As the Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out

[reggieM]

True, but there was a fuzzy line between troublemaking and legitimate development of new ideas for religious life at the time.

Interestingly, our saint for today offers something on this …

St. Angela Merici - January 27

These girls weren’t being helped by the old ways, so Angela invented a new way. She brought together a group of unmarried women, fellow Franciscan tertiaries and other friends, who went out into the streets to gather up the girls they saw and teach them. These women had little money and no power, but were bound together by their dedication to education and commitment to Christ. Living in their own homes, they met for prayer and classes where Angela reminded them, " Reflect that in reality you have a greater need to serve [the poor] than they have of your service." They were so successful in their service that Angela was asked to bring her innovative approach to education to other cities, and impressed many people, including the pope.

Though she turned him down, perhaps the pope’s request gave her the inspiration or the push to make her little group more formal. Although it was never a religious order in her lifetime, Angela’s Company of Saint Ursula, or the Ursulines, was the first group of women religious to work outside the cloister and the first teaching order of women.

It took many years of frustration before Angela’s radical ideas of education for all and unmarried women in service were accepted. They are commonplace to us now because people like Angela wanted to help others no matter what the cost. Angela reminds us of her approach to change: “Beware of trying to accomplish anything by force, for God has given every single person free will and desires to constrain none; he merely shows them the way, invites them and counsels them.”

I do agree that there were troublemakers and they worked evils. I’m just suggesting that it’s more difficult to sort them out – and it was very hard to tell when it happened. I don’t think they were looking for change just for entertainment. Many felt as St. Angela did “These girls weren’t being helped by the old ways”. I think it was a legitimate concern.

Yes, unscrupulous people who didn’t belong in religious life used examples like St. Angela to push for unauthorized and destructive changes. But I don’t think there were that many evil-doers and silent followers. Some who wanted change thought they had some answers for why people were drifting away from Catholicism.

In hindsight, we can see that they were wrong about a lot. But we can see also (I can, at least) that some of what seemed wrong was actually needed and good change.

Of all the sisters I’ve known in my life, I wouldn’t consider any to be insincere or troublemakers who just want to destroy things. I’ve seen some from afar that do appear that way – so I wouldn’t deny that they exist and had an influence.

These are just words of counterbalance – perhaps not needed, and not intended as a denial of what I think your main point it. Thanks for reading.

 

[YankeeRC]

Here is my take on the current culture (take with a teaspoon of salt, since I am a 26 year old man who fled the liberal politics of Massachusetts for Montana, where men are still men and my Copenhagen isnt looked on as the worst evil since my diesel pickup)

The absolute best way to understand a culture is to look at the art it produces, without getting into the art imitating life/life imitating art debate. We went from a generation of leave it to beaver, the waltons, the thin man series, Gone With the Wind, I love Lucy, Big Band, music that had values which promoted something GOOD, to a generation that LOVED the show Friends (which had EVERY member of the cast in multiple unmarried sexual relations, including showing the after sex bed scenes) and where the blockbuster movies of today have graphic sex scenes. Our television nowadays has “A shot at Love with Tila Tequila”, Big Brother, etc. etc. etc.

I have looked at what came before all this and found it good. I have looked at what is going on today and found it bad, if not downright evil. Some of what we malign has a positive impact (Tupac actually had some very good messages in his albums) but the VAST majority of our culture has substituted a worship of God for a worship of Self. This worship of self, this false Idol of the Id/ego, is what has caused ALL of this. The fact that Vatican II came out when our culture was undergoing this incredible de-deification of society was simply bad luck. It will become better understood over time, and it will be corrected, but it will take a LONG time to correct, generations perhaps, and it may never return to the wholesomeness that I long for.

The abuses in the CC came from the influence of society with its push to eliminate God from society. We are often told today that a politician has to leave their religion at the door to the assembly. We are told that we should not vote according to our religion (our conscience). We are told that we should be accepting of others, even when those others are a part of a culture that is definitively set against all we hold dear (the Gay culture, the womens lib movement, heck, even accepting Islam as a peaceful culture[not counting the religion here, just the culture]).

It is people like the posters on this site that are going to help to stem the tide of de-deification of society. It is places like Catholic Answers and their protestant counterparts that are going to give people hope and strength to fight this long battle. It is not a battle which can be won in a day. This is a battle much more like type 2 diabetes, which requires care and and almost obsessive attention to detail to control. We need to understand that to fight this we must ALL pay attention to those things we do and say and ensure that they are in line with our consciences.

Vigilance is the word of our fight, since we must all maintain it. Vigilance entails both a watchful remaining in the light and the willingness to respond to these encroachments into our lives. It is a mandatory if we are to return to wholesomeness, a true definition of family, and the truth taught by the Bible and the the Magisterium. If we fail in this, our society will crumble as all others which faced these problems have and we will be thrust into a storm the likes of which have not been seen since the fall of Rome.

Stay vigilant my friends. Keep the watch through this long night. And always remember that it is always darkest before the dawn but God always brings the sun to shed light on the evils done in darkness.

FSC

Great post!
Just one thing I can’t help but wonder about is, as you said, “The fact that Vatican II came out when our culture was undergoing this incredible de-deification of society was simply bad luck”

Bad luck, bad timing or was it?

I hope I don’t sound too conspiracy theorist, but I believe the followowing two statements are very much realted to this very issue.

“She (the Blessed Virgin Mary) told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility.”
-Sister Lucy

“Through some crack the smoke of satan has entered into the Church of God.”
-Pope Paul VI

This is not to say Freemason Cardinals controlled by Satan decieved the Pope and all of Vatican II was the work of the devil. But the Church and it body can be decieved. Consider Peter and the thrice denials of Christ. Who, afterall was it behind Peter’s actions?

Mother Mary will crush the head of the serpent, of that much we can rest assured in faith

p.s. as a former 30 year user of snuff tobacco products, please do be careful with the use of Copenhagen, Fides.

 

[reggieM]

I left out some of your post for brevity and because I just wanted to deal with this bit.

Have any of you ever been told to dress for success? You should always dress for the position you want to have? There is a man I work with who does our IT. He used to come to work in sweats. Now he always wears slacks and a button down shirt. He has stated that that ONE change made his work ethic change for the better and people treat him MUCH differently. How you dress has an effect on your life, so to abandon the habit, the sisters were abandoning what had become an integral part of their community. This could inevitably lead but one way…

Also, there is the irony that the habits were chosen at the inception of the order for a REASON. The founders and foundresses[sp? too many s’s?] of various orders chose this type of clothing to separate themselves from society. Why would you go against, in such a direct way, the wishes of the woman who founded your order? “[W]hat dreams may come when we have shuffled off this [nun-ish] coil must give men pause”… Hopefully someone gets that…

FSC

Religious attire definitely makes a much bigger impact than the “changers” admitted. It’s a walking symbol of the faith that can change hearts without uttering a word.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Great post!
Just one thing I can’t help but wonder about is, as you said, “The fact that Vatican II came out when our culture was undergoing this incredible de-deification of society was simply bad luck”

Bad luck, bad timing or was it?

I hope I don’t sound too conspiracy theorist, but I believe the followowing two statements are very much realted to this very issue.

“She (the Blessed Virgin Mary) told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility.”
-Sister Lucy

“Through some crack the smoke of satan has entered into the Church of God.”
-Pope Paul VI

This is not to say Freemason Cardinals controlled by Satan decieved the Pope and all of Vatican II was the work of the devil. But the Church and it body can be decieved. Consider Peter and the thrice denials of Christ. Who, afterall was it behind Peter’s actions?

Mother Mary will crush the head of the serpent, of that much we can rest assured in faith

p.s. as a former 30 year user of snuff tobacco products, please do be careful with the use of Copenhagen, Fides.

Got any ideas to help me quit? Ive been trying for a while now and have found it to be almost impossible…

I absolutely believe that it was a very well timed attack on the truth of the Catholic Church by satan. That being said, Vatican II and the reforms instituted there were not the evil. The evil was the twisting of the reforms into something bad, something that would lead people away from the Church. When a priest says “the priesthod is no longer relevant”, that is NEVER going to be taught by the Catholic Church. It IS being taught by satan. Satan used scripture to tempt Christ, something good for an evil purpose. That is what went on over the past few years. But Christ countered satan quite effectively, and through the Church is doing the same thing here.

Through faith we know that our Lord cannot lose and that our Blessed Mother will crush the serpents head. But we must also maintain HOPE. Judas did what he did (the suicide thing) not because he didnt have faith in Christ at that point. He did what he did because of DESPAIR. Despair, being the lack/absence of hope, is a tool the devil uses to turn us away from the theological virtue of HOPE.

Be full of Faith, Hope, and love. Most of all be full of Love and the other two will follow, and always remember that through Christ we all have HOPE.

And be vigilant. I cannot stress that point enough. It gets me into seemingly unending trouble, but I do my best to maintain vigilance and fight the evil I find in myself, others, and society. But I will continue to do my best to maintain vigilance until Christ calls me home.

FSC

 

[sedonaman]

…
I do agree that there were troublemakers and they worked evils. I’m just suggesting that it’s more difficult to sort them out – and it was very hard to tell when it happened.

The book names names, places, and dates.

I don’t think they were looking for change just for entertainment. …

Among those change-oriented who weren’t looking just for entertainment wanted a revolution in true Leftist style: tear down the existing order. An important thing to note here is that evil reins in chaos.

… But I don’t think there were that many evil-doers and silent followers.

Obviously there were enough to cause the crisis.

Some who wanted change thought they had some answers for why people were drifting away from Catholicism.

In hindsight, we can see that they were wrong about a lot. But we can see also (I can, at least) that some of what seemed wrong was actually needed and good change.

There were reasonable guidelines for change set out by the Vatican.

Of all the sisters I’ve known in my life, I wouldn’t consider any to be insincere or troublemakers who just want to destroy things. I’ve seen some from afar that do appear that way – so I wouldn’t deny that they exist and had an influence.

Thank you.

 

[otjm]

This is just flat not true. They were given plenty, including Canon Law. What is there about “Must wear a distinctive religious garb, live in a common community, pray together, and work in the area of their original founder, that is so difficult to understand? Huh?
And some of the “traditionalist” sisters complained to Rome that the guidelines were never promulgated but were kept from them by the “change-oriented” sisters who captured the leadership positions by political manipulation. To take your example, the issue of safety while wearing the veil was addressed by the guidelines which also requested the recommendations. They ignored the request for recommendations and just eliminated the wearing of religious garments altogether.
The question remains unanswered as to why those whose personality prefers change for no other reason than it entertains them would join an essentially changeless, 2,000-year-old organization.

It is most certainly true. Rome had no sense of, or anticipation of, the whipdanp they got out of so many of the different groups of sisters, nuns and professed religious. There was not a lot of dialogue with the nuns - therre was a little dialogue with a handful of them who may have been observers and/or those who may have been close to a bishop or Cardinal. V2 and Rome made some suggestions about some reviews they were suggesting the nuns go through, and what happened went way farther than Rome, or the bishops in V2 ever thought of. Your issue of Canon law ignores that they were given the prompt to do some reviews. The result was not a review and some changes, but pretty close to a wholesale tossing out of what had been before.

As to your bit about distinctive garb - they would say they had that. anyone else looking at it would say -“Eh?” They took a minor modification and ran a Mack truck through it.

You are making a presumption that the nuns who made the changes were people, before joining, “whose personality prefers change for no other reason than it entertains them”. You have made no showing that any such person existed, let alone a whole lot of them. Try reading over what I have written. A large group - I would say over half of them - reacted as a kid does who has been in a very restricted home environment, and is suddenly in college far from home, with no one to make rules let alone enforce them. All too many kids in this position go hog-wild. So did the nuns; and they were living in a world in which most of their decisions were made for them. They had no training in making decisions for themsevles; and what we saw was like a child with no one in authority any longer to say “No!”. And I say we - I saw it.

Some of the nuns lead. Why did they do what they did? Why did theologians, after V2 go off in their won directions and ignore not only the documents of V2 but 2000 years of theology? It wasn’t simply because they wanted change for the sake of change.

Other nuns followed. Why? Herd instinct, among other things. Naivety. Lack of common sense. Llack of sound leadership. Living well into adulthood without any personal responsibility for personal decisions, and then too much freedom they were not rpepared to handle. Modernism ( a word I hate because it is too much a “boogeyman” word and too ill defined) or post-Modernism, or just plain daffiness. the work of the devil (some nuns eventually got into Wiccan - which if it is not the work of the devil, is certainly his palyground). Unfettered freedom (I am now repeating myself).

There are undoubtedly common themes among the women who left; and yet each was an individual and each made a decision. Some felt as if the world they had known had been destroyed overnight, and left because what remained was not why they joined.
the answers are multitudinous.

 

[edwest2]

The Church is attempting to straighten out a form of confusion that arose after Vatican II. Some relevant information can be found here:

the-tidings.com/2008/101708/vocrenewal.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[albertjazz]

The Flame of dissent? To uphold that the Tridentine Mass The council of Trent,I dont consider this dissent,I do how ever feel that Daly Kung and the like promoted Modernism.if they desired a “New Church” why didnt they go off and form one? The Catholic Church before Vatican 2 was doing very nicely,since its now in crises

 

[albertjazz]

The Flame of dissent? To uphold that the Tridentine Mass The council of Trent,I dont consider this dissent,I do how ever feel that Daly Kung and the like promoted Modernism.if they desired a “New Church” why didnt they go off and form one? The Catholic Church before Vatican 2 was doing very nicely,since its now in crises

 

[Layman]

I’ve read on this forum that the Mass was being meddled with by the clergy before Vatican II e.g. adding in the vernacular to Masses. Nothing comes out of nothing.

Modernists use this to defend the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’: *“See, the Council was not the cause!” *or “See, the Novus Ordo is an organic development, too!”

It’s bad reasoning. For example, a crook always has causative reasons for his crimes but it doesn’t negate the criminality of his acts.

Went Novus Ordo Masses over the Christmas and New Year, then went to a Missa Cantata yesterday, with choir and organ; beautiful. It’s really, really ironic that the one thing most of the hierarchy won’t do is sponsor Latin Masses and seminarians to learn them.

**It looks like Darwinism is going to exorcise the Spirit Of Vat. II, regardless of the wishes of ‘trads’ or ‘mods’. **

The trads will wait about 10 years+ to have a local TLM, while the mods will issue papers to be read by ever-decreasing numbers of revolutionaries. The latter get older, tend not to reproduce and there’s not much more left to rebel against, anyway, unless you want to be an outright protestant.

In the end, it’ll be down to what draws in the crowds and keeps them. What we want is holiness.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I’ve read on this forum that the Mass was being meddled with by the clergy before Vatican II e.g. adding in the vernacular to Masses. Nothing comes out of nothing.

Modernists use this to defend the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’: *“See, the Council was not the cause!” *or “See, the Novus Ordo is an organic development, too!”

It’s bad reasoning. For example, a crook always has causative reasons for his crimes but it doesn’t negate the criminality of his acts.

Went Novus Ordo Masses over the Christmas and New Year, then went to a Missa Cantata yesterday, with choir and organ; beautiful. It’s really, really ironic that the one thing most of the hierarchy won’t do is sponsor Latin Masses and seminarians to learn them.

**It looks like Darwinism is going to exorcise the Spirit Of Vat. II, regardless of the wishes of ‘trads’ or ‘mods’. **

The trads will wait about 10 years+ to have a local TLM, while the mods will issue papers to be read by ever-decreasing numbers of revolutionaries. The latter get older, tend not to reproduce and there’s not much more left to rebel against, anyway, unless you want to be an outright protestant.

In the end, it’ll be down to what draws in the crowds and keeps them. What we want is holiness.

In the words of a good southern baptist “AMEN BROTHER!!!”

