Saturday, May 9, 2015


The tale of on-going spiritual battle between two visions of the Church's future that will lead to another Great Schism already in the works!

Perfect article to give you insights into the 1970's mentality for the Church of today. My comments in RED below:

A Faith Both Roman and Global: The Future of Catholicism, 2015-2025

Ten years ago, in April 2005, a conclave given the arduous task of choosing John Paul II's successor elected Joseph Ratzinger, the obvious candidate, to the papacy.

Some commentators saw Benedict XVI's election as a triumph for elements of John Paul II's legacy: the end of a "social Catholicism" and the beginning of a solidly doctrinal Catholicism. However, it became clear that a purely theological interpretation of the role of the pope was not sufficient for a Catholic Church whose theology relied on interpretation, rather than dictates of the faith.

The surprising retirement of Pope Benedict XVI in February 2013 marked the end of a papacy reluctant to take on the full array of duties of the Bishop of Rome: pastoral, ecumenical, interreligious or diplomatic. (I think this is true and it was obvious during the papacy of Pope Benedict and there were those raising the alarm about it.)

By the time Pope Francis was elected on March 13, 2013, the church was more shocked and distraught than it wanted to admit. The polarization within the church is the central issue that will be raised over the next decade: it is not just a political and ideological polarization (as in the United States), but also a polarization between local churches and the Vatican (a rising issue in Germany); between the bishops and new ecclesiastical movements (as in Japan); and between a church focused on missionaries and an institutional church committed to maintaining the status quo (a conflict visible in Italy and throughout the world). (What is left out in this analysis is the elephant in the room. It is the manner in which the liturgy is being celebrated that is causing the greatest polarization that then leads to these other elements. Pope Benedict was brilliant in addressing this and would have led the Church to a recovery of essential elements lost in the sloppy, creative and careless implementation of Pope Paul VI's reforms of the liturgy. It is here that Pope Francis seems to be weakest and is allowing the Church to go backwards to the 1970's once again.)

Pope Francis is well aware of these internal polarizations, and that awareness has made the papacy more relevant today than it has been in the past. After two papacies that were widely regarded as not particularly effective in uniting the church, Francis's papacy has been a symbol of unity for worldwide Catholicism. (This seems to be a fabrication. I sense a great deal of alarm about how the media has embraced this papacy, thus a worldly embrace that is unseemly and manipulative, and this is causing great alarm amongst the most ardent of Catholics who sacrifice to live what the Church teaches even to the point of being chaste. The synods have divided the Church and once again along the lines of the "spirit of Vatican II" and those who want development in continuity and orthodoxy.)

For the great majority of Catholics who are not intimately familiar with internal Vatican politics, questions regarding the structure of the church seem much less urgent than other issues. But the next decade will prove decisive in showing whether the church has the capacity to reform itself.

The main governing body of the church, the Roman Curia, still closely resembles the one that was first created in 1588; the reforms of the 20th century has largely left its pre-modern infrastructure unchanged. Meanwhile, the role of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Sant'Uffizio) is still primarily one of censorship, even after Pope Francis's decision to radically restructure the influence of the Congregation during his papacy.

Yet church initiatives over the past decades reveal that internal structural change is still an open question. Pope Paul VI attempted to reform the Curia; John Paul II entrusted Sant'Uffizio with governance; Benedict XVI (who served as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981-2005), never viewed the governing of the church as one of his main duties. This is not just a formal question concerning the joint governance, decentralization and democratization of the decision-making process, but an essential question for the church. Those who are familiar with the results of centralization during the years leading up to Pope Francis's papacy (for example: the new English translation of the mass), understand the disastrous problems caused by the "Romanization" -- reorientation towards Rome and the Vatican -- that the Vatican imposed upon a church that has become ever more global. (Here we go, the most mean-spirited discussions prior to the actual implementation of the gloriously revised English translation of the Mass came from the likes of this author and those who wrote articles and made comments at Praytell. It betrayed an immaturity about authority, a haughtiness about their own capabilities, a blatant arrogance and the anger that progressives have when their agenda is thwarted. And the likes of Pope Benedict and then much lower fruit on the grapevine, Bishop Finn know how their devilish tactics can wear down and destroy a papacy and bishopric.)

Upon examination, it becomes obvious that during the last decade, leading up to the election of Pope Francis, this "Romanization" coincided -- particularly during the papacy of Pope Benedict -- with serious threats to the unity of the church, specifically regarding church teachings about sexuality and the role of women. (The author betrays the actual agenda of post-Catholics. Upholding the teachings of the Church as the Magisterium is required to do and it is centered in Rome, is viewed as a serious threat to the unity of the Church. Where? In the areas of sexuality and women. Make no mistake, this author, a post-Catholic wants the Church to get out of the way of the secular sexual agenda: abortion, birth control, embryonic research, same sex marriage, multiple partner marriages and the like.)

It is no coincidence that this was also the era when many (not, however, Pope Francis), attempted to relegate the ideas and doctrines of the Second Vatican Council that were not well adapted to modern shifts in attitudes to the archives of history.

Pope Francis has assumed the agenda of Vatican II, and has even brought issues of sexuality and the role of women in the church into discussion, although they were not directly addressed in the council. After a decade of traditionalism encouraged by the Vatican, Pope Francis finally has before him the task of presenting a church that is aware of what can be changed while still maintaining centuries of tradition. (The author embraces and exploits the worldly papacy of the media and its sly interpretation of Pope Francis and his gaffs in speaking too much and too freely.)

Over next decade, a church that is more global than ever will debate a long list of issues ranging from sexuality and homosexuality, women, marriage and family to social justice and the environment -- a list of causes that have differing degrees of urgency for the different branches of Catholicism.(The author is disingenuous as it is these topics that are most polarizing, not only for Catholicism, but has had the most destructive effect on liberal Protestantism which for the most part today is completely irrelevant to the world. Simply think the Anglican Communion and its irrelevance but also the great polarization liberals caused this Church and sucessfully have changed it into a post-Christian and very weak institution. This is what liberals want, they are godless secularists at heart.)

For this reason, the Synod of Bishops at the Vatican, which was convened twice by Pope Francis (both in October 2014 and October 2015 -- an occurrence without precedent), represents a new initiative for a church that will, over the next decade, discover whether the democratic nature of this papacy will endure as one of the defining characteristic of Catholicism in the 21st century (finally acknowledging the dictates of Vatican II), or whether the church is instead destined to remain an imperial system.(The arrogance of the left forgets that the next pope who will be more savvy and worldly about how to carry out the orthodox agenda of the Church can upend his predecessors style overnight as the current pontiff did with the previous pontificate. There is a precedence for it now and there are signs amongst those who elect pontiffs of great alarm over substance and style that can turn the Catholic Church into the circus of the Anglican Communion.)

This empire is, however, a fragile one, and much different from the one found in previous centuries, including the 20th. The most urgent and important issues to be addressed concern the administration of a church consisting of more than a million adherents with an ever-shrinking body of clerics and members of religious orders, and the persecution of Christians in many countries in Africa and Asia.

In a sense, these two challenges are returning the church to its ancient origins. 2025 will be the anniversary of the first council of the universal church, which was celebrated in Nicea in 325; it could also be an occasion for a new ecumenical council between Catholics and other Christian churches. What Pope Francis has dubbed the "ecumenism of blood" could lead Catholicism onto new, unforeseen paths. (Even in the early 1970's liberals discontent with the so-called slowing of progress of their "spirit of Vatican II" agenda by the very Pope that caused it were calling for Vatican III to do exactly what this author is suggesting. It is the 1970's all over again. Let us pray it is simply the last gasp of the 1970's pioneers who are now in their 70's and 80's but influencing the younger heterodox group who likes the 1970's too, but as a fad.)


Dialogue said...

He warns of "an ever-shrinking body of clerics", but the Vatican's own annual statistics show the number of deacons, priests and bishops globally increasing each year.

Dialogue said...

"Those who are familiar with the results of centralization..." This is a rhetorical tool that both acknowledges that most people are not familiar with the supposed effects (otherwise, he would just say "we're all familiar with..."), and yet leaves one assuming that some sort of renewed centralization is indeed occurring, even if ordinary Catholics don't experience this. The sky is falling, but only Chicken Little knows it.

As for the new translation, Vatican II says regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the Vatican. Therefore, while this poor fellow thought the Vatican had surrendered this authority, what was really happening was priests and bishops were ignoring this authority. That's why we need the reforms of VCII now more than ever.