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

[Mattapoisett64]

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.

How, specifically, would the bishops of the U.S. have “quashed” a Supreme Court decision? I think people tend to forget that abortion’s legalization came about through case law and not a legislative act. And as I recall, the justice who authored the Roe v. Wade decision was, at least, raised a Catholic – during a time when the Church, in fact, was seen as having a great deal of power.

I do not dispute the unintended consequences or imperfect implementation of Vatican II. But neither was the Council responsible for the social and sociological changes beginning in the 1960’s which so transformed society. I hate to see the Council blamed for everything that’s happenned since.

I would also draw a distinction between the “strength of the Church” and the political influence of a particular prelate. The “strength of the Church” is in its faithful.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

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.

I think there’s a lot of good sociology in your post. People tend to overlook the social upheavals that began in the 60’s and radically transformed neighborhoods, the flight to the suburbs, greater mobility via car ownership, and the greater educational levels of churchgoers who engaged their spirituality someplace other than “because Father says so.”

 

[Lormar]

“The strength of the Church is in its faithful”

Well, that explains the mess we’re in today.

 

[jfoges]

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?

Pat Buchanan commits the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. After the fact therefore because of the fact. Just because the Catholic Church in America has declined since Vatican II doesn’t mean that Vatican II caused the decline. I propose it would have declined anyway because of the changing culture in America. There is nothing unorthodox or modernist about Vatican II. If you just read the documents of Vatican II you will see what I mean.

 

[Seamus_L]

Still, no one seems to be answering the question. What would the Church be like if there was no Vatican II ?
I guess I'll answer then. Without V2, I believe we'd have a much larger church, more vocations, much higher mass attendance, far fewer scandals, and a much better country, due to stronger Catholic influence.

 

[Lormar]

Seamus, quite right!

Let me add that our Catholic schools would be in better shape and more children would be attending because they wouldn’t have tuitions of $7,000 up to $35,000 (yes, the Convent of the Sacred Heart in New York City is $35,000 plus) a year.

We’d have more priests and religious because not that many would have left. Religious orders would be in better shape.

Most importantly, we’d still have our beautiful Churches with altars intact as well as altar rails.

And yes, our Country would be in better shape.

Of course, we can’t prove any of our assertions. We’ll just have to wait until we die to find out what might have been.

 

[Don_Schneider]

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.

Dear Lujack:

I think this is a very astute point on your part. It’s a part of what I said in my OP. The World War II generation—that greatest and most faithful of generations—roiled up their sleeves and built the greatest material prosperity the world has ever witnessed; and this from a generation that inherited the twin catastrophes of the Great Depression and the most horrific war to date. The irony is that by doing so they unwittingly laid the seeds for societal degeneration. Over and over again, history proves that after generations sacrifice to build an empire, their descendents lapse into moral debauchery and squander their inheritances. The desire for more spacious and affluent livings starting in the 1950s did indeed serve to denigrate the ghetto-like cohesiveness of millions upon millions of Catholic city dwellers.

Nevertheless, there is pause for thought by way of analogy. Most Orthodox Jewish people live in cities or enclave towns because their literal interpretation of the Torah forbids them to drive on the Sabbath. Because they consider driving (and almost every activity that takes the slightest energy beyond the necessities of biological life, such as walking, breathing, etc.) to be work, they must live within walking distance of their synagogues. If the theory you put forth were valid, one would think that the Orthodox Jewish people would be flourishing compared to their more liberal Jewish co-religionists. Yet, their percentage of the practicing Jewish population in the Unites States is about eleven percent, the same as it had been in the 1970s.

So although this might certainly be part of the explanation, perhaps the entirety of the truth lies deeper still.

 

[Don_Schneider]

How, specifically, would the bishops of the U.S. have “quashed” a Supreme Court decision? I think people tend to forget that abortion’s legalization came about through case law and not a legislative act. And as I recall, the justice who authored the Roe v. Wade decision was, at least, raised a Catholic – during a time when the Church, in fact, was seen as having a great deal of power.

I do not dispute the unintended consequences or imperfect implementation of Vatican II. But neither was the Council responsible for the social and sociological changes beginning in the 1960’s which so transformed society. I hate to see the Council blamed for everything that’s happenned since.

I would also draw a distinction between the “strength of the Church” and the political influence of a particular prelate. The “strength of the Church” is in its faithful.

Dear Mattapoisett:

Justice Harold (Harry) Blackman, who was assigned to write the infamous *Roe vs. Wade *decision, was raised Lutheran, or so he said in a television interview I watched. Even many who agree with Roe acknowledge it was a very poorly written and reasoned decision, as Justice Blackmun had generally never been considered a shining intellectual light amongst his brethren on the court and in the legal community.

Perhaps you are thinking of Justice William Brennan, an Irish-Catholic who concurred in the decision and remained a Catholic in good standing until his dying day, receiving a Catholic funeral like the recently late Senator Kennedy, one of the greatest champions of legalized abortion in the United States Senate. The failure to excommunicate Brennan initiated my disgust with the post-Vatican II Church, and caused me to lose all respect for it, as indicated in a previous post of mine on this thread. If Justice Brennan had thought that by refusing to concur in a decision that de facto legalized abortion (and his vote was not even needed, to add a punctuation point to it!) would be a violation of his conscience to interpret the Constitution as he honestly felt such mandated, then he had the option to resign his office. He did not.

I have always maintained that had he been excommunicated for his apparent heresy of denying Church teaching on the subject, then other Catholic politicians and jurists might have refrained from flipping on the issue. I say that Justice Brennan had been a heretic in all charity as the only other possible explanation was that he did indeed hold abortion to be murder and therefore countenanced mass murder.

Although you are right that abortion was legalized in the entire United States by judicial fiat, we have been one vote away form overturning this infamous decision for some time now and remain so; unless, of course, Justice Sotomayor turns out to be a Justice Souter in reverse, totally disappointing those who advanced her appointment and the man who made it, and astonishing and delighting us. (Alas, I find that most unlikely.) The fact that we now have an astonishing six justices (2/3 of the Court!) on the United States Supreme Court who are Catholic. and we still cannot overturn this decision, speaks volumes concerning the state of our religion at the present time.

 

[Don_Schneider]

To all:

By way of correction, apparently the late Justice Harry Blackmun had been Methodist and not Lutheran as I stated. I apologize for the factual error. However, it is a point without a distinction within the context of my remarks. The fact remains he had not been Catholic.

 

[otjm]

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 gotta be kidding! Vatican 2 didn’t lead to abortion.

 

[otjm]

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?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have extremely high regard for the institution; The institution is headed by Christ, and I have faith in Christ; in its history, the first leader on Earth Denied Christ three times. The institution is headed by Him, and it is filled with people, all of whom, St Paul tels us, are sinners. I road to school in the first two years of high school with a priest who about 20 to 25 years later, was one of the first priests to be convicted of sexual abuse of minors. I ahve seen and known disobedient priests, and bishops who were too worried about their next appointment (wanting the red hat); I ahve seen a multitude of nuns leave, and priests and nuns get married, had a pastor who died of AIDS; had priests tell me they think no one ever commits a mortal sin; the list goes on and on.

And I have not waivered in my faith. My faith is not about priests, or nuns, or bishops, or Cardinals, or even popes. It is about Christ.

and I ahve been angry that the bishops have not done more. I am alos literate enough to know that the KKK is one generation before me and they burned crosses out here in Oregon over Catholics. And some of those bishops may, or may not have made the right decision in not exccommunicating a judge, or a Representative or Senator, or a President, but they had perhaps a different perspective on the US, and politics, and the reality of Church actions and the harm that may come from them when they are misunderstood, than you or I do. We do not wear our collar backwards and have purple as part of our wardrobe, and we do not know all of what has gone on. Nor are we responsible for the results.

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?

Policitcal expediency probably had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade. It had far more to do with people who were far more likely cultural Catholics than faith-based Catholics.

