Perhaps Benedict is working so hard to achieve reconciliation with the SSPX because he knows Catholics like myself and most of the readers of this blog will need somewhere in which to take refuge when Amchurch & affiliates finally flop into the modernist tar pit. Which is to say, he regards that flop as inevitable.
It certainly is odd that Cdl Ratzinger, scourge of the CDF, should transform himself into Benedict XVI, the gentle pope who abhors unpleasantness.
Fifteen months and counting.
Boy, Mr. McGoo, you really can't read the signs, can you?
No wonder Bush thought he had to rampage all over the middle east to prove his manhood. Americans just won't believe in any other action than bang em up car chases.
Just because you aren't seeing the smackdowns doesn't mean they aren't happening. The curia has been reDONE. Conservative bishops are popping out EVERYWHERE. People have quit high positions or have been put on notice--particularly Jesuits, whom the Pope has apparently reminded of their vow of obedience to his person.
Liturgical reform was in the low gears till this year. It's in overdrive now, and more to come.
Oculus reparo!!
Mr. R-D, of course I meant to preface the above with all due respect.
I'm not sure why everyone wants it from the Vatican. Oughtn't we to look first to our local ordinaries? There are some courageous bishops about and it seems more in line with B16's style (as far as I know it) to promote collegiality than make with the top-down decrees. The direction Rome is taking seems pretty clear to me on matters of doctrinal import; it makes sense that it should be the job of the bishops to actually follow through in their own diocese.
This particular approach makes the most sense to me considering hopes for more dialogue with the Orthodox who usually don't take kindly to overt assertions of authority.
So why the huffing and puffing about the discipline Rome isn't enforcing when it's the bishops job to enforce discipline at home?
The 'huffing and puffing' is coming from folks who run into gay priesys at every turn, and talk that is way too accomodating when the entire culture is already glamoring gays daily. Is it so wrong to want a strong and constant word from rome? That, after all, is what leadership is often about. If Vatican II proved anything, it is that the soft touch can backfire.
Joe M:
This was my point: that there has been a fairly constant word from Rome on the matter so why don't people take it up with their ordinary? That is, afterall, the next step up the chain in command if people are running into gay priests at every turn.
The huffing and puffing should be directed first at a bishop. I don't think I've seen that, but if anyone can point that out to me I'd love to be proven wrong...
I quite like lavender in the closet.
My grandmother used to hang little bags of it in the wardrobe she said it keeps away the moths and other nasty creepy crawlies that can be very destructive.
Oldies are so wise.
Of course you did, Kathy, I would expect no less from you.
But still, you do a whole lot more yukking it up than you do proving your point. Conservative bishops are popping up ALL OVER THE PLACE??? Depends on how you define conservative, I suppose -- your definition of it, which probably includes the imperative "forward, forward, forward", probably doesn't match mine. Still, as far as I can see its a mixed bag at best, just like always. Come to Buffalo and savor The Edward U Kmiec Experience. All the power and dynamism of Warren Christopher, reinforced with the doctrinal steel of the Montini papacy, and topped with a thick, gooey, "I'm a Polish guy, just like you, hey?" gravy.
This is the guy who allowed the Buffalo Gay Men's Chorus, lovingly entwined with the Unitarian Church Choir, to perform a toe-tapping selection of Broadway hits inside one of Buffalo's oldest churches, and then had the colossal gall to push his flak-catcher out the front door to explain that the groovily progressive pastor of that church had not informed him of his intentions [this despite the fact that the concert had been advertised in the Buffalo News for weeks].
Of course it's only been about 18 months, I should be patient, he's probably Pattonesque once he gets the lay of the land.
Not all the new appointments are Kmiecs, of course, for which we can give thanks. But for all the cackling, sloganeering and "Mr McGooing", you really haven't given me much in which to take solace.
Fair enough, I was a bit of a windbag re: facts.
It's more of a feeling of momentum. Not Patton, more like Kissinger. Wait and see.
(By the way I know diddly about Kissinger, except that I think he managed more change diplomatically than other people change with shock and awe.)
A "feeling of momentum"??
Kathy, have you been hiding a copy of "The Greening of America" within the pages of your catechism?
r d-d:
The last time we had a big smackown in the Church - the supression of the Modernists - all they did was to go underground, only to resurface in the next generation in a more potent form. It could be argued that it did more harm than good, at least in the long run. So I have my doubts about the effectiveness (let alone the prudence) of big words from Rome.
Let's say, for instance, that Rome got really tough and got rid of the liberal half of the episcopacy in this country. Then what? Where are the good bishops going to come from? The problem is the structures that are in place, and it simply takes a lot of time to repair these.
Rome and Benedict are keeping the long-term in mind. A big hammer now isn't necessarily the best way to ensure health 10 or 20 years from now.
