Loading ...
Sandro Magister’s latest gives us some reason to reflect on this great pontifical feast of SS Peter and Paul. In “Roman Curia: The Reform that Isn’t There“, Magister makes plain that Benedict has put the reform of the curia, long anticipated and a job for which Benedict seemed well-qualified, on the back burner. After some early promising moves, such as collapsing the congregation or whatever-it-was for Interreligious Dialogue into the Pontifical Council or whatever-it-is for Culture, Benedict didn’t go much farther and has now even reversed course, bringing the Interreligious Dialogue losers back to life. The most positive spin on Benedict’s “progress” at reform thus far is that Benedict is biding his time, a tactic he learned from many years in the Curia. The less optimistic outlook is that Benedict isn’t going to expend his limited time (and, perhaps, political capital) on such an effort.
Some choice bits from Magister’s column:
On the bloated Vatican bureaucracy:
As for the pontifical council for migrants and itinerant peoples, this remains incorporated with “Iustitia et Pax,” but it continues to churn out symposiums and documents that immediately fall into disregard: the complete opposite of the expected simplification. Its latest product is a sort of catechism on the rules of the road presented to the press on June 19.
What he’s doing instead:
In the third year of his reign, it is by now evident that reform of the curia does not figure among the priorities on Benedict XVI’s agenda.
In part because of his advanced age, pope Ratzinger has drastically pared down the matters to which he dedicates himself body and soul: before all else, preaching, the liturgical celebrations, and the book “Jesus of Nazareth,” the second volume of which, on the passion and resurrection, he is already writing.
Further:
On these absolute priorities, Benedict XVI is not “biding his time”; on the contrary, he dedicates himself to them with a tireless passion equal to the crystalline clarity with which he formulates his theses. Pope Ratzinger never minces words on the controversial questions close to his heart. He clearly says what is the right thing to do: in the field of the liturgy as in the field of public ethics, for example on whether or not to receive communion if one maintains that abortion is permissible. But in the end, the pope wants to leave these decisions to conscience. More than issuing orders and establishing sanctions, he aims at educating, at convincing.
This is where I really wonder about Pope Ratzinger and, indeed, the whole direction of the post-Vatican II Church. Human nature hasn’t changed in 2000 years: sometimes, folks need to receive not just clear teaching and instruction, but also clear, unavoidable orders. And again, sometimes, if a habit of disobedience or ignoring orders has come to life, then the Pope needs to make examples of a few people by solemn, public excommunications. He needs to strip a few bishops of their dioceses. He needs to shake things up just a little bit to show people that he means business. Romano Amerio had called the current state of things, begun by Paul VI and very much continued through the reign of John Paul II, a breviatio manus Domini, a foreshortening of the hand of the Lord.
One simply cannot rule out, a priori, as it were, the use of correction and strict commands. While it would be preferable always to teach and instruct and thereby bring about the rectification of any misguided persons, this approach, when used exclusively, defies the facts of human nature. It defies the reality of the devil’s action in the world and his attempts to destroy the Church. Samuel Johnson put the point very well when speaking of the degree of severity a school master may use in disciplining his pupils: “Why, Sir, till you can fix the degree of obstinacy and negligence of the scholars, you cannot fix the degree of severity of the master. Severity must be continued until obstinacy be subdued, and negligence be cured.”
For Magister to say that Benedict would rather leave decisions over abortion to the consciences of the politicians seems to me not just foolish but positively negligent. We know and can see every day that Catholic politicians, whether in this country or in Latin and South America, are not listening. Benedict is teaching, but they’re throwing spitballs in the back of the classroom. Someone has to grab their attention. And, indeed, there will be cases where, despite thorough instruction and a great deal of attention on both sides, a politician (or bishop or theology professor) will remain convinced of his own rectitude and will adhere adamantly to his own views. This then is a heretic and must be dealt with accordingly: in the old days, we had the luxury of burning such people; today, many of us would be quite pleased just to see a solemn excommunication.
At least don’t allow them to remain at their posts (if they are bishops or theologians) while they continue to make a mockery of the Faith and give scandal to the whole world!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
“Human nature hasn’t changed in 2000 years: sometimes, folks need to receive not just clear teaching and instruction, but also clear, unavoidable orders.”
Amen. Why would Our Lord have given the Church such authority if it wasn’t meant to be used? The Vatican II idea seems to be that the Church should be just one more entity competing in the “marketplace of ideas”.
The catechism teacher at my parish (who is great, by the way) is fond of quoting John Paul II as saying “the Church doesn’t impose, but it proposes”. I don’t know where he said it or in what context, but that just seems wrong. Once the Church says something is revealed by God we are bound by it. It is not put forward for our consideration to be accepted only if we have independent reasons for believing it. This would make the motive of our assent our own opinions rather than the authority of the Church. I think this attitude is why one hears so much things like “I just don’t think Paul VI’s arguments in Humanae Vitae are very good. Therefore, I reject it”. But that’s not the point. He’s not arguing, he’s teaching.
On a more optimistic note, there is this from Magister’s article:
“Much more than curia appointments, Benedict XVI has at heart the appointment of bishops.
He dedicates much greater attention to these than John Paul II did. Before giving his permission, the pope keeps the dossiers of the designates on his desk for up to two or three weeks. And sometimes he rejects them, without giving an explanation to the competent curia dicastery presided over by cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.
Pope Ratzinger is very demanding; he wants bishops of quality, and doesn’t always find them. The pace of episcopal appointments has fallen by a quarter with him, in comparison with the previous pontificate.”
Perhaps the Holy Father thinks that any radical reforms would lead to an open revolt of many bishops. First, get a new group of bishops, then make your reforms.
Exactly, competing in the “marketplace of ideas”. That’s what he and they and many others think should be the plan of action.
Yes, it is encouraging that Benedict is taking more time with the bishops. Even back when I was with Reggie a couple summers ago, Benedict had already slowed appointments down a great deal; they were aware of this in the Latin letters office, because they have to write the bulls of appointment.
This isn’t an unmitigated good, though. As I noted in this post, sometimes, a little bit of haste seems the humane thing to do. Then, when we turn to consider the bishops whom Benedict has finally settled upon, like Niederauer in San Francisco, you wonder why he had to bother in considering it prayerfully for weeks. It’s the same lame-o, ho-mo appointment that would have happened under JPII. We can always give Benedict the benefit of the doubt and say that these matters may yet be out of his hands to a degree, but at some point, we get frustrated and want some accountability, too.
Ambrosius has a post about one of Benedict’s good picks here.
The trouble with Amerio’s ‘brevatio manus’ theory, at least during the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, is that it was not applied to traditionalists; look at the career of Abp. Lefebvre under Paul VI. Look in general at the difference between the treatment of priests who say the traditional mass - immediately removed - and the treatment of priests who molest children - until recently, protected. I think the trouble with the current Holy Father’s approach to governing is that to govern, you have to have a policy that you are trying to implement. He doesn’t have Paul VI or John Paul II’s policy, that of promoting the supposed reforms of Vatican II, because he knows that it is wrong and doesn’t work; but he can’t bring himself to adopt the policy of trying to undo all the conciliar and postconciliar harm and restore Catholic tradition. I suppose it would take great ruthlessness and a considerable length of time to even try to reform the Curia, and he has neither of them.
A great post. Btw, I know for a FACT that Cardinal O’Malley was in Rome yesterday, the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. How do I know? Because a priest-friend (one quite fond of the Old Rite) and I met him on the Via Conciliazione and kissed his ring. My priest friend, let’s call him Fr. X, was about to ask him about the Motu Proprio when the Cardinal’s cell phone rang. The blogs say he was part of the American delegation to review the Motu Proprio.
POST-MOTU PROPRIO: What Traditional Catholics Want After Promulgation
It appears certain that, in the coming days, our Holy Father will promulgate a motu proprio freeing the Traditional Latin Mass which was perfected in the sixth century and canonized in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V. However, without proper enforcement and enactment, it will mean little to traditional Catholics in their every day lives. Below is a respectful request to our prelates world wide upon its promulgation. Please pass along and spread the word:
1. That all traditional Catholics, upon its promulgation, welcome it with humility and joy and not a “we win” attitude;
2. That non-traditional Catholics see it less as an attack on the Novus Ordo Mass and liturgy but as an opportunity to grow their own Faith and return to the Church’s roots and the way of the Saints;
3. That our bishops accept it in joy and gladness and profound respect for the Holy Father and implement it fully and without hesitation understanding that, while we do not just “prefer” the Traditional Latin Mass but desire it exclusively, we also do not question the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass if it adheres fully to the rubrics of the new missal and absent of abuses;
4. That our bishops ensure at least one Traditional Latin Mass every day of the week, every week of the year;
5. That every priest who wishes to pray the Traditional Latin Mass, whether publicly or privately, be able to do so without threat or intimidation by his bishop or the lay people of the diocese;
6. That, if a diocese does not have a priest who wishes to pray the Traditional Latin Mass daily, the bishop work with a traditional group like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) or the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) to bring one of their priests into his diocese for this purpose;
7. That each and every diocese has at least one full parish that offers only the Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments as well as the traditional Baltimore Catechism for the formation of traditional young Catholics;
8. That our bishops provide at least one traditional Catholic school per diocese in order that our children may receive a classical Catholic education focused on the traditional Faith and Sacraments;
9. That every bishop once a year confirms young, traditional Catholics into the Church in the traditional rite (which does not include a Mass during the ceremony);
10. That every diocese has at least one parish with more than one Traditional Latin Mass each Sunday so that traditional Catholics have a choice in Mass times like all other Catholics who assist at the Novus Ordo Mass;
11. That at least one parish have a priest who exclusively prays the Traditional Latin Mass and is not forced to “concelebrate” with Novus Ordo priests or confer new rite sacraments at another parish;
12. That there be no mixing of the rites – if 1962 is the year for which traditionalism is recognized, then nothing post-1962 should ever enter the Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments or liturgy;
13. That the traditional calendar in place in 1962 is used in accordance with each and every Traditional Latin Mass;
14. That at least one Traditional Latin Mass is available on each and every Holy Day of Obligation in effect in 1962 according to the traditional calendar;
15. That every attempt is made by each bishop to bring any and all independent chapels or Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) chapels into full communion with him in his diocese. If they refuse, so be it, but at least make an honest attempt for the sake of the Faith.
Many bishops are already using the talking points that they already allow a Traditional Latin Mass and “there really just isn’t any interest.” That is because, in most cases, they grant only one Mass a Sunday, at an hour too late in the day for most to attend, in the worst neighborhood in town, without the traditional Sacraments or chance of a daily Mass. Once they make it impossible to survive, they tell the media no one wants “that old Mass.” Let’s pray they put these desires into action and see what kind of response they get.
While there is much more than this which is needed to finally bring the One True Faith back to its full glory in the future, this would be a wonderful and holy place to start once the motu proprio is promulgated. Let us pray that all Catholics, whether traditionally minded or not, welcome the wishes of the Holy Father and pray that this undertaking of his brings us closer together as we once were. Oremus pro invicem.
Tobias Petrus, Cardinal Sean gives a report of his visit with the Pope to discuss the Motu Proprio on his blog. “In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low.” He’s been doing his very best to help the cause by graciously granting permission wherever he’s been but to little avail. Maybe they’ll appreciate it in Brazil.
“Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England.”
Meanwhile there are at least six illicit Mass sites in his own diocese. Maybe that’s why the Pope invited him.
http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/
“He’s been doing his very best to help the cause by graciously granting permission wherever he’s been but to little avail.”
Well, I don’t really have time to read his blog entry, but Cardinal O’Malley is closing the parish where the Indult community in Boston formerly was based. They will be continuing, but it is funny how Indult parishes tend to be those that get shut down when money is tight.
John L: good comments. I agree.