+Chaput doesn't get that Rome's not critiquing moral, legal & political strategies, only his impoverished evangelical & pastoral approaches.

+Chaput seems right in that his is no essential theocratic stance, but his impoverished evangelical & pastoral approaches lead to a practical theocratic aspiration as evangelicals overemphasize legal & political strategies and underemphasize enculturation & pastoral sensitivity vis a vis various moral realities. 

In such an evangelical approach, any attempts to then align divine & natural laws with positive laws, whether ecclesiastical & canon law or civil & criminal law, will inevitably devolve into an exclusivistic ecclesiology with moralistic, legalistic & even ritualistic rigorisms.

A deeper problem lies in their fundamentalistic moral philosophies, Biblical & natural law, which lack personalist insights. And using the idiom of personalism (not its principles) to voice natural law conclusions is a major fail (e.g. TheologyOfTheBody).