In the eyes of
some, the Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council was a cesspool of
corrupt authoritarianism and abuse that insulted human dignity at the most fundamental
level. To take only one example,
Monsignor George A. Kelly (1916-2004) quoted Malachi Brendan Martin (1921-1999)
in his (Kelly’s) book, The Battle for the
American Church (1979), giving a lengthy list of things in the Church that
“do not work,” especially anything that made the Church Catholic or even
religious. (Msgr. George A. Kelly, The Battle for the American Church. New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1979, 5-6.)
 |
| Félicité de Lamennais |
Surprising only
those unaware of the degree of infiltration of the New Things into the Church
and their origin in the democratic religion of socialism of the early
nineteenth century, Martin’s list could easily have been inspired by Félicité
de Lamennais’s pamphlet, Les Paroles d’un Croyant (1834). Martin’s vision of the Church of the Future
(a term used by Orestes Brownson while a socialist and prior to his conversion
to Catholicism) bore a striking resemblance to that of Henri de Saint-Simon in Le Nouveau Christianisme (1825).
To others, the
institution before the Second Vatican Council represented the high water mark
of Christianity in the United States and throughout the world. It is viewed as something of a “Catholic
moment,” with the Church set to lead all Christianity to what Pius XI had
called “the Reign of Christ the King.”
This was the view Kelly presented in his book, the first part of which
gives a glowing list of admittedly impressive statistics, which he repeated
frequently to show the contrast before and after the Council.
 |
| Ralph McInerny |
Ralph Michael
McInerny (1929-2010) of the University of Notre Dame shared Kelly’s view of the
pre-conciliar Church, referencing Kelly a number of times in his book, What Went Wrong with Vatican II
(1998). As McInerny said, “It would be
very wrong to imagine that it was something broken and in need of repair.” (Ralph M. McInerny, What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained. Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute
Press, 1998, 7-8.)
McInerny also
cited “The American Epoch in the Catholic Church,” by Evelyn Waugh. The essay first appeared in the September 19,
1949 issue of Life magazine. (Reprinted in Donat Gallagher, ed., The Essays, Articles and Reviews of Evelyn
Waugh. London: Penguin Books, 1983,
377-388.)
Shocking those
who generally miss whatever point Waugh was making, the caustic satirist
presented a very positive view of the Church in America halfway through the
twentieth century. It was not, however,
the rosy picture presented by Kelly and McInerny decades after the fact. McInerny himself seemed to miss the warnings
Waugh gave, perhaps writing them off as an example of Waugh’s irascibility and
curmudgeonly outlook.
 |
| Evelyn Waugh |
If so, McInerny
did both himself and Waugh a disservice.
In common with Pius IX and others, Waugh saw an affinity between the unique
American character (as chronicled by Alexis de Tocqueville) and
Catholicism. Waugh seems to have
appreciated that the form of liberal democracy developed in America was somehow
different from that of either England or Europe. The former was compatible with Catholic
teaching while the latter are not. As he
said, “Catholics are the largest religious body in the United States, the
richest [Waugh did not, of course,
refer to material wealth] and in certain ways the most lively branch of
the Catholic Church in the world.” (Ibid., 379.)
Again startling
many, Waugh credited the strength of the Catholic Church in America to
separation of Church and State in a form that left determination of religious
belief up to the individual. Admittedly
in practice even in the United States this has often developed into hostility
against the Catholic Church and other faiths, but that was never the intent or
meaning of America’s Founders.
In the final
reckoning, at least at the time de Tocqueville wrote, the division of life into
private and public aspects left individuals largely in control of their own
destinies and restricted the State to a relatively minor role. As Waugh commented, “The realm of ‘private
life’ was large and inviolable. And the
division of Church and State is feasible only under those conditions.” (Ibid., 379-380.)
 |
| Another "Must Read," Bookworms |
Nevertheless, Waugh
saw a grave danger threatening the Church and the rest of civilization
throughout the world as the role of the State continued to expand. Having seen the direction Fabian socialism
was taking Great Britain — which he would depict a few years later in his dystopian
novella Love Among the Ruins: A Romance
of the Near Future (1953) — he was alert to what the related New Deal could
do to Catholicism in the United States.
As he noted,
As the State, whether it consist of the will of the majority or the power
of a clique, usurps more and more of the individual’s “private life”, the more
prominent become the discrepancies between the secular and the religious
philosophies, for many things are convenient
to the ruler which are not healthy for the soul. (Ibid., 380.)
Merging organized
religion into the State and the transformation of churches, temples,
synagogues, and mosques into second rate government welfare agencies was the
goal of Msgr. John A. Ryan and his supporters as well as that of the Fabians. In the decade before the Second Vatican
Council, however, the New Things had not yet managed to become rooted deep in
the American psyche.
Waugh thought the
greater danger to the Church was that European Catholics would adopt the
superficial aspects of American culture he had lampooned in, e.g., The Loved One: An Anglo-American Tragedy (1948), and drift away
from what remained on the continent of the practice of the faith. He did not foresee that Americans would adopt
the European liberal version of democracy, “the tragic fate of Europe,” (ibid.) and undermine their own
Christianity. As he concluded his essay,
 |
| Pope John XXIII |
There is a purely
American “way of life” led by every good American Christian that is
point-for-point opposed to the publicized and largely fictitious “way of life”
dreaded in Europe and Asia. And that, by
the grace of God, is the “way of life” that will prevail. (Ibid., 388.)
Given his
insights, then, it is hardly wonderful that Waugh took a jaundiced view of the
changes that accompanied the Second Vatican Council a decade later. He has even been accused of being hostile to
the aggiornamento of Pope John XXIII
(Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, 1881-1963, elected 1958) and of
questioning the reason for the Council in the first place.
As one example,
the editor of a collection of Waugh’s essays and other short works broadly
hinted that Waugh did not express his true feelings about either Pius XII (Eugenio
Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli, 1876-1958, elected 1939) or John XXIII
in the articles he wrote after their deaths.
This is a remarkable insinuation, given Waugh’s acerbic honesty. (Ibid., 493.)
Actually reading
Waugh’s essays and letters on the popes and the Council reveals a different
story. Unless he was lying (a thought
that occurs only to be dismissed as ludicrous), Waugh did not fall into common
error. He did not assume that John XXIII
intended any fundamental or substantial change at all, or that His Holiness was
casual or lax in matters of either doctrine or discipline. (Ibid., 618.)
 |
| The Spirit of Vatican II (86 Proof) |
Waugh’s distaste
was reserved for those who, in contravention of what he considered the true
“Spirit of Vatican II,” insisted on changing outward forms. He did not, contrary to editorial claims,
equate aggiornamento with “Change,” (ibid., 493) and he died before “the
Spirit of Vatican II” took on its current pejorative meaning.
In Waugh’s
opinion (which turned out to be prophetic), changes in outward forms, while
puerile and tasteless in many cases, did not affect anything doctrinal. They could, however, lead the way to
alterations in doctrine as well as discipline.
The John XXIII
Waugh admired was not the figure of popular myth. He was instead a true visionary, intent upon
bringing the Church up to date without the sacrifice of the smallest particle
of either Sacred Tradition or human custom.
As McInerny noted in agreement,
[A]nyone who takes the trouble to discover what kind of man John
XXIII really was will find it difficult to recognize the media persona with
which he was invested. It is forgotten
now that early in his papacy he issued a directive requiring Latin to be fully
restored as the language of instruction in seminaries and pontifical
institutions. (McInerny, What Went Wrong
with Vatican II, op. cit., 7.)
Nor would Waugh
have disagreed — which raises the question of why he thought John XXIII called
the Council. As Waugh remarked, “No one
had petitioned for it. No one had
expected it.” (Waugh, Essays, Articles and Reviews, op. cit.,
617-618.)
#30#
