Pope's Ubi et Orbi Message
(Vatican Radio) Below we publish the full text of the Holy Father’s Urbi et Orbi Message, Easter 2013.
Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, Happy Easter! What a joy it is for me to announce this message: Christ is risen! I would like it to go out to every house and every family, especially where the suffering is greatest, in hospitals, in prisons …
Most of all, I would like it to enter every heart, for it is there that God wants to sow this Good News: Jesus is risen, there is hope for you, you are no longer in the power of sin, of evil! Love has triumphed, mercy has been victorious! More >
Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, Happy Easter! What a joy it is for me to announce this message: Christ is risen! I would like it to go out to every house and every family, especially where the suffering is greatest, in hospitals, in prisons …
Most of all, I would like it to enter every heart, for it is there that God wants to sow this Good News: Jesus is risen, there is hope for you, you are no longer in the power of sin, of evil! Love has triumphed, mercy has been victorious! More >
Is the Democratic Platform More Pro-Life than the Republican Platform? "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." - Is. 5:20
See my bolded, bracketed responses to the pseudo-"theologian". DD
The bottom line is Thomas Groome is taking an absurd position – that economic policies drive abortion rates and supersede party platforms that make abortion illegal. Thus, he claims Catholics can vote for Obama because his social policies reduce abortions, while claiming Republican policies increase them. These numbers are first of all – false. There are MORE, not LESS people in poverty today than when Obama took office. There are more people without work than when Obama took office. There are more people on food stamps now than before Obama took office. How is this good for the dignity of the human person and reducing abortions? There is public funding of abortion with Obama in office. These have increased abortions, not decreased them. At the same time, we see less abortions in many areas because abortion restrictions are on the rise. We can't spend ourselves into welfare programs with a view toward reducing abortions. This is laughable. Do we really think democratic policies are or have any intention of reducing abortions? What a joke. This fellow wants us to believe that the democrat platform is more pro life than the republican? Seriously? Someone who believes this is so confused about their faith and the reality of economic policies that no statistics will set them straight.
By THOMAS GROOME
Contributing writer
Both friends and strangers have challenged why a Catholic theologian like me would publicly support the re-election of President Barack Obama. The implication always is that my Catholic faith should dictate otherwise.
Of course, I cite Catholic social doctrine (note the weighty term) and the mandate of my faith to care for "the least" among us (Matthew 25:34). Social programs for the common good and especially for the most vulnerable are central to Catholic social teaching. [Did he forget the social doctrine of the sacredness of life? Thou shalt not kill and the teaching of the Church back to the Didache in the 1st century that: “You shall not kill and unborn child or murder a newborn infant.. . the way of death is this … they kill their children and by abortion cause God’s creatures to perish.”]
By contrast, Ayn Rand's proposal of a "virtue of selfishness," besides being an oxymoron, is the antithesis of Catholic faith. [This is a straw man argument – Romney and Ryan are not "Ayn Rand" in economic philosophy. Is he arguing against a free market economy?? Socialism and Communism have both been condemned by the Church explicitly in papal encyclicals. Extreme consumerism and materialism have been condemned by JPII in Laborem Exercens – but this is not a condemnation of free markets which promote the principle of subsidiarity, also a key tenet of the Church's social teaching. He conveniently and simply ignores these glaring realities.]
If implemented as social policy -- a la the Romney/Ryan budget -- the neediest among us will suffer by far the most. Some 64 percent of its alleged "savings" come from cutting programs that aid poor families and individuals.
The comeback is invariably around abortion, whereupon I explain that my opposition to abortion is precisely the tipping point that prompts my unqualified support of President Obama.
As a loyal Catholic, I accept the teaching of my Church that "every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred" and that abortion is "gravely contrary to the moral law" (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2319, 2271).
Though the U.S. Catholic Bishops caution, "As Catholics we are not single issue voters" (Faithful Citizenship, November 2007), yet with some 1.3 million annually in the U.S., abortion presents our country with a grave moral crisis. [The Catholic bishops teach that Catholics voting for candidates who support intrinsically evil acts – abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage – cannot be supported by Catholics without putting their souls in serious peril. Our own bishop has cited this teaching in his recent column. This fellow is cherry-picking and the issues are not single-issue when it comes to intrinsically evil acts. The Faithful Citizenship quote is not speaking in the context of comparing election issues generally against intrinsically evil actions advocated. Obviously there are some bishops (all too many) who are wishy-washy on this and it simply is not the mind of the Church. Much of the USCCB has been overrun by staffers who are liberation theology adherents and way overemphasize certain aspects of Church social teaching to the exclusion of others in order to support their liberal agenda.]
The dilemma for citizens like me is that the great majority of our fellow Americans favor some possibility of abortion and do not want to criminalize it again. [Huh? What "majority" is he speaking of? The vast majority of Americans favor extreme limiting of abortion if not abolishing it. Was there anarchy in the country regarding abortion up to Roe v Wade? What has been the consequence of Roe? Has it been for the good? How is this man's statement consistent with the Church's stand on abortion? This is a ridiculous statement which frankly destroys this person's credibility as one who understands Church teaching or as one who has any serious inclination to obey the Church's teaching on human life.]
As Thomas Aquinas taught wisely, laws must reflect "the consensus of the governed" and there is no agreement in this country to ban all abortions. Even Gov. Mitt Romney is now making "exceptions." [This is the worst kind of sophistry I've read in awhile. So, this would mean Church teaching on abortion should be subject to the "consent of the governed"?? The Church teaches emphatically that abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be promoted or encouraged, let alone enshrined in law. The civil law MUST reflect the natural law, which excludes abortion absolutely. This person is a disgrace to theology. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil – Isaiah. ]
When faced with a strategic dilemma in applying a general moral principle, the same Aquinas argued that Christians should choose whatever appears to be the lesser evil and the greater good. [So Aquinas was a proportionalist? Wow. That is news. Aquinas did not teach absolute moral norms? Wow. That is news. Plucking out a quote of choosing the lesser evil is pathetic manipulation of the context in which it was stated. Aquinas was not dealing with intrinsically evil actions. For example, the Church teaches one can support a law which allows abortion but is more restrictive than the current law, because it is movement to a better and more restrictive law. This would be the "lesser evil". Of course, this has no bearing on the discussion of comparing abortion to economic issues, which the author has now apparently departed from.]
In this light, the most feasible moral choice is to reduce the number of abortions. So, Catholics like me and citizens of like mind should support the candidate who has the best abortion reducing policies. [Hmm – how bout the candidate who will do what it takes to outlaw or dramatically restrict abortion rights? I'll take that over the absurd notion he's suggesting, which is that reducing poverty will reduce abortions. What a joke. This person causes a righteous anger in me because he knows the truth enough to quote this or that teaching completely out of context while ignoring plainly spoken teaching in Evangelium Vitae or Veritatis Splendor.]
There is ample evidence that good social programs can dramatically reduce the number of abortions -- and that the lack of them increase it. The Dutch and the Germans have an abortion rate approximately one-third of the U.S. because they have universal health care, including prenatal and postnatal care, and programs to encourage adoption.
All the statistics show a deep correlation between abortion and economic need. More than three out of four women give economic reasons for choosing abortion, and the abortion rate is 300 percent higher among people below the poverty level than those above it. [The facts show that abortion is the ultimate form of contraception – people choose abortion for many reasons and economic strife is one among many deplorable reasons. People have been having abortions since time immemorial. It is not a recent social phenomenon, EXCEPT that now it is so available and morally accepted because it is legal … and because of moral decay and relativism. Availability of abortion and ironically – materialism and atheism are the causes of abortion, beginning with contraception – a misguided notion of freedom, which is what JPII says in the Gospel of Life. This guy should read it.]
A fine instance of good social services reducing abortion is the Massachusetts health-care plan that Gov. Romney signed into law before his flip-flop on health care.
It has lowered the number significantly, with a 21 percent decrease among teenagers. [The numbers on abortion are going down because states are restricting abortion rights increasingly as Americans grow more and more discontent with this evil. In spite of Obama's policies, not because of them. .... abortion has decreased in some areas.]
If Gov. Romney makes good on his commitment to rescind the Affordable Health Care Act, coupled with the Romney/Ryan budget proposal that slashes services to poor people, then under a Romney administration, the rate of abortions in the U.S. will skyrocket. [This is absurd. Romney will appoint justices who will outlaw abortion, as it was all the way up to the late 60's in our country. Moral decay is the cause of abortion's legality. This theologian is teaching heresy, in that he is intentionally promoting teachings contrary to the Church as if they were consistent with Church teaching.]
If elected, Gov. Romney would join a line of Republican presidents who campaigned as pro-life but whose social policies increased the number of abortions. The cuts in social services during the Ronald Reagan administration caused the abortion rate to rise dramatically. [I would agree that increasing government dependency and spending, rather than requiring work and limiting the public trough of welfare — has contributed to all societal ills and republicans have not been much better than democrats in wasteful spending. Creating more dependency rather than observing the Church's social teaching affirming subsidiarity, private property and condemning marxist socialism … is the correct route, which addresses his absurd notion that we are not spending enough on the poor as the reason there are more abortions.]
President Bill Clinton, by contrast, having campaigned on a pro-choice position, improved social services and the abortion rate declined nearly 30 percent under his administration -- a decline that then stagnated under President George W. Bush.
By way of being truly pro-life, it would seem that presidential Republican candidates are no more than "wolves in sheep's clothing." [This is calling up down and down up. There is no reasoning that could satisfy this author because this reveals that he has put his trust in government, not the Church's teaching or God. So we finally come to it and he couldn't hold back any further … this is about demonizing the republicans as evil. Now it is ad hominem arguments and not facts. To attribute a pro-life, pro-family, balanced budget, free-market platform — the status of "wolves in sheep's clothing" is the height of hypocrisy which comes from the true Evil One. Rather, the democratic platform endorses and wants to publicly fund abortion, infanticide, homosexual marriage, deprivation of religious liberty, embryonic stem cell research and the increasing dependency of the poor on government, which leads to a vicious cycle of secularism and statism.]
Meanwhile, President Obama has made good on the commitment that he personally had inserted into the 2008 Democratic platform (reiterated in 2012), namely to "strongly support a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and postnatal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."
The current Republican Platform, and certainly candidate Romney, has no such abortion-reducing commitment. [False. They will act to de-fund planned parenthood, eliminate public funding of abortion, repeal obamacare's HHS Mandate and appoint justices who observe the Constitution and the right to life.]
President Obama has signed into law the Pregnancy Assistance Fund -- a $250 million program that helps local organizations support vulnerable pregnant women who wish to have their babies. [He is giving BILLIONS to Planned Parenthood – who gives out contraception like candy, which feeds the beast of their Billion dollar industry of abortions. Does this author even believe in God or His Church? Can he possibly be taken seriously in these claims? He could maybe succeed arguing with children in the corners of the room. Let's see how he'd do in an open debate.]
He has extended and tripled the Adoption Tax Credit and proposes making it permanent.
He supports the Child Tax Credit, which the Romney/Ryan budget would cut. Going forward, his overall social policies and affordable health care will insure that the U.S. rate of abortions will decline significantly.
No one could reasonably assert that my Catholic faith requires me to vote for one or another candidate in this election. However, my Catholic conscience prompts me to support President Obama as a practical strategy to reduce abortion in America. [You do so to the peril of your soul, to quote our bishops' direction on this matter. Will pray for your soul.]
Peace, DD
The bottom line is Thomas Groome is taking an absurd position – that economic policies drive abortion rates and supersede party platforms that make abortion illegal. Thus, he claims Catholics can vote for Obama because his social policies reduce abortions, while claiming Republican policies increase them. These numbers are first of all – false. There are MORE, not LESS people in poverty today than when Obama took office. There are more people without work than when Obama took office. There are more people on food stamps now than before Obama took office. How is this good for the dignity of the human person and reducing abortions? There is public funding of abortion with Obama in office. These have increased abortions, not decreased them. At the same time, we see less abortions in many areas because abortion restrictions are on the rise. We can't spend ourselves into welfare programs with a view toward reducing abortions. This is laughable. Do we really think democratic policies are or have any intention of reducing abortions? What a joke. This fellow wants us to believe that the democrat platform is more pro life than the republican? Seriously? Someone who believes this is so confused about their faith and the reality of economic policies that no statistics will set them straight.
By THOMAS GROOME
Contributing writer
Both friends and strangers have challenged why a Catholic theologian like me would publicly support the re-election of President Barack Obama. The implication always is that my Catholic faith should dictate otherwise.
Of course, I cite Catholic social doctrine (note the weighty term) and the mandate of my faith to care for "the least" among us (Matthew 25:34). Social programs for the common good and especially for the most vulnerable are central to Catholic social teaching. [Did he forget the social doctrine of the sacredness of life? Thou shalt not kill and the teaching of the Church back to the Didache in the 1st century that: “You shall not kill and unborn child or murder a newborn infant.. . the way of death is this … they kill their children and by abortion cause God’s creatures to perish.”]
By contrast, Ayn Rand's proposal of a "virtue of selfishness," besides being an oxymoron, is the antithesis of Catholic faith. [This is a straw man argument – Romney and Ryan are not "Ayn Rand" in economic philosophy. Is he arguing against a free market economy?? Socialism and Communism have both been condemned by the Church explicitly in papal encyclicals. Extreme consumerism and materialism have been condemned by JPII in Laborem Exercens – but this is not a condemnation of free markets which promote the principle of subsidiarity, also a key tenet of the Church's social teaching. He conveniently and simply ignores these glaring realities.]
If implemented as social policy -- a la the Romney/Ryan budget -- the neediest among us will suffer by far the most. Some 64 percent of its alleged "savings" come from cutting programs that aid poor families and individuals.
The comeback is invariably around abortion, whereupon I explain that my opposition to abortion is precisely the tipping point that prompts my unqualified support of President Obama.
As a loyal Catholic, I accept the teaching of my Church that "every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred" and that abortion is "gravely contrary to the moral law" (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2319, 2271).
Though the U.S. Catholic Bishops caution, "As Catholics we are not single issue voters" (Faithful Citizenship, November 2007), yet with some 1.3 million annually in the U.S., abortion presents our country with a grave moral crisis. [The Catholic bishops teach that Catholics voting for candidates who support intrinsically evil acts – abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage – cannot be supported by Catholics without putting their souls in serious peril. Our own bishop has cited this teaching in his recent column. This fellow is cherry-picking and the issues are not single-issue when it comes to intrinsically evil acts. The Faithful Citizenship quote is not speaking in the context of comparing election issues generally against intrinsically evil actions advocated. Obviously there are some bishops (all too many) who are wishy-washy on this and it simply is not the mind of the Church. Much of the USCCB has been overrun by staffers who are liberation theology adherents and way overemphasize certain aspects of Church social teaching to the exclusion of others in order to support their liberal agenda.]
The dilemma for citizens like me is that the great majority of our fellow Americans favor some possibility of abortion and do not want to criminalize it again. [Huh? What "majority" is he speaking of? The vast majority of Americans favor extreme limiting of abortion if not abolishing it. Was there anarchy in the country regarding abortion up to Roe v Wade? What has been the consequence of Roe? Has it been for the good? How is this man's statement consistent with the Church's stand on abortion? This is a ridiculous statement which frankly destroys this person's credibility as one who understands Church teaching or as one who has any serious inclination to obey the Church's teaching on human life.]
As Thomas Aquinas taught wisely, laws must reflect "the consensus of the governed" and there is no agreement in this country to ban all abortions. Even Gov. Mitt Romney is now making "exceptions." [This is the worst kind of sophistry I've read in awhile. So, this would mean Church teaching on abortion should be subject to the "consent of the governed"?? The Church teaches emphatically that abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be promoted or encouraged, let alone enshrined in law. The civil law MUST reflect the natural law, which excludes abortion absolutely. This person is a disgrace to theology. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil – Isaiah. ]
When faced with a strategic dilemma in applying a general moral principle, the same Aquinas argued that Christians should choose whatever appears to be the lesser evil and the greater good. [So Aquinas was a proportionalist? Wow. That is news. Aquinas did not teach absolute moral norms? Wow. That is news. Plucking out a quote of choosing the lesser evil is pathetic manipulation of the context in which it was stated. Aquinas was not dealing with intrinsically evil actions. For example, the Church teaches one can support a law which allows abortion but is more restrictive than the current law, because it is movement to a better and more restrictive law. This would be the "lesser evil". Of course, this has no bearing on the discussion of comparing abortion to economic issues, which the author has now apparently departed from.]
