![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Archbp. Chaput on Fox News about Speaker Pelosi
UPDATE: We now have the video!
Neil Cavuto of Fox News just interview the Archbishop of Denver, His Excellency Most Reverend Charles Chaput. He spoke about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s serious errors about the beginning of human life made last Sunday on Meet The Press. He also clarified why pro-abortion Catholics are in serious error and should not receive Holy Communion.
Here is the audio.
Perhaps we can hunt up the video too.
08-08-28 FNC Cavuto & Archbp. Chaput on Pelosi [4:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
08-08-28 FNC Cavuto & Archbp. Chaput on Pelosi: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Very nice! Somebody should really brief these interviewers on etiquette; he kept referring to Bp. Chaput as “Father” instead of “Your Excellency”, but that’s a minor quibble, at best. Whenever I hear him speak, I miss having Bp. Chaput as my metropolitan bishop (is that the right term?).
Comment by Eric the Read — 28 August 2008 @ 4:35 pmCalling him Father was getting on my nerves a little too, especially when Neil said he was a Catholic. But I’m a stickler for etiquette in church matters. Technically speaking, since the holy orders build on, not override, each other he wasn’t totally wrong.
Comment by Baron Korf — 28 August 2008 @ 7:41 pmI was a HUGE stickler for etiquetter up until about 10 years ago. I used to refer to bishops in the plural when speaking in Italian (“Dio vi salvi, vostra eminenza”). I started “dropping off” after the first few times I met with JP II who fostered a more familier tone (I thought it was because he was not a native Italian speaker, but I now know it was his overall personality and agenda). Since then, I had noticed many bishops themselves do not expect to be called your excellency, or allow you to kiss their ring. So, you can’t blame Neil, when there is no consistency on the part of the church these days.
Comment by Deusdonat — 28 August 2008 @ 7:48 pmMaybe Neil’s a prophet, and Chaput’s destined to be Pope.
I mean, if it’s on television, it must be true. :)
Comment by Maureen — 28 August 2008 @ 8:20 pmThe video is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJD0xxaYpOU
Comment by Jason — 28 August 2008 @ 8:27 pmWhy not call bishops Father Bishop like we call an Abbot Father Abbot?
Comment by BCatholic — 28 August 2008 @ 9:00 pmMan, this is a report on the genocide of abortion – someone is giving Chaput a chance to explain it as it really is, and all you guys care about is etiquette? These unborn lives are FAR more important.
Comment by Eric — 28 August 2008 @ 10:39 pmI have know a lot of bishops in my life, and I have never met one who was not complimented to be called father.
Comment by John — 28 August 2008 @ 11:06 pm“...and all you guys care about is etiquette?”
I don’t think anyone’s comments above reflected that.
Comment by MPod — 28 August 2008 @ 11:20 pmI miss having Bp. Chaput as my metropolitan bishop (is that the right term?).
Comment by Eric the Read — 28 August 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Eric: metropolitan only applies to archbishops who are heads of a province. There are some archbishops out there who only have their own sees, but have the dignity of being an archbishop, but must all archbishops outside the Curia are metropolitan archbishops who have their sees and then the other sees of their province.
Comment by Jacob — 28 August 2008 @ 11:29 pmWhen Pope Benedict took Archbishop Burke it was a crushing blow but I see he left an excellent replacement. This Archbishop takes no prisoners and is superb at interviews. Articulate, crisp and clear and takes no prisoners. The more I see him the more I love him. It’s impressive how our hierarchy are standing up to the plate together. Well many of them anyway. Waiting with baited breathe for a certain article tomorrow from SF. :)
Comment by Anne — 29 August 2008 @ 12:02 amand all you guys care about is etiquette?
Uh…if you have the ability to peruse the recent 15 or so threads, you’d see that we have been talking about the issue of abortion extensively. So, you can take your head, put it between your legs and take large deep breaths until you calm down.
Comment by Deusdonat — 29 August 2008 @ 12:21 amWell, come on, it was obvious Neil was trying to be respectful but was just honestly ignorant about the appropriate manner in which to address a bishop (as 99% of Catholics are nowadays, I’m sure). The blame is more the two generations-worth of lousy Catholic catechesis and destruction of Catholic culture and identity.
Comment by Johnny Domer — 29 August 2008 @ 12:23 amHe seems to be taking the view that only a bishop can make this determination, whereas +Burke was clear that such a person was simply to be denied communion. Again I say seems, he might just as well say that a pastor of a parish can and should as long as he talks to the guy first. But it seems on such a clear issue that obstinacy is publicly manifested.
Comment by Joshua — 29 August 2008 @ 1:57 amAlso note that “Father” is not really an official term anyway. The priestly equivalent of “Your Excellency” is “Your Reverence.” So technically, one is always “incorrect” etiquette-wise when calling anyone “Father” – it is an inherently colloquial term of affection.
Comment by Paul — 29 August 2008 @ 2:18 am>Why not call bishops Father Bishop like we call an Abbot Father Abbot?
We call.In our language, of course. But in non-official cases.
Comment by ekurlowa — 29 August 2008 @ 4:23 amIn official: “Your Exellency” or “Domne” (in Russian,too)
I’m speaking about Catholic bishop :)
Fr Z thanks for posting the link. I watched Fox last night, but didn’t turn it on until later. I’m glad I was able to see it here this morning.
Comment by Mary Bruno — 29 August 2008 @ 5:23 amFr.Z Thanks for posting this. I think it’s wonderful that Archbishop Chaput took the opportunity to address Fox viewers about this matter. I wish a lot more bishops would take the golden opportunity and get their faces on national tv and make the case.
Comment by ckdexterhaven — 29 August 2008 @ 6:47 amThank God for the bishops who are standing up and doing their job as leaders of the Church. So far there is only silence from Archbishop George H. Niederauer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The Archdiocese of San Francisco web site contained this statement: “Archbishop George Niederauer will address recent comments by Pelosi in a column in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.” I truly do not understand this. How difficult would it have been for the archbishop to step up to a microphone within hours of seeing the interview and simply stating that the Speaker was incorrect in her statement on Church teaching on abortion, that the Church has ALWAYS taught that abortion is evil and never justified, and that a more detailed response will follow. Why is that so difficult?
Comment by rj57 — 29 August 2008 @ 7:22 amSpeaking of etiquette , is anyone else impressed how gentle moderate and charitable the Archbishop was? Not that he avoided the issue, he called abortion a foundational issue and he said that disagreeing meant that a Catholic must reconsider their faith. He gave a major warning but very gently delivered it carefully avoiding a definitive pronounced about Pelosi in the absence of speaking with her privately first. All class – what a model servant.
Comment by Memphis Aggie — 29 August 2008 @ 7:28 amDoes anyone suppose Nancy Pelosi has confused the words ‘ardent’ and ‘absent’?
Comment by Broadsword — 29 August 2008 @ 8:04 amSomeone made the comment that Abp Burke’s stance was more on denial of communion. While True, the Bishops, however, are correcting Pelosi’s error since she seemed to have defined a magisterium that was superior in her mind to that of Mother Church. She “re-defined” doctrine to suit her whims based on a misreading of St. Augustine. Theologians can debate all they want, but when you come down to it, the Magesterium is above the whims of theologians (no offense to all theologians out there!).
Comment by HQD — 29 August 2008 @ 9:09 am@Memphis Aggie:
Excellent observation.
I’m reminded of the story of the Cure of Ars telling a penitent that he would be going to hell for falling into the same sin repeatedly, even after repeated sacramental confession (anyone familiar with the story please refresh my memory as I cannot find it). It hit the penitent hard, as I recall, but it had a salutary effect.
Somehow I think St. John Vianney’s delivery was more like Abp. Chaput’s than the “fire and brimstone” stereotype too often marketed to us.
How does one say to another, “You’re on your way to hell?” If you’re the spiritual father of a child, you say it with quiet firmness and great sorrow, without a trace of anger or irony.
“Friend, whereto art thou come?”
Kudos to the Archbishop. Pray for Nancy, those like her, and those who are enabled by those like her.
Comment by Aristotle A. Esguerra — 29 August 2008 @ 9:51 amReports confirm that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his presidential running mate.
Comment by semperficatholic — 29 August 2008 @ 10:11 amDallas Morning News
Semperfi – I saw that! I am SO happy he didn’t choose the pagan Romney. Thank God for small favours.
Comment by Deusdonat — 29 August 2008 @ 10:17 amPublic figures and media seem to think that the only time one is not to received Holy Communion is when the priest publicly denies it. But the responsibility is on the receiver more than the giver, and this is not being stated clearly by even the Archbishop. Its like: ‘you’re not guilty unless Father confronts you.’
Comment by Fr W — 29 August 2008 @ 4:18 pmFor those who want more of Chaput, his book Render Unto Ceasar has just been published.
Comment by homeinrome — 30 August 2008 @ 5:39 amIs he on his way to New York?
Comment by homeinrome — 30 August 2008 @ 5:41 amGod bless this Bishop for being a Good Shepherd.
Comment by William M. Grothus — 31 August 2008 @ 7:28 amAmen