“Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a lover of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”-James 4:4
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life."
-John 3:16
Defenses Dropped:
Christ told his disciples to, “Love your enemies.” But we, as Catholics have a hard time believing that we even have enemies. It is certainly not polite to say so anyways. Something happened to us which has led us to believe that enmity with evil and a hatred of sin is unchristian.
Starting in the late 1960’s our spiritual defenses were lowered considerably because we forgot that the flesh, the world and Satan were still enemies of the City of God. For instance, the index of forbidden books, the oath priest swore against modernism, the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of Mass, the Legion of Decency, and the practice of excommunication were all dropped. Even the new rite of exorcism was watered down and thus left exorcists with fewer spiritual defenses in exorcisms according to Father Gabriel Amorth, Vatican’s own leading exorcist. In hindsight, of course, the late sixties was a time when the Church needed those spiritual defenses the most. Indeed, it was a time when Western Civilization had shaken off much of its Christian heritage and had entered into a whole new secular era. As such, the Catholic Church was left vulnerable and society itself was left with its own resources.
Vatican II’s New Evangelization:
Before we proceed, it first needs to be emphasized from the outset that although the pastors of the Church and Catholics at large were caught off guard by the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960’s, the Holy Spirit was not. In light of the historical development- the rapid changes in culture - we can better appreciate the Second Vatican Council. Through the anticipation of the Holy Spirit, the Council prepared the Church for the dramatic cultural changes to come. As far as the presentation of the Gospel was concerned, the Church would draw more closely to the simplicity of the New Testament and appeal to the man in the street by using the Gospel to interpret the world in which he lives.
For instance, in one of the four major documents of the Second Vatican Council, On the Church in the Modern World, a new kind of evangelization is brought to the fore. In addition to explaining Scripture and Catholic doctrine as they are in their historical context, the Council also called on Catholics to explain the daily happenings of life and current events in the light of the Gospel. The former unpacks the truths of the Gospel by appealing to the depths of Divine Revelation; the latter unpacks the truths of our lives by appealing to the relevance of Christ by using light of the Gospel. For instance, in this same document article 4, it states:
“[T]he Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its explanations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics.”
This passage is the essence of the New Evangelization. It begins, at the very least, to answer the questions that the man on the street is asking. It speaks his language, using words that are familiar to him and making reference to that which is meaningful to him. With this balance of doctrinal purity and modern ways of communicating, the fruits of the Council are beginning to show themselves in the younger generation of priests and Catholic youth. Among this younger generation of Catholics are some of the finest the Church has had in centuries. But as indicated, the Holy Spirit was preparing the Church for something that not even the Fathers of the Second
Vatican Council realized.
Catholic Optimism:On October 11th, 1962, probably one of the most important speeches was given in the modern era, would set the tone for how the Church would relate to the world and carry out her mission for decades to come. Pope John XXIII’s pontificate was noble, his encyclicals were full of wisdom and his personality was attractive. But like St. Peter who erred on his pastoral discipline and was publicly opposed by St. Paul because it (cf. Galatians 2:11), the best of popes can make pastoral miscalculations. John XXIII had every reason to be optimistic about the ongoing growth of Catholicism in the world. After all, the Catholic Church in America had doubled in size between 1940 and 1960, Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Life is Worth Living was a Emmy Award Winning television in the 1950’s and the first Catholic, John F. Kennedy, was elected president of the United States of America. If America was an index of the Church’s success, her future looked promising. But here, in his opening speech at the Second Vatican Council, he initiates a certain trend of thought in the Church based on an optimism that would prove to be ill-adapted for the challenges ahead:
“Present indications are that the human family is on the threshold of a new era…[The Church] believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations. Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity…More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them…We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.”
Catholic Disillusionment:
About 10 days after these words of hope and optimism, the Cuban crisis broke out. The world was in suspense over a possible nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Cold War was on the brink of being realized. Moreover, on a cultural level, the following year it became clear that the pill and contraception were gaining popularity, thus preparing the way for Sexual Revolution in the late sixties. And of course, with the outbreak of sexual promiscuity, abortion was on the cusp of being legalized. Indeed, the world had changed! But so did the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger, in 1970 Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, asserted that the fallout of the Sexual Revolution was nothing that we have seen before. And in response to the precipitous decline in priestly and religious vocations he said that “the city of man is beginning to strike terror in our heart…the Church is becoming extinguished in men’s souls and Christian communities are crumbling.” Sister Lucia, one of three seers at Fatima, wrote a letter to her nephew in 1971, less than ten years after Pope John XXIII’s speech. She warned her nephew about a new era that was being ushered in. In the letter she wrote, “It is indeed sad that so many are allowing themselves to be dominated by the diabolical wave that is enveloping the world, and they are so blind that they cannot see their error.” The words of Joseph Ratzinger and Sister Lucia were words of alarm, to be sure. Such alarm was not unfounded. After all, the Culture of Death, so prominent in the Germany’s concentration camps and Russia’s gulags just a few decades before, had reared its ugly head with new force.
Notice the contrast between the optimism of Pope John XXIII in his opening speech at the Second Vatican Council and the words of alarm by Joseph Ratzinger and Sister Lucia not even a decade later. The contrast is significant.
Three Parts to the Speech:
As noted above, however, Pope John XXIII and Vatican II did inspire positive change; a much needed change of the way we go about presenting the Gospel. Keep in mind that with any transition of change in a new and favorable direction, there are trials and errors as well as an ongoing need of revision and correction. Previous popes and Councils faced these challenges as well. But with the tone of great optimism and the promotion of a positive approach by Pope John XXIII came with it unintended consequences. The impact on attitudes and pastoral practices within the Church was considerable. There are three parts to the speech that became particularly influential on Catholic attitudes:
1. Optimism of a new Christian age: Pope John XXIII said the human family was on the threshold of a new era. In his speech, he gave the impression that mankind had come of age; that it matured and recognized evil for what it was. He said that “error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord.” But as we saw, Western Civilization was far from entering into a golden era of sanctity.
2. Evil and Godlessness Self-evident: John XXIII also said, “[E]xperience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.” As we saw, the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of using nuclear weapons just ten days after his speech. Needless to say, the 1960’s was also a decade of war and violence.
3. Explaining vs. Condemning: “The Church] believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.” The positive approach is an understandable one. After all, one of my favorite mentors of the Faith, Fulton Sheen, demonstrated just how effective a positive approach can be with respect to winning souls to Christ. Nevertheless, when Pope John XIII suggested that explaining the Church’s doctrines “rather than” publishing condemnations was the way to go, such a suggestion gave a widespread impression that explaining truth and condemning error was an “either-or” approach and not a “both-and” approach. With such an optimistic view of the future, it seemed as though- not just to the pope but to many Catholics –that explaining truth was to be preferred over condemning error. Perhaps, this why the index of forbidden books, the oath priest swore against modernism, the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of Mass, the Legion of Decency, and the practice of excommunication was dropped altogether. I doubt this was what Pope John XXIII had in mind. Nevertheless, the unintended consequence is what it is.
Optimism and Emnity:
Optimism in the early 1960’s was met with disillusionment in the same decade. Not a few Catholics, it seemed, had forgotten that the Church was at enmity with the world. As St. James said, “Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a lover of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4) The Church’s vocation as a “sign of contradiction” (cf. Luke 2:34) to the spirit of the world and its way, had faded into the background. Yet, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to go out and meet the world- not just with a defensive posture –but with a positive approach affirming all that his good in the world and using that which is good in the world for the glory of God. After all, Our Lord told Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Yes, there is a distinction to be made with the spirit of the world (bad) and the souls that need saving in the world (good). This reconciliation of opposites, this attitude reorientation (i.e. the optimistic, affirmative and positive approach to the world) which took place in the 1960’s and the decades to follow, was accompanied with a forgetfulness and omission of that pastoral tradition the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Saints had exercised without the slightest reservation or doubt.
What might that pastoral tradition be? What is it that we left behind? I said it before and it bears repeating:
Number one: We forgot how to hate. We forgot that with love of God, love of neighbor and love of holiness, there must be a robust and unrelenting hatred for that which undermines God, neighbor and holiness itself. Every parent instinctively exercises this hatred towards that which undermines the well-being of their children. Parents hate it when their children run across the street without looking both ways, they hate it when their children fail to meet their obligations at school and they hate it when a teenage son or daughter experiments with drugs. Such hatred is born out love. But Christians have forgotten how to hate. They forgotten how to hate sin, vice, desires of the flesh, the spirit of the world, Satan and all that undermines their salvation and the salvation of others. And in the absence of hatred we have become naïve about our enemies. Nay, we don’t even believe we have them anymore. But the Word of God tells us otherwise.
Number two: When we speak truth and condemn evil, a price needs to be paid and we must pay it willing! Not only willingly but with joy! This is precisely what Our Lord said during his Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12) This means we might have to endure opposition and even hatred. This means we may have friends turn away from us. This means we might have to eat lunch alone and be ostracized by those who are closest to us. Indeed, the greatest participation in Christ’s Passion is to be rejected by our own. Out of the Fourteen Stations of the Cross, the first one- when Jesus was rejected by his own people and condemned -had to be the most painful of all! Even more than the nails splitting open his wrists and feet.
Number three: We have forgotten the need to repress and cast out evil. Fulton Sheen once said that if Church does not interfere with secularism, secularism will interfere with it. There is no preservation of good without a vigilant repression or repulsion of evil. Furthermore, there is no neutrality with respect to Christ. Either He is affirmed and saluted publicly or He will be cast out! Either every Catholic is to believe all that Jesus Christ taught and to live as He did or error and sin will gain currency in our parishes, apostolates and dioceses. Either secular-liberalism loses or Catholicism loses. This equally applies to any other ideology and religion. The Catholic Church knew this to be the case in the first several centuries of her existence. Study the writings of the New Testament, the Church Fathers and the Saints! It is there for all to read.
With that said, in our efforts to dialogue with the world we need to bring Christ and conversion to the table. Pope Benedict XVI said as much when he visited America in 2008. As hard as it is, we cannot leave behind whatever might be offensive to others. And the most offensive thing happens to be the Cross and all that it contradicts in our lives. Christ and Him Crucified condemns, contradicts and opposes that which undermines our own good and our own salvation. It prunes us down to size. And in doing so, it offends and causes us pain. Yet, this is the very thing that liberates, saves and allows for growth. As the Benedictine motto goes: "Pruned, and it grows again."
So yes, we are called to light a candle in the darkness but we are also called to curse the darkness too. Why? The most important reason is that Our Lord did it! He cursed the darkness. He condemned evil. So must we. So must we!
_________________________________________________________________
Notes:
1. Critics of the Second Vatican Council (1962-62) will often cite the decline of Mass attendance, the decline priestly and religious vocations and the diminished percentage of children the Catholic Church is now educating (as compared to the 1940's and 1950's) as evidence that the Council lacked the sanction of God. However, if these critics were to be consistent, they would also find the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) to be problematic or illegitimate as well. During the year that it came to a conclusion in 1517, the Reformation broke out and the Catholic Church lost thousands, if not millions, of Catholics to Protestantism.
From there the Enlightenment era was ushered in only to be followed by a widespread skepticism of all things religious. Yet, these critics of Vatican II will most certainly be reluctant to dismiss the Fifth Lateran Council as inauthentic. They would further deny that this particular Council was the cause of the turmoil that was to follow. Well, the same standard must be applied to the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Spirit, through this great Council, inspired a much needed renewal. Nevertheless, to complicate matters, the world had changed with the Sexual Revolution just as the Second Vatican Council came to a close in 1965.