In this light, the most feasible moral choice is to reduce the number of abortions. So, Catholics like me and citizens of like mind should support the candidate who has the best abortion reducing policies. [Hmm – how bout the candidate who will do what it takes to outlaw or dramatically restrict abortion rights? I'll take that over the absurd notion he's suggesting, which is that reducing poverty will reduce abortions. What a joke. This person causes a righteous anger in me because he knows the truth enough to quote this or that teaching completely out of context while ignoring plainly spoken teaching in Evangelium Vitae or Veritatis Splendor.]
There is ample evidence that good social programs can dramatically reduce the number of abortions -- and that the lack of them increase it. The Dutch and the Germans have an abortion rate approximately one-third of the U.S. because they have universal health care, including prenatal and postnatal care, and programs to encourage adoption.
All the statistics show a deep correlation between abortion and economic need. More than three out of four women give economic reasons for choosing abortion, and the abortion rate is 300 percent higher among people below the poverty level than those above it. [The facts show that abortion is the ultimate form of contraception – people choose abortion for many reasons and economic strife is one among many deplorable reasons. People have been having abortions since time immemorial. It is not a recent social phenomenon, EXCEPT that now it is so available and morally accepted because it is legal … and because of moral decay and relativism. Availability of abortion and ironically – materialism and atheism are the causes of abortion, beginning with contraception – a misguided notion of freedom, which is what JPII says in the Gospel of Life. This guy should read it.]
A fine instance of good social services reducing abortion is the Massachusetts health-care plan that Gov. Romney signed into law before his flip-flop on health care.
It has lowered the number significantly, with a 21 percent decrease among teenagers. [The numbers on abortion are going down because states are restricting abortion rights increasingly as Americans grow more and more discontent with this evil. In spite of Obama's policies, not because of them. .... abortion has decreased in some areas.]
If Gov. Romney makes good on his commitment to rescind the Affordable Health Care Act, coupled with the Romney/Ryan budget proposal that slashes services to poor people, then under a Romney administration, the rate of abortions in the U.S. will skyrocket. [This is absurd. Romney will appoint justices who will outlaw abortion, as it was all the way up to the late 60's in our country. Moral decay is the cause of abortion's legality. This theologian is teaching heresy, in that he is intentionally promoting teachings contrary to the Church as if they were consistent with Church teaching.]
If elected, Gov. Romney would join a line of Republican presidents who campaigned as pro-life but whose social policies increased the number of abortions. The cuts in social services during the Ronald Reagan administration caused the abortion rate to rise dramatically. [I would agree that increasing government dependency and spending, rather than requiring work and limiting the public trough of welfare — has contributed to all societal ills and republicans have not been much better than democrats in wasteful spending. Creating more dependency rather than observing the Church's social teaching affirming subsidiarity, private property and condemning marxist socialism … is the correct route, which addresses his absurd notion that we are not spending enough on the poor as the reason there are more abortions.]
President Bill Clinton, by contrast, having campaigned on a pro-choice position, improved social services and the abortion rate declined nearly 30 percent under his administration -- a decline that then stagnated under President George W. Bush.
By way of being truly pro-life, it would seem that presidential Republican candidates are no more than "wolves in sheep's clothing." [This is calling up down and down up. There is no reasoning that could satisfy this author because this reveals that he has put his trust in government, not the Church's teaching or God. So we finally come to it and he couldn't hold back any further … this is about demonizing the republicans as evil. Now it is ad hominem arguments and not facts. To attribute a pro-life, pro-family, balanced budget, free-market platform — the status of "wolves in sheep's clothing" is the height of hypocrisy which comes from the true Evil One. Rather, the democratic platform endorses and wants to publicly fund abortion, infanticide, homosexual marriage, deprivation of religious liberty, embryonic stem cell research and the increasing dependency of the poor on government, which leads to a vicious cycle of secularism and statism.]
Meanwhile, President Obama has made good on the commitment that he personally had inserted into the 2008 Democratic platform (reiterated in 2012), namely to "strongly support a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and postnatal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."
The current Republican Platform, and certainly candidate Romney, has no such abortion-reducing commitment. [False. They will act to de-fund planned parenthood, eliminate public funding of abortion, repeal obamacare's HHS Mandate and appoint justices who observe the Constitution and the right to life.]
President Obama has signed into law the Pregnancy Assistance Fund -- a $250 million program that helps local organizations support vulnerable pregnant women who wish to have their babies. [He is giving BILLIONS to Planned Parenthood – who gives out contraception like candy, which feeds the beast of their Billion dollar industry of abortions. Does this author even believe in God or His Church? Can he possibly be taken seriously in these claims? He could maybe succeed arguing with children in the corners of the room. Let's see how he'd do in an open debate.]
He has extended and tripled the Adoption Tax Credit and proposes making it permanent.
He supports the Child Tax Credit, which the Romney/Ryan budget would cut. Going forward, his overall social policies and affordable health care will insure that the U.S. rate of abortions will decline significantly.
No one could reasonably assert that my Catholic faith requires me to vote for one or another candidate in this election. However, my Catholic conscience prompts me to support President Obama as a practical strategy to reduce abortion in America. [You do so to the peril of your soul, to quote our bishops' direction on this matter. Will pray for your soul.]
Peace, DD
Vatican Document: Persona Humana ... A Good Primer on Moral Errors of Today
Click on the link below to read Persona Humana - a brief document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which addresses:
The necessity of moral absolutes, the authentic expression of human sexuality, the intrinsic evil of homosexuality, the truth about moral sin, the sin of self-abuse, etc. Read it HERE.
The necessity of moral absolutes, the authentic expression of human sexuality, the intrinsic evil of homosexuality, the truth about moral sin, the sin of self-abuse, etc. Read it HERE.
Pope Benedict's Renunciation of Papacy Remains Shrouded in Mystery...
Chair of St. Peter
Like everyone, I was shocked to hear of Pope Benedict's renunciation of the papacy. Many explanations and theories have arisen around his decision. His own explanation was thoughtful and sincere. There is no question that we must respect what was clearly a prayerful and very informed conscience. I completely trust that he is doing what he thinks is best for the Church. Indeed, the Church will move forward and we will have a new Pope... who is facing perhaps the most treacherously dangerous times in the history of the Church, as Western Civilization stands on the edge of the precipice, while relativism and secularism spring up like weeds in poorly tended soil. Theologically, Benedict XVI has moved the ball forward against relativism and reinforced the sacred liturgy. He has also left gems of lasting intellectual and theological impact for the Church.
However, there are serious implications to his abdication, which he surely understands. The precedent this reinstates regarding how the Supreme Pontiff is viewed, has staggering impact on the future. How will the new Pope and the "emeritus" get along? Will there be pressure, intended or not ... from the emeritus Pope on the new Pope? Perhaps not with someone like Benedict, but in the future, what if the next abdicated Pope is a meddler, perhaps with good reason or for less than good reasons? Is it wise to have "2 Popes", even though it is clear on paper one has stepped down officially and canonically... this can be a dangerous and divisive precedent. On the other hand, is it not wonderful to have Benedict praying for the Church in seclusion, present as a helpful mentor to the new Pope? It all depends on the personalities of the emeritus and standing Pope and their spiritual maturity. There are many good articles posted on this site and PewSitter regarding the question of precedent set by abdication. My point is not to delve into the historical, canonical and ecclesial implications of abdication. Suffice it to say they are indeed real concerns and daunting.
But my observation is this - that there must be something very serious behind Benedict's renunciation of his office, beyond the question of his failing health (we have learned he has a pacemaker and is going blind in one eye) and beyond the risks run by setting potential modern precedent for Popes abdicating their office. Perhaps he knows this and perhaps he just intuits it... but to my lights, his action reveals the seriousness of the times he (and the Holy Spirit) perceives we are in -- the dangers the Church faces in the world and the urgency of those dangers. Such dangers are not speculations, but very real and universally known by faithful Catholics worldwide. Perhaps there remains an urgent need for a stronger internal, administrative hand in the Vatican Curia itself, which Benedict has struggled with and his predecessor of happy memory essentially stepped around. It seems Benedict is of the mind that the Church requires at this very moment ... a general with the strength and gifts to successfully lead the battle... and he has determined that he himself does not possess that capacity.
"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."
But are we not instructed to trust in the power of God and not of men... certainly not in our own strength and worldly conceptions of "power"? Indeed. However, there is also a realism and concreteness to Benedict's decision, in that, while trusting God will provide, he is also recognizing with reason enlightened by faith ... that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight (to use a rather crass metaphor). As dangerous as the precedent is to have a Pope step aside, perhaps it points to what Benedict has determined is an even greater danger ... the abdication of the faith amidst a world that is reaching fever pitch in its persecution of Christians and the promotion of the culture of death. Benedict clearly thinks a stronger Shepherd is needed to fight off the wolves ... a stronger Captain at the wheel to steer the ship. I for one trust his prayerful judgment and weighing of the relative risks. Peace+ DD
However, there are serious implications to his abdication, which he surely understands. The precedent this reinstates regarding how the Supreme Pontiff is viewed, has staggering impact on the future. How will the new Pope and the "emeritus" get along? Will there be pressure, intended or not ... from the emeritus Pope on the new Pope? Perhaps not with someone like Benedict, but in the future, what if the next abdicated Pope is a meddler, perhaps with good reason or for less than good reasons? Is it wise to have "2 Popes", even though it is clear on paper one has stepped down officially and canonically... this can be a dangerous and divisive precedent. On the other hand, is it not wonderful to have Benedict praying for the Church in seclusion, present as a helpful mentor to the new Pope? It all depends on the personalities of the emeritus and standing Pope and their spiritual maturity. There are many good articles posted on this site and PewSitter regarding the question of precedent set by abdication. My point is not to delve into the historical, canonical and ecclesial implications of abdication. Suffice it to say they are indeed real concerns and daunting.
But my observation is this - that there must be something very serious behind Benedict's renunciation of his office, beyond the question of his failing health (we have learned he has a pacemaker and is going blind in one eye) and beyond the risks run by setting potential modern precedent for Popes abdicating their office. Perhaps he knows this and perhaps he just intuits it... but to my lights, his action reveals the seriousness of the times he (and the Holy Spirit) perceives we are in -- the dangers the Church faces in the world and the urgency of those dangers. Such dangers are not speculations, but very real and universally known by faithful Catholics worldwide. Perhaps there remains an urgent need for a stronger internal, administrative hand in the Vatican Curia itself, which Benedict has struggled with and his predecessor of happy memory essentially stepped around. It seems Benedict is of the mind that the Church requires at this very moment ... a general with the strength and gifts to successfully lead the battle... and he has determined that he himself does not possess that capacity.
"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."
But are we not instructed to trust in the power of God and not of men... certainly not in our own strength and worldly conceptions of "power"? Indeed. However, there is also a realism and concreteness to Benedict's decision, in that, while trusting God will provide, he is also recognizing with reason enlightened by faith ... that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight (to use a rather crass metaphor). As dangerous as the precedent is to have a Pope step aside, perhaps it points to what Benedict has determined is an even greater danger ... the abdication of the faith amidst a world that is reaching fever pitch in its persecution of Christians and the promotion of the culture of death. Benedict clearly thinks a stronger Shepherd is needed to fight off the wolves ... a stronger Captain at the wheel to steer the ship. I for one trust his prayerful judgment and weighing of the relative risks. Peace+ DD
“Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place."
You know the old saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt"... In the Gospel reading of Monday of the Third Week of Lent, familiarity with Jesus was an obstacle to faith for those in Jesus' home town.
They could not see the divinity hidden under the ordinary. Christ was a known element in Nazareth. Paradoxically, the divine was too close to notice! Too close to encounter! Is the stumbling block of Nazareth the same stumbling block for us?
In our first reading, Namaan the Syrian did not want to do the familiar, common thing of washing in the Jordan... but was looking for the spectacular act of Elisha moving his hand over the leprous area. In the Gospel, Jesus praises Naaman because he had the humility to rethink his own assumptions and do what Elisha commanded ... i.e. the ordinary. As a result, he was transformed. His leprosy disappeared and his skin was like new again.
Jesus convicts his own neighbors for not acknowledging God’s intimate presence in their lives … because the way God chose to reveal Himself in their lives was through something (someone) too close to them ... to seemingly ordinary! God couldn't be THAT close to us, could he??
Humility is they key to overcoming the stumbling block of the holy appearing under the ordinary. We must become humble as Jesus humbled Himself ... and have FAITH that God is not in the dramatic, but in the ordinary. Not in the loud, but in the whisper.
Many saints, such as Pierre Frassati, St. Therese, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis – were misunderstood and/or completely “missed” by their families and friends.
The Gospels tell us Jesus did not work many mighty deeds among his family and friends because of their lack of faith; their blindness to God's revelation of himself, as HE willed it ... in their lives.
That is the rub for us, isn't it? It seems almost easier to believe the action of the Holy Spirit will be with the Cardinals in conclave ... we are convinced that God is guiding the Church in that Sistine Chapel. BUT ... is he any LESS active in our simple, mundane and ordinary lives? The saints and the Church teach us that God's love, His Spirit is active in the tiniest details of our lives. "Every hair of your head is counted"... "Your heavenly Father knows what you need before you ask Him". We are called to find God under ordinary, even negative appearances. God is hidden in daily ordinary and humble events of daily life – the "sacrament of the present moment" ... our Faith teaches us that the ordinary appearance hides something divine, infinitely powerful and more real than what we can see or touch.
In Porta Fidei, Pope Benedict XVI observes we have a crisis of faith in our culture. We are looking for happiness, love and peace in all wrong places. Would you believe God is in you? That He is in the Holy Eucharist? That God's forgiveness is mediated by an ordained, fallible, human being? That He is to be found in your spouse and family? In your work? In your sufferings? Even in your own weakness and sin? "My grace is sufficient for you." Jesus tells St. Paul. "Power is made perfect in weakness".
Perhaps we don't experience the transformation of the divine presence and an intimate relationship with God because we lack faith and humility to open our eyes to see that God is right under our nose. Peace+ Dcn Dan G
They could not see the divinity hidden under the ordinary. Christ was a known element in Nazareth. Paradoxically, the divine was too close to notice! Too close to encounter! Is the stumbling block of Nazareth the same stumbling block for us?
In our first reading, Namaan the Syrian did not want to do the familiar, common thing of washing in the Jordan... but was looking for the spectacular act of Elisha moving his hand over the leprous area. In the Gospel, Jesus praises Naaman because he had the humility to rethink his own assumptions and do what Elisha commanded ... i.e. the ordinary. As a result, he was transformed. His leprosy disappeared and his skin was like new again.
Jesus convicts his own neighbors for not acknowledging God’s intimate presence in their lives … because the way God chose to reveal Himself in their lives was through something (someone) too close to them ... to seemingly ordinary! God couldn't be THAT close to us, could he??
Humility is they key to overcoming the stumbling block of the holy appearing under the ordinary. We must become humble as Jesus humbled Himself ... and have FAITH that God is not in the dramatic, but in the ordinary. Not in the loud, but in the whisper.
Many saints, such as Pierre Frassati, St. Therese, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis – were misunderstood and/or completely “missed” by their families and friends.
The Gospels tell us Jesus did not work many mighty deeds among his family and friends because of their lack of faith; their blindness to God's revelation of himself, as HE willed it ... in their lives.
That is the rub for us, isn't it? It seems almost easier to believe the action of the Holy Spirit will be with the Cardinals in conclave ... we are convinced that God is guiding the Church in that Sistine Chapel. BUT ... is he any LESS active in our simple, mundane and ordinary lives? The saints and the Church teach us that God's love, His Spirit is active in the tiniest details of our lives. "Every hair of your head is counted"... "Your heavenly Father knows what you need before you ask Him". We are called to find God under ordinary, even negative appearances. God is hidden in daily ordinary and humble events of daily life – the "sacrament of the present moment" ... our Faith teaches us that the ordinary appearance hides something divine, infinitely powerful and more real than what we can see or touch.
In Porta Fidei, Pope Benedict XVI observes we have a crisis of faith in our culture. We are looking for happiness, love and peace in all wrong places. Would you believe God is in you? That He is in the Holy Eucharist? That God's forgiveness is mediated by an ordained, fallible, human being? That He is to be found in your spouse and family? In your work? In your sufferings? Even in your own weakness and sin? "My grace is sufficient for you." Jesus tells St. Paul. "Power is made perfect in weakness".
Perhaps we don't experience the transformation of the divine presence and an intimate relationship with God because we lack faith and humility to open our eyes to see that God is right under our nose. Peace+ Dcn Dan G
Spiritual Deafness
(23rd Sun) In our Gospel Jesus works a powerful miracle of healing of a person who could not hear and so also could not speak or speak well.
Put yourself in the shoes of one who is deaf and mute … imagine how difficult and challenging this was for the man in our reading today. How difficult it would be and challenging to relate to others, to build relationships.
One who is deaf and mute is one who is in a certain way all to often tragically cut off from relationship to community; inhibited by this limitation; this is because communication, especially by hearing and speaking… is fundamentally the means by which we give and receive love, friendship and affirmation. Hearing/speaking is a primary means and sign of relationship and communion with another.
God is a Trinity – a community / relationship of Persons who are eternally communicating their love to one another, so much so… the Persons being all one divinity, one nature, one God. Though often taken for granted… hearing and speaking are essential means for communion with one another. When it is not possible, other more challenging methods and means must be used to accomplish something as close as possible to these powers of hearing and speaking. And people with such challenges seem to always rise to the occasion and live very full and happy lives.
So for the deaf and mute man, imagine how he must have felt to have his natural means of connecting with his loved ones and friends …restored! Going from no sound to hearing the voice of the Savior saying “Be opened” then immediately hearing the rush of the wind, one’s own voice, the birds, the Sea of Galilee crashing the shoreline, and the voice of your loved ones for the first time. It was truly a new life a even a new self, who could be actualized fully.
This healing reminded me of a couple of touching news stories this past year almost a year ago about a 29 year old woman, Sarah Churman, and another 10 year old girl, Samantha Hicks … both were born deaf. I watched the videos for each online, which captured their first moments when cochlear implants they received were turned on. Their reactions are stunning and touching. In both cases their reaction was overwhelming tears, emotion and joy… both covered their faces in emothion, especially at hearing their own voice and the voice of their family members. When Samantha was asked why she was crying by her father, she said “I couldn’t believe how much stuff I was missing”.
This story really helps us imagine the emotional, life changing event this must have been for the man in our Gospel today.
Jesus’ miraculous healings were both a sign of his divinity, of the Kingdom of heaven where all tears are wiped away and all suffering ended and always point to a deeper, spiritual reality.
That spiritual reality is that many are spiritually deaf and mute, in need of Christ’s healing grace and mercy. So the healing of the deaf mute is for us a metaphor for Christ’s healing of sin and its effect of being an obstacle to our relationship with God and neighbor.
To understand this it is helpful to recall that…
The original sin was a sin of disobedience, which translated is dis-ob-audire = lit. to not listen. This is a spiritual deafness caused not by physical disability, but by choice to not listen to God’s Word: a hardness of heart, lack of trust, sin and the distracting noise of worldly notions of freedom and life.
The original sin separated man from dialogue with God; sin isolates us from the dialogue of the Trinity and from each other, similar to how physical deafness and muteness separated the deaf/mute man in our reading.
The life of grace in Christ is a life of communicating selfless love to one another, as the Trinity of Persons do. In our disobedience, our not listening to God, we remain isolated and in sin and as a result we are not happy. When there is division or hurt we experience what … the silent treatment, right? Withholding communication is a sign of discord!
Christ restored our spiritual deafness through His LISTENING, that is, being obedient to the Father, even unto death on the cross. It was not Jesus’ suffering the Father desired, but his obedience despite suffering was the accepted sacrifice, because it manifested a relationship of LOVE.
One cannot say “thy will be done” to God unless one listens to the Word. The Divine Listener opens our ears to hear the Word … the Logos of God, by His gift of GRACE, handed down through the sacraments and prayer!
If you love someone … you LISTEN to them. Obedience must flow from love. Jesus loved the Father perfectly, to restore the spiritually deaf with the grace to hear again the dialogue of the Trinity, the dialogue of love and selflessness.
We cannot listen or hear God if we do not have silence and prayer in our daily lives. We need silence to hear God’s whispering voice. Prayer tunes the ears of our soul to God and the needs of others around us. Then we can experience the awakening so that our lives will never be the same… we will be transformed …
God will not shout, so if we choose to not listen or hear because of the noise of the world, the cares and preoccupation with the world and its pleasures and pastimes, even its challenges and obligations … we can drown out the voice of God in our hearts and lose our hearing slowly …
If we listen and receive God’s Word in our hearts, we will then speak the truth clearly and with wisdom, just as Sarah and Samantha could speak much more clearly when they could hear with implants. Our words and works will bear good fruit only to the extent that they flow from a LISTENING HEART. God the Father commanded us as he did the Apostles on Mount Tabor Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son, Listen to Him”.
Let us ask the Lord Jesus to heal us of our spiritual deafness. Jesus is asking: Are you slowly losing your hearing? How well can you hear the voice of God? What opportunities are you giving Him?
Let us seek and LISTEN to God in His Word and Eucharist and Reconciliation, let us listen in silent, deep prayer and adoration, let us hear the cry of the poor and needy in body or spirit around us who suffer in silence. If we do, we will find ourselves being transformed into that restored dialogue of love we lost with Adam. Listen to the Lord say to your soul: “Be opened!”
Peace+ DD
Put yourself in the shoes of one who is deaf and mute … imagine how difficult and challenging this was for the man in our reading today. How difficult it would be and challenging to relate to others, to build relationships.
One who is deaf and mute is one who is in a certain way all to often tragically cut off from relationship to community; inhibited by this limitation; this is because communication, especially by hearing and speaking… is fundamentally the means by which we give and receive love, friendship and affirmation. Hearing/speaking is a primary means and sign of relationship and communion with another.
God is a Trinity – a community / relationship of Persons who are eternally communicating their love to one another, so much so… the Persons being all one divinity, one nature, one God. Though often taken for granted… hearing and speaking are essential means for communion with one another. When it is not possible, other more challenging methods and means must be used to accomplish something as close as possible to these powers of hearing and speaking. And people with such challenges seem to always rise to the occasion and live very full and happy lives.
So for the deaf and mute man, imagine how he must have felt to have his natural means of connecting with his loved ones and friends …restored! Going from no sound to hearing the voice of the Savior saying “Be opened” then immediately hearing the rush of the wind, one’s own voice, the birds, the Sea of Galilee crashing the shoreline, and the voice of your loved ones for the first time. It was truly a new life a even a new self, who could be actualized fully.
This healing reminded me of a couple of touching news stories this past year almost a year ago about a 29 year old woman, Sarah Churman, and another 10 year old girl, Samantha Hicks … both were born deaf. I watched the videos for each online, which captured their first moments when cochlear implants they received were turned on. Their reactions are stunning and touching. In both cases their reaction was overwhelming tears, emotion and joy… both covered their faces in emothion, especially at hearing their own voice and the voice of their family members. When Samantha was asked why she was crying by her father, she said “I couldn’t believe how much stuff I was missing”.
This story really helps us imagine the emotional, life changing event this must have been for the man in our Gospel today.
Jesus’ miraculous healings were both a sign of his divinity, of the Kingdom of heaven where all tears are wiped away and all suffering ended and always point to a deeper, spiritual reality.
That spiritual reality is that many are spiritually deaf and mute, in need of Christ’s healing grace and mercy. So the healing of the deaf mute is for us a metaphor for Christ’s healing of sin and its effect of being an obstacle to our relationship with God and neighbor.
To understand this it is helpful to recall that…
The original sin was a sin of disobedience, which translated is dis-ob-audire = lit. to not listen. This is a spiritual deafness caused not by physical disability, but by choice to not listen to God’s Word: a hardness of heart, lack of trust, sin and the distracting noise of worldly notions of freedom and life.
The original sin separated man from dialogue with God; sin isolates us from the dialogue of the Trinity and from each other, similar to how physical deafness and muteness separated the deaf/mute man in our reading.
The life of grace in Christ is a life of communicating selfless love to one another, as the Trinity of Persons do. In our disobedience, our not listening to God, we remain isolated and in sin and as a result we are not happy. When there is division or hurt we experience what … the silent treatment, right? Withholding communication is a sign of discord!
Christ restored our spiritual deafness through His LISTENING, that is, being obedient to the Father, even unto death on the cross. It was not Jesus’ suffering the Father desired, but his obedience despite suffering was the accepted sacrifice, because it manifested a relationship of LOVE.
One cannot say “thy will be done” to God unless one listens to the Word. The Divine Listener opens our ears to hear the Word … the Logos of God, by His gift of GRACE, handed down through the sacraments and prayer!
If you love someone … you LISTEN to them. Obedience must flow from love. Jesus loved the Father perfectly, to restore the spiritually deaf with the grace to hear again the dialogue of the Trinity, the dialogue of love and selflessness.
We cannot listen or hear God if we do not have silence and prayer in our daily lives. We need silence to hear God’s whispering voice. Prayer tunes the ears of our soul to God and the needs of others around us. Then we can experience the awakening so that our lives will never be the same… we will be transformed …
God will not shout, so if we choose to not listen or hear because of the noise of the world, the cares and preoccupation with the world and its pleasures and pastimes, even its challenges and obligations … we can drown out the voice of God in our hearts and lose our hearing slowly …
If we listen and receive God’s Word in our hearts, we will then speak the truth clearly and with wisdom, just as Sarah and Samantha could speak much more clearly when they could hear with implants. Our words and works will bear good fruit only to the extent that they flow from a LISTENING HEART. God the Father commanded us as he did the Apostles on Mount Tabor Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son, Listen to Him”.
Let us ask the Lord Jesus to heal us of our spiritual deafness. Jesus is asking: Are you slowly losing your hearing? How well can you hear the voice of God? What opportunities are you giving Him?
Let us seek and LISTEN to God in His Word and Eucharist and Reconciliation, let us listen in silent, deep prayer and adoration, let us hear the cry of the poor and needy in body or spirit around us who suffer in silence. If we do, we will find ourselves being transformed into that restored dialogue of love we lost with Adam. Listen to the Lord say to your soul: “Be opened!”
Peace+ DD
Obama Mandate and Religious Freedom: We've Only Just Begun
President Obama suggested that insurance companies can afford to pay for contraception coverage because fewer children means lower health costs. This is the language of the future we need to take to heart as a warning not only regarding our religious liberty but also the protection of innocent human life. This dangerous philosophy, embodied and rooted in Marxist socialism and Communism (and so relativism and utilitarianism) foreshadows the truism that universal, government run health care will always push towards minimizing the dignity of the human person at the beginning and the end of life in order to "cut costs" and ration health care in (vain) attempt to make it "affordable" as a government service.
This is not to say that all people should not have access to health care. They should... because of their dignity as human persons. However, there are more than one means to this end, and the best means is articulated in the Church's teaching regarding subsidiarity - that intermediate associations and private entities should be the main provider of goods/services, not necessarily government. Hence, I can be Catholic and support the notion that all persons deserve basic medical care, but this is OUR responsibility as Christians and not something we should delegate to government, except in very limited ways to fill the gaps of what private entities miss.
By observing the principle of subsidiarity (which I have covered more extensively in previous dicta), we are able to control and preserve the ways and means by which we provide health care to fellow citizens ... for example NOT working with insurance companies who provide contraception and abortion related coverage... for example providing health care which respects the dignity of the human person and will not cut life short at the end as a means to "cost cutting" and preserving a perverted notion of the "common good". This is why the privatization of health care, linked to the importance of private property rights in our laws ... is so critical to preserve. If we let these basic Constitutionally protected rights slip away ... it won't be long (as I've said before) until our RELIGIOUS liberties and the very right to life are next on the selling block… well … I guess we are already there.
I fear that the general popularity of universal health care among Catholics, provided by a sprawling, increasingly hostile government to religious liberty… puts us in a position of perhaps winning the present battle regarding constitutionality of the HHS mandate, but still losing the war on the attack of the Church … because we remain in an ongoing orbit or striking distance with government on whatever the next overreach will be into religious liberty. Arguing that the government should be delegated the power and resources to care for the poor, the sick, those in need … is to argue for a society that revolves around the State as the provider of everything we need. But this is not the Christian calling of the Gospel. Christ calls each of us to care for each other as a personal obligation. As a result, using reason and ingenuity, ordinary people with livelihoods set up organizations and apostolates to address the dire needs of the human person today. While government can and should have some kind of role, it should not be the solution and certainly not push out the major impact of the Church and the private sector charities … becoming a competitor of sorts for our resources and replacing our mission with a dependence on the state. Coerced charity is not charity and is not something a Christian can take credit for as fulfilling their obligations to the poor.
The problem the U.S. bishops need to wrestle with… is a bigger picture perspective on what scope and kind of government entities actually nurture and preserve a healthy independence and private sector. Only the latter will inherently protect religious liberty in a lasting mannner and provide incentives for better quality care on a more local level. The growth of government in areas of private property and education has whittled away our sense of responsibility and obligation to our neighbor, as well as our sense of liberty … over the last several decades. Now the overreaching of government has become shocking with this administration’s attacks on life and religious and civil liberties all in the name of “fairness”. The larger government grows, especially in the areas of health care services, education, energy and the like … the less power and control "We The People" have over our religion, our schools, our businesses, our family life and our communities. This is a very Catholic, natural law perspective on how the Church and State can co-exist in a complementary way.
Peace+ DD
This is not to say that all people should not have access to health care. They should... because of their dignity as human persons. However, there are more than one means to this end, and the best means is articulated in the Church's teaching regarding subsidiarity - that intermediate associations and private entities should be the main provider of goods/services, not necessarily government. Hence, I can be Catholic and support the notion that all persons deserve basic medical care, but this is OUR responsibility as Christians and not something we should delegate to government, except in very limited ways to fill the gaps of what private entities miss.
By observing the principle of subsidiarity (which I have covered more extensively in previous dicta), we are able to control and preserve the ways and means by which we provide health care to fellow citizens ... for example NOT working with insurance companies who provide contraception and abortion related coverage... for example providing health care which respects the dignity of the human person and will not cut life short at the end as a means to "cost cutting" and preserving a perverted notion of the "common good". This is why the privatization of health care, linked to the importance of private property rights in our laws ... is so critical to preserve. If we let these basic Constitutionally protected rights slip away ... it won't be long (as I've said before) until our RELIGIOUS liberties and the very right to life are next on the selling block… well … I guess we are already there.
I fear that the general popularity of universal health care among Catholics, provided by a sprawling, increasingly hostile government to religious liberty… puts us in a position of perhaps winning the present battle regarding constitutionality of the HHS mandate, but still losing the war on the attack of the Church … because we remain in an ongoing orbit or striking distance with government on whatever the next overreach will be into religious liberty. Arguing that the government should be delegated the power and resources to care for the poor, the sick, those in need … is to argue for a society that revolves around the State as the provider of everything we need. But this is not the Christian calling of the Gospel. Christ calls each of us to care for each other as a personal obligation. As a result, using reason and ingenuity, ordinary people with livelihoods set up organizations and apostolates to address the dire needs of the human person today. While government can and should have some kind of role, it should not be the solution and certainly not push out the major impact of the Church and the private sector charities … becoming a competitor of sorts for our resources and replacing our mission with a dependence on the state. Coerced charity is not charity and is not something a Christian can take credit for as fulfilling their obligations to the poor.
