Skip to content
10 Comments
  1. July 13, 2009 8:52 am

    I think one of the ways to move beyond the American sphere is to move beyond the cultural use of words like “right” and “left,” but to move forward to looking at Christ and reacting to him; what does Christ demand? That is our answer.

    It’s not as easy as it sounds.

  2. July 13, 2009 9:11 am

    In short, we do not stand out anymore.

    Sadly, you’re right, Joshua. We don’t stand out, even though standing out is no great struggle in our society. I mean it’s not as if we’re being persecuted for our Catholicism.

  3. M.Z. permalink
    July 13, 2009 9:28 am

    There is a certain back-in-the-good-old-days feel about commentary that tends to romanticize the past. In many ways it is like asking how such a good generation could raise the wretched boomers. The answer is that the generation before the boomers had a lot of the qualities despised in the boomers. And the answer here is that Catholicism was weak and getting weaker before the present situation. For example, people often point to sidewalk weddings and spiffier pastor’s offices to accomodate mixed marriages and point to it as a sign of the great Catholicism back then. But the reason for it was that there were quite a few people marrying outside the faith. The issue of Catholic and American conflict is not a new one.

  4. July 13, 2009 9:39 am

    Henry,

    Exactly! I think that is why I enjoy Ratzinger/Benedict so much: almost all of his theology is Christological at center. The same is probably true for Balthasar as well.

    Kyle,

    I agree completely. I sometimes catch myself wishing we were persecuted more. Maybe if that which attempts to weaken and destroy the faith were more explicit to the senses (like lions and burning at the stake), rather than the constant subtle attacks we receive today, more people, myself included, would bear a more eloquent and integral Christian witness.

    MZ,

    You are absolutely right. I definitely tend to glorify the past. That is at least partly because I have studied very little history. We had no historical course in my MA program, and while I had hoped to read up on it a bit this summer, learning French, being a dad, preparing to move, and reading CV have gotten in the way.
    However, it is onlypartially true that I glorify the American Catholic past. I vaguely aware of our struggles here, but I REALLY glorify those first few centuries of Christianity.

    • M.Z. permalink
      July 13, 2009 10:33 am

      It was more of a criticism of Chaput than you. Like you, I find much of his commentary lacking.

  5. ron chandonia permalink
    July 13, 2009 12:53 pm

    I would like to see Archbishop Chaput take on George Wiegel over this (or anything else, for that matter), but I don’t think it’s likely to happen. Still, he did take on Scalia, so I guess all things are possible.

  6. July 13, 2009 1:07 pm

    “I would like to see Archbishop Chaput take on George Wiegel over this (or anything else, for that matter), but I don’t think it’s likely to happen. Still, he did take on Scalia, so I guess all things are possible.”

    He very well might. Perhaps though if Weiegel is quiet from now on this he may not. The people that Chaput could take on from the right ot the left as to their statements is quite a lot.

    For the talk of being Catholic over other things which I think is the topic of this post Chaput has proven he can walk the talk.

    Despite being labeled a “conservative” and “far right” Bishop he has done great work against State Execution in his State(not exactly a huge GOP issue) and took more arrows and personal insults as he went to Parish to Parish arguing for immigration reform. (This was the largely forgotten issue of 2008 because for many a certain Presidential hopeful’s advocacy of the biggest Catholic Social Justice ISsue in the USA was problematic) He has written on those topics often and walks the talk. I am curious if people found that “commentary lacking” on those issues

    • M.Z. permalink
      July 13, 2009 5:45 pm

      He is the right’s Bishop Gumbleton. Much like the left and Gumbleton, some day they might recognize the embarassment he is. If he were wise he would stop trying to be a national darling and focus on the Archdiocese of Denver. Barring that, he might open himself up for some internal criticism so that his published pieces aren’t so incomplete, insipid, and choir baiting.

  7. July 13, 2009 11:12 pm

    “He is the right’s Bishop Gumbleton. Much like the left and Gumbleton, some day they might recognize the embarassment he is. If he were wise he would stop trying to be a national darling and focus on the Archdiocese of Denver. Barring that, he might open himself up for some internal criticism so that his published pieces aren’t so incomplete, insipid, and choir baiting.”

    I think that is nonsense and a pretty darn big charge that should be backed up by something.

    How is he is an embarassment please cite examples

    M.Z. thought I often disagree with you on particular things I am pretty shocked by this charge. You are usually not he th e type to “attack the Bishops”

    Oh and by the way there is nothing that says particular Bishops like in New York or Chicago, or Boston that are vocal are the only ones that can speak out

  8. July 14, 2009 12:14 am

    I have no interest in badmouthing our bishops, but there seems to be some ecclesiological confusion over the submission due to one’s ordinary vs. the submission given to another bishop who speaks more loudly and clearly and with whom one may be in greater agreement. I hope to explore this more in a post in the near future, but it may be a few months before I get around to it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: