#470: A Glorious Tradition but a Flawed Vessel

  [After a lengthy book-writing hiatus, I’m returning to my reflections amid turbulent events.]

After 46 years in church work I may be facing involuntary retirement. This impels me to view both current events and my own career path in a new light. 

I was recently dismissed from a parish position because--while no doubt “passionate,” and without question “competent,” and certainly “everybody likes you”--I impressed some parishioners as “someone from another era.” Of course, as someone pushing 70 working with RCIA candidates in their 20s and 30s, and with volunteers who are either students or parents of school age kids, I am from another era because I’m from another generation.  And for some, this was a problem. 

Part of that problem, I was told, was that I “hinged” my formation work on Vatican Council II (1962-1965): its history, its program, especially its impact over the last 50 plus years.

I find myself reacting on two levels: my personal situation and the wider situation of the institutional church.

My dismissal came after individuals complained to the pastor about my approach.  They never spoke to me about their concerns, nor did he suggest they talk directly with me to see if I could adjust my approach to their satisfaction. Nor did the pastor himself raise their concerns with me.  Instead I was simply blindsided with dismissal as a fait acompli.

Sadly, in hindsight I am not surprised.  This is how the organization called Catholic Church functions all too often.  Instead of raising the bar and operating by a higher standard than secular organizations--more honest, more transparent, more professional--parishes often operate as little fiefdoms where whim can dictate policy and where a focus on piety trumps real life ethics.

When I noted that troubled parishioners never brought their concerns to me, I was told “People are often that way.” When I suggested that pastors often neglect their moral responsibility as employers, I was told “care for souls is always the pastor's first obligation.” This made me wonder: how does enabling the immature, even dishonest behavior of others--by doing their back door bidding--care for their souls?  How is this promoting virtue within them?

Instead, the outcome suggests that, as a traditional Catholic with progressive leanings working in a self-professed “conservative” parish, I ran afoul of folks who, at best, were too fragile in their convictions to tolerate the gap between their views and mine--and at worst think my views are a “bad fit” for a Catholic parish. 

I confess this fits a pattern I’ve observed over the course of my career: when progressive and conservative Catholics interact, it is generally the conservatives who tend to regard the others as unfit for Catholic life.  I’ve never quite figured out why both sides cannot establish this common ground: the Catholic Church is big enough for both of us.

The chief irony of this experience is that a key part of my role--conducting the parish’s RCIA program--aimed at welcoming new members into this institution.  Their final evaluations indicate they found my overview of Catholic tradition enlightening, helpful, and motivating.  For many, my efforts convinced them they were making the right choice.  For me, there is no contradiction between saying (1) they are embracing a rich, marvelous, and holy tradition by (2) becoming members of a flawed vessel, an organization that often fails its members.  The institutional church often fails to walk its own talk--as new revelations of priestly sex abuse horrors attest--and these new members will need to make their peace with that, as I have.

The RCIA itself, of course, is one of those hundreds of aspects of Catholic life that would not exist today except for the historic event we call Vatican II.  To me, it’s both puzzling and problematic that anyone has trouble with the idea of making Vatican II’s impact a “hinge” for introducing people to 21^st century Catholicism.  And this raises the wider issue of the Church’s current situation.

We know that millions of baptized Catholics are dropping away from active participation in the Church.  The numbers have reached crisis proportions, especially among English speaking Catholics.  Only the arrival of Latino, Brazilian, and Asian Catholics (and their high birthrates) keep the U.S. Catholic population from shrinking.

The current trend to counter this is to emphasize parishes as missionary communities of discipleship and evangelization. 

I think this stress on mission, evangelization, and discipleship is wonderful--I have been working on just those things since I was 23 years old.  I still recall one volunteer leader who wished me farewell when I left my first parish job in 1973: “God bless, Bernie.  I wish you lots of converts!  Conversion to a more intentional, active faith has been at the heart of all my work from the start, and especially since 2002. My RCIA work is but the latest example.

But these goals should not mistake detours for the right path. One popular text on parish evangelizing, for example, warns that in ten years the current trends of declining membership “will make the post-Vatican II era look good.” And a priest remarked to me “The church is at a very different place now than it was in the 1960's through the 90's, for good, I trust.” These comments reveal an outlook that is both misleading and even dangerous.

Who says the post-Vatican II era was not good?  I was a child before Vatican II, a high school student during Vatican II. I’ve lived my entire adult Catholic life in the wake of the Council.  My own judgment is that, warts and all, the period following Vatican II has been a providential blessing for both the Church and the world.  Others are free to judge otherwise--but tossing off that judgment as a casual assumption of fact betrays a blind prejudice that implies that those who liked the “post-Vatican II era” are a “bad fit” for today’s Church because they represent “another era”!

And: Who says the post-Vatican II era is over?  There’s a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. 

First, the debate about the nature, purpose, and impact of Vatican II still continues among scholars, bishops, and even rank and file.  Indeed, after 50+ years there is no consensus interpretation of the Council on any of those levels.

Second, ecumenical councils are rare-- only 21 in 21 centuries--and the major ones have long-lasting impact.  Catholic still recite the creed produced by the fourth century Council of Nicaea, and for 400 years they celebrated Mass as it was reshaped by the 16^th century Council of Trent.  My own reading of Vatican II – and I am not alone–is that this Council’s work could not possibly be completed in a single lifetime, or even two.  The “vast undertaking” of implementing it, which John XXIII predicted in 1963, continues to be a work in progress.  Does anyone really think, for example, that congregational participation at mass –say, the singing--has reached a level the Council intended? 

Third, don’t take my word for it. Pope Francis himself has declared the Council’s work unfinished:

Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.

The post-Vatican II era is only “over” if we abandon its work.

I’m also troubled if people assume that a focus on mission, evangelization, and discipleship has emerged after the post-Vatican II era ended--as if this is a new development.  In fact, to paraphrase GK Chesterton, it’s not that those things were not tried before, but rather that they were tried and found hard --and then often dropped.  And that dropping is precisely part of the unfinished business of the Council. So pretending that evangelization is not a product of Vatican II is just denying history.

After all, it was Vatican II that made a “universal call to holiness,” and called all Catholics “a priestly people.” It was Vatican II that said all baptized members, by virtue of their baptism, are “called and gifted” to carry the church’s mission and “make all men [sic] disciples.”

I first heard a Jesuit priest preach about sharing my “personal relationship with Jesus” in 1965!

It was the Vatican’s 1971 General Catechetical Directory that called adult formation “the primary form of religious education.”

And it was the Council’s second pope, Paul VI, who published Evangelii nuntiandi in 1975 to urge Catholics to evangelize at all levels.  (My own archdiocese of Boston, for example, undertook a “Two-year Cycle of Pastoral Planning for Evangelization” as early as 1977.)

It was the next four popes, following Vatican II’s lead, who urged those efforts to continue.  These ideas are not recent appearances in the Church. They were there all along, waiting to be retrieved.

The danger of such “another era” talk lies in distorting the work of Vatican II--either by pretending it is all done, or that its effects were not good, or both.  The “new” stress on mission, discipleship, and evangelism comes to be treated either as disconnected from the last 50 years or somehow connected to the period before that--the period up until 1960, when “cultural Catholics” who clung to a rules-centered Catholicism filled the churches and swelled the sacramental numbers.  Thus the emphasis on “the new evangelization” can succumb to an a-historical nostalgia for a golden age that never existed.

Yes, I’m a boomer--and my generation’s performance as “Vatican II kids” often fell short. The previous generation of church leaders did not guide us much, since no one really prepared them to be Vatican II’s “change agents.” Thus the heroic vision of John XXIII and the piloting genius of Paul VI sometimes failed to take root on the parish level, leaving unfinished work. 

But if we believe (as I do) that the Spirit of Jesus guides councils, we cannot simply pretend that the Council’s program is not worth our continued efforts.  We cannot simply “move on” to something “new” and shiny or “go back” to something ancient and venerable.  We must embrace our tradition and acknowledge that the last five popes dedicated their papacies to a historic renewal still vital in the face of current challenges.

Remember how Pope Francis himself dedicated himself to making Vatican II a “hinge” of his own papacy. His final comment is good advice for us all:

But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.

We must be humble too.

We must be ambitious too.

We must also “want to do something”

After all, if our goal is to evangelize, that means not only sharing our faith with others, but inviting them to join an institution that is worth belonging to.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2018