14-October-2004 -- EWTNews Feature
On October 6, 2004, David Kirkpatrick, a
reporter for The Times, conducted an extensive interview with Denver’s
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., on issues surrounding this year’s
national elections. In the interests of accuracy, archdiocesan staff recorded
the interview. A heavily truncated and framed version of the archbishop’s
views appeared in an October 12 New York Times story. NYT: Well, I’m interested in doing an article
on how Catholics are applying their faith to politics this election season and
how some bishops are speaking up in some ways that they haven’t in the past.
And Denver seemed like a pretty interesting place, partly because you’re here.
I work with Laurie Goodstein who is my coworker, and she seemed to think that
you are an interesting figure to watch. AB: Were you going to interview the Senator out
at Inverness? NYT: Senator Kerry? AB: Yes NYT: I don’t think so. I don’t think for this one. What he
has to say about his Catholicism, I think he said. AB: There is a piece on National Public Radio
this morning. NYT: Yes? AB: He didn’t say much… NYT: What did you think of it? AB: I really didn’t pay close attention to
it, so I shouldn’t say what I think of it. I was getting ready to go to a
funeral. NYT: Well, I guess I can start by asking, is
this year different [from] previous years in any way? AB: Well, it is different for Catholics because
you have a Catholic running for President, and the press seems to be very
interested in his Catholic identity. I think in some ways because of the
coverage the issue is getting…it looks like bishops are speaking out in a new
way, but really, many of us have been speaking about this for a very long time.
That fact that there is a Catholic running and there is a situation where [a]
potential conflict exists, reporters seem to focus and gawk. I say that with
respect; I know you are a reporter. But it’s true. AB: It’s amazing. Before I was Bishop of Denver, I was
Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, and I would say many of the same things
there as I say here, and nobody paid attention to me because I was the Bishop of
Rapid City. NYT: Yes. AB: A lot depends on who is writing/running and where you
are. I think there are many of us who are speaking about this rather clearly and
carefully for a long, long time. And my fear is, of course, that as soon as the
election is over, no matter who wins, it will die down until the next election
cycle. Then, people will start talking about it again and we’ll be asked
questions, and we’ll have a little flash, and it’ll die down again, rather
than being sure that this continues. NYT: When you talk about “it” as “it will die down,”
I assume you mean the Church’s …the life issue? AB: No not just the life issue, but I’m talking about the
Church’s involvement in the political life of our country. Other than that
individual Catholics can be involved in political life of our country, how much
should their Catholic faith influence their positions? That’s really the
fundamental issue here…a problem with the voters and a problem with the
candidates. And that’s what we as a Church need to keep bringing to the
attention of our people, long after the election is over -- the importance of
our faith having a substantial impact on our public life, whether it be the
generosity of our giving or the public policy we embrace in our speaking, or the
positions we take in running for office or voting. NYT: What all are you doing, just from reading the papers
and the Catholic Register, I see you’ve been…here and there reminding people
of the salient issues of this election. Is that deliberate? NYT: And your answer there was? AB: That it’s foundational, it’s been foundational for
the many years that have passed since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land. NYT: Archbishop Burke in St. Louis caught my attention again
on Friday [October 1]. He issued
a statement basically stating that it’s a sin if you vote for a pro-choice
politician, I believe he was saying even if that wasn’t the reason you voted
for him, that you voted for a pro-abortion politician that is still something
that you ought confess. Is that…? AB: I don’t believe that’s where you should start. The
place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for
what that person does as a legislator or as a judge?…And the answer is yes,
because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word “materially” --
cooperating in that person’s activity because we’ve given [him or her] the
platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we
responsible for that? Well, if we didn’t know they were going to something
wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do
something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be
close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for
them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways. The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you
participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it’s not…“if you
vote this way, should you go to confession?” The question is, “if you vote
this way, are you cooperating in evil?” Now, if you know you are cooperating
in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There’s a more
sophisticated thing here…it’s not so crude. The reason I want to stress that
is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for
whom. It’s issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or
his conscience…and remote material cooperation or proximate material
cooperation is cooperation, and it’s important for Catholics to know that, to
be sophisticated in their judgments. NYT: What all are you doing to try to keep the folks in this
Archdiocese informed? And the importance of forming one’s conscience intelligently and in an
involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true
that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is.
There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to
life. And, it is really based on our understanding of the dignity of human
beings. If human life has dignity, if human beings have dignity, we have no
right to violate that dignity by our acts, whether it be killing that person or
denying that person of adequate housing, food, and clothing or anything else.
There is really a matter of human dignity from our point of view. NYT: How are your conversations with the two Senate
candidates going? AB: I’ve had personal, honest discussions with both of
them. You know…when I speak to them, I tell them, and they tell me, that our
conversations are off the record for the public, so I don’t talk about it. NYT: It’s worth a try. AB: Sure, I understand that. I would try very much. I really
wish I could be more forthcoming, but I can’t because both they and I decided
that the ground rules for starting to talk is that we talk to each other and not
to others. NYT: When you speak about the need for Catholics to take
their faith with them into public affairs and their voting, and when you talk
about which issues are foundational, do you get any…mixed responses? AB: Oh absolutely mixed responses, because people hear me in
different ways depending on where they stand politically. There are three or
four kinds of people, well, there are all kinds of people, but there are those
who are staunch Republicans, those who are staunch Democrats, those who are
staunch Catholics, there are those who aren’t educated, you know there are all
kinds of people. And depending upon whether when they come to the question from,
they hear it in different ways. Yes, there are a lot of people who write to me
saying that they’ve been a Catholic for 70 years, that they went to Catholic
colleges, and high schools, and grade schools, they go to church every Sunday,
and the Church is wrong. NYT: Really? AB: Sure NYT: How about…do you…? AB: Which proves nothing. That fact that they’ve done all
those things proves nothing, except that they’ve done all of those things --
and that they have some kind of certain attachment to the Church. But that
doesn’t mean they know anything about theology or about this particular issue.
They might not have thought it through. Of course, it could be they are very
well educated, too. NYT: How are…at the parish level, at the priest level…I
was in St Louis and I attended a few masses there in St. Charles, which is very
Catholic. NYT: And uh… AB: I’m a Potawatomi Indian and a woman who came to work
with us is buried there, she’s a saint, Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne. You
know she’s buried in St. Charles Missouri. No one knows about her…but
she’s on of…four canonized American saints and she’s buried in St.
Charles, Missouri. NYT: You know what? I think… I think I saw her... AB: Her shrine maybe? NYT: Yeah, right, not far from the river. AB: No, you’re right. NYT: Uhm…and, but I had the odd experience, I just visited
two parishes holding Saturday afternoon services...uh…and got diametrically
opposed answers from the two priests I talked to. One was very…was handing
out…insert in the bulletin basically saying “This is what Archbishop Burke
says on the subject and you ought to keep it in mind…about which issues are
non-negotiable.” And the other fellow said, “You know seamless
garment…life means lots of things…life is foundational, but it is about the
war in Iraq, it’s about poverty, and it’s about a lot of other issues.”
Basically, he was a Democrat. And he sort of laughed and said he thought…he
was probably the only one in his parish. But do you…you know...do you get
disagreements like that within the Church here? AB: I think if politicians on both parties had to calculate
their position on whether or not they’re getting a significant amount of the
vote of their constituency, it would make a difference. You know the fact that
Catholics have been overwhelmingly Democrat and have had no impact on the
Democrat platform on this matter for the last 20 years is horrible. What does
that say about our commitment to Catholic values?…So, can I say this
too?…Not only is this is a different year because one of the candidates is
Catholic, it’s also, perhaps, a different year because I think even those who
have been hoping for change have seen that the old ways of approaching this
haven’t worked. Abortion is more accepted than ever before. A lot of young
Catholics are born into a world where they know nothing but abortion. And they
think that if it’s legal, it must be moral. You know I think we’ve been
hoping that some kind of reasoned discourse would turn our country around and it
hasn’t because the other side doesn’t reason. They are ruthless…in their
position. It seems that Catholics should be just as ruthless in their pro-life
positions as the pro-choice people are ruthless in theirs. And I use
“ruthless”…that word…I don’t mean that in an unkindly way. I mean just
be determined and stubborn…persistent. NYT: Speaking of reasons why this year is different [from]
other years, the fact that Kerry is a Catholic, yes, he causes the press to ask
questions that will induce controversial answers, but I think also it’s
bothersome to a lot of Catholics in a way that a Protestant who was pro-abortion
wouldn’t be. Am I right? AB: I’m not sure what your question is, but I’ll answer
it…see, I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral
positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven’t often
thought of that, you know? “I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for
abortion, that doesn’t have any impact on me.” Well the Church says, “Like
heck it doesn’t. It means you’re not a Catholic and you shouldn’t receive
communion, if you are in favor of abortion.” They don’t think they connect.
