The Shot heard round the World

I don’t think any of our readers can have missed the Bishop of Rome’s interview of last week – the making and publication of which was elaborately coordinated with his Jesuit friends. That in and of itself was important news. Obviously the statements of Pope Francis regarding “life issues” and sexual morality made the biggest immediate impact. For the entire prolife movement – insofar as it is Catholic – was at once thrown into crisis. It was amusing to see conservative Catholic paladins – for example, Donohue, Lawler and “Father Z” – attempting to prove that Pope Francis didn’t say what he did.

We of course are more interested in his “views” on the Traditional liturgy:

“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people whohave this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”

Note that the above statements are in response to a general question about Vatican II. Francis obviously views liturgical reform as its most significant legacy. The Bishop of Rome sees absolutely no liturgical problems arising from the Council. Rather, its effects – again, especially in the liturgy – are entirely beneficial. Thus, the positions of either the “reform of the reform” or Traditionalist perspectives are summarily dismissed. Now this is not all different from the liturgical views of John Paul II at least as described by George Weigel.

Pope Francis does not reject Summorum Pontificum. Rather, he redefines it as an indult (or in the words of a certain pastor in New York City, a “privilege”). It is a measure of “prudence” to “help” people who have “sensitivity” (for the old liturgy). So we – the followers of the old liturgy – are defective in some way that requires special assistance. But the pope’s patronizing tone quickly becomes threatening; the use of the traditional mass is nevertheless “worrying” because of the risk of “ideologization” ( making comments critical of Vatican II?) It is all a far cry from the previous pontiff’s vision: where of SP was a measure furthering general liturgical renewal and enrichment.

Now, all of this is less startling than statements in this interview on other fronts. For the Bishop of Rome’s position on the traditional liturgy and traditionalists already was abundantly clear from his words and his actions, both as pope and as archbishop of Buenos Aires. And I don’t think his position is all that different from that of the majority of Catholic hierarchs – both today and for the last 45 years. Do Mahoney and Vingt-Trois, Schoenborn and Wuerl teach anything different? Outside of a few rare places, isn’t SP in fact administered as a continuation of the prior indult regime? One final remarkable thing about this interview is what it confirms regarding the personality of the interviewee: no facts and no arguments will shake this pope’s convictions and confidence.