The problem the U.S. bishops need to wrestle with… is a bigger picture perspective on what scope and kind of government entities actually nurture and preserve a healthy independence and private sector. Only the latter will inherently protect religious liberty in a lasting mannner and provide incentives for better quality care on a more local level. The growth of government in areas of private property and education has whittled away our sense of responsibility and obligation to our neighbor, as well as our sense of liberty … over the last several decades. Now the overreaching of government has become shocking with this administration’s attacks on life and religious and civil liberties all in the name of “fairness”. The larger government grows, especially in the areas of health care services, education, energy and the like … the less power and control "We The People" have over our religion, our schools, our businesses, our family life and our communities. This is a very Catholic, natural law perspective on how the Church and State can co-exist in a complementary way.
Peace+ DD
Lent: Enter the Inner Chamber in Secret and Pray To Your Heavenly Father
"But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." (Mt. 6:6)
Lent is upon us again, and in today's Ash Wednesday reading, our Lord gives us a program for Lent - prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Especially underrated, I think ... is the call to enter more deeply into prayer during this time of preparation for Easter.
"Operatio sequitur esse" - (operations follow from being) what we do flows from who we are. For our fasting and penances to be fruitful, they must flow from our life of daily prayer. Taking time each day to enter into that "intimate conversation with one whom we know loves us", as St. Teresa of Avila defined contemplation. The tree is known by its fruit, says the Lord. We must be filled with the grace and power of Christ through His Holy Spirit, who prays in us with "inexpressible groanings", as St. Paul tells us.
Let us dedicate ourselves to taking time every day to simply be in the presence of God, who dwells in our souls through sanctifying grace. The Holy Trinity dwells within but will remain an undiscovered treasure of love and peace and joy ... unless we tap into God's presence within us and allow this Presence to remain in us throughout our daily activities of good works and penances. Every moment can be a sort of "sacrament" of the Lord's presence in our ordinary activities, no matter how mundane, if we do what we do for the love of Christ. This is the essence of St. Therese of Lisieux's little way of spiritual childhood. We can only recognize everything as a grace if we are seeking the Lord daily in deep prayer, earnestly begging him to teach us how to pray and to give us the strength to "repent and believe in the Gospel", as we were marked with ashes today.
Today our Lord exhorts us to "go to your inner room" ... that "inner room" may well be a physical place of prayer to pray in solitude and silence. However, a more spiritual interpretation is appropriate here. We must turn to our Lord, who is present within our souls ... making our souls that "inner room", where our Lord is waiting for us and desires to lead us for intimate and loving conversation. Shutting out the world and distractions as much as we are able to focus on God present within our souls is what mystical theology calls "active recollection"... which disposes us to receive that "living water" of infused, contemplative prayer, for souls who are generous in giving of themselves to daily prayer and detachment from things of the world. Let this focus be top of mind as you move through the Lenten season and the fruits will appear.
Detachment and mortification are not to be avoided as if they mean the world or things are bad. They are not bad, they are good in themselves, but only to the extent they are used and ordered to the glory and love of God by our actions and use of them.
Our penances and detachment during Lent are ordered to one end -- to become holier and transformed more into the image of Christ. Lenten fasting and prayer are intended to lead us to authentic, selfless love and a deeper, more intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity. From this flow our good works and love of neighbor.
May God bless your Lenten journey and fill you with his grace and peace+ DD
Lent is upon us again, and in today's Ash Wednesday reading, our Lord gives us a program for Lent - prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Especially underrated, I think ... is the call to enter more deeply into prayer during this time of preparation for Easter.
"Operatio sequitur esse" - (operations follow from being) what we do flows from who we are. For our fasting and penances to be fruitful, they must flow from our life of daily prayer. Taking time each day to enter into that "intimate conversation with one whom we know loves us", as St. Teresa of Avila defined contemplation. The tree is known by its fruit, says the Lord. We must be filled with the grace and power of Christ through His Holy Spirit, who prays in us with "inexpressible groanings", as St. Paul tells us.
Let us dedicate ourselves to taking time every day to simply be in the presence of God, who dwells in our souls through sanctifying grace. The Holy Trinity dwells within but will remain an undiscovered treasure of love and peace and joy ... unless we tap into God's presence within us and allow this Presence to remain in us throughout our daily activities of good works and penances. Every moment can be a sort of "sacrament" of the Lord's presence in our ordinary activities, no matter how mundane, if we do what we do for the love of Christ. This is the essence of St. Therese of Lisieux's little way of spiritual childhood. We can only recognize everything as a grace if we are seeking the Lord daily in deep prayer, earnestly begging him to teach us how to pray and to give us the strength to "repent and believe in the Gospel", as we were marked with ashes today.
Today our Lord exhorts us to "go to your inner room" ... that "inner room" may well be a physical place of prayer to pray in solitude and silence. However, a more spiritual interpretation is appropriate here. We must turn to our Lord, who is present within our souls ... making our souls that "inner room", where our Lord is waiting for us and desires to lead us for intimate and loving conversation. Shutting out the world and distractions as much as we are able to focus on God present within our souls is what mystical theology calls "active recollection"... which disposes us to receive that "living water" of infused, contemplative prayer, for souls who are generous in giving of themselves to daily prayer and detachment from things of the world. Let this focus be top of mind as you move through the Lenten season and the fruits will appear.
Detachment and mortification are not to be avoided as if they mean the world or things are bad. They are not bad, they are good in themselves, but only to the extent they are used and ordered to the glory and love of God by our actions and use of them.
Our penances and detachment during Lent are ordered to one end -- to become holier and transformed more into the image of Christ. Lenten fasting and prayer are intended to lead us to authentic, selfless love and a deeper, more intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity. From this flow our good works and love of neighbor.
May God bless your Lenten journey and fill you with his grace and peace+ DD
"Repent and Believe In The Gospel"
DD's Homily 1st Sunday of Lent
Jesus goes into the desert to confront evil and temptation. He does this to strengthen and prepare himself for ministry in the world. He emerges with the call: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (good news)
Jesus’ time in the desert is an image of our Lenten journey to confront evil and temptation in our lives. We do this as Jesus did – with fasting, with prayer and the good words which flow from them.
But what does it mean to repent and believe in the Gospel? To repent – is to convert … to subject our passions and self will to God’s will. while repentance carries with it a tearing away from our selfishness and attachments, Jesus’ exhortation also has a positive movement – believe in the good news” – i.e. salvation! By letting go of our sins we embrace eternal life and happiness here and now.
What are some areas we can address this Lent?
Impurity – are you keeping custody of the eyes, guarding purity in what we and our children view on TV, movies, music … are we observing modesty in dress or just wearing whatever is popular… is our clothing suggestive and sending a message to invite being viewed as an object?
Are you using contraception … Separating love from God’s creative power? I have preached on this a few times … our culture is obsessed with sensuality and these things are just deemed as accepted because everyone does it.
Is there a problem with alcohol – is it a “must have” whenever you recreate? Do you drink to excess? This is a serious matter/sin.
Media – TV shows, sports, etc. what priority and time do we spend in our pastimes and escapes? Now compare with that how much time is spent with spiritual reading, prayer, family rosary or chaplet of Mercy? Being present to others?
The sins of the tongue – are too numerous to list … but two areas cover most of them: taking the Lord’s name in vain and gossip/negative talk about others. Let us only say things that build up and help others. St. James: “Consider how a small fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire.”
Are we passing on the faith to our children and friends … talking about the deepest questions of the heart and what brings true joy and happiness in life … viz. making God the goal and most important relationship in our lives? What steps are we taking to foster and grow in our spiritual life? Our relationship with God!
Let us submit ourselves to FAST from our attachments and especially the predominant vice in our lives … the real ones. Not just sweets or our favorite coffee.
Let us set to work in the desert this Lent… seeking the Lord’s help in prayer and the sacrament of reconciliation to give us the strength to overcome just ONE predominant sin/vice in our lives, or even to just make progress… OR … even just to begin the struggle, which is very pleasing to God in itself!
We have to be willing to renounce the obstacles of four sins for love of our Lord. This renouncing and detachment is hard for us … and creates a sort of “desert” in our hearts… where we withdraw ourselves from things that are obstacles between us and God. God will bring forth springs of water in the desert for us.
A proven strategy of the saints against sin … (they are our guides!) is what we say in our act of contrition every time we go to confession: “to sin no more and to avoid the occasion of sin”. In other words we avoid being tempted as much as possible by not putting ourselves in situations where we will be inclined to sin. Take yourself out of … or avoid proximity to that which is your downfall… whether impurity, Internet, drink, TV, even certain friends/associates. Replace them with something holy … something worthy of God and that leads to God.
As the great Carmelite Doctor – St. John of the Cross tells us, it is not the things themselves that are bad (God created all things good). It is our inordinate (disordered) use and desire (attachment) to them when they keep us from prayer, Mass, pursuing God in spiritual reading, living a rectified moral life, taking family time, etc. … that makes them become false idols and sinful attachments.
The reason we sin is simple: wrong priorities: putting other things before God. The reason we don’t get to confession at all or seldom … is wrong priorities, attachments. The reason we don’t pray every day is… wrong priorities, putting other things ahead of God. The reason we don’t take time to give ourselves to others, even our own families … is wrong priorities … putting our own will and attachments/desires … before God!
We ALL desire the GOOD. But there are APPARENT goods and REAL goods. We all serve “a” god… the question is whether we’re serving THE GOD!
So consider focusing this Lent on a predominant sin in your life… just ONE. Blessed John XXIII did this every year). If we did this for one vice every year we would soon become saints! THIS IS THE SACRIFICE GOD REALLY WANTS! This leads us closer to Him and makes us happier and more joy-filled. Perhaps this requires a conversation with a spouse or a family discussion to implement. Do what it takes.
By dying to worldly attachments, we conquer the world. Sinful attachments are things we put ahead of God and that keep us from loving selflessly. By making God our all, we become immovable rocks … not tossed by the cultures and anxieties of our time but focused on eternity, undaunted by death, which marks our passing into the true life we yearn for and the saints yearned for and enjoy.
There is a two-fold action of Christ in the desert. He is going there as an act of renunciation and penance/ detachment (there is no way around this for us) in preparation for his mission to spread the “Good News”. But while he is emptying he is being filled through prayer with His perfect union with the life of the Trinity.
This is the two-fold action of our movement toward God … an emptying must be accompanied by being filled with God! … through prayer and efforts at renunciation … otherwise it will be just, well… emptying for its own sake. This is not what we are made for. We are made for love and fulfillment and happiness.
The spiritual life is not for the weak of heart! Following Jesus means suiting up for battle and there’s no greater battle than the “war inside” each of us. As a favorite song of mine says, “There’s no killer like pride, no killer like I … no killer like what’s inside”. We must put the old self to death and become the New Man as St. Paul describes it … remade into the image of Christ!
“Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph 4:24)
St. Therese of Lisieux gives us courage with her exhortation from Story of a Soul: “I understood that to become a saint one had to suffer much, seek out always the most perfect thing to do, and forget self. I understood, too, that there are many degrees of perfection and each soul was free to respond to the advances of the Our Lord, to do little or much for Him, in a word, to choose among the sacrifices He was asking. Then, as in the days of my childhood, I cried out: 'My God I choose all!' I do not want to be a saint by halves, I'm not afraid to suffer for You, I fear only one thing: to keep my own will; so take it, for I choose all that you will!”
Let us follow Jesus into the desert this Lent … let us be courageous in admitting those areas (or just ONE) which is our most challenging predominant vice and lay the axe to the root through taking indispensable time for prayer and avoiding even the occasion of that sin we are working on. I guaranty the good works will flow from this.
But it is equally important that we NEVER get DISCOURAGED about our sins and failings. Discouragement is always from the devil and not of God. When we fall, where we struggle … this is where we encounter Christ and his Divine Mercy! He loves our struggle as it evidences our love for Him! It is in our struggles and where we are weak … that we encounter Christ and experience our NEED for Him. This need is an indispensable condition for progress in the spiritual life, and even salvation itself; for the Church is far more worried about those who don’t struggle or feel the need for God’s help than those who DO struggle against their sins in good faith.
This is what is called by mystical theologians and Church doctors, the “second conversion”, which I will be talking about in my next spiritual conference after stations. Our lives are a continual striving for that second conversion. Our first conversion happens at baptism, where we are divinized through grace and made adopted heirs and co-heirs with Christ, “partakers of the divine nature” as St. Peter described it. The second conversion is that free willed choice of whether we are willing to REPENT… like the rich young man in the Gospel … resisting and turning away from attachments and possessions (our desire for them) and the embedded vices of our age … to pursue union with God!
In this day and age where government increasingly attacks religious liberty, where relativism, sensuality and atheism abound … and secularism becomes the “new religion”… we turn NOT to government or the world for our solutions and our certitude and security. No, we REPENT and believe in the Gospel of Christ! We put ourselves in GOD’S hands, and know all will be well. We have nothing to worry about in God’s providential hands.
This is our program for Lent. Our CONVERSION is the solution for caring for those in need! It is our conversion that will effect the realization of authentic, lasting love and happiness in our lives and others, giving us freedom of spirit, even if our freedoms are crushed by humanistic and secularistic governments and the culture of death. No matter what happens in the world around us, we are FREE, we are dead to the world and alive in Christ Jesus as St. Paul says, looking to the blessed union with the Holy Trinity, which begins now and into eternity!
This is the Good News … the Gospel Jesus proclaimed in Galilee … that our captivity to sin is ended and the victory is won by Christ who said: “In the world you find tribulation. But take courage, I have conquered the world.” The challenge Jesus puts before us today is simple but literally a life and death proposition: “Repent! And believe in the Gospel!”
God love you +
DD
Jesus goes into the desert to confront evil and temptation. He does this to strengthen and prepare himself for ministry in the world. He emerges with the call: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (good news)
Jesus’ time in the desert is an image of our Lenten journey to confront evil and temptation in our lives. We do this as Jesus did – with fasting, with prayer and the good words which flow from them.
But what does it mean to repent and believe in the Gospel? To repent – is to convert … to subject our passions and self will to God’s will. while repentance carries with it a tearing away from our selfishness and attachments, Jesus’ exhortation also has a positive movement – believe in the good news” – i.e. salvation! By letting go of our sins we embrace eternal life and happiness here and now.
What are some areas we can address this Lent?
Impurity – are you keeping custody of the eyes, guarding purity in what we and our children view on TV, movies, music … are we observing modesty in dress or just wearing whatever is popular… is our clothing suggestive and sending a message to invite being viewed as an object?
Are you using contraception … Separating love from God’s creative power? I have preached on this a few times … our culture is obsessed with sensuality and these things are just deemed as accepted because everyone does it.
Is there a problem with alcohol – is it a “must have” whenever you recreate? Do you drink to excess? This is a serious matter/sin.
Media – TV shows, sports, etc. what priority and time do we spend in our pastimes and escapes? Now compare with that how much time is spent with spiritual reading, prayer, family rosary or chaplet of Mercy? Being present to others?
The sins of the tongue – are too numerous to list … but two areas cover most of them: taking the Lord’s name in vain and gossip/negative talk about others. Let us only say things that build up and help others. St. James: “Consider how a small fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire.”
Are we passing on the faith to our children and friends … talking about the deepest questions of the heart and what brings true joy and happiness in life … viz. making God the goal and most important relationship in our lives? What steps are we taking to foster and grow in our spiritual life? Our relationship with God!
Let us submit ourselves to FAST from our attachments and especially the predominant vice in our lives … the real ones. Not just sweets or our favorite coffee.
Let us set to work in the desert this Lent… seeking the Lord’s help in prayer and the sacrament of reconciliation to give us the strength to overcome just ONE predominant sin/vice in our lives, or even to just make progress… OR … even just to begin the struggle, which is very pleasing to God in itself!
We have to be willing to renounce the obstacles of four sins for love of our Lord. This renouncing and detachment is hard for us … and creates a sort of “desert” in our hearts… where we withdraw ourselves from things that are obstacles between us and God. God will bring forth springs of water in the desert for us.
A proven strategy of the saints against sin … (they are our guides!) is what we say in our act of contrition every time we go to confession: “to sin no more and to avoid the occasion of sin”. In other words we avoid being tempted as much as possible by not putting ourselves in situations where we will be inclined to sin. Take yourself out of … or avoid proximity to that which is your downfall… whether impurity, Internet, drink, TV, even certain friends/associates. Replace them with something holy … something worthy of God and that leads to God.
As the great Carmelite Doctor – St. John of the Cross tells us, it is not the things themselves that are bad (God created all things good). It is our inordinate (disordered) use and desire (attachment) to them when they keep us from prayer, Mass, pursuing God in spiritual reading, living a rectified moral life, taking family time, etc. … that makes them become false idols and sinful attachments.
The reason we sin is simple: wrong priorities: putting other things before God. The reason we don’t get to confession at all or seldom … is wrong priorities, attachments. The reason we don’t pray every day is… wrong priorities, putting other things ahead of God. The reason we don’t take time to give ourselves to others, even our own families … is wrong priorities … putting our own will and attachments/desires … before God!
We ALL desire the GOOD. But there are APPARENT goods and REAL goods. We all serve “a” god… the question is whether we’re serving THE GOD!
So consider focusing this Lent on a predominant sin in your life… just ONE. Blessed John XXIII did this every year). If we did this for one vice every year we would soon become saints! THIS IS THE SACRIFICE GOD REALLY WANTS! This leads us closer to Him and makes us happier and more joy-filled. Perhaps this requires a conversation with a spouse or a family discussion to implement. Do what it takes.
By dying to worldly attachments, we conquer the world. Sinful attachments are things we put ahead of God and that keep us from loving selflessly. By making God our all, we become immovable rocks … not tossed by the cultures and anxieties of our time but focused on eternity, undaunted by death, which marks our passing into the true life we yearn for and the saints yearned for and enjoy.
There is a two-fold action of Christ in the desert. He is going there as an act of renunciation and penance/ detachment (there is no way around this for us) in preparation for his mission to spread the “Good News”. But while he is emptying he is being filled through prayer with His perfect union with the life of the Trinity.
This is the two-fold action of our movement toward God … an emptying must be accompanied by being filled with God! … through prayer and efforts at renunciation … otherwise it will be just, well… emptying for its own sake. This is not what we are made for. We are made for love and fulfillment and happiness.
The spiritual life is not for the weak of heart! Following Jesus means suiting up for battle and there’s no greater battle than the “war inside” each of us. As a favorite song of mine says, “There’s no killer like pride, no killer like I … no killer like what’s inside”. We must put the old self to death and become the New Man as St. Paul describes it … remade into the image of Christ!
“Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph 4:24)
St. Therese of Lisieux gives us courage with her exhortation from Story of a Soul: “I understood that to become a saint one had to suffer much, seek out always the most perfect thing to do, and forget self. I understood, too, that there are many degrees of perfection and each soul was free to respond to the advances of the Our Lord, to do little or much for Him, in a word, to choose among the sacrifices He was asking. Then, as in the days of my childhood, I cried out: 'My God I choose all!' I do not want to be a saint by halves, I'm not afraid to suffer for You, I fear only one thing: to keep my own will; so take it, for I choose all that you will!”
Let us follow Jesus into the desert this Lent … let us be courageous in admitting those areas (or just ONE) which is our most challenging predominant vice and lay the axe to the root through taking indispensable time for prayer and avoiding even the occasion of that sin we are working on. I guaranty the good works will flow from this.
But it is equally important that we NEVER get DISCOURAGED about our sins and failings. Discouragement is always from the devil and not of God. When we fall, where we struggle … this is where we encounter Christ and his Divine Mercy! He loves our struggle as it evidences our love for Him! It is in our struggles and where we are weak … that we encounter Christ and experience our NEED for Him. This need is an indispensable condition for progress in the spiritual life, and even salvation itself; for the Church is far more worried about those who don’t struggle or feel the need for God’s help than those who DO struggle against their sins in good faith.
This is what is called by mystical theologians and Church doctors, the “second conversion”, which I will be talking about in my next spiritual conference after stations. Our lives are a continual striving for that second conversion. Our first conversion happens at baptism, where we are divinized through grace and made adopted heirs and co-heirs with Christ, “partakers of the divine nature” as St. Peter described it. The second conversion is that free willed choice of whether we are willing to REPENT… like the rich young man in the Gospel … resisting and turning away from attachments and possessions (our desire for them) and the embedded vices of our age … to pursue union with God!
In this day and age where government increasingly attacks religious liberty, where relativism, sensuality and atheism abound … and secularism becomes the “new religion”… we turn NOT to government or the world for our solutions and our certitude and security. No, we REPENT and believe in the Gospel of Christ! We put ourselves in GOD’S hands, and know all will be well. We have nothing to worry about in God’s providential hands.
This is our program for Lent. Our CONVERSION is the solution for caring for those in need! It is our conversion that will effect the realization of authentic, lasting love and happiness in our lives and others, giving us freedom of spirit, even if our freedoms are crushed by humanistic and secularistic governments and the culture of death. No matter what happens in the world around us, we are FREE, we are dead to the world and alive in Christ Jesus as St. Paul says, looking to the blessed union with the Holy Trinity, which begins now and into eternity!
This is the Good News … the Gospel Jesus proclaimed in Galilee … that our captivity to sin is ended and the victory is won by Christ who said: “In the world you find tribulation. But take courage, I have conquered the world.” The challenge Jesus puts before us today is simple but literally a life and death proposition: “Repent! And believe in the Gospel!”
God love you +
DD
Obama "Accommodation" Will Test U.S. Bishop's Resolve To Stand Strong and Resist the Shell Game
I am very proud of how the Catholic Bishops and so many Catholic organizations have stood fast against the assault on religious liberty by the Obama administration.
Now, we enter the next phase of the test. The Obama regime has inaugurated a shell game, appearing to shift accountability for handing out free contraception, sterilization and abortifacients to insurance companies. As the lead article on the left suggests very astutely ... Catholic organizations will STILL be mandated to offer plans that cover these intrinsically evil abominations to Catholic teaching and the dignity of the human person.
Nothing has changed.
Religious organizations objecting to this will be paying the same premiums into the risk pool. This is a ruse... a sham, that is merely a pronouncement from our king on paper "imputing" the accountability to the insurance company rather than the religious entity. However, this is a distinction without a difference. Catholic organizations will be FORCED to provide insurance plans which provide (probably quite proactively, knowing Planned Parenthood) services that are intrinsically evil. What is the difference between saying religious entities have to use health insurance programs which provide these abominations "free" and saying all health insurance programs must provide these abominations "free" while not allowing any alternative for objecting religious entities. In either expression, religious organizations are being forced to use health plans which provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. In either case, Catholic entities have to pour their money and resources and referrals into a health plan they have no choice but to utilize. This seems to be at least proximate material cooperation, (or implicit formal cooperation) and is unacceptable for Catholic organizations morally and ethically.
In addition, many self-insured religious organizations are still on the hook with this pseudo-change. This "accommodation" changes nothing for them. Also, what other health "benefits" will be required next? What have we come to when our president is ordering health insurance companies to provide this or that service for free? What has happened to the Constitution?
Finally, the question is ... how will the US Bishops handle this? How will Cardinal-designate Dolan handle the Obama shell game? I pray they will reject the "accommodation" as equally unacceptable. The "accommodation" does not remove Catholic entities from violating their consciences any further than the original version of the unjust law. I hope the bishops do not acquiescence to this assault on religious liberty under the guise of shifting the accountability.
Peace+ DD
UPDATE: After seeing the initial response of Archbishop Chaput and the U.S. Bishops, it appears they are not falling for the revision offered by Obama, which is inspiring to see. We must support our bishops who are leading with great courage and faith. DD+
Now, we enter the next phase of the test. The Obama regime has inaugurated a shell game, appearing to shift accountability for handing out free contraception, sterilization and abortifacients to insurance companies. As the lead article on the left suggests very astutely ... Catholic organizations will STILL be mandated to offer plans that cover these intrinsically evil abominations to Catholic teaching and the dignity of the human person.
Nothing has changed.
Religious organizations objecting to this will be paying the same premiums into the risk pool. This is a ruse... a sham, that is merely a pronouncement from our king on paper "imputing" the accountability to the insurance company rather than the religious entity. However, this is a distinction without a difference. Catholic organizations will be FORCED to provide insurance plans which provide (probably quite proactively, knowing Planned Parenthood) services that are intrinsically evil. What is the difference between saying religious entities have to use health insurance programs which provide these abominations "free" and saying all health insurance programs must provide these abominations "free" while not allowing any alternative for objecting religious entities. In either expression, religious organizations are being forced to use health plans which provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. In either case, Catholic entities have to pour their money and resources and referrals into a health plan they have no choice but to utilize. This seems to be at least proximate material cooperation, (or implicit formal cooperation) and is unacceptable for Catholic organizations morally and ethically.
In addition, many self-insured religious organizations are still on the hook with this pseudo-change. This "accommodation" changes nothing for them. Also, what other health "benefits" will be required next? What have we come to when our president is ordering health insurance companies to provide this or that service for free? What has happened to the Constitution?
Finally, the question is ... how will the US Bishops handle this? How will Cardinal-designate Dolan handle the Obama shell game? I pray they will reject the "accommodation" as equally unacceptable. The "accommodation" does not remove Catholic entities from violating their consciences any further than the original version of the unjust law. I hope the bishops do not acquiescence to this assault on religious liberty under the guise of shifting the accountability.
Peace+ DD
UPDATE: After seeing the initial response of Archbishop Chaput and the U.S. Bishops, it appears they are not falling for the revision offered by Obama, which is inspiring to see. We must support our bishops who are leading with great courage and faith. DD+
Our Lord Has Fallen On the Grenade For Us
Navy SEAL Michael Anthony Monsoor
Homily - 5th Sun Lent
(Passiontide)
Jesus says: “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified”. Jesus speaks of his “hour” frequently in his ministry … and this is always with reference to his passion and death. Now the dark clouds are gathering this Passiontide … as our Lord is very close to His hour of agony and crucifixion.
God has his day, the powers of hell have their hour of darkness.
Why does our Blessed Lord refer to the hour then … as his being “glorified”? Its significance is affirmed when those with Jesus hear the voice of the Father booming mysteriously as thunder or as the voice of an angel by the people, confirming our Lord’s hour will indeed glorify Him.
Jesus immediately goes on to explain how he will be glorified and in what it consists: “Amen, amen I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.”
Jesus chooses this image of a grain of wheat to illustrate what will soon happen to Him … and what must happen to us to be saved!
What happens to the grain of wheat in the ground? It is transformed into fruit, but it must cease to be what it is … in a real sense … it must forsake or deny itself to become what it is not, but what it is supposed to be!
Glorification is tied to and dependent upon, TRANSFORMATION...
St. John of the Cross puts it this way:
To come to enjoy what you have not – you must go by a way in which you enjoy not.
To come to the knowledge you have not – you must go by a way in which you know not.
To come to the possession you have not – you must go by a way in which you possess not.
To come to be what you are not – you must go by a way in which you are not.
So Jesus moves from the image of the grain of wheat even more clearly to our human experience when he then says: “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life”
In saying this, Jesus is preparing his disciples and the Greeks and Jews surrounding him … to understand the way of the Cross… the only gateway to transformation so that we might become our TRUE SELVES! Remade in love through sacrificial self-giving to God and one another.
Like the grain in the soil, we must become what we are not, renouncing (losing... “hating”) the OLD, unreal self, clinging and bound to created things … so we may be transformed into the freedom, love and image of Christ. At judgment, God will look for the image of His only Son in us.
So, we “hate” our life in the sense that we put God’s will and love above… not only our enjoyment of pleasures, but even above our very lives. This means living our lives and making decisions about how we spend our time and effort in light of our eternal destiny and judgment before God!
An example for us today is the Church’s stand on religious liberty against immoral government mandates – we will close down an important apostolate of Catholic health care (as hard as that is) before violating God’s will, given us through the Church. More and more, living our Catholic faith will require greater individual sacrifice and be increasingly counter-culture. What do you and I need to renounce and what (who) do we need to embrace in our life “to preserve it for eternal life?”
Jesus is preaching this self-emptying today – not only his own … but ours also: to follow him… as he then says “Whoever serves me must follow me…”
Jesus is saying – I am not journeying to Golgotha alone … you must also do as I do… if you are to be my follower.
So, how do we do this? We cannot – but as St. Paul says, “I can do all things in Christ, who strengthens me”. Jesus tells us “For man it is impossible, but not for God. For all things are possible with God.” Jesus’ passion and death won for us God’s life – grace, which is the power and strength of God the Holy Spirit given to us, if we are willing to empty ourselves to receive Him.
Jesus said it today – “Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” The “ruler of this world” is Satan and judgment has been made on the slavery of sin and death. Sin and death are driven out of our souls through Christ's sovereignty over us. Christ has conquered the world and sent the Holy Spirit among us as our protection and advocate, giving us freedom of supernatural life of grace. How?
“When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself”. Jesus’ reference to being “lifted up” is understood by those of his time as being lifted up on the cross of crucifixion. This hearkens to Moses being commanded to lift up the bronze serpent on a wooden cross in the desert, so the people stricken by the seraph serpents would be healed when they looked upon it, foreshadowing our healing through Christ's crucifixion and death.
Jesus, willingly BOUND on the cross, (appearing anything but divine to the worldly) DRAWS everyone as a free invitation to FOLLOW Him to where he is … on that cross! So we may bind ourselves to him. There is no coercion with God ... he waits for us, bound to the Cross.
So, we have our answer to how Jesus hour is actually His glorification. Jesus’ being “lifted up” gives glory to God and glorifies the Son – in His obedience out of love unto death, which is the greatest love. In turn, we are the beneficiaries of this greatest love and are too glorified if we “follow Him”, being transformed by dying like the seed in the ground, renouncing our selfish clinging to life for God’s supernatural, eternal life of glory.
In our second reading, St. Paul tells us “Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”
Paul teaches that Christ’s suffering and ours … is not without purpose/meaning … beatitude is found in obedience to God’s will, manifest in the Gospel and Church teaching, especially in the Beatitudes – happy are the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, those hungry for righteousness, the merciful, the peacemakers, the pure of heart and the persecuted.
This is the paradox of the cross Jesus is preaching today - these beatitudes betoken one who is happy, but not because of this life's pleasures and events but only in their meaning in light of God's will and eternal life.
This New Law of love and beatitude in Christ is what Jeremiah prophesies in our first reading today: “I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts … All from least to greatest shall know me … for I will forgive their evildoing…”
Jesus’ way of the cross: self-sacrifice is not just the physical suffering – it was the evidence of Jesus’ obedience out of love, even unto death that was the acceptable sacrifice... which causes our forgiveness and justification!
Jesus glorifies the Father because he reveals that God is love. Hence, as God's creation, we are made for love and will be unhappy unless we live our lives and give our whole being to “THE” Love.
"Our hearts are restless until they rest in you" - St. Augustine
“No greater love does anyone have than to lay down his life for his friends” Jesus taught and lived this every moment unto the Cross as God and Man.
There is a movie out now called “Act of Valor”. It is a moving tribute to our military and features active Navy SEALs as film leads as they re-enact real life examples of their excellence with abilities only they possess. At one point, there’s a team of SEALs moving through an abandoned building, and a live grenade flies into the room. Their team leader immediately drops his chest on the grenade, just before it explodes… saving the lives of his friends, laying down his own life.
This scene is not fiction … perhaps this scene was recalling the heroism of SEAL officer Michael A. Monsoor, 25, who on Sept 29, 2006 sacrificed his life to save his friends by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout. The grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.
