Fr. McTeigue hits another one out of the park.
Here’s the line of thought.
Before I get to that, you should know that the present Prefect of the DDF (olim CDF, a respectable office) told the SSPX that the documents of Vatican II can’t be changed. [We’ll let that claim pass for now, though I think it is not true.] That, in spite of the fact that John XXIII and Paul VI said that the Council was “pastoral” and not dogmatic. And “Rome” today seems to be saying that in order to be in full “communion” you have to accept all of Vatican II lock and stock. But… really? Why put that on the SSPX when no one else is held to that standard.
Hence, Fr. McTeigue… and I do not see any “escape” from this problem, even though Father deftly starts out with Harry Houdini.
I’m going to break this down so you can clearly see what he is doing and then REMEMBER it so you can use it yourselves.
Fr. McTeigue begins with the image of Harry Houdini escaping from impossible constraints: straitjacket, chains, barrel, waterfall. This becomes the metaphor for the current ecclesial problem.
The problem is the claim that “full communion with Rome” requires [NB] full acceptance of the documents of Vatican II. [If you are an elected official from Minnesota or from Columbia Heights, that’s not “eleven”…. or Broward County.]
- At first glance, this seems like a simple test: accept Vatican II fully, and one is in full communion; refuse it, and one is outside or in imperfect communion.
- Fr. McTeigue says the matter is less simple, because many people who are treated as fully in communion with Rome may, in practice, reject parts of Vatican II. [Even openly reject!]
- He notes that John XXIII and Paul VI described Vatican II as pastoral rather than dogmatic.
- McTeigue contrasts that with Cardinal Fernández’s claim that the documents of Vatican II [NB] “cannot be corrected.”
- Fr. McT then identifies a tension: how can a pastoral council be treated as requiring uncorrectable acceptance in order to establish full communion?
- His central claim is that almost no one fully accepts all the documents of Vatican II.
- He then moves to Humanae vitae in 1968, which reaffirmed the Church’s rejection of artificial contraception and abortion.
- He argues that Humanae vitae did not introduce a new teaching, but reiterated what Vatican II itself had already taught, especially in Gaudium et spes 51.
- Gaudium et spes 51 condemns abortion as an “unspeakable crime” and also rejects artificial contraception.
- Therefore, Catholics who reject Humanae vitae also reject part of Vatican II.
- Many theologians, clergy, bishops’ conferences, and lay Catholics effectively rejected Humanae vitae after 1968.
- He cites the infamous Winnipeg Statement as an example of episcopal resistance or weakening of the force of Humanae vitae. The Canadian Bishops have never officially retracted the Winnipeg Statement.
- McTeigue then appeals to survey data and demographic evidence, arguing that many Catholics contracept and abort at roughly the same rate as non-Catholics.
- He also points to the steep decline in infant baptisms as circumstantial evidence that many Catholic married couples are not living according to the Church’s teaching on openness to life.
- From this, he concludes that many Catholics de facto reject Humanae vitae and therefore de facto reject Gaudium et spes 51. [“De facto” certainly because 99% of them don’t know and don’t care about any of the V2 documents and don’t know what HV said.]
- [NB:] If full communion requires full acceptance of Vatican II, then, by that standard, these Catholics would also have to be judged as lacking full communion with Rome.
- Father contrasts this with the treatment of Catholics attached to traditional Latin liturgy, who are often pressured, investigated, restricted, or told they must accept Vatican II fully.
- There is clearly an unequal application: traditionalists are scrutinized for Vatican II acceptance, while Catholics rejecting Vatican II’s teaching on contraception and abortion are not treated with comparable urgency.
- He argues that Rome has not issued similar urgent mandates to bring contracepting and aborting Catholics to full acceptance of Vatican II.
- The Houdini metaphor returns: the Church’s current rhetoric about “full communion,” Vatican II, and selective enforcement creates an apparently impossible bind.
- There is a serious inconsistency in how “full communion with Rome” is being defined and enforced.
