The editors of the ultra-liberal fishwrap The National Catholic Reporter had another little public nutty yesterday.
My emphases and comments.
Nostalgia is not a path to the future
Nov. 10, 2009
An NCR Editorial
CAPTION: Detail of text from the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine Mass (CNS photo/Nancy Wiechec)
[Take note of the premises the editorial wants you to embrace…] It has been an open secret [Because there is some sort of conspiracy, right?] that powerful forces in the church’s leadership [NCR hates the Pope and the new sort of bishops being appointed and they feel impotent.] have strongly opposed the reforms set in motion by the Second Vatican Council [Which is an entirely specious claim. Show us just one thing that the Holy Father has done contrary to the Second Vatican Council’s actual documents.] and have worked quietly yet assiduously during the past 40 years to roll back what has been accomplished. [What a weird thing to say! The traditional view of things was nearly completely repressed. And they are claiming that all along it was so powerful that the Council was being undermined? Dopey.] The regression is usually couched in Orwellian churchspeak, [Oh how rich, coming the the chief expounder of liberal buzz words!] which lavishes praise on the council even as its intentions are reversed. Or sometimes in this parallel universe the argument is made that nothing really happened during the gathering of the world’s bishops over a four-year period to redirect the church and its mission. [Okay… at this point I am sure you, like I, would like the help them softly to the floor and put something between their teeth until their little nutty is over.]
Then along came Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, who has vaulted to notoriety as the person overseeing the investigation of U.S. women religious. He is quoted in this issue, from a talk he gave in September 2008, as blaming the problems of Vatican II on a misguided “hermeneutic” or interpretation, which he calls “a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity.” [ROFL! I wonder if the editors are purposely this obtuse? That little phrase isn’t just a throw away or even an adage of Card. Rode. This is straight from that "powerful force in the church’s leadership" called Benedict XVI. But watch what follows. This is one of the dumbest things I have read in days….] That is a rather elaborate way of saying that one believes nothing really happened at the council. [?!? Who believes THAT?] To Rodé’s credit, in more recent comments to John Allen (NCR, Oct. 30), he changes tone. In his latest pronouncement, it wasn’t the interpretation, but the council itself that was the problem. In his conversation with Allen, he credits the council with some muscular intent, and sees its documents holding the language of significant change. Otherwise why would he make the shocking charge that the council caused “the greatest crisis in church history … the first truly global crisis” in the church?
No doubt he spoke for other Roman curia members who would never utter such a brash assessment publicly. [See how they attempt to isolate him? If anyone bothered to read the NCR in Rome. Well… they will see this because they read WDTPRS.]
What is it, though, that the cardinal finds so disastrous? What would he have us return to? Would he want to go back to the days when the church condemned separation of church and state?
Would he want us to return to a condemnation of religious liberty? [One wonders how the NCR would define "religious liberty".] Three popes since the council have upheld the principle of religious liberty as a fundamental human right, an assertion that would have been unthinkable before 1965. [Three Popes… how would they be counted. Paul VI, John Paul… I? John Paul II… or do we leave out John Paul I, who really didn’t have much time, and include Benedict XVI? Remember: the ultra-liberals will lump this whole discussion together with ecumenism. But they only want dialogue with people who already agree with NCR’s agenda. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, is the true exponent of true ecumenism, of true religious liberty. He is the Pope of Christian Unity.]
Maybe his objection is to Nostra Aetate, the document on church relations with non-Christian religions. [Watch this….] Perhaps he would want us to return to the days of open hostility toward Jews in our prayers and sermons. [HA HA HAH HA HA… ho ho ho…. sigh… They have as high an opinion of your intelligence as some translation focused bishops.]
Or does he feel that modernity and ecumenism have so infected the church that we should return to those days when Catholics were prohibited from attending the funerals of friends if held in a Protestant church, or when we were barred from attending a non-Catholic college without the permission of the local bishop? [Remember: liberals want to define what ecumenism is. They want to determine for you what religious liberty is. However, I think we will have a clearer idea of religious liberty means once the talks between the Holy See and the SSPX have progressed. Oddly, they won’t include the views of the editors of NCR.]
Does he want a return to the 19th-century papal condemnation of freedom of conscience? [Okay… this is getting boring.]
[Now watch. When liberals start thinking they are very clever, they will trot out the old "dress up" card.] Or is he upset that most do not prefer, as he does, dressing up in the trappings of royalty, the yards of silk in the cappa magna, the canopies and throne chairs and all the rest — being attended by his minions, younger priests in lacy surplices, birettas and old-fashioned vestments encrusted with gold thread and jewels — all the while speaking in a dead language, facing a wall, his back to the people? [Wow. Pure hatred. Pure frightened, nutty hatred. They hate our past. The advancement of a hermeneutic of continuity truly frightens them.]
All of this was the preconciliar church. Which elements does he want restored?
Or possibly he regrets the fact that laypeople have wide access these days not only to the scriptures but also to the documents of Vatican II, and thus can say with authority that his version of church, dependent on a thin culture of nostalgia, holds no promise of the future.
Against that culture, the people of God can say convincingly that our worldwide church, in elaborate deliberation, has decided to go forward, not backward, and that the authors of that change wrote compellingly of the need for new and more inclusive ways of conducting ourselves as 21st-century Catholics. [What a peroration!]
Sad. Very sad.
I wonder what Bishop Finn of Kansas City thinks about this open attack on a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, tasked with the Apostolic Visitation? I wonder if His Excellency has any opinion about the use of the word "Catholic" in the title of this paper, published in his diocese?
Nuntiatrix delenda est.