A few words need to be said on the topic rocking the Catholic media world: the Pope’s comments on condoms in the new Seewald book. We need not analyze here the meaning of the Pope’s statements; thousands of others have by now. Let me make just a few general remarks. First, the issuance of this interview is obviously part of a coordinated Vatican initiative to defuse the conflict with the Western media which came to a head this year. Another component of this effort is the new Vatican initiative on child abuse. Second, the interview contains other remarks, even more extraordinary than those on AIDS, that have been obscured by the condom flap, such as:
I modified [the ancient Good Friday petition to express that] Christ is the Savior of the Jews…but in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense…
Third, the impact of all this on “conservative Catholics “ has been understandably traumatic. Only a few dispute the correctness of the remarks. Others (like Archbishop Chaput or Andrea Tornielli) have been more forceful in denouncing the by now legendary incompetence of the Vatican communications functions (e.g., incorrect translations; timing the publishing of excerpts from the book to conflict with the ceremony of the creation of cardinals, a total lack of preparation for the resulting firestorm).
We hope later to review here the Seewald book (in the original language) at which time we will be able to say something more specific about those issues that relate to the text itself. I would like, however, to focus on the some other points which I do not believe have received sufficient attention. These are more fundamental issues that should be a concern for every Traditionalist.
We follow the analysis of the late Prof. Thomas Molnar in viewing Vatican II and its aftermath as, in essence, a process of the subjection of the Church to the modernity and its rulers. Earlier ages had seen similar if less extreme examples: the “Babylonian Captivity” of the Avignon papacy under the French monarchy: the establishment of Henry VIIl as head of the Church in England; the triumph over the papacy by the Bourbon monarchs, the German prince bishops and Emperor Joseph II around 1780. But the lords of modernity are not an aristocracy or a monarch but “civil society”: the press, the corporations, the law firms, the universities, the pressure groups etc. Molnar viewed, for example, the participation of Pope John Paul II in an earlier book of interviews with an Italian journalist as the epitome of Church conformity to the expectations of civil society.
It is amazing that none of the commentators find inappropriate that Pope Benedict not only gives an interview to a journalist but uses it as the vehicle for potentially revolutionary theological and moral comments. Moreover, nobody, other than one or two perceptive commentators, stops to consider that such remarks technically are only the Pope’s private opinions; the overwhelming majority (including the Vatican and L’Osservatore Romano) treat them as immediately establishing new law. Moreover, judging by the excerpts published so far, it is the press, speaking through the interviewer Seewald, who sets the agenda and frames the discussion. A clearer example of the abject submission of the Conciliar Church to “civil society” could not be imagined.
Furthermore, if the Vatican thought that the Seewald book would be a step in reestablishing peace with the powers of “civil society,” early indications are that they are sorely mistaken. With one bastion having fallen, the forces of modernity simply turn to the next objective. And our concern is that this next step may be a renewed direct attack upon Traditionalism and its supporters. An article that appeared in the leading German newspaper may give a hint of what is to come.
The German journalist Christian Geyr , who had offered some eminently sensible commentaries on Church affairs during the reign of John Paul II, has lately turned into a relentless critic of Pope Benedict and the Church. In his article “Eine goldig verzierte Moral” (A gilded Morality) in the FAZ of 11/22/2010, he launches a savage attack upon Traditionalist Catholics in the form of a review of a book by one David Berger. Mr. Berger, a “theologian” (in German usage, often nothing more than a student or school teacher of the subject), had profiled himself in recent years as a “conservative Catholic” and a rabid foe of Traditionalists – somewhat like Mark Shea in the US. His reign as a hero of the “neo-Catholics” came to an abrupt end with his “outing” in a homosexual scandal but of course his celebrity status with the German secular media followed the opposite trajectory.
Berger and Geyr find that the Traditional liturgy “has a special attraction for queers” which to them is a paradox, because such liturgical movements are represented by “groups which, more than all others in Catholicism, condemn homosexuality.” Berger is no fan of Martin Mosebach. “A Traditionalism, elegantly perfumed by aesthetes like Martin Mosebach, has in the meantime become socially acceptable” – so Mr. Berger. Berger further alleges that “to this very day the flourishing professional market in vestments for the Traditional liturgy has been largely in homosexual hands. Every clerical vestment that the 18th and 19th centuries produced – from rose to violet and always ornamented with gold thread – can in the meantime be bought from gay merchants in the internet.” But the “homosexual sublimation” that is the “root and source of the Traditional Catholic cult” also explains the “homophobia” in such circles. Geyr finds that after the Seewald book, this culture of “discretion and repression” can no longer be maintained. The loosening of the restrictions on condoms is only the first step in liberating sexuality from a “Catholic fantasy world.”
In the present atmosphere these remarks give cause for concern. Already, the current spirit of appeasement in the Vatican and the utter unpredictability of Team Ratzinger have caused some commentators sympathetic to Tradition to view the recently revived rumors of the long awaited issuance of implementing regulations for Summorum Pontifcum with anxiety, not with joyful anticipation. We shall see – perhaps before the end of this year. But I would not be at all surprised in the meantime to see a renewed attempt on the part of the media and some national hierarchies to choke off the developing Traditionalist movement.
