Was Vatican II a Good Thing?

abso-freaking-lutely!

This post is an open (and hopefully continuing) dialogue with Persis:
http://oneofthewomen.blogspot.com/2009/07/into-unknown.html

The documents of Vatican II are a real gem. I'll admit I haven't read all of them in their entirety (I have made it entirely through some of them and parts of all of them. I'm still new to this Catholic thing, so you'll have to cut me some slack). And here's a link for those who want to refresh their memory:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

Persis comments that she's concerned about the "outright hostility that other bloggers in the DOR have exhibited towards ... anyone who happens to think that the reforms of Vatican II are a good thing"

This is a clear misunderstanding of orthodoxy. Orthodox does not mean a return to the past. It does not mean rewinding the clock to pre-Vatican II times. Orthodox means faithful. We fully embrace Vatican II. Some people have different opinions about the implementation of the liturgical reforms called for by Vatican II, but for the most part I think people would be more than happy to follow what's allowed for these days. I have yet to find a blogger in this diocese who is opposed to the documents of V2 (doesn't mean they don't exit). V2 is rich with traditional church teachings. It is not a break from tradition, but a continuation.

Typically, the problem is found in groups that use the phrase "the spirit of Vatican II". This is code for, "we're taking it upon ourselves to push the envelope even farther." This is a major problem because these groups find themselves outside the bounds of official Church teaching. And this is where the problem lies and where our complaints come from. Take a look at some mission statements of parishes in the DOR and you'll find this language all over the place.

The point of my blog isn't to try and change the Church or get her to reverse her positions. I completely agree with her positions - that's why I converted. My rally cry is to call our leaders to function according to what our Church teaches - not what they'd like her to teach. I'm not concerned how far to the right and left our local parishes are as long as they function w/in the Church's teachings. And I think that's what many people (especially here in the DOR) don't realize. The majority of the goings on in the DOR is way outside of what's acceptable according to official Church teaching. This is in regards to liturgical celebrations as well as doctrinal positions.

"What saddens me even more is the mean-spirited, vicious comments posted on many of these blogs"
Well, you can't lump everyone blog in the same bucket here. You also have to separate blog posters from the commenters. Many of the venomous comments are actually progessives trying to make the blogs look bad. But even so, you may legitimately not agree with the tone of some blog posts. I know I don't at times. But then again, I'm sure people don't always agree with my tone. So I think we all need to just chill and listen to what people have to say instead of labeling others as venomous. It's also worth noting that some people have been really hurt by the diocese. Not everyone is aware of all the hurt during Bishop Clark's reign. That's why the Internet has been such a good tool. Bloggers are presenting the facts and it's up to each individual to form their own opinion. But the facts need to be exposed.

"I did not start this blog to be berated, threatened or condemned to hell!"
And I hope you don't come across anything remotely close to this. I got your back if you run into any troubles (I don't know if that's actually worth anything, but nonetheless).

"not Catholic enough"
This quote did not come from Persis, but we've all heard it enough that I think it's worth mentioning. The progressives will claim that our gripe against them is that they are "not Catholic enough". This simply isn't true. None of us measure up (Romans 3:10)

¹⁰As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

I am a sinner. I realize this more everyday. Again, it is not against anyways unworthiness before God. Our complaint is when people pick and choose which Catholic beliefs they choose to accept. This is often a sticky situation because people are often encouraged by their spiritual fathers to do so. So we can't necessarily say the blame lies with the laymen. Also, often times laymen don't fully know the teachings of the Church so we must not be quick to smack them for misrepresenting Church teaching.

ignorance vs dissent
There's probably a good percentage of parishioners who don't know authentic Church teaching so we must always give them the benefit of the doubt. Often times homilies don't hit on any church teaching, but instead give a Readers' Digest type story. We must work to educate. We must also remember the gospel at all times. God loves us. He loves us so much that he gave us a Church to lead us and teach us. The teachings of the Church are good and we draw closer to God by following them. This is good news!

Another thing to note about ignorance, I think, is that many people know the "what", but not the "why". Since the don't know they "why" they make up their own reasons like, "The Pope doesn't allow women's ordination because he's sexist". Instead of investigating what the Church actually teaches about a subject they just choose to remain ignorant. This attitude is shameful. We need to give the benefit of the doubt to the Church and Tradition instead of the opposite way around. Tradition should be upheld until you can prove that it's wrong, not discarded until you can prove that it's warranted [Chesterton quote here somewhere].

Well, that's it for now. I do think such dialogue is important because when things do begin to turn around we're going to find much resistance. Like Peter Kreeft said in his famous "Preistesses" speech, we can probably assume 1/3 of the people are already convinced, 1/3 will never be convinced, but 1/3 may be open to listening.