Posted on 08/19/2002 6:10:23 PM PDT by Salvation
The role of the pope is much different, ecclesiologically and strategically, from the role of a local bishop. Pope John Paul II is most definitely effecting positive long-term change by forcefully teaching truth, promulgating the Catechism and various reforms, of schools, of architecture, of moral teaching, etc. The damage of liberalism has been so profound that one must look at cures in terms of decades and generations, not "right now" (as in a certain perfectionist and utopian mindset). A major reason (if not the sole one) for this strategy, I firmly believe, is to avoid schism, because schism is generally longer-lasting (and arguably, even more damaging) than even heresy.
I think John Paul II's and the Church's primary concern is for souls. There is no easy choice. If one acts with principle but excludes a corresponding prudence or foresight as to result (as Luther and Calvin did), then one barges ahead and slashes away at all the heretics and de facto schismatics. The pope wants the same result that people who ask this question do: how to have an orthodox Church and how to retain as many souls in the Church (and for ultimate salvation) as possible. He thinks it will take a long time. His critics (or those who are simply bewildered often think the solution is instant and simple: slash and burn!
I don't think it that simple at all, given the situation in the Catholic Church in America that we have today. De jure schism is even worse than de facto schism. If the former is the almost-certain result, then it will be even worse than it is now. Time is on the side of orthodoxy. That's what we learn from history. In the meantime, people are still individuals. If they truly want to learn about orthodoxy and Tradition, there are plenty of means to do that. Each person still stands alone before God, accountable for their actions. They can crack the door of a library; dust off their Bible from the attic, hit the Internet and find Catholic sites, watch EWTN, go to a Mass, talk about the faith with an educated, committed Catholic friend or relative, or take their life savings and invest $10 for a Catechism. Is the pope is at fault for all these people who don't do these things, too?
Without getting into discussions of blame and cause (usually both sides of any split are at fault to some extent), it is indisputable that schisms usually last a very long time:
1. Orthodoxy: 948 years (almost half of the entire period since Jesus).
2. Protestantism: 485 years.
3. Anglicanism: 467 years or so.
We might perhaps achieve a breakthrough with the Orthodox, but no end of the split with Protestantism is in sight. This involves the better part of a billion souls, most of whom are born into these communions and who will never learn adequately about Catholicism: all because of splits hundreds of years ago. And these are fellow Christians. On the other hand, heresy generally involves far less numbers, and many heresies have essentially died out, whereas the schisms continue on with full force (largely by the very fact that they are Christian; hence have the inner vitality needed for longevity). I think these facts alone establish that schism is more damaging -- in terms of the sheer numbers of those affected, and all the ill will generated, having to do with mistrust and misunderstanding of other systems (hence, anti-Catholicism, as we know and love it). Schism is often, if not always, a sin against charity, and that is an extremely serious and grave matter. St. Paul often condemns it in the strongest terms.
As for the disciplinary question of how the Church ought to deal with modernism, dissenters, theological liberals who no longer hold to its teachings, but who continue to claim the title Catholic, I can't give documentation of actual historical examples of a "strategy." But it seems apparent to me that the Church has generally tried to resort to diplomacy and dialogue and patience more so than the instant threats of excommunication and interdict which characterized the Middle Ages. Sure, we took a hard-line stand with Henry VIII. That was principled. What did it achieve, though?: the loss of England to the Catholic faith (and by extension, all its colonies and its Empire, and the United States as a majority Catholic country), and untold hardships and suffering of Catholics in England, Scotland, and especially Ireland for almost 500 years -- in some cases (e.g., Belfast) right up to our own time.
Obviously, Henry VIII's lust and hubris was far more to blame for the separation of English Christianity than the Catholic Church was, but that unfortunate event serves as an example of what often occurs when a hard line is taken, pertaining to a country. One might see an analogy to Pope Pius XII in World War II. It is said that he didn't protest loud enough, so that he was compromised and cowardly. But we know that when louder protests were made, more people were killed, as in the Netherlands, where they grabbed St. Edith Stein and took her to her death. That was a matter of prudence. Such difficult scenarios are now legion in the Church, with the modernist and dissident crisis, not to the point of physical death or persecution, but with regard to the even more serious question of possible spiritual death of many souls.
We know that the situation in America (in particular) could easily blow up into schism, and almost did in the controversy surrounding Humanae Vitae in 1968, where theologians flat-out rebelled en masse against Pope Paul VI's heroic teaching reaffirming the age-old Christian ban on contraception (with which all Christians of all types agreed before 1930, when Anglicanism first softened the prohibition). I know this to be a verified fact in the dilemmas faced by, and approach of Pope Paul VI, with regard to the dissent, because the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (a leading catechist and thoroughly-orthodox Catholic scholar, and personal advisor to Paul VI) has stated this at Ignatian catechist meetings where I was present (and he was an advisor to Paul VI). Msgr. George A. Kelly (another rock-solid orthodox Catholic and no-holds-barred critic of modernism) writes:
It is clear that John Paul II intends to do more than state principles. Dissidents have also made it clear (long before the present pope) that they will fight any law enforcement measures taken to impede their deviance or to break their hold on Catholic institutions. 'Betrayal of Vatican II', 'un-ecumenical', 'purge', 'repression' are among the milder descriptions of disciplinary measures. They are correct, however, in judging the difficulties faced by John Paul, even if he enjoyed reinforcement of his policies by bishops. A massive effort to enforce Catholic law at this time and at all points would mean repressions -- or schism, with civil courts asked to adjudicate important aspects of this religious conflict. What then can be done? How should the bishops of the United States support the obvious policies of the Pope? How must they deal with Rome's concern of several years standing that an emerging American Church is in the offing -- one likely to create as much trouble for Catholicism as French Gallicanism did for several centuries prior to Vatican I.And elsewhere in the same book he writes:(The Crisis of Authority, Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1982, 93-94)
John Paul II cannot institutionalize the authentic meaning of Vatican II by himself, anymore than he can through reckless actions by the Vatican Curia. It is necessary that national conferences of Catholic bishops in each region of the Universal Church assume their share of responsibility for the pastoral care of the faithful on authentic terms. This is not likely to happen in the United States as long as the American bishops presume that they have done well since 1965, or as long as they fail to recognize the extent to which they have contributed to the problems they now face.Then Msgr. Kelly cites one of the most prominent radical "Catholic" modernists, Rosemary Radford Reuther, to illustrate just what "Catholic" dissenters are after:(Ibid., 73-74)
A new consensus could only come about if this traditional power could be deposed and the Church restructured on conciliar, democratic lines accountable to the people. Then the theological consensus of the academy could serve as a guide for the pastoral teaching of the Church. This is really what [famous dissident Hans] Kung is calling for: that the academy replace the hierarchy as the teaching magisterium of the Church. This cannot be accomplished by the accademy itself. It entails the equivalent of the French Revolution in the Church, the deposing of a monarchical for a democratic constitution of the Church . . . the liberal wing of this dissension must defend the autonomy and Catholicity of its institutional power bases, if it hopes to survive as an option for the future.Msgr. Kelly comments on this insolent bilge:(Ibid., 101-102; from Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Winter 1980, 65,67)
She wants the continuation of what she unashamedly calls 'internal schism', the kind that still plagues the Dutch Church in spite of John Paul II. Whatever one thinks of Rosemary Reuther's opinions of the faith and Church, her political judgments about the contemporary Catholic problematic are verified almost every time prominent Catholic dissenters write against the magisterium or position themselves against any effort by Church authority to re-institutionalize its own orthodoxy. The revolutionary or schismatic significance of their activity becomes manifest in the tone or content of what they say and do.Noted orthodox Catholic historian and writer James Hitchcock confirms that the dissenters are virulently anti-papal (if anyone didn't know that already):(Ibid., 102-103)
To take seriously the dissenting rhetoric, it would be necessary to regard John Paul II, and indeed virtually the papal office itself, as almost the enemy of the Church, for not only do the dissenters look with jaundiced eye on the doctrine of papal infallibility, not only do they regard the Vatican as having illegitimately usurped authority which ought to belong to the 'local church,' they also see the Papacy as the principal obstacle to the adoption of all those innovative ideas which they regard as crucial to the future of the Church . . . The logic of dissent would seem to dictate that there should be no pope at all, that the office tends towards the inevitable corruption of the Church. For obvious reasons few dissenters are willing to draw that conclusion, at least publicly, but it underlies most of their assumptions.Granting that all this analysis is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), it is quite reasonable to assume that strong, sweeping papal disciplinary actions in America would almost certainly result in a tragic schism. And since schism is to be avoided at all costs, the pope and orthodox bishops must proceed in a slower, more deliberate, long-term fashion. Catholicism is neither Puritanism nor Donatism.(Pope John Paul II and American Catholicism, New York: The National Committee of Catholic Laymen, Inc., 1980, 37)
