Posted on 08/05/2005 5:04:24 AM PDT by Teófilo
A response to Father Joseph O'Leary's The Rise of the Neocaths. Continued from part I.
Fr. O'Leary was saying:
John Paul II thus bypassed and reached over the heads of the educated baby boomers, influenced by Vatican II, in order to address an audience who were a tabula rasa, and to communicate to them a world view that the Vatican II generation would find problematic on many points. His tactic recalls that of Mao in China. At the same time critical theology was ruthlessly discouraged and suppressed throughout the Catholic world. Fr Chia's article tells how this was done in Asia. The fates of Kung, Drewermann, Leukel-Schmidt, Curran, McNeill, Boff, Lavinia Byrne and many others are a tip of the iceberg of the same process in Europe, the US and Latin America. The more warmly the youthful crowd applauded, the deeper the intellectual chill that fell on the Church.This jewel of a paragraph may be described in various ways, let me tell you which: it is full of hubris, insulting both to the memory of the late Pope and to "neocaths," condescending, paternalistic, spiteful, elitist, pharisaic, and foolish. Let's review every single statement, one by one:
- John Paul II thus bypassed and reached over the heads of the educated baby boomers… Implication: those of us who came after are not nearly as educated as our baby boom betters.
- …baby boomers, influenced by Vatican II… Implication: and our generation was not influenced by Vatican II? We can't read its documents? Or, have we chosen not to read them? Or, perhaps, it is because we read them without the lenses or the guidance that Fr. O'Leary, Kung, Drewermann, Leukel-Schmidt, Curran, McNeill, Boff, Lavinia Byrne, would like us to utilize, where the problem really lies.
- [Pope John Paul addressed] an audience who were a tabula rasa… Implication: Though Fr. O'Leary uses the term "tabula rasa" derogatorily, I choose to understand it in a more positive fashion. We're talking here about generation who is more aware, more sophisticated than the boomers in the things of the world; what for boomers was a groovy discovery, for us is a matter of ordinary life. We have little preconceptions of that past the "reforming" boomers were so successful in destroying. Educated boomers, as dreamed by Fr. O'Leary, expected their children—real or spiritual—to rebuild what they had destroyed according to the boomers' wise and "educated" specifications. They became disagreeably surprised when we didn't. We were free to re-conceive the world in our own terms without asking advice from hip priests, fakirs, gurus, and other spiritual guides held in awe by boomers. And then came Pope John Paul II. The rest, as they say, is history.
This resentment harbored by some young people for the Baby Boomers is getting out of hand.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I have heard Catholics say that Vatican II was harmful to the Catholic Church. That seems to be your position. If so, that can hardly be blamed on the Baby Boomers.
The so-called Baby Boom consists of persons born during the period 1946 to 1964. The Second Vatican Council was held during the years 1962—1965. The youngest baby Boomers were still in diapers when Vatican II ended; the oldest were still in their teens. I daresay that none were among the 2400 clergy involved in the Council.
You are right to feel slighted. But I didn't frame the question originally in terms of a generational cleavage, Fr. O'Leary did by contrasting all-knowing "boomers" with the indifferent rabble that followed after them. So, I'm arguing on his territory.
Don't take it so personally. If you have any objections at being tarnished as a boomer-cum-social-reformer, take it up with Frs. O'Leary and Greeley and ask them not to make such sweeping generalizations in the future.
-Theo
And that's about the NICEST thing that can be said about it! Anyone who compares the late great pontiff to Mao is a jackass!
Generally, the Boomers are self centered boobs who unleashed the "hate adults" mentality and are now on the receiving end. Turnaround is fair play.
"In the end, Pope John Paul II saw the folly of this."
Did he? I missed that.
I was in high school '62-'65. I think Vatican II was used as an excuse for 'change for the sake of change'. (Let's get modern!) Anytime I hear someone invoke the 'spirit' of Vatican II, I hold them at arm's length until I know what they mean. Often the 'spirit' is invoked by those who have never read one of the 16 documents produced by the Council.
The Council is seen as a disaster by some, I'm sure. But, it seems to me, the disaster was people that used it as a fig leaf for their own agendas. Everything that happened after '65 is blamed on the Council (we love a scapegoat!) but the cause-and-effect argument usually seems to be a stretch to me.
Are the Boomers more self-centered than any other generation? (More so than you, for instance?)
Look, not all of the so-called "Greatest Generation" were great. They have had their share of sinners and saints. The same is true of the Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and nearly every other large group of people you care to mention. The point is, you cannot predict how any one individual will think or act based on his birthdate.
Intergenerational finger-pointing is akin to the "class warfare" of the Marxists, serving less to describe than to divide and destroy. It provides a convenient, if dishonest, excuse for bad behavior—as you well illustrated when you wrote, "Turnabout is fair play."
