Amid reports of a possible rapprochement between the Society of St. Pius X, an “ultratraditionalist” group in the genuine, non-propagandistic sense of that term, and the Vatican, comes a letter from an SSPX branch in the United States rebuffing invocations of religious liberty in the contraception debate.
The bishops no doubt expected opposition to the forceful language of their latest statement (“Our First, Most Cherished Liberty“), but it’s probably a safe bet that they didn’t expect this kind of objection. Not that the SSPX document is easy to take seriously, as it comes loaded with so much old-timey, vintage rhetoric deployed with the solemnest of faces. There are invocations of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (“error has no rights,” readers are reminded), warnings about the dangers of ‘assimilationism,’ and even a rather intriguing, vaguely-conspiratorial reading of American history (in which “America’s original Catholic soul [paid with the blood of first Spanish, then French missionaries]” was forcefully “supplanted” with a Calvinist one).
The statement has fast become a target of derision by many in the blogosphere, and fair enough. Though in a way it’s unfortunate, because nineteenth century Catholic political thought and engagement, particularly at the institutional level, deserves better than the curt dismissal both modernizers and even some conservatives are prone to give it. Swaths of it are certainly problematic today, not only in the eyes of our late-liberal society but within the Church itself. But neither is it fair nor accurate to blithely dismiss prior teachings–even when they did not, admittedly, rise to the level of dogma–as meaningless, useless, or unimportant for grasping the fullness of today’s arguments. Indeed, the writings of popes like Pius IX and Leo XIII on the subject of religious liberty are far more than historical curios deserving of a respectful bow–they’re integral to our understanding, and in many ways they live on in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (which, by the way, never “embraced” liberalism in the sense reactionaries imagine–the Church still holds the ideal of Catholicism as state religion, to name but one example–but instead attempts to work with it within certain bounds towards a greater respect for the dignity and liberty of every human being).
But the SSPX ‘counter-statement’ is hardly the place to look for such nuance. At bottom, it attempts to do the very thing it not-very-credibly accuses the bishops of doing: discarding uncomfortable parts of Catholic teaching in pursuit of their own little vision. Rather than make a serious effort to study the development of the Church’s understanding of religious liberty, an approach which would trash neither the pre- nor post-Conciliar teachings (but would involve much dedicated effort, thought, and reflection), these self-styled restorers have arrived at the same “hermeneutic of rupture” as the “modernists” and “progressives” they so decry. It’s merely that they see 1870 as the end of theology instead of 1970.
April 17th, 2012 | 4:55 pm
The bishops are using a mechanism within the American constitution in a way reminiscent of St. Thomas More. In More’s case, he used ‘silence under the law equals assent’ in order to avoid martyrdom. In other words, he didn’t look for confrontation but sort to avoid it and in the process attempted to save his life. This demonstration of spiritual genius was crowned by his subsequent failure and martyrdom and not augmented by them. More is a saint AND martyr.
April 17th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
I hope and pray for the reconciliation of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Catholic Church. However, I ‘feared’ that something like this would happen given that the issue of ‘religious freedom’ has been such a neuralgic subject for the Society.
The Church has a mission to bring Christ and the Gospel to all nations; a working principle was also given to the Church: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. We also know from Christ’s witness in the presence of Pilate, that His Kingdom is not of this world. There have been many forms of the relationship between the Church and State over the centuries, some healthy and some unhealthy. None has been ‘canonized’.
History does tell us however that when the State interferes (or worse) with the mission of the Church AND when the Church and State become fused , ‘little good comes from it’.
April 17th, 2012 | 5:38 pm
It is interesting that this happens functionally at the same time Bishop Fellay evidently signed the doctrinal preamble.
April 17th, 2012 | 6:25 pm
As a young Knight of Columbus, I am constantly around lots of other young Catholics in my college counsel, many of whom are very enthusiastic about their faith. I am around a lot of Latin Mass types, though I wouldn’t say that describes me personally. While they are typically great guys, I am oftened shocked to find the bizarre political opinions they hold. I have never met an American monarchist before I met our Grand Knight (I asked who should be king and he said just somebody). Most importantly, they constantly criticize the Second Vatican Council’s position on religious liberty.
What can you say? Given the church’s position before the Council, particularly under Piux IX and other popes in that era, it seems like the church changed its position. The Catholic Church was the official religion of the old regime. However, being the official religion of the old regime in the 1950s is a little like being a member of the Vanilla Ice Fan Club in 2012. At one point in history it sounded like a good idea, but there is a time to jump off the ship.
After the French Revolution, the death of old Europe was inevitable. The Church, the aristocracies and the various monarchies of Europe spent time and energy trying to prevent modern democracy that would have been better spent trying to guide it. Alexi de Tocqueville said as much when he wrote Democracy in America. He noted that in America, no one thought democracy and freedom were in tension with religion, not the Catholics, not anybody, and this was one of the great moderating factors in our society. The changes that had occurred in society had developed over a long period of time and the best strategy was to prepare for the inevitable, not merely delay it. Granted, given the horrors of the French Revolution, we can all understand why the Church was resistant to the idea.
Today, Pope Benedict has taken up the challenge of convincing democracy that it needs religion. The Church has endorsed religious liberty in Dignitas Humanae, in part thanks to the long effort of American bishops and theologians like John Courtney Murray. However, young Catholics like my friends in the College Council I think sometimes feel that this is an inauthentic form of Catholicism because it seems to line up to well with modernity. The position that the best form of government is a monarchy with an established state church is so impractical and so absurd that I find it easier to believe that they support it less out of a belief in that model and more out of a desire to prove they value their church over the spirit of the age. Their zeal consumes them.
Still, I believe in religious liberty, first and foremost, because it is the correct position. That was the original position of the church for the first 400 or so years of its existence. Heresy was a civil crime prosecuted by local authorities until the 1100s, at which time the Church started getting involved in the inquisition. Heresy was considered by the state to be like treason. The Church did not advocate for religious liberty for the same reason it did not advocate for the abolition of slavery. To do so would undermine the basis of Roman society. Augustine was originally against forcing people to convert because he did not think it would work, though he later changed his mind.
It is true that modernity has a lot of things wrong. Whether it is an a priori commitment to materialism or a utlitarian view of morality, there are a lot of wrong ideas that dominate our times. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and when it actually is noon when the clock says that it is we should not argue that it is really 3 p.m. just to avoid admitting that the clock is occaisionally right. The bishops are in the right here. The SSPX need to stop arguing that its 3 p.m.
April 17th, 2012 | 6:26 pm
Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects general councils held in union with the successor of St. Peter. Those who don’t might as well revisit questions like the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381) and the divinity of Christ (Council of Nicea, A.D. 325). In other words, when people insist there are errors in the documents of Vatican II, they insist they themselves are not Catholic.
The following is from
http://www.thesumma.info/about.php
As Cardinal Ratzinger says in The Ratzinger Report before becoming Pope,
The text then continues “From this Ratzinger drew two conclusions. First:
Second:
April 17th, 2012 | 6:43 pm
1. You say SSPX is an “`ultratraditionalist’ group in the genuine, non-propagandistic sense of that term.”
So, what description have you left for SSPV et al? In fact, SSPX gets beat up all the time by the REAL untratraditionalists for being WAY too compromising…and compromised!
2. There is a problem with terminology such as “old-timey, vintage rhetoric” for the very reasons that your article then goes on to point out. A Church that claims to have been founded c. 33 AD, with a foundation that goes back to creation, is not in a position to dismiss all who have gone before us, nor (if there is any wisdom) to find our current degenerating age as a font of wisdom and holiness.
April 17th, 2012 | 7:02 pm
People may be free to choose their own religion, but they are not entitled to choosing their own truth.
You must be Catholic to save your soul – even in the case of invincible ignorance. If you don’t know the distinction it’s in the Code of Canon Law – look it up it’s great bedtime reading.
So if a bishop, cardinal, documents from Vatican II, or anyone else claim otherwise – then that would be heresy.
States, people, and the world in general should aspire to having as many people save their souls as possible. The ideal is a Catholic state as that is what leads to the greatest number of souls going to heaven. To say that you can go to heaven without being a Catholic, or that a secular state is acceptable, misleads the person, or state, into continuing on in their precarious condition and is participation in their possibly losing their soul.
People say we should “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, but they need to explain the context from the whole scenario described in the bible. Jesus was asked if the people should have to pay taxes. Jesus didn’t answer that question, but instead asked for a coin. He then asked whose likeness and inscription is this? The person responded “Caesar’s”. Jesus then said the oft quoted “Render unto Caesar…” phrase. When people quote it they need to remember that the only part of the coin that belonged to Caesar was the image and the inscription. The gold is God’s.
All countries belong to God. Those that do not make Christ the head of their country are destined to inevitable failure.
April 17th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
So what would the SSPX suggest Catholics in America do regarding the HHS mandate? I might not completely understand. Are they suggesting that everyone first needs an adequate history lesson before doing something about the mandate?
April 17th, 2012 | 8:07 pm
You state: “Rather than make a serious effort to study the development of the Church’s understanding of religious liberty…” Well the SSPX and many Traditionalists did do that BUT they can only find a contradiction between the pre-conciliar teaching and that of the church NOT ONLY from the 19th century but to the middle ages as well into earlier history.
The SSPX advocates “freedom of religion” in the sense that no one is FORCED to accept the Catholic Faith. Furthermore, it (as did the Popes) ‘tolerance’ of false religions and their exercise according to the common good and NOT as a NATURAL RIGHT to believe and teach error.
There is one monk from the Traditionalist Monastery of Le Barroux who did write a multi volume study upholding the pre and post conciliar teaching on religious liberty – I have not read it but I would be interested to see how he can square a circle.
April 17th, 2012 | 9:17 pm
Thi is the perennial problem that SSPX and Sedes couldnt overcome…religious liberty and ecumenism. What they dont seem to understand is Man-the human being, because of free will, has a right to be in error, because God made him that way (or her…) . that has been true since the dawn of time. It is why and what earned us a Savior , as the Exaltet goes “Oh Happy Fall , Oh Necessary sin of Adam, that brought to us such a Redeemer” –
Sin is a choice, just like belief is a choice. When you say a person does not have a right to believe….even if that right is complete heresy and error, you strip that person of the human dignity that God gave him – I think DH understands this better – God made us to choose to freely serve him… To listen or not. That is a something we are born with in our nature, and thus is a right.. Might not be what we want as believers..might not be what we like… but it is a right.
April 17th, 2012 | 10:02 pm
Well, SSPX seems to enjoy being the object of derision, and this letter certainly seems to have struck a nerve over at Commonweal. I think it does make at least one good point though, that John the Baptist, et al. died for Christ, not for religious liberty.
The bishops may want to consider more sensitivity toward the way that statements which they intend politically (“religious liberty”) may, since they are bishops and speaking as such, be interpreted (wrongly?) as a statement of Catholic belief. That is, they may not wish to give the impression that religious liberty is a specifically Catholic doctrine, rather than a limitation on the state. That would suggest that the Church does not “bind and loose” in an objective way and with divine authority, but is rather just one of many “paths to salvation,” as the statement quotes an unnamed Vatican II document… I think this is a valid point, and the puerile mockery displayed at the Commonweal blog seems to indicate that many liberals are unable to respond to it effectively.
April 18th, 2012 | 1:27 am
You fans of the modern version of religious liberty sound like you’re uncomfortable with Catholicism being the official religion of the Catholic Church. “Latin Mass types”, indeed!
April 18th, 2012 | 2:01 am
I do believe that the more people embrace the modern world, the harder it is to follow the whole truth of the Catholic Church. Are there any Catholics today who dismiss the overwhelming presence of the world, thereby freeing their hearts to serve God alone? How many of our beliefs and attitudes come from self love?
Do you remind yourself at all of any saint you’ve ever heard of?
How many of us could authoritatively judge whether the SSPX is right on, or way off base? Speaking for myself, I can’t!
April 18th, 2012 | 4:24 am
Maurice Bondel was, surely, right, when he observed that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order.”
This calls to mind Laberthonnière’s famous protest against those Neo-Thomists he accused of being influenced by “a false theological notion of some state of pure nature and therefore imagined the state could be self-sufficient in the sense that it could be properly independent of any specifically Christian sense of justice.”
This is not to argue for a State Church. They conceived of the Church not as the institutional “Spiritual Power” alongside the “Temporal Power” of the State, but rather in terms of an evangelical presence, a “leaven,” that nurtures efforts in society ordered to the coming of God’s Kingdom. As Blondel says, efforts “from below” to establish a just society would lead persons of good will to respect Christianity and “to find only in the spirit of the gospel the supreme and decisive guarantee of justice and of the moral conditions of peace, stability, and social prosperity.”
This is not only compatible with, but demands, freedom from the coercive power of the state in matters of religion and “Dignitatis Humanae” demands nothing more. But it utterly rejects the adequacy of a state governed by mere “Natural Law,” for, as Pascal reminds us, “You are not in the state of your creation,” but fallen and redeemed, by grace alone, through Christ alone.
April 18th, 2012 | 6:19 am
“Latin Mass types”
*stopped reading*
April 18th, 2012 | 8:27 am
You read this stuff and you wonder how a man who had liberal bones, who came from a town called a “hotbed of communism”, who was the protege of Leinart, who was “apppointed” by John XXIII to sit on the preparatory commission of Vatican II (it was NOT an appointment that John XXIII was “forced” to make), who was appointed “spokesman” for the “Council Fathers” at Vatican II by Paul VI (watering down their opposition); , who was in charge of and lost the signed petition on communism, came to be leader of all the people who objected to Vatican II and the changes in the Mass? If I were John XXIII and Paul VI, I would have expected opposition and would have made preparations about what do to about it.
April 18th, 2012 | 9:17 am
You must be Catholic to save your soul – even in the case of invincible ignorance. If you don’t know the distinction it’s in the Code of Canon Law – look it up it’s great bedtime reading.
Steve,
If I am understanding your correctly, it seems to me that other people (most notably, Father Leonard Feeney) have been excommunicated for taking your position.
The terms vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance do not appear in the Code of Canon Law (1983).
Men and women following a sincere but erroneous (due to invincible ignorance) conscience are not culpable for wrongs they may do. If I understand your position correctly, there would be no point in making a distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance.
April 18th, 2012 | 2:03 pm
Harry says “Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects general councils held in union with the successor of St. Peter.”
That is certainly true, but as Bl John Henry Newman reminds us, in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, quoting Peronne, “Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. “Thus, in the Third Council, a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defence of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius, and narratives, not trustworthy, are introduced into the Seventh.”
Again, “Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort [Amort. Dem. Cr., pp. 205-6] who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican [Vatican I] anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.”
What applies to General Councils applies equally to the Pope.
April 18th, 2012 | 2:56 pm
David Nickol — you may wish to read a little more about Father Leonard Feeney.
He indeed was excommunicated, in 1953. But he was reconciled in 1972. He did not have to change his orthodox position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The reconciliation was about obedience. In fact, he started a society of religious who continue to this day in full communion with the Church.
The current SSPX situation is very similar to the Father Feeney one.
April 18th, 2012 | 4:46 pm
David Nickol — you may wish to read a little more about Father Leonard Feeney.
Kenneth J. Wolfe,
Whether or not Feeney recanted, his interpretation was wrong, and Steve, above, is wrong. It is not necessary to be Catholic to be saved. See this article covering the entire issue in depth, and not the following:
The Catholic Church does not teach that a person who is not a Catholic cannot be saved. This is not the meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Anyone who says a person must be a Catholic to be saved is denying a clear teaching of the Catholic Church.
