Benedict and Vatican II

 

One of the most eventful weeks in recent times and my computer decides to give up the ghost!  My poor laptop which has served me faithfully for over five years, resisting the frustrations of Vista and XP, finally said it could go on no longer.  So in the last few days I have been trying to get a replacement and save files from the hard drive.  But all is almost sorted. I have two missing files, but I will be going back to the computer doctor so he can help me find them.

 

I think we are all still reeling after Pope Benedict's announcement, and what emotional days these have been.  At least, in the midst of the sorrow, the Holy Father can see the love the faithful have for him - he was truly our holy Father and we have the opportunity to let him know.  

 

Tributes have been pouring in, and they have been fulsome.  The faithful are praising him, many of them understanding why he has decided to step down.  I was impressed with what Cardinal Arinze had to say, if you have not seen the video, I am posting it below. 

 

In these final days, Benedict has been enriching our understanding of the faith, continuing his ministry right to the end...and offering us new insights.  His unscripted talk to the priests of the diocese of Rome on Vatican II was revealing.  Here is the text.  As a witness to what was happening in those years, Benedict is well placed to offer reflections on what was happening.  In his talk he speaks of two Councils - the Council of the Church and the council of the media, the one which has triumphed over the last forty years.  While the legitimate Council was taking place in the context of faith - the council of the media was nothing more than politics - a struggle between "conservatives" and "liberals", the baddies and the goodies.  This is the image which has prevaled precisely because faith has been excised from the meaning of the Council. 

 

Yet, as the Holy Father points out, there was a great sense of joy and hope: great theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Danielou were present (as he was himself - no mean theologian himself), and these great thinkers were drawing on the ancient traditions and teachings of the Church Fathers and saw in them a path for authentic renewal and the impetus for a new evangelical thrust.  All of this has yet to be discovered, but thanks to his Papacy, Benedict has been opening the door to the Council for all of us.  His General Audiences on the Saints, for example, have exposed the ordinary faithful to the lives and teachings of the holy ones who can teach us how to live the Gospel in our time. 

 

I have to say I feel a great sadness for Ireland - for the Catholics of our country did not get the chance to see Benedict in the flesh and to hear him speak.  For many in the Church here their only exposure is that which our media allowed, and that was deeply distorted and unjust.  I was talking with a good Catholic man today and he opined over the many mistakes Benedict had made, how he ignored child abuse and frustrated the efforts of bishops dealing with it.  This is the Irish media's view of Benedict and it is the exact opposite of the truth. 

 

In a sense, many in Ireland have been kept in the dark by the media - like mushrooms and fed plenty of manure to make them mistrust the Pope and the Church.  Many have been betrayed by priests - true; but I believe the Irish have been betrayed by the Irish media who destroyed a wonderful papacy and calumnied a holy man because they did not like what he had to say - because he said it so well.  At the end of the day they were afraid of him - if people really listened to him they would not only be charmed by his simple holiness, but would see that what he teaches is true and beautiful: our media masters understood that all too well.

 

Anyway, I hope people in Ireland will eventually come to know and understand this wonderful Pontiff.   There are many of us younger priests who have tried to share his teaching with them (not withouy much opposition - some have even tried to silence us), but we will continue.  Why?  Because in order to understand Vatican II we need to listen to what Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has to say - he is one of those who influenced it.  

The Suffering Pontiff

News from Rome seems to confirm that Pope Paul VI may well be beatified next year: the Congregation for the Causes of Saints is examining a possible miracle.  He has yet to be declared Venerable, but once that decree is signed and the miracle accepted, beatification can quickly follow.  If Pope John Paul I's cause is as advanced, Pope Benedict may well make history by beatifying his three immediate predecessors - Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II.    

Pope Paul's beatification may well prove to be controversial - I imagine there are many of a certain generation who will be appalled.  And perhaps some of our more Traditionalist Catholics will not be impressed either.   

Paul's legacy is a mixed one and he was a complex man.   He was a holy man, I think few would doubt his personal holiness.  But for all of that his pontificate is controversial and perhaps even seen to be divisive. Some maintain he was a weak man unable to control the fall out from Vatican II, others see him as a liberal intent on changing the Church radically.  And of course there are those who reject his teaching on artificial contraception and see him as a man who, in the end, turned against the "spirit of Vatican II".   This last view may well be the thing to raise the ire of some in the Church should he be beatified. 