Heresy and schism are both extremely grave sins. Schism has the additional characteristic of being a sin against people and charity. The problem here is that if the pope plays a strong hand, he gets schism as well as heresy, because the heresy will continue right on within the schism. So then two very bad things would be present, and the heresy would have much more chance of lasting for decades, maybe centuries. At least now the Church is held together in some fashion (mostly abstract, in America, Canada, and Europe), and the pope can continue to forcefully assert the truth in his encyclicals, by promulgation of the Catechism, etc. He can bide his time, and let the liberals grow old and die off (which they are doing in big numbers now). History shows that terrible periods in the Church are followed by massive revival. That is how this mess will be overcome (as always before, in the past). As G.K. Chesterton wrote:
I suspect that we should find several occasions when Christendom was thus to all appearance hollowed out from within by doubt and indifference, so that only the old Christian shell stood as the pagan shell had stood so long. But the difference is that in every such case, the sons were fanatical for the faith where the fathers had been slack about it. This is obvious in the case of the transition from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation. It is obvious in the case of a transition from the eighteenth century to the many Catholic revivals of our own time . . . At least five times, . . . with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died.This is why I am always an optimist (in taking a "long view" of history and the Church). It is a stance of faith, but with the backing of clear historical precedent -- at least five times before, as GKC says.(The Everlasting Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1925, 250-252, 254)
According to Catholic moral theology, the only way one can justify toleration of a known evil is if a greater evil is demonstrably prevented by such toleration. In this instance, the "greater evil" (than the rampant heresy in Catholic institutions) would be schism and the massive damage that would do to souls. The pope's dilemma is twofold: he can't really be expected to do all that much by himself (as Msgr. Kelly said) because liberalism is so absolutely entrenched. What do concerned orthodox Catholics who want immediate action want him to do: come to the liberal Catholic universities and magazines with tanks and helicopters? He "inherited" this situation; he didn't create it. But even if he pulled out all the stops; excommunicated several million dissidents, put the American Church under interdict (as in the old days of the Middle Ages), burned Curran, Kung, Greeley, Reuther, and McBrien at the stake, that would be even worse: far worse. So it is quite doubtful that he is even able to "prevent" the heresy going on now. Therefore, he is not at fault.
He is taking the most prudent course. He's between a rock and a hard place. That's what the so-called Catholic "traditionalists" who habitually bash John Paul II never get, because of their shallow Puritan/Donatist/rigorist/Pharisaical-like social analysis and inability to take the long view of history. What the Holy Father can do is exactly what he has been doing in superb fashion: teaching orthodox, traditional Catholicism in his official documents and a host of speeches, audiences, books, etc. Anyone who knows that the Catholic Church has a leader can get to his writing and learn for themselves what the Church teaches (especially now with the Internet). People have responsibility for their own souls, too. They can't expect the pope to wipe their noses for them and change their diapers.
It is true that souls are lost in the meantime in the nearly-barren wasteland of American Catholic catechesis and higher education (oftentimes secondary education as well), and the liberals who have caused that will stand before God and give account for it, and will be lucky to be saved themselves (see James 3:1 -- a verse which should make all teachers and apologists tremble and fall on their knees). But the pope can't do much more than he is doing, without far worse results happening. His hands are tied by the nature of the problem. Until this is clearly understood, the "slowness" or "failure" to discipline or excommunicate dissenters will never be comprehended, and will tend to be lambasted by concerned orthodox Catholics (a group I am proud to be part of, but we have our problems, too).
If one prominent dissident, such as Hans Kung, were to be excommunicated, then it is logical to boot out all the prominent dissidents, which would run into the thousands. What would ensue would be absolutely scandalous and horrifying: a huge social-theological cultural fiasco. I agree with Msgr. Kelly's scenario of a crackdown (cited above). One of the problems with "traditionalism" is that it correctly observes that the crisis in the Church is very serious (arguably the most serious crisis ever), but it is wrong with regard to both its causes and its cures, and doesn't seem to realize that if the crisis is as grave as it claims, that it is no easy matter at all for the pope or even the pope and a significant minority of orthodox bishops with some spine, to put an end to it. "Traditionalists" fail to see what that very level of crisis implies for any possible massive disciplinary move to wipe it out. It took the Spaniards 700 years to reconquer their country. Internal dissent and infiltration is even more difficult to weed out, in many respects, than foreign invaders. Not that it will take the Church 700 years, but it won't be accomplished in a day or a week.
