Head Liturgist In Charge Of Music For Pope Francis' Philadelphia Mass Resigns Over Dispute With Archbishop

 

Religion News Service  |  By David Gibson
 
(RNS) The head of liturgical music for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, who was also to play a key role orchestrating the huge outdoor Mass concluding Pope Francis’ trip to the U.S. in September, is resigning his post over long-standing differences with Archbishop Charles Chaput.

John Romeri, who has headed the archdiocesan liturgical music office for five years, said that he will resign effective June 30 because “there are simply irreconcilable differences” with Chaput over the role and style of music at Mass.

Romeri did not respond to requests for comment, and it was unclear whether he would still play a role in preparations for the papal visit.

A spokesman for Chaput, Kenneth Gavin, said in an email that he could not comment on personnel matters and “there are no additional updates.” But he said that the archdiocese “will be prepared for the visit of the Holy Father on all fronts, including music for the Mass on the Parkway.”

The Ben Franklin Parkway, which runs through Philadelphia, will be closed to accommodate the more than 1 million pilgrims expected to attend the Sept. 27 papal Mass. It is part of what officials say will be the largest series of public events in the city’s history.

In his resignation announcement, which he buried in a list of liturgy news last month, Romeri indicated that he and Chaput had clashed almost from the time Chaput was appointed to Philadelphia in 2011, a year after Romeri arrived.

Romeri wrote that these “several years of discontent” on Chaput’s part culminated with the music Romeri arranged this April for Holy Week and Easter. The approach, he said, “was not well received by the archbishop.”

“While at this point, I am not sure just what my next musical adventure looks like, it is absolutely the right thing for me to leave this present situation,” Romeri wrote. He said he would remain as music director for Philadelphia’s Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul through the summer.

The resignation quickly sparked an intense online debate in the beehive world of Catholic liturgists, where even the smallest tweak to a rubric can become a source of extended discussion.

But it also has a wider resonance because Romeri is vice chair of the two committees organizing the music and rites for various events during the Philadelphia leg of the Sept. 22-27 papal visit.

Francis is to visit Washington, D.C., first, then New York. He is scheduled to end the trip by spending two days in Philadelphia to close the church’s World Meeting of Families.

“A change like this ahead of the papal visit must be causing a mini-meltdown in the Archdiocese,” Nathan Chase wrote in a post at a well-known Catholic liturgy blog, Pray Tell.

A clash over liturgy so close to such a major papal event, and one in which the liturgy plays such a central role, could complicate what is already a huge undertaking for the Philadelphia Archdiocese and the Vatican.

But such hurdles are hardly unprecedented.

Papal visits are tremendously complex, stressful and expensive projects for the dioceses hosting the pope. There is intense jockeying among bishops to try to host the pontiff, and much maneuvering within a host diocese over where the pope will visit and who will get to meet him — and how each papal event will be organized.

Then everything must be run through a committee, and approved by the Vatican. The process almost guarantees arguments, especially over liturgies, which are often flashpoints for internal church battles.

Outdoor papal Masses also tend to be huge events that must communicate a sacred rite in broad strokes to a diverse assemblage. So the music and design often have a popular, modern style that can irk liturgical traditionalists.

Many speculated that this difference in liturgical tastes might have contributed to the falling out between Chaput and his music director.

Romeri is said to have more of a “high church” sensibility in liturgy than Chaput, who has expressed a preference for the newer Mass in English and simpler styles of worship.

While Chaput is often described as a doctrinal and cultural conservative, in the Catholic Church, that does not necessarily equate with liturgical traditionalism, which is its own distinct — and proud — brand.

Link:

• Head Liturgist In Charge Of Music For Pope Francis' Philadelphia Mass Resigns Over Dispute With Archbishop

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput: Health Care and the Common Good

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled “U.S. bishops must back Obama,” claimed that America’s bishops “have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue—making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion—rather than the more general principle of the common good.”

It went on to say that if U.S. Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, “they could play a central role in salvaging Mr. Obama’s health-care programme.”

The editorial has value for several reasons. First, it proves once again that people don’t need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized U.S. Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president. Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a “specifically Catholic issue,” and the editors know it. And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism.

No system that allows or helps fund—no matter how subtly or indirectly—the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.” Doing so is a lie.

On the same day the British journal released its editorial, I got an e-mail from a young couple on the East Coast whose second child was born with Down syndrome. The mother’s words deserve a wider audience:

Magdalena “consumes” a lot of health care. Every six months or so she’s tested for thyroid disease, celiac disease, anemia, etc. In addition, she’s been hospitalized a few times for smallish but surely expensive things like a clogged tear duct, feeding studies and pneumonia (twice). She sees an ENT regularly for congestion, she requires a doctor’s prescription for numerous services—occupational therapy, physical therapy, feeding, speech, etc.—and she needs more frequent ear and eye exams.

I could go on. Often, she has some mysterious symptoms that require several tests or doctor visits to narrow down the list of possible issues. On paper, maybe these procedures and visits seem excessive. She is, after all, only 3 years old. We worry that more bureaucrats in the decision chain will increase the likelihood that someone, somewhere, will say, “Is all of this really necessary? After all, what is the marginal benefit to society for treating this person?”

What do we think of the (Congressional and White House health-care) plans? A government option sounds dangerous to us. The worst-case scenario revolves around someone in Washington making decisions about Magdalena’s health care; or, worse yet, a group of people—perhaps made up of the same types of people who urged us to abort her in the first place. In general, we feel that policy decisions should be made as close as possible to the people who will be affected by them. We are not wealthy people, but our current set up suits us just fine. We trust our pediatrician, who knows us very well, who hears from us personally every few months, who knows Magdalena and clearly sees her value, to give us good advice and recommend services in the appropriate amounts.

We are unsure and uneasy about how this might change. We worry that we, and Magdalena’s siblings, will somehow be cut out of the process down the line when her health issues are sure to pile up. I can’t forget that this is the same president (Obama) who made a distasteful joke about the Special Olympics. He apologized through a spokesman … (but) I truly believe that the people around him don’t know—or don’t care to know—the value and blessedness of a child with special needs. And I don’t trust them to mold policy that accounts for my daughter in all of her humanity or puts “value” on her life.

Of course, President Obama isn’t the first leader to make clumsy gaffes. Anyone can make similar mistakes over the course of a career. And the special needs community is as divided about proposed health-care reforms as everyone else.

Some might claim that the young mother quoted here has misread the intent and content of Washington’s plans. That can be argued. But what’s most striking about the young mother’s e-mail—and I believe warranted—is the parental distrust behind her words. She’s already well acquainted, from direct experience, with how hard it is to deal with government-related programs and to secure public resources and services for her child. In fact, I’ve heard from enough intelligent, worried parents of children with special needs here in Colorado to know that many feel the current health-care proposals pressed by Washington are troubling and untrustworthy.

Health-care reform is vital. That’s why America’s bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades. They still do. But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy. It’s not only imprudent; it’s also dangerous. As Sioux City’s Bishop R. Walker Nickless wrote last week, “no health-care reform is better than the wrong sort of health-care reform.”

If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people’s concerns more honestly—and learn what the “common good” really means.

Bishop R. Walker Nickless’ column can be found at www.catholicglobe.com

• Link

The Gloves are Off: Planned Parenthood President Slams U.S. Bishops on Abortion, Healthcare

By John Jalsevac

August 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, has penned a scathing editorial, published today in the Huffington Post, in which she sets her sights on the U.S. Catholic bishops, slamming them for their opposition to the abortion mandate in the Obama health care bill, and to abortion in general.

"Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don't support?" writes Richards. "Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?"

Richards then goes on to accuse the bishops of endangering "millions" of women's lives around the globe with their "hard-line opposition to women's rights." "The effort to criminalize access to safe abortion endangers most women in the developing world -- the very women that you would think the bishops would be concerned about," says Richards.

The U.S. bishops, while expressing support for healthcare reform in general, have been adamant in their stance that healthcare reform must not include mandated abortion coverage - something that the current legislation would do if passed.

In an August 11 letter Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, carefully but forcefully countered claims, propagated by proponents of Obama's healthcare reform, including Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, that the Obama plan wouldn't mandate abortion coverage and lead to taxpayer funding for abortions.

Any claim that taxpayer money would not be used to fund abortion is "an illusion," said Rigali in that letter. "Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent."

Numerous other prominent bishops, including Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Robert Vasa, and Bishop R. Walter Nickless have also spoken strongly against the abortion provisions in the healthcare bill.

The intense campaign to publicize the abortion mandate in the healthcare bill, not only by the U.S. bishops, but by a huge alliance of pro-life and pro-family organizations, appears to have been successful, with a majority of Americans in a recent poll saying that they believe the Obama reform would include taxpayer funding for abortion.

However, with the majority of Americans calling themselves pro-life, any taxpayer funding for abortion is likely to be extremely unpopular and contribute to the swelling opposition to the Obama plan.

When pro-life concerns about the abortion mandate in the healthcare bill first began to be expressed, pro-abortion groups and legislators responded by simply denying that the legislation would mandate abortion coverage. Cecile Richards was amongst these, saying at the beginning of this month that the abortion mandate is a "myth."

"Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of health care service -- in the Exchange," Richards insisted in a column for the Huffington Post early in August. "Opponents of women's health and health care reform are exploiting this legislation as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace."

In her most recent article, however, the Planned Parenthood head was more candid about her views on the healthcare plan, saying that it should include "comprehensive reproductive health," a term that for Planned Parenthood includes abortion and contraception.

"We have an opportunity this year to fundamentally address serious health care issues for women and young people in America," says Richards, "and we stand ready to partner with President Obama and Congress to find solutions to our most pressing health care issues."

"We call upon Congress and the White House to continue to stand firmly on the side of women in health care reform. Women are needed to pass health care reform -- and we are not going backwards and we are not going away."

• Link
  

Archbishop Chaput responds to Pelosi-Pope meeting

Denver, Colo., Feb 19, 2009 / 07:31 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver is in complete agreement with the message that Pope Benedict XVI delivered to Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. The archbishop also went so far as to say that since she disagrees with the Church on the "black and white issue" of abortion, she should not present herself for Communion.

The comments by Archbishop Chaput were made following Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Benedict, at which the Pope reminded the Speaker of the House that all legislators, but especially Catholics, are bound to protect human life from conception to natural death.

FOX News’ Neil Cavuto invited Archbishop Chaput to give his reaction to the Pope-Pelosi meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

Cavuto began by pointing out the disparity between Pelosi’s statement about the meeting and the Pope’s.

"I got very different reads from both the Pope’s message of that meeting and the speaker’s, but the gist of the Pope’s is that, she has a duty to respect life, what did you make of that?" said Cavuto.

"Well it’s true," replied the archbishop. "Every Catholic, whether you’re famous or anonymous, whether you’re a public official or a private citizen, has a responsibility to be faithful to what the Church believes about human life, and we believe that human life is sacred and precious from the moment of conception. So that applies to the Speaker as well as it does to me and to you and to anyone who’s Catholic."

Referring to a previous interview regarding Pelosi’s comment that when life begins is not agreed upon by Catholic teaching, Cavuto asked, "isn’t it a fairly black and white issue?"

Chaput responded, "Well it’s not a fairly black and white issue, it’s a clearly black and white issue.

"The Church without a doubt believes that human life begins at the moment of conception," he said.

Cavuto also asked Archbishop Chaput if he would deny Holy Communion to Pelosi.

To which, the archbishop responded:

"Well, I’d like to talk to her if she’s coming to church in the Archdiocese of Denver and I’d say to her what I’d say to anyone, if you don’t accept what the Church teaches, you shouldn’t present yourself for Communion, because Communion means you’re in agreement with what the Church teaches, and, as I said to you earlier, that applies to all of us..."

Isn’t she boxed in by Catholic beliefs on the one hand and by a society that is pro-choice? Cavuto queried.

"Well I don’t think it’s a box to defend the truth and to stand up for what you know to be right, even if others in the community disagree with you, and being honest about our moral principles is a sign of maturity, is a sign of being a statesman.

"And I think that politicians are required to be both good Americans and good Catholics at the same time and to be convincing when they present the position of the community on basic human rights," the archbishop replied.

Referring to the issue of abortion, Archbishop Chaput said, "This is a human rights issue, from the point of view of the Church, and not a theological or religious perspective. Our religious perspective supports that, but that’s not the source of our belief about the sacredness of human life."

• Archbishop Chaput responds to Pelosi-Pope meeting
• Pope lectures Pelosi on Abortion Stance

‘Abortion reduction strategies’ ignore half of the problem, Archbishop Chaput warns

Dublin, Feb 9, 2009 / 05:34 am (CNA).- During a trip to Ireland this past weekend, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered a talk to the Irish chapter of Human Life International that outlined the “dos and don’ts” for the pro-life movement. Those who claim pro-lifers should avoid the “divisive” issue of ending legalized abortion and focus on providing better support for pregnant mothers are creating a false division, the archbishop insisted.

Following the theme “An American view on how to build a culture of life,” Archbishop Chaput explained that his goal was “to offer some lessons from the American experience that Irish Christians might find useful.”

More than three decades after the legalization of abortion in the U.S., Archbishop Chaput diagnosed Americans’ beliefs on abortion as schizophrenic as he gave an overview of the current situation. “Most believe abortion is wrong. But most also want it legal under some limited circumstances,” he said.

The consequences of holding two such divergent views are that the U.S. has “a large and well-funded abortion industry” and that a “very vigorous prolife movement” has grown up “right alongside the abortion industry,” Chaput observed.

“American pro-lifers have had many setbacks. They never have enough money. They don't get treated fairly by the media. Too many of their leaders argue with each other too much of the time. But they just won't give up or die. And so they've won quite a few modest but important legal victories. Meanwhile they continue to work toward the strategic goal of overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision.”

With all of this in mind, Archbishop Chaput offered what he sees as six “don’ts” and five “dos” that pro-lifers around the world should learn from their American counterparts.

“First,” he recommended, “don't let yourselves be tricked into an inferiority complex.” Drawing on a point made in his book “Render Unto Caesar,” he told his Irish audience:

“Critics like to say that religion is divisive, or intellectually backward, or that it has no proper place in the public square. … But this is nonsense. Democracy depends on people of conviction carrying their beliefs into public debate -- respectfully, legally and non-violently, but vigorously and without apology. If we are uncomfortable being Christians in a public debate, then we've already lost the war. In America the word "pluralism" is often conjured up like a kind of voodoo shield to get religious people to stop talking about right and wrong. In reality, our moral beliefs always shape social policy. Real pluralism actually demands that people with different beliefs should pursue their beliefs energetically in the public square. This is the only way a public debate can be honest and fruitful. We should never apologize for being Catholics.”

The next two “don’ts” cited by the Archbishop of Denver were, “Don't let divisions take root” and “Don’t get trapped by politics -- especially partisan politics.”

He related how as a bishop he has been “baffled” by how much energy is wasted on internal pro-life bickering and that pro-lifers should “never allow our differences to become personal” since infighting within the movement is “a gift to the other side.”

Sticking to one political party is also dangerous, Archbishop Chaput argued. “The more pro-lifers tie themselves to a single political party, the less they can speak to society at large. In the United States, Catholics -- both on the right and the left -- have too often made the mistake of becoming cheerleaders for a specific candidate,” he said.

“Don't create or accept false oppositions,” the archbishop cautioned as he waded into a topic that has caused great debate in the American pro-life community.

“During the last U.S. election,” Chaput recalled, “we saw the emergence of so-called pro-life organizations that argued we should stop fighting the legal struggle over abortion. Instead we should join with ‘pro-choice’ supporters to seek ‘common ground’.”

“Their argument was simple: Why fight a losing battle on the legal, cultural and moral front since - according to them -- we haven't yet made serious progress in ending legalized abortion? Let's drop the ‘divisive’ political battle, they said, and instead let's all work together to tackle the economic and health issues that might eventually reduce abortions,” he explained.

But this argument doesn’t sync with history, Archbishop Chaput stressed.

“Did Americans take a gradual, social-improvement road to ‘reducing’ racism? No. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” he pointed out.

Taking the logic a step further, the Denver prelate said, “Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that the best way to deal with murder, rape or domestic abuse is to improve the availability of health care and job training. We make rape illegal -- even though we know it will still sometimes tragically occur -- because rape is gravely evil. It's an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it.

“Of course, we also have a duty to improve the social conditions that can breed domestic and sexual violence. But that doesn't change the need for the law.”

“Likewise,” Chaput reasoned, “if we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can't aim at anything less than ending abortion.

“It doesn't matter that some abortions have always occurred, and some will always occur. If we really believe that abortion kills a developing unborn life, then we can never be satisfied with mere ‘reductions’ in the body count.”

The new groups that materialized during the last election seem to operate from an “either/or” mentality, that argued that pro-lifers needed to choose between abortion “reduction” programs and outlawing abortion, the archbishop said. But protecting the unborn child “is not an ‘either/or’ choice. It's ‘both/and’,” he countered.

“We need to help women facing problem pregnancies with good health care and economic support; and we need to pass laws that will end legal abortion. We need to do both.”

Despite this disagreement, the archbishop’s fifth “don’t” cautioned pro-lifers against hating their adversaries. “Our adversary is an opponent, but never our "enemy." Our enemy is the Evil One,” he said.

Playing off his previous “don’t,” the Denver archbishop focused on adversaries again, saying, “Don't let your adversaries set the agenda.”

President Barack Obama’s recent reversal of the Mexico City policy in office served to illustrate this point for the archbishop. “His reason for signing the executive order was that it was time to put this ‘divisive issue behind us,’ once and for all,” Chaput reminded.

“There's something a little odd about rhetoric that tells that we're the ‘divisive’ ones, and lectures adult citizens about what we should challenge, and when we should stop. In a democracy, we get to decide that for ourselves.

“An issue that involves the life and death of unborn children and the subversion of entire traditional societies can't be ‘put behind us’ with an executive signature.”

Switching gears, the archbishop moved on to give his Irish audience his list of “dos.”

“Do become martyrs,” he challenged as he quipped, “I said it was simple. I didn't say it was easy. Be ready to pay the ultimate price.”

In modern society, you may not have to give your life for the unborn, but you may sacrifice your reputation or have lies told about you, the prelate counseled.

With the annual March for Life fresh in his mind, Archbishop Chaput called on pro-lifers to his second do—“keep hope alive.” “Many of the marchers are young, joyful people who radiate a strong hope in the future - and not the shallow hope of political sloganeering, but the real Christian hope that emerges from self-sacrifice and the struggle to do God's will.”

“I've never in my life seen a joy-filled pro-abortion event. And I've always found that instructive,” he added.

The third “do” offered by Chaput was to “be strategic.” Likening pro-life advocates to “sheep in the midst of wolves,” he told his audience that this “doesn’t mean we can also be dumb as rocks.”

“Being strategic means planning ahead, setting the agenda, working together and outsmarting our adversaries. To achieve these goals, we need a big dose of realism. We should never dream or whine about all the things we could do with the million Euros we don't have. We need to focus on the ten Euros we do have,” the archbishop said.

Next on the “do” list was a message that echoed Pope Benedict’s recent message for the World Day of Communications—use new technologies to spread your message.

Archbishop Chaput closed out his “dos” by stepping back for a look at the big picture. “Remember that renewing the culture, not gaining power, is our ultimate goal,” he counseled.

Culture is everything, the archbishop stated as he encouraged pro-lifers to make evangelizing it their ultimate goal. “Our real task, and our much longer-term and more important goal, is to carry out what John Paul II called the ‘evangelization of culture’," he explained.

Exhorting pro-lifers to continue fighting for this goal, Archbishop Chaput said “cultural trends can be changed. And I'll prove it.”

“Mainline media have been telling us for a decade that the American public is evenly divided between those who consider themselves prolife and those who describe themselves as ‘pro-choice’.”

“This is broadly true. But the devil - or in this case, God -- is in the details.”

Archbishop Chaput went on to cite a national poll by Harris Interactive that came out in December 2008, which found among other things that “fewer than ten per cent of Americans support legalized abortion on demand as it stands today.”

The findings of the poll show that “prolife efforts have made real progress in improving people's awareness of the sanctity of unborn life,” he asserted.

“We need to work to change the culture. And that demands a lifelong commitment to education, Christian formation and, ultimately, conversion. Only saints really change the world. And there lies our ultimate victory: If we change one heart at a time, while we save one unborn life at a time, the day will come when we won't need to worry about saving babies, because they'll be surrounded by a loving, welcoming culture.”

• Link
  

Archbishop Chaput urges Catholics to stand up for Christian values in society

Dublin, Feb 7, 2009 / 04:11 pm (CNA).- Speaking in Ireland on Saturday, Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput discussed the importance of truth in the public square and exhorted his listeners to bring Jesus to the world by being “vigorous and unembarrassed about our Catholic presence in society.”

Addressing the John Paul II Society in Ireland, the archbishop began his talk titled, “Render Unto Caesar: Personal Faith and Public Duty,” by noting that while there are differences between his usual audience of American Catholics and the current crowd of Irish Catholics, “being a ‘Catholic’ – and I mean genuinely Catholic -- makes us much more similar than we are different.” Yes, the mission of a Christian “changes it its details from country to country and age to age,” but the “basic mission is always the same – to bring the world to Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ to the world,” he said.

The archbishop explained that his talk would address the “heart of the problems” Catholics “face in living our Christian vocation in the modern world.” We are being told two things: The Scriptures remind us to “make disciples of all nations,” and the mass media and political leaders tell us to “be ‘tolerant,’ to fit in, to ‘grow up’ and to stop making a lot of religious noise.”

“Obviously we can’t follow both voices at the same time.”

The archbishop then recalled the words “Render unto Caesar” from Matthew 22, when the Sadducees and Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar.

If he says yes, they’ll accuse him of being in collaboration with Rome, if he answers no, Rome “will see him as a rebel and troublemaker,” the Denver prelate explained. Jesus asks for a coin “with the image of the Emperor Tiberius” and says:

“Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said, ‘Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Through his actions and words in the passage, the archbishop noted, Jesus “acknowledges that Caesar does have rights,” but his rights are not over things that belong to God. It is our job, to determine what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, he summarized.

Acknowledging that this can be difficult, the archbishop pointed Christians toward the Scriptures, where we learn that “we owe secular leaders our respect and prayers; respect for the law; obedience to proper authority; and service to the common good,” not to be confused with “subservience, or silence, or inaction, or excuse-making or acquiescence to grave evil in the public life we all share.”

He went on to say that the “more we reflect on this biblical text,” the more obvious it is that everything about our life “belongs not to Caesar but to God: our intellect, our talents, our free will, the people we love, the beauty and goodness in the world, our soul, our moral integrity, our hope for eternal life. These are the things worth struggling to ennoble and defend, and none of them came from Tiberius or anyone who succeeded him.”

Archbishop Chaput, always seeking to make the faith applicable, then asked, “So what does that imply for our actions right now, today, in public life?”

He explained that Catholics must speak and act in truth, they must live out the true description of a “Catholic,” they must be faithful to the Church, form their conscience properly, remember that the Church is non-partisan, defend life, treat others with charity and remember that being a more faithful Catholic leads to becoming a better citizen of one’s country.

He also emphasized that we cannot “call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal, but it’s never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices,” he stressed.

After listing the ways to be a more faithful Catholic in the public life, the archbishop reminded his audience that even if they haven’t adhered to the Church’s teachings in the past, “every breath we take is an opportunity for conversion and a new beginning.”

“Our task today, as fellow Catholics – here in Ireland, in the United States and everywhere the Church preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ – is to make ourselves helpers of God as He builds a culture of justice, mercy and life.”

Lest some balk at the seeming impossibility of building a culture of life in today’s society, Archbishop Chaput employed an example:

“Let’s imagine a society, with a complex economy and a strong military. It also includes many different religions, although religion tends to be a private affair or a matter of civic ceremony.”

“Within this society,” he continued, “not enough children are born to replenish the adult population or do the work to keep the society going.” Promiscuity, bisexuality, birth control and abortion are not only “widely practiced” but also “justified by leading intellectuals.”

“What society am I talking about? he asked. “Most of the Western world would broadly fit this description,” but “I just outlined the state of the Mediterranean world at the time of Jesus Christ.”

The archbishop then linked our current “post-Christian” society with the “pre-Christian” world. “The truth is, the challenges we face as European and American Catholics today are very much like those facing the first Christians.”

With these similarities, the prelate continued, “it might help to have a little perspective on how they went about evangelizing their culture. They did such a good job that within 400 years Christianity was the world’s dominant religion and the foundation of Western civilization...”

Early Christianity spread because “the Apostles and their successors, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. People believed in that Gospel,” which “meant changing their whole way of thinking and living. It was a radical transformation -- so radical they couldn’t go on living like the people around them anymore.”

“The early Christians understood that they were members of a new worldwide family of God more important than any language or national borders.” “They saw the culture around them, despite all of its greatness and power, as a culture of despair, a society that was slowly killing itself,” Archbishop Chaput said.

“Here’s the point I want to leave you with,” the archbishop said as he brought his address with a close. “If the world of pagan Rome and its Caesars could be won for Jesus Christ, we can do the same in our own day. But what it takes is the zeal and courage to live what we claim to believe.”

“Each of us has the vocation to be a missionary of Jesus Christ where we live and work and vote. Each of us is called to bring Christian truth to the public debate, to be vigorous and unembarrassed about our Catholic presence in society, and to be a leaven in our nation’s public life,” he charged.

“All of us here today already have that hunger to make a difference in our hearts. Now we need to act on it. Now we need to live it. So let’s pray for each other, and encourage each other, and get down to the Lord’s work.”

• Link

"List of bishops who responded to Speaker Pelosi"

Updated 8/30:

WDTPRS:

"I said that bloggers must unite in a cause. The cause is keeping the Communion – pro-abortion Catholic politician issue in the public eye.

Diane of Te Deum Laudamus is doing a great service by aggregating the response made by US bishops to Speak Pelosi’s incredible remarks on Meet the Press.

The list of bishops issuing personal statements is growing. I found more and will update this list, as I get them. Check for updates! St. Augustine would be proud (and his feast day is tomorrow). Most of these links are direct to the respective diocese.

• Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Conley of Denver
• Cardinal Egan of New York (probably the strongest statement)
• Archbishop Donald Weurl of Washington D.C.
• Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport on behalf of the USCCB (on USCCB homepage)
• Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs
• Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh (on homepage)
• Archbishop Neinstadt of St. Paul, MN (on homepage)
• Archbishop Gomez and Bishop Contu of San Antonio, TX (on homepage)
• Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND
• Bishop Farell of Dallas, TX NEW
• Bishop Murphy of Rockville Centre (Long Island) NEW
• Bishop Listecki of LaCrosse, WI NEW (added Aug 30)

More

Nothing from Niederauer

Prelates around the country react to Pelosi’s abortion comments – but San Francisco archbishop remains conspicuously silent

Bishops from New York to Denver have issued official statements from their chanceries and posted them to diocesan web sites in an attempt to set the record straight about what the Church teaches regarding abortion...

...Notably absent from this episcopal chorus was the voice of the bishop from Pelosi’s hometown, San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer. In a Feb. 4, 2007 interview on KCBS radio published in California Catholic Daily, Archbishop Niederauer told radio host Ed Cavagnaro, “Well, I have met on one occasion, with Speaker Pelosi, before she was Speaker Pelosi. It was last year. And I -- we’ve -- exchanged viewpoints on a number of things. At that time, it was last spring, and it was principally about immigration, because that was very much the hot-button topic of the time. We haven’t had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it."

Now he knows.

• Link