Michael Sean Winters had an interesting article in NCR (March 2, 2026) on the lead-up to St. John XXIII calling Vatican II:
What led St. Pope John XXIII to call Vatican II? | National Catholic Reporter
"Vatican II did not drop out of the sky. There were three essential precursors to St. John XXIII's decision in 1959 to announce he was calling an ecumenical council: The first was spiritual and theological; the second was pastoral and existential and the third was personal and historical."
"The French Revolution and the Napoleonic conquests were a disaster for the church. Thousands of priests were killed. Pope Pius VI died in custody and his successor spent several years under house arrest outside Paris. The religious orders were disbanded through much of Europe and its empires beyond. The intellectual currents of the Enlightenment were anticlerical and often anti-religious: Écrasez l'infâme — crush the infamy — was Voltaire's approach to religion and it was widely shared by the leading thinkers of the time. When Pope Pius VII returned to the Vatican in 1814 after the fall of Napoleon, the church was a wreck."
"As is often the case in the life of the church, this season of persecution led to a flowering of spirituality, especially in France, that was as comprehensive as it was surprising. New religious orders were founded and old ones restored. The apparitions at LaSalette and Lourdes and Knock focused an increasingly widespread devotion to the Blessed Mother. "
'...The First Vatican Council, in 1870, was interrupted by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, and the subsequent loss of the Papal States. The council's ecclesiological work was unfinished but the council fathers managed to publish decrees on the primacy and infallibility of the pope.... People inside and outside the church concluded that the pope was infallible about everything, a distortion of what Vatican I had taught. Further, the loss of the Papal States further entrenched the rejectionist stance Pope Pius IX took towards all things modern."
"This anti-modern rejectionism was not universal. In the Benedictine monastery of Solesmes, the abbot Prosper Guéranger (1805-1875) began a liturgical renewal with the blessing of the Holy See, which called on the monks to "revive pure traditions of worship." This was the first of several renewals all of which were characterized by returning to the sources of the tradition in order to forge a way forward, a dynamic that became known as "ressourcement," or "returning to the sources." Pope Pius XII restored the Easter Vigil liturgy in 1951 and restored the rest of the Holy Week liturgies in the following years. This invited a renewed focus on the foundational role of baptism and its relationship to the Eucharist. "
"In 1879, Pope Leo XIII called for a renewal of Thomism in the encyclical Aeterni Patris. The neoscholastic thinking that was then taught in the Roman seminaries had become stale, overly intertwined with canon law, an exercise in apologetics not evangelization. Leo was also concerned about the rise of secular philosophies like Marxism that were vigorously atheistic. He called for theologians to study St. Thomas Aquinas' writings directly, and theologians began realizing what a treasure trove they were."
"In 1893, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, that called for a renewal of biblical studies. In 1902, he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission. This effort at renewal would get further encouragement from Pope Pius XII whose confessor was a biblical scholar."
"In the years between the two world wars, a return to the sources began throughout the theological world. Often called the "nouvelle théologie," it entailed rereading the early church fathers, both the great Eastern fathers like Gregory of Nazianzen and St. Basil as well as Western fathers like St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. Again, as with the rediscovery of Thomism, these 20th-century theologians encountered a different theological landscape. These early church fathers were still awed at the outrageous claims of the Christian faith, that God was born of a virgin and had become man, had died and been raised from the dead, that God desired a relationship with all people and established a church to bring that about, etc. They did not reduce Christian to a checklist of ethical claims. For the church fathers, the Christian faith was revolutionary and these 20th-century theologians realized the degree to which the church had taken, over the centuries, those astounding claims for granted."
"...Alongside these intellectual developments, groups like Catholic Action brought the Gospel into society and the world of politics. Catholics dominated most labor unions in both Europe and in the United States. Charitable organizations like the St. Vincent de Paul societies and the Knights of Columbus sprang to life, all modeled on the call to sanctity.
"...The second key development that made Vatican II necessary was more existential and far less hopeful. The experience of two world wars raised profound existential questions for all of Western society.
"It is difficult to overstate the horror of these wars. The U.S. came late to World War I and still suffered 116,516 soldiers killed. The British Empire lost almost a million men. France had 1,357,800 men killed. 1,773,700 German soldiers died. In each case, the number of wounded was far greater. ... The future John XXIII was a military chaplain during World War I and he saw how war had mixed people from different ethnicities and religious traditions, but also how religion was manipulated by political leaders."
"World War II was even worse. Although fewer soldiers were killed on the battlefields of the Western Front, some 11 million Russian soldiers died on the Eastern Front. Some three and one-half million Germans soldiers were killed in the war. And, the civilian death rate far outpaced that of the First World War. About 350,000 French civilians died, over 5 million Poles, including most of its Jews, and 7 million Russians. In Germany, 780,000 civilians were killed and in Japan, 672,000 civilians lost their lives."
"Worse still, the Shoah exposed a barbarism that was almost impossible to contemplate. In the heart of what was considered the civilized world, death became an industry. The cold calculations of the Nazi camp commanders, carefully tracking their efforts to increase the rate at which they could exterminate Jews, stand as a monument to cruelty and inhumanity, a kind of anti-civilization. Perpetrated by the country that brought us Beethoven and Brahms, Goethe and Schiller.... the shadow of Auschwitz hung over the moral conscience of the West and of its religions."
"The vast intellectual, moral and social architecture of Christendom had withered in the face of totalitarian barbarity. The pastors of the Catholic Church had to ask themselves: How could this happen? And how was it that most Catholics in Germany and Italy went along with this evil, or at least did not actively resist it? "
'....The church had stood aloof from, or even hostile to, many of the developments of modern liberalism in the 19th century. It condemned religious freedom and was suspicious of democracy. It rejected freedom of the press and of conscience. Many Catholics demonstrated a keen antisemitism throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. Not until Pope Leo XIII's reign did it try and engage the modern world, and his efforts came to little in the short-term. The election of Pius X in 1903 returned the Catholic Church to a reactionary posture. The 20th century illustrated the futility of such a stance."
"...One other postwar reality was breaking into the church's self-consciousness: the Global South. The church was beginning to grow in Africa and Asia, while the countries of Latin America, which had long been Catholic, saw their populations grow steadily. In 1960, Pope John XXIII bestowed the cardinal's red hat on Archbishop Laurean Rugambwa of Tanzania, the first cardinal from Africa. The church was becoming less Eurocentric demographically."
"The third necessary antecedent to Vatican II was the person of Angelo Roncalli who was elected pope in 1958 and took the name John XXIII. Roncalli had been under suspicion during the reign of St. Pius X, the last pope who hewed to a rejectionist stance towards modernity. More importantly, Roncalli had edited the acta of St. Charles Borromeo's apostolic visitations in the Diocese of Bergamo. It was the means by which Borromeo, who was archbishop of Milan, implemented the reforms of the Council of Trent. Roncalli realized that while Trent had become something steadfast and unchanging in the minds of 20th-century ecclesiastics, in fact it had been a great reforming council."
"Trent had altered the requirements for ordination, establishing seminaries and a defined curriculum of theological studies for those aspiring to holy orders. It had altered the definition of what constituted a valid marriage. It had developed the church's teaching on grace and works. It ended the abuse of non-resident bishops who collected the revenues of a diocese while ignoring their pastoral responsibilities. Trent had unleashed a great apostolic fervor, precisely what Pope John knew the church needed again....As patriarch of Venice, he had come to see the plight of working people and the need for the church's pastors to defend them in the face of capricious business owners and powerful changes in the economy. Throughout his career, pastoral concerns shaped his diplomatic and episcopal leadership."
"These were the events and experiences which led Pope John XXIII to summon the Second Vatican Council just a few weeks after his election and they shaped the theological discussions the council ignited. The documents and the historical event of Vatican II were the result of twin impulses, aggiornamento, or bringing the church up to date, and ressourcement, returning to the sources. You cannot understand Vatican II without appreciating both impulses and the role they played in the lead-up to the council and to its unfolding. Vatican II became, as St. John Paul II said, "the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century."
I think Francis hoped that synodality would be another development in the same spirit . Perhaps it will. I don't think it has taken root yet in the US. Even so, I see a lot of life in the Catholic church. Some of it may trace to Vatican II antecedents. We've become a church whose institutions are largely administered by women - certainly that is true of parishes, Catholic schools, and perhaps universities and hospitals. We've become quite an ecumenical church, with as many or more marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics as between two Catholic spouses. The two areas of Catholic life in which I have been involved, Catholic music and the diaconate, could be said to have experienced rebirth and tremendous growth, at least in the US, during this post-conciliar period.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of things being done in a synodal way, maybe without specifically calling it that.
DeleteYes, interesting. I had never thought about the connection with the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteI was taken aback, tho, when I read in the opening paragraph that this was specifically written for an OCIA (formerly RCIA) class. I cannot imagine that it would be useful or meaningful for an audience whose main objective is discerning how to be good Christians and faithful Catholics.
I suppose some of the class members may have been curious about what an ecumenical council was and why the church would have had one in the 1960 s. It really was a consequential time in church history, especially with the change to the vernacular for use in liturgy.
DeleteThis might have come up in Inquirers. As I recall there was an outline of highlights in Church history that we were given. There was a kind of academic aspect to Inquirers that I found interesting and fun.
DeleteBut, as the only person here who's been thru RCIA, during Lent your focus is less intellectual/academic and more emotional. You're not thinking about what happened in the 1960s. You're jittery about impending rites and sacraments, whether you can become a faithful Catholic, and how your conversion will affect your immediate and extended family.
I'm sure everyone here becomes impatient with my saying so ad nauseam, but there is SO much disconnect between what RCIA leaders hand out and what converts actually need.
My husband did go through RCIA to join the church, in 1982. We had at that time been married 10 years. The class was led by the pastor and a couple of Ursuline nuns. They "assumed" that everything was on track, and everyone would be joining at the Easter vigil. It didn't help that most of the class seemed to be people who weren't particularly invested in their previous denomination or practice. K was a devout Evangelical, and the motivating factor for him being there was that his denomination was going through an ugly and contentious split. But it wasn't a done deal that he was joining the Catholic church, the Marian doctrines were the biggest stumbling blocks. But per Jean's observation about jitters, people don't like to hash things out in front of other people. In some ways maybe the previous system of private instructions with the priest would have been better. Two weeks before the Vigil I felt that I had to go around to the rectory and speak to the priest privately and tell him that things were not a done deal, and why. His reply was that the Marian beliefs were a mystery, and theologians had spent centuries arguing about them. So it was okay for a layperson to have doubts as long as they were willing to struggle with them. K did end up joining at the Easter vigil.
DeleteFamily was another consideration. K's father had passed away the previous year. But my mother in law was also a devout Evangelical. And a sweet and loving person. I knew she would be disappointed and I felt bad about it. She didn't go to the Easter vigil, but offered to sit with our kids, who were too young to sit through that lengthy service. Which was appreciated. She was also going through anguish about the split in their denomination and ended up later joining the UCC-Congregational church in our town.
A side note was that my husband's ancestors (great-greats?) who had come over from Ireland in the 1850s were Catholic. But when you end up as pioneers in a frontier village with no Catholic church (and maybe no church of any kind) the thread gets lost. Everyone assumes from our Irish last name that the family was always Catholic, but that wasn't the case.
DeleteThat Irish ancestor was a Union soldier in the Civil War.
No disrespect to you, your husband, or anything about your or his experience intended. Someday soon I hope to be rid of my need to offer my opinions about things. Why am I even on here still? I haven't set foot in a Church since before COVID? I suspect that the more infirm and isolated I become, the more I feel I have to impart my opinions to affirm that I'm still alive. I need to go where I still make sense to people.
DeleteJean, like you said further down, everyone has their own experience. A discussion in which everyone has the same ideas and opinions wouldn't be very enjoyable. I like hearing things from other people's perspective. I'm glad you are back more frequently lately.
DeleteI have probably shared this previously, but I think it's interesting in light of Michael Sean Winters's historical survey that Katherine shared.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first sentence of the first paragraph from Sacrosanctum Concilium - which I believe was the first document promulgated by the 2nd Vatican Council. It states its reasons for existence. In the document itself, this is a single sentence, but I'm breaking it into bullets here (a perhaps-lamentable habit of writing for a corporate audience, which I do throughout my workdays, when I haven't wrangled CoPilot to do it for me):
"This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires
* to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful;
* to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;
* to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ;
* to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church."
Thus, it seems to me that, at least at that (early) point in the Council, the Council itself, having come into being via all those streams of history recounted in the original post, saw its work as:
* Enlivening our faith
* "Suitably" adapting the church in its breadth and vastness to the "times" which then prevailed
* Progressing toward Christian unity
* Proclaiming the Good News
Not a bad list for today - for our "times".
The 2nd bullet is the one that I find most striking: rather than try to force the world to conform to the church's vision, the Council seemed willing to adapt (some of) the church to the world.
The 2nd bullet - As I have mentioned several times (too many) my first discomfort with Catholic teachings occurred when I was in 4 th grade or so, parochial school. I know it was then because we moved and I went to public school after that. I did CCD until going to college - Catholic. By sophomore year I was ready to walk away. Junior year, studying French at the Institut Catholique, kept me in the fold (mostly) for the next 30 years. It was shortly after the close of VII. The “Catho” was a hotbed of VII theology. Our theology Prof was a young American priest, who taught the Marymount students theology in English, by special arrangement of the nuns at our college. Everything else was taught in French. Our theology professor was studying for a PhD then. He and I spent hours in Paris cafes drinking coffee and discussing Catholicism and Vatican II. He persuaded me that the Council’s goal - expressed in your bullet #2 - was a reason to stay Catholic. I witnessed it being implemented for a while, until JPII. Initially I was excited by his election. But disillusion set in. It got even worse with Benedict. They quickly began abandoning the “spirit of Vatican II” (opening the church to the times), much sneered at these days, with so many Catholics wanting to go back to the church of the 50’s. Pay, obey and pray. After several decades delay, and more than one period of estrangement, I finally left for good. I resumed a remote intellectual involvement after Francis was elected. Francis seemed to offer hope that the Catholic Church might again teach the gospels - the last bullet - instead of “culture war’ issues, and pelvic issues. The resistance from the JPII/Benedict appointed bishops and the cohort of priests attracted to the priesthood by JPII and B16 have been heavy - mortal? - blows to implementing bullet #2. The last bullet addresses Jean’s motivations in becoming Catholic - how to be a good Christian. There will never be Christian unity unless the RCC abandons some of its cherished teachings - especially those related to women, marriage, sexuality, and especially papal primacy and infallibility, and the infallibility of the “magisterium”. I believe that the RCC could be a powerful force for good in the world - maybe the most powerful. Unfortunately the egos of the men ( cardinals, bishops) who run it, and even parish level priests, and their attachment to their love of power, prestige and perks of the office ( no worries about paying the dentist or pediatrician for them., not to mention guaranteed retirement - lifetime housing and food, usually pretty plush for the higher level clerics ) prevent the church from achieving its goals.
