When Pope Benedict XVI appointed the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap., as the new archbishop of Philadelphia on July 19, the usual suspects were trotted out to say the usual things that the usual suspects say.
Thus David Clohessy of SNAP, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, continued his nine-year rant against the Catholic Church by pronouncing Chaput’s record on abuse (which virtually everyone else finds admirable) “dismal.” But then David Clohessy would likely have found St. John Chrysostom, St. Charles Borromeo, or Chaput’s 19th-century predecessor in Philadelphia, St. John Neumann, “dismal,” because if you’re the New York Times’s go-to guy for anti-Catholic-hierarchy sexual-abuse soundbites, that’s what you say. As for Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., the former editor of America magazine made his own priorities rather clear in fretting to the Philadelphia Inquirer that Chaput would “be a real pain in the neck for the Democratic Party.” (Bob Casey the Less, you have been warned!)
Advertisement
Just about every story on the Chaput appointment identified the archbishop as a “conservative” (because he believes and teaches as true what the Catholic Church believes and teaches to be true); just about every story claimed that Chaput was a tough guy when it came to holding Catholic politicians accountable for their votes on abortion and the nature of marriage (while completely missing the fact that Chaput had consistently made genuinely public arguments, not uniquely Catholic theological claims, about the inalienable right to life and marriage rightly understood); and of course every story emphasized abuse, abuse, abuse (as if this were the only reality of Catholic life in America).
All of this is tiresome, if wholly predictable; both its tediousness and its predictability help explain why it’s the rare discerning reader who turns to the mainstream media for serious reportage about and analysis of the Catholic Church. In this case, however, the same-old-same-old also obscured what is truly important about the Chaput appointment — which is not the archbishop’s Potawatomi ancestry (interesting as that is) but his place as one of the most vigorous exponents of what might be called Evangelical Catholicism.
Archbishop Chaput put it best himself in an exclusive interview with Catholic News Agency: “The biggest challenge, not just in Philadelphia but everywhere, is to preach the Gospel. . . . We need to have confidence in the Gospel, we have to live it faithfully, and to live it without compromise and with great joy.”
That formulation — the Gospel without compromise, joyfully lived — captures the essence of the Evangelical Catholicism that is slowly but steadily replacing Counter-Reformation Catholicism in the United States. The usual suspects are living in an old Catholic paradigm: They’re stuck in the Counter-Reformation Church of institutional maintenance; they simply want an institution they can run with looser rules, closely aligned with the Democratic party on the political left — which is precisely why they’re of interest to their media megaphones. Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, and other rising leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States are operating out of a very different paradigm — and in doing so, they’re the true heirs of both the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II.
Can anyone recommend a good historical account and analysis of the "Counter-Reformation" model Weigel mentions here, with its emphasis on clerical and structural/bureaucratic solutions? It certainly seems like an apt way to speak about the last 3-400 years of RC history, but I'd like to read more.
Weigel's "counter reformation" reference is, I believe, to the modernist ( progressives ) part of the catholic Church that effectively pushed a most liberal interpretation of Vatican II. As Fr Richard W Gilsdorf has written,in his book "the signs of the times". This may help
For some of the best syntheses (and differing conceptualizations) of "Counter-Reformation" Catholicism, see:
Birely, The Refashioning of Catholicism (1999)
Bossy, Christianity in the West (1985)
Evenett, The Spirit of the Counter-Reformation (1968)
Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (1999)
O'Malley, "Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation" in The Encyclopedia of the Renaissance (1982)
Ozment, The Age of Reform (1980)
Although none of these titles go beyond the 18th century, they all cover in depth the critical 16th century, attempting to make sense of the Church before, during, and immediately after the rise of Protestantism. Hope that helps!
About the only thing Mr. Weigel gets right in this article is that Archbishop Chaput is an excellent selection to lead the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. As usual, his analysis is dismal. I'd love for Mr. Weigel to explain just how the Big Bad Counter-Reformation (read Pre-Vatican II) Church was so awful.
Seems to me that this pre-Vatican II period was when all the evangelization occurred in this country. It certainly hasn't happened in my lifetime. Ever since the disaster of Vatican II and its aftermath, the Catholic Church has been hemorraghing souls, parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. It never fails that Mr. Weigel seems to insert this type of ridiculous analysis into his articles regardless of the topic.
I think you misunderstand his point. I'm not sure where you got the idea in there that Weigel was supporting the Church of the 1970s over the Church of 1870.
Vatican II had a vision, but that vision was not realized in the Council's immediate aftermath. The Council meant to make the Church more effective at teaching in the modern world. Instead, a (politically) leftist faction used it to polarize Catholics and the hierarchy got caught up with walking a left vs. right tightrope.
Chaput and others are heeding VII's advice, creating a more dynamic institutional Church without compromising Catholic doctrine.
In the Pre-Vatican II era, churches and seminaries were full. Today, churches are half-empty (average age north of 40+) and seminaries are mostly empty.
One Weigel statement I agree with: lots U.S. Catholics "...simply want an institution they can run with looser rules, closely aligned with the Democratic party on the political left..." Alas for Mr. Weigel, that IS the Vatican II crowd, not some aberrant offshoot.
Those folks killed the ceremonies, traditions, and pageantry of Catholicism so beloved by John XIII, who called Vatican II. Having done so, the "reformers" say, "Pope John would have wanted it this way." Mr. Weigel, these are your people.
It's ironic, but watering down the faith for the purpose of appealing to a wider audience doesn't work. The only thing that will work is adhering to tradition and principles.
Take the Jews in America as an example. Reform temples are shrinking in membership and interest. I bet you in 100 years there won't be any left.
The only segment of the Jewish faith population that is growing is the Orthodox.
The Weigel article and reaction are interesting insofar as y'all seem to want to set up the Gospel and "ceremonies, traditions, and pageantry of Catholicism" (CalMark) as bookends. Ideally, of course, this sacerdotalism would continually point/lead to the Gospel. The sad reality of the human heart is that Tradition all too often supplants the Gospel. The example of Orthodox Judaism cited by Jerry is certainly analogous, but more so than he might wish. Ceremony and Tradition with no Christ. I admire Weigel for addressing the underlying tension here, as well as all the other comments, but before you "get" the Good News you must first recognize the need for a Savior and not just a firmer commitment to an institution.
"The sad reality of the human heart is that Tradition all too often supplants the Gospel. The example of Orthodox Judaism cited by Jerry is certainly analogous, but more so than he might wish. Ceremony and Tradition with no Christ."
What you say is true. There is scripture to back it up.
Jesus rebukes the Pharisees. Mark 7:5-8
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not your disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?
6 He answered and said to them, Well has Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 However, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do.
American King James version
When people concentrate on their traditions, they lose sight of God and they begin serving traditions made up by other men rather than focusing on truly serving God.
Actually, the Catholic Church has been making some very progressive turns as of late. This latest example might be the biggest since the removal of the fig leaves in the museum.
What is old in not "new" just because it has been restored. To set the record straight, the axiom is "Vatican II opened the windows to freshen the air, but failed to put up screens to keep the flies out." I am a practicing Catholic, not a Biblical Literalist, although all the answers are thre. However, thanks to the Dominican Sisters,give me a question and i know what the Bible has to say to respond.
Catholic Evangelizing is not 'new' just because we finally decided to listen. love, mb
Until every Priest and Bishop and Cardinal that knew of all the forementioned problems resigns the flock will continue to go away. It is sad, but as simple as that.
lars1296 saying that Martin Luther was the founder of anything "catholic" is ironic... given what the word means. History shows it is better to say that he was the founder of "Evangelical Factionalism"
"Deep reform"? Maybe if you start at the archdiocesan level and selectively zigzag back and forth across the country down to the parish level. Once you get there, be very careful to see what you want to see and be blind to the rest.
