Rorate Caeli

Ireland, Quebec, Portugal, Spain:
not "modern enough" to take Vatican II

For someone who actually thinks that the solution for the Irish Church is to be found in Canadian bishops, well... this article ("Erin go bonkers", George Weigel) is not that surprising. And the lumping of what were essentially liberal representative governments (Quebec, Ireland) with one peculiar regime that came about almost peacefully and came down in flames (Portugal) and another one that was forged in war and peacefully transitioned to constitutional monarchy (Spain) is absurd; not only that, but, as critical as we have been of the Portuguese situation (and, less so, of the Spanish situation, whose prelates are in general better than those of their smaller neighbor), there has surely been no child abuse "crisis" in these two nations.

Now, it is quite good to see walking (and writing) contradictions such as Weigel admit that the Second Vatican Council was a "deluge".
But it is ridiculous to pretend that the situation in most nations is any better than they are in the aforementioned lands. We can surely speak of great Catholic nations that were "prepared" for the Council (that is, their intellectual Catholic "elites" were, in Weigel's words, marked "by the mid-20th-century Catholic renaissance in biblical, historical, philosophical, and theological studies that paved the way toward the Second Vatican Council" - by the way, the ignorance this shows of the intense development of Catholic studies in Spain, for instance, perfectly traditional but innovative and deep, as represented, for one small example, in the majestic first decades of the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos is breathtaking). But did these nations fare any better? 

Belgium and the Catholic Netherlands? Austria? Catholic Germany, including Bavaria? Most of rural France? Catholic Switzerland? These were areas just as deeply and traditionally Catholic as the four regions mentioned by Weigel, and their "intellectual elites" (well, some of them) were certainly "paving the way" for the deluge - but they became as much of a wasteland as any of the others. What about "Catholic America"?! How is the national Church that brought child abuse to the grand stage an example of anything to anyone? It is incredible that 50 years after Vatican II we actually have to read that the solution to the Vatican II crisis is more "Church of Vatican II" (Weigel's own words, not ours). We would be willing to admit that a mild semi-detachment from blindingly following the hierarchy may have been essential to preserving Traditional liturgy and practices in France and in America (which would explain why there are more Traditional-minded Catholics in these two nations, historically characterized by independent thinking, than elsewhere), but only because the semi-detached stood still against the Vatican II tide, not because they followed it. The crisis everywhere was not caused by "too much Tradition", but by the whosesale abandonment of all that our forefathers in faith bequeathed to us, and by the enthusiastic reception of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar reforms by hierarchs everywhere, including in Ireland, Quebec, Spain and Portugal (and their former colonies) - and Italy.

No, the solution is not more "Church of Vatican II" - we have tested it, we have to hold on to what is good (cf. I Thess. v, 21): a Church of Tradition and of All Concils, from Nicaea onwards and including Trent, a Council with a reform that worked, and of true reformers such as Hildebrand (St. Gregory VII) and Ghislieri (St. Pius V), not revolutionaries. It was so during our last religious revolution in the 16th century; it remains so now.

[In the image, liturgy in the Religious Education Congress of Los Angeles: the Church in America, a "Church of Vatican II" leading a prophetic path.]

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Weigel is a Neo-Conservative shill. He strongly believed that the Iraq War was supported by Catholic teachings, even though John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger said it wasn't.

If the Republican Party wasn't anti-abortion, Weigel would probably support the procedure. His conscience is entirely molded by Republican Party dogma rather than Catholic dogma.

On the flip side, many American Catholic intellectuals are shills for the the Democratic Party, rather than the Republicans. They support abortion because the Democratic Party says so, and never question their party loyalties.

Anonymous said...

It is really depressing to read Weigel's neo-con column but even worst is to read the comments in the NRO. 'Irish Catholics' saying that Luther now resonates with them and so on. The situation is so bad- pedophile clergyman vs. atheists/cafeteria catholics- that I do not even know what 'side' to take in this dispute. By the way, the Vatican 'response' to these satanic practices is just puzzling.

Anonymous said...

As a Quebecer, I think the decline of the church in our corner of the world has less to do with ''the intellectual problems of modernity'' than with the strong predication on economic development during the 1960s.

In the 1950s, Catholics in Spain, Ireland and Quebec were not just very traditional, they were also very poor. But at the same time, they could afford to build up their parishes, which were synonymous with civil. communities.

At some point, many of these Catholics were forced to choose between their economic well-being and their spiritual well-being, and the majority chose to improve the economy rather than continue building up the Church.

That the end result would cost dearly to the Church isn't terribly surprising, though. There's a Gospel saying that :

''No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mone'' (Matthew 6:24).

New Catholic said...

True - there were many intense forces involved, including those of huge movements from ancient Catholicized rural areas to urban areas unprepared to foster a deep Catholic sprituality. This is visible in Ireland and Spain, and has been almost fatal in much of Latin America. One of the dramatic aspects of Vatican II is that it came in the worst possible time for so many different peoples in so many different situations: in times of great social change, cultural stability (particularly religious stability) can be a source of collective strength and individual spiritual solace.

Anonymous said...

I largely agree with you; nevertheless, the hierarchy in Ireland still needs to be 'decommissioned", with the number of dioceses substantially reduced.

kfca

New Catholic said...

That is the solution almost everywhere, kfca... But how likely are we to get traditional-minded orthodox priests to replace them? And why should the Irish episcopate be under this special measure, and not those of many other nations equally deserving such an intervention?

NC

Father Edmund Castronovo said...

Wonderfully done, New Catholic.
The contorted reasoning of Weigel
is always through his prism of
the super-Council Vat II, which
trumps all others.
Keep up the good fight!!!
Fr Edmund Castronovo

Daniel Arseno said...

Quebec's Catholic meltdown has little to do with facing modernity.

The fact is, Quebeckers simply do as they're told. When atheists began dominating intellectual and political life, and when modernists began infiltrating the clergy, Quebeckers were told that Christianity was no longer relevant. So they left the Church all together and all at once.

There is an incredible group mind in Quebec. Everyone thinks the same way, or rather thinks the way they're told by the elite. Like lemmings, they are all heading toward a cliff.

LeonG said...

The entirety of liberal modernist suppositions is equivalent to a gross psycholgical disorder: for all to be free, equal and belong to the brotherhood of man we must permit every behaviour as a right and oppose every conservative norm and valueas extremes. If they cannot have their way with this disorientated enterprise then they wil exploit judicial process to achieve the same objectives. The conciliar process went along with this supposition without understanding where it was really going to lead The Church. Now we understand that it was nowhere very Catholic and very quickly.

Athelstane said...

Hello NIC,

These were areas just as deeply and traditionally Catholic as the four regions mentioned by Weigel, and their "intellectual elites" (well, some of them) were certainly "paving the way" for the deluge - but they became as much of a wasteland as any of the others. What about "Catholic America"?!

Right. And here you've targeted the weak spot in Weigel's argument: Denouncing the weakness of the traditional altar and state societies in Spain, Quebec, Portugal, and Ireland, he fails to account for the fact that the most progressive Catholic communities of that day (who was more at the forefront of intellectual ferment than Germany?) are in no better shape - sometimes worse. No one notices, because the Church faded away to a dead letter in so many. The Revolution of the 60's was enormously destructive to all without much distinction.

But of course, Weigel has in mind one of these societies in particular as embodying the necessary formula and (to a limited degree) virtues for a Catholic Renaissance, and that derives from his enchantment with American exceptionalism. Weigel has made fairly clear that, in his mind, the the European religious model does not really work, but that the American one does: Real Catholic vibrancy depends ideally on a vigorous separation of Church and state (but with a welcome role in public life for the Church). And he generally likes where things are headed with the newest batch of American bishops - which, admittedly, are better than what's been on offer in Western Europe so far. But that's not saying much.

