Archbishop Chaput on Faith and Politics

Not only does religion have a place in the public square, a democracy needs the input of religious morals and convictions to remain healthy and strong, says the archbishop of Denver.

Taking religion out of play, adds Archbishop Charles Chaput, author of "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life," is the fastest way to destroy a democracy.

In this interview with ZENIT's Karna Swanson, Archbishop Chaput talks about the ideas put forth in his book on Catholics and politics, and comments on what he thinks are the important issues facing voters this November.

Q: Catholicism in the public square in the United States has had a long and complicated journey, and you say that Catholics have a lot to offer the political process, but that more often than not they keep their beliefs and convictions separate from their political actions. Why is that?

Archbishop Chaput: Catholics have always been a minority in the United States, and prejudice against Catholics in this country has always been real, even before the founding. Sometimes the bias has been indirect and genteel. Just as often it has taken more vulgar forms of economic and political discrimination, and media bigotry. Either way, prejudice always fuels the appetite of a minority to fit in, to achieve and to assimilate, and American Catholics have done that extraordinarily well -- in fact, too well.

In the name of being good citizens, a lot of Catholics have bought into a very mistaken idea of the “separation of Church and state.” American Catholics have always supported the principle of keeping religious and civil authority distinct.

Nobody wants a theocracy, and much of the media hand-wringing about the specter of “Christian fundamentalism” is really just a particularly offensive scare tactic. The Church doesn’t presume to run the state. We also don’t want the state interfering with our religious beliefs and practices -- which, candidly, is a much bigger problem today.

Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic.

Q: A chapter of the book was dedicated to St. Thomas More. In the same chapter you mention John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president of the United States. What is the fundamental difference between these two Catholic political leaders?

Archbishop Chaput: As I say in the book, we should be wary of drawing too close a parallel between More’s situation and the problems facing American public officials. But More and his friend John Fisher stay so vivid in our memories for a reason. They kept their integrity at the cost of everything they had, including their lives. They put God before Caesar.

As for Kennedy, we need to remember the context of his 1960 campaign. Kennedy had plenty of talent and courage, but he also had to overcome 200 years of ingrained Protestant suspicion.
Unfortunately, in easing those Protestant fears, he created a new and very flawed Catholic model of separating public service from private conviction. He was acting in good will, and of course he couldn’t see the future -- but he did a great deal of damage. Over the past 40 years, his example has guided every Catholic public official who is “personally opposed” to some grave evil, but won’t do anything about it. We’re still suffering the effects.

Q: You also note that the new media culture has created a new environment for public debate in which a "serious marketplace of ideas" is replaced by sound bites. How can faithful Catholic politicians operate in this environment?

Archbishop Chaput: There’s no easy answer to that. American Catholics need to take a much more critical attitude toward the mass media, including the news industry. Many very good people work in journalism, for example. But the picture of reality reported by the news media is always colored by at least three things: the technology of the medium, the need to make a profit and the bias of the organization.

What we see and hear in political reporting is often a dumbed-down version of the facts. Individual citizens need to be alert to how the media shape public appetites and mold our opinions. And Catholic political officials need to learn how to use the media -- honestly, of course -- and not be used by them.

Q: Did you hope the book, which was published months ahead of the presidential elections in the United States, would impact the election process in some way?

Archbishop Chaput: Actually, I finished the text in July last year and made final revisions last November. I wanted the book to appear in March this year to put some space between it and the campaign season. But the publisher makes those decisions.

It’s not my intention, in the book or anywhere else, to tell people how to vote. I don’t endorse candidates, I don’t use code language to get people to like or dislike any political party. That’s not the job of a pastor.

People need to vote their conscience. But “conscience” doesn’t miraculously appear out of nothing; it’s not a matter of personal opinion or private preference. Conscience is always grounded in truth bigger than ourselves. People who claim to be Catholic need to be honest with themselves and with the believing community. They need to really act “Catholic” in private and in public, and that includes the way they make their political choices. And it’s very much the job of a pastor to teach Catholics their faith and to encourage them to apply it.

Q: In this election year there seems to be more talk of "wider" social issues that Catholics should consider when voting. How do you see this trend? And what do you see as the biggest issues facing Catholic voters this November?

Archbishop Chaput: The moral witness of the Church doesn’t change, whether it’s an election year or not. We face a lot of very important issues this fall: the economy, immigration reform, the war in Iraq. These are urgent and compelling, but they can’t be used as an excuse to ignore the unborn child.

No matter how much we want to cover it over with talk about “wider social issues,” the abortion struggle remains the foundational social issue of our time. There’s no way of wriggling around the profits, the brutality and the injustice of abortion with pious language or theatrical gestures. Abortion is legalized homicide. It has to stop. Every other right depends on the right to life.

Q: The book is written mainly for a U.S. audience as it directly speaks of the Church in the United States. What could an international audience take away from the book?

Archbishop Chaput: All Catholics, wherever they live, whatever their country, need to remember that we’re citizens of heaven first. That’s our home. We serve our nation in this world best by living our Catholic faith fully and authentically, and bringing our Catholic witness for human dignity vigorously into our nation’s political life.

We need to stop being embarrassed to speak and work for the truth. We can be disciples, or we can be cowards. In today’s world, there’s no room for anything else. We need to choose.

Media Double Standards Become Even More Obvious

Just finished reading the following article in National Journal from Stuart Taylor, Jr., who typically leans left of center. The blatancy of the liberal bias from the mainstream media during this presidential election is becoming even too obnoxious for people like him...

=====================================

Campaign Lies, Media Double Standards

The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.

by Stuart Taylor
Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008

Some who have been admirers of John McCain think that the war hero has debased himself by using gross distortions to trash Barack Obama and his record. Others see the media fury over McCain's campaign ads as more evidence of a double standard driven by liberal bias at most major news organizations.

Both are right. Although each candidate is responsible for many distortions -- hardly a novelty -- McCain has lately been leading the race to the bottom. (Since the print version of this column went to press, Obama may have pulled even with McCain in the race to the bottom, or even ahead of him, by launching a scurrilously dishonest new Spanish-language TV ad. It misleadingly portrays McCain "and his Republican friends" as anti-immigrant bigots who say "lies just to get our vote." It also associates McCain with deceptively out-of-context quotes by Rush Limbaugh -- no friend of McCain's -- about "stupid and unskilled Mexicans." Jake Tapper of ABC News provides details.)

At the same time, many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.
We still have many great journalists, but I no longer trust the major newspapers or television networks to provide consistently accurate and fair reporting and analysis of all the charges and countercharges. This in an era when the noise produced by highly partisan TV hosts and blogs creates a crying need for at least one newspaper that we can count on to play it straight.
Indeed, one reason that candidates get away with dishonest campaign ads and speeches may be that it is so hard for undecided voters like me to discern which charges are true, which are exaggerated, and which are false. Most people can't spend hours every day cross-checking diverse sources of information to verify the accuracy of slanted stories and broadcasts such as these:

* In Sarah Palin's first big media interview, on September 11, Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked: "You said recently, in your old church, 'Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' Are we fighting a holy war?" Palin responded: "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote." Gibson pressed: "Exact words."

Viewers had no way of knowing that, in fact, Gibson was distorting Palin's meaning by leaving out critical context and thus making an unremarkable exhortation to prayer sound like a declaration of holy war. Palin had not said that the war was a task from God. She had urged her listeners to "pray" that it was a task from God. A September 3 Associated Press report by Gene Johnson distorted Palin's meaning in exactly the same way.

* A front-page story in the September 12 Washington Post, by Anne Kornblut, was headlined: "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska." This was misleading, as were the first two paragraphs. They implied that Palin had advanced the long-discredited "idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." In fact, Palin's reasonably clear meaning was not that Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attacks but that (as the article backhandedly acknowledged) the troops would be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is related to the group that launched the 9/11 attacks.

* The New York Times did a huge (3,120-word) front-page story on February 21 implying that McCain had had a sexual affair with a female lobbyist while doing her political favors. But the article lacked strong evidence either that there had been a sexual affair or that McCain had crossed legal or ethical lines to do favors. Would The Times have printed the same story had the senator been Barack Obama or John Kerry? I doubt it.

* The Times also rushed to assert, in a front-page story on September 2 questioning how carefully McCain vetted Palin's background, that she "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede." This turned out to be erroneous. (Her husband had previously been a member.)

This is not to deny that McCain deserves much of the criticism he has received for his distortions about Obama. But not all of it. Take the ad on which the most-bitter media complaints -- "blizzard of lies" and the like -- have focused. It asserts that Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

But the bill was not Obama's (he was not a sponsor), was not an accomplishment (it never passed), and would not have been his "only" accomplishment even if it had passed. More important, it called for extending only "age appropriate" sex ed from sixth grade down to kindergarten. There is no reason to doubt Obama's explanation that he wanted kindergartners to be taught only the dangers of inappropriate touching.

But a Times editorial overstated the case in saying that "the kindergarten ad flat-out lies" and that "at most, kindergartners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." In fact, whatever Obama's intention, the bill itself was designed "to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children below sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten," as Byron York demonstrates in a detailed National Review Online article.

McCain has also lowered himself by claiming repeatedly, and incorrectly, that Obama's proposals would raise taxes on the middle class. (In fact, Obama would cut middle-class taxes more than McCain would.) And his campaign has descended into fatuousness by implausibly claiming that Obama was trying to demean Sarah Palin when he used the "lipstick on a pig" analogy to criticize McCain's economic proposals.

Obama seems to prefer a more civil discourse. But he, too, has sometimes lowered himself, without provoking anything like the media outcry against McCain. Obama falsely claimed in February that McCain "is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq." In fact, McCain had made it clear that just as "we've been in Japan for 60 years," he could see a 100-year presence in Iraq -- but only "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

More recently, Obama has run misleading ads claiming that McCain has voted to cut education funding and would give "$200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools"; implying that his aides are still lobbying for special interests; and more.
McCain also deserves criticism for the ugly culture-warring epitomized at the Republican convention by Rudy Giuliani's keynote speech and sneers about Obama's stint as a community organizer. But who started the culture-warring? Democratic talking heads and pols -- although not Obama -- heaped disdain on Palin's social class, religion, and anti-abortion values from the moment that McCain plucked her from obscurity.

I was deeply dismayed by the 72-year-old McCain's reckless choice of the inexperienced and untested Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. But I am also deeply skeptical when I see front-page headlines like "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood" (Washington Post, September 14), or "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes" (New York Times, same day). Such loaded language is a badge not of a newsroom committed to impartial investigation but of an ideological echo chamber.

Many media commentators also exude a conviction that Republicans have long played dirtier and more dishonest political hardball than do Democrats. Maybe, but I'm not so sure. We are often reminded of Republican sins ranging from the (accurate) Willie Horton ads of 1988 to the (over-the-top) "Swiftboating" of 2004. We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck.

Ironically, there is some evidence that media venting about McCain's ads may be helping McCain. The venting, especially on TV gabfests, draws much more attention than the ads themselves, while distracting attention from the issues on which Obama wants to focus. Indeed, reportedly the McCain campaign often buys little or no TV time to air the ads, preferring to get them on the air free, denunciations and all.

Consider also a fascinating Washington Post piece by Shankar Vedantam on September 15. He cites studies showing not only that "misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds [even] after it has been debunked" -- especially among those predisposed to believe it -- but also that refutations sometimes backfire by increasing the number of people who believe the original misinformation.

The studies found this refutation "backfire effect" among conservatives but not liberals. Part of the explanation may be that conservatives have more-rigid views than liberals, as political scientists quoted by Vedantam suggest. And part of it may be that conservatives have more reason to distrust the usual refuters.

Correction: My September 13 column erred in saying that in 2003, as an Illinois legislator, Barack Obama "unsuccessfully" opposed a bill nearly identical to the federal "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." In fact, he helped kill the bill.

McCain's Bold Move

It's been 24 hours since McCain's public announcement that he would suspend his campaign on Thursday and bypass the first presidential debate with "The Messiah" (a.k.a. Barrack Hussein Obama) on Friday night in order to ensure his full and active participation as a U.S. Senator on the financial bailout legislation currently under consideration in the Congress.

I must admit that my first reaction was "What the heck is he doing now?!" It was an extremely bold move, especially when considering he has lost all of his post-convention bump and is back to trailing by a few points nationally in most polls. McCain has been making some serious mistakes in his campaign over the past few weeks (see tomorrow's R.C. Blog post...).

As you have probably already read in the mainstream newspapers this morning, they are profiling McCain as "scared", "overreacting", or "running away from the debate". Regarding the debate, nothing could be further from the truth. Without a teleprompter, Obama is going to have trouble speaking, let alone articulating, his positions on issues. Regardless of his actual performance, the press will tearfully praise him and compare him to Martin Luther King.

