by John L. Allen Jr.
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
Natural science is familiar with the “observer effect,” meaning that sometimes the mere act of placing a process under observation can unintentionally distort its outcome. In such cases, the scientist is no longer a neutral observer, but actually becomes part of the experiment.
Covering the Vatican can also be an exercise in the “observer effect,” in that the mere fact of bringing a story to public attention can sometimes alter its outcome. Take, for example, the case of a not-yet-published Vatican document. Leaks give both proponents and opposition a chance to mobilize, allow the drafters to gauge public reaction, set loose a volley of discussion in the press and in the Catholic world, and in general can change the calculus in the Vatican concerning the content of the document and, perhaps, the wisdom of issuing it at all.
One can see this process at work today on the question of a document, thought to be forthcoming from Pope Benedict XVI, which would liberalize use of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass.
It all began on Oct. 11, when Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli broke a story in Il Giornale indicating that such a document was ready, missing only the signature of the pope. Tornielli wrote that the document would return the pre-Vatican II Mass to “full citizenship” in the church, in effect erecting it as a separate rite alongside the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites in the West.
It is testament to Tornielli’s stellar reputation that people by and large took his report on faith, despite the fact that it has proved nearly impossible to find anyone in the Vatican who has actually seen, much less worked on, a document on the old Mass. Assuming it exists, it is a closely-guarded secret.
Meanwhile, the report has let loose an avalanche of discussion, some of it from traditionalists cheered by the prospect of such a gesture – some of it from liturgists and bishops skeptical about the pastoral need for, or theological significance of, a broader return to the old Mass.
In France, where the breakaway Society of St. Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has its stronghold, and where polarization between avante garde and traditionalist wings of the church is severe, discussion has been particularly intense.
Over the weekend, several more French bishops added their voices to the fray.
Archbishop Gerard Defois of Lille, for example, told Le Figaro that he has nothing against the older liturgy which “formed generations of Christians,” but said the problem lies “in the world-view of those who often proclaim themselves its defenders.” Specifically, Defois mentioned “their refusal of an adaptation of the church to modern society” and “their integralist vision of the Gospel of Christ which confuses the Reign of God with that of human beings.”
In European Catholic discourse, “integralism” describes a social theory which rejects on principle the idea of church/state separation, arguing instead for a confessional state based on Catholic doctrine.
Defois warned that any reawakening of this form of Catholic traditionalism “could have immediate consequences,” such as “intellectual collusion between certain extremist political currents and religious legitimizations.”
Defois went on to say that reconciliation with the Lefebvrite movement “cannot be accomplished at the expense of the Council,” referring to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and said that the council’s teaching on ecumenism, relations with other religions, and freedom of conscience “were considered fundamental” by Pope John Paul II, and should be seen as non-negotiable.
Defois walked up to the brink of issuing a warning to Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission, who has taken lead in attempts to reconcile with the traditionalists: “In Rome, the cardinal wants to build bridges,” Defois said. “That’s good, on the condition that it be done based on truth.”
Meanwhile, six bishops of the French region of Normandy sent a letter to their priests, urging them to “remain faithful to the church and to its living tradition,” including the post-conciliar period.
Bishop Claude Dagens of Angouleme was explicit in requesting a chance to discuss the merits of any papal document: “We, the bishops, ask to be informed [about the document] in order to exercise our discernment with the Bishop of Rome and under his authority,” Dagens wrote.
Not everyone in the French hierarchy, it should be noted, seems troubled by the idea of a broader use of the old rite. The dioceses of Strasbourg and Fréjus-Toulon, for example, have recently approved the opening of parishes in which the pre-Vatican II Mass will be celebrated.
Yet Archbishop Robert Le Gall of Toulouse gave voice to a critical perspective that seems fairly widespread among many French bishops.
“In France, where we’re often at odds with each other, the liturgical question remains very ideological,” Le Gall said. Thus liberalizing the Latin rite, Le Gall said, risks “exacerbating this opposition,” even if the intent is to reduce it.
t
tThat is a message, Le Gall said, which “should be delivered to Rome.”
One can safely assume that this discussion is indeed being followed in the Vatican. What effect it may have on the outcome, however, is, for the moment, anyone’s guess.
