The Pillar was not, "congratulating itself on how perceptive its own questions were." They were not the Pillar's own questions. These questions have been circulating extensively since the announcement about the consecrations, and most people online have either treated them as a slam dunk in favor of the SSPX or dismissed them as whataboutism. I appreciate that the Pillar did not do either of those things.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic, even-handed explainer. I have always appreciated the effort that the Pillar makes in not getting out over its skis and taking an objective approach to hot button issues that typically get the Catholic Internet flying completely off the handle.
But they're assembling and curating the questions, after all, and I just imagined Ed/JD basically going "Self, I have a question." "Wow self, that's a great question" and I chuckled. That's all.
They have benefactors like everyone else, sure. But for the most part they have just managed money well, and don't have the massive issues of scale other religious orders have. I don't think there's any ill repute behind the building of that Church.
They also have basically none of the liabilities that the rest of the Church has in Europe and the United States. Far less abuse due to far less clergy and far less churches to close/repair due to a smaller base.
I think one answered the China question about as honestly as you could, but I think this does offer a kind of difficult question:
What exactly is the principle at stake from Rome's perspective? Its also worth noting a point of context:
Deals between Rome and Beijing and Rome and Hanoi didn't exist in 1988. Its clear now that papal mandates and "Rome decides who is a bishop" is not something Rome really goes to the mattresses on. (I'm also not sure how much the professed statement CCP approved Bishops "believe in the popes authority" can be accepted, or at least the "authority' as they understand it) I don't think that justifies the SSPX position for a variety of reasons, but its not completely irrelevant either.
I think there's a legitimate question as to if the China deal is actually more beneficial than it is harmful, but I think the consideration the Vatican is trying to make is broadly as follows (and this is rank speculation):
First, institutionally: if we have the CPCA, which is state run and amplified internally as 'authentic Chinese Catholicism' and an underground, legitimate, church operating in the shadows, there's the risk of the more visible church claiming to be Catholic with access to government resources and a monopoly on legal catechesis overwhelming the authentic church in the country. It would be better to have some influence over the CPCA in that case, otherwise we have a Protestant church that's Catholic in name only.
Second, consideration for the faithful: prior to the agreement you either were a member of the schismatic CPCA or the underground, legitimate church. In the former case you were affiliated with a schismatic organization, but free from the risk of government reprisal for your faith. In the latter, you were affiliated with the true Church, but risked severe civil punishments for that fact. I don't think it's unreasonable for an entirely faithful Chinese Catholic to feel severely conflicted about which path to go down. On one hand there's the moral issue of faithfulness and loyalty to the legitimate church and, on the other, there's fear for your life and those of your family. The Vatican was trying to smooth out those pains, which practically involves permitting some role for the Chinese Government in the Chinese Church. Blowing up the agreement would plunge the laity back into the old paradigm, if not worse. It's for their sake that we continue to allow the Chinese Government to act as a bad partner without tearing up the deal at every transgression, though, at some point, you imagine something eventually breaks.
As an aside, the 'election' of bishops is at least organized by the CCP, not on the bishop's own initiative. They're under coercion too, so I think we shouldn't read too far in *their* attitudes towards Papal Authority based on the actions of the CPCA and CCP.
Legally it makes the comparison apples and oranges, though. Because canon law foresees and carves out agreements between the Holy See and nations and political societies as outside the provisions of the law.
One can argue the prudence and effectiveness of the unpublished agreement with Beijing, but the difference between them and the SSPX is they are an external authority recognized in canon law and possessed of a legal agreement with Holy See, and the SSPX is and has none of those things.
For the record I don't think it changes the case canonically. I think the current situation is a mess, but sometimes law can be messy and people have to accept that.
(Why I'm mostly skeptical about the justifications for the SSPX's actions even I think there is something close to a point)
"Well, it just so happens that your friends here are only **mostly** schismatic, and there's a big difference between **mostly** schismatic and **formally** schismatic"
Thanks for these explainers - they are incredibly helpful.
They're very perceptive.
Perceptive questions and articulate answers
Explainers alone are worth the price of admission.
I enjoyed the Pillar congratulating itself at how perceptive its own questions were.
