February 9, 2014 David Timbs (Melbourne)
(Comments welcome here) David's previous articles
Pope
Francis and the rage of the Traditionalists:
Who’s angry with whom and why?
Part
One
Some
have gone quiet and folded. Some have gone quiet but continue to sulk and
seethe. Others are still making their voices heard, noisy, angry, resentful and
full of rage. What they all have in common is their feelings of frustration at
and betrayal by Benedict for his abdication and their palpable collective
contempt for Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis.
During
the years of Paul VI’s papacy, a loose coalition of
Traditionalist/Conservative interest groups emerged across the world. They were
united in a number of common causes such as resistance to or rejection of some
Vatican II’s Documents especially those on Religious Freedom, Ecumenism as
well as post conciliar liturgical reforms. They were also galvanised into common
opposition to the perjorative liberalism of their opponents. These were labelled
with amorphous isms of differing
kinds, were condemned for heterodoxy, branded as peddlers of Catholic
Lite, Cafeteria Catholicism and
neatly categorised as the Gaudium et Spes
generation and the perpetrators of liturgical wreckovers. The vernacular Eucharistic liturgy of Paul VI was
condemned as either invalid or totally unworthy of the Lord and its languages
fit only of the mundane environment of the BBQ.
From
1965 until 1978, the Coalition of the unwilling and resentful joined forces to
stall, counter or negate the reforms of Vatican II. Many sought to validate
their campaigns by calling it the Judas Council. Inevitably, many of these Catholics who resisted and
actively worked to counter the reforms of Vatican II adopted forms of behaviour
and language which provided them with a strong sense of who they were. It seems
that these people needed and still do need a clearly defined sense of borders,
frontiers and boundaries to protect and preserve their remnant enclave. It all
changed dramatically for them between 1978 and 2013.
During
the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many Catholics were reconfirmed
into ways of thinking about Christ, the Church and its structure, its liturgy
which reconnected them with the world of un-examined pre-Vatican II absolute
certainties in doctrinal formulae and liturgical protocols. These were years
marked by an ascending culture of ‘orthodoxy,’ of the combative Church
militant and papal absolutism. Curial despotism and a new era of supine
compliance on the part of the bishops were deemed to be central to the divine
plan.
These
were years of clearly defined boundaries and limits. These territorial markers
were promoted as the necessary fence lines protecting the Church from
‘unorthodoxy’ in doctrine and praxis. They also placed scorched earth
between the Church and the domain of moral relativism of all kinds. The
revisionist policies of Benedict also
safeguarded Catholic liturgical life from any dangers, real or imaginary of
contamination by mundane influences.
The
preoccupation of doctrinal purity in both doctrine and liturgy had less to do
with orthodoxy than with psycho-pathogy. These are often compressed into
ideology not religious belief or conviction. This ideology is almost always
a conflation of absolutist authoritarianism, ultra right wing politics,
economics, social conservatism and moralistic psycho-sexual fixations. Pope
Francis recently criticised these fixations. Religion is typically used as a
kind of front for these underlying disorders.
Listed
are some of the principal characteristics of the ‘religious’ platform of
these Traditionalist/Neo-Conservative groups:
1)
Not just a focus but a fixation on a narrow,
mechanistic, interpretation of doctrine, prescriptive laws and protocols, laws
both Canon and liturgical.
2)
Either a partial or near complete non reception
of key documents of the Second Vatican Council, primarily those dealing with
Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and many aspects of the Constitution on the Liturgy
and the Church in the Modern World.
3)
An intense commitment to the Tridentine Mass,
traditional pre 1962 theology of both Christ and the Church, a preference for a
cut and dried approach to morality based on the unambiguous prescriptions of
Semitic tribal law as found in the Ten Commandments and adherence to the
pieties, devotions and apologetics associated with the idea of the Church
militant;
4)
Connected with this pre-Christian moral code is
a tendency towards psycho-sexual fixations and deviant attitudes towards and
condemnation of homosexuality. The Traditionalist-Conservative sub-culture in
the Catholic Church is clearly distinguished by moralistic scrupulosity, fear,
guilt and an over developed understanding of God as lawgiver, judge and
punisher. The more extremist of these groups simply project on to opponents the
fierce vindictiveness and rage they so value in their constructed deities.
For
example, responding to an article on Card Maradiaga in the 23/01/14 edition of
the Catholic Herald, a commenter wrote,
There
are rumors swirling on the internet that Francis will call Vatican III to finish
the works of J23 which was hijacked by JPII and Benedict. Remember that Francis
was runner up to Benedict. It doesn't take much imagination to assume that
Francis jockeyed and was part of a conspiracy to remove Benedict and to put the
Church back on a socialist track. Francis is more Hans Kung than JPII. If you do
research on the Siri Conspiracy, the former archbishop of Milan was elected pope
and then removed by forces who supported J23. What you have here is a well oiled
conspiracy to create a world socialist government. Morality is secondary and
within the aura of Francis that all "sin" is economically based even
to the extent of preaching that "all violence is caused by economic
disparity". There is no original sin and a lower nature. In fact, he has
been quoted as saying that "there is no sin" because of the infinite
mercy of God. Francis would appear to be redefining what Christ "the
man" has stated without a bow to his divine nature. Instead of defining the
message of Christ in the gospels, Francis has turned to Marx and Lenin.