“He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,” said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. “He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs’ lives, and we owe him.”
Michael Monsoor’s act of valor and love emulates in the ultimate way, what it means to live and give one’s life, learning obedience through suffering, self-discipline, and subjecting his very instinct of self-preservation … to a higher love, which no doubt carries with it the promise of eternal life for those who love God. He saved his friends' lives as well as his own on that grenade.
Our Lord has fallen on the grenade for us on the cross – we too can say “he undoubtedly saved my life, and we owe him”.
In courage and love, Jesus is quickening his pace and resolve to Golgotha, to His glory and the glory of God the Father ... and we are left standing with Jesus' words ringing in our ears:
“Whoever serves me must follow me.”
Peace+ Dcn Dan G
St. Anthony of the Desert - A Model for Us
This month, we celebrate the feast of the great St. Anthony, who is the founder of monasticism in the Church. Though he was almost surely not the first Christian hermit, he was clearly the first to have a major impact on Christianity. His feast is January 17th.
St. Anthony lived in the Egyptian desert, living a life of self-denial, penance and battled the devil, who manifested himself in various hideous ways and in the form of temptations. While he left the world to live in solitude and to be unknown and forgotten by all but God, he was sought out for his holiness of life by hundreds and permitted some to live the monastic life with him, in the form of monasticism known as "semi-eremetical". This term simply means the monks lived in separate hermitages/cells/caves and came together for common liturgy and prayer occasionally.
We are all called to be contemplatives, even though we are in the world ... we must not be "of the world". We can establish in our lives those times every day ... of solitude and prayer. Perhaps as Jesus would rise early, well before dawn and pray in solitude, so too we can receive in prayer the light and the grace to live our lives in a manner such that we recognize "everything is a grace", as St. Therese was fond of saying. Such a life of prayer informs and affects our entire lives, slowly transforming us into an "alter Christus" (another Christ). Taking time for retreats, where we can spend extended time in prayer and spiritual reading, is also a very laudable practice to foster growth in the spiritual life. Spiritual reading encourages and disposes us very well for prayer. Meditating on the daily scriptures using Lectio Divina, being challenged by the daily message of the Gospel and epistles, brings the Word Incarnate into our souls and leads us on the path to authentic truth and love in very practical ways every day.
Peace+ DD
St. Anthony lived in the Egyptian desert, living a life of self-denial, penance and battled the devil, who manifested himself in various hideous ways and in the form of temptations. While he left the world to live in solitude and to be unknown and forgotten by all but God, he was sought out for his holiness of life by hundreds and permitted some to live the monastic life with him, in the form of monasticism known as "semi-eremetical". This term simply means the monks lived in separate hermitages/cells/caves and came together for common liturgy and prayer occasionally.
We are all called to be contemplatives, even though we are in the world ... we must not be "of the world". We can establish in our lives those times every day ... of solitude and prayer. Perhaps as Jesus would rise early, well before dawn and pray in solitude, so too we can receive in prayer the light and the grace to live our lives in a manner such that we recognize "everything is a grace", as St. Therese was fond of saying. Such a life of prayer informs and affects our entire lives, slowly transforming us into an "alter Christus" (another Christ). Taking time for retreats, where we can spend extended time in prayer and spiritual reading, is also a very laudable practice to foster growth in the spiritual life. Spiritual reading encourages and disposes us very well for prayer. Meditating on the daily scriptures using Lectio Divina, being challenged by the daily message of the Gospel and epistles, brings the Word Incarnate into our souls and leads us on the path to authentic truth and love in very practical ways every day.
Peace+ DD
Your Own Worst Enemy
Recent articles on the federal regs requiring employers to provide no-cost prescription birth control as part of their health insurance plans, have raised an interesting phenomenon. While the bishops fight for the respect of conscience provisions, the position of the Catholic Church is profoundly undermined by a very troubling reality... the vast majority of Catholics DO NOT follow the Church's teaching on contraception. While this does not change the truth of the Church's infallible teaching on contraception, it does reveal a failure in the Church of strongly preaching and teaching this important truth of the faith to the people of God.
A recent NPR article (see left column) set out the conscience clause demands of the American bishops in the context of the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans, yet again, we read that:
"While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages."
So, the Church and her "Catholic" hospitals and universities are proving to be the Church's own worst enemies when it comes to consistency and solidarity in doctrine and practice. How can Catholic hospitals and universities fund contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans for their employees and call themselves Catholic? What is their mission? This issue concerns a matter of grave importance and spiritual (eternal) import. The transmission of human life is of the most urgent and central issues in the struggle of the Culture of Life (as John Paul the Great termed it) against the Culture of Death. Contraception objectifies the human person and the conjugal act into one of selfishness and a rejection of the natural law, which is written in the hearts of all by God. Who is accountable for these hospitals and universities? Who is responsible for moving the sheep into the sheepfold again?
One can't help but recall Ezekiel here: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves ... You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost ... So they were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered and wandered over all the mountains and high hills; my sheep were scattered over the whole earth, with no one to look after them or to search for them.... As a shepherd tends his flock when he finds himself among his scattered sheep, so will I tend my sheep. I will rescue them from every place where they were scattered." (Ez 34:2-16)
A recent NPR article (see left column) set out the conscience clause demands of the American bishops in the context of the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans, yet again, we read that:
"While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages."
So, the Church and her "Catholic" hospitals and universities are proving to be the Church's own worst enemies when it comes to consistency and solidarity in doctrine and practice. How can Catholic hospitals and universities fund contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans for their employees and call themselves Catholic? What is their mission? This issue concerns a matter of grave importance and spiritual (eternal) import. The transmission of human life is of the most urgent and central issues in the struggle of the Culture of Life (as John Paul the Great termed it) against the Culture of Death. Contraception objectifies the human person and the conjugal act into one of selfishness and a rejection of the natural law, which is written in the hearts of all by God. Who is accountable for these hospitals and universities? Who is responsible for moving the sheep into the sheepfold again?
One can't help but recall Ezekiel here: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves ... You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost ... So they were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered and wandered over all the mountains and high hills; my sheep were scattered over the whole earth, with no one to look after them or to search for them.... As a shepherd tends his flock when he finds himself among his scattered sheep, so will I tend my sheep. I will rescue them from every place where they were scattered." (Ez 34:2-16)
America Nearing the Brink
America is nearing the brink of becoming a secular society. When relativism has taken over and political correctness rules ... we have the death of reason.
Where reason is dead, so is the recognition of the natural law and so human rights, including the right to life, the nature of marriage, and freedom of conscience and religion. Those who claim the Constitution of the United States provides for the "separation of church and state" have completely misrepresented what the Constitution said. In fact, it only prohibits the establishment of a state religion. This is a far cry from requiring the banishment of all religious symbols from the public arena of activities. Yet, we see atheists demand everywhere that no signs of religion be displayed on public lands (and even private in many cases), based on the politically correct notion that "I cannot be offended". Nowhere is this right mentioned in our Constitution. It is an absurdly subjectivist view of the world twisted only to the advantage of those who propel the relativist, anti-God agenda forward.
The day is coming where even those bishops, priests and deacons who preach the uncensored, un-watered-down Gospel ... will be prosecuted for "hate crimes", if we continue down the path we are in on the public/political arena.
Let us pray for our bishops and priests ... and for ourselves to have the courage of our conviction, our faith in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, which while persecuted and bruised by many forces (internal and external), continues to be a light to the world as Lumen Gentium beautifully reiterates as our mission. If we have opportunity to witness through suffering, so be it. We must follow our Lord's exhortation to "take up your cross daily and follow me." Amen, come Lord Jesus. Peace+ DD
Where reason is dead, so is the recognition of the natural law and so human rights, including the right to life, the nature of marriage, and freedom of conscience and religion. Those who claim the Constitution of the United States provides for the "separation of church and state" have completely misrepresented what the Constitution said. In fact, it only prohibits the establishment of a state religion. This is a far cry from requiring the banishment of all religious symbols from the public arena of activities. Yet, we see atheists demand everywhere that no signs of religion be displayed on public lands (and even private in many cases), based on the politically correct notion that "I cannot be offended". Nowhere is this right mentioned in our Constitution. It is an absurdly subjectivist view of the world twisted only to the advantage of those who propel the relativist, anti-God agenda forward.
The day is coming where even those bishops, priests and deacons who preach the uncensored, un-watered-down Gospel ... will be prosecuted for "hate crimes", if we continue down the path we are in on the public/political arena.
Let us pray for our bishops and priests ... and for ourselves to have the courage of our conviction, our faith in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, which while persecuted and bruised by many forces (internal and external), continues to be a light to the world as Lumen Gentium beautifully reiterates as our mission. If we have opportunity to witness through suffering, so be it. We must follow our Lord's exhortation to "take up your cross daily and follow me." Amen, come Lord Jesus. Peace+ DD
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood... Revealed
Here are some quotes directly from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood ...
"The mentally retarded and the mentally defective . . . insidiously are replacing the people of normal mentality."
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds"
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
. "Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
"The mentally retarded and the mentally defective . . . insidiously are replacing the people of normal mentality."
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds"
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
. "Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
The Authentic Spirit of Vatican II (Part III)
A Missed Opportunity and Challenge for Rediscovery
The turbulent aftermath of the Council – the false spirit and outright dissent which has occurred, was exacerbated by the complete lack of effort on the part of the Council Fathers to educate the faithful and implement the goals of the Council in a systematic way.[i] It is ironic that a major theme of Vatican II was to communicate to contemporary man in language he could understand, but failed to use the tools (e.g. media, programs, initiatives) or means to actually follow through, which takes courage and resolve.[ii] Drafting and even publishing the Council documents did not communicate the message, it only made the teaching available to whomever had the good will to read and thoughtfully implement its direction.[iii]
Although this essay has focused primarily on the negative influences behind changes made in a false ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, much good has already come from the Council. One sees many signs of broader acceptance and authentic implementation of the council’s goals. The Church has truly reached out to the world in authentic ecumenism, and challenged the entire People of God to answer the call of discipleship and active participation in the life of the Church to become the salt of the earth. (cf. Matt. 5:13) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, explosion of authentic catechetical media, the new evangelization, and strong lay participation and leadership in union with the Pope and clergy – also indicate important progress in the acceptance and realization of the goals of Vatican II. “It must not be forgotten”, says Cardinal Ratzinger, “that every council is first of all a reform of the summit which then must spread to the base of the faithful. This means that every council … must be followed by a wave of holiness.”[iv] Such holiness is the only answer to an authentic spirit of Vatican II, so that the Catholic faithful may strike that challenging mean of being in, but not of the world:
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you did send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. (Jn. 17: 14-19)
[i] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lesson 6 Notes, p. 5.
[ii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The Church loses credibility not because it insists on teaching ‘outmoded’ doctrines but because it lacks the courage to continue teaching what it knows to be true.”
[iii] Ibid., p. 21: Much of the loss of tradition after the Council came about stumblingly and inadvertently, because insufficient thought was given to how renewal might be achieved, insufficient attention paid to exactly what the Council had said, people (even in high places) were caught up in a euphoria which tended to make them careless… they suffered from an error common to first-generation reformers – since the traditions were deeply internalized in themselves, they took them for granted and concentrated most of their energies on innovation.” ; Cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 36: The Council Fathers, “harbored an optimism that from our present-day perspective we would judge as not critical or realistic enough.” ; Cf. Most Rev. Aloysius Wycislo, Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There, (Alba House: New York, 1987), p. 174, While Bishop Wycislo agrees most of the Council documents have had “little or no follow up”, I cannot agree with his view that, “The ‘heresy’ of the traditionalists who confuse restoration with renewal perdures.” This could be said of the Lefebvre movement, but it seems to be an overstatement outside that context, which he does not give. It seems clear that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI have emphasized resistance to the influence of worldly influence and a return to the authentic liturgy and moral teachings of the Church. In a real way, “We are summoned to reconstruct the Church, not despite, but thanks to the true Council” (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 34).
[iv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 42. He further stated, “There is a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings, nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” ; Cf. Ibid., p. 35: “There is no pre or post conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord…”
Bibliography
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Declaration On Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Decree On Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Dogmatic Constitution On the Church (Lumen Gentium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Hitchcock, James. Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.
Hitchcock, James. The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism. Herder and Herder: New York, 1971.
Hitchcock, James. The History of Vatican II. OnlineLecture Notes. Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]. Available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1965.
McInerny, Ralph. What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988.
Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.
Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press, 1966.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. The Ratzinger Report. Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985.
Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html
Wiltgen, Ralph. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967.
Wycislo, Most Rev. Aloysius. Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There. Alba House: New York, 1987.
The turbulent aftermath of the Council – the false spirit and outright dissent which has occurred, was exacerbated by the complete lack of effort on the part of the Council Fathers to educate the faithful and implement the goals of the Council in a systematic way.[i] It is ironic that a major theme of Vatican II was to communicate to contemporary man in language he could understand, but failed to use the tools (e.g. media, programs, initiatives) or means to actually follow through, which takes courage and resolve.[ii] Drafting and even publishing the Council documents did not communicate the message, it only made the teaching available to whomever had the good will to read and thoughtfully implement its direction.[iii]
Although this essay has focused primarily on the negative influences behind changes made in a false ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, much good has already come from the Council. One sees many signs of broader acceptance and authentic implementation of the council’s goals. The Church has truly reached out to the world in authentic ecumenism, and challenged the entire People of God to answer the call of discipleship and active participation in the life of the Church to become the salt of the earth. (cf. Matt. 5:13) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, explosion of authentic catechetical media, the new evangelization, and strong lay participation and leadership in union with the Pope and clergy – also indicate important progress in the acceptance and realization of the goals of Vatican II. “It must not be forgotten”, says Cardinal Ratzinger, “that every council is first of all a reform of the summit which then must spread to the base of the faithful. This means that every council … must be followed by a wave of holiness.”[iv] Such holiness is the only answer to an authentic spirit of Vatican II, so that the Catholic faithful may strike that challenging mean of being in, but not of the world:
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you did send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. (Jn. 17: 14-19)
[i] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lesson 6 Notes, p. 5.
[ii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The Church loses credibility not because it insists on teaching ‘outmoded’ doctrines but because it lacks the courage to continue teaching what it knows to be true.”
[iii] Ibid., p. 21: Much of the loss of tradition after the Council came about stumblingly and inadvertently, because insufficient thought was given to how renewal might be achieved, insufficient attention paid to exactly what the Council had said, people (even in high places) were caught up in a euphoria which tended to make them careless… they suffered from an error common to first-generation reformers – since the traditions were deeply internalized in themselves, they took them for granted and concentrated most of their energies on innovation.” ; Cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 36: The Council Fathers, “harbored an optimism that from our present-day perspective we would judge as not critical or realistic enough.” ; Cf. Most Rev. Aloysius Wycislo, Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There, (Alba House: New York, 1987), p. 174, While Bishop Wycislo agrees most of the Council documents have had “little or no follow up”, I cannot agree with his view that, “The ‘heresy’ of the traditionalists who confuse restoration with renewal perdures.” This could be said of the Lefebvre movement, but it seems to be an overstatement outside that context, which he does not give. It seems clear that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI have emphasized resistance to the influence of worldly influence and a return to the authentic liturgy and moral teachings of the Church. In a real way, “We are summoned to reconstruct the Church, not despite, but thanks to the true Council” (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 34).
[iv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 42. He further stated, “There is a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings, nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” ; Cf. Ibid., p. 35: “There is no pre or post conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord…”
Bibliography
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Declaration On Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Decree On Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Dogmatic Constitution On the Church (Lumen Gentium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.
Hitchcock, James. Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.
Hitchcock, James. The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism. Herder and Herder: New York, 1971.
Hitchcock, James. The History of Vatican II. OnlineLecture Notes. Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]. Available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1965.
McInerny, Ralph. What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988.
Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.
Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press, 1966.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. The Ratzinger Report. Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985.
Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html
Wiltgen, Ralph. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967.
Wycislo, Most Rev. Aloysius. Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There. Alba House: New York, 1987.
