Time and time again, I see a rather ridiculous claim by those who claim to be a conservative and (or) a traditionalist within the Catholic Church; they say that Vatican II must be rejected, and it must be rejected because it is “Modernist.” By saying this, they show they are unwilling to listen to the church, and the Spirit who guides the church. They think they get to dictate to the church. To be sure, everyone should have a voice, but there is a difference between explaining one’s views and understanding and making demands upon the church as a whole. And, when we see why they do this, it is due to various outrageous claims they make, claims which are easy to disprove. For example, many of them say that after Vatican II, the notion of sin has been rejected, that it is no longer taught by the church. They say the church has become relativistic. Neither of these claims are even remotely true. If one reads what the church teaches, sin has not been ignored, but rather, the church not only continues to talk about sin, and the consequences of sin, the church reminds the faithful of many sins they have otherwise neglected or ignored, ones which the so-called conservatives and traditionalists likewise ignore (if not outright embrace). When they are pressed to deal with those sins, and explain why they have ignored them, I often finds the same conservatives and traditionalists engage the relativism they projected upon the church! This can be said especially with those sins which violate the social doctrine of the church; many, if not most, give all kinds of excuses to ignore the preferential option for the poor and instead promote the rich and powerful, justifying whatever the rich and powerful do which undermines the dignity of others (I see this all the time in their defense of Donald Trump).
One of the complaints these so-called conservatives and traditionalists make is that the church looks at sin, not only in their objective gravity, but with their subjective application when pastorally working with sinners. These so-called conservatives want everything to be simple, which means, they end up objectifying everything; if a sin has the potential to be grave (and therefore mortal) sin, they want it to always be grave and mortal. The reality, however, is the church in its determination of the gravity of sin has always looked at the subjective element, which is why, for example, the church has always said for someone to be culpable for an act, the act cannot be something forced upon them (such as through torture). When these so-called conservatives make their examination of sin in a purely objective manner, they undermine the subject, that is, the person behind the sin, turning them into a mere object (which, to be sure, is one of the things sin does, that is, sins seeks to destroy the subject by turning them into an object without a will of their own). This makes it easy for them to deny sinners human dignity because, if they have sinned, they are objectively one and the same as the sin, and so are to be treated the same way as sin is to be treated. What a monstrous way to view the world and other people!
The church has always rejected simplistic, dualistic notions of good and evil, because, as with all dualisms, in the end, God and the goodness or power of God is undermined by them. The church has always viewed social sin as sins which must be resisted and rejected. It has always pointed out the culpability of those who support and reinforce structures of sin (with “original sin” itself being the first and primary structure of sin). It has always looked beyond a few sins, such as sexual sins, but rather, looks to a large variety of them. The church has always said it is a sin to ignore the needs of the community, to fail to work for and promote the good of all. The church has especially said those work seek to undermine that good, especially if they undermine the dignity of the poor or oppressed, gravely (and often “mortally”) sin. Those who want to deny social sin, those who want to relativize such sins away, are the same ones complaining about the church no longer talking about sin. In reality, the church consistently talks about sin, but not always the sins they want talked about! Indeed, it seems when the church points out their sins, they either ignore or reject what is being said; once they do that, they are only projecting their own denial about sin upon the church!
And yet, many so-called conservatives and traditionalists tell me they are right, the church is no longer talking about sin, and they can prove it because of the way they believe the sacrament of penance is being neglected. Once again, they do so by demonstrating they have a rather shallow conception of the sacrament and how it can be and has been used throughout history. While there has always been a form of it used by the church, the form which they are used to is one which developed in monastic circles and only later became normalized throughout the church. Indeed, it was slowly embraced by the people, and, even after it developed, was rarely used in those times so-called conservatives and traditionalists consider to be the golden age of church history. If we study history, we will find frequent confession became more prominent after the Council of Trent, and even then, first, by rule of law. Before its common use, sin was not denied by the people, nor the church, nor was the sacramental grace of confession denied to the people; the church merely dealt with and gave out that grace differently. It can change the form in which those graces are received in the future. They have always been in flux. Thus, when we study history, frequent confession, except for religious and the clergy, was not the norm; those who complain about the way confession is dwindling do not acknowledge this. They think what is historically unusual to be the norm. If their claim were correct, then the ancient church, which did not have such use of confession, must be deemed as denying sin, which of course, is an absurd take. Again, it is quite possible, just as the sacrament and ways of receiving its graces changed in the past, it will change in the future, this time, in part, due to abuse happening in and within the confessional (which is, of course, rarely acknowledged), the abuse which has led many to not go to the confessional anymore.
Sin remains a concern of the church, but like a good physician, the church recognizes the spiritual sickness connected with it requires proper diagnosis and proper medicine. The church is a field hospital dealing with and helping sinners. That whole notion, which is consistently emphasized by recent Popes, undermines the notion that the church neglects the problem of sin. In reality, it takes sin much more seriously than those who have a simple, dualistic notion of sin, or those who would limit the kinds of sins they focus on. The church recognizes a great variety of sins, seeing some, due to the danger associated with them, requiring more focus today over other sin (such as the sins connected with and associated with climate change, because if those sins are not dealt with, we will destroy the earth, and we will be held responsible by God for that evil). The same people complaining about the church seem to want to ignore their own sins. The church, however, does not; will they listen to the church?
* This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations Series
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In