The first words of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church — one of the council’s two most important texts — signaled a decisive development in Catholic self-understanding.
Rather than begin its reflection on the nature of the Church with “The Catholic Church is…,” the council fathers chose to begin with a bold confession of Catholic faith: “Christ is the light of the nations” — after which the dogmatic constitution’s opening sentence committed the Church to fulfilling the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 by bringing the light of Christ to “every creature.” With that opening sentence, the transition from the institutionally focused, ecclesiocentric Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation to the Christ-centered Catholicism of what John Paul II would call the New Evangelization was accelerated.
In response to the attacks mounted first by the various Protestant Reformations of the 16th century, and then by the new European nationalisms that sprang up in the late 18th and 19th centuries, Catholicism came to understand and describe itself in primarily juridical or legal terms. The Church was the “perfect society,” possessed of all the authority necessary to govern itself and given the means to do so by its divine founder. This concept of a “bastion Church” over-against the world did not lack missionary energy, as the evangelization of the Americas and parts of Africa and Asia demonstrate. But the “perfect society” model suggested that we meet the Lord through the Church — by “becoming a Catholic” — rather than meeting Christ, and through that encounter being incorporated into the Church.
Along with the most creative theologians of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council understood that this heavy emphasis on the Church-as-institution was not evangelically effective in a modern world suspicious of all traditional authorities. So in developing the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Council fathers followed the lead of Pope Pius XII (who had described the Church in primarily spiritual terms as the “Mystical Body of Christ”), and the theologians who had recovered the intellectual and spiritual riches of the first-millennium Church Fathers, by portraying the Church in biblical and Christ-centered images: the Church is the “sheepfold” and its people the “flock” tended by the Good Shepherd; the Church is the “cultivated field” tilled by God, and a divinely planted “vineyard” in which Christ himself is the true vine; the Church is a holy temple, the “dwelling place of God among us;” the Church is the “spotless spouse” of the spotless Lamb of God, the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.
This recovery of biblical and patristic Christocentricity is one of the reasons why the living parts of the world Church today are evangelically fruitful: they offer friendship with Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. And through that encounter, the converted and baptized (or, in some cases, the baptized and later truly converted) become a communion of disciples in mission.
Vatican II’s richly biblical, Christocentric theology of the Church is notably absent from the Working Document (the Instrumentum Laboris, or IL) for the Synod on Synodality, which will meet in Rome in October.
The good people of Aleteia did a word scan of the IL and came up with some telling results. In the IL, the words “Church” and “ecclesial” appear 484 times; “synod,” “synodal,” and “synodality” are used 342 times; “mission” and “missionary” are used 142 times; “process” is used 87 times.
By contrast, “Jesus” appears 14 times and “Christ” is used 35 times.
In the early period of his pontificate, Pope Francis warned the Church against “self-referentiality” — always talking about ourselves — which the pope rightly declared an obstacle to bringing Christ, the light of the nations, to the world. Yet the world synodal process since 2021 has been a colossal exercise in self-referentiality, as the word-count of Synod-2023’s IL (which sums up that process) makes unmistakably clear.
So was the German “Synodal Path,” along which vast amounts of time, energy and money were spent discussing aspects of Catholic faith and practice that are admittedly challenging in today’s Western culture, but that are not going to change because they are part of the Deposit of Faith. What evangelical purpose will be served by more “listening” to what the IL suggests will be identical contestations at Synod-2023? How does any of this bring the light of Christ to the nations?
The Synodal Assembly in October will have to rescue the Synod from its Working Document. This was done in 2014, 2015, and 2018. It can and should be done again, in fidelity to the spirit and letter of Vatican II.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Fr. Ripperger offers a new presentation on youtube on the concept of “clarity” by which he elucidates on the possible motivation for why, of all people, Cardinal Ratzinger indicates the church in the modern world shied away from the works of the Angelic Doctor. Generally, Fr.’s analysis does not paint the moderns of the church in a very favorable light. I would recommend any concerned Catholic to listen to this presentation if they have the 45 minutes required. By way of a teaser, Fr. found it troubling that the reason why Ratzinger and the moderns were eager to drop St. Thomas was that his works provided “TOO MUCH” clarity. You take it from there . . . Deo Gratias! [Obviously, the “identity crisis” which Cardinal Ratzinger laments in the 1984 Ratzinger Report is still very much operative in the life of the church at the current time. While trying to get away from references to itself, it seems the church can’t help but constantly make reference to herself; a symptom itself of self-referential confusion(?).]
Sigh. Really? How much Ratzinger and Benedict XVI have you actually read? He was not opposed to St. Thomas at all; quite the contrary, as his three General Audiences on St. Thomas (2010) demonstrate well. He was, however, not satisfied, as a student and young theologian, with some of the neo-Thomism, which dominated theological studies at that time (1940s, etc). So he went in a more Augustinian/patristic direction. But, again, he had nothing but praise for St. Thomas himself.
In the words of one scholar:
Quite right. So, perhaps you misunderstand Fr. Ripperger. Or he misunderstands Ratzinger. He would not be the first, alas. But that can be rectified by actually reading Ratzinger/Benedict.
Hello Carl,
I have certainly read enough of both that it was quite a surprise for me. The comment, taken as it is, might be one where Fr. would provide caveats, conditions, qualifiers if pressed; but, that’s not what is conveyed in the first few minutes of the presentation. You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YVI9Hlx8WU
What does this have to do with the Instrumentum Laboris, exactly?
The modern church can’t take the CLARITY. It’s all about what makes you feel good rather than what lends itself to salvation. That has everything to do with this pathetic IL.
The “culture” of the contemporary Catholic establishment, as expressed in its current Pontiff Francis, and numerous other “celebrities” among its Cardinals and Bishops, doesn’t seem very concerned with “the mission of the Church,” as defined by Jesus: “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the ages.”
It seems instead that the Church establishment is much more at home meeting world and municipal leaders and marketing itself by saying: “How can the Catholic Church serve you?”
I believe that the very question: “How can the Church serve the world?” has been specifically voiced by the Pontiff Francis. While I admit that I am proceeding from memory on that, I will search for the quote, and post it later, and correct myself if I am mistaken.
But in summary, it is impossible to conclude that such an orientation by our Catholic Church establishment, to serve the world, can find any place other than an afterthought for Jesus Christ, because any group of people seeking “to serve the world” are in the final analysis serving themselves first, and then whatever “customers groups” they cultivate “in the world,” which puts a whole lot of “other priorities” on the agenda, long before you can even think about what Jesus commanded at his Ascension.
As a coda, I would simply observe two things that existed when I was a little boy in the Catholic Church, which that same Church has long ago jettisoned, in seeming contradiction to the explicitly claimed “Christ-centeredness” asserted in the essay about the “letter and spirit” of Vatican II:
1. Every Mass ended with a communal declaration of the lat Gospel (in the vernacular), so everybody, even us little kids, knew that Jesus was was Incarnate Word Made Flesh.
2. At that same time, the “Sacred Congregation for the Faith” has superiority over all other Vatican offices, including (yes) the Secretariat of State, giving people the impression that the most important thing to the Church was the faith it was commanded by Jesus to teach.
Those two gigantic changes, engineered and executed by the Church establishment around the year 1970 or so, don’t communicate that the Church establishment is highly committed to a “Christ-centered” mission to “teach all nations.”
Mr. Weigel is correct, and possibly even more correct than he expresses…
The stated purpose of synodality is first to simply listen, much as a therapist (read “facilitator” bishops!) first listens to the client. Engagement, as an opening toward self-knowledge, communion, and then tangible engagement in the post-Christian and centrifugal world.
Butt, as for the Eucharistic and foundational Mystical Body of Christ, well, the rigid (?) Second Vatican Council is on track to be derailed by “the endless journey” of synodality–not the magisterium, nor even the clarity of Revelation, but rather “the process IS the message…”
NOT MUCH HERE ABOUT: “The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive [!] covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation [novelties cross-dressed as the sensus fidelium?] before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. i Tim 6:14 and Tit. 2:13) (Dei Verbum, n.4):
AND NOTHING ABOUT: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1). NOR: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law be does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience [….] the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16, 79).
How backwardly un-progressive can you get?!
So, now, from whence the needed spinal transplant for “facilitators” now to stand up to what has become the fluid momentum of the co-opted synodal thingy? Even Cardinal Grech tried electric shock, from the microphone at the synodal European Assembly–that instead of a self-referential and groping plebiscite, the Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/02/09/cardinal-grech-at-european-assembly-the-synod-is-not-there-to-destroy-catholic-identity/
Of a “synod” on “synodality” (in the IL, synod and synodality are used 342 times) one is almost reminded of the psychiatric patient groping in the corner of his padded cell. What was he looking for? He was looking for himself.
Weigel is astute in assessing the early damage of this silly synod, but he exercises his lifelong moral blind spot regarding the flaws of Vatican II and the trajectory of a faith in inevitable progress as the purpose of life to which it gave unintentional validation and encouragement: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man.” (Fiirst sentence of DIGNITATIS HUMANAE)
Yes, the natural law affirmation in GS that you mention is beautiful. But where are the necessary frequent corollaries that point out the permanent imperfectability of the human condition? Not very forthcoming from theologians who individually ridiculed the notion of original sin. Where does Weigel get this silly notion that they were all so intelligent?
How can we expect a humanity, where the theologians of VII barely noticed the horror from WWII less than 20 years prior to their council, promise a future “springtime” for the Church to become even more aware of their need to acknowledge their woundedness from their sins and need for repentance? Not many books have been written about non-existent confession lines in the ensuing decades.
