Archbishop Chaput “Obsessed” With Abortion

Priorities right: Archbishop Chaput.


This one is the last prelate to clearly and, I would say, officially react to the papal waffle of the last eight months.

Archbishop Chaput does not beat around the bush. His intent is clear: to avoid US Catholics feeling abandoned by the Church in a climate in which “youth unemployment” and “the loneliness of old people” are considered the most important problems of our time.

On the contrary, he rallies his troops and makes clear the rambling of an old Peronist Jesuit cannot change anything in the Catholic vision of the world, and will not change the priorities and the focus of those who care for Catholic values.

Smartly, the Archbishop reminds his readers not only of basic Catholic thinking, but of more than 20 years of pro-life activity (however lame, I should add) of the US clergy. Years of clear “V II” orientation, and that can therefore not be accused of being “restorationist”.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me an tragically interesting game is taking place here: the Pope ignores Catholicism, and the most orthodox among the clergy ignore the Pope.

Nor should anyone complain and say we traddies have a double moral, because we criticise the liberal clergy when they ignore Benedict and praise the conservatives when they ignore Francis. The litmus test of every papacy is its adherence to the Catholic truth this papacy must transmit intact to the next generation. The obedience to the Pope is linked – as Archbishop Chaput eloquently shows – to the higher loyalty due to Catholic Truth.

When the two get in conflict something's got to give. And it ain't Truth.



Posted on October 24, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Archbishop Chaput is in our diocese. God Bless Him!

  2. My diocese is right next door, and our “sedes” really is “vacant,” therefore he (being our metropolitan) is the closest thing to a bishop we have right now. On the issue of “poverty,” which continues to be the stalking horse of the “seamless garment” crowd, he simply said “If we don’t love the poor, and do all we can to improve their lot, we’re going to go to Hell.” That’s all that needs to be said on a subject that no one could find controversial – whether Catholic or simply social liberal (the HOW each soul helps the poor, being the controversy, not the whether). Now, there are a LOT OF OTHER THINGS that can send us to hell SOME OF WHICH ARE controversial to the sin-denying crowd – gluttony, sloth, dishonesty, theft, masturbation, pornography, fornication (of either the sodomitic or non-sodomitic variety), adultery, apostasy and murder (of the pre-born or post-born variety), just to name a few. On which category should a bishop spend most of his teaching time?

    I very much enjoyed +Chaput’s blog when he was still bishop of Denver and shamelessly prayed that he might someday be transferred to Philadelphia. To the poor man’s detriment (since he inherited such a bloody mess from his incompetent predecessor(s)), my prayer was answered in the affirmative. Pray for him!

  3. Ooops, missed contraception in my list. BIG omission! Mea culpa.

  4. Ah, but don’t you see, Mundabor, it makes perfect sense: we must first make the rich poor that we may have reason to love them. 😉

  5. To answer Mr. M’s question: My barber as a boy was a self-educated (little formal schooling; went to barber school on the G.I. Bill after WWII) man who lived modestly and raised his family with modest means. He loved (and was knowledgable about) Italian opera and played the violin in the local amateur orchestra. We never spoke of the Faith because we didn’t have to – his was apparent. We spoke of literature and music (and occasionally sports). Kurt Cobain was a multi-millionaire U.S. musician who killed himself. As between my barber and Kurt, which was “poor”?

  6. We all are lacking something. Hence, we should all be ministered to by our Christian brethren. Poverty is not simply a material concept. Cobain lived in a spiritual favela.

    • Yes, I agree fully.
      The inhabitants of the favela alsow live is a spiritual – beside material – favela.
      But I can’t see any trace in traditional Catholicism that material poverty makes one any more worthy of love than one who is not poor, or who is materially rich.
      Simple observation around us makes us well aware that many materially rich people are also spiritually rich, and many poor people are morally abject; which clearly means God loves some rich people more than he loves many poor ones.


%d bloggers like this: