What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Today is the Ides of May.  In ancient Rome it was a today for ancient Roman priests and officials to throw the argei into the Tiber of the Sublician bridge, and important wooden structure under care of pontifices. 

Argei were, well, strawmen.  They were made of rushes woven in the form of men.  We don’t know what it was all about, but the Romans took it seriously.

I wonder if we shouldn’t revive some ancient Roman customs.  We could for example throw some modern strawmen, maybe woven in the form of left-wing Italian journalists and their stawman arguments, off the Ponte Sant’Angelo. 

The slithery Marco Politi of La Repubblica has been saying for months that the Holy Father has been committing public gaffs, as in his comments at Regensburg when he angered Muslims.  Now Politi is fixated on the Pope’s remarks on the airplane about the Catholic pro-abortion politicians in Mexico and their "excommunication".  

The politicians in Mexico did not incur the excommunication foreseen in Canon Law for those who procure abortions.  However, by their decriminalization of abortion in the district around Mexico City they exclude themselves from Holy Communion, a reality emphasized by the Cardinal Archbishop.  Pope Benedict gave verbal support for the Mexican bishops.

Keep in mind that a chat with the press is not ever going to be an instrument of promulgation of laws or official interpretations of laws, or decrees or censures or anything else.  It was a gesture of courtesy.  A courtesy not returned by Marco Politi.

The Pope’s remarks, which repeated the provisions of Canon Law, have been taken by some journalists even to amount to the Pope’s personal excommunication of pro-abortion politicians.  Less hysterical newsies report on the press conference without the background necessary to understand distinctions and clarifications made by the Pope nor by the papal spokesman or even Cardinal Bertone, the Secretary of State.


Let’s get back to Politi.

In his article in La Repubblica Politi writes (my translation and emphases):

WHERE IS THE PAPAL REBUKE LEADING

To return to excommunication of a parliament in the 21st century is disquieting.  It opens up a question about the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger.  ...

[Here Politi repeats the Pope’s words on the airplane]

A weighty declaration, heavy with consequences beyond the Mexican case.

The Vatican immediately figured this out, sterilizing the papal words in the official news bulletin, seeking to mitigate the placet of the threats of the Mexican episcopate.  But Pope Ratzinger doesn’t commit gaffs – he did commit one even in Regensburg while evoking the attack of a Byzantine Emperor on Mohammad – he speaks and sends precise signals.

In the two years of the pontificate there has emerged a theory of Two Kingdoms.  There is the realm of socio-political choices, in which Benedict XVI respects the laicality of the State, underscoring that political activity is not the competence of the church and that it "must be transformed into a political subject", because it would distort its mission.  And then there is the realm of human existence – birth, sexuality, relations of couples, fatherhood, motherhood, genetics, death – about which in the name of natural and divine law the Church proclaims its complete power to intervene.  Here the freedom of conscience and deliberation of the Catholic [politicians] has no force.  Here the "right" of the Church demands absolute submission.  There is born from the conception the revival of the excommunication on the lips of the Pope.  A Catholic who does not obey is "out".  Meanwhile, the Church can use all its weapons: from canonical sanctions to political maneuvers directed as you see in Italy.  It is a dangerous game.  To lay the claim to impose religious doctrine as an absolute criteria of legislation means to enter into the logic of Sharia Law, which makes the word of God equal with civil law.

Amazingly obtuse.  And mendacious.

First, the Holy See’s Bolletino did not expunge and of the Pope’s words during his remarks.  What was given was an accurate transcription. There is an audio video clip of the remarks on the internet you can compare with the transcript.    

Secondly, after having essentially called the Pope incompetent for a long time, he now makes him out to be masterminding the destruction of democracy and the rights of man.  

Why is this important to anyone but the tens of people who read Politi in La Repubblica?  What happens with the Church in Italy, Church State relations in Italy, public debate and the Church in Italy, really does have an impact on the Church’s dealings with States in other parts of the world.  Public opinion about the Church, shaped by the press, has an impact on what the Holy See does on a "universal" level.  It affects timing, for example. 

Remember, the Pope is Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy.  He must mind his own backyard as well as shepherd the universal Church.  He must always weigh what is happening here in all he does.  Therefore, we have to pay an a measure of attention to the Italian Press out of proportion to the actual number of people who read the daily editions.

Politi’s comments reveal the desire of the left to shut the Church out of public discourse, to sequester religion in the cage of the private and let it’s voice speak in the piazza.  They resort to hysterics to scare and shush.

I tip my biretta to Pontifications    o{]:¬)   for reminding me about a speech Joseph Card. Ratzinger gave in Chile in 1988 just days after the late Archbp. Marcel Lefebvre illicitly consecrated bishops in an act many think was schismatic. 

My emphases and comments in what follows.  I make additional observations at the end.

 Early Ratzinger on the Lefevbrian Schism

(Following is the translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s bishops. It is a remarkable statement regarding the living Magisterium, dogmatic truth, constructive criticism, and self-examination.)

* * * * *

In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy [MP naysayers are still whining on the same note.]; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the Traditionalist rebellion.  [If they really think that, one wonders what they were smoking.] The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the postconciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.

It was conceded, in addition, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X would be able to present to the Holy See – which reserves to itself the sole right of decision – their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialog Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.” The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.

Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture.  [Ratzinger, deeply steeped in the Fathers, has the Fathers horror of schism.]  Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See, it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now. The criteria with which we judge the past in the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism must be used – as is logical – to judge the present as well.

One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. [Yes!   This is something Ratzinger clearly saw: young people who are without the baggage of the previous generation are attracted to traditional expressions of the faith.  It is interesting that even today we hear the tired mantra that the people who want the "old ways" are either elderly or are reaching back from a sense of nostalgia.  While that is true for some, I don’t think it represents the motives of the majority.]  Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.  [Yes… nearly no opportunity is admittedly not sufficient.]

For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about.  [And this is part of what the MP is all about.]

While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the Traditional liturgy, [1] the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program, [Pay attention to what follows: Ratzinger describes a theological argument for the undermining of sacral liturgy.] on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.  [Okay… does that not sound like the arguments used by H.E. Donald W. Trautman when he runs down the translation norms of Liturgiam authenticam and argues for liturgical language in the style of everyday common speech?]

There is no doubt that, with these theories and practices, they have entirely disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testaments: It is forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God” (John 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming “the holy.” The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him, to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way a new space has been opened for the religion to which all of us would now submit; this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One, at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him. I do not want to develop this point any further now; I confine myself to coming straight to this conclusion: We ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director.  [As WDTPRS repeats incessantly, the true Actor in the sacred action of Holy Mass is Christ, the Hight priest: Christ as Head of the Body is seen in the priest, alter Christus; Christ the Body is the congregation united to the Head; together they are Christus totus.  Thus, we must be interiorly disposed and united to the action and obey the Church’s norms so that Christ acts in our words and gestures.]

Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attack on [2] the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.

I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask ourselves where there is lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre what is at stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization of truth.  [Indeed, Ratzinger himself is now the world’s most visible warrior against these blights.] Obviously we are not in agreement with him that – understood according to the Pope’s intentions – the text of the council or the prayer of Assisi were relativizing.  [That Assisi meeting was, on the other hand, admittedly a disaster in retrospect.]

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.  [Keep in mind what Benedict XVI calls the "hermeneutic of continuity".  At the same time, let us not forget that Ratzinger had made the observation that not all Councils were useful.]

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; [One the other hand, I have never really been quite sure what a "pastoral" Council is.] and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy – the form in which the liturgy was handed down – suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. [Which is why it MUST be reclaimed!] It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the faith – for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. – nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.  [This is an important point.  To a certain extent it matters not what is on the pages of the Council’s documents.  The way the Church and the Faith are presented in many parishes and Catholic schools leaves the impression with people that something is now profoundly different.] The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.

In the spiritual movements of the postconciliar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an  [3] obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: Here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.

The “truth” is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a “triumphalism” that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Muslims good Muslims, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a “good” Christian, or a “good” Muslim?

The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.

If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

On this last point, I have often observed how in clerical circles, expecially among clerics with clout, there is a mental divorce between what is "dogmatic" and what is "pastoral", as if those two essential dimensions of ministry are in conflict.  There is a divorce between being "intelligent" and, again, "pastoral", a divorce between "authority" and "pastoral".  The idea is that to be "smart" and "law-abiding" is actually to be "mean", and to avoid distinctions and or too much erudition is "nice".  And because the chief aim of a priest, in the same eyes of these clerics with clout, is to be a "nice guy", therefore priests who are smart and law-abiding, well-educated and faithful are automatically looked at with suspicion.  They are relegated to the status of second-class clerics, problems to be dealt with, men to be controlled.  In the meantime, ecclesiastical discipline in parishes, marriage tribunals, institutions of learning breaks down because it is, after all, necessary to be "pastoral".

It is absolutely critical for those who are deeply interested in traditional things to demonstrate their love of the "pastoral" especially through works of mercy, spiritual and corporal.  It important for "traditionalists" to be cordial and kind to clout wielding clerics because they are going to be held to different standards.