What is implicit in language that so easily talks about today’s world as though today’s world is inherently different from the worlds of previous generations other than a denial of permanent truth that has now come to be accepted by people correlating at greater levels with higher levels of education. And how can this be anything but an implicit denial that God is the exclusive source of truth regardless of how many attempts are made to for Vatican voices to set Guinness world record references to the Holy Spirit for all the silly things they say (abusive references) as though the Holy Spirit has become the slave to the mob?
Took five seconds to find this quote from “Gaudium et spes”:
And:
And:
That’s just from the first 1/5 of the text…
Thank you for these wonderful passages from GS. They can give us a theological template from which to start over in a desire to bring people to Jesus.
Defining Catholic truths well does not adequately compensate for objectives that failed to be consistent. The section you note on the true meaning of conscience is brilliant, and yet few would quote from it today to rebuke liberals when they take refuge in their false renderings of what conscience means. But the praise of secular progress in GS will never be ignored. It cannot help but inspire Catholics to misplace their faith in secularity.
I apologize. I was wrong to suggest there was no original sin treatment in GS. I should of emphasized its expressed confidence in secular evolution, which simultaneously undermines it. I don’t know if it was a failure by committee exercise but Ratzinger/Benedict (not just lowly me), aside from praising the excellent content, found effusive praise for the spirit of modern man in GS to be wrongheaded in downplaying a Catholic understanding of the permanent imperfectability of the human condition.
Even noting that good things can happen in social and political history does not allow Catholic witness to ever loose sight that humanity forgets, just as rapidly, in equal measure, in collective cultural experiences, moral truth and virtue. Even noting values like “unity” and linking it to Christ sounds innocent and wonderful, but not so wonderful when we fail to note this is impossible to achieve short of Our Lord’s return and “unity” is easily manipulated into syncretism. FROM GS:
Preface 4) Today, the human race is involved in a new stage of history. Profound and rapid changes are spreading by degrees around the whole world. Triggered by the intelligence and creative energies of man, these changes recoil upon him, upon his decisions and desires, both individual and collective, and upon his manner of thinking and acting with respect to things and to people. Hence we can already speak of a true cultural and social transformation.
Or
Preface 5) Today’s spiritual agitation and the changing conditions of life are part of a broader and deeper revolution…This scientific spirit has a new kind of impact on the cultural sphere and on modes of thought. Technology is now transforming the face of the earth and is already trying to master outer space. To a certain extent, the human intellect is also broadening its dominion over time: over the past by means of historical knowledge; over the future, by the art of projecting and by planning.
Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only bring men hope of improved self-knowledge; in conjunction with technical methods, they are helping men exert direct influence on the life of social groups.
At the same time, the human race is giving steadily-increasing thought to forecasting and regulating its own population growth. History itself speeds along on so rapid a course that an individual person can scarcely keep abreast of it. The destiny of the human community has become all of a piece, where once the various groups of men had a kind of private history of their own. Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one.
OR
Preface 6) This kind of evolution can be seen more clearly in those nations which already enjoy the conveniences of economic and technological progress, though it is also a stir among peoples still striving for such progress and eager to secure for themselves the advantages of an industrialized and urbanized society. These peoples, especially those among them who are attached to older traditions, are simultaneously undergoing a movement toward more mature and personal exercise of liberty.
OR
Ch 4: 42: The Church recognizes that worthy elements are found in today’s social movements, especially an evolution toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. The promotion of unity belongs to the innermost nature of the Church, for she is, “thanks to her relationship with Christ, a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God, and of the unity of the whole human race.”(12) Thus she shows the world that an authentic union, social and external, results from a union of minds and hearts, namely from that faith and charity by which her own unity is unbreakably rooted in the Holy Spirit. For the force which the Church can inject into the modern society of man consists in that faith and charity put into vital practice, not in any external dominion exercised by merely human means.
Or
Ch 2:1: 54: The circumstances of the life of modern man have been so profoundly changed in their social and cultural aspects, that we can speak of a new age of human history.(1) New ways are open, therefore, for the perfection and the further extension of culture. These ways have been prepared by the enormous growth of natural, human and social sciences, by technical progress, and advances in developing and organizing means whereby men can communicate with one another. Hence the culture of today possesses particular characteristics: sciences which are called exact greatly develop critical judgment; the more recent psychological studies more profoundly explain human activity; historical studies make it much easier to see things in their mutable and evolutionary aspects, customs and usages are becoming more and more uniform; industrialization, urbanization, and other causes which promote community living create a mass-culture from which are born new ways of thinking, acting and making use of leisure.
Or
Ch 2:1: 56 In the midst of these conflicting requirements, human culture must evolve today in such a way that it can both develop the whole human person and aid man in those duties to whose fulfillment all are called, especially Christians fraternally united in one human family.
Or
Ch 4: 73: In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organizing the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority. The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world.
And there are many more similar sentiments