The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Benedict's Bet Print E-mail
By Robert Royal   
Tuesday, 27 January 2009

A few years ago, I was strolling the Boulevard Saint-Germain with an old friend who lives in Paris. We passed a nice church.

Him: “You know what that is, don’t you?

Me: “No.”

“The Lefebvrite church.”

“What are they up to now?”

“They’re in a big fight over who controls the property.”

We both shrugged. What you can expect from schismatics? They can’t even agree with one another once they step outside the Church. We went off to dinner and I didn’t give the Lefebvrites another thought until Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on them this week.

He got a lot of attention, even in the secular press, for several unfortunate reasons. If you don’t follow the arcana of Church politics, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is a breakaway priestly group founded by now deceased French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. SSPX professes to be non-schismatic and faithful to the Tradition of the Church – the one that existed before the Second Vatican Council and Paul VI abandoned it. Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in 1988 and was automatically excommunicated, but should not have been, SSPX claims, because of technical matters in canon law, among them that Lefebvre only acted out of necessity – the need for bishops who could continue to ordain priests to perform the only valid form of liturgy, the old Tridentine Mass. For Catholics who accepts the authority of all councils and popes, i.e., for Catholics who are Catholic, SSPX goes up to the border of schism – and beyond.

Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication got widespread attention for two reasons, both partly the result of the very poor press skills the Vatican habitually shows on such occasions. One SSPX bishop, Richard Williamson, is a barking mad Holocaust denier. In a Church of a billion members, odd fellows do crop up. I’ve met several otherwise sane-looking European Catholics, for instance, who think the U.S. government carried out the 9/11 attacks. The Vatican could have spoken, however, with Jewish leaders with whom it is in constant contact and made clear that this pope – who has a long record of good relations with the Jewish people – was dealing with a matter of Church disciplines, not endorsing one man’s delusions.

But the Vatican flubbed the Church discipline question with the press, too. By not spelling out what the lifting of the excommunication did and did not do (it started a tentative dialogue with SSPX), it gave the impression, as The New York Times typically put it, that the pope was “reaching out to the far-right” as part of an overall reactionary strategy. This pope is not so simple-minded as his critics. And political categories of left and right do not really describe the lay of the land in the Church. They become the inevitable default categories, though, when the Vatican does not recognize the degree of explanation it must provide to prevent the grossest misunderstandings by the average modern secularist.

Benedict is nobody’s fool. That much is certain. But he seems to be taking a serious risk. For years, he’s pointed out the haplessness of the Catholic liturgy today, and the wrongness of seeing the work of the Council as a discontinuity with what was valid before in both liturgy and belief. Ratzinger was part of the liturgical reform movement prior to Vatican II. Like Romano Guardini and other orthodox Catholics who expected a more heartfelt liturgy, he soon realized that what we got instead is superficiality and worse. As pope, he has allowed wider use of the Tridentine Mass, but as one element in what he hopes will become a much broader liturgical renewal. It may be that he’s thinking that to bring the one million or so Traditionalists back into full communion, he has to take some bad along with the good, at least to get things started. But we’ll only know what game is afoot as the process goes forward.

There is an asymmetry between the way that the pope has dealt with SSPX and with Church progressives, but it is not merely political bias as some, like the reliably nettlesome Hans Kung, have claimed yet again. Whatever else can be said about SSPX and schism – and I personally think there’s a lot – the Society believes much of what the Church has believed over long stretches of her existence. By contrast, so-called progressives often not only deny the Church’s authority, using Vatican II as cover. The most prominent among them routinely deny or redefine the most basic tenets of the ancient creeds.

SSPX seems very unlikely to swallow the things it would need to in order to become truly Catholic again. Even before we come to big questions like the authority of Vatican II, religious liberty, and the problem of anti-Semitism, there’s the little matter of accepting that newer liturgies are valid, something SSPX has spelled out in great detail that it does not believe to be the case. The website rigorously explains why – with more than a whiff of mania. In a Church that currently permits liturgies as different as the Anglican Use and Byzantine Rite, as well as vernacular and Novus Ordo Latin Masses (a particular bugbear for SSPX), SSPX’s insistence on the Tridentine Mass seems to be an immediate conversation stopper.

But Benedict believes, as his own elegant writing on the liturgy makes clear, that the liturgy is the center of the life of the Church, and therefore the center of the human race. All our hopes rest with that presence of God among us. He may be betting on a longshot, but perhaps a little daring is in order at the moment to get us to places many of us don’t really believe we can go.


Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His latest book is The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West.

(c) 2009 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (4)Add Comment
0
...
written by William H. Phelan, January 27, 2009
Would you rather belong to a Church to which the Kennedys, Pelosi, Biden, Cuomo, Dodd, Daschle, Giuliani, Kerry et al serve as pro abortion politicians in a country which has killed 50 million children, or would you rather belong to a Church which taught for two thousand years that abortion was murder? Benedict has reached out to the Traditionalists because he knows he is the Pope of Nothing without them.
0
...
written by Tom Nash, January 27, 2009
Some good insights. One thing. While not fans of the “Novus Ordo,” the SSPX consensus is not that the newrite is necessarily invalid but it rather can be, depending on the priest celebrant: “In conclusion, can one be certain that the New Mass is not sometimes invalid through the lack of a correct intention? I think not.”

The Pope would not have lifted the excommunication if the SSPX held that the newer rite is necessarily invalid.
0
Mr.
written by Z. Foreman, January 27, 2009
The asymmetry that you observe is not on the part of Benedict but of the objective differences between the "progressives" and the SSPX, who like the Orthodox, are not heretical nor apostate, but in schism, which means that they do not recognize the authority of the Church in certain matters. In contrast, many progressives are material heretics, flouting the explicit doctrines of the church and perhaps even apostates. SSPX were excommunicated, the "progressives" were not. That's the asymmetry.
0
...
written by William H. Phelan, January 27, 2009
To Z. Foreman-please let us be clear-the Society was excommunicated because they consecrated bishops without Vatican approval. That penalty is in the Code of Canon Law. They follow the teachings of the Church explicitly. A better example is the Fraternity of St. Peter WHICH BELIEVES THE SAME THINGS, but it was created by Ecclesia Dei in 1988. The four bishops have NOT changed their positions!!! The Vatican is tacitly admitting they were correct all along. The consecrations were the problem

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner