Washington D.C., Apr 29, 2017 / 05:27 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholic leaders have found cause for both praise and concern after the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency.
“Catholics have reason for optimism. But like the first 100 days, the road ahead remains difficult,” Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, said on the organization’s scorecard for the first 100 days of the Trump presidency.
Abortion
Pro-life leaders have found a lot to like from the Trump administration so far.
“President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have been game changers for the pro-life movement,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser stated. “Not only have there been several pro-life victories within the first 100 days of their administration, we are confident that pro-life progress will continue. This is a new era.”
A week after Trump was inaugurated, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the 44th annual March for Life on the National Mall, the first time a sitting vice president has done so. Senior advisor Kellyanne Conway also addressed the pro-life rally.
“Life is winning in America,” Pence insisted to cheering attendees, as he exhorted them to “let this movement be known for love, not anger” and “let it be known for compassion, not confrontation.”
On Jan. 23, Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy which bans U.S. funding of international non-government organizations that promote or perform abortions.
This is traditionally one of the first policy decisions a new president makes and serves as a signal of the administration’s policy on abortion. President Reagan first introduced the policy in 1984. It was repealed by President Clinton when he took office, reinstated by President Bush in 2001, and repealed again by President Obama in 2009.
In April, the Trump administration pulled its funding of the UNFPA over its involvement in China’s infamous two-child policy, formerly a one-child policy, which has resulted in mass forced sterilizations and abortions. Funding was redirected to USAID for family planning purposes.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, chair of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, called the funding withdrawal a “victory for women and children across the globe.”
Shortly afterward, the administration signed a joint resolution passed by Congress that nullified an Obama administration rule that pro-life leaders had called a “parting gift to Planned Parenthood.”
That rule forbade states from withholding federal Title X funds to health providers simply because they performed abortions. Now with the rule nullified, states can once again block Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups from Title X funding. Cardinal Dolan also approved of that rule change, calling it a reversal of “very bad public policy.”
In addition to signing bills into law, “personnel is policy,” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, insisted to reporters on a Thursday conference call on Trump’s first 100 days.
She pointed to the picks of Vice President Mike Pence and senior advisor Kellyanne Conway as two examples of President Trump surrounding himself with persons with strong pro-life records.
Burch agreed that “President Trump has assembled a great Cabinet.”
He pointed to the pro-life appointments at the Department of Health and Human Services as examples of this. Former pro-life congressman Dr. Tom Price was tapped to be Secretary of Health and Human Services; Dr. Charmaine Yoest, former CEO of the pro-life group Americans United for Life, has been named to be assistant secretary of public affairs at HHS; and lawyer Matt Bowman, formerly of Alliance Defending Freedom, was also picked to join HHS.
“The Trump administration is staffed with thousands of high-caliber individuals like this,” Burch said.
Mancini also pointed to Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as another positive sign for the pro-life movement.
“Justice Gorsuch is a constitutionalist, committed to respecting the text and intent of lawmakers rather than legislating from the bench,” Burch stated, giving Trump an “A+” grade for the Supreme Court nomination.
CatholicVote provided a report card for Trump’s first 100 days. They gave Trump an “A” grade on the “sanctity of life” issues, noting that other achievements like the defunding of Planned Parenthood are still expected.
Although Gorsuch had not ruled specifically on an abortion case as judge, pro-life leaders have noted his dissent in a Tenth Circuit decision that overturned Utah’s defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Additionally, in his confirmation hearings, when asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) if a “super-precedent” existed for the Court’s Roe decision that legalized abortion, Gorsuch would not say that one existed, only saying that the Roe decision had “precedent,” according to EWTN’s Dr. Matthew Bunson.
Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on April 7 after Democrats threatened a filibuster. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) invoked the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster threat, whereby Gorsuch could then be confirmed with a simple majority vote. He was confirmed by the Senate 54-45.
Religious Freedom
Gorsuch’s appointment is expected to impact religious freedom cases for years to come. One of the first major cases he heard from the Supreme Court bench was the religious freedom case of Trinity Lutheran, a preschool in Columbia, Mo. operated by Trinity Lutheran Church. That case is expected to be the premier religious freedom case of the Spring 2017 term.
Gorsuch sat over high-profile HHS mandate cases while he was on the Tenth Circuit, ruling both times with plaintiffs – Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor – in favor of their religious freedom to not comply with the birth control mandate and the supposed “accommodation” offered by the government to objecting non-profits.
Another significant move by Trump administration was to stop fighting in court for the Obama administration’s “transgender mandate.” That policy had directed schools to let students use the bathroom of their current gender identity and not their birth gender.
Leading U.S. bishops had criticized the mandate as infringing on the “privacy concerns” of young students and said it “contradicts a basic understanding of human formation so well expressed by Pope Francis: that ‘the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created’.”
After the administration announced it would drop its appeal for the policy in court, the Supreme Court sent a Virginia transgender bathroom case back to the lower courts.
However, the administration’s accomplishments in upholding religious freedom have ultimately been mixed, advocates argue, and one large reason why is that Trump has not issued a broad executive order upholding religious freedom and the rights of conscience as expected.
This is vital, Dr. Jay Richards of the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America said, because for any entity contracting with the government – or institutions receiving federal funding like Christian schools that provide federal student loans – they could be subject to actions from the government stemming from Obama-era orders on LGBT status.
Thus, charities or schools that uphold traditional marriage as part of their mission could be subject to actions from the government, unless a new executive order protects them.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tried to get support for such an executive order, insisting that “any Executive Order should make it clear that religious freedom entails more than the freedom to worship but also includes the ability to act on one’s beliefs. It should also protect individuals and families who run closely-held businesses in accordance with their faith to the greatest extent possible.”
CatholicVote gave Trump a “C-“ grade on religious freedom issues, noting that “a leaked draft of an excellent Executive Order” on religious freedom “was stymied, according to reports, by Jared and Ivanka Trump along with outside left-wing groups.”
“Catholics are patient, but want action on religious liberty. And soon,” Burch said.
Refugees and Immigration
Early in his first 100 days, Trump issued an executive order to temporarily halt refugee admissions into the U.S. for four months and indefinitely suspend the admission of Syrian refugees. The order also halted visa admissions for most persons from seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
The order was ultimately halted from going into effect by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court. A revised executive order that was released later left out the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and left Iraq off the list of countries from which most nationals would be barred from entering the U.S. It still halted refugee admissions for four months and capped the overall intake for FY 2017 at 50,000 refugees.
Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, Tex., the chair of the U.S. bishops’ migration committee, was “deeply troubled” at the revised order and said that the refugee admissions program was already well-vetted and secure. Catholic Relief Services said that since global forced displacement is at its highest levels ever recorded, the U.S. must not shut off its refugee admissions program.
The order was ultimately halted from going into effect by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland.
Trump also signed an executive order in January that would bar federal funding of “sanctuary cities,” or cities that publicly did not follow through with federal laws on deportation of undocumented immigrants. The chair of the U.S. bishops’ migration committee, Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, Tex., stated that the move “would force all jurisdictions to accept a one-size-fits-all regime that might not be best for their particular jurisdictions.”
In February, the Department of Homeland Security, enforcing the immigration orders, released new rules that did away with protections for unaccompanied children and asylum seekers coming to the border, created new detention centers, sped up the deportation process, and increased the punishments for undocumented parents who have their children smuggled into the U.S.
Bishop Vasquez warned that the new rules “greatly expand the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border.”
CatholicVote, meanwhile, rated Trump’s immigration policies so far a “B,” saying that “his poorly drafted and delivered order on restricting refugees from dangerous countries was revised and continues to face legal opposition,” but “his stepped-up enforcement has rightly focused on hardened criminals while moderating on those who immigrated illegally as children (Dreamers).”
“Illegal immigration has plummeted, even without a wall,” Burch stated.
Health Care
Another major priority for Trump’s first 100 days was health care. A replacement for the Affordable Care Act was introduced in March with the goal of passing it on March 23, the seven-year anniversary of the ACA being signed into law.
The proposed American Health Care Act attempted to keep in place some policies of the original health care law like a ban on insurers denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and young people being able to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26.
However, it sought to replace other major parts of the law. The individual mandate – enforced by fines for people not having health insurance – would be replaced with a fine of up to 30 percent of one’s new premium for a significant gap in coverage. Federal subsidies would be replaced with tax credits for purchasing insurance.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had ultimately opposed the Affordable Care Act under Obama because of provisions they said allowed for abortion funding in health plans. They praised the original health care law’s expansion of coverage for low-income and sick groups, although they opposed its lack of coverage for immigrants.
With the new proposal, leading bishops praised its protections against federal funding of elective abortions, but expressed serious concerns with its lack of conscience protections for doctors and other health care providers against government mandates like the transgender mandate.
Additionally, Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Fla., chair of the bishops’ domestic justice committee, worried that the new legislation could result in less affordable coverage for groups that need it the most: the elderly, the chronically ill, and the poor. For instance, the tax credits replacing subsidies were not favorably written for the elderly, he said. The 30 percent fine for a gap in coverage could act as a deterrent for someone to purchase health coverage.
Groups like the Catholic health care ministry (CMF) CURO, however, supported passage of the new bill as a step in the direction of more patient-centered health care reform, as well as a law that would help reduce abortion funding in health care.
Ultimately, the American Health Care Act failed to even make it to the House floor for a vote, but has been amended and brought back to consideration in the House. Among the new additions is an amendment that allows states to do away with “essential health benefits” like coverage for maternity care and hospitalizations that were mandated under the Affordable Care Act.
Bishop Dewane issued a strong statement this week criticizing the revised health care bill for similar reasons as he opposed the original AHCA. Members of Congress should not vote for the revised bill, he said on Thursday.
Foreign Policy
On foreign policy, Trump ordered missile strikes earlier this month on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack in Idlib that killed around 100 and hospitalized hundreds. After the Syrian air force had bombed a neighborhood in the Idlib province, hundreds of civilians either died or were hospitalized with symptoms of exposure to sarin, a deadly nerve agent.
The U.S. said that forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad were responsible for the attack, and a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against the airbase that was used by Syrian forces for the bombing.
Moral theologian Joseph Capizzi of The Catholic University of America told CNA that the response was “judicious” and was needed to uphold international agreements against the use of chemical weapons. Dr. Tom Farr of Georgetown University said “the strikes were fully justified, both as a means of punishing the evil acts that took place – especially (but not only) the slow torture and execution of babies by means of Sarin gas – and as a means of deterring the regime from further acts of evil like this.”
Meanwhile, Syrian clerics decried the attack, saying that an investigation should have been first conducted to prove who the perpetrators of the chemical attack were. Melkite Archbishop Jean-Clement Jeanbart of Aleppo told CNA he hoped the U.S. “would have done something toward peace and reconciliation and a political solution” in Syria.
[…]
The bishop should vigorously reiterate what Pope Francis in Traditionis Custodes envisions, that is to eventually bring all Roman Catholics into the exclusive celebration of the Vatican II Mass. The Pope asserts that the liturgy according to the reformed Missal of Paul VI, that is, the conciliar form normally celebrated in the vernacular, is “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” This reverses Pope Benedict’s theological gymnastics of introducing two “forms” of one Roman Rite: one “ordinary” (conciliar) and one “extraordinary” (pre-conciliar). If the lex orandi (law of prayer) is the lex credendi (law of belief), as the venerable old adage goes, the real concern of Pope Francis’s pastoral concern is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council and the contested lex credendi of the Catholic Church. Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II, and the law of prayer should be aligned with this, that is the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council. To stick to the old pre-Vatican II liturgy as the law of prayer while receiving and keeping the Vatican II law of belief is, to borrow the Church’s description of and teaching about the homosexual act, “an objective disorder.”
The hermeneutic of discontinuity and sodomy certainly have much in common, although you strain to say otherwise.
Carl: Think about the nature the Church’s revered linkage between the law of prayer and the law of belief which entails to be aligned and congruent. To suggest otherwise as you appear to advocate is indeed similar to the disordered nature of sodomy. You should read not just Pope Benedict XVI’s addresses on the hermeneutics of Vatican II but read especially more about “the issue behind the issues of Vatican II” (according to John Courtney Murray), the development of doctrine – and consequent discipline – explicated in Dei Verbum 8 drafted by Yves Congar, borrowed from St. John Henry Newman, ratified by the Council Fathers, and cited by Pope Francis in Traditionis Custodes.
Emerson, your use of the expression “the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II” is curious. Evolved?
The whole point of St. Cardinal Newman in his “Development of Doctrine” (whom you cite), articulated at the time of bracket-creep DarwinISM, is to offer the Church’s path of development as not being open-ended evolution. See below. As for the Novus Ordo, the dilemma is that things done under this label since 1965 did NOT follow the Second Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium) which you cite. Valid, but problematic at best…and, some say, the actual rejection of the real Council of the Documents.
Pope Benedict’s “theological gymnastics” (your extravagant hyperbole) was a skilled and pastoral effort toward what we all want, a unified liturgical prayer, that is, with an extraordinary form and an ordinary form of the SAME Latin rite. And with the latter form to be better aligned with what the Council itself retained of the former (in your words, “the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council”).
Newman’s contribution to doctrine assures that development does not “evolve” into mutation: “I venture to set down seven notes of varying cogency, independence, and applicability to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as follows: [Abbreviated here] There is no corruption if it retains: (1) One and the same TYPE; (2) the same PRINCIPLES,(3) The same ORGANIZATION;(4) If its beginnings ANTICIPATE its subsequent phases, (5) Its later phenomena PROTECT and subserve its earlier [!]; (6) If it has a power of assimilation and REVIVAL; and (7) A vigorous ACTION from first to last…”.
The current QUESTION, with regard to the liturgy of the perennial Church, is whether abruptly abrogating/amputating the extraordinary form really serves development, or disrupts it. Overreach? Maybe even theological gymnastics!
Offering a comparison, Olson then notes that the devolution of sexual morality from binary complementarity to gender theory (with sodomy as one variant) is a discontinuity—a mutant evolution not unlike the hermeneutics of discontinuity.
As the hermeneutic of discontinuity – usually wrongly contrasted with hermeneutic of continuity – is mentioned here. It is best to go back and read the Dec. 22, 2005 speech of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia setting out his proposed interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. This needs to be properly set because this has been misused by many conservative Catholics in the wrong way, that is, as not meant by the Pope Emeritus. The proper contrast and juxtaposition in viewing the teachings of Vatican II vis a vis the previous 21 ecumenical councils, he declared, is that of between the hermeneutic (that is, the interpretation and understanding) of discontinuity and the hermeneutic of reform. It is not, as many promoters of the old pre-Vatican II mass hold, between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and continuity. The then Pope emphasized that Vatican II is best understood and applied through the lens of the hermeneutic of reform. Significantly the substantial part of the speech dwelt on the nature of reform as consisting in both continuity and discontinuity. In understanding and living the Vatican II mass as the fruit of the liturgical reform mandated by the Council, both the elements of continuity and discontinuity obviously are applied.
It’s best to read the full speech:
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html
Agreed, up front, it is not a dichotomy. But somewhere in his writings, Emeritus Pope Benedict writes of “a hermeneutics of discontinuity within (!) continuity.” The ideology of “paradigm shifts” has no place in the Magisterium of the perennial Church.
THIS is what Benedict means when he writes–in the link you supply–that continuity and discontinuity occur “at different levels”. And this is why he also explains clearly, it seems to this reader:
“Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic [reform, not deform] when he says that the Council wishes ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”. And he continues: ‘Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us…’. It is necessary that ‘adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness…’ be presented in ‘faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…’, retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).
Some would say that the DICHOTOMY is not between earlier and current formal teachings, but between these teachings as dogma and what is enabled in practice.
A split between Faith and Morals, as in the opening-wedge of the ghostwriters’ Amoris Laetitia (2014/2015), Chapter 8 and fn. 312, regarding the new category of “irregular” relationships (previously fornication and adultery). And, about which the “dubia”, to which the response is silence…
Catholic morality and Natural Law are not explicitly denied, but apparently only SUSPENDED selectively in new objective categories (the Catechism maintains objective categories while also recognizing mitigated subjective culpability). Will relator-general Cardinal Hollerich’s synodal “synthesis” of 2023 pretend to harmonize such real contradictions (say, by not rejecting the German deconstructions, and others)? This by again responding inclusively with selective silence? And all within a broad “participation” in the wraparound synodal process—the unanimity of sensus filelium?
Some recall the doctrine of Monothelitism—and the muddling Pope Honorius I who after his death was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. “It was for the ‘imprudent economy of silence’ that he was condemned.” Today, both silence and the cryptic “realities are more important than ideas” (Evangelii Gaudium, 2013) possibly VERSUS a now much less important (?) consistency between actions and moral truths (ideas?) that are absolute (Veritatis Splendor, 1993; Faith and Reason, 1998)?
In the above opening comment—”some would say”—this writer is not qualified to actually say all this stuff. But nor is this writer qualified to refute it. Who am I to judge?
Agreed – we must read Benedict’s address carefully. When we do, we see his use of hermeneutic terminology as you say: “Discontinuity” and “reform.” But two paragraphs later, Benedict makes clear that he defines the hermeneutic of reform as ‘renewal of the continuity.’
VCII’s “reform,” according to Benedict, is “renewal in the CONTINUITY [Emphasis of caps added.] of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always REMAINING THE SAME,…”[Caps added for emphasis.]
Benedict asks: “Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
“Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
“On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
“The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.”
It is reiterated that Benedict saw one hermeneutic bearing fruit, while the other caused confusion. Clearly Benedict saw confusion resulting from ‘discontinuity’ and fruit from the ‘renewal of continuity’ (reform).
You may find some interest in distinctions drawn between Ratzinger and Guardini in re liturgical eschatology: Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2020): 521–563.
The above comment was intended as a Reply to Lex.
Thank you all above for grappling with the papal address. I hope you now understand – taking the hint from that speech and apply that with the Mass – why many Catholics have difficulty receiving the liturgical reforms of the Council especially with the Vatican II Mass. The Pope Emeritus’ answer in the speech is clear. It is because they wrongly see the reformed Mass with the lens of the hermeneutic of – and as one of – discontinuity and rupture. This is a false reading held by lovers and promoters of the old pre-Vatican II Mass, which obviously includes those petitioning the Arlington diocese which this above article reports. BXVI corrects this and refers to the correct and proper hermeneutic of reform that should be held by all Catholics to receive and implement the Council and its reforms. In this, he elaborates that reform contains both the newness and innovation introduced by Vatican II and its continuity and fidelity to tradition. Most Tridentine Mass adherents do not mention reform but rather falsify it to mean simply as hermeneutic of continuity by deceptively omitting the reference to innovation, and so maintain that they want to stick to the old pre-Vatican II Mass. So, to sum up the papal message, so as to understand and implement the Council properly, the Vatican II documents be read not through the juxtaposition between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture and the hermeneutic of continuity (omitting the newness implied in reform), but rather between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture and the hermeneutic of reform (containing both innovation and fidelity to tradition). That is why the Vatican II Mass is one of reform not discontinuity.
“…the real concern of Pope Francis’s pastoral concern is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council…”
Specifically how do the Roman Missal and the EF misalign with VCII teaching? The Novus Ordo Missae fails to follow VCII’s teaching in its Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. Why is it not suppressed? How did it even arise? Surely it could not have been based on anything of any value!?!
Emerson also says: “Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II,…”
Deacon Darwin! Is it seriously your premise that only the teaching of VCII is the law of belief? Since the teaching of VCII did not include the totality of Scripture,tits non-inclusion in the ‘new law’ cannot be justified. To disregard scripture is to disregard Revelation altogether. Then there is no reason for VCII to have been and no reason for us to concern ourselves with it today!
Your statements cannot be taken seriously, realizing the law of diminishing returns. By your reasoning, VCII itself is now horribly out of date. Why hasn’t it undergone evolution? Can you predict how long such perfect equilibrium will persist?
Regarding St. Newman on doctrinal development, his remains surely turn in his coffin to know his labor is so sorely abused. Doctrinal distortion, deletion, suppression, destruction, negation, or downright piddling all contradict Newman’s document on doctrinal development.
