Philadelphia, Pa., Feb 21, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia’s new book, released on Tuesday, takes a hard look at how Catholics in the United States can live their faith in a public square which has become post-Christian.
CNA recently spoke with Archbishop Chaput about Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World, published Feb. 21 by Henry Holt and Co.
During the conversation, the archbishop discussed the changes seen in American public life in recent years, the role technology has played in these changes, and the place of law in the country’s ethos.
He also touched on Christian hope, the central importance of fidelity to Christ, and the temptation of conformity to cultural norms.
Please read below the full text of CNA’s interview with Archbishop Chaput:
Why did you feel the need for a new book after “Render Unto Caesar”?
I think the nine years since the release of Render Unto Caesar have seen a generational change in America. Boomers are aging out of leadership. Younger people are moving in. Their civic formation and memory – their understanding of the nation, the role of religious faith in public life, the nature of the Church – are very different from my age cohort.
The 1960s generation, my age group, had the benefit of moral and intellectual capital built up over many decades. We borrowed on it, even while we attacked it. Now a lot of it is used up. That has political consequences for the country and pastoral consequences for anyone trying to preach and live the Gospel. For example, what does a word like “salvation” mean to people who’ve been told since birth that they’re basically pretty good already, and if they’re not, it’s the fault of somebody or some force outside themselves?
As Christians, we’re offering a salvific message in a therapeutic culture. It’s a tough sale.
Doesn’t “Strangers in a Strange land” as a title suggest a rather pessimistic view of the place Christians have in society today?
Realistic, yes; pessimistic, no. Optimism and pessimism are equally dangerous because both God and the devil are full of surprises. About three-quarters of Americans still self-identify as Christians. Tens of millions of them actively and sincerely practice their faith. I know dozens of young clergy and lay leaders who are on fire with God, and they’ll make a real difference in the world with their witness. So biblical faith still has an important influence on our public life.
But we’d be foolish to ignore the overall trends in American religious affiliation, which are not good.
You make the case in your book that we’re living in a “post-Christian world.” How so?
By “world” I mean mainly the developed countries of the north. In the global south, Christianity is generally doing very well and growing rapidly. But the north has the wealth and power, and therefore the ability to shape much of the dialogue about international trade, politics, and even history. Take a creature like the European Union. The EU very deliberately ignores 1,500 years of Europe’s Christian heritage and defines itself in purely secular terms, as if a huge part of its own past never happened. In effect, it tries to create a new reality by erasing its own memory.
That’s a harder trick to pull off in the United States, because we have no negative experience of religious wars or state Churches, the nation’s religious roots are still fresh, and religious practice is still high. But if you unpack the subtext in some of today’s militancy about tolerance and diversity, you find the same disdain for Christian faith and morality.
What do you see as the main factors that have changed America’s religious landscape?
Some of the change is inevitable and good because we’re a country built on immigration, and our demography naturally changes over time. More important, I think, is that many of the developments in our legal and educational philosophies and our sexual mores over the past 60 years have not been friendly to religious belief, and especially to Christian faith. At the same time, technology has fundamentally altered the way we learn, live and work, how we imagine the “supernatural,” and even how we think, or whether we think at all, about God.
You mention the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision as an emblem of the “many issues creating today’s sea change in American public life.” How so?
America is an invented nation. It has no history before the age of progress. It’s a country created and held together by law; and law not only regulates, it also teaches. Americans have an instinctive bias toward assuming that if it’s legal, it’s also morally acceptable. So what the law says about marriage, family and sex has a huge influence on how we actually live as a society. Obergefell was a watershed in how we view these things, and not for the better.
Can we find in our current circumstances some practical reasons for real hope, or are we Christians destined to live sort of “by hope alone”?
Jesus changed the world with 12 very flawed men. We have plenty of good men and women, and more than enough resources, to do the same. But not if we’re too self-absorbed and too eager to fit into the world around us to suffer for our faith. We’re not short of vocations. We’re short of clear thinking and zeal.
What makes Christian hope so radically different from the “hope and change” kind of political slogans common in the secular world?
Political slogans are designed to bypass the brain and go for the heart. They’re a shortcut that relieves people of the hard work of thinking. “Hope and change” is a classic example. The real issue in those words, which is never addressed, is why we should hope, and what kind of change do we want – because some change can be bad.
Christian hope is not an emotion. It’s based on our faith in a loving God, no matter how hard our circumstances. There’s a wonderful line in the King James Version of the Book of Job, where Job – who’s bitterly tested by God – says, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (13:15). That confidence, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, that’s the virtue of hope. And it’s very different from just choosing a positive outlook.
How does your vision of a great Christian past and a hopeful future differ from “Making America Great Again?”
The Christian past was great only to the degree that Christians were faithful to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. All the beauty of Christian art, music, architecture, culture and scholarship that we’ve inherited – all of it – depended on and derived from that fidelity. The same applies to how we build the future.
As for the country: We’ll make America great when we make America good. And that means laws and leaders and communities that embody justice, charity and a respect for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and including the refugee and immigrant. Otherwise, “making America great again” is just the latest version of “hope and change.”
You say in your first chapter that there are things we Christians “should not bear, should not believe, should not endure in civic life.” Wouldn’t that make us “culture warriors” rather than evangelizers?
Preaching, teaching, defending and suffering for what we believe about God and his love for us are part of a culture war that goes back to Golgotha. These things are also called witness.
You quote Václav Havel saying that “the only way to fight a culture of lies…is to consciously live the truth.” What would it mean to live the truth for rank-and-file Catholics today?
Every Catholic every day has little opportunities to speak up to explain or defend his or her faith. Nearly 200 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville – the great early chronicler of our nation’s life – noticed that Americans, despite all our talk about individual liberty, have a terror of being out of step with public opinion.
We don’t need more resources to renew the Church in the United States. We need more courage. And that begins with the honesty to live what we claim to believe as Catholics, whether public opinion approves or not.
[…]
I think it’s time for Pope Leo to fire the Archbishop of Detroit.
And perhaps rehire the (former) Bishop of Tyler, TX? And while he’s at it, rescind Traditionis Custodes and Fiducia Supplicans — all for starters.
Ken T, add to your list the correct and proper consecration of Russia to our Lady.
Amen!
. . .with the excuse that it wouldn’t be helpful to give any specific reason.
Agreed. The Pope put the pallium on the Archbishop of Detroit, so he can take it off. Am not holding my breath.
Since the pallium was placed this month, it is reasonable to think that Pope Leo wants Archbishop Weisenburger to be the Ordinary in Detroit. Everyone, including Cardinal McElroy, looks plenty happy here: https://www.detroitcatholic.com/archbishop-stories/receiving-the-sacred-pallium-from-pope-leo-xiv-in-rome
Ah well, It took several decades after Pope Honorius to get the necessary corrections. Jesus Christ is Lord. He was crucified and we follow Him. Witness the thousands of recent martyrs. https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/persecution-trends/
Pray and stay Catholic.
Appeal to Rmeu
No, Diogenes: a tit for a tat leads to the domino effect!
Br. Jaques, no! When injustice, abuse of power and a lack of charity are clearly demonstrated, a disciplinary response is called for. You’re correct, though, that retaliatory acts are uncalled for from any Christian . I’d classify the bishop’s acts as retaliatory.
I agree.
The “Spirit-of-Vadigun-Too” wages unrelenting war against The Word of Truth.
Perhaps it would deemed “unjust” if the Bishop Weisburger of Detroit should be relieved of his position without explanation by Leo XIV?
We shall see…
I don’t know this Bishop Weisenburger from a hole in the wall. I don’t know what his educational background is. I don’t know if he has the highest credentials in theological study or whether he’s like too many of our bishops in recent years who have graduate degrees in fields sociology and the like. I do know that bishops are like the rest of us i.e. given to one kind of sin over all the rest. Some of us are prone to the sin of avarice. Some of us to sins of lust. Some of us to the sin of sloth and some of us to the sin of envy. These alone do not exhaust the smorgasbord of sin to which man is prone.
But, I have begun to wonder whether about the motivation behind the bishop’s seemingly arbitrary, uncharitable and monomaniacal exercise of his episcopal office. I have begin to wonder whether the bishop here isn’t envious of the academic achievements of the three theologians involved in these seminary firings. I am wondering whether this relatively newly-appointed bishop isn’t a bit insecure in his role, eager to exercise power in his archdioese and just a bit envious of these highly-accomplished, well-published and well-regarded Catholic theologians. I don’t know the answer to these questions of mine since the answers lay wholly within the conscience of the bishop. It might be something that the bishop might want to address with his confessor the next time he meets with him.
DeaconEdwardPeitler have you ever heard of a well documented psychological condition know as Pathological Narcissism? If you haven’t, look it up and the scales might fall from your eyes about this Archbishop and a good few others of dubious reputation in the upper echelons of the Church.
My guess is that the skids were greased to fire these guys ahead of time through Cardinals Cupich and McElroy who sought Pope Leo’s approval.
Call me: I agree with your assessment that Cupich and McElroy are running the Church of Woke in America. In fact, they’re running the Catholic Church into the ground.
Weisenberger has also severely restricted the Trad Latin Mass is Detroit and forbade ad orientem posture by priests at Novus Ordo Masses. He also proposed Canton canonical penalties for Catholic ICE agents. He sounds very much like clerics Stowe, Cupich, and McElroy.
The Church has been wrong in the past (Saints – Joan ,Padre Pio . John of the Cross, to name only a few) but it is still the Church and we must accept its teaching and authority. Our leaders are human and they will sin and make mistakes, and we can question their motives and decisions; but at the end of the day we must either swallow our pride and go along with them or else jump ship and find another church.
I remember reading about the trials St. Louis de Montfort went through with his bishop.
Obedience is a very tough thing but necessary. Even when it doesn’t appear to make any sense.
not in today’s day and age of instant communication; you don’t have to live against the Gospel because the higher church authorities tell you it’s okay
James Connor: According to your warped thinking, it was fit and proper that those seminarians in the Metuchen and Newark dioceses should follow their bishop’s summons to his bed at the New Jersey beach house. Hmmm! It seems like we have a McCarrick apologist on our hands.
Make no mistake about it, we have a good many current bishops of the Bergoglian ilk who are followers of McCarrick and not followers of Christ. The Catholic Church is in dire trouble.
Believers are under no obligation to follow false, narcissistic, or sinful shepherds.
Thanks, dear ‘Athanasius’. This was always true . . .
The Holy Spirit of GOD, inspiring Saint Paul, warned us all:
” . . fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks [that is bishops] there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your guard . .” Acts 20:30 see, also, Ezekiel 3 . . .
Thank you for this article; now we have a glimpse about the “theological perspectives” now in play, and with this glimpse the added knowledge that the controversy is not confined to “seminary personnel matters” as claimed by the Archdiocese of Detroit.
Two points:
FIRST, Bishop Wiesenburger is mimicking “saint” Francis I who not long ago forced Cardinal Muller (then the Prefect for the CDC which is now demoted as one dicastery among many) to fire three of his subordinate priests in Rome. When asked for a reason, the saint responded: “I don’t need a reason; I’m the pope!” So, now, what chance do three (“rigid, bigoted and backwardist”) peasant laymen have in forwardist Detroit?
SECOND, Detroit, the scene of the nationwide and orchestrated Call to Action crescendo in October 1976 (repudiated by the American bishops a few years later) and about which Rev. Vincent Miceli SJ wrote later that same year:
“[….] The radicals demanded: 1) Divorced, remarried couples to receive Holy Communion while still living in adulterous unions. 2) Ordained women priests and bishops. 3) Women given the power to preach the Gospel with authority. 4) A reversal on the doctrine of artificial birth control. 5) A mitigation of the doctrine on abortion. 6) A teaching approving Marxism, Socialism and pacifism as doctrinally true and morally good practice. 7) A denial of the right to property and to reasonable profit. 8) The creation of a new Church, democratic, non-hierarchical in structure, a classless church” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4544
SUMMARY: Sound familiar? “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Beautiful. I was wondering who had been urging Weisenburger prior to his decision, eg., who from among the charismatics that Martin was working with and to whom he was making presentations in the last couple of years or so.
Feedback that is getting stopped up is not dialogue or openness or accompaniment, etc., it’s something else. Back in the day they were just speaking out and acting out, now they’re controlling and harnessing information.
Which could mean also that in the case of Martin (for example) it could be he had gotten set up and it then is impossible to clear the air on it.
There are now three vacancies at the Seminary that will have to be filled and so far we are able to identify only maybe a couple or maybe a handful of Weisensplainers.
These unjustified terminations were preceded by a full frontal attack on the liturgy in Detroit parishes, not only the Traditional Latin Mass but also any practice during a Novus Ordo Mass that would promote the teachings of the Catholic Faith. This tells you all you need to know about this Bishop Weisenburger. I suspect Pope Leo will do nothing. In everything but style, he is Francis 2.0.
“One thing all three now-former faculty members have in common is that they criticized Pope Francis publicly during the late pope’s pontificate” (McDonald for CNA).
During that period of darkness it was an obligation for the informed Catholic to underline the errors of Francis I – for sake of the salvation of souls including their own.
Our present concern is where will Pope Leo, who calls himself a disciple of Francis I – stand on this issue. Most US cardinals are either Pope Francis appointees or have similar leanings on doctrine.
Interesting that neither side is giving any full explanations. On the surface, it appears that the Archbishop is basically saying “my way or the highway”. But we don’t know that. If the three fired men pursue lawsuits, maybe then the full story will be revealed. Good or bad.
Having talked to one of the three professors, I’m quite certain that there is nothing to explain from their side. They were fired and were given no explanation why they were fired, even when they directly asked the question. So, yes, this will likely have to come out via legal channels.
Oh yes, you can trust that the full story will be revealed.
All three of these guys were too old. Time to retire and prepare for the Kingdom.
Kevin, would you mind telling us just how old you are?
Nope.
Conversely, it is likely that the Bishop Weisenburger is not too Christian.
Then give them a gold watch, a party and a pat on the back. No, these firings are a message to all at the seminary.
