Bridgeport, Conn., May 23, 2017 / 12:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The leader of the nearly 2 million-member Knights of Columbus recently spoke about the importance of his group’s fidelity to Pope Francis, as well as his hopes for a successful upcoming meeting between the Roman Pontiff and U.S. president Donald Trump.
In a new interview, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson touched on these topics as well as his organization’s commitment to persecuted Christians, problems with how some media treats issues within the Church, and what the Knights make a priority in their charitable giving.
The organization recently celebrated its 135th anniversary at St. Mary’s Church in New Haven, Conn., the church where Fr. McGivney founded the Catholic fraternity that now has 1.9 million members worldwide.
Please read below for CNA’s full interview with Carl Anderson:
The Pope will be meeting the United States president this week; what should people expect from that meeting?
The pope has made clear that he is seeking common ground with the president, and I would assume the president will do the same. Some in the media focus only on the differences between the thinking of these two men, but, there is also much common ground on issues like abortion, religious liberty, persecuted Christians and human trafficking.
In what ways have the Knights worked with Pope Francis over the past few years?
From our earliest days, the Knights of Columbus has always been loyal to the Holy Father. We have a wonderful relationship with Pope Francis and have helped sponsor a number of conferences and projects with the Vatican during his tenure on topics including relief work in Haiti, the Church in America, and the continental Jubilee of Mercy. I’ve had the privilege to meet with Pope Francis privately each year and to review with him our priorities and new initiatives. Each time, I’ve come away deeply inspired by his love for the poor and those on the margins of society.
We see supporting the pope, his ministry and his charitable endeavors as central to who we are as an organization. I have repeatedly told our K of C leaders to take his words to us as our agenda, and I’ve personally assured him he can count on our support.
What are the main causes the Knights support?
We support causes large and small, but our primary focus over the past two years has been helping Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East who were targeted by ISIS. Because these communities are so small, they are too often overlooked by U.S. Government or UN aid programs and risk disappearing. We also have been supporting clean water projects in Africa, inspired by Laudato Si, and we just finished a project to improve the energy efficiency of our headquarters.
Two of the projects I’m very proud of are our work in Africa to educate and support AIDS orphans, many of whom are themselves HIV positive, and our efforts in Haiti to provide artificial limbs to children who lost their legs because of the earthquake there.
Also, at the local level, our members accompany their fellow parishioners and the members of their communities, supporting their needs in ways large and small. From food programs, to housing and clothing programs, to disaster relief, when people need us, we are there.
We also strongly support the right to life. Laudato Si section 120 states that without opposition to abortion, defending the rest of the vulnerable is increasingly difficult: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”
In our country today, abortion takes more lives each year than any other cause of death. But we certainly don’t focus all our charity efforts on beginning-of-life issues. For example, we continued to give away more than 80,000 new winter coats and more than 8,000 wheelchairs in 2015, and we are constantly engaged in tens of thousands of projects around the world to help clothe, feed, shelter and meet other pressing needs of our neighbors. Last year we gave away $175 million and 73.5 million hours to charitable causes. We also support the Vatican and national bishops’ conferences in numerous ways, including in the defense of religious liberty, especially – but not only – when assaults on religious liberty also implicate the lives of the most vulnerable among us.
How dire are things for the Christians in the Middle East and why did you choose that issue?
For the first time in nearly 2,000 years, we are reaching a point where Christians could literally cease to exist in a country like Iraq. The situation is incredibly dire, and in the next few days, we will be announcing a new initiative to help stabilize these communities because there is a real concern that they will not survive. We have been providing assistance with food for thousands of families, we have provided funding for medical clinics, for apartment buildings, rental assistance, clothing, education, etc. But even more is needed. We simply cannot allow Christianity and pluralism to be eliminated from this region by those using terrorism and genocide to achieve their ends.
I am among the many who hope that the meeting between the pope and the president this week in Rome may include breakthrough solutions and closer cooperation between the American government and its aid programs and the Church to help ensure that these people survive, and that ISIS’ goal of eliminating religious minorities is not realized. As at least one commentator has also pointed out, no two organizations are more critical to surivival of these people than the U.S. government and the Vatican.
In terms of how we chose this issue, it came naturally to us, since the Knights of Columbus has been concerned about religious persecution throughout our history. We spoke up for Catholics being persecuted in Mexico in the 1920s, for Jews being persecuted in Germany in the 1930s, for people of faith being persecuted in the Cold War, and now, for these victims of ISIS.
You also mentioned your pro-life work. There have been some real advances in that area recently – what trends do you see?
We have seen some great strides in this area over the past months including moves to stop the taxpayer funding of abortion including via the Mexico City Policy. Appointments to the court and several cabinet positions are also very pro-life and this is very heartening as well.
As our polling shows, support for abortion restrictions is bi-partisan. For example, 70 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans support banning taxpayer funding of abortion abroad. In addition, about 6 in 10 Democrats, 7 in 10 Independents and 9 in 10 Republicans support substantial restrictions on abortion, and would limit it – at most – to the first three months of pregnancy.
Practicing Catholics are united in support for abortion restrictions in overwhelming numbers as well.
Some may see abortion as a political or divisive issue, but that does not mean that it is. And we do not see or intend our opposition to it as political. For us it is a matter of morality and values.
In fact, it is my fondest hope that both of our country’s major parties would embrace a pro-life platform. If that were to happen, the issue could cease to be seen as partisan, and voters could move on to other issues. We’ve been working on this for more than four decades, with nearly 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade. The scandal is that too many Catholics in public office have refused to take action to protect unborn children. As Catholics we are called to build a culture of life and that certainly includes more than abortion. But I do not see how it is possible to build a culture of life with public officials who insist on maintaining a legal regime that results in a million abortions a year.
I have personally voted for pro-life candidates of both parties. Those who criticize our pro-life work as partisan miss the fact that far from being partisan, it is consistent with our help of the defenseless and marginalized. It exactly fits with Pope Francis’ statements in Laudato Si and also in Evangelii Gaudium, where he stated in section 213: “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.”
How can we help poor individuals and families, the intellectually disabled, and refugees from ISIS and ignore the unborn? It’s not possible. We are talking about a million lives each year that are lost, and that demands our attention.
The same outlook applies to our work in defense of religious freedom – in which we have been supported by Pope Francis. This isn’t a new – or political – endeavor for us. It is the defense of a fundamental right that we have engaged in for more than a century.
What is your opinion of how the news media covers the Church today?
Pope Francis, in his book, On Heaven and Earth, was very hard on the media. He pointed out that too often the media tries to generate conflict and misinforms. He said: “Today, there is misinformation because only part of the truth is said, only what interests them is taken for their convenience, and that does a lot of damage because it is a way of favoring conflict.”
We see this with some reports leading up to his meeting with the president. Some push what they see as points of conflict, ignoring the points of common ground.
Unfortunately, in this country too, we frequently see reporting focused on advancing a political agenda instead of getting the facts right.
We ourselves have even sometimes had partisan reporters or commentators complain about a donation or two that we made that they don’t agree with. In such cases, they typically ignore the majority, totality and context of what we do – in other words, the literally hundreds of donations we make that they probably would support as well.
As Pope Francis said, those in the media can tell a half truth and do damage by generating conflict, and let me give you one example that really illustrates the point. A commentator recently intimated that a $1.5 million dollar donation we gave to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia a couple of years ago somehow showed sympathy to opposition to Pope Francis. Leaving aside the many ways in which that assertion is problematic on its face, in fact, exactly the opposite of what was asserted was true.
The money donated was actually in support of Pope Francis’ trip to the United States as part of the Vatican’s World Meeting of Families in that city. At best what can be said about this kind of thing is that it reflects what lawyers might call a reckless disregard of the truth.
What makes such episodes of misleading or untruthful reporting particularly sad is that it seems that often what drives this reporting is dissent or disagreement with Church teaching, not just disagreement with us. But the media should not stoop to politicizing the pope or trying to drive wedges between him and faithful Catholics who love him.
The pope is pro-life, he is in favor of religious liberty. He visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and has spoken about “polite persecution” in Western countries to underscore the importance of religious freedom. These aren’t political positions for him – or for us. They are values positions based on our Catholic faith.
It is worth noting that we support a number of Catholic media outlets – large and small – because we see the importance of quality Catholic journalism.
The Knights of Columbus is unique as a business entity. Can you talk a little about that?
Unlike non-profits that are charities with fundraising operations, the Knights of Columbus is also one of the nation’s largest – and best rated – life insurers. We have an arm that takes donations, but many of the dollars we donate come from the business side.
We were founded by the Venerable Father Michael McGivney to help provide Catholic families with support for their faith and in their financial future. The faith side is obvious, and the financial future side has grown into a Fortune 1000 insurance operation exclusively focused on our members and their families. Many people are surprised by the size of the Knights of Columbus insurance program. We sell more than $8 billion of insurance each year. We have over $106 billion of insurance in force and we have over $23 billion of assets under management. Our members have entrusted us with their hard earned cash, and they count on us to be there to provide for the future of their families.
We have a responsibility to their future, and we take this responsibility seriously on both fronts. One way that we do this is to seek to invest in ways that are sustainable, and to use Catholic screens on our investments so that we are not putting our members’ money into enterprises that run counter to our faith.
To do that, we hire top professionals to manage our business and our investments. We have about 900 employees at our headquarters in New Haven and we are one of the city’s largest private employers. Given that we are operating at such a high level in the financial services industry, while we pay our executives less than the market average, we also understand that we have to pay competitively enough to attract the caliber of talent needed to run a Fortune 1000 company and to successfully manage the financial futures of our members and their families. People’s livelihoods depend on us hiring and retaining the highly competent people able to deliver at the highest level, and our members deserve nothing less than the best professionals we can hire.
This has been our approach to the business side of the Knights of Columbus for decades. And it has worked. We have consistently received top ratings for our financial strength.
[…]
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.