After sleeping on it, I feel a little bit better (only a little...) about the move to suspend the campaign. Only time will tell if this move was successful or a disaster in the eyes of voters, especially the estimated 18 percent in our country who have not yet made a decision on their candidate. It could be the "tipping point" of the entire campaign. For those opposed to Marxism invading our country starting January 20, 2009, I hope and pray that voters look at the move as bold and presidential.

Seven Sons Lay Hero Dad to Rest

Here's an article from this week's National Catholic Register on a Northern Virginia Catholic gentleman who truly gave his life to his family. As a society, we need to stop idolizing the musicians, athletes, and actors and give credit to heroes and role models like Mr. Vander Woude.
=================================

Thomas Vander Woude Died as He Lived — Giving His Life for a Son

BY Tim Drake
Register Senior Writer

September 28-October 4, 2008 Issue

NOKESVILLE, Va. — The story of a Catholic father dying to save his son started being told in a small town in Virginia. Then on the front page of the The Washington Post. Then it began to be repeated on blogs and in online discussions from coast to coast.

But those who know him say they always knew Thomas Vander Woude was special. Whether it was installing a gymnasium floor, training altar boys or coaching sports, when the daily communicant father of seven saw a need, he stepped in.

That trait led to the ultimate sacrifice on Sept. 8, when he dove into a septic tank to save the life of his son.

Anne Carroll, director of Seton High School, in Manassas, where Vander Woude coached, served on the board and volunteered, said Vander Woulde sacrificed for others “on a daily basis.”
“He died as he lived,” Carroll said.

Born in Sioux Falls, S.D., in 1942, Vander Woude left the farm to join the Navy. A pilot, he served the country for 17 years and was a Vietnam War veteran. He married Mary Ellen Earley in 1964, and the couple raised seven sons: Tom, Steve, Dan, Bob, Chris, Pat and Joseph. In 2002, he retired after 26 years as a commercial airline pilot. Between 2002 and 2007, he served as athletics director at Christendom College in Front Royal.

The more than 2,000 people, 70 priests and one bishop who attended his funeral Mass on Sept. 15 at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Gainesville, all came to pay their respects to a man who inspired them not only in life, but also in death.

Vander Woude’s son Father Thomas Vander Woude celebrated the Mass and gave the homily. Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., presided.

A Selfless Life

Vander Woude’s life was marked by selflessness and humility. His third son, Dan, who lives next door to his parents in Nokesville, said that when his father saw a need, he didn’t worry about whether he was the most qualified — he just stepped in.

“He didn’t know soccer, but there was a need, so he went to coaching clinics to learn that,” Dan recalled. “Whether it was coaching basketball, soccer or directing altar boys, he was very good with young men.”

There were several things about his father’s spiritual life that stood out for him.

“When others asked about the secrets of success for raising Catholic families, he was always quick to point to the family Rosary,” said Dan. “He was definitely devoted to Our Lady.”

“He also did a Holy Hour between two and three in the morning and was a daily communicant. With the Rosary, he used to say a prayer to St. Joseph,” added Dan. “Those were the things in front of us that we saw of our father. In this culture, which is selling a lot of stuff, I had a father on his knees who was showing me how to be a man of God.”

Vander Woude’s devotion to the Blessed Mother also led the family to host an annual Marian festival/procession/picnic on their farm the last Sunday of May. Hundreds of family friends and acquaintances would attend the celebration, which the family held for nearly two decades.

A Father’s Love

Vander Woude, 66, died while helping his youngest son, Joseph, 20, who has Down syndrome. Joseph fell through an old cover that gave way into a septic tank on their property. Vander Woude yelled to a workman to call 911 and jumped in, forcing himself past Joseph so that he could get underneath him to hold him up.

According to family friend Michael McGrath, Vander Woude told the worker, “You pull, I’ll push.”

“As he lifted Joseph up, his eyes closed, and he collapsed into the tank,” said McGrath. “When the paramedics came, they were unable to resuscitate him.”

Those who knew him said that his love for his sons was paramount.

“His son Bob said, ‘It’s so right that he died saving one of us,’” said Peter Westhoff, a former teacher at Seton, where Vander Woude’s sons went to school.

“One time on the farm, he told me, ‘You know, I don’t want any of the boys to ever leave. I’d love to have them around me all my life,’” recalled Westhoff.

To that end, Vander Woude had his 26-acre property split up, giving an acre of land to each of his sons. Two of his sons live on the nearby parcels.

Westhoff remembers a time in the mid-1990s when a school in Washington, D.C., was closing, and he went there to get materials for his school. When Westhoff entered the biology lab, there among the jarred lab specimens was a human fetus. Westhoff didn’t feel it was appropriate to leave it, but he wasn’t sure what to do.

He called Vander Woude’s eldest son, Father Thomas Vander Woude, now pastor of Queen of Apostles Church in Alexandria. “He said, ‘I’m sure my dad and mom would have a burial on the farm,’” said Westhoff. “When I called Mr. Vander Woude, there wasn’t any hesitation.”

Friend Pete Scheetz built a small pine coffin for the child. “When Mr. Vander Woude saw the pine coffin, he commented, ‘Where can we get in line for ours?’” remembers Westhoff.

After Vander Woude’s death, Scheetz built another simple pine coffin for his friend. Scheetz’ wife and the Vander Woude daughters-in-law added a personal touch, sewing in the wedding dress of Mary Ellen, Vander Woude’s wife, as the lining.

Faithful to the End

As difficult as Vander Woude’s passing has been for his family, son Dan said that there have been many blessings. One comfort is that their father, who was dedicated to the Rosary, died on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and was buried on the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.

“One consolation is that God is using Dad’s witness to touch a lot of people’s hearts,” said Dan.
Vander Woude’s dying act was “truly saintly” and “the crown of a whole life of self-giving,” Bishop Loverde said at the Mass, according to The Washington Post. “May we find in his life inspiration and strength.”

Said Dan, “We’ve heard of priests in Spain and Colorado preaching about my dad’s death during their homilies on the feast of the Triumph of the Cross. I’ve also heard from many friends that his story is inspiring other husbands and fathers for how they should be leading their daily lives.”

Congressman Pence Gets It Right!

My favorite member of the Congress, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana, is circulating the following “Dear Colleague” letter among his fellow House Republicans regarding the current economic conditions and bailout proposals....

---------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans Should Oppose the Bailout Plan

“Nationalizing Every Bad Mortgage in America Is Not the Answer”

Dear Republican Colleague:

Our financial markets are in turmoil and the Administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy, but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer.

As Bill Kristol wrote in “A Fine Mess” in today's New York Times:

"And I acknowledge that there are serious people who think the situation too urgent and the day too late to allow for a real public and Congressional debate on what should be done. But — based on conversations with economists, Wall Street types, businessmen and public officials — I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury. "

The Administration's request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes. Congress must not hastily embrace a cure that may do more harm to our economy than the disease of bad debt.

And the stakes for our free market could not be higher.

As George Will observed on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos program yesterday,

"When the British Labour Party was socialist, it defined socialism as government control of the commanding heights of the economy. And in Britain, at that time, it was coal, steel, and railroads. The commanding heights of the American economy are financial services, and they are now controlled by the government. "

To avoid a slide into socialism for our financial sector, Congress must consider all available options to put our nation's economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending.

As was observed in an editorial titled “A Bad Bank Rescue” by Sebastian Mallaby published in The Washington Post on Sunday, September 21, 2008:

"Within hours of the Treasury announcement Friday, economists had proposed preferable alternatives. Their core insight is that it is better to boost the banking system by increasing its capital than by reducing its loans. Given a fatter capital cushion, banks would have time to dispose of the bad loans in an orderly fashion. Taxpayers would be spared the experience of wandering into a bad-loan bazaar and being ripped off by every merchant. "

Alternatives to a massive federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts.

Finally, any new expenditure of taxpayer dollars should be paid for with fiscal discipline and reform. If Congress decides to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on a corporate bailout, it must find budget savings to prevent that cost from being passed along to the American people.

As our distinguished former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, wrote in a post titled “Before D.C. Gets Our Money, It Owes Us Some Answers” on The Corner on National Review Online yesterday and prominently displayed today on the homepage under the headline “Newt: Wait One Minute”:

"Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer. Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law. Congress has an obligation to perform oversight. Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess. "

I urge you to join me and other conservative voices in opposing the bailout plan. Republicans should demand that Congress take time in deliberating the merits of any legislation until the facts and competing solutions can be fully debated. We should demand consideration of free market alternatives to massive government spending and we should fight to pay for the solution through budget cuts and reform instead of more debt or taxes.

Sincerely,

Mike Pence
Member of Congress