Current debates between so-called traditional and progressive Catholics date back mainly to the Second Vatican Council, worldwide bishops' conference convened by Pope Saint John XXIII that ran from 1962 to 1965.
Pope John, who died in 1963, had sought ways for the Church, as he said, “to contribute more effectively to the solutions of the problems of the modern age.”
Among problems he proposed needing solving was the contemporary world's secularization, which proceeded without any “corresponding advance in the moral sphere,” moral questions raised by technology progress, and the “successive bloody wars of our times.”
Some 2,800 bishops from 116 countries produced 16 documents laying out the views of the Council majority about transforming a Church which many believed had grown isolated and rigid into one better suited to transforming modern life according to Christ's principles.
Many Bishops suggested changes aimed at engaging Catholic lay people more actively in this work, such as by adapting the Mass to fit local cultural traditions and languages and opening more church roles to lay Catholics.
Notably, Vatican II turned aside from the “Papal absolutism” declared by Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council in 1868–1870, which established the principle that in certain statements of doctrine a Pope is infallible. So centered was he on the primacy of Church hierarchy that Pius IX said of himself, “I am the church."
Vatican II, by contrast, offered a contemporary redefinition of the church as “the people of God."
After Vatican Council II came the work of turning the Bishops' statements into concrete action.
The liturgy was translated from Latin into local languages so Catholics could participate in the Mass more directly. Other changes ranged from new songs and a shift in how Priests stand while saying Mass — from facing the altar to facing parishioners — to removal of some traditional feast days from the church calendar and a clothing change for many nuns from habits to street clothes.
In effect, Vatican II offered Catholics a more direct and involved access to their faith, suitable to the modern world.
Early on, dissenters quickly emerged.
They argued that the Council went too far in urging its accommodations to modernity and, especially, that many implementations of the Council documents misread not only Catholic theology but the intent of the Council documents themselves.
Critics also argued that other implementations of Vatican II were misguided. They contended that Vatican II-inspired “democratic” ideas have transformed Priests from being strong spiritual leaders to becoming psychologists, pandering to human frailty, leading lay Catholics to ignore such vital concepts as penance and sin.
While the Council actually called for educating the laity to participate more fully in the traditional liturgy, perhaps even to learn Gregorian chant, that conclusion was largely ignored in favor of adopting a more simplified celebration of the Mass in local languages.
Both laity and some members of the Clergy held to the exaggerated idea that the Council supported the position that any Catholic's opinion of how to practice the faith “was as valid as anyone else's, even if it contradicted nearly two millennia of tradition.
Debates over traditional and liberal views have only grown louder over the decades that have ensued. The Vatican's slow and inconsistent response to the sex-abuse and financial scandals has largely overshadowed them in the public consciousness, however.
Between 1978 and 2013, only two Popes (mindful still of the sadly brief Pontificate of Pope John Paul I) headed the church.
Pope Saint John Paul II — formerly Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla — held office from 1978 until his death in 2005. Succeeding him was Pope Benedict XVI — German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — who served from 2005 to 2013.
Both Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict were worried about losing the centralized control over the Church that the Vatican had long held, and both were largely conservative traditionalists, contending that Vatican II called for a “reform with continuity”.
Clearly, under the administration of these two staunchly conservative Popes, the Sacred Liturgy became the battleground.
Vatican II had designated the Bishops as the arbiters of whether common-language translations of the Mass from Latin were fitting and acceptable.
In time, however, Rome started dialing that back eventually declaring the Vatican could impose a text on any country.
Some in the Vatican who engaged in the English translations of the Mass “weren't even native English speakers,” says Nicholas Cafardi, my former classmate from our Roman days and a Canon Lawyer who is a Professor of Law at Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh. “They decided that all 11 English-speaking congregations” — Canada, Australia, Ireland and so on — “would use the same translation.” But “their languages are not the same. Where's the respect for the pastoral role of the local Bishops?”
In April 2012, the Vatican cracked down on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents most orders of American nuns. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that LCWR's activities, rules and practices would be placed under direct supervision of a Vatican delegate. An investigation had concluded that the group focused too much attention to a “radical feminism” agenda and too much involvement in poverty and social-justice issues.
Then came the most significant and devastating blow to the moral authority of the Church in centuries.
In 1985, a Louisiana priest, Gilbert Gauthe, pleaded guilty to 11 counts related to sexually abusing about three dozen young boys. In an instant, it became apparent not only that Priests elsewhere had committed similar crimes but also that bishops had covered up for them.
Subsequently, hundreds of allegations emerged in multiple countries.
The Irish government conducted a nationwide inquiry, and the U.S. bishops developed strict rules for discovering and stopping the abuse.
Still, critics attacked the Vatican for its lack of decisive action, such as its failure to require Bishops to make public complete lists of abusing Priests. Moreover, it became evident that the Holy See was not prepared to hold Bishops accountable and impose consequences on those who engaged in a conspiracy of silence regarding the abuse of minors by Priests.
Repeated questions also have arisen about the Church's management of money.
For more than 40 years the Vatican's bank — the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), established in 1942 to manage funds donated for charitable use has been regularly embroiled in scandals, including bribery money for political parties, money-laundering and, repeatedly, anonymous accounts,despite sacred and solemn promise to clean house.
Then, following the shocking abdication from his Papal Office by Pope Benedict XVI, a new Pontiff was elected who has drawn praise and skepticism from traditionalist and progressive Catholics alike.
But a common thread runs through the commentaries of both the “right” and the “left”.
And that common thread appears to be a sense that the direction in which Pope Francis, the first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years — will ultimately steer the Church remains a mystery.
And so, the Church finds itself in a state of flux almost six decades after Vatican II convened to reform the Church and make it more relevant and significant in responding to the needs of humanity in the modern world.
Whether this state of affairs is the will of the Holy Spirit or the result of the interference of that Divine Will by human agents will be recorded in the annals of a Church history that remains to be written.
We pray that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church which the Lord Jesus entrusted to His care.
No comments:
Post a Comment