This is important for all of us to grasp: https://onepeterfive.com/weigel-world-youth-day-and-a-conservative-catholicism-that-doesnt-exist/ Weigel, World Youth Day, and a Conservative Catholicism that Doesn’t Exist Steve SkojecAugust 8, 2018 0 Comments Today, someone sent me the latest column at First Things by American Catholic writer and papal biographer George Weigel, entitled “WYD-1993: The Turning Point.” I am not, in general, a fan of Weigel’s work, which I find by turns dull and frustrating – often both. This column is no exception, and yet it serves as a potent illustration of something very much worth talking about: that so-called “Conservative Catholicism” is illusory – a self-imposed, often starkly tone-deaf deception designed to maintain an incredibly destructive lie: that the Catholicism you’ve been given your whole life is the real thing, and therefore, worth conserving. The obviousness of how threadbare this illusion has become makes itself clear when Weigel suggests – in August of 2018! – that the American Catholic Church entered a halcyon period following World Youth Day in Denver in 1993. While the rest of the American Church is currently reeling over changes to its catechisms and another horrifying round of sexual abuse allegations – including those made in solidly “conservative” dioceses like Lincoln – Weigel dons his rose-colored glasses while he cheerfully writes: WYD 1993 was not just a triumph for John Paul II, and for now-Cardinal Stafford and his team; it was a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, and its effects are still being felt on this silver jubilee. Before WYD 1993, too much of Catholicism in America was in a defensive crouch, like too much of the Church in Western Europe today. After WYD 1993, the New Evangelization in the United States got going in earnest, as Catholics who had participated in it brought home the word that the Gospel was still the most transformative force in the world. Before WYD 1993, U.S. Catholicism was largely an institutional-maintenance Church. With WYD 1993, Catholicism in America discovered the adventure of the New Evangelization, and the living parts of the Church in the U.S. today are the parts that have embraced that evangelical way of being Catholic. Really, Mr. Weigel? Have you checked the news? Are we not in a “defensive crouch” today? Has Catholicism, which has been in steady decline in the United States for decades, seen a resurgence nobody has bothered telling us about? Is the clerical CYA racket evidenced by the McCarrick case (and others) not precisely the worst kind of example of U.S. Catholicism as “institutional-maintenance Church”? And yet, Weigel is not entirely wrong about World Youth Day. He’s just wrong about why it mattered. As I’ve written before, I was a participant in that very same World Youth Day in 1993. I was fifteen years old, and had begun falling in love with the Church I had grown up in as my adolescent sense of truth being something worth pursuing deepened. Even now, 25 years later, I remember standing in my grandmother’s living room, taking the call from my pastor on her yellow rotary phone, hearing the news that I was one of two people from the parish selected to go to Denver. But as I wrote in 2016, World Youth Day represented a turning point for me, too. It was at World Youth Day that I first realized how deeply unwell the Catholic Church had really become. From the priest on the pre-trip retreat who questioned Our Lord’s gender and asked everyone to stand for the consecration to the crass behavior of my fellow pilgrims to the first glimpse I had of priests engaging in scandalous, sexually-suggestive behavior, I saw one example after another of a Catholicism in deep distress. And I know I wasn’t alone. And then there was the big debacle: a woman asked to play Christ at the Stations of the Cross during one of the official World Youth Day events. It was an occurrence that inspired one of the most iconic television moments of all time: an infuriated nun who threw open the windows and yelled that she was mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore. This was a turning point, too, for her – for Mother Angelica and her fledgling Eternal Word Television Network. But while her anger was justifiable, even she missed the point. As Hilary White wrote two years ago: This is the speech that really alerted the bishops to the fact that there were still Catholics out there, that their Revolution hadn’t worked. She gave it after what she saw as the last straw: World Youth Day in Denver they gave us a woman acting the part of Christ in the Stations of the Cross. After that she went to war. But she lost. And do we know why? Because she started with an error. At the beginning of this speech she recites the creed of the American Novusordoist conservatives: Vatican II was wonderful, but those wicked “liberals” highjacked it for their own evil purposes. It is a position that tried to create the compromise space that many American Catholics have tried to live in ever since. It was this reasonable, nice, friendly, ecumenical position that made it possible for the Catholic leaders of the original pro-life movement of the 70s and 80s to draw in the conservative Protestants; all on the mutual unspoken agreement that we would set aside and never mention the irreconcilable breach between us. It is this false position, this “conservative” middle ground, founded on the new pseudo-doctrine of papal positivism that is now being closed with a resounding clang by the current regime. The old nostrum, the central conservative Novusordoist error of papal positivism: “I’m with the pope and whatever the pope says goes,” is being shown to be a false turn now. As Ross Douthat said recently, there are roughly three positions in the American Catholic Church (and this spreads up into Canada – though much less in Britain, Australia, South America, Europe, Africa and Asia than most Americans understand). There are “liberals” of the Mahoney/Danneels/Bernardin ilk; the whole spectrum of Traditionalists from the SSPX to the Remnant followers (sedes are in a class of their own); and the conservatives, represented by the George Weigel/First Things/EWTN variety. Among these last have fallen the little group of what we have come to call Papal Apologists – the self-appointed priesthood who have tasked themselves with interpreting and explaining away Pope Francis’ every incomprehensible Pythian utterance. Con’t
Con’t But this third group, the ones who offered such a pleasing compromise, are the ones who are currently suffering the most. They are the ones who, having adopted the Conservative Novusordoist Creed recited by Mother Angelica at the start of that speech, are now thrown into confusion, frantically denying what is unfolding before their eyes because it fails to fit into their parameters. As Hilary correctly noted, this error, Weigel’s error, Conservative Catholicism‘s error, is a refusal to recognize that the problems they think they need to fight are baked into the institutions and ideas they seek to defend. This is why so many faithful Catholics in the pews of even the best suburban parishes are at a complete loss as to how to grapple with all that is currently transpiring in the Church. It’s why they are perplexed by the debate over divorce and “remarriage” and Amoris Laetitia; why they struggle with so many utterances of Pope Francis; why they can’t understand how anyone could have a problem with their liturgies. It is the reason people are so shocked to discover that the Lincoln Diocese – known for as long as I can remember as the home of the fabled Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and the American vocations boom and that particular breed of Midwestern American conservative orthodoxy – has some terrifying skeletons in its closet. They can’t make sense of it because their entire paradigm is built on sand. It isn’t even their fault. All I can tell them, if they’re willing to listen, is something that’s going to be as hard for them to process as it was for me: there is no such thing as Conservative Catholicism. There is, in fact, only one type of Catholicism. Catholicism as it always was: a Church founded by Christ and anchored by the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit in an unbroken chain of succession for nearly 2,000 years in which doctrine and dogma remained consistent and undisturbed, even though heresies great and small threatened to overturn them; a liturgy and devotional life that developed organically, as imperceptibly as a giant oak; a Church Militant nurtured by all these things and in turn nurturing the culture and the civilization that sprung from it. There is something else, too: an ersatz Catholicism. Catholicism as it has been since 1965: a revolution of novelty that leaves no aspect of the Church’s life untouched, that has created conflicts and contradictions that cannot simply be papered over through fantasy terms like “the hermeneutic of continuity” and has made the experience of the average parish-going Catholic something that would be unrecognizable to his counterpart from a hundred – or a thousand – years earlier. Conservative Catholicism is false because it seeks to conserve something that is not real: a forcibly orthodox interpretation of a fundamentally heterodox epoch in salvation history. Conservative Catholicism is the theological equivalent – not to put too fine a point on it – of a man who pees on your leg and tells you it’s raining. For the first time in a long time, an increasing number of people are suddenly realizing that their legs are wet, but the sky is clear. I wrote earlier this week about how maybe, just like in a movie I recently watched, this is a time where we have to watch everything appear to be destroyed for it to actually be saved. A winnowing, as it were, that will separate wheat from chaff. My friend Hilary has said from the beginning of the Bergoglian disaster that she is thankful, because the Church couldn’t have survived the deception that everything is fine under another a “conservative pontificate.” The post-conciliar Church is replete with the hallmark legalisms of the devil: things kept just this side of technically valid while riddled with falsity and artifice that lead the believer astray. This new Church was crafted from whole cloth, made as a mask designed to cover the beauty of the real Church, to hide it from our view, to keep us distracted with the concerns of men, and not of God (Mt. 16:23). What we will all see when we eventually make it to the other side of this disaster is what a growing minority of Catholics have already discovered: there is the Catholicism that always was, and there is the pseudo-Catholicism that seeks to subvert and replace it. There is nothing else.
When it’s all said and done, I personally believe the new mass and VII will be quietly forgotten, the latter being either entirely rewritten if not vacated completely. People are blind to the enormous errors both have ushered into Catholicism. “Ecumenism” has destroyed the witness and apostolic zeal of the Church.
I agree. I grew up as one of those "conservative Catholics" as my parents were. When Benedict resigned, we were all devastated. It was after Francis began making those infamous "off the cuff" remarks" that I became concerned that we had a liberal pope on our hands, and somehow I came across Catholic teachings that I had never actually read before - mainly the encyclicals of pre-Vatican II popes and their statements on modernism, liberalism, free-masonry etc. as well as the talks by the good priests on Sensus Fidelium. My sisters and parents (minus my brothers) have been coming to the awareness spoken of in the above article together the last few years, dumbfounded at the things we never knew before. I personally think that if your heart is completely open to the Truth, even if it means changing your long held beliefs and opinions, that Jesus will bestow His Grace to help you see these things as they are.
To reduce saints like Pope Saints John Paul; St John 23D and Blessed Pope Paul as confused nonentities in a few brief sentences. I am glad I do not possess such absolute certainty Knocking saints and Popes over like ten pin bowling
I think I missed that part about the popes. I just scanned Scojek’s article again. I tend to scan rather than reading closely but I honestly don’t see it. I think like Michael Voris he is very upset and angry. Maybe he goes too far?
