Frustrations of a Catholic
I’ve not been a Catholic long. Even including the three years I spent familiarizing myself with all things Catholic before I swam the Tiber, I’m an infant. There’s wisdom in recognizing the fundamental incompetence of a new Catholic to do justice to Catholic topics of great complexity — no matter his familiarity with them, no matter his intellect or confidence in discussing them. Developing interiorly is paramount.
I understand all this; I offer this not as a bombastic critique, but as an infant’s cry to his Ecclesial Mother: I’ve ceased to care whether the synod in Rome affirms Catholic dogma or not.
I no longer care whether the final result is a resounding reaffirmation, a technical affirmation of orthodoxy even as orthopraxy is corrupted, or an outright denial of dogma.
I no longer care; because it’s become obvious to me the pseudo-Catholic revolutionary does not usually mount a direct attack on dogma. No, the Catholic Church is far too old and too traditional for that. The more direct approach taken in the Church of England does not work.
Nine times out of ten our revolutionaries settle for allowing technical affirmations of dogma or even resounding ones so long as the concrete reality on the ground is changed. Our revolution is one of appearances, not the letter. Unlike the clumsy heretics of yesteryear, today’s version neither leaves the Church, nor foments change in teaching — instead, they pass themselves off as loyal sons of the Church, conceding the letter of dogma for the few who care about it, if only they’re allowed to control the image of the Church, which the masses take as their cue of belief.
This power of appearance has never been stronger than during the present pontificate. I daresay this pontificate has been more successful at using the media, via clichés, slogans, photographs, etc, than any in history.
Which brings me to the synod currently in progress. The synod has become the perfect environment for this phenomenon, which we’re seeing in a way unrivaled since the decade immediately following the close of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI, shortly before abdicating, spoke candidly on this effect after Vatican II, with the important distinction that he refrained from attributing it to churchmen within the Church. It’s obvious to me that influences both within and without the Church drove the image of the Church forward after the Council, with the goal in mind of changing ecclesial praxis, entirely without regard for changing the letter of dogma. Only confusion and an emerging appearance in the public eye are necessary for change in practice; so who cares what that remnant of stuffy dogmatists believes? The Church has, so to speak, moved quite beyond them in the only way that matters to the revolutionaries: in concrete reality.
So, what is my point in all this frank commentary? Simply this: I believe I, and others like me, am being played for fools. We are allowed to continue believing dogma, while the movers-and-shakers of the clergy and the secular media cooperate to create impressions that drive what the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics believe about the Church. This is actually worse than an outright assault on faith and morals, because there’s no clearly defined heresy to be rejected. It’s all ether in the wind, so to speak; all pastoral praxis, publicity, image, public opinion, and change on the ground.
And worst of all, none of the dogmatists seem to be aware of these mechanics. Continually insisting “Rome hasn’t changed dogma” almost seems the silly, stupid talk of fools, of saps to be taken advantage of. Sure, have your precious dogma; have your pie in the sky ideology; the real change-agents have wrought revolution without changing it.
I invite your prayers; I could use them. I'm really struggling.
I understand all this; I offer this not as a bombastic critique, but as an infant’s cry to his Ecclesial Mother: I’ve ceased to care whether the synod in Rome affirms Catholic dogma or not.
I no longer care whether the final result is a resounding reaffirmation, a technical affirmation of orthodoxy even as orthopraxy is corrupted, or an outright denial of dogma.
I no longer care; because it’s become obvious to me the pseudo-Catholic revolutionary does not usually mount a direct attack on dogma. No, the Catholic Church is far too old and too traditional for that. The more direct approach taken in the Church of England does not work.
Nine times out of ten our revolutionaries settle for allowing technical affirmations of dogma or even resounding ones so long as the concrete reality on the ground is changed. Our revolution is one of appearances, not the letter. Unlike the clumsy heretics of yesteryear, today’s version neither leaves the Church, nor foments change in teaching — instead, they pass themselves off as loyal sons of the Church, conceding the letter of dogma for the few who care about it, if only they’re allowed to control the image of the Church, which the masses take as their cue of belief.
This power of appearance has never been stronger than during the present pontificate. I daresay this pontificate has been more successful at using the media, via clichés, slogans, photographs, etc, than any in history.
Which brings me to the synod currently in progress. The synod has become the perfect environment for this phenomenon, which we’re seeing in a way unrivaled since the decade immediately following the close of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI, shortly before abdicating, spoke candidly on this effect after Vatican II, with the important distinction that he refrained from attributing it to churchmen within the Church. It’s obvious to me that influences both within and without the Church drove the image of the Church forward after the Council, with the goal in mind of changing ecclesial praxis, entirely without regard for changing the letter of dogma. Only confusion and an emerging appearance in the public eye are necessary for change in practice; so who cares what that remnant of stuffy dogmatists believes? The Church has, so to speak, moved quite beyond them in the only way that matters to the revolutionaries: in concrete reality.
So, what is my point in all this frank commentary? Simply this: I believe I, and others like me, am being played for fools. We are allowed to continue believing dogma, while the movers-and-shakers of the clergy and the secular media cooperate to create impressions that drive what the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics believe about the Church. This is actually worse than an outright assault on faith and morals, because there’s no clearly defined heresy to be rejected. It’s all ether in the wind, so to speak; all pastoral praxis, publicity, image, public opinion, and change on the ground.
And worst of all, none of the dogmatists seem to be aware of these mechanics. Continually insisting “Rome hasn’t changed dogma” almost seems the silly, stupid talk of fools, of saps to be taken advantage of. Sure, have your precious dogma; have your pie in the sky ideology; the real change-agents have wrought revolution without changing it.
I invite your prayers; I could use them. I'm really struggling.
3 comments:
If one has a mother, ill, feeble, sick, even stinking from disease, what does one do? The answer is obvious: remain by her side.
If the physicians, nurses and health "authorities" fail, stay by her side....
Wow, Vox, that's a powerful story. That penultimate paragraph is a killer. So true.
Michael Coren is pretty happy
Post a Comment