Author’s note: As commenter DanC kindly pointed out, I had my Chaput speeches mixed up. The post below has been corrected from its originally published version to refer to the correct context and original text. I apologize for any confusion I caused.
I spent a while learning how to teach adolescents in addition to my time being one, so I have thought a lot about identity formation. Facing a future with President Donald Trump is forcing many Americans to reconsider what the country really thinks, believes, and wants. If the election results demonstrate anything about our national culture, it is that we are divided, and the division is sharper than many of us realized. It even extends into our religious identities. I have seen more than one report that Catholics voted almost 50/50 for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The Catholic vote is not as easy to pin down as it once was.
So who are we as a church and as a country? Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia offered some thoughts several weeks before the election at the USCCB’s Bishop’s Symposium. He was speaking to Catholics who are involved in the political sphere, but I think his message is helpful for all of us who seek to be both Catholic and American. I offer some of his remarks here with some commentary of my own.
America’s cultural and political elites talk a lot about equality, opportunity and justice. But they behave like a privileged class with an authority based on their connections and skills.
One of the things I’ve learned from living in so many cities, states, and countries is the true meaning of culture and the power of experience. The best definition of culture I know is “how we do things around here.” In Austin, we don’t honk our car horns out of anger in stop-and-go traffic (and boy, do we have that traffic). In other cities, people honk. It’s not a matter of rudeness or nonchalance; it’s just how we do it. Before the election, many in the media wondered who would ever vote for Donald Trump. Now we know: quite a lot of people would, and did, and most of them are residents of areas far from major media’s usual concern. A Trump presidency was a possibility from the moment he received the nomination. The many who expressed disbelief may have forgotten about all the rest, and it was those voters who secured Trump’s win.
Consider the elitist attitudes we find in our own parishes. How many have thought that youth ministry doesn’t need a trained professional so much as anyone who can pass a background check, run some games, and order pizza? They’re just teenagers, after all. How many lectors have met only the bare minimum qualifications of literacy and lack of the common fear of public speaking? It’s just a book, right? How many parishes consider themselves multicultural because they have a Mass or two in Spanish? Surely, it’s just about the language, and it’s just because they don’t have to learn English.
But culture is so much more than age or language. There is a Catholic culture, and the intersection of “Catholic” and “American” is growing more complicated all the time.
To put it another way, quite a few of us American Catholics have worked our way into a leadership class that the rest of the country both envies and resents. And the price of our entry has been the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new “Church” of our ambitions and appetites. People like Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Kennedy, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine are not anomalies. They’re part of a very large crowd that cuts across all professions and both major political parties.
It’s always easier to just stand back and watch things happen than it is to make things happen. Faith takes work. It’s simpler, neater, to just shake our heads at the perplexing behavior of “public Catholics” such as those mentioned by Chaput when we, of course, would be different. We would stand up for the truth despite its unpopularity. We would let our faith inform our decisions, no matter what.
But what if our jobs were on the line? What if we were sworn to represent organizations or populations that do not share our faith? If we can’t leave our faith at the door, how far can we carry it across the threshold of a public office? When we represent the people, do we have to stop representing our hearts? When we stand up for our personal principles, are we ignoring those we have pledged to serve?
Is it possible to be a Catholic and a representative in our American democracy?
For all of its greatness, democratic culture proceeds from the idea that we’re born as autonomous, self-creating individuals who need to be protected from, and made equal with, each other. It’s simply not true. And it leads to the peculiar progressive impulse to master and realign reality to conform to human desire, whereas the Christian masters and realigns his desires to conform to and improve reality.
As Chaput explains, Christianity rests on the notion that we are all creatures of God. We are subject to him, and we are made for community. The goal is to get everyone to the perfection of heaven by the grace of Jesus Christ. In general, we want what is bad for us (sin), and we strive towards the good things that are of God. Our politics, however, take more of an “every man for himself,” “I control my own destiny” approach, in a weird blend of individualism, social support, and noninterference.
We Christians believe that people are inherently good, so it stands to reason that government of the people should also be good. Can we be distinctly Catholic and distinctly American at the same time? Chaput seems to think so:
We need to help Catholics recover their own sense of distinction from the surrounding secular meltdown. The Church and American democracy are very different kinds of societies with very different structures and goals. They can never be fully integrated without eviscerating the Christian faith. An appropriate “separateness” for Catholics is already there in the New Testament. We’ve too often ignored it because Western civilization has such deep Christian roots. But we need to reclaim it, starting now.
Our challenge is to find a way to include respect and fidelity to the people we serve in politics without excluding our faith. As public servants, without some level of inclusion, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs. As Catholics, without some measure of faith, we would be betraying our baptism.
If by “inclusive” we mean patiently and sensitively inviting all people to a relationship with Jesus Christ, then yes, we do very much need to be inclusive. But if “inclusive” means including people who do not believe what the Catholic faith teaches and will not reform their lives according to what the Church holds to be true, then inclusion is a form of lying. And it’s not just lying but an act of betrayal and violence against the rights of those who do believe and do seek to live according to God’s Word. Inclusion requires conversion and a change of life; or at least the sincere desire to change.
Saying this isn’t a form of legalism or a lack of charity. It’s simple honesty. And there can be no real charity without honesty. We need to be very careful not to hypnotize ourselves with our words and dreams. The “new evangelization” is fundamentally not so different from the “old evangelization.” It begins with personal witness and action, and with sincere friendships among committed Catholics — not with bureaucratic programs or elegant sounding plans. These latter things can be important. But they’re never the heart of the matter.
The only way to be inclusive is to include the truth and exclude all else. Chaput argues that there is no room for Catholics “in name only,” but there is plenty of grace for those who seek real faith. God calls us to serve, even in politics, but he does not call us to compromise our salvation for the sake of the American dream.
How are you feeling in these post-election days? Is this election a sign of the failure of democracy? Have you experienced elitist political attitudes? Do you think is it much ado about nothing? Read the full speech and offer your thoughts in charity and truth.
Problem with this post. You mention the Tocqueville Lecture at Notre Dame and link to it. That lecture was given in Sept. However, the pull quotes do not come from that lecture. They come from a different lecture Chaput gave at Notre Dame in October. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/time-christians-unplug-secular-culture
I appreciate your observations, Dan.
and I also am concerned about how the term “elitism” is used in this post…
You are correct! I’m sorry; I read both and got them mixed up in my notes. Thank you! I will amend my post accordingly (although not the URL/slug because that messes with stats).
“Consider the elitist attitudes we find in our own parishes. How many have thought that youth ministry doesn’t need a trained professional so much as anyone who can pass a background check, run some games, and order pizza?” I don’t get your position. The elitist attitude would be that yes, we need a trained professional, while the populist attitude would be that anybody can do it. Which are you advocating or criticizing?
Oh, I see. I meant to frame the elitist attitude as one that would say the youth don’t matter as much as those at the top of the parish, so to speak: the people who can donate money, volunteer their leadership expertise, make mature decisions (more or less), and so on. Church leaders don’t always see youth as valuable members of the parish worthy of spending time, talent, and resources on. I would criticize that attitude, but I also acknowledge that I see it changing, especially with the growth of trained lay leadership. Does that help clarify?
Is there such a thing as “Catholic culture” in the US these days? I don’t think it’s very strong if there is one. As American Catholics we have more in common with American Baptists and American Methodists and American atheists and American Jews than we do with Catholics in Poland or Uganda or Bolivia or The Phillipines.
“Catholics voted almost 50/50 for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton” Yes, that’s a good thing! The split has been about 50/50 for the past elections. Catholics vote the same way non-Catholics do. It shows assimilation. It’s a good thing. I don’t want us to turn into a church where everyone votes the same way.
I don’t think there really is a Catholic culture in the U.S., either. I’ve wondered why there isn’t. For example, I’ve heard more than one churchgoing Catholic complain that a Mass at midday on a holy day of obligation is about an hour long, unlike typical short Masses on weekdays. Thus, when they’re trying to fulfill their obligation on their lunch break, they almost can’t do it. I wonder why we wouldn’t just get time off work for the religious holiday the way Muslims and Jews do. In my home state of Maryland, public schools commonly close entirely on Muslim and Jewish holidays, forbidding any mandatory meetings after school. “Winter break” still includes Christmas Eve and Day, and spring break usually includes Easter, but the culture doesn’t support any Catholic requesting time off to attend Mass on All Saints Day. I wish the culture would support that, too.
