Posted on 04/15/2005 4:34:46 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
In church's dreams, Vatican II never happened
April 13, 2005
BY ANDREW GREELEY
The American TV networks spent huge sums of money and sent scores of people to Rome last week. Characteristically, they spent little time or energy on research and hence provided weak and stereotypical journalism, limited to questions about married priests, female priests, gays and sexual abuse. They missed completely the most critical issue for the church in the 21st century -- Vatican Council II and the changes it created.
Many, if not most, of the cardinal electors would tell you that the council was an incident, a bump in the road. The council fathers wrote some useful documents. There was misguided enthusiasm after the council, but Pope John Paul II sternly reimposed order on the church. The council is interesting mainly now as a historical matter.
Leaders lost their nerve
They could not be more wrong. The council was a revolutionary event that had a profound impact on Catholics who lived through it and indirectly on their children, who have barely heard about it. It's still the green dragon lurking in the Sistine Chapel even if the electors can't quite see it.
The model of unchanging Catholicism in response to the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution assumed that the church would not change, should not change, could not change. Suddenly the laity and lower clergy experienced changes in liturgy, in Scripture interpretation, in theories of religious liberty, in attitudes toward other Christians and Jews, in trust of the modern world. The structures -- patterns of behavior and supporting motivations -- that had supported the church for several centuries collapsed.
The council fathers may not have foreseen this collapse, but they did vote for the changes (in overwhelming numbers) and hence the documents themselves and the action of the fathers (presumably in Catholic theology guided by the Holy Spirit) were responsible for the destabilization.
It was, as it seemed then, a new spring for the church, now flexible, joyful and confidently open to the world. However, the ferment frightened some of the leaders who lost their nerve and responded the only way they knew how -- repression. They issued new orders without any serious attempt to explain the reasons for them. They silenced some theologians. They appointed reactionary bishops, who were not always the brightest or most humane. They investigated seminaries. Their mood changed from optimism to grim warnings and solemn denunciations. The church, for a few years a bright light on the mountaintop, had once again become an embattled fortress afraid of the modern world.
House of cards collapsed
The leaders confidently expected that the laity would do what they were told. They could not have been more wrong, nor their strategy more counterproductive. The laity and the lower clergy for the most part simply ignored them and went about creating new structures in which Catholics would affiliate with the church on their own terms. Resignations from the priesthood and the collapse of priestly vocations began only after the desperate attempts to slow down change turned the mood of the council years sour. The present crisis of the credibility of church leadership arose precisely from mistaken attempts to reassert the old leadership style. The problem is not so much the council as restorationist attempts to undo it.
To be fair, no one realized how potentially frail was the so-called confident church of 1950, both in America and around the world. A push from a handful of conciliar documents and the whole house of cards collapsed. For many leaders who had known the seeming serenity of the pre-conciliar church, it was unthinkable that the structures had disappeared overnight and with them their own credibility. So they fell back on them to prevent a disappearance that had already occurred.
The restorationist style continues here in Rome, though it should be clear that it doesn't work. Despite the late pope's efforts to reassert the church's traditional sexual ethic, acceptance of it has declined everywhere.
Few willing to admit truth
In the pre-conclave atmosphere, it is necessary to pretend that this is not true. Or if there is a bit of truth in it, the proper response of the new pope should be yet tougher repression, more vigorous restoration. Almost no one is willing to admit even to themselves that the leadership strategy since 1970 has caused most of the problems in the church -- the decline of vocations and church attendance and the alienation of the young.
Vatican II is the dragon in their midst that they cannot see and they wish would go away. Unfortunately they have not, will not learn that you cannot repeal an ecumenical council and cancel its effects.
So do I!
Congratulations Grampa!
Besides, mantillas are elegant garments! And inexpensive.
One think we may thank God for is that Greeley is much more obsessed with profiting from soft-core porno novels than he is with instructing us benighted Catholics who still stick to the Teaching Magisterium and recognize the outer enthusiasms and enthusiasts for "the spirit of Vatican II" for the frauds that they clearly are.
Conservatives in the actual Catholic (and not schismatic) pews defend papal authority so that it may be used vigorously to run dissidents of all stripes and all ranks out of Holy Mother the Church.
See post 87 please. I'm interested in your thoughts.
Greeley is a sort of SSPX liberal. He hates the papacy and the Church but for his own eccentric reasons. Same behavior/different excuses.
SS: It would also be a good idea to find out why "Catholic" clergy who dissent are not run out of the clergy. We can do quite well without them. We will also do a whole lot better without them. Let the purge begin.
