday by Allen, he had this to say:

Despite the fact that Chaput has been rumored to be in line for virtually every major opening in the American church in recent years, his appointment to Philadelphia nonetheless comes as something of a surprise.

Speaking on background, sources told NCR that Chaput was a highly personal choice by Pope Benedict. Most insiders considered Chaput a long-shot for Philadelphia, regarding Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., a Pennsylvania native and a prelate with a reputation for brokering compromise, as the favorite.

Benedict, however, tapped Chaput, solidifying his profile as a papal favorite.

In recent years, Benedict turned to Chaput to handle two other sensitive assignments: Chaput was part of a team of bishops tasked with conducting a review of the Legionaries of Christ, and he was also entrusted with a visitation of the Toowoomba diocese in Australia under Bishop William Morris.

That latter investigation led to Benedict's decision to sack Morris, in part because Morris suggested openness to women priests in a pastoral letter.

One way to learn about someone is through their writings.  You can find a boatload of them linked at the bottom of this page since Archbishop Chaput is a prolific writer on a number of topics.
More articles and blogposts are below. Some of these were written yesterday or early this morning, before the official announcement, but contain interesting notes and background. 

I am providing a variety of resources here - some seemingly favorable, others not, and others just reporting facts.  Here again, I recommend sampling some of the comments that can be found in the blogs.  I would not recommend paying much attention to comboxes of secular news sources since there are many non-Catholics, mostly secularists, who tend to dominate those discussions. 




THIS LIST WILL BE UPDATED LATER

• Archbishop Chaput to lead Philadelphia Archdiocese (Vatican Radio)
• From the Prairie to the Atlantic Coast. The New Bishops Stateside (Sandro Magister)
• Chaput to Philly (Thomas Pringle)
• Render Unto Chaput -- Sources: Denver's Capuchin = Philadelphia's Revolution (Rocco Palmo)
• Pope accepts Philadelphia archbishop's resignation; Chaput named successor (Allentown Morning Call)
• Archbishop may become Cardinal (the Coloradan)
• Michael Sean Winters (NCR Blog) is throwing a nutty 
• It won't be Rigali, Part 2 (Philly.com)
• Great 2008 Interview with Archbishop Chaput (Regnun Novum)
• Tom Peters, the American Papist will be at the 10:00am Presser, Tweeting (Catholic Vote)
• Chaput to Philly (The Anchoress)
• Philadelphia needs it's new archbishop (Matt Archbold)
• Of course, the New York Times would rely on the "Woodstock Theological Center" for comment

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Archbishop Chaput: Politics, Morality, and a President - an American View

Thanks to the Catholic News Agency, we have the text of Archbishop Charles Chaput's article recently appearing in L'Osservatore Romano.  Do read this. 

One of the strengths of the Church is her global perspective. In that light, Cardinal Georges Cottier's recent essay on President Barack Obama ("Politics, morality and original sin," 30 Days, No. 5), made a valuable contribution to Catholic discussion of the new American president. Our faith connects us across borders. What happens in one nation may have an impact on many others. World opinion about America's leaders is not only appropriate; it should be welcomed.


And yet, the world does not live and vote in the United States. Americans do. The pastoral realities of any country are best known by the local bishops who shepherd their people. Thus, on the subject of America's leaders, the thoughts of an American bishop may have some value. They may augment the Cardinal's good views by offering a different perspective.


Note that I speak here only for myself. I do not speak for the bishops of the United States as a body, nor for any other individual bishop. Nor will I address President Obama's speech to the Islamic world, which Cardinal Cottier mentions in his own essay. That would require a separate discussion.


I will focus instead on the President's graduation appearance at the University of Notre Dame, and Cardinal Cottier's comments on the President's thinking. I have two motives in doing so.


First, men and women from my own diocese belong to the national Notre Dame community as students, graduates and parents. Every bishop has a stake in the faith of the people in his care, and Notre Dame has never merely been a local Catholic university. It is an icon of the American Catholic experience. Second, when Notre Dame's local bishop vigorously disagrees with the appearance of any speaker, and some 80 other bishops and 300,000 laypeople around the country publicly support the local bishop, then reasonable people must infer that a real problem exists with the speaker – or at least with his appearance at the disputed event. Reasonable people might further choose to defer to the judgment of those Catholic pastors closest to the controversy.


Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier's articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame. It also overvalues the consonance of President Obama's thinking with Catholic teaching.


There are several key points to remember here.


First, resistance to President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame had nothing to do with whether he is a good or bad man. He is obviously a gifted man. He has many good moral and political instincts, and an admirable devotion to his family. These things matter. But unfortunately, so does this: The President's views on vital bioethical issues, including but not limited to abortion, differ sharply from Catholic teaching. This is why he has enjoyed the strong support of major "abortion rights" groups for many years. Much is made, in some religious circles, of the President's sympathy for Catholic social teaching. But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no "social justice" if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights.