Assimilation isn’t always a good thing. (Think of the Borg!) I don’t think Catholics should all be voting the same way. No candidate is ever going to represent Catholic beliefs perfectly because (a) no person can do that, and (b) our political culture doesn’t really allow it. I think that was one of Chaput’s major points.
While I agree with allot of how Chaput/You got to your final suggestions I have some huge objections to the final recommendations (that I will probably have to fully expand upon at a later time). But in brief-> “We need to help Catholics recover their own sense of distinction from the surrounding secular meltdown” . Um no that’s the madness that got us here. We are not separate from the Culture / Politics around us. We live in this country and our voices and votes counted towards the sum. We should consider the sin of our culture around us as our on sin… at least in that we failed to prevent it. Or we DIDN’T make our voices and votes count which would have been even worse. Either way in a democracy you can’t look away from the sin of society and say it is another society. There is also some clarity on the use of ‘Inclusion” here. On a political level inclusion is more about dialogue and concern. And I think the church really does need to talk about ‘inclusion’ in this since. Why? Well because the current political trends tend to scare allot of our neighbors Mexicans, Muslims, ect. …We might not invite Muslims to have communion with us but if we don’t convert our hearts to understand why they are being fearful… honestly we are then ourselves turning away from the Eucharist. So above and before party the Church is instructed and obligated by Christ to be an ear to all humans. From a political perspective that is radical inclusion.
Love what you have to say, Trenton. Beautifully put. Your voice is solely missed on this site.
I am with you, Trenton, and something else I thought about is the Vatican II Document, Apostolicam actuositate, about the Apostolate of the Laity. We are the light of the world, and we are to be in the world and not of it. I just looked at it, and this part stood out to me. I think this whole thing could use some study as we try to find our way in these times of upheaval and division. “The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation. Led by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church and motivated by Christian charity, they must act directly and in a definite way in the temporal sphere. As citizens they must cooperate with other citizens with their own particular skill and on their own responsibility. Everywhere and in all things they must seek the justice of God’s kingdom. The temporal order must be renewed in such a way that, without detriment to its own proper laws, it may be brought into conformity with the higher principles of the Christian life and adapted to the shifting circumstances of time, place, and peoples. Preeminent among the works of this type of apostolate is that of Christian social action which the sacred synod desires to see extended to the whole temporal sphere, including culture.(2)” Definitely something to read more about and consider.
Pardon me, that’s Apostolicam actuositatem.
It is also worth noting that Jesus didn’t wait until people thought the same way as He did to be with them, or even work miracles for them. That’s one of the problems the religious leaders of His day had with Him. All the success at evangelization I have ever had personally, has born this out as a good model. (Miracles aside, I think. :P)
Thank you for commenting! If the sins of others are also counted as our own sins, do we have to do other people’s penances, too? Where do we draw the line?
I like your thoughts about combining political inclusion and a Catholic sense of inclusion, but I’m not sure it could work that way. We also have to draw a line there at some point, for example, by not accepting people as Christians who don’t believe that Jesus is the son of God. What do you mean by the Church being “an ear to all humans”? Are we listening, speaking, or both?
