https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/de-throning-vatican-ii/ De-throning Vatican II ITV Staff The Council’s time in history has passed By Anthony Esolen The Council of Trent (1588) by Pasquale Cati Da Iesi Thomas Aquinas (between Aristotle and Plato) Defeats Heresy, by Benozzo Gozzoli John Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism, elevated to the cardinalate in 1879 by Leo XIII, proclaimed a saint in 2019 by Pope Francis The doctrine of infallibility is, to my understanding, modest and protective: it declares that the Church will never, in matters of faith and morals, preach what is false. It does not declare that the Church will be free of folly or wickedness. Cardinal Reginald Pole, whose native England had severed herself from Rome, said at the Council of Trent that the divisions in the Church were God’s punishment for the corruption of her princes.(1) What the sins were for which the aftermath of Vatican II was the punishment, I cannot tell, unless they were the simmering acts of treachery and apostasy that characterized some of the principals at the Council, and many priests, religious, and laymen around the world in the years that followed. About the Council documents I will have little to say here. The choice for a “hermeneutic of continuity,” which Archbishop Vigano suggests has failed, seems to me to be an absolute necessity by any conceivable understanding of what the Church is, what truth is, and what genuine “development of doctrine” is, as set forth most precisely by St. John Henry Newman. A hermeneutic of rupture — the notion that at Vatican II the Holy Spirit cut the Church clean from her past, to establish a new thing — is a flat contradiction of the promises of Christ. It denies the Church’s essence as a body maintaining her identity through all the chances and changes of the world, and, in her moral and spiritual growth, always remaining the same Church, coming to deeper understanding of truths already held. Marriage does not develop by divorce. If the documents of Vatican II can be brought into harmony with what the Church has always taught, then they must be, regardless of the intentions of the attending prelates and theologians. Here we come to a crux, one of three that I will look at here. The first involves the distinction between the Church and a political body. Thomas Aquinas says that judges and magistrates who execute the law must be guided by the mind of the lawgiver, rather than construing the law to negate what the lawgiver intended to do. That is because, in any political system, each officer has his proper function which he should not overstep. It is also because law is general and universal, not specific and particular; no lawgiver can anticipate every eventuality. Therefore we require the astute obedience of the judge or magistrate, who does not take the law into his own hands, but, in deference to the mind of the lawgiver, applies the law justly to the matter before him. In a severely limited sense, we may say something similar about how responsible Churchmen should have implemented certain directives laid out in the Council documents: for example, the directive in Sacrosanctum concilium to bring to the faithful the Church’s immense musical wealth, and to confirm the pipe organ as the instrument most fit for the worship of God. Such identity-conserving directives were ignored. Instead, people appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” — what I have called “the Ghost of Vatican Past” — to justify innovations that were often at odds with what the documents themselves say. But the spirit of Vatican II is a fiction. Not even in the political sphere may a judge appeal to the spirit of a senate debate; he has the law before him, and the law, not excitations in the senate chamber or conversations in a cloak room, not what this or that lawgiver wanted and did not get, not hearsay, not fervid reports from priests writing under a pseudonym, not some supposed farther advance of the law, must express for him what the lawgivers intended. But the lawgiver here is the Holy Spirit and not men, and that makes all the difference in the world. We are not permitted to guess at the mind of the Holy Spirit, as if He were chief among the political actors at the Council. The Council cannot claim to speak for the Holy Spirit, simpliciter. Again, we believe that the Holy Spirit will guard the Church against preaching error. We do not believe that the Holy Spirit speaks positively through every Pope or Council Father as through a pasteboard mask. Indeed, those revolutionaries among the Fathers at Vatican II can have believed no such thing, or else there never would have been a Vatican II to begin with; Vatican I would have had to suffice. No, when we interpret any papal pronouncement or any Council document proclaiming a matter of faith or morals, we must assume that the Holy Spirit cannot change, cannot contradict himself. The words then are our concern. Unlike the words of a human lawgiver, they deal with the eternal. The first crux implies a second. The great movers of Vatican II regarded the Council as a new foundation for the Church. We may call this “the Modernist Gambit.” You scoff at the past as benighted, outworn, even stupid and wicked, but certainly determined by time and place, and therefore to be discarded now that we have a new time and place. Con’t
Con’t The Council Fathers during a session of Vatican Council II That is nonsense, even in secular arts and letters; who says that Bach is benighted or that Shakespeare is outworn? But almost in the same breath, the Modernist, having cut himself adrift from the ages, declares that he alone is not determined by time and place; he or the direction he travels in is absolute, inevitable, unquestionable. The Modernist sacrifices man, says Gabriel Marcel, to the Minotaur that is “history.” We are floating on a raft downriver to a 1,000-foot waterfall, but if that is where the river is going, we should flow with it too, for the river is History, or what we fancy to be History, and that fiction has become our god. That brings me to my third and final crux. The Council Fathers wanted to address the Church to the modern world. It was a pastoral Council, not a dogmatic Council — so we have heard. Here I note that when you seek heaven first, you will get earth into the bargain; that is what Jesus promises. When you seek earth first, you lose both. The innovators at the Council thought in modern political terms, and therefore, unless they were devils intending to destroy, they were inept even at the task they had set for themselves. Pastorally, the Council was a calamitous failure: vocations to the priesthood and religious life dried up; schools shut down; colleges shut down or apostatized; Catholic arts and letters, that had given the world several Nobel laureates in literature, collapsed; great music was abandoned for the stupid and treacly; and Catholics capitulated to the Lonely Revolution around them, that abandonment of the Christian sexual ethic that had shed its sweet light upon the lives of ordinary Christians, and had trained them up in virtue and sanctity. The modern world was already a dead thing, deadening all it touched. Modernism subtracts, minimalizes, obliterates. Should the Church bind herself to a corpse? If ever there was a time to be buried in forgetfulness, it was that late modern age, so rich in things and poor in soul. We say, with embarrassment, that the Spanish Inquisition was not as bad as people think, and that it should be understood in the context of its time and culture. So also Vatican II: it should be understood in the context of the time — and the time has passed. It did not affirm error. Its implementers did little good and much mischief. Enough already. The sooner we forget it, the sooner we bid it leave the throne it never deserved, the sooner we cast off its dated liturgical innovations — as dated as Godspell and the Singing Nun — the better. (1) Cardinal Reginald Pole lived from 1500 to 1558 and was the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Mary’s brief Catholic restoration, from July 1553 to her death in November of 1558. Mary was the only child of King Henry VIII by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, to survive to adulthood. Her attempt to restore to the Catholic Church the property confiscated in the previous two reigns was largely thwarted by Parliament, but during her five-year reign, Mary had over 280 religious dissenters burned at the stake, which led to her denunciation as “Bloody Mary” by her Protestant opponents. Cardinal Pole died about 12 hours after Queen Mary herself on November 17, 1558. About the author: Professor Esolen graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1981. He pursued graduate work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he earned his M.A. in 1981 and a Ph.D. in Renaissance literature in 1987. Esolen’s dissertation, “A Rhetoric of Spenserian Irony,” was directed by Prof. S. K. Heninger. Esolen taught at Furman University and Providence College before transferring to the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in 2017 and, in 2019, to Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts in southern New Hamsphire, USA, where he is Writer-in-Residence. Esolen has translated into English Dante’s Divine Comedy, Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things, and Torquato Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered. Sent from my iPhone
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/moving-beyond-vatican-ii Moving Beyond Vatican II How do you solve a problem like Vatican II? While perhaps not as catchy as the classic Sound of Music tune, this question is far more complex than trying to marry off the future Baroness von Trapp. Catholics have been arguing over the council since before it even ended in 1965. While it was intended to usher the Church into the modern world, there’s no question that Vatican II and how to properly interpret it has been the most divisive issue in today’s Church—and the raging debate shows no signs of subsiding. Perhaps, though, it’s time to move beyond the council. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below For liberal Catholics, Vatican II represented freedom; specifically, freedom from the past. Instead of being bound to the dogmas and practices of previous generations, Vatican II gave the Church the opportunity to break those shackles and build a new church for a new time. From rejecting the Church’s teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception to advocating for women priests, Catholics of a liberal persuasion essentially became Protestants, molding their own beliefs—even when in direct contradiction to previous teachings of the Church—all, of course, in the “spirit of Vatican II.” In response to this post-conciliar aberration, many conservative Catholics reacted by embracing what Pope Benedict XVI called the “hermeneutic of continuity.” By this, the pope meant that Vatican II should be interpreted in a way consistent with the previous 1,960 years of Catholic Tradition (“hermeneutic” is just a fancy word meaning “method of interpreting”). In other words, don’t read Tradition in light of the Council; read the Council in light of Tradition. This is solid, Catholic advice. Ecumenical councils are not new revelations from heaven that supersede previous revelations. They are an organic part of the ongoing life of the Church and so should be treated as part of a larger whole, not a break in a new direction. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Unfortunately, that perfectly acceptable Catholic principle of the “hermeneutic of continuity” has morphed into something less than Catholic today. Instead of being used to put Vatican II in proper historical perspective, it has turned Vatican II into the very “supercouncil” that the hermeneutic was intended to prevent. More specifically, it has become a stick to bludgeon anyone who dares to criticize the council itself. For example, if a Catholic suggests that perhaps certain passages of Vatican II are worded so poorly as to easily lead people into heresy, the HoC Squad jumps in to defend the council: “If it’s read in continuity with Catholic teaching, then it can’t be understood heretically!” Perhaps true for theologians who know all the nuances of Catholic doctrine, but that doesn’t mean the wording isn’t poor and confusing. Or if a Catholic notes that the council had an unbalanced emphasis on the positive elements of other religions without noting their deficiencies, the HoC Squad shoots those criticisms down, arguing those statements must be balanced with previous teachings. Again, that’s all well and good for intellectuals who know this history deeply, but the average Catholic clearly takes that new emphasis as a sign that we shouldn’t mention the errors of non-Catholic religions. In other words, it’s perfectly legitimate to note that Vatican II gives an unbalanced view. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Yet the very thought of criticizing a council makes many orthodox, faithful Catholics blanch. How can it ever be proper to criticize the highest authority (aside from the pope) in the Church? To ease those concerns, let me share a quote from Joseph Ratzinger, the man who would later become Pope Benedict XVI: “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time.” These words might shock Catholic sensibilities; they almost read like something off the keyboard of an anti-Catholic combox warrior, not the words of a future pope. Yet it is an honest assessment of history. Catholics need to recognize that sometimes councils succeed, and sometimes they fail. A common misconception among Catholics is that the Holy Spirit guides every aspect of ecumenical councils; therefore, all councils are “successful.” This is not Catholic teaching. The Holy Spirit acts primarily as a protector—He protects the deposit of faith by ensuring that no council can definitively declare heresy as Catholic truth. It’s a negative, not a positive, protection. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Now, it’s true that the Holy Spirit canguide a council (and He wants to!), but the council fathers have the freedom to accept or reject that guidance—just as all men have that freedom in all things. In the early 16th century, when the Church was in desperate need of reform, Pope Julius II convoked the fifth Lateran Council. Sadly, the council failed; the reforms it sought did not take hold, and seven months after the council’s close Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, instigating the Protestant Reformation. It took the Council of Trent decades later to truly begin the process of reform. That didn’t make Lateran V an invalid council; it was just an inconsequential council (or a “waste of time,” as Ratzinger would call it). And if entire councils can succeed or fail, the same is true of individual council documents—sometimes they are useful, sometimes they are not. If we refuse to recognize that legitimate councils—and legitimate council documents—can fail in their mission, we act like cult members who whitewash and rewrite history in an effort to fool the world into believing the Church has never made any missteps. Conceived, perhaps, as a well-intended effort to protect the Church’s good name, in truth this is an attack on our God-given reason. Catholics also must recognize that all councils are rooted in the times in which they are held. This doesn’t change the truth of any dogmatic statements they make, but it does allow us to properly interpret—and even later potentially dismiss—their practical advice and their contemporary worldview when no longer relevant. There is no doubt that the way the Vatican II council fathers saw and interpreted the world was heavily influenced by a 1960’s (mostly Western) worldview. For example, in hindsight much of the council seems excessively optimistic about the progress of mankind, particularly in light of how much the world has devolved into a nihilistic culture of death and deception since that time. Further, the “tone” of a council is usually dependent on its contemporary milieu. Topics that a council emphasizes—or ignores—reflect a certain worldview, one which may no longer be appropriate for future generations. As I mentioned previously, Vatican II focused on the positive elements of other