Second Vatican Council

, , , , , , ,

Legal barriers complicate what the pope wants from next year's pivotal Synod puzzle

, , , , , , ,
Legal barriers complicate what the pope wants from next year's pivotal Synod puzzle

Pope Francis’s extraordinary Synod of Bishops, consisting of two meetings last October and the concluding session next October, is dealing with “synodality.”

What? The media and Catholic activists are all energized about such topics  as letting women be deacons, or married men be priests, or softened LGBTQ+ policies, or allowing Communion for divorced members who remarry, or for Protestants.

Just possibly something on those might occur next year. But for certain the delegates will try to fill out that mysterious, Zen-like “synodality” term — which means some sort of organizational revamp so male and female lay parishioners are more closely engaged in the life of their church. Some call the whole puzzle Vatican III Lite.

In the flow of comment after the recent first session, Claire Giangravè, Religion News Service’s Vatican correspondent, filed a particularly savvy article on realistic changes required for any substantive doctrinal shifts in that direction. Not a simple process because, as the headline said, “To remake church power in Francis’ vision, synod calls for changes to canon law.”

In the interim leading to next October’s session, The Guy thinks the news media should be tracking down experts on the canon law code, which was revised in 1983 under Pope John Paul II to accommodate the documents from the Second Vatican Council. (Note: Eastern Rite churches in communion with the pope have separate laws.) See a Canon Law Society of America member listing here.

A reminder of the basic realities begins with Catholicism as a supremely hierarchical church centered on Francis’s own office. The code (#331) states that the pope as head of the college of bishops worldwide and the “Pastor of the universal Church on earth … enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.”

Don’t miss the importance of that word “immediate.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

, , , , , , ,
This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

QUESTION:

Does secrecy help the church? Does it work?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This issue erupted in the news with the surprise decision by Pope Francis to clamp unusual strict secrecy upon the Synod of Bishops he has summoned to the Vatican this month. (The synod’s second and concluding session will occur a year from now). This indicates to church leaders the extent to which bishops are facing internal difficulties.

The media typically portray Francis as a relatively liberal pontiff. But it may not be coincidental that the pope’s native Argentina has a dicey record on journalistic and political freedoms. And Father Thomas Reese, who has observed Vatican Synods for decades, says “Pope Francis does not like the press, especially the western media, which, he believes, only writes about issues of concern to the Global North.”

True, western media — and their audiences — are especially interested in the ongoing sexual molesting scandals, women’s role in the church, LGBTQ+ concerns, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics or shared with Protestants and proposals to end the celibacy mandate for   priests.

All those controversies, and more, were part of the discussions leading up to this synod. That’s news.

Regular meetings of Synods are a new idea authorized in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council because the world’s bishops “share in the responsibility for the universal Church” along with the pope. For decades, these meetings have occurred behind closed doors but with informative press briefings and helpful explanations on the ongoing discussions from participants. Francis himself preserved this tradition at his four prior Synods.

Not now. On the eve of the meeting, Vatican regulations, reinforced in the pope’s opening address, directed delegates to say nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves said. Moreover, the ban is in force perpetually after the Synod concludes (though a spokesman for the Holy See said violators are not under a formal threat of excommunication).

One result of closed doors is that outside interest groups affect news coverage of an event when the actual participants cannot.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

, , , , , , , , , ,
Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

There’s no better indicator of how fraught things have become in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church than Pope Francis’s surprising, last-minute decision to clamp strict secrecy upon his all-important Synod of Bishops. This Vatican assembly, very likely the major event of his reign, is running through October 29 with a second, concluding session a year from now.

GetReligion editor Terry “tmatt” Mattingly surveyed the pope’s decision last week, but to repeat the basics: Regulations governing the synod, reinforced in Francis’s opening address, direct participants to reveal absolutely nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves have to say, not just now but forever after (though the Vatican says violators are not under threat of excommunication).

Paradoxically, Francis’s purpose for this synod was to foster openness, flexibility and “synodality,” a vague buzzword for broader participation of all Catholics in their church’s life and governance! His Kremlin-esque blackout breaks from prior synod policy under five popes — including Francis himself.

We’ll see how things play out, but as of this writing the media have been offered only official briefings that are far more anodyne than usual.

The problem with secrecy rules is that they usually work imperfectly or not at all.

A gag order upon actual participants hands the power of information to outsiders’ interest groups, speculations, suspicions and gossip that inevitably influence news coverage and historical interpretation. For instance, note this paywalled New York Times account — “Vatican Conference Draws All Stripes to Rome, Welcome or Not” — of the “Catholic menagerie" assembled in Rome outside the secret Synod.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Centuries of theology loom over this newsworthy question: Is Ukraine a 'Just War'?

, , , , , , ,
Centuries of theology loom over this newsworthy question: Is Ukraine a 'Just War'?