ReplyDeleteJean - “ and how your conversion will affect your immediate and extended family.”
ReplyDeleteFamilies do present emotional obstacles to following our own paths at times.
I stayed in the RCC as long as I did partly because of my worries about how leaving the church would affect my mother.
No two people experience Catholicism the same way. It took hold for most people here, and I think that's great. I'd say it deepened my devotion to the saints and gave me a sense that, when people pray together, it matters in some cosmic way.
ReplyDeleteBut it firmed up my rejection of the "clubby" aspects of sectarian Christianity--the rites, sacraments, guardrails, rules, theological arguments, dress codes, litmus tests, proclamations, ceaseless attempts to get the numbers up, and pleas for donations.
The Church exists to show the love of Christ to God's people and creation. Whatever energy is expended on anything else is useless.
"Vatican II did not drop out of the sky.
ReplyDeleteThe documents and the historical event of Vatican II were the result of twin impulses, aggiornamento, or bringing the church up to date, and ressourcement, returning to the sources. You cannot understand Vatican II without appreciating both impulses and the role they played in the lead-up to the council and to its unfolding”
“ ressourcement, returning to the sources” was not simple conservatism (going back to what we did before) rather it was beginning to understand our past (scripture, liturgy, spirituality) with the tools of modern historical scholarship of past times and places. This was an essential prelude to assessing the Church's relevance to our time and places.
“aggiornamento” actually requires a deeper understanding of our times and places beyond the superficiality of the daily “news and public opinion.” Unfortunately, Catholicism has not been as eager to adopt the methods of social science research as it has been to adopt the tools of historical research. Historical research has blended much easier with traditional Catholic humanism, e.g. art, music and literature.
While Vatican II was evolutionary, (evolving out of the past) it was also revolutionary (there is no going back). We have evolved beyond the Latin Mass into vernacular liturgies, while still maintaining the ability to celebrate Mass in Latin at certain times and places.
During the papacies of JP2 and B16, there arose discussions of the interpretation of Vatican II. Both popes had opinions on this from their viewpoints as participants in the Council. However, both Francis and Leo see Vatican II as a done deal, not something that can be debated. They both accept that the Church has evolved and will never be the same again. Both also accept Vatican II as the basic framework for approaching both the Church and the contemporary world. Therefore, catechesis about Vatican II is essential. Both see the contemporary world as evolving in many ways not anticipated by Vatican II. Neither look to social science research as much help in understanding either contemporary Catholicism or the world.
Both Francis and Leo accept that the Church may evolve further, including revolutionary changes from which there will be no going back. Both seem to think that synodality may be a part of that further evolution. The Church has certainly evolved into a world-wide entity beyond its European manifestations from which there is no going back. Both are acutely aware that synodality has functioned well in Latin America.
"Both also accept Vatican II as the basic framework for approaching both the Church and the contemporary world. Therefore, catechesis about Vatican II is essential."
DeleteI remain unconvinced: What essentials did Vat2 usher in that a convert must understand before reception at the Easter Vigil?
That is an interesting question, Jean. As a cradle Catholic, I would be interested in learning more about your RCIA education. I would like to know what your RCIA class thought that you should understand before being received. Beyond straightforward knowledge (knowing the seven sacraments or whatever) what were the “must believes” for Catholics?
DeleteI see a difference between things which "must" be understood, and things which "would be helpful" to understand.
DeleteSacraments with emphasis on sola ecclesia, though non-Catholic relatives might squeak into Purgatory if you pray for them. Proper genuflecting, sign of the cross, not resting your butt on the pew when you kneel, etc etc.
DeleteSaints. We don't worship statues, and Jean cannot have a confirmation name. Your children must have saints names.
Importance of the Blessed Virgin, veering into co-redemptrix territory, imo.
Purgatory.
Rules about divorce, annullment, remarriage, and the sacraments.
