It is quite true that no one factor can be assigned to account for the decline of the Catholic Church in terms of active participation, meaning attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. In the United States, we know for a fact that the Church, meaning both the institutional Church and the “family” Church was quite strong well into the early 1960’s. There were hospitals, schools, and other social service ministries abounding and run by and staffed by numerous priests, men and women religious as well as “Catholic Action” for the laity.
Large families, (because Catholics still took traditional Catholic teachings on sex and contraception seriously)led to an abundance of vocations as a result of strong and large Catholic families which flourished in this time period. Mass attendance was more than 80%. Authority was respected, especially the authority of God that was not co-opted by personal feelings about “if it feels right, just do it” free lance thinking as it concerns morality of the late 60's to this day.
A very authoritative Council, Vatican II and very authoritative subsequent teachings on the Liturgy, the Church and the reform of both through post-Vatican II legislation as well as the authoritative teaching Humanae Vitae, were all met with two polarized reactions that mimicked what was going on society at the time (1960’s & 70’s). There was either reckless abandon of tradition, authority and common sense or hand ringing about the Church and the world going to hell in a handbag. In the middle were those befuddled by all the changes, the dissension and confusion, trying hard to hang on to any semblance of their traditional Catholic Faith.
The "theology of dissent" or theologians who said they were in "loyal opposition" to the Magisterium of the Church further eroded Catholic teachings in the areas of dogma and morality, much of the dissent focusing in on Humanae Vitae and subsequent "sexual issues" such as abortion, same sex sexual relations and same sex marriage.
The whole theology of dissent promoted by liberal theologians is now backfiring on them as a large traditional contingency of the Church now dissents against Vatican II and subsequent reforms. Liberals decry Humanae Vitae and encourage dissent but hypocritically are astounded that traditionalists would dare dissent against a Council and subsequent papal teachings.
Today, many traditional Catholics have gone "protestant congregational" as they take matters into their own hands to rectify the wrongs they see coming from either Rome or the local bishop, not to mention the local pastor and the pastoral and financial councils that are in place. This is a new form of dissent only this time from so-called conservative, traditional Catholics. It is dissent from legitimate authority.
In the middle are those who are flexible, favor the Second Vatican Council and its teachings as well as Humane Vitae and other subsequent decrees from the Holy See and the popes. The errors (apart from an extremely poor translation of the vernacular Mass, now being rectified) are not with Vatican II or subsequent decrees, but how these were co-opted, poorly implemented and reinterpreted by progressive theologians, bishops and priests.
But today too, we have conservative dissenters whose vitriolic attempts at taking matters into their own hands cause chaos, dissension and great division in parishes and dioceses. They and the liberal dissenters are cut from the same whole cloth though, except the conservative dissenters were a "badge of self-righteousness" that would make the Pharisees blush.
They accuse and condemn, see the speck in their "brother's eye" but fail to see the plank in their own.
Coupled with this is the loss of traditional Catholic piety and the sense of the sacred that marked the pre-Vatican II experience of parish life, Mass and popular devotions. The dismantling of traditional reverence and piety must be laid at the feet of progressive liturgical theologians, bishops, priests and liturgists, especially the side lining of the tabernacle or its removal altogether from the nave of the Church; the iconoclasm of older churches and new architecture and the taking out of altar railings and traditional art and statuary; communion in the hand and talking in the Church before and after Mass.
Thus a loss of priestly and “religious” identity has led to the loss of Catholic identity of the laity and the cohesiveness (Catholic unity) that a once strong Catholic identity brought to the Church. It was and is the perfect storm. You'd be surprised at those who are in the vortex of it!
21 comments:
A house divided against itself, except Our Lord told us how this story will end - that the gates of Hell would not prevail.
After Sacrosanctum Concilium the most misinterpreted document from Vatican II is Lumen Gentium, IMVHO. There was a line drawn between "the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood" (LG 10). With that line having been blurred, there are countless examples of the laity from both sides of the liberal/conservative divide overstepping those boundaries.
