... but over different things than "liberal" Catholics? The thought is prompted by my reading of Pope Benedict XVI's Message for the World Day of Peace 2009. The full text of the message can be found at ZENIT and on the Vatican website.
In the second section of the message Pope Benedict addresses "Poverty and moral implications", and highlights five particular aspects of poverty that have moral dimensions. These are, in this order: the tying of aid programmes to population control measures, in a way that does not respect the rights of parents; responses to pandemic diseases that reflect anti-life policies and lack the teaching of a proper sexual ethic; child poverty, brought about by failing to support and protect mothers and families through health care and social programmes; the diversion of large sums of money into the arms trade; and the current food crisis which is leading to increasing food prices that affect more than anyone those who are already poor.
It is important to recognise that different people and movements in the Church have different parts to play in the functioning of the "one body". This means that some organisations and individuals will specialise in, say, what are usually identified as "pro-life" activities while others specialise in activities that might usually be identified as "social aid" or "advocacy on behalf of the poor". The fact that a person is active in one area and not in another is not of itself an indication that they are "picking and choosing" which areas of Catholic belief they will put in to practice. What should be common across the different areas of activity is an ecclesial dimension, that is, an attitude of faithfulness to the teaching of the Church that, while it might focus on a particular area for activity as a charism or vocation received, is nevertheless open to the whole. And, in line with this, every area of activity should retain a Christological and Trinitarian inspiration and, indeed, a Eucharistic dimension.
The question for "traditional" Catholics, though, is the following. As you read the list of five points from Pope Benedict's message, do you readily accept some of them (opposition to population control tied to aid, the support of sexual morality as a response to AIDS) but turn away from others (opposition to the arms trade)? Is there a temptation to opt for the politically conservative and turn away from the politically progressive?
The teaching of Pope Benedict in his addresses, messages and homilies - the "ordinary magisterium" of Pope Benedict XVI - really brings this question to prominence. It is indeed clearly signalled in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est with its two parts, the first focussed on Christ and the second focussed on the practice of charity.
Pope Benedict is the Pope of Summorum Pontificum, which has established the previous form of the celebration of Mass as an "extraordinary form" alongside the "ordinary form". He is also the Pope who has spoken repeatedly of the way in which we should value the created world around us. Catholics shouldn't really cheer for one without taking on board the other.
21 comments:
I am politically firmly left of the middle, but pro-life and most certainly appreciating a TLM every now and then. Fortunately I have friends who think the same way. Out on the internet there are certain places where I just don't talk politics because it would be too painful.
I'm not normally a fan of hasty canonisations, but we need Mother Teresa!
I am politically firmly left of the middle, but pro-life and most certainly appreciating a TLM every now and then. Fortunately I have friends who think the same way. Out on the internet there are certain places where I just don't talk politics because it would be too painful.
I'm not normally a fan of hasty canonisations, but we need Mother Teresa!
I think you are spot-on with this post: I term this the 'Listing Barque' syndrome and have recently posted about it (http://ccfather.blogspot.com/2008/12/listing-barque.html)
The risk is that we tend to over-react to the extremes of the other side, and fall off the barque on our preferred side. The Devil, of course, doesn't mind which side of the barque we fall off - modernism or sede-vacantism...
I think the answer to the question is yes, in general I can see on the blogs (although I have no idea if this is reflected elsewhere) an often unthinking connection between traditional catholicism and political conservatism, as you imply.
For example: I think an encyclical from the Pope with an economic slant is due soon, I remember reading about the delay on various trad blogs and in general there seemed to be relief and a consensus that Popes shouldn't talk about such things because they don't understand economics and it's 'embarrasing'. I got the impression that this viewpoint was formed because what has been written in the past by senior clergy doesn't conform to their conservative views about trade!
Reading this post, sounds like you would have it that every uttered word of the Pope is inspired by the Holy Ghost, which simply is not true.
Protestants forever accuse Catholics of worshipping on every word the Pope says - thus if Pope says the sky is green and the grass is blue, we must accept it. You seemed to have attributed a sort of papal infallibility to the WYD speech, which simply is not there.
There is a difference in legislation for a liturgical rite and a speech, which merely comments on some of the problems of the world today. An opposition to the arms trade is his holiness personal opinion but it can in no way be regarded as binding on every Catholic.
If that were so, it would have been classified as mortal sin to disagree with John Paul II on whether the Iraq war was legitimate!
I'm in the US, Washington DC as a matter of fact. (I attend the usus antiquior on Sundays and holy days at my parish churcch, the usus recentior at the Cathedral during the week.)
What you suggest is in line with my own experience, indeed.
It becomes a very complicated set of issues, though, doesn't it? because of the abnormal situation those who prefer the old rites have been put in during the last 30 years.
I find it more than understandable that many people have, in order to defend their rights to have access to the Mass celebrated in the u a, become habituated to a state of feeling 'under siege' and becoming almost reflexively opposed to any initiative or project that smacks of 'modernity' or newness.
I hope that as the continuing implementation of an authentic liturgical reform makes progress, many of those who have perceived themselves shunted into the 'crazy Latin Mass folk' ghetto will be able to better see the fullness of the the teaching of the Church, for whose liberty and exaltation they haven't ceased to pray.
Thanks for your blog! I found it linked in a post of Father Blake's. -- Marc
Ottaviani:
Thank you for your comment, but I do feel you are being a bit unfair!
You are right to point out a distinction between what one might term a "policy" or a "comment" in regard to a contemporary situation and formal doctrinal "teaching". However, I would suggest that there is a component of "teaching" along with "policy/comment" in both John Paul II's response to the Iraq war and Pope Benedict's more recent remarks about the arms trade.
Fr Ray Blake has a post that is an interesting complement to my original post: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/01/one-of-highlights-of-my-time-at.html
I am sorry if I sound unfair - this is not my intention.
Could you perhaps point the teaching aspect in this speech and then prove how traditionalist Catholics disagree and why they are perhaps wrong?
The Catholic church has always taught that a country can defend itself in necessity and when all over means have failed. I don't think that anyone would disagree that unnecessary funding of arms, at the expense of the poor, is gravely wrong. I would just like to know how this caricature of "trads" (which has been rehased for the last 40 years or so) is true.
Your post correctly summarises a problem which I see more and more in traditional Catholicism.
Traditional Catholicism does not and should not equate to a right wing political agenda. One can be a traditionalist and back opposition to the arms trade and environmentalism.
Ottaviani:
Thank you again for commenting.
I thought the first two paragraphs of your comment were unfair in suggesting that I was arguing a dogmatically binding nature to every thing Pope Benedict says, and, in particular to his Message for the World Day of Peace.
The teaching component in Pope John Paul II's view of the Iraq War lies in the recognition that, in today's world, warfare does not provide a solution to injustice - writing from memory, I can't put detail to this, but think this is a thought that can be traced in the teaching of Vatican II and in that of Pope Paul VI. Similarly, the immoral nature of an (international) trade in armaments that generates huge profits for the companies involved and fuels conflict overseas is a theme in Papal teaching since the Council, I would expect clearly traceable in Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. The right to make a military provision for self defence does not justify the scale of this trade - again, working from memory I can't put detail to this.
Whilst one might say that there is not a binding obligation to consent to this teaching in a dogmatic sense, there nevertheless appears to me a need to let ourselves be challenged by it, and to take it seriously as a teaching that asks us to examine more deeply our living of the Christian life.
Do traditional Catholics pick and mix ?
by definition: no, of course not.
We're just weary of being manipulated by Liberal left-wing modernists who don`t even own a copy of the Catechism.
Most of us are even quite pleasant company.
Call me the Devil's advocate if you wish but in Ottaviani's first post (third paragraph)isn't he leaning towards "picking and mixing"...
Zero says
I'm not superstitious but didn't like to leave it at 13 comments!When viewing the comments there was a warning that it contained both secure and insecure items does anyone know which is which?!
Zero,
13 is a beautiful number. It is the number of the twelve Apostles plus one--the Blessed Mother.
It was only with the Reformation that people who called themselves Christians yet had no time for His immaculate mother decided that 13 should be regarded as unlucky.
Not that I am advocating numerology...
;-)
Thank you, Bernadette! Yes, we are quite weary having lived under the left-regime for so long.
Veronica
[T]he tying of aid programmes to population control measures, in a way that does not respect the rights of parents ...
Population control programmes don't respect anyone's rights. That's their point. The clue is in the word "control".
Population control ideologies are backward, not infrequently racist and always thoroughly reactionary.
They must be opposed.
Full stop.
I should add that in a recent interview in The Tablet, Hans Kung expressed some pro population control arguments.
Which tells you everything you need to know about just how reactionary a so-called "liberal" Catholic can be.
It is simply misinformed of you to think that being "trad" liturgically necessarily implies a political agenda. I know some Irish trads who even go so far as to support the IRA (which I think they are very wrong to do, but there it is).
There are plenty of Lefty trads, too.
Your post is not "spot on" but rather biased, I'm afraid.
You are happy for some Catholics to concentrate on poverty issues but not pro-life issues and vice-versa but you only label the "trads" as "pick 'n mix".
Where is your consistency?
Isn't it you who are in danger of being "pick 'n mix" in your criticisms?
You also write:
"The teaching of Pope Benedict in his addresses, messages and homilies - the "ordinary magisterium" of Pope Benedict XVI"
No, that is not the "Ordinary Magisterium".
The Ordinary Magisterium is the teaching of all popes and Councils, and bishops in communion with the pope, over time and then only on issues of Faith and/or Morals - certainly not merely temporal political statements - and, in the case of popes and Councils, only when addressed to the whole Church and intended to be held by the whole Church definitively.
That excludes virtually all of the mere addresses, messages and homilies of any pope, the present one included.
That does not mean they can be ignored but, equally, it does not mean that they are to be invested with the absurdly high authority that you invest them with.
In fact, this document has virtually no real magisterial authority at all.
Nevertheless, whilst I do not agree with your tendentious summary of it, I do agree with what the Pope's message and so would most "trads".
So, dear Joe, your swipe at "trads" is wrong on just about all fronts.
The reality is that this Pope is a "trad" so if you attack "trads" you are attacking him.
Having said all the above I am sure you meant well and did not intend any harm.
We should all try to be fair and balanced in our judgements. The open season on "trads" is now over thanks to this Pope. Let's try to follow his lead. After all, "trads" are only asking for the liturgy and faith that nourished the Church for all of its history before 1970.
As Pope Benedict has many times pointed out, that is not merely a reasonable thing to ask for, it is a duty!
Now ask yourself - do you agree with the Pope?
I hope so!
Tribunus
Tribunus:
Thank you for your comment.
The style of your post is that of a certain genre, and I suppose I should respect the genre in which it is written.
1. As I have already indicated in a comment above, I don't think it is fair to suggest that I was giving an authority to Pope Benedict's talks, messages, etc that is authoritative in the dogmatic sense - read the original post in a proper context.
2. Again, characterising my original post as "swipe" or "attack" on "traditional Catholics" is to read into a comment/question type of post a spirit that is not there. Yes, there is a criticism, but I think it is worded in the manner of a dialogue rather than of "attack".
3. As I suggest in my original post, I think Pope Benedict (even within Summorum Pontificum itself - I see a follow up post coming on, gosh wouldn't that get the comments going!) offers a real challenge to "traditional" Catholics to be what one might term "catholic" with the small "c". Or, to express that in the (not always helpful) language of the genre, I don't think he is as "trad" as "trads" might like to think.
4. Sorry, I don't do bias. You might not agree with what I have said, and I have no problem posting a comment that disagress with me, but I do think my original post was pretty objective.
"Now I beseech you brethren,by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,that ye all speak the same thing. and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement".
Post a Comment