If Not for You! - What if no Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don_Schneider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Don_Schneider

Guest
We all know the criticism leveled at the Second Vatican Council by Catholic traditionalists and even many conservatives. Vatican II was an unmitigated disaster in the history of the Church, the worst self-inflicted wound to any institution in all history. What follows is a link to an article written by Patrick Buchanan, the ultra-conservative Irish-Catholic American commentator and on and off again politician. It saliently summarizes the Church’s litany of woes in the United States since Vatican II:

olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

For many years, I was a strident Vat-II basher. Pope John XXIII said let us open the window and let in the fresh air. Rather, he unwittingly allowed in the pollution. But lately, I have been reassessing my views. Perhaps I have blamed too much on the “reformers” of Vatican II, a bunch of old fools, as I would always maintain. After all, there is no fool like an old one, or so it is said.

What many Americans fail to realize is that the Church here prior to Vatican II was far different than it had been in many other parts of the world, such as Latin America and, most especially, in Europe, Her heart. Catholics in America had been a minority. Our ancestors faced the “Know-Nothings,” the KKK, and all sorts of less drastic forms of persecution and discrimination. Therefore, the Church here adopted a sort of fortress mentality and, as a result, being a Catholic was more than just being a member of a particular religion. It became a badge of honor and a source of pride. Being Catholic in the United States meant something. It was an identity to be fervently grasped.

In Europe, however, most countries were either predominately Catholic or Protestant, one or the other. In contrast to the spit and polish posture (as a point of pride) of the American Church, the Church within countries where Catholicism was the historic state religion seemed rather slovenly. Most of the impetus behind Vatican II and its lust for reform came from the European prelature and not from the very conservative American bishops of the time. (Look what has happened to them since!)

However, at the time of Vatican II, the Western World stood on the threshold of radical new changes regarding technology, travel, mass communication and financial prosperity. As dismal as the Church’s state of affairs might be in Southern Europe today, She might be judged as thriving compared to Her “separated brethren” churches in Protestant Northern Europe, where many once flourishing Protestant denominations now seem to be on the point of extinction. Indeed, many within the media have dubbed the current state of affairs to be “post-Christian Europe,” and not without justification.

The rap against Vatican II is that it destroyed faith, and this lack of faith it engendered (by having the perhaps unintended effect of inviting people to question virtually everything) has been responsible for every Church malady since, from the dearth of vocations and radically declining church attendance, to every scandal within the Church in recent times, culminating with the pedophilia crisis. In short, relatively few people, laity and clergy alike, believe anymore. Few believe in eternal punishment and Hell, beliefs that once successfully deterred such behavior far more effectively than the temporal punishments of man.

But what would have been the result today had there been no Vatican II, the dearest, wistful desire of all traditionalists? Could the influence of Protestant countries, steeped in materialism and non-religiosity, been kept at bay in an age of television and easy and convenient travel? Could the Church have kept women in dresses, veils, their homes and maternity clothes within such a paradigm shift within the broader Protestant and Jewish dominated Western culture? Could She have kept her young shielded from the influences of Elvis, the Beatles, Hollywood and the like? Can any faith be long maintained within the midst of such material prosperity? I wonder. “It is easier for a camel….”

In my short story, I make use of the “Many-Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics which postulates the existence of parallel universes, just as real as our own reality. I, for one, would love to have this question definitely answered by being privileged to view such a parallel universe (if such exist) where all other factors remained as they were in our universe, but there had been no Vatican II. That would be a very interesting hypothetical adventure and, perhaps, a most enlightening one.

So what say ye? Had there been no Vatican II, what do you think the Church would be like today?
 
There would be no legalized abortion.

But it really doesn’t matter what WE think, does it? God willed it (or, at least allowed it), and therefore it was.
 
Dear Lormar:
But it really doesn’t matter what WE think, does it? God willed it (or, at least allowed it), and therefore it was.
You astonish me! This was my intended parting shot after this thread had run its course. Thank you for such a wise reply. From my story:

Bobbi, schau niemals rückwärts und lebe nicht in der Vergangenheit!”

Perhaps someone here who reads German will be kind enough to translate it.
 
The fault is not necessary in the decision to call the council, nor necessarily in the conduct of the council. But rather perhaps, in the impreciseness of the council documents and, more critically, in laxness with which the church was run after the council which allowed over-the-top experimentation by priests, bishops, nuns, and laymen with the sacred liturgy and the uncensored spreading of modern ideas that substituted secular socialism in place of the traditional faith.
 
Dear Giuseppe:
The fault is not necessary in the decision to call the council, nor necessarily in the conduct of the council. But rather perhaps, in the impreciseness of the council documents and, more critically, in laxness with which the church was run after the council which allowed over-the-top experimentation by priests, bishops, nuns, and laymen with the sacred liturgy and the uncensored spreading of modern ideas that substituted secular socialism in place of the traditional faith.
But what predisposed them to get so, er, carried away? For cancer to appear and spread, must not the genetic basis for it preexist the catalyst (such as smoking)?
 
We
So what say ye? Had there been no Vatican II, what do you think the Church would be like today?
since this is the question in OP and in the title, that is what I will address, not the side issue of “was V2 good or bad”

Liturgy–since reform of the liturgy was already underway and had been since early in the last century, my guess is that Mass in the vernacular and the dialog Mass would be the natural heirs esp. of revisions of the 50s & early 60s. Since work on the revised lectionary was also underway, and it is such a positive development, I also surmise we would be using it much as it exists today.

scripture translation and exegesis–since many of the problems in these areas we deal with today also had their roots in the pre-V2 church, we would still be coping, but wonder if ICEL would have done as much damage.

since IMO V2 happened coincidentally in the midst of a time of such great social change, the problems in the Church with roots in those changes would have developed w/o the council–the brouhaha about Humanae Vitae for instance and all the dissent springing therefrom, the influence of radical feminism to name only a couple.

Since the mid-20th c Popes had already been inviting relgious orders to modernize everything from discipline and formation to habits, and to revisit the charisms from their founders, my guess is those changes would also have proceeded w/o V2, and under the influence of those same social changes, the same problems would arise.

what I have not yet seen and have been waiting for–something Michael Rose and Fr. Donald Couzzens have dealt with from differing viewpoints–is a scholarly historical study and analysis of changes in priestly formation in the 20th century and its results not only in the abuse crisis, but in the change in ways Catholics relate to their priests, in the ways priests relate to each other and the hierarchy, the ways dioceses and religious orders are run and related issues.
 
If there had been no vatican Council II, I think pope Benedict would be considering convening an Ecumencial Council to address the course of the Church in a rapidly changing world.
 
There would be no legalized abortion.

But it really doesn’t matter what WE think, does it? God willed it (or, at least allowed it), and therefore it was.
You actually think that legalized abortion is the result of Vatican II?

Can you please explain the logic behind your statement?

And if it’s meant as a joke, it’s not very funny.
 
There would be no legalized abortion.
You actually think that legalized abortion is the result of Vatican II?

Can you please explain the logic behind your statement?

And if it’s meant as a joke, it’s not very funny.
This was a strange statement indeed. And people grow weary of hearing that most of the criticism is post hoc ergo promptor hoc. Perhaps if such glaring examples of this fallacy was not trodded out, it would not be necessary to keep naming it.
 
Dear Giuseppe:

But what predisposed them to get so, er, carried away? For cancer to appear and spread, must not the genetic basis for it preexist the catalyst (such as smoking)?
The rudiments of modernism and secularism have always been present and anxious to manifest themselves within the church. Several Popes since the French revolution have written against these tendencies. IMHO, what happened in the church in the 60’s-90’s was more or less “enabled” by the council, as opposed to being initiated or generated by the council. In essence, the cultural, social, and sexual revolution manifested itself within the church in a way that previous “revolutions” were not able to.
 
The secularists and key liberals in the Church would have launched their attack even if there was no Vatican II. The plan was radical social engineering regarding human sexuality and the family which continues to this day.

1960 The Pill.

1963 The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan is published. It encourages frustration among women.

1966 Betty Friedan co-founds the National Organizaton for Women. The goal was to create suspicion and division between men and women

1968 Humanae Vitae must be stopped. The Pope is telling Catholics to avoid using artificial birth control. What if Catholics had listened? This encyclical also laid out the consequences for not following it: increased promiscuity, which did happen.

Send in the Hippies. The sale of millions of birth control pills was at stake.

1969 Hollywood joins the act and the movie Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice appears. It’s about wife swapping.

1970s Porn in so-called Adult Bookstores. Topless go-go bars.

No apparent link to Vatican II but organized crime and the addiction model.

1973 Abortion legalized.

1973 Homosexuality is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by vote, not a rigorous scientific review.

As we move through the following decades, the mainstream media gradually turns up the amount of immoral sexuality coming into our homes.

In the 1960s, Catholics had a great respect for the government and our neighbors. No one was protesting or prohibiting a Nativity in front of City Hall at Christmas. The Kennedys sent a beautiful Christian Christmas card from the White House.

Our profound respect and compassion made too many of us easy prey for a glib tongue and colorfully dressed people with “new” ideas. Oh yes. Some priests and nuns were taken in. The same with abortion. I remember a woman who appeared on TV: “Please, please have compassion on those poor young women who will seek and likely die from back-alley abortions. Please! It will ‘only be used in cases of emergency.’”

And that plea was followed by something else: “Abortion is the most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her God.”

Oh yeah. Only in cases of emergency and between her and God. We couldn’t bring ourselves to believe that abortion might one day become another form of birth control and that any trauma a woman might feel from the procedure should be ignored. The idea of abortion had gone from terrible necessity or death at the hands of back-alley abortionists to a "health procedure’ that has taken millions of lives.

But, it was a little late for some of us. Some of us had participated in abortions. Before we knew it, we were a million miles from Church. We were caught up in a new ‘freedom’ that has one in five people walking around with an STD today. That has turned sex into the equivalent of going to the bathroom. Meaningless and empty.

Pope Paul VI saw the runaway train of sexual temptation coming in 1968. He gave Catholics warning, but his voice was drowned out by new freedoms and addiction to illegal drugs and porn and strip clubs. Today, it’s all avialable 24/7. That’s someone’s daughter, someone’s sister and someone’s ex-wife.

This is better?

In the meantime, a younger generation, having seen the rise of a profoundly dysfunctional media culture in the West, is turning to God and Orthodoxy.

Peace,
Ed
 
Maybe a better question today would be - What if there were no Council of Trent?
 
You actually think that legalized abortion is the result of Vatican II?

Can you please explain the logic behind your statement?

And if it’s meant as a joke, it’s not very funny.
Although you addressed this to another poster, I must tell you that, rightfully or wrongfully, that has always been my perception. Back when it became apparent that feminists, gays and other members of what might be termed the radical left had commandeered the Democratic Party’s nominating process as a result of Senator McGovern’s rewriting of the party rules to facilitate his own then radical agenda and projected presidential candidacy, numerous Democratic Catholic politicians flipped on the abortion issue, one following another. In essence, they sold their souls for political expediency and yet remained and remain Catholics in good standing in what has to be ***the most shameless, open hypocrisy in all history. ***

On one hand, the Church decrees abortion to be murder. On the other hand, She allows those who advocate the legalization of said mass murder to remain members of the Communion of the Lord, a divine founder who raged against such hypocrisy. Who can respect such an institution? Do you?

If the Church had stood firm from the beginning and had excommunicated Brennan after Roe vs. Wade and made clear that Catholic politicians and jurists must choose between fidelity to the teachings of the Church or political expediency, would abortion be legal in the United States today nationwide as it is now? We were twenty-five percent of the electorate then. Being excommunicated from a Church with clear moral standards and discipline would have meant something and would have given pause for thought. What moral ascendancy does a “Do as you please, wink, wink; nod, nod” emasculated religion have?

This however begs the question of the worldwide situation. If the Church attempted to act in such a fashion in Europe, how many Catholics would be left? Is it not better to preserve the Church as an institution, preserving Her infrastructure to pass on to future generations in the hope that times will one day change back for the better than to stand firmly on moral grounds and see Herself decimated perhaps eightfold? After all, the Church has seen moral debauchery before with the likes of John XII and Alexander VI and survived to see better days. Might not the Vatican itself ultimately be in jeopardy if some radical Italian government came to power and seized it? Then again, is the Church brick, mortar and priceless art treasures and cathedrals?

On the other hand, as Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof was wont to say, there is still the not insignificant matter of saving souls to take into consideration. How many souls are being irrevocably lost today for want of a clear moral stand by a Church presumably waiting for these hoped for better times to emerge?

Did Vatican II open the floodgates that resulted in this seemingly unanswerable predicament, or would it have happened anyway?
 
