Milco on Catholicism in America
Elliot Milco, who went from humbly editing The Josias to serving as an editorial assistant at First Things, has a new article available online entitled “The Future of American Catholicism.” (I won’t excerpt it here; you should read the whole thing.) At the heart of Milco’s piece is an analysis of how the rickety pact between (classical?) liberalism and Catholicism in America spilled over into the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and has now become something of an embarrassment for contemporary American Catholics who now realize that promise of liberalism is (and perhaps always was) empty. Tied to this analysis is a sobering reminder from Milco that even when Catholics choose to engage political liberalism in the so-called “public square,” they typically do so in expressly secular terms, pointing to vacuous concepts like “religious liberty” to defend themselves from the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate rather than invoking the Gospel (or, for that matter, natural law). American Catholics, like most American Christians, live their lives as if Christ never came at all, and perish the thought that He will ever be coming back.
Friday, Friday, Friday
Patrick Archbold is calling it the “exhortation of desolation.” Louie Verrecchio thinks it will undermine settled Catholic doctrine. And Ann Barnhardt thinks the title means “The Joy of Sodomy.” (Oh, and Steve Skojec seems to be leaning toward agreeing with her on Facebook.) What else could I be talking about other than Pope Francis’s pending post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia? Not since Humanae Vitae has a papal document caused so much anxiety among so many people, though unlike Humanae, Amoris likely won’t have much to say regarding doctrine. Instead, it is expected to restate most — if not all — of the “conclusions” reached during the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, only with more words. If the reports are true and the document does turn out to be 200+ pages, then it is highly doubtful that most Catholics will even bother to read it. Instead, “experts” of all ideological stripes will be falling over each other to declare what the exhortation “really means” for the Church and her faithful, thus contributing to the already dense atmosphere of confusion surrounding Catholic doctrine on marriage, the family, and sexuality.
The whole fiasco opens up an interesting opportunity for traditional Catholics. Will the Pope’s words finally alienate a significant number of conservatives into going “full trad”? Or does the fact that so many traditionalists are damning the exhortation before it’s even been released just feed the ongoing narrative that traditional Catholicism is comprised largely of close-minded, merciless hypocrites who — to use an old cliche — believe themselves to be more Catholic than the Pope? Traditional Catholics could do themselves, and their apostolate, a great favor by refraining from hyperbole, hysterics, and hate by instead offering up a thoroughgoing, traditionally rooted analysis of Amoris Laetitia in the light of the Church’s extant and infallible magisterium. Such an analysis will require a great deal of restraint if it is to be taken seriously, but it is an analysis which could prove to be a great gift to the universal Church if framed charitably while expressing itself firmly.
Now, do I expect such an analysis to be forthcoming? Probably not, at least not from any of the “mainline” traditionalist outlets. I do, however, harbor the hope that the Society of St. Pius X, which has charitably critiqued Pope Francis’s official statements in the past, can bring the full weight of its theological learning to bear on the matter. Perhaps others might follow the Society’s example and open up a serious-minded discussion of the exhortation’s contents, not to score potshots but to help guide the faithful during this tumultuous period in Church history. That’s what I am praying for at least.
Maybe the Liturgical Extremists Have a Point?
Update 4/6/16: It appears that Rorate Caeli has taken down the post linked below. A cached version can be found here.
Rorate Caeli has a fresh post up detailing the small, but growing, number of Latin Mass communities which celebrate Holy Week according to the pre-Pius XII rite. Numerous other parishes could probably be added to that list, and it is generally well-known that an increasing number of communities freely incorporate at least some elements of the older Holy Week ritual. In calling attention to this reality, Rorate felt compelled to write the following:
The liturgical reforms that were implemented in the Roman Rite from 1951 to the end of 1962 remain a subject of much contention among Catholic Traditionalists and their friends, and for this reason this blog has tended to strike a “middle way” in discussing these reforms. It should be acknowledged that the vast majority of Catholic Traditionalist communities — whether with the SSPX or under Diocesan / “Ecclesia Dei” authority — continue to faithfully celebrate the Mass, Office and Sacraments according to the liturgical books and regulations in force as of the end of the year 1962. Furthermore this blog’s record in promoting liturgical celebrations according to the 1962 Missal speaks for itself. In its official stance (as distinct from individual contributors’ opinions) this blog has never had any problem with the liturgical reforms of Pius XII and John XXIII.
That’s a troubling position to take since there are many problems with the reforms of both Pius XII and John XXIII. So why not just come out and say so? (That doesn’t mean, however, that the “1962 books” are the summum malum as the sedevacantists and liturgical extremists opine.) It seems that blind fealty to “the authorities” has clouded some traditionalists’ better judgment when it comes to things liturgical, or perhaps the climate of fear in the Church is so strong that not even the more vocal traditionalists want to “rock the boat” lest they lose access to the old Mass altogether.
If this sort of complacent attitude were present among the Greek Catholics of the last century, we’d still be celebrating the Divine Liturgy with eviscerated service books and a calendar bereft of Slavic saints. It was only through the tireless — and critical — efforts of churchmen such as Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky, Blessed Leonid Feodorov, and the members of both the Recensio Ruthena and Recensio Vulgata commissions that the Eastern Catholicism’s Byzantine liturgical heritage was restored (even if only on the level of theory). It would be a shame if Latin Catholics failed to take a more proactive approach to reestablishing their authentic patrimony out of either misplaced obedience to ill-conceived liturgical changes or useless fear. There should be little doubt by now that the Holy Week reforms of 1955 lack either firm historical or theological footing and that continued celebration of the 1962 rite will only serve to normalize an inferior liturgy in the hearts and minds of the faithful. What a shame that would be.
A Followup Comment on Ignoring Amoris Laetitia
The ink hadn’t even dried on my earlier blog post before Patrick Archbold, operator of Creative Minority Report and contributor to various Catholic publications, decided to counsel the faithful on how to read Amoris Laetitia (a.k.a. “the exhortation of desolation“). Here’s the meat of it:
First, know this. The document will contain:
2% Actual Catholic teaching on marriage and the rest. This will provide all the cover necessary for the “everything is awesome” toadies to crow about how beautiful and orthodox it is. “I mean, did you read the second paragraph on page 98, that almost sounds like Pope Pius X. All is well.” It will be a load of crap, but there will be those who just eat it up and call it ice cream.97% Jesuitical blather and pious sounding non-sequiturs. How do I know? 200 pages.
And then 1% will be where all the action and all the danger will be. Buried deep within the text will be the cryptic marching orders. Clear to those who have eyes to see, these marching orders will be done in such a way as to give plausible deniability. But the damage will be done and all will go from there. The wise will point to these paragraphs as the danger they truly represent, but the Catholic mainstream media and the defenders of the status quo will ignore them or criticize those who point out the dangers.
Maybe Archbold is right, but it seems a wee bit premature to fly this far off the handle before the official text is even published. Moreover, I am not sure what agonizing over this document is supposed to accomplish. Do these gloom n’ doom predictions edify the faithful? Are they going to prompt people to pray fervently for better Church leadership? Or is this just more “trad porn”? (I ask that with an air of lightness; I am sure Archbold means well.)
If it is true that the Pope cannot revamp doctrine and that a post-synodal exhortation, which has less magisterial weight than an encyclical or motu proprio, then what is all of the fuss about? Surely Archbold and other faithful Catholics know what the Church actually teaches regarding marriage, the family, and sexuality. No papal document can change that, or can it? And this is where one of the (many) tensions of contemporary Catholicism comes into focus. Catholics have convinced themselves for centuries that the pope can do no wrong; that he is the only thing that provides doctrinal and disciplinary surety; and that in the grand scheme of things he is the only successor to the Apostles that matters. Is it any wonder that the Orthodox (and some pockets of Eastern Catholics) look at the present situation in the Church with anything but horror? Regardless of what comes next, I doubt that screaming about it will help anything.
A Comment on Ignoring Amoris Laetitia
During an off-the-cuff chitchat with a young evangelical in a coffee shop in Grand Rapids, the question of conversion arose and I asked why he, a student clearly interested in ecclesiastical history and medieval theology, had not converted to Catholicism. His reply: It’s too much like Episcopalianism now. My unconfirmed suspicion is that this gent will be on his way to second (or third) Rome sooner or later, just as many Protestants of all ages have tried to find solace in the arms of Orthodoxy. It doesn’t always work, but few things ever do. I can’t blame would-be Protestant converts for finding very little which is satisfying about contemporary Catholicism, what with the doctrinal confusion, disciplinary chaos, and overarching unseriousness which infects the Mystical Body of Christ. I was fruitless in my efforts to convince this aforementioned young man that Pope Francis hadn’t already revamped Catholic teaching on marriage, the family, and sexuality or that there is no dogmatic basis within Catholicism for the conclusion that any pope can simply change settled doctrine on a whim. Even if that were so, he opined, it didn’t change the reality that Francis has de facto altered the doctrinal course of the Church and that the “intellectual arguments” of theologians, canonists, and mere layfolk mean very little for how the Church functions “on the ground.” He’s right of course, and so I opted to say my goodbyes and go about my merry business.
