At the end of the 14th century we had two popes, one in Rome another in Avignon; the Council of Pisa in 1409 fired both popes and elected a third. As none of them stepped down, we lived with three popes until the Council of Constance resolved it. During this Western Schism, Saints Catherine of Siena and Saint Catherine of Sweden supported the Roman pope; St.Vincent Ferrer and St. Colette endorsed the Avignon option.
Since the Council over 60 years ago, we have been in a similar, de facto three-way schism. The minute traditionalist Society of St Pius X, which rejects Vatican II, is now officially in schism. More important, the progressive/conservative split has now found clear explication in the competing dual pontificates: John Paul/Benedict and Francis/Leo. They contradict each other on at least six significant issues:
1. Sexual Liberation.
John Paul and Benedict together articulated a fresh, but traditional ethos of chastity and fidelity in opposition to the Cultural Revolution after 1965. Francis and Leo attempt to accommodate the progressive agenda: blessings of "gay marriages," communion for the divorce-remarried, destruction of the John Paul Institute for the Family, flirtation with ordination of women, and deemphasis of sexual morals.
2. Engagement with Communism.
John Paul officially maintained the Ostpolitik accommodationist policy of Paul VI while he engaged in the ferocious cultural combat that helped bring down the Soviet empire. From his youth in Nazi Germany through his many years in Poland against communism to his defiance of sexual progressivism, John Paul was the Culture Warrior of the century. Francis (and now apparently Leo as far as we can tell to date) by contrast defers to the Chinese Communist Party, now allowing them virtually free choice of bishops. The heroic underground church of martyrs has been entirely abandoned. This will be the greatest infidelity of the Francis legacy.
3. The Latin Mass
Benedict restored this rite and protected the coexistence of both as enriching of the entire Church. He saw that a rite that nourished the Church for many centuries is worth preserving. Francis decided to entirely destroy this practice. At the time of his decision, he claimed the support of bishops around the world but we now know that the episcopal consensus was for preserving the rite. This was clearly a Fauci-like duplicity. As with many things, we await decisions from Leo.
4. "Synodality"
John Paul and Benedict firmly regarded "synod" traditionally as an authoritative gathering of bishops under the pope. Just prior to the death of Benedict, Francis started the campaign for a new "synodality" by which laity and even those distant from or rejecting of Catholicism would participate in the governance of the Church. Understood as readiness to listen openly, empathetically, positively to others, this would be a wholesome, holy endeavor. But it is more than this: it is creation of an unwieldly bureaucratic process, without definition or purpose, other than to replace the hierarchical, apostolic Church we are given.
5. Capital Punishment
John Paul and Benedict argued strongly against the death penalty...on prudential grounds. Crucially, they did not reverse the ancient Catholic doctrine that the state has the responsibility to use lethal force for the common good when necessary, specifically for deterrence, protection, rehabilitation and retribution. They evaluated, for example modern prisons as adequate for protection of the community. This was a practical determination with which civil authorities and citizens (who are responsible for such decisions) might well disagree. As a conscientious Catholic, by traditional norms I might well judge practically that this punishment is required and so implement it as legislator, prosecutor, judge, jury or executioner. Francis, unilaterally and without synodal consultation with the bishops, reversed the tradition, ruling such executions always and everywhere "unacceptable" ...without engaging the tradition and by an illicit authoritarian fiat.
6. Just War or Pacifism
Similarly, John Paul and Benedict hated war but never undermined the Church's just war tradition which requires the state to use lethal force when necessary to protect society. Francis and now Leo hold that teaching to be outdated, like the one on capital punishment. Conscientiously accepted and implemented by Christians around the world, this would effectively hand the globe over to communists, Ayatollahs, fascist dictators, and terrorists.
Leo has promised to follow Francis. We wait to see. We do well to take him at his word. This means that he will continue the Francis trajectory, although in a better tone.
On these six and a host of related issues, we clearly have two Magisteriums. We cannot follow both; we cannot split the difference; we cannot accommodate both (although that may be the ambition of Leo.) My own intention is clear: to follow the teachings of John Paul and Benedict as they are manifest in different ways.
1. Prelates Loyal to that Legacy.
Among Cardinals we have: Burke, Mueller, Zen, ,Scola, Sarah, Eijk. Outstanding bishops are Barron and Varden. Happily, a majority of American bishops follow John Paul and Benedict.
2. Teaching and Legacy of the Saints
In a certain way, the witness of the holy ones takes first place. Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, Elizabeth of the Trinity, Edith Stein, Adrienne von Speyr, Caryl Houselander, Madalene DelBrel.
3. Theological Schools Loyal to Tradition
Dominican priests, John Paul Institute for the Family still viable in Washington DC.
4. Charismatic Lay Leaders
Kiko Arguello of Neocatechumenal Way, Ralph Martin of Charismatic Renewal, and others.
5. EWTN and National Catholic Register
These, for the most part, present a moderate, orthodox, populist Catholicism.
Other
In the USA we have a number of groups and publications which offer a right-leaning, conservative Catholicism which counters the progressivism dominant in elite institutions. These include: First Things, Crisis, The Catholic Thing, New Oxford Review as well as the smaller, countercultural Catholic colleges. In their praiseworthy defense of freedoms and markets, they do not always balance their suspicion of big government with scrutiny of corporate capitalism. They can lean into an economic libertarian individualism that contradicts the profoundly communal nature of Catholicism. They can prefer bourgeois security, confidence, meritocracy and achievement over solidarity with the suffering and subsidiarity. They can privatize piety and charity, minimize the correct role of the state, privilege the competent, strong, smart and connected. Nevertheless, they maintain Catholic values around sex, gender, family and the incompetent against assaults from Cultural Progressivism.
Conclusion
The good news is that Christ remains with his Church. The gates of hell will not prevail. The efficacy of the Truth will knock down those doors and the captives will be set free. We may not always hear the Word of God in its purity from the Vatican or the Chancery. But the Holy Spirit is alive and the Word of God is ever fruitful, if patient.
No comments:
Post a Comment