These
descriptors are related to and consistent with cognitive dissonance. This is a psychological mechanism used for
self-preservation and it operates along these lines that, the more a key belief
is challenged, undermined and shown to be not absolute but relative then the
more it is stubbornly believed and clung to. It’s a little bit like the
metaphor of the drowning man clutching at a straw. Varying levels of anger,
denial, blame-shifting and resentment are symptomatic of this cognitive
dissonance and it has emerged different ways and in relation to different
issues. One of the major contributors to cognitive
dissonance among many Traditional/Conservative Catholics in particular is
the enormously dispiriting and embarrassing scandal of child sexual abuse by
clergy. The shame of it all has lead to absolute stunned silence, half-hearted
attempts to explain it all away or angry rejection of the possibility, let
alone, the reality of it happening on a vast scale.
It
is quite clearly seen in many blogs around the world. A couple of the ones on
the outer limits of Catholicism are Northern Hemisphere based such as the
quaintly named, and near schismatic Eponymous
Flower and Rorate Caeli, the very
lacy, effeminate New Liturgical Movement,
New Theological Movement (now plunged into confusion and gone to ground)
all of which are now exhibiting signs of deep psychic shock and trauma following
the abdication of Benedict. Example
of blogs similar to these can be found in the UK. They clearly feed off and
interact with one another. These are almost all devoted in some way or another
to the principle of IOPFKWIK (If only Pope
Francis knew what I know) and
invest enormous amounts of energy into elaborating on and defending the famous Francis Derangement Syndrome. [1]
The
priest blogger Fr Ray Blake actually began a year ago as a reluctant carrier of FDS
but now he has actually revealed his true colours as a convinced self-absorbed,
promethean neo-pelagian. What Ray expresses these days comes very close indeed
to something of the depth of anger and resentment born by Traditionalist. It
goes all the way back to John XXIII, Paul VI and the post Vat II bishops.
A
particular cache of anger was, is and always will be reserved for Paul VI for
his suppression of the Tridentine
Masss. There is nothing ambiguous about that in Blake’s writing. here.
It is this kind of exotic affected antiquarian shared in some part with Rev
Hunwicke of Mutual Enrichment which
supplies Blake with the exotic intellectual menu he cannot deliver on himself.
[2]
Hunwicke
is a Tiber swimmer from High Anglicanism who is very firmly embedded in the
culture of the Anglican patrimony in theology, liturgy and church order. He is a
classicist by profession with strong attachments to the high English flavour of
the English language liturgical rituals of the Ordinariate. It should come as no
surprise that he should heartily endorse and defend the 2011 Vox Clara vernacular translation of the Liturgy. HERE.
Hunwicke, recently returned to blogging, provides his followers with the service
of that ancient occupation, the over-the-back-fence gossip and mutterings of
eccentric humbug. It is not at all surprising that Hunwicke is enthusiastically
supported by his transatlantic sycophant and camp-follower, the sinecure
American cleric, Zuhlsdorf. His support for Hunwicke is at his theatrical best
with commentary accompanied by the usual editorial controls (heavy black and red
commentary and corrective interventions). An example is linked here.
High
up on his anxiety scale and that of his fellows are deeply entrenched fears of
women getting anywhere near the sanctuary let alone being admitted to
priesthood. It tells. One can only wonder what will become of their cosmos if
and when that changes!
What
has become crystal clear from the tone and expression of most
Traditionalist/neo-Conservative media, print and electronic is that most of
their rage and resentment is reserved for and focused on the emeritus Pope,
Benedict XVI. For them, he is the ultimate disappointment and even a traitor to
the great cause of the Reform of the Reform in Continuity.
The
Traditionalist/Conservative element saw in Benedict the highest authority for a
return of the Catholic Church to the pre-Vatican state of complete stability
underpinned by a culture and system of governance characterised by autocratic
absolutism. Under this regime they valued little or no tolerance for contested
views. They well understood that Benedict’s teaching was a clear validation
for their own views and convictions that Vatican II was an aberration, certainly
of relative or marginal importance in the Church’s history. The Trads and
neo-Conservatives, while groaning at the agenda of the past Year of Faith and
its token recognition of Vatican II, were heartened to see that that Benedict
and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had elevated the Cathechism of
the Catholic Church as a ‘sure guide’ for interpreting the Council.
Benedict’s
abdication was not taken by Traditionalists and many Conservatives as simply a
resignation or, more accurately, an abdication from the papacy. Most of that
group was more persuaded that Benedict left the Reform of the Reform in
continuity unfinished, far too many dissenters and heterodox unpunished. Above
all they interpret Benedict’s abdication as a supreme act of cowardice, a
dereliction of duty, even a kind of apostasy. Few will admit it but their rage,
expressed in either passive aggression or outright angry denunciation, is
reserved for Benedict rather than Francis. [3]
[1]
See Luke Coppen, a classic OIPFKWIK and editor of the Catholic Herald, assuring himself and his disciples that Pope
Francis is not a Liberal plant. See Luke’s work in The Spectator here.
[2]
Examples of the exotic high-Anglo Catholic anxieties can be found here
and here.
[3]
Francis will not be boxed but he is shaking the foundations of those who think
they were unshakeable. See
here
David
Timbs writes from Melbounre, Victoria, Australia
09/02/14