Why I Became Catholic
February 24, 2009, 8:45 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
At the end of this week, I will be going to a small symposium sponsored by the Institute of Advanced Catholic Studies in LA on John O’Malley’s book, What Happened at Vatican II (reviewed in this issue of Commonweal). Joe K. is also a participant.
So I thought, to get some more ideas for us to talk about, I’d open a thread on John Wilkins’s article in this issue, and also on the review of O’Malley’s book.
Cathleen, when I read the O’Malley book I found it eyeopening to learn about the state of the church in the nineteenth century. It would be good for Catholics in general to see just how the practices of the Church have evolved since then. The, perhaps, we could talk about change moree sensibly.
I realize that you will be part of a specialized symposium and that my comment wouldn’t fit well in it. But I am grateful to O’Malley for teaching me some of these things, so I thought I’d mention it.
I hope that the symposium will be a success.
I can’t read John Wilkins’s article as carefully as I would like to at the moment, but going through it quickly some questions occur to me. Was the Catholic Church in error from the Reformation (or the very beginning) up until Vatican II? Of course I can understand why the Catholic Church would insist that all of its members accept a major Church council, but it seems to me (and pardon me for saying this) that the Lefebvrists would be “good Catholics” (including in their anti-Semitism) if they were just put in a time machine and sent back a number of decades. The old online Catholic Catechism refers to the Jews as the enemies of Christ, and the Gospels depict a reluctant Pilate and bloodthirsty Jews: “‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ And the whole people said in reply, ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children.’”
While I personally think the Lefebvrists are reprehensible, usually people who stick with the old ways and refuse to accept the new ways are looked upon as quaint, not reprehensible. Was the Church so flawed before Vatican II that people who won’t accept the council, or feel Benedict XVI is moving backwards, feel they are being taken back to something unacceptable? And if so, what does that say about all of those who embraced all of pre-Vatican II Catholicism at the time?
I thought I would add this link to a talk Fr. O’Malley gave at Boston College. I heard it for the first time just recently.
http://forum.wgbh.org/lecture/vatican-ii-historical-perspective
Most historians and theologians who are studying Vatican II and who see it as a “break” at least in ecclesial “style” from the past seem to agree that the changes that came in the wake of Vatican II have their roots not in Vatican II but in the European Church, especially in France and Germany, in the post-war 1940s. Most of the oustanding periti advising the Bishops at the Council–men like Rahner, DeLubac, Kung, Haring, (even Ratzinger)–brought to the Council floor changes that had already been happening in post-war European Catholicism.
Fr. O’Malley offered a lecture series entitled “What Happened at Vatican II” at Georgetown in the fall of 2008 before his book was published. The lectures were video-taped and can be found at the following link at the bottom of the page:
http://www11.georgetown.edu/omm/archive.html
Regarding John Wilkin’s article, “So what am I to feel now when Pope Benedict XVI unconditionally lifts the excommunications of the four bishops ordained illicitly by archbishop Lefebvre?”
There is a condition to lifting the excommunications, true acceptance of Vatican II.
We should all feel Joy when we have full communion.
I would counsel patience to John Wilkins. The lifting of the excommunication does not bring the Lefebvrists into full communion. Nor does it represent any repudiation of what the Council taught about our relationship with the Jewish people.
I have no reason to suppose that the Holy Father wants to do anything about Vatican II except continue to implement it faithfully.
For those who are just as dismayed as John Wilkins, there is a petition that has been going around the world, started by Catholics in Germany and Austria. It is asking
the Pope to restore the directives, and thrust of Vatican II. It is to be presented to the Pope and there will be news coverage of it when it is. If you wish to sign the petition, please go to
the following web site. The site is written in several languages—go to the English version and
follow the directives. Here is the website.
http://www.petition-vaticanum2.org/index.html
David,
The Vatican, and the Church at large, would not have welcomed bishops that were consecrated against the express request of the Pope. It does not matter if this was today, before the council, or 500 years ago. In fact, the Lefebvrites have been treated with great forbearance, mostly because of the ecumenical values taught by the Council and repudiated by the rogue bishops. In the earlier Church, they would have been cast our and ignored.
As to your other questions, there were indeed serious flaws in the preconciliar church. It took a world war to call attention to the evils of antisemitism, nationalism, and racism. Rejection of the French Revolution had to be replaced, or the Church would have had no place in anyone’s hearts. This was difficult for some, who preferred an embattled Church fighting the rest of the world, but it was a necessary change.
What happened at Vatican II is that the documents incorporated three fundamental oppositions/contradictions contradictions, oppositions and contradictions which reflect the past and the now. The contradictions include:
1. The authority of the pope v. the authority of the bishops in council v. the authority of the people of God.
2. The members of the Church must act according to their own consciences v. the members of the Church must act according to the conscience(s) of the Pope/bishops
3. The Pope/bishops are infallible in some matters and their infallibility rests upon the testimony of historians who are not infallible.
Of course the Lefebvrists are right in proclaiming their version of “what the Church has always taught”. The chasms in Catholic belief will not be bridged until the sources of those divides are faced openly and without trying to weasel out of them by using ambiguous formulations and calling them “developments”
There are other fundamental linguistic problems that were not faced — like the necessity to define “the Church” (don’t tell me that a bunch of metaphors alone will do the job), “the magisterium”, and “the teachings of the Church”.
It’s what *didn’t* happen at the Council that causes the troubles. It didn’t throw out the dross.
What happened at Vatican II is that the documents incorporated three fundamental oppositions/contradictions contradictions, oppositions and contradictions which reflect the past and the now. The contradictions include:
1. The authority of the pope v. the authority of the bishops in council v. the authority of the people of God.
2. The members of the Church must act according to their own consciences v. the members of the Church must act according to the conscience(s) of the Pope/bishops
3. The Pope/bishops are infallible in some matters and their infallibility rests upon the testimony of historians who are not infallible.
Of course the Lefebvrists are right in proclaiming their version of “what the Church has always taught”. The chasms in Catholic belief will not be bridged until the sources of those divides are faced openly and without trying to weasel out of them by using ambiguous formulations and calling them “developments”
There are other fundamental linguistic problems that were not faced — like the necessity to define “the Church” (don’t tell me that a bunch of metaphors alone will do the job), “the magisterium”, and “the teachings of the Church”.
It’s what *didn’t* happen at the Council that causes the troubles. It didn’t throw out the dross.
There is a condition to lifting the excommunications, true acceptance of Vatican II.
Nancy,
This is incorrect. The excommunication was lifted without the SSPX bishops being required to embrace Vatican II. They did not become bishops in good standing in the Catholic Church, with the authority to act as bishops, just because the excommunication was lifted. But the excommunication was indeed lifted without requiring anything of them.
I think it would be helpful here if folks who want to discuss Wilkin’s article would let us know if they lived through that period of time or are they only speaking post factum.
I found Wilkin’s article not only to be suffused with an open generosity but also bespeaking the feelings of many who lived through the period, cradle Catholic or convert.
The spirit of John XXIII throwing open the windows to catch souls of many seems to have dissapated into the contraction of smaller, purer identity.
One of the values of Commonweal is finding that spirit of JXXIII alive in the same openness and generosity that seemed so full of the Spirit to us.
I wish I could say the same for the current regime.
Thanks to Mr. Miller and Mr. Mitchell for posting the links to O’Malley’s talks. He is one of my favorite church historians. Am also reading the recent book by McBrien, The Catholic Church, which also frames Vatican II within the tradition of the church.
Bob – the council happened as I was finishing grade school and had an immediate impact on the courses and books that we used in high school seminary and on the liturgy. I remember the excitement of the times; the outcry during the HV event; and much later the reaction to the election of JPII and its impact on bishops and seminaries.
Prof. Kaveny – some comments…..O’Malley’s book and his recordings address the current papal talks about the “hermeneutics of discontinuity” or is it the interpretation of continuity?
This links a number of recent blogs:
a) is B16 trying to position Vatican II’s interpretation so that SSPX will accept and return?
b) is his purpose to show that Vatican II only continued and reinforced the Councils of Trent and Vatican I?
c) O’Malley and others seem to suggest that all councils create reform and change while at the same time remaining true to the dogma, doctrines, and earlier church beliefs.
d) But, his interpretation of “STYLE” makes his points…..compare prior councils and their legalistic anathemas – Vatican II has none of that approach or language. Contrast our world prior to Vatican II – moral manuals, lists of sins, indulgences, etc. He does a great job of positing Vatican II documents as almost poetic vs. legal, juridical statements;
e) Given all of that, if you listen to his BC talk there is one questions/answer that is concerning – is Vatican II dead? His sources tell him that in terms of Rome/Curia, it is. He then goes on to talk about how it is NOT dead among the people of God, missionary countries, etc. In that sense, I resonate with Wilkins’ article and continue to see an internal polarization between the Restoration and the Great Unwashed in the Pews;
f) finally, my own study indicates that interpretation of Vatican II is difficult – many of the “reforms or changes” were based upon valid historical research and took from the 1st century church – in this way, documents were both the same tradition but also changed the practice of the last 150 years (French Revolution to Vatican II). In some ways, it is the difference between Tradition (properly understood) and Traditionalism (which tends to freeze a specific period of time and call it tradition)>
I have not read O’Malley’s book. I did read an article of his that appeared in America magazine five or six years ago, that seems to touch on some of the same points discussed here:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2812
His points about the “style” of the council seem very applicable.
I really don’t think we need to be insecure about what Vatican II accomplished. It cannot and will not be “rolled back” in any significant way. Perhaps a way to test this would be to ask someone who left the church over the Vatican II changes, whether they perceive any fundamental differences in the church today, as compared to the immediate post-conciliar years. My guess would be that they don’t see anything fundamentally different.
Certainly there have been some things that have changed, e.g. the ritual of the mass has continued to develop, but the fundamentals of the liturgical reform are still in place, and will continue. And even though greater freedom has now been granted to celebrate according to the pre-conciliar missal, still from what I have seen, the overall impact of that decision has been exactly zero in the life of most Catholics.
Along the same lines – Vatican II inaugurated a lot of ecumenical activity. My sense is that the commitment and longing for unity at all levels of all the Christian churches and denominations has not abated – if anything, it has strengthened. From time to time, an improvident or ill-considered statement is made by a pope or Vatican official, but it seems to do nothing to dampen the ardor of those who want to be one and are searching for a way.
What I have seen during the last two pontificates is a sort of revisiting of what the council said, and using the council’s words to evaluate subsequent history/events in the church. This strikes me as an exercise that is both useful and important. I expect and hope that it will continue for the rest of all our lives.
David, you are correct, I was incorrect. The condition required for communion to be restored is true acceptance of Vatican II.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=93556
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900414.htm
I had just graduated from college when the Council began. What an exciting time it was, after the suffocating prior decades when a brittle spirituality reigned — at least for many of us out in the parishes, not in select Catholic circles. The renewed spirit my friends and I felt was almost like being released from a spiritual prison. That is long replaced by a dreary turning back from the hope we cherished.
Everything had been so tightly bound and rigid before, that over-reaction was perhaps inevitable. But why the need to retrench so sharply?
There was some film on TV a year or so ago about the Council and it was thrilling just to see the footage. I have a dear friend who was a peritus who helped John Courtney Murray with research, by climbing up and down library stacks, since Murray had a physical handicap. Our discussions of possibilities, the coming aliveness of the period, are precious, precious memories. The counterpoint to today is striking. Another peritus friend shares our sense of disillusion. I think VOTF is filled with our generation, hungry for the taste of renewal again.
John Wilkins is not the only one in fear of becoming an orphan. In fact, we are orphaned already. Are our numbers legion, or confined to our generation who actually lived the before and after?
Carolyn –
For me also, VOTF is at least partially a product of VIi. Without the spirit of VII there could not have been such an organization.
Yes, there is such a thing as “the spirit of VIi”. It might be hard to define, but it is real nonetheless.
Those who don’t learn the lessons of history and organizational psychology………..
Hello Cathleen (and All),
I’ve now studied the Wilkins article online. (I’ll have to wait for my print copy of the new issue to arrive before I can study the review of O’Malley’s book, but I’m afraid I haven’t studied the book yet!) Anyway I had some thoughts that might be relevant.
I’m a cradle Catholic who was an infant when VII began and who has reverted. Wilkins is a convert to Roman Catholicism from the Anglican Church who was a young adult when VII began. Despite these differences I feel like Wilkins and I are somewhat kindred spirits. Wilkins is fairly clear that the changes that started with VII are what attracted him to Roman Catholicism. I was particularly struck by this remark:
“I belonged to the Protestant community, the community that protested. It seemed to me that the protest had finally been heard.”
I was starting to grow up right exactly when many changes in the liturgy and other beliefs and practices occurred. Examples include the laity receiving Communion in both species, lay Eucharistic ministers, guitars in Church, and indulgences mostly ignored. I loved all this because it seemed to me that we Catholics were learning from our Protestant friends. As I saw it, the differences between the Catholic and the Protestant churches as I knew them were dissolving, and this process would culminate in there being one big, happy Christian family. That’s not exactly the experience Wilkins describes, but clearly he was attracted to a Catholicism that now explicitly recognized the Protestants as fellow Christians who were in some sense in communion with the Catholic Church. That more than any other reason was why I was content to remain Catholic in my younger years.
Maybe I’m stating the obvious, but I’m now rather painfully aware that the very changes that attracted converts like Wilkins and kept people like me in may have driven many people away from the Catholic Church. I’ve touched on this in an earlier thread, but I think there was a sea change in what Catholics believed before and after VII. I think before VII most Catholics believed that only the Catholics who faithfully accepted every claim they thought the Catholic Church teaches and rigorously obeyed all its laws had a good chance for favored treatment from God. I also think that after VII most Catholics stopped believing this. Indeed, as recent posts on indulgences here show, many Catholics today find the idea that God will treat them better than non-Catholics if they follow certain traditional Catholic practices quite offensive. (I admit to being one of them. I’m also not claiming Church teaching on this matter really did change, only that what most Catholics believe changed.) If my claims are right, then would not these Catholics after VII be left asking “What’s so special about being Catholic?”. As I have said before, I suspect this is why so many Catholics dropped out after VII.
I don’t mean to be provocative, but it struck me that in a way after VII many of we Catholics abruptly became much like modern religious Jews. The modern religious Jews don’t believe that God will treat them any better than anyone else in return for their practice of the Jewish faith. Indeed, most modern Jews appear to believe there is no afterlife, so they can’t expect something “A crown in return for a cross.” as one used to hear Catholics say. But many religious Jews remain, and some of them still rigorously follow the Old Testament Law. I think many of we Catholics are similar. Many of us today don’t think God will be nicer to the Catholics who don’t question any of the Church teachings and who obey all the Church laws. But many of us persist in practicing this faith, even if not that many of us rigorously follow all the laws and never question any of the teachings. Why?
I’m stopping here because this is getting too long and I am mainly angling for responses. But I’ll propose a response if some here want to pursue the discussion further.
Here is wishing all rich Blessings this Ash Wednesday.
Peter ==
Are you saying that most Catholics stay in the Church because of what other Catholics do or do not believe? Yes, there is probably a strong correlation between what most practicing Catholics believe and their staying in the Church. But I don’t think there is a causal relation. In other words, I believe because *I* believe,not because others believe the same basic things.
Or have I read you wrong?
Hello Ann (and All),
“Are you saying that most Catholics stay in the Church because of what other Catholics do or do not believe?”
No I don’t think that, and I’m sorry if my latest post was misleading.