The difference, then, between one of these "conservative dissenters" and someone who is working on some small front of "the reform of the Reform" to actually implement the wishes of the Second Vatican Council is that the latter is working with the legitimate authority (i.e. priests and bishops of like mind)?
Is the "conservative dissenter" a Pharisee or Nathan? They see the evils and ills but are not to be Samuel? Have there not been times in Church history where a "dissenter" actually was a "reformer"?
Hopefully, they are "speaking the truth in love." Is that not the core of fraternal correction?
Speaking the truth in love is necessary but also respect for the institutions of bishops and priests even if one disagrees with those are called to that office.
Father, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I realize it is a matter of the laity needing to assist rather than insist, to be eager rather than overzealous, to be re-formed rather than mis-formed. In a word, we just want to help.
Give it a break Father. Your clericalism is beyond hypocritical. You are trying to be too clever by half. For years I had the apparently mistaken impression that the Ten Commandments, even the 7th and 8th, and the Beatitudes applied to priests as well as to laity. Everyone, especially our priests, should be peacemakers, seek first to do no harm and approach all things with charity. Those finding that too difficult might recall Jesus writing in the sand, glance in the mirror and quietly back off.
Father, respect is a two-way street. Those who show no respect deserve no respect. The saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely applies not only to government but also to others as well, including priests and bishops who abuse their power, sometimes causing irreparable harm.
Anonymous, RE: Respect is a two way street. "Respect," better "reverence" for the Magisterium and the Church is a bit different than respect between individuals, to which your cliche refers. Reverence for the Magisterium and the Church is tantamount to reverence for Christ and His Bride. Remember, God is no respecter of persons. Now, this is not to diminish the evils of the Priests in question nor the failures of the Church. However, I believe some perspective is needed.
Clericalism and I might also add "laity-ism" are birds of a feather. In either case an attitude of superiority above and beyond, Church teaching, morality and Church law corrupts the person into thinking they can do as they please, that there is no sin, either original, venial or mortal. Both clergy and laity though are sinners in need of God's mercy. Clericalism and laity-ism don't see it that way, they make up their own rules as they go and have no compunction of conscience.
Great picture of the Pope Benedict!
PIN. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. You intuitively hit upon the crux of the matter by pointing out that, “God is no respecter of persons.” The offices of priest and bishop can be and have been abused by some holding those offices.
I don’t believe Anonymous or Father was making general observations about the divine institution of the Church and the respect, reverence and obedience owed by all Catholics to the Magisterium on faith and morals. For instance, laity may certainly disagree with clerics about whether or not a series of financial statements have been prepared “in accordance with commonly accepted accounting principles.”
Frajm. Except for your coining of the term “laity-ism,” your June 13, 2011 9:36 PM comments are double-edged swords which, at least for the humble, cut both ways. That said, I agree with you. You’ve really nailed it by introducing the real culprit, “an attitude of superiority,” which reminds me of the cleric who adopts a Napoleonic stance when addressing his lesser lay subjects and reminding them not to forget their “place” – that their input is limited to a subservient, “Yassuh, Massah, Yassuh.” If Massah says two plus two equals three, don’t you dare be disrespectful and correct the Massah.
Based on this quote which a friend sent to me the other day, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen would probably handle matters differently from clerics in denial about their arrogant clericalism. He said, "Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
FRajm. Just curious. What is significance of including Michael Voris' picture?
Michael Voris is part of the polarization in the Church, Fr. O'Brien is on one end, Michael on the other, people who are pro-choice in the mix--the work of Vatican II is not complete nor anywhere implemented or we would have more unity in the Church, not polarization. The hermeneutic of rupture has caused the polarization.
We are all called to obedience in the areas of faith, morals and canon law. There are councils in place in most parishes to ask hard questions and one always has recourse to the bishop. But when a confrontational approach is used and one is trying to turn the table on the exercise of authority in the Church--that is divisive and when one is divisive by striving to get people behind them in a political or democratic way, one has failed to understand the nature of the Church, the institution of Holy Orders, i.e. bishops and the rightful exercise of authority. I question people and their abilities in this regard, but I don't question the office of bishop or priest and the "rights" that are imbued to these independent of the office holders and their charism or inabilities.
FRajm, laity has recourse to the Bishop except where laity has no recourse to the Bishop.
These questions are easily answered by a simple yes or no:
Is it unreasonable for laity to expect to receive honest financial statements conforming to generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied?
Are cover-ups, dissembling and the right to be wrong “imbued” by the Sacrament of Ordination?
Is laity entitled to respectful, courteous treatment?
Was Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen guilty of divisiveness when he said to the laity, “Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
Is the first step for those in “AA” (Arrogance Anonymous) to acknowledge their fallibility, pridefulness, intransigence - in sum, their humanity.
Was Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen guilty of divisiveness when he said of the laity, “Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
Who is Father O’Brien? What’s his full name?
Like some clerics, Michael Voris’ comments are passionate and his delivery is sometimes cutting and bombastic. If you can, please cite any quotes of him opposing the Magisterium. Is it divisive of him to comment on the divisions and those who are divisive?
Vitriolic defenses of even the truth can be very divisive. The point is not to be vitriolic or unkind, but simply state the truth. Fr. O'Brien is a priest at Notre Dame and a very well known champion of liberalizing the Church and yes, he is on the far left of things.
To Anonymous, concerning finances, Bishop Sheen, etc:
The laity have a right to be heard, but in the context that the bishop decides. The laity have a right to truthful financial statements in the manner that the bishop decides. Bishop Sheen would oppose any vigilantism, vitriolic approaches to correcting wrongs, and congregationalism. He was a conservative Catholic bishop who supported Holy Mother Church, the pope and bishops in union with him.
Sometimes patience is a virtue with perceived wrongs and correcting them. Many people think Pope Benedict should be quicker at removing erring bishop/priests--but Pope Benedict is the one that makes that decision, not the laity or other bishops.
So, I tell you and other laity, to respect the office of the priest, the office of the bishop and canon law and if you don't get things your way, don't take things into your own hands and then become divisive, congregational or Protestant, unless that is what you want and then I suggest you've left the Catholic Church and you should be honest about it, no matter how righteous your cause may be. Liberals are using the scandals of the Church to get what they want and it appears too that some conservatives are doing the same thing.
As Forrest Gump might say, “Vitriolic is as vitriolic does.” Remember that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s not the offices that are troubling, but the office holders.
Are you saying it’s the Bishop’s right to decide “the context,” and “the manner,” even at the expense of honesty and transparency? The Bishop and the laity might very well be co-victims of the actions of underlings, clerical and lay, who incorrectly decided the “contexts” and “manners” of presentation and discussion.
Archbishop Sheen is an orthodox Catholic who “supports Holy Mother Church, the Pope and Bishops in union with him.” That enhances the credibility of his words. Were he on earth today, I’m positive he would agree that laity are entitled to complete, honest and transparent accounting.
Patience is always a virtue to be practiced by clerics and laity alike. So is prudence.
The “quicker” that needs much attention these days is this: Bishops and Priests should be quicker to emulate Pope Benedict and obey his teachings.
As a matter of prudence and justice, a wise man first open-mindedly listens to all parties and examines all of the evidence, instead of relying only on the input and defensive assertions of those who might be part of the divisive problem.
Might blind loyalty and adulation of such persons have led you to a rush of wrongful judgments? Have you even considered the possibility that they and therefore you might be wrong, especially when impugning the Catholicity of others?
I've been a priest for 31 years and born for 57 plus and there is only one person I trust, Jesus. All the others are flawed including you, me and the semantics of one upmenship. I guess you could be placated by saying you are right but I doubt it!
I don't trust everyone either. Dancing around issues is not conducive of trust, and projection is inappropriate.
Post a Comment