Abp. Chaput Warns about Church Militant and Lepanto Institute

Abp. Chaput Warns about Church Militant and Lepanto Institute August 27, 2015

Freakout in 3… 2….1:

“Both Lepanto and Church Militant sow division wherever they tread. They do not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives on a project like the World Meeting of Families. And we are not going to spend/waste time arguing with them. They are sincere, but also destructive. No one on our leadership team supports abortion or Planned Parenthood” – Abp. Charles Chaput

He’s perfectly right, of course.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Just as damning… “The sole desire of both Lepanto and Church Militant is to create division, confusion, and conflict within the Church. Actions of that nature run contrary to Christian tradition. Their reports are not to be taken seriously.”

    • PGMGN

      …just as damning is the reality that working with secular society is increasingly degrading the message of Holy Mother Church as we compromise and Society goes the way it always has.

      Christ came to bring the sword, too.

      That said, the primary division we should be wary of is Catholics being divided from the Truth.

      • Marthe Lépine

        In other words, True Catholics should safely remain into their fortress…

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Correct! Inclusiveness is what error wants.

  • soconorbust

    Never let addressing the validity of the accusations get in the way…I always say. Been there with the Canadian bishops and its support for D&P and THEIR support for pro-abort groups….very sad.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Although it has never been clarified if D&P was actually supporting pro-abort groups. From the information I had as a member of D&P, some of their particularly “annoying” support might very well have been their support of groups actively fighting abuses committed in Latin America by Canadian mining interests against local populations… Among the numerous members of those several groups, there may have been people who supported abortion, but the work being done in that particular instance did not have anything to do with abortion. However, it became a useful tool to try to discredit D&P, by people whose sources of support and financing were not clearly revealed, as far as I know…

  • Julian Barkin

    That’s it Mark? Nothing more to say???

    • chezami

      Qui tacet consentire videtur.

  • Re Ja

    “The sole desire of both Lepanto and Church Militant is to create “division, confusion, and conflict within the Church. Actions of that nature run contrary to Christian tradition.”

    I bet no one has ever said something like that when dogged by someone with uncomfortable truths they wanted to discredit and make go away, especially a month before the Pope arrives in their city. And we all know how squeaky-clean-pefect the entire hierarchy is so if one of them said it must be true. And ironically, I think we’re going to see a lot more “division, confusion, and conflict within the Church” coming out of the Synod if prior meetings are any indication..

    disclaimer – I don’t ingest anything produced by either Voris or Lepanto.

  • Michael Hichborn

    Archbishop Chaput said, “They do not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives on a project like the World Meeting of Families.”

    Except, the Lepanto Institute said in their article http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/faith-and-life/executive-members-of-world-meeting-of-families-promote-abortion-same-sex-marriage/:

    “While it may be understandable that such a large event would require planners to work with individuals who attack the Church, that doesn’t mean they should be given honorary titles or places of prominence in the event itself. For example, while the annual March for Life in Washington, DC certainly requires a lot of planning, coordination and permissions from local officials, the pro-abortion mayor of Washington, DC’s name has never appeared on any March for Life Literature.”

  • Warren Anderson

    Yikes! The devil loves it when Catholics attack each other.

    Mega respect for +Chaput. However, Lepanto and CMTV should not be easily dismissed. We need more people speaking the hard facts with love.

    “They do not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives on a project like the World Meeting of Families.”

    Given various national and state/provincial governments’ antipathy toward people of faith, let’s stop pretending that cooperation with civic society is automatically laudable in any way. Imagine the prophets of Israel saying to the Jewish people—’Hey, why can’t you get along with your pagan neighbours? Baal worship is not so bad. Try a little tenderness and be nice. They’re sure to come around.’—Riiight.

    +Chaput is a great bishop. Not perfect, mind you. Lepanto and CMTV provide hard hitting witness. Not perfect, mind you. Given a choice between Lepanto/CMTV and, for example, the National ‘c’atholic Reporter/Pelosi/Biden/Mahoney/Cupich/etc., I’ll go with the abrasive, divisive, awkward witness of the former.

    Frankly, we need more division in the Church. I.e., division between truth and falsehood. Sometime I get the feeling that some bishops think being nice is a virtue. We’ve cooperated enough with secular society. Let’s stop pandering to narcissists, hedonists, fornicators and the like.

    • PGMGN

      ….clerics like +Chaput would actually benefit if they had an investigative team that preemptively worked to avoid future damage control by examining all manner of illicit connections that DO scandalize and send the wrong message.

      Sorry, but credibility needs to be rebuilt, not assumed at a wave of the hand. The knives are out all around and so pretending they’re not won’t make them go away. Just like scandal being invited to dinner.

