If and when the time comes, what will you do? Will you go along, stay silent, or speak out?
That is the question that confronts me and has confronted me since the day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation. For better or for worse, I chose to speak out in opposition to that unprecedented action and was roundly criticized for it. Again, for better or for worse, I made the decision to occasionally speak out during this year of living ambiguously and for this decision I have made no friends.
For these decisions I have been called a reactionary, a pompous jerk, unmerciful, and even a sedevacantist. That’s ok.
The ‘reactionary’ thing is probably the most common pejorative used against most who have voiced concerns over events of the last year or even the last 50 years. When something happens and you ‘react’ to it in a negative way, you are branded a reactionary. That is the nature of the beast.
So I thought I might approach the problem from a different angle so that everyone can understand that a decision to ‘react’ is not necessarily reactionary. Rather it is a difficult conscious decision, but perspective is needed to see that.
In order to avoid the ‘reactionary’ label, let us take the react out of it. Let’s look together at a possible future scenario and ask yourself how you would choose to behave and why?
Say, for the sake of hypothetical but plausible example, the outcome of the Synod on the Family on the question of admission of divorced and remarried to communion follows the suggestions of Papal advisers Cardinals Marx and Kasper. That the remarried are admitted to communion after some pastoral counseling and the annulment process is moved from tribunal to pastor. In this case, the Church does not change its immutable teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, but the newly implemented pastoral praxis dramatically alters the landscape.
Let’s leave the predictable liberal cheering of such moves aside for the moment and focus on those orthodox Catholics who rightly understand the dangers associated with such change in praxis. For such as these, I see three options, go along, stay silent, or speak out.
The first group will go along. They principally see orthodoxy as simple adherence to the current magisterium. They are generally unconcerned with whatever prior teaching and practice might have been. In essence they are magisterialists and view orthodoxy through this lens. If this is what the Pope and Bishops say today, then that is what orthodoxy means today. That the Pope and the Bishops have practically and pastorally erred historically and allowed schism to develop and harden is of no consequence. The Bishops must have their reasons and we are not to question them. They will be the most vocal critics of any that do not share their magesterialism.
The second group will stay silent. They recognize in part the dangers that such a break from tradition represents and that such practices risk undermining the doctrine itself. Yet, they will focus almost entirely on the simple fact that the Church has not formally changed her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. If they talk about it at all, they will focus on that aspect, the Church has not changed its teaching so there is nothing to get upset about. They are generally orthodox Catholics who seek to remove to the castle keep only the immutable doctrine, no matter the losses of souls and tradition that occur outside the walls.
The last group will choose to speak out. They recognize that such a a change in praxis is a complete contradiction. That the very idea of readmission goes against all tradition and undermines the doctrine to the point of irrelevance. Further, they recognize that moving the annulment process to pastors would defacto make for quick and easy Catholic divorce.
Those pastors who resist it would be pilloried as merciless and Catholic divorce seekers would simply find a more agreeable pastor. They would rightly understand that such changes in praxis undermines the whole understanding of marriage and can lead to other worse woes such as those openly hoped for by the Bishop of Middlesbrough, Terence Drainey when he says that the synod should ” call[ed] for a “radical re-examination of human sexuality” that could lead to a development in church teaching in areas such as contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage and cohabitation and the role of women in the Church.”
This group would realize that this current magisterial ‘praxis’ is not infallible and is in direct contradiction to all the tradition that came before it that sought to uphold the critical and immutable understanding of marriage. Recognizing the danger to doctrine and souls, this group would feel compelled to speak out and actively oppose the implementation of this praxis. The also understand that if such initiatives become rooted, there is genuine danger of real and lasting schism within the Church on these issues. I say schism because one assumes there may be Bishops, priests, and lay people who refuse to go along and as such will be seen as separate.
As such, this group will choose to speak out even though they will likely be pilloried by liberals and the magisterialists. But nevertheless, they feel compelled to support and restore the traditional understanding and praxis that support the doctrine.
So if something like this was to happen, which group would you be in? What would you choose to do? Would you agree that the latter group above are merely reactionaries and that their intransigence hurts the Church?
I would ask you to think about it. For my part, I have made my choice. In the case of schism, break glass. We can clean up the mess later.
March 18, 2014 at 3:01 am
Good post. In my view, since Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, the Church has been crumbling. With Pope Francis it is just speeding up to overdrive.
March 18, 2014 at 3:23 am
With respect, a schismatic cannot be a traditionalist.
March 18, 2014 at 4:12 am
I'm trying to remain positive, so I haven't given much thought to: What if? This is the time for everyone to storm heaven with prayers.
March 18, 2014 at 12:41 pm
The removal of the annulment process to the parish level strikes me as an incredibly dumb idea. The clergy involved in the annulment process need to be objective about the couple involved, and I fail to see how a parish priest can be objective about a couple who he knows day in, day out. Also, doesn't a parish priest have enough duties on a daily basis? I fail to see how he would have enough time to devout to something as complicated as the annulment process with out neglecting his regular duties.
March 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm
So there are grounds besides adultery for an annulment/divorce in the Catholic Church? If that is so, that is also the Orthodox position.
March 18, 2014 at 2:29 pm
My instinct says group three. Having said that, I would listen carefully to anyone who thinks that group two is more perfect. Life is short – one could argue that any dissent, however well grounded, wastes time and energy that could be spent promoting the good, which ultimately is what drives out evil. That's not my instinct, but I would take this view seriously.
I have less respect for group one. Any act of obedience involves a judgement that a particular instruction is fitting with the authority's fundamental goal. Making the opposite judgement – that an authority's decision undermines their fundamental goal and should be resisted – is perfectly normal. A good secretary knows when to ignore an instruction from a boss who is in a bad mood. This doesn't make her wilful or disobedient – on the contrary, she is protecting her bosses integrity. Saying yes sometimes involves saying no.
March 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm
The entire point of my post is that it is necessary sometimes to speak out to AVOID schism.
March 18, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Thank you, Father! I must try not to forget it. I've a feeling itll be used a lot more.
March 18, 2014 at 3:22 pm
It's quite a situation to be found in. I only became a Catholic last year, because of what was going on in the Protestant churches. Then I discovered the hard-line Traditionalists, who reminded me most of protestants, and yet now I find i might have to side with them (insofar as someone ok with V2 and the revised liturgy can do) against the very same downgrade of doctrine and practice I escaped in the protestant churches. I know where i would make my 'Here I stand, i can do no other' (to coin a phrase), but I'm not sure if many others where I live would do the same, or even be aware of the need to.
March 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm
You should probably be aware that the last person who used that "judge not" phrase was jolly Timothy Dolan in his infamous Meet the Press interview the other day. He used it in just the same inaccurate way as most do who brandish it about.
March 18, 2014 at 4:21 pm
I understand, Ben, exactly where you are coming from, and I understand the attraction Orthodoxy has for those who watch the Catholic Church crumble before our eyes, but I would also ask you, in all sincerity and meaning no ill-will towards our Orthodox brothers, that you read and study the infallible declaration of the Church, "Cantate Domino", decreed by Pope Eugene IV. It is to some a hard dogma to listen to, so hard that some have tried to ignore it or twist words into making seem non-infallible. But infallible it is and should be read carefully and prayerfully by those Catholics who are heading towards a schismatic Church.
The dogma is too long to quote here but a Google search will find it, or you can read it is depth here: http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
With every good wish…
March 18, 2014 at 6:55 pm
You may be surprised – and perhaps distressed – to learn that it is the Orthodox model of marriage, divorce and remarriage these progressive bishops and cardinals wish to copy.
March 18, 2014 at 7:03 pm
PLEASE! Are you seriously advancing the notion that couples live as brother and sister in an age when Catholic spiritual discipline has all but disappeared from mainstream Catholic life?
Get real.
If this was a reality then we would have evidence of it, in a variety of ways…not the least of which is that discussion of it would have appered on the Internet by now by those Catholics seeking to overcome the obvious obstacle presenting itself to those trying to live in this manner.
Got concupiscence?
March 18, 2014 at 7:08 pm
I recommend reading this commentary by Phil Lawler which clerly outlines the process by which the breakdown of Church teaching occurs through the back door of "normalization."
I recognized immediately that his model is absolutely ion the money, because we've not only seen it in the Church but in the secular political/cultural arena as well.
What is described is incrementalism par excellance.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1024
March 18, 2014 at 7:13 pm
I don't beleive Patrick is stating his intention to be on the side of schism which departs, but rather, by refusing to be silent the issue is forced so that inevitably the "reformers" are the ones who leave.
What makes this turn of events trickier is that the reformers have the upper hand in the form of positin and momenturm.
I for one intend to speak out and refuse to leave, accepting the consequences whatever they may be
But I .
March 18, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Wrong.
March 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
I don't want anyone to leave and want to avoid schism at all cost. That is why I think it i necessary to speak out, to avoid schism in any direction. There are souls at stake.
March 18, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Actually, adultry is not grounds for annulment. Annulment deals only with the understanding of the couple at the time the vows are spoken. If both couples intend to stay faithful when they speak their vows, then the marriage would still be valid (s hould say "could").
Reasons for annulment general are things such as the vows were spoken under duress (this is one reason many Catholics do not push for marriage when a woman gets pregnant out-of-wedlock), a spouse conceals an impediment to marriage ( for instance a woman knows she is sterile and doesn't tell her husband) and inability to fully understand the commitment you are making (most seemingly solid marriages are annuled for this reason since recentlysome people, even priests, have argued that Iin our culture today NO ONE can fully understand the marriage commitment, which I personally feel Iis an insult to marriage but that's another soap box 🙂 ).
In short (not my forte) the annulment tribune examines what the intent and understamding of the couple was on their wedding dau only. Any actions after that can be seen as evidence (ie if a man is abusive from the wedding nig ht on, there is a good probability the vows were under duress, or at the least, he didn't understand the concept of marriage), but not cause
March 18, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Would you consider the SSPV to not be traditionalist or to not be schismatic?
I know that you could define traditionalist in such a way as to require orthodoxy. But my own experience has brought me into contact with far too many people with an affinity for traditional Catholic praxis who are schismatic or who hold material or even formal heresies to find that way of defining traditionalist useful.
March 19, 2014 at 10:23 pm
I think, in general, traditional folks can begin to see why the Orthodox had such visceral reactions to Western alternations in the bread and filioque, issues we mostly consider moot today.