Never in my life did I think I would read this in The New Yorker:
It’s a shame that there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States that would permit Pope Francis to serve as the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Or, for that matter, that there’s no way for him to lead the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Idols are commonplace in this postlapsarian universe of ours. Money may be the most attractive one, but popes can fall into that category as well. This is not a new phenomenon. For years I saw Catholics of various stripes make idols out of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Some traditional Catholics have a whole pantheon of papal idols, starting with Pius IX on up to and including Pius XII. Pope Francis, through no direct fault of his own, is being idolized — idolized by those who believe he can, in the name of an immanent and secularized form of mercy, change the indefectible teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. This idol Francis, like all idols, is a fiction; there is an appearance of reality with nothing truthful behind it. The idol, unlike the one God who is, was, and ever shall be, shifts with the seasons, being one day a representation of justice deformed into indifference and, on another, the incarnation of the Zeitgeist. It is understandable when the secular media crafts such idols; it is lamentable when Catholics do.
When asked about what the Catholic faithful ought to think of the recently concluded “Extraordinary Synod on the Family,” this is what Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, had this to say:
There is nothing to expect. There is no need to wait. The direction has been given, and it is clear. We must simply say: it is clear. It is obvious that they wish to trivialize the situation of those who live in adultery, truly in a state of sin. They wish to trivialize it, and that is very, very, very serious. When we play with morality, we are playing with God’s commandments. To have dared, for two weeks, to leave up to opinion questions that leave no room for opinion! It is God’s word. All we have to say is “Amen.” We must, of course, think about how to help these people; we must always think about that. But we certainly do not help them by telling them there is an open door when there is none. The door that is being opened is a door to hell! These prelates who have received the power of the keys, that is, of opening the gates of Heaven, are closing them, and opening the gates of hell. It is unbelievable! It is crazy! Absolutely crazy! And as I said, the direction has been laid out. It is true that this synod was not supposed to make a decision; it was supposed to be a first step, but the first steps have been taken, the direction has been laid out, and it is not hard to guess what the following synod will do. Unless there is a much stronger reaction than the one we see today, and unfortunately, I doubt that there will be. Alas, there will not be!
As I discusses in several posts last week (here, here, and here), what will we do during the next year? Can we provide Bishop Fellay wrong with “a much stronger reaction than the one we see today”? Heaven help us if we do not.
In two recent posts (see here and here), I discussed the present situation in the Church facing faithful Catholics and what, if anything, they ought to do about it. Part of that discussion focused on what I will broadly call “disarmament,” that is, the end of polemics and counter-polemics among various conservative-to-traditional “factions” or “camps” within the Church in the interest of combatting the greater malady: liberalism (also known as “progressivism”). This means, for the time being, setting aside or suspending important and reasonable disagreements concerning liturgy, spirituality, and theology in the interest of both defending and promotion the Catholic Church’s authentic teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family. Let’s be clear: all three are under vigorous assault from renovationists within the Church and their cheerleaders in the wider, secular world. Some, I suspect, will interpret such a calling as a “selling out” of what not only I, but many other traditional Catholics, claim to stand for. Not so. Traditional Catholicism is not a foreign religion; it is not, in and of itself, a “new church” which fails to be intimately connected with Catholicism’s 1.2 billion adherents. If we are truly part of the Corpus Mysticum, then we are part of it with those who read First Things and Communio, regularly (if not exclusively) attend the Novus Ordo Mass, and believe the Second Vatican Council was both important and necessary. If that makes your blood boil, then let me suggest you find a new ecclesial haunt. If, however, that reality fills you with a refreshed sense of mission to promote the traditional apostolate in a spirit of charity for the betterment of the Church and, above all, the greater glory of God, then you are in the right place. For the time being, however, we have a more immediate work to tend to.
I am sad to report that until recently (very recently), I have not been an avid reader of The LMS [Latin Mass Society] Chairman’s Blog, written by one Joseph Shaw. There is no good explanation for this other than the fact I have a hard enough time keeping up on the handful of other blogs, magazines, and websites that everyone tells me I “need to read.”
Update 10/24, 8:06pm: Though completely unrelated to this entry, Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, posted a new video addressing some of the issues discussed below. It is well worth viewing.
