What he did say when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in a Salt of the Earth, interview conducted by the Bavarian author Peter Seewald comes close to it but is more a recognition of a sad fact and reality and perhaps an acquiescence to it.
In the interview the cardinal was asked about the Church’s failure to “bring about a broad movement against the currents of our time and a general change in mentality”. He responded by saying he never imagined he could “redirect the rudder of history”, and that the Church was not a “business operation that can look at the numbers to measure whether our policy has been successful”. He added:
“Perhaps the time has come to say farewell to the idea of traditionally Catholic cultures. Maybe we are facing a new and different kind of epoch in the Church’s history, where Christianity will again be characterized more by the mustard seed, where it will exist in small, insignificant groups that nonetheless live an intensive struggle against evil and bring the good into the world – that let God in.”
Last week in a post I lamented or at least worried that there was very little or no reaction to Bishop Gregory Hartmayer's letter which was read at all our Masses. I heard that at St. Teresa Church in Augusta after the deacon read the letter there was applause. I've heard that this occurred in some other churches too. Not so at St. Joseph Church and I suspect a majority of other places where letters were read.
Some have said that the media which blacked out coverage of the National Right to Life March in Washington,DC has basically done so with what President Obama is trying to make the institutional Catholic Church in America do--violate its teachings, which one would think would be front page news and for several days. Many Catholics don't know whats going on presumably. (Compare this with media outrage and coverage of the Susan Komen debacle!)
I fear something else. Catholics prefer the comfort of religion but rail against or ignore the challenges of the Catholic Church. This is true for Catholics on the right who feel the Church shouldn't teach about war and peace, the economy, immigrants and the means by which governments should feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless and that society has an obligation to do so, that governments have an obligation to do so. Of course this is done through programs paid by tax payers and laws that allow for programs and services.
For Catholics on the left, they prefer big government and paying taxes to help the poor, the disenfranchised and health care for everyone even when this includes paying for artificial contraception and abortions for those who choose these. But what they hate is anything that touches them personally in the areas of sexuality and medical ethics. They don't want the Church telling them how to have sex, with whom they should have sex, how many children they should have, any interference with medical science even if aborted babies or embryos are used in research.
In other words, liberal Catholics and uninformed Catholics do not want to know Natural Law and they don't believe that Natural Law shows forth divine law. They want to practice artificial birth control, change the meaning of sex and make it whatever a person wants it to be, they favor same sex marriage or recognition of couples who live together without marriage as being married and needing the same benefits as married people. They are pro-choice. They are fierce individualists when it comes to sexuality and they reject divine law in these areas precisely because these laws too intimately touch and confound them!
The question is how did this come about; unfaithful Catholics on the right and the left? Catholics who allow the dictatorship of conscience, personal opinion and public dissent from defined teachings to rule their lives and become gods for them?
This is how I think it came about because I lived through it:
1. Vatican II was a wonderful Council that was hijacked by liberal forces in the Catholic Church after the Council closed and perhaps during--but what was promulgated was promulgated and the Holy Spirit was at work even though nothing in the Council in a new way was defined as infallible, although infallible teachings were reiterated, especially the role of the pope in governing the Church.
2. Very quickly after Vatican II those who had thought nothing in the Church could change were told everything in the Church could and would change, not just discipline but doctrine and morals. This was an outright lie but the tide was so strong and the leadership of the bishops so weak in preventing an apostasy from the true faith that it basically went unchallenged.
3. Rome allowed great experimentation with the "revision" of the Mass. So much so that it became unrecognizable in some of the experimentation with small groups, various cultural adaptations and ad libbing by priests and super-creativity by liturgy committees. There were little slaps on the hand but no major initiatives to stop the silliness and in some dioceses the silliness was institutionalize. A Catholic today who has never attended an EF Mass and goes to one, especially its sung version, would not recognize any continuity between it and the Ordinary Form of the Mass they grew up with. They would think they entered a Hindu service so large is the rupture between these two forms of Mass especially in terms of how the Ordinary Form is celebrated today and acceptably so even by bishops and the Holy Father.
4. Suffice it to say that what Vatican II envisioned for the revision of the Mass has never really been implemented, only a reform in its order has been implemented. What was not implemented was maintaining Latin but allowing for "some" vernacular; Gregorian Chant and strict guidelines on the style of music appropriate for the Roman Liturgy. Worse yet, the propers (Introit, offertory and communion antiphons) of the Mass, which in the EF Mass are mandatory became officially optional--the greatest mistake in the revision of the Mass. The result of this is that the revised Mass is held hostage to hymns that are not official parts of the Mass and hymns of dubious quality, theology and genre. This leads to a loss of Catholic identity in the Mass itself--an institutionalized loss of identity because the law of prayer is the law of belief and when the law of prayer is corrupted so too the belief, thus the saying, save the liturgy, save the world (but it will save the Church first).
5. The allowance of outright dissent or disobedience to Natural Law following Humanae Vitae which reiterated the Church's infallible teaching concerning natural law as a means to discover Divine Law and which is available to all people (Natural Law). While natural law is a secular description of divine law, it nonetheless shows forth divine law to people of faith. Catholics of the 1960's and 70's and all the way to today rejected Natural Law as it concerns sex and we are reaping the tragedy of this today.
6. Bishops have failed to be prophetic to their people in the areas of personal morality based upon not only natural law but revealed doctrines of the Church. At the same time, they have angered other Catholics by being more dogmatic about the economy, disarming America and issues surrounding war and peace, many issues actually out of reach of Catholics personally but more generic and directed toward being influential in the public square almost as lobbyists thus appearing to be partisan.
7. Related to number six, bishops have failed to publicly discipline priests and laity in their diocese who publicly dissent from the teachings of the Church especially in areas of morality. Here I am thinking of high profile Catholics and specifically Nancy Pelosi, Katherine Sebelious and Edward Kennedy, just to name a few. That these people have not be publicly excommunicated or have not had censures placed against them preventing them from receiving Holy Communion boggles the mind and sends a very clear message to the rest of the Catholic world. You can believe and do whatever you want in a public way that is opposed to the Church and the Church will not judge you or censure you or excommunicate you. And implied in this is that God won't judge you either and whatever you do you will go to heaven. But here is the kicker, the straw that broke the moral backbone of the Church in things sexual, the liberality of bishops in allowing priests who break their promises of obedience and chastity (celibacy) not only with adults whose consent is dubious, but tragically with teenagers and prepubescent children, mostly boys, to go unpunished and almost rewarded with long term care and rehabilitation in expensive hospitals and reassignments in parishes with abundant children. The fact that it took the press to reveal this liberality and thus neglect of natural law, divine law and Church discipline already encoded in canon law boggles the mind, but it is part of progressive liberalism in all matters sexual, a private matter to be determined privately without loss of job or censure from the Church or laicization or excommunication. That the clergy got away with murder in things sexual boggles the minds of faithful Catholics and leads them to sin because artificial contraception is small potatoes in this regard! You reap what you sow! Thankfully this has changed, priests are being punished and laicized, but I fear too late to stave off the damage this has done to Natural Law and our acceptance of it as Catholics.
20 comments:
Fr, This is pretty good analysis. That last part about going to heaven regardless is pretty prevalent in our diocese. Generally, I think the question about sex is on box right and left and the comment about the right not wanting to feed the poor is incorrect.
Your fear is well founded. I think the Catholics who voted for Obama want to change Church positions on sexual ethics: abortion, homosexual marriage, and ordination. While they cannot change it directly they can suppress it through law and it will die out on its own just as Catholic understanding of so many of the sacraments (confession, anyone? Anyone?) has.
rcg
RCG, I've edited my comment to be more reflective of the truth, so you might want to reread it and comment further. The revision of my comment about the right not wanting to help the poor as originally written was wrong, but I stand by my revision.
Fr., thank you for the clarification the revision, and was not being critical of you personally in my original post. I may have been a little quick out of the 'box'. What I perceive is that people want simlar things but want it their own way.
From an admittedly 'right' position I am simply astounded that we allow an unstructured and unguided revision of the Liturgy yet can tell, from the pulpit what brands of coffee are 'fair'.
If the days of long ago were characterised as being guided by the 'right' were they not also known by charity? Wasn't the Church known as the place you could go for help, shelter, food? Orphanages, 'poor houses'?
My aim is more to explore the nature of these issues than assign blame. As far as the Liturgy goes, the departure, IMO, is that the Mass has become entertainment because the celebrants are often not confident in the appeal of their Liturgy. This lack of confidence is due to a doubt in its ability to feed spirit enough to help the body. So, worldly concerns cloud judgement.
Fr Feeney took the doctrine of the One True Church too far. But now we are afraid to confess, proclaim!, that it is True. Why would that bother anyone who does not believe it unless they are simply avoiding confronting Truth. For example, I am an Infidel in the eyes of Muslims and lose absolutely no sleep over that. Neither does it cause hatred in my heart toward them. It is meaningless because it is Untrue.
