Now What? The Future of the Church After 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarysLurker

Guest
I am a parent, and nothing is more important to me than raising my children with a strong foundation built upon the Faith, so as to stand up to, challenge, and change the world. I had always assumed that I could trust the Chair of Peter to be a source of clarity in a confused world. I planned to form my children to have a deep respect for the papacy for precisely that reason. When Pope Francis was elected, I sincerely hoped that he would continue the Pope’s historical role as a reliable source of magisterial teaching, and that his overtures to Protestants, Orthodox, and others would lead to a growth in the understanding of the Church’s role in history and the perennial truth of Her doctrines.

Well… even the best-laid plans often require revision.

For the past week, I have come out of lurking to conduct a fact-finding mission here at CAF. I sought to gauge forum members’ reactions to, and opinions of, Pope Francis’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti and his recent statements on civil unions for same-sex couples. My objective has been to attempt to forecast how the Church, particularly in the United States, will react to the Francis pontificate so as to make decisions for my family based upon these findings.

I have found that the reactions to the Holy Father’s new approaches fall into three categories:
  1. Complete and unconditional acceptance of Pope Francis’s teachings as developments of doctrine. Members of Group 1 will not listen to anyone or anything that questions this narrative. When presented with evidence that the Church’s teachings have not changed, they will simply ignore the evidence. (I have confirmed that here on CAF.)
  2. Respectful dissent; Pope Francis’s innovations are his personal opinions, or at most, prudential judgments which one may ignore in good conscience upon determining they conflict with prior magisterial teachings.
  3. The lunatic fringe: personal attacks upon and condemnation of the Pope, or worse, schism and sedevacantism. (These users, thankfully, generally did not last long.)
 
I fall into, and wish to raise my children as, members of Group 2. I do not wish to hash out my reasons in detail here, but suffice it to say that I do not believe that Pope Francis (or any other Supreme Pontiff) has authority to change what the Church has definitevely taught; I think the Holy Father knows that as well; and hence he has not attempted to try to do so. However, Group 1 by and large believes that Pope Francis HAS changed doctrine. I think that some members of Group 1 will read into the Francis pontificate what they (not Francis) wish to see–and this is the beginning of a very dangerous slippery slope, comparable to what happened in the 1960s-1980s when many people did the same thing to Vatican II. But back then, one could simply read the documents of the council itself to dispel the claims; moreover, the Popes actively did the same thing, issuing magisterial documents and ultimately the Catechism of the Catholic Church to clarify doctrine. Pope Francis will not do so (because of his pastoral approach).

So far, I have found Group 2 to be a very lonely place. It’s the hardest place to be, because there is constant temptation to fall into Group 1 or Group 3. And it’s going to get worse. Here are my predictions:
  1. “Traditional Catholics” Will Now Mean Group 2
Group 1 clearly has the support of the mainstream media and the popular culture. Most Catholics today are less interested in doctrine than in social justice, which naturally plays into the Group 1 narrative. In the past, whenever people argued that the Church had changed its doctrine, one could turn to the Vatican for answers, and claim the support of the Pope. But now it is the doctrine-changers that can claim papal support. In sum, 90%+ of American Catholics will be part of Group 1–and they will put immense pressure on Group 2 and their children (my children) to accept the “changes” in doctrine that Pope Francis never made.

As a result, Group 2 will be effectively forced out of the mainstream institutional Church and into “traditional” parishes and schools. The homes of Group 2 will be:
  • Novus Ordo parishes with an Eastern European tradition (Polish, etc.)
  • FSSP and other TLM parishes.
  • Anglican Ordinariate parishes.
  • Eastern Rite parishes, to some extent.
As the public schools are completely toxic to Catholicism, and most diocesan schools will likewise be run by and for Group 1, Group 2 will have to raise their children in schools run by the above parishes and/or independent Catholic and classical-tradition schools. These will be very hard to find, especially in rural areas. Many families will have to move (leaving behind family, friends, jobs, and former lives) as the water rises. Eventually Group 2 will have to create parallel apostolates and lay ministries for itself.

If you are familiar with the concept of the “Benedict Option”–that is exactly what will happen to Group 2, whether we like it or not.
 
Last edited:
  1. The Menace of Group 3
    Group 1 will persecute Group 2, calling us sedevacantists and freezing us out of the Church. The overbearance of Group 1 will backfire, causing Group 3–people who just plain dislike Pope Francis–to grow. They will cause pastoral problems for both Group 1 and Group 2. Bishops will have to get involved. There will be censures. And, unfortunately, Group 2 may get caught in the crossfire. This will reinforce the exodus into “Traditional” or Group 2 communities.
  2. The End of Group 1
    As always, the would-be reformers of Catholicism will focus on issues involving the Sixth Commandment, which is why they will be unreachable to their opponents. As they practice what they preach, they will not have children in sufficient numbers to fill the ongoing population decline, which COVID-19 will exacerbate. So as Group 1 ascends the Wheel of Fortune and rejoices in its ascendancy, it won’t see the inevitable fall until it is too late. Many Catholic commentators have already noted that with the passing of the Baby Boomers and eventually Generation X, there will be no one to replace them. Group 1 will thus disappear, leaving closed parishes behind.
In the end, the small, remaining Church will be Group 2… as Benedict XVI predicted.

