OK, Boomer: It's time to move on from Vatican II
Why does it matter whether Vatican II succeeded or failed or hasn't been implemented yet? All of the ink spilt over the Council only proves that Catholics are prisoners of Vatican II.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/464/mcs/media/images/70846000/jpg/_70846942_boomer.jpg)
crisismagazine.com/opinion/ok-boomer-its-time-to-move-on-from-vatican-ii
February 2, 2023 | Adam Lucas
Ross Douthat recently wrote a series of opinion pieces called "How Catholics became prisoners of Vatican II" (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/opinion/catholic-church-second-vatican-council.html) and "How Vatican II Failed Catholics." (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/opinion/vatican-ii-catholics.html)
In the weeks and months since, the festering wound of Vatican II's interpretation has been reopened in the Catholic blogosphere. America magazine published a response, "Vatican II didn't fail. It's just getting started (https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/10/14/vatican-ii-ross-douthat-anniversary-243969)." National Catholic Register (the good one) called Douthat's article a "materialist understanding (https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/responding-to-ross-douthat-s-easy-catholicism)" of the Council. Bishop Barron released a podcast dubbed "Was Vatican II a failure? (https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/wordonfire-show/episode369/)" (Spoiler alert: he says no). John Cavadini, Mary Healy, and Thomas Weinandy published, in Church Life Journal, a lengthy summary (https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-synoptic-look-at-the-failures-and-successes-of-post-vatican-ii-liturgical-reforms/) of Vatican II's victories and defeats.
And on, and on.
But why does it matter whether Vatican II failed? All of the ink spilt over the Council only proves Douthat's original point—that Catholics are prisoners of Vatican II.
We wonder about the vocation crisis, the abuse crisis, and the financial crisis. We observe dwindling numbers. "Where are all the Young People™?" we cry. And everyone either blames the Council, blames those who blame the Council, or blames those who blame those who blame the Council. Douthat argues this is due to three factors: 1) the Council was necessary, but 2) the Council was a failure, and 3) the Council cannot be undone.
But we really don't need number 2. Vatican II's success or failure is actually irrelevant.
The debate over whether Vatican II was a failure is endemic because of a strong personal attachment to the Council and what it "means" for the undying "boomers" who run our aged Church. But the Young People™ know better. The Council may have been a failure, or maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was exactly what the modern world of the '60s and '70s needed in the Church. But then the modern world changed, and it changed fast. Sure, the Council tried to adapt the Church to the modern world.
Can we bracket the question of whether it succeeded to at least acknowledge that it failed to adapt the Church to the post-modern world?
Yes, the current generation even more than most argues about the Latin Mass and that stuff, but they are not arguing about that Latin Mass—the Latin Mass pre-Vatican II. At least, not really. They are arguing about their Latin Mass—the one they celebrate today in their communities, whose members are probably all under 40.
Except for the rare dweebs who care deeply about historical theology or who love to spend their Sundays LARPing the 1950s (I am both) the contemporary debates about liturgy, theology, and politics that often appear to baby boomers to be about Vatican II are not actually about Vatican II. Traditionis Custodes was made and praised in terms of what it means for Vatican II. But (again, dweebs excepting) the opposition to it is really only about preserving the here-and-now communities "traditionalists" have come to love. The historical debates are just intellectual trimmings to justify them.
Now, I have no personal love for the Latin Mass. My attention span has been too destroyed by social media to even stay awake. But its (mild) popularity with young people is just because it's an alternative to what clearly doesn't work for their post-modern lives.
Baby-boomer attitudes to modern traditionalist practices are shaped by their experiences of these things back when they were the mainstream. Ironically, the same approach predominates young people's attitudes toward the Novus Ordo. And yet, the debates are perpetuated in a mistaken 1960s context as if young trads are of the same mindset as Cardinal Ottaviani.
But us Young People™ inhabit a different world. We have no memories of unhappy, cassock-clad priests yelling at us in Confession. In fact, we have no memories of priests at all. Debates about Vatican II's interpretation are as interesting to us as debates about what house to retire in. We probably won't get a house anyway, and we definitely won't retire.
A freshness is needed. Vatican II was consciously trying to engage with the modern world of the 1960s. But the world today is as different from 1962 as 1962 was from 1868. The collapse of the Soviet-American Cold War; same-sex marriage and gender ideology; digital revolutions and technology; contraception and abortion; divorce and the breakdown of third spaces; demographic collapse and vast immigration.
"Vatican II will save us!" sounds a lot to me like "LBJ will save us!" LBJ is dead. Who cares if he "failed" or "succeeded" in 1963 terms? He obviously isn't doing too much in 2023 terms.
So, who cares if a vernacular Mass was a good or bad idea in 1963? The Young People™ care more if it's a good or bad idea now. The world of the 1960s is gone, and with it any real relevance of Vatican II. Continuing the arguments just traps us in a self-referential fight over a prize that no longer exists.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not just blithely saying "can't we all just get along?" Questions of self-identity, liturgy, and the like are important and remain unsettled since Vatican II. But it is time to unhinge those questions from Vatican II and its battles of interpretation.