Back when it became apparent that feminists, gays and other members of what might be termed the radical left had commandeered the Democratic Party’s nominating process as a result of Senator McGovern’s rewriting of the party rules to facilitate his own then radical agenda and projected presidential candidacy, numerous Democratic Catholic politicians flipped on the abortion issue, one following another.
Actually the stage was set when Ron Reagan as governor of California signed into law a pro-abortion bill in 1967. Other states followed. Meanwhile LBJ and then Nixon were in the process of appointing a liberal Supreme Court which ultimately ruled Roe vs Wade into law. There were many Republicans behind the process; however, the Democrats turned and used the issue to their political advantage. (Later Ron Reagan turned pro-life, but the damage had been done.)

That being said, I wouldn’t blame Vatican II directly for Catholic acceptance of Roe vs Wade. However, Vatican II did create a climate for a whole lot of rule relaxations, such as lifting of the meat abstinence and fasting, fasting for communion, Saturday anticipatory Masses, ABC (in spite of HV), Latin in liturgy, etc. etc. It’s really no wonder Catholics began to think they were no longer required to follow ANY old laws.
 
Dear pnewton:
This was a strange statement indeed. And people grow weary of hearing that most of the criticism is post hoc ergo promptor hoc. Perhaps if such glaring examples of this fallacy was not trodded out, it would not be necessary to keep naming it.
As it is said, just because one is paranoid doesn’t necessarily mean someone isn’t really out to get him or her. It is insufficient for you to simply assert that arguing that the profound ills of the Church subsequent to Vatican II were caused by the Council is an example of fallacious reasoning in this case. You are making a strictly negative assertion and not a positive one. Why would they have happened anyway even if there had been no V2, please?
 
Best I can find.

“Bobbi, schau niemals rückwärts und lebe nicht in der Vergangenheit.” -
“Bobbi, never look back and don’t live in the past.”

Vatican 2 changes need to be revisited and adjustments made by the Pope.

I do agree with the quote above in that, “what is done, is done” and it is up to us to repair the damage done and make our beliefs known to those in positions of power. I guess you all need to write to you your local, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals with your concerns and complaints.
 
Best I can find.

“Bobbi, schau niemals rückwärts und lebe nicht in der Vergangenheit.” -
“Bobbi, never look back and don’t live in the past.”

Vatican 2 changes need to be revisited and adjustments made by the Pope.

I do agree with the quote above in that, “what is done, is done” and it is up to us to repair the damage done and make our beliefs known to those in positions of power. I guess you all need to write to you your local, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals with your concerns and complaints.
Yes, thank you, agrange. The “best that you can find,” is word for word correct. (“Bobbi" is simply the German spelling for “Bobby,” the youthful diminutive of Robert in many languages.) You’re either of German heritage or a scholar. This was a favorite admonition of my long late paternal grandmother. It has taken me so very many years to fully appreciate her simple Bavarian, peasant wisdom.

“It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.” Yes, I agree with you…and her.

Thanks.
 
Perhaps abortion would not have been legalized if man had never gone to the moon or it could be microwave use or the scourge of TV dinners or water flouridation. I am sorry but this line of arguing is difficult by nature.
 
The Church in the USA was quite strong before Vatican II. The Archdiocese of New York, under Cardinal Spellman, had a great deal of power.

The Bishops in this Country, had they not been distracted by the Spirit of Vatican II, would never have let abortion be legalized. They had enough power and clout to quash it completely. But after the Cardinal O’Boyle fiasco in Washington, D.C., and the Cardinal McIntyre debacle in Los Angeles, they became reticent in doing anything.
 
The Church in the USA was quite strong before Vatican II. The Archdiocese of New York, under Cardinal Spellman, had a great deal of power.

The Bishops in this Country, had they not been distracted by the Spirit of Vatican II, would never have let abortion be legalized. They had enough power and clout to quash it completely. But after the Cardinal O’Boyle fiasco in Washington, D.C., and the Cardinal McIntyre debacle in Los Angeles, they became reticent in doing anything.
I can’t agree. Cardinal Spellman did have a lot of power; all of the cardinals of his era did. But he was losing his power regardless of what happened in Rome; the white flight to the suburbs broke up the old neighborhoods, and that was what really broke down the old structures of the Church in the United States. I don’t think anything other than a condemnation of suburbia at the start of the Second Vatican Council could have held the neighborhoods together, and even that might not have saved it.

Losing those neighborhoods where the parish was in walking distance and served as the center of community life was a more severe blow to Catholicism in America than anything else, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top