Open Windows: Why Vatican II Was Necessary

Crisis Magazine | March, 2004 | George Sim Johnston

[ultima ratio]

This claim of yours--that the laity said the rosary during Mass in the old days--may have been true in some cases. But most people generally used missals and followed along. As for those who said their beads instead--ever hear of the Sorrowful Mysteries? See any connection to the Sacrifice of the Mass? If not, I suggest you reread Mediator Dei.

[sinkspur]

I did a session a couple of weeks ago on Avery Dulles' "Models of the Church". I had to read the book to do it, and it is one of the most cogent presentations of the different "models" that have guided the Church since Trent that I've read.

[ultima ratio]

The vast majority of Catholics also don't practice the faith. But getting back to saying the rosary during Mass--why shouldn't people be free to pray as they wish? Why do the liturgical fascists insist on a lot of verbal responses that are mindless and the purest rote? Why shouldn't a contemplative silence be preferred as one says one's beads? The Novus Ordo liturgists love regimentation--one size fits all. They relishe busy-ness and noise--it's what they're about. There's a very superficial understanding of the kind of contemplative prayer the rosary inspires.

[sinkspur]

If someone wants to attend a Novus Ordo Mass and say the Rosary, they are entirely free to do so.

[BobCNY]

I think the Catholic Church has forgotten it SHOULD teach adults. By teaching the Faith to the adults, I do not mean the feel good pop-psychology that some classes are.

I agree teaching the children the Faith is good, but not truly effective via the CCD programs. As I have mentioned before on this forum, I teach 9th grade CCD (pre-Confirmation students in my diocese) and the Faith can not be effectively taught them in the once a week during the school year for 1 hour we have them (assuming you start on time with all the students in the room and they attend every class and not skip for sports or school activities..just like Dad skipping Mass so he can play golf in the morning).

The children will only learn the Faith if it is taught them at home by their family. If they go to CCD class and I tell them the value of the Eucharist and the Sacraments and their family makes use of neither (i.e. are the seasonal Catholics of Christmas and Easter), who do you think has the most impact on their Faith formation?

It is the old argument you hear about children in government schools, it is the responsibility of the schools to teach children and make them good citizens and not the parents, which is a false statement that has caused a large number of our social ills in this country.

Someone might ask why I bother teaching CCD if the above is the case, its simple Faith and Hope.

[GirlShortstop]

There is a hunger for catechesis and knowledge among Catholics, and Catholic parishes need to teach adults as well as children.

Sinkspur, you've raised a point extremely close to my heart... does there exist, and/or have you any ideas on how to plant a seed for, an Adult Catechism type of program?  I am a product of the 70's and beyond, where there was a pretty wide blackhole as far as formal Catechism instruction.  An Adult Faith Formation program at first attendance left me *very* disappointed for reasons that I'd be better sharing privately.  I desire/envision something more than a CCD which is directed toward younger minds and/or absent philosophy (I think).  Something like a "live in person!" FR Catholic Caucus, minus the JPII bashing and schizzie detractions of course.  :-)  I am on a quest I suppose... information would be so beneficial and give me optimism!  Pax et bonum.

[dangus]

I'm not sure the council wasn't successful. If the goal was to define the place of the lay Christians (who are more like 99.99% of Christianity), after centuries of neglect, what would you look to happen? If the preists simply proclaim the new role of the laity, isn't that just continuing the old way? No, the laity must assume their roles by standing in the gap.

In the 1960's Catholicism was already dead in Europe, and we now know was in far graver shape in America than we knew. Remember Len Bias, playing basketball and looking healthy until he dropped dead? Like Len, the church's heart was ill.

The assertion that traditionalists make that the pedophilia scandals are a result of Vatican 2 are absurd on their face. Although it peaked in the 70s, By the mid-60s, child-rape was already common. And nearly all of the priests involved had completed their seminary training BEFORE Vatican 2.

The only way to save Len's life (and I will be embarrassed if I'm mixing up bball players' names) was surgery, a surgery no-one could know to perform. I think the Holy Spirit led Pope John XXIII to conduct surgery on the church. And the church is lying on a hospital bed, with IVs running into its arm, looking near death. How natural it is to say, "Wasn't it so much healthier making jump shots before those doctors did this to him?" The reality is we know just how gravely ill the church was. Pray for the cure.

(None of this, NONE of this is meant to fault the practices that trads cling to. Like Latin Mass? That is wonderful. By all means go! Just please recognize that the Holy Spirit has not left the Church orphaned.)

[dangus]

The book I can't stop recommending to people is the same book that Pope Saint Pius X, that hero of the ultratrads, said he couldn't recommend enough: The Soul of the Apostolate. Park yourself in front of the Blessed Sacrament and meditate on it. And I'd recommend praying the openning prayer in it before every reading.

[ultima ratio]

Not so. You are wrong on all three counts. First, the Council only destroyed the dignity of the priesthood without achieving a breakthrough with the laity. It did this by bringing the laity into the sanctuary, blurring the line between the priesthood of the ordained and the priesthood of the baptized--in the Protestant fashion. What the Council failed to do was quicken the apostolate of the laity in the secular context--which had been the Council's intent.

Second, Catholicism was not dead in Europe before the Council. On the contrary, in postwar Europe the Christian Democrats, allied to the Church, was the ascendant party on the continent and led the fight against Communism on the continent. Catholic countries had not yet imploded. It was only after the Council that Catholicism collapsed in Europe. Ireland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, all predominantly Catholic, suffered irreversible losses. Vocations dried up. Church attendance plummeted. Seminaries closed. Ireland now is down to one seminary. Spain and the Netherlands are now completely secularized countries. Italy is struggling to sustain the faith in the face of Islam's continuing spread. The Council was a disaster for the faith everywhere, but especially in Catholic Europe. These changes are documentable--happening in the decade of 1965-1975--after the close of the Council.

Third, the recent lay commission on clerical sex abuse shows unambiguously that while there had been some abuse before the Council, it was in the period AFTER the Council that things got exponentially worse. Incidents of abuse increased alarmingly during the 1970s and 80s. There is also clear evidence of a homosexual networking that took over the seminaries after the Council and reached into the hierarchy. At least part of the failure of bishops to contain the spread of abuse has been their own vulnerability to blackmail by abusing priests. All this came about AFTER the Council.

[dangus]

>>First, the Council only destroyed the dignity of the priesthood without achieving a breakthrough with the laity. It did this by bringing the laity into the sanctuary, blurring the line between the priesthood of the ordained and the priesthood of the baptized--in the Protestant fashion. <<

The Council did not do this. And in fact, this Pope has recently forbidden it. If you see this practice persist, please contact your bishop.

>>Second, Catholicism was not dead in Europe before the Council. <<

Catholicism in the Netherlands had been dead since Napoleon. However, I will concede that the situation has deteriorated in Spain and Ireland. Hence, the analogy to Len Bias.

>>Third, <<

Your facts here are opposite reality. Even by the 1960s, sexual abuse was as high as it was in the 1980s, and several times as high as it was in the 1990s. The epidemic peaked in the 1970s, and was rapidly declining by the 1980s. The preponderous majority of sex-abuse cases were performed by priests who went through seminary in the 40s and 50s. I don't know if the problem predated that, or if we have simply lost measurement of that to history.

I don't know whether the homosexual networking is new or not. It could be new, but I suspect that it is simply much more open since the 60s.

[GirlShortstop]

The book I can't stop recommending to people is the same book that Pope Saint Pius X, that hero of the ultratrads, said he couldn't recommend enough: The Soul of the Apostolate.

Thank you very much dangus. The book reviews that I just checked out sound wonderful.  The Soul of the Apostolate has made my book list.  Pax et bonum!

[ultima ratio]

You've got to be kidding. The Novus Ordo is all about extraordinary ministers who have become all too ordinary. To suggest otherwise is to falsify reality. The sanctuary nowadays is so crowded with Novus Ordo lay ministers, most of them women, all of them dressed exactly as the priest--that the priest is practically indistinguishable unless he's sporting a beard. As for the Pontiff warning about this--he will wag his finger, but will actually impose no real discipline to curb the abuse. So they will continue--along with all the other liturgical abuses ushered in by the new age. But besides this anomaly I can think of no other change brought about by the Council that in any way has benefitted either the Church as a whole or the laity in particular.

Regarding Europe, you should be aware that there have been many exhaustive studies tracking the decline in European Catholicism in nine countries over the decades since the Council. The nine countries are Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain (with a sub-sample for Northern Ireland), Italy and the Netherlands. Over the decades these studies show a precipitous decline everywhere since Vatican II. Here's a quote from a recent article:

"Continued decline of Catholicism, renewal of 'soft beliefs' [vague spirituality attached to no religion per se, such as a belief in survival after death, etc.].
The data confirm a decline in Catholicism in terms of decreased attendance at confession and mass. (Table 5) However, a percentage of people who state they no longer belong to a religion still have strong beliefs, and their numbers are higher than those who profess atheism. Ours is an age more of religious indifference than rejection. In addition, belief in the central tenets of Christianity (Table 6) is declining, but not as greatly as ADHERENCE TO CATHOLICISM. We are in an age of 'possibilities' (it is possible that God exists), an age of 'soft beliefs' rather than rejection of God. Religious values seem to be able to make sense for some people today, who adhere less and less to an established creed but freely compile their own set of beliefs. New beliefs emerge, particularly among young people, in which belief in a life after death tends to be on the rise." (Isuma, "Values of the French: a Quantitative Approach. Vol 1, No. 2, Autumn, 2000).

Recently the Pope addressed the crisis in Europe which has steadily worsened over his pontificate. He called the loss of the Catholic faith across the board a "silent apostasy." I call it a dereliction on his part. Liberal Catholicism has failed utterly. So too has the Council. Big time. But the Pontiff clings to both and still awaits his "springtime" even while the winter deepens.

You know, I can tell from your posts you haven't got much background to justify the claims you make. For instance, do you know the role played by Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago in pushing the gay agenda and having gays elevated to the American episcopacy? If not, I suggest you start doing some research on this, the largest of the gay networks. You might want to check the website of Roman Catholic Faithful.com.

[sinkspur]

Even by the 1960s, sexual abuse was as high as it was in the 1980s, and several times as high as it was in the 1990s. The epidemic peaked in the 1970s, and was rapidly declining by the 1980s. The preponderous majority of sex-abuse cases were performed by priests who went through seminary in the 40s and 50s. I don't know if the problem predated that, or if we have simply lost measurement of that to history.

It's been lost to history. That's why bishops are fighting to keep archives closed.

[GirlShortstop]

But the Pontiff clings to both and still awaits his "springtime" even while the winter deepens.

Did you ever stop to consider ultima, before you posit negatively about JPII... who has more Faith, you or the Holy Father?

[Tuco Ramirez]

I believe the study indicated that the class of 1971 had the highest number of offenders. Even though many of the cases pre-date Vatican II, the majority occurred afterwards. Also, in the most recent cases, society in general knew that the perpetrators could never be cured.

[ultima ratio]

"Did you ever stop to consider ultima, before you posit negatively about JPII... who has more Faith, you or the Holy Father?"

No, I don't compare myself to the Pope. I compare the Pope to preconciliar popes. Unfortunately, he lacks their wisdom and orthodoxy.

[Desdemona]

Recently the Pope addressed the crisis in Europe which has steadily worsened over his pontificate. He called the loss of the Catholic faith across the board a "silent apostasy." I call it a dereliction on his part.

How can it be his fault when he is constantly preaching to the people and the bishops won't obey him? I'd pin this stuff on the bishops, myself. It was under their watch that education disappeared and the seminaries atrophied. The bishops, as a whole, have been grossly negligent, IMO. And what is the pope to do when his staff doesn't tell him of problems or shields him from what is going on out in the dioceses? What is he supposed to do when the bishops stand before him and lie?

There's a lot of blame to go around, but at this point the pope is guilty of trying to please too many people.

[Desdemona]

Liberal Catholicism has failed utterly. So too has the Council. Big time.

Well, since the liberals hijacked the council and used it to install their agenda under a weak pope, yes. It was not meant to be the way it turned out. And again, the bishops disobeyed.

[drstevej]

*** And what is the pope to do when his staff doesn't tell him of problems or shields him from what is going on out in the dioceses? What is he supposed to do when the bishops stand before him and lie?***

If YOU know his staff doesn't tell him the truth and YOU know his bishops lie to him... why do you excuse him?

You guys really need the Pocket Fisherman...

[Desdemona]

If YOU know his staff doesn't tell him the truth and YOU know his bishops lie to him... why do you excuse him?

I suspect the bit about the staff. I KNOW the stuff about the bishops. He has to trust somebody. There are some major violations of canon law out there (that have nothing to do with liturgy or property or seminaries) and they're not being corrected regardless of directives and no one is making an effort to enforce it.

The more I read and learn about various topics in the church, the more I believe that there's collusion to shield the pope from a lot of information. I can't prove it and I'm going out on a limb, but the church is darn good at secrecy and there's something going on.