It's not just liberals and progressives who should be challenging the increasingly reactionary views of Archbishop Chaput. His public statements have, at many points, put him at odds with Pope Francis and in certain cases have clearly sought to contract the pope's mission.
He tries to put forth a public image of support for Francis, but anyone who was watching closely noted his dissenting view of Amoris Laetitia, attempts to cancel the youth synod, and support for Viganò (and absence of support for the pope) in Aug 2018.
Furthermore, he inexplicably praised giving an award for Catholic lay witness to Bill Barr at the National Catholic Prayer breakfast, received during a 1-day break between Federal executions Barr scheduled.
Chaput wrote, "As an added bonus, he’s disliked by all the right people. I want to thank the various and interesting critics of General Barr for confirming me in that judgment."
Are "all the right people" those Catholics who care about Church teaching on human dignity?
Because Archbishop Chaput rarely comes out with what he really thinks on contentious issues (he's a big "I received a letter from a concerned Catholic that I'll share with you" kind of guy), this display of open praise for Barr and contempt for those who oppose him was startling.
He really has disappointed me. Before Francis I thought he was an orthodox bishop who cared about social justice and human dignity. But sadly in the past decade he has demonstrated himself to be, above all, a partisan culture warrior.
This is not a right/left question (nor should it be). It's the descent of a promising and talented churchman in his twilight years into an ideologue who has worked to resist Pope Francis and undermine his teachings.
Thankfully he never received a red hat.
Despite what some might imagine, we have openly criticized very few bishops by name at @Where_Peter_is, and even fewer US diocesan bishops (perhaps 3-4 total). Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has, through his troubling words and actions, merited a public response several times.
*contradict
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This isn't a flippant question, by the way. I believe that both Küng and Burke, at their core, were ideologically motivated to reject traditional Catholic teachings on magisterial authority on doctrine and discipline. Both developed theories of authority to justify that dissent.
Obviously, Küng's theories were much better developed and were written over a longer period of time, but Burke has developed his own sort of "Theology of Disobedience" in the last several years, most comprehensively articulated in a 2018 speech.
"If, a member of the faithful believes in conscience that a particular exercise of the fullness of power is sinful and cannot bring his conscience to peace in the matter, 'the pope must, as a duty, be disobeyed'"
"This crisis calls for concerted efforts by all to take necessary steps, including an equitable distribution of vaccines for everyone." @Pontifex in Iraq last Friday
The bishop referred to the "culture" he was leaving. I see no indication that he has been working to change anything except a few aspects of his behavior.
As far as I can tell, however, his "culture" (white nationalism & alt-right) remains the same.
I mean, he got himself kicked off PARLER less than a month ago. (how is that even possible?) Great that he is trying to live chastely but he doesn't seem interested in the faith in its fullness.
@Pontifex keeps saying this and I think his understanding of this is something that sets him apart from his immediate predecessors.
This is why his papacy is so necessary right now in this messy world where we live. 1/
The #McCarrickReport, which likely wouldn't have been commissioned (and certainly would never be made public) by his predecessors, shows an institutional Church and 2 popes who placed an idealized vision of Catholicism over the reality of the abuse by leaders in the Church. 2/
I accept at face value the explanation that John Paul II fell prey to the lies of predators like McCarrick & Maciel, and thought they were innocent.
He certainly wouldn't CONDONE abuse. But he clearly placed his trust in clerics over the people of God. 3/