  • Artevelde

    The *Lepanto* institute? Named after a battle led by John of Austria, born of fornication and a great proponent of fornication. Next week in our series of reactionaries scraping the barrel of post-Trent European nobility: Prince Eugene of Savoy, also fighting the exterior and interior enemy, if not too busy dressing up as a girl and being sodomized in a Paris establishment. Defending the family is a tough job.

    • Alma Peregrina

      1) The institute is named after the battle, not the leader

      2) The battle was, indeed, a milestone in universal history and catholic history, and it has a meaning for catholics today (which can be a beautiful meaning or a destructive meaning, but still a meaning)

      3) We should only celebrate “perfect” catholics? What about Colbert and such? What has John of Austria’s fornication got to do with his merits at Lepanto?

      4) Please do not read this comment as a defense of the Lepanto Institute and its actions

      • Artevelde

        Thank you Alma. I will try to answer your points.

        1) Of course, but I never claimed otherwise.
        2) I’m not quite sure whether too much meaning, apart from it being a crucial battle, should be attached to the Battle of Lepanto, at least not from a contemporary Catholic perspective. If the point made is that European nations rightfully resisted Ottoman/Muslim incursions, I agree.
        3) Should we only celebrate perfect Catholics? Well no, and I wouldn’t object to an Anti-Isis coalition calling itself Heirs of Lepanto or Knights of the Holy League. It would make some sense, although it wouldn’t be prudent for various reasons. If your chosen battleground is that of sexual morality however, I seriously question the choice. The question is not whether John of Austria’s sins detract from his military qualities. They don’t, obviously. As to his other merits that would make him relevant to Catholics today, I am unaware of them. Also, I don’t intend to celebrate Colbert any time soon.
        4) I won’t.

        • Alma Peregrina

          Your point 3 explains your previous comment, and as such we’ll have to agree to just agree.

        • ninjaandy

          The Catholic victory in that battle was the reason for the feast of the Holy Rosary on October 7th. That, I think, is what the Lepanto Institute is spiritually linking to: the holy rosary, not the guy who happened to win the battle.

        • IRVCath

          Well, the battle did give us indirectly the devotion to Our Lady of the Rosary.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          You sound like a football coach who doesn’t teach and reach for penalty free [penalties are killers because they cause rework] players rather justifies those who make penalties because penalties are just part of the game.

          I thought we were to strive for perfection as our heavenly father is perfect especially given that the only room that is never full is the room for improvement. High expectations are the key to growth, development and progress. Low expectations aren’t.

    • Hunk Hondo

      Don John can indeed be censured for his own sexual sins, but I don’t see how he can be faulted for those of his parents.

      • Artevelde

        He can’t.

  • Re_Actor

    “Both Lepanto and Church Militant sow division wherever they tread. They do not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives

    #RomanCuckolic

  • Jay G

    Okay, I promise not to take Lepanto seriously, but can you tell me if their reports about the Honorary co-chairs of the Meeting on Families being pro-abortion are true?

    • “Hichborn is factually accurate about the honorary co-chairs. Nutter and Wolf are indeed listed, and it’s not a secret: it’s on the World Meeting of Families website. However, the facts are presented in his article as if something subversive was going on. From Hichborn’s article: ‘Given that Archbishop Chaput has forbidden LGBT activist organizations to use Church grounds during the World Meeting of Families, I would imagine that if he was aware of the backgrounds of these individuals, he would equally have not allowed them to obtain leadership positions for the event.’ The tone and implication read to me that he’s accusing the Archbishop of ignorance and/or stupidity. The fact of the matter is that there’s no way an event like the World Meeting of Families could be brought off without involvement and support of civic secular leaders, and that doesn’t mean that they have tainted the event or that we can expect a Planned Parenthood logo on the back of the Papal Jeep. Instead of looking for problems where there are none, we should be praying for them and other leaders to be open to the graces that will come from the papal visit and World Meeting of Families, even if they are supporting it for reasons of their own.” – as seen on Facebook, from a Philly native

    • Marthe Lépine

      I don’t think that people given “honorary titles” are actually in positions of leadership within the teams leading or organizing an event, so Archbishop Chaput is correct in his response.

      • no more mr. nice guy

        Would Israel have Neo-Nazis; members of ISIS or the PLO not only as attendees but attendees with “honorary titles” present at a Jewish “Synod” on the family?

        • chezami

          Annnnnd Nazis. Goodbye!

  • PGMGN

    Sadly we live in a time where prelates sow division by seeking to align themselves with evil. That is not the unity Catholics are called to.

