Who, according to Fr. McBrien, is not the center but the real right wing?
... most members of today's College of Cardinals and U.S. hierarchy, Crisis, Communio, and First Things magazines, and the so-called new movements, such as Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ ...
And who, he says, is the real center, though portrayed as left wing?
This newly constituted "left wing" also includes most Catholic theologians and biblical scholars who are members of the Catholic Theological Society of America and the Catholic Biblical Association, most of the officers and faculty of our Catholic colleges and universities, the great majority of religious women, most middle-aged and older priests, most liturgists, religious educators, social service ministers, and chaplains of every kind, and--the largest constituency of all-active parishioners who have been educated in Catholic institutions of higher education and who have a built-in aversion to extremism of any kind, including its manifestations at official levels.
And they claim not just the Spirit of Vatican II but the letter, as well.
Such Catholics are products, directly or indirectly, of the Second Vatican Council-but of the council as shaped and fashioned, not by its defeated minority, but by its working majority of bishops and by the two popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, who presided over it.
He implies our current pope and his immediate predecessor were somehow associated with that defeated minority, without the pesky bother of actually making that argument and marshalling any facts in support of it.
Fr. McBrien describes his centrists' self-image in terms which won't surprise some of my recent commenters.
As healthy people themselves they have an instinctive awareness of pathological or dysfunctional behavior when they experience it. Without benefit of advanced degrees in psychology, they recognize individuals who lack a healthy self-image, who are defensive and self-righteous, who are rigid and judgmental toward others, and who place undue emphasis on rules narrowly applied and on "orthodoxies" simplistically interpreted.
If only so much had been granted at that first Pentecost! Some of my commenters sound like they have had the benefit of encounters with these preternaturally gifted people on their parish staffs and committees.
Finally, there's the call to the barricades.
This effort to usurp and redefine Catholicism's traditional center needs to be named for what it is and openly resisted.
For the sign of The Resistance, I suggest Fr. McBrien's centrists' refusal of the Nicene Creed, which we right-wingers keep trying to foist upon them.
I've been thinking - why didn't all those old ethnic Catholics on the South Side rise up as one and shout "No!" when they suddenly found their Masses filled with folk singers, Signs of Peace, recordings of "Jesus Christ, Superstar," and hip priests who wanted to be called "Fr. Chad" back in the '60's and '70's? I remember how bewildered my parents were at the latest liturgical fads they were constantly being hit with back then.
ReplyDeleteBut yet, they never dreamt of not going to Mass, much less of leaving the Church. Fr. Chad could have painted himself purple and played electric guitar in the aisle and they would have shrugged and continued to drop their money in the collection plate.
Funny, isn't it? The many abuses of "the spirit of VII" crowd depended on the pre-VII Catholic mindset among the laity in order to advance as far as it did. "Well, we don't know why the whole liturgy has to change like that, but, you know, he IS the priest, he knows better than us. The Church must have it's reasons - it's not for us to question."
Even funnier - the laypeople, like you and me (us rabid neo-Caths) who are now demanding a return to orthodoxy are not displaying a pre-VII mindset, whatever McBrien might think. Indeed, we've learned the lessons the McBrien crowd have taught us all too well. We now know that priests can be just as idiotic (not to mention sometimes downright wicked) as anybody else.
We do "question authority." The only problem (if you're McBrien) is that it's his authority we're questioning. It's perfectly fine to doubt the Pope and basic teachings of the Catholic Church - but woe betide you if you question the "spirit of Vatican II!"
Do that, and you get called "a sheep."
Donna
I am getting tired of hearing this McBrien garbage. Maybe if enough of us complain Dolan will discontinue running his stupid column.
ReplyDeleteAnony/Donna has it precisely--
ReplyDeleteThe 'authority' of those of McBrien's ilk rests squarely on their fidelity to the authority of the Magisterium. When they 'break the line' they get what they deserve: disrespect.
Thus, McBrien & Co. must establish their bona fides by attacking the REAL authorit(ies)--
At least they recognize that there cannot be two Truths.
Why don't people rise up? My initial reaction is it would be like trying to overthrow your father at Thanksgiving dinner. Even if didn't serve food and denounced his father while wearing a clown suit.
ReplyDeleteFr. McBrien here provides an argument against his own column. People who agree with him do so not because they have been persuaded, but because of their innate psychological, emotional, and moral superiority. It's superfluous for them, and wasted on the rest of us.
On the other hand, I find his column a handy source of insight into the outlook of some bishops and pastors and archdiocesan and parish staffers. Maybe the Herald ought to just retitle it; "Essays in Dialogue" is an obvious misnomer. I suggest "The Gnostic Gnook."