religions, never mentioning their errors. This decision was perhaps understandable since the council followed a horrific Holocaust of a people of a single religion. In today’s world, however, when most people—including most Catholics—are religiously indifferent, the need to distinguish between religions is of paramount importance. So, how should Catholics approach Vatican II? First, to be clear, this is not a call to “reject” Vatican II or to declare it heretical. It’s a call to stop being handcuffed to that council, to move beyond it. Too often we’ve had binary debates about Vatican II: you either have to follow it slavishly (or, more precisely, follow a specific interpretation slavishly), or reject it completely. We need to put Vatican II in proper perspective—both the good and the bad—and stop seeing every problem through a Vatican II lens. Perhaps the council doesn’t have the answer to our problems; or, even more controversially, perhaps the Vatican II solution isn’t the proper solution for today. Both liberal and conservative Catholics have made Vatican II into the raison d’etre of modern Catholicism, the lens through which the entire Faith is seen. This practice has transformed the council into an albatross, shackling Catholics to failed and outdated ideas and practices. Catholics need not be cult members, desperately trying to save face by defending every jot and tittle of Vatican II. We can admit we have councils in our past that, in spite of good intentions, didn’t work out as hoped—or whose pastoral advice and worldview just don’t apply to us anymore. In the face of today’s (seemingly countless) problems, we should focus on those things in our Tradition that have worked and re-embrace them, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. Sent from my iPhone
A reply to Esolen’s article that appeared in a subsequent edition of Inside the Vatican: https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/vatican-ii-and-the-work-of-the-spirit/ Vatican II and the Work of the Spirit ITV Staff His has been a severe-grace, but also a beneficent-grace By Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Capuchin Recently, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó and others have expressed their concerns about the present state of the Church. This has often taken the form of critiquing the Second Vatican Council, and laying the blame for many of the present ecclesial difficulties at its feet. Anthony Esolen has even suggested that Vatican II should be “dethroned,” for its time has passed. I sympathize with many of the concerns expressed and acknowledge some of the stated problematic theological and doctrinal issues enumerated. I am, however, uncomfortable with the conclusion that Vatican II is, in some way, the direct source and cause of the present disheartening state of the Church. In this brief essay, I want to address the Spirit’s twofold interrelated work in the Church subsequent to Vatican II, for only in discerning properly the Spirit’s work can one rightly judge the work of the Council. First, in the aftermath of Vatican II, many distressing things occurred within the Church. Some of these are still taking place, and others have newly arisen. They are well known — many priests abandoned the priesthood; men and women religious sought dispensation from their vows, thus leaving their orders decimated; almost the entire Catholic population of some countries discontinued the practice of the faith, Holland and Belgium being the first evident examples; Catholic theologians trumpeted dubious and erroneous theological opinions, with entire theological faculties becoming bastions of dissent against Catholic doctrine and morals. This list could be enlarged, but the above is such a well-rehearsed scenario that it has become trite. The present problem is that all of the above evils that afflicted the Church after Vatican II, and continue to do so in various ways, are said to find their cause within Vatican II itself, or more so within the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” — the liberal hermeneutic that declared that what is important about the Council is not so much what it said, but more so the new liberating spirit that it engendered. Nonetheless, the conclusion is often drawn that if it were not for the Council, the Church would have continued to thrive as it seemingly was doing prior to the Council. This, I claim, is an erroneous judgment. It is naïve to think that so many priests, prior to the Council, were men of deep faith, and then, overnight, after the Council, were corrupted by the Council or the spirit of the Council, and so jettisoned their faith and left the priesthood. Monasteries, friaries, and convents could not have been filled with ardent religious who then subsequent to and because of the Council so swiftly lost their vowed fervor that they traipsed off into the world, leaving a remnant who were themselves often theologically confused and spiritually adrift. Catholic universities and theology faculties could not have been staffed by men and women who were alive in the faith and who enthusiastically communicated that faith to their students, yet who, upon the close of the Council, so eagerly, though often with the best of intentions, fed their students the latest theological fads and authored books that appeared to be the most theologically insightful and creative. In reality, they often turned out to be colorfully camouflaged versions of various antique