Many faithful Catholics reflexively dismiss and ostracize anyone who dares to point out longstanding failures of the Church. A close companion is the urge to insulate key Church figures from any criticism.
With the Church in dire straits today, we do not have the luxury of banning certain topics and people from serious, open-minded evaluation. That traditionalist Catholics often do not observe these taboos is one reason people hate us so much.
Discipline
Not one cleric directly responsible for sexual abuse has been seriously punished by the Church. Kevin Farrell, who considered McCarrick his mentor and lived with him for several years, was created a cardinal and appointed Camerlengo (in charge of the next conclave) by Pope Francis after the McCarrick scandal broke. Cardinal Donald Wuerl remained politically powerful and received public endorsements from Pope Francis after resigning in disgrace following the release Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report.
Even Bishop Barron in his book on the abuse crisis essentially told concerned Catholics that there was nothing for them to do besides pray and trust that those in authority had already addressed the worst of the problem. Those who do serious digging on the matter are labeled quacks and conspiracy theorists. Evidently it’s not ok to launch real investigations or ask serious questions about personnel decisions.
Obedience
“Aren’t you being disobedient by celebrating/attending the Latin Mass?” “So you don’t accept Vatican II?”
When Pope John XXIII demands that all seminary professors teach in Latin, when Pope Paul VI says artificial contraception must not be used, or when Vatican II says Gregorian chant should have pride of place and that each parish should have public Sunday Vespers, that can be freely ignored. But dare to celebrate a traditional Mass outside of the latest restrictions, and you’re told you have a one way ticket to Hell.
Dr. Kwasniewski does a good job pushing back on this. This article goes further, pointing out how the Church’s philosophy of slavish obedience since the post Reformation is what enabled forced changes to liturgy and the sexual abuse crisis.
It is also blithely assumed that bishops are airlifted into a diocese they’ve never worked in before by appointment from an insulated Vatican bureaucracy that has no transparency and accountability. Rome directly appointing all bishops (rather than vetting and approving more local selections) is a newish practice. It’s increasingly clear it isn’t working, but no one offers any alternative. Surely bishops should (mostly) come from their home dioceses through a clear, transparent decision-making process with real influence from local clergy and faithful laity. But good luck mentioning this without getting a condescending eyeroll.
Liturgy
The problems posed by celebrating Mass facing the people have been pointed out by Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Mike Schmitz, and many others. Yet when Cardinal Sarah proposed more priests celebrate ad orientem during Advent, he was undermined. Cardinal Cupich has now banned it in Chicago, even though Mass facing the people isn’t in any of the rubrics (in fact they assume Mass is done ad orientem).
Another common trope is the instant dismissal of anyone who dares to question the liturgical reforms made in the 50s. One writer mocked such people, rolling his eyes and wondering “what form of liturgy is pure enough for them.” Here as elsewhere, the merits of the arguments and serious scholarship are never even considered. It’s just assumed that if you have a problem with it, something’s wrong with you, and you better shut up about it or else the ‘62 Mass you have will be taken away. Also, you’re basically a sedevacantist (just ignore how furious the real sedevacantists are with pre55 superstar Dr. Kwasniewski).
Usury
You are a wild eyed Medieval fanatic if you dare to suggest that the Church’s constant (NOT traditional) teaching on usury should be upheld, and that its loss has been deeply damaging.
This gem from Crisis Magazine quotes John Noonan to illustrate why the teaching is so misguided and damaging. Someone needs to inform Crisis that John Noonan was one of the main detractors of Humanae Vitae, and uses very similar arguments in his tirade against usury. Noonan isn’t the only one, nor is Gary Wills, as Zippy Catholic beautifully captured:
The progressive tactic of divorcing doctrine from pastoral and juridical practice is not a new Vatican II innovation targeted specifically at matters of sex and marriage. Earlier progressives were “successful” in leaving the doctrine on usury formally intact, as a kind of decoration that makes no important demands on anyone, despite their attendance of the traditional Latin Mass. Humanae Vitae could easily become the new Vix Pervenit. Contraception apologists have learned from earlier usury apologists and are using the same tactics. Progressives think that money is inherently fecund and that sex isn’t inherently fecund.
Acceptance of usury and contraception are both products of denying that things have an objective nature independent of human preferences. Centuries of ‘pastoral’ acceptance and indoctrination of economic relativism paved the way for other expressions of moral relativism.
You might think of this as the “hermeneutic of continuity of Hell”.
We are told, with the same tone used by a kindergarten teacher, that Christ endorses usury in Matthew 25. We are then told that the modern economy and concept of money is just different than the Medieval one.
This is the same modern arrogance usually denounced by faithful Catholics. Of course these arguments have been considered and rejected by the Church, most notably in Vix Pervenit, going all the way back to the Council of Nicaea, and even further in the Psalms, example: Psalm 14(15).
The modern economy and its concept of money are precisely what the Church has condemned, because it leads to a consumerist culture and the false accounting that brought us the 2008 financial crisis. It also leads to concentration of power in the hands of usurious companies that, surprise surprise, tend to push cultural agendas contrary to the faith.
Untouchables
That someone is a saint does not exempt them from historical criticism. Particularly when the canonization process has changed drastically in the last few decades and many canonizations are driven by money and political connections. If we can criticize Pope Urban II for calling the First Crusade, we can criticize Pope John Paul II for making Mccarrick a cardinal despite testimony from Cardinal O’Connor that he sexually abused seminarians. If we can criticize Pope Pius IX for taking a Jewish boy from his parents and wallowing in bitterness at the loss of the papal states, we can criticize Pope Pius XII for getting caught up in postwar euphoria and failing to address the massive damage the Communists were doing to the Church in Eastern Europe and by off-the-rails theologians and secularists in the West. If we can criticize Pope Pius X for his police-state style surveillance of alleged modernists, we can also criticize him for blowing up the Roman Office by completely changing the ancient rotation of Psalms recited daily by every Roman priest.
“What, even X isn’t good enough for you?” No one is perfect, and no one should be above criticism when they make decisions that, at the time or in hindsight, appear misguided and have damaging consequences.
The Church has real problems. And as Einstein said: “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” I have great admiration for people like Peter Kwasniewski, Zippy Catholic, James Larson, Mary Ball Martinez, Laszlo Dobszay, Geoffrey Hull, and others who were not afraid to let facts and logic lead them past the taboos into real problems and, given time and God’s grace, help the Church find real solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment