Trendier than thou
For a magazine like the Economist, representing in theory & often in practice the classical liberal worldview (“classical” refers to the economists, starting from Adam … Smith), religion exists in a free market like everything else. This is not an animadversion. We have read leaders in the magazine over more than three decades that make this point explicitly; & which benignly argue that the world needs more religion. Therefore, let the product be supplied, & may the best salesman win. The Anglican communion from which we escaped could once be commended for developing their product range, with Low, Broad, & High Church branding to target the market niches. The Romans appeared to be following their strategy in the 1960s, & were duly complimented at the time. Pentecostalism has received some downright sympathetic coverage in recent decades, & the “newspaper” (the Economist has never admitted to being a magazine) was probably more polite to successful Evangelicals & Fundamentalists than any of the American liberal media.
Gentle reader may at first be surprised to see this unusual mainstream item, in which Catholic traditionalists & traditionalism are treated almost reverently. But this accords with the Economist‘s own principles: for as they note, the old Latin Mass is enjoying a surge; while the “new improved” Novus Ordo continues to lose market share. Father John Zuhlsdorf is even quoted comparing the latter to “a school assembly.” London’s Brompton Oratory is described as a “hotspot” & young Traddies are the new avant-garde.
Well, golly; they have numbers & everything. A few tiny points their fact-checkers missed, but in the main their report coincides with our own understanding, & that’s all we ask. They even use the F-word (“fogey”) to deal directly with the liberal conceit that the Tridentine Mass rides on nostalgia. They mention Juventutem, & do the math to calculate there are few people left on the planet who could even remember the old ways. True, one of them sits on the Throne of Saint Peter, but he’s the very man in a position to utter, “Le Vatican II, c’est moi.”
This item, on “Vatican II at 50,” by Robert Royal in the Claremont Review, is the most balanced & reasonable short account we have read of the fallout through the last half century. We are getting to a distance when this can be done; when the generation that lived through the spiritual carnage — both carnagers & carnagees — is no longer with us. We would anyway expect the return to “normal” to accelerate over the next half-century, for the fuel that powered the revolution is spent. But then, in the view over twenty centuries, “normal” for the Catholic Church can be quite exciting. She will need to recover her unity of spirit & intention in face of the persecutions that are coming, almost inevitably. They, in turn, will burn away anything that remains of our glib post-modernism.
It takes a while, but nature seems to abhor the vacuous.
The damage to the Church wrought by Vatican II will not fade off for centuries, if ever. It was all quite simple really. Despite the bafflegab disclaimers, what Vatican II taught was that one religion is as good as another if one is sincere, and the sacred Catholic Latin Mass of all time must be radically bowdlerized (i.e. destroyed) so that Protestants will feel comfortable and at home if they happen to wander into a Catholic church.
Since the sixties, the Catholic base has been lost and will not likely return. Many simple, ordinary Catholics when presented with the old Catholic Rite, prefer the Novus Ordo.
What I fear is that traditionalists will attract elitist snobs of the tweed suit variety. That is the last thing traditional Catholics need to add to their already heavy burden.
Disagree with every word of ViDo’s 7:28 am post. He shouldn’t be so negative so early in the morning. Have a coffee, smoke a cigarette, read the WSJ’s Friday movie reviews, before dropping such a negative bomb on me. This morning one of my children irrupted into my own coffee-smoke-newspaper zone to tell me that St. John of the Cross (Feast day today) was put in jail by the other Carmelites for wanting them to not wear shoes. Let’s get some perspective here, people. You simply can’t say things like the Church will never recover from something. It’s uncritical.
Je suis d’accord avec mattmug, sympathetic as I am with the Viscount’s instinct. Cardinal Ouellet homilied recently, “In face of the immense needs of the New Evangelization, our possibilities are poor, but our faith is great.” If the Economist can, even for one article, depart in some measure from its characteristic, puerile channeling of Hume, many things must be possible. I recall one of their reviews a few years back about a book on Jesus, whom the reviewer concluded must have enjoyed sex, as “after all, he was a man wasn’t he?” [approximate quote] Hope someday to see the Economist editors at the 8:00am daily Tridentine Mass at Brompton Oratory.
I just don’t buy the argument that somehow there has been any development (or psychotic break) in the consciousness of the faithful. We are as we ever were, only more so. To think otherwise is to be a really sad liberal, admitting that change is possible, when we all know that it is not only undesirable, but also impossible. It’s Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary theory on the remorseless advance of human consciousness, only in reverse. You don’t even get to kid yourself into thinking that we’re improving.
Will none of my Commentariat defend tweed jackets? We are wearing at this moment a superb genuine Harris Tweed, of which we are inordinately proud. (It was $7.99 at a former Goodwill, halved twice to 2$ for their closing-out sale!)
And let us add that we have long owned the title, “Elitist Snob.”
We like our sherry dry, incidentally. (And our business magazines smart-assed.)
M2: I assume you’re saying that human nature is constant, including the possibility of individual/personal conversion, which is the only change that really counts — correct?
I stand by everything I said about Vatican II, but I do humbly apologize for what I suggested above regarding tweed jackets. One of my favorite English professors wore a tweed all the days of his long life, with leather patches on the elbows. He also smoked a pipe. A fine and very learned egghead.
I was trying to say something nasty about real snobs, not people who refuse to eat canned spaghetti and who wouldn’t be caught dead reading books on the best seller lists.
Now that the Viscount has clarified his view, I can admit that I’ve been wearing a tweed jacket all day. Got it at a Brooks Brothers discount outlet in 1998 on the Left Coast, just before hard duty on the Left Bank.
Perhaps Otio, Viscount, and others can answer a question: what is the difference between a snob and a prig?
Noooo, Mr Belly, you wouldn’t want to be a Prig. That’s, well … (if the ladies would cover their delicate ears for a moment) … that’s a Snob who has gone very bad & developed Puritanical tendencies!
Since God is no longer believed in, prigs are not moral supervisors with their noses in the air, but immoral supervisors with their noses in the air. Sodomy and/or killing unborns in the womb are considered virtuous to the modern prig.
Snobs are just idiots who cling with their little claws to social fashion and money.
When one contrasts St. Peter’s tanned fisherman’s head, with one bearing a papal tiara, one dies a number of large unnoticed deaths on the inside –rather like when seeing photos of priests in or of Rome swishing by in pleated, lacy fineries (or composing wish lists online –do they not realize they will one day have to have a conversation with Bl. Damien??). Needless to say, tweed clerics might be a mercy. Also needless to say, this Council is current and of divine origin, and it’s likely the unforgivable sin to attribute it to anyone but the Holy Spirit.