Michael Brendan Dougherty has a very different and troubling perspective in Slate:
But the other way to look at the dawn of this papacy is that it is one more in the pile of recent Catholic novelties and mediocrities. He is the first Latin American pope, the first Jesuit to be pope, and the first to take the name Francis. And so he falls in line with the larger era of the church in the past 50 years which has been defined by ill-considered experimentation: a “pastoral” ecumenical council at Vatican II, a new synthetic vernacular liturgy, the hasty revision of the rules for almost all religious orders within the church, the dramatic gestures and “saint factory” of Pope John Paul II’s papacy, along with the surprise resignation of Benedict XVI. In this vision, Benedict’s papacy, which focused on “continuity,” seems like the exception to an epoch of stunning and unsettling change, which—as we know—usually heralds collapse.
Let’s see, this writer is anti-Vatican II, anti the vernacular Mass, anti-corruption in the Vatican. Oh well, one out of three’s not bad. Batting .333 gets you a spot in the All Star game.
Am I now an arch conservative because I enjoy praying in English and honor the memory of the greatest pope of my lifetime, John, XXIII?
Michael Brendan Dougherty seems to have made a fetish of projecting a rather unpleasant persona. A key indicator is perhaps a footnote: “Michael Brendan Dougherty is national correspondent for the American Conservative.” He is unlikely to celebrate the Holy Spirit’s choice of Pope Francis. The occasional penetrating insights in his commentaries are few. A quick summary of where Mr Dougherty would prefer to see the Church is revealed in the following extract:
“Liturgical traditionalists (myself included) can only be depressed by this election–it is almost the worst result possible for those of us who think the new liturgy lost the theological profundity and ritual beauty of the Tridentine Mass. Benedict’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass and revisions to the new vernacular Mass have not been implemented at all in Cardinal Bergoglio’s own diocese. Already some of the small breaks with liturgical tradition at the announcement of his election are being interpreted as a move toward the grand, unruly, and improvisational style of John Paul II; an implicit rebuke of Benedict.”
I’m not at all sure why anyone should take any notice of what Mr Dougherty has to say. A few of us can still remember the church of the 1940s and 1950s, and we’re very happy to have moved on beyond medievalism, tardy though it was. An antiquarian church can have no useful voice in real time.
Excellent post Daveb
Pope Francis in alienating, upsetting, and worrying a wing of the Church during his first days in office is not the embodiment of humility. I am all for English/Latin mixed, Vat. II and traditional practices in liturgy. I attend both EF and OF Masses. But destroying or simplifying what little is left of the Papal office in complete contrast to the previous Pontificate is disruptive and dare I say harmful to the Church at large. Utterly disrespectful of the office he holds he should have declined his election. One thing he has accomplished in taking apart Tradition and Protocol is too distract the world at large of the need for curial reform and the need to do something more about the abuse crisis. Now everyone is quibbling over the liturgy and vestments once again. Way to go ! Would it not have been more humble to accept the office of the Pope, wear the garb prescribed to it and move immediately to reform the Curia and address the real problems? No, he chooses to open old wounds and stir the pot. Do red shoes really hurt anyone? Brown or red they are either donated or paid for !