Traditionalism Must Adapt

When I started pitching ideas for A Traditionalism for the People, I did so because I felt there is a unique opening in the Church today, an opening that traditionalists could exploit for their own benefit, and as a dose of sanity to an increasingly insane Church.  However, in order to do that, we need to change the way we approach a lot of things.  I do not think this requires a change of belief (though in some areas, it would do us well as I hope to show), but I do think it requires us to start framing issues and asking questions in a new way.

To the extent traditionalism has factored into debates about the Church, it has been through the prism of staving off a massive crisis.  While we talk of the "Crisis in the Church" since the Second Vatican Council, I actually think we are talking about two crises.  If one has read the previous narrative I outlined on Traditionis Custodes, you know where this is going, yet I'd like to offer a small recap.

The first crisis came about in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the troubled pontificate of Paul VI.  Pope Paul began his pontificate looking to eagerly implement the Second Vatican Council, and ended his pontificate unable to hold together a rapidly collapsing Church.  The Church was held together by his successor John Paul II, and the Church collectively breathed a sigh of relief amid all the talk of the "New Springtime."  The dark days of revolution were over, the chaos of Paul's pontificate no more.  Most importantly, there would be no counter-revolution.

There was a lot to this vision, and a lot of people subscribed to it, if just for the hope it offered.  I'd submit it was out of this pontificate the lines of discourse were drawn.  The pontificate of Paul VI was a battle between revolutionary factions (be they "liberal" or "conservative") for who would define the Church's future.  The battle during John Paul II's pontificate was over two points:  whether the revolution was truly over, and what to do next.  

When traditionalists entered the discussions, it was normally on these points.  We argued against the need for further revolution, but offered a stark dissent from our more conservative brethren on the question of "what to do next?"    Behind the cult of personality around John Paul II and his force of nature charisma, serious problems were brewing in the Church.    The cracks that were blown open during the Revolution after the Council weren't going away, no matter how much John Paul and his devotees wished otherwise.  While conservatives were basking in the New Springtime and calls for a "New Evangelization", traditionalists played the role of bitter scold, pointing out any New Evangelization would be mostly fruitless without tackling the corruption in the Church, whether in the practical denial of her doctrine by individuals (lay and cleric alike), or the widespread moral corruption.

While we had this debate, the abuse scandals exploded in the United States and Europe  I submit it was this point, more than anything else, that "ended" the First Crisis after the Council.    Debates about the liturgical reform didn't matter as much when there existed a vast criminal network, overseen by bishops (both liberal and conservatives) who had protected abusers for decades.  After the Dallas meeting, Catholics of all stripes wanted to believe these debates were over, each for their own reasons.  So we put the abuse issue to bed, and returned to our usual debates.

Perhaps, more than anything else, the pontificate of Benedict XVI could be viewed as a return to those usual debates, our "holiday from history", to borrow an old saying about America during the Clinton years.  Yet the abuse crisis was the first sign of a crisis that couldn't be answered by any faction, liberal, conservative, or traditionalist.  These crises accelerated throughout Benedict's pontificate (if under the radar), and exploded during the Pontificate of Francis.  I am going to sidestep the endless debates about how much Francis caused these problems, and settle on the fact he proved himself utterly unable to manage them.

I believe that the failure of Francis to manage these successive crises/scandals has led to the second division of the crisis since the Council.  The day traditionalists long feared has arrived:  The New Springtime is dead, and we are now heading into the cold winter.  Episcopal fraternity is dead, as bishops now openly feud in the public square, and factionalism envelops the Church among the bishops and laity.  The sunny optimism of John Paul II has given way to the bitter scolding of Francis, whose homilies and statements are full of jeremiads against various groups in the Church.  What is common in all of them is barely anyone listens to them, much less their intended audiences.

While we traditionalists may wish to say that we can tie everything back to debates about Dignitatis Humanae or whether the Church of Christ "is" or "subsists in" the Catholic Church, this crisis is different.  This crisis revolves around discussions about the limits of papal and episcopal authority, the role of the laity as participants in the governance of the Church, not just "participate in the life of the Church."  Gone is that weird moment in time where we can debate whether the Church needs to look "outward" or "inward."  The latter is now a necessity, not a mere option.  We may have gotten some things wrong along the way, but overall, traditionalists won the debate.  The seeming strength of the Church under John Paul II was a house of cards that has now collapsed.  When it is rebuilt (by whoever does the rebuilding), the debates surrounding subsitit and various other controversies surrounding Vatican II are not likely to factor into their vision.    We must adapt ourselves to this changing reality, lest we join the Pope and his increasingly aged revolutionaries in the waters of irrelevance.