Also, if those "Catholic" couples ignore the Teaching Magisterium on contraception, then they are better described as former Catholics or make-believe Catholics or "Catholics" in a persistent state of what certainly appears to be mortal sin. If the priests hearing their confessions (if any) are encouraging them, likewise.
Bump that -- exactly what a member of the Tribunal said when speaking at our church this week.
Torie is not a Catholic and, given Torie's knee-jerk support for "moderate" Republicans aka RINOs, not much of a conservative either. Torie gets along well with Sinkspur which should be no surprise. Torie would really be in love with Sinkspur's Bishop Delaney.
You have promised not to be Catholic which is a good thing unless you massively modify your ideological commitments. The Catholic Church has enough of a need to cleanse the stables of dissident trash without recruiting more of them.
The Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been and never will be some sort of brainless and unprincipled club of feel-good Kumbaya sob sisters.
As to the Roman Catholic Church and an appropriate attitude toward its enemies, yes, by all means, take a hike. And, of course, MYOB.
Lest we have to repeat the usual ritual: You are, of course, free to display the abysmal manners of rooting around in the underwear drawer of a Catholic Church thankfully not your own and Catholics are free to respond to your lack of knowledge. Catholics are not Libertoonians.
Many couples who practice Natural Family Planning state that it brings them closer together spiritually. In other words, it is a blessing in their lives, not a cross or burden.
Bishop Delaney apparently "apologized" after the fact. Of course, the sheep are the shepherd's responsibility and exposing them to wolves like Fr. Rhode Island is not part of the job description. Cracking down on the heterodox in the flock IS part of the job description but Delaney apparently lacks the spine to do his job or the intellect or faith to understand the nature of his job.
It will take a decade or two of actually Catholic bishop(s) purging what and whom need purging after Delaney's departure, but the Church in Fort Worth can be restored. With God all things are possible.
Must be Greeley. Has the same panting, grabbing, and slightly myopic style as do his sex novels.
Also a bit un-informed.
Sure.
That explains the 5 million or so which showed up in Rome, and the estimated 2 BILLION that watched all or some of the TV coverage beginning with the announcement of "whats-his-name's" death.
There are some folks to whom your statement applies, partially, Sink.
While USCC bureaucrats and most US Diocesan bureaucrats and Bishops can actually name the reigning Pontiff, they couldn't care less about his teachings.
Significant difference.
Insightful.
Greeley is among the very large crowd of morons which believe that All of Church History Began in 1963.
Years ago I read a mongraph is which the economic losses of the Church owing to confiscation from 1789 to 1815 were sketched out. In a crude sense this robbery laid the financial foundation of the welfare state.
Well I support some troglodytic Pubbies too. Senator Coburn is one of my favorites. And for that matter, Senator Chaffee is one of my least favorites. Be careful not to overstate your case is my best advice.
The case of younger Catholics and their commitment to orthodoxy is very interesting. I don't have any studies, any poll data to cite, but I do have quite a bit of personal experience in the area. I'm Catholic and I'll be 24 next week. I went to Notre Dame and had the chance to observe hundreds of young Catholics of all stripes for 4 years.
In my experience, most young people (here I'm talking college-age) that were raised Catholic still identify as Catholic. A few reject it outright, but most seem to like the label. Of those who call themselves Catholic, very few are 100% in line with Vatican teachings. Some of this is due to the fact that my generation has been denied adequate catechesis. Many of these young Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, Purgatory, etc because they were not taught these things. They haven't a clue about what the CHurch teachings on so many issues.
On the other hand, while young Catholics are clueless about teachings like the Real Presence, it seems that everyone knows about the sexual teachings. Those attract the most attention and the most dissent. Those become a sort of litmus test for how good a Catholic you really are.
How active are these dissenting young Catholics in the Church? Most are not very active, especially in terms of Sunday Mass attendance. Notre Dame is an interesting case because there student Masses are also a major social event. After graduation, many heterodox Catholics who attended Mass regularly at ND stop doing so. This seems to be typical for most Catholics in their 20s. Mass attendance and involvement with a parish usually pick up in young people around 30 when they start getting married and having children. People want their kids to be raised in a Church, even if they are at odds with most of what that church teaches.
The exception to do this are the young Catholics who do stay active in the Church in their 20s, especially with regards to Mass attendance. By and large these Catholics tend to be highly orthodox and conservative. But they are a small minority both in the Church and among their peer group. It's hard to gauge just how much influence they will have on the future of the Church. On one hand, they are where most new priestly vocations are coming from. They also tend to have larger families. But they will also be outnumbered in roughly a decade, when their heterodox peers become active in the Church again, while remaining heterodox.
So it should be really interesting over the next few decades to see how my generation will influence the Church.
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.