In my parish we endure some of the most horrible music imaginable. God bless those people, they are doing the best they can. That all that makes it tolerable. If we were capable of doing better, if we actually knew better, then it would be incumbent on us to DO better. We took Vatican II as a license to set the bar lower, to create a blind indifference, and devalue the best among us.
We are so damned confused we can't tell right from wrong.
To get what you need from your parish you will need a few men of gold to serve as the nucleus around which to form your strongpoints. Many sheep, one shepherd. Server Theory, it's all the same principle.
rcg
RCG, Ignorance is no excuse. And, blame needs to be placed, and Muslims are savage infidels who hate the Church, and many of these apostate Catholics are actually enemies of the Church and tools of Satan. "Hate evil and love that which is good."
Ya' see, RCG,, you are a negotiator, not an appeaser exactly but, in my opinion, you are too eager to find common ground where there is none. Remember, the Enemy sees negotiation as weakness and will exploit it every time. It is time to declare "no quarter" and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no sympathy for the Leftists in the Church and no desire to co-exist with them. I will not even discuss politics or the Church with my liberal neighbors and acquaintences anymore and barely speak to them at all. Why bother? I consider them enemies of the Church and the Republic. I do not actively wish these people ill (yet), but if ill befell them I would lose no sleep...
I would be very cautious in calling all Muslims savage infidels for the same thing could be said of Christians if their only point of reverence was the KKK or the IRA in Ireland who murdered and maimed people indiscriminately in the 1970's and 80's. I think one has to use the term extremist in any religion, including our own, that neglects and nullifies the core of its teaching through the use of unbridled violence. The fact that Muslims like Catholics of the Medieval and Dark Ages, have melded politics and religion, or Mosque and State into one and that the clerics have so much political power and clout and pursue becoming clerics precisely because of that political power rather than spiritual power is another lesson in history of the need for separation of Church and State, Mosque and State.
The KKK and the IRA were not religions who actively advocated the destruction of Christianity and Judaism. "I'll take savage infidels for a thousand, Alex."
Pin, there are huge numbers of Catholics who aren't modernist/leftist ideologues, but who have been exposed to modernism so long and thoroughly that they genuinely don't know any better. Their situation is precisely why scandal is a sin, and the fact of their existence today is a direct result of both scandal and heresy on a massive scale, neither of which has been dealt with by the clergy. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" would seem applicable here. And, at the same time, teach them the true faith.
It strikes me that in the last 40 years we're seeing a vastly accelerated version of what has happened to Anglicanism over 400-plus years. As Anglicanism was, from the outset, unified only by an agreement to disagree among Catholic and Protestant elements, and is now disintegrating as that agreement fails, so now the Catholic managerial style that has tolerated rebellion in the name of peace has brought us to the same place in a tenth of the time. The ugly confrontatiion that the bishops, through cowardice, sought to avoid has come anyway, as it was always bound to do. But in delaying confrontation, the bishops have allowed the enemy to gain adherents and power, and to confuse the great bulk of Catholics. Much better to have fought it in it's cradle, just as the appeasers who kowtowed to Hitler should have brought him down as soon as he put troops into the Rhineland. Their failure to do so garuanteed that when the war did come, it was far more destructive than it would have been otherwise.
Anon, I agree regarding the innocent, poorly catechized Catholics.
Regarding Hitler and his early rise:you are correct. Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia unopposed on what was pretty much a bluff and was handed the country with all its magnificent foundaries, weapons works, and well-made artillery. Had the Czechs and Poles opposed him at that point, he likely would have been defeated. There is a lesson for us here somewhere...
"This is true for Catholics on the right who feel the Church shouldn't teach about war and peace, the economy, immigrants and the means by which governments should feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless and that society has an obligation to do so, that governments have an obligation to do so."
Seriously, Fr. McDonald, none of the large number of "Catholics on the right" of my acquaintance argues this way. Though there may be a range of opinion on particular prudential judgements.
Radical individualism is prevalent on both the Right and the Left. It is the source of most of the societal ills we face. (Again, I recommend "Habits of the Heart" by Robert bellah, et al, as a fine explanation of this phenomenon.)
The Radical Right feels threatened by the Church's Social Doctrine which teaches that the Common Good is our primary goal. The Church's doctrine in this regard flies in the face of the American mythology of "Rugged Individualism" that is built on the fantasy that you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. (Grab the sides of your shoes and pull - see how far you move.)
