I wonder of traditiones custodes isn't in fact a sort of petty and ill-concieved response to Vigano and anyone who might be inclined to read/listen to him.
I don't think it has to necessarily be a Vatican thing to deal appropriately with these guys spouting off things that are just crazy town, why are no other bishops willing to speak courageously to the public and face these guys head on? Present cogent, well reasoned, well supported by Church documents etc arguments to what these guys keep rehashing? I don't understand why it has to be so hard. It's basic leadership that has gone into hiding from the 70's on. Would it solve all scandal? No, probably not. But it would provide a loud, reasonable voice people could turn to and turn others towards. It's eternally frustrating for us lay people to watch this junk continue to be spewed, for tons of Catholics to use this as some furthering of their "side", and for the Church's Truth to continue to be unsaid.
This could just be what's top of mind for me lately because of other media I consume, but I think it's relevant. I think not addressing these issues may come in part from a mentality that "the internet isn't real." And to be sure, there is some kind of distinction to be made between the internet and the rest of the world, but there are real communities on the internet. The internet does lead to "real" action. Until it crosses that line, I think the Church will be hesitant to address it.
For context, I live in one of the most "conservative" (read Right-Liberal) diocese in America. Figures such as Vigano (or Martin in other diocese) are having real, tangible effects on the faithful. The Church's reticence in recent times to address these errors is problematic and ahistorical. You only have to look to the Action française affair and the frequent censure of modernist theologians in the first half of the century for examples. Maybe the Church is afraid of appearing "illiberal" by censoring "free expression?"
I think it should be addressed by their appropriate superiors; in the case of Martin, his Jesuit superiors should be stepping up. I don't know who Vigano's superior is, but I think sort of the same thing (I guess for bishops it's someone at the Vatican? Or is it the head of the country's bishops' conference? No idea there.) Especially in the case of Martin, who is used as a frequent news commentator and has published a lot, there needs to be some clarification.
I quipped this on Twitter, but I feel it bears repeating: the silence around Viganò, in my opinion, stems from the same mindset that motivated silence about abusers. It's an unwillingness to "make a mess" in addressing a problem head-on in hopes that it will go away, even as it boils hotter.
Guessing of course, but my take is the Church doesn't want to bring any more notoriety to the rantings of Archbishop Vigano than he already receives. You cannot argue with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxers and the like. The archbishop can do no real harm and is best ignored.
I'm inclined to think the Holy See is wise to avoid comment about Vigano. But part of the scandal of that is that the Holy Father seems to randomly comment on all sorts of things (including some of the more bizarre micromanagement movements surrounding Traditiones Custodes), so we're left with an almost-inevitable urge to speculate about things that are left in silence.
For my part, I think I've been hesitant to say much about Vigano because I still remember that moment when he seemed like a hero -- one of the few voices speaking up in the midst of scandal. And the ability to agree with one thing a person says while criticizing other things is, well, exactly what we all find very difficult to do these days across the various political spectrums. It's much easier when people remain either angels or demons.
I do think, JD, that your anecdotal observations are right. Maybe I'm not in the normal Catholic world (ordinariate, small conservative college, etc.), but he shows up in my view all the time. I'll admit to feeling somewhat powerless about it, because so many of the faithful are very, shall we say, prickly, one way or another. I will say that EVERY time I hear confessions, in whatever context (and I float around quite a bit), there are those who are struggling with anger and resentment at Rome, and so Vigano's hot takes will continue to find audiences ready to listen, eager to hear some affirmation of their feelings, however crazy it may seem.
It's a catch 22. You do not want to give unnecessary publicity to articles/comments such as Vigano's, but on the other hand there are very few who are addressing flaws/inaccuracies in these statements in a proper manner, and it is these types of statements that are leading so many down the garden path.
It's difficult. Based on my experiences with people who read controversial blogs and Catholic public figures (radical traditionalist types specifically), they look to them because they see in them a clearness and outspokenness they do not see in their own pastors and bishops: they perceive, rightly or wrongly, their bishops or pastors to not be orthodox, or not wanting to rock the boat and be blunt on what the Church teaches. Presenting blunt points in line with Church teaching isn't bad, of course, but they don't see then the points that aren't in line with Church teaching. Someone once confided in me that they wondered if Pope Francis should be assassinated after listening to one such figure for a couple months.
Those figures, however, would likely consider it a badge of honor to be censured by the Vatican, and so too would their followers. It would add to their appeal. It's a tricky situation for which I have no answers. But I do believe their impact should not be underestimated nor ignored.
Re AB Vigano. He seems to be the only visible Churchman who says out loud that we are "going to hell in a hand basket." AB Vigano appeals to us older persons (I'm in my 80s) because our past lives had much less anxiety and a lot more hope about the future of the Church and civilization. What other Catholic Bishop has had the bravery and audacity to say that supranational businesses and groups "deliberately want to maintain a situation of obvious imbalance, precisely to make impossible any attempt at a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, provoking the Russian Federation to trigger a conflict."
