Category: Paul Ingrassia

at-painter-og-image.png

The Case against Legalizing Marijuana


A general trend within recent years has been that around this time, a new poll comes out suggesting more Americans than ever to be in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.  This year was no exception: according to a recent CBS poll, sixty-one percent of the public now believes that cannabis should be legalized, up by five percentage points from last year.  In addition, nearly 9 out of 10 Americans feel that medicinal marijuana should be made legal, with higher reported figures among younger generations.

Nearly half of Americans have admitted to trying the drug at least once, a figure that has also increased with each annual CBS poll.  Perhaps most astonishing, in fewer than four decades, there has been almost a complete reversal in the number of Americans who favor legalization versus those who oppose.  In 1979, sixty-four percent of the nation opposed.  Now only thirty-nine percent do.

So what is the impetus behind these changing attitudes?

There are a number of social, legal, and economic factors that have driven our society’s transformed (or, some might say, “enlightened”) attitudinal shift toward the drug.  Arguably the greatest reason was the failure of the so-called “war on drugs,” a federal campaign that was popular throughout the Nixon and Reagan presidencies but has been increasingly open to justified condemnation in recent years.  Its critics contend that its policies, estimated to be worth over $1 trillion in aggregate since 1971, wrought havoc on American society by overburdening federal prisons and disproportionately targeting black Americans and other minority groups.  According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, over $15 billion was spent on the effort in 2010 alone, making it not just a tremendous expense, but an ostensibly futile one, particularly in the wake of a growing heroin epidemic that has ravaged communities across every demographic group.

With the failure of the war on drugs, a new generation of libertarians has adopted a sensible alternative centered on the market’s ability to regulate cannabis, which ultimately yields a safer product for public consumption. This has been the undergirding philosophy for the experiments in states like Colorado and Alaska, which were among the first places to legalize weed for recreational purposes.  Pro-market libertarians often point to these cases as illustrations of legal weed done right.

Yet there are difficulties that shouldn’t be ignored.  Levying taxes on weed, similar to other “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes, is used to deter excessive usage of the drug.  But if the rates are set too high, it will not eliminate the black market, which is one of the main goals for legalization.

Additionally, with legalization follows an implicit societal acknowledgment that marijuana use is benign or even advantageous.  Even The Economist, which steadfastly backs legalization, conceded that prohibitionists and users alike must work together to deter public consumption.  Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, whose dangerous effects are well documented, marijuana remains a dark horse.  As a result of its long prohibited status, any potentially debilitating long-term consequences have not been scrutinized with surgical precision and thus lack scientific certainty.

The immediate effects of pot use are well known and can easily be researched in greater detail online.  The purpose of this piece is not a case study of its potentially harmful long-term physiological effects on the body.  It is, however, meant to disclose that for every “miracle case” of a man ostensibly cured of his Parkinson’s trending on social media, there is an opposing case of an individual being harmed by marijuana use.  For example, shortly after it was legalized there, a man in Colorado experienced a “psychotic episode” from accidentally overindulging pot-laced candies, causing him to murder his wife.  This case, albeit hyperbolic, is nevertheless emblematic of what can go wrong when the effects of a product have not been subject to rigorous investigation.

In Colorado, typically only the most outrageous of reports made national headlines, such as when small children were accidentally sold pot-laced brownies.  But if you dig a little deeper into the data, you will find that many alarming statistics actually go unreported, such as the trebled incidence of fatal automobile accidents in Colorado resulting from more people being under the influence.  This is a natural consequence of marijuana’s short-term psychological effects, which impair judgment and can lead to a loss of motor skills, especially when combined with alcohol and other drugs.  Granted, the statistics are still quite new, and they are susceptible to error, but much of the evidence points to the fact that “marijuana-related” car accidents have trended northward, and by a substantial amount, since legalization.

In addition to the automobile accident rates that have gone up, perhaps a greater issue of concern is the stigma against pot that gets mitigated upon legalization, inadvertently sending the wrong message to teenagers that society condones pot usage.  This is supported by the data in the CBS poll, which shows that Americans in general and young people in particular feel that marijuana is not a serious harm to one’s health.  As expected, more people are experimenting with the drug, and despite the limitations in the data, there is evidence that more teenagers in Colorado have used pot upon its legalization.  This problem has become alarmingly prevalent among expectant mothers, many of whom are misguided into the belief that pot is harmless, thus making it okay to smoke during pregnancy.  Consequently, there have been more reports of prenatal marijuana use, which can ultimately hamper brain development and cognition and lead to a lower birth weight for the newborn child.

Lastly, it seems ironic that Democrats, being the alleged “party of science,” would be so quick to jump onto the legalization bandwagon when many of the long-term effects of pot are not yet fully understood, and the states that have permitted recreational use disclose shoddy results at best.  The sort of empirical scrutiny they apply to issues like climate change and religion seems to vanish once marijuana becomes the subject of debate.  Many of their political leaders who run their campaigns on legalization often point to the failure of the war on drugs, which is perfectly legitimate.  So why don’t they propose decriminalization of the drug but maintain current federal draconian measures on punishing the suppliers?

Most Americans have dispensed with the worldview that drug usage itself is inherently wrong and have instead adopted the stance that drug addiction should be treated like a disease.  But we have not moved away from consigning moral culpability to the supplier, who remains a menace to society.  Federal laws certainly can be overhauled that would grapple with this modern perspective, but there is absolutely no reason at this juncture to jump the gun to full-blown legalization.  Lacking concrete evidence of its long-term effects, as well as the ambiguous results from states that have so far served as laboratories of experiment, it would appear that if they wish to uphold their empirical mantle, liberals should wait longer for the data to run its course and then make a decision after careful, systematic examination.

Libertarians likewise should take a guarded outlook when evaluating Colorado, their magnum opus.  Indeed, tax revenues are up – but at what cost?  Is the inevitable uptick in pot users an opportunity cost worth having for such revenues?  Given its novelty, the wider societal implications are not fully explored, and the economics of the issue is far from definitive.  Meanwhile, as we as a nation cope with a heroin epidemic of historic proportions, it would seem odd to buy into the pro-legalization argument when, in fact, there is bountiful evidence to suggest that many addicts of hardcore drugs like heroin and cocaine began with marijuana.  That is not to suggest that marijuana is a gateway drug, and yes, there is plenty of evidence that most pot users do not become heroin addicts.  Yet there nonetheless is a plethora of evidence that heroin and cocaine addicts started out with marijuana and alcohol.  This equally applies to alcoholics and addicts of prescription painkillers, whose conditions often worsen once marijuana, which exacerbates pre-existing conditions, is brought into the picture.

This is not to say that the pro-legalization movement is completely wrong in its motives.  There were many errors committed over an extended period of time by the so-called prohibitionists, and there is undoubtedly a lot of blame to go around.  However, Jeff Sessions and others who maintain the stance that legalization should remain off the docket ought to be praised for their hard-line stance, not excoriated.  There is still too much we don’t know.

The changes in public sentiment have been primarily driven by emotions, not facts.  The pro-legalization movement must do away with the fallacy that pot is perfectly benign and move beyond their desire to get high for enjoyment’s sake.  It’s probably true that most of the potheads who back legalization aren’t truly looking out for the poor man with Parkinson’s, but are simply searching for an outlet to channel their own desire for altered consciousness into a more socially acceptable end.

This may be the crux of the issue: more people in modern times are searching for an escape from the material world.  If that is true, our focus should then ultimately be on the profounder problems of modernity, not on the superficial mechanism through which we can artificially escape it.

A general trend within recent years has been that around this time, a new poll comes out suggesting more Americans than ever to be in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.  This year was no exception: according to a recent CBS poll, sixty-one percent of the public now believes that cannabis should be legalized, up by five percentage points from last year.  In addition, nearly 9 out of 10 Americans feel that medicinal marijuana should be made legal, with higher reported figures among younger generations.

Nearly half of Americans have admitted to trying the drug at least once, a figure that has also increased with each annual CBS poll.  Perhaps most astonishing, in fewer than four decades, there has been almost a complete reversal in the number of Americans who favor legalization versus those who oppose.  In 1979, sixty-four percent of the nation opposed.  Now only thirty-nine percent do.