As you probably guessed I think there are a variety of reasons that vary across why Catholics stay in the church.
I’m know I’m being a bit coy, all, but I would like to see if others here would like to propose some answers to my question before I give my own.
The smudge on my forehead this year is not too bad, visible but not showy, nicely in the spirit of today’s Gospel. Hope everyone else had a good Ash Wednesday.
Why do Catholics stay in the Church? For me (raised post-Vatican 2) the question sounds strange: we are the Church!
The Catholic liturgies, hymns, prayers, homilies, and friends have shaped my beliefs. How can I not be Catholic? It encompasses so much more than the issues that are currently politically sensitive in the US.
The natural flow is back and forth between Catholicism and atheism (between belief and disbelief). Converting from Catholicism to another version of Christianity mostly happens, I suspect, if someone becomes alienated by a particular issue that takes on primary importance for them. I imagine that tearing themselves away must be a painful process, somewhat like disowning one’s own family.
About the issue you raised on questioning the teachings: I listen attentively to what the Catechism or the Pope says, and try to understand it. That’s my version of obedience! After that, I am comfortable forming my own opinion, which may or may not be in agreement with “official” Church teachings, and I revisit it periodically, of course. Same goes with obeying “laws”. There is a tension, of course, but it has very little to do with being or not being Catholic.
And now, let’s hear your theory!
I was born in 1937, therefore, I was in my 20s during Vatican II. I agree very much with Wilkins’s last sentence, “I do not want to feel an orphan.” That is very much the feeling I have as I see what I think is the Church stepping back to the rigidity and formalism and clericalism of pre-vatican II. Does this mean that I would consider leaving the Catholic Church. NO. I stronger than ever believe in the teaching of the Nicene Creed, the Mass, and the Eucharist. This to me is the core of the Catholic Church. I may dismayed and dishaertened by the governing of the institution, but that’s what makes me feel like orphan. I live in the Philadelphia diocese which is as arch orthordox as it gets. I would be very interested to see what Cathleen and Joe bring back from this symposium. Thanks for listening.
Hello Claire (and All),
Thank you for your response which I much appreciated. To respond partially, I frankly cannot see how anyone could fail to question some of the teachings of the Church at least some of the time. There are simply so many of them, keeping in mind that the CCC which is supposed to be the “Reader’s Digest” statement of Church teaching has >2800 paragraphs, and many of these teachings are hard to understand, to understate matters. In my own case there are admittedly some Church teachings I am still struggling this late in life, but I don’t deny any of them outright and I obey all of the laws to the best of my ability (including the hot-button law regarding birth control — my bride and I are rigorously practicing natural family planning). But some of my Catholic friends think that’s not quite good enough.
I don’t have my own theory, actually. Clearly people remain in, join or rejoin the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. Perhaps my own reasons might be of group interest. I reverted some time after I became engaged, mainly so that my mate and I can share the Sacraments together and practice the same faith. (And earlier this year we conferred upon each other the Sacrament of Marriage.) But now that I have rejoined I’m finding I am glad I did for another, rather immodest, reason. Because of my profession, most of the people I know are not Catholic and a high percentage are confirmed atheists. I try to treat them all decently and I particularly like praying for my friends who are not believers of any sort. I’m hoping that my being Catholic is a witness for these people, so that they know that they have a friend who is religious and cares about them and believes that God likes them just as much as he likes Catholics and other religious people. At least some of my friends have told me they have a better attitude towards the Catholic Church because they know me.
And I should clarify. I have already admitted in an earlier post that I don’t believe that God will give me privileged treatment because I am trying to practice the faith to the best of my ability. But I also take very seriously the consequences of sin (as do most Christians I know) and the possibility that my purgatory will include some serious pain. I just don’t believe that God will be the one inflicting the pain. I believe that the pain will come from those I have hurt and from myself. I’ve been studying Pope Benedict’s “Saved in Hope” and I think he might agree with me. But I’ll be glad for correction from any of the theologians here.
rejoining has helped me start to have a better appreciation of