The easiest way to deal with the present crisis in the Church is to ignore it, or so I’ve been told. I know several people who have no interest whatsoever in reading — or reading about — Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s pending post-synodal exhortation which will be released Friday. At 200 ponderous pages, I don’t blame them. The odds are high that the document will be so circuitous and convoluted as to be susceptible to any number of conflicting interpretations. Only the traditionalists are likely to cry foul over its contents, though conservatives will likely be pressed to express some discomfort with certain paragraphs. No one expects it to be a revolutionary document, not even the liberals. The most they can hope for at this point is that the exhortation contains enough backdoors and passageways to allow them — in conjunction with local episcopal conferences — to do an end-run around doctrine in the name of “the pastoral.” And what happens when that goes down? Will there be a schism? Will the faithful rise up in defense of the Faith? Or will things just proceed along as they largely have for the last 50 years, with the last remnants of the pre-conciliar Church continuing to crumble while some angry voices murmur in the corner? What a magnificent catastrophe.
My Fifth Shameless Professional Wrestling Blog Post In Years: Post-WrestleMania Edition
WrestleMania 32 has come and gone. I went back on my promise to post predictions before the show — a wise move on my part since most of the show was booked around swerving the audience. That was all fine and good when Zach Ryder — a perennial jobber buried by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) despite his ability to get over with the fans — finally had his big moment and walked out Intercontinental Champion in the show’s opening bout (an overstuffed seven-way ladder match), but it got a bit old by the time A.J. Styles lost clean as a sheet to Chris Jericho and Sasha Banks was denied her big moment when Charlotte inexplicably retained the newly christened Women’s Championship. And then the show just dragged on, and on, and on, blowing past the 11 o’clock hour for the sole purpose of delivering one of the most underwhelming main events in WrestleMania history. A number of “old timers” showed up, including Shawn Michaels, Cactus Jack, and Steve Austin, and all for the purpose of overshadowing the company’s younger talent. The Rock had another “WrestleMania” moment, this time squashing Eric Rowan of the Wyatt Family in six seconds flat. Oh, and John Cena returned to help his good buddy The Rock drive the final nails into the coffin of the Wyatt Family gimmick, thus bringing to an apparent end one of the best ideas the company has had in years. Oh, and Shane McMahon fell off a 15-foot high steel cage to cap off a match where all 46 years of his non-wrestling self fared better in the ring against the legendary Undertaker than most of the established talent.
Granted, when watching the show this year I was entertained, largely because I was in the company of my brother and close friends, all of whom love wrestling as much as I do. But now that the buzz of WrestleMania is over, I am left feeling confused and disappointed. Where does WWE go from here, now that its world champion — Roman Reigns — is one of the most despised stars in the company? Will WWE use tonight’s post-Mania Monday Night RAW to hit “reset” by introducing new and returning talent or will it “stay the course,” cramming unimaginative content down the audience’s throat and expecting them to like it? Were it not for the NXT Takeover special that aired on Friday, this entire wrestling-packed weekend would have been a bust. But NXT is a niche product, and it is clear WWE has no plans to transfer the basic booking formulas that work so well in that environment to its flagship shows. Shame.
The SSPX Regularization Saga Continues
Catholic outlets, mainstream news, and, of course, one notorious traditionalist web-log are all reporting that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), met with Pope Francis on Friday. Rumors have been swirling for months that Francis would unilaterally regularize the Society without requesting the SSPX to sign-on to compromising doctrinal statement. Many will recall the collapse of the Vatican/SSPX talks in 2012 was largely over a so-called “Doctrinal Preamble,” which, inter alia, demanded the Society recognize the liceity of the Novus Ordo Missae and no longer openly dissent from certain problematic elements (by Society lights) contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (e.g., religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality). Since that time, Bishop Fellay has gone into extensive detail on the ups-and-downs of his dealings with the Roman authorities and the contradictions he was forced to face at that time. Unfortunately, some in the Society, including the now-expelled Bishop Richard Williamson, took the Vatican/SSPX talks as an excuse to both denounce Bishop Fellay’s leadership of the Society and to fire-up their own “Resistance” movement which, at this point, is practically sedevacantist in nature. What, I wonder, will happen this time should Francis move ahead with regularization?