April 18th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
I neglected to add Anathema sit! :-)
Even harry will agree with me on this one!
April 18th, 2012 | 5:26 pm
Sorry, Mr. Nickol, but Father Feeney was reconciled for more reason than just pity about his age.
His societies of men and women religious, which are the leading organizations promoting an orthodox view of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, were granted a chaplain in 2010 by Bishop McCormack in New Hampshire.
http://catholicism.org/very-good-news-a-new-priest-for-sbc.html
So, either the bishop didn’t do any research — http://catholicism.org/aboutushtm — before making this appointment, or we are permitted to adhere to the teachings of Father Feeney’s society.
April 18th, 2012 | 7:01 pm
[...] S.S.P.X. & ‘Modernists’ Find Common Ground? – Matthew Cantirino, Frst Thngs/Frst Thgh [...]
April 18th, 2012 | 8:01 pm
remember the principle of non-contradiction. The church would be schizophrenic if she both taught and denied the samething. It is hard to see how VCII does not deny some of the things taught about liberty in the tradition. It is up to the modern freedom extremist to show that his position is in continuity
April 18th, 2012 | 9:36 pm
I was put on the defense almost immediately after beginning to read this article ~ the tone implied by being called an “ultratraditionalist” and referencing the SSPX letter as “old-timey, vintage rhetoric”. Oh please!
April 18th, 2012 | 11:10 pm
. . . an orthodox view of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus . . .
Kenneth J. Wolfe,
Here is the only “orthodox” view:
See also paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.
So, either the bishop didn’t do any research — . . . — before making this appointment, or we are permitted to adhere to the teachings of Father Feeney’s society.
That is a very feeble excuse for contradicting the very clear statement of the Holy Office of August 8, 1949, on the correct interpretation of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
April 19th, 2012 | 10:01 am
Hi, Michael PS,
The essence of the Church’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals springs from the presense within in it of the Holy Spirit, Who cannot err, and Who speaks in its official teaching.
The Church’s definitive teachings, which must be believed and accepted if one is to be truly Catholic, are infallible due to this presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church and are not limited to the handful of ex cathedra statements which have been made by the Successor of St. Peter.
April 19th, 2012 | 10:37 am
harry,
Please weigh in. Does “Outside the Church there is no salvation” mean that only Catholics can be saved? Before word of Christianity reached North and South America, were the people who lived here unable to be saved because they never heard of Jesus and could not have been baptized Catholic? What does the Church teach?
April 19th, 2012 | 11:34 am
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a teaching of Saint Cyprian of Carthage writing on the Unity of the Church against schism and heresy and was not originally connected at all with the salvation of non-Christians.
More to the point, Rome, in responding to the original error of Father Feeney in Boston stated that the Church indeed does teach “Outside the Church there is no salvation’ however that must be understood and applied in the way that the Church teaches and applies [which definitely was not the way Father Feeney et all was applying it] Instead the Church states that it is indeed POSSIBLE [nota bene not automatic or probable] that a non Christian may be saved under certain circumstances.
The problem is one of inversion. The message of salvation is ultimately centered on God’s ‘rich mercy’ revealed in and through Jesus Christ and ‘made available’ in the grace of the Holy Spirit. If any person is ‘saved’ it is always in and through the ‘grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’. No one can be saved on their own, by their own power etc.
On the other hand, those who would limit the possibility of salvation to ‘only Catholics’ or ‘only Christians’ end up not defending the Faith or the Gospel but actually daring to limit God’s will for the salvation of all people and to limit the way in which He can make the grace of Christ ‘available’. it is in and through Christ that God brings salvation. The Church then is ‘the sacrament of salvation’, in and through Her word and sacraments salvation comes to the world. We hold this without the almost arrogant statement that only Catholics or Christians are saved.
With a good foundation in God’s plan of salvation and the grace of His mercy in Christ, we can indeed continue the mission ‘ad extra’ [outside the Church] without sharing the bad news (and erroneous teaching) that only Catholics or Christians are saved.
April 19th, 2012 | 11:41 am
Hi, David Nickol,
Outside the Church there is no salvation, but anyone in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells is a member of the Universal (Catholic) Church Christ founded whether they realize that or not. ;o)
As #847 of the CCC makes clear (which you already cited) this does not mean those who through no fault of their own never heard the gospel cannot be saved.
The Catholic Catechism also contains the following (which you probably already noticed):
I have been told by converts to Catholicism that one of the aspects of the Church’s teaching that “rang true” to them was its attitude towards other believers and non-believers. They had come from denominations where “everybody is going to Hell but us.”
April 19th, 2012 | 3:35 pm
I don’t understand the SSPX. Do they really believe that bringing back the Latin Mass will automatically make us better Catholics? Do they really believe a Catholic monarchy is the preferred government? Are they not aware of the un-Catholic behavior of “Catholic” monarchs and the unjust way they ruled? God bless.
April 19th, 2012 | 7:16 pm
Cbalducc,
Your first question seems like a strawman. Do teachers think that teaching every child to read means that they will automatically be geniuses? Do doctors give people health advice because they think that nobody will ever get sick or die?
I could turn the question around? Do critics of the SSPX think that forbidding the Latin mass will automatically make everyone a good Catholic? Do they think that the Novus Ordo will make automatically make everyone a good Catholic? Maybe the argument is more subtle than that.
The question of whether the Tridetine mass should be available is one of justice. It was never suppressed. The Pope has stated that. Why should it not be available to the faithful?
As to your final question, were all Catholic monarchs unjust? What about the ones who are venerated as saints? Do liberal democracies always govern justly? Haven’t they often done unjust things? To ask questions about the proper basis of authority and the true basis of rights is not the same thing as supporting tyranny.
April 19th, 2012 | 9:22 pm
RJ,
Now this is a better direction to take this conversation. What is the proper basis of authority? Well, let’s think about what government is. Human beings are inherently social animals who tend to live together. We are also weak and sinful animals, so in order to protect ourselves from each other while still enjoying each other’s company we had better lay down some ground rules and have someone to enforce them. In other words, we need authority. This is what government is. A group of people have the authority to make rules and the rest of us follow them.
Notice the second part of that sentence: obedience. That is what government depends on. Now, there are two ways to get people to obey you. Either they consent to obey you, or you force them to. Forcing people to obey you is a simple matter as long as you have enough guns and no moral scruples. We have a word for it: tyranny.
Now monarchy is not always tyrannical. In the middle ages, we had kings because the people consented to the idea of kings. They did this either out of a sense of allegiance, a belief that the king was appointed by God, or for some other reason. Many theories like the divine right of kings to the general will have been thrown around over time, but in the end their efficacy in creating a political order depended on the ability to get the people to consent.
Now let’s talk about monarchy and liberal democracy. Starting in the middle ages, the kings got tired of the fuedal system that left so much power to local aristocrats that they started centralizing the state. They would often raise up the general populace in order to find talent not in the aristocracy, who they were actually trying to weaken. However, as the kings like Louis XIV and Frederich the Great got more powerful and the rest of society more equal, something unexpected happened. People realized that a king is completely unaccountable. An absolute monarch never has to have his actions approved by anyone: not the people, not the nobles, and not the church. You may ask “Why not just make him accountable to the church?” Well, the Church, since its beginning, has not shown that much interest in statecraft other than to keep the government at bay. An idea of Christendom was present during the Middle Ages, but the popes were never able to exercise that much force because, as Stalin famously pointed out, they don’t have any divisions.
Having an unaccountable monarch is fine if that monarch rules over a fuedal system where his power is quite limited. However, as the state became centralized, particularly in places like France and Prussia, it became a little more important to make sure this growing state was actually accountable to people. Imagine if we could never vote Barack Obama out of office.
After several bloody wars, Europe has now transitioned to democracy, as has much of the rest of the world. If you look around, you see two types of governments in the world: liberal democracies and military dictatorships. It is true that liberal democracies often do unjust things. That could be said of all government. But given the current state of things, can you think of some other government that the average guy on the street would give his thumbs up to?
In my earlier post, I said I found the SSPX political platform absurd and impractical. While it is true that I think their recommendations are substantively bad, I find them impractical because I cannot imagine the public willingly accepting a state religion and a monarch at this point in history. This is particularly true of America. It is one thing to argue that Poland should have such a government. Poland is a predominantly Catholic country that has been ruled by monarch as recently as the early 20th Century. The SSPX want Catholicism to be the official religion in the U.S., a predominantly Protestant country founded by Calvinists and Anglicans. They want a monarchy in a country that really has never had one unless you count the British monarchs who never took a step on American soil. This is not reactionary. It is imaginary.
April 19th, 2012 | 10:13 pm
While it might have seemed to be the issue on both sides of the distancing between the Church and the Society of Pius X, the Latin-’Tridentine’ Mass was not the issue that distanced ‘us’. If that were the case, then the earlier legislation of Blessed John Paul and now the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict would have ended the ‘distance’
Generalizations and ‘semi-sarcastic’ comments about the Novus Ordo (?): the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or ‘the Latin Mass’: the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite need to be calmed down.
I also have to say that generalizing statements that the Society desires a monarchy in this country is very innacurate [never mind directly opposed to the very nature of our country]. As I understand their ‘criticisms’ of Vatican II [in its actual documents] there are three [I will stand corrected on this if I am wrong]:
1) principle of collegiality
2)declaration on Religious Liberty
3)principle of ecumenism
At this point when reconciliation is being attempted certainly by the Church and the leadership of the Society I believe it is important to bring more light and less heat, truth with charity for the unity and communion of the Church.
April 19th, 2012 | 11:53 pm
John Willems,
I am not in favor of a monarchy in the United States and I am not aware that the SSPX is either. I was responding to Cbalducc’s statement that Catholic monarchs were all unjust. The SSPX disagrees with the claim that a person has a right to religious liberty.They ground this in an appeal to the previous teachings of the church on this subject which they believe are binding on the faithful. They do not disagree that religious liberty can be justified by reference to the common good or charity.
Botolph,
All I can say is that the SSPX disagrees with you. From their website:
“Despite the canonical issues which were woven into the events, nevertheless, it was clear that the heart of the matter rested with the issue of the Mass.
In the three weeks before the ordinations to be held on June 29, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by Rome as many as six times with the request that he establish normal relations with the Vatican and that he give proof of this by saying a Mass according to the new rite. He was told that if the ordination Mass on the 29th would be with the Missal of Pope Paul VI, then all opposition would be smoothed over.”
April 20th, 2012 | 4:01 am
John Willems makes an excellent point that is often misunderstood. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was those who supported the rule of law who sought to promote the power of the monarchy. An important part of their policy was to replace the rule of feudal nobles (and oligarchical city councils) with that of appointed royal officials and judges. There is a real sense in which Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin laid the foundations of the modern French administration. Napoléon built on their foundations
April 20th, 2012 | 11:11 am
There are Catholics inside the SSPX and outside of it who seem to believe that most of the Catholic Church’s problems will be solved if the Latin Mass is “brought back”. I know it was never suppressed; it is just hard to find in some dioceses. I know that some Catholic monarchs are venerated as saints. I also know that secular governments are often deeply flawed.
The problem seems to me that the SSPX and other “traditionalists” suffer from an excess of nostalgia for the old ways, imagining they were better than they actually were.
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre#Political_positions
Archbishop Lefebvre supported Vichy France and the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina during the 1970s. Was he right to do so? Did his views then mean anything to the SSPX today?
