Friday, March 3, 2017


This is a portion of and interview by John Allen with Archbishop Charles Chaput in Crux:

Let me put on my Vaticanista hat and ask a couple of pope questions. First, in some press coverage you’re styled as one of the critics of Pope Francis. Yet in Strangers in a Strange Land, you quote Francis approvingly. What is your actual take on Pope Francis?
I think Pope Francis is an interesting man. He’s the pope, first of all, so my take on him is he’s succeeded to the role of Peter as the vicar of Christ, and it’s very important for those of us who are bishops to maintain enthusiastic unity for the Church and to be supportive of the Holy Father because of that.
At the same time, he’s being pope in a way that’s very different from his predecessors, and that has been confusing for people, and I think it’s important for us to help the Holy Father understand that but also to help people understand the Holy Father and to do what we can to help people through the confusion and disappointment I think some people are experiencing.
As bishops we can’t deal with that alone, we have to do it in conjunction with the Holy Father. He has to be aware of that confusion, and I think that he has a responsibility of responding to it as well as us responding to it.
One of the leitmotifs that runs through the book is your concern for marriage and the institution of marriage. Today’s debate over Amoris Laetitia pivots on that subject. What do you think is at stake?
St. Francis of Assisi encouraged the brothers, the Franciscan brothers, to accept the Gospel without gloss. And glosses were convoluted efforts to make the Gospel say something that it didn’t say, or Jesus didn’t really mean what he said. So it seems to me we ought to take Jesus at his word, and his words about divorce and remarriage, about it being adultery, are very clear. I mean, there’s just no doubt about what Jesus said in the Gospels.
It seems to me that it’s impossible for us to contradict the words of Jesus, and it’s also impossible for a teaching to be true 20 years ago not to be true today when it’s the teachings of the pope. The teachings of Pope Francis can’t contradict the teachings of John Paul II when it is a matter of official teaching.
So, it seems to me we have to interpret Amoris Laetitia in the light of what’s gone before it, primarily the words of Jesus, but secondarily the teachings of the pope, the Magisterium of the Church. And so how can it be true that people can receive Communion when they’re living in an adulterous union today. How is that possible, when the Church says it’s not possible?
Do you want the pope to answer the dubia? [Note: The term refers to questions put to Pope Francis by four cardinals, including American Cardinal Raymond Burke, about the meaning of Amoris.]
Yes. I think it’s always good to answer questions, clearly.
Even if the answer doesn’t go in the direction you might want?
Do you think he will?
I don’t know. He certainly has opportunities to do that. [But] I don’t really know what he’ll do. He hasn’t told me.


Anonymous said...

AB Chaput says what orthodox Catholics all over the world think. If the Pope deliberately withholds response to the dubia he will have separated himself from millions of Catholics who cannot in good conscience follow where he wants to lead. I pity his successor because one of his first task will have to be to make a judgement about the teachings of his predecessor. I pray that the electors put aside all prejudices when they will make the fateful choice.


Anonymous said...

Interesting report today that some cardinals who elected Francis would like him to resign to prevent schism in the Church:


Anonymous said...

Another interesting article that states that liberals who lobbied for the election of Francis gave him four to five years to reform the Church:


TJM said...


There is something just not quite right about Pope Francis. I don't know if it his mental health or because he grew up under the evil Perons that he just doesn't know any better. Archbishop Chaput, who should have a red hat, is being extremely charitable.

Tom Makin said...

Agreed on the the point re: Archbishop Chaput. As he is in the Burke Camp, the red biretta will not be forthcoming. I believe the Holy Father is who he is; a product of Jesuit Liberation Theology and we are seeing the manifestation of this. He loves the church of the 70s and 80s and is clinging to that model. As with all those of this ilk, we'll just have to ride it out. The silver lining I see is the new priests coming out of the seminary. I have one at my parish. He's NAC educated, ordained this past June and in cassock every Sunday I see him. He is a strong proponent of a return to the basics. I shared the hyperlink to the St Joseph's Macon website with him and told the story of Father McDonald's influence on the parish when I was there. He was duly impressed. There is hope. My youngest son is considering a vocation and is trying to learn some Latin on his own. He's currently saying the Rosary in that mode and enjoys it.

NAC Alum said...

NAC trained - As are Cardinal Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop Cupich.

TJM said...

Tom Makin,

Thanks. Great news on your son. If he has a vocation I hope he perseveres.

Mark Thomas said...

Archbishop Chaput offers comments about Pope Francis without having to resort to anti-Catholic "Evil Clown," "Frank The Hippie," "Jorge is a heretic" speech.

It amazes me that many anti-Pope Francis folks who speak in vicious fashion about His Holiness Pope Francis view such Churchmen as Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider as leaders in their battle against Pope Francis.

However, they have failed time and again to adopt the holy Catholic, charitable manner in which said Churchmen express themselves.

As Archbishop Chaput demonstrated one can offer thoughts about Pope Francis, remain charitable, and, without hesitation, reiterate that we (Catholics) are called to recognize Pope Francis' authority.

Archbishop Chaput declared that he supports His Holiness Pope Francis.

Archbishop Chaput has spoken in holy Catholic fashion. I wish that certain Catholics who view Archbishop Chaput as their ally in their battle against Pope Francis would learn from Archbishop Chaput's charitable manner.

Holy Mother Church has formed Archbishop Chaput's heart and mind.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Yes, TJM, there are certainly problems with Francis and they do appear to go back to when he was a cardinal in Buenos Aires. The following was reported at the time of his election and Francis seems to be true to form:

"But one Argentinian journalist who knew Bergoglio well warned the world on the day of his election what kind of tune the new pontiff piper was about to play. These words posted online at Rorate Caeli on March 13, 2013, the day of the election of Pope Francis, are so on the mark one might suspect that the journalist had somehow managed to time travel four years ahead from that date to today so as to accurately depict what was about to unfold.

The day Bergoglio was elected, Argentinian journalist Marcelo González of Panorama Católico Internacional wrote that he was “terrified” for the future of the Catholic Church. It is worth quoting the post in its entirety:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary inter-religious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with Protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne.

He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us."


TJM said...

Hey Mark Thomas, chew on this. If this is true, Pope Francis is toast!

TJM said...


Thanks. I think a few words sum Pope Francis up, "a loose cannon." Not a great trait in a Pontiff! This papacy cannot end fast enough.

Anonymous said...

TJM, I agree - it is already past midnight! Jan