Second, at a different moment and under different circumstances, the conflict at Notre Dame might have faded away if the university had simply asked the President to give a lecture or public address. But at a time when the American bishops as a body had already voiced strong concern about the new administration's abortion policies, Notre Dame not only made the President the centerpiece of its graduation events, but also granted him an honorary doctorate of laws – this, despite his deeply troubling views on abortion law and related social issues.


The real source of Catholic frustration with President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame was his overt, negative public voting and speaking record on abortion and other problematic issues. By its actions, Notre Dame ignored and violated the guidance of America's bishops in their 2004 document, "Catholics in Political Life." In that text, the bishops urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters.


Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama's views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood.


Third, the Cardinal wisely notes points of contact between President Obama's frequently stated search for political "common ground" and the Catholic emphasis on pursing the "common good." These goals – seeking common ground and pursuing the common good – can often coincide. But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice. So-called "common ground" abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn.


Fourth, Cardinal Cottier rightly reminds his readers of the mutual respect and cooperative spirit required by citizenship in a pluralist democracy. But pluralism is never an end in itself. It is never an excuse for inaction. As President Obama himself acknowledged at Notre Dame, democracy depends for its health on people of conviction fighting hard in the public square for what they believe – peacefully, legally but vigorously and without apologies.


Unfortunately, the President also added the curious remark that ". . . the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt . . . This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us." In a sense, of course, this is true: On this side of eternity, doubt is part of the human predicament. But doubt is the absence of something; it is not a positive value. Insofar as it inoculates believers from acting on the demands of faith, doubt is a fatal weakness.


The habit of doubt fits much too comfortably with a kind of "baptized unbelief;" a Christianity that is little more than a vague tribal loyalty and a convenient spiritual vocabulary. Too often in recent American experience, pluralism and doubt have become alibis for Catholic moral and political lethargy. Perhaps Europe is different. But I would suggest that our current historical moment -- which both European and American Catholics share -- is very far from the social circumstances facing the early Christian legislators mentioned by the Cardinal. They had faith, and they also had the zeal – tempered by patience and intelligence – to incarnate the moral content of their faith explicitly in culture. In other words, they were building a civilization shaped by Christian belief. Something very different is happening now.


Cardinal Cottier's essay gives witness to his own generous spirit. I was struck in particular by his praise for President Obama's "humble realism." I hope he's right. American Catholics want him to be right. Humility and realism are the soil where a commonsense, modest, human-scaled and moral politics can grow. Whether President Obama can provide this kind of leadership remains to be seen. We have a duty to pray for him -- so that he can, and does


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Archbishop Chaput on "40 Years of American Catholic Complacency and Poor Formation"

I really wanted to attend this conference, but had a conflict with the date. It was held at nearby Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit where the Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, was the keynote speaker. Here is coverage from Catholic News Agency... (emphases mine in bold; comments in red)

Detroit, Mich., Mar 21, 2009 / 12:32 pm (CNA).- Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput delivered a speech on Saturday reflecting on the significance of the November 2008 election. Warning that media “narratives” should not obscure truth, he blamed the indifference and complacency of many U.S. Catholics for the country’s failures on abortion, poverty and immigration issues.

He also advised Catholics to “master the language of popular culture” and to refuse to be afraid, saying “fear is the disease of our age.” [Sometimes the only thing we need to fear is the reaction or rejection of others, often close friends or family members. Compare that to the early Christians who DIED for the truth's of the faith. Also, there is another kind of "fear" involved. It is a false fear, guided by a false sense of charity. That is, not wanting to offend or hurt someone else's feelings by standing up for objective truth. What is lacking is the concern for God's "feelings".]

The archbishop’s comments were delivered in his keynote address at the Hands-On Conference Celebrating the Year of St. Paul, which was hosted at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

Having been asked to examine what November 2008 and its aftermath can teach Catholics about American culture, the state of American Catholicism and the kind of Pauline discipleship necessary today, Archbishop Chaput said:

“November showed us that 40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected. Or to put it more discreetly, the November elections confirmed a trend, rather than created a new moment, in American culture.” [This is not just poor formation of Catholics - we know catechesis has been watered down, lousy, and at times, downright heretical. There is the formation of priests and religious which was even worse. Many things were missing or outright perverted in order to support some other agenda. The Divinity of Christ is challenged (i.e., they claim the miracle of the loaves was not a miracle, but simply good people working hard to share what they had). Another example: If Adam and Eve were fictional as some alleged, then Original Sin could not be real. If Original Sin were not real, then there could be no concupiscence (fallen human nature which makes us gravitate toward's sinful choices, rather than virtuous). What comes next is that sin is not considered sin. And, there is no need for sacramental confession. This is often seen among dissidents who advance "strange teachings" contrary to basic, consistent Church teachings on things like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, homosexuality, women's ordination, etc].