So what is the impetus behind these changing attitudes?

There are a number of social, legal, and economic factors that have driven our society’s transformed (or, some might say, “enlightened”) attitudinal shift toward the drug.  Arguably the greatest reason was the failure of the so-called “war on drugs,” a federal campaign that was popular throughout the Nixon and Reagan presidencies but has been increasingly open to justified condemnation in recent years.  Its critics contend that its policies, estimated to be worth over $1 trillion in aggregate since 1971, wrought havoc on American society by overburdening federal prisons and disproportionately targeting black Americans and other minority groups.  According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, over $15 billion was spent on the effort in 2010 alone, making it not just a tremendous expense, but an ostensibly futile one, particularly in the wake of a growing heroin epidemic that has ravaged communities across every demographic group.

With the failure of the war on drugs, a new generation of libertarians has adopted a sensible alternative centered on the market’s ability to regulate cannabis, which ultimately yields a safer product for public consumption. This has been the undergirding philosophy for the experiments in states like Colorado and Alaska, which were among the first places to legalize weed for recreational purposes.  Pro-market libertarians often point to these cases as illustrations of legal weed done right.

Yet there are difficulties that shouldn’t be ignored.  Levying taxes on weed, similar to other “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes, is used to deter excessive usage of the drug.  But if the rates are set too high, it will not eliminate the black market, which is one of the main goals for legalization.

Additionally, with legalization follows an implicit societal acknowledgment that marijuana use is benign or even advantageous.  Even The Economist, which steadfastly backs legalization, conceded that prohibitionists and users alike must work together to deter public consumption.  Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, whose dangerous effects are well documented, marijuana remains a dark horse.  As a result of its long prohibited status, any potentially debilitating long-term consequences have not been scrutinized with surgical precision and thus lack scientific certainty.

The immediate effects of pot use are well known and can easily be researched in greater detail online.  The purpose of this piece is not a case study of its potentially harmful long-term physiological effects on the body.  It is, however, meant to disclose that for every “miracle case” of a man ostensibly cured of his Parkinson’s trending on social media, there is an opposing case of an individual being harmed by marijuana use.  For example, shortly after it was legalized there, a man in Colorado experienced a “psychotic episode” from accidentally overindulging pot-laced candies, causing him to murder his wife.  This case, albeit hyperbolic, is nevertheless emblematic of what can go wrong when the effects of a product have not been subject to rigorous investigation.

In Colorado, typically only the most outrageous of reports made national headlines, such as when small children were accidentally sold pot-laced brownies.  But if you dig a little deeper into the data, you will find that many alarming statistics actually go unreported, such as the trebled incidence of fatal automobile accidents in Colorado resulting from more people being under the influence.  This is a natural consequence of marijuana’s short-term psychological effects, which impair judgment and can lead to a loss of motor skills, especially when combined with alcohol and other drugs.  Granted, the statistics are still quite new, and they are susceptible to error, but much of the evidence points to the fact that “marijuana-related” car accidents have trended northward, and by a substantial amount, since legalization.

In addition to the automobile accident rates that have gone up, perhaps a greater issue of concern is the stigma against pot that gets mitigated upon legalization, inadvertently sending the wrong message to teenagers that society condones pot usage.  This is supported by the data in the CBS poll, which shows that Americans in general and young people in particular feel that marijuana is not a serious harm to one’s health.  As expected, more people are experimenting with the drug, and despite the limitations in the data, there is evidence that more teenagers in Colorado have used pot upon its legalization.  This problem has become alarmingly prevalent among expectant mothers, many of whom are misguided into the belief that pot is harmless, thus making it okay to smoke during pregnancy.  Consequently, there have been more reports of prenatal marijuana use, which can ultimately hamper brain development and cognition and lead to a lower birth weight for the newborn child.

