Archbishop Chaput Responds to Cardinal Cottier on the Notre Dame Controversy

Vatican City, Oct 6, 2009 / 03:16 am (CNA).- The Italian daily Il Foglio published today an article entitled "L'ascia del vescovo pellerossa - Charles j. Chaput contro Notre Dame e l'illustre cardinale sedotto dall'abortista Obama" ("The ax of the Red Skin Bishop - Charles J. Chaput against Notre Dame and the illustrious cardinal seduced by the pro abortion Obama") in which the Archbishop of Denver contests some of the strongly pro-Obama assertions made by Cardinal Georges Cottier last July in the International Catholic Magazine “30 Days”.

Il Foglio is one of the most influential intellectual dailies in Italy, dedicated more at analyzing than covering the news. Its director is one of the most famous Italian contemporary thinkers, Giuliano Ferrara.

Despite being an agnostic, Ferrara is a long time admirer of the though of Joseph Ratzinger.

On its Tuesday edition, Il Foglio publishes a front page interview to Cardinal Francis George, and devotes the full third page to Archbishop Chaput’s comments to the original Cottier’s essay.

The Archbishop’ article, originally submitted under the more modest title of “Politics, Morality and a President: an American View,” focuses on what it meant to the Church in the US President’s Obama speech at the University of Notre Dame, which Cardinal Cottier, Theologian Emeritus of the Pontifical Household, described in 30 Days in a very positive light.

Here is the full text in English of Archbishop Chaput’s article published today in “Il Foglio”, exclusive from Catholic News Agency.

One of the strengths of the Church is her global perspective. In that light, Cardinal Georges Cottier’s recent essay on President Barack Obama (“Politics, morality and original sin,” 30 Days, No. 5), made a valuable contribution to Catholic discussion of the new American president. Our faith connects us across borders. What happens in one nation may have an impact on many others. World opinion about America’s leaders is not only appropriate; it should be welcomed.

And yet, the world does not live and vote in the United States. Americans do. The pastoral realities of any country are best known by the local bishops who shepherd their people. Thus, on the subject of America’s leaders, the thoughts of an American bishop may have some value. They may augment the Cardinal’s good views by offering a different perspective.

Note that I speak here only for myself. I do not speak for the bishops of the United States as a body, nor for any other individual bishop. Nor will I address President Obama’s speech to the Islamic world, which Cardinal Cottier mentions in his own essay. That would require a separate discussion.

I will focus instead on the President’s graduation appearance at the University of Notre Dame, and Cardinal Cottier’s comments on the President’s thinking. I have two motives in doing so.

First, men and women from my own diocese belong to the national Notre Dame community as students, graduates and parents. Every bishop has a stake in the faith of the people in his care, and Notre Dame has never merely been a local Catholic university. It is an icon of the American Catholic experience. Second, when Notre Dame’s local bishop vigorously disagrees with the appearance of any speaker, and some 80 other bishops and 300,000 laypeople around the country publicly support the local bishop, then reasonable people must infer that a real problem exists with the speaker – or at least with his appearance at the disputed event. Reasonable people might further choose to defer to the judgment of those Catholic pastors closest to the controversy.

Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier’s articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame. It also overvalues the consonance of President Obama’s thinking with Catholic teaching.

First, resistance to President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame had nothing to do with whether he is a good or bad man. He is obviously a gifted man. He has many good moral and political instincts, and an admirable devotion to his family. These things matter. But unfortunately, so does this: The President’s views on vital bioethical issues, including but not limited to abortion, differ sharply from Catholic teaching. This is why he has enjoyed the strong support of major “abortion rights” groups for many years. Much is made, in some religious circles, of the President’s sympathy for Catholic social teaching. But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no “social justice” if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights.

Second, at a different moment and under different circumstances, the conflict at Notre Dame might have faded away if the university had simply asked the President to give a lecture or public address. But at a time when the American bishops as a body had already voiced strong concern about the new administration’s abortion policies, Notre Dame not only made the President the centerpiece of its graduation events, but also granted him an honorary doctorate of laws – this, despite his deeply troubling views on abortion law and related social issues.

The real source of Catholic frustration with President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was his overt, negative public voting and speaking record on abortion and other problematic issues. By its actions, Notre Dame ignored and violated the guidance of America’s bishops in their 2004 document, “Catholics in Political Life.” In that text, the bishops urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters.

Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama’s views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood.

Third, the Cardinal wisely notes points of contact between President Obama’s frequently stated search for political “common ground” and the Catholic emphasis on pursing the “common good.” These goals – seeking common ground and pursuing the common good – can often coincide. But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice. So-called “common ground” abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn.

Fourth, Cardinal Cottier rightly reminds his readers of the mutual respect and cooperative spirit required by citizenship in a pluralist democracy. But pluralism is never an end in itself. It is never an excuse for inaction. As President Obama himself acknowledged at Notre Dame, democracy depends for its health on people of conviction fighting hard in the public square for what they believe – peacefully, legally but vigorously and without apologies.

Unfortunately, the President also added the curious remark that “. . . the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt . . . This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us.” In a sense, of course, this is true: On this side of eternity, doubt is part of the human predicament. But doubt is the absence of something; it is not a positive value. Insofar as it inoculates believers from acting on the demands of faith, doubt is a fatal weakness.

The habit of doubt fits much too comfortably with a kind of “baptized unbelief;” a Christianity that is little more than a vague tribal loyalty and a convenient spiritual vocabulary. Too often in recent American experience, pluralism and doubt have become alibis for Catholic moral and political lethargy. Perhaps Europe is different. But I would suggest that our current historical moment -- which both European and American Catholics share -- is very far from the social circumstances facing the early Christian legislators mentioned by the Cardinal. They had faith, and they also had the zeal – tempered by patience and intelligence – to incarnate the moral content of their faith explicitly in culture. In other words, they were building a civilization shaped by Christian belief. Something very different is happening now.

Cardinal Cottier’s essay gives witness to his own generous spirit. I was struck in particular by his praise for President Obama’s “humble realism.” I hope he’s right. American Catholics want him to be right. Humility and realism are the soil where a commonsense, modest, human-scaled and moral politics can grow. Whether President Obama can provide this kind of leadership remains to be seen. We have a duty to pray for him -- so that he can, and does.

Archbishop Charles is well known for his political positions and his attempts to justify his own brand of secular politics with what he presents as Latin Church theology. Sadly for the American Latin Church, this very high profile prelate, whose opinions are surprisingly parochial for a hierarch of a universal particular church, is considered a true theological lightwieght.

But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no “social justice” if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights.

Needs to be repeated, daily if not more often.

Chaput:"Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier’s articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame. Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama’s views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood."

Nice. European modernists sometimes miss the nuances of American politics and culture. Perhaps not being a native English speaker and not being familiar with South Chicago and Harvard affirmative action con artists who follow Sual Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the cardinal may not have picked up on when Obama was smirking and being insincere in his Notre Dame address. But surely he should have noticed the banality of using a Notre Dame commencement to promote abortion and embryonic stem cell research on consecrated ground. They might want to give Cardinal Cottier an MRI just to check and be sure everything is working OK between the ears.

‘considered a lightweight’?? by whom? may I ask.

LOL........let's play charades!!

Two words......first word......rhymes with "meek"..........sqeak........no.......beak.....no........Greek.....yes, yes!!!..........Greek, Greek.........second word.........begins with "O"........Obama......Greek Obama.........no, no............Greek Orthodox!!

Yes, that's it! Greek Orthodox!

Chaput is a theological lightweight to the Greek Orthodox!

“considered a lightweight’?? by whom? may I ask.”

Real theologians, both Latin and Eastern.

“I think he is one of the Great Thinkers in the (American) Catholic church today.”

Your comment speaks volumes about the level of thought in the American Catholic Church. What do you think about Archbishop Burke and that former Martino fellow?

“Chaput is a theological lightweight to the Greek Orthodox!”

Chaput’s problems are greater with the Vaticanistas, though, who allegedly feel that his sort needs slapping down, like they did with Martino.

“Two words......first word......rhymes with “meek”..........sqeak........no.......beak.....no........Greek.....yes, yes!!!..........Greek, Greek.........second word.........begins with “O”........Obama......Greek Obama.........no, no............Greek Orthodox!!”

One of the great concerns of Orthodox Christians from all over the world regarding a reunion with Rome is the extent to which politics has infected the (at least to our eyes) very powerful American Church. Your comment reinforces the notion that the American Church really is more about secular politics, whether of the left or the right, than about Christian theosis.

Indeed he is. Such a lightweight in fact that some of the EP’s theologians actually snicker when his name is mentioned, which in theological discussions with the likes of Cardinal Kaspar or the Pope is virtually never, I assure you. Chaput’s problems are greater with the Vaticanistas, though, who allegedly feel that his sort needs slapping down, like they did with Martino.

Well thanks for that insight into Vatican politics, Kolo. Please keep us in the loop.

Only one thing I don't get. If he's such a lightweight and nobody takes him seriously, there's no need for any of us to get bent out of shape at anything he says for it's unlikely to influence church policy, be it Orthodox or Catholic, in any way, right?

So why does he need "slapping down"?

Surely a waste of time and energy for somebody whom the heavy hitters completely ignore?

LOL.............the American Church which cut Teddy Kennedy and his fellow travelers so much slack and let them get away with ....*cough, gasp*.....murder for so long without so much as a murmur?

Is.......*splutter*.........too involved in secular politics??

That American Church???

What an absolute knee-slapping, side-splitting statement!!

If only it were true!

“...there’s no need for any of us to get bent out of shape at anything he says for it’s unlikely to influence church policy, be it Orthodox or Catholic, in any way, right?”

Wrong, the embrace of political Catholicism in America hurts the entire Church. It speaks volumes, as do the comments on this thread and, to be fair, the same sort of comments on left wing sites, that so may of you Latins measure the “orthodoxy” of the teachings of your hierarchs by their political pronouncements. We have to assume that what really motivates the movers and shakers in the American Latin Church are either right wing loudmouths like Chaput and formerly Martino, or nuns in pantsuits demonstrating for abortion rights or doing a pathetic imitation of vestal virgins in LA. People like Chaput won’t influence Latin Church policy on the transnational level, like I said, he’s considered a joke, but his actions do make trouble for the Vatican at a number of levels, among them in relation to the Orthodox precisely because he, like the nuns in pantsuits, gives voice to a mindset which is foreign, indeed antithetical to what we see as a Christian phronema. We won’t have anything to do with that.

” Is.......*splutter*.........too involved in secular politics??

That American Church???

What an absolute knee-slapping, side-splitting statement!!

If only it were true!”

Indeed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.