There is a crisis in the Church. This is obvious and much has already been written about it. The crisis is liturgical, moral, and theological; it truly is a crisis of faith. The crisis, moreover, is psychological.
High-ranking Church officials over the past several decades have used subtle psychological language to frame topics. Thus, they created a psychological advantage over bewildered, orthodox Catholics in the pews.
Probably the most egregious example comes from Pope John Paul II in his moto proprio, “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta” (July 2, 1988). The pope used clever language to create a framework for the conflict over the true perennial traditional Latin Mass vs. the manufactured Mass of Paul VI (the “novus ordo”). In his moto proprio the pope wrote the following:
“Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition…” (no. 6c).
This language is from the official English translation of the document from the Holy See’s website. The official Latin document uses the following:
“Ubique observandus erit animus eorum qui se sentiunt traditioni latinae liturgicae devinctos…”
Notice the word animus (mind) for “feelings” and the word sentiunt for “attached.”
The official French translation has dispositions intérieures (inner feelings) and sentent liés (to feel connected).
The battle is no longer simply over the Mass—it is over how Catholics are taught to think about the Mass.
The importance of language
Compare the pope’s language to that of St. Paul:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned…” (2 Thess. 2:14).
The Latin Vulgate uses the phrase state et tenete traditiones for “stand fast and hold the traditions.” There is absolutely nothing in St. Paul’s letter about sentiment or feelings or attachment. Why didn’t the pope describe Catholics as “those who hold the Latin” rather than “those who are attached to the Latin”? Why not use the even stronger word, “adhere”?
The pope, when describing feelings and attachment, is indeed clever. St. Ignatius of Loyola, in his Spiritual Exercises, exhorts retreatants to rid themselves of inordinate attachments. The Church also holds that to gain a plenary indulgence, the soul must be free of all attachment to sin. In the mind of modern popes and bishops, they are not the problem. Vatican II is not the problem and the invention of a novus ordo Mass is not the problem. The problem in their mind is you, the whiny Catholic in the pew who won’t let go of tradition.
The future pope, Benedict XVI, had grave reservations about the new Mass of Paul VI. While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote in the foreword to Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Rite that it is a “fabricated liturgy.” The future pope added that the novus ordo Mass is “a banal product of the moment.”
Can the traditional Latin Mass be reduced to mere sentimental attachment? Or will it remain throughout time, the authentic fruit of the Roman rite and the most sublime form of worship pleasing to God, as an unbloody perpetuation of the one expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross? By providing a psychological framework of attachment, or a mere preference for the traditional Latin Mass, high-ranking churchmen can easily knock down this straw-man argument when they increasingly impose boundaries around the Mass and insist on the novus ordo.
When Tradition is reduced to a feeling, obedience to novelty becomes easier to impose.
Problematic psychology
Other examples abound of the psychological crisis in the Church. The very documents of the Second Vatican Council have curious, and simultaneous, traditional and novel language (For example, cf. Lumen Gentium). Much has already been written about the hidden novelties in the conciliar documents. There are also sad stories, well documented already, of orthodox priests sent away by their bishops for psychological evaluations, or ongoing psychological reprogramming, to fit in better with modernist thinking and practice.
Recently the psychological language became much worse. The Vatican’s recent synod of bishops adopted severely problematic language from the secular world to describe the challenges of those with same-sex attraction. As a Catholic therapist, I work with a variety of people, and those with this affliction need help and support, and the emotional safety of a confidential counseling space, just as anyone else.
The recent synod of bishops allowed their study group no. 9 to publish a “final report” in Italian, and with a working English translation, “on relevant questions from the Synthesis’ Report of the First Session of the XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.” The document is published and available from Vatican News, the official news site of the Holy See.
The study group interviewed two men afflicted with the condition. The final report refers to “conversion therapy” and uses the modern words “homophobia” and “transphobia.” Interestingly, while the working English translation of the final report is 32 pages in length, the words “penance”; “reconciliation”; and “confession” are not to be found in the document.
At best, one could say the document is one-sided and does not display a fully Catholic anthropology of the human person in its consideration of those with same-sex afflictions.
Faithful Catholics are increasingly portrayed not as guardians of Tradition, but as people who simply can’t let go of the past.
The phrase “conversion therapy” is problematic and does not describe the process of therapeutic change. It is a loaded phrase and stacks the deck in favor of those who want to prevent therapists from truly helping politically protected classes of individuals. Any psychotherapy with the word “conversion” is an automatic violation of counselor ethics. To conduct professional counseling (which is known as psychotherapy) a professional counselor and a client agree on specific, measurable treatment goals which are written in a treatment plan. These might include clarifying identity, implementing helpful techniques to lower anxiety, exploring roots of depression, reprocessing past trauma, and so on.
Professional counselors, such as myself and those who work for me, are bound by our codes of ethics. We never practice “conversion” which implies something coercive and would be an ethics violation. Again, churchmen in high places use, or adopt, clever psychological language to frame the conversation and stack the deck against devout, orthodox Catholics in the pew.
It could be worse – much worse
Just imagine, with all the problematic language coming from the Holy See and other Catholic structures, what would the Church be like today if the Society of St. Pius X never existed? Without the SSPX, the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei communities would not exist. What if there were no tradition-minded bishops for Confirmations and Holy Orders? Would there be any traditional Latin Mass communities? There would most likely be a few disorganized sedevacantist groups around, but the majority of us would be mired down in the most “conservative” parish we can find, fighting a chronic civil war over liturgy, theology, sacraments, and religious education. Our children would suffer from such ongoing conflict as various factions and their own parents would fight for their souls.
Today, Catholics must hold the nuanced position of practicing and passing on the orthodox traditions of our holy Faith, while simultaneously rejecting anything heterodox regardless of its source, while we also believe and assent to the validity of our pope and bishops. It can be sorely tempting to give up and devolve into catastrophic thinking. Such is the extent of the very real crisis in the Church today. But we must remember that God is in charge. Let us continue to love and serve Him in all humility, while we are strengthened with the gifts of fortitude and wisdom, receiving these directly from the Holy Ghost.
