Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Theological revisionism
The boldness of Catholic traditionalists amazes me. But I was steered to this commentary in Crisis: http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm as an example of someone who makes the startling admission that maybe, just maybe, some things were a little bit off kilter before Vatican II. A conservative magazine allowing something like that to hit print. What can I say? Truly amazing.
Read this commentary, my friends. I found it lacking on some points. Our pope's input at the Council seems over-emphasized compared to what I've read elsewhere. But at least it comes to grips with the notion that John XXIII and a few others saw clearly the need for a Council. And perhaps, comes the admission from Johnston, we would have been far worse off than if the Council had never happened.
I would characterize Vatican I as criminal neglect. That would have been the time to lay spiritual groundwork that might have lessened the impact of the next century's cultural and military upheavals. Who knows? Maybe Catholics enlivened by a real Council could have delayed or even prevented the carnage of world war. Or maybe that was too much to ask for of the world's bishops.
It would have been a catastrophe for Vatican II to have been delayed any longer than it was. And even so, too many bishops were far too luke-warm in their application of its principles. It was left to the laity to transform naive enthusiasm into parish reforms. There's not a question that we made mistakes in implementation. But to latch on to errors as evidence the whole notion of renewal was screwed up is just plain wrong. Glad to see Crisis thinks so too.
