Seven days that shook the Vatican

I think the Catholic identity is unleashing outside of Rome, or the Vatican at least. There is so much energy outside its walls, throughout the world, in Europe even.

You know it is felt by some in Europe, where I live at the moment, that the Congregation for the Evangelization of People should really be the Congregation for the Repentance of the Vatican...

But really what the Vatican does is becoming of less and less import. We Are the Church, We Are the Body of Christ... Some parts, like a few men in the Vatican, are powerful and old, and missing the point. But that's OK. In the end, the Spirit will win.

All is well and will be well :-)

Projecting a Catholic identity begs the question: what is it? If, as Mr. Allen posits that the diagnosis is Catholicism is adjusting to its post-modern minority status, it seems to me from the rest of his article that the Pope does not view it the same way. As I read Mr. Allen's opinion, I see him saying the Pope wants a little more entrenchment of what it meant to be Catholic. That's not adjusting to a new minority-status, rather an attempt to circle the wagons of what Catholics have left. While that effort will create a minority status, it will reinforce the view within the Vatican eyes that Catholicism is the one and true church. One element I think is missing from Mr. Allen's perspective is the dismantling of the empire, of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church itself has lost site of it identity and chose to cling to the status of empire. Now that the empire mantle is stripped, the Church--all of it, from Vatican princes to lay paupers--must come to grips with what it means to be a follower of Jesus. The West doesn't have that answer. It has a cultural response that is distorted and multi-colored from a culture that is growing more and more shallow with every twitter and every politicized comment made about every kind of person who lives here. Just look at the comments from readers and the variety of columnists and you'll see a funny house mirrored reflection of what it means to be Catholic. And perhaps the igniting fire point is the abuse of sexuality. Of course: "Who do we say we are?"

Didn't realize that the raids in Belgium were "against the Catholic church" as Allen professes.

He seems to have a very strange notion of what "church" means, if he believes the raids were against it.

Perhaps, a refresher course in ecclesiology would do Allen good. If he can find the time, being so busy attending pallium ceremonies and receptions.

Mc Brien's "Catholicism" would be a good place to start. He could put a plain paper cover on it while he is at the Vatican.

Are we about to see the outbreak of war between "cultural minorities" in the Catholic Church? Or, in fact, has this war being going on for a long time? Or, again, are we about to see the birth and proliferation of even more "cultural minorities? Will this be known historically as the age of cultural fragmentation? ............Stay tuned to NCR and the best reporting team in the world.

Good analysis of our times. You are on target. This is a saver. (Married Priests USA)

Couple this analysis with the NY Times article this morning on the sexual abuse crisis http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html?hp and you get a good picture of a male dominated church more concerned with itself than with the world at large. Our church seems to think that it can bend history to its will by happily taking a backseat and becoming a hardened small band who know the truth. What type of man will be attracted to this church? Will they be "the best and the brightest"?--one hopes so. But one wonders.

Add to all this the profound fractures that exist among the laity, fractures that tend to break along the socio-political division between liberals and conservatives, and you have a crisis of alarming proportions.

For my own part, conservative that I am, I sense a need to go deeper into the treasures of our tradition, and, above all, a need to pray for one another.

I find this particularly interesting because I've spent a large part of my career studying recent Chinese history, and have been particularly interested in how China and the Chinese (well before communism came along) have sought to assume the rights and privileges of victimhood, and how this assumption has affected their outlook and policies.

If John Allen is right, the Vatican and its "leadership class" are now jumping on the bandwagon of victimhood. I wonder if they will do a better job than China has done, or whether they will once again simply be preaching to the choir of those who believe in their particular analysis, without listening to any who might raise questions about its accuracy.

There are all sorts of other ways in which Rome sometimes resembles Beijing, but that's for another time and place.

How can an institution which is doing its best to reverse the renewal called for by Vatican II hope to renew civilization? How can an institution which does its best to operate under a cloak of secrecy, repress dissent, and forbid debate (e.g., women's ordination, celibacy) hope to act as a "creative minority"? Every day the Vatican seems more out of touch and more convinced that retrenching and excommunicating are the keys to pastoral leadership. What a shame.

save and send to tom

"...the final pillars of deference by civil authorities to the Catholic church are crumbling."

And it's about time!

Memo to Allen:
Now there's a MEGATREND I don't recall reading in your book.

