I’ve written more than a few posts recently criticizing the Catholic right, and I meant every word. However, I am not saying that every conservative Catholic has gone astray. Some conservatives are faithful to the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and others are only “faithful” to their own understanding of Catholicism and to the “teachings” of the conservative Catholic subculture. On the Catholic right, that is to say, among the most conservative Catholics, there is the wheat and the chaff.
The serious problems on the Catholic right include:
* the assumption that the conservative answer to every question of faith, morals, or salvation is always the correct answer
* the assumption that liberalism equals unfaithfulness (or even heresy)
* the substitution of the ideas of the conservative Catholic subculture for the Magisterium — to such an extent that if the Magisterium dares to teach anything contrary to the accepted pseudo-dogmas of that subculture, the Magisterium is deemed to have gone astray
* the acceptance and promotion of conservative teachers of Catholicism, even when they are teaching heresy, as long as they hit all the popular conservative talking points.
* the exaltation of conservatism over Catholicism
* the dogmatization of every conservative interpretation of Tradition, Scripture, and magisterial teaching
* the complete disregard for any theological argument to the contrary
* the willingness to reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council or a Pope, whenever those teachings disagree with accepted ideas among conservatives
But there are faithful Catholics among conservatives. I consider myself to be a conservative Catholic. But I am not a slave to the conservative subculture. I don’t exalt the Vetus Ordo as if its good and holy aspects of discipline were dogma. I like Latin; but I don’t worship Latin or the Latin Mass. And I don’t think Latin is any better than other languages. I don’t confuse discipline with doctrine.
I love the teachings of Second Vatican Council, because I see in those teachings the subtle and profound wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I have read, studied, and used the teachings of Vatican II in my theology for many years. I don’t find those documents to be “vague” or “poorly-written” or “ambiguous” or “merely pastoral”. And many of the teachings of Vatican II, at this point in time, are now infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium. So the rejection of the teachings of Vatican II is heresy.
I am not “unsettled” or “disturbed” or “confused” by the teachings and comments of Pope Francis. I find nothing wrong in anything he has said so far. He is a liberal but orthodox Pope.
On the Catholic right, there is the wheat and the chaff. Far be it from me to judge each individual conservative Catholic, to decide if he is wheat or chaff. But I discern the work of the providence and grace of God in choosing a liberal orthodox Pope at this point in time. God intends to separate the wheat from the chaff. And then the distinction will be clearly seen.
Sooner or later, Pope Francis will issue one or more papal documents containing true teachings of the Magisterium that contradict the assumptions and pseudo-dogmas of the conservative Catholic subculture. Then we will see which conservative Catholics are truly faithful to the Church, and which are only faithful to the distorted version of Catholicism promoted by the conservative subculture.
Pope Francis (or a future Pope) might teach that the Church has the authority to ordain women to the deaconate. And he might then change Canon Law to permit the ordination of women deacons. The Magisterium has infallibly taught that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. But ordination to the deaconate is a separate question.
Pope Francis might teach that a non-Christian can be saved, without converting to Christianity, by the love of God and neighbor, and by invincible ignorance. Pope Francis might teach that an atheist or agnostic can be saved, without converting to belief in God, by the love of neighbor, which is always also, at least implicitly, the love of God, and by invincible ignorance. If you would like to read a faithful but moderate (not conservative) view of Roman Catholic salvation theology, see my book: Forgiveness and Salvation for Everyone (in print and in Kindle format). This book challenges conservative (and some liberal) assumptions about salvation.
Or Pope Francis might teach some other truth found in Tradition and Scripture, but one which contradicts accepted ideas found in the conservative Catholic subculture.
How will conservatives react? Some will accept this teaching by their exercise of the virtue of faith, even if it contradicts their own reasonings. Others will claim that the Pope must have fallen into heresy; they can’t imagine that they could be wrong or that the Pope could understand the Faith better than the conservative Catholic subculture. This attitude of exalting the conservative or ultra-conservative consensus on questions of faith and morals is already easily seen on many blogs, discussion groups, and other websites. This attitude of treating the Pope as if he were the servant of conservatism, and as if they were his judges, is already clear.
I am certain that many, but not all, of the most conservative Catholics will fall away from the Church soon. For many have already departed from the Church in their hearts and minds. They do not follow the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, but only the distorted interpretation of those teachings found in the conservative Catholic subculture.
Pope Francis is a winnowing fan in the hand of Christ Jesus. The wheat will be separated from the chaff. Which are you?
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.
the reproach of Christ 
There are already some Christians who belong to sedevacantist churches instead of the Roman Catholic Church. The sedevacantist churches believe in most of the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Catholic Church and adhere to the traditional form of the Latin mass, but they reject the authority of the popes during and after Vatican II, the teachings of the Catholic Church taught during and after Vatican II, changes in discipline made during and after Vatican II, and teachings that are considered to be liberal. The sedevacantist churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and these churches are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Will some of the the conservative Catholics who adhere to conservative heresies join a sedevacantist church? Will the sedevacantist churches be reunited with the Roman Catholic Church?