The Authentic 'Spirit' of Vatican II (Part II)
Modernism and Cultural Upheaval
The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[i] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:
I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[ii]
Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[iii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[iv] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [v] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[vi]
The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[vii] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[viii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[ix] These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[x]
Resourcement vs. Modernism
A better understanding of the mischaracterization of the spirit of Vatican II can be gained by recognizing the distinction between two approaches to renewal: resourcement vs. modernism.[xi] The resourcement approach represents the true spirit of Vatican II, which is going back to the scripture, to the tradition of the early Church Fathers; prune in such a way as to make the Church healthier and encourage further growth. The text of the Council documents themselves clearly set out the balanced approach of adhering to traditional doctrine and the legitimacy of earlier Councils, while desiring to witness to and be active in, the modern world – the way, the truth and life, which is Christ, through His visible, one Catholic Church. Modernism or conformism looks to modern culture for direction, not tradition; renew the Church by conforming with present day culture; Vatican II is a beginning of a ‘process’, as those at the Council were too conservative.[xii] The modernist, liberal, conformism view of many ‘elite’ in the Church and media has led to much of the crisis and confusion, which has plagued the Church since the Council.[xiii] The conformists tended to make vague reference to Council document out of context, such as, “The Church acknowledges the good to be found in the social dynamism of today…”[xiv] and extrapolate from this that ‘this is what the spirit of the Council was all about.’[xv] By the end of the Council, many liberals/modernists realized their views were not surviving on the Council floor, but decided it doesn’t matter so much what the Council said as what people think it said. They will gain victories in the media and parishes, that they failed to gain at the Council.[xvi] The truth is that Gaudium et Spes gave much more emphasis to what the world can learn from the Church than vice-versa, and Lumen Gentium clearly elucidates the obligation of the faithful to assent to the Magisterium.[xvii] Cardinal Ratzinger provides good advice against the modernist/conformist misrepresentation: “The reading of the letter of the documents will enable us to discover their true spirit.”[xviii] The choice facing Catholics was, and continues to be, “between opposing modern society and opposing the Magisterium.”[xix] In fairness to the faithful who went along with the false directives of the conformists, they usually trusted priests, religious and those working in the Church to represent magisterial teaching accurately. Unfortunately, this was too often, not the case.
The mainstream media also played a significant role with the conformists in the Church, in order to shape the perception of the Council according to so-called enlightened, modern perspectives.[xx] Figures like Xavier Rynne, an American priest, and Blair Kaiser, a former Jesuit, wrote for the New Yorker and Time magazine, respectively, and succeeded in propagandizing the American public with a liberal, even dishonest account of the Council activities and decisions.[xxi] Tragically, the faithful received most of their information about Vatican II through such media communications than the Church itself. This further elucidates how a ‘false spirit’ of Vatican II gained a life of its own, apart from the reality of the Council and the intentions of the Fathers.
Ironically, obedience was a key theme for the conformists. Those faithful who did not go along with the changes claimed to be mandated by the Council (which, in fact, were usually opposite of what was decreed) or the ‘spirit’ of the Council … were told they were being disobedient by clergy and church officials pushing their own agenda.[xxii] People in religious orders were told to be more democratic. The American notion of political freedom and democracy was applied by the liberals to everything in the Church, whether the Council said it or not. Of course, the Council clearly does not characterize the Church as a democracy.[xxiii] Many Catholics were erroneously advised they were liberated from their previous obligations. For example – if the Church has lifted the abstinence requirement on Friday, then other obligations must also be lifted, at least by implication – such as obligations relating to contraception, divorce, liturgical rules, etc. This is to misunderstand God’s laws, (e.g. divorce, contraception) which is not changeable, even by the Pope, compared to Church laws, (e.g. disciplines such as priestly celibacy, fasting).[xxiv] In the aftermath of Vatican II, the dissent occurring in response to Humanae Vitae represents how the pretense of obedience on other matters was abandoned as unnecessary cover – for outright dissent from Church authority regarding contraception.[xxv]
Such misrepresentation by those unwilling to follow the direction given by the Council documents, whether priest, religious, or worldly opinion represented in the media – resulted in a questioning and undermining of the authority of the Council.[xxvi] This was modernism or conformism in action. The influence of relativism, rationalism, and even hedonism of the cultural revolution is evident here. Cardinal Ratzinger sets out the distinction clearly: “It is impossible to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church.”[xxvii] As a faithful Catholic, one either accepts Vatican II and its decrees, or one does not. The elusiveness of the false spirit of the Council is that it purports to represent the Council’s spirit or intentions, while actually representing the standards of modern culture, which is itself quite unhealthy in many respects.
[i] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.
[ii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.
[iii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”
[iv] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”
[v] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”
[vi] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”
[vii] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.
LITURGY:
The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.
However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.
CONTRACEPTION
This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.
ECUMENISM
Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.
[viii] Ibid., p. 6.
[ix] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”
[x] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.
[xi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.
[xii] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. Modernism claims all religious belief is simply the product of historical culture from which it originates; there is no such thing as the transcendent, eternal truth. There may be a search for truth but the virtue consists in searching, not getting there.
[xiii] Cf. Ibid., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 9. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism, (Herder and Herder: New York, 1971), p. 152-3: “Many radicals seem not to have realized until very late that the crisis of the Church is merely part of a larger crisis of civilization… the problems which plague Christians are in large measure the problems which plague modern Western man and they are not solved by abandoning the Church for ‘the world.’” Hitchcock’s observation pegs the error of the modernists, to the extent the liberal conformists expected secular perspectives to offer something fresh, healthy or new … is at best, naïve and at worst, dubious.
[xiv] GS, n. 42.
[xv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.
[xvi] Cf. Ibid., p. 5. Council Fathers, “soon discovered that what was supposed to govern the post-conciliar Church was a certain ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which could not be found in the Council’s documents but had emerged from the endless commentaries on them.”
[xvii] Cf. GS, n. 10: “The Church believes that Christ… can show man the way and strengthen him through the Spirit in order to be worthy of his destiny: nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved.”; Cf. LG., Ch. III, n. 25: The People of God, “are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision … on faith and morals … loyal submission must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra…”; Cf. Ibid., Ch. II, n. 12, p. 363: “The People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men but truly the word of God … and applies it more fully in daily life.”
[xviii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 40. He continues: “The Catholic who clearly and, consequently, painfully perceives the damage that has been wrought in his Church by the misinterpretations of Vatican II must find the possibility of revival in Vatican II itself. The Council is his, it does not belong to those who want to continue along a road whose results have been catastrophic.” ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 28: “Programs for the ‘renewal’ of the Church have frequently been forced to ignore the conciliar decrees altogether, since they are replete with restatements of traditional doctrine, in favor of an amorphous ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which can be made to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.”
[xix] Ibid., p. 86. To avoid taking the Cardinal out of context, we should note that he has also noted, “It is not Christians who oppose the world, but rather the world which opposes itself to them when the truth about God, about Christ and about man is proclaimed.” The “opposition” is not through lack of desire for communion and peace, but is more in the sense that Christ spoke of bringing not peace, but “a sword”. (cf. Matt. 10:34)
[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3.
[xxi] Ibid., p. 4. This type of media influence is still felt today more than ever.
[xxii] Ibid., p. 2. This is what Hitchcock rightly calls, the “Triumph of Bureaucracy” – “the use of authority to undermine authority, the last stage of authority’s decline…they have triumphed because they have been officially mandated, and numerous skeptical lay people have been cowed into submission by the implication that resistance is a form of disloyalty. Although proclaiming an end to blind obedience in the Church, the professionals have invoked obedience to enforce the necessity of change … yet … the new ideas whose acceptance has been enforced through obedience are themselves then used to further undermine the concept of obedience.”
[xxiii] Cf. LG, Ch III ; Cf. note 31, supra.
[xxiv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 7. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 33: “Certain relatively minor changes of the conciliar era … were popularly understood as signaling that the theme of aggiornamento would be ‘freedom’, in the sense of a systematic loosening of whatever restraints Catholics found burdensome or irksome. The media, with scant ability to comprehend or express the deeper meanings of renewal, especially bore down on that point…”
[xxv] Cf. Ibid., p. 9. ; Cf. Ralph McInerny, What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained, (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988), p. 75.
[xxvi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The revolution in belief, to the extent that it has occurred, was an emanation from an elite center, the use of authority to undermine authority.”
[xxvii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 28.
The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[i] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:
I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[ii]
Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[iii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[iv] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [v] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[vi]
The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[vii] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[viii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[ix] These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[x]
Resourcement vs. Modernism
A better understanding of the mischaracterization of the spirit of Vatican II can be gained by recognizing the distinction between two approaches to renewal: resourcement vs. modernism.[xi] The resourcement approach represents the true spirit of Vatican II, which is going back to the scripture, to the tradition of the early Church Fathers; prune in such a way as to make the Church healthier and encourage further growth. The text of the Council documents themselves clearly set out the balanced approach of adhering to traditional doctrine and the legitimacy of earlier Councils, while desiring to witness to and be active in, the modern world – the way, the truth and life, which is Christ, through His visible, one Catholic Church. Modernism or conformism looks to modern culture for direction, not tradition; renew the Church by conforming with present day culture; Vatican II is a beginning of a ‘process’, as those at the Council were too conservative.[xii] The modernist, liberal, conformism view of many ‘elite’ in the Church and media has led to much of the crisis and confusion, which has plagued the Church since the Council.[xiii] The conformists tended to make vague reference to Council document out of context, such as, “The Church acknowledges the good to be found in the social dynamism of today…”[xiv] and extrapolate from this that ‘this is what the spirit of the Council was all about.’[xv] By the end of the Council, many liberals/modernists realized their views were not surviving on the Council floor, but decided it doesn’t matter so much what the Council said as what people think it said. They will gain victories in the media and parishes, that they failed to gain at the Council.[xvi] The truth is that Gaudium et Spes gave much more emphasis to what the world can learn from the Church than vice-versa, and Lumen Gentium clearly elucidates the obligation of the faithful to assent to the Magisterium.[xvii] Cardinal Ratzinger provides good advice against the modernist/conformist misrepresentation: “The reading of the letter of the documents will enable us to discover their true spirit.”[xviii] The choice facing Catholics was, and continues to be, “between opposing modern society and opposing the Magisterium.”[xix] In fairness to the faithful who went along with the false directives of the conformists, they usually trusted priests, religious and those working in the Church to represent magisterial teaching accurately. Unfortunately, this was too often, not the case.
The mainstream media also played a significant role with the conformists in the Church, in order to shape the perception of the Council according to so-called enlightened, modern perspectives.[xx] Figures like Xavier Rynne, an American priest, and Blair Kaiser, a former Jesuit, wrote for the New Yorker and Time magazine, respectively, and succeeded in propagandizing the American public with a liberal, even dishonest account of the Council activities and decisions.[xxi] Tragically, the faithful received most of their information about Vatican II through such media communications than the Church itself. This further elucidates how a ‘false spirit’ of Vatican II gained a life of its own, apart from the reality of the Council and the intentions of the Fathers.
Ironically, obedience was a key theme for the conformists. Those faithful who did not go along with the changes claimed to be mandated by the Council (which, in fact, were usually opposite of what was decreed) or the ‘spirit’ of the Council … were told they were being disobedient by clergy and church officials pushing their own agenda.[xxii] People in religious orders were told to be more democratic. The American notion of political freedom and democracy was applied by the liberals to everything in the Church, whether the Council said it or not. Of course, the Council clearly does not characterize the Church as a democracy.[xxiii] Many Catholics were erroneously advised they were liberated from their previous obligations. For example – if the Church has lifted the abstinence requirement on Friday, then other obligations must also be lifted, at least by implication – such as obligations relating to contraception, divorce, liturgical rules, etc. This is to misunderstand God’s laws, (e.g. divorce, contraception) which is not changeable, even by the Pope, compared to Church laws, (e.g. disciplines such as priestly celibacy, fasting).[xxiv] In the aftermath of Vatican II, the dissent occurring in response to Humanae Vitae represents how the pretense of obedience on other matters was abandoned as unnecessary cover – for outright dissent from Church authority regarding contraception.[xxv]
Such misrepresentation by those unwilling to follow the direction given by the Council documents, whether priest, religious, or worldly opinion represented in the media – resulted in a questioning and undermining of the authority of the Council.[xxvi] This was modernism or conformism in action. The influence of relativism, rationalism, and even hedonism of the cultural revolution is evident here. Cardinal Ratzinger sets out the distinction clearly: “It is impossible to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church.”[xxvii] As a faithful Catholic, one either accepts Vatican II and its decrees, or one does not. The elusiveness of the false spirit of the Council is that it purports to represent the Council’s spirit or intentions, while actually representing the standards of modern culture, which is itself quite unhealthy in many respects.
[i] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.
[ii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.
[iii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”
[iv] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”
[v] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”
[vi] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”
[vii] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.
LITURGY:
The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.
However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.
CONTRACEPTION
This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.
ECUMENISM
Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.
[viii] Ibid., p. 6.
[ix] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”
[x] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.
[xi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.
[xii] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. Modernism claims all religious belief is simply the product of historical culture from which it originates; there is no such thing as the transcendent, eternal truth. There may be a search for truth but the virtue consists in searching, not getting there.
[xiii] Cf. Ibid., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 9. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism, (Herder and Herder: New York, 1971), p. 152-3: “Many radicals seem not to have realized until very late that the crisis of the Church is merely part of a larger crisis of civilization… the problems which plague Christians are in large measure the problems which plague modern Western man and they are not solved by abandoning the Church for ‘the world.’” Hitchcock’s observation pegs the error of the modernists, to the extent the liberal conformists expected secular perspectives to offer something fresh, healthy or new … is at best, naïve and at worst, dubious.
[xiv] GS, n. 42.
[xv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.
[xvi] Cf. Ibid., p. 5. Council Fathers, “soon discovered that what was supposed to govern the post-conciliar Church was a certain ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which could not be found in the Council’s documents but had emerged from the endless commentaries on them.”
[xvii] Cf. GS, n. 10: “The Church believes that Christ… can show man the way and strengthen him through the Spirit in order to be worthy of his destiny: nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved.”; Cf. LG., Ch. III, n. 25: The People of God, “are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision … on faith and morals … loyal submission must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra…”; Cf. Ibid., Ch. II, n. 12, p. 363: “The People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men but truly the word of God … and applies it more fully in daily life.”
[xviii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 40. He continues: “The Catholic who clearly and, consequently, painfully perceives the damage that has been wrought in his Church by the misinterpretations of Vatican II must find the possibility of revival in Vatican II itself. The Council is his, it does not belong to those who want to continue along a road whose results have been catastrophic.” ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 28: “Programs for the ‘renewal’ of the Church have frequently been forced to ignore the conciliar decrees altogether, since they are replete with restatements of traditional doctrine, in favor of an amorphous ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which can be made to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.”
[xix] Ibid., p. 86. To avoid taking the Cardinal out of context, we should note that he has also noted, “It is not Christians who oppose the world, but rather the world which opposes itself to them when the truth about God, about Christ and about man is proclaimed.” The “opposition” is not through lack of desire for communion and peace, but is more in the sense that Christ spoke of bringing not peace, but “a sword”. (cf. Matt. 10:34)
[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3.
[xxi] Ibid., p. 4. This type of media influence is still felt today more than ever.
[xxii] Ibid., p. 2. This is what Hitchcock rightly calls, the “Triumph of Bureaucracy” – “the use of authority to undermine authority, the last stage of authority’s decline…they have triumphed because they have been officially mandated, and numerous skeptical lay people have been cowed into submission by the implication that resistance is a form of disloyalty. Although proclaiming an end to blind obedience in the Church, the professionals have invoked obedience to enforce the necessity of change … yet … the new ideas whose acceptance has been enforced through obedience are themselves then used to further undermine the concept of obedience.”
[xxiii] Cf. LG, Ch III ; Cf. note 31, supra.