The following lengthy excerpt from James Hitchcock, is, I think, is a very plausible explanation for many problems in the Church:
(From: "Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results: A View Of The Catholic Church In America," James Hitchcock, May 1995 issue of The Catholic World Report; online at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/usa.html)
The great failure of the older generation of bishops was their failure to gain control of the post-conciliar process of education. All over the United States interpreters of "renewal" arose to skew the meaning of the Council in numerous ways, a process which only grew worse over time. Few indeed were the bishops who attempted - even in their own dioceses, much less nationally -- to establish an authentic program of education in the "new Church." The result was that, over the next decades, Church officials on all levels - from bishops themselves to kindergarten teachers - were systematically inducted into a view of "renewal" which was increasingly at odds with official teaching and with the actual words of the Council.This entire perspective has the ring of truth, in my opinion. So I suppose one could fault the pope for imprudence and the dogged pursuit of a strategy proven over 23 years to be ineffective in opposing heterodoxy-in-practice-at-the-diocesan-level. But that's a far cry from accusing him of being compromised with liberalism (a sort of useful idiot, as Lenin would put it), a wimp, or actively crusading for heterodoxy and moral evil.By 1975, if not before, the Church in the United States had lost perhaps the majority of its "middle management" to stronger or milder degrees of dissent, as most bishops watched passively and even approvingly. The storm of dissent which followed the birth-control encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968 was a crucial moment whose opportunities were quickly lost. Apparently the American bishops made a collective decision that they would not try systematically to educate their people in the teachings of the encyclical, and dissent thereby gained immense credibility (the issue was shrewdly exploited by certain theologians precisely because it had direct relevance to most lay people).
Common sense would have dictated that, faced with massive dissent from official teachings, bishops would have made every effort to identify the core of Catholics, clerical and lay, who accepted those teaching, given them every encouragement, and used that core as a base from which to reach out to others. Instead the American bishops seem to have made the collective decision almost to ignore such people, who were soon left to fend for themselves, as practically all pastoral efforts were turned towards those who dissented . . . In deciding not to support "Humanae Vitae" except verbally, the American bishops made the fundamental strategic mistake which has been the undoing of liberal Protestantism. For over a century liberal Protestantism has steadily surrendered Christian positions deemed incredible by a particular historical age, the better to protect the core of the faith. But in each generation, more such surrenders are demanded, until there is finally nothing left, and surrender itself becomes the chief expectation which liberals must meet. Thus by giving up on birth control, the bishops of 1968 probably thought they were preserving their credibility on other questions . . . The strategy of tolerating selective dissent can only have such results, and the area of dissent can only continue to widen . . .
No doubt also the Holy See has sometimes been disappointed at the inaction of men it has appointed. It is not possible to understand the phenomenon of the inactive bishop, however, without understanding that the Vatican also bears its share of the responsibility. Italians can almost be said to have invented diplomacy. It was an art which came to perfection in Italy during the Renaissance, none practicing it more skilfully than the papacy itself. That venerable tradition has continued into the present and, despite being sometimes denounced by liberals as a form of centralized control, it often serves liberal interests in the Church.
The art of diplomacy can be defined simply as the attempt to gain one's objectives by skilful manipulation of one's opponents, through strategies which those opponents often do not even comprehend until they are accomplished. But if war is indeed the continuation of diplomacy by other means, then the frequency of wars in human history shows how often diplomacy fails. Diplomacy tends to be especially ineffective in situations where ideology rules, where contending parties have beliefs which they consider matters of principle and about which they have passionate convictions, where they see nothing less than the entire well-being of the world at stake. That is the situation in the Church today, involving contending groups who sharply disagree about morality, doctrine, and the nature of the Church itself.
Over the centuries the Holy See has often had to resort to diplomacy because it lacked military and political power. ("How many divisions does the pope have?") Such diplomacy even had to be used in internal Church matters, where secular governments exercised a strong influence over the appointment of bishops, for example. It is ironic, therefore, and discouraging, that in the modern democratic era, when the Church enjoys the blessings of complete independence from political
control, such diplomacy still seems necessary, now often concentrated on internal ecclesiastical matters. It appears, for example, that the pope is not free simply to appoint bishops as he sees fit, but that an elaborate process of consultation, of checks and balances, takes place, after which successful candidates are often people who have no highly placed enemies.The Holy See now appears to treat national episcopal conferences, and the numerous religious orders, almost as foreign powers. Scrupulous correctness is observed at all times, formal verbiage masks barely hidden disagreements, and above all potential "incidents" are avoided. Conservative Catholics cannot be encouraged to take strong stands for orthodoxy at the local level, just as a government cannot permit its citizens living in foreign countries to offend local laws. (Thus liberals complained bitterly for ten years about the Holy See's appearing to listen to complaints from conservative American Catholics - whereupon the Holy See appears to have stopped listening to those complaints.) This endemic practice of diplomacy within the Church has yielded small results. Abuses have been tolerated not for the sake of unity but merely for the appearance of unity, which itself soon becomes an over-riding concern.
As the Vatican began appointing apparently more conservative bishops after 1980, it also appears to have developed a profile of an ideal bishop which describes a majority of John Paul II's appointments: personally orthodox and pious but low-keyed, cautious, and "non-confrontational." By inference the Vatican's strategy for reforming dioceses is to appoint bishops who will act with such caution and skill that change will come about in time - without people even being fully aware of it. Entrenched liberal elements will not resist, nor will the media interfere, because they do not even understand what is happening. But in an environment governed by ideology, this scenario really cannot play itself out. Liberals are quick to notice even small "backward" steps by their bishop, and they test him by relentlessly pushing ahead with their agenda, so that he must either confront them or surrender.
Even if this were not the case, the strategy of painless, uncontroversial, almost unnoticed reform is one which even the most brilliant diplomat would have trouble effecting. Thus conservative bishops who prove to be disappointments in their dioceses often are so because they were chosen by the Holy See for certain personal qualities which were bound to produce that result. The ancient maxim, "suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" - "smoothly in manner, firmly in substance" - easily degenerates into a preoccupation with "modus" at the expense of "res." Once appointed, a conservative bishop finds other obstacles besides those in the diocese itself. Despite fifteen years of episcopal appointments by John Paul II, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops remained essentially a liberal body, in which determined conservatives have difficulty merely staving off serious defeats, much less winning substantial victories.
Once again it requires a particularly resolute kind of man to accept the status of a defined minority within a body which seems to place great importance on the spirit of belonging. If nothing else, a new bishop is likely to discover quickly that he will be consistently on the losing side unless he moderates his positions substantially. The considerations which dictate such moderation are not insignificant, which is why the Holy See itself appears to value them highly. Bad publicity never helps the Church, especially when it highlights bitter internal divisions. Ideally the bishop should command the loyalty and respect of his whole diocese and not be a focus of controversy. The spirit of collegiality dictates that the NCCB not simply be disregarded.
But a disinterested secular student of Catholicism must conclude that few religions in the history of the world have placed more emphasis on doctrinal purity, liturgical correctness, and moral authenticity than has the Catholic Church. As someone has pointed out, the Anglican tradition has been that of tolerating almost endless degrees of liturgical and doctrinal diversity, in order to avoid schism, while the Catholic tradition has been almost the reverse. If at almost all times in the history of the Church, a concern for orthodoxy has been paramount, the contemporary Church has an eerie feel about it precisely because of the absence of that concern.
At the diocesan and national levels it is possible to raise questions about pastoral strategy, administrative competence, economic feasibility, human sensitivity, awareness of injustice, and numerous other things but never about orthodoxy. The very word, and its opposite -"heresy" - is seldom uttered, and even conservative bishops give the impression that they are embarrassed to be caught thinking in those terms . . .
The governing virtue in American episcopal circles at present appears to be prudence, which is a legitimate virtue but, it should be noted, a virtue which exists only in relation to other virtues . . . Prudence seeks to achieve goals in a way which does not violate other virtues. It is not simply a synonym for caution. In the entire history of the Church probably not a single saint was ever canonized for the conspicuous virtue of prudence, and many were (from a worldly stand-point) quite imprudent. This applies to canonized bishops, many of whom were martyrs and almost all of whom were involved in severe conflicts of various kinds. (When St. Charles Borromeo began to reform the diocese of Milan, the inmates of a particular monastery actually hired an assassin who shot at the bishop during Vespers.)
By the logic of prudence as it is now understood, the Church should not have canonized John Fisher, the only bishop who withstood Henry VIII, but instead Stephen Gardiner and Cuthbert Tunstall -men who, although not devoid of principle, nonetheless managed to survive the ecclesiastical changes of three reigns. (Although the fact is well known that all but one English bishop conformed to Henry VIII in 1534, much less well known is the fact that in 1559 no English bishop conformed to Elizabeth I, and all were deposed, including Tunstall - a fact which demonstrates the feasibility of thoroughly reforming a national hierarchy.)
Today's bishops may feel understandably discouraged at being asked to correct conditions which have gone unchecked for three decades, and whose roots are often traceable to precisely the generation of allegedly strong prelates at the time of the Council. But this illustrates a homey principle-every problem, from a moral flaw to a leaky roof, merely gets worse if not addressed. Despite the claim that he is a rigidly counter-reforming pope, these problems are more intractable now than they were when John Paul II ascended the papal throne, and they will only continue to worsen if not addressed . . .
[This article appeared in the May 1995 issue of The Catholic World
Report, P.O. Box 6718, Syracuse, NY 13217-7912, 800-825-0061]
In this instance, however, I think one must judge his plan, tactics, or strategy for recovering the institutional orthodoxy of the Church against the backdrop of the entrenched modernist rebellion or revolution. I maintain that anything his critics and "armchair popes" might say he "should" do would have a far worse effect than what he is doing. To casually assume that the liberals are not capable of literal schism is to vastly underestimate both their power and resolve. What would his critics on the matter of Church discipline have him do? Burn every heretic at the stake? The Church used to do that, after all (or at least gave approval to secular authorities to do so). I exaggerate, but this did indeed occur, and it was a way of "removing" heresy. The Middle Ages were very "decisive" in that way. Should he remove every modernist professor? That would almost certainly produce schism, etc.
But the Holy Father can continue to write about and preach truth (which is not without effect, and plants many seeds), and there's not a thing the liberals can do about that. They can't fault him for it because of their belief in free speech and right for anyone to have any idea (kinda sorta). And they can't totally publicly denigrate the papacy because of their perpetual pipe-dream of getting a "liberal pope." So some "traditionalists" think they already got their wish with John Paul II? That would be news to the dissenters themselves (as it would be to the pope himself, who has put up with their rank insults and stupid slanders these past 23 years). Whatever myriad deficiencies liberals have; one thing that can be said for them is that they recognize their own. They're as fond of "Panzer-Cardinal" Ratzinger as they are of John Paul II . . . . . :-)
QUICK SUMMARY
1) If the Church has definitively stated that heresy is a greater evil than schism; that's fine. I accept whatever the Church teaches. In any event, all Catholics agree that both are evils and should be avoided as much as possible.
2) One of my points above was that they usually go hand-in-hand. If a schism is created by absolute and sweeping disciplinary action, we then have schism and heresy (because the heretics are less likely to become orthodox if they are formally separated from the Church - perhaps even without sacraments at some point in the future, just as many Anglicans now are), whereas now we have the latter, and it is decreasing as the liberals die off, and revival slowly picks up speed. The calculation is that the present course will be much better in the long run. There simply is no easy or clear-cut choice: that is central to my thesis on this. If to do one thing makes matters worse, then perhaps that would implicate the one doing it, having known better, and having foreseen (by reasoning and analysis of history) the likely outcome?
On the other hand, it is not the pope's fault that heretics are in the Church. The dissent was in full flower ten years before he assumed his pontificate. I think a stronger case might possibly be made against Paul VI's irresponsibility in not nipping this thing in the bud (I do not myself take that view; I'm just thinking out loud) -- or Pius XII's, or John XXIII's, for that matter (Fr. Hardon used to say that the "revolution" in the Church began around 1940). But the beginning or infancy stages of a revolution are different from the same revolution being firmly entrenched. And that calls for a different response, prudentially.
3) My primary point was to argue that schism is longer-lasting and could have deleterious consequences on many more souls, potentially. Even granting that heresy is a greater sin, that still doesn't necessarily call for responses which will likely lead to schism, which might last 1000 years or more, as we observe in the history of Christianity. It is wrong to deliberately commit or cause the lesser of two evils, just as it is to commit evil, period. It's fine to have all these moral absolutes and ideals (I agree with that), but there is such a thing as prudence and wisdom in applying the ideals and principles, as well, and there are literally millions of souls in the balance, whatever route the pope and the Church decides to take on this. Those are things (it goes without saying) which call for prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I think the pope does and has much more of that than us laymen.
