DIVIDING CATHOLICS ACCORDING TO POLITICAL CATEGORIES

 As I mentioned before, the book on the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s implementation of Vatican II between 1966 and 1974 is a must read to see how quickly the wrong implementation of Vatican II caused a massive exodus of once practicing Catholics from the Church, in particular, from attending Mass. 

Confusion reigned because of how Vatican II was implemented. Even Cardinal Shehan who had spearheaded a radical, authoritarian pre-Vatican II implementation of Vatican II came to recognize his debacle. But by then it was too late, he had retired and a new and even more liberal, but likable, Archbishop was in place.

Prior to Vatican II’s horrible implementation, and not just in Baltimore, but around the world, Catholics were described as practicing or not practicing; good Catholics or bad Catholics; devout Catholics or tepid, lukewarm Catholics. 

I don’t believe that prior to Vatican II the more religious terms of orthodox or heterodox were applied to Catholics. Rather, more saintly Catholics and sinful Catholics would be used. Also, devout and not so devout. At any rate, the term orthodox would refer to saintliness and heterodox would be sinfulness. 

Political categories were not used, such as liberal Catholics and Conservative Catholics. Often the descriptive “conservative” Catholics were also described as “traditional” Catholics which meant they preferred how the Church was prior to Vatican II or wanted pre-Vatican II elements brought to the Modern new Mass. 

The liberal label meant Catholics who were also described as “progressive” wanting to purge the Church of anything that smacked of the pre-Vatican II Church and many wanted to use Vatican II’s documents as a springboard to even more radical reforms, what was called the “spirit” of Vatican II. 

Thus, two political camps developed in the Church and almost overnight. And the two, like in democratic political processes, would duke it out and see who would win. And yes, there were and still are winners and  losers.

The neo-synodal processes that Pope Francis initiated mirrored in many ways the debacles in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where seemingly democratic processes were implemented to change the Church and her teachings, moral or doctrinal. 

The use of surveys was highlighted in Baltimore, giving the impression that the “sensus fidelium” could be ascertained by listening to people’s opinions about Church teachings and practices by surveying their feelings, often disconnected from Divine Revelation, Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

It should be noted that even up to the time of Pope Francis and even today, many Catholics do not like the term “Deposit of Faith” because it is too rigid and becomes a stumbling block against changing it based upon what a certain type of Catholic wants the Church to do. 

Recently there has been a spate of pre-Vatican II reprisals against certain Catholics who are disobeying the pope and recently a priest was excommunicated in San Antonio for declaring that neither Popes Francis or Leo XIV are valid popes. 

Also in the Roman Diocese the pope’s vicar ordered that two Catholics who were in leadership in the Masons not be given Catholic Funerals.

I applaud these moves and such moves should be extended towards those who not only deny the authority or validity of the Holy Roman Pontiff, but to others who pay lip-service to the Holy Roman Pontiff, but deny in public ways the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisteriums of the Church especially by advocating for women’s ordination or even advocate for certain categories of the ideologies of the LGBTQ+++ political camp who want same sex liturgical blessing and even marriage and declare that gender categories are more fluid than the Biblical, male and female that God created. 

As well, Catholics in governmental roles, such as the governor of Massachusetts who recently signed into law abortion on demand and even in the final months of pregnancy, should be publicly excommunicated and not reinstated until they publicly repent. There is a precedent for this in New Orleans during the time the Archbishop there was trying to integrate Catholic schools. 

I would hope and pray too, that Pope Leo will recognize that it has been popes since Vatican II who have caused an erosion of respect for the papacy and papal magisteriums by implementing Vatican II in a form of rupture with the past rather than in continuity. Pope Francis who reversed Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict and also some aspects of the two papal magisteriums of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI certainly called into question the faith and moral teachings of those two popes, the validity of those two popes’ magisteriums. Is it any wonder that others are questioning Popes Francis and Leo?

This creates political groups in the Church who say we can undo what tradition has wrought as well as what popes have done in the areas of faith and morals.

Pope Leo must know that what was once held as holy and orthodox, such as the Mass prior to Paul VI’s revised Mass, are now considered heterodox and wrong and suppressed, that opens the door to suspecting every pope as being wrong if every Magisterial Council and pope prior to Vatican II can be described as being wrong. 

Administrative decisions of the Church and of popes, though, are a different matter and of course these can be and in many cases should be revised, changed or dropped.