Maybe an approach more similar to the pre-Vatican II approach than the Vatican II approach is a better answer in today's world. Then again, maybe not. But no answer will be reached until the questions are asked in the correct modern context. As Douthat says, the Council cannot be undone. But maybe it's time to ignore it. After all, aggiornamento demands it.
Adam Lucas is newly married with a baby on the way. He has a Master's in Theology and writes from Pittsburgh.
QuoteMaybe an approach more similar to the pre-Vatican II approach than the Vatican II approach is a better answer in today's world. Then again, maybe not. But no answer will be reached until the questions are asked in the correct modern context. As Douthat says, the Council cannot be undone. But maybe it's time to ignore it. After all, aggiornamento demands it.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f55a1106b1f4a546fe3c14834cee00979173fa32/c=0-201-1748-1188/local/-/media/2018/04/30/USATODAY/USATODAY/636606854698687948-photo-4.jpg?width=600)
It's time to get off the "Boomer Express."
The debate about Vatican II is important, because the Council attempted to change the Catholic faith; those who accept the Council, lose their faith, those who reject the Council, keep their faith. The changes that were implemented in the Church in doctrine, discipline, and morals etc., all have their source and inspiration in the Council. For the Popes of the Council including Francis, the Council is the "Magna Carta" of the Conciliar Church. Its acceptance or rejection defines one's membership in said Church; the recent and eventual suppression of the TLM, has as its motivation, the saving of this Conciliar religion; so no, one cannot "move on from Vatican II" without leaving the false Church that was born at Vatican II.
Hey, stop blaming the Boomers!
The Modernists were already in "the very bosom of the Church seeking Her destruction" by 1907, when Pope Pius X published his famous Encyclical, long before the Boomers were around.
I can't believe I'm writing in defense of dirty hippy boomers. They had ZERO to do with Vee Poo. That would be The "Greatest" Generation.
You can fault the boomers (as a generation) for not supporting the Trad movement, but they were too young to be involved with Vee Poo.
I also have to lodge a complaint of this author copying my rhetorical device of the "TM" without proper attribution.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 09:24:42 AMThe debate about Vatican II is important, because the Council attempted to change the Catholic faith; those who accept the Council, lose their faith, those who reject the Council, keep their faith. The changes that were implemented in the Church in doctrine, discipline, and morals etc., all have their source and inspiration in the Council. For the Popes of the Council including Francis, the Council is the "Magna Carta" of the Conciliar Church. Its acceptance or rejection defines one's membership in said Church; the recent and eventual suppression of the TLM, has as its motivation, the saving of this Conciliar religion; so no, one cannot "move on from Vatican II" without leaving the false Church that was born at Vatican II.
Its more like the Tennis Court Oath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Court_Oath) but yes, I agree.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 09:24:42 AMso no, one cannot "move on from Vatican II" without leaving the false Church that was born at Vatican II.
SSPX is not comfortable with the "Conciliar" or "false" Church, but has it really left it completely? SSPX recognizes Pope Francis as Pope and celebrates Mass una cum Pope Francis.
Quote from: james03 on February 03, 2023, 11:23:44 AMI can't believe I'm writing in defense of dirty hippy boomers. They had ZERO to do with Vee Poo. That would be The "Greatest" Generation.
You can fault the boomers (as a generation) for not supporting the Trad movement, but they were too young to be involved with Vee Poo.
Thank you, James. I was not a dirty hippy :) , I was 11 years old when the Mass starting changing every single week, starting in the mid-60s. I would have been a Trad in the 70's but I had already fallen away from the faith by then, unfortunately.
The lads have taken a vote and we've made you an honorary member of Gen-X, the generation that will be mentioned in history books 100's of years from now. Truly an honor.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 03, 2023, 10:36:19 AMHey, stop blaming the Boomers!
The Modernists were already in "the very bosom of the Church seeking Her destruction" by 1907, when Pope Pius X published his famous Encyclical, long before the Boomers were around.
The Modernists were already there during the Renaissance.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on February 03, 2023, 08:25:54 PMQuote from: awkward customer on February 03, 2023, 10:36:19 AMHey, stop blaming the Boomers!
The Modernists were already in "the very bosom of the Church seeking Her destruction" by 1907, when Pope Pius X published his famous Encyclical, long before the Boomers were around.
The Modernists were already there during the Renaissance.
Really! I've heard vague mention of this and would love to know more.
Luther was all about subjectivism. Modernism is essentially that truth comes from within and not from an outside source.
Quote from: james03 on February 03, 2023, 11:23:44 AMI can't believe I'm writing in defense of dirty hippy boomers. They had ZERO to do with Vee Poo. That would be The "Greatest" Generation.
You can fault the boomers (as a generation) for not supporting the Trad movement, but they were too young to be involved with Vee Poo.
