Posted on 02/10/2014 2:42:51 PM PST by NYer
Barely two months ago the ecclesiastical news circuit was rocked with the revelation that Pope Francis had decided not to renew Cardinal Burke’s membership on the Congregation for Bishops.
The New York Times, NPR, NBC and a host of other secular and Catholic news outlets went berserk, seeing in Pope Francis’ decision the promise of a radical reorientation of the curia.
At the time, I proposed a counter-narrative: Pope Francis is not about to purge “conservatives” from the curia and we shouldn’t read too much into the Burke news.
Well, my counter-narrative received a big boost last week.
You shouldn’t feel bad, of course, if you missed the news — it arrived last week, and, more to the point, the same outlets that saw such importance in the Burke news evidently missed or conveniently overlooked the “Chaput shocker”.
I found out at the same time as his 98,000 fans on Facebook:
This, my papist friends, is a big deal.
Here’s why.
As Rocco points out, this is Chaput’s first appointment to a curial assignment. And it came, not from Bl. John Paul, not from Pope Benedict – but from Pope Francis. The very same Pope Francis who supposedly “has it in” for conservative prelates, if you believe the New York Times. Pope Francis also did something extraordinary by appointing Abp. Chaput as the only non-cardinal to be appointed to the dicastry.
In other words, if the Burke news harbored any significance, this Chaput news certainly does as well, if not even more so!
If secular news outlets and progressive Catholics want to frame a narrative based on the Burke news, they owe us an explanation for what’s going on with this Chaput elevation. You don’t get to just pick and choose what’s important. If the Burke news meant that Pope Francis doesn’t want to retain or elevate conservative voices, what are we to make of this decision?
I think a case can be made that Pope Francis trusts and respects Archbishop Chaput.
Rocco helpfully explains some of the likely back story:
“…there is a history [between Chaput and Francis] – the then-archbishops of Denver and Buenos Aires became friendly at the 1997 Synod for America, where Chaput’s intervention struck a nerve with the future Pope. (During the October reunion seen above, Francis is said to have warmly recalled the talk yet again.)”
Abp. Chaput deserves this appointment on his own merits: his episcopate has been conspicuous for his encouragement of faithful lay movements (FOCUS, the Augustine Institute, etc.). He continually writes and speaks to encourage and inspire greater lay participation in the Church’s mission. And his diocesan governance style draws heavily upon lay talent and initiative. He personifies a fruitful collaboration between a bishop and the laity.
But let’s not forget another important point — when Pope Francis visits the USA for the first time in 2015 for the World Meeting of Families, Abp. Chaput will be his host as the organizer!
Some progressive Catholics can’t abide the situation. Sadly, their petty ideological sniping often succeeds in masquerading as commentary, and they’ve already got the guns out for Chaput. This quote from Fr. Tom Reese, S.J. in the Philadelphia Inquirer is a perfect example of their attempts to create distance between Chaput and Francis:
“The Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit magazine America and now a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, a liberal weekly, said after the election [for VP of the USCCB] that the mere perception that Chaput might be in opposition to Francis’ agenda might have made some of his fellow bishops nervous.
“I think there was concern that the secular media would be coming out with headlines reading ‘Bishops Elect Critic of Francis,’ ” said Reese.”
Oh please! This is laughable. Chaput continues to be admired by his fellow bishops — he only failed to be appointed VP of the USCCB by one vote this last go around, and he freely admitted to not voting for himself because he already has more than enough responsibilities. Fr. Reese forgets his own reaction in 2010 when the U.S. bishops upended fifty years of tradition to appoint Dolan over Kicanas:
“The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Seminary at Georgetown University and a liberal Catholic commentator, said, “The two vice presidential finalists were the two most conservative on the ballot. That says something about where this conference is going.”
Over three years later, the trajectory of the bishops conference is still clear, as is, I would argue, the overall trajectory of the church.
We catholics need to develop a better memory, do our homework, and fill in the blind spots that are created by the intentionally-selective, agenda-driven media, and by progressive commentators like Fr. Tom Reese. In the months and years ahead, we are going to witness more and more of these attempts to turn every bit of news into the false narrative of “liberal Pope Francis vs. conservative bishop so-and-so”.
They are already trying to apply this meme to the Chicago succession.
But here’s what we need to be focused on: good bishops like Abp. Chaput and Cardinal Burke have a huge amount of work on their plate. Chaput especially has the tallest of orders: saving the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and organizing the World Meeting of Families, in addition to his new responsibilities at the Council for Laity.
They don’t need us worrying about a false distance between them and the Holy Father. They need faithful catholics like us to roll up their sleeves and help right the Barque of Peter.
