Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, a leader of the conservative wing of the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S., is denouncing President Trump’s critics for displaying what he says is unprecedented opposition to the new president.
And he suggested that the University of Notre Dame honor Trump with an honorary degree at graduation this spring.
“Since Inauguration Day critics of Donald Trump have marched, rioted, verbally abused and in some cases viciously assaulted their opponents on a scale previously unseen,” Chaput wrote in a column published Friday (Jan. 27) as he was in Washington for the annual anti-abortion March for Life.
I don’t like that Crux starts out by labeling him as a “leader of the conservative wing”. He’s a leader, period, not an ideologue.
There really shouldn’t be liberal/progressive or conservative wings in the Church. Christ is not liberal or conservative. He is truth and that is what all religious should teach.
I think the author of this article is David Gibson at Religion News Service and his article got put on Crux.
But there are, and always will be variance among people. There have always been this balance. The only danger lies in allowing that which is different becoming important, when that which unites us is infinitely greater. As to the honor, I don’t see the point, except as a balance to some of the other honorees Notre Dame has recognized.
I am grateful to see a bishop supporting orthodoxy.
I wonder if this is at least somewhat facetious. As pointed out the article, if Notre Dame can honor Obama and Biden because of their apparent social justice efforts–despite their support of abortion–why not honor Trump because of his pro-life efforts, despite his immigration position and others? +Chaput seems to be poking Notre Dame in the eye with these comments. And why not?
I think that’s the point.
This is sadly true. However, I don’t see a liberal or conservative approach to Catholicism as being a balance. The Word of Christ should never be politicized. His Truth is the only approach we should take.
We need to remember that in the Church, the words carry different meanings. Think of the gas pedal and the brake. If all were brake (conservative) the Church would not go any where. There sure wouldn’t be the need for the Holy Spirit to lead us in all truth. If all were accelerator, we would run off the road quickly.
So, you’re equating orthodoxy with supporting/honoring Trump?
I am glad to see that Trump is taking an anti-abortion stance, but he supports other things which I find morally reprehensible.
Such? Which policies has Trump implemented that you find reprehensible?
I don’t find any of his policies so far reprehensible, but I find him as an individual not worthy of honor by a Catholic university. His statements about women disqualify him in my opinion. The fact that his personal life is the complete opposite of family values also disqualifies him. Of course, I don’t think a Catholic university should have honored Obama or Biden either.
Support for the death penalty, lack of willingness to challenge gay marriage, immigration stance, denial of climate change and opposition to basic environmental regulations.
Not to mention the horrific things he’s said about women.
The USCCB is against Trump on all these issues.
How does Trump oppose “basic environmental regulations”? Trump has a mixed record in regards to climate change. Per Reuters:
“Trump told the New York Times in an interview that he thinks there is “some connectivity” between human activity and global warming, despite previously describing climate change as a hoax.”
But regarding immigration, climate change, and regulations for the environment - aren’t all three of these issues issues of prudential judgement?
From the debates in 2015:
Q: Would you cut departments?
TRUMP: Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations.
Regarding immigration, I’m not for a completely open border or anything. You can reasonably regulate immigration. However, I don’t see how he can simply deport millions of people at the stroke of a pen. Even the other Republicans during the debates said he was crazy. He has characterized Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers with rhetoric that reeks of populism rather than prudential judgement.
Being opposed to excessive overregulation (yes, the double modifier is intentional) does not mean one is opposed to climate change.
I used to like ND when it was catholic.