Lastly, it seems ironic that Democrats, being the alleged “party of science,” would be so quick to jump onto the legalization bandwagon when many of the long-term effects of pot are not yet fully understood, and the states that have permitted recreational use disclose shoddy results at best.  The sort of empirical scrutiny they apply to issues like climate change and religion seems to vanish once marijuana becomes the subject of debate.  Many of their political leaders who run their campaigns on legalization often point to the failure of the war on drugs, which is perfectly legitimate.  So why don’t they propose decriminalization of the drug but maintain current federal draconian measures on punishing the suppliers?

Most Americans have dispensed with the worldview that drug usage itself is inherently wrong and have instead adopted the stance that drug addiction should be treated like a disease.  But we have not moved away from consigning moral culpability to the supplier, who remains a menace to society.  Federal laws certainly can be overhauled that would grapple with this modern perspective, but there is absolutely no reason at this juncture to jump the gun to full-blown legalization.  Lacking concrete evidence of its long-term effects, as well as the ambiguous results from states that have so far served as laboratories of experiment, it would appear that if they wish to uphold their empirical mantle, liberals should wait longer for the data to run its course and then make a decision after careful, systematic examination.

Libertarians likewise should take a guarded outlook when evaluating Colorado, their magnum opus.  Indeed, tax revenues are up – but at what cost?  Is the inevitable uptick in pot users an opportunity cost worth having for such revenues?  Given its novelty, the wider societal implications are not fully explored, and the economics of the issue is far from definitive.  Meanwhile, as we as a nation cope with a heroin epidemic of historic proportions, it would seem odd to buy into the pro-legalization argument when, in fact, there is bountiful evidence to suggest that many addicts of hardcore drugs like heroin and cocaine began with marijuana.  That is not to suggest that marijuana is a gateway drug, and yes, there is plenty of evidence that most pot users do not become heroin addicts.  Yet there nonetheless is a plethora of evidence that heroin and cocaine addicts started out with marijuana and alcohol.  This equally applies to alcoholics and addicts of prescription painkillers, whose conditions often worsen once marijuana, which exacerbates pre-existing conditions, is brought into the picture.

This is not to say that the pro-legalization movement is completely wrong in its motives.  There were many errors committed over an extended period of time by the so-called prohibitionists, and there is undoubtedly a lot of blame to go around.  However, Jeff Sessions and others who maintain the stance that legalization should remain off the docket ought to be praised for their hard-line stance, not excoriated.  There is still too much we don’t know.

The changes in public sentiment have been primarily driven by emotions, not facts.  The pro-legalization movement must do away with the fallacy that pot is perfectly benign and move beyond their desire to get high for enjoyment’s sake.  It’s probably true that most of the potheads who back legalization aren’t truly looking out for the poor man with Parkinson’s, but are simply searching for an outlet to channel their own desire for altered consciousness into a more socially acceptable end.

This may be the crux of the issue: more people in modern times are searching for an escape from the material world.  If that is true, our focus should then ultimately be on the profounder problems of modernity, not on the superficial mechanism through which we can artificially escape it.



Source link

Mater Si, Magistra No: Renewal of Tradition in the Catholic Church


The council, which sought to rigorously examine the challenges that had long plagued the Church in the modern era, was the impetus behind the liberalization of the Catholic Church.  The Council Fathers sought to transfer the focus of the liturgical movement from the priests to the laity, ascribing renewed significance to the congregation.  This coincided with a movement away from Latin to the vernacular.  The way the documents of Vatican II were written allowed practitioners of the Novus Ordo Mass, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, to replace Gregorian Chant with secular religious hymns, thus making the latter the predominant musical tradition. 

This and other reforms accelerated the overhaul of traditional customs and likewise reflected the Church’s growing aloofness to such things as doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional morality.  In keeping with the stylistic changes of the liturgy and the theological approach of aggiornamento, a “bringing up to date,” Church architecture, particularly over the past half-century, has been compromised by the spirit of Vatican II.  Grandiose cathedrals that once towered over cities and reached toward heaven have been replaced by pedestrian structures devoid of the Romanesque and Gothic elements that in years past fostered the allure and mystique of the Catholic Church.  The interiors underwent a similar transformation: tabernacles were, in many cases, relegated to side alcoves, and the centerpiece crucifix was replaced by a resurrected Christ or a barren cross, indistinguishable from Protestant symbolism.

In addition to the liturgical alterations, the rites of the seven sacraments were subject to considerable revision.  Traditional vestments were dispensed with, and the regalia of the papal coronation, such as the sporting of the papal tiara, last worn by Pope Paul VI in 1963, was indefinitely retired.  Priests have also moved away from the Tridentine custom of celebrating Mass ad orientem (facing “liturgical east,” or toward the high altar), instead opting for the more personalized versus populum (facing the congregation), which was consistent with the Church’s pivot toward personalized morality and emphasis on self-fulfillment over set dogma. 

Perhaps the most salient change is the Second Vatican Council’s commitment to ecumenism.  Keeping in line with its desire to democratize and reconcile longstanding theological rifts in a rapidly globalizing world, the ecumenical reforms were met with varying degrees of success.  In this respect, the Council Fathers had hoped to reorient the Church’s perspective to highlight the shared orthodoxies between the Catholic Church and other faiths, a departure from its former practice of highlighting the deviations among other denominations.  Some traditionalists viewed these unprecedented measures with horror, believing the Church to have completely abandoned centuries of tradition.  But the Council Fathers reiterated that no doctrinal changes had been made; the Council’s chief aim was to democratize and appease a modernizing world, not surrender to it. 

Over a half-century later, it remains unclear just how successful the Council was in achieving its goals and to what extent the ensuing history of the Church is incumbent upon Vatican II reforms.  Some traditionalists cite the vibrant state of the Church prior to the Council’s formation in many parts of the world – notably, the United States, Canada, and many parts of Eastern and Southern Europe.  Today, Mass attendance in all these regions – particularly those bereft of a prevailing Protestant subculture – has dropped precipitously, suggesting a failure of the Council to deliver on its goals.  Incidentally, Mass attendance in the United States has declined as well – approximately three in four practicing Catholics attended Mass on a regular basis prior to Vatican II, whereas now, participation hovers around twenty to twenty-five percent.  To some, this is vindication that the Church must restore many of its former traditions or risk annihilation altogether.  And while it would be unwise to ascribe a cause-and-effect relationship between Mass attendance and Vatican II, it is nevertheless indisputable that Christianity in the Western world is currently experiencing an existential crisis as people everywhere – particularly the young – abandon organized religion in droves. 

Perhaps the most disheartening case of this is the devitalized state of the Irish Catholic Church, which, for centuries, had provided the cultural foundation of one of the most Catholic countries in Europe.  Today, Mass attendance barely exceeds thirty percent and remains in decline.  This figure is less than a third of its 1950 participation rate and, by some estimates, is markedly lower than in countries that do not have a traditionally Catholic heritage, such as the United States.  The long-term results of this wholesale secularization are not yet fully understood.  However, the fact that Ireland redefined marriage in 2015 by popular referendum in an attempt to include same-sex couples suggests a certain permanence to these trends, at least for the foreseeable future.  Granted, the Catholic Church remains an integral part of Irish society, but its influence has waned considerably in the past few decades, setting the stage for a renewed debate of once untouchable issues like abortion and euthanasia.

The problems facing the Catholic Church in Ireland are very much interrelated with the problems affecting the Catholic Church globally; the former is a concrete derivative of a systemic issue whose origins trace back to the fallout of the Council itself.  Some, including Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI, maintained that it was not Vatican II, strictly speaking, that caused the crisis of the modern Church, but rather how the Council was subsequently misconstrued by the burgeoning news media and leftist academicians.  Considering the liberal climate of the late 1960s, there is little doubt that the cultural changes of that era impacted the interpretation of the Council.  This, in conjunction with the evolving media climate, in which biased journalists labeled the Council Fathers as winners and losers depending on their philosophy, furthered the confusion about the Council’s implications.  In recognizing this, some blame can still be accorded to those who backed the Council for haphazardly calling for its creation without accounting for the cultural changes that would invariably dint its rollout, regardless of whatever the actual outcome was. 

