Ex-priest (Paulist) James Carroll shares his insights about Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio. Apparently, it was a big mistake.
My emphases and comments.
James Carroll
Pope Benedict’s mistakeBy James Carroll | July 16, 2007
WHEN THE likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, citing insights of science or the rise of sectarian violence, denounce the very idea of God, fundamentalists strike back by attacking pillars on which such modern criticism stands. [Thus, he introduces his theme: the MP is the retaliation of a fundamentalist against modernity, or at least the correctives a modern vision (read "hermeneutic of (fill in the blank)". Pope Benedict is presented as a terrorist.] In this mode, Pope Benedict XVI last week issued two unexpected decrees, restoring the atavistic [!!] Mass of the Council of Trent and resuscitating an outmoded Catholic exclusivism — the notion of a pope-centered Catholicism as the only authentic way to God [Noooo…. the point of the CDF note was to underscore that the Petrine ministry is an integral part of what the Church is.].
In these reactionary initiatives, Pope Benedict inadvertently [because he doesn’t really think about what he does? I don’t believe for a second that, for example, the Pope didn’t know precisely what was going to happen after the Regensburg address.] shows that he shares a basic conviction with Dawkins et al. — that religion is a primitive impulse, unable to withstand the challenge of contemporary thought. [This shows that the author has never read anything by Joseph Ratzinger. There is nothing primitive about a religious impulse. It is human. However, the author probably is one of those who believes that man evolves. Therefore, modern criticism is always reflective of a step in the right direction. An authentic anthropolgy, however, grasps that man does not evolve in an of himself: we make progress, but we remain essentially the same in our needs and aspirations; our knowledge grows but our fundamental make up remains consistent.]
Yet, instead of feeling intimidated by secular or "scientific" criticisms of religion, a believer can insist that faith in God is a fulfillment of all that fully modern people affirm when they assent to science — or object to violence. [The author holds, more than likely, that the history of the Church is really the history of a power grab. For a power-based institution, science would be the enemy. It must remain "fundamentalist".] At the same time, a believer can advance the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens critique to say that most articulations of traditional religion of all stripes fall far short of doing "God" justice. [Is that what they would hold? I doubt it.]
The God whom atheists aggressively deny (the all-powerful, all-knowing, unmoved Mover; the God of damnation, supernatural intervention, salvation-through-appeasement, patriarchy, puritanism, war, etc.) is indeed the God enshrined in propositions of the Council of Trent, and in its liturgy. But this God is also one whom more and more believers, including Catholics, simply do not recognize as the God we worship. [Which begs the question: if Trent was wrong, who is to say that anything the Church has ever taught was right?]
Such people regard the fact that God is unknowable [note the contradiction] as the most important thing to know about God. [First he attacks the roots of Christian doctrine as ennunciated through Councils (which includes the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture) and then he strikes with the "we really can’t know God" theme. Effectively, the Church or formal worshop would have no authentic function beyond social engineering or a community’s self-expression (and we are not sure they would even have a right to that, in this guy’s vision.] Traditional propositions of the creed, therefore, must be affirmed neither rigidly nor as if they are meaningless, but with thoughtful modesty about all religious language, allowing for doubt, as well as respect for different creeds — and for no creed. [Talk about meaningless…. This is nothing more than the condescending twaddle of an angry ex-believer with an axe to grind against his Mother’s forehead.]
This is not an entirely new way of being religious. One sees hints of it in the wisdom of many thinkers, from Augustine in ancient times to Nicholas of Cusa in the Renaissance to Kierkegaard in the modern era. But, in fact, the contemporary religious imagination has been transformed by understanding born of science. [The new religion?] Once a believer has learned to think historically and critically, it is impossible any longer to think mythically. [The author must be unaware of Pope Benedict’s defense (in Jesus of Nazaeth) of the historical critical method, which I am sure he understands better than James Carroll. To think "mythically". Turning to an expert on "thinking mythically", J.R.R. Tolkien, we get the description of Christianity as "the myth that is true", without the rupture in continuity with dogma and the constitutive elements of the Church (such as the Petrine ministry. It is possible to be Catholic and be modern without the angry and condescending rupture at the heart of the author’s confused position.]
Pope Benedict, in last week’s denigration of Christian traditions [It is hardly "denigration" to invite serious dialogue based on the starting point of a firm identity. But Caroll like’s everything vague and squishy, it seems. That might be the way he justifies his life’s choices.] that lack the unbroken "apostolic succession" of Catholicism, for example, was seeking to protect the "deposit of faith," those core beliefs that were established by the Apostles themselves. But such literalist reading [Is he being purposely obtuse?] of apostolic succession goes out the window when one learns ["science", remember?, the unbridled and uncritical application of the historical-critical method that results always in the destruction of what is examined?] that none of the actual Apostles thought that they themselves were establishing a "church" in our sense, [Really? and just how does he know that? What is his authority for that?] independent of Judaism. Similarly, the New Testament is "inspired," but what does that mean [hermeneutic of suspicion is at work here] for appeals to "apostolic" authority when one learns that its 27 books were not "canonized" until three centuries after Jesus? [This had to end in an attack on Scripture itself.]
Once we realize [what the shift on vocabulary now] that doctrines of orthodoxy evolved [But not in the sense he is suggesting. I refer you to, for example, Newman’s less unhinged understanding of development of doctrine.] over time, we stop treating them as timeless. Indeed, once we understand ourselves as belonging to one religious tradition among many, [No one doubts there are different traditions. However, we believe that some are better than others.] we lose the innocent ability [Huh?] to regard it as absolute. Once our internal geography recognizes [What is an internal geography? Is this what we mean when we say "I’m in a good place today!"… if you know where I am coming from. And how does a geography "recognize". Fancy words, but I wonder if they mean anything.] that, however much we are a center, we are not the only one, [It sounds like a violation of the principle of non-contradiction.] we have no choice but to affirm the positions of others not as "marginal to our centers," in a phrase of theologian David Tracy, [ROFL!] "but as centers of their own." [B as in B. S as in S.]
Faced with such difficult recognitions, religious people can retreat into fundamentalism or throw out [Watch the vocabulary chosen.] religious faith altogether. Or we can quite deliberately embrace what the philosopher Paul Ricoeur called a "second naiveté." This implies a movement through criticism to a renewed appetite for the sacred tradition out of which we come, even while implying that we are alive to its meaning in a radically different way. Pope Benedict is attempting to restore, by fiat, [Wrong!] the first naiveté of "one true church." In an age of global pluralism, this is simply not tenable. [Ah… because this is not how the "world" sees things, it was a mistake to do it.]
The Council of Trent, whose Mass and theology (including its anti-Judaism) [How tired this is] Benedict wants to re establish, was summoned about the time Copernicus published his "On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies" — the beginning of the scientific age. [Benedict is a troglodyte.] The Roman Catholic Church made a terrible mistake in rejecting Copernicus, [I am not sure this is an accurate or honest description of what actually happened, though it is convenient.] one from which it has only lately been recovering. Pope Benedict is repeating that mistake, as Dawkins and company think religious people are bound to do. But believers need not follow. Indeed, many of us, including Catholics, have moved on from such thinking, if you can call it thinking. [What a cheap way to finish.]James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
Loading ...
The key word here is ex-priest. If anyone wants to get accurate information of the Holy Father and what the church teaches, it is clear the solution is to hunt down a fallen priest for the answer. Thanks for sharing this with us.
in +JMJ+
Tom: Everyone has to buy groceries. I think no one in Boston has gone broke by picking on the Catholic Church.
Such attitudes from such a blessed area can only result in such fruits as this:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/NEWS0103/70716012/-1/NEWS02
Wait, I’m confused. The God that was enshrined at Trent all those years ago, the same God whom atheists rebidly attack and whom modern Catholics no longer recogniuze in their worship, is “the all-powerful, all-knowing, unmoved Mover, etc.” So, then is Carroll arguing that the “new God,” presumably the God of Vatican II, who is more palatable to atheist and recognizable to Catholics, is NOT all-powerful, etc? Is this what Vatican II taught?
Please clarify.
You could fill volumes of books just with the Globe’s misrepresentations of the Catholic Church, or of anti-Church polemics…
Father Z: I think the reason I so enjoy reading your posts on articles like these is because you make visible the nonsense which may not be so visible to the average person not schooled in Catholic philosophy and authentic Catholic theology.
So often in the past I have read such garbage feeling there were things wrong, but I did not have the ability to fully put my finger on it. Well, you do this well and it is a liberating feeling to seay the least, to understand why this kind of thing bothered me.
You and the service you provide are in my prayers.
God Bless
Satan is gleeful when lowbrows,or anyone for that matter, dissents from reality.
God bless our magnificent and glorious Supreme Pontiff,Benedict XVI.
V.B.: It’s called process theology. Not only do such folks believe man is still evolving and the universe is in a constant state of flux, they also believe God is still evolving, and thus he can’t be an “all-powerful, all-knowing, unmoved Mover.” Nor, of course, could “Jesus Christ be the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Thus, in their view, it’s not just that we grow in our understanding of the infinitely perfect, unchanging God, but rather God Himself (with apologies to Mr. Carroll for the patriarchal pronoun) is constantly changing, too. It follows that faith has a moving target and that all truth is relative (except for the dogmatic principle that all that is, is in flux).
The irony, of course, is that Pope Benedict has dedicated his life to freeing folks from their me-centered prisons, which cut them off from the One who is absolute Truth and Love.
For a glorious counter-point, there’s this http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=171&id=1102282007 from The Scotsman.
And you all thought Chesterton was dead among journalists.
Mr. Carroll is an ex priest, a heretic, a schismatic and apostate. He writes for one of the most anti-Catholic, liberal, pro homosexual agenda newspapers in the Unites States, The Boston Globe. Mr. Carroll’s comments do not need a response. They are the ravings of a very unhappy person who needs our pity and our prayers.
Concerning the development of doctrine: I noticed in the CDF document this line in the English: “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” This is a bad translation for a few reasons, but I am wondering about the choice of the word “developed” which I take it, translates “evolvere” (Noluit mutare, at evolvere, profundius intellegere et fecundius exponere voluit, nec eam mutavisse dicendum est.) “unfold” or “unpack” would seem to be the better translation here, no? Also, the English distorts the meaning of the Latin, which refers to the Council’s intention, not to what was actually done. And what a bout the desire to understand that’s missing from the English? Pah! Stupid translators!
Concerning the development of doctrine: I noticed in the CDF document this line in the English: “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” This is a bad translation for a few reasons, but I am wondering about the choice of the word “developed” which I take it, translates “evolvere” (Noluit mutare, at evolvere, profundius intellegere et fecundius exponere voluit, nec eam mutavisse dicendum est.) “unfold” or “unpack” would seem to be the better translation here, no? Also, the English distorts the meaning of the Latin, which refers to the Council’s intention, not to what was actually done. And what a bout the desire to understand that’s missing from the English? Pah! Stupid translators!
One of the most saddening things that I have encountered in the past week is a surprising lack of respect towards the pope from ordinary Catholics (even daily-Mass-going ones). So many Catholics are willing to accept anything that the secular media reports about the Church and very readily question the qualification of the pope to perform his ministry or even his sanity.
There is simply no reverence towards the Holy Father, his office, or many other structures within the Church, for that matter. Instead of assuming the best about the Holy Father and learning for themselves what he really said, they dumbly accept whatever the news tells them — about that, and about anything else having to do with the faith, for that matter.
Secular media reports like this one only foment that type of attitude, I suppose. So many of the problems that the laity have with the Church nowadays are due to a near-complete lack of understanding of Catholic ecclesiology. I think this is yet another manifestation of this fundamental misunderstanding of ecclesiology.
Local pastor responds to Pope Benedict’s motu propio
by Christopher Gray
Intermountain Catholic
July 16, 2007
http://www.icatholic.org/indstory/2007/200726p03b.html
SALT LAKE CITY — Although Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement this past Saturday regarding the use of the Tridentine Mass in Catholic worship does not take effect until Sept. 14, already several eyebrows have been raised and pulses quickened in the Diocese of Salt Lake City. Some will also remember, however, that the 1962 rite, which predates the Second Vatican Council, has been observed in this diocese in several instances during the last 20 years.
