“We Are Church” whiners feel “cheated of their aims”!

Get out your hankies.

I received this from the indomitable Raphaela in her translation:

“We Are Church” group faces crucial test

KATH.NET Excluxive: Vatican II texts threaten to drive wedge into movement
 
Munich (kath.net)

The “We Are Church” movement is evidently faced with internal conflict in connection with the “Vatican II Petition”, which is being intensely promoted by the movement. Church representatives describe the true goal of the petition as a campaign against Pope Benedict XVI against the background of the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. However, even the title of the petition unmistakably calls for the “unqualified acceptance of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council”.

According to well-informed sources, this is where the potential for conflict originates. Former supporters of “We Are Church” now feel cheated of their aims. [awwww] For instance, certain passages from the conciliar constitution “Gaudium et Spes” are absolutely irreconcilable with one of the five basic demands with which the movement was launched in 1995.

In GS 47, the Second Vatican Council describes divorce and premarital sexual relationships as “disfigurements” of the nobility of marriage and also views contraception as a “profanation”. This has nothing to do with the “positive valuation of sexuality” and “responsible decisions of conscience in questions of sexual morality (e.g. contraception)” which the petition for a church referendum included in its list of demands. There are similar discrepancies in other matters.

One cannot support the aims of the church referendum and call for the recognition of Vatican II at the same time,” a visibly frustrated priest [ROFL!  It finally gets through.  On the other hand, the rupture theologians, such as their icon Kung, have been saying that Vatican II didn’t go nearly far enough.] says in a private communiqué on file with kath.net. Anyone who does so “has never read the texts of the Council.” He said that “We Are Church” should never consider the resolutions to be anything more than simply “voting results”, adding that what was at stake was the “spirit of the Council”, [See?  The "spirit" is a "super-dogma" for these people.] but certainly not the Council itself, which is “completely tied to the old tradition of the Church”.

Poor liberals.  

So out of it. 

So unaware of how far out of it they are.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to “We Are Church” whiners feel “cheated of their aims”!

  1. Matt says:

    I find it slightly more hillarious how unaware the far right/conservatives/whateverguisetheywanttobeunder are nowadays.

    This blog is fascinating to read for the purposes of establishing just how harsh and out of touch this neo-conservative movmement in the church truly is.

    Granted, there are out of touch progressives. However, the intellectual fascism that appears around here is more diconcerting than a clown mass. [Wow… I am so not in the mood for this sort of uncivil name-calling today. Good bye.]

    Can I suggest folks grow up a bit and start realizing that 99 percent of the Catholic church is united on almost all issues. I’m sorry if some bishops don’t ‘enforce’ the way you’d like…but, that’s the way it is, they are the bishops, and you aren’t.

  2. Nathan says:

    Very interesting post. Whenever I hear someone from the hermeneutic of rupture extol the vitutes of Gaudium et Spes as a justification for embracing modern nihilism, I’m always tempted to be obnoxious and quote from Gaudium et Spes 51:

    “But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

    For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.”

    Not exactly what the progressive crowd wants to hear from Vatican II.

    In Christ,

  3. Geoffrey says:

    Finally! Some Catholics who have actually read the documents of Vatican II! Laudetur Iesus Christus!

    Too bad that these heretics are not letting the REAL spirit of Vatican II move them. Instead, they rebel against that with this apparent “Spirit of the Council” vs. “the Council itself” idea, which is impossible to maintain for long. The REAL spirit of the Council is found in the documents of the Council.

  4. Canisius says:

    To Matt, no its you progressives who have been out of it for a very long time. Teaching tolerance and diversity will not get a single soul into heaven. But it is your side that keeps pushing this nonsense. The “spirit of Vatican II” is dying on the vine, while SSPX will soon be home …ha ha ha

  5. Matt says:

    Who said I’m a progressive?

    I just find it sad that people treat the church like it’s some kind of competition where we keep score.

  6. Bruce says:

    “the intellectual fascism that appears around here”

    I find the above statement insulting,incorrect and inflamatory. One of the reason I come to this blog is because I was tired of the “tyranny of tolerance” that is the norm in western culture.

    “Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be ‘tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine’, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”
    Pope Benedict XVI

  7. CarpeNoctem says:

    I for one can’t believe that 99% of the Church is united on any issue. Nice rhetorical flourish, but not a reason to run blindly off into whatever the latest whiz-bang, untested, and incoherent “spirit” du jour might be.

    Come to think of it “intellectual fascism” was a pretty good rhetorical flourish as well, as I wouldn’t want to go running off, locked-step into something forced down my throat because “99%” of the crowd says it is so. Such a move would be lending credence to an authoritarian, ‘single-party’, reforming spirit that forbids criticism, and oppresses opposition. I would never want to be called a fascist.

  8. Matt says:

    I think it is clearly intellectual fascism when a group of like minded people seem to gather around an idea of \’truth\’ as though they are carrying it around in their back pocket.

    Relativism is clearly a problem, but there are two kinds of relativism, one is to care about nothing and stand for nothing which is not good. However…things like altar rails, liturgical dance, chant, etc…well, they tend to pale in comparison to the mysteries we celebrate every week. I will admit that I don\’t agree with the idea of \’save the liturgy, save the world\’ but I think respectable people can disagree on such a point.

  9. chironomo says:

    Matt…

    Be serious. “Who said I’m a progressive”?? You referred to the readers of this blog as “neo-conservatives” (showing that you really have no idea what that term means…), and group Catholics together into a grouping of “whateverguisetheywanttobeunder”…that “guise” as you call it is Catholicism.

    If you aren’t “a progressive”, then you are perhaps just uninformed? Your claim that 99% of the Catholic Church is united on most issues is ludicrous…it is a sad situation that many Catholics are not even united on the core beliefs of the Church they claim to be a part of. There ARE actual core beliefs…and they are not matters of “opinion” or “majority rule”. That is the point of the article being discussed here…there are still many out there who think that the beliefs of the church should be determined by the beliefs of the majority of the people who claim to be a part of the church. This is the most damaging aspect of the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

    The “We Are Church” movement is perhaps the most striking example of this… and they now discover that they are in a jam because they want to a)insist that the SSPX fully acknowledge Vatican II, while simultanoeously b) not wanting to fully acknowledge Vatican II. Therein is the humor. Therein is the hypocrisy of progressivism….the double standard that MUST arise from trying to impose strict adherence to a set of rules that themselves shun strict adherence to a set of rules. And now, it is finally dawning on at least one of them that this is an absurd position to be in. The question is then, which “side” is right? Is it the side that is self-contradictory and opposed to the teachings of the Church? Or is it the Church herself, who has among many other things the ability to proclaim those teachings as her own and insist upon adherence as a condition of identity? I choose the latter….

  10. Julie says:

    Matt, discussion of the importance of altar rails, etc., is not, divorced from the “mysteries we celebrate each week.” They are A PART of those mysteries!

    Do you realize that the altar rail is an extension of the altar itself, and that’s why it’s made of the same material? If they are taken out, it means that WE ARE DEPRIVED of receiving Our Lord FROM THE FOOT OF THE CROSS!

    EVERYTHING that is a part of the proper liturgy brings us more DEEPLY into the Paschal Mystery.

    Additionally, according to Canon Law, the faithful have a RIGHT to have a properly celebrated Mass, free of liturgical abuse.

    Therefore, it is important to understand what is proper, and what is innovation, so that our rights may be honored, so that, ultimately, we may enter into the salvation intended for us.

    WHY can’t people understand this very simple truth?

  11. TJM says:

    This “spirit of the Council” is an interesting phrase. I am sure the Holy Spirit guided the Council. What or who then, is this “spirit of the Council?”
    Tom

  12. chironomo says:

    Matt claims:

    “I will admit that I don’t agree with the idea of ‘save the liturgy, save the world’ but I think respectable people can disagree on such a point.”

    Perhaps true, but can both actually be right?

    “However…things like altar rails, liturgical dance, chant, etc…well, they tend to pale in comparison to the mysteries we celebrate every week.”

    With the notable exception of liturgical dance, what you are describing is part of those mysteries we celebrate each week, not something apart from them. The progressives (not you of course!) have tried to separate “faith” and “belief” from the liturgy, yet it has been a constant teaching of the Church that the two are inseperable. Catholics worship as Catholics. Those who worship some other way are something else, even if they claim to be Catholic. To try and claim otherwise is the very definition of relativism.