Noting that there was no question about President Barack Obama’s views on abortion “rights,” embryonic stem cell research and other “problematic issues,” he commented:

“Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues. But too many Catholics just don’t really care. That’s the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn child. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste each other’s time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow ‘balanced out’ or excused by three other good social policies.”

Offering a sober evaluation of the state of American Catholicism, he added:

“We need to stop over-counting our numbers, our influence, our institutions and our resources, because they’re not real. We can’t talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves and to God by claiming to ‘personally oppose’ some homicidal evil -- but then allowing it to be legal at the same time.” [Well said!]

Commenting on society’s attitude towards Catholic beliefs, Archbishop Chaput said, “we have to make ourselves stupid to believe some of the things American Catholics are now expected to accept.” [Yeah! Like the argument that "reducing abortions" is somehow helpful when it is actually a fallacy].

“There’s nothing more empty-headed in a pluralist democracy than telling citizens to keep quiet about their beliefs. A healthy democracy requires exactly the opposite.”

Noting the 2008 presidential campaign’s “revealing” focus upon the candidates’ “narratives,” he said the campaign seemed not to involve facts, but rather “story-telling.”

“Of course, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with story-telling -- unless the press and other news media themselves become part of the story-telling syndicate; in other words, peddlers of narratives in which facts are not told because they’re true, but rather become ‘true’ because they’re told by those who have the power to create an absorbing narrative,” the archbishop explained. [great explanation of what is happening with the media]

In such a state, he warned, real power does not rest with the people but with those who “shape the structure of our information.” [Precisely! It is also why things like Catholic blogging, Catholic Radio, TV and Internet TV are so important]. He linked this situation with Pope Benedict’s critique of the “dictatorship of relativism.”

The archbishop also connected this relativistic spirit to St. Paul’s appearance at the Aeropagus, recounted in the Book of Acts. At the Areopagus, a prestigious place of debate for Greek philosophers, “Nearly anything was tolerated, so long as no one claimed to have an exclusive and binding claim on the truth,” the archbishop explained.

He then quoted Acts 17’s description of the Areopagite mindset: “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”

“It’s worth paying attention to that description. There’s no mention of truth,” he commented, noting that when St. Paul preaches the truth “he’s mocked and despised and his preaching is a failure, at least in the short term.” [And, so it will be with bishops, priests, consecrated, and lay people who also speak the truth. Don't expect everyone to like you when you speak the truth, but it should always be done with great love and charity]

“Paul’s failure at the Areopagus is a good lesson for the times we face now in America,” the archbishop said. “When Catholics start leading their daily lives without a hunger for something higher than their own ambitions or appetites, or with the idea that they can create their own truth and then baptize it with an appeal to personal conscience, they become, in practice, agnostics in their personal lives, and Sophists in their public lives. In fact, people who openly reject God or dismiss Christianity as obsolete are sometimes far more honest and far less discouraging than Catholics who claim to be faithful to the Church but directly reject her guidance by their words and actions.” [leading this group are dissident Catholic politicians, educators and journalists]

Noting that Paul mastered the language of the popular urban culture of his time and used “every technical resource, tool and environment at his disposal,” Archbishop Chaput extensively quoted Pope John Paul II’s 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio, which also discussed St. Paul at the Areopagus.

“If Paul felt so fiercely compelled to preach the Gospel -- whether ‘timely [or] untimely’ -- to a pagan world, then how should we feel today, preaching the Gospel to an apostate world?” he asked, answering that the love of Christ must “impel” Catholics forward.

[This is important....]“Catholics in America, at least the many good Catholics who yearn to live their faith honestly and deeply, can easily feel tempted to hopelessness,” he concluded. “It becomes very burdensome to watch so many persons who call themselves Catholic compromise their faith and submit their hearts and consciences to the Caesars of our day.”

But Archbishop Chaput closed by encouraging Christians to remember the words of Jesus:

“In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

This is one bishop who his using his talents very well. May God grace all of our bishops with talents that can be multiplied in the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. We are headed in to hard times and must come out of our own personal complacency. Learn the faith! Live the faith!

As a reminder, we learned yesterday that Archbishop Chaput encouraged people at the seminar to write to Notre Dame President, John Jenkins to express disapproval at the university's decision to invite President Obama to speak at commencements. It is understood that he will be given an honorary degree, as well.

More: Outrageous: Notre Dame University to honor President Obama

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Archbishop Chaput on American Catholics and Obama

There is excellent coverage at the Catholic News Agency of a talk just given in Canada by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. This is only one small excerpt:

The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.

"President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with."

Yet this will be "very hard for Catholics in the United States," Chaput warned.

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a "spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer."

Go read: Denver archbishop warns against ‘spirit of adulation’ surrounding Obama

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!