The Faith is one, but heresies are many. There is one Truth, but many ways to distort the truth. So when many conservatives leave the Church, they mostly do not join an existing sedevacantist group. They attempt to set up their own competing Church. But this quickly falls apart into many splinter groups.
No, I don’t think the sedevacantist groups will be reunited, as a group, with the Church. But many of their members will return to the Church, and the groups will disintegrate.
I think we should start calling ourselves Catholics believing everything that is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism is an awesome gift from God, and John Paul II was the instrument The Holy Spirit used to give us this gift. Why not have a teaching from the Catechism after the homily on Sunday? Then maybe we would all start thinking of ourselves as faithful Catholics – not liberal Catholic – not conservative Catholic. Jesus warns us all about being lukewarm. No time for that – now or ever!
@Ron: Bingo!
If God wanted Benedict XVI to still be the Pope, he’d still be the pope.
The Holy Spirit knows what he’s doing. He knew what he was doing eight years ago when he called John Paul II home and guided the cardinals to choose Cardinal Ratzinger as his successor.
He was just as involved when Benedict XVI abdicated and inspired the cardinals to elect Cardinal Bergoglii (note: roughly half of the cardinals that elected Benedict XVI participated in the conclave that elected Francis meaning a large number the cardinals saw no disconnect between the teachings of the two men.)
God saw fit to make a change in the messenger (not the message) and the gifts and emphases that messenger (Pope Francis) would bring.
The only changes have been in style and focus, NOT doctrine or substance.
If, for example, he decides that the discipline (note that I said discipline, NOT doctrine) of priestly celibacy as become more of hindrance to the church than a help, he is entirely within his authority as a lawfully elected pope to make a change allowing married priests to become the norm.
Pope Francis must be allowed to govern the church using his own best judgement of what’s needed, rather than worrying constantly about what fans of Benedict XVI or John Paul II might think.
I’m sure Benedict XVI and John Paul II would agree.
Since Francis’ election, most of what I see from the Catholic blog world has been emotional reaction, as if there can’t be a difference in style and emphasis between Popes. There doesn’t seem to be any recognition that, while Francis may tend to speak off the cuff, he hasn’t changed a single Church teaching. Everyone just needs to calm down; your posts have been a good reminder of that.
Not just a Catholic problem I’m afraid. This protestant has seen a similar disturbing trend.
Protestants have their own versions of groups likes the SSPX who are convinced that God prefers to be worshiped using an old pipe organ (drums, guitars, bass, etc are all apparently tools of the devil), that the only acceptable bible is the 1611 King James Version (because apparently every Bible publishes or translated since then was done so with some evil hidden agenda,) that hymns must be sung from crumbling old hymnals rather than lyrics projected on a screen (because video projectors might lead to new songs displacing the old) and the list goes on and on.
Invariably, when such people don’t get their way or affect change in their own local church, they start their own “protest” church, made in their own image. They manage to attract a few other like-minded malcontents and putter along for a few years.
Pope Francis was absolutely right in his judgement that that church is placing far too much emphasis on abortion or homosexuality. He never once said these issues weren’t important, but there is a HUGE danger in becoming a single-issue church where the bulk of scripture is sidelined in favor of a select few pieces that support one’s narrow world view. This happens in conservative churches as much, if not more, than in liberal churches. The result is a pastor and congregation who are religiously illiterate on anything other than their own pet issues and woefully ill-prepared to interact with the outside world and engage in any meaningful evangelistic activity.
Edifying and challenging sermons drawn from scripture passages are invariably replaced by the bizarre “rant of the week” about the evils of alcohol, the perversions of the Disney corporation, why barcodes are the Mark of the Beast, why (insert the name of nearly any politician) is the antichrist, etc. Lively and engaging church services that drawn the worshipper closer to God become exercises in mediocrity where “don’t rock the boat” becomes the key objective. Old is always good. New is always bad. If you’re enjoying the service, God isn’t.
The pastors in such churches invariably become dictatorial, authoritarian and abusive, intent on controlling their own little corner of God’s kingdom with little or no regard to the multitude of hurting people around them who need Christ. Their behavior becomes increasingly cult-like as they withdraw from the world and seek to insulate themselves against outside people and their views. They become prison guards instead of shepherds.
They are quick to turf out (or “disfellowship”, “shun” “separate” or “discipline” in churchy speak) members who would dare to challenge blatantly errant teaching.
They soon elevate their own pastors and clergy to the level of demi-gods or prophets (they usually use spiritual-sounding terms such as “Man of God”, “Annointed Vessel”, or “Chosen One) and seek to build up a mythology around them to further cement their claims as the sole possessors of absolute truth.
The good news: such churches are seldom long for this world. Most churches born out of protest die off inside a generation.
The surrounding community usually is unaware that anything has changed other than the “For Sale” sign on the church’s front lawn.
Such is the life cycle of the protest church.