Sam,
Who will carry on this 20-30 year winnowing process? Will Benedict's papacy exceed 30 years? If not, who will follow him -- making the right appointments and guiding the process -- and how enthusiastic will he be about re-Catholicizing the Church? Do you remember the names that were being floated as possible successors in the days following JP2's death? Montini? Daneells? Hummes? Tettamanzi?
I've heard the gradualism argument for most of my adult life. The only gradual movement I have seen is toward the hot tub liberalism of Fr Joe.
Suppress 'em! And retrain the diplomats and gradualists as auto mechanics.
Are those my Mr McGoo glasses?
Excellent piece, Dr. Blosser. I enjoyed and agree with it.
Vree's frustration is clear (and largely understandable). I was especially interested in the first section of the article on the Lectionary. And I believe that a few comments he made in the original article aside from the "flubbed it" one also were unfortunate. They tend to give credence to scandalous negative speculation regarding the Holy Father and his views/intentions on homosexuality.
As St. Ignatius of Loyola teaches in the Spiritual Exercises, we are to give people the benefit of the doubt when interpreting what they say and write, true? Even in regard to an earthly father, one can understand that it is better to express frank frustration privately with him than to formally air such things for the world to see. How much more with the Vicar of Christ? He's the one Rock given us by Christ to protect the faith. There is no other.
We are directed to consider, "what is the point of publicly airing this criticism? What exactly do I hope to accomplish? What possible negative ramifications may flow from it, also?" These questions, somewhat ironically, seem rather analagous to the questions one must subjectively evaluate in "Just War", another topic that NOR has expressed extremely strong opinions about, but in favor of refusing to fire shots in that case. There are different kinds of wounds and death one may cause, yes? And each should be considered carefully.
It seems that often these kinds of criticisms have little hope of accomplishing any real good but are rather more akin to venting (and here I am not referring strictly to NOR). They primarily create discord, elevate frustration and diminish respect and trust. Is there a real hope or even intention in these criticisms that they will reach the Holy Father and affect change for the better? I'm even more skeptical of the hope than the intention in the vast majority of cases I have seen. Perhaps there is already enough heat and not enough light in our circles regarding Church governance, intentions of the Pope/hierarchy etc.?
Frankly, to a somewhat lesser degree I believe the same is true of our bishops (although this would admittedly seem to be a much more difficult exercise of respect and restraint in some cases).
And while I understand Roister's concerns, I also appreciate the thrust of what Mike J. and Sam Schmitt had to say. We have to be careful not to over-react to problems and create or exacerbate other problems in the process (the classic 2 for 1 the Devil is so fond of).
I've seen parishes with both sorts-- the strong arm type and the soft touch type.
We had a priest who was a military chaplain who had been assigned to an Apache helicopter unit in the Gulf War come into an area church. Heads rolled. He disbanded the pastoral council. No EMHCs. At all. There were two priests assigned to the parish, so during Communion, the other priest would join the one celebrating and they would both distribute Holy Communion. Confession before every Mass. Conservatives loved him, and enjoyed life under his pastorate. But he was reassigned after only several years to military duty again and things in the parish reverted to the status quo ante in significant ways.
At the other end, we've had timid priests, cowed by their various vociferous members of their church committee, priests who justify their approach by talk of "going slow and keeping everyone onboard," but seem to make little if any progress toward cleaning up the liturgical and catechetical mess at all. I suppose a slow, humble approach could work, as long as there was a firm hand to guide and administer it.
We've all seen incredible change in some dioceses. Take Denver under Archbishop Chaput. If you've ever assisted at Mass at his Cathedral, you know the liturgical revolution underway there (I use the term revolution only on the assumption that you will understand just how radical the renaissance of exquisite liturgy can be in the contemporary climate). So you know it can be done.
Some of you may know of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars conference on Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Reform of the Liturgy planned for September 22-24, 2006, in Kansas City. I don't expect anything utterly revolutionary, but in terms of taking the pulse of conservative Catholicism in the United States, it should be interesting.
OK Everyone,
The New Oxford Review exists for only one reason: to sit on the fence and CRITICIZE. And that means YOU. They don't want to improve anything, they want to bitch about it!
Having clarified that, let me say in all seriousness, that I would be surprised if the NOR or Richard John Neuhaus ever had a kind word to say about Pope Benedict or anything he ever does. I yield to no one in my "conservative" stance (either in politics or in my faith, which I prefer to call orthodoxy), but in all fairness to all who may be truly called to the priesthood, how could Benedict have banned ALL homosexuals from the priesthood? There would be some (even just figuring the law of averages) who would have a true vocation, respond to this call, and keep their vow of celibacy. Banning all homosexuals is ideology, not true Christianity.
On the use of Plato and his myth of the sphere in Deus caritas est, I must say that when I stopped laughing I really couldn't believe that Dale Vree or any of the lavender-ideologues could come up with an interpretation that was as absurd as this one. Benedict, unlike most people today, received a classical education. He writes as a teacher, both to instruct and to provide some humor. If you recall, he also included a vignette about Descartes and Gassendi with a view to humor. He has also quoted Aeschylus, Sophocles, et al. So, what is Vree's point? What was the point of all the early Christian fathers who quoted Plato? Were they all closet homosexuals? What about St. Augustine? I rather doubt his homosexual credentials.
In 1961, the Vatican issued a document that supposedly banned ALL homosexuals (in fact, it only discouraged it), but we see the results. The lavender seminaries are flourishing. If Vree and his fellow travellers had read the accompanying letter, which stated that homosexuals could not be the rectors of seminaries or formation programs as well as Msgr. Tony Anatrella's psychological profile of homosexuals, one can scarcely doubt Benedict's own estimate of the problems of homosexuality in the Church. Moreover, his continual addresses on the family and marriage also leave no doubt.
NOR is a paranoiac publication of dubious quality. Richard John Neuhaus is a publicity-hound, also of dubious quality. Take them both with barrels of salt.
Janice,
Try actually reading "First Things" and you'll see the hound Neuhaus in fact says *plenty* of good things about the Pope. In my book he is one of the greatest voices speaking out for the Church today.
As for NOR, 'dubious quality' is a nice little piece of mud-slinging right in line with all of the inuendo of which Vree himself is supposedly guilty. Good show.
Joe
BTW, James Alison is pretty famous for promoting the "scapegoat theory" of Rene Girard.
Again and again as I studied Girard, I kept thinking, "Why has this caught on?"--because it's really not a very robust theory of salvation. Then I realized that there must be a political agenda, and that it must be about gay rights.
Here's his testimony:
http://www.trinitywallstreet.org...ltimedia/?
video
(Go halfway down, on the right, the one dated October 10, 2005)
Janice has good things to say; negativity is the stock in trade of the NOR;
If you want the church to practice unchristian discrimination why not ask first that the Curia be purged of same-sex attracted men? Why put the burden on the green shoulders of boys still in their teens who are being forced to 'come out' in a way that the Roman Cardinals never have been forced? Girard's scapegoat theory may shed some light here.
Cardinal Grocholewski and Fr Antrella have in any case made themselves look supremely ridiculous, and I would be very surprised if any seminary or religious order is taking any notice of their homophobic ravings.
All I'm saying is a true Christian cannot operate on the basis of ideology. THAT is the stock in trade of NOR and Neuhaus AND the gay agenda.
Neuhaus had nothing to say about the fact that the seminary instruction was in abeyance for 11 years during John Paul's pontificate. Now, not even a year after it was published, he's already carping about it. Neuhaus, I think, has an agenda of which this is only a small part. Neuhaus has yet to become a Catholic in reality, not only in name.
As for NOR, they are of the same stripe as the people who blog on Rorate caeli. As much as I would like to see the return of the Tridentine Mass, taking back the people of the SSPX (whose agenda Rorate caeli supports) would inject another hate-filled, divisive element into the Church. They are just as bad as those affiliated with the gay agenda or the other dividers, e.g., Gumbleton, McBrien, et al.
I agree somewhat with Janice (except for the bit about Neuhaus, which seems uncharitable). I've been browsing some traditionalist sites, and am bothered by the "cold glint of Donatist steel" that I see there. Tradition in Action, for instance, has posted photos of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI with commentary that is full of the worst kind of innuendo, e.g.:
http://traditioninaction.org/
Rev...ngRatzinger.htm
This sort of borderline sedevacantism really distrubs me.
Let me say that many of the photos posted at Tradition in Action SHOULD disturb us, e.g, dancing altar girls. I just don't care for the nasty swipes at our Pope. Sorry!
Dave,
How am I uncharitable about Neuhaus? All I said was that he had an agenda. If you doubt this, read his article "Dechristianizing America." And, sorry to say, he has NOT YET received the full measure of Roman Catholicism. He still operates on the assumption that it is not just permissible, but imperative, that there be an amalgamation of (probably Catholic, but at least Christian) church and state in America. This is a protestant attitude, most fully shown in evangelical protestantism, but under the radar in the more mainline churches as well. Thus he distorts the American tradition of separation and the historical founding of such separation by the free churches to suit his own agenda.
'And, sorry to say, he has NOT YET received the full measure of Roman Catholicism.'
Sorry to say, but I find that comment to be a most uncharitable inference on your part. You are free to disagree with Neuhaus' views on Church and State (views that are, I think, much more nuanced than your comments would suggest), yet whether Fr. Neuhaus has received the full measure of the Catholic faith is a question that only God can answer.
Janice, I tend to agree with your estimation of the radical traditionalists. Let's not repeat their mistakes.
Janice,
You remind me of those C-SPAN listeners who call in on the republican line, identify themselves as rock-ribbed republicans who voted for GWB twice, then proceed to trash everything that he has done since his diaper days. Great to have your agenda-less self on the team!
Augustine,
Is your point then that no one who cannot arrange a private audience with Benedict ought to criticize him?
OK Dave, your point is well taken. I can't for a fact say whether or not Neuhaus has received the full measure of Roman Catholicism. What I can say is that, based on his writings and what he says in interviews, it does not appear to me that he has.
I think I am free to say, without setting myself up as a "substitute" for God, that his years as a Lutheran have stayed with him in great measure, to judge from his comments, which are on the record, particularly those concerning the relationship of Church and state.
In addition, I am a bit nonplussed by the uncritical greeting he has been given by various Catholic "conservative" or "orthodox" communities (take your pick), including EWTN. He is never challenged or critiqued in these arenas.
Perhaps, my distaste for Neuhaus is due, in part, to my distaste for SOME (not all) converts who have made it their business to go straight from the baptismal font to their blogs, books, or television interviews and begin telling cradle Catholics what's wrong with THEIR practice of the faith, what’s wrong with the Pope, how disappointed they are with the Church, yada, yada, yada.
Neuhaus wasn't a Catholic for 20 minutes before he began telling everyone how the Church should be run and by whom (himself, I would gather). The seminary document on homosexuals hasn't even been around for a year, but already Neuhaus has divined that it won't be enforced and it won't work, etc., etc. He is doing his best, from what I can see (again on the record statements, not his private thoughts, known only to God) to promote further division in the Church and to play to a vocal minority, which will never be satisfied.
Janice, interesting read on Neuhaus. My impression is different, but then I don't read his blog every day.
There are definitely some sharp divisions among traditionalist Catholics. Indeed, the term "traditionalist" covers some VERY large ground. Along these lines, I was interested to see this recent addition to the Ignatius Press catalog:
http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProd...D=2869&AFID=12&
Fr. Fessio -- whom I would count as something of a traditionalist -- has written a foreward to the book in which he expresses disagreement with the traditionalist author.
IMHO, this sort of debate is healthy, so long as it doesn't devolve into the sort of scandal mongering that we find on sites like Tradition in Action.
Dave, if you want to see invective and scandal mongering, go to Rorate caeli.
Janice,
What IS your problem here? Are you frustrated by "negativity" in general? Do you, as a cradle Catholic, resent the cheek of certain insufficiently deferential converts? Did someone over at Rorate Caeli bust your chops? And what does the word "conservative", in the context in which you used it above, mean to you, exactly?
Please understand, I do not disagree with everything you have said by a long shot. But so far, you have taken shots and Vree, Neuhaus, EWTN, and those horrid Rorate scribblers -- and yet you began by complaining about the negativity of others!
Make "shots and Vree" "shots at Vree"
'Dave, if you want to see invective and scandal mongering, go to Rorate caeli.'
It was via Rorate Caeli that I found my way to Tradition in Action, TrueRestoration, and other radtrad sites. Let me emphasize, there is much that I really like on those sites. Yet I fear that their hosts would not welcome the likes of me with open arms.
Ralph (or whoever you are),
As I already said, I do not have a problem with all converts. However, there are some converts who are, to my mind, insufficiently versed in the Catholic faith, who have made it their job to "evangelize" others in their particular perceptions of Catholicism. These perceptions are not, if they are examined closely, sufficiently orthodox. Let me give some examples:
Dale Vree and NOR: They are among those who have taken issue with EVERYTHING that has happened since Vatican II. While I hold no brief for much of post-Vatican II "spirit" goings-on and I have only contempt for the likes of McBrien, Kung, Gumbleton, et al., it seems to me that these are pretty easy targets to hit. If NOR was well-versed in the Vatican II recovery of the ancient church (foreshadowed by ressourcement theology), they would find much to celebrate. Instead, they have chosen to focus only on the obvious problems that have arisen. While these problems are serious, they are not without precedent. Serious, disciplinary and theological problems do not vanish overnight. See, e.g., the tenure of problems in Corinth as evidenced by 1 Corinthians (ca. 54 A.D.), which was still going on when Clement of Rome wrote his own epistle (1 Clement of last decade of the 1st century A.D.). Vree, et al., want repristination, not renewal and there is a big difference.
Rorate caeli bloggers want the same thing: repristination. They appear to be allied with SSPX and FSSP. While the restoration of the Tridentine Mass is very much a desideratum, the malicious invective that one finds on this blog makes me wonder if the reconciliation with the SSPX is something that the Church needs.
I've already explained Neuhaus. I like EWTN, but I wonder at their uncritical reception of him.
As Dave pointed out, words like "conservative" and "traditionalist" cover a lot of ground. There is no reason to have a knee-jerk reaction of one of them is criticized. All of these arenas have their own agendas. It would be ignorant simply to embrace each of them without investigating them.
Ralph,
To continue: I believe Neuhaus, in particular, not only distorts American history, but also he does not understand Catholic theology and metaphysics. In addition, he does not know how to go about presenting them in such a way that ordinary Catholics can understand and make them part of their lives. Neuhaus' way is to brandish the rule book and thunder damnation at Catholics. THAT was the old, pre-Vatican II way of doing things. You simply presented a rule and people had better obey. Well, funny thing ... even pre-Vatican II Catholics didn't always fall in line.
Pope Benedict has adopted another strategy for people of the modern age (and like it or not, people of the modern age want answers to their questions and reasons for what they are asked to do). He has begun, not with brandishing and thundering, but with reason. His first encyclical, Deus caritas est, presented the fundamental metaphysics of Christianity: God is love and the truths that devolve out of that. He is now writing an encyclical about Jesus Christ, which will continue this, by stating WHY Jesus Christ is the Truth (Cf. Dominus Iesus of 2000).
Neuhaus brooks no dissent, indeed he brooks no discussion. As far as the Seminary Instruction is concerned, Neuhaus' "palpable uneasiness" with the Vatican reaction to the dissent the instruction caused causes HIM to wish for a crackdown. Dissent has reigned supreme in the US for nearly 50 years. But, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, homosexuals can no longer supervise seminaries or formation programs. And new, orthodox bishops are taking over.
Neuhaus speaks for his own constituency (of one), fanning the flames. He reminds me of nothing so much as a lord of the Inquisition, seeing conspiracies behind every door and believing himself to be the arbiter and repository of all truth, eventually accusing everyone but himself of heterodoxy.
I respect Fr. Neuhaus and First Things who offer a challenging dialog in a secular world gone mad -including much of modern American Catholicism, and mainline protestant Christianity.
To say he 'isn't quite fully Catholic yet' is elitist, and smacks of fasionable liberal criticism.
The reason First Things is getting so much attention is due to its excellence and the desire of others
to be so.
I don't agree with comments that NOR is only about criticizing the Church. But I share the concern that it has increasingly moved in that direction: criticism with what I consider little/no hope of effecting real change, etc.
That said, I believe it occupies a somewhat unique place and I genuinely appreciate it. It tackles things that are not well suited to many other publications for various reasons. I would just like to see it move back somewhat from where it has gone.
To Roister:
You wrote: "Is your point then that no one who cannot arrange a private audience with Benedict ought to criticize him?"
No. Let me see if I can draw this out a bit more clearly. My point is that real, Catholic discernment and prudence need to be exercised. There are far too many people who seem to think themselves the reincarnation of St. Jerome (turning to him for cover when they are ill-tempered in their commentary) or St. Catherine of Siena (justifying any and all papal criticism).
And they often seem to ignore certain things, like considering the possibility that St. Jerome's reputedly bad temper was NOT one of the reasons he was canonized. Or considering that when St. Catherine criticized the pope she did so directly/personally and also made clear her deep love, respect and filial affection for him in the larger context of it.
Some of this is echoed in Canon Law:
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (END QUOTE)
If you read that carefully, I think you'll see the spirit of what I mean.
One needs to exercise care in criticizing any person publicly, let alone the one person given explicit authority by Christ to protect the faith on earth. Such respect and deference is not mere empty custom. It has real, significant purpose.
Not to bore you to death, but it strikes me that this all goes back to the fundamentals. Why are we all in this position to begin with (i.e. struggling through life in a fallen state)? Disobedience.
We are now in the process of re-establishing our ability to live in heaven with God, proving ourselves able and willing to use our free wills correctly, as opposed to Lucifer who then enticed our first parents to misuse theirs as well.
As such, I increasingly tend to judge everything first by how this primary struggle is affected (not that this is the ONLY criteria, of course). Does it engender a spirit of rebellion against lawfully exercised authority? This is why great saints could receive locutions and apparitions from Mary and Christ Himself and yet obey their human spiritual directors when they gave orders in contradiction to what Mary and Christ had indicated. In fact, the
CONTINUED:
In fact, they were praised by Mary and Christ for their obedience to the human authority placed over them.
Again, to be clear, am I not saying that no criticism can be offered. I'm not trying to personally set the specific parameters. But I'm pretty confident that a vast amount of what is offered crosses the line...even including that directed at our bishops.
Like war, there are unintended, unpredictable consequences to public criticism...especially that of our hierarchy. Such "targets" are not legitimately hit with the dirty bombs of innuendo, sarcasm and disrespect...especially on a persistent basis.
I'm sorry if this quote is a bit long, but it really is so excellent:
"Let not many of you teach, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment. For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body. For we put bits into the mouths of horses, that they may obey us: and we turn about their whole body...Even so the tongue is indeed a little member and boastest great hings. Behold how small a fire kindleth a great wood. The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity...
By it (the tongue) we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men who are made after the likeness of God. Out of the sma mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things should not be so....
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge, among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter zeal and there be contentions in your hearts, glory not and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly sensual devilish.