“After Pope John Paul II loosened the restriction on the use of the Tridentine Mass in 1988, a monthly Tridentine Mass was held at St. Ann church,†said Msgr. M. Francis Mannion, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Parish in Salt Lake City. “It was ultimately cancelled for lack of attendance.
“I have no sense that there is a need in my parish or in the church in Utah generally for a celebration of the Tridentine Mass,†said Msgr. Mannion. “I have solid reason for saying this. When I was rector of the Cathedral in the 1980s, we had a monthly celebration in Latin of the Missal of Pope Pius VI – the Mass that came after Vatican II and is universally used now – and it also fizzled for lack of attendance.
Msgr. Mannion, a theologian, writes a column for Our Sunday Visitor which is reprinted regularly in the Opinion pages of the Intermountain Catholic.
“My own limited research undertaken for an essay I published some years ago is that about one percent of American Catholics want the Tridentine Mass. There is a larger – but still relatively small – body of American Catholics who think that a Latin Mass “would be nice†once in a while. I do not think that these are the people the Pope is responding to with his motu propio.â€
In the words of the motu propio, titled “Summorum pontificium,†“a stable group of faithful†in a parish may request the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. These members of the congregation, it is assumed, will have had a significant formation in liturgy, and would be able to understand the language of the rite, Latin. More importantly, though, “the papal document emphasizes that such an initiative must avoid parochial discord and be carried through in a spirit of unity,†said Msgr. Mannion. “Any parish or priest who would celebrate the Tridentine Mass must do so in a spirit of unity and cooperation with the bishop.â€
Although “Summorum pontificium†allows for an easier process to establish a regular parochial Mass in the Tridentine rite, it is very clear to state the post-Vatican II Missal of Pope Paul VI continues to be the primary expression of the liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church.
“Sacrosantum Concilium,†the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1963 after having been approved by an overwhelming majority of the bishops at the Second Vatican Council, deals notably with the use of language in the ritual of the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, and the Liturgy of the Hours to promote a full and active participation in the liturgy by all the people.
In article 36, the constitution states: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue… frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended,†allowing for the use of other more common languages in the liturgy.
The Tridentine rite is not simply Mass in a different language; rather, it is a somewhat different ritual stemming from the counter-reformation of the 16th century. Under the guidelines set out by Pope Benedict in “Summorum pontificium,†it can now be celebrated as another approach to the mystery of the sacraments.
“The pope states that at the heart of his concern is the desire to bring about reconciliation with clergy and people disaffected from the post-Vatican II liturgy,†said Msgr. Mannion.
Isn’t it lucky for his parish that Mr. Carroll is no longer Father Unorthodox.
This type of information bothers me. Being a resident of the Peoples Republic of New England. I do not see any Good letters, like the one that came from the Doicese of Denver, Coming from The Diocese of Maine or New Hampshire. One must remember that the Bishops in these two dioceses also came from MA. They have always felt that the Latin Mass was a thorn in their side, and they just wanted it to go away. I will be very surprised if anything constructive is mentioned about the Motu Proprio. I hope I am proven wrong, but I have always felt the “Globe” calls the shots. Just look at the apostate politicians and their stand on abortion and yet they keep getting re-elected by people calling themselves catholic who put themselves first and God last.
What seems very clear from this “ex-priest” (which is not really possible), is that he does not want to address critically the Christian viewpoint at all. He is like so many “liturgists” out there who do what they do, not because of how much they love the blessed sacrament, but how much they hate hate it. He is the same way with Catholic theology.
BTW, I’m reading His Holiness’ “Spirit of the Liturgy” right now. It is quite fantastic.
Father Z has done such a superb job at the demolition of a fraud. Let we sweep the remains off the floor.
1. unmoved Mover; the God of damnation, supernatural intervention, salvation-through-appeasement Not only is this not in ANY of Trent’s teachings, but Treat went out of the way to oppose them. Read the entire 6th Session, as did Jacobus Arminius (no mackerel-snapper he!).
