If I may make several observations without throwing stones at the SSPX or His Excellency.
I’ve read all of these posts and no one here has mentioned a key player in all of this. Every time that the SSPX comes up he is left out of the loop, but he is the man holding the key. Allow me to be ambiguous for a minute. When Bl. John Paul was pope, who took care of the daily problems while Pope John Paul dealt with the big picture?
If you said, Cardinal Ratzinger, you get a prize. It is no secret that this whole dialogue was placed in the hands of three theologians: a Jesuit, a Dominican and a Holy Cross (Opus Dei) under the direction of the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, Cardinal Levada. Why are you people ignoring this man?
He is the one who gave the SSPX the Preamble. I bring up the Cardinal, because if the SSPX bishops get too mouthy, the Cardinal has the authority to slam and dunk them. The pope will back him up. He will report to the Pope his impressions and make his suggestions and they will carry a lot of weight.
This leads me to the second point about this sermon. His Excellency spends too much time criticizing the Holy See. At one point he actually says, “You’re Modernists”. Having had a father who was a career diplomat, I learned a few things. One of them was that you never get into name calling when you’re negotiating. Name calling can be the death knoll of a negotiation. My father always said that if you start name calling, you’re no longer trying to negotiate, you’re attacking. I’m not inside His Excellency’s head. I don’t know if this crossed his mind when he used this unfortunate wording.
My other point is related. When you take name calling out to the crowds, as the bishop has done, it amounts to swarming. Some of you have pointed the finger at priests, bishops and religious who are disobedient and even heretical. The truth is that this has happened. There is a difference here. They have not gotten into a confrontation with the Holy See itself. The Holy See can step back and allow the lower levels of authority to deal with the problem. When you get in the Holy See’s face and you call it “Modernist” and you say “No *” you’ve raised the bar. You’ve gone beyond heterodoxy, beyond disobedience, beyond whatever other rules other people have broken. You have elevated yourself to a position of “equals”. Equals get in each other’s face, though it’s not a pretty picture. When a subordinate acts and talks as if he’s a peer, it’s insubordination.
As much as many of us would like to know the answers to some questions that the SSPX is asking, see the Holy See make some changes here and there, most of us who are clergy and religious, would never have the audacity to speak to the Holy See as if we were equals calling it names and stating flatly that we will not obey, even if we’re angry as heck.
Some people may admire that as honesty. I fear that it’s defiance. Don’t get me wrong. Other people are defiant too; but they do their defying under the radar, like teenagers. When they get caught, there are consequences, but they may not be as harsh, because they did not push authority.
An observation in defense of the Holy See, especially Cardinal Levada and his staff, the SSPX has told us what it considers to be wrong with Rome. Some of it is clear, reasonable, unreasonable and some makes no sense. Regardless, they minced no words in chewing up Rome and spitting it out.
Meanwhile, Rome has acted like a lady. She has not said a single negative word about the SSPX. I don’t believe that it’s because the SSPX is so perfect, behaved so well during these discussion and impressed the Holy See so much that it left the Holy See in awe. If that were the case, the Holy See would have given the SSPX a welcome home party last September and not a Preamble.
Obviously, the Holy See has its own opinions about the SSPX, but it has not taken them to the public. In fairness, it behooves us to acknowledge the politeness and discretion of the Holy See in this matter. Maybe we should express some gratitude for its dignified behavior. The Vatican has been much more gracious than the SSPX.
I would have been very simple for the Bishop to state that unfortunately they had be unable to reach an agreement. He could have told the people that things are at a standstill or that he’s awaiting a response to his response. He could have even enumerated the points that they still want clarified. That would have been acceptable and informative.
He could have done that with the utmost dignity, appropriate for a bishop, without the attitude. What I found that appalling from a bishop at a pulpit. Even Father Kung, was the epitome of a gentleman when he met with the pope. His comments after the meeting were brief. He did speak on the disagreements, but did not express himself with an attitude as if he were the pope’s equal.
I’ll close by recalling the fist time that I met Cardinal Ratzinger. I had heard that this man was the “pope’s Rottweiler” I was shaking in my boots as I walked into his office. I left in a state of shock. The man was everything that was courteous and humble. I was the subordinate. He did not have to be so polite and charming to me. Had he been distant or aloof, I would have accepted it. I look at the marked difference in the behaviors and it frightens me. At the end of the day, the attitude can make or break any negotiation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
*
. As our Holy Father said, there are two movements in the Church, one of continuity and discontinuity and the latter is being phased out by this new generation who understand and practice continuity. And I’m so glad to be part of this generation, as I’m counting the days till I’m able to take up my vocation.
These letters have been forward to Cardinal Levada.