Don’t be a tall poppy…
At root in all of these firings is a willingness boldly teach seminarians the full Truth of Christ and proclaim everywhere the Gospel, especially: Humanae Vitae, pro-life, Heaven/Hell, sexual morality, and other unpopular teachings of Christ.
Aside from the issues Pope Leo appears an amiable, welcoming kind, as some say refreshing compared to the previous. We’ve about reached the one hundred day mark. Although there remain monumental unresolved issues for the ordinary Catholic. Leo seems impervious.
Perhaps, in a benevolent sense he has a laissez faire attitude, as many hold God is in charge, things will work themselves out in good time. But did Christ not institute the papacy for his vicar to defend the faith, or to simply be a smiling, quiet, nice guy? If so, we may as well have elected the old cigar store wooden Indian.
I do happen to agree with your thoughts on this matter.
I also remember the early days of the Bergoglian Papacy when the Faithful bent over backwards to give Francis the benefit of the doubt. But after awhile, even the most tolerant threw up their hands and said we’ve had enough of this guy running Holy Mother Church into the ground. As for me, I am happy that Bergoglio has vacated the See of Peter. That said, I doubt many of us will be as forebearing of Leo if he does not act more decisively in defending the Body of Christ against bad shepherds. Until then, we are sheep without shepherds.
Like that of most of right wing conservative Catholic media platforms, CWR’s framing and most subsequent readers’ comments about the firings at Sacred Heart Major Seminary take a narrow, sympathetic narrative that omits key context and consequences. While Canon Law professor Edward Peters’ credentials and academic contributions are notable, his and his colleagues’ public, sustained criticisms of Pope Francis, delivered not only in academic settings but in media interviews and blogs, crossed from scholarly discourse into disloyal and disrespectful ideological opposition. This pattern of dissent, cloaked in theology, contributed significantly to a toxic culture of “popebashing” within sectors of the U.S. Church – like here in CWR!
Critics may accuse defenders of these firings of “popesplaining,” but when Church unity and clerical formation are undermined by those tasked with upholding them, accountability is not censorship—it’s leadership. Archbishop Edward Weisenburger, newly installed in Detroit, acted not rashly but necessarily to restore order to a seminary long regarded as a bastion of anti-Francis sentiment. His actions reflect fidelity to the Church’s ecclesiology: that clergy and educators must uphold communion with both bishop and pope.
Though Peters has indicated legal action, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hosanna-Tabor decision (2012) affirms the wide latitude religious institutions hold in hiring and dismissing ministers and educators. His case, therefore, is unlikely to gain legal traction.
Ultimately, Archbishop Weisenburger did not create a scandal, he ended one. His firm action affirms that the Church must not be hijacked by culture war factions, but instead be defined by fidelity to the Gospel, unity with the pope, and a mission rooted in mercy and compassion. With the election of Pope Leo XIV, who is committed to continuing Pope Francis’s reforms, it is clear that the Church’s direction favors communion over division, and pastoral care over ideological rigidity. These dismissals, while regrettable on a personal level, were essential to preserve the integrity of priestly formation in Detroit.
Thank you, Michael Sean Winters, for your comment. I suspect it will not age well.
About legal action, what about Canon 221:1?
Dr. Peters did an excellent job castigating Mary McAleese, the ex Irish president who gained a JCD at the Gregorian and subsequently used it to attack the faith, Well done Dr Peters!
Bishop Hamburgler should be investigated for covering up, or committing, sexual abuse against minors. The worst heretics are always the worst perverts as well.
Diogenes: No Catholic (or Christian) is obliged to obey an immoral act requested by a superior, this also applies in the military. In this case it IS The bishop’s prerogative to make staff decisions and changes in his diocese. It’s my understanding that the Sacred Heart seminary is a diocesan seminary and is under the bishops jurisdiction. Make no doubt about it, I am and have been for many years and admirer of Ralph Martin and his work and he has been in my and is in my daily prayers. I also was delighted with the seminary and the numerous of exemplary priests that they helped to form and I am saddened that they can no longer teach there. That said,however, it was the bishop’s decision and clearly within his administrative right. We don’t need to agree with him, but we must accept his decision. Not being in his diocese, I don’t feel that I am in a position to express my opinions to him. If I lived in Detroit I may have second thoughts. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have about what I stated previously. God bless , James
If anyone was disloyal and disrespectful it was Francis, him and his Liberation Theology so-called Catholics cronies. Just a truly sorry excuse for a Pope.
The Deacon Dom comment is the National Catholic Reporter set of talking points.
Praise the Lord, I think my little itsy Detroit points here and there cut deep when they got to it.
In this case, I learned more from comments than the “firings” per se. Thank you, and now due to the news, I (and others) have three more persons to explore regarding perspectives on the Papacy of Pope Francis (though I had previously known a bit of Edward Echeverria’s writings). Cannot make a full omelet without cracking some eggs. All will be good in the end, and Truth will prevail.