Traditional Catholicism TOO Conservative for Canadian Catholics?

[Brendan]

Ora,

My wife is Quebecois (from Drummondville).

12 years of Catholic school there in the 80’s (well after the quiet revolution) left her as an anti-Catholic agnostic.

Despite that, I married her anyway Dealing with that stubborn Quebec mentality showed me that it is not a matter of ignoring the Church, but needing to challenge the Church, to try and prove Her wrong. Of course, being the foundation of Truth, that is pretty impossible, even for a Quebecois.,

And thus, my wife is now what most people, including those on this board, would describe as a ‘traditional Catholic’ (mantilla wearing, homeschooling mother of 6 in a parish with lots of Latin).

But what Quebec has been lacking is what my wife recieved, someone who will defend the Church with just as much passion and stubborness as the Church is being attacked with.

God willing, the new bishops will take on that role. It will take time, as they will need to attract and ordain new clergy who will be willing to assist them in the role of ardent defense.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

Bruce, there is a vibrant FSSP parish just outside of downtown on Beatrice near 33rd. They were active during this Lent’s “40 Days for Life”.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

We should be conservative and impatient in doctrine, but welcoming and patient in pastoral care.

I agree with this excellent ideal, so long as the pastoral need does not “trump” doctrinal requirements, as sometimes happens.

• PAX

 

[LoyalViews]

With all due respect to non-Canadian posters, you appear assume that Canadian Catholicism is heterogeneous. It is far from it.

You have to distinguish between French Canada and English Canada, and within the latter, between old-stock Canadians (e.g. Irish, anglo-saxon, métis, etc), and immigrant populations of the 20-21st centuries. Each impose their cultural mark on Catholicism in Canada.

The area I live in is comprised mostly of old-stock Catholics, about 80-90% French, the remainder English. Vatican II in Quebec also coincided with the “quiet revolution” where French Canadians shook off the yoke of an oppressive, Jansenist Catholicism that impregnated every aspect of daily life, and resulted in an impoverished population, and also the yoke of a very corrupt, conservative, government. If a Catholic family didn’t pump out a child per year, a visit from the Curé was almost guaranteed. Families of 12-15 children were not uncommon.

I would say that French Canadian Catholicism, in its current incarnation, is made up of mainly liberals that can be, even in its clergy, very heterodox, but also of a small core of very orthodox Catholics. Both though tend to share one aspect in common: a much more live-and-let-live attitude. For instance I have never heard an announcement at any Mass in Quebec (French or English) specifying who can or cannot receive the Eucharist. Yet in a Cathedral in Hamilton Ont., such an announcement was made when I attended Mass there. I am a Benedictine Oblate of a very orthodox monastery (Solesmes congregation, Gregorian chant still used, etc.), yet never will they make such an announcement. In Hamilton it was even announced that only Catholics could bring the offerings forward. In our abbey the usher (an elderly monk) simply picks a family at random and never inquires about their status. I would thus say that in Quebec, primacy tends to be placed, for better or for worse, on conscience rather than on obeying rules.

In some ways that may be a reflection of our Latin roots compared to Anglo-Saxon Canada, we tend to be more exuberant that our Anglo compadres.

We had a very conservative archbishop of the diocese of Quebec, Cardinal Ouellette (sometimes touted as papabile…). He’s now back in Rome. His attempt to impose a traditionalism similar to what is seen on this forum was universally panned not only by Catholics in the pews but also his clergy. On the other hand I appreciated his clarity, but it was clear that being in Rome so long before coming back, he was out of touch with the Quebec situation. Quebecers rather need a long period of re-evangelization rather than imposition from above. Unless orthodox reform takes place in our hearts, any attempt at imposing on us seems doomed to failure. We can be stubbornly rebellious but also extremely conformist in our rebellion, in the sense that we want to be seen as being part of the “popular” gang. We have a new archbishop of Montreal, very conservative, replacing the fairly liberal Cardinal Turcotte. We’ll see how well that plays. More than likely we’ll (I mean we as a society, not myself individually) will continue to happily ignore the rules (speed limit signs in Quebec are merely a suggestion…)

I come from a mixed French-English background (old-stock on both sides), in fact French-Catholic mother and English-Anglican father (I was raised Catholic), so I can see it from both sides.

Interestingly I hover around Gregorian chant circles, and while many folks I hang around with are outwardly very big on liturgical tradition they are also very liberal in their lives.

As for me personally, I feel more comfortable, for all its warts, in the French Church. I seek mostly true inner conversion for myself, and as a rule I am not all that comfortable in strictly conformist situations. I think the Church is for everybody, no matter where anybody is on his or her faith walk. Conversion has to come from within, not exhorted from without, though you do need quiet, orthodox teaching. Sometimes the strident desire to exclude “liberals” and make disparaging comments about them on this forum really turns me off. Today’s liberal may be tomorrow’s true convert, a true prodigal son. By excluding them from Catholicism, we risk actually losing a soul.

:clapping:

 

[curlycool89]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

I’m a Catholic in Canada and quite active in my diocese, but I can’t say that I know anyone who identifies as a traditionalist. Sure, there’s some people who go to the EF Mass, but those are the same people I’ll see at an OF Mass during the week.

Two summers ago we were visiting in Quebec, where my paternal grandparents were born and raised. The church in Grandma’s hometown was up for sale! A shock, as it was full each Sunday morning when I was a child. Upon inquiring I was informed that Quebec has become as secular as any place on earth. A common explanation offered was a backlash against earlier times when the Church pretty much ran the province.

It was called the Quiet Revolution, and at this point it started over half a century ago.

The area I live in is comprised mostly of old-stock Catholics, about 80-90% French, the remainder English. Vatican II in Quebec also coincided with the “quiet revolution” where French Canadians shook off the yoke of an oppressive, Jansenist Catholicism that impregnated every aspect of daily life, and resulted in an impoverished population, and also the yoke of a very corrupt, conservative, government. ** If a Catholic family didn’t pump out a child per year, a visit from the Curé was almost guaranteed**. Families of 12-15 children were not uncommon.

I can confirm that these stories are not isolated either, and I’ve heard of them before this too. I’ve heard that some people would get their yearly visit even if they had just miscarried.

 

[Rich_C]

For what it’s worth, a sizable minority of posters on Fish Eaters are Canadian. They seem to each have a nice, traditional parish at which ato assist.

 

[HB11]

:thumbsup:Excellent answer to a passive aggressive question. The Brooklyn in me didn’t care for the way it was asked and the Spirit forgives it.

It’s all good as long as you follow ALL the teachings of the Church as spelled out in the Catechism. It’s when you begin to pick and choose what teachings you are going to follow that it isn’t Catholicism any more. That is what many Catholics in the US do, and that is why traditionalism has taken over. There is still a long way to go. The Catechism sets the guidelines. And, the problem with liberals in any aspect, is that unless they made the guidelines, they don’t want to follow them.

 

[Roy5]

There’s plenty of room within intelligent Christianity for diverse opinions. What makes Catholicism so forbidding to so many is that in its traditional form it insists that everyone accept what it considers uniform thinking. That may have worked in the old Church, in Nazi Germany for a time (until Hitler led it to devastation), in communist Europe (which also rebelled) and elsewhere. But in this 21st century, among educated, curious, and thinking Christians, it doesn’t work anymore.

  Thirty million Americans have left Catholicism, almost one out of three, and in a recent poll I saw 52% of USA Catholics today don't believe in transubstantiation. What does that tell us? It tells us that Catholics are thinking for themselves. We may not like it, but that's where it's at. My own opinion - blasphemy, someone has said - is that new circumstances require new strategies. Perhaps it's time that we honestly reassess matters like marriage of priests (who choose to), women Deacons, a more open attitude toward gays, a fuller understanding and sympathy for married couples using birth control, less emphasis on uniform thinking, etc. Just a thought. The fact that such a thought will be dismissed immediately by so many strikes me as a problem. I guess what I am saying is that Christianity should have room for many races, colors, ethnicities, traditions, and rituals, as well as different interpretations of the faith. 

  God bless everybody - no exceptions!

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

There’s plenty of room within intelligent Christianity for diverse opinions. What makes Catholicism so forbidding to so many is that in its traditional form it insists that everyone accept what it considers uniform thinking. That may have worked in the old Church, in Nazi Germany for a time (until Hitler led it to devastation), in communist Europe (which also rebelled) and elsewhere. But in this 21st century, among educated, curious, and thinking Christians, it doesn’t work anymore.

It is terrible that you have compared the Church to Nazis and Communists. But at least you have made your stance clear so we know where you are coming from.

  Thirty million Americans have left Catholicism, almost one out of three, and in a recent poll I saw 52% of USA Catholics today don't believe in transubstantiation. What does that tell us? It tells us that Catholics are thinking for themselves. We may not like it, but that's where it's at.

Yes, catechism has been in a woeful state. We must instruct the faithful on the truths of the Church. I find it interesting that you have equated ignorance with “thinking for themselves.”

My own opinion - blasphemy, someone has said - is that new circumstances require new strategies. Perhaps it’s time that we honestly reassess matters like marriage of priests (who choose to), women Deacons, a more open attitude toward gays, a fuller understanding and sympathy for married couples using birth control, less emphasis on uniform thinking, etc. Just a thought. The fact that such a thought will be dismissed immediately by so many strikes me as a problem. I guess what I am saying is that Christianity should have room for many races, colors, ethnicities, traditions, and rituals, as well as different interpretations of the faith.

Shouldn’t Truth trump all? At the bottom of your argument lies the idea that the Church was wrong for 1900 years, OR that truth is mutable/changeable. Or both, I suppose.

I think we should stick with Truth. It is the Truth that will set us free, not error, and definitely not sin.

God bless everybody - no exceptions!

Indeed, may God bless us all and may the Blessed Virgin Mary intercede for us all.

• PAX

 

[trickster]

What do you mean by “good sense”? Are you suggesting that Traditional Catholicism is non-sensical?

• PAX

Edited to add: I posted this before I saw that TrueLight noticed your word choice as well.

Good point. No “good sense” in a biased Canadian kind of way I think that Canadians -as a whole - are much more prone than American’s to be ok with “grey” and the “live and let live” attitude or “joie de vivre” for our Quebecois brothers and sisters…Americans seem to be very opposed to each other - to the point of internal implosion - and I am exploring whether that broader sociological phenonemon is refelcted within American Catholicism…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

With all due respect to non-Canadian posters, you appear assume that Canadian Catholicism is heterogeneous. It is far from it.

You have to distinguish between French Canada and English Canada, and within the latter, between old-stock Canadians (e.g. Irish, anglo-saxon, métis, etc), and immigrant populations of the 20-21st centuries. Each impose their cultural mark on Catholicism in Canada.

The area I live in is comprised mostly of old-stock Catholics, about 80-90% French, the remainder English. Vatican II in Quebec also coincided with the “quiet revolution” where French Canadians shook off the yoke of an oppressive, Jansenist Catholicism that impregnated every aspect of daily life, and resulted in an impoverished population, and also the yoke of a very corrupt, conservative, government. If a Catholic family didn’t pump out a child per year, a visit from the Curé was almost guaranteed. Families of 12-15 children were not uncommon.

I would say that French Canadian Catholicism, in its current incarnation, is made up of mainly liberals that can be, even in its clergy, very heterodox, but also of a small core of very orthodox Catholics. Both though tend to share one aspect in common: a much more live-and-let-live attitude. For instance I have never heard an announcement at any Mass in Quebec (French or English) specifying who can or cannot receive the Eucharist. Yet in a Cathedral in Hamilton Ont., such an announcement was made when I attended Mass there. I am a Benedictine Oblate of a very orthodox monastery (Solesmes congregation, Gregorian chant still used, etc.), yet never will they make such an announcement. In Hamilton it was even announced that only Catholics could bring the offerings forward. In our abbey the usher (an elderly monk) simply picks a family at random and never inquires about their status. I would thus say that in Quebec, primacy tends to be placed, for better or for worse, on conscience rather than on obeying rules.

In some ways that may be a reflection of our Latin roots compared to Anglo-Saxon Canada, we tend to be more exuberant that our Anglo compadres.

We had a very conservative archbishop of the diocese of Quebec, Cardinal Ouellette (sometimes touted as papabile…). He’s now back in Rome. His attempt to impose a traditionalism similar to what is seen on this forum was universally panned not only by Catholics in the pews but also his clergy. On the other hand I appreciated his clarity, but it was clear that being in Rome so long before coming back, he was out of touch with the Quebec situation. Quebecers rather need a long period of re-evangelization rather than imposition from above. Unless orthodox reform takes place in our hearts, any attempt at imposing on us seems doomed to failure. We can be stubbornly rebellious but also extremely conformist in our rebellion, in the sense that we want to be seen as being part of the “popular” gang. We have a new archbishop of Montreal, very conservative, replacing the fairly liberal Cardinal Turcotte. We’ll see how well that plays. More than likely we’ll (I mean we as a society, not myself individually) will continue to happily ignore the rules (speed limit signs in Quebec are merely a suggestion…)

I come from a mixed French-English background (old-stock on both sides), in fact French-Catholic mother and English-Anglican father (I was raised Catholic), so I can see it from both sides.

Interestingly I hover around Gregorian chant circles, and while many folks I hang around with are outwardly very big on liturgical tradition they are also very liberal in their lives.

As for me personally, I feel more comfortable, for all its warts, in the French Church. I seek mostly true inner conversion for myself, and as a rule I am not all that comfortable in strictly conformist situations. I think the Church is for everybody, no matter where anybody is on his or her faith walk. Conversion has to come from within, not exhorted from without, though you do need quiet, orthodox teaching. Sometimes the strident desire to exclude “liberals” and make disparaging comments about them on this forum really turns me off. Today’s liberal may be tomorrow’s true convert, a true prodigal son. By excluding them from Catholicism, we risk actually losing a soul.

Well spoken…thank you!

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Bruce, there is a vibrant FSSP parish just outside of downtown on Beatrice near 33rd. They were active during this Lent’s “40 Days for Life”.

YES… I have been meaning to connect with that parish…I’ll get around to it! Thanks for the address…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

:thumbsup:Excellent answer to a passive aggressive question. The Brooklyn in me didn’t care for the way it was asked and the Spirit forgives it.

A Brooklyn guy! That’s neat…my sister has friends in Brooklyn and we are from Vancouver, BC. What I understand about “Brooklanders” is you guys are very expressive shall we say but some of the most honest human beings that we can hope for.

I love America and especially the American Southwest because I live on the Canadian west coast and was born on Vancouver Island, so I like getting away from water, and there is something healing and indigenous about the land in the American Southwest…but I also worry about the imploding politics in the US between the Republicans and Democrats and never have I heard the American people so racist against their president.

With this larger back text do you think the same thing can be happening on a smaller scale within the church…is “traditional catholicsm” a return to roots in the church or is it a “cultural movement” played out in the church…?

Bruce
trickster

 

[trickster]

:thumbsup:Excellent answer to a passive aggressive question. The Brooklyn in me didn’t care for the way it was asked and the Spirit forgives it.

And I forgot to mention New York’s ability to play hockey… there’s no forgiveness there!

Cheerz

Bruce

 

[trickster]

There’s plenty of room within intelligent Christianity for diverse opinions. What makes Catholicism so forbidding to so many is that in its traditional form it insists that everyone accept what it considers uniform thinking. That may have worked in the old Church, in Nazi Germany for a time (until Hitler led it to devastation), in communist Europe (which also rebelled) and elsewhere. But in this 21st century, among educated, curious, and thinking Christians, it doesn’t work anymore.

  Thirty million Americans have left Catholicism, almost one out of three, and in a recent poll I saw 52% of USA Catholics today don't believe in transubstantiation. What does that tell us? It tells us that Catholics are thinking for themselves. We may not like it, but that's where it's at. My own opinion - blasphemy, someone has said - is that new circumstances require new strategies. Perhaps it's time that we honestly reassess matters like marriage of priests (who choose to), women Deacons, a more open attitude toward gays, a fuller understanding and sympathy for married couples using birth control, less emphasis on uniform thinking, etc. Just a thought. The fact that such a thought will be dismissed immediately by so many strikes me as a problem. I guess what I am saying is that Christianity should have room for many races, colors, ethnicities, traditions, and rituals, as well as different interpretations of the faith. 

  God bless everybody - no exceptions!

I agree with you 150% thank you for your post.

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

For what it’s worth, a sizable minority of posters on Fish Eaters are Canadian. They seem to each have a nice, traditional parish at which ato assist.

One of the problems with Catholic internet sites is that they are mostly conservative and/or traditionalist…I think that we have the right to many different perspectives of Catholic teaching and I hope that we will see more middle of the road and progressive websites in the future…I am worried that those millions of Catholics leaving the church only see the “take from the Catholic right” and that the traditionalists do not have the monopoly on being Catholic…nor do they have the right to discredit the teachings of the church since Vatican II under the guise of protecting the church from crazy liberals… it was crazy liberals through Liberation theology that push the boundaries of oppression in the 60’s, the Quiet Revoltuion as we have been hearing about…and we have now neo-imperialism world realities to address and the church - I believe requires bold liberal views to move forward…and ironically one of the most “liberal and aggressive” church teaching can be found in the idea of a world beyond this one…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[Mangy_Donkey]

It is my experience that the Catholic Church in Canada is becoming much more conservative, not necessarily Tradition in the sense most here would understand. As the pews seem to empty out, of what remains, is a smaller and more faithful population. This in combination with the latest groups of seminarians that, to me, appear to have much more traditional leanings, is hope that the Catholic Church in Canada is righting the ship.