 

[sedonaman]

It is most certainly true. Rome had no sense of, or anticipation of, the whipdanp they got out of so many of the different groups of sisters, nuns and professed religious. There was not a lot of dialogue with the nuns - therre was a little dialogue with a handful of them who may have been observers and/or those who may have been close to a bishop or Cardinal. V2 and Rome made some suggestions about some reviews they were suggesting the nuns go through, and what happened went way farther than Rome, or the bishops in V2 ever thought of. Your issue of Canon law ignores that they were given the prompt to do some reviews. The result was not a review and some changes, but pretty close to a wholesale tossing out of what had been before.

As to your bit about distinctive garb - they would say they had that. anyone else looking at it would say -“Eh?” They took a minor modification and ran a Mack truck through it.

You are making a presumption that the nuns who made the changes were people, before joining, “whose personality prefers change for no other reason than it entertains them”. You have made no showing that any such person existed, let alone a whole lot of them. Try reading over what I have written. A large group - I would say over half of them - reacted as a kid does who has been in a very restricted home environment, and is suddenly in college far from home, with no one to make rules let alone enforce them. All too many kids in this position go hog-wild. So did the nuns; and they were living in a world in which most of their decisions were made for them. They had no training in making decisions for themsevles; and what we saw was like a child with no one in authority any longer to say “No!”. And I say we - I saw it.

Some of the nuns lead. Why did they do what they did? Why did theologians, after V2 go off in their won directions and ignore not only the documents of V2 but 2000 years of theology? It wasn’t simply because they wanted change for the sake of change.

Other nuns followed. Why? Herd instinct, among other things. Naivety. Lack of common sense. Llack of sound leadership. Living well into adulthood without any personal responsibility for personal decisions, and then too much freedom they were not rpepared to handle. Modernism ( a word I hate because it is too much a “boogeyman” word and too ill defined) or post-Modernism, or just plain daffiness. the work of the devil (some nuns eventually got into Wiccan - which if it is not the work of the devil, is certainly his palyground). Unfettered freedom (I am now repeating myself).

There are undoubtedly common themes among the women who left; and yet each was an individual and each made a decision. Some felt as if the world they had known had been destroyed overnight, and left because what remained was not why they joined.
the answers are multitudinous.

There’s a lot there, and I agree with most of it, but not all. Let me just say the whole affair can be describe by, “Give 'em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

 

[cecilia97]

I absolutely believe that it was a very well timed attack on the truth of the Catholic Church by satan. That being said, Vatican II and the reforms instituted there were not the evil. The evil was the twisting of the reforms into something bad, something that would lead people away from the Church.

I agree very much.

And, dear Fides, I don’t want to offend you but…would it help you stop the dip if you knew women find it one of the most nasty habits of all? Even those of us from Texas who are “used” to seeing it.

 

[otjm]

There’s a lot there, and I agree with most of it, but not all. Let me just say the whole affair can be describe by, “Give 'em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

And there is truth in what you say; the question may be “Why?”.

Why did groups of women, who had spent years in prayer and good works, go run off the edge of the cliff?

Could any of it be due to the fact that in spite of the fact that they were intelligent women, their lifestyle resulted in them staying at the effective level of a child who has to ask for permission for just about anything beside going to the bathroom?

In other words, could it be in part that they went from no personal freedom to too much personal freedom without the accompanying maturity to be able to deal with it?

 

[sedonaman]

And there is truth in what you say; the question may be “Why?”.

Why did groups of women, who had spent years in prayer and good works, go run off the edge of the cliff?

Could any of it be due to the fact that in spite of the fact that they were intelligent women, their lifestyle resulted in them staying at the effective level of a child who has to ask for permission for just about anything beside going to the bathroom?

In other words, could it be in part that they went from no personal freedom to too much personal freedom without the accompanying maturity to be able to deal with it?

My personal opinion is that they were part of the '60s counter-culture generation Leftists … defiant to the core.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I agree very much.

And, dear Fides, I don’t want to offend you but…would it help you stop the dip if you knew women find it one of the most nasty habits of all? Even those of us from Texas who are “used” to seeing it.

a bit… but my girlfriend has actually had a chew or two with me, so she doesnt seem to mind. Especially since I dont spit.

FSC

 

[otjm]

My personal opinion is that they were part of the '60s counter-culture generation Leftists … defiant to the core.