and already disgraced heresies. The same is true of Catholic populations in various countries, such as Holland and Belgium. They could not have been steadfast in their faith prior to the Council and then, after it, immediately walked out of the church doors, never to return. My point is obvious. The spirit of the Council may have provided the occasion for all the present Church’s difficulties to come to light, but they were already there, deeply embedded within the Church, prior to the Council. Such evils cannot then be attributed to the Council itself. However, I now want to declare what I will call the Spirit’s “severe-grace.” While the Council is not their cause, the false, so-called spirit of the Council did allow the Spirit of truth to reveal to the Church, and to the world, just how feeble in faith, how anemic in life, the Church really was and had been. This severe-grace continues to be at work and is intensifying. The apostasy taking place within the German Catholic Church is now the most concentrated expression of this severe-grace, for it is being engineered not only by many of the German hierarchy, but also, at points, seemingly countenanced by the present pontificate. These post-Vatican II graces are severe, for to behold them is be repulsed by what they reveal. One gazes upon them with fear and trembling. Until recently, many among the episcopate have refused to acknowledge the Spirit’s severe-grace, pretending that affairs within the Church were really not that bad. Only a few vocal extremists would think otherwise. Now, with the pederasty abuse scandal, and other sexual scandals, both heterosexual and homosexual, and the cover-up that has come to light in so many places, bishops have been forced to admit the Spirit’s severe-grace. However, only in beholding this severe-grace, only in acknowledging the decadence within the Church, can the Church properly address the sickness that lies within it. Only if the Spirit allowed evil’s darkness to become manifestly apparent could he, and the Church, convict it of sin and condemn it. Ultimately, we should be grateful for the Spirit’s severe-grace, for it calls us to repentance and newness of life. My second point has to do with the fruit that Vatican II has produced, particularly bearing on the evils described above. This fruit could be called the Spirit’s “beneficent-grace.” The principle is that where sin abounds, grace abounds even more. The following are a few examples. Without Vatican II, it would be hard to imagine Karol Wojtyla being elected Pope. Vatican II rightly created a climate wherein Cardinals, and the Church as a whole, could think outside of the “Italian” box and elect a Pole, and more so, a man of such intellectual vitality and spiritual maturity. Con’t
Con’t Moreover, John Paul, through his great encyclicals addressed forcefully, clearly, and imaginatively the doctrinal and moral evils that were and continue to beset the Church. Likewise, he, by force of his authentic charismatic personality, took up personally the task of the new evangelization, especially among the youth – the proclamation of the Gospel to tepid-in-faith and indifferent-in-spirit Catholics. In the midst of the Spirit’s severe-grace, the Spirit raised up John Paul II as a beneficent-grace, a grace that will mature and ripen as the Church strives to renew itself. Moreover, when traditional religious orders were in freefall, new religious orders, especially women’s religious orders, came to life. They have attracted, and continue to attract, many young women. Such a blossoming within religious life would have been unthinkable prior to Vatican II. Similarly, Vatican II created a climate wherein new renewal movements and communities were able to come to birth. The Charismatic Renewal within the Catholic Church has no human founder, but was the sole work of the Holy Spirit. Such a phenomenon would never have entered the mind of any Catholic man or woman, ecclesial (especially) or lay in the 1940’s and 50’s, much less among the post-Vatican II liberal elite. Many of these movements have not only brought a vibrant faith and life to its members, but they also are on the front lines of evangelization. Yes, there have been growing pains, but even my Capuchin Order was almost suppressed by the Pope shortly after its founding, its early Minister General having become a Protestant. The decline of seminarians after the Council was, and to some degree still is, troublesome. Yet, the new generation of seminarians brings hope. Notably, dioceses that have a bishop who is solid in the faith regarding doctrine and morals are more likely to attract promising young men. That the bishop now makes a difference as to the vibrancy of his diocese is also the fruit of Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, one bishop was often just like another, and one diocese was similar to another. Now, the pastoral vibrancy of a diocese and the spiritual fruit of a diocese can often be directly attributed to the enthusiastic Spirit-filled faith of the bishop. Similarly, in the wake of the sexual scandals, diocesan seminaries have ardently worked to ensure that their seminarians receive training that is academically faithful to the Church’s doctrinal and moral teaching. Seminarians are also provided a more intense spiritual regimen, one that fosters holiness of life and human development. Would that the same could be enthusiastically confirmed in all seminaries sponsored by religious orders! Nonetheless, the new vibrancy within seminaries is a beneficent-grace of the Holy Spirit, a grace that counteracts the severe-grace that manifests the failings of many previous priests. Lastly, in the midst of a less than robust, and often questionable, post-Vatican II theology within much of the Catholic academic community, I rejoice that I am witnessing an authentic theological revival, one that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I have academic friends and colleagues all over the world who unabashedly and fearlessly teach the faith both in the classroom and in their writings. Such a renewal would not have taken place prior to Vatican II, for prior to it, theologians were basically satisfied and comfortable in their trade. There were some rumblings concerning a theological renewal, but they were often met with suspicion and disdain. However, founded upon the teaching of Vatican II itself and taking into account the sad contemporary theological climate that had overtaken the academy, a new generation of theologians has risen phoenix-like from the ashes. To be noted, teaching theology, prior to Vatican II, was almost exclusively the domain of clerics. Now, many of the best and most promising theologians are lay men and women. The renewal of theology is manifold. Scripture has ever more become, as Vatican II called it to be, the soul of theology. Study of the Fathers of the Church is no longer considered an antiquarian pursuit, but one that is relevant for today’s theological needs. Similarly, dogmatic or systematic theologians have pulled Thomas Aquinas’ writings out of the dustbin and have imaginatively employed them to address contemporary theological issues, thus making Aquinas accessible to a whole new generation of young people. Bonaventure studies are also on the rise, and so a good old rivalry is once more in place – a “friendly” rivalry that will bear good fruit for all involved. Moreover, Vatican II called for a renewal of Catholic moral theology, a theology that would be more scriptural in orientation, and one that promoted the rightful dignity of every human person. Because of innovative, faithful, Catholic moral theologians, the post-Vatican II Church is now able to defend confidently, and profess more clearly, its authentic and traditional moral teaching on an array of controverted moral issues, as well as address new moral concerns that the advancement of technology and science has brought to the fore. The above is the beneficent-grace that the Holy Spirit has poured out upon the post-Vatican II Church, a Church that was in dire need of theological renewal. I have attempted to demonstrate that, while many pastoral, theological, and moral troubles have beset the Church in the wake of Vatican II, hardships that continue to make their presence readily known, yet these did not flow from nor were they caused by Vatican II itself. Rather, they were the very issues that the Council was attempting to address in order to renew the Church. That the Holy Spirit has permitted such a sad plight to plague the Church is his severe-grace – his making clear beyond all doubt how much the Church needs to be revitalized. The Spirit of truth, however, is not just the Spirit of condemnation; he is also the Spirit of life and love, and so simultaneously he has poured out his beneficent-grace of renewal, and we can witness, as I have attempted to show, its fruit being born in our day. Although some bits and pieces of what Vatican II taught may need revision, yet it has borne authentic fruit, fruit that is yet to come to full maturity. The good fight of faith must still be waged, and pursued with the confidence that faith will win the day. Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M, Cap.earned a Doctorate in Historical Theology at King’s College, University of London in 1975. He has taught in a number of Catholic universities in the United States and for 12 years was the Warden of Greyfriars, Oxford, and taught History and Doctrine within the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. An author or editor of 20 books and numerous articles, his specialties are Christology, Trinity, Soteriology and philosophical notions of God in the Fathers, Thomas Aquinas and contemporary theology. He is a former member of the International Theological Commission. Pope Benedict conferred upon him the Pro Ecclesia et Pontefice Award in 2013.
Inside the Vatican will be conducting a poll of all the magazine’s and Dr. Robert Moynihan’s email “The Moynihan Letters” recipients in the coming months, regarding what Liturgy the respondents attend, whether Pope Francis’ recent motu proprio has affected the availability of the TLM in their diocese, and the respondents’ attitudes and beliefs about the Second Vatican Council. This is a project I’m working on very closely with them as a volunteer and I was very much involved in formulating the questions for this poll and will be collating the results over the coming months. Once this poll goes “live” on the Inside the Vatican website, I’ll post a link here and I encourage everyone to participate in this poll.
I insisted ITV include links to the above articles in the section of the poll that deals with respondents’ attitudes regarding VII, in an educational effort so that their respondents better understand the issues and debate involving VII in our day. We’ll see if they do include them. I feel an informed attitude regarding VII is the most vital aspect of this poll.
