On Heroes

I noticed Archbishop Chaput concerned about people finding a messiah in an American president. Interesting that young Catholics thought they had found a “messiah” of sorts here:

Not too much concern from the American bishops over the past thirty years with a superstar globe-trotting pope. Or a vigorous (un)reformer like Benedict.

I wonder if I detect a bit of envy in these prelates. Does Archbishop Chaput seem a little tense that bishops are somehow fallen from pedestals and lurk somewhere near lawyers, bankers, and vice-presidents in terms of disapproval ratings?

It is undoubtedly true that no president has seen this level of fervor since JFK. It took a decade of assassinations, uprisings, and a handful of illegal wars to diminish the US presidency. Only Ronald Reagan came close to a restoration, one which his flunkies almost demolished.

Now we have a citizenry largely happy about their president. What do the bishops have to say? Lent began two years ago, one says for Los Angelenos. Well, sorry, archbishop, but Lent is a liturgical season that points to baptism and penance. I don’t see the American upper crust in SoCal enduring 600 days of Lent.

Older Americans are surely not pinning all messianic hopes on one politician. And younger ones? Well, if Archbishop Chaput wants to stop seminarians from hopping all over the place in their cassocks, that’s his affair. My suggestion would be to encourage people to invest sweat equity in charitable acts for pregnant women and their kids. Time will take care of heroes soon enough, without embittered detractors messing up another real Lent for the rest of us.

About these ads

About catholicsensibility

Todd and his family live in Ames, Iowa. He serves a Catholic parish of both Iowa State students and town residents.
This entry was posted in Ministry, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to On Heroes

  1. JC says:

    Are you aware of something called the Natural Law? No law which violates Natural Law is valid. Period.

    It’s not just about “preventing abortion.” It’s about moral abominations–abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage–being fundamentally recognized by society.

    It’s about eugenics.

    I don’t get the juxtaposition of Roger “Gays and Abortion are Great” Mahony with Archbishop Chaput.

    And envy?? Since when is a good bishop concerned with opinion polls. Certainly, someone like Chaput who actually does his job isn’t.

    That the president of a constitutional republic should have overwhelming support from the people ought to scare anyone who believes in constitutional law and liberty.

    I for one didn’t like the cult that surrounded George W. Bush, and I definitely don’t like the cult that surrounds Barack Obama. Two sides of the same coin. Read Catechism 676.

  2. Todd says:

    JC, regarding your first comments here as far as I can remember. I must insist you observe Catechism 2478, and refrain in the future from name calling and other similar practices.

    Argue the issues as strongly as you wish, but any future posts will be edited, not deleted, and allowed to stand on their own remaining merits.

    “Since when is a good bishop concerned with opinion polls(?)”

    Chaput is an author and a popular circuit speaker. If he were a nose-to-the-grindstone bishop, why would he be talking in Toronto?

    As I said above, I think the president’s popularity will level out in the long run.

  3. Jimmy Mac says:

    What about the cult that surrounded JPII (the Great !!!!) and, to a lesser degree, B16? In fact, any pope?

    Oh, that’s OK because they are/were the Vicar of Christ on earth? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

  4. JC says:

    You deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth?

    Did I say I support the popalotry that surrounded the Koran Kisser?

    The Pope is the head of the Church. He is our spiritual father.
    The President of the United States is supposed to be a citizen leader, with no special office or rank. As an American, I am disgusted by the dictatorial air the presidency has gradually garnered since FDR, and I know that our Founders would be, as well.
    The Church says that we are supposed to mistrust any civil ruler who tries to solve all our problems.

  5. Todd says:

    JC, I’m not inclined to disagree about the problems with the imperial presidency. There is a distinction between leaders like Bush II and Nixon who sought to put themselves above the ideals of democracy and others like Kennedy and Obama who attracted a following not unlike JPII.

    “The Church says that we are supposed to mistrust any civil ruler who tries to solve all our problems.”

    I don’t claim to be an Obama follower, but this statement strikes me as a caricature of what this presidency offers. I do remember an inaugural address that stressed a shared responsibility between government and citizens.

    The Church seemed to have little problem when civil rule was accomplished through monarchy and hierarchy.

    My own hunch is that President Obama will accomplish some of a necessary agenda. After time, some of the sheen will wear off. I’m not feeling a need to push one way or another on this, except, perhaps to poke at the anti-hero movement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s