(By the way, you misapplied the saying about turnabout. If the young Boomers were generally guilty of hating adults—a conclusion I reject—then "turnabout" would be retaliation by their parents, not their children.)
Fair enough. But your argument would be stronger if you were to do more than just argue "on his territory." Show that Fr. O'Leary has incorrectly framed the question in the first place, and his argument collapses.
Don't take it so personally. If you have any objections at being tarnished as a boomer-cum-social-reformer, take it up with Frs. O'Leary and Greeley and ask them not to make such sweeping generalizations in the future.
If I ever have occasion to communication with Frs. O'Leary and Greeley, I will do as you suggest.
While it be may true that one's birthdate does not dictate the relgious or political philosophy of an individual, the fact remains that a heavy concentration of today's liberal clergy happen to be in the same general age group. Statistics (and personal observations) also give credence to an orthodox trend among the younger clergy.
As for lay people, the generational divide is less evident. However, the children of the older liberal laity tend to not go to church at all (which effectively removes them from consideration) or a minority of them "reconvert" to traditional modes of Catholicism, such that the liberal base among the laity is also in the older generation.
Yes, all generations have their good and bad, but a certain generation of Catholics (especially clergy) is skewed disproportiately towards the left. The really old priests (above 75) and today's young priests (under 45) have more or less a similar distribution of goods and bads.
We didn't ask for a Mass of our own, we were quite satisfied with the Mass we had. Don't generalize about Boomers hating adults. It was only a very small percentage.
The generation that realized the Vatican II arrogated itself the title "Great." Those who are very familiar with the Vatican II will tell us that what the Roman Catholic Church became since the Vatican II is not what the Council proposed or hoped to achieve. It is therefore difficult to blame or credit what happened to the Roman Catholic Church since the Vatican II to a single generation.
If the Council is not the cause, then who or what is? Certainly, the generation that carried out the change in the name of the Vatican II is the "boomer" generation. The worst offenses, as I can see, came from "boomer" parish priests (using glass chalices, shortening the Mass, etc.), but one must not forget that the pre-"boomer" bishops allowed it.
So, it is obvious that it was not any one generation that is to blame, or hail, but that the Church as a whole -- from the top down sought and allowed changes to take place. Whether they were in concord with the Vatican II spirit and intention is a different story. Whatever happened, the Vatican II was invoked as the authority behind such changes.
In an organization where the power is vested in one top executive, the responsibility for everything that takes place on his watch is ultimately his. That is how at least we "outsiders" perceive it.
As such, to those outside the Roman Catholic Church, it seems logical to conclude that, whatever changes took place, did so either by the blessings of the top executive or by lack of leadership. The latter does not seem to be the case, given the specific top executive who chaired the Church for the most part of its post-Vatican II development.
As an organization or a body, the head of a church directs and moves the rest. If the body moves independntly of the head we give it a medical name.
"The worst offenses, as I can see, came from "boomer" parish priests (using glass chalices, shortening the Mass, etc.), but one must not forget that the pre-"boomer" bishops allowed it."
Those chalices are made to match the all lucite altar table sported by St. Gregory's Abbey. LOL
I see. But I would venture to say that the chalice raised by the Lord at the Mystery Supper was not gold, and the table was not marble.
Humility may be something Christians forgot in the course of time, but humility and simplicity is the essence of our Faith. It is a reminder to all that none of us is any better or free of sin.
So, when did all the lavishness and gold and marble enter the Church? And on whose authority? Judaism?
If anything, all the mention of gold in the New Testament is in a negative context -- as something men should give away and women not wear. The only place where gold begins to play prominent decorative role is in Revelation. I wonder why.
"So, when did all the lavishness and gold and marble enter the Church? And on whose authority?"
As soon as she came out of the catecombs. There's an old temple in Syria with a website. The marble altar table is shown. Oddly shaped, semi-circular. Not sure, but I think it's in Syria. And there's lots of others as well.
Whose authority for the first one? The local bishop of course.
My point exactly. Corruption came to life in the Church as soonas the Church was born t the Pentecost, and it hasn't stopped yet, nor will it.
Whose authority for the first one? The local bishop of course
I doubt that he got that from the Apostles based on what Jesus Christ taught. More "traditions" of men.
Or is it a leftover from Judaism? If so, it should not be our guiding principle to carry on something we are not part of. Judaism denies Christ. That should be a hint.
Right. The Boomers were gulled by priests such as Kueng, who belonged to the World War II generation.
"'As soon as she came out of the catecombs'
I just remembered place. It's the Monastery Church of St. Sergius at the monastery of SS Sergius & Bacchus in Syria.
"My point exactly. Corruption came to life in the Church as soonas the Church was born t the Pentecost, and it hasn't stopped yet, nor will it."
I don't call stone altars corruption.
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.