For those prone to noticing patterns, there is a predictable sequence of events that unfolds whenever a bishop suppresses the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese. First, the bishop makes an announcement that the Latin Mass is being suppressed. The statement, both in its content and wording, demonstrates shockingly little pastoral sensitivity to those who will be displaced. The callous disregard for the persons affected prompts an angry backlash; the bishop is subsquently lambasted in the Trad media. Anti-Trads, meanwhile, hold up Trads' predictable ire as justification of the crackdown (this is, of course, gaslighting by inverting causality, akin to beating a dog until it bites you and then arguing that the bite justified the beating). This level of delusion beggars belief. When the Latin Masses of Charlotte were suppressed, there was even someone, a relatively well-known commentator—a real special fellow—who actually argued that Charlotte's traditional Catholics should be thanking Bishop Martin for turning them out of their parishes and shuffling them off to a chapel!
The implication of these criticisms is that Traditional Catholics will always turn on the bishop the second they don't get their way; that Trads professions of obedience are only skin deep; that we already have one foot in schism; that we are petulant, whiny, and entitled and refuse to accept any ecclesiastical authority that inconveniences us.
I do not believe this characterization reflects reality. Trads are not naive idealists. Okay...most of us are not naive idealists. I think most Trads understand that when Rome directly orders a bishop to do something, the bishop isn't going to say "screw off" and entirely ignore a papal directive. We know that, at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, a bishop is in a complicated position with Rome and ignores papal directions at his own peril. Rome is clearly pressuring bishops to get on with implementing Traditiones custodes, and we understand that your average bishop is going to need to have something to show Rome. A bishop is simply going to comply.
Do I get angry at the bishops for complying? I may not speak for all Trads, but for me, it's not so much that the bishops do what they are told that is insulting. Rather, it is the clear lack of pastoral sensitivity they exhibit in how they do so. It's that bishops like Weisenburger, Martin, Beckman et al consider Traditional Catholics as a thorn in their side they wish would just go away. It is the seething resentment and unnecessary cruelty that comes across in their decrees—cold, bureaucratic messages in which every sentence is dripping with antipathy.
Don't get me wrong, I hate that TC is even a thing and that any bishop is compelled to comply with it in any respect. I pray with all my heart that this awful motu proprio is abrogated. But if a bishop finds himself compelled by Rome to implement TC, then what I want to see in an episcopal statement is some sense of empathy, some expression of humanity that suggests the bishop actually understands the hardship and cares about the spiritual well-being of those affected; some indication that the bishop is actually invested, has pastoral sensitivity, and isn't just heartlessly turning out an entire community while shrugging and saying, "Gotta do my job."
This got me thinking: what would a pastorally sensitive TC implementation letter actually look like? As a thought experiment, suppose you have a bishop who is being pressured by Rome to implement Traditiones custodes. And, as I said, assume the bishop is not going to go down making some ballsy defiant stand; he is going to bend (so please spare me the "He should just disobey!" comments) Given that he will bend, is there a way he can bend that nevertheless demonstrates pastoral sensitivity and sincere empathy to his people?
To that end, I wrote a fictional TC implementation letter for a fictional diocese called the Diocese of Campbell. In my scenario, the Diocese of Campbell has been directly ordered by Rome to implement Traditiones custodes against the wishes of the bishop. The diocese's fictional bishop, Chad W. Durden, has worked for over a year trying to formulate a strategy that meets the letter of the law while making it clear to the Latin Mass community of his diocese that he has their best intentions in mind.
In my opinion, what has generally been lacking in such episcopal statements are the following four qualities:
(1) Collaboration
(2) Empathy
(3) Solidarity
(4) Affirmation
Of course, the reason these are missing is because bishops like Martin and Beckman lack these qualities in respect to their Latin Mass communities. But what if a bishop actually liked his Latin Mass communities? What would a letter look like from a bishop who was being compelled against his will to implement TC but who nevertheless wanted to reassure his people that he had their backs? What would it look like if the bishop collaborated with the Latin Mass communities, empathized with their struggle, expressed solidarity with their desires, and affirmed their value? This is what I have tried to do with Bishop Chad Durden's letter to the people of the Diocese of Campbell. You can click here to read my letter. Tell me what you think of this fictional bishop's approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment