Friday, August 1, 2008

McCains Meet with Conservative Bishop


Republican candidate John McCain and his second wife, Cindy, met yesterday with conservative prelate Charles Chaput in Denver. With the Vatican removing one of the most partisan Republican bishops from the American scene in advance of the election season, former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, who was "kicked upstairs" to a non-pastoral role in the Vatican bureaucracy, Chaput now becomes the favored bishop for conservative Republicans. As Father Thomas Reese put it--Chaput is even more prominent, but also maybe more isolated within the U.S. hierarchy, a large majority of which does not agree with Chaput's approach--just as he has made it clear he disagrees with his brother bishops.

The reporter David Gibson noted that McCain has refused to ask for a meeting with Catholic leaders like Washington Archbishop Donald Wurel, who disagrees with Chaput's approach. That suggests that McCain is more interested in shoring up support from hard line conservative Catholics. The campaign seems not to be contesting a broad element of "common good" Catholics, that are neither strong liberals or conservatives. These Catholics concerned about both the unborn and poor, peace in the world and good marriages in the home, have frequently said they feel politically abandoned by both parties. Neither McCain nor Obama have outlined a platform embracing the totality of their concerns, but is McCain making a mistake by not even reaching out for their support while the Obama campaign does? New polling in Pennsylvania shows that Obama has made good progress in increasing his Catholic support and despite Chaput, Colorado Catholics are particularly supportive of Obama. But, while these are both important swing states, the election is a long way off.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

God bless Archbishop Chaput.....if only there were more like him!

Anonymous said...

"support from hardline, conservative Catholics?" You mean FAITHFUL Catholics.

Katherine said...

God bless Archbishop Chaput.....if only there were more like him!

"support from hardline, conservative Catholics?" You mean FAITHFUL Catholics.


This is what we see from the hardline. Only a small minority of the Church - laity, priesthood and episcopacy -- are deemed "faithful" by them. Not only those of us supporting Obama and those undecided but the majority of our Catholic priests and bishops like Archbishop Wuerl, Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal George, Cardinal Sean, Archbishop Gregory, Bishop John (Bolton)etc. are deemed "unfaithful."

Personally, I cannot approve of such accusations against Cardinals, bishops and priests of our church as well as many layfolk.

Anonymous said...

Cindy is a hot babe. I can understand why he left that dumpy first wife for her. YAOWZA!

Anonymous said...

Mac needs to keep Cindy away from Deal Hudson.

Anonymous said...

Oh, please, Katherine. You don't approve??? And who are you?????
You sound a bit hardline to me!!

Anonymous said...

Oh right, expecting Roman Catholics to defend a living and breathing baby's right to life is 'hardline'.

Uh huh. Katherine -- you are so wrong and no amount of having the POPE's PICTURE on your website will convince anyone that the Catholic Church would endorse Barack Obama if it could! Go to confession woman. You need help.

Yeah, and I said my Rosary this morning so you had better publish my comment or we'll know EVERYTHING that is said about you is true.
--Theresa

Bob said...

Most of the Catholic bishops are liberal Marxists. Chaput and Burke are among the few orthodox bishops in the US. Faceit Katherine, the libs won't be around much longer as soon as Papa Ratzi starts naming new bishops.

Katherine said...

Bob, you prove my point. BTW, for 25 years, I listened to conservatives tell me that as son as John Paul II has a chance to replace Paul VI's bishops, all will be well. Now you've turned on JP2. Sad.

Anonymous said...

God bless you, Katherine. There are many devout Roman Catholics who support Senator Obama. It's disheartening to see people post hateful and divisive personal attacks on your blog. They're being used by the Enemy and need our prayers. As does Senator McCain. How can he seek the endorsement of a man who calls our Holy Church "the Great Whore", denounce that endorsement after weeks of pressure to do so, and then sidle up to one of our respected Archbishops for an imprimatur? May God have mercy on him.

Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quea misericordiae tuae maxime indigent. Amen.

A Devout Roman Catholic for Obama

Max said...

Mac needs to keep Cindy away from Deal Hudson.


Obama needs to keep Michelle away from Teddy Kennedy. Especially if he offers her a ride.

peregrinator said...

"...Chaput now becomes the favored bishop for conservative Republicans."

The cognitive dissonance in this statement is a reverberation of the cognitive dissonance that permeates this blog.

I'm not a Republican and I'm not entirely sure I qualify as politically conservative, and yet I certainly consider Archbishop Chaput to be a worthy and admirable man.

Those who admire Archbishop Chaput (myself included) do so because of his open and evident commitment to the Church's teachings and spritual heritage, even when such a commitment is unpopular.

It's an odd (and, I think, false)supposition that admiration for an apparently holy Archbishop can be equated with membership in a particular political party.

"The [McCain] campaign seems not to be contesting a broad element of "common good" Catholics... These Catholics concerned about both the unborn and poor, peace in the world and good marriages in the home, have frequently said they feel politically abandoned by both parties.

It is precisely because of this concern for the unborn, poor, the state of marriage in this country, etc. that so many Catholics find that they cannot, in conscience, vote for Barack Obama.

Like it or not, civil laws are based in moral principles and an honest politcal thinker must acknowlege that the most fundamental principle in a democracy is that the lives of its citizens must be preserved. (No citizens = no country.)

This principle is doubly important to Catholic voters as it is also a profound truth of faith (see Genesis.)

Any attempt to improve the welfare of citizens will be ineffective (at best) or destructive (at worst), if it is not based in the principle that human life is sacred.

It is clear from a Catholic perspective that because Barack Obama has made it clear that he does not hold (or even understand) this principle, he is likely to support laws that will not improve the condition of the country.

For believing Catholics a vote for Obama is a vote against both political and moral hope.

Kurt said...

The cognitive dissonance in this statement is a reverberation of the cognitive dissonance that permeates this blog. I'm not a Republican and I'm not entirely sure I qualify as politically conservative...

Since you're not a conservative nor a Republican, that may be why you are not aware that Chaput has become a favorite among those elements. No one said he migth not have admirers elsewhere.

Those who admire Archbishop Chaput (myself included) do so because of his open and evident commitment to the Church's teachings and spritual heritage...

in contrast to his brother bishops?

It is precisely because of this concern for the unborn, poor, the state of marriage in this country, etc. that so many Catholics find that they cannot, in conscience, vote for Barack Obama.

And those Catholics should followed thier conscience.

...the principle that human life is sacred

A principle we all agree on, regardless of political differences. Don't confuse acceptance of principles with application of them.

peregrinator said...

Those who admire Archbishop Chaput (myself included) do so because of his open and evident commitment to the Church's teachings and spritual heritage...

"in contrast to his brother bishops?"

To make a positive statement about one person is not to imply the opposite about someone else.

Remarking on Mother Teresa's extraordinary compassion (for example) does not mean that the rest of the saints fell short in the compassion department.

I know plenty of conservative Republicans; generally speaking they don't make a habit of "endorsing" bishops. I don't see what difference it makes if conservatives and Republicans admire Chaput; prelates are not candidates and their clout is not partisan. Where a political candidate takes a morally dangerous position a bishop is perfectly justified in pointing out the moral dangers to his flock.

...the principle that human life is sacred

"A principle we all agree on, regardless of political differences. Don't confuse acceptance of principles with application of them."

The acceptance and application of moral principles can't be confused because the first isn't present without the second.

If one claims to accept a moral principle and doesn't apply it then one hasn't actually accepted the principle. If one claims to accept a moral principle and applies in such a way that one violates it, one hasn't accepted the principle.

I cannot endanger human life and simultaneously claim that I accept the moral and political principle that human life is sacred.

It would be disingenuous to vote to keep human life endangered and yet claim that I accept that human life is sacred and claim that my vote "doesn't affect" my principles because it only deals with the legality of endangering human life (i.e. I weren't out there killing anyone myself.)

Such an "application" of the principle would show that I haven't, in fact, accepted the principle.

peregrinator said...

Kurt,

I apologize for not emailing this. (I don't have popmail on my computer and so can't access an email address for this site.)

I notice with some disappointment that you seem to have chosen to take down both your response to me and my latest comment rather than respond a second time.

I'm interested to see whether you will be willing to post this comment instead (you may edit it to remove these four opening paragraphs.) I would simply remark that I am more likely to read and return to blogs that encourage substantive, courteous and open debate. Whilst my posts may be lacking the first quality, I certainly do my best to remain polite and neutral and was not aware of having violated any of the rules for your site.

What follows is a paraphrase of my second comment which I think can stand without yours as it also relates to Katherine's previous post. I have left out the bit that directly pertained to your reply-- though I may post my side of the original exchange on my own blog.

To say something positive about Archbishop Chaput is not to imply something negative about any or all the other bishops anymore than to comment on Mother Teresa's extraordinary compassion is to cast aspersions on the charity of other saints.

Further, I find the notion of Republicans and conservatives "endorsing" Chaput nonsensical. Prelates are not partisan; they may and do comment on the moral (and consequently political) dangers their flocks face, but that hardly amounts to supporting one or other political party.

peregrinator said...

peregrinator has left a new comment on your post "McCains Meet with Conservative Bishop":

Those who admire Archbishop Chaput (myself included) do so because of his open and evident commitment to the Church's teachings and spritual heritage...

"in contrast to his brother bishops?"

To make a positive statement about one person is not to imply the opposite about someone else.

Remarking on Mother Teresa's extraordinary compassion (for example) does not mean that the rest of the saints fell short in the compassion department.

I know plenty of conservative Republicans; generally speaking they don't make a habit of "endorsing" bishops. I don't see what difference it makes if conservatives and Republicans admire Chaput; prelates are not candidates and their clout is not partisan. Where a political candidate takes a morally dangerous position a bishop is perfectly justified in pointing out the moral dangers to his flock.

...the principle that human life is sacred

"A principle we all agree on, regardless of political differences. Don't confuse acceptance of principles with application of them."