Ultimately, whether or not the Council accelerated today’s lack of religiosity is secondary to the larger premise that the modern Church was, in fact, greatly shaped by Vatican II reforms.  Knowing this, it would be wise for Church officials to gradually roll back many of the liturgical changes and work toward implementing a more traditionalist platform.  Pope Benedict XVI appeared to sympathize with traditionalists in expressing during his papacy that liberals had wrongly interpreted Vatican II by objecting to such reforms as pushing back against local suppression of the Latin Mass, in addition to smaller reforms, like reviving several papal garments that had fallen into disuse.  Although these efforts were rather diminutive in theological significance, they nevertheless signaled that the Vatican was at least open to the idea of bringing tradition back to the Catholic Church. 

So where left to go for the surviving religious hoping for a grand awakening of their faith? 

Some, like Rod Dreher (who left the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy), believe that a new “dark ages” have befallen contemporary civilization and that the best way to manage the situation is for the remaining few Christians to organize into monastic communities of believers removed from the moral decay of modern times.  This so-called “Benedict Option,” named for St. Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537), is tailored for Americans who wish to preserve genuine Christian culture by displacing themselves from a society that is in its current state outwardly hostile to the Christian faith.  Essentially, the debauchery of American civilization has reached a point of no return, forcing the few devout remaining to withdraw from the world, if not physically, then at least spiritually, into true communities of faith that will uphold the principles of the Church and form a “living spiritual relationship with God.” 

Others have advocated for less drastic measures, though a common pessimism about the degraded state of Western civilization appears to unify many traditionalists.  Indeed, there is a clear metaphysical crisis working to dismember any form of objective truth or attach genuine significance to the human person.  Above all, the effects of modernity have reduced the dignity of the modern man into nothing beyond a baseless social construct contingent on no substantive higher moral truth.  The horrible eventualities that might result from such spiritual lethargy are, at present, unknown.

Christians should hope that at some point in the future, the truths embedded in the writings of such distinguished theologians as Benedict XVI may ignite an awakening of the Logos and a renewal of faith founded in the memoria Ecclesiae, the memory of the Church.  Tracey Rowland, writing for the Catholic Herald, put it this way: 

When a new generation arises in full rebellion from the social experiments of the contemporary era, craving a human ecology that respects both God and nature, and wanting to be something more than rootless cosmopolitans, Ratzinger’s publications will serve as Harry Potter-style Portkeys, giving creative young rebels access to the missing cultural capital – indeed, access to what Ratzinger calls the memoria Ecclesiae.

So long as current trends continue, traditional Catholics may ultimately become the Church’s most prominent voice, if for no reason other than that they will be the only ones remaining, thereby forcing it into this direction by default.  Naturally, Catholics should hope it doesn’t reach this point, but considering that the updated papal idiom of Pope Francis did not usher a wave of disaffected Catholics back into the Church, it seems that a reversal of course might actually be a good thing.  The Church would be well advised to stop pandering to lapsed Christians, and instead to strengthen its resolve on doctrine and tradition, especially given the alarming trend of moral relativism among younger people in particular, which is grossly incompatible with the objectivism espoused by Catholic doctrine.  A more reverend, disciplined, and ordered Church might ultimately precipitate a rekindling of the Catholic faith and shift the emphasis away from the material and personal and toward the metaphysical and divine.

 

It has been over a half-century since the closure of the Second Vatican Council, which ran in multiple sessions from 1963 to 1965 under the papacies of Pope Saint John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.  Vatican II, as the ecumenical council is colloquially known, is considered the defining moment of the Church in the twentieth century.  The council brought forth historic change to the Roman Catholic Church, fundamentally altering the liturgy and dispensing with centuries of tradition to appease a world society that had freshly emerged from the two deadliest conflicts in human history.

The council, which sought to rigorously examine the challenges that had long plagued the Church in the modern era, was the impetus behind the liberalization of the Catholic Church.  The Council Fathers sought to transfer the focus of the liturgical movement from the priests to the laity, ascribing renewed significance to the congregation.  This coincided with a movement away from Latin to the vernacular.  The way the documents of Vatican II were written allowed practitioners of the Novus Ordo Mass, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, to replace Gregorian Chant with secular religious hymns, thus making the latter the predominant musical tradition. 