    • chezami

      Yeah. Chaput is a well-known lover of abortion and gay “marriage”. You should always take the word of demagogues who traffic in scandal, are documentably wrong on numerous occasions, and who never apologize over this mitered devil in human form.

      The reactionary charism of anti-discernment marches on.

      • PGMGN

        The under-reaction charism of business-as-usual marches on, too, chezami.

        One should always take the prudent road of looking to the money trail to find who funds what and why. The truth will always out. Often some inconvenient ones that actually help shed light on reality. Perhaps +Chaput should pay someone to investigate the backgrounds of those with whom he does business – better to do that than to play blind and then whoopsie later or try to hush others up with a wave of the clerical hand.

        I’m personally no fan of Voris, but I’m equally no fan of dismissing matters just because I’m told to not worry. Not when folks have a track record of making some pretty sketchy connections. Let folks discover for themselves….. unless certain associations are not what they should be.
        Lord knows, we’ve had enough of that within the Church of late.

        Wise as serpents, friend, yet innocent as doves.

    • no more mr. nice guy

      Archbishop Chaput suffers from “Smoke of Satan” inhalations as do far too many in the hierarchy of the once morally mighty Roman Catholic Church. Archbishop Chaput should applaud organizations like the Lepanto Institute given that he and his ilk have set bad example and caused confusion helping turn [since the superfluous and infamous Vatican II] the Roman Catholic Church into the feckless and feeble Church Marshmallow. And Archbishop Chaput is one of the best we have. Certitude is being eviscerated in favor of blending and blur. Today, and with premeditated orchestration, the RC Church is in all too many ways and places just another Protestant denomination. We are on our way to one world government which will also be the one and only one world religion. Inch by inch enslavement will have proven to have been a cinch. The Lepanto Institute is doing what apostates just won’t do. All too often Chaput has proven to be untrustworthy and petty. When confronted with errors, he falls prey to blame shifting and finger pointing. He comes across as being above admitting to mistakes or expressing regret because unlike his flock he is never wrong. Secure a copy of September 2015 PHILADELPHIA magazine pages 98; and 145-147 for illustrative evidence and proof.

  • smc

    I wonder if good Archbishop Chaput would be so dismissive of the findings of these “divisive” internet sites if he found his archdiocese working in tandem with white supremacists or anti-immigration groups?

  • ivan_the_mad

    A rather fitting intercession from morning prayer on this memorial of St. Augustine:

    “Through your vicars you continue to perform the ministry of shepherd of souls, direct us always through our leaders. Nourish your people, Lord.

  • Stu

    I don’t see the need to pick sides. I don’t particularly care for the style of Mr. Voris, don’t regularly view his videos (except maybe when highlighted by Catholic bloggers) and while I know the name Lepanto Institute, I couldn’t tell you anything about them.

    But I also think the concerns that have been raised seem valid as reported in a secular paper.

    • as seen on Facebook, from a Philly native: “Hichborn is factually accurate about the honorary co-chairs. Nutter and Wolf are indeed listed, and it’s not a secret: it’s on the World Meeting of Families website. However, the facts are presented in his article as if something subversive was going on. From Hichborn’s article: ‘Given that Archbishop Chaput has forbidden LGBT activist organizations to use Church grounds during the World Meeting of Families, I would imagine that if he was aware of the backgrounds of these individuals, he would equally have not allowed them to obtain leadership positions for the event.’ The tone and implication read to me that he’s accusing the Archbishop of ignorance and/or stupidity. The fact of the matter is that there’s no way an event like the World Meeting of Families could be brought off without involvement and support of civic secular leaders, and that doesn’t mean that they have tainted the event or that we can expect a Planned Parenthood logo on the back of the Papal Jeep. Instead of looking for problems where there are none, we should be praying for them and other leaders to be open to the graces that will come from the papal visit and World Meeting of Families, even if they are supporting it for reasons of their own.”

      • Michael Hichborn

        For the record:

        1) I gave all I the information I had collected on the WMoF to the Archdiocese before publishing, asking very specifically to be corrected if I was mistaken about any of it. In fact, I very sincerely stated that I would be willing to make “any” correction provided to me by the Archdiocese. I sent several emails and phone calls over the course of of 5 days (3 business days), and I was completely blown off. I didn’t even got so much as a request to postpone until they had a chance to look into my information, which I would happily have done.

        2). The executive cabinet of the WMoF does indeed include advocates for abortion and same-sex “marriage.” One of the “honorary co-chairs” is Gov. Tom Wolf, who was an actual Planned Parenthood escort. One of the actual co-chairs is David L. Cohen, who helped fund Obama’s campaign to the tune of $1.2 million, is currently planning a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and who did a video interview promoting homosexuality in the media. These are facts. This is not conjecture, nor is it “deliberately divisive.” Even the USCCB has a policy against giving awards, honors and platforms to those who attack the Church or Her teachings.

        3) I very clearly stated in my article that it is understandable that in order to pull off an event like the WMoF requires working with those who attack the Church. But this does not require placing these same individuals in places of honor or prominence. The March for Life is a huge event, too that also requires a lot of planning and working with individuals who attack Church teaching … But you will never see the pro-abortion mayor of Washington DC on ANY March for Life literature, nor will you ever see him made an “honorary co-chair” of the March for Life itself, either. So why is the WMoF different?

        4) This claim: “The tone and implication read to me that he’s accusing the Archbishop of ignorance and/or stupidity.” is not only a massive stretch, its is entirely false. It was meant exactly as it was stated, and if you interpret it with a snarky tone, that is entirely on you. I would never presume to know what Archbishop Chaput knows or does not know of these individuals, and I meant in all sincerity that I believe that if he was aware of their deep involvement in abortion and homosexuality, he would not have allowed them to be granted places of honor. I have never asserted any motive on the part of any individual I have reported on, but for you to project some sort of accusatory tone upon words that are meant to be taken just as they are written says more about you than it does about me.

        5) Regarding the necessity to work with morally repugnant individuals, I will only repeat what I said in my article and earlier in this combox: “While it may be understandable that such a large event would require planners to work with individuals who attack the Church, that doesn’t mean they should be given honorary titles or places of prominence in the event itself. For example, while the annual March for Life in Washington, DC certainly requires a lot of planning, coordination and permissions from local officials, the pro-abortion mayor of Washington, DC’s name has never appeared on any March for Life Literature.”

        I am sincerely sorry that Archbishop Chaput thinks so little of my concerns and intentions. I had gone about this the best way I know how. The scandal already existed before I reported on what I found … I didn’t go looking for this information, scandalized Catholics who already knew about it contacted me with a tip, asking me for help. Are their concerns equally to be despised by the hierarchy of the Church?

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Pin point perfectly correct. You need not imply contrition because you did nothing wrong. You are not the offender but rather the offended.

    • no more mr. nice guy

      We should be picking sides since clarity is the ultimate charity. Be good or be gone! God doesn’t feel strongly both ways neither should we.

  • ninjaandy

    “No one on our leadership team supports abortion or Planned Parenthood”

    But the public record says otherwise.

    I would be on board with the archbishop’s statement if he’d stuck to the idea that sometimes we have to work side by side with people who don’t believe as we do, but to say no one on the leadership team supports abortion, when that is demonstrably false (unless you want to go with some weaselly technical definition of “leadership team”), is a dumb statement to make when trying to defuse a situation where your argument is largely based on your own implicit understanding of the situation.

    In essence, the archbishop is saying “trust me, I know these things and Lepanto doesn’t.” And yet regardless of the propriety of the Lepanto article, its author is at least partially correct, and the archbishop is definitely incorrect.

  • Christopher Petty

    So we are told not to take Lepanto Institute seriously case closed. Just because someone says so? Wrong.

    • patriciaicon

      I just received an email from Lepanto Institute documenting Salesian Mission of providing condoms to young people in three African countries…well documented. I am sorry Archbishop Chaput did not see this as a problem.
      Abortion is the next step! So sad.

  • Michael Hichborn

    For the Record … The Lepanto Institute specifically warned about having Mayor Michael Nutter as an honorary co-chair of the World Meeting of Families. This concern was well founded in his homosexual activism, and now he has used that honorary position to push a homosexual agenda in a speech AT the World Meeting of Families:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/mayor-nutter-attempts-to-hijack-papal-appearance-to-tout-lgbt-rights

  • Mrs. Harris

    He’s perfectly Not right, of course. And now that the thing is over we can in fact see that Mayor Nutter did take advantage of this role, which the Lepanto Institute warned about. And here’s another thing, why is it that these groups who bring their concerns to the table are “divisive”, and can be written off as nut jobbies, but dissident groups are not similarly labeled as such? And how bout any number of “divisive” figures that we seem willing to court and listen too, but just not these figures. It’s so tiresome. If we want dialogue, non judgemental ism and inclusiveness, then that should apply to all. If the hierarchy disagree with these types of people, then with all tenderness listen to their concerns and explain it to them, explain why. Pastors, explain to your sons and daughters in the church who are concerned and have endured many painful scandals. Treat them as sons, daughters, because they are. Don’t come out saying they are a waste of time. They are not. They clearly care about their faith and the church even if you don’t like how they go about it. Can anyone blame them for having concerns? The Archbishop I hope will apologize for treating his son this way.