Whatever position people may take, I think Paul's stance on the issue of artificial contraception may well have been the work for which he was called to be Pope.  Despite the urgings of the committee Blessed John XXIII set up, and the attempts of various Church figures to influence him, Paul saw he could not change the moral teaching of the Church, but rather had to reiterate it even though it meant becoming a pariah.  It was surely a case of Paulus contra mundum: doing what he saw was the right thing though the world and many Catholics, now gripped in revolution, could neither accept nor understand.  With the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, Paul's via crucis began in earnest and he became what I believe to be "the suffering Pontiff".

My view of the last few popes is simple.  I believe the Ven. Pius XII prepared the Church through his own engagement with the world and fight against tyranny, for a great reform.  Blessed John XXIII was called to initiate that reform with the calling of the Council.  Pope Paul VI was to suffer in the turbulence of the post-conciliar period for the reform.  John Paul I was sent to reveal, after years of trouble and division, the gentleness and humanity of Christ - the "smiling pope" was just to be there, though only for a short time, to bring a certain peace.  Then John Paul II, the great charismatic one, brought the Council back on track: he stabilised, taught, drew people back in and went out to the world to proclaim Christ and promulgate the New Evangelisation which is the fruit of Vatican II when that Council is properly understood.  And then there is Benedict the Teacher who, in his gentle way, teaches those John Paul II brought back and prepares the members of the Church to go out to the whole world and proclaim the Good News.  He teaches, consolidates, puts us back in touch with the tradition (the ressourcement of the Council): reminds us that we already have a solid foundation on which to build our new missionary effort.  And the next Pope?  A missionary?  A defender of the faith in a secular world where civilisation is crumbling?  I do not know, nor will I speculate - the Holy Spirit is in charge there.

Is that all too simplistic?  Perhaps, but I do see a plan, a divine plan, where each of our recent popes were called to fulfill a certain role in these times.  Paul was the one called to suffer - they all suffered of course, but Paul's own suffering seemed to mirror the confusion and craziness of the times.  His suffering was inflicted by the disobedience of Catholics who rebelled against the Church's teaching because they thought they had a deeper insight into their humanity and into how things should be. 

Did Paul make mistakes?  Yes, I believe he did: for example he should have upheld the suspension of the Washington priests who rejected Humanae Vitae.  In reinstating them he sent a dangerous message to all those who dissented: rebel and nothing will be done to you.  But Paul wanted to bring them around, and while in hindsight we see that did not work, hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Paul was not a disciplinarian, he wanted to persuade, to encourage people to see the truth and accept it: he had pure intentions, I believe.

In related news I see that a Cause has been opened for Aldo Moro, the former Prime Minister of Italy and personal friend of Pope Paul, who was murdered by radical socialists in 1978.  Moro was a noble man who, with Paul's help, saw his role as a politician in terms of a call from God to serve his people.  His faith was important to him and he may well have been a saint - time and the process will tell.  His murder left Paul devastated and most likely hastened the Pontiff's death: Paul died a few months later.  One of the saddest images of Paul is from the funeral of Aldo Moro in St John Lateran's.  Paul, broken and burdened with grief and suffering is carried into the basilica to preside over the funeral Mass.  In his homily, Paul asks God why this good man had been so brutally torn from his family and friends and killed in such an inhuman way.  That homily is one of the most extraordinary ever delivered by a Pope: indeed, it is one in which the Pontiff seems to rebuke God:

And who can listen to our lament, if not you, O God of life and death? You did not hearken to our supplication for the safety of Aldo Moro, this good, meek, wise, innocent and friendly man; but you, O Lord, have not abandoned his immortal spirit, sealed by faith in Christ, who is the resurrection and the life.

Blessed John Paul deeply admired Pope Paul: they were friends, and Paul turned to the then Archbishop of Krakow as he was writing Humanae Vitae.  In one of his speeches about Pope Paul, Blessed John Paul praised his legacy and his courage:

A strong and humble apostle...Paul VI wanted the ecclesial community to open up to the world without giving in to the spirit of the world. With prudent wisdom, he knew how to resist the temptation of ‘conforming’ to the modern mentality, sustaining difficulties and misunderstandings, and sometimes even hostility, with evangelical strength. Even in the most difficult moments he did not cease to bring God's illuminating word to his people.

Paul's beatification will, I think, bring us to focus on his legacy, his teaching and his courage.  It will also be an opportunity for the Church to explain what Paul actually teaches in Humanae Vitae, this time with evidence.  Paul was a prophet - what he said might happen should we abandon the moral law of God, has happened: it may well be time that the world woke up and saw reality for what it is.

The Response

As it is Sunday morning, this post will be brief - I have to give a day retreat in the afternoon and evening, so I may not get a chance later.  A few musings on the Vatican's response to the Irish government. 

I had a quick read of the document, and I have to say it is a fine piece of writing.  First of all I would have to disagree with Eamon Gilmore when he describes it as "legalistic and technical" - yes, it deals with legal issues, but Gilmore's comment seems to me to say that the document is difficult to read and full of technical terms - almost a bluff perhaps.  Well it is not.  It is easy to read and I would urge all of you to read it: it is the Vatican at her best.

A second observation is that this document is devastating in its clarity and argumentation.  In it the Holy See takes the Cloyne Report and the Taoiseach's accusations, examines them in full and then provides a response which reveals the Taoiseach's accusations to be completely unfounded. 

The Vatican offers a plausible context within which to interpret the letter of 1997, a context which seems to have been lost on Judge Murphy, the government and also, sadly to say, on certain victims's groups.  In looking at the question of mandatory reporting, the authors of the document have certainly done their homework and have referred to and quoted from Irish politicians - some members of the current administration, who expressed difficulties with the proposal to introduce the practice, including Michael Noonan, present Minister for Finance, then Minister for Health who defended the then government's decision not to introduce mandatory reporting. 

This is devastating for the present government: for it reveals that as they now condemn the Vatican for reservations about mandatory reporting back in 1997, at that time, when they (Fine Gael, Labour and Democatic Left  - members of whom are now in Labour) were in government from the 15th December 1994 to 26th June 1997, they had similar reservations and took the decision not to introduce it.  This is deeply embarrassing for the government, but also for the Irish state - they have been caught out and exposed us the citizens to international ridicule!  Other governments will be reading this document and they will come to their own conclusion about the ability of those who are running our country, and given that we now rely on foreign aid to prop up our economy, the situation our Taoiseach and government have put us in is very worrying.  Let's hope the paymaster general of Europe, on whom we rely most heavily - Germany, does not take offence at Kenny's careless and unfounded allegations against their Pope.

The Holy See's response also clarifies the quotation from Pope Benedict used by the Taoiseach in his attack, putting it in its proper context - politicians should be careful when they quote both Scripture and Church documents, not being theologians, they are liable to slips in understanding.

That's all I have time for.  We await the government's response.  I noted last night on the 9 o'clock news the RTE was very subdued.  In his report from Rome Paul Cunningham spoke of the possibility of a "thaw" in relations between the government and the Holy See.  There was no interview with a victim which is usually the norm - they spoke briefly to the leader of one victims's group and referred to another.  Joe Little, the religious affairs correspondent, who never misses a chance to bash the Church, was very quiet and circumspect in his commentary.  And the newscaster moved on quickly to another item, no beating the story to death.  I think we can come to certain conclusions about that.

When all this over, I hope we can eventually get back to looking after the victims and then a make a firm commitment to rooting out child abuse not only from the Church, but also from Irish society.  The government can start by setting up an inquiry to find out why 200 children have died in State care in the last ten years, and others have gone missing - gone without a trace.  This fact has been, for the most part, swept under the carpet.  If they died or gone missing in Church care we would never hear the end of it, but since these children were in state care, just silence.....

St Philip and Vatican II

As we celebrate St Philip Neri's feast day, some thoughts.  His life and apostolate were revolutionary - indeed at the time he was held in deep suspicion, as are many innovators.  He was thought to hold unorthodox ideas, as was his spiritual son Blessed John Henry Newman.  He was, of course, strictly kosher and orthodox in faith, he was just a little unorthodox when it came to evangelisation.  You might say novel, but that implies novelty, and though he was always good for a laugh and quirky, St Philip could never be described as a novelty.  Indeed, while he loved good humour, he had no time for buffoonery.

Was St Philip a man ahead of his time?  He was a gift to the Church in his time, helping the reform of the Church following the Protestant Reformation, and a major figure in the Counter-Reformation.  His Oratory was ingenious - gathering the faithful to pray and study doctrine, Church history, the lives and writings of the Saints and other catechetical material.  It is an idea which still holds wonderful evangelical possibilities and one which could be taken up again in these days of the New Evangelisation. 

Indeed St Philip would be most at home in this period of time as a priest of the Church following Vatican II.  Knowing him, he would have been a fan of Blessed John XXIII - he would have understood what the Pontiff was trying to do.  If he was alive today he would have been a great help to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  Like all of these Pontiffs, he realised that the Gospel may need to be preached in different ways to attract the attention of modern men and women.

Interestingly, despite his innovative approach, St Philip seems always associated with a more Traditionalist view of the Church which, to my mind, is not really what he was all about.  Ironically it was the Traditionalists of the 16th century who most disliked him and tried to undermine his work, even going as far as making accusations against him to the Pope himself.   

Yet, as I think about it, given the devotion Traditionalists have for him, and his Oratories are centres for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, St Philip could be a figure of reconciliation and harmony in the Church in these times.   He would make a good patron of liturgical reform as he would be of the New Evangelisation.  St Philip does indeed have much to say to us today.

St Catherine the Philosopher

Got to love today's feast - for a number of reasons.  The first is the wonderful example St Catherine of Alexandria offers to us as we struggle to live in a difficult age, an age which is no longer convinced by the Gospel.  The image of St Catherine debating with the philosophers and showing them that Christianity is worthy of credibility, and does stand philosophically, is a powerful one for our time which is, perhaps, the greatest age of disbelief.  For her efforts she is the patron saint of philosophers and she wasn't even a philosopher herself - there is a real call to humility there for our friends engaged in that discipline.

Another reason we can celebrate today is because this feast was restored by the Venerable Pope John Paul II after some hasty changes following Vatican II suppressed it with the excuse that she probably never existed.  Now I know there are problems with the Acts of her martyrdom, but that is no reason to turf out a saint who has inspired devotion for centuries and where there is a strong tradition of her existence.   I do believe that during the 1960's, 70's and 80's a certain brand of scholarship got the upper hand and a number of Saints were cast aside. 

We all know of poor St Philomena and St Christopher. Interestingly there has been a reversal of sorts with these two also.  A few years after St Philomena was toppled (even though her sanctuary was never dismantled nor devotion there suppressed) an Indian bishop, whose cathedral was dedicated to Philomena and whose cult was strong among his flock, wrote to Pope Paul VI and asked him what the official word was. Pope Paul wrote back and told him to be at peace and to continue the devotions as before.  So what was going on there? Was it a case that on the one hand the Church suppresses the feast and says she never existed, but on the other the Pope encourages the faithful to continue their devotion to her?  Regarding St Christopher, recent historical research has revealed that he did exist - again the legends may not be true, but there was a martyr called Christopher whom the Church honours as a saint in heaven.

A most interesting case is that of St Simon Stock - as a Carmelite this caught my attention.  Doubts were expressed as to whether Simon existed or not.  It was decided that he did not, and so the feast was suppressed.  Once he was gone, there was now a problem with the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel - she did not appear, it was concluded.  When bishops in South America got wind of a possible assault on the feast, they raised the matter with the Pope.  Again he assured them that they could continue to celebrate the feast.  Meanwhile some researchers got to work and eventually compiled enough information to prove that St Simon did indeed exist: this evidence was submitted and the feast was restored.  I wonder if they apologised to St Simon.

Historical research is important, and the Church needs to keep an eye on what is going on.  But she must also be prudent.  A lot of mistakes were made in the crazy years that followed the Second Vatican Council, some have been rectified, and Pope Benedict XVI seems determined to deal with others.  Vatican II was a gift to the Church - it will prepare us for the New Evangelisation, but too many have tried to hijack it and use it to promote their own ends - people inside and outside the Church.  More prudence is needed.

The restoration of St Catherine's feast is a sign that things are changing, that the devotions and traditions of our faith are still relevant in an age when we do embrace new challenges and new expressions of the faith.  We are Catholic, we should never reject what is true and beautiful about our faith be it old or new.  Blessed John Henry Newman is a great model of this.  He was deeply planted in the rich soil of the Church's tradition, and because of that he could veer out on the great adventure of faith, discovering the hidden treasures and the deeper meanings.  His teaching on development of doctrine is based on this.  I'm sure St Catherine would heartily agree.  I wonder - do St Catherine and Blessed John Henry engage in philosophical and theological debates in heaven (with Aquinas as ref)?  If so, who would win - the gentle, sensitive priest and scholar, or the Virgin Martyr?  No contest there - the Virgin Martyrs win hands down every time!

Boost For Religious Life

All six Blesseds canonised today were members of religious orders, so might say that today religious life is getting a boost from the Lord.  Each of the six have their own stories, experiences and difficulties, but all are united in their love of Christ and their desire to offer themselves to him in consecrated life.  What is so wonderful is that all three vocations within traditional religious consecration are represented.

St Stanislaw Soltys was a priest and professed member of the Canons Regular of the Lateran.  St Candida Maria  de Jesus Cipitria y Barriola, St Guilia Salzano, St Camilla Battista Varano and St Mary MacKillop were sisters. St Andre Bessette was a professed brother.  In their canonisation, the Church offers to all of us, but to our religious in particular, examples of how to follow Christ in every aspect of life.  I am particularly delighted with St Andre's glorification because we need to be reminded of the unique vocation of the Brother.  For too long professed brothers were seen as those who did not quite make the mark to be priests, yet their calling is as unique and particular as that of priests and sisters.  St Andre reveals through his life the rich possibilities that exist within the vocation.  He was not impoverished because he could not say Mass or hear confessions, he was enriched because in his calling he could exercise a ministry which the priests of his order were unable to do. 

Yesterday's profession ceremony in Stamullen was beautiful - simple, yet solemn and wonderful.  Sr Cora Marie vowed to live the evangelical counsels for the rest of her life while devoting herself to a life of prayer and service for the Church and the world.  As one of the vows recalled, she was to be hidden with Christ in humble service.  This is what each of our six new saints did: the fact that Sr Cora Marie's profession took place on the weekend of the canonisation of six religious, is no coincidence, I think, but providential.  I hope many will follow in her steps, and inspired by the Church's holy religious, make the generous offering of their own lives.

Another wonderful thing about this canonisation is that it is a welcome moment for the religious of the west, and for Ireland, if they choose to acknowledge it.  Many are depressed by the recent scandals - innocent and good religious who spent their lives in humble service of those in need, are now hated, despised and demonised by many in Irish society and the media here.  They did no wrong, but they are crucified all the same.  On the other hand, there are others who have thrown off their religious life and pursue "personally fulfilling lives" and chide the Church for her adherence to the teachings of Christ.   Anyway, no giving out. 

The renewal of religious life was one of the aims of the Second Vatican Council, and while many religious have gone haywire, as we say here, God love them, the renewal is still happening, even new forms of religious life are emerging - always a sign that a great spiritual regeneration is taking place.  The two last times we had this was, first, in St Francis's time when the new form of friars emerged - these friars - Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, among others, were responsible for a great reform of the 12th and 13th centuries.  Then, the second great period, was that around Trent. Again new, revolutionary forms developed - the Jesuits and Oratorians among them.  And again these new orders, societies and congregations, joining forces with the existing Orders which reforming either from within or from breakaway groups, began a great evangelisation.  Even a quick look at Church history teaches us that.

Now look at what is happening - Church history is repeating itself.  New congregations and forms are emerging: new societies of friars, monks and nuns.  The innovative form of the Secular Institutes, consecrated lay people and the myriad of movements which united priests, religious, consecrated and non-consecrated lay people.  And God is confirming that these new ways of life sanctify, as, for example the canonisation of St Josemaria Escriva and beatification of Blessed Chiara Luce Badano prove.  In Ireland, we are still waiting for that, although the movements are present, some of them.  We need more of them, and we need new religious - particularly native foundations.  When a man or woman finally founds a new congregation in Ireland, we will know the reform has begun.  I hope our six new Saints will pray for that.