For where envying and contention is: there is inconstancy and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits , without judging, without dissimulation...."
Janice (or whoever you are),
“I do not have a problem with all converts”
A sigh of relief passes throughout all Christendom.
“. However, there are some converts who are, to my mind, insufficiently versed in the Catholic faith, who have made it their job to "evangelize" others in their particular perceptions of Catholicism”
There are also a great many cradle Catholics who do this sort of thing. Which makes your point . . .?
“Dale Vree and NOR: They are among those who have taken issue with EVERYTHING that has happened since Vatican II.”
Now THAT’S the start of a fruitful dialogue. Um, you are presenting yourself as the thoughtful moderate, right?
“recovery of the ancient church”
Another phrase that could mean most anything, but even at that, a slim reed to lean on. “Recovery of the ancient church,” to many, seems to mean the overthrow of the present one. A bright idea theologically, it seems more likely in practice to become a fig leaf for the inclusion in the liturgy of every wacky vaudvillean routine the liberal crackpot wing of the church can dream up. Pius XII warned against overzealous pursuit of the “ancient church” at the expense of the hundreds of years of church tradition that has organically grown out of it. In my opinion, it has compromised the unique office of the sacrament of extreme unction, now known as the sacrament of the sick, and now indistinct from a healing Mass.
“Vree, et al., want repristination, not renewal”
Wow! Repristination – what a marvelous word! I must find a way to work it into my invective.
“Neuhaus”
Frankly, I’m not bowled over by the man either, though I find little to criticize in his statements regarding the Church’s current approach to the issue of homosexuality in the priesthood and the seminaries. His concern, in my opinion, goes back to the general problem of disobedience and defiance under the rubric of “collegiality”, which was a big problem with “the likes of McBrien, Kung, Gumbleton, et al”. Overall, Neuhaus has been positively burbling in his praise of Benedict, so, beyond an irritation with these gaseously prosperous book-writing converts, I don’t see your problem.
Rorate caeli
Janice, it’s a blog – no one compels you to go there and be abused.
Oops – its lunch time!! Whoever I am, I must go and repristinate myself!
"Make 'shots and Vree' 'shots at Vree'"
Maybe this discussion needs a round of shots with Vree.
With chasers of Lowenbrau Neuhaus.
Janice, you're a real daisy, and I mean that in all sincerity. Welcome to the blog, unless you'd like to welcome me to the combox. 
On the one hand, reading your comments, I have many of the same sorts of questions that Roister and Company have. If you think converts like Neuhaus and Vree are objectionable because you find them overly-critical of the Church since V-II, and ideologically driven, I wonder what you'd think of the likes of cradle Catholics like Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Stravinskas, and the like. Many of the perspectives found in the writings of converts are hardly unique to converts. The greatest tragedy since V-II is simply the vast ignorance of Catholic culture and tradition that has settled into the West. It should not surprise that the same understanding of this fact that disturbs the concerned cradle Catholic should also on occasion animate the conversion of a Protestant who has come to some fuller historical and theological appreciation of the Faith.
On the other hand, I have found myself with some of the same doubts about the haste -- and, it has seemed to me on occasion, lack of circumspection -- with which those who have enjoyed ordained ministry in their previous incarnation as Protestants of various stripe have been fast-tracked into the priestly ministry in the Catholic Church after their conversion. Sometimes, I know, the things said by bishops and others at those services on the joyful occasion of the reception of a brother in Christ into the Church are by nature incautious in virtue of the exhuberance of the moment, but when the presiding priest or ordinary says something to the effect that not only this formerly Protestant individual is being welcomed but the totality of his Lutheranism or Methodism or Presbyterianism, etc., as well, there is something a trifle misleading, at best, and possibly dangerously so.
I confess that I have greatly appreciated much of what Neuhaus has had to write in his reflections on religion and culture in the latter part of his First Things magazine. I have met him and like him and count him as a friend. Yet I also confess that I find a trifle disturbing how quickly a man whose outlook was basically shaped in the internicine controvercies of Lutheranism should so quickly find himself jetting across the Atlantic for private audiences and dinners with the late JP2 and then Cardinal Ratzinger as a spokesman for the American Catholic Church.
But "fence sitters"?? Emmmm ... Nah. I wouldn't call them that. Vree? Vree is a pit bull; and pit bulls don't sit on fences. Neuhaus? Neuhaus is a cultural critic; and neither do they.
Welcome to the forum!
SV2,
I noticed.
Terrence,
Sign me up. I will supply a six pack of "Impaled Ale" from the Middle Ages Brewery in Syracuse NY.
It's to die for.
Hello Pertinacious Papist,
Your comments are well taken. And as I said several posting ago, I am referring only to some converts.