So help spread this good news to our brothers and sisters who are still smarting over the Burke business by making sure they are also aware of the Chaput shocker.
I disagree. “Social Justice” and “healthcare” has everything to do with Catholic Theology and the idea of subsidiarity and Natural Law and the necessity of Virtue/religion in culture.
There is no “right” from government to treat such intimate issues like “welfare” and “healthcare” through “government” agencies, when it just adds to the cost and ends in corruption always. Few regulations are all that might be needed. Charity can be done by churches only.
Government is always force and is never “charity” and it ends up punishing Virtue and rewarding Vice, which destroys a culture. As a Soviet author stated, “Even a little bit of Socialism rots the soul”
Maybe we do need a safety net-—put in by government-—but that edge should be given to support religious institutions so they flourish in the State.
Without Virtue, there is no Free Republic (Socrates). We need a religious people. If people were angels, as the Founders stated, we would need no government.
I get the blogger with the appellation, but he addressed the readers as fellow papists. No offense taken. The similarity of black usage of N is similarly noted.
I get the blogger with the appellation, but he addressed the readers as fellow papists. No offense taken. The similarity of black usage of N is similarly noted.
He has always done that.
And I have heard Catholics calling themselves Papists even before Tom Peters was born. (And I knew him as a baby.)
Our prayers continue to be with Thomas Peters the Papist for his complete recovery. It is great so see his blog posts. Maybe it is not news for everyone else but it is the first one I see after the accident.
May the Lord grant His servant Thomas complete recovery, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.
I don’t think the conservatives should expect political consistency from Pope Francis in the social sphere, but I like this appointment a lot. Congratulations to His Grace.
You'll get no argument from me.
This is good news, but aren’t people seeing what they want to see here? We can hardly pretend that the Pontifical Council for the Laity is in any way comparable to the Congregation for Bishops. The former is only concerned with assisting the Holy Father in his dealing with the laity, their various movements and their collective contributions generally. The latter has direct and immediate influence, if not quite control, over the selection of bishops. And this is to ignore that congregations are simply more powerful to begin with, having executive power whereas pontifical councils do not. Personally, I don’t really see this as being in any way the kind of news that the changes to the Congregation for Bishops was.
Of course people are seeing what they want to see here.
Dittos to what the others have said, with the added thought that there are so many "cafeteria Catholics" who pick-and-choose which doctrines they believe and which moral teachings they accept (e.g., contraception), that a Catholic may call himself a Papist as shorthand for saying "I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith and morals."
In that sense it becomes more "common usage" for faithful Catholics.
On the traditional wing, it also becomes shorthand to distinguish traditionalists who accept Vatican II and the popes from John XXIII through Francis from sedevacantist traditionalists who reject Vatican II.
***This, my papist friends, is a big deal.****
So why am I called out for using the term Papist?
Dumb question, which is the papist, the traditionalist supporting VatII?
Actually, a good question, and yes, as "shorthand," the supporter of Vatican II and (currently) Francis, would call himself a Papist.
But it occurred to me after I had posted yesterday, that the sedevacantist would respond that he, too, is a Papist -- he just doesn't think that John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. were real popes.
So, technically, they both can be called Papists. OTOH, a sedevacantist would not use the term too often, lest people think it implies loyalty to Francis. But he might use it if the context of his POV was clear.
Good stuff, thanks.
This isn’t about “conservative” and “liberal.” That’s 90s talk. It’s about the New Evangelization and the huge mess we’re in because we’ve been dragging our feet so long like clueless dorks. Catch Up!!!!
Bump.
“Barely two months ago the ecclesiastical news circuit was rocked with the revelation that Pope Francis had decided not to renew Cardinal Burke’s membership on the Congregation for Bishops”
Cardinal Burke put that lie to rest this past Thursday on The World Over on EWTN. He said his assignment to the Congregation for Bishops was up for renewal and he didn’t particularly want it renewed. He said the Pope had every right to appoint someone else. It didn’t bother Burke in the least. He goes on to say he’s the current Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and meets with Pope Francis regularly. He said Francis has never indicated he is not satisfied with his performance.
He also goes on to say that Cardinal Kaspar is dead wrong on wanting divorced Catholics to receive communion and said he thinks this will never happen. He said what will probably happen is Pope Francis will come down hard on Kaspar and the renegade Germany bishops.
“He recently expressed he idea that everyone has a right to health care”
Then he’s in agreement with 100% of all other Catholic bishops. Caput is great defender of all the Catholic social teachings.
Yes, caught the program, and I am most relieved that he did. Thanks for the post and ping.
***This, my papist friends, is a big deal.***
PAPIST?!? I was told, right here on FR, that is an offensive term!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.