Replies

I believe Archbishop Chaput stated it well:

"The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it," remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the "Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years."
"And now we’re harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington."
Denver archbishop warns against ‘spirit of adulation’ surrounding Obama

All well and good, NOW. Why didn’t somebody stop it while it was going on? Some people, myself included, fought and were told that there is no room for your kind. Nobody in Rome, nobody in the dioceses, nobody in the churches did anything to stop the destruction.

Marble altars built by our grandparents were smashed; magnificent statues bought and paid for by the poor were thrown away and the Catholic Church is the worse for it. Even while these abuses that the Cardinal speaks of were going on, new documents came from Rome normalizing the abuses. So while his words are finally welcome, it is a little late to shut the barn door after all the livestock have escaped.

To quote Andrew Greeley (in a comment made in America Magazine in 1990): “True liturgical reform in America will only begin when the last guitar is smashed over the head of the last liturgical director.”

This is interesting. It seems to me that people reach out to religion as an anchor, a way to be a part of and to understand something much bigger and greater than they are. The appeal of the catholic church was that it was majestic, immutable, and self-assured that it had the answers people needed. Yes it was rigid and dogmatic. Frankly, I think that was to it's advantage. People looking to commune with God don't want a church that says "we don't know anything" won't be satisfied.

So when the Catholic church essentially said "we don't have the answers, you have to find them" and "all that mystical mumbo jumbo we did for the last 1000 years is bunk" it diminished the church. I think the way back it to once again make it clear that to be a member of the church is a privilege and comes with responsibilities, some of them including sacrifice. This is why radical Islam has grown, because people see that it wont compromise and is certain it is right in all things; that's assuring to many. Until this happens in the catholic church, it will continue to lose influence and relevance.

The Catholic Church is not united and the Vatican II did not achieve "a fortification of the faith." Will it take the Church another 44 years to admit that perhaps the Vatican II was a colossal failure and that it should be sacked and committed to oblivion?

I do realize that many a Vatican official has labeled the reforms introduced by the Vatican II as "irreversible," but if memory serves me well, the Councils and the Church are also "inerrant." If that is so, then why is there even talk of reforming the reform? Something doesn't fit here.

And what responsibility, if any, do popes who presided over these liturgical abuses, have in this matter, or are they simply excused as passive bystanders?

Curious minds would like to know.