A lot of the problem is, in fact, cultural, and it was a weakness of Catholic culture in much of western Catholicism, and not just the four "backwater" societies he zeroes in one. Daniel Arseno is onto something when he notes that "[t]he fact is, Quebeckers simply do as they're told."Of how many women's orders can we think of where the same was true when new psychology, theology and formation models were handed down to them by their leaders in the 60's? We've seen the results. Their vineyards are even more devastated than Quebec's or Ireland's. Something deeper - or, perhaps, more shallow - is at work.

In fact, Catholicism really lacked the intellectual and even spiritual resources to fight the tides of 20th century modernity almost across the board and not just in these "traditional" societies. This was because it never had fully recovered from the devastation of the French Revolution, which swept aside all Catholic universities and much of the institutional Church for over a generation. In Europe, it was only starting to recover when the modernist crisis struck; in America and the British dominions, Catholic leadership had learned to keep its head down in vigorous Protestant societies and concentrated instead on building a bricks-and-mortar (schools, churches, etc.) Church. Unfortunately, it takes far longer to build up an intellectual or spiritual tradition than it does to destroy it.

But on one thing I think we can all agree with Weigel: Ireland is overdue for a great consolidation of dioceses, and a wholesale replacement of her bishops. But I have to wonder whether one can find even a dozen worthwhile bishops among her clergy today.

shane said...

It was the churches of the Rhine basin that lept head first into the "Catholic renaissance in biblical, historical, philosophical, and theological studies that paved the way toward the Second Vatican Council" and are they really doing any better? Considerably worse, I'd say. The Church in Ireland held longer, partly because Vatican II was implemented more conservatively. Vocations in the Dutch Church collapsed almost completely within a few years after the Council.

Here is an index of the Irish Jesuit magazine 'Studies' from 1912-1961 (all can be viewed on JSTOR).
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118224456/http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/jgfx/pdfs/1912_index.pdf

I have found that Studies, the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, the Irish Theological Quarterly, The Furrow, the Irish Monthly, Doctrine and Life, the Irish Rosary, Christus Rex etc. from pre-conciliar times all exhibit a far higher intellectual rigour than comparable reviews in modern Ireland, secular or religious. They certainly put to shame religious publications in Ireland today. Not to mention the CTSI (which published over 2500 pamphlets), the Irish Messenger of the Sacred Heart (which also produced pamphlets), the Irish Independent (which back then was a truly professional paper and not the tabloid rag it is today) and the Irish Press. (The Irish Times was then a Protestant paper.) The schools gave genuine and exacting Catholic catechesis and apologetics (eg. the Maynooth Catechism, Sheehan's Apologetics), not the watered down rubbish that they do now. Even early RTÉ television was permeated with a Catholic ethos (for example). The Church in Ireland had an almost endless array of resources on the eve of the Council, which has all since been destroyed.

shane said...

The problem with the Church in Ireland is not the dioceses but the men who govern them. Amalgamating dioceses will do nothing in itself to solve that. While it may be necessary in some instances, because of demographic changes, the excessive focus on it as some sort of panacea for all our problems is a distraction. Small dioceses have many advantages; they allow the bishop to administer greater pastoral care and supervision over his diocese --- the lack of which was clearly a contributing factor to the scandals (and the negligent handling of them) in the first place.

New Catholic said...

Shane, I love your blog!

I would like an explanation from you and from our other readers in Ireland: what is the reason for this reaction to the Cloyne report? The "Report of The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse", released in 2009, seemed much, much, worse - yet the reaction now is much more violent. Is it mostly because of politics? Or is it because it involves more recent events?

NC

shane said...

New Catholic, thanks! I love this one too.

The reaction is more forceful this time because (a) the diocese's mishandling (not cover up) of the abuse is so recent, after guidelines had already been agreed (b) the Vatican's 1997 letter is being misinterpreted, including by the report itself (c) the cumulative pressure of previous reports has brought the camel's back nearer to breaking point.

Joe B said...

America is ahead of the pack in the restoration of the faith, probably because of our cultural resistance to organized power. What should be a religious weakness looks like the second best option at present. But the movement won't do more than survive, of course, because America isn't a Catholic nation.

If Ireland could fall this far this fast for any reason, the threat to the faith is more powerful than anyone is calculating, and we shall all hang unless we do what Heaven told us. Again, with no equivocations.

John L said...

1. The faith was rejected in all these countries, whose circumstances (as noted) were very diverse, because the clerical leadership itself rejected the faith and attempted to destroy it. The decisive event in this rejection was the Second Vatican Council, as may have noted.

2. This remark in a letter by Donat Gallagher in the July-August 2011 edition of Quadrant gives an important insight into how this rejection was so effective. 'I can recall a Queensland convent that was outraged when the local bishop, in his role as visitor, tried to persuade the nuns to wear their summer habits in summer and their winter habits in winter. No, the rule said winter habits had to be worn from October to March, and nothing would prevent the heroic [sic] sisters from teaching in stifling classrooms wearing heavy woolen habits designed for an European winter, in the height of the tropical summer. The greater the opposition to the practice, the greater was the determination to retain it.'

The nuns in question were not only complete imbeciles, they were also flouting the law. St. Thomas states that a law is a rational plan to achieve some good. The law about the wearing of habits in the nuns' rule was obviously intended to achieve the good of effective work by the nuns, by having them wear warm habits in winter and cooler ones in summer. The Australian nuns, by reversing this order, were acting directly against the good the law was clearly intended to promote. Yet they thought themselves virtuous because they were obeying the literal meaning of the words used to express the law. People with this understanding of obedience to the law were clearly ripe for disobedience to the faith, as soon as their superiors lost the faith themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Had I but served my God with half the zeal I served my King, He would not in mine age Have left me naked to mine enemies." -- Shakespeare, Henry VIII Act 3 Sc. 2 [Cardinal Wolsey]

Anonymous said...

I really can't take anything Wiegel says seriously. He wrote his JP2 books and it's his life work so he must defend them at all costs even as the truth about the damage that "blessed" man did to the Church comes to light more and more every day.

This attack on the Church in Ireland is the big finale as at a fireworks show. It's when they throw everything they got in one big go. The centuries of persecution in Ireland are coming to the end. I have 100% confidence they won't break the true faithful in Ireland and the true Church will come back stronger than ever. These attacks are actually pathetic compared to the earlier attacks by the English which lead my g g gfather to hop on a wooden sailing vessel with three kids for a month+ journey to Canada.

There were just a couple of countries in the European Union that would not approve abortion and so now Ireland faces the full wrath of that decision. Laugh off these attacks my Irish Catholic cousins and fight on. Deo Gratias.

Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT ARTICLE.

Anonymous said...

Weigel is all mouth, and very little facts. His pro-Vatican II bias is nauseating.

But he does belong to that age group of people (now from their 90's down to their late 50's) who think that Vatican II was the most important even in the whole history of the Catholic Church, and the "only" Council that matters now.
He is all of the midset of people who think that the Catholic Churchbefore Vatican II is worthless. He makes me laugh. He advocates more of "The Church of Vatican II"? That is really funny, but not in a good way.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what Pope Benedict XVI thinks too, in his new "Council for the New Evangelization" and the people like Fischiella and the Neocateumenical Way people he has stacked it with.
Does anybody sane think anything good will come from that new comission? Not hardly.

LOL!

Anonymous said...

"Weigel is a Neo-Conservative shill."

Okay. Perhaps.

"He strongly believed that the Iraq War was supported by Catholic teachings, even though John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger said it wasn't."

So?

Was that an infalliable teaching issued by Pope John Paul II (and then-Cardinal Ratzinger)?

Did Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger issue personal opinions or did they state that the Faithful were required to believe that the Iraq War was not supported by Catholic teachings?

Popes have claimed that the Vatican II liturgical "reform" produced abundant fruit?

Are we required to believe those "teachings" as well?

M. A. said...

"St. Thomas states that a law is a rational plan to achieve some good."

John L, could you cite for me the reference. I remember reading somewhere that the devil would use "obedience" to destroy the Church.

There is a project for someone: an article to be posted on Rorate Caeli with the Church's true teaching on 'obedience'.

New Templar said...

The situation in Ireland is easily explained. The Bishops have lost the Faith and are for the most part material heretics. They have formed priests in their image and teach the children in their care heresy after heresy. This was driven home to me after Kenny's speech when I happened to tune in to RTE and heard an interview with the waste of space known as retired Bishop Willie Walsh. He explained patiently to the interviewer that he was a citizen of Ireland and had no problem with the Minister of Justice's plan to prosecute priests who violate the seal of the confessional. It is entirely due to prelates like him that the Church in Ireland has melted away apart from a few religious extremists like myself.

Great post John L.

Emilio said...

With respect, you seem to conveniently take Weigel's own words out of context to suit your post. The jist of what he is saying is that the disaster which is the Church in Ireland is so out of control, that Weigel is skeptical that a solution could possibly be found from within the Irish hierarchy or clergy. Weigel is merely suggesting the possibility of finding a solution from North America... not ALL of the Canadian hierarchy is in bad shape, and CERTAINLY not all of the American hierarchy is in bad shape. What he is saying is that it is entirely plausible for a staunch, orthodox North American bishop to be chosen for the Irish hierarchy, in hopes of being able to save it. Context is a brilliant thing, folks. For those of you who dismiss Weigel as "Neo-conservative shill".. it may pleases you to note that he is in favor of your legitimate right to the Extraordinary Form, in favor of ad orientem worship, in favor of many a traditional x, y, and z.. even if he is also a supporter of the authentic letter and will of Vatican II, and is unsupportive of the Church condemning everything between 1911 and 2011.

Anonymous said...

Neocons, a pure subcompany of modernism and liberalism, can only cross reference to Vatican II. "New Evangelization, more treasures of Vatican II, it is not fully implented yet"

New Catholic said...

Mr. Weigel is in "favor of our right", Emilio? Oh, how generous of him! Thank you, Mr. Weigel, we surely owe Summorum Pontificum to your support!

Dan said...

Mr Arseno is indeed on to something with his observation that Quebec Catholics "did as they were told." That is precisely what the Irish situation is/was: if "Father So-and-So said it, it must be true." That kind of mentality is to be found in a greater or lesser degree in almost any Catholic area or country, even the USA. This mentality is so far removed from the Ages of Faith as to be not worthy of comment. In medieval days the laity had a very different and much healthier attitude towards those in the clericasl state.

Regarding Athelstane's remarks about Catholics lacking the intellectual supports needed in the 20th century I would have to disagree, simply by stating that certainly in the first three decades of the century we had the brilliance of such English Catholic minds as D.B. Wyndam-Lewis, Christopher Hollis, Chesterton and, of course, Mr Belloc. And they were far from the only ones. So the intellectual ammunition was there; it just wasn't used by a hierarchy which was beginning to lose its grasp of the Faith (as an example: in America we had such overrated people as Spellman and Cushing).

The problem goes back further than the Second Vatican Catastrophe (if I might borrow Gerald Warner's apt phrase); Vat 2 just made it a thousand times worse.

And, oh, Anon at 15:62...since you opened the door on this topic regarding John Paul II's disgust with the Iraq war allow me to respond by saying we didn't need that opinion of his to be stated infallibly. We had the evidence of our own eyes to show us that that was and is an unjust war.

Anonymous said...

Portugal in Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917:

"... The reign of Joseph (1750-77) is made famous by the administration of the Marquess of Pombal, the real ruler of Portugal for over twenty years. ... he was able to use the alleged "Tavora Conspiracy" to... continue the campaign he was directing against the Jesuits... confiscated the property of the company in the Portuguese dominions and expelled the Portuguese Jesuits, retaining the foreigners in prison. The pope refused to incriminate the whole company ... and Pombal's reply was to dismiss the nuncio and break off relations with Rome. Henceforth the real head of the Church in Portugal was the Minister... Above all he forged those fetters for the Church which still paralyse her action.

... The [Liberal] Revolution of 1820 ... gave a new constitution, called "the Charter"... work of Liberals and Freemasons... The victorious Liberals initiated an era of persecution and robbery of the Church, the effects of which are still felt. The religious orders were the first to go. The orders of men were suppressed, and their property confiscated, ... The orders of women were allowed to die out, further professions being prohibited. The people, deprived of the monks and friars, who were their teachers, preachers, and confessors, gradually lost their knowledge of religious truths, because the secular clergy were unprepared to take the place of the orders; besides which, the bishops and clergy were bound hand and foot to the State.

... the [republican] Revolution in 1910, which drove the Braganza dynasty from the throne, and delivered Portugal into the hands of the Radicals, whose hostility to the Catholic religion was made evident by the adverse course of the Provisional Government set up by the Revolutionists... He immediately set to work to carry out the radical measures of the republican programme, the first of which was the summary and violent expulsion of the religious congregations, the seizure of their property by the State... The separation of the Church and State was also arbitrarily decreed by the provisional government... Only Portuguese citizens who have made their theological studies in Portugal may officiate.... and permits them to marry."

So, for a period of roughly 200 years before the 1960's, Portugal rulers who were masons, liberals, radicals, ant-clericals. It also had so-called separation of Church and State (aka subordination of Church by State), and even married clergy...

I would say that portuguese elites of the beggining of the 20th century were indistinguishable from present day NCR (and NR) readers.

Anonymous said...

William Thomas Walsh in "Our Lady of Fátima" (1947), pp. 209-210:

"The Republic which so long persecuted the Church and the Fátima pilgrims vanished in the anarchy of 1926. Three generals amid popular acclaim, took over the government, and by various steps set up the dictatorship of Salazar which has greatly improved things. The new government established order and peace. The Church purified by the persecutions has found time for recuperation and restoration, for training new priests, buiding seminaries, bringing lapsed Catholics back to the fold. Tremendous progress has been made in many ways under a new and vigorous hierarchy.

Yet there is much evidence to support the fears of [Sister Lucia] that her people have not done nearly enough by way of reparation for the blasphemies and indifference of former times. After all the marvels of Fátima, only 4 million out of almost 8 million Portuguese pretend to be Catholics in any sense of the word. There are hardly more than 3000 priests...

In the large cities there is bitter anti-clericalism, and much Communistic activity. Churches are still closed after sundown for fear of desecration; nuns do not dare to appear on the streets in their habits; and the Salazar government still retains some of the Church property confiscated by the Republic. Mr. Salazar limits his practice of the Catholic faith to a barely discernible minimum; and has one of his officials said to me, 'It is a mistake to call our regime Catholic. So far as the Church is concerned we are neutral""

(see http://books.google.com/books?hl=pt-PT&id=lIFbAAAAMAAJ&dq=William+thomas+walsh&q=officials#search_anchor )

John L said...

The references in St. Thomas are:

Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae q. 93 a.1 ad. 1: 'law is said to direct human acts by ordaining them to the common good, as stated above (q. 90, a. 2)'; a. 3; 'the law denotes a kind of plan directing acts towards an end'. Summa contra Gentiles book 3 ch. 114: A law is nothing other than a certain plan and rule of acting ("lex nihil aliud sit quam quaedam ratio et regula operandi").

I think there is probably an untold story about resistance to modernism in the clergy and how it was shattered; I don't think the clergy should be painted as entirely mindless and unprincipled followers. Abp. Lefebvre after all was able to get almost a quarter of the bishops at Vatican II to follow him in his Coetus internationalem patrum in resisting modernism, although Paul VI supported the modernist-led majority. I think the key to the modernist victory was that there were just no weapons for the orthodox to fight with, once Paul VI had put the full weight of his papal authority behind the promotion of modernist clerics - as he did after the council, when an appearance of unanimity was no longer needed for his purposes. I remember reading Abp. Lefebvre on how Abp. McQuaid of Dublin (the last Irish archbishop to pursue canonical cases against pedophiles, it should be noted) rapidly died of grief after the council. This was probably related to McQuaid's seeing his real inability to stand up to both a modernist Rome and its local allies, and the mindless obedience element of clery and religious.

Paolo said...

I just read Mr Weigel's column, and did not find it so offensive as you and many commentators do. I don't know enough about the situation of the Church in those countries prior to the Council to agree or disagree, but on current evidence, later exposure to modernity does seem to lead to a more muscular backlash against Catholicism, however you might think Vatican II figures in things.

On the Conservative/Traditionalist split on view in many comments, I write from a very liberal diocese in Australia - in such settings, the commonalities between the two positions (and, as opposed to Progressives/Liberals) mean that we don't have a lot of time for this sort of infighting...

Anonymous said...

Looking at that spectacle from Los Angeles with women dressed like the vestel virgins in ancient Rome prancing around with rather effeminate men would turn the stomachs of our Saints. Dear friends is this what will save our souls?? We need to put an end to this to garbage enough is enough, reclaim our Church and the Traditional Latin Mass.

Anonymous said...

Enough already with dancing nuns, altar-girls, EMC'S, lay lectors, guitars, drums, clapping, hand holding, clowns, giant puppets, rock, mariachi, polka, masses, dinner tables instead of the altar of sacrifice. Start demanding the TLM just like the liberals demand everything they desire. And start to call them for what they are heretics, just like they call us weird, out of touch, living in the 15th century, I prefer the 12th myself.

Anonymous said...

They must be rigorously screening out comments from traditionalists. I don't see a one there.

"The Church of Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI," says Weigel. Interesting to see that he embraces a hermeneutic of rupture.

Anonymous said...

M.A., regarding obedience, here's something along the line of what you're looking for:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey.htm

Anonymous said...

Regarding the conservative/traditionalist split, see:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030321.html

Gratias said...

Very thoughtful comments. Rorate Caeli has world-wide reach. It is good that the USA, a minority Catholic country, leads the return to tradition. Thanks.

M. A. said...

Thank you, anon 1 July, 2011 23:18, and John L. I've saved the info.

I can tell you from experience that priests do not take correction from the laity very well. Whoa! They blow up, no matter how gentle the approach.

Anonymous said...

There are legitimate criticisms to be made against Weigel's article in many respects, but I think his thesis, as it pertains to Quebec and Ireland does hold quite a bit of water.

The rapid and near total destruction of the church in these places is a complicated problem, of course, but it is doubtless true that these societies, haven undergone dramatic social revolutions, began to associate the Church (which was indeed very cozy with the state, often to its own long-term disadvantage) with the social and political elite whom they rejected.

In the wake of the Council, the local church in these places was far too weakened and confused to fight back, and often jumped ship on the faith, with its own clergy aligning themselves with the social revolutionaries and concluding that religious change was also needed. If politics and faith hadn't been so closely intertwined, things might not have turned out so bad.

Moreover, the thing which seems to set apart a place like Ireland or Quebec from Germany or the Netherlands is the blatant anti-Catholicism entrenched within government (who use 'the bad old days' as a scare tactic - in Quebec especially, which portrays itself as a revolutionary society) not merely indifferentism on the part of the populace, and disobedience within the clergy.