I couldn't agree more that there is a real lack of knowledge of Catholic culture and, even more, a lack of integration into that culture in the West. To the extent that converts are more recently versed in the principles of the Catholic faith, they are, of course, well ahead of some cradle Catholics. But the issue of Catholic culture is more than an RCIA cursus or even continuing education can accomplish. And I'm not yearning for the pre-Vatican II Catholic ghettoes as a means to accomplish this, either. The collapse of religious observance after Vatican II is, to my mind, sufficient evidence that the sort of thoughtless adherence to Catholicism based on nothing more than one's cultural or neighborhood ties never works. We are now in a situation that is (very roughly) analogous to that of Christians in ancient Alexandria or Rome, with the attendant need to buttress our faith in the face of a society that either has no interest in it or is openly hostile to it. Converts can be helpful here, but the issue of Catholic culture is the problematic one, since that requires the total immersion that a convert (and, unfortunately today, many cradle Catholics) simply does not have. The liturgy is the determinative factor, both the official liturgy as well as paraliturgical observances. And they don't teach those today in RCIA.
By the way, I don't think the Vatican believes Neuhaus is a spokesman for the American Church (some people think that honor has gone to Cardinal Mahony). He may have been, to some extent, during John Paul's tenure, but apparently that is not the case now. Moreover, George Weigel is not as welcome in the Vatican today as he once was, either.
Also, I made no reference to "fence sitters."
Hypothetically speaking, what if there exists a certain variety of persons who might feel disenfranchised and alienated in (on the edges of) the Church; pessimistic and confused souls that are still too loyal, conservative and traditionally orientated as western Catholics, to ever join the (1) SSPX or the (2) Eastern Catholics or the (3) Eastern Orthodox? What happens if they cannot close their eyes, wear a muzzle, put-up and shut-up, make excuses for, or cooperate much further with what to them seems negative or intolerable: a liberal mainstream Church, that has oddly come to be (in many places) over the last forty years? I am speaking hypothetically about persons who have perhaps no leaders responding to their honest concerns or questions, about such things as modern liturgy, new, unclear and/or false teachings, unsettling changes, negative treatment and experiences and so on. Perhaps they know or feel they have been betrayed on serious matters. Or have become aware of things; and have grown more traditional or conservative in outlook. Who can they trust? What if things have simply grown too much for them? Perhaps they are not blind to sins or problems in themselves or others. They may respectfully strain for signs of hope, but do not want to subject themselves to wishful thinking, delusion or unhealthy conformism.
My question is where do such hypothetically frustrated, disappointed and perhaps even forgotten people belong? What do they do? Are they any longer welcome in the Catholic Church? Do they have to change, obey and conform, or leave? Do they or did they ever have rights? Are they ever allowed to criticize? Where is their niche?
Seems theirs would be an impossibly narrow road, with no plan or hope of success, and generally, sad to say, they would end up in a ditch. Such would seem their weary trajectory. Do such people exist?
==
Beer. I need beer.
Paul, it hurts, I know. The remedy I've been pondering is, just find a parish that isn't too bad, meet some people who are doing something humble every week like i dunno baking cookies or setting up the chairs in the hall, and join them. There are some very faithful Catholics out there and it feels good to work with them.
Hi Paul,
My suggestion for those who "feel" disenfranchised is to get involved. Too often, the Catholic response, as is was in the 50s (which I know from my mother who was raised in the 50s) is to expect to be spoonfed and if they are not, they are disappointed or resentful. They do not, however, tend to leave the Church for other denominations; rather, if it comes to that, they lapse.
This is the big difference from Protestants, who tend to move among denominations when they become dissatisfied. Recently, Rod Dreher, who is also a convert I discovered, is talking about converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, having become disillusioned with Roman Catholicism over the clerical sexual abuse scandal. This is a hallmark of insufficient integration into Catholic culture. It is also a mark of "invertebrate fecklessness" (a phrase another blogger came up with and one I wish I had made). It is both cowardly and shows insufficient faith. It also reveals insufficient attention to doctrinal precepts (spelled out, e.g., in Dominus Iesus, 2000). One church is NOT as good as another.
One thing about all this, Paul, is that every Catholic is not just permitted, but obliged, to spread the faith. That means becoming acquainted with Scripture, Church history, theology, etc. For those who say they have no time, well, make some time. What is more important?
Also, the impression of the Church that you have, i.e., that it is, in the main, liberal, is not, in the main, true. That's news media spin. If you notice, only "liberal" Catholics are interviewed or given platforms in discussions. Therefore, the impression is given that they are driving the Church. However, remember that the number of good, orthodox bishops has been growing recently and the number of retiring, mediocre bishops has been growing as well. I know whereof I speak. I live in Washington, D.C. and we recently were glad to see the retirement of Cardinal McCarrick.
Converts can be helpful here, but the issue of Catholic culture is the problematic one, since that requires the total immersion that a convert (and, unfortunately today, many cradle Catholics) simply does not have. The liturgy is the determinative factor, both the official liturgy as well as paraliturgical observances.
Janice, here I think you nail the critical issue: Catholic culture. The problem you note with many converts to Catholicism is their lack of formation in Catholic culture. The problem we have since Vatican II with many cradle Catholics is the lack of formation of cradle Catholics in Catholic culture. In short, the problem we face simpliciter is the disintegration of Catholic culture. There are some quite brazen quotations (which I don't have at hand at the moment) from among the ranks of the liturgical revolutionaries of Vatican II actually gloating explicitly over the destruction of the pre-Vatican II Catholic culture. The result is what we have today: nominal Catholics who hate Catholic tradition in proportion to their ignorance of it.
In one sense, the "Spirit of Vatican II" and its incarnation in dissidents such as Fr. O'Leary are quite representative of this disintegration of Catholic culture. In fact, O'Leary is quite right, in one sense, when he suggests that there are many, if not a majority, of intellectuals in the Church now who share his outlook and that this, in effect, is the wave of the future. I don't believe this in any ultimate sense, though for the foreseeable future, it certainly looks like the Church will have its share of representatives who do not speak with a united voice.
What I like in the last comment Janice offers is her call for lay involvement. If the notion of the "age of the laity" is to have anything more than a silly dissident sense, which it can as it does in Newman's thinking and writing, then it must refer to a laity that has determined to actively educate itself by the reappropriation of Catholic tradition.
Personally, one of the most amazing phenomena I have encountered in the last decades is the knee-jerk visceral hatred of Catholic tradition among Catholics. What could be more unCatholic than that! What can Catholicism possibly be apart from Sacred Tradition except another hived-off form of Protestantism re-making Christianity in its own image? As Newman insisted, Catholic laity must educate themselves in Catholic tradition and come to an intelligent understanding of their Faith. Without that, we will not merely be trying to learn what liturgy ought to be from the Anglicans, as O'Leary suggests, but trying to learn what our Faith is from the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
Disintegration of Catholic culture is seen above all in contempt for the poor, as in Evelyn Waugh's gibes about their smell -- found on this website.
True Catholic tradition is closer to King Lear than to Brideshead.
Pp writes: ' In one sense, the "Spirit of Vatican II" and its incarnation in dissidents such as Fr. O'Leary are quite representative of this disintegration of Catholic culture. In fact, O'Leary is quite right, in one sense, when he suggests that there are many, if not a majority, of intellectuals in the Church now who share his outlook and that this, in effect, is the wave of the future. I don't believe this in any ultimate sense, though for the foreseeable future, it certainly looks like the Church will have its share of representatives who do not speak with a united voice. '
Again, I reject the title 'dissidents' -- I see myself as a mainline theologian in the style of Rahner and Schillebeeckx and the others who remained faithful to Vatican II. As a cradle Irish Catholic who has studied Catholic theology all his life and devoted years to patristics I can hardly be judged by ideologically driven recent 'converts' as representing the disintegration of Catholic culture. Rather, I and the millions of other catholic to whom Dr Blosser prefers the ravings of NOR and Rorate Coeli, represent a sane, commonsensical growth of Catholic thought in response to the signs of the times -- signs Dr B is unable to read.
'the knee-jerk visceral hatred of Catholic tradition among Catholics. What could be more unCatholic than that!' You probably refer to the indignation aroused by distorted presentations of Catholic tradition. We have seen Catholic tradition hijacked here for the purposes of fetid reaction and troubled homophobia.
Surely there have always been homosexuals in the clergy, not only since VII. It is only that now the subject of homosexuality, as well as individuals, is out of the closet, and is a fact of life inside the Church as well as outside of it. Also, don't you think that a few of the saints that we see in our stained glass windows were homosexual?
rob k -- it is time for clergy of all stripes to come out openly. silence is death, especially when morons like Card Grocholewski are doing all they can to make life hell for vulnerably teenagers brought by their innocent piety to the threshold of the seminary.
By the way, the Editor of New Oxford Review has now made it possible for readers to post online comments to his editorials, in case any of you are interested. I would encourage any of you, especially those readers most vociferious in their protestations of my earlier posts defending of Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review against their critics, to avail themselves of this avenue of direct communication with their brother-Pit-Bull-in-Christ.
If I am not mistaken, only paying subscribers to the NOR are permitted to respond online. Which is to say those who disagree with Dale Vree and express reluctance to back him with their dollar will have to find some other avenue for "direct communication."
Meanwhile, Catholic Answers has a very active open forum, as does the New Pantagruel, an online mag and playful critic of the Catholic neocons. My hope is that NOR will give consideration to providing an open forum to all readers.
Mainline (theologians) in the style of (Rahner and Sillybeaks).
Mainline urban renewers in the style of Mohammed Atta.
Mainline French politicians in the style of Petain.
Mainline Mainline Catholic reformers in the style of Thomas Cranmer and Margaret Sanger.
Give it a rest!
Commenting by HaloScan
