Archbishop Chaput says what should have been said long ago. Scandal.

I'm certain that most of the readers here do not know who Archbishop Charles J. Chaput is.  For Catholic insiders, however, or for those who follow the Church closely, or for those who listen to Catholic Stuff You Should Know (which should be everybody), he's a familiar name.

The Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Denver Colorado.

Archbishop Chaput is a highly respected, brilliant, and very orthodox Catholic cleric who was located for many years in Denver, Colorado.  When he came up on the mandatory retirement age for his office there was hopeful speculation in orthodox Catholic circles that the Pope would keep him in position, as will sometimes be the case.  Instead Pope Francis immediately accepted his retirement which in the eyes of many Catholics who are struggling with their outlook on the his papacy was another strike against it.

Chaput, as noted, is a very orthodox cleric and a noted intellectual.  He is a Capuchin Franciscan and also a Potawatomi Indian.  He was the Archbishop of Denver before becoming the Archbishop of Philadelphia.  Many hoped he'd be made a Cardinal, but he never was.

I wish he had been, and I'm not alone.

He hasn't gone quietly into retirement.

And he just came out for denying President Joe Biden communion in the journal First Things.

Now, right away some casual readers here, if there are any, are going to be confused.  Reading this blog some days you'd think that I was a diehard opponent of Donald Trump, and others you'd think I was a diehard opponent of Joe Biden. Rather, I'm like Catholic apologist Gloria Purvis who unleashed a blistering defense of Catholic orthodoxy, against Melania Trump, last week upsetting Trump supporters even though she wasn't supporting Joe Biden either. Rather, she was supporting Catholic orthodoxy  noting that Biden and his crew are seriously outside of Catholic doctrine in supporting things a Catholic in good standing cannot, and Melania is a baptized Catholic in a marriage that Catholics don't recognize as a marriage.  The theme was scandal.

And so is Archbishop Chaput's

This gets into something I just noted here the other day, which is that those who like to define Joe Biden as a "Catholic" President or the nation's "second Catholic President" are more than a little off the mark.

Yes, it's true that Biden is a Mass attending Catholic.  And so was Jack Kennedy.  But Kennedy, as much as he is lambasted here, and he has been, may have been a more faithful Catholic than Biden, even though Biden appears to be a personally much more honorable man, and Kennedy had the personal morals of an alley cat.

All of which assumes a lot.

Joe Biden has a heavy burden in front of him.  Donald Trump has managed to wrap himself in the mantle of populism and nationalism, even as he is personally a horrific example of personal conduct.  His personal relationships with women doesn't appear to compare favorably with Biden's and are much more like Kennedy's.  At the same time, he's been the most pro life American President since 1973 and he also has been more loyal to the working class since any President since Truman.  There's a reason that populist feel that he's a "real" American and that anyone else is a traitor, and that's a lot of what Biden has to overcome.

Biden could in no small part do that by being true to his origins. . .and his Faith.  And if his faith means anything, he should do that in any event.  With his historical track record, that won't be easy.

Which is where Archbishop Chaput comes in.  The Archbishop starts off:

Readers may recall that during the 2004 presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry led the Democratic ticket. As a Catholic, Kerry held certain policy views that conflicted with the moral beliefs of his Church. This led to internal tensions among U.S. bishops about how to handle the matter of Holy Communion for Catholic public officials who publicly and persistently diverge from Catholic teaching on issues like abortion. At the time, Washington’s then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, along with Pittsburgh’s Bishop Donald Wuerl, had very different views from my own regarding how to proceed.  

I believed then, and believe now, that publicly denying Communion to public officials is not always wise or the best pastoral course. Doing so in a loud and forceful manner may cause more harm than good by inviting the official to bask in the media glow of victimhood. What I opposed in 2004, however, was any seeming indifference to the issue, any hint in a national bishops’ statement or policy that would give bishops permission to turn their heads away from the gravity of a very serious issue. At the time, fortunately, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith resolved any confusion about correct practice in these matters with its July 2004 memorandum to then-Cardinal McCarrick, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles. It includes the following passage:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

To my knowledge, that statement remains in effect. And it reflects longstanding Catholic sacramental discipline based on the Word of God.

And indeed it does.  

Archbishop Chaput goes on to state:

The implications for the present moment are clear. Public figures who identify as “Catholic” give scandal to the faithful when receiving Communion by creating the impression that the moral laws of the Church are optional. And bishops give similar scandal by not speaking up publicly about the issue and danger of sacrilege. Thus it’s also worth revisiting the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the evil—and the grave damage—of scandal:

2284.  Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2286.  Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”  This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

Those bishops who publicly indicate in advance that they will undertake their own dialogue with President-elect Joseph Biden and allow him Communion effectively undermine the work of the task force established at the November bishops’ conference meeting to deal precisely with this and related issues. This gives scandal to their brother bishops and priests, and to the many Catholics who struggle to stay faithful to Church teaching. It does damage to the bishops’ conference, to the meaning of collegiality, and to the fruitfulness of the conference’s advocacy work with the incoming administration.

"Scandal".

It's a word that we hardly seem to believe exists anymore but which we are seemingly simultaneously getting a reintroduction to.  

It's meaning is not the same in the secular world as it is in the religious sense, but it is related, and oddly in contemporary time perhaps it has once again intersected.

Archbishop Chaput, in First Things, calls for the observance of certain absolutes, absolutes that Joe Biden states he's for.  Joe Biden, at the same time has lived a life of moral compromise.  Most politicians do.

But most politicians haven't been presented with the challenges that Biden has.  He has to succeed.

And most politicians don't have as heavy of past burden as Biden.

And that means doing the bold and unconventional.  And that in part means going back to what is fundamental, and what we profess to be true.  Not that its easy. Great confessions are not easy, which is party of why great sanctity is not easy. But that is why we should strive to go through the narrow gate.  Going the broad path is easy. . .  but the result is far from assured. . . which ironically makes it the harder one in the end.

Today In Wyoming's History: Clearing scandal, eh?

Clearing scandal, eh?

In the news today was that DNA confirms that President Warren G. Harding had an illegitimate child by Nan Britton, with whom he apparently had a long running affair. The rumor had long existed, in no small part because Ms. Britton, after his death (and likely in need of income) wrote a book about their affair, which various Harding adherents discredited.  Now it seems to be proven that she was telling the truth.

Harding has long been at best forgotten and at worst not viewed as a particularly good President.  Knowledge of at least one other infidelity seems established, so how much this changes our view of Harding I don't know.  In Wyoming, Harding might be best remembered for the Teapot Dome Scandal.

Harding was actually a really popular President while he was President, but his reputation sank thereafter, with Teapot Dome playing a prominent part in that.  News of his infidelity, of course, came after his death, and was ultimately widely contested.  Up until the news of the DNA test results, it still was contested.

Anyhow, it's not so much this news that causes me to post this item about Harding, as this odd statement that appeared in one of the news reports on this item:

And, secondly, he hopes the discovery will begin to clear the air around Harding’s scandalized reputation in history.

“This book really ruined Warren Harding’s reputation, and as a result the important lessons of his presidency have been lost,” Robenalt said, who points out that Harding argued for non-interventionist policies before World War I that continue to be relevant following the lessons of the war in Iraq.

Hmmm. . . .

It's true that Harding had some things to his credit, but it's hard to see how confirmation of his marital infidelity in this instance will serve to "clear the air around" his "scandalized reputation in history".

This is not to say that this wasn't worth investigating for the family, or worth reporting in the news.  Just the concept of this repairing a "scandalized reputation" is odd.