The Pillar was not, "congratulating itself on how perceptive its own questions were." They were not the Pillar's own questions. These questions have been circulating extensively since the announcement about the consecrations, and most people online have either treated them as a slam dunk in favor of the SSPX or dismissed them as whataboutism. I appreciate that the Pillar did not do either of those things.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic, even-handed explainer. I have always appreciated the effort that the Pillar makes in not getting out over its skis and taking an objective approach to hot button issues that typically get the Catholic Internet flying completely off the handle.
But they're assembling and curating the questions, after all, and I just imagined Ed/JD basically going "Self, I have a question." "Wow self, that's a great question" and I chuckled. That's all.
Oh yeah, we're being a little bit cute.
Sometimes a little self-congratulation is warranted!
I took it as self-referential light-heartedness, too. The Pillar writers have a good sense of humor.
Exactly the dialogue I pictured in my head. This is also how I talk to myself so it was very relatable 😆
This may be OT, but I suspect the SSPX has some powerful financial backers. How else could they built that big church in Kansas?
They have benefactors like everyone else, sure. But for the most part they have just managed money well, and don't have the massive issues of scale other religious orders have. I don't think there's any ill repute behind the building of that Church.
They also have basically none of the liabilities that the rest of the Church has in Europe and the United States. Far less abuse due to far less clergy and far less churches to close/repair due to a smaller base.
I think one answered the China question about as honestly as you could, but I think this does offer a kind of difficult question:
What exactly is the principle at stake from Rome's perspective? Its also worth noting a point of context:
Deals between Rome and Beijing and Rome and Hanoi didn't exist in 1988. Its clear now that papal mandates and "Rome decides who is a bishop" is not something Rome really goes to the mattresses on. (I'm also not sure how much the professed statement CCP approved Bishops "believe in the popes authority" can be accepted, or at least the "authority' as they understand it) I don't think that justifies the SSPX position for a variety of reasons, but its not completely irrelevant either.
I think there's a legitimate question as to if the China deal is actually more beneficial than it is harmful, but I think the consideration the Vatican is trying to make is broadly as follows (and this is rank speculation):
First, institutionally: if we have the CPCA, which is state run and amplified internally as 'authentic Chinese Catholicism' and an underground, legitimate, church operating in the shadows, there's the risk of the more visible church claiming to be Catholic with access to government resources and a monopoly on legal catechesis overwhelming the authentic church in the country. It would be better to have some influence over the CPCA in that case, otherwise we have a Protestant church that's Catholic in name only.
Second, consideration for the faithful: prior to the agreement you either were a member of the schismatic CPCA or the underground, legitimate church. In the former case you were affiliated with a schismatic organization, but free from the risk of government reprisal for your faith. In the latter, you were affiliated with the true Church, but risked severe civil punishments for that fact. I don't think it's unreasonable for an entirely faithful Chinese Catholic to feel severely conflicted about which path to go down. On one hand there's the moral issue of faithfulness and loyalty to the legitimate church and, on the other, there's fear for your life and those of your family. The Vatican was trying to smooth out those pains, which practically involves permitting some role for the Chinese Government in the Chinese Church. Blowing up the agreement would plunge the laity back into the old paradigm, if not worse. It's for their sake that we continue to allow the Chinese Government to act as a bad partner without tearing up the deal at every transgression, though, at some point, you imagine something eventually breaks.
As an aside, the 'election' of bishops is at least organized by the CCP, not on the bishop's own initiative. They're under coercion too, so I think we shouldn't read too far in *their* attitudes towards Papal Authority based on the actions of the CPCA and CCP.
Legally it makes the comparison apples and oranges, though. Because canon law foresees and carves out agreements between the Holy See and nations and political societies as outside the provisions of the law.
One can argue the prudence and effectiveness of the unpublished agreement with Beijing, but the difference between them and the SSPX is they are an external authority recognized in canon law and possessed of a legal agreement with Holy See, and the SSPX is and has none of those things.
For the record I don't think it changes the case canonically. I think the current situation is a mess, but sometimes law can be messy and people have to accept that.
(Why I'm mostly skeptical about the justifications for the SSPX's actions even I think there is something close to a point)
"Well, it just so happens that your friends here are only **mostly** schismatic, and there's a big difference between **mostly** schismatic and **formally** schismatic"
Tucho: "Gimme the 65. I'm on the job."