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?

The Church has a clear moral stand and has had all along. Some of its bishops have not espopused that clear moral stand, and there is a difference between the two. Failure to understand the difference between the two leads to massive confusion.

Clericalism has been a problem in the Church for centuries, if not to the very early Church. Clericalism is not or the Church, but of the leaders of the Church. and clericalism has lead to blindness repeatedly; the history of the last 50 years is not that different from the history of the last 1500.

 

[otjm]

. 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.

The interesting thing is, if you read the Gospels, faith is not about following a lot of laws exactly; or did you miss the occasional comments (how about outright repeated criticisms) that Christ made about the Pharisees?

Vatican 2 wanted to the the Church (here, read the people in the pews, as well as the clergy) out of a minimalistic, negativistic, legalistic approach to our Faith, and become adults, who realized that rules were the guidelines to keep us on the path towards heaven; they were not the path itself. The path was following the 2 great commandments: Love God with your whole self and love others as you love your self. The rest were to be markers, or walls, if you will, to keep us from straying from the path.

Golly, we were supposed to be adults. Golly, a lot of people weren’t and still aren’t. And some of them still want their mommies to come along and wipe their backside and tell them what they can’t do.

 

[sasha7]

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

I have no idea because I did not become Catholic until 1999, but I know this: there’s something wrong. This sounds so naive but I thought when I joined the Church that we would all be on the same page. (how stupid, right?) I’m very well-educated and consider myself informed; I think that I was truly blind to any problems because I was so hungry and thirsty spiritually! When my sponsor, a cradle Catholic, told me she really wasn’t a “pope” Catholic and that she really was not into the Eucharist, that should have been the big red flag! I have to laugh about it now… I was determined to keep going. Do I regret this? No. Becoming Catholic was one of the most important days of my life. BUT these last 10 years have been full of ups and downs. I found myself away at some points and now I’m coming to see that some of that is just not having a good education in the Church and the teachings of the Church. I’ve also become very guilty feeling as I find my self sitting in Mass criticising silently certain priests and even the bishop. We have to stand now after we receive the Eucharist in order to show unity. I feel twangs of anger when I see visitors from out of state who kneel and I want to join them but feel that I’m supposed to have obedience to our bishop. I sat through a Mass fuming because I couldn’t understand a word a priest said as he is from another country-- this is a common occurence and has happened several times to me. His homily was delivered and no one understood a word he said. The faces of the people were blank and bland and I just wanted to stand up and say, Hey, feed these people! They are dying in their pews! Yes, we are there for the Eucharist, but a lot of priests seem to be totally out of touch with the people of their parish. They seem to want to go on to some kind of community organizing, while their own people are starving for some kind of relevancy. And I’m the kind of person who gives people a chance… I feel so frustrated by the direction of the Church. On the one hand they want us to call our congress people to protest the health care bill because it provides funds for abortion, but on the other hand they also want us to commit to health insurance for every one. How will we pay for that?! I also don’t understand why Spanish Mass is gaining prominence when so many Hispanic people who are in the U.S. want to become Americans and speak English. Will they have their own everything-- separation… It just strikes me as counterintuitive to separate the people in this fashion. I know what this sounds like – a myopic vision of the Chuch, but really I’m confused. Maybe the Church should just get out of politics completely and be the Church! Because something is wrong! I meet Catholics, young adult Catholics who see no difference between going to an Episcopal service and the Catholic Church. They hang rosaries on their rearview mirrors and then go see Twilight. I know this is the traditional forum and I’m new to it… I don’t want to offend, but something is wrong!

 

[otjm]

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.

and what makes you think that the cultural, social and sexual revolution would not have infected the Church if V 2 had not occured?

The sexual revolution started to infect the Church in a major way as soon as the Pill was available and that was before Vatican 2; in fact, in 1960 it ws proposed that the Pill should be acceptible to the Vatican as “it only extended the woman’s safe period”.

 

[otjm]

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.