QUESTION:

Is Ukraine a “Just War”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The good news for Russia’s Vladimir Putin: A significant national leader announces that his invasion of Ukraine is a “just fight” that will end with “a great victory in the sacred struggle.”

The bad news: The speaker is  North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, so what’s “just” is defined by probably the most despised despot on the planet and what’s “sacred” by an atheist who works to exterminate all  religion.

Each international conflict raises the matter of what constitutes a “just war,” the theory by which Christians over centuries have sought to define what reaasons make the destruction of war morally acceptable. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asserts that Ukraine presents “as obvious a case of right versus wrong, good versus evil, as you will find in international relations since World War II.”

Except for Putin allies who head the huge Russian Orthodox Church, Christian leaders agree that Russia’s war is unjust and Ukraine’s response is justifiable. If for no other reason, in the 1994 pact when Ukraine surrendered its Soviet-era nuclear weapons Russia pledged “to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

As we’ll see, there are complications and hesitations on the Catholic left since the invasion in February, 2022. The Catholic discussion on war-making is particularly notable due to the church’s global reach and the history of saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas formulating the “just war” doctrine.

Most early Christians were de facto pacifists who opposed military participation, both extending Jesus’ “blessed are the peacemakers” teaching from interpersonal relations into national and international affairs, and shunning pagan oaths and rites that Rome imposed upon soldiers. But Christians began gaining responsibility for setting defense policy after the Roman Empire granted their faith legal toleration during the 4th Century.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

, , , , , , , ,
Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

In a rite before the funeral of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vatican officials placed unique symbols of his pontificate inside his cypress casket, along with a scroll in Latin describing his ascent to the Chair of St. Peter.

"His faith and family upbringing prepared him for the harsh experience of the problems connected with the Nazi regime, aware of the climate of strong hostility towards the Catholic Church," said the English translation of this "rogito," or deed. "In this complex situation, he discovered the beauty and truth of faith in Christ."

After deserting the German army without firing a shot, Josef Ratzinger began his theology studies and, in 1951, was ordained a priest. He emerged as an intellectual voice preaching hope, as opposed to mere optimism. The future pope's sobering views on modern Europe would affect his entire career -- as well as debates about his legacy when he died.

"This so-called Christian Europe … has become the birthplace of a new paganism, which is growing steadily in the heart of the Church, and threatens to undermine her from within," said Ratzinger, in a 1958 lecture. This modern church "is no longer, as she once was, a Church composed of pagans who have become Christians, but a Church of pagans, who still call themselves Christians."

Four years later, the 35-year-old priest advised Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne during the historic Second Vatican Council, emerging as a "progressive" on reform issues, yet one who saw painful challenges ahead.

"From the crisis of today the church of tomorrow will emerge – a church that has lost much," he warned, on German radio in 1969. "As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members."

Ratzinger envisioned a "more spiritual church" with no political mandate, "flirting as little with the left as with the right. … It will make her poor and cause her to become the church of the meek."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

, , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

If religion-beat journalists looked carefully enough, they could see an interesting question lurking inside the rhetoric of the current Latin Mass wars.

That question: What does it mean to be “pro-Vatican II”? If reporters flip that question around it turns into this: What does one need to do to be “anti-Vatican II”?

For example, see this language at the top of a Catholic News Agency report this past summer with this headline: “Pope Francis: There are many ‘restorers’ in the US who do not accept Vatican II.”

There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said. …

Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecumenical council held from 1962 to 1965. He said: “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. …”

Note the tension between “accept the Council” and “gag the Council.” What, precisely, does it mean to “gag” the Second Vatican Council? Let’s keep reading:

“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”

Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II when he issued the motu proprio Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.

This leads to a logical question: What ARE the teachings of Vatican II? Are they the actual contents of the Council documents or are these teachings an evolving body of work with current and future Catholic leaders deciding what the Council meant to say? Yes, note how these questions echo decades of academic warfare about, well, everything from the U.S. Constitution to the New Testament.

This is a timely subject, in light of the recent death of Pope Benedict XVI — one of few remaining Vatican intellectuals who, as an advisor to a cardinal in the Vatican II sessions, had direct exposure to the debates that led to its final documents. Benedict stressed a strict reading of the contents of Council’s teachings on a host of subjects — such as liturgy and the future role of Catholic tradition.

That leads us to a Religion News Service think piece written before shortly before the death of Benedict XVI. The author, Jesuit Thomas Reese, is a priest who for decades has been one of the most powerful voices (think “usual suspects”) shaping news coverage of American Catholicism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Traditional Latin Mass feud news remains scarce: How reporters can grasp what's at stake

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Traditional Latin Mass feud news remains scarce: How reporters can grasp what's at stake

What’s the deal with all the emotional meltdowns about the traditional Latin Mass? I mean, no one speaks Latin anymore.

It sounds like a line that could have come out of the mouth of comedian Jerry Seinfeld during one of his stand-up acts. It isn’t part of his act, but it is a more than symbolic question that Catholics have been pondering over the past year.