In its political extreme, the Radical Right morphs into Libertarianism and its populist expression, the Tea Party. Libertarianism seeks no government regulations on human behavior. Libertarians/Tea Partiers want the government to dump AFDC, the EPA, and the Department of Education, but no one had better touch their Medicare, give them untested/unsafe medicines, or pollute their favorite fishing streams. Ultimately this approach embodies a denial of our understanding of Original Sin and the fallen human tendency to sin.
The Radical Left, also imbued with the notion of individualism, rejects the idea of what they consider government or Church “intrusion” into areas of their lives where they wrongly believe the government and Church have no business. The “right to privacy,” which underlies the Roe v Wade decision, is the prime example of individualism gone wild. The Radical Left doesn’t necessarily want Big Government, but does want the government to provide a safety net for those in need. Ultimately this approach denies the reality of Personal Sin, dismissing the reality of the harm that individuals’ actions bring to the Common Good.
These transformations occurred throughout western society and are not limited to the Catholic Church. Therefore, attributing the sources of this transformation to matters within the Church misses the root causes and keeps one from moving toward real solutions. We are, and always have been, creatures of our culture. Too often we have allowed the culture to change us, rather than relying on the power of the Gospel to change culture. Changing the Church cannot take place without changing the culture.
I would like to add an observation about the double-standard which is seemingly ingrained within liberal dioceses. Rarely have Catholics who boldly dissent from the moral teaching of the Church ever been publicly reprimanded let alone denied reception of Holy Communion. Even so, some priests in Canada have been only too willing to deny communion to the faithful who simply present themselves on their knees. As a teenager, a priest lost his temper while I was on my knees. He stopped the distribution of the Eucharist until I was off my knees. Decades latter, 2009, a pastor would again deny me communion. Was I standing this time? No. I was denied communion on the tongue because of the flu pandemic and this was the new bishop's first measure of containment, not the last. I talked directly with Bishop and asked him what provisions he had made for the sick and the disabled who could not use both hands to partake of the Eucharist? At the time I was suffering with severe hand tremors. Did he consider those using walking devices who needed support not only for walking but to stand and maintain balance? There were no exceptions. Can you imagine any pastor who would refuse anyone communion, especially the disabled, many of whom live as shut-ins, their only outing for the week is Church? It happened. It was clear from the expression on the bishop's face that he hadn't even considered these poor, defenseless sheep in his flock and he remained tight-lipped, clearly struggling to remain composed during this confrontation. Even so, he stood his ground and firmly maintained his priests were only following orders. How long did this interdict stand, denying communion on the tongue to any and all the faithful who could not or would not receive Jesus in their hands? Was it a week or two? A month or two perhaps? No. Five to six whole months these putative measures were rigidly enforced. Even soliciting a priest to receive communion after Mass was to no avail. Not a few Catholics were invited to the banquet table but had to remain seated in their pews to make spiritual communions. Finally, in desperation, many were forced to leave the Latin Rite altogether. Had they been famous, wealthy, powerful or influential Catholics, they wouldn't have dared. Was this not a double-standard? How many lives do you think were saved with this policy of communion in the hands only? Hands are well-known vectors of disease. What father refuses to feed his children?
Pin, not to argue nuance, I am not so much negotiating as maneuvering to where my short little arms can reach you.
And that is a good point discriminating between 'ignorance' and 'innocence'. We have made discrimination a bad word.
rcg
Elizabeth it truly is a sad state of affairs when people are denied Holy Communion simply because they kneel or desire to receive on the tongue, regardless of the fear of contagion, and then those who flaunt the Catholic faith such as Catholics in high places, politics and government positions are free to do so, some even in unrecognized marriages. Sad indeed and a provocation to righteous anger. I am sorry you experienced this!
I can not help but wonder if the Current Crisis in the Church is not the real 3rd Secret of Fatima. Pope Benedict has stated, at Fatima, that the 3rd secret belongs to the future, which puts to rest the idea that it applied to the assassination attempt on JPII.
What if the failure of the Pope and all the Bishops united with him to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was seen as a rejection of Obedience by Christ, triggering the "errors of Russia" being visited upon the rest of the world. What if those Russian errors were not Communism, as so many assumed, but Secularism as a pseudo-religion, which is now running rampant throughout the world. What if this battle between us and them leads to outright war upon the Church, and a Bishop in White walking through the ruins in Rome?
What if?
If this is God's plan for his Church, to be Martyred for the Faith, will YOU have the conviction to stand by here?
Templar, I would not exclude that and the persecution that this pope has experienced from within and outside the Church has been historic too. But keep in mind communism is a form of godless secularism just as both are forms of utopian-ism. But in line with Pater Ignotus, the utopian ism of godless secularism isn't built upon the common good but upon fierce individualism.
