{"id":6527,"date":"2016-04-11T07:13:25","date_gmt":"2016-04-11T07:13:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/04\/11\/on-vatican-ii\/"},"modified":"2016-04-11T07:13:25","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T07:13:25","slug":"on-vatican-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/04\/11\/on-vatican-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"On Vatican II"},"content":{"rendered":"

My attitude has softened a bit since the following was written two and half years ago.  But I'll leave it at full strength.  Trenchancy of expression and all that.<\/span><\/p>\n

………………………………..<\/span><\/p>\n

There was something profoundly stupid about the Vatican II 'reforms' even if we view matters from a purely immanent 'sociological' point of view. Suppose Roman Catholicism is, metaphysically, buncombe to its core, nothing but an elaborate  human construction in the face of a meaningless universe, a construction  kept going by human needs and desires noble and base.  Suppose there is no God, no soul, no post-mortem reward or punishment, no moral world order.  Suppose we are nothing but a species of clever land mammal thrown up on the shores of life by blind evolutionary processes, and that everything that makes us normatively human and thus persons<\/em> (consciousness, self-consciousness, conscience, reason, and the rest) are nothing but cosmic accidents.  Suppose all that.<\/span><\/p>\n

Still, religion would have  its immanent life-enhancing  role to play, and one would have to be as superficial and ignorant of the human heart as a New Atheist to think it would ever wither away: it inspires and guides, comforts and consoles; it provides our noble impulses with an outlet while giving suffering a meaning.  Suffering can be borne, Nietzsche says somewhere, if it has a meaning; what is unbearable is meaningless suffering.  Now the deep meaning that the Roman church provides is tied to its profundity, mystery, and reference to the Transcendent.  Anything that degrades it into a namby-pamby secular humanism, just another brand of liberal feel-goodism and do-goodism, destroys it, making of it just another piece of dubious cultural junk.  Degrading factors: switching from Latin to the vernacular; the introduction of sappy pseudo-folk music sung by pimply-faced adolescents strumming gut-stringed guitars; leftist politics and political correctness; the priest facing the congregation; the '60s obsession with 'relevance.'  And then there was the refusal to teach hard-core doctrine and the lessening of requirements, one example being the no-meat-on-Friday rule.  Why rename confession 'reconciliation?  What is the point of such a stupid change? 
<\/span><\/p>\n

A religion that makes no demands fails to provide the structure that people, especially the young, want and need.  Have you ever wondered what makes Islam is so attractive to young people?<\/span><\/p>\n

People who take religion seriously tend to be conservatives and traditionalists; they are not change-for-the-sake-of-change leftist utopians.  The stupidity of the Vatican II 'reforms,' therefore, consists in estranging its very clientele, the conservatives and traditionalists. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

The church should be a liberal-free zone.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Why do We Obsess Over Ultimate Meaning?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Nietzsche, Truth, and Power<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Church in Crisis?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Pascal, Buber, and the God of the Philosophers<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>World + God = God? The Aporetics of the God-World 'Relation'<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>A Quasi-Kierkegaardian Poke at Paglia<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Baptism<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My attitude has softened a bit since the following was written two and half years ago.  But I'll leave it at full strength.  Trenchancy of expression and all that. ……………………………….. There was something profoundly stupid about the Vatican II 'reforms' even if we view matters from a purely immanent 'sociological' point of view. Suppose Roman Catholicism … Continue reading “On Vatican II”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-catholic-corner"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}