Twenty-first century bishops and a twenty-first century church
Earlier this month in his regular NCR column, John Allen described Archbishop Charles Chaput as a “twenty-first century” bishop, not so much for his ideas and viewpoints but for the way he “compete[s] in [the] secular marketplace of ideas.”
Today in NCR’s story on the sainthood cause of Archbishop Oscar Romero, whose anniversary of martyrdom we celebrate today, Fr. Dean Brackley SJ notes that the hesitancy with which the church seems to be moving toward “Saint Oscar” is in part due to the fact that, by canonizing Romero, the church would hold him up not only as a model Christian but as a model archbishop. As Brackley says, “not everyone in the Catholic hierarchy is comfortable with presenting him as a bishop to be imitated.”
What kind of bishops does the church need in the twenty-first century? Bishops known for their (sometimes loud) participation in the “marketplace of ideas,” or pastors known for their continual conversion and for their humble walk with the oppressed even unto death? Indeed, what kind of church shall we be in the twenty-first century? A church that competes for political leverage or a treasonous church of solidarity, a church of the poor?
Today’s anniversary is a good opportunity to reflect on these questions, not only for bishops, but for all of God’s people.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Of course you’re not going to be surprised that I would say this… but we need more Romero’s to balance out the Chaput’s of the world…
DWR
I wonder… By the end of the day, will the usual suspects in the Roman Catholic barfosphere feature more posts about Chaput or about Romero? Do I need to make explicit my prediction?
No need at all. It’s more important to attack Stupak today… make him disappear, too.
http://www.newser.com/story/84123/death-threats-made-to-stupak-others-their-kids.html and I really mean, make him (and his family) disappear.
Actually, Henry and I were talking about how sad it was that only 3 people commented on my post about the miracle in Ben Richard’s life… It does make you wonder where people’s priorities really are… I’ll never understand why Gay Marriage is more important to people than talking about God’s intervention in the life of a 20 year old atheist… or why getting something right regarding natural law is more important than helping the hungry find food…
Oppss… do I smell a Commie in the room? ;-)
d
“What kind of bishops does the church need in the twenty-first century? Bishops known for their (sometimes loud) participation in the “marketplace of ideas,” or pastors known for their continual conversion and for their humble walk with the oppressed even unto death?”
I would respectfully suggest that we need both types of bishops, or, even better, bishops who have the attributes of both Chaput and Romero.
We can not trust alone or primarily to the bishops, particualy in this era of the masses, mass communication, mass transportation..The laity must really step up to the Gospel,for we are more empowered to do so in this epoch of global capitalism then in any preceding era. The holiness of the mass of believers is what shall win this age, not any number of bishop councils.
I’ll never understand why Gay Marriage is more important to people than talking about God’s intervention in the life of a 20 year old atheist . . .
I had an exchange on the blog at America magazine with someone very supportive of Archbishop Chaput’s decree that the children of the lesbian couple could not remain in Catholic school. The last line of his final message was “Also, sodomy is a sin that ‘cries out to heaven for vengeance,’ whereas simple fornication is not.” I had heard about sins that cried out to heaven for vengeance, so I looked them up. There are four (some give five), and they are
1. Willful murder
2. Sodomy
3. Oppression of the poor, especially widows, orphans, and strangers
4. Defrauding laborers of their wages
Of course, those who are concerned about 3 and 4 are “social justice” types, and if your church brings up social justice — says Glenn Beck — run! It’s socialism.
We need more Romero’s.
We don’t need any more of Chaput’s line banning the kids of Lesbian parents from our schools.
Romero was also a conservative – he received spiritual direction from Opus Dei which directed him along the line of journeying with Christ among the poor at whatever cost that entailed.
Romero embodies the genuine Church of the right and the left.
Romero spoke out often and forcefully in the market place of ideas. That’s why they killed him.
God Bless
I do wonder how long this is going to continue on with people bashing Bart Stupak? I understand people are outraged, and angry, but I feel really bad for the man.
With all due respect to St. Oscar, I certainly hope that there are more than two models. I would hate to think that for those bishops who do not have the courage and holiness of a Romero, the remaing option is then Chaput.
I do not mean to suggest that there are only two possible models for the episcopacy. I merely want to insist that the option for the poor must now be an essential characteristic for bishops and for Christian disciples in general.
This whole post is horrible
http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/catholics-attack-archbishop-chaput.html
jh – Yes, your post is horrible. Thank you for phrasing your comment in that unintentionally accurate way.
Although I must say I did find the whole “Infrate” (sic) is “the lefts’ version of GLEN BECK” (sic) thing sidesplittingly funny. And at least you, unknowingly I presume, got the plural “lefts” thing right.
Prior to joining the Church, I was impressed by the activism of the local Catholic archbishop, Raymond Hunthausen. Him and the methodists. So weird to think back on my youth and young adulthood, with Hunthausen (and Wuerl then Murphy) in Seattle–and Skylstad then George in Yakima. I think we could use more Hunthausens, as I thought that was the church I was joining. I think I read that Hunthausen is the last surviving US bishop to have attended all sessions of V2 (so what would he know, right?). Strange.
@ Craig… I really appreciate you sharing this… when I converted to Catholicism 6 years ago… I converted from being an Anglican evangelical to Catholicism because of the witness of Jesuits and others who really lived out their orthodoxy and social justice. I don’t think that a lot of people in the Catholic Church realize that a holistic combination of orthodoxy and social justice can be a really good evangelistic tool…
@ Michael and JH… wow… I’m laughing so unbelievably hard! JH if you ever met Michael Iafrate in person you’d know why this is so funny…
Contrary to some of his posts… he’s the most gentle guy in person…
DWR
David – Glenn is one of the most gentle souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting too. He told me that when he calls Dorothy Day a Nazi communist terrorist, he actually means it in the tenderest of ways.
Jh:
I know that many of Michael’s posts here have provoked controversy, and, suffice it to say, I’ve disagreed with many of them.
That said, I interpreted this post as a call to think seriously about the proper role of a bishop, with Michael using Chaput and Romero as a “compare and contrast” for the reader’s consideration.
Now, I think it’s fair to say, from Michael’s previous posts and his subsequent comments to this post, that he strongly prefers Romero’s pastoral style to Chaput’s. I also understand Michael’s post as expressing concern over Chaput’s outspoken comments on issues that touch upon not only fundamental teachings of the Church, but also matters that are hotly contested in the political arena (e.g., abortion). Neither of these statements/concerns are, in and of themselves, an attack on Chaput.
I also think it is fair to say that Michael believes that many conservative Catholics embrace Chaput primarily for political reasons, rather than out of some appreciation for his pastoral abilities. To a certain extent, I think he has a point (just as many liberal Catholics embrace Romero for similar reasons).
That said, my understanding of the overarching point of this post is to challenge Catholics to think in a deeper way about the role of a bishop in the 21st Century. And, as I previously indicated, I think Chaput and Romero are both fine examples for other priests and bishops to emulate.
Thanks Stephen. Just to clarify in response to the way you worded your comments. 1) My “preference” for Romero goes beyond a mere difference of “pastoral styles.” 2) I am not concerned with the fact that Chaput comments on matters that are “hotly contested in the political arena.” Bishops should do that. Romero did that. I am concerned about his concrete positions and his concrete dismissals of others whom he paints as inauthentic Catholics. 3) Contrary to what many think, and this may surprise some of you, I do not have a problem with Catholics “embracing” various bishops for “political” reasons. The problem is not that politics has entered into it. The problem is what kind of politics has entered into it and whether and how it expresses Christian faith. The faith is always political. The politics of the right is largely compassionless. That is the problem.
@ Stephen… I’m intrigued by your idea of bishops who contain pieces of Chaput and pieces of Romero… what would such a bishop look like?
d
Michael, thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I misunderstood or misrepresented your views. My larger point was merely that your post and comments were not necessarily a personal attack on Chaput, and I think your most recent comment confirms that, in this respect, my understanding was indeed correct. I don’t think disagreeing with a bishop’s “concrete positions” is a personal attack, nor do I think you are attacking Chaput merely by expressing a belief that his dismisses others as “inauthentic Catholics.” I may disagree with you on both of these points, but I fail to see how expressing either of these views constitutes a personal attack on Chaput.
And fwiw, Michael, I believe that the politics of both the left and right are equally compassionless. That is indeed a huge problem.
And don’t get me wrong. Despite jh’s uncharitable reading of my post, I don’t think Chaput is all bad. Unlike some bishops of recent memory, like that guy from Scranton who resigned, Chaput at least tries to give the impression that he’s “just Catholic,” a la Cardinal George, that he is “nonpartisan,” etc. He just, in fact, isn’t.