I sincerely hope that this is not what will happen. But it does seem to be the outcome dictated by demography–which is destiny. This would have happened with or without Pope Francis, but by eliminating the Vatican’s role as confirmer of sure doctrine, the trends have been accelerated.

Fellow Members of Group 2, here is some assigned reading… go read Strangers in a Strange Land by Archbishop Chaput. Or at least a free preview of it. Then you will understand why it is too late to save this civilization. Now go read The Benedict Option by Drehler and The Marian Option by Gress. Do what they say. Long story short: restore devotion to Mary in your family. Find a solid Catholic parish and school. Pour all your heart and soul and resources into them and build your life around them. When Rome fell, St. Benedict did the same thing to the monasteries that preserved civilization during the early Middle Ages. From now on this is our playbook.

Mother Teresa said that if you want to change the world, go home and love your family. It is easier to create a new world than to destroy the corruption in this one. So let’s get to it. Now is the time to take the Benedict Option and start preparing the “Traditional” communities, and to reorient the trajectory of your life. We are going to raise our kids in a Polish Catholic school, evaluate the diocesan high school when the time comes, and ensure that the kids go to a Cardinal Newman Society certified college. And we may end up moving there with them and into the Ben Op community around that school, to wait out the flood.

Your thoughts, criticisms, and other contributions are most welcome.
 
Last edited:
A very thoughtful analysis, thank you.

I would categorize group one as “lunatic fringe” too. The danger of living unquestioningly by whatever is said by the Pope should be obvious: what do you do when the Pope changes? This was the mistake of Ultramontanism. The reactionaries never imagined there could be a radical Pope.
 
MarysLurker said:
I have found that the reactions to the Holy Father’s new approaches fall into three categories:
Click to expand...
But you forgot #4! First, taking a look at what Francis actually said, not what TV or internet posters say he said. Then understanding whatever he said has nothing to do with “doctrine” and that he’s not issuing an encyclical. He’s simply being interviewed for a documentary. But this doesn’t necessarily put you in #2, “respectful dissent.” It might put you (me, for example) in a category that says “So what? All he’s saying is that a homosexual’s family should throw him out on the street and never speak to him again. That’s a no brainer. Of course you shouldn’t do that. And “civil unions”? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. If it were simply a way to give homosexuals normal human rights, great. If it were an alternative to “gay marriage,” great.”
 
Well from what i have read on the “Pope’s declarations” they are based on an interview given to a Mexican journalist in 2019 and other declarations given by the pope while traveling and it is heavily tampered.
In other words looks like an attempt to set the pope up appearing to give “revolutionary” comments on doctrine when this is not the case.

It is after all 2020 this year will be remembered for a long time unless something worse does not happen before the end of it 😬
Edited to add: And personally I am not worried one bit since this is The Church, HIS Church and it will not be prevailed against. Jesus promised HIS personal protection. What can i fear? 💯

Peace!
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
not what TV or internet posters say he said.
Click to expand...
Unless he issues a clarification he is endorsing the interpretation ascribed to him. This is about the tenth time that apologists for the Pope have had to go down the tortuous road of explaining that he didn’t mean what the press claims. But the Pope never comes to the aid of his supporters, does he? Why not? It would be so easy.
 
Maximian said:
Unless he issues a clarification he is endorsing the interpretation ascribed to him. This is about the tenth time that apologists for the Pope have had to go down the tortuous road of explaining that he didn’t mean what the press claims. But the Pope never comes to the aid of his supporters, does he? Why not? It would be so easy.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but that would contradict his pastoral approach. Moreover, if another Pope tries to clarify the Franciscan teachings, confidence in the Magisterium will be undermined. It is a catch 22.
 
I think that after all of this, a large number of us will simply be happy we can go to church and pray again in peace. How blessed we all are to have the Church. Hopefully we will now all be better prepared for what lies ahead.
 
Pug said:
I think that after all of this, a large number of us will simply be happy we can go to church and pray again in peace.
Click to expand...
I’m happy I’ve been able to go again since June.
I discovered during late March, April and May that 8-9 weeks with no Communion makes me a grouchy bear.
 
Maximian said:
I would categorize group one as “lunatic fringe” too. The danger of living unquestioningly by whatever is said by the Pope should be obvious: what do you do when the Pope changes? This was the mistake of Ultramontanism. The reactionaries never imagined there could be a radical Pope.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Group 1 can be considered “lunatic fringe.” This group does not think that the Magisterium proposes timeless truths, but rather, a general message of promoting the common good, with gradually developing teaches that point away from specificity. In other words, they were never well formed in the Church’s teachings, so they don’t see anything wrong with the Church moving away from teachings they either never knew about, or never understood.
 
I feel like you left out the group of people who think his statements are being misrepresented (through editing) and involve prudential direction and not changes to moral dogma.
 
Wesrock said:
I feel like you left out the group of people who think his statements are being misrepresented (through editing) and involve prudential direction and not changes to moral dogma.
Click to expand...
I think that would fall in Group 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top