As reports continue to cite Catholics like Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine or Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as veep short-listers for Obama, the McCain camp appears to have countered with a little-noticed event that could have large implications should Obama try to shore up his Catholic flank with the No. 2 pick. Yesterday in Denver, John McCain and his wife Cindy met with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who is perhaps the most visible and outspoken churchman for denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols.
Chaput has also recently challenged Catholics who are thinking of voting for Obama that they could only do so if they will be able to explain their reasons, “with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life–which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.” (Chaput is even clearer on why Catholics cannot vote for pro-choice pols in his new book, “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.”)
With St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke having decamped to Rome to head the Vatican equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court–”The appointment is going to make every pro-choice Catholic politician very worried,” as church pundit Father Thomas Reese put it–Chaput is even more prominent, but also maybe more isolated within the U.S. hierarchy, a large majority of which does not agree with Chaput’s approach–just as he has made it clear he disagrees with his brother bishops.
So why is McCain reaching out to Chaput? The Denver prelate has no connection to McCain’s home state of Arizona, nor did McCain meet with Washington’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl. Chaput said afterwards that the meeting was private and no comment would be forthcoming. But McCain’s courting of the Colorado churchman could shore up his bona fides with religious conservatives across denominational lines, who are more likely to join together in an “ecumenism of the barricades” against liberals in their own churches than find common ground with their co-religionists.
A renewal of what Chaput called the “wafer wars” of the 2004 campaign–with pols and prelates battling over who is worthy to receive and who is not–would be ugly, but it might serve the McCain camp if it peeled off conservatives, especially some Catholics who have been flirting with Obama’s “catholic” (small “c” is intentional) vision of the common good. Will that give Obama pause when he looks at a potential Catholic running mate?
It took five centuries and a culture war, but maybe the Reformation is finally over. Now it’s schism all over.
posted July 31, 2008 at 2:43 pm
David,
Your post raises interesting questions about the way the two major-party Presidential nominees (both of them non-Catholic) are relating to leaders in the Roman Catholic Church.
McCain chose to met Archbishop Chaput in a private meeting. Obama, on the other hand, enjoyed a long-standing public (and mutually profitable) relationship with the controversial Fr. Michael Pfleger over the years. I wonder what we can surmise about McCain and Obama (and their attitude towards Catholicism) from those contrasting relationships?
As for your essay on the Chaput-McCain private meeting, you present several conjectures. There’s not much we can conclude, however, as the meeting was private and no statement was issued by the participants.
This much is certain: Catholic voters tend to break toward the “conservative/GOP” brand or the “liberal/Democratic” brand depending on their degree of fidelity to Church teachings and practice. The more often a Catholic attends Mass the more likely they are to support the GOP brand. Baptized Catholics with a less active sacramental life, by contrast, tend to embrace the Democratic brand. The exit polling data from the 2004 and 2006 elections, the various Pew Forum studies, etc. all support this conclusion.
Unless someone can provide some new data to challenge these assumptions, nothing said on this blog will change this pattern come November.
posted July 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“Obama, on the other hand, enjoyed a long-standing public (and mutually profitable) relationship with the controversial Fr. Michael Pfleger over the years.”
[citation needed]
posted July 31, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“Citizen of the Cosmos,” you asked for a citation. Well, here are two:
(1) The long standing nature of the Obama-Pfleger relationship is cited in a Chicago Sun-Times story on April 5, 2004 by Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani. The article is headlined “Obama: I have a deep faith”
(2) The “mutually-profitable” aspect of that relationship is described in a Chicago Tribune story on May 3, 2007 by Tribune reporters Ray Long, Ray Gibson and David Jackson. The article is headlined “State pork to Obama’s district included allies, donors”
Regarding the exchange of funds between Obama and Pfleger the Tribune story in May 2007 notes: “One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama’s campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to Pfleger’s church.” So much for separation of church and state.
It should also be noted that Father Pfleger had formally endorsed Obama’s Presidential candicacy. The text of the endorsement was on the Obama campaign website until the Pfleger was scandalized by a widely publicized sermon he gave a couple of months ago. In addition, Pfleger was listed as a spiritual adviser to the Presidential candidate … until the scandal broke.
posted July 31, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Reaganite: I don’t see how Obama’s relationship to a parish priest in Chicago–where Obama is from and in the community Obama calls home–is a demerit for him or even analagous to McCain seeking out a nationally prominent and politically important member of the hierarchy in the heat of a campaign–someone McCain apparently has had no previous relationship with. What’s the parallel? What’s your point?
posted July 31, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Reaganite,
I think you are quite wrong.
The more I have become more devout, the more I have become more liberal.
I am a liberal Democrat who believes that adoption should be encouraged much more than it is. I see many in the pro-life movement stomping their feet and raising a ruckus but doing little to reduce the number of abortions.
I live my life by Matthew 25 and follow the beatitudes.
The older I have become, the more liberal and also devout I have become.
I am a eucharistic minister at my parish and am currently organizing a “baby pantry” to help those unwed mothers who have chose life.
I believe that we are all called to do Christ’s work and treat others with love.
Therefore, I cannot be a Republican. I do not believe the poor should be punished, the environment should be protected, and that this war is unnecessary.
Obama’s friend who is a Parish Priest created a jobs program, afterschool programs, and did so much to help his community.
Plus, do not even get me started about how offended I was by Hagee’s comments on my faith.
Pax Christi.
posted July 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Personally if I was a Catholic, I’d resent having any church priest, or bishop or cardinal or pope telling me who I could vote for, based on the candidates stance on abortion. There are many, many other important issues that I would look into, such as what a candidate would do to straighten out this economic mess we’re in, how will they handle the Iraq war mistake (and the Afganistan conflict), taxes, funding for medical research, stance on illegal immigrants etc. There is more than one thing to consider when voting for a president.
It will be interesting to see who the candidates choose for their VP.
Denying a candidate communion because they might support a pro-choice candidate is again no business of the RCC, IMO. I would think that would be up to the conscience of the member whether they took communion or not.
posted July 31, 2008 at 11:00 pm
David Gibson: I have not doubt he appreciates the book plug, but I’m not sure where you get the notion that Abp. Chaput is “perhaps the most visible and outspoken churchman for denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols.”
Abp. Chaput has never endorsed denying communion to pro-choice politicians. In 2004, Abp. Chaput wrote in the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver: The current media turmoil over “denying Catholic politicians Communion” is filled with ignorance about the Church and the real meaning of the Eucharist. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. But the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church — whether they’re highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners — to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion.
I would say your characterization of Abp. Chaput is quite a distortion of who he is.
posted July 31, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I think David’s last sentence is very telling in a number of different ways. The recent collision between a few Catholic clergy and some politicians has pushed me father to the margins of the Church. I hold that abortion is morally unacceptable, but I also question the value and practicality of injecting a number of leaders in American institutional Catholicism into aspects of conservative politics. A policy of single-issue-voting will backfire when we as a Church become trapped within one political framework and become less and less able to change social policy in a Catholic way. Some might say this has happened already, and I’m inclined to believe them.
The Reformation generated sectarian war and divided whole nations over religious doctrines. How is today’s balkanization of American (and world) Christianity different? We may not take up arms against one another, but intolerance and sectarianism leave wounds as well. I hope the bishops return to a neutral stance and influence law through example, not the altar rail.
posted August 1, 2008 at 11:21 am
By the time the conventions have come and gone I expect both candidates will have been photographed serving as acolytes for one parish or another.
There is a curious bit of theology from the visited churchman, “Chaput has also recently challenged Catholics who are thinking of voting for Obama that they could only do so if they will be able to explain their reasons, ‘with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life’”. This seems far more inflammatory than good theology from any group or church.
posted August 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm
How is this inflammatory?
posted August 3, 2008 at 10:49 am
“… Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who is perhaps the most visible and outspoken churchman for denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols.”
Hardly. David Gibson’s credibility goes right into the commode with that statement. He should consider working for either The New York Times or CBS News since they are notorious for producing nonsense like that. Chaput pales in comparison to, and could learn a lot about what it takes to be a good, courageous, orthodox Bishop from Raymond Burke.
posted August 4, 2008 at 3:03 pm
AA Cunningham: You had me up until the last sentence. Chaput is a good, courageous, orthodox bishop. I’d like to know on what basis you would imply otherwise.
posted August 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Gibson should take the time to get his facts straight. Chaput has never — let me repeat that, never — pushed for denying politicians Communion, and if Gibson had actually taken the time to read what Chaput wrote in 2004 and what he reiterates and deepens in his new book, he would know that.
No bishop (or anyone else) is above criticism, but for heaven’s sake, we should at least be honest and informed in our comments. Gibson has done a sloppy job of reporting here, and violated justice and charity in the process.
posted August 12, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Apparently unlike Mr. Gibson, I’ve actually read Archbishop Chaput’s new book, and I’ve followed his comments on faith and the public square since the election in 2000. Gibson’s portrait of Chaput’s views is a caricature — and not just a caricature but flatly wrong. Gibson should be ashamed of himself. This is a hit job.
As for McCain asking to meet with with Chaput: Does anybody in the Obama camp know how to use a telephone? Because the last time I checked, most bishops feel obligated to meet with candidates from both major parties if any interest in a meeting is expressed by either party. And Chaput, if I recall his recent columns, started out as a Democrat. Gee, I wonder what forced him to leave?
posted August 24, 2008 at 9:04 am
I can’t imagine in any way shape or form that Archbishop Chaput would use the phrase “Wafer War”.
That is an offensive term to anyone who believes that a consecrated communion host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Please research this and get your facts straight. If you are wrong please post a retraction. It may seem trivial to some but it is not trivial.