It was last summer when Pope Francis signed a motu proprio — Latin for a papal document personally signed by the pope to signify his special interest in a topic — on this very subject. In the July 16, 2021, decree, the pope approved clarifications regarding restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass in an effort to ensure that liturgical reform is “irreversible” and that bishops strive to enforce changes made after the Second Vatican Council.

Specifically, bishops were told to ban ordinations of priests and confirmations using the old rite. They also were instructed to limit the frequency of rites by priests who have managed to receive a dispensation to celebrate Mass in Latin.

What’s the deal with the traditional Latin Mass? It turns out a lot.

The Novus Ordo Mass, which has been celebrated since 1965, is the norm among Catholic churches in this country and around the globe. Coverage, particularly last year, of the Traditional Latin Mass took on a political twinge in the pages of The New York Times. This is how their story from July 16 of last year framed the debate:

Pope Francis took a significant step toward putting the Roman Catholic Church’s liturgy solidly on the side of modernization on Friday by cracking down on the use of the old Latin Mass, essentially reversing a decision by his conservative predecessor.

The move to restrict the use of an old Latin rite in celebrating Mass dealt a blow to conservatives, who have long complained that the pope is diluting the traditions of the church.

Francis placed new restrictions on where and by whom the traditional Latin Mass can be celebrated and required new permissions from local bishops for its use.

The key words to look for in mainstream news reports are “modernization” and “conservative,” as if this pope was doing something positive and that Pope Benedict XVI had been somehow stuck in the past.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

THE QUESTION:

What does biblical "inerrancy" mean?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

A February article by Stephen Young of Appalachian State University in North Carolina pulls the "inerrancy" of the Bible into a surprising media spotlight.

Writing in the liberal ReligionDispatches.org, Young blames this concept for American Christian racism and "white patriarchy" that subjugates women. By coincidence, days before Young's posting Michael F. Bird of Ridley College, an Anglican seminary in Australia, contended via the interfaith Patheos.com that his fellow evangelicals in the U.S. advocate a version of inerrancy that's a bit skewed.

Hold those thoughts while the Memo sketches some background.

Merriam-Webster defines inerrancy as "exemption from error," with "infallible" as a synonym. However, the modern debate distinguishes between those two words, as we'll see below.

Churchgoers may simply view the Bible as trustworthy because, after all, it's the Word of God, but "inerrancy" is a more sweeping contention meant to cover every detail of the events depicted in the Bible.

Inerrancy came to the fore, especially among U.S. Protestants, through Princeton Theological Seminary professors such as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) who believed Christianity had always taught the Bible is error-proof.

As theological "modernism" made inroads, the largest Presbyterian denomination in 1910 defined five tenets as "essential doctrine" required of clergy candidates. The first one stated that "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error." The 1910 platform evolved into the "five points of Fundamentalism," embraced by that militant new movement even as the Presbyterians themselves moved away from their requirement.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Still thinking about Latin Mass wars: With help from The Pillar and America magazine

, , , , , , ,
Still thinking about Latin Mass wars: With help from The Pillar and America magazine

The Latin Mass story is not going away.

At this point, the question is where this emotional and more than symbolic conflict is going.

It’s clear that there is a small flock of traditional Catholics who view the familiar cadences of the Tridentine Rite Mass as an escape from the reforms — some would say modernization efforts — of the Second Vatican Council. But it also obvious that many bishops believe that this is not the case for the majority of the Catholics (especially young Catholics) who prefer the beauty of the Latin Mass.

Meanwhile, it’s clear that many powerful Vatican leaders, including Pope Francis, see use of the traditional Latin Mass as a powerful wedge issue that divides Catholics and they want to see it go away.

The question: Will the renewed efforts to crush the Tridentine create more dissenters, instead of smothering them?

This brings me to this weekend’s “think pieces” — drawn from two very different sources — the progressive Jesuit magazine America and The Pillar, a more conservative news and commentary site.

First, consider this essay at America: “I love Pope Francis’ commitment to dialogue — which is why his Latin Mass restrictions confuse me.”

Author Gregory Hillis begins by praising the Pope Francis encyclical “Fratelli Tutti,” focusing on its call for unity — built on “genuine dialogue rooted in love.”

The big question: Where is the loving dialogue about use of the Latin Mass?

We cannot be closed to others, Pope Francis taught, whether they be political or ideological opponents or whether they be people yearning to find a new life as immigrants. A “healthy openness never threatens one’s identity,” he wrote (FT 148). Too often we deny “the right of others to exist or to have an opinion,” and as a result, “their share of the truth and their values are rejected” (No. 15). Instead, Pope Francis urged us “to give way to a dialogic realism on the part of men and women who remain faithful to their own principles while recognizing that others also have the right to do likewise.” This, he continued, “is the genuine acknowledgment of the other that is made possible by love alone.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy