November 20, 2009
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| How to 'Render' without Surrender |
| by John Zmirak |
| 9/30/08 |
|
I know that I promised last week to continue my analysis of "Seven Key Aspects of Life Where Jesus Spoils Our Fun." And I will get back to it -- in fact, I'll do so relentlessly, seven times, until I've essentially written the core of my upcoming book on InsideCatholic's dime. I look forward to Anger Week more than Lust Week, and I even promise to type up something for Sloth Week that will be "good enough for government work." Mediocrity makes me feel right at home -- raised as I was on liturgies whose solemnity fell short of Cub Scout rites, with music too goofball for second grade skits, and huge (but cheap) felt banners covering stained glass with messages like, "Rejoice, Damn It!" The one thing I learned as a Catholic in the 1970s was: Nothing's too crappy for God.
But something timely has come over the transom: Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput's Render Unto Caesar, now a national bestseller. Since his book is relevant to the elections, and he's one of our most respected pastors, I think it's worth interrupting the stream of deadly cynicism for just this week. Next time, I promise, I will revert to being frivolous.
Archbishop Chaput's book is timely, and parts of it rise to timelessness. His program for a virtuous Christian citizen is stirring. In fact, it's daunting. We must infuse all our actions -- from daily interchanges with friends and enemies, through choices in the workplace and marketplace, to activism and voting in a democracy -- with the same spirit that moves us to seek out the sacraments. That is, with a reverence for ourselves and our fellow men as images of Christ. We owe a further duty to our fellow citizens, who are members of the same civic community -- whose taxes support the same institutions, who are subject to the same military service, who share in the same national project.
None of this is wooly-headed, sentimental talk. The archbishop is a serious man, and he makes it clear that he is not urging us to do something nice for people (who might not deserve it) in order to feel better about ourselves. This book, to be perfectly candid, made me feel kind of rotten about myself -- a sure sign of its orthodoxy.
No, Archbishop Chaput is pointing out a stark reality that our fallen nature hides and our post-Christian culture forgets: that humans are at once featherless bipeds and timeless spiritual beings; that the Other whom we face -- who cuts us off in traffic, who's rude to us across the conference table, who argues with us in bed -- is in some real sense a "presence" of Christ. Not in the sacramental sense; most of those who bother to read a book by Archbishop Chaput will already understand reverence for the Host. (Insert your favorite Eucharistic Minstrel story here.) The "presence" we encounter day-to-day is what Jesus meant when He spoke of our "neighbor" and "the least among" us.
When we fail to respond with proportionate reverence to this mysterious presence -- the Church has a zippy shorthand for this: "human dignity" -- we are committing a kind of sacrilege. In most cases, it's pretty venial, but little things add up. Our culture and politics are a daily, huge occasion of sin -- a standing invitation to misanthropy and misogyny, indeed a freefall from Christendom into Curmudgeondom.
(To counter this, let me recommend a spiritual classic: Rev. Lawrence Lovasik's The Hidden Power of Kindness: A Practical Handbook for Souls Who Dare to Transform the World, One Deed at a Time. Although, truth be told, a better title would have been: How Not to Be Such a Jackass. At least, that's the message I got when my shrink bought me a copy.)
Of course, our failure is far more serious when it doesn't just smudge the icing but wrecks the cake. Archbishop Chaput makes clear that no one can rightly call himself a Catholic if he accepts the wanton destruction of innocent human lives. A public official who countenances such killing may not hide behind the fig leaves made fashionable since John F. Kennedy promised in 1960 to surgically sever his politics from his Catholic conscience. Archbishop Chaput does a masterful job of dissecting the self-interested distortions of terms such as "conscience," "pluralism," "tolerance," and "separation of Church and State" -- favorite slogans that waft airily through the evasions of pro-choice Catholic politicians. No lesser issues -- no prudential agreement with a politician's views on helping the poor, or balancing the budget, or fighting terrorism -- can trump the sanctity of life.
The archbishop delves deeper than most books dealing with these questions, and actually mentions the heresy of Americanism -- although his treatment of its proponents is too generous. He offers a lucid reading of John Courtney Murray and the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, giving rather too much credence to Murray's own later writings. As Rev. Brian Harrison has pointed out, after the Council ended, Murray displayed a distressing habit of overlooking the key qualifications inserted by the Council fathers into the document he helped to write -- provisos that tried to harmonize aspects of the American experiment with classical Catholic teaching on Church and State. Viewed one way, Render Unto Caesar seems to imply that the Church's embrace of religious liberty and willingness to live with a secular state is a judgment on every previous Church-State relationship. We are tempted to "read back" the history of every Catholic confessional state and see it as an imperfect approximation of the ideal -- which is the American system, canonized at Vatican II.
Ironically -- as a subsequent chapter in the book, "What Went Wrong," points out -- less than decade after Murray wrote, the delicate balance between a secular state and a Christian people in America was hopelessly disrupted. And no correction is yet in sight. It's telling enough that an important American archbishop has to cite the example of St. Thomas More, a martyr for papal authority, to coax practicing Catholic politicians into opposing the mass execution of unborn Americans. Perhaps a frank discussion of the natural law isn't enough to win people over to respecting human life, at least not when it really endangers what we want. It may be that in the cold light of fallen reason, humanity doesn't look so dignified after all.
Certainly, the recent American experience with secularity is unlikely to inspire statesmen in future contexts, in overwhelmingly Catholic countries, that their states should shrug off any official relationship with the Church. While they'll never again have Church support for persecution of non-believers, in other matters they will more likely look to Constantine than Courtney Murray; the "honeymoon" of Constantinian Christianity lasted for more than a millennium. For all its flaws, it built Christendom.
Archbishop Chaput works very hard to make this book non-partisan; indeed, the book seems aimed at precisely the people least likely to read it: Catholic Democrats who support pro-choice politicians because of their positions on other issues. The archbishop says he was inspired to write it by the experience of a friend who ran for office as a Democrat, but lost the election in part because of his pro-life stance. Such a risk Archbishop Chaput calls on each of us to take: to put our civic influence, and if not our lives perhaps our livelihoods on the line. A Catholic senator in a liberal state should be willing, if need be, to lose his seat. A Catholic journalist ought to speak his mind, even if it limits his career options -- as it has certainly curtailed that of most writers on this site. (You try applying for a job at a secular paper with a trail of pro-life articles some 20 Google search pages long. See what happens.)
And what should a Catholic bishop do? Should he act so decisively that he endangers his own public standing? (He's unlikely to lose his livelihood.) Archbishop Chaput addresses this question at the very end of the book, and his answer leaves me unsatisfied. On one key question that faces every bishop -- should he allow Holy Communion to those most public of sinners, politicians who vigorously campaign for legal abortion -- Archbishop Chaput, I regret to say, doesn't go as far as his friend, the unelected Democrat. The archbishop writes that he would apply Church sanctions to any pro-choice politician from Denver, but would not deny Holy Communion to public sinners from another diocese -- leaving that decision up to the archbishop of Boston, or New York, etc. "I would not refuse him communion. I would assume his honesty and goodwill," the archbishop writes (p. 227).
To which one must pose the question, "Why?" If Rudolph Giuliani, or Bob Guccione, or Ted Kennedy appears at the altar rail, does the fact that they hail from another part of the country snuff out the scandal caused by offering the Sacrament to a public sinner who has not repented publicly? Must every vigilant bishop wait on the courage of the weaker links in the hierarchy? That is not the import of Canon 915, at least as a growing number of other bishops (e.g., Burke, Bruskewitz, Donoghue) have read it.
Given the wholesome spirit that pervades the book, I'll speculate that Archbishop Chaput was here trying to apply gentle pressure to local prelates who govern such black sheep to cull their flocks. He was perhaps too tactful to quote Archbishop Raymond Burke, who has written:
No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow.
John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the graphic novel The Grand Inquisitor and is Writer-in-Residence at Thomas More College in New Hampshire. He writes weekly for InsideCatholic.com. Readers have left 16 comments. Well said. Thank you for this review.  Written by Richard F Thank you John for presenting the timely release of Archbishop Chaput's book, once again proving that there is wheat among the chaff; just when it seemed that our nation and our American Catholic hierarchy was made up of a grafting to a graft of crab grass at best. Don't be too disappointed that he drew a circle around his "Shepherdom"; it is more than one Bishop and his small shift of priest servants can handle, Grace and all! So many of us live in a virtual world, boundaries have escaped us.... I have heard, and not so long ago, and maybe even from someone I know quite well: "Banish them all, deport them all, kill them all: the Pro-Abortion Catholic politicians/activists, the undocumented illegal aliens, my group are pedophiles, I would like them all dead.... after an opportunity to confess their sin, of course. In fact "I would kill them myself", has admittedly, come out of my mouth, "if one ever touched one of my boys"... and I am not, today, aiming my gaze at just Priests.... our society has slipped way beyond that.... mine is a hyper-vigilant maternal journey... I could leave it to the guardian angels, but they seem to need me to get the JOB of protection done these days ![[smiley=cool]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_cool.gif) .But for most of my 24 hours, John, because I am a Spirit-led soul, astigmatic (my fav excuse for lack of clarity of vision), I look forward to being challenged by the likes of you; so get right back to calling us up my friend. Our souls need it... for God's sake, for His Glory, of course! Written by Mother of Two Sons I don't mind paying taxes to support the fire department, to have water and sewer service, or to have trash pick-up. Heck, I'll even help subsidize the city dog catcher. But, I do have a problem when my taxes are used to pay for distributing family planning material around the world, wars in countries that never threatened my own, bailing out crooked politicians and bankers. What do the Bishops say about a polity that grows, thanks in part to my own rendering unto it, more powerful all the time and inclines ever more toward socialism? Written by RK More to the point is where, oh where will such people mentioned find a requiem, what church will sanction their funeral and would people who recieve the euchrist at that requiem be, by certain extention, sanctioning in an aggreviement to the church? Written by R.S.Newark Why didn't Archbishop Chaput cite St. John Fisher, a bishop who didn't hide behind mind-numbing distinctions, but instead boldly proclaimed his faith? Moreover, does anyone do any historical research anymore? Things were a lot difference back when Kennedy distinguished between his religion and his public office back in 1960. The sentence: "A public official who countenances such killing may not hide behind the fig leaves made fashionable since John F. Kennedy promised in 1960 to surgically sever his politics from his Catholic conscience" makes it clear that the reviewer does not realize that Kennedy was fighting not only historical precedent against Catholics running for office, but the nativist anti-Catholicism of Southern evangelicals. Written by Jim The Old Testament speaks of a "faithful remnant" who will remain to rebuild Israel. I see the handful of bishops like Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Bruskowitz, Burke, etc., who have not been afraid to speak out with a truly Catholic voice, as that faithful remnant within the Catholic church. I have long admired Archbishop Chaput, and I'm happy that his book is now a best seller. That says to me that people, perhaps on both sides of the aisle, are reading what he has to say. Let's hope his words stick in hearts like a foxtail and take root! Dare we hope they'll take root in Washington? Written by Catholic in L.A. On the incredible importance of realizing the human dignity of the"other" in all our encounters, I recently read "The Weight of Glory", and essay by C.S. Lewis. It's short, and really makes one realize the enormity of our every act in relation to other people's dignity. Written by Grace Archbishop Chaput writes that he will not refuse Communion to a Catholic from another diocese but presume their innocence. This means merely that a bishop rules in his own diocese. He has no way of knowing whether a previously abortion-supporting Catholic from another diocese has not repented and confessed. Written by Gabriel Austin Jim, with Catholics like those in the Kennedy clan, who needs agnostics? Written by William Why didn't Archbishop Chaput cite St. John Fisher, a bishop who didn't hide behind mind-numbing distinctions, but instead boldly proclaimed his faith? — JimMoreover, does anyone do any historical research anymore? Things were a lot difference back when Kennedy distinguished between his religion and his public office back in 1960. The sentence: "A public official who countenances such killing may not hide behind the fig leaves made fashionable since John F. Kennedy promised in 1960 to surgically sever his politics from his Catholic conscience" makes it clear that the reviewer does not realize that Kennedy was fighting not only historical precedent against Catholics running for office, but the nativist anti-Catholicism of Southern evangelicals. Jim, the archbishop does actually quote John Fisher and use his example in his book. And his discussion of Kennedy and the environment he dealt with is quite extensive and fair. Jim, the archbishop actually does quote John Fisher and use his example in his book. More and Fisher were, of course, friends. And +cjc's treatment of Kennedy and the environment he faced is quite extensive and fair. Written by Francis X. Maier Since Francis X. Meier is reading this, perhaps he could answer this question. I reside in the Archdiocese of Denver, and I'm not aware that communion has been denied to any pro-choice catholic politicians--not to Gov. Ritter, who is personally opposed but restored funding to Planned Parenthood, and not to Sen. Salazar. Nor am I aware of any state of local politicians who have been deinied communion. Written by ben Former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey used to say that if the Democratic Party nominated pro-life candidates they would never lose an election. His statement was based on a simple presumption, invariably proved correct when the Democratic Party occasionally relents(see eg. Bob Casey Jr. v. Rick Santorum), that a majority of Americans are against abortion and that pro-choice Democrats are not about to run into the arms of a Republican candidate (either pro-choice or pro-life). Until the Democratic Party follows this basic principle as part of a national strategy, it will continue to lose Catholic votes, and as a result, important national elections. Written by Jim "To be" denied: What's the big deal to deny Communion to such "suspects", since they can find it elsewhere. Or "Not to be" denied: For somebody in grave and persistent sin, receiving Communion is to receive a still lower berth in Hell ... If God is willing to toss abortion hungry souls into Hell, then what is wrong with bishops adding a few coals? A scandal being severe enough, then denying Communion to one or several individuals may have no real effect on society. In other words, a scandal could become great enough that there is no temporal remedy. Yet, whether it is denied or not may have no effect on the individual's respect. In history, how many of these sorts actually come around? What, say, one out of thousands? Maybe God has disappeared from this crowd much like Jesus would disappear from the crowds who pressed in on Him. The same behavior of extremely grave sinners presented itself to the angels who were visiting Lot in the city of Sodom; those people could not restrain themselves from attacking the purity of God, and it's like this whether holy angels, unborn babies, or the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Holy Eucharist. Perhaps these abortion culprits have already been struck blind, and are just groping for the intended victim. That was the stage just prior to the storm or fire and brimstone. The abortion culprits are not smiling for nothing. If they are too great for the bishops to throttle, then the only recourse for the bishops is to pass them up to the next level for review ... review which may not be immediately rendered. Written by John L. Sillasen I found this book heartbreaking in its hypocrisy. Archbishop Chaput comes off as a fearless general calling all Christian soldiers to fight in our bloody culture wars, to willingly and gladly risk livlihood and reputation as the duty and privilege of fighting in Christ's army. He personally sounds the bugle and commands soldiers to charge head-first into the fray, while he fearlessly...hides in the bushes. That he doesn't enforce Canon Law 915 in his own diocese is bad enough; but he places an impossibly absurd burden on his braver brother Bishops who DO enforce it by expecting them to personally alert him to the status of every publicly pro-abortion politician in their diocese should one happen to set foot in Denver. It is the obligation of the public sinner to repent publicly - it is NOT the responsibility of his local bishop to personally relay this information to every single other bishop in the world, unless the pro-abort politician has hired his local chancery as his PR firm. I remember years ago Chaput telling Mother Angelica that "we" can't "betray the blood of the martyrs" - apparently he meant "you guys." Written by Rayne Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. It looks like this cannon refers to formal excommunication. So, which such cases has Abp Chaput not refused Communion to? Written by John L. Sillasen Talk of bishops' treatment of pro abortion politicians reminds me of a case many years ago, sometime in the fifties, in Melbourne when Archbishop Daniel Mannix ran the archdiocese. He was sitting on the dais prior to the commencement of the opening of a new Catholic school. The local Labor party member, a woman known for her pro abortion sentiments, who had also been invited arrived. 'Danny'saw her coming and quietly informed the master of ceremonies, 'If she comes up on this platform I leave.'The lady was told the Arch's comment and left. It was a different world then, but I've no doubt if he was alive today his response would be no different. He was detested by the establishment and adored by his Catholic constituency. I had the privilige to be confirmed by him. Written by Barry Morgan |
|
 |
