Chaput, McCain and not-so-distant thunder from the Catholic "wafer wars"...

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"... 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.

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.

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.