[xxiv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 7. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 33: “Certain relatively minor changes of the conciliar era … were popularly understood as signaling that the theme of aggiornamento would be ‘freedom’, in the sense of a systematic loosening of whatever restraints Catholics found burdensome or irksome. The media, with scant ability to comprehend or express the deeper meanings of renewal, especially bore down on that point…”
[xxv] Cf. Ibid., p. 9. ; Cf. Ralph McInerny, What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained, (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988), p. 75.
[xxvi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The revolution in belief, to the extent that it has occurred, was an emanation from an elite center, the use of authority to undermine authority.”
[xxvii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 28.
The Authentic Spirit of Vatican II (Part I)
Expectations Unrealized
The Second Vatican Council closed 40 years ago, but ever since its closing in 1965, the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been invoked to justify a legion of changes in essentially every aspect of Church life. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, observed approximately twenty years ago that the last several years, “have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church,”[i] and “developments since the Council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. Christians are once again a minority, more than they have ever been since the end of antiquity.”[ii] The Bavarian Cardinal was integrally involved with the Council as a peritus, and he presents an accurate (albeit sobering) perspective on the state of the Church post-Vatican II. Instead of renewed Catholic unity and understanding,
…one has encountered a dissension which – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have passed from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure had been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it.[iii]
The intention of the Council, according to Pope John XXIII and carried on by Paul VI, was aggiornamento or updating the Church; a spiritual renewal, while holding fast to the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church handed on by her Fathers.[iv] He emphasized the need for, “renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness…”[v] The true spirit of the Council was thus, to communicate the timeless and eternal message of the Gospel, preserved in its fullness within the Catholic Church – to the modern world. “The Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another,” says John XXIII.[vi] The great optimism of Pope John, the Council Fathers and their desire to communicate with the modern world in a relevant manner -- greatly impacted the goals of the council. Highlights include: defining the Church in biblical terms as the body of Christ and People of God[vii]; dialogue with separated brethren[viii]; informing the liturgy with noble simplicity and active, intelligent participation of the faithful[ix]; recognizing religious liberty as pertaining to human dignity[x], and finally, witnessing to Christ the light as the only answer and standard for the emboldened, modern world.[xi]
There is a striking non sequitur between the Council’s vision and Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment, above.[xii] Even Pope Paul VI noted, “We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council... [instead] it is as if the Church were destroying herself.”[xiii] He also stated,
We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God … Doubt, uncertainty ,questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.[xiv]
This leads to the question: ‘What went wrong? What changes occurred and which represent the true spirit of the Council? How has the true spirit been obscured and why?
Modernism and Cultural Upheaval
The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[xv] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:
I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[xvi]
Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[xvii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[xviii] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [xix] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[xx]
The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[xxi] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[xxii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[xxiii] These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[xxiv]
[i] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985), p. 29, cf. Thesen zum Thema ‘Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, I,f.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid., p. 30; Cf. James Hitchcock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; printed pages Lecture I Notes, p. 1: Hitchcock notes the Church was “flourishing”, “Church attendance was very high”, “an abundance of religious vocations”, “spiritually healthy”, etc. He states later this perception would especially cause the Curia, many clergy and faithful throughout the world to question, “Why do we need a council?”, as many felt this was a rash act by John XXIII. Ecumenical Councils heretofore were essentially responses to attacks or crisis of various kinds through the centuries.
[iv] Cf. Rev. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, (Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 40, citing John XXIII: “The Christian life is not a collection of ancient customs.” Some have taken these sorts of comments out of context and transplanted their own notion that Pope John was allowing reconsideration of heretofore settled doctrines. Cf. Ibid., p. 14: To this erroneous view, we may note his qualification: “The greatest concern of this Ecumenical Council … is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” The Church must never depart, “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers.” The Church, “must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”
[v] Ibid., he continues: “… as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.”
[vi] Ibid. ; Cf. Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html: Pope Benedict XVI, quoting Pope John XXIII: “It is necessary that this sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. One thing is in fact the deposit of faith, that is the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another thing is the way they are enounced, maintaining nevertheless their same meaning and scope” (S. Oec. Conc. Vat. II Constitutiones Decreta Declarationes, 1974, pp. 863-865).
[vii] Cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Dogmatic Constitution On the Church, (Lumen Gentium) Ch’s. I and II. The common priesthood and apostolate of the laity and their equality in membership with the clergy in the Church were of special note.
[viii] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Decree on Ecumenism, (Unitatis Redintegratio), Ch’s. I, II, and III. Dialogue in truth and charity, without compromising any essential doctrine were key components. Acknowledging the truth held by separated brethren and using that as a launch point to deeper understanding was encouraged. Also, spiritual ecumenism via inner conversion.
[ix] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Faithful to have an active and intelligent participation in the liturgy; Legitimate functions of laity in the liturgy should be fulfilled; Idea here was not to throw away the liturgy of Trent, but to remove the accretions and redundancies, making the liturgy more understandable via instruction and appropriate allowance of vernacular; desire to move faithful toward liturgy as the focus of their spirituality.
[x] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Declaration On Religious Liberty, (Dignitatis Humanae). Human person by nature has a right to religious freedom; religion should not be coerced, nor oppressed by any institution or person.
[xi] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Pastoral Constitution On the Church in the Modern World, (Gaudium et Spes). Pastoral document addressing the situation of modern man, his dignity, the role of the Church in the world and particularly urgent problems facing the modern world, especially the well being of marriage and family.
[xii] It should be noted there are several good and intended fruits of Vatican II which emerged, and continue to emerge ever more brilliantly. Our focus in this paper concerns especially the great crisis which has accompanied the aftermath of the Council and its root causes. We will also treat the wonderfully positive fruits being realized toward the conclusion of this paper.
[xiii] Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.
[xiv] Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.
[xv] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.
[xvi] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.
[xvii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”
[xviii] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”
[xix] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”
[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”
[xxi] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.
LITURGY:
The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.
However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.
CONTRACEPTION
This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.
ECUMENISM
Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.
[xxii] Ibid., p. 6.
[xxiii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”
[xxiv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.
The Second Vatican Council closed 40 years ago, but ever since its closing in 1965, the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been invoked to justify a legion of changes in essentially every aspect of Church life. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, observed approximately twenty years ago that the last several years, “have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church,”[i] and “developments since the Council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. Christians are once again a minority, more than they have ever been since the end of antiquity.”[ii] The Bavarian Cardinal was integrally involved with the Council as a peritus, and he presents an accurate (albeit sobering) perspective on the state of the Church post-Vatican II. Instead of renewed Catholic unity and understanding,
…one has encountered a dissension which – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have passed from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure had been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it.[iii]
The intention of the Council, according to Pope John XXIII and carried on by Paul VI, was aggiornamento or updating the Church; a spiritual renewal, while holding fast to the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church handed on by her Fathers.[iv] He emphasized the need for, “renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness…”[v] The true spirit of the Council was thus, to communicate the timeless and eternal message of the Gospel, preserved in its fullness within the Catholic Church – to the modern world. “The Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another,” says John XXIII.[vi] The great optimism of Pope John, the Council Fathers and their desire to communicate with the modern world in a relevant manner -- greatly impacted the goals of the council. Highlights include: defining the Church in biblical terms as the body of Christ and People of God[vii]; dialogue with separated brethren[viii]; informing the liturgy with noble simplicity and active, intelligent participation of the faithful[ix]; recognizing religious liberty as pertaining to human dignity[x], and finally, witnessing to Christ the light as the only answer and standard for the emboldened, modern world.[xi]
There is a striking non sequitur between the Council’s vision and Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment, above.[xii] Even Pope Paul VI noted, “We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council... [instead] it is as if the Church were destroying herself.”[xiii] He also stated,
We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God … Doubt, uncertainty ,questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.[xiv]
This leads to the question: ‘What went wrong? What changes occurred and which represent the true spirit of the Council? How has the true spirit been obscured and why?
Modernism and Cultural Upheaval
The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[xv] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:
I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[xvi]
Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[xvii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[xviii] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [xix] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[xx]
The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[xxi] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[xxii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[xxiii] These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[xxiv]
[i] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985), p. 29, cf. Thesen zum Thema ‘Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, I,f.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid., p. 30; Cf. James Hitchcock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; printed pages Lecture I Notes, p. 1: Hitchcock notes the Church was “flourishing”, “Church attendance was very high”, “an abundance of religious vocations”, “spiritually healthy”, etc. He states later this perception would especially cause the Curia, many clergy and faithful throughout the world to question, “Why do we need a council?”, as many felt this was a rash act by John XXIII. Ecumenical Councils heretofore were essentially responses to attacks or crisis of various kinds through the centuries.
[iv] Cf. Rev. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, (Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 40, citing John XXIII: “The Christian life is not a collection of ancient customs.” Some have taken these sorts of comments out of context and transplanted their own notion that Pope John was allowing reconsideration of heretofore settled doctrines. Cf. Ibid., p. 14: To this erroneous view, we may note his qualification: “The greatest concern of this Ecumenical Council … is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” The Church must never depart, “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers.” The Church, “must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”
[v] Ibid., he continues: “… as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.”
[vi] Ibid. ; Cf. Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html: Pope Benedict XVI, quoting Pope John XXIII: “It is necessary that this sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. One thing is in fact the deposit of faith, that is the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another thing is the way they are enounced, maintaining nevertheless their same meaning and scope” (S. Oec. Conc. Vat. II Constitutiones Decreta Declarationes, 1974, pp. 863-865).
[vii] Cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Dogmatic Constitution On the Church, (Lumen Gentium) Ch’s. I and II. The common priesthood and apostolate of the laity and their equality in membership with the clergy in the Church were of special note.
[viii] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Decree on Ecumenism, (Unitatis Redintegratio), Ch’s. I, II, and III. Dialogue in truth and charity, without compromising any essential doctrine were key components. Acknowledging the truth held by separated brethren and using that as a launch point to deeper understanding was encouraged. Also, spiritual ecumenism via inner conversion.
[ix] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Faithful to have an active and intelligent participation in the liturgy; Legitimate functions of laity in the liturgy should be fulfilled; Idea here was not to throw away the liturgy of Trent, but to remove the accretions and redundancies, making the liturgy more understandable via instruction and appropriate allowance of vernacular; desire to move faithful toward liturgy as the focus of their spirituality.
[x] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Declaration On Religious Liberty, (Dignitatis Humanae). Human person by nature has a right to religious freedom; religion should not be coerced, nor oppressed by any institution or person.
[xi] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Pastoral Constitution On the Church in the Modern World, (Gaudium et Spes). Pastoral document addressing the situation of modern man, his dignity, the role of the Church in the world and particularly urgent problems facing the modern world, especially the well being of marriage and family.
[xii] It should be noted there are several good and intended fruits of Vatican II which emerged, and continue to emerge ever more brilliantly. Our focus in this paper concerns especially the great crisis which has accompanied the aftermath of the Council and its root causes. We will also treat the wonderfully positive fruits being realized toward the conclusion of this paper.
[xiii] Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.
[xiv] Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.
[xv] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.
[xvi] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.
[xvii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”
[xviii] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”
[xix] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”
[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”
[xxi] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.
LITURGY:
The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.
However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.
CONTRACEPTION
This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.
ECUMENISM
Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.
[xxii] Ibid., p. 6.
[xxiii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”
[xxiv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.
Homily - 22nd Sunday
Every single gospel scene or parable … has love, the cross, faith and sin at their very core. All things in the Christian life must lead to the reality of Christ crucified. Christ without the cross is not the true Christ, but a deceptive imitation. The cross is a revelation of the true meaning of love as God wills it. This love of God revealed in the cross of Christ leads us into the inner life of the Holy Trinity, “the” ultimate Reality and our destination for eternity… a participation in the inner life of the Holy Trinity has begun now with baptism and culminates in our death to self, death of the body and ultimately the beatific vision, experiencing God’s love forever in heaven. Today’s Gospel and first two readings vividly convey these truths and bring them into focus for us. Jesus says: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Could His words be any plainer and any more direct? This is our rule of Christian life. It is radically different from the way of the world and the way human beings think. This is evident when Jesus remonstrates with Peter and says, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." Jesus thus reveals the great chasm between the thinking of the world and the thinking of God. Somehow, through grace, our lives are all about crossing this chasm to “put on Christ” and as St. Paul exhorts us today to “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” St. Paul admits this will not be easy … such renewal will require that you, “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” This is the way of the cross … of sacrificial living … in other words, “losing our lives” for the sake of Christ to be saved. Paul calls this “spiritual worship” to note that the sacrifice is of our WILLS … Our sacrifice is a complete giving of our minds and hearts to the Christian rule of life … which is the life of the CROSS. This means that we are called to live a life of continual CONVERSION … a continual sacrifice of self in favor of God and neighbor. Literally, conversion means to turn away … from sin TO GOD. This puts us at war with ourselves and with the way of the world, as Jesus pointed out to Peter in calling him “Satan”! This battle with self, this inner struggle with the cross … is revealed in a touching and beautiful and inspiring way in Jeremiah. Doing God’s will can be hard … and it always eventually brings persecution and contradiction (i.e. Cross) as Jeremiah says: “I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me. For the word of the LORD has become for me a reproach and derision all day long.” Jeremiah actually argues with himself out loud, recalling that he was “duped/deceived” by the Lord … what does he mean? God cannot deceive or be deceived, right? Of course that is right. Jeremiah speaks of his falling for God … his response of love to the irresistible love of God. He speaks as one who absolutely knows he loves God, (he speaks God’s word) yet is experiencing the pain of his own personal cross – humiliation, mocking, persecution, not being understood. In this sense, he feels “duped” BY LOVE into this suffering and is struggling with it. He even thinks to himself for a moment, as if wringing his hands plotting): “"I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name” … considering dropping his cross, running away from it … BUT like a plume of fire rushing up from his soul, he confesses amidst his pain and purification “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He cannot run away from LOVE, from the God he later in the same scripture says, “The LORD is with me, like a mighty champion. My persecutors will stumble, they will not prevail.” The cross always leads to the resurrection when we embrace our personal crosses daily. In this world we will have suffering … the difference is the Christian following Christ transforms mere suffering which could otherwise be meaningless and demoralizing … into a means of becoming like Christ, who asks us to bear our crosses joyfully and with confidence as Jeremiah did. God gives each of us our own personal cross to carry … it is in our daily fears and anxieties and SIN. Where are your wounds? In addiction? In being overwhelmed? In the loss of a loved one? In your employment? In the uncertainty of the future? In a relationship broken? What is your predominant fault? Your biggest weakness? Where do we hide from God? We must pause and admit this to ourselves and examine our consciences. For it is in WHERE WE ARE FALLING APART THAT GOD IS TO BE FOUND. It is where we are sinning, hiding and running away from God in fear and shame … that HE WANTS us to show Him our wounds, our powerlessness and weakness! We don’t want to let God close to us because we are afraid he will take away from us… yes he will … YOUR EGO, YOUR SINS, YOUR HIDING PLACES. It is precisely in our weaknesses, fears and sins that we find Christ. This is why Jesus wants us to take up our cross … otherwise, how else is He to be found? The stronger our sense of SIN, the stronger our love and understanding of WHO CHRIST IS and WHO WE ARE MEANT TO BE! Our failures, weakness and burdens are the personal cross Jesus is asking us to take up and follow Him today, right now. This is why St. Paul says it is when he is weak that he is strong. We must suffer the coming of Christ into our hearts by opening up and letting the light of forgiveness, reconciliation … absolution … shine on our hiding places. This is what makes a person authentic and a witness of Christ’s love to others. Turning to Christ in our sins and weakness by exposing them to His light causes us to hang on our own personal cross. God sees us hanging there in weakness, in fear, in sorrow but in hope and trust in Him … and THIS BREAKS HIS HEART. He will surely come and take you safely into His arms with his joy, peace and love. He will dwell in your soul as a Trinity of love. This is what the Christian rule of life is all about … the CROSS Jesus exhorts us to take up today. Do we not now see that in the CROSS is LOVE, in the CROSS is LIFE, in the CROSS is HEALING … for it reunites us to the inner life of the Trinity. |