As I understand it, we are judged by God individually (the “particular judgement,”) at our own time of death, and at the end of time there will be the final judgement, the judgement of the nations, the “general judgement.”) At that point, we will be called to an account of our actions as peoples as well as our own individual actions. The Catechism says this is just seeing the farthest consequences of our individual actions. Each of us has a certain level of responsibility in what our community does, since we are a part of it. I am sure we are not allowed to stand by when our country or our local community permits evil. We are require to stand against it. We also have a share in the good works of our community. This makes sense. We are a part of a whole, as well as individuals. That is one way to think about it,
There was a time when communal confession and penance was common in the church. The church has grappled with that question for quite some time. The modern teaching is that social sin exists and it is always made up of individual sins. These individual sins need not be positive sins when you do not use your God given power to resist it yes… you should confess that and do penance for it. …Let me give you a practical answer… I made a painful realization tonight. I have not blogged (or podcast-ed or directly spoke out) on the national situation for …this entire election cycle. *I* will need to do penance for that. While I could make many excuses for where I have been if I am honest an humble of heart I know I’ve made some selfish decisions as of late. As is the case with all sin I can not look into *your* heart and tell *you* what you need to do and not do penance for. But one of the unique aspects of social sin is I believe you can look at our nation/culture and no… someone needs to do penance. The Catholic church is huge. We have many gifts and hold much power. We do have the power to shape our culture and our nation. When we get the leader that we did and say …”Well this is the best we could do.” WE ARE LYING! We COULD have done better! And I think Chaput is leading us astray when he says we should blame the secular world and close ourselves off (If that’s what he is saying). We need to look within and ask ourselves how we can be better voices. We should look within and ask ourselves what we didn’t do. And yes I will go out a limb and say someone needs to do Penance. *I* need to do penance! ——As for listening, how does the old saying go “God gave you two ears and one mouth you should listen twice as much as you speak.” . Being a “Ear to all humanity” doesn’t mean changing our values in any way. But one of Catholic Social Teachings CORE VALUES is that dignity of ALL HUMAN LIFE. If human lives begin to cry out and we are not listening we are not being true to our values we have betrayed them. Right now the immigrant community is fearful. I am certain of this because when they came to Catholic Charities last night they told me this! Now what they are saying, what they think MIGHT happen… might not happen. But don’t forget where your faith rests. We can’t put our faith in our leaders… Trump is libel to do something fairly awful… that is why I say we must keep an ear to that community. I think this might also be a good time to talk about traditions of non-violent civil disobedience. Because it might come to that. …Sorry I really need more time to fully expand on this. I hope that clarifies my thoughts.
I spent some time reading about Archbishop Chaput and some of his ideas. It is interesting to me how, as a non-Catholic, how different it seems to be in tone to the words and writing of Pope Francis. I don’t know…I guess that is what diversity means. I probably am just confused.
Hmm… I’m not familiar with Chaput. I just finished reading the speech Lindsay was reviewing. When read in its entirety I have no strong objections to it. My weak objections 1) He’s kind of overly Academic. I totally see how this message can get muddled. 2) He talks down “Progressives” but allot of the people I know who would self identify as “Progressive” are the first people to criticize our culture for the things he is criticizing. Political identities often get taken up by a diverse set of opposing groups. So I guess what I’m saying is he is probably right about some “Progressives” but dead wrong about others. That might be a problem when taken out of context.
thanks for that, Trenton. It was very helpful. He does talk down “progressives” quite a lot. But I agree with you, a lot of progressives I know would say the same thing he does. Or similar. That whole “progressive versus conservative” is frustrating to hear. As you say, we have two ears to hear and one mouth to speak. Listen. We may have more in common than you think. And I don’t know enough about him to say anything further so I will sign off for now….
I think it would be helpful to know that in Chaput’s book, “progressive” is shorthand for the Church’s definition of “Modernism”, which is a heresy which seems to have permeated the thinking of the modern church so that we find ourselves in this era of apostasy —
Pope Benedict called it “the culture of Relativism” and Pope JP II called it “the culture of death” though these are only symptoms of the Modernist Heresy itself– the seductive belief that “Man can be good without reference to God and his laws” and that Humanity’s inevitable progress thought his own striving (and technology! 🙂 means we really accomplish perfection, universal brotherhood, equality, peace and utopia in this world.—
Ain’t gonna happen: this utopia is a mirage, always “in the future”, and requiring ever increasing “rendering unto Caesar the things that are of God”.
“In HIS will is our peace.” “Seek first the kingdom of GOD, and all else will be granted you besides.” Post-christian Western civilisation, no longer believes or acts on gospel values, and so no longer “does” formal religion. Islam on the other hand, does believe in Allah’s will, as expressed in the unholy Koran : that the world should be converted to Islam, like it or not. The entirely preventable civil unrest in the clash of cultures we see in the EU is due to Europe’s general loss of faith–
Modernism is the belief “we can be as gods” and it was the first temptation Satan put to the first man and woman in Eden.
