The following interview with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput was conducted Oct. 16 by Adam Sosnowski and will be released in Poland on Oct. 24 by the Polish Catholic magazine Miesięcznik Wpis (wydawnictwo Biały Kruk). We publish an advance copy of the text in English here, with the kind permission of Mr. Sosnowski and Bialy Kruk.
***
BIALY KRUK: What is the reason for the decrease of faith in the Western world? What can the Church do about it?
ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT: There’s no single reason for the decline. A lot of different factors shaped the problem.
The two World Wars, the rise of murder ideologies like Communism and National Socialism, the immense savagery and loss of life starting in 1914 – all these traumas deeply wounded the Western psyche. The pride of the early the 20th century produced the despair we have in the early 21st. We hide that despair under a blanket of noise and distraction and consumer appetites. But it’s very real. The idea of a loving God seems implausible today for many people, not because of something wicked God has done, but because of the evil we ourselves have done without God stopping us.
Augusto Del Noce, the late Italian philosopher, described our situation best in his essay, “Technological Civilization and Christianity.” It’s worth reading. As “postmoderns,” we’ve tried to overcome our despair with science and technology, and they produce many good things. But they also focus us radically on this world and away from the supernatural. As a result, man’s religious dimension, our sense of the transcendent, slowly dries up and disappears. Technological civilization doesn’t persecute religion, at least not directly. It doesn’t need to. It makes God irrelevant.
[hotblock]
The Church will survive and continue her mission. But to do that, she first needs to acknowledge that the culture she helped create now has no use for her — and why. As a Church, we don’t yet see our reality clearly and critically enough. For example, the current synod’s instrumentum laboris (IL) talks about young people and the effects of social media and the “digital continent.” But it has no grasp of the deeper dynamics of technology that Del Noce names.
The IL, in its original form, is a collection of dense social science data with very little evangelical zeal. It speaks constantly about accompaniment, which is important, but it contains almost no confident teaching. It can’t and won’t convert anybody. Hopefully, the synod fathers will fix this.
How should the Church handle its current abuse crisis? What is the condition of the Church in the United States right now? How much damage has been done with the recent scandal involving Cardinal McCarrick?
The Church is the United States is still strong compared to Catholic life in nearly every other “developed” country. We have good resources, many good young clergy and lay leaders, vigorous renewal movements, and plenty of thriving parishes. But we’re losing the young. That’s a huge challenge for the future. The scandal triggered by Archbishop McCarrick has done great damage, especially to the credibility of bishops. The only way we can repair that is by being absolutely transparent and honest about the scope of the abuse problem and our efforts to address it.
How much truth is there in the accusations of Archbishop Vigano?
That’s a matter for the Holy See to address. It’s above my area of responsibility and beyond my knowledge.
[tower]
Is the heritage of St. John Paul II still alive in the Church? Is he remembered in the US? Do we need this heritage?
John Paul’s legacy is very much alive in the United States. His visit to Denver and World Youth Day in 1993 shaped the faith of an entire generation. Some of his encyclicals are masterworks of intellect and faith. We need his kind of Christianity – a combination of courage, zeal for Jesus Christ, rigorous intelligence, and sincere belief – now more than ever.
Karol Wojtyla’s commitment to human dignity, to the unborn and the sacredness of all life, and his theology of the body – all these things still resonate deeply with American Catholics.
How can one counter the anti-clericalism present in today’s culture and in the media? What should the Church do about this? What about laymen?
The only way to counter it is by living differently; by practicing what we claim to believe. There’s no quick fix. We’re a family of faith, not a religious General Motors, and we need to act like it. Priests, for example, are not little godlings. They’re sinners like everyone else. We’re all equal – laypeople, religious and clergy – in the Sacrament of Baptism. But, as in any family, we all have different tasks. Priests have the duty to shepherd and teach, to serve the needs of their people, to lead as pastors, and most of all, to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments. The glue that holds the whole enterprise together is love. If we don’t respect and love each other, and show it by our behavior, everything falls apart.
What might the synod change in Church doctrine or in the interpretation of the doctrine?
No synod has the authority to change core Christian teachings; nor does any Pope. In matters of interpretation, the unstated struggle in the 2018 synod revolves around Catholic sexual morality. As one young female youth minister put it: Underneath all its social science data and verbiage, the instrumentum laboris is finally, very quietly, about sex. It’s especially odd that the word “chastity” appears almost nowhere in the IL text. Humanae Vitae and the theology of the body are completely absent.
