The Boston Globe's look at the vast right-wing conspiracy within the AmChurch
(link from Amy)
Two years after Kennedy's election, Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is now a towering historical event, representing for some the ongoing spirit of reform in the church and for others a kind of theological breeder reactor, constantly on the edge of going out of control. While favoring the latter view, Pope John Paul II, who has led the Catholic Church since 1978, also has reinterpreted the events of the council in such a way that they support his traditionalist view of the church.
Over his lengthy pontificate, John Paul II has allied himself with the traditionalist side of every ongoing dispute within the church.
It strikes me that the media is unable to grasp what is that core of Catholicism - absolute and certain Truth that is unchanging. So when JP II preaches about the Truth, we're told he's supporting his "traditionalist" view of the Church. And because he's a "traditionalist" he put the kabosh on the Vatican II reforms, as though the council stopped just short of allowing women to be ordained and it just needed a little push to make sure we can pack our entire wish-list of western sociological hang-ups into how the Church teaches and preaches.
When the children of the 60's wax poetic about Vatican II, they get all glassy eyed and dreamy. When "traditionalists" remind them of the substance of Vatican II in the form of the actual documents they clamp their hands over their ears and run screaming into night.
Am I wrong about this?
And here's another nugget of wisdom from one of the brightest stars of Catholic acaedmia:
"But what will they do," wonders Notre Dame's [Rev.] Richard McBrien, contemplating the post-John Paul II church, "without their great patron?"
You know what we'll do? We'll have another Pope who by the grace of God preaches and teaches Truth in a holy and uncomprising fashion. Is your brain too full of postmodern theology that you don't remember the Gospel of Matthew and 2000 years of Catholicism?
It quite sad that you often manage to reinforce the media's mistaken idea that the Church is just a big club and if you get "your man" in power everything will change over night.
So to Richard McBrien: how about praying a Rosary before answering your phone next time? That may prevent the floor in Hell being paved with the skulls of priests. And I'll do the same because God knows I need the prayers.
"Without" their patron? He'll be a patron more than ever to Catholics teaching the Faith.
I expect Pope John Paul to be acclaimed a Doctor of the Church as well as a Saint when he passes to his eternal reward.
Is it too early to declare Richard McBrien a nincompoop?
McBrien is a nincompooop and a popinjay.
This may upset more than a few readers, but I've been saying (to anyone who'll listen) for years that after JPII, a sweet Lamb for the Lord, we need a real lion to come in and sweep the American room of the House. No disrespect intended to Our Holy Father. His ecuminism has made the coming of a lion possible and the holy seeds he's planted could use some fierce watering.
-- McBrien wasn't on the Council. The Holy Father was. Who had a better perspective on what happened during Vatican II?
-- You wouldn't expect the secular media to assert that the "core of Catholicism" is unchanging Truth. However, you might expect reporters to grasp the Church's self-understanding of her mission. It's their refusal to see past their own thoroughly secularized worldviews that makes for all the bad reporting.
The best line in the article was a quote from McCloskey. ""There's a name for Catholics who dissent from church teachings," he says. "They're called Protestants."
what more does anyone really need to say?
The article did have a great picture of one of my favorite local bloggers, Carol McKinley.
Amen, Alicia. When Hubby and I were going through RCIA in order fulfill our obligation to join the Catholic Church, we had to DEFEND Mother Church to the numbnuts who were teaching the RCIA CLASS! One woman was SO scandalously heretical in her teachings, I finally pulled her aside and told her, "Hey, you don't even make a good Protestant, what in the world makes you think you should be teaching about Catholicism?"
Too many people believe that orthodox elements have "hijacked" Vatican II, when it is actually just the opposite. The unorthodox, the liberal elements of the Church, swept up in the radicalism of the 60's and early 70's, twisted Vatican II into something that gave them license to implement their own personal agendas, using the council as a shield.
To those who only have a superficial knowledge of Vatican II, including most of the mass media and a good portion of the undercatchized faithful, they believe that the liberals who hijacked it were the ones following its true spirit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As an earlier commenter said, JPII was present at the council. He knows better than almost anyone the true intent behind it, and has done an admirable job over the past quarter-century trying to turn around the ocean liner that the liberals set into motion.
Just shooting from the hip here, since I haven't really don't any real research into it, but could it be fairly said that Paul VI was asleep at the wheel in many ways when it came to implementing the reforms of Vatican II? It makes me wonder how thing might be different if John XXIII had lived a few more years to shepherd things into place according to his original vision and that of the council.