2. Liberalism (in religion I think this word may still have meaning) remains what Newman called it: the anti-dogmatic position. It also remains what Allan Bloom called it: To say “you can’t say your way the best way!†[Carroll’s “global pluralismâ€], “there is no truthâ€, “everything’s relative [Carroll’s learning “to think historically and criticallyâ€], “the tragic condition is that we must make our own values†etc. ad infinitum – said (perhaps) out of some fear that someone will impose his truth in a Stalinian fashion – really amounts to an easy-going nihilism. Moreover, the author’s very premise (easy-going scepticism) undermines itself: he who believes in nothing will soon believe in anything (dressed up as “second naiveté”) – or otherwise drift through life from one sensation in the central nervous system to another.
And to orient oneself by one’s “internal geography†is a pretty good definition of mental illness.
3. With Liberals I’ve had some very painful contact. In seminary we Conservatives (another word that in religion still has meaning) had learned that if we manipulated 5 buzz words, we’d be ordained: “open, grow, share, community, ministryâ€. (Our joke was: Q: What does a Liberal frog say? A: “rigid, rigid, rigidâ€.) We also learned that the Liberals believed in none of these buzz words and were themselves the Himalayan of rigidity. What they really wanted was a blessing upon their sexual perversion: homosexuality (which for these people, folks, is the real issue)
4. Benedict Groeschel, one of my favorites, has commented that we really don’t have Liberals any more, for Liberalism once believed in fair play, debate, hearing both sides, and that through this process we would come to clarity. We ain’t got no Liberals no more. Groeschel says that he has been burned at the stake by both Conservatives and “Liberalsâ€. He prefers to be so burned by Conservatives, for they openly admit that they hate you. When burned by “Liberalsâ€, one was the ignominy of being burned at the stake – in the name of love.
Now in the name of Carroll’s “affirming the positions of othersâ€.
Sad vomits of modernist lunatic, the more he was a priest.
Sad vomits of modernist lunatic, the more sad he was a priest.
Something hit a nerve and spoilt this fellow’s digestion to be sure. The fact that he feels the need to spend so much ink and intellectual capital to write such rubbish indicates a great deal of fear on his part.
He is at bottom a modernist, nothing short of the triumph of that heresy will please him.
From this fellow to Trautman, they know that truth once unchained cannot help but to elnlighten and revive. The world changed on July 7, they should get used to the fact.
“In these reactionary initiatives…” After reading this I would love show Carroll
my reactionary initiative to his attack on the Pope!
“In these reactionary initiatives…” After reading this I would love show Carroll
my reactionary initiative to his attack on the Pope!
Well, it sounds as though Mr. Carroll needs a good serving of Stinky Bishop Cheese to go with his bitter whine.
Father,
Sorry about changing the subject,but over at Catholic World News the headline reads:Pope Benedict uses the older ritual for His private mass”.
The article talks about how Pope Benedict has rearranged the chapel from the way Pope John Paul II had it,into a more traditional setting moving the tabernacle back to the center of the altar.
To Another Tom:
It would be interesting to what time the monthly Mass in the old rite was in Salt Lake City. Was it, possibly, at some ridiculously inconvenient time that would have never allowed for much interest to grow? Was it allowed to be advertised?
Who let this James Carroll personality out of the insane asylum? This man has serious problems that go way beyond doctrinal dissent.
There is a hilarious line from Warner’s column in the Scotsman:
“The Second Vatican Council means as little to today’s youth as the Council of Chalcedon. Its elderly adherents are like dads dancing at the school disco. Many young people are seeking the mystical and the numinous. The Mass of All Time answers that need.”
But such literalist reading of apostolic succession goes out the window when one learns that none of the actual Apostles thought that they themselves were establishing a “church” in our sense…
Somewhere, I’ve heard this before.
“Jesus preached the kingdom of God, but the Church came instead.” – Alfred Loisy
Of course, Loisy’s position was slightly more nuanced than that. But for all that, Louisy was excommunicated and his ideas condemned in a papal encyclical (Pascendi dominici gregis).