 

[ConstantineTG]

YES… I have been meaning to connect with that parish…I’ll get around to it! Thanks for the address…

Bruce

I’ve also been waiting for you to connect with our parish

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t understand how people can say, “Oh, let me look at this from a different perspective.” Because that always means, “Oh, let me just disregard this and do whatever in God’s name I want.”

 

[OraLabora]

Ora,

My wife is Quebecois (from Drummondville).

12 years of Catholic school there in the 80’s (well after the quiet revolution) left her as an anti-Catholic agnostic.

You have to understand that the local church in Quebec (and I want to stress the word local, which is why I used a lower-case “c”), was very much guilty of driving away Catholics.

Remember that Quebec was colonized in mostly from France in the heat of the Jansenist heresy in France. The Quebec church greatly emphasized fear of damnation without providing much hope for salvation, focusing on the depravity of the human soul rather than trying to draw out the law of God written on every man’s heart. As I mentioned earlier, if a couple didn’t pump out (and I literally mean, “pump out”) a baby a year, a visit from the Curé to find out why was almost a given. I know many folks of my generation that had 10+ siblings. Paradoxically, though this contributed greatly to Quebecers rejecting the yoke of the Church, this fact also ensured that French Quebecers reproduced in great enough numbers to ensure the survival of the race. But such paradoxes mean little to a mother is worn out from raising 10+ kids.

Interestingly the Church in Quebec has many parallels to the Church in Ireland. The Irish and French Canadians as a result had great affinity for each other and intermarriage was common between Irish and French families.

The fact that Quebecers were impoverished and exploited by outside forces also contributed to the Quebec sense of being oppressed, and I can state from my personal experience that French Quebecers were oppressed right into the 60s. An Anglo company built a paper mill in 1966 in a very French area and all labels on machinery and instructions manuals in the mill were in English only. Just one of many examples.

It’s coincidental that the Quiet Revolution more or less happened at the same time as Vatican II. In fact it started when John XXIII was pope, but before Vatican II was called, with the death of Maurice Duplessis, in 1959, and the election of Jean Lesage, of the Liberal Party, in 1960. For those Catholics who remained, going back to the pre-Vatican II mentality is a non-starter, for they associate it with their oppression. There is a small tendency among younger Catholics towards more traditional aspects of Catholicism; I sing in a Gregorian chant schola around various parishes and we seem to get a far more receptive audience in parishes of younger families. When we sing at one such parish, in a large modern 1960s church (the building I mean…), at the Saturday evening Mass the church is jam-packed. Yet when we sing across town at a parish with a much older demographic, we’re lucky to get 40-60 in attendance. The younger generation shows more curiosity for more traditional liturgical practices. I don’t know them enough to know how that translates into acceptance of more traditional doctrines, but I do know that I’m not surprised that their parents, now in their 70s but who were in their 20s during the Quiet Revolution, reject Gregorian chant because they associate it with a very oppressive church.

It’s an extremely nuanced dynamic that doesn’t allow for neat categorization into “traditionalist” or “modernist” boxes as we so often see in debates on this forum.

I myself am a child of Vatican II. I consider myself orthodox, but not a traditionalist at least as defined here. I accept most teachings of the Church, do my best to conform in humble obedience in those that give me difficulty, and work at my own inner conversion. I have a long way to go, that’s all I can say, but I can also say I have come a long way. I do not want to go back to a pre-Vatican II Church. I have no particular desire for the EF Mass but I do want to see the OF Mass done the way it should be, with solemnity, dignity, and as much as possible, traditional music (Gregorian chant especially). I consider Catholicism to be a big messy family just as most big families can be messy with funny uncles, weird cousins, relatives that just don’t “get it”, yet we are all family.

I especially applaud the ability of Catholics to be allowed to think for themselves rather than blindly adhere to doctrines they don’t really agree with. I’d rather see honest dissent than hypocritical adherence. I agree with the comment about Catholics pre-Vatican II not being allowed to think for themselves. That was very much the situation in Quebec.

For Quebecers, there’s no turning back the clock. As with any “revolutionary” movement, the pendulum swung too far the other way. But I see tiny signs that it has started to travel back towards the centre. If it does so, I hope it comes from the heart. Imposed traditionalism will never catch. But a genuine hunger for Truth, and a compassionate teaching of Truth, has a chance. The problem in Quebec, is that the teaching of Truth before Vatican II was tinged with heresy, and was seen as many, especially women, as totally bereft of compassion.

Many blame Quebecers for tossing out the Church from their lives, but the sad truth is that the local church bears much of the blame for driving away Catholics, and I think that those leaders will have much to answer for on judgement day, for they failed to care for their flock with love and charity.