This and other reforms accelerated the overhaul of traditional customs and likewise reflected the Church’s growing aloofness to such things as doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional morality.  In keeping with the stylistic changes of the liturgy and the theological approach of aggiornamento, a “bringing up to date,” Church architecture, particularly over the past half-century, has been compromised by the spirit of Vatican II.  Grandiose cathedrals that once towered over cities and reached toward heaven have been replaced by pedestrian structures devoid of the Romanesque and Gothic elements that in years past fostered the allure and mystique of the Catholic Church.  The interiors underwent a similar transformation: tabernacles were, in many cases, relegated to side alcoves, and the centerpiece crucifix was replaced by a resurrected Christ or a barren cross, indistinguishable from Protestant symbolism.

In addition to the liturgical alterations, the rites of the seven sacraments were subject to considerable revision.  Traditional vestments were dispensed with, and the regalia of the papal coronation, such as the sporting of the papal tiara, last worn by Pope Paul VI in 1963, was indefinitely retired.  Priests have also moved away from the Tridentine custom of celebrating Mass ad orientem (facing “liturgical east,” or toward the high altar), instead opting for the more personalized versus populum (facing the congregation), which was consistent with the Church’s pivot toward personalized morality and emphasis on self-fulfillment over set dogma. 

Perhaps the most salient change is the Second Vatican Council’s commitment to ecumenism.  Keeping in line with its desire to democratize and reconcile longstanding theological rifts in a rapidly globalizing world, the ecumenical reforms were met with varying degrees of success.  In this respect, the Council Fathers had hoped to reorient the Church’s perspective to highlight the shared orthodoxies between the Catholic Church and other faiths, a departure from its former practice of highlighting the deviations among other denominations.  Some traditionalists viewed these unprecedented measures with horror, believing the Church to have completely abandoned centuries of tradition.  But the Council Fathers reiterated that no doctrinal changes had been made; the Council’s chief aim was to democratize and appease a modernizing world, not surrender to it. 

Over a half-century later, it remains unclear just how successful the Council was in achieving its goals and to what extent the ensuing history of the Church is incumbent upon Vatican II reforms.  Some traditionalists cite the vibrant state of the Church prior to the Council’s formation in many parts of the world – notably, the United States, Canada, and many parts of Eastern and Southern Europe.  Today, Mass attendance in all these regions – particularly those bereft of a prevailing Protestant subculture – has dropped precipitously, suggesting a failure of the Council to deliver on its goals.  Incidentally, Mass attendance in the United States has declined as well – approximately three in four practicing Catholics attended Mass on a regular basis prior to Vatican II, whereas now, participation hovers around twenty to twenty-five percent.  To some, this is vindication that the Church must restore many of its former traditions or risk annihilation altogether.  And while it would be unwise to ascribe a cause-and-effect relationship between Mass attendance and Vatican II, it is nevertheless indisputable that Christianity in the Western world is currently experiencing an existential crisis as people everywhere – particularly the young – abandon organized religion in droves. 

Perhaps the most disheartening case of this is the devitalized state of the Irish Catholic Church, which, for centuries, had provided the cultural foundation of one of the most Catholic countries in Europe.  Today, Mass attendance barely exceeds thirty percent and remains in decline.  This figure is less than a third of its 1950 participation rate and, by some estimates, is markedly lower than in countries that do not have a traditionally Catholic heritage, such as the United States.  The long-term results of this wholesale secularization are not yet fully understood.  However, the fact that Ireland redefined marriage in 2015 by popular referendum in an attempt to include same-sex couples suggests a certain permanence to these trends, at least for the foreseeable future.  Granted, the Catholic Church remains an integral part of Irish society, but its influence has waned considerably in the past few decades, setting the stage for a renewed debate of once untouchable issues like abortion and euthanasia.

The problems facing the Catholic Church in Ireland are very much interrelated with the problems affecting the Catholic Church globally; the former is a concrete derivative of a systemic issue whose origins trace back to the fallout of the Council itself.  Some, including Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI, maintained that it was not Vatican II, strictly speaking, that caused the crisis of the modern Church, but rather how the Council was subsequently misconstrued by the burgeoning news media and leftist academicians.  Considering the liberal climate of the late 1960s, there is little doubt that the cultural changes of that era impacted the interpretation of the Council.  This, in conjunction with the evolving media climate, in which biased journalists labeled the Council Fathers as winners and losers depending on their philosophy, furthered the confusion about the Council’s implications.  In recognizing this, some blame can still be accorded to those who backed the Council for haphazardly calling for its creation without accounting for the cultural changes that would invariably dint its rollout, regardless of whatever the actual outcome was. 

Ultimately, whether or not the Council accelerated today’s lack of religiosity is secondary to the larger premise that the modern Church was, in fact, greatly shaped by Vatican II reforms.  Knowing this, it would be wise for Church officials to gradually roll back many of the liturgical changes and work toward implementing a more traditionalist platform.  Pope Benedict XVI appeared to sympathize with traditionalists in expressing during his papacy that liberals had wrongly interpreted Vatican II by objecting to such reforms as pushing back against local suppression of the Latin Mass, in addition to smaller reforms, like reviving several papal garments that had fallen into disuse.  Although these efforts were rather diminutive in theological significance, they nevertheless signaled that the Vatican was at least open to the idea of bringing tradition back to the Catholic Church. 

So where left to go for the surviving religious hoping for a grand awakening of their faith? 

Some, like Rod Dreher (who left the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy), believe that a new “dark ages” have befallen contemporary civilization and that the best way to manage the situation is for the remaining few Christians to organize into monastic communities of believers removed from the moral decay of modern times.  This so-called “Benedict Option,” named for St. Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537), is tailored for Americans who wish to preserve genuine Christian culture by displacing themselves from a society that is in its current state outwardly hostile to the Christian faith.  Essentially, the debauchery of American civilization has reached a point of no return, forcing the few devout remaining to withdraw from the world, if not physically, then at least spiritually, into true communities of faith that will uphold the principles of the Church and form a “living spiritual relationship with God.” 

Others have advocated for less drastic measures, though a common pessimism about the degraded state of Western civilization appears to unify many traditionalists.  Indeed, there is a clear metaphysical crisis working to dismember any form of objective truth or attach genuine significance to the human person.  Above all, the effects of modernity have reduced the dignity of the modern man into nothing beyond a baseless social construct contingent on no substantive higher moral truth.  The horrible eventualities that might result from such spiritual lethargy are, at present, unknown.

Christians should hope that at some point in the future, the truths embedded in the writings of such distinguished theologians as Benedict XVI may ignite an awakening of the Logos and a renewal of faith founded in the memoria Ecclesiae, the memory of the Church.  Tracey Rowland, writing for the Catholic Herald, put it this way: 

When a new generation arises in full rebellion from the social experiments of the contemporary era, craving a human ecology that respects both God and nature, and wanting to be something more than rootless cosmopolitans, Ratzinger’s publications will serve as Harry Potter-style Portkeys, giving creative young rebels access to the missing cultural capital – indeed, access to what Ratzinger calls the memoria Ecclesiae.

So long as current trends continue, traditional Catholics may ultimately become the Church’s most prominent voice, if for no reason other than that they will be the only ones remaining, thereby forcing it into this direction by default.  Naturally, Catholics should hope it doesn’t reach this point, but considering that the updated papal idiom of Pope Francis did not usher a wave of disaffected Catholics back into the Church, it seems that a reversal of course might actually be a good thing.  The Church would be well advised to stop pandering to lapsed Christians, and instead to strengthen its resolve on doctrine and tradition, especially given the alarming trend of moral relativism among younger people in particular, which is grossly incompatible with the objectivism espoused by Catholic doctrine.  A more reverend, disciplined, and ordered Church might ultimately precipitate a rekindling of the Catholic faith and shift the emphasis away from the material and personal and toward the metaphysical and divine.



Source link