The acceptance and application of moral principles can't be confused because the first isn't present without the second.

If one claims to accept a moral principle and doesn't apply it then one hasn't actually accepted the principle. If one claims to accept a moral principle and applies in such a way that one violates it, one hasn't accepted the principle.

I cannot endanger human life and simultaneously claim that I accept the moral and political principle that human life is sacred.

It would be disingenuous to vote to keep human life endangered and yet claim that I accept that human life is sacred and claim that my vote "doesn't affect" my principles because it only deals with the legality of endangering human life (i.e. I weren't out there killing anyone myself.)

Such an "application" of the principle would show that I haven't, in fact, accepted the principle.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

peregrinator said...

peregrinator has left a new comment on your post "McCains Meet with Conservative Bishop":

Those who admire Archbishop Chaput (myself included) do so because of his open and evident commitment to the Church's teachings and spritual heritage...

"in contrast to his brother bishops?"

To make a positive statement about one person is not to imply the opposite about someone else.

Remarking on Mother Teresa's extraordinary compassion (for example) does not mean that the rest of the saints fell short in the compassion department.

I know plenty of conservative Republicans; generally speaking they don't make a habit of "endorsing" bishops. I don't see what difference it makes if conservatives and Republicans admire Chaput; prelates are not candidates and their clout is not partisan. Where a political candidate takes a morally dangerous position a bishop is perfectly justified in pointing out the moral dangers to his flock.

...the principle that human life is sacred

"A principle we all agree on, regardless of political differences. Don't confuse acceptance of principles with application of them."

The acceptance and application of moral principles can't be confused because the first isn't present without the second.

If one claims to accept a moral principle and doesn't apply it then one hasn't actually accepted the principle. If one claims to accept a moral principle and applies in such a way that one violates it, one hasn't accepted the principle.

I cannot endanger human life and simultaneously claim that I accept the moral and political principle that human life is sacred.

It would be disingenuous to vote to keep human life endangered and yet claim that I accept that human life is sacred and claim that my vote "doesn't affect" my principles because it only deals with the legality of endangering human life (i.e. I weren't out there killing anyone myself.)

Such an "application" of the principle would show that I haven't, in fact, accepted the principle.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Katherine said...

some oddities are occurring regarding the posting of comments. Please don't take it personally, its a technical matter.

Kate

Katherine said...

.

Kurt said...

To make a positive statement about one person is not to imply the opposite about someone else.

A good point.

Further, I find the notion of Republicans and conservatives "endorsing" Chaput nonsensical. Prelates are not partisan; they may and do comment on the moral (and consequently political) dangers their flocks face, but that hardly amounts to supporting one or other political party.

I think you are not reading the OP carefully. The posted stated that he was favored by conservative Republicans not that he favored conservative Republicans.

The acceptance and application of moral principles can't be confused because the first isn't present without the second.

If one claims to accept a moral principle and doesn't apply it then one hasn't actually accepted the principle. If one claims to accept a moral principle and applies in such a way that one violates it, one hasn't accepted the principle.

I cannot endanger human life and simultaneously claim that I accept the moral and political principle that human life is sacred.


Therefore you cannot support an unjust war and still claim to be a supporter of this principle?

Katherine said...

.

Chris said...

I think this is the latest in the various lines that Republicans have thrown out. Now, it is that if a politican is pro-choice, nothing else they do as an elected official can be good. That is really a silly theory.

Katherine said...

.

Rustler45 said...

"Therefore you cannot support an unjust war and still claim to be a supporter of this principle?"

Has the USCCB declared this an unjust war?

ann said...

per Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life:

If a candidate came forward and said, “I support terrorism,” you wouldn’t say, “I disagree with you on terrorism, but what’s your health care plan?” Similarly, those who permit the destruction of innocent life by abortion disqualify themselves from consideration.

Katherine said...

.

Katherine said...

If a candidate came forward and said, “I support terrorism,” you wouldn’t say, “I disagree with you on terrorism, but what’s your health care plan?” Similarly, those who permit the destruction of innocent life by abortion disqualify themselves from consideration

If a candidate said "I support the destruction of innocent life", I agree, I would not support that candidate. No candidate is saying that.

John McCain does not say he supports terrorism, but I beleive his policies will lead to more terrorism. That does not disqualify McCain, but it is factor against him. In turn, if you beleive Obama's policies will lead to more abortion, that should be a factor against him. But in the end, it all is a matter of personal discernment.

Katherine said...

.

Castellanus said...

John McCain does not say he supports terrorism, but I beleive his policies will lead to more terrorism.

That is your opinion. Many people have said the same thing the past 7years against Pres. Bush yet we have experienced no such terrorism in this country.

if you beleive Obama's policies will lead to more abortion, that should be a factor against him.

That is a fact as evidenced by his past and current voting record and his statements about how he will vote in the future.

Katherine said...

.

Katherine said...

.

Katherine said...

That is your opinion.

It is all opinion. Our task is to development opinions and then vote based on them.

That is a fact as evidenced...

No, it is an opinion.