|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 1, 2008 17:58:14 GMT
I wish to start a new thread discussing the question of whether the post-Vatican II upheavals show that the changes created by and following that Council were responsible for the Church's present problems, or whether they are in fact the result of older problems which already existed within the Church. May I suggest as Exhibit A the speed with which certain bishops (such as John Dearden of Detroit and Derek Worlock of Liverpool) turned from "conservative" enforcers into liberal enforcers. I suggest the top-down hierarchical nature of the Church was carried to exaggerated lengths in the century before Vatican II. There were some legitimate reasons for this (such as the attempts of governments to exert excessive power over their national churches) but it tended to create a "do this because I say so" mentality. This meant that when the top tier became enamoured of some dodgy ideas (such as wreckovating churches) any resistance to this was treated as inherently illegitimate, and that the inner logica nd rational of Church doctrines tended to be overlooked in favour of a "follow the party line" mentality. When the "party line" changed on some things, this led many people think it could be changed on everything if the Pope so desired, and this mindset is still plaguing us.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 2, 2008 11:21:10 GMT
I think part of the problem was a certain kind of theology/spirituality of obedience which I would associate with St Ignatius of Loyola and a certain application of Thomistic philosophy that attempted to look beyond the effects to the substance of the reforms and was not shocked at the disasters happening around them.
I agree that the Second Vatican Council was not a problem in itself, but it brought out the internal pre-existing problems within the Church. We can see the results.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2008 17:43:07 GMT
Here's one point that is often overlooked - the idea of calling a General Council was not pulled out of a hat without warning by John XXIII as you might think from some accounts (e.g. Michael Davies). Pius XII considered calling a General Council in the late 40s/early 50s and had some preliminary work done, but decided the time was not ripe in the immediate aftermath of World War II and that he should leave it to a successor. He also tried to promote reform in the religious orders (merging the smaller and less active ones). I hope to put up a psot soon on JF Powers' novel MORTE D'URBAN and its portrayal of the Church in the American Midwest just before Vatican II. Is anyone else on thsi board familiar with Powers' stories? (He lived in Ireland for some years.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 3, 2008 18:33:30 GMT
By the way, Alaisdir, does your reference to certain applications of Thomism refer to the accusation that official pre-concilar Thomism was excessively legalistic and rationalistic, or to the view that some aspects of the nouvelle theologie produced a version of Thomism which went so far in trying to accommodate modernity that it ceased to be Thomist and sank into subjectivism? I think you are making the second point but I could be mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 5, 2008 11:08:31 GMT
I think both the excessively legalistic Thomism and the neo-Thomist embrace of nouvelle theologie had their effects.
But I don't believe that one should read the Second Vatican Council without reference to the Second World War which preceded it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 14:45:55 GMT
Agreed; apart from the destruction caused by the Second World War and the sense that a new beginning was needed, the co-operation of Catholic and Protestant groups in the resistance (and the perception that both had to some extent damaged society by placing their own denominational interests above the general good) contributed to the ecumenical movement. There was also the fact that sections of the old "throne and altar" right discredited themselves by co-operating with Axis or pro-Axis regimes (the dealings of certain French bishops with Vichy come to mind). The experience of WWII is important in explaining why the "liberal" faction in Vatican II was centred on bishops from the Rhine countries. Here in Ireland we didn't experience the upheavals of WWII as directly (indeed there was a strong belief, sedulously encouraged by the De Valera government, that the war was a sort of judgement on Europe for its sins - which is fair enough - and that our ability to stay out of it was a sign of Irish moral superiority - which clearly wasn't the case).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 5, 2008 15:58:37 GMT
I think just as it is impossible to understand the movement in Europe towards European Union without the Second World War, I think the Second Vatican Council and the direction the Church after it cannot be understood without taking the war into account.
Our aloof neutrality and over confident Catholicism (we are aware of many inherent weaknesses now) meant we were totally overwhelmed by the post-conciliar directions.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 16:52:27 GMT
Furthermore, because in the English-speaking world in general Catholicism was expanding, enjoying unprecedented prestige and breaking out of the immigrant ghetto without yet having to experience the full force of the pressures for assimilation, English-speaking Catholics were not fully up with developments and problems on the Continent and were caught unprepared. My post on JF Powers' portrayal of (just) pre-Vatican II Midwest US Catholicism in the "Catholic literature" thread touches on these issues. I won't post again until after the weekend. See you then.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 6, 2009 17:48:05 GMT
Agreed; apart from the destruction caused by the Second World War and the sense that a new beginning was needed, the co-operation of Catholic and Protestant groups in the resistance (and the perception that both had to some extent damaged society by placing their own denominational interests above the general good) contributed to the ecumenical movement. There was also the fact that sections of the old "throne and altar" right discredited themselves by co-operating with Axis or pro-Axis regimes (the dealings of certain French bishops with Vichy come to mind). The experience of WWII is important in explaining why the "liberal" faction in Vatican II was centred on bishops from the Rhine countries. Here in Ireland we didn't experience the upheavals of WWII as directly (indeed there was a strong belief, sedulously encouraged by the De Valera government, that the war was a sort of judgement on Europe for its sins - which is fair enough - and that our ability to stay out of it was a sign of Irish moral superiority - which clearly wasn't the case). I watched the film Sophie Scholl and read a bit of background on the White Rose. It was interesting the combination of backgrounds - Lutheran (Scholls), Catholic (Grafs), Russian Orthodox (Schmorell), Humanist (Probst, who was baptised Catholic before his execution, and Huber) and a mix of the more eccentric. I think this was very varied in the intellectual and high cultural circle of Munich University and somehow reflected in among the 20 July Plot. But it was happening practically all the time, especially in areas on mixed Catholic/Protestant population like Germany and the Netherlands. This gave considerable force to the ecumenical movement at the time of the Council - and understandably so.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2009 11:37:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 7, 2009 12:14:24 GMT
If I remember the film correctly, Sophie constantly refers to conscience under interrogation by the Gestapo investigator Mohr, who appears to have been impressed by her (though this is film and somehow dramatised). Do I recall that in the dialogue, Sophie talks about God and Mohr says 'There is no God'?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2009 16:35:50 GMT
I can't remember this particular exchange (I think I recall it but I'm not certain), but the whole exchange is very well done. The Gestapo man is I suspect treated somewhat lightly (his family had some input into it); I believe her interrogation was much rougher and more violent (the real Sophie had a broken leg when she appeared in court during the show trial, but not in the film). The suggestion that she could have saved herself by an admission of guilt is untrue (though since she provides the audience's point of view this may just represent the possibility which the interrogator holds out to her, perhaps in good faith on his part). The White Rose member who did plead guilty for the sake of his family was executed anyway, as were most other White Rose members who could be identified. The really strong point of the scene is that it makes it understandable how a reasonably honest person could support the Nazi regime; it's easy to recognise the devil in retrospect, less easy when he seems to offer only benefits. When Sophie talks about democracy the interrogator snaps back at her that her precious democracy brought only hardship, party conflict and unemployment and that it is the Nazis who have given the German people work and hope. This was a fairly widespread perception at the time (there's a reason why three years before Hitler came to power a majority of German voters were prepared to support the Nazis, the communists and other explicitly anti-democratic parties.) The Nazis also presented themselves as meritocrats who by sweeping aside cumbersome legal and bureaucratic procedures were prepared to give talented underlings a chance to rise in society at the expense of ossified social elites. (Hitler presented himself as an example of this process; the "little man" rising from the trenches to redeem the suffering and death of so many anonymous soldiers like him in the Great War.) The interrogator tells her that without the Nazis he would still be only a small-town policeman; he has a son fighting on the Eastern Front and (at least in the early stages of the interrogation) he sees the Scholls as spoiled children of privilege who are playing games while others are fighting and dying. There is a certain similarity to a Chicago policeman in 1968 facing an anti-Vietnam demonstrator - though, of course, the nature of the societies and the issues at stake are completely different. This is of course a partial picture (the Nazis' appeal also included the prospect of being given unrestrained power over others, the joy of self-indulgence, cruelty and plunder, and the prospect of lording it over the untermenschen) but it was part of it. A film like VALKYRIE, in contrast, simply presents resistance members when they are already enemies of Hitler and makes no effort to explain why even such figures as Bishop von Galen, Count von Stauffenberg - and, indeed the Scholls - could initially be taken in by the Nazis. I believe there is an earlier German film about the Scholls from the 1970s, THE WHITE ROSE, but I haven't seen it. I wonder how they compare?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 22, 2009 12:03:14 GMT
Well, I think the case that is emerging that matters were far from clear cut in the early days of the Third Reich and that by the time many good people realised things were bad, it was too late to act, at least without losing their lives as the White Rose members and July 20 conspiracy people did.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 23, 2009 10:28:29 GMT
To return to the original point, most of the 'Rhine' countries described by Fr Wiltgen in 'the Rhine flows into the Tiber' were countries in the cockpit during WW2 and this showed at the Council.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 21, 2009 9:56:06 GMT
I wish to start a new thread discussing the question of whether the post-Vatican II upheavals show that the changes created by and following that Council were responsible for the Church's present problems, or whether they are in fact the result of older problems which already existed within the Church. May I suggest as Exhibit A the speed with which certain bishops (such as John Dearden of Detroit and Derek Worlock of Liverpool) turned from "conservative" enforcers into liberal enforcers. I suggest the top-down hierarchical nature of the Church was carried to exaggerated lengths in the century before Vatican II. There were some legitimate reasons for this (such as the attempts of governments to exert excessive power over their national churches) but it tended to create a "do this because I say so" mentality. This meant that when the top tier became enamoured of some dodgy ideas (such as wreckovating churches) any resistance to this was treated as inherently illegitimate, and that the inner logica nd rational of Church doctrines tended to be overlooked in favour of a "follow the party line" mentality. When the "party line" changed on some things, this led many people think it could be changed on everything if the Pope so desired, and this mindset is still plaguing us. I re-read this just now and find it very pertinent to the events of the past 40 years or more. I think that the exaggerated ultramontanism in situ in the late 1960s fuelled confrontations like those seen in regard to wreckovation; that certain senior churchmen come across as apparatchiki rather than priests or pastors; and I think a lot of traditionalists and conservatives now have not learned the lesson of the flaws of a top-down administrative model. Also, the sort of u-turns done by the likes Dearden and Worlock, a la the late Brian Lenihan's definition of Realpolitik as 'Defend the party line. The old line is dead. Long live the new line.', was profoundly damaging to the authority of the Church as a body.
|
|