Sorry, but the leadership of those nuns was much older than the 19 and 20 year olds of the 60’s. In short, opinons but no facts to susbstantiate them.

20 years later, in the 80’s, perhaps (and it is highly unlikely) the leftists of the 60’s became the source of the leadership groups. One has to explain why any free-love hippy girl would join a convent to begin with, and why any convent would accept them.

But you are failing to explain why, within 10 years - by 1975 - almost 25% of the nuns had left the convents.

And you are failing to explain how, between 1965 and 1975, women who were in the 40’s and 50’s and 60’s - the leaders - succeeded in becoming 20 year olds. There were science fiction stories then about time machines, but except for the minds of Isaac Asimov and Timothy Leary, such things didn’t exist.

Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion or two, but it would behoove opinion holders to actually have some facts on which to base their opinions; otherwise they, like breath, amount to nothing more than halitosis.

And it would behoove those who want to have opinions on complex matters to actually do research, and not simply grab at post hoc, ergo propter hoc simplistic solutions and answers.

 

[chriso]

And yet, could it not be so simple as that religious life, especially with any vows of chastity, directly contradicted the sexual revolution/evolution/devolution which America was under the onslaught of for this very same timeframe we’re talking about here? The women in these convents, the Brothers, and Priests among us, even us laity with our desires for chastity from our children and the single among us… all have been hammered on, belittled, and ridiculed to no end in order for our society to acheive this sexual “enlightenment” the limits of which have exceeded even many of our imaginations.

 

[sedonaman]

Sorry, but the leadership of those nuns was much older than the 19 and 20 year olds of the 60’s. In short, opinons but no facts to susbstantiate them.

20 years later, in the 80’s, perhaps (and it is highly unlikely) the leftists of the 60’s became the source of the leadership groups. One has to explain why any free-love hippy girl would join a convent to begin with, and why any convent would accept them.

But you are failing to explain why, within 10 years - by 1975 - almost 25% of the nuns had left the convents.

And you are failing to explain how, between 1965 and 1975, women who were in the 40’s and 50’s and 60’s - the leaders - succeeded in becoming 20 year olds. There were science fiction stories then about time machines, but except for the minds of Isaac Asimov and Timothy Leary, such things didn’t exist.

Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion or two, but it would behoove opinion holders to actually have some facts on which to base their opinions; otherwise they, like breath, amount to nothing more than halitosis.

And it would behoove those who want to have opinions on complex matters to actually do research, and not simply grab at post hoc, ergo propter hoc simplistic solutions and answers.

I read the book; you didn’t.

 

[Anthony88]

… But as an aside, it was reported that on his dying bed, he said “Stop the council!” You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Wow… that is the single most shocking quote I’ve heard in a long while.

…The first-generation dissidents were products of a strong and confident traditional Catholic culture against which they rebelled, one whose intellectual standards grounded them in the …

Excellent Articles and Post, NeelyAnn, highly commendable.

As Catholics, however, we must not ever succumb to the temptation to loathe, despise, or hate the PEOPLE who are caught in these traps.
FSC

Hi Fides, perhaps you meant ‘hate the evil/sin people do’, as we know to hate the sin but love the sinner. Your post is indeed correct and to the point, and this is surely a mistype I’ve stumbled upon. The reason why this is important to point out is because these particular people - be it heretics or apostates - within the Church, to speak bluntly, need our prayers for their conversion most especially as they are and have likely lead many souls to perdition and continue to persecute the Church. It is quite natural - due to our fallen nature - to be repulsed by such persons however like the many Roman soldiers who crucified Christ, we pray that these people today receive that grace of truly loving Holy Mother the Church, as you most blessedly do.

The good and bad news for orthodox Catholics is that the contracepting liberals don’t have (many) kids. If we just keep our heads down and do what we’re supposed to, we will win. …

I could help but laugh at the first sentence, and all the rest was a blast of holy confirmation in that Holy Faith that you have embraced and cherish. Praise God!

I marvel at this Catholic Answers forum, I didn’t imagine that there was widespread advocacy and desire of the Church in all her pious traditions. I wonder what forum the liberal Catholics are sheltering in.