Baby Boomers didn't create modernism. They didn't make Vatican II happen. They didn't make the liturgical reform happen.
But they are pretty arguably the one generation that became most vested in the Council's legacy - those who actually remained Catholic, that is. They are certainly the only generation remaining committed to it *today*.
There are honorable exceptions, of course. We can't forget the role of some of those exceptions in sustaining the Traditional Mass through the dark years of the 80's and 90's.
Hey Boomers, embrace Vatican II. Things will get much better.
Then maybe through social pressure we can get 99% of Catholic women practicing contraception than that measly 90% practicing contraception now.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT7M2RMAVTbOlM__HAZew4JuJoYQeGAbm_lgsCpvAXJYC4H05fomFcH5c78upNqgQt2RN5ZFY-h7vx86Uqrydt9YaX_ozZaj_O2G6t8yu2XnD7eVJ_Al-sKx29kVJfWaiQ11TSBGXuX4iOvTKODCA5YIm78jIwf3ZUhN3ggfti6Y5y8ctc9_WtvjmHhg/w623-h415/tumblr_6bf2a61dfb7dc53d3516b6484039dae3_20553fa2_640.jpg)
Quote from: james03 on February 03, 2023, 11:23:44 AMI can't believe I'm writing in defense of dirty hippy boomers. They had ZERO to do with Vee Poo. That would be The "Greatest" Generation.
You can fault the boomers (as a generation) for not supporting the Trad movement, but they were too young to be involved with Vee Poo.
Not all of us were dirty hippy boomers.
They were the ones at Woodstock.
We were the ones either getting shot at in Vietnam or sitting at home hoping our babies would not be fatherless.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on February 13, 2023, 03:19:02 PMThen maybe through social pressure we can get 99% of Catholic women practicing contraception than that measly 90% practicing contraception now.
Oh, it's much much higher than 90% today, and has been for a very long time. The bottom of the trough for birth rates was back in the late Seventies. There was a mild swing back of the pendulum in the Eighties and Nineties, but never enough to get back to replacement. And "replacement level," which all the developed countries of the world can only dream about, already involves virtually universal birth control.
Just ask yourself, "If I go to Mass at a typical N.O. parish, will 10% of the vehicles in the parking lot be large multi-passenger vans? Will it be even 1% of the vehicles?"
I think they're already well past 99%. If we take all the traditional Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, and Amish and fundamentalist Mormons, and we lump them all together, we might for the sake of argument call them 1% (although all those groups together are probably less than 1%). Of the remaining 99% of mainstream Americans, along with mainstream Europeans and Asians, I'm sure the number is miniscule of couples doing nothing to impede procreation but rather accepting children from God in whatever number he chooses to send them.
QuoteNot all of us were dirty hippy boomers.
They were the ones at Woodstock.
We were the ones either getting shot at in Vietnam or sitting at home hoping our babies would not be fatherless.
Fine. We can talk about exceptions. One of my close friends was a Marine at Khe Son. Another close friend of mine had it worse, he was in Force Recon and was stationed at a Special Forces camp in the hills outside of Khe Son. The guy I shoot pool with is a Boomer Seal. All conservative and good people. There are a lot of Boomer Vietnam Vets in the oil patch.
The boomers as a generation are evil. It was this generation that wrecked the institutions in the USA, starting with colleges, and including most large corporations with their DIE and ESG policies. If you go into a Trad Chapel, the Boomers are massively under represented, and in many, there are no boomers.
We can talk about the millennials, Generation Daycare. A wasted generation known for their whining and far left woke politics. K., the owner of this forum is a married millennial, good Catholic, and has his first kid. An exception, along with others here. Millennials also under-represent in Trad Chapels, but not as bad as Boomers.
The exception game is boring.
Quote from: james03 on February 14, 2023, 08:26:30 AMQuoteNot all of us were dirty hippy boomers.
They were the ones at Woodstock.
We were the ones either getting shot at in Vietnam or sitting at home hoping our babies would not be fatherless.
Fine. We can talk about exceptions. One of my close friends was a Marine at Khe Son. Another close friend of mine had it worse, he was in Force Recon and was stationed at a Special Forces camp in the hills outside of Khe Son. The guy I shoot pool with is a Boomer Seal. All conservative and good people. There are a lot of Boomer Vietnam Vets in the oil patch.
The boomers as a generation are evil.
All those "conservative and good people" fought to enrich the Military Industrial Complex.
President Kennedy and President Diem (South Vietnam) did not want a war. They wanted to roll out a hearts and minds campaign across Vietnam with only targeted military action when necessary.
But both were assassinated so that the MIC could have their war. What "good" came out of that, apart from vast profits for the MIC?
Should have gone to Woodstock with the hippies. The 2 million Vietnamese who died in that foul war would have been very grateful.
Most likely Diem was assassinated to set up the China White trade. John Pullman, the Syndicate's money man showing up in Saigon a year after the hit is a give away. So is the involvement of the Corsican CIA dude.