Chaput also had some pretty positive things to say about liberation theology at his appearance in Toronto, which I blogged about a while back. I think his comments deflated the expectations of the guy who asked him a question about “heretical” liberation theologians. Sure, Chaput did not seem to know any details about it, and he gave the impression that it’s no longer a very important theological movement, but he didn’t condemn it and affirmed a lot of it.
drdwheelerreed:
I won’t pretend to be an expert on either Chaput or Romero, but I am not so sure that these men are as different as many of us might seem to think. From what I’ve read, both men seem to have a great deal in common. I think a great deal of the differences between the two may have more to do with the political environments that each is/was confronted with. I am open to being persuaded otherwise though.
Steve, your avatar is making me thirsty.
Heh. It’s making me thirsty as well. When we have that drink, I’ll make sure we’re at a bar that serves Blanton’s. :)
It’s a deal!
@ Stephen… I know more about Romero than Chaput, and most of what I’ve learned about Chaput comes second hand through people who think his voice is the ONLY voice in the Catholic Church. So, like you I can’t really make a fair statement one way or the other.
For me… I keep trying to find the middle ground in Catholicism… or what I call “holistic Catholicism”… what Cardinal George calls “Simply Catholic.” It’s a hard thing to find these days…
I think the “middle ground” is hard to find because it all depends on how the “poles” are defined, and in the united states those poles are read through u.s. political categories. Where do we locate “the middle” when we have a truly “catholic,” i.e. global and pluralistic, church in view?
@ Michael… very true… I don’t think I even know where the poles are anymore!
Also @ Michael… there are days when I really miss Canada… no it wasn’t perfect, but the discussion weren’t always so front-loaded by politics… know what I mean?
I am not sure where the middle ground is either, but I suspect one is getting warm when one begins to rethink certain political beliefs in light of Church teaching. Speaking for myself, I know that my views on the death penalty, immigration, and torture (to name just a few issues) are vastly different than they were before I began my journey to the Catholic faith.
They’re in Poland…duh.
I actually thought the Allen post was pretty interesting, the part about Chaput avoiding direct refrences to the Church’s teachings or documents. That shows he’s got a pretty good handle on his audience, which kind of intrigued me.
http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2010/03/oscar-romero-to-us-catholic-bishops-now.html
Speaking for myself, I know that my views on the death penalty, immigration, and torture (to name just a few issues) are vastly different than they were before I began my journey to the Catholic faith.
You’re not alone. I have found this to be disorienting, or perhaps “re-orienting” is a better way to describe this experience.
“but we need more Romero’s to balance out the Chaput’s of the world… ”
I recall Archbishop Chaput being taken to task a few years ago by conservatives because the archbishop dared to speakout about the rights of immigrants.
So we need to be careful in labelling our priests, bishops, and each other as conservative vs. liberal.(Labels allow us in part to de-humanize another rather quickly if it suits our case or viewpoint.)
I see this lib. vs con. label play out in the secular media too often, when the media paints a picture of the Vatican being a bunch of mean old men trying to tell Catholics what to do sexually, or what to believe in about abortion.
At times, the media plays it as if “the Vatican” is only concerned abortion and sex. I remember one talk show host in the SF Bay Area wonder why the Pope (at the time JPII) did not speak out against the death penalty. What? Guess he wanted a personal call from the pope on this topic.
Secular critics seem to jump all over a Vatican’s or Bishop’s statement if it pushes the so-called conservative agenda, yet are far too silent when the church speaks out for immigrant rights, protection of workers etc.
Dan – Those are good points. But I will reiterate that I did not frame this as “liberal bishop vs. conservative bishop,” nor do I think it’s a matter of “balancing things out” so we can find a “middle ground.” I was trying to make a point about the option for the poor.
Dan,
Of course you are right about the secular media. For all the accusations of liberal bias, the media is tremendously unhelpful in reporting on the Church’s “best kept secret”, her social teachings on economic justice.
Michael- I agree wholeheartedly about your point concerning the poor.
And I was speaking generally about the tendency to label Church leaders, Church teachings, etc. liberal or conservative or needing “we need more Romero’s to balance out the Chaput’s of the world…”
Does that mean Romero=good, Chaput= bad?
How many of us are really acting like Romero?
And there is this comment above: “I would HATE to think that for those bishops who do not have the courage and holiness of a Romero, the remaing option is then Chaput.”
Hate? Really?
So in the caricatures of who’s liberal, who’s conservative; Archbishop Chaput seems for some to be a “bad guy”…brush him off…wish he would shut up…
Would Archbishop Romero feel the same, express the same about Archbishop Chaput?
In what way does Chaput fail to advance the preferrential option for the poor? He teaches his flock that “those who ignore the poor will go to Hell.”
I have personally heard him say these very words several times myself.