I go with those who say that church leaders, and especially the Vatican, have no one to blame but themselves.I recall being taught that our God is the God of history. We learned of the history of the Jewish people and the eventual coming of Jesus, the Son of God, as messiah who is our guide with the help of the Holy Spirit to God the Father. However, the Church leadership did not actually have faith in the message of Jesus but tied itself and its organization to the ancient regime, to kings and royal prerogatives. They refused to face up to or try to understand the historical development of democracy, democratic principles and the principles of modernism. From time to time I walk past churches of the United Church of Christ which have a slogan which catches my attention substantially - Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not because we believe that God is still speaking. Unfortunately the Vatican does not think this way but has chosen lock its its mind and wants to lock our minds in the past.

Being part of the majority culture is at counter purposes to faith. Constantine did not help us. we are in a better position now. Let's go to the kerygma - Jesus Christ risen from the Dead! instead of the cultural markers and secret handshakes as signs of membership.

"Hermenutics of continuity" is NOT what Benedict advocated in his speech to the Roman Curia on Dec. 22nd, 2005. In rejecting a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" he said three times that it must be replaced by a "hermeneutics of reform." He ascribed this in one passage to Pope John XXIII, who called Vatican II.

Thank you for another excellent article, Mr. Allen.

Would you please provide us with a specific example in which a "diplomat" previously leading the Secretariat of State or the Congregation for Bishops has chosen Realpolitik over the Church's spiritual and doctrinal identity?

Thanks!

There will be no renewal until B16 and his administration follow church teachings and do the three things necessary for forgiveness of their collective and individual sins of child abuse: confess, have a firm purpose of amendment and do penance. B16 seems to have confessed but where is the public confession from the rest of the hierarchy? (What we see is denial and blaming the victims for seeking justice.) Where is the penance? (Not with men like Law(less) who enjoys the luxury of the Vatican or Mahony who continues in his post in LA.)Where is the amending of behavior? (Saying that homosexuals will not be admitted to the clerical state does not cut it since 20% of the victims were female. Nor did it say a thing about removing present homosexuals from the clerical state which means the policy has no logic whatsoever. What is needed is the removal of pedophiles and those who use their power and position to sexually abuse others along with their hierarchical enablers.)

In seeking unity, I believe reflection on there being one Body and one Cup, not one translation of a dead language, more in keeping with the thought of Christ. Furthermore, what happened to the mark of identity handed down from the earlier believers: they know they are Christians by their love.

Sad movement to do the reform of the reform. Many of us, Vatican II people of God, may not qualified for the new Catholic identity if the Church goes back to the theology an ecclesial culture of pre-Vatican times.

The Roman Catholic Church crisis is an opportunity for reform toward a future of communion, not elimination of those who may not aggree with the hermeneutics of continuity which is retorical way of saying: return to the past.
Doesn't the institutional church have anough to prove itself whole again, before leaving us, Vatican II people, orphans? Jesus did not embrace only the Jews who trusted him. He was opened to the diversity of the people and show how to make his Church inclusive. Where from is the Hierarchy now getting its defensive-agressive stand? Are they trying to show their power to the world? May the Holy Spirit save us!

Smells, bells, archaic language and antique costumes are not going to revitalise the Catholic Church. Transparent holiness might work though.

Perhaps the most significant essay John Allen has written in a long time. To me it is very sad news of misguided Vatican efforts at a Counter- to what it seems to see as a Second Reformation. Some will welcome it; some will take it as their last straw and leave. The bigger question is what will the people in the "middle" do? I suspect that the Church will become a less important part of their lives -- exactly the opposite of what Benedict seems to hope for.

The problem with todays church leadership is "they are out of touch with reality". A recent example of this is Bishop Olmstead's firing a female (religious) ethecist for allowing a Catholic Hospital to perform an abortion in order to save the life of a mother with four little children at home. I seem to remember from 1 Timothy 3:2 that "a Bishop should be married only once". If Olmstead and all Bishops were married, they would be far less likely to be making these terrible decisions. Can you imagine a husband with four little children sitting at home, telling the hospital to just let my wife and unborn child die because some stupid (a)moral theologian remembered some equally out of step teacher of moral theology saying that a direct abortion can NEVER be allowed. It makes me very angry that the Vatican would allow a Bishop like Olmstead to make such a decision without speaking up. How fast would the Vatican have reacted if Olmstead had said women do have the right to all seven sacraments?