There are no “new heresies” — they are just the same ones, recycled, in fashionable dress, in each age until the end of the world. Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is “the sum of all heresies”. It is the “smoke of Satan” that the unhappy Pope Paul VI said had “entered into the sanctuary of the Church” and we see it today: bishops opposing bishops, cardinals opposing cardinals — no unified teaching. The devil promotes dissension, destroys unity, and I cannot but think that he is pleased with this Pope’s confusing pronouncements.
You are very, very perceptive. Just remember that historically the Church has had some bad popes, but the Holy Spirit has ensured the survival of the church despite them.
I am a devout Catholic, but I think we were overdue for a “bad Pope” and Francis — an intelligent and canny Jesuit — is failing in his duty to endorse traditional teaching in a couple of key areas; and because he is popular and says nice things in public, most people aren’t noticing that Pope Francis is promoting division, not unity in the church through “mixed messages”.
Bishop Chaput by way of contrast, is not “politically correct” and has the courage to make enemies of those who only give lip-service to the Catholic Faith. He also embarrasses other bishops who do not have his courage.
Chaput is unmistakably Catholic, as his teachings and actions and personal holiness ( which is attested by his flock) are all consistent with Catholic dogma.
Francis —- ?
Do you mean *public* confession and penance? That was how the early Church did it, but it’s not our current practice. *Communal* confession would be something different. Public confession is when I stand in front of the whole church to name my sins and say I’m sorry for them. Communal confession would be when I stand in front of the church to name *your* sins. We’ve never had the latter.
You can definitely offer sacrifices in reparation for other’s sins, though. I do that frequently at weddings and funerals: places where it’s highly likely that not everyone who receives the Eucharist is properly disposed (or even Catholic). I pray for offenses committed against the Eucharist, including those committed by me. My prayers don’t stand in for their own penance, but it’s a way I can help. That sounds like it might help for you, too.
I would need to refresh some of my history. But my understanding was confession was “public” and you would confess doing things that might lead your neighbor to sin. So I’m calling it “communal” in the since that you would acknowledge that individual sins were influenced by the community as a whole.
This gets into a whole complex subject. The question of individual vs communal identity. I’ve been hearing allot of Catholics speaking about it lately. I’m not going to do the discussion justice here. But basically what I’ve come to notice is that the right seems to simplify everything to individual virtues and sins. The far left argues every decision we make is influenced by the systems and culture around us so we can only consider and individual in relationship to the whole. I will self identify as “one of those damb Liberals” but I honestly don’t by either one of those models. The truth is every individual is fully individual and fully communal (the bible clearly describes man BOTH ways). Richard Rohr would call it a false Duality… Trying to describe man as either one or the other losses part of the truth.
However I agree with the middle left (and bishop Chaput) in the observation that American culture has erred far to much towards individualism. So for our society and the American Catholic flock it only makes sense to emphasize social sin, communal conversion, because those are the areas our Church (in America) and our society are having the most trouble with.
I knew I had seen examples of acts of reparation somewhere! It was the monthly People of Life newsletter from the USCCB. You can view this year’s archive here: http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2015/9-days-for-life-praying-for-life-year-round-2016.cfm
Every month has 3 options for prayers or sacrifices you can offer for that month’s intention. One is usually really simple. It’s kind of like doing penance for other people (or for yourself), but it’s not the same as sacramental confession. Maybe something similar could be developed for “social sins.”
I think for Catholics, the “line in the sand” is the temptation to be “Politically correct”, which most don’t realise is cultural Marxism.
It you speak up for traditional marriage, the right to have large families without society’s condemnation, do not condone homosexual lifestyle whilst respecting individuals who suffer same-sex attraction, — are against genetic engineering of human beings, and euthanasia in its many forms, and the heresy that “all religions worship the same God” you are going to make enemies, and many of them are your nearest and dearest whom you love.
If at the end of your life as a Catholic you can say “you had no enemies,” (whom you loved nevertheless) you did something wrong; and are at risk of being judged “lukewarm”. Jesus said of the lukewarm that “he would vomit them out of his mouth.”