19 19, July, 2020 catholicweekly.com.au COMMENT task of Christianmission: the mission to offer humanity the truth about God and us, both of which are revealed in Jesus Christ. The next pope should forcefully remind the Church of this. The next popemight also engage – and settle – a parallel debate that began during Vat- ican II and continues today: Did the Catholic Church rein- vent itself between 11 October 1962, and 8 December 1965, the day the Council solemn- ly closed? Or must the docu- ments of Vatican II be read in continuity with revelation and tradition? Curiously, the “progressive” Catholic Lite Brigade and the ultra-traditionalist Forget Vat- Toppling of statue is beyond satire Polemics after council still bedevil the Church P olemics about the Sec- ond Vatican Council continue to bedev- il the global Catholic conversation. Some Catholics, often found in themoribund local Churches of western Europe, claim that the Council’s “spir- it” has never been implement- ed (although the Catholic Lite implementation they propose seems more akin to liberal Protestantism than Catholi- cism). Other voices claim that the Council was a terriblemistake and that its teaching should be quietly forgotten, consigned to the dustbin of history. In The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church inMission (just published by Ignatius Press), I suggest that some clarifying papal interventions are need- ed to address these confu- sions. To begin: the next pope should remind Catholics what Pope John XXIII intended for the Council, thereby challeng- ing both the Catholic Lite Bri- gade and the Forget Vatican II Platoon. The pope’s opening address to Vatican II on 11 October 1962, made his intention clear: The Church, he said, must re-focus on Jesus Christ, from whom she “takes her name, her grace, and her total mean- ing.” The Churchmust put the Gospel proclamation of Jesus Christ, the answer to the ques- tion that is every human life, at the centre of her self-under- standing. The Churchmust make that proclamation by proposing, “whole and entire and without distortion” the truths Christ gave the Church. And the Churchmust transmit those truths in ways that invite scep- tical contemporary men and women into friendship with the Lord Jesus. John XXIII did not imag- ine Vatican II to be a Council of deconstruction. Nor did he imagine it to be a Council that froze the Church in amber. Rather, Pope John’s opening address to Vatican II called the entire Church to take up the ican II Platoon promote the same answer: Vatican II was a Council of discontinuity. But that is the wrong an- swer. It is amistaken reading of John XXIII’s intention for Vati- can II. It is amistaken reading of Paul VI’s guidance of the Council. And It is amistaken reading of the Council’s texts. Three canonised popes – John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II – plus the great theolo- gian-pope Benedict XVI have insisted that Vatican II can andmust be read in continu- ity with settled Catholic doc- trine. To claim that Vatican II was a Council of rupture and reinvention is to say, in effect, that these great men were ei- ther duplicitous, anti-concil- iar reactionaries (the tacit in- dictment of the progressives) or material heretics (the tacit indictment from the far right- field bleachers). Neither indictment has any merit, although the latter has recently gotten undeserved attention, thanks to ill-con- sidered commentaries rever- berating through the echo chambers of social media and the ultra-traditionalist blogo- sphere. Thus the next pope ought to insist that the Catholic Church does not do rupture, rein- vention, or “paradigm shifts.” Why? Because Jesus Christ – “the same yesterday and to- day and forever” [Hebrews 13.8] – is always the centre of the Church. That conviction is the beginning of any authentic evangelisation, any authenti- cally Catholic development of doctrine, and any proper im- plementation of Vatican II. The next pope should also lift up the Council’s genuine achievements: its vigorous af- firmation of the reality and binding authority of divine revelation; its biblical enrich- ment of the Church’s self-un- derstanding as a communion of disciples inmission; its in- sistence that everyone in the Church is called to holiness, especially through the litur- gy; its defense of basic human rights, including the first of civ- il rights, religious freedom; its commitment to truth-centered ecumenical and interreligious dialogues. Yes, there have been distor- tions of these teachings; but to blame the distortions on the teachings themselves is a seri- ous analytical error. A Catholicism indistin- guishable from liberal Prot- estantismhas no future. Nei- ther does a Catholicism that attempts to recreate a largely imaginary past. The Catholicismwith a fu- ture is the Catholicismof the Second Vatican Council, right- ly understood and properly implemented. That happens to be the living Catholicismof to- day, and the next pope should recognise that, too. George Weigel is the Distin- guished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre in Washington T hey tore down a statue of Frederick Douglass. If that name doesn’t mean anything to you, that’s understandable.That it meant nothing to the ‘protes- tors’ who tore it down in Roch- ester, NewYork, is unforgiv- able. Frederick Douglass was an important man in the history of the United States and the ab- olitionist movement. He was an activist, author, public speaker and a leader in the abolitionist movement. He was also black, an es- caped slave whowent on to be- come one of themost inspira- tional figures in history. And they tore down his stat- ue. They threw a rope over his neck, and they pulled until in crashed to the ground. His monument was just one of the USmonuments torn down over recent weeks, a trend that has sparked debate in Australia about our own history. But the tearing down of a black, escaped slave, abolition- ist has revealedwhat the cause truly stands for. It’s not about tearing down a ‘racist’ civilisation, it’s about re- writing history. It startedwith Confederate statues, monuments to South- ern civil war heroes, andmany conceded that it’s probably ok to do that.The South, after all, were the baddies. Then it was any historical figure who had owned slaves. Some of early America’s fin- est leaders and thinkers. And again, some conceded that maybe we shouldn’t idealise slave owners. Then it was Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, a stat- ue of the great man standing with a recently freed slave as he began to rise as Lincoln’s equal. At this point, to their credit, most people started to realise something was off. Then it was ‘white Jesus’ and the ‘white supremacist’ depic- tions of God. Prominent black activist Shaun King tweeted out, “Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down.They are a formof white supremacy. Always have been.” And now, finally admit- ting that this isn’t about race, they’ve torn down a statue of Frederick Douglass. Those whoweremeant to fight for tradition and truth gave up the premise. Allowing anymonument to come down in the name of social justice conceded that America andWestern Civilisa- tion are built on a horrible, rac- ist past, and now everything is fair game. Our society has been suf- fering from this problem for as long as I can remember. Un- willing to stand up to themob for fear of being called racist, bigoted or worse, we give up the premise to every fight that matters. Whenwe give up the prem- ise to undemocratic ideo- logues, we fight the battle on their terms. When our leaders are unwilling (or unable) to ar- ticulate issues honestly and ac- curately, society loses. Foundational values were lost under the slogans of “Love is Love” when the right to love had nothing to dowith it. We’re left fighting against “a woman’s right to choose” whenwe should havemade themfight against a baby’s right to live. We tried to appease them on Black LivesMatter, now you’ll be called racist if you point out that blackmurders in the US are intra-racial, or that an Indigenous Australian is less likely to die in custody than a non-Indigenous Aus- tralian. Toomany times the prem- ise is forfeited in the hope of appeasing radical left-wing movements, and the race is lost before the bullet has left the starter’s gun. Fair and honest truth is rare- ly found in a bayingmob, and there is nothing to do that will appease them. We need brave leaders who will assert the truth, andwe need to stand behind them. We need to take control of the fight early, andwe need to be ruthless about spreading the truth, even if it is unpop- ular. This isn’t about social jus- tice anymore.They tore down a statue of Frederick Douglass. Benjamin Conelly is a mul- timedia journalist for the Archdiocese of Sydney. Tearingdownastatueof freedslaveandabolitionist FrederickDouglasswasanact of supreme ignorance 1300 554 552 www.girafferemovals.com.au •
[email protected] One of Sydney’s most trusted removalists 50 YEARS OF REMOVAL Fast. Safe. Efficient. Country • Interstate • Long or Short Term Storage For over 50 years the Keoghan family have run an honest, professional removals business. We service homes, units, offices, parishes, schools, colleges and government departments. Former slave and leading abolitionist Frederick Douglass. PHOTO:WIKIMEDIA COMMONS Benjamin Conolly To claim that Vatican II was a Coun- cil of rupture and reinvention is to say, in effect, that these great men were either duplicitous, anti-concili- ar reactionaries (the tacit indictment of the progressives) or material heretics (the tacit indictment from the far right-field bleachers). ” George Weigel Columnist