AB Vigano clearly had ghost writers to prepare his long letter, and it has loads of info. Take time to read it so that you understand the background of the war in Ukraine, including Ukraine's shut down of seven TV stations in early February, before the Russian invasion.
AB Vigano's letter is not the "official narrative, to which everyone conforms. Being at war, dissent immediately becomes desertion, and those who dissent are guilty of treason and deserving of more or less serious sanctions, starting with public execration and ostracism, well experienced with COVID against those who are “un-vaxxed”. Consequently, AB Vigano knows he will be "martyred". You can bet on it!
Regarding Vigano: Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican has made a habit of posting Vigano's letters. Dr. Moynihan seems like a credible fellow, and his email letters contains information and insights not found elsewhere, but it seems like his allegiance with Archbishop Vigano is running him off the rails. The writings attributed to Vigano contain many, many claims that seem utterly unverifiable. It is sad. I guess I don't understand why Moynihan continues to promote him and his writings.
I think these controversial things do need to be addressed. People may still choose to believe things the church isn’t teaching, but then it truly is their free choice after being presented with the truth.
I bet if you went to a random Catholic Church and showed 1000 attendees a picture and name of Vigano with no other information 980+ would not know who he is/was. Only geeks like us follow this level of news
I shall only comment with regards to you discussing controversial clerics as the Vatican makes their own decisions.
Over the last year, I have learned to appreciate the perspectives of misters Flynn and Condon through your Podcasts and website. It has helped me put issues into context.
So I would say please continue to discuss appropriate “controversial” clerics as [1]You add a legal framework I do not get elsewhere and [2] you often provide a link, that is appreciated, to the original statements which allow me to easily read the context of the statement should I wish.
Vigano and Martin don’t influence the culture they merely reflect the culture of like minded people. The time has passed where Catholic clerics have little persuasive influence on anyone. Based on life circumstances and world view people are right or left. Old people are more likely right, younger people left. Seen in this light, Vigano and Martin are merely confirmatory of their constituents views . The left dismiss Vigano as senile , the right sees Martin as an apostate. It’s as simple as that. Demographics will rule and the Church if controlled by the right will shrink dramatically over the next 20 years. It will be a refuge for orthodoxy.
I wonder of traditiones custodes isn't in fact a sort of petty and ill-concieved response to Vigano and anyone who might be inclined to read/listen to him.
I don't think it has to necessarily be a Vatican thing to deal appropriately with these guys spouting off things that are just crazy town, why are no other bishops willing to speak courageously to the public and face these guys head on? Present cogent, well reasoned, well supported by Church documents etc arguments to what these guys keep rehashing? I don't understand why it has to be so hard. It's basic leadership that has gone into hiding from the 70's on. Would it solve all scandal? No, probably not. But it would provide a loud, reasonable voice people could turn to and turn others towards. It's eternally frustrating for us lay people to watch this junk continue to be spewed, for tons of Catholics to use this as some furthering of their "side", and for the Church's Truth to continue to be unsaid.
This could just be what's top of mind for me lately because of other media I consume, but I think it's relevant. I think not addressing these issues may come in part from a mentality that "the internet isn't real." And to be sure, there is some kind of distinction to be made between the internet and the rest of the world, but there are real communities on the internet. The internet does lead to "real" action. Until it crosses that line, I think the Church will be hesitant to address it.
For context, I live in one of the most "conservative" (read Right-Liberal) diocese in America. Figures such as Vigano (or Martin in other diocese) are having real, tangible effects on the faithful. The Church's reticence in recent times to address these errors is problematic and ahistorical. You only have to look to the Action française affair and the frequent censure of modernist theologians in the first half of the century for examples. Maybe the Church is afraid of appearing "illiberal" by censoring "free expression?"
I think it should be addressed by their appropriate superiors; in the case of Martin, his Jesuit superiors should be stepping up. I don't know who Vigano's superior is, but I think sort of the same thing (I guess for bishops it's someone at the Vatican? Or is it the head of the country's bishops' conference? No idea there.) Especially in the case of Martin, who is used as a frequent news commentator and has published a lot, there needs to be some clarification.
I quipped this on Twitter, but I feel it bears repeating: the silence around Viganò, in my opinion, stems from the same mindset that motivated silence about abusers. It's an unwillingness to "make a mess" in addressing a problem head-on in hopes that it will go away, even as it boils hotter.
Guessing of course, but my take is the Church doesn't want to bring any more notoriety to the rantings of Archbishop Vigano than he already receives. You cannot argue with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxers and the like. The archbishop can do no real harm and is best ignored.
I'm inclined to think the Holy See is wise to avoid comment about Vigano. But part of the scandal of that is that the Holy Father seems to randomly comment on all sorts of things (including some of the more bizarre micromanagement movements surrounding Traditiones Custodes), so we're left with an almost-inevitable urge to speculate about things that are left in silence.
For my part, I think I've been hesitant to say much about Vigano because I still remember that moment when he seemed like a hero -- one of the few voices speaking up in the midst of scandal. And the ability to agree with one thing a person says while criticizing other things is, well, exactly what we all find very difficult to do these days across the various political spectrums. It's much easier when people remain either angels or demons.
I do think, JD, that your anecdotal observations are right. Maybe I'm not in the normal Catholic world (ordinariate, small conservative college, etc.), but he shows up in my view all the time. I'll admit to feeling somewhat powerless about it, because so many of the faithful are very, shall we say, prickly, one way or another. I will say that EVERY time I hear confessions, in whatever context (and I float around quite a bit), there are those who are struggling with anger and resentment at Rome, and so Vigano's hot takes will continue to find audiences ready to listen, eager to hear some affirmation of their feelings, however crazy it may seem.
It's a catch 22. You do not want to give unnecessary publicity to articles/comments such as Vigano's, but on the other hand there are very few who are addressing flaws/inaccuracies in these statements in a proper manner, and it is these types of statements that are leading so many down the garden path.
It's difficult. Based on my experiences with people who read controversial blogs and Catholic public figures (radical traditionalist types specifically), they look to them because they see in them a clearness and outspokenness they do not see in their own pastors and bishops: they perceive, rightly or wrongly, their bishops or pastors to not be orthodox, or not wanting to rock the boat and be blunt on what the Church teaches. Presenting blunt points in line with Church teaching isn't bad, of course, but they don't see then the points that aren't in line with Church teaching. Someone once confided in me that they wondered if Pope Francis should be assassinated after listening to one such figure for a couple months.
Those figures, however, would likely consider it a badge of honor to be censured by the Vatican, and so too would their followers. It would add to their appeal. It's a tricky situation for which I have no answers. But I do believe their impact should not be underestimated nor ignored.
Re AB Vigano. He seems to be the only visible Churchman who says out loud that we are "going to hell in a hand basket." AB Vigano appeals to us older persons (I'm in my 80s) because our past lives had much less anxiety and a lot more hope about the future of the Church and civilization. What other Catholic Bishop has had the bravery and audacity to say that supranational businesses and groups "deliberately want to maintain a situation of obvious imbalance, precisely to make impossible any attempt at a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, provoking the Russian Federation to trigger a conflict."
AB Vigano clearly had ghost writers to prepare his long letter, and it has loads of info. Take time to read it so that you understand the background of the war in Ukraine, including Ukraine's shut down of seven TV stations in early February, before the Russian invasion.
AB Vigano's letter is not the "official narrative, to which everyone conforms. Being at war, dissent immediately becomes desertion, and those who dissent are guilty of treason and deserving of more or less serious sanctions, starting with public execration and ostracism, well experienced with COVID against those who are “un-vaxxed”. Consequently, AB Vigano knows he will be "martyred". You can bet on it!
Regarding Vigano: Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican has made a habit of posting Vigano's letters. Dr. Moynihan seems like a credible fellow, and his email letters contains information and insights not found elsewhere, but it seems like his allegiance with Archbishop Vigano is running him off the rails. The writings attributed to Vigano contain many, many claims that seem utterly unverifiable. It is sad. I guess I don't understand why Moynihan continues to promote him and his writings.
I think these controversial things do need to be addressed. People may still choose to believe things the church isn’t teaching, but then it truly is their free choice after being presented with the truth.
I bet if you went to a random Catholic Church and showed 1000 attendees a picture and name of Vigano with no other information 980+ would not know who he is/was. Only geeks like us follow this level of news
I shall only comment with regards to you discussing controversial clerics as the Vatican makes their own decisions.
Over the last year, I have learned to appreciate the perspectives of misters Flynn and Condon through your Podcasts and website. It has helped me put issues into context.
So I would say please continue to discuss appropriate “controversial” clerics as [1]You add a legal framework I do not get elsewhere and [2] you often provide a link, that is appreciated, to the original statements which allow me to easily read the context of the statement should I wish.
Keep up the good work!
Vigano and Martin don’t influence the culture they merely reflect the culture of like minded people. The time has passed where Catholic clerics have little persuasive influence on anyone. Based on life circumstances and world view people are right or left. Old people are more likely right, younger people left. Seen in this light, Vigano and Martin are merely confirmatory of their constituents views . The left dismiss Vigano as senile , the right sees Martin as an apostate. It’s as simple as that. Demographics will rule and the Church if controlled by the right will shrink dramatically over the next 20 years. It will be a refuge for orthodoxy.