From all sides, worrying signs of a Pope solemnly ignored -- this is the opinion expressed by Sandro Magister in his latest article for L'Espresso, transcribed here (in English).
Two main examples are set forth to argue for the existence of such a situation, both of which have been extensively covered in this blog: the dismissal, by the Neocatechumenal Way ("The Way") of the direct liturgical corrections demanded by the Congregation for Divine Worship, which caused the Pope to ask them for their obedience in the recent audience granted to the group; and the fact that the most important writings, including the epoch-making speech to the Curia of December 22, 2005, have taken weeks to appear in the Vatican website (only yesterday was the last translation in a major language, Portuguese, included in the website, ONE MONTH after the speech, when it can be safely ignored in view of the upcoming encyclical).
A more practical and profound aspect of this complete irrelevance to which the Roman Pontiff has been consigned by many of those who resist him (including many in positions of power inside the Church) seems to be, in my opinion, the Silent Revolt of 2005-2006, as it happened to another Pontiff who was subjected to this same kind of "Rebellion" (though not so silent) when Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968.
Well, perhaps a witch hunt was not exactly to be expected, at least immediately, after the release of the Protection of the Honor of the Priesthood Act, 2005 (known officially as Instruction concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations). But, regardless of the intentions of Cardinal Grocholewsky and of the Pope, it seems clear that the reception of the Instruction among the Particular Churches has been just as resounding a failure as the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968.
While many orthodox Catholics were disillusioned with some aspects of the document (for instance, the three-chaste-years waiver), I was somewhat more confident; however, we are now supposed to believe that there were no problems whatsoever with seminaries around the world and that the much publicized "Apostolic Visitation" in America has found mostly good news. And, on the "reception" field, it seems Timothy Radcliffe's official version of the instruction has become the norm (gone are the days when champions of orthodoxy and orthopraxis headed the Dominicans, such as the great Cardinal Browne). Cardinal George has even revealed this week that "the United States bishops asked the Vatican to delay release of the long-awaited document on homosexuality and the priesthood".
Now, Truth does not depend on popularity or on "reception". The deeply disordered nature of the condition whose presence the Instruction was meant to bar from seminaries is still deeply disordered -- not the imaginary sin of "homophobia". And despite my confidence, I always knew that a document whose success depended mostly on the sincerity of problematic applicants and on the orthodoxy of vocation directors, spiritual directors, and seminary rectors would most likely be a resounding failure. That is how deep the crisis goes. A document without "teeth" was bound to be ignored.
And so the disastrous situation remains unchanged, not only in North America, but in Europe and in Latin America as well. The sickness and perversion which pervade many seminaries in South America and Southern Asia, according to trustworthy sources, would surprise most of us. I have learned from two trustworthy sources that, a few months after the election of Pope Benedict, a considerably large group of bishops of a certain Latin American country met to consider open revolt, a move which had to be appeased by a certain progressive German Cardinal (unfortunately, nothing else can be revealed, let the official Vaticanists search for the clues).
Will the Holy Father wither away, seemingly lost amidst the ruins, as Paul VI? I doubt it. Those who "resist" him shall not prevail and he really does have a plan for action -- not raucous action, but action nonetheless, and the fact that there is so much resistance to this pope and so much anger directed at him shows that he is on the right track.
-----------------
Update (9:35 AM GMT): First Things' Editor-in-chief has just released a long analysis of the question of the seminaries and the ignored Instruction (of which I had no knowledge when writing this post), part of the print magazine's February issue. I absolutely disagree with the word "Truce" (coined by Weigel) to characterize 2005 and especially 1968. There was no "truce" in 1968, when only one side gave up the fight... There was open and wide revolt, in America and elsewhere, by many faithful, by many priests, and by a considerable number of bishops and Episcopal Conferences (including the most vocal revolts in Canada, in France, in the Netherlands), open and guerrilla warfare which has never completely ceased (hence, no truce).
The fact that the author also mentions a possible "Lefebvrism of the left" indicates a deep misunderstanding of the nature of "progressive" dissent and, indirectly, an incorrect politicization of the complex Traditionalist situation (as if it were "of the right"), besides showing a fondness for stigmatization towards those who are the utmost Church-pacification priority of the Pope -- compare it with the carefulness the author shows towards the Evangelical sects ripping the Church apart in Latin America (see here, last item).
Two main examples are set forth to argue for the existence of such a situation, both of which have been extensively covered in this blog: the dismissal, by the Neocatechumenal Way ("The Way") of the direct liturgical corrections demanded by the Congregation for Divine Worship, which caused the Pope to ask them for their obedience in the recent audience granted to the group; and the fact that the most important writings, including the epoch-making speech to the Curia of December 22, 2005, have taken weeks to appear in the Vatican website (only yesterday was the last translation in a major language, Portuguese, included in the website, ONE MONTH after the speech, when it can be safely ignored in view of the upcoming encyclical).A more practical and profound aspect of this complete irrelevance to which the Roman Pontiff has been consigned by many of those who resist him (including many in positions of power inside the Church) seems to be, in my opinion, the Silent Revolt of 2005-2006, as it happened to another Pontiff who was subjected to this same kind of "Rebellion" (though not so silent) when Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968.
Well, perhaps a witch hunt was not exactly to be expected, at least immediately, after the release of the Protection of the Honor of the Priesthood Act, 2005 (known officially as Instruction concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations). But, regardless of the intentions of Cardinal Grocholewsky and of the Pope, it seems clear that the reception of the Instruction among the Particular Churches has been just as resounding a failure as the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968.
While many orthodox Catholics were disillusioned with some aspects of the document (for instance, the three-chaste-years waiver), I was somewhat more confident; however, we are now supposed to believe that there were no problems whatsoever with seminaries around the world and that the much publicized "Apostolic Visitation" in America has found mostly good news. And, on the "reception" field, it seems Timothy Radcliffe's official version of the instruction has become the norm (gone are the days when champions of orthodoxy and orthopraxis headed the Dominicans, such as the great Cardinal Browne). Cardinal George has even revealed this week that "the United States bishops asked the Vatican to delay release of the long-awaited document on homosexuality and the priesthood".
Now, Truth does not depend on popularity or on "reception". The deeply disordered nature of the condition whose presence the Instruction was meant to bar from seminaries is still deeply disordered -- not the imaginary sin of "homophobia". And despite my confidence, I always knew that a document whose success depended mostly on the sincerity of problematic applicants and on the orthodoxy of vocation directors, spiritual directors, and seminary rectors would most likely be a resounding failure. That is how deep the crisis goes. A document without "teeth" was bound to be ignored.
And so the disastrous situation remains unchanged, not only in North America, but in Europe and in Latin America as well. The sickness and perversion which pervade many seminaries in South America and Southern Asia, according to trustworthy sources, would surprise most of us. I have learned from two trustworthy sources that, a few months after the election of Pope Benedict, a considerably large group of bishops of a certain Latin American country met to consider open revolt, a move which had to be appeased by a certain progressive German Cardinal (unfortunately, nothing else can be revealed, let the official Vaticanists search for the clues).
Will the Holy Father wither away, seemingly lost amidst the ruins, as Paul VI? I doubt it. Those who "resist" him shall not prevail and he really does have a plan for action -- not raucous action, but action nonetheless, and the fact that there is so much resistance to this pope and so much anger directed at him shows that he is on the right track.
-----------------
Update (9:35 AM GMT): First Things' Editor-in-chief has just released a long analysis of the question of the seminaries and the ignored Instruction (of which I had no knowledge when writing this post), part of the print magazine's February issue. I absolutely disagree with the word "Truce" (coined by Weigel) to characterize 2005 and especially 1968. There was no "truce" in 1968, when only one side gave up the fight... There was open and wide revolt, in America and elsewhere, by many faithful, by many priests, and by a considerable number of bishops and Episcopal Conferences (including the most vocal revolts in Canada, in France, in the Netherlands), open and guerrilla warfare which has never completely ceased (hence, no truce).
The fact that the author also mentions a possible "Lefebvrism of the left" indicates a deep misunderstanding of the nature of "progressive" dissent and, indirectly, an incorrect politicization of the complex Traditionalist situation (as if it were "of the right"), besides showing a fondness for stigmatization towards those who are the utmost Church-pacification priority of the Pope -- compare it with the carefulness the author shows towards the Evangelical sects ripping the Church apart in Latin America (see here, last item).