And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the
position and one’s relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry,
they’ve gotten nervous, they’ve gotten mad, they’ve threatened to take
their money away, they’ve threatened to join other churches. You ought to see
this stuff. It’s just… NYT: What do you mean? AB: Letters…people write letters, they say things you
can’t imagine them saying, they didn’t think they would say it
themselves…which means we haven’t done a good job in the Catholic Church of
helping people understand the consequences of their moral decisions. You can’t
take every position in the world and be a Catholic. NYT: The question that I had before, let me state it again
quickly. The bishops…are the bishops speaking out in a new way in part because
Kerry is Catholic? In ways they wouldn’t…does it bother people more, bishops
and lay Catholics, because Kerry is taking the positions he is, because
he’s a Catholic? NYT: Have you taken a position on the [Federal] Marriage
Amendment? AB: Well, it seems to us because of the way the court
handled the abortion issue that the courts may handle the marriage issue in
exactly the same way, and making a decision in favor of personal freedom over
the real meaning of things. You know…personal freedom then trumps the life of
the unborn child. Personal freedom then trumps the meaning of marriage, if the
same kinds of court decisions are made. So it seems to us, that the best way for
that not to happen is not to let the courts get a hold of it. From our
perspective, marriage has two dimensions. One is our sacramental, religious
meaning but that’s not what we are defending here. We are defending the right
of a state to write laws that define marriage in a way that supports that family
unit to provide security for the life of children. It has nothing to do with our
religious perspective -- I say “nothing” to do with it; it certainly has
something to do with it -- but our primary position isn’t religious. It’s
about the civil meaning of marriage. That’s what marriage means civilly.
That’s why we have laws that support marriage rather than support other kinds
of relationships. Because we think it’s important for that stable relationship
for the sake of children. This doesn’t take rocket science or religious
fervor; it just makes sense. NYT: The Republican Party, at the national level in the last
four years, has taken an accelerating interest in Catholic voters. AB: Well sure, I think they see us as a natural ally on some
of the cultural issues. NYT: Yes AB: As the Evangelicals are; as Orthodox Jews would be; as
Muslims would be who are serious about their religious faith. NYT: What do you think of that? They’re probably right.