Should the synod have been canceled?
I think the timing is inopportune. Rescheduling it for a later date probably would have been wise, but the Holy Father makes those decisions. The planning for a synod is very complicated and difficult to change.
[hotblock2]
Is it really necessary to tackle the LGBT issue at the synod and mention it in official documents?
There’s nothing wrong with addressing the issue. Quite the opposite, it’s a natural matter for discussion – so long as Catholic teaching on human sexuality is faithfully explained and reconfirmed, without compromise or ambiguity. And that’s exactly where elements of the IL are regrettably weak. “LGBT” should never be used in a Church document to describe people. The Church has never identified persons by their sexual appetites, or reduced them to their sexual inclinations. “LGBT” may be acceptable in describing issues, but not people.
The traditional understanding of the family is under heavy attack. What does the situation look like in the States? What part does the gender ideology play in this?
I’ll refer back to Del Noce here: Gender ideology is simply an expression of the technological mindset and its bias toward treating all matter, including the body, as raw material for the human will. It presumes a definition of the “human person” very different from anything in Christian belief. Gender ideology treats the body as an instrument to be upgraded, or clay to be manipulated. In contrast, Christian faith sees the body, not as some kind of “wetware” or clay capsule, but as integral and essential to who we are. God became man to redeem human flesh, not to render it meaningless.
The family, by its nature, is carnal and fertile. A man and a woman become one flesh. New life results. It’s beautiful, it’s mysterious, but it’s not efficient. To a certain kind of modern mindset, that inefficiency is offensive.
At the heart of gender ideology is a resentment of the weakness and limitations of the body. At the core of today’s attacks on the family is a hatred of the mutual dependence that families demand, and a distrust of the love within a family that seals it tight as a unit. In the end, all of today’s sexual aberrations and dysfunctions boil down to a rejection of creation; of the natural order as it is.
This is the terrain and the challenge Christians face today in the United States.
PREVIOUS: ‘Prophetic voice’ of Humane Vitae studied at weekend events
NEXT: Romero calls us to be people of God who listen, says missionary
Moderator,
My comments are all factual and derived from NCR, UK Catholic Herald and other reliable sources. Censorship is how the Church got into these difficulties in the first place. Those days are over. If it is not stated here, it will be elsewhere.
No idea what you are talking about. — Editor
michael mack
Yes very sad and indeed discouraging to witness some of the outlandish things I see at Mass, not withstanding the rock bands and people dancing in the pews to the beat of the bongos and I actually witnessed a woman take not a service dog, but a puppy up to communion with her. I was surprised she did not take a host for the dog. Majority of the Prelates that were put on a fast track to elevations in large Archdioceses are and have been hand picked Papal favorites who are of the liberal left agenda the Pope strongly promotes, open borders same sex relationship and divorced and civilly re-married Catholics for receptions of communion etc., in other words liberation theology with relentless efforts at Protestization of the Eucharistic celebration with some of them actually threatening and forbidding any celebration of the Tridentine Mass or anything for that fact that might be construed as traditional. To Archbishop Chaput`s credit, he has not done that and in this Archdiocese those Masses are actually advertised. You are correct, very little catechism on Catholicism and obligations coming from the pulpits since Vat II. Sadly it is what it is.
Tom Mastroianni
Not to worry, what is hidden in darkness will all soon come to light and I take no joy in mentioning this, but the fact of the matter is the State Attorney General was angry over the whole attitude and pat on the back given to Cd Wuerl when he was conveniently shuffled in a sort of shell game from Archbishop of D.C. to an advisory Post by the Pope after all that was revealed and uncovered the root of the problem of the McCarrick affair by revealing that the money needed by the Pope for the corrupt Children’s Hospital that was having severe financial problems in Rome was given in large sums from the corporate structure of the “Papal Foundation” against the will of the outnumbered laity who voted against it and was outnumbered by a secret vote of the Prelates on the board that included Wuerl and McCarrick, a very uncommon, unusual and perhaps even fraudulent action by a corporate board to take. Now enter the Feds via the Phila. Federal A.G. acting in the name of the RICO act for a full investigation. Stand by, it is about to get a whole lot worse for the Church finances. At least Cd Weurl is now in a position where he can book on out to Rome if the investigation starts getting to close, could not do that as Archbishop.
Welp, that does it for me—I’m now *officially* distrustful of anything Archbishop Chaput says going forward. Yes, what he’s saying is (as commenter tad puts it) “Faithful and Thoughtful.” But to quote Chris Rock, “Do[es] [he] want a cookie?”
The Church is in the predicament it presently finds itself precisely because clerics like Archbishop Chaput are in the MINORITY of those who actually preach the authentic Church teaching on marriage and human sexuality. But my severely diminished standards for “brave preaching” won’t allow me to overlook the tactical slight-of-hand he pulls earlier in the interview when asked about the Vigano Letter (hence, the basis for my distrust). He states, immediately before, that, “The only way we can repair [the damage wrought by the McCarrick Scandal] is by being absolutely transparent and honest about the scope of the abuse problem and our efforts to address it.” Absolutely—that’s what I and countless others have been calling for all along: transparency and accountability. But then, with almost zero self-awareness, the Archbishop disclaims any responsibility and denies any knowledge concerning the VAST accusations made in the Vigano Letter.
While he may be telling the truth (most likely with heavy qualification and mental reservation), it’s very difficult for me to believe him, especially in light of (a) the bishops’ horrendous track record since the 2002 Boston Globe/Church Sex Scandal 1.0 and (b) the fact that he’s been an ordained bishop for over 30 years. Call me cynical… As I’ve called for before on this site, he needs to start naming names, regardless of whether his knowledge concerns the Vigano claims. It’s pretty clear Pope Francis does not (at the risk of understatement) like Archbishop Chaput, so what does he really have to lose? (Especially when Francis will in all likelihood automatically accept his retirement when he turns 75 next September.)
I agree with Chris Stanick (to whom Archbishop Chaput yielded his column a couple weeks back) that “we need to offer ‘life to the full’ in Jesus Christ without apologies or embarrassment.” But for us Catholics, “life to the full” means encountering Jesus through the Church he founded and in the Sacraments he instituted. This is what priests are for (to quote Archbishops remarks above, “Priests have the duty to shepherd and teach, to serve the needs of their people, to lead as pastors, and most of all, to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments.”) These scandals have and will continue to pose a grave threat to this very framework UNLESS AND UNTIL THE TRUTH COMES OUT.
Why Archbishop is being coy and clandestine when it’s clear he can get the ball rolling on this front remains unclear to me. If someone can provide some kind of an explanation (based on facts, reason, and logic, and not some blind ideology of self-delusion), then I’d really appreciate it.
All very academic but without acknowledging one of the most destructive councils to have ever taken place in recent times and was taken over by progressive liberals who actually ripped the foundations out from under the the Church namely, the traditions and reverence that used to be present at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. After Vat II 37000 priests left the ministry and an untold number of religious and a new religion was born determined to eliminate life long traditions for many of the faithful to accommodate ecumenism (Protestants) and other faiths. The recent push by German Bishops for inter communion, same sex relations and divorced and re-married Catholics along with Protestant spouses some of whom were the very prelates that manipulated the conciliar documents of Vat. II have led many Catholics to question why they are even Catholics any longer. Our Parish is down to a 12 % annual attendance rate and I have asked some members why they do not attend Mass every week as it obligatory, the response I get is “oh I thought they changed all that with Vat II” which indicates an obvious lack of spiritual instruction during the last fifty years. Among the many problems the Church now seems to have is that it is severely divided by ideology between those who hold traditional beliefs as they were taught and those who prefer to do it their way and it is not helped by a Pope who is determined to promote a left wing liberal ideology and has publicly alienated a large portion of traditional conservative Catholics with name calling and denigration. I have never witnessed that in my 77 years. Very Protestant indeed.
Thanks for the thoughtful write-up, tomt.
Yes, we have many problems in the Church and, regrettably, few bishops who wish to address them (my own bishop, Alan Vigneron, comes to mind, with his 40+ page tome on how we should all become disciples — disciples of what, exactly?). Those of us who still follow the Faith that we (hopefully) learned as children are the remnant of the Catholic Church. Many of our brothers and sisters in the pews around us know little about it.
As usual, Faithful and Thoughtful. Thank you Archbishop for your courage to speak Truth!