Archbishop Chaput on Inclusion--Need Sources

I’m a semi-informed Catholic trying to be better informed. Here’s something I’m struggling to understand. I assent to whatever the Church teaches. I’m just not clear on what that is exactly on this matter.

Back in October, Archbishop Chaput discussed the way American Catholics (including public figures like Vice President Biden) have adopted individualistic ideas. Chaput said that the Church should not include those who disagree with Church teaching and will not reform their lives according to Church teaching (see first link below).

Similarly, Karl Keating wrote that we should not receive Communion unless we believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist and about everything else (see second link below).

philly.com/philly/news/Transcript-Chaputs-remarks-at-Notre-Dame-University.html

catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/who-may-receive-communion%E2%80%94and-why

It seems to me–perhaps I’m mistaken or ignorant-- that priests and Bishops virtually never says things like that, and that most churchgoing Catholics would reject these ideas.

I myself do tend to agree with Chaput and Keating. And I certainly do assent to what they say if it is Church teaching.

But I want to make sure I’m not partly mistaken or being uncharitable.

Personally, by the way, I think its wrong that we are not charitably addressing the dissent in the Church, and related matters like weak Marian and Eucharistic devotion, not confessing sins, and the common practice of grave immorality like contraception.

But I’m having trouble finding proof that what Chaput and Keating say is actually Church doctrine, rather than merely being their opinion…

With my weak brain, I can’t find it in the Catechism, which does say, however, in number 1852 that those who practice dissension will not inherit the Kingdom (Gal 5:19-21)

I’m just trying to know what the Church teaches about inclusion in a balanced and truly merciful way.

I have two thoughts on the subject. First, “punching the Devil in the nose” makes a good sound bite, but when we are dealing with people, we are dealing with with the Devil’s victims, not the Devil.

Second, I think a distinction needs to be made between those who will not believe what the Church is teaching and those who do not believe what the Church is teaching. As no one is yet perfect, we all will have times when we might not believe what the Church is teaching. We simply cannot intellectually and honestly accept something. It is when we give up on trying to grow in our understanding and in a willful act cling to some ignorance we believe that we sin. In between these two states we not only may receive the Eucharist, but need the Eucharist for the grace and strength as we struggle on.

Thanks pnewton,

After reflecting on this more and talking to a wise friend, I think that Chaput and Keating are right, but that we need to understand them correctly.

When Chaput talked about punching the Devil in the nose, he was talking about Our Lady doing that to protect us from the Devil. I think he’s also saying that pastors need to be doing that by preaching the truth in love. But many are not doing that and so are in silent apostasy according to Chaput.

As I understand the Catechism, I’m happily required to assent to all of the faith–simply because it is the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit helps us to assent–even if I don’t see how it can be true. Chaput and Keating–as I understand it–are not talking about people who struggle with faith but keep praying,trying, assenting, trying to live out the faith, but doubt, fail, repent, confess, keep trying, trusting, struggling, etc.

They are talking about people who openly–whether speaking out in the world or in the parish-- and after being corrected, continue to obstinately rebel against God. And even those who don’t spread their error around… they should be told they are welcome at Mass but cannot receive Communion if they are obstinately doubting any part of the faith, which is the mortal sin of heresy, a (forgotten) sin against the first commandment.

Based on the speech, I think Chaput would say–to take contraception as an example–that priests need to explain why it’s intrinsically evil in the context of the Gospel about marriage, sex, procreation, and child-rearing. If the a person obstinately refuses to assent, then they should not consider themselves to be faithful Catholics, and they should not receive Communion–not until they repent and confess. If they are genuinely trying to assent to the Church’s teaching–despite difficulties–and to avoid the sin of contraception, and are confessing their sins, then I think that’s a different matter.

But today, many priests aren’t preaching the truth about major problems like heresy and contraception. And most churchgoing Catholics aren’t confessing their sins.

Anyway, that’s what I discerned. May the merciful Mother of God save us all.

You are more likely to find backing for their statements in Canon law, although the basis is in doctrine. Their comments are nothing new. You can find similar commentary going back at least 40 years, if not 50.

Archbishop Chaput isn’t the only bishop who has said this. Archbishop Rummel excommunicated politicians and placed whole areas under interdiction because of public opposition to Catholic teaching.
Public figures who identify themselves as Catholics should act like Catholics.

As I understand it, you are referring to Archbishop Joseph Rummel, who was the Archbishop of New Orleans from the mid 1930s-to the mid 1960s. I looked him up on Wikipedia.

What Church teachings were politicians rejecting? And I guess I don’t understand interdiction very well–but I assent to it if it is Church doctrine-- since it would seem to deprive many faithful Catholics of the the Sacraments like Penance and the Eucharist.

And today most churchgoing Catholics disagree with some teachings, like about contraception, but there is no interdiction–and usually no excommunication of politicians, unless I’m just ignorant.

Chaput, for his part, did not talk explicitly about excommunication or interdiction in his talk at Notre Dame. But has he done anything like that?

Papa Francis advocates for a more inclusive Church, one that is based on the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy, and not so much the Church of “NO”. The entire Western World is embroiled in a period of Xenophobia and in some places, blatent “White is Right” fascism, yet those who follow Chaput’s world view are much more interested in making sure that only pure Catholics who do not use contraception are called Catholic and able to receive the Holy Eucharist. I understand that I’ve been living in a coastal elitest bubble, but at least some of us understand that there are significant issues that affect our families and neighbors.:shrug:

The Church teachings that the politicians were rejecting is that we are all brothers in Christ no matter what our race. They were also rejecting the right of the Catholic Church to run her own affairs and who could and could not attend her schools and churches.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.