It is a Traditionalist narrative I cannot agree with. Basically we're right about everything and everyone else the last few Popes saints though they may have been are wrong. No. I don't think so
Sorry, I loved him and even had a remarkable dream with him once, but Pope St. JPII was NOT always correct. Post VII beatification not withstanding.
With respect Padraig, have you researched the ecumenical prayer meetings at Assisi that both JPII and Benedict hosted? Those meetings were evil, through and through, and definitely contradicted the previous popes teachings regarding other faiths. In escense, they completely rolled over and passively denied the primacy of the Church. I'm sorry, but declared saint or not they made a big mistake here. They weren't perfect. In addition none of the popes including Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia the way Our Lady wanted. This last century is riddled with cowardice and error, the popes not excepted.
Words of Saint Mother Theresa. #There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. #I believe that God has created each soul, that that soul belongs to God, and that each soul has to find God in its own lifetime and enter into His life. That is what is important. All of us need to seek God and find Him. #Whether one is Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, how you live your life is proof that you are or not fully His. We cannot condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. We don't know in what way God is appearing to that soul and what God is drawing that soul to; #I believe in person to person. Every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is the one person in the world at that moment. #You and I, we are the Church, no? We have to share with our people. Suffering today is because people are hoarding, not giving, not sharing. Jesus made it very clear: Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me. Give a glass of water, you give it to me. Receive a little child, you receive me #You are to be that presence of Christ to each other. Love each other tenderly as Jesus loves each one of you. Tender love for each other speaks much louder than all the words you can say. #Your service must come from a heart filled with God. This is not impossible. It is possible with the one who can do everything. Without him, we can do nothing. Who Is Jesus to Me? Jesus is the Hungry--to be fed. Jesus is the Thirsty--to be satiated. Jesus is the Naked--to be clothed. Jesus is the Homeless--to be taken in. Jesus is the Sick--to be healed. Jesus is the Lonely--to be loved. Who Is Jesus to Me? Jesus is the Love--to be loved. Jesus is the Joy--to be shared. Jesus is the Sacrifice--to be offered. Jesus is the Peace--to be given. Who Is Jesus to Me? Jesus is the Word--to be spoken. Jesus is the Truth--to be told. Jesus is the Way--to be walked. Jesus is the Light--to be lit. Jesus is the Life--to be lived. #Who is the church? You and I. The church are those who follow Jesus. #With God, nothing is impossible. #As the Bible says, God waits and looks. Will we respond? Interview with Mother Teresa This is an excerpt of one of the last interviews with Mother Teresa conducted by Edward W. Desmond in 1989 Time: What do you think of Hinduism? Mother Teresa: I love all religions, but I am in love with my own. No discussion. That’s what we have to prove to them. Seeing what I do, they realize that I am in love with Jesus. Time: And they should love Jesus too? Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.
I know what you are saying Padraig. I don't believe Mother Angelica nor Mother Theresa would have considered themselves as conservative or traditionalist in the sense of the word. To me they both considered themselves Catholic and as part of the Church. I don't think Mother Angelica got it wrong, nor do I believe she started with an error when she threw open the windows and yelled that she was mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore. She was upholding a truth and like Mother Angelica I believe Vatican II was high jacked by the media, liberals and many other evil intentioned people. It is an interesting fact that Saint Mother Theresa, attended and assisted at the Novordoist Mass daily, however in these chapels of the Missionaries of Charity, they have no pews nor kneelers in fact everyone kneels on the floor for the consecration and sits on the floor for the homily and they receive Our Lord on the tongue. I think we should be looking at the devotion to Jesus and the Love for Jesus practiced by all Catholics at every valid Mass, be that the valid Latin Mass or the valid Novo Ordo Mass
After the McCarrick debacle and the sordid affair of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, everything is up for legitimate question now. http://m.ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/cardinal-mccarrick-what-did-the-vatican-know-and-when “delegation of prominent Catholic laymen, and a priest, traveled to Rome almost 20 years ago, hoping to block McCarrick’s appointment to Washington, D.C., because of concerns about his sexual misconduct with seminarians and young priests. “Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops,” said Dreher. “This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling.” Why was the abusive prelate elevated despite warnings to Rome? https://regainnetwork.org/2014/11/2...ies-of-christ-john-paul-iis-greatest-failure/ Nicole Winfield in a recent article for Associated Press writes that: “Many Vatican watchers, priests and laymen alike point to the scandal of the Legionaries of Christ as perhaps the greatest failure. The pope held up the wealthy, conservative religious order as a model of orthodoxy. Yet for years, he and his advisers actively or passively ignored allegations that its founder was a pedophile who created a twisted cult-like movement so secretive and oppressive that his crimes went unchecked for decades. Benedict has spent much of his first six years as pope trying to undo the damage from such failures, prompting suggestions that it might have been wiser to wait longer before declaring that John Paul had lived a life of “heroic” Christian virtue, a key requirement for beatification” In the face of these developments (and many others!) currently coming to light, the knee jerk reactions against “rad trads” ring hollow.