There is, I believe, a somewhat reasonable discussion currently underway in various social media circles and corners of the blogosphere concerning the prudence of publicly criticizing Pope Francis for various actions (or inactions) he has undertaken over the past 18 months, including his choice to remain silent — until the very end — of the recently concluded “Extraordinary Synod on the Family.” Two slightly interrelated incidents of unequal magnitude have refreshed, even amplified, this debate. The first incident was Cardinal Raymond Burke’s statement that Francis “had done a lot of harm” to the Church by not stating “what his position is” with respect to the Synod. Even after the Pope’s speech which closed the Synod, many remain perplexed over what Francis is thinking and what he plans to do next. Many Catholics were shocked that Cardinal Burke would choose to be so candid with his remarks, though many were willing to give Burke a pass on the grounds that his position as a Prince of the Church provides ample latitude for frank commentary on the state of the Catholic Church and the actions of the Holy Father.
Vatican Insider has a new story up with excerpts from a French-language interview with Bishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In it, Pozzo discusses the possibility of full Vatican/Society of St. Pius X reconciliation. Here are two particularly interesting paragraphs from Pozzo:
The Holy See does not wish to impose a capitulation on the SSPX. On the contrary, it invites the fraternity to stand beside it within the same framework of doctrinal principles that is necessary in guaranteeing the same adhesion to the faith and Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Tradition. At the same time, there is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council documents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.
. . . .
There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecumenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.
The full French text of the interview is available online here.
This has been a very busy week for me, hence the brief posts. Now here’s another.
Over at Rorate Caeli you will find a provocative dispatch from Italian journalist Alessandro Gnocchi in which he states, “[M]ore than half the bishops present at [the Extraordinary Synod on the Family] . . . have already switched religion.” His primary basis for that claim is the unsettling voting tallies from the Synod which, perhaps, reveal that a high number of prelates are prepared to move ahead with radical new proposals which would undermine the Church’s teachings on morality and the Sacraments. Could be right? Is he just being an alarmist? Or is there more going on that we’re not yet aware of? Actually, the answer to all three questions could be “Yes”; and if so, what, if anything, will you do about it?
Gnocchi is right to note that schisms have happened over less. However, given that we live in an unserious age with unserious people committed to their unserious religion, I have a hard time imagining a forceful schism arising out of anything the bishops do or say. The neo-Catholic apologists will be on hand to whitewash over the obvious while an increasing number of traditionalists find themselves pondering sedevacantism. Meanwhile, the liberals will rejoice for a time as they preside over a dying remnant of what used to be the Holy Catholic Church. The Church, of course, will continue, but perhaps not in the way we suspect.
A number of false dichotomies often come to light when discussing traditional Catholicism, particularly with non-traditionalists. The most basic—and erroneous—distinction which is often made is between “obedient” and “disobedient” traditionalists. “Obedient traditionalists,” so the story goes, rejoice over the generosity of Summorum Pontificum (SP); “accept fully the Second Vatican Council” (whatever that means); and know to keep their traps shut with respect to concrete problems in the Catholic Church, particularly if those problems can be linked to certain shifts in mid-20th C. theology or ambiguous papal pronouncements. “Disobedient traditionalists,” on the other hand, will speak clearly, even forcefully, on the substantive superiority of the Tridentine Mass as compared to the Novus Ordo Missae. These same “disobedient traditionalists” are unashamed about pointing to problematic passages embedded in some of the conciliar texts while also standing firm against innovations such as the splitting of the pastoral from the doctrinal. In short, these traditionalists are “disobedient,” hence “bad,” because they attempt to exercise the right of open and frank discussion which, ostensibly, has been in play since the 1960s.
Finer words on the matter of obedience have surely been penned before, particularly as it relates to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Psalter, the Holy Rosary. Out-of-synch with the recommended practice of recitation though I was, in praying the Joyful Mysteries this morning it occurred to me — and I assume many others long before my time — that each mystery carries several models of obedience, natural and supernatural alike. Indeed, the first Joyful Mystery — the Annunciation — opens with St. Gabriel carrying out his divine duty by announcing to a Jewish maiden that she, who was immaculately conceived, would bear the Savior of the world. In an act of obedience far more profound than St. Gabriel’s, the young virgin declares, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. One might also extend their meditation on obedience in this mystery to the very obedience of the natural order itself to the will of God. For it was not by a man that our Queen and Mother conceived, but by the Holy Ghost.