I could easily imagine Dietrich von Hildebrand (or anyone who might criticize his approach to the problem of modernism) talking to Pope John Paul II today about this subject and the pope saying, "I understand and appreciate your points, my dear Dietrich, and I know your heartfelt concerns about the evil influence of modernism, with which I am in full agreement, but we disagree as to the wisest, most prudential course of action to eliminate such influences in the long run, because of [reasons a, b, c . . . . ]."
Those reasons might include some I have given (which were Paul VI's reasons -- as communicated to me by Fr. Hardon), and/or perhaps many that those of us not in such a high position have not even dreamt of, or thought of at all (just as we don't know a host of things that the President of the United States has to deal with (top secret stuff, etc.). That gets back to the trust issue. The Holy Father knows many things we don't know, and God has entrusted the leadership of the Church into his hands, not ours.
Main Index & Search | "Traditionalist" & Schismatic Catholics | Theological Liberalism and Modernism | Catholic "Scandals" & Shortcomings | The Papacy
Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 7 March 2002.
The pope wants the same result that people who ask this question do: how to have an orthodox Church and how to retain as many souls in the Church (and for ultimate salvation) as possible. He thinks it will take a long time.
We do what we can. We come online, as instructed by JP and we evangelize. Let those who have ears hear. And even those who disagree--sometimes adamently--they are useful too, as they keep the articles bumped and allow lurkers who may be interested but too shy to join in the debate to decide for themselves. We have been battling scisms from the beginning and will continue to because the attacks on our church will never cease. So, we will take comfort that God will not allow us to be destroyed, though satan gives it everything he's got.
(Hey, look what I found on Dave's Life Issues: Abortion, Contraception, and Euthanasia page: a link to a Petersnet file called Anti-Catholicism and Population Control (by some guy named "Dr. Brian Kopp" ;-)
pinging...
Well, gee whillikers... Whose fault is THAT, Pontiff?
Note: I am not disputing the fact that Pontiff Karol Wojtyla "speaks softly" with eloquence, and dignity, and compassion, and erudition, and understanding, and all the rest of that very-fine-and-dandy stuff.
I am simply pointing out that the Tradition and Magisterium and -- in the Roman Church at least, the Conciliar Judgment of the Roman Councils -- has provided him with a very big stick in terms of Disciplinary Authority.
But does he use it?
The problem is that both lead to the same place, lost souls in Hell. In the topsy-turvy world we have today, it may even be that schism is less to be feared than heresy. As an example, the only remaining de jure schism of the last century is that of the SSPX and derivatives. The SSPX offers a valid Mass and a pius, clearly orthodox view of the Faith. Many (too many) Diocesan Bishops offer Modernism in a fashion that has few taking Communion in a State of Grace. If you take Communion while in a state of mortal sin, you are lost. Since the Sacrament of Penance has so declined in so many places, how is that de facto schism any worse than de jure? And since a de jure schism would wake up many, isn't that arguably better? This is academic, of course, since HH makes this call and not I, but that is my first reaction to this well done piece.
And that, as they say, is the bottom line. An excellent post, Salvation. Which reminds me of a funny story I heard the other day.
A reporter approached Bishop Fulton Sheen, after one of his broadcasts and asked him:
"Bishop, do you use speech writers?"
"Why, yes I do", responded the bishop.
"May I ask who they are?" queried the reporter.
"Of course", replied the bishop, "their names are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
As the author noted, the liberals are in fact dying off, and it appears that the Pope is trying to limit the damage to this generation, rather than provoke a split that could last for centuries. Many disagree with that strategy, but it's a prudential decision, and I believe it is correct.
"Since the Sacrament of Penance has so declined in so many places, how is that de facto schism any worse than de jure?"
I think you mean the opposite. In other words, you're saying that formal schism wouldn't be worse than what we have now.
But the article points out clearly that often schisms last for very, very long times. I think that's why our Holy Father has avoided having folks like the SSPX fall into formal schism. It is hard enough trying to coax these people back into the Church without having all the trappings of formal schism to overcome.
Maybe it's a character flaw on my part, but I agree with the pope on this one. It is important to work very hard to avoid formal schism. The liberals are dying off. The only seminaries that are full are those filled with orthodox men. The only Catholics having children are those in communion with Peter and the authentic teaching of the Church. Patience is a virtue.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.