April 20th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
So we are agreed that the SSPX does not hold the position that the Latin Mass “will automatically make us better Catholics”. It seems to me that all Catholics attach enormous importance to the celebration of the mass. As the central act of worship of the Church it is seen by all parties as having profound consequences for the church and the world. That was the reason for the post-Conciliar reform in the first place. It’s the reason liberals were so upset by the new translation of the mass last year. When I said the Traditional rite had not been suppressed I did not mean that it had not been forbidden by the Church. It was and priests were suspended for saying it. I meant the church had no authority to do this. This was the argument of the SSPX and the church now accepts that they were right. But obviously those Catholics who forbid it believed it was very important to make everyone say the New Mass. Many Catholics were upset when Pope Benedict recognized that all Catholic priests have the right to say the Traditional Mass. Damien Thompson at the Daily Telegraph has written extensively about efforts by the bishops of Britain to prevent priests and laity from having it in the years since the Summorum Pontificum was issued in 2007.
My point is that the belief you are attributing to some Catholics is in reality held by almost all Catholics who understand that the mass and the way it is said is profoundly important for the life of the church. At the same time, I doubt there are any Catholics who think that the way the mass is celebrated is the only thing that affects the church’s life and mission. To believe that any mass, old or new, had the power to effect automatic change or to magically solve problems would be superstitious.
As for the claim that Latin Mass supporters beliefs are based in nostalgia, I can only say this strikes me as a profoundly unfair thing to say. They have publicly stated their criticism of the New Mass for 40 years in great detail. They have always argued based on their belief about what they think is right. I do not see any evidence that nostaglia is a motivating factor at all.
I have no interest in defending Lefebvre’s position’s regarding various regimes although I would point out that none of the ones you cited were Catholic monarchies. My interest was in refuting the claim that Catholic monarchs were all unjust and that a form of government’s legitimacy can be deduced from the fact that it sometimes act unjustly. I support democracy but I would not be able to defend it on those grounds.
April 21st, 2012 | 4:36 am
I sometimes wonder whether American (and British) Catholics are as aware as they should be of the dangers of a sort of “political Catholicism,” like that that bedevilled France from1870 to 1959 and that reached its zenith in Action Française and the Catholic atheism of Charles Maurras; this was “civic religion” with a vengeance. To attend the masses of reparation on 21 January for the parricide of Louis XVI and to refer to the Republican symbol of Marianne as “La guese” (The beggar woman) were bages of Catholic identity.
Nor is the danger only on the Right; Le Sillon’s attempt to align Catholic Action with the labour movement was equally dangerous and was also roundly condemned by the Holy See in Notre Charge Apostolique, which could be read with profit by some (politically) progressive Anglophone Catholics, as well as more recent condemnations of Liberation Theology.
The danger arises whenever loyalty to a political ideal – the restoration of the monarchy, the establishment of the Church – is seen as, not merely compatible with, but demanded, by the Faith itself. It also manifests itself in a denial of the legitimacy of any political authority that refuses to accede to its demands.
The spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during the first 70 years of that period, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic, which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholic to “rally to the Republic,” explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of “kissing the feet of their executioners.” In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. After the Liberation most of the leaders of the Catholic parties were in jail, a few were shot and the rest fled abroad. It was De Gaulle and the Fifth Republic that began to heal the divisions. Certainly in France, some elements of the Society of S Pius X are resisting the new settlement.
The state of the Church in France today owes much to this bitter legacy of turning faith into faction.
It is precisely their different histories that make American and British Catholics less alert to the dangers of the politicising of religion.
April 23rd, 2012 | 11:09 am
Michael PS,
In America we did have some examples of “political Catholicism” in the cities of the North where bishops openly identified with the Democratic party’s political “machines”, which were dominated by Irish Americans. These machines tolerated organized crime and bigotry toward black Americans.
May 1st, 2012 | 3:10 pm
[...] branch, that religious liberty is a “false notion” was disconcerting, to say the least; and undercut the American bishops fight to uphold a proper understanding of it. Furthermore, the presence of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact