The decline of American culture and politics, as seen in a Halloween parade

His Excellency the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Conv., Archbishop of Philadelphia, gave the 2016 Tocqueville Lecture on Religious Liberty yesterday at the University of Notre Dame. He titled his lecture, "Sex, Family and the Liberty of the Church."

Within his remarks, Archbishop Chaput gave a rather blistering assessment of the current political situation in these United States of America (and it was not the first time he has done so in recent weeks):

Only God knows the human heart, so I presume that both major candidates for the White House this year intend well and have a reasonable level of personal decency behind their public images.  But I also believe that each candidate is very bad news for our country, though in different ways.  One candidate, in the view of a lot of people, is a belligerent demagogue with an impulse control problem.  And the other, also in the view of a lot of people, is a criminal liar, uniquely rich in stale ideas and bad priorities.

So where does that leave us?  The historian Henry Adams once described the practice of politics as “the systematic organization of hatreds.”  And there’s plenty in our current political season that invites cynicism.  But Christians don’t have that option.

I cannot say I disagree with his assessment. In fact, I think he has accurately described the current state of our political climate. The country I left three years ago when I began my studies in Rome is not the same country I returned to almost three months ago, and this saddens me greatly.

As it happens, I am one of those who sees one candidate as a belligerent demagogue and the other as a criminal liar. As such, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either candidate of the two major parties; what your well-formed conscience tells you, I do not know.

I find myself thinking the same thought as Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, though he expresses it much more eloquently than I have previously managed to do:

I guess it will be my fault. Whichever way the election comes out, it's my fault. My friends who, for fear of Trump, are reluctantly but firmly supporting Clinton are telling me that unless I vote for her (not a chance!) I'm in effect voting for him. If he's elected, it's my fault. But my friends (there are more of them) who, for fear of Clinton, are supporting Trump, however reluctantly, are telling me that unless I vote for him I'm in effect voting for her. If she wins, it's my fault. So either way, it's my fault (or, as my friends on both sides say, "you own it"). But I'm still left baffled by the question of which one I'm actually voting for by not voting for either of them.

As I've considered my options these past many months, I'm intrigued by the American Solidarity Party, which is currently in something of its infancy, though I think it has a promising future.

When he surveyed the political landscape, which is necessarily shaped by the moral landscape of the country, Archbishop Chaput made this excellent observation:

But here’s my larger point: We’ve reached a moment when our political thinking and vocabulary as a nation seem exhausted.  The real effect that we as individuals have on the government and political class that claim to represent us – the big mechanical Golem we call Washington — is so slight that it breeds indifference and anger.

As Christians, then, our political engagement needs to involve more than just wringing our hands and whining about the ugly choice we face in November.  It needs to be more than a search for better candidates and policies, or shrewder slogans.  The task of renewing a society is much more long term than a trip every few years to the voting booth.  And it requires a different kind of people.  It demands that we be different people. 

Augustine said that complaining about the times makes no sense because we are the times.  And that means, in turn, that changing the country means first changing ourselves.

Be sure to read the entire text of the lecture he delivered at Notre Dame; you will not regret it.

This morning I was surprised to learn that the Halloween parade in Vandalia, Illinois - a town within the boundaries of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois - will not involve the tossing of candy (or any candy, for that matter) this year. The decision was made by the Lion's Club, the organizing sponsor of the parade, after repeated warnings over the years. The reason for the decision is really quite reasonable:

The crowds have pushed further and further into the street requiring drivers of vehicles to constantly have to be on guard for children darting into the street to get that last elusive piece of candy.  Sadly, some parents actually push their children to run out and retrieve candy and some have created combative situations with crowd control personnel.  As has been stressed by the Lions in the past – this is extremely dangerous.  Large vehicles such as tractors and large 4 wheel drive trucks simply cannot see immediately in front of their vehicles [more].

Many people, both parents and children, will, I suspect, likely grumble and moan against the Lion's Club for this decision without ever realizing that they brought it upon themselves. This is, of course, what a self-centered culture leads to.

While Archbishop Chaput used the declining state of marriage and family life to highlight what needs to change in us as a people before our political climate changes for the better, he might just as easily - and just as effectively - have used the sad situation of the Vandalia Halloween parade. After all, if we are honest, this situation also stems from the declining state of marriage and family life.

Chaput: True reform requires humility and faith

The Knights of Columbus are meeting now in Denver for their 129th convention, which was opened with the celebration of the Holy Mass celebrated by His Excellency the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop-electdesignate of Pittsburgh [correction:] Philadelphia [thank you, kind reader.  I knew that and should know better than to post when I'm tired].

