I am grateful to my colleague Gregory for pointing out to me this interesting article by a French Dominican, published by E.S.M. on December 16, 2007—thus, reacting to the initial fallout from the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum—and yet, as far as I can tell, never published online in English, a regrettable lacuna we have now sought to fill. While naturally one may not agree with all his points, the good father’s reflections indicate an amicable ‘catholic’ mentality that might have prevailed, had not Benedict’s peace given way to Francis’s war. —PAK
Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Is Significant: Planets Suddenly Meet
Thierry-Dominique Humbrecht, OP
The debates surrounding the Motu Proprio seem to be symptomatic: planets that haven’t met for a long time are suddenly facing each other, astonished by each other’s existence, since the galaxy of the Church in France seems to be so full of empty spaces.
These planets are those of the “traddies” and those who are not—the majority of the French clergy and a large proportion of the parishioners. There are other planets which only partly overlap the previous configuration: young Catholics versus the so-called “Council generation” (the over-60s), or charismatics and other new communities versus Catholic Action, etc. It’s a beautiful diversity, demonstrating Christian plurality and everyone’s right to exist. How does this encounter take place?
We could discuss the theological differences that seem to separate these currents, usually crystallized around the reception or rejection of the Second Vatican Council. All of this is true, or rather should be, because unfortunately this formulation gives too much weight to theology. More than theologies, cultures and social milieus are suddenly colliding. For example, the mass of the clergy corresponding to the above-mentioned sexagenarian generation is rather left-wing, social and popular (or wants to be), including some of the higher clergy. The younger generations of Catholics, on the other hand, seem to belong to a more right-wing culture (albeit a pluralistic one), a more bourgeois and urban culture, not only because of the pendulum swinging back and forth, as our lazy intelligence too often lets us believe, but because of the numerical collapse of the middle classes, which should occupy the center and diversify the whole.
While remaining a minority, the traditionalist world is proving to be proportionally important for the present and, above all, for the future of the French Catholic community. In fact, it is the whole of the younger generation—from the right of the “traddies” to the left of the charismatics, including the new communities and certain dioceses—which at this time takes on a certain relief perceived as unitary, beyond their mutual yet considerable differences.
This is not without concern for the older generations. They don’t find in their younger siblings the ideals that thrilled them forty years ago. They realize the numerical and dynamic importance of these new currents, which they have nevertheless worked so hard to minimize for years. Young people want spiritual and liturgical life, fidelity to Rome, intellectual training, new reference-points, and explicit apostolic figures. It is not rare for the older generation to feel judged by the young. The latter most often aren’t giving it any thought, but the way they live [their faith] is perceived as an indictment.
The “traddy” crisis was therefore one of the occasions (like the World Youth Days, in fact) to reveal the non-marginal existence of several Catholic currents that the collective conscience had been willing to overlook.
The risk for all would be to defend themselves by excluding others. The Church is broad and maternal enough to contain them all. On the contrary, a propensity towards communitarianism would be a sign of the Christian community’s ill health.
The cracks in French Catholic culture have been caused by a number of ideologies, and sometimes make it difficult to amalgamate different ages and affiliations. The parish should play this role, but it is only succeeding in certain places that have taken the measure of the relevant phenomena in time. It’s the leaders of Catholic Action who are cracking—too late, unfortunately. Drifts have taken place and it will take time to reconcile generations, sensitivities, and, even more, ideas. All the more so, as we have left Christendom behind. Unity should focus more on theological substance than on pastoral options, which paradoxically combine pedagogical rigidity and doctrinal fragmentation.
The liturgical pluralism of the two states of the Roman rite may be damaging, but it is the consequence of a violent liturgical splintering [éclatement liturgique sauvage], even more damaging, on which official light is still too timidly shed.
Only a spiritual, liturgical, and catechetical renewal of the whole French ecclesial community will enable the harmonious integration of the “traddies.” The latter, for their part, need to exert an effort to make themselves presentable. They also need to brush up on their theology, their pastoral care, and even their sense of liturgical dress.
A mutual effort of understanding is needed if these planets are to revolve in the same galaxy. Each is called to seek the truth rather than to be right. We need to find a common language, based on the Church’s present and perennial teaching, which is the point of reference for all debates.
A minimum of dialogue needs to be cultivated, through friendly encounters and an attempt to understand other people’s value systems, far from any jealously cultivated paranoia. No single Christian current holds the ideal cultural determinations of the Gospel message. Mutual approaches are gradually taking shape, and we must not delay in establishing them.