Students often have difficulty trying to understand just what modernism really is. All they have to do is read one of James Carroll’s columns. He’s moved in to the outskirts of John Shelby Spong territory now.
Nice fisking, Father.
John Topolosky:
If you count Fairfield County CT as New Engand, look up Bp Lori’s statement at Amy Welborn’s or at the Bridgeport Diocese site. It is awesome
That is the most pathetic piece of drivel I’ve seen in a long time.
Fr. Z., like Diane above, I am deeply appreciative of the excellent training in “spot the errors” which you have been providing.
God bless your work, and let us all pray for Mr. Carroll’s soul. God created him for better than this.
For a glorious counter-point, there’s this from The Scotsman.
I don’t often find The Scotsman to be the place for “glorious counterpoints,” and this was no exception to that rule. The author is obviously an extremist traditionalist given to conspiracy theories. He seems to think that the motu proprio has reversed everything Bugnini set out to do (and he repeats the old unproven calumny that he was a Freemason).
Carroll’s piece was complete drivel, and Fr Z has taken it apart with skill and panache.
Gerald Warner’s article in The Scotsman was even worse. The one thing we don’t need now is another culture war. The entire spirit of Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter from the Holy Father is against the “trench warfare” that Warner so gleefully announces. The hermeneutic of continuity extends backwards to the older form of Mass and forward to the newer. Each form of Mass will, in time, affect and improve the ways we celebrate the other. The liberal (in the true and best sense of the word) spirit of Summorum Pontificum seems completely lost on the cranky Mr Warner.
Of course the column at large is a bilge-spill. But he makes one fair point: the average Catholic holds on to the articles of the faith with a grip that could be best described as wimpy.
But this God is also one whom more and more believers, including Catholics, simply do not recognize as the God we worship…Such people regard the fact that God is unknowable as the most important thing to know about God.
There was this guy in college who called me a “conservative Catholic.” I was taken aback (that really doesn’t describe me very well). But he said, “Nowadays anybody who talks about doctrine is conservative.” Much as I dislike minimizing John and Mary Catholic’s ability to understand, there really is a dearth of knowledge about very basic doctrines, such as the resurrection of the body–which St. Paul thought was a no-brainer once we believe in the resurrection of Christ (I Cor 15). Most Catholics do believe in the resurrection of Christ, but not in the bodily resurrection of the just. Just ask around, people will say, “no, your soul goes to heaven, not your body.” That’s not Catholicism but some generic civil religion that doesn’t offend–and, which more importantly makes no moral demands.
We need better preaching and catechesis that isn’t based on each person’s own personal Scheiermachian inner experience.
Yet, instead of feeling intimidated by secular or “scientific” criticisms of religion, a believer can insist that faith in God is a fulfillment of all that fully modern people affirm when they assent to science—or object to violence.
Ah yes, scientific and non-violent. As if science has never been the handmaid of mankind’s most destructive impulses. For as deplorable as you believe the Catholic Church to be, as unwilling as you are to commit your salvation to it, has the Catholic Church given us the nuclear bomb or chemical or biological weapons? No, that is your savior, science that has given us the ability to destroy outselves. The same science that teaches you that there never was a fall, that mankind is perfectable through evolution, that mankind is not the center of anything and that all perspectives are relative – negating any transcendent or absolute truth. The religious impulse is dread the apocalypse. The scientific impulse is to make it possible and the philosophy that derives from science is to make the apocalypse as likely as it is value neutral.
Ah yes, just another ignoramus who understands NEITHER religion NOR science. These people are OBLIVIOUS.
On another blog someone referred to the author as “Mr. and Mrs. Carol’s mistake.”
We should add him to our prayer lists.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
The Second Vatican Council means as little to today’s youth as the Council of Chalcedon
For Catholic youth, at any rate, Chalcedon is still pretty meaningful!
The Second Vatican Council means as little to today’s youth as the Council of Chalcedon
Perhaps the it is the author who thinks little of the Council of Chancedon, and does not hold to its dogmas anymore. In which case: anathema sit!