According to both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16, Vatican 2 needs to be fully implemented; and both have been involved during the length of their papacies in doing so. Neither consider that the documents need re-writing; both consider that the problems we have had are not from Vatican 2, but from either the improper analysis (the rupture of discontinuity) or from completely ignoring the documents.

 

[Heliotropium]

But it really doesn’t matter what WE think, does it? God willed it (or, at least allowed it), and therefore it was.

Thank you and enough said

 

[KC91]

You actually think that legalized abortion is the result of Vatican II?

Can you please explain the logic behind your statement?.

Spirit of Vatican II =
Drop in Catholic obedience =
Loss of political power of Cardinals and Bishops =
Politicians no longer courting Catholic positions for Catholic votes =
Abortion

 

[bpbasilphx]

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

**Homosexuality was removed from the DSM by vote (as most things are) because it simply did not fit the criteria given in the DSM for a mental illness.

And if homosexuality, as you seem to think, is a mental illness, then it can’t be a sin.**

Spirit of Vatican II =
Drop in Catholic obedience =
Loss of political power of Cardinals and Bishops =
Politicians no longer courting Catholic positions for Catholic votes =
Abortion

**
Are you saying that Cardinals and Bishops SHOULD have political power in the USA?

Under what provision of the U. S. Constitution?**

 

[KC91]

Political influence I meant. It is power in the way that in the 1950s no important American politician would want to offend Cardinal Spellman and the Catholic Church and always courted him. Not in the way of holding public office.

 

[edwest2]

and what makes you think that the cultural, social and sexual revolution would not have infected the Church if V 2 had not occured?

The sexual revolution started to infect the Church in a major way as soon as the Pill was available and that was before Vatican 2; in fact, in 1960 it ws proposed that the Pill should be acceptible to the Vatican as “it only extended the woman’s safe period”.

Who thinks that the Church promoted The Pill? In 1968, Pope Paul VI told Catholics not to use artificial birth control. Too many of us did not listen. Why? Because a big distraction was going on in the outside world.

Hippies were running around and shacking up with their ‘old ladies.’ They were smoking dope and dropping Acid (LSD, a dangerous hallucinogen). They were yelling: Don’t trust anyone over 30! Mom, dad, priests, nuns, they don’t know anything. We’re going to burn this country down! Woodstock Nation!

Did Vatican II start the so-called sexual revolution?

All of these radicals were walking around telling people to distrust the Establishment - the established order. Everything was going to change. It didn’t change for the better.

As soon as the war in Vietnam was over and the Peace Marches ended, what did we get? Adult Bookstores selling porn all over the country? Organized crime selling a lot more dope to young people who thought it was cool? Marriage? Meaningless. Fornication? Sure, why not?

And Vatican II did all this?

The media, which was a welcomed guest in our home, gradually turned into a sexual pervert. It took time – between all the artists and writers and intellectuals – yelling First Amendment! You can’t censor us. Censorship is evil! In the late 1960s, I was stupid enough to believe these creative people were restricted from telling more profound stories. Boy, was I wrong. All their creative efforts ended up doing was putting porn on cable in the 1980s, and cussing and swearing and bare butts on NYPD Blue in the 1990s. They sure weren’t interested in promoting some lofty artistic ideal, just talking dirty and showing more skin. TV has become a purveyor of the profoundly dysfunctional. There is a show about a doctor who drinks and picks up anonymous men for anonymous sex. This is better?

And the influence of Vatican II was what? Don’t be committed to your spouse anymore? Don’t bother getting married anymore? Go ahead, have multiple sex partners.

The Church did not change its teachings but through the complicity of organized crime, the mainstream media, lawyers who were willing to argue for porn bookstores and strip clubs and partial nudity on TV, and judges who ruled in their favor, dysfunctional relationships, shameful, lewd, immoral behavior, is being marketed as OK. Hey, everybody’s doing it.

That is why there is porn in gas stations, in convenience stores and even some supermarkets. Their goal was to create addiction. To turn people away from God’s plan for normal, stable human families.

Peace,
Ed