-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
NCR and Winters on the Chaput versus Francis article
This article is worth a read. Michael Sean Winters quotes archbishop emeritus Chaput:
Chaput seems to be defending EWTN. But since he was a board member and Bishop during most of the time period in question, he is defending himself. If EWTN were unfaithful in some of its programming, he’d be partly responsible. And clearly, that is the case. Arroyo’s The World Over is a prime example.
The other point, which Winters makes well, is that Chaput is essentially accusing Pope Francis of being vindictive and speaking a falsehood. (Lying would be speaking a falsehood deliberately and knowingly.)
This brings up a larger issue. Many of the problems in the Church today, in the realm of lack of faith in magisterial teachings and in the shepherds of the Magisterium, are caused by the faithful siding with some group in contradiction to the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops in communion and obedience to him. This is true on the left, where some Catholics prefer the teachings of modern culture over the magisterium, and on the right, where some prefer to teachings of the conservative or traditionalist subcultures over the magisterium. Chaput’s error mirrors their error, except that he is siding with a television network, treating It like the Magisterium or the Church.
The Church, the Pope, and the body of Bishops led by the Pope are each indefectible. EWTN is not indefectible. So it can be said:
“And any suggestion that the Pope or the body of Bishops led by him are unfaithful to the Church, the Second Vatican Council, Scripture or Tradition is simply vindictive and false.”
But a similar statement, as made by Chaput, wrongly attributes indefectibility to a TV network, in opposition (to a limited extent in this case) to the indefectible Roman Pontiff.
Certainly, a Pope can err in an off-the-cuff comment to the media. But it is manifest that EWTN deserves this criticism of the Pope. Then the Pope’s criticism of wider scope that those who attack the Church are doing the work of the devil was well spoken and Christ-like. EWTN needs to be very careful not to fall into that error of attacking the Church or the Pope, about which the Pope warned them charitably.
Defending the network and giving it blind confidence appears to transfer one’s allegiance from the Magisterium to the network — which I’m sure is not what bishop Chaput intended. But that is the clear implication of his words. It is never the case that a group of fallen sinners — apart from the indefectibility that is from Christ — can be said to be necessarily always faithful and above any reproach. And Chaput’s inference that the suggestion of the Pope was vindictive and false was rightly criticized by NCR and Winters.
So many problems in the Church are solvable by faith in the Church. Chaput needs to remember where his allegiance belongs: first and foremost with the Roman Pontiff.
Saint John Henry Newman:
Ronald L Conte Jr
Related