He reflect in his homily on the current life of the Church and on authentic reform.  It is brief and well worth your reading.  His text follows, via Salt and Light TV, with my emphases:

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.

On guessing the future, and reading the past

With yesterday's appointment of His Excellency the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. as Archbishop of Philadelphia many are speculating as to what how the Bishop-designate will govern his new Archdiocese.

Many attempted the same with the election of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the Chair of Peter, but they failed miserably and, quite honestly, defamed him.  They called the cards wrongly, so to speak, becuase they never read anything of what he wrote.  Many were surprised when Pope Benedict's first encyclical letter, Deus caritas est, focused on theme of the love of God; those of us who had read his works were not surprised at all.  The passages often cited in the encyclical were the very passages often cited in all of his writings.

At any rate, if you want to know the mind of Archbishop Chaput, it would be wise to read what he has written.  To that end, Matthew Schmitz has compiled a list (with links) of the Archbishop's thoughts written for First Things.  Those would attempt to predict his moves would do well to read them first.

Archbishop Chaput on health care

The Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M., Archbishop of Denver, recently discussed the topic of health care in his column which will be published today in the Denver Catholic Register, titled, "Catholics, Health Care and the Senate's bad bill."

The text of his column, with my emphases and comments, follows:

The Senate version of health-care reform currently being forced ahead by congressional leaders and the White House is a bad bill that will result in bad law. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops of our country. Nor does the American public want it. As I write this column on March 14, the Senate bill remains gravely flawed. It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health-care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.

Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version – whatever their intentions – are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.

As we enter a critical week in the national health-care debate, Catholics across northern Colorado need to remember a few simple facts.

First, the Catholic bishops of the United States have pressed for real national health-care reform in this country for more than half a century. They began long before either political party or the public media found it convenient. That commitment hasn’t changed. Nor will it.

Second, the bishops have tried earnestly for more than seven months to work with elected officials to craft reform that would serve all Americans in a manner respecting minimum moral standards. The failure of their effort has one source [He holds no punches. Good for him! The time for blunt honesty is at hand]. It comes entirely from the stubbornness and evasions of certain key congressional leaders, and the unwillingness of the White House to honor promises made by the president last September.

Third, the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans [a valid point and a necessary reminder]. But God, or the devil, is in the details -- and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.

The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us [Pray God it not be so].

Do not be misled. The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House -- despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns -- is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.” Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it.

The Spirit breathes afresh

I must say that I am delighted - surprised, but delighted -at the overwhelming response to Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi's outrageous false claims about the stance of the Catholic Church toward abortion over the years.

If you are yet unaware of what she said in a interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC's Meet the Press, you must be living under a larger rock than I.

As if in answer to Amy Welborn's impassioned plea to use her words as a teaching moment, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Denver, and the Most Reverend James D. Conley, Auxiliary Bishop of Denver, responded to Speaker Pelosi.

The Most Rev. Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. responded to her comments.

Ten Catholic legislators have responded to her words, distancing themselves from her.

And what is more - and, sadly, the most surprising of all - the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops itself has responded! (I daresay this would never have happened without the publication of the excellent article on canon 915 by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, the recently appointed Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.)

In what, so far as I can recall, is a first, Justin Cardinal Regali, Chairman of the Committee on Pro-life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, issued a joint statement corrected Pelosi's blatantly false depiction of the teachings of the Church's teachings.

Thomas Peters, the American Papist, who, as always, is well on top of these matters, summarizes well Speaker Pelosi's current situation:

Where does that leave her? In the position of having lied either about the actual position of the Church, or about her claim that her position is a legitimate one within the teachings of the Catholic church.

This should get most interesting indeed.

Chaput on Francis

The Most Reverend Charles J. Caput, O.F.M. Cap., the Archbishop of Denver, has a very good reflection on Saint Francis of Assisi as "the model of authentic Church reform."

His Excellency begins his reflection by relating that he received an e-mail complaining "that the Archdiocese of Denver was becoming a magnet for every flaky, right wing new group in the Church." The son of the Poverello immediately thought of his spiritual father.

Archbishop Chaput then recounts - briefly and well - the life of this holy man, noting that "instead of tearing her down because of the sins of her leaders, Francis chose to love the Church and serve her - and because of that love and by his simply living of the Gospel without compromise, he became the means God used for the conversion and renewal of a whole age of faith."

His Excellency reminds us that "when an individual or even a religious community redefines obedience to mean something other than a practical, willing obedience to the Gospel and to the pastor's of Christ's Church -- not matter how imperfect those pastors are -- what always results, without exception, is disobedience to Christ Himself. So if the new communities in the Church are 'right and flaky' because they seek to be obedient, then so was St. Francis, and we need a lot more of it."

The entire article is well worth reading.