You are natural allies. AB: We might be. It depends on where the Republican Party
goes. If it goes in the wrong way, we won’t be natural allies. Political
parties change their positions, Churches don’t and shouldn’t. If the
Republican Party would stay with us on these issues, I think there would be
sympathy there. If the Democratic Party would be with us on these issues, there
would be sympathy there. If they both were, it would be a non-issue in the
election perhaps. So,
it’s not like we’re with Republicans, it’s that they’re with
us. NYT: I’m wondering if you’ve heard from them? Do
they…people at the White House, at the campaign… AB: I personally have not, I’ve not heard from them…I
have some relationship with the White House because I’m a Commissioner for
International Religious Freedom and I was appointed by the White House to that
position. But that has nothing to do with this election, and it was done before
this election became a prominent issue, and we don’t sit around discussing
party politics at the commission level. But I have had no contact from
the Republican Party locally or nationally on the religious issue. I’ve talked
to Democrats and I’ve talked to Republicans and I’ve talked with Senator
Daschle… NYT: So…I guess I’m wondering what if any perspective
you have on the efforts that the Republican Party has made to try to persuade
more Catholics to abandon what… AB: I think that’s what parties do. This is so silly. You
know…the Republicans have been attacked recently I think for trying to get a
hold of parish lists of Evangelical churches. NYT: Yeah, they’re trying… AB: Oh, they’re trying to get ours too? I didn’t know
they were trying to get ours. Well, what would you expect them to try and do? And the Democrats would try
to do the same if they thought they would have a chance to use them, and
that’s what parties do. What’s this “outrage”? It seems just too silly
to me. Now would I ask my priests to give lists to either party? No! But if a
member of a parish gives the parish list to a party, do I control that? No! I
don’t think our pastor should be doing that, but you know, what do party
activists do? They try to gain advantage. Why do you think there is so much
outrage about that kind of thing? It’s just what they do; they get an Elks
Club list, they get a church list… NYT: Right AB: …they get a telephone book. You know…it works. They
get contacts. NYT: People have special sensitivities about churches. They
feel like, oh my gosh, I’m going to get up from church and receive mail from
the parties and that’s terrible, but you and I both know that good machines
can get a hold of those lists. AB: And that’s what they should do, right? They should
try… NYT: That’s right. If I was a priest, I would try my best
not to give a list away. AB: I would too. But see they didn’t go and get it from
the ministers; they wanted to get it from members of the community. So we have
to be honest about that. If any of my priests gave those lists to a party, I
would be upset. But if a member of parish does it, I can’t tell them what to
do. Those are very public lists by the way. You can stop by a parish and pick up
a parish directory. NYT: Back to…a minute ago you said, “we’re not with
the Republican Party, the Republican Party is with us”… AB: On this issue… NYT: On this issue, right. NYT: Right AB: So you have to weigh foundational issues against
non-foundational issues perhaps. The calculus on who you are going to vote for
is important and you have to take it very seriously. I have to pray about who I
am going to vote for, I can’t presume anything until I get into the voting
booth and I’m going to vote early by the way so I’m not going into a voting
booth, but it won’t be a casual thing and I’ll probably go to chapel with my
ballot. NYT: I’d like to get you to handicap the chances that the
Republican Party has…the way the two parties are currently lined up…what are
the chances that the Republican Party has for making the sort of inroads they
hope to make among observant Catholics? AB: Well, I think if the Republican candidate is pro-life,
he will attract a whole lot of Catholic voters. If a Democrat candidate is
pro-life, he’ll attract a whole lot of Catholic voters. But if Rudy Giuliani
is a Republican nominee the next go around, you’re going to see the
Republicans screaming at the Church for making such a big issue of a pro-life
matter, because -- if I understand Mr. Giuliani’s position -- he is in favor
of abortion. So, people will notice that it just isn’t just a party thing for
us. It’s not partisan, it’s issue. Of course, we hope for the conversion of
all Catholic political politicians to live out what their Church teaches if they
claim to be Catholics. NYT: The last question is… there has been more and more
cooperation between Protestants who are conservative on social issues and
Catholics who are conservative on social issues. What do you think of that? Do
you think that’s interesting? AB: I haven’t seen it except on the issue. I haven’t
seen cooperation extend to other areas of Church life. There is a commonality of
issues that makes us allies on a particular issue, but has that led to…an
ecumenical kind of… NYT: No, no there is no Baptist saying Ave Marias… AB: Or thinking that they are going to become Catholic
someday… NYT: But it’s novel even to see this degree of cooperation
on the issues. NYT: I talked to conservative Protestant organizers and they
say, “years ago, if I were to hold a meeting on an issue like opposing same
sex marriage, you would never get any Catholics to come because they’d think
we would try and convert them, which we were.” AB: I think people are becoming so worried about the
cultural issues that it has broken down the distrust between one another. I
think that’s clear. Because I am really worried about them too. I think these
things are very worrisome. They are not something that might happen in the
future, they are happening now. And again, abortion hasn’t gone away. And, I
think a lot of Catholics thought that well after this initial phase, we will
back away from it. But every time we try to begin partial birth abortion
legislation—which would limit abortions—the court disembowels it, every
time, every time. So, it’s not going away, it’s getting worse. End
Text from Archdiocese of Denver website: http://www.archden.org
A transcript of the full interview appears below:
AB: I know it well.