Abortion and automatic excommunication; obligation to oppose abortion laws.
Importance of holy days of obligation; relics, indulgences, pilgrimages, retreats, adoration, fasting and abstinence.
Tithing and what things cost (votive candles are $5, funeral stipend is $300, etc).
Women's role in parish (coffee, funeral lunches, laundering altar things, CCD teachers, church decor, etc).
Primacy of conscience, worked into the prep for first Reconciliation. We were given copies of CCC and told our consciences were not Catholic enough yet to be trusted.
The proper role of Catholic wives and mothers. This came up in some way at almost every session. One of the Church Ladies was constantly griping about "feminists," commenting about what we were doing wrong with our kids at Mass, and often becoming prescriptive, invasive, and personal. Sex is not a private matter between husbands and wives, apparently.
We were given notes from the lector's guide ahead of each Sunday's Mass.
"I see a difference between things which 'must' be understood, and things which 'would be helpful' to understand."
DeleteI agree, and as a longtime teacher I was good at augmenting "the basics" in a class with info the students had a yen to know more about or that would be interesting to different groups and individuals.
So what's helpful in RCIA should come up in the course of discussion because candidates and catechumens are asking for more info.
However, there was very little discussion in our RCIA group given the time constraints, the amount of "must know" info the leaders wanted to impart, and their long side-tracks reminiscing with each other about growing up Catholic.
Sounds to me like the focus was about 95% on the man- made rules and almost nothing about what Jesus taught. The anti- woman stuff shouldn’t be there but unfortunately JPII emphasized that women are to be passive and defer to male headship in the church and in the family.
DeleteDid they spend time on the articles of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed? I am remembering that they covered both in K's classes. It wasn't a problem for him, because his Evangelical church subscribed to both (with the caveat that "catholic" in the Apostles' Creed was with a small c and meant universal). Sacramental theology was more problematic because they didn't have sacraments, just ordinances and Baptism was the only one. He had been baptized at age 16 because they didn't do infant Baptism. We had already hashed that out before the kids were born, and they were baptized as infants.
DeleteKatherine: Very little on prayers that I recall from RCIA, referred to the tract rack with more info on prayers (please remit at least 50 cents per tract).
DeleteRemember that this was 25+ years ago, and memory tends to store new info and forget info that is repetitive. My prep for Baptism in the Episcopal Church covered creeds, Lord's Prayer, and Articles of Faith, using the BCP, importance of personal devotions, and I remember that more than the Catholic version covered in RCIA.
Anne: There was not a lot of talk about Jesus. A lot about Adoration and the BVM, which struck me as a bit cult-y.
One of my RCIA classmates was also my hair cutter. She'd been baptized Mormon, but not a practicing one after her dad bugged out. We spent a lot of time in her salon digesting, decompressing, and sometimes taking things we had heard in RCIA with a large measure of salt. That was honestly as helpful as RCIA.
"Both also accept Vatican II as the basic framework for approaching both the Church and the contemporary world. Therefore, catechesis about Vatican II is essential."
DeleteI remain unconvinced: What essentials did Vat2 usher in that a convert must understand before reception at the Easter Vigil?
The reality is that today some people are attracted by the pre-Vatican II Mass. For both Francis and Leo, the anti-Vatican II attitude that often goes with it is unacceptable. The attempt to reconcile the schismatics on this issue has failed. Currently they are planning to continue to consecrate bishops without Vatican approval. While Leo appears likely to tolerate the pre-Vatican II Mass more than Francis, my reading is that he is not going to be tolerant of the anti-Vatican II attitude that often goes with it. Francis was very intolerant of young priests who promoted the pre-Vatican II rite. He basically said they should never have been ordained. I would not be surprised that Leo continues a policy of not ordaining priests who want to promote the Old Mass.
Thanks, yes, I see what you mean given the number of evangelical converts who want the preVat2 landscape. Anglicans stanched the flow to the RCC to some extent with low, broad, and high worship styles.
DeleteJack, good point that the recent popes regard Vatican II as a done deal. If a catechumen can't accept that, it is probably best that they don't go forward with reception into the church.
DeleteJack - “. Francis was very intolerant of young priests who promoted the pre-Vatican II rite. He basically said they should never have been ordained “.
DeleteYes - too bad they weren’t weeded out before ordination. It’s unfortunate that there was no discussion of Vatican II in most parishes, including, it seems, in RCIA programs. VII was about more than just the mass, especially in offering a far more expansive understanding of non - Catholic religions than ever before. No more claiming that those who are not Christian are doomed. . But the changes to the mass were the most visible, It seems that the reasons for them were often not explained. The change to the vernacular was the most obvious change, meant to foster worship as a community, and to emphasize the priesthood of the faithful. Too many forget that when Latin was used in the mass in the early centuries of the church, Latin was the vernacular. They was no need for a bilingual missal like those used before VII. Most couldn’t read anyway, so having mass in the vernacular was very important. The point of the changes 2000 years on when nobody speaks Latin was to have the people in the pews actively participate, rather than be a passive audience, to reduce the focus on the priest and elevate the role of the people of God. It was hoped that this might reduce clericalism, and, based on my experience, it did - for a while. But it came roaring back with the JPII/ B16 cohort of priests who often prefer Latin and adopt the attire that clearly sets them apart from the lay Catholics, even when not saying mass. Wearing Cassocks outside of mass is pretentious these days, an affectation meant to send a message of their “ontological superiority” to the non- ordained.
Using the vernacular instead of Latin is essential to achieving the goal of mass being community prayer, not a performance by a priest with the people in the pews as audience.
Personally I have found most of the priests who were formed in the JPII era to be culturally conservative (particularly as regards the life issues) but liturgically mainstream. I suppose to an extent it depends on the diocese, the bishop sets the tone to a degree. I don't see the priests in our archdiocese wearing cassocks or saying Mass in Latin, but it isn't unusual for some of them to attend either the state or national march for life.
DeleteUnfortunately “ culturally” conservative meant pushing trump.
DeleteHopefully Trump's bait-and-switch on war, and the abuses perpetrated by ICE have woken some of them up.
DeleteRe Jean’s summary of her RCIA experience (from a dissenters viewpoint). Besides your hair cutter, you needed a good, not particularly orthodox, cradle Catholic to correct some of the misinformation the RCIA program apparently gave out. A lot that they taught is actually not important to being a Catholic - not required. Stressing relics, indulgences, etc while ignoring the church’s Social Justice teachings was negligent. Maligning feminism and prying into marital sex lives ( unbelievable!) was malpractice. Some of what they taught is what they want you to believe but it’s not dogma, or even doctrine. The attempt to undermine the official catechism definition of primacy of conscience was shameful and just plain wrong. The Marian cult in the RCC is another problem. Rome recently put out a statement that the co- redemptrix stuff is NOT Catholic teaching.
ReplyDelete“ 22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation.”
For a thoroughly exhaustive explanation see this exhaustive, explanatory doctrinal “note” from the Vatican issued in November.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html
The focus on sex - including marital sex- by the clerics is bad enough. The RCIA program should not even mention it. And it’s pathetic that they didn’t discuss Vatican II. If you are interested, a very readable book about it was written by Catholic historian John O’Malley, S.J. The kindle version is $10
“John W. O'Malley, S.J. (1927–2022) was a
renowned American Jesuit priest, historian, and professor, widely regarded as a leading expert on the Second Vatican Council and early modern European Catholicism.”
https://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-at-Vatican-II/dp/0674047494
Adoration is a bit repellent to me - not the silent prayer/meditation aspect, which is good, but the sight of people kneeling in front of a gold monstrance. Every time I see one I think of Indiana Jones movies.
To continue the history lesson begun by MSW
ReplyDeleteThe American bishops were neither progressive nor conservative at Vatican II, except for their progressive leadership in the areas of religious liberty, democracy, Judaism and ecumenism.
The leadership of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement in the US was provided by religious (especially Benedictines) and laity. The bishops basically brought the leadership of the liturgical movement into the bureaucracy of the bishop’s national organization. But they were neither progressive nor conservative on issues. For example, when it came to the hymns at Mass, they basically left that up to the publishers and the marketplace to decide.
With Pope Paul's appointments and the positive developments in parishes after Vatican II, the American bishops became very progressive. The conference wrote pastoral letters critical of the American economy and nuclear weapons. They even went so far as to draft a letter on “women in the Church.” They conducted listening sessions around the country. They knew that their letter required not only two-thirds approval by the bishop but ratification by Rome. They dropped the whole project when they realized that they could not write a document that would satisfy women in the parishes and Rome!
Rome under JP2 came down hard upon bishop conferences, the American conference, the Dutch conference and the Latin American bishops. Ratzinger writing for JP2 said the conferences could only teach with authority when they spoke unanimously. JP2 set about remaking the US bishops with his appointments. When they were sufficient the American bishops elected Dolan as their leader.
Of course, what we have seen under Francis is the remaking of the American bishops. I think in November we saw the beginning of that to bear fruit with the bishops special statement on immigration, the interview by the Archbishop of the Military Services saying that American troops could refuse to participate in illegal acts such as taking over Greenland, and the appointment of a New York Archbishop with a track record of service in Latin America similar to Leo’s
Presuming that Leo will have a good ten years ahead, I think the conservative American bishops have decided like the liberals they ousted that it is time to go quietly into the night. Of course, conservative media and wealthy Catholic laity will not.
What type of bishops has Francis been appointing: basically pastoral types who see the need for the Church to empower the laity to reach out to the peripheries rather than sinking into a fortress mentality. They do not necessarily need to be liberals they can be centrists.
Our bishop is a good example. At the Mass celebrating Pope Francis he declared “I am a JP2 priest, but I am a Pope Francis bishop.” I thought it was a nice way of expressing solidarity to all the priests of the diocese like himself who may have been attracted to the priesthood by JP2 but also saying we need to look forward not backward, it is a new ball game.
He focuses upon the People of God, i.e. the people in the pews whose lives are centered on their families, their work, and their community. The priests, deacons, lay employees and lay volunteers exist to support the People of God in their missions to bring the Gospel into daily life. How do they do that? 1. by reading and discussion the letter, 2) improving their relationship with God through at least fifteen minutes of prayer a day, 3) by developing a spiritual support network, 4) by articulating their spiritual journey, and 5) by knowing their very specific missions in life. He expressed his confidence that the People of God know best how to do all these things.
Parishes should of course support all this, buy each person themselves can and should take initiative. How will this all play out? Difficult to tell since this is a grass roots movement. But real religious movements are essentially grassroots movements. This may be the start of something really important: unity in what we do, diversity in how we do it.
Anne, I was not a babe in the woods in RCIA, though maybe that's not what you are suggesting.
ReplyDeleteI understood right off that the RCIA leaders were strict social conservatives and their religious ideas were from their third-grade class in Catholic school, ca 1959.
I also understood that one of them talked way too much for her own good and ours. And I had Catholic friends, and I read things outside of RCIA.
I think my root problem that I was looking at the Church as the wellspring of Christianity, when, in fact, that wellspring is in our own hearts.
I also think I did not appreciate Anglicanism's "middle way" (despite ECUSA's often precipitous rushes to reform, which turned me off even when I agreed with the outcome).
Anglicanism has long been trying to square teaching with the realities and struggles of modern life (e.g., Lambeth's statement on the reversal of the artificial birth control ban for married people in the 1930s) vs holding up ideals that don't work for all people in all situations.
I do better when religious leaders ask uncomfortable questions that I can take to heart vs spouting dicta and dogma. But I'm too sick and tired to drag myself to a pew on the off-chance that I'll get good food for thought instead of some know-it-all with a rule book.
Jean, I am well aware of your knowledge and highly proficient analytical abilities. So I have often wondered why you stayed in that RCIA program when it was clearly inadequate. I didn’t mean to offend you.
ReplyDeleteI’m a cradle Catholic but I could never have converted to the RCC if I had to promise to obey all the man-made rules and accept some of the distorted teachings. And put up with the nonsense you endured. Those teachers should have been replaced. I would have gone to the pastor and the Director of Religious Education. I believe you became Catholic before the current pastor. He’s so bad that the bishop should be told, But it sounds like there is a self- selected congregation that thinks he’s great. I like Anglicanism in general, but not everywhere. The Anglican bishops in Africa are sometimes as bad as the RC bishops, advocating prison for LGBTQ people. I like the ECUSA churches because they don’t have the excess man- made rules, invite all to the table, and admit they don’t channel God. No infallibility nonsense, no indulgences, no claiming that priests must physically look like Jesus, no excess focus on sexual matters. No reducing women’s roles to domestic chores. And no claims to being “ the one, true church”. Not as old as Catholicism, but for me, they have mostly kept the best of the RCC and have shed the worst features of Catholicism. Personally, I don’t think the Catholic teaching on birth control is an “ ideal” to struggle to achieve. I think it’s a teaching that is wrong, one that often harms people and marriages, and therefore can be sinful. When I got married I decided to study church teaching and “ inform my conscience”. I studied the history and underlying roots of that teaching all the way back to Augustine and earlier. It took me months. I was so horrified by what I learned that I took my first “sabbatical” away from the church. Eventually we had kids and like so many of my generation, returned and baptized them in the RCC. But I returned because of Vatican II and the doctrine of primacy of conscience. I no longer believed that I could always trust the church for forming my conscience. Especially after another lengthy self study period focused on church history. God gave me a conscience and a mind to go with it. I took church teaching into consideration but followed my conscience when I disagreed. The church’s Social,Justice teachings brought me back after I took later breaks from Rome. But it’s been mostly ignored. The priests and deacons are afraid to teach it in homilies even though another term for them is “ the gospels”. Francis brought me back virtually because of his focus.
We each follow our own path. You were far more tolerant of what you experienced in RCIA then I would have been. Perhaps your patience with nonsense is part of what made you a good teacher. I turned down the President of my college senior year when she offered to pay for a PhD if I would promise to return to teach. I do t have the temperament, the talent, or the patience for teaching!
Don’t have the temperament etc. Darn skipping keyboard!
DeleteTeaching is putting up with nonsense? Possibly you're disgusted that I didn't leave RCIA because the instruction was poor? I guess I figured God works thru imperfect vessels ...
DeleteI’m not disgusted with you. I’m sad for you and the others who were given such shoddy instruction. So much that I’ve heard about these RCIA programs echoes your experiences. From Jim’s comments it seems they are a Sloan, and take anyone who volunteers as instructors. Maybe not a great idea. How are people supposed to solemnly commit to accepting it all when they are not told “all”? When the program misleads - often by omission but also by teaching things that aren’t true, which seems to have been the case at your RCIA program. When the program doesn’t encourage, or even permit, discussion.
DeleteIt’s my observation over the years that good teachers DO put up with a lot of nonsense - from students, from parents, and from the administration and school boards. That is a major reason I could never have been a teacher. I wouldn’t have been able to put up with it - it’s not my temperament. My mom pushed me teach. I was flattered by the offer from the President of my college. But at least I had enough self- understanding by age 20 to know that I would be lousy at it. Fortunately there are people who can and do put up with the nonsense and are gifted teachers. People like you.
If I had been in your RCIA program I wouldn’t have lasted a month. If you think that God was working through those women teaching your program, then that’s what you perceive. Maybe so. They were plenty imperfect as vessels, that’s for sure. From my very distant, virtual observation point, I see God working in YOU -not them- giving you the patience to not quit. But your comments have indicated at times that the misinformation you received from your program and from a priest in confession harmed you - kept you from understanding that you are “worthy” of going to communion.
I will mention that my patience is extra thin right now and my anxiety is high because I have breast cancer - again- new primary, fortunately not mestastisis. I am one of the unlucky 2% who get another primary breast cancer ( 2 tumors this time) less than 5 years after the first - and planning for it is a lot harder this time because my husband can’t drive me home after surgery and I will need help with caring for him also when I get home. So my blood pressure is up and my patience with people teaching Catholicism focusing on the wrong things, saying things that aren’t true. Not Catholic enough yet to be told about primacy of conscience? You’ve got to be kidding me. Prying into peoples marital sex lives and telling them that they need to schedule sex at certain times? Teaching that feminism is wrong? NONE of this is appropriate for RCIA and they definitely should have been reported. Unfortunately they taught this nonsense- yes, nonsense- instead of focusing on the many good things in Catholicism - like the Social Justice Teachings. But I was an impatient student too. The same nun - the college President- who offered me a free PhD and a job - shocked me because she had called me into her office at one point when my impatience with certain things about a class and about the school had erupted. She was a PhD economist whose PhD was earned at the London School of Economics. I didn’t accept her generous offer but she still wrote recommendations for me for grad school a few years later. She was more patient with putting up with my nonsense than I deserved.
I offend you regularly Jean. I have no intention of doing so. I have always admire your insights and learned from you. But maybe it’s time for me to take a break. Not you.
I wasn't offended, just puzzled. I am really sorry about your new cancer diagnosis, and I understand the worries you feel.
DeleteAnne, I am so sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis. I will keep you in prayer. Please let us know when your surgery is. Wish we were where we could do something besides pray.
DeleteThis article from America which I had a post on in 2023 makes clear that those who have been baptized should not undergo the full RCIA and should not be confirmed at the Easter Vigil but rather at some other time such as Pentecost.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/04/03/confirmation-easter-vigil-christians-245008/
How ludicrous it is for parishes to largely ignore the American Bishops own rules for the reception of those who have been baptized but rather persist in treating them as if they were not Christians. Where is our respect for human let alone Christian dignity?
I have even heard of some parishes who have put "returning Catholics" into the RCIA program!
Social scientists are well aware that a variety of organizations put people through "initiations" and that much of what is done is meant to cause suffering to the individuals being initiated so that the end results will be that they will conclude that the organization must be good because they have suffered so much to become a member!
When I was a kid Confirmation was reserved to the bishop, and he only made it around every few years. So nine year old me and my mom, who was a convert, were confirmed on the same day. Mom was about eight months pregnant with my sister, so we kidded my sister that she was confirmed twice.
DeleteI don't think initiation is meant to be penance, though if you have church ladies and gentlemen running things they can make it seem that way.
They don't baptize people twice if they have been baptized previously, though they conditionally baptize if they don't know.
To me the Easter vigil for reception of adult converts makes as much sense as any other day. I've never been in a parish where they did dismissal of the catechumens after the gospel reading. Even though that is suggested, it makes no sense.
"those who have been baptized should not undergo the full RCIA and should not be confirmed at the Easter Vigil but rather at some other time such as Pentecost."
DeleteWe do both - we have an adult confirmation program (which I think we run, not just for our own parish, but for the whole deanery or vicariate), and we also have OCIA. But we do confirm already-baptized at the Easter Vigil. I don't know why we give people both options (if in fact that is what is going on).