Pater,
While in broad terms I agree with you, I do think that rugged individualism was more than a myth for much of our history--though how much more is open to a great deal of scholarly debate.
I also think that modern welfare statism has obscured the fact of private and communal charity throughout much of our existence. Note the recent research that indicates that people on the political right are more generous in their charitable giving than those on the left. I thus think that a lot of folks on the right would simply prefer to manage their own giving rather than have it managed for them by the state, which among other things has very different priorities. (My tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood; if I had them back, I would give them to some other organization). Of course, you will always have some misers who, if not taxed, wouldn't voluntarily give, but the poor we always have with us. I'd still prefer that to, for example, Liberation Theology.
I do think it interesting that folks always mention the dissidents of both the left and the right as if they are equally problematical. Doctrinally they are indeed similar, but in terms of raw numbers, and thus impact on the Church and society, there is a massive disparity between the miniscule right and the ubiquitous left. I can count on one hand the number of SSXP members and sedevacantists I have met, but I'd need a calculator to sum up the modernist/leftists I've come across, not to mention the innocent laity who are de facto modernists by virtue of the Church's refusal to catechize and correct them.
Elizabeth,
I recall when out in California the priest (or was it the bishop?) started screaming about excommunication for those who had the effrontery to kneel. Would that they would get half so militaristic about the 4000 babies legally slaughtered each day in this country and the Catholics who have made that happen. The two practices can hardly be equated in importance. The reactions of these modernists shows that they are undoubtedly motivated by a deep-seated fear that their revolution is failing, rather than by an adherence to the true faith. Whenever you're upset by your treatment, pray to St. Joan of Arc, one of the patron saints of Catholics who are abused by Church officials. You're in good company.
Elizabeth, one of my best friends was denied communion on the tongue by a priest on Easter. I never thought about that in context of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I wish I had not.
Tell you what. I can teach you a wrist lock I bet can solve that. you won't have to even touch the host. Promise.
rcg
Last week in a post I lamented or at least worried that there was very little or no reaction to Bishop Gregory Hartmayer's letter which was read at all our Masses. I heard that at St. Teresa Church in Augusta after the deacon read the letter there was applause. I've heard that this occurred in some other churches too. Not so at St. Joseph Church and I suspect a majority of other places where letters were read.
Father, just because there was no applause doesn't necessarily mean that people were indifferent or hostile to the message. I mean, applause in church is something that is normally discouraged, and while people do applaud on occasion there, I've noticed that it's usually during announcements after Communion. Maybe people didn't feel the period during the homily was an appropriate time for applause at all.
At the same time, [bishops] have angered other Catholics by being more dogmatic about the economy, disarming America and issues surrounding war and peace, many issues actually out of reach of Catholics personally but more generic and directed toward being influential in the public square almost as lobbyists thus appearing to be partisan.
I echo what Henry said here. But also, in my experience a lot of Catholics get upset when bishops get "more dogmatic" about the economy and whatnot because in all too many cases, these same bishops say very little about personal morality and Church doctrines. It's enough to make one wonder where some of these bishops' allegiance truly lies.
I agree with MI; do not take the lack of applause as a sign of indifference. I rarely ever clap at Mass, it's just never an appropriate time. The few times i have it has been at the end of Mass during an announcement, and never at a Homily. the fact that you have heard of other Churhces doing so makes me what to just point out how badly they're educated about the Mass in the first place.
But if you want reactions I can easily start providing them. After yesterday's Homily I wanted to jump up and shout, "Yeah BABY!! That's what I'M talkin' about." Maybe throw in a few boo-yahs!! High fives to the neighbors in adjacents pews, or slide out into the aisle doing an imitation of a hockey player's go scoring first pump. Or perhaps even stand on the pew and start asking if anyone needs a break to go scrap an Obama Bumper sticker off their car.
So sure, I had reactions, and I'll wager a lot of others did too, but if you REALLY want to see them, I suggest we have it during coffee and conversation instead of during the Mass :)
You keep doing what you're doing Father. Two fiery Homilies, two weeks in a row. Don't let up. We're in a fight and people ought to know it.
Templar, that would have been a sight to see! But I know exactly how you feel because I felt the same way!
Father, thank you for the strong, heart-felt homilies; it is time to shake the dust off the bench-warmers and spur them into action!
It is time to stand up for our faith, and I want you to know that we support you.
Also, thank you for speaking to our new group and for leading us in the Te Deum after Mass. Your dedication to Christ, His Church, and our parrish are deeply appreciated.
Post a Comment