I am an ordinary Catholic woman who, as a member of a religous congrgation at the time, has enjoyed by lecture, theology classes and retreats some of the best in theology. We participated in encyclical studies as well. This would have been 1955-1969. Since then my spirt has been attuned to the best. Following those years I have been privileged to hear and learn from some truly great homilists. All this occured in the State of MN. Since 2002, I have been asked how I feel about being a Catholic. What it comes down to is my experience as a participant in my own spiritual life, acting as a lector and a eucharstic minister, and my private prayer nd readng. I sorrow but am helpless a a individal against aberrant behavior either in the church or in society as a whole. And how much does that represent? 12-15%? The church is still Christ's path for me. I walk in under the hierarchical super structure to enrich my soul in our excellent liturgy. We are human community, fevent at times. Satan must feel satisfied at our sometimes immense human failures. The evil that has happened breaks the hearts of all of us, but not our spirit. As I am fond of say, The Church Has Been In Trouble Since the Ascension. Thank you.

The “soft” revolution in Catholicism is well under way and, it is too late to stop it.

In an important sense, this bright new ship has already sailed, leaving an aging ‘remnant’ and the Vatican standing on the wharf wagging their fingers, shaking their fists and shouting at the top if their lungs. But the faithful on the ship are not on the stern watching this sad performance. They take no notice, as they are standing on the prow, holding hands, looking to the future and the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, without the intervening of the Bishops who have lost their flock due to their own failings.

This is all part of a larger process, which affects all religion, arising since Copernicus and Luther: the advent of scientific thought, or rationalism, which rejects, or, at least questions the excessive number of bank shots in scholastic thought. It will go on for another 100 years, and the latest realization of crumbling of cultural influence is but a milestone, as is the advent o the return to paganism/environmentalism as a spiritual adjunct to a doctrine and dogma which have become intellectually sterile in many respects.

In strategic terms, whether board room or battlefield, the issue is whether the centripetal forces of the old regime can recentralize aggressively enough to counterbalance the centrifugal forces unleashed by science and democracy, historical trends the Pope can't undo. The alternative to confrontation is, of course, co-optation, in this context, Vatican II; (let’s keep everyone together, even if decentralized for a while, until a new consensus emerges).

But JP2 and B16 have chosen a return to orthodoxy and confrontation. It didn’t work with Copernicus in the long run. And with Luther, it only made matters worse, as such approaches almost always do. In its zeal to centralize and unify, the Vatican is not about to soon divide the Church; tragically, it has already done so. There are now two Catholic churches in fact, but not yet at a formal level. It seems quite unlikely that this recentralization can be accomplished by an essentially powerless Vatican (Excommunicate me? So what?) managed by ”protégés” of the Pope, particularly since their chief virtue is personal loyalty rather than charisma and erudition, broadly defined.
And, in fact, this reliance upon sycophancy is itself an indicator of the Vatican’s intrinsic weakness and paranoia; a more confident Vatican would be very broadly composed.
We are in king’s new clothes territory now. They are among the few who take themselves seriously. Who will finally tell them and will they ever listen?

Wrong medicine, too little, too late.

In reading John’s column this morning, particularly the parts about the new emphasis on Catholic identity and markers as a response to and defense against the rising secularism (and possible anti-Catholicism in the West), a troubling thought occurred to me.

Allen points out that this is a not untypical response by a minority to pressures placed on it by majorities. He cites such varying examples as the Amish, Orthodox Judaism and Gay Pride.

However, it seems to me that this strategy of emphasizing what sets Catholics apart and retreating into a siege mentality, while understandable and normal for other entities, flies totally in the face of what being a Catholic is all about. Indeed, how can we use the term “catholic” and consciously set ourselves up as a exclusive minority. “Catholic Minority” – how’s that for an oxymoron?

My benighted understanding of the New Testament tells me that the Christ’s whole message is centered about going out into the world and transforming it by our participation in it. Not, as it seems we are heading, by setting ourselves up as paragons of rectitude with an exclusive franchise on Truth and Authority. (THAT sounds more like the Pharisees to me.)

Any military person and most sports coaches will tell you that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of retreating behind Bernini’s walls, our leadership ought to do as Jesus did; go humbly among the people and love by example.

Our hierarchy got us into this state. Continuing past practice would not appear to be an intelligent strategy for changing outcomes.

Fortunately, there are vast numbers of Catholics outside the hierarchy who do this on a daily basis. Those teachers, healers, simple parish priests, sisters and ordinary laypersons are the ones in whom the Church’s credibility rests today and with whom our future lies.

A fine piece as usual, but with an unusual little mistake: the Congregation for evangelization of People used to be called "Propaganda fide", not "fidei". It is short for "de propagando fide", i.e. "for the propagation of faith", but in latin it means litterally "for the faith to be propagated". "Fide" is definitely an ablative, not a genitive.

I appreciate John Allen's analysis of current trends. However as they say a week in politics is a long time it is sensible to remember that the Vatican has ben around for 2000 years and forecasts of it's demise are legion but it is stull here. Benedict will come to England in September as a guest of the British goverment and the current crisis does not deminish his influence. In fact all protest works positively for not against benedict.
The long view is the safest. Harry

I agree with your analysis generally, yet I don't think the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Oregon vs. Holy See case should be included. For one thing, the Catholic Church has never enjoyed much of a privileged status in the U.S. In fact, it was a persecuted minority for a long time. More importantly, though, one can't draw conclusions from the Supreme Court refusing to hear a case, since they refuse to hear cases with merit constantly simply because there are only so many hours in the day. The fact that the Obama administration has sided with the Holy See shows, in fact, that relations between the White House and the Holy See are doing fine. I think that Europe is where the threat lies, and Europe, not the U.S., is also the primary mission field of the New Evangelization. Anyway, good reporting, ut semper.

Still more coverage of the "men clothed in soft garments"!
Oh, there were plenty of such people chronicled by Flavius Josephus in his histories. What happened to them?
The only detail that counts these centuries later was a short paragraph about a Jesus of Nazareth who spent some time in desert places.
Eventually deserts overrun and cover palaces.
It is not news when office seekers go to Rome or when they retire, but it would be news when any of them leaves of their own volition.
If no one feels the tremors then nothing has shaken - yet.

"To be sure, Benedict XVI’s ambition is not merely that the church in the West will be a minority, but a “creative minority,” a term he borrows from Arnold Toynbee. The idea is that when great civilizations enter a crisis, they either decay or are renewed from within by “creative minorities” who offer a compelling vision of the future."

John, that depends what you define as "Church." Church as in baptized Christians, or Roman Catholic Church institution.

As it stands now, the RCC is not a creative minority and it will not be with the types of theological perceptions that Pope Benedict stands for. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict has the mindset of someone from the early part of the last century. There is no way that such a man can lead the Church to be a creative minority, especially with the same views, such as masturbation being a mortal sin, denial of priests to marry, the repression of women, calling women to sacrifice their lives and be slaves to men, and men taught to go to wars, a promulgation of a faith that no longer resembles the teachings of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, those who are baptized and who are following the teachings of Jesus Christ and who believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and that the Church does not need a Pope - have already become the creative minority within the RCC. Benedict prefers to outlaw this creative minority.

"A spectacular series of police raids against the Catholic church in Belgium as part of a sex abuse probe, including drilling into the tombs of deceased archbishops in search of hidden documents, which set off a barbed diplomatic war of words between Brussels and Rome."

John, it is a huge mistake to say that these "raids" are "against the Catholic church." These are the legal means to attain information that the church continues to try to hide. Were it not for the secrecy and the hiding, there would be no "RAIDS." The raids are against sex crimes, READ: CRIMINALS who happen to be "catholics" within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

As long as the hierarchy continues to harbor pedophiles and sex criminals - there will be raids and there should be too, because these are CRIMES against children!!!!

I agree with John's ananlysis that the Vatican has opted for 'minority victim' status--especially in the West. Benedict is opting not to defend the truths of the Faith, but to reassert the invented lies that served the clerical Chuch historically.

Trends in physics, astronomy, biology, anthropology, psychology, and scriptural science are not supporting traditional Catholic theology, history, or world view. Much like with the abuse crisis, rather than meaningfully engaging these Western disciplines, Benedict and Vatican apologists are pretending the problem is not a really an intrinsic problem, it's just a wave on the long sea of Catholic history. Unfortunately these waves indicate there are ice bergs underneath and ignoring them or pretending you can sail around them is not a solution. It's a death sentence.

This entire Vatican agenda John A. outlines seems wrong to me. I don't know if I can articulate why, but it feels like it's off the tracks and lost.

"projecting a robust sense of Catholic identity":

What is this about? A lot more about corporate culture and brand placement than holiness.

"committed to recovering a thick sense of Catholic identity, encoded in traditional markers of Catholic thought, speech and practice -- Mass in Latin, or in vernacular translations closer to Latin; an ecclesiology which emphasizes the unique status of the Catholic church vis-à-vis other Christian denominations and other religions; and in general, a strong sense of Catholic distinctiveness.":

Why isn't Catholic identity being linked to "this is how all will know you for my disciples..."?

"Benedict XVI’s ambition is not merely that the church in the West will be a minority,..."

I don't think the Catholic Church as spunky underdog is going to fly in popular culture. Anyone for Microsoft as underdog?

"...but a creative minority."

However, with the above agenda, the creative people will all be elsewhere. The agenda seems designed to alienate creative people.

Wow, you Catholics sure know how to love each other! Not. What witnesses!

Roman Catholics have realized that they can miss Mass on Sunday and still be alive on Monday. The old strictures of sin and feeling guilty have long since passed away. We no longer fear the rule of the ordained clergy.

The Vatican's concern seems to be in preserving the institution with it's ceremonies and primacy of the hierarchy. But in all the talk I don't hear any concern about living the Gospel or any sense of spirituality. The Pope is not Jesus. It is Jesus I'm committed to follow. I find in the Vatican a sad collection of old men who are fighting to maintain the institution they are comfortable with and have some status in. I pray they will soon wake up and go beyond the superficial trappings they so love.

" --- the Church--all of it, from Vatican princes to lay paupers--must come to grips with what it means to be a follower of Jesus."

Well, for starters, the High & Mighty Vatican Poo-bahs can go down the street and visit the San Egidio Community in their own back yard. They don't even have to cross the Tiber to do so.

" --- the Vatican and its "leadership class" are now jumping on the bandwagon of victimhood."

The Vatican has created enough victims within the church that they can revisit the learn what being a victim really is about! They ain't it!!

Where is the John we knew and loved . . . for his insightful analysis and colorful stage setting? We'll have to forgive the new one as he struggles to becoma a curial apologist.

Rome is burning and the Pope plays his fiddle.

Where are the "good" priests and Bishops to reform the Church? Or, is the fate of the Roman Catholic Church 100% in the hands of laity, the Age of Clericalism is dead? Jesus was never ordained, and he ordained no one. All of Jesus followers were lay persons, fishermen, tax collectors, doctors, etc. Not a priest among them with the exception of St. Paul. Jesus had always walked among us within the laity and no one has recognized him...

For Anonymous above, the most famous example of the Vatican choosing "Realpolitik over the Church's spiritual and doctrinal identity": Eugenio Pacelli, secretary of state to Pope Pius XI and later Pope Pius XII, signing the concordat with Hitler in 1935. No one could have pretended in 1935 -- for that matter, in 1933 when Hitler came to power -- that Nazism, with its ideology promoting racism, "social Darwinism" and war, was compatible with Catholic Christianity. (Pius XI said as much in 1937 ("Mit Brennender Sorge"), but by then it was a little late.) Unlike the Communists, the Nazis were willing to promise to leave the Church and its schools and clergy alone, as long as the Church didn't oppose the regime, and the Church accepted the Nazis' legitimacy. It may have made sense as Realpolitik; it didn't as Christianity.

Dear John, I think, sadly, that you are right. John XXIII felt that the Church had nothing to fear by honestly dialoguing with the modern world, a dialogue by which both would enrich the other. Pope Benedict, nice man as he surely seems to be, however, sees the modern secular world as the enemy to be opposed on issue after issue. He also apparently defines Catholicism by adherence to old forms, bestowing palliums on archbishops, restoring the Latin Mass, maintaining patriarchy, refusing to accept science re homosexual persons, and on and on. Like the pharisees Jesus opposed, many of whom were very honorable and righteous men, Benedict prefers forms and traditions to the living Gospel. John XXIII wanted to re-vitalize and re-spiritualize the Church and Vatican II tried to do so. Benedict has apparently thrown in the towel. It is more than sad. It is tragic.

I'm sorry, but saying the Mass in Latin does not constitute a "thick" sense of Catholic identity.

John Allen is right to say Catholicism no longer calls the cultural tune, but that ended in the mid-19th century when the papacy chose to circle the wagons instead of adjusting to new realities (this is precisely what Benny is doing now with his candlesticks and lace).

The result is that the Church can no longer make itself understood by the wider community, and the best and brightest from the wider world have LONG SINCE ceased being recruited by the Church. The idea that B16 might yet unleash some kind of "creative minority" is just risible.

Culturally and intellectually, the show is over. The Church has wasted the last 30 years allowing Polish razzle-dazzle to convince everybody that some great reconnection and renewal of civilizational relevance was underway. So now we're to feelings of persecution and the collapse of Catholicism as a culture-shaping majority in the West. Which is another way of saying that the Church has come full circle, back to confront all the negative feelings of the early 19th century. "Thick" Catholic identity is really nothing more than a return to the ghetto.