Related Articles
11 users responded in this post
I would like to see EXACTLY what His Holiness said IN CONTEXT.
If there is any way the secular media can mess up something about ANYBODY’S church, they will find it.
How funny it would be for the real Mark Shea to be outed in a similar way here. I bet he’d still run the blog and quote Dreher
Wow! Klass with a capital KKK, Joe.
Sadly for you, I am contentedly heterosexual. But you certainly outed yourself with that remark. It’s guys like you that are the worst enemy of Pope Benedict’s reforms.
“If a robber who previously murdered all his victims now turns to merely beating them senseless, that could be a sign that he is experiencing a moral awakening.” This statement does not endorse robbery, murder, or beatings – it is only a statement that the evil doer may be moving in the right direction. Likewise the Holy Father never says that condom use is ever moral – in fact he says the very opposite when asked by the interviewer, and also says such use is also ineffective.
The Orthodox Church permits the use of condoms as part of the “Economia” of salvation and no one would question that they are lacking in traditional theological beleifs and theological princpiles. I have no real problem with the RCC relaxing her hard line stance on contraceptives because I know that the vast majority of priest and laity have already done so in their opinions and counsels for nearly the past half century.
The Popes new opinions on condom use are the msot realistic position that a religious leader can take on this subject while still remaning a credible source of authority in todays world. It is now our duty as Catholics to obey these words and work to promote responsible condom use amongst the worlds population.
Mark Shea can ably defend himself, but I just want to pipe in as someone who loves “traditional” Catholicism and the Tridentine Mass and thinks that your criticism of him as a “neo-Cath” is ridiculous.
Shea is a modern Chesterton and a gift to the Church. Yes, he prefers the novus ordo, but so what? His barbs at traditionalism are at a) a false and gnostic ideology that grips many in the fever swamps, and b) a smug, self-righteousness present among many attached to traditional Catholicism. Those criticisms, in my view, are justified, as long as one does not paint all people who attend the old Mass, or think Vatican II created more problems than it solved.
Anyway, this Trid Mass attendee thinks it a scandal to lump Shea in with the likes of gay, pseudo apologists.
I have a notion of tradition, Sacred Tradition, in the Church: traditionalism, not so much. However, I doubt that those who love the Old Rite–which includes me–need to fear secular media. They should keep their own interests in view, and ask what they have done, besides attending Mass or Vespers, to support Sacred Tradition. Do they report abuses in liturgy of either form to their pastor, to their bishop? Do they give witness to other Catholics–still sorely ignorant both of the Pope’s express wish for the Tridentine Mass and of that Mass itself–to their own experience of truth and beauty? Do they write letters to the secular and Catholic media praising good and blaming evil? Do they study Latin, Greek, and Hebrew?
As for condoms, here is Cardinal Burke speaking of the Pope as quoted in the book in question:
“What he’s commenting on – in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution – but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person – even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable – this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant [unacceptable] so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.”
To have a marriage there must be life and love, without one or the other you do not have a marriage.
Christian couples are to bring forth children, the concupiscence is secondary.
The children are to be raised as useful citizens and good Christians.
Sex is a privilege of the married.
Teaching persons self control and the reasons why (prevention of getting a venereal disease, or a person who is using them and may even kill them, etc…) they are to go by rules.
“My people perish because of lack of knowledge.”
If a another person could not wait for you, in marriage, or keeps pressuring you; leave them.
My suffix is II. Pray, fast, penance and alms. Rad what St. Daniel said to King Nebuchadenazzar (Ch 3?).
Regarding this: “We follow the analysis of the late Prof. Thomas Molnar in viewing Vatican II and its aftermath as, in essence, a process of the subjection of the Church to the modernity and its rulers.”
I have not read Molnar, so I can’t comment on him or his views in particular. However, one had better not dare to say or even imply that the Second Vatican Council was nothing but a subjection to modernity, as though one may reject the Council either in full or in part, or as if it’s ok to disdain the Council or stand in judgment upon it. (We do have some Trad Cafeteria Catholics, you know…)
One either accepts the infallibility of the Church as it applies to ecumenical councils–ALL councils–or one does not. We Catholics, of course, do accept it.
Not accusing anyone, but one should be very precise with one’s language.
Truly “My people perish because of lack of knowledge.”
nony, when and where has the Church taught that ecumenical councils are infallible in their teaching? Not every one of the 21 ecumenical council issued creeds, canons and/or definitions of faith. Lateran I and III and Lyons I were all disciplinary, nothing was defined. We know, from the head of the Church itself, three popes, that Vatican II was not an infallible council. It defined nothing. Only where the decrees reiterated previous definitions is there infallibility. We owe Vatican II the assent of conscience that is called “reverential” or “filial” I believe, but not the “assent of Faith.”
It was Pope Benedict himself who said that the decrees of Vatican II must be weighed in the light of tradition and, where found to be seemingly in conflict, then they are to be discarded in favor of what is de fide.
Leave A Reply