Edit: ‘tits non-inclusion’ should read “its inclusion:
I understand the desire for the Pope to bring liturgical unity to the Latin church, but why does that mean liturgical uniformity? The Latin church was once home to many diverse liturgical relatives of the Roman rite. I thought the name of the game with this pontificate was unity, not uniformity?
Besides, this is not just a disagreement on practice between the two pontificates. Francis and Benedict have made different claims about reality in these two MPs, the latter saying that the papacy CANNOT abrogate such a venerable tradition, while the former says it can. That’s a contradiction in papal teaching. I believe that Benedict is historically correct. No pope has ever dared to force out a venerable ancient tradition (at least without significant pushback and eventual backing down). Trent only abrogated liturgies that were 200 years old and younger, and then said other parts of the Church MAY use the Tridentine use if the unanimous decision of the local cathedral canons decided to. Rome even offered the re-established English Catholic hierarchy in the 19th century the opportunity to revive the Pre-Reformation Sarum Use, but they themselves chose to use the Tridentine liturgy. Great for them.
Rome had every right to offer the New Missal. Catholics have every right to use it. Rome has no right to tell the rest of the Church that they cannot celebrate using an ancient form. It is against the very nature of Christian authority (yes, even Vatican I’s definition), respect for local custom, piety towards our ancient faith, and love for the Holy Spirit’s presence in other forms of prayer. This is not just a battle for a liturgy, but also for the right relationship between Tradition and Authority. May the Name of God be vindicated, and may He give us the grace to love each other unto our salvation.
“Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II, and the law of prayer should be aligned with this.”
What an utterly absurd, false, and in fact heretical assertion. Vatican II is not some sort of super-Council that has somehow completely changed the belief of the Church but a pastoral Council that not only did not change any belief of the Church but by the specific terms of its convocation was to protect and defend the Church’s depositum fidei.
Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal and as Pope, duly noted on many occasions that the dire loss of faith in the Church is a direct result of the collapse of liturgy, antecedents for which you erroneously refer to as a “law,” and in the Ordinary form of the Mass you implicitly and wrongly identify it as mandated by Vatican II. It was not.
Among the sloppy thought that was promoted by Vatican II was this opening line from Dignitatis Humanae: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.”
Now, given the level of human idiocy necessary to produce such a childishly optimistic line of nonsensical baloney about human moral evolution, which cannot exist, in the middle of the most evil century in human history, it is obvious that not everything about Vatican II set any standard of irrevocable wisdom of Catholic witness to the modern world. Likewise, the arrogance of assuming that any thought at all of what it really means to maintain continuity with the communion of saints, and to live out the promise of Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever, as a matter that has been definitively settled by various authors of 16 documents from the mid-sixties is objectively disordered.
The Pope said that the celebration of the TLM is “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform but of the Vatican Council itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions that it betrayed the Tradition and the true Church.”
He also claimed that devotees of the TLM had “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergencies and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”
Neither one of those accusations is true, and neither one of them makes any sense at all.
Sadly, in many places, especially online it is true. It seems a number of bishops reported this also. Any number of traditional-leaning websites and discussion groups show persistent insult at nearly anyone who doesn’t share the core views and opinions.
I do agree it doesn’t seem to make sense: the people who trumpet most loudly their own faithfulness seem not to embrace the values of the Gospel, or even Catechism 2478 when it comes to how they conduct themselves. Poor conduct has sunk the TLM. It’s true. It stings. But it seems clear to anyone who reads Rorate Caeli, CMAA, or any number of similar websites.
You could also say the same about people who object to New Ways Ministry. It’s just odd that the Church deems TLM supporters to be a greater threat than those who want to sell actual sin to the faithful. Just very odd. Why would Pope Francis welcome Fr James Martin into the Vatican, send him glowing letters, but then cut the knees off from the families who just want to celebrate the Latin Rite. It’s very odd.
I think the Holy Father explained well enough: it wasn’t families. It was bloggers, agitators, and others who claimed their Mass was better; the Roman Rite was deficient. They seemed disinterested in mutual enrichment. Perhaps if mothers and fathers went to their uppity priests who wouldn’t go to the Chrism Mass with their brothers in the clergy and said, “Enough! Be united with our bishop.” And to the blogger, “Leave the mainstream Catholics and their liturgy alone.” A good witness for their children, and putting schismatic-wannabes in their place.
A careful read of Traditionis Custodes is needed. The hardcore traditionalists have spoiled things for people with a genuine spirituality. The But Gays! approach fails to convince. Our parents saw through our excuses when we were kids. The social media schismatics have been outed today.
So let us say for the sake or argument that there are zealots out there in defense of the TLM. (No sin there in my opinion.) And suppose they did defend it vigorously. Is the pontiff so insecure that he responds like a lowbrow bully and paints the entire Latin Mass community with the same broad brush and then summarily shoots them in the head? Seems like a bit of an overreaction.
But I know that there is more to Francis’ motivation than that. He wants to conform the Church to the world and the TLM stands in the way of that. And just how does defending the faith as expressed in the Mass of the Ages render anyone schismatic?
The “hardcore traditionalists” have not spoiled things for people with a genuine spirituality. Francis has done that with TC.
Typo. Should read ‘sake of argument’
In light of the CWR article “Disobey and you’ll get your way” by Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas your comments appear to be lacking in balance.
*
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/01/26/opinion-disobey-and-youll-get-your-way/
*
When it comes to insults Pope Francis has a website that has a whole laundry list of the Pope’s insults. You can see extensive documentation of Pope Francis’ acts of vilification on the website “The Pope Francis Little/Bumper Book of Insults.” URL:
*
http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
*
The quotes are clickable links to the articles where those quotes came from. It is quite the papal rock pile with which Francis can verbally stone others with.
If they said the modern Roman Rite was invalid, that would be a lie. Therefore a grave sin.
The disruption and disunity caused by wayward priests existed before TC, and even before Pope Benedict XVI.
No, I think some traditionalist Catholics would like to pass the blame to others. But that would qualify for St John Paul II’s assessment of a lack of a sense of sin. TC presents the case with clarity.
Interesting that a convert got this going. One of the fruits of the TLM.
A convert, exactly so. And another convert (to Christianity if not quite the Latin Mass), the journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, had this to say:
“Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the incursion of barbarian hordes. Christendom has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite. Our barbarians are home products, indoctrinated at the public expense, urged on by the media systematically stage by stage, dismantling Christendom, depreciating and deprecating all its values. The whole social structure is now tumbling down, dethroning its God, undermining all its certainties. All this, wonderfully enough, is being done in the name of health, wealth, and happiness of all mankind. That is the basic scene that seems to me will strike a future Gibbon as being characteristic of the decline and fall of Christendom” (The End of Christendom, 1980).
In addition to “walking together” on an “endless journey,” what else might the Catholic bishops as “successors of the apostles”—and under the umbrella of Synodality—actually do or witness, now, in order to relieve this “basic scene” for some future Gibbon? Eucharistic coherence, perhaps?
And, in 1982 at the age of 79, Muggeridge was received into the Catholic Church, under the influence of Mother Teresa (about whom, his book “Something Beautiful for God”).
It is so odd that the Vatican has equated Latin Mass attendance with divisiveness, while apparently not coming to a similar conclusion about European bishops who publicly agitate for marriages between males and males or females and females.
Whaaaaaaat? Am I missing something?
“…the real concern of Pope Francis’s pastoral concern…”SHOULD reflect the pastoral concern of Jesus.
Jesus commanded Peter to “Feed my sheep.”
The something missing is reason within the Vatican.
I pray the next Pope will cast aside Francis’s “reforms” on the liturgy (and other “doctrinal developments”) with the same contempt as he has treated the Benedict’s legacy to the Church.
Not being a learned theologian, I somewhat appreciate Carl’s point. However in simple terms when a fellow brother ,in a way , equates those who disagree with him with acting like they would be in agreement with the objective evil of the act of sodomy he looses all credibility. Especially so many growing in their lives of faith.
By their fruits you shall know them.
By what criteria do you judge blather of one ralph waldo to have come from the mind of a “fellow brother”?
Disagreement with 2,000 years of Catholic faith tradition, Magisterium, Fathers and Doctors, and disagreement with Scripture is not disagreement with Carl by an order of magnitude approaching infinity.
Some would argue that advocates of the TLM are being “divisive” in defense of the Mass of the Ages. No. No. Let us be intellectually honest right now. The divisiveness began when the Latin Mass was violently ripped from the hearts and hands of the faithful and the Novus Ordo forced upon the faithful who were given no say in the matter. THAT was the definitive divisive act. A 2000 year beloved tradition suddenly, arbitrarily abrogated. How in God’s name was THAT not divisive?
Spot on correct. Centuries of tradition, gone. Think on that. That is where we are.
Hmmm, reasonable requests by reasonable, serious adult Catholics.
My experience with respectful correspondence to American bishops is silence. Nothing but silence.
My experience has been the same… a deafening silence from Church leadership (at all levels) when I reach out to them.
I’ve told this (true) tale many times, but to me it never gets old, so here I go again.
T’was a lovely Sunday morning in April of the year, and I arose to the song of the alarm clock so I would be able to get on the way (55 miles one way) in time to get to the 8 a.m. (in those days – now it’s at 8:30) Latin Mass at St. Peter & Paul Basilica in Lewiston, Maine. I got there around 7:15 and went into the Church, which was dark, silent and welcoming and wonderful. I took a seat and just sat there, and it was then that I realized that I was not alone – the organist was practicing. I had made no noise when entering, so (to this day I like to tell myself that) he didn’t know I was there, meaning that he believed that no one else but God was listening.
After a time he left, and I never made a sound of acknowledgement or thanks, and so I like to believe that to this day he didn’t know I was there, but I was.
Credo in Unum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem
Addendum – ‘Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring’.
We’ll get through this – all these silly people will fade into nothingness.
How do I find the nearest Eastern Rite Catholic Church?
While wintering in Venice FL, we’re forced to endure a “circus” when we attend Sunday Mass at an auditorium- otherwise known as the cathedral for the Diocese. There is no shortage of “priests-as-performer”, distracting projections onto the walls (at least in 5 places) of very hard-to-remember prayers like the Our Father, and Marty Haugan songs led by a screeching cantor. Please, someone, find me a Byzantine church to attend Mass where they are convicted about worshipping God in Divine Liturgy.
Just go here – https://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources/directories/find-a-parish-mainmenu-112. I have a good friend who is Eastern Orthodox (born Roman Catholic, family converted when he was about 7 years old) that gave me this link. He and I have many spirited discussions about where our Church is headed. I jokingly tell him to “save me a seat” when I finally decide to abandon this “circus” we see performing around us.
For someone to tell me that I can’t celebrate Mass the way it was celebrated in our Church for centuries just because some council decided in 1965 that they had a “better” way is akin to telling me that I can’t profess my faith with the Apostle’s Creed because some council decided in 325 that they had a “better” creed. We still recite the Apostle’s Creed in Mass to this day…along with the Nicene Creed…and yet no one seems to have a problem with that.
Given the current situation, the Pope should count himself lucky that ANY Catholic goes to ANY style of Mass at all at this point. We have seen: The Pachamama incident at the Vatican, child molester priests, the resultant bankruptcy of many dioceses, Vatican embezzlement, the betrayal of the closure of our churches for months in 2020 including cancellation of Easter, and a German hierarchy which seems to be in full schism prepared to give the ok to various sexual deviancies. We have seen the Pope back slapping the likes of Pelosi and Biden, the most prominent protectors and poster children for the pro -abortion crowd. Churches are being shut in Canada and other nations in a frenzy of covid hysteria. China closes them for no reason at all except hate, and jails it’s Christian followers. Christians and their priests are being murdered at will in Nigeria. Yet the Pope didnt even flinch. Or make a public remark about most of these issues. But the hill he chooses to die on is prohibiting a specific old form of a VALID Mass? Really? One would imagine he has more important issues to deal with.The problem with the church is that the Pope even SEES this Latin Mass as a problem at all. And appears not to recognize the rest as even an issue. Sad.
This is perfectly logical when viewed through a Marxist lens. Before you can Build Back Better, you must Tear Down Completely.