For those aware of recent Eastern Orthodox history, a parallel scenario played itself out in 2007 when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) after more than eight decades of estrangement. While ROCOR began as a continuation of the MP with the express desire to keep Russian Orthodoxy alive during a period of Soviet domination in the Russian homeland, decades of separation from not just the MP but large swathes of world Orthodoxy began to take their toll as clerics and layfolk alike began to see ROCOR as the “only true” part of the Orthodox Church left. Granted, ROCOR wisely expelled some of these voices from its ranks while making small strides on the ground to patch things up with other local Orthodox churches, but by the turn of the millennium stronger strides had to be taken. Under the courageous leadership of the late Metropolitan Laurus, ROCOR proceeded rapidly down the path of full unity with Moscow and, by extension, the whole Orthodox Church. Some in ROCOR, including a number of priests and bishops, objected to the plan and broke off into their own “Resistance” or “True Orthodox” sects, none of which have experienced significant growth on their own or borne much in the way of good fruit. As for ROCOR, none of the doomsday predictions came true. It still continues on as a conservative voice in world Orthodoxy, opening up new parishes and monasteries in the West while building closer ties with other Orthodox jurisdictions.
Now, some may point out that Orthodoxy is not Catholicism and that the crisis in the Catholic Church dwarfs the problems embedded in the MP (problems which have not fully abated in the decade since ROCOR reconciled with its mother church). However, this is no clear evidence to show that SSPX regularization will spell the downfall of the Society or lead to any sort of compromise. If anything, it will make the Society’s position in the Church stronger insofar as traditional and non-traditional Catholics who, for various reasons, feel uncomfortable drawing too close to the SSPX while it remains in an inrregular canonical position can comfortably rethink that position. Moreover, priests and bishops of the SSPX will no doubt have a greater opportunity to participate in mainstream Catholic discussions on matters of discipline and doctrine while ministering to a larger flock in need of Catholic truth. These possibilities are a cause for celebration, not fear mongering and worry. Still, some will no doubt reject all forms of regularization, preferring to hold to the idea of the SSPX being their Petite Église where only the most “hardcore” and “steadfast” are welcome. And what will come of that mentality? More splinter groups with a tiny audience, no core internal discipline, and little in the way of obedience, either to the lawful authorities appointed by Rome or the transit ones they erect for themselves.
Longenecker’s Insincerity
A few weeks ago I posted a critique of Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s article on “Catholic fundamamentalism” which, in truth, was little more than a thinly disguised attack on traditional Catholics. You can read that post here. Since that time, Christopher Ferrara — longtime contributor to The Remnant and licensed attorney — dispatched a letter to Longenecker seeking a retraction of any statement from his piece on “Catholic fundamentalism” which implied that the editorial and writing staff of The Remnant — particularly its lead editor Michael Matt — are prone towards violence. Longenecker complied . . . sort of. Here, archived at The Remnant, is Longenecker’s original retraction, which was posted on March 31, 2016:
My Fourth Shameless Professional Wrestling Blog Post In Years: WrestleMania Edition
WrestleMania weekend has arrived in Dallas, Texas where World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is banking on the distant hope that 100k fans will fill AT&T Stadium to watch one of the most underwhelming super-cards in years. Injuries and one forced retirement started adversely affecting this show’s prospects months ago. Terrible booking doesn’t help either. Instead of being treated to bona fide dream matches like John Cena v. The Undertaker and Seth Rollins v. HHH, we are being force-fed the McMahon Family Drama, one that has been playing out on WWE television for more than 15 years. The one bright spot to this weekend is tonight’s NXT Takeover show. For those unaware, NXT is WWE’s developmental program-turned-runaway success with a weekly show and occasional special events that have overshadowed the “big stage” WWE product for over two years now. Now well-stocked with indie, international, and home-grown talent, NXT now houses the best collection of in-ring talent in North America, if not the world. Even if WrestleMania doesn’t deliver, it’s all but guaranteed that NXT will.
For those curious, below are my NXT Takeover predictions. I will post my WrestleMania ones in due course.