In the final analysis, the necessities of dogma, morality, liturgy, and the spiritual life of the Christian people, on the one hand, and the cultural conditioning of groups and individuals, on the other, are intertwined, sometimes in a disturbing way. Not everything is equally important.
These planets are those of the “traddies” and those who are not—the majority of the French clergy and a large proportion of the parishioners. There are other planets which only partly overlap the previous configuration: young Catholics versus the so-called “Council generation” (the over-60s), or charismatics and other new communities versus Catholic Action, etc. It’s a beautiful diversity, demonstrating Christian plurality and everyone’s right to exist. How does this encounter take place?
Culture shock
We could discuss the theological differences that seem to separate these currents, usually crystallized around the reception or rejection of the Second Vatican Council. All of this is true, or rather should be, because unfortunately this formulation gives too much weight to theology. More than theologies, cultures and social milieus are suddenly colliding. For example, the mass of the clergy corresponding to the above-mentioned sexagenarian generation is rather left-wing, social and popular (or wants to be), including some of the higher clergy. The younger generations of Catholics, on the other hand, seem to belong to a more right-wing culture (albeit a pluralistic one), a more bourgeois and urban culture, not only because of the pendulum swinging back and forth, as our lazy intelligence too often lets us believe, but because of the numerical collapse of the middle classes, which should occupy the center and diversify the whole.
While remaining a minority, the traditionalist world is proving to be proportionally important for the present and, above all, for the future of the French Catholic community. In fact, it is the whole of the younger generation—from the right of the “traddies” to the left of the charismatics, including the new communities and certain dioceses—which at this time takes on a certain relief perceived as unitary, beyond their mutual yet considerable differences.
This is not without concern for the older generations. They don’t find in their younger siblings the ideals that thrilled them forty years ago. They realize the numerical and dynamic importance of these new currents, which they have nevertheless worked so hard to minimize for years. Young people want spiritual and liturgical life, fidelity to Rome, intellectual training, new reference-points, and explicit apostolic figures. It is not rare for the older generation to feel judged by the young. The latter most often aren’t giving it any thought, but the way they live [their faith] is perceived as an indictment.
The “traddy” crisis was therefore one of the occasions (like the World Youth Days, in fact) to reveal the non-marginal existence of several Catholic currents that the collective conscience had been willing to overlook.
Symptoms of cracks
The risk for all would be to defend themselves by excluding others. The Church is broad and maternal enough to contain them all. On the contrary, a propensity towards communitarianism would be a sign of the Christian community’s ill health.
The cracks in French Catholic culture have been caused by a number of ideologies, and sometimes make it difficult to amalgamate different ages and affiliations. The parish should play this role, but it is only succeeding in certain places that have taken the measure of the relevant phenomena in time. It’s the leaders of Catholic Action who are cracking—too late, unfortunately. Drifts have taken place and it will take time to reconcile generations, sensitivities, and, even more, ideas. All the more so, as we have left Christendom behind. Unity should focus more on theological substance than on pastoral options, which paradoxically combine pedagogical rigidity and doctrinal fragmentation.
The liturgical pluralism of the two states of the Roman rite may be damaging, but it is the consequence of a violent liturgical splintering [éclatement liturgique sauvage], even more damaging, on which official light is still too timidly shed.
Moving forward together
Only a spiritual, liturgical, and catechetical renewal of the whole French ecclesial community will enable the harmonious integration of the “traddies.” The latter, for their part, need to exert an effort to make themselves presentable. They also need to brush up on their theology, their pastoral care, and even their sense of liturgical dress.
A mutual effort of understanding is needed if these planets are to revolve in the same galaxy. Each is called to seek the truth rather than to be right. We need to find a common language, based on the Church’s present and perennial teaching, which is the point of reference for all debates.
A minimum of dialogue needs to be cultivated, through friendly encounters and an attempt to understand other people’s value systems, far from any jealously cultivated paranoia. No single Christian current holds the ideal cultural determinations of the Gospel message. Mutual approaches are gradually taking shape, and we must not delay in establishing them.
In the final analysis, the necessities of dogma, morality, liturgy, and the spiritual life of the Christian people, on the one hand, and the cultural conditioning of groups and individuals, on the other, are intertwined, sometimes in a disturbing way. Not everything is equally important.
Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s Substack “Tradition & Sanity”; personal site; composer site; publishing house Os Justi Press and YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify pages.