  13. Steven says:

    I think I am beginning to see what a mine field Pope Benedict has in trying to restore the liturgy. In our own diocese parishes are on the one hand restoring perpetual adoration and traditional masses and on the other hand the same parishes have guitar masses springing up again, something I haven’t seen in years around here. From Sunday to Sunday its getting to be you can’t know what to expect. Two weeks ago a group took it on themselves to pass out a survey to parishioners without bringing it up with our priest first to try to push something they wanted through. I feel bad for our priest who not only picked up another parish with clustering, but has to juggle all the little factions springing up who want their way. I can only imagine whats on his voicemail.

  14. Bryan says:

    TJM:

    By their fruits you will know them. I often wonder where the ‘spirit of V-II’ originated.

    By its fruits, it could have been from an altitude somewhat lower than we were exposed to…

    :)

  15. Thomas says:

    “the Council…is ‘completely tied to the old tradition of the Church’.”
    I’ve never heard anyone say it so clearly.

  16. QC says:

    The funny thing is, the SSPX probably accepts more of the actual texts of the Council documents than WAC does.

  17. Tony says:

    This intellectual fascism, so-called, is a fancy way of identifying a certain censorship. And who says censorship isn’t Catholic? It is. Some people shouldn’t have a voice in the Church, and this because they’re not of it, though they may have the indellible mark of Baptism on their souls.

    Some not to subtle thinkers have gone far too long with their muzzles having been taken off. They were given the Papal benefit of the doubt. They should have accepted responsibility. Some of them were faithful to the Magisterium and the Faith, and others were not. We can see the fruits of those who were not here, now, in their rabid anti-Benedictine fury.

    May the Lord have great mercy this Lent..

  18. Mark says:

    I’ve read this petition ( http://www.we-are-church.org.uk/hope/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=62 ), and it seems to me that what these people are calling for is not so much the recognition of the Vatican Two Council, as for their particular interpretation of it.

    I think that we Traditionalists have been dealing solely with the dissonant “spirit” of this Council for some time now. Perhaps the time is drawing closer to shift our attention away from this “spirit” (which is bankrupt anyway) and offer a fresh interpretation of this Council in the context of Tradition. To put it in musical terms, we need to change the key of this variation on a theme to that intended by the Composer.

  19. dark_coven says:

    Awwwwww…

    Nice one Father. I got you on that one. Hehehehe…

  20. RBrown says:

    Relativism is clearly a problem, but there are two kinds of relativism, one is to care about nothing and stand for nothing which is not good.

    However…things like altar rails, liturgical dance, chant, etc…well, they tend to pale in comparison to the mysteries we celebrate every week. I will admit that I don’t agree with the idea of ‘save the liturgy, save the world’ but I think respectable people can disagree on such a point.
    Comment by Matt

    You’ve raised an excellent question, but your response to it sags.

    You’re absolutely right that matters like altar rails, liturgical dance, etc., are relative. Here the old question applies: Relative to what?

    If the Eucharist is memorial of Christ’s Passion and Death, then I think I think the liturgy should reflect that–we should act as if we were present at the foot of the Cross, watching the agony of the Creator and Redeemer.

    If the Eucharist is a Meal, as Protestantism maintains, then the liturgical dancing would be OK.

    And, no, it is not both.

  21. Patrick says:

    Although they feel cheated of their aims, do they recognize their errors? Probably not.

    Perhaps someone can tell me at what time in the last 40 years did certain theologians and others start using the term “church” as a singular definition of what I was always told was “Holy Mother Church”, “The Church”, “The Holy Catholic Church”?

    I am in a lay ministry class right now and throughout Christology and Ecclesiology I have heard “church” used and abused.

    “We are church”, gets spouted out much more than “The Church is the Body of Christ. He is the Head, we are the members”.

    We used a book, Jesus the Christ, A New Testament Portrait, that dropped the inconveniently High Christological Gospel of John and concentrated on the parts of the Synoptic Gospels that could be used to buttress low Christological thought more thoroughly. Again, not much mention of Christ’s Divinity, no mention of His always being able to be in the Presence of the Beatific Vision of the Almighty.

    I guess I could name a few heresies these We Are Church folks might be flirting with, but I won’t. I am more concerned that they have the capability of shutting out other opinions and yet continue to claim to be fair and welcoming.

    Sorry to ramble.

  22. Gramps says:

    Hard to feel sorry for liberals. They have taken over the Universities, even most of the Catholic ones, they have most of the MSM, and now they have taken over full control of the government of the USA. Any progress made in the last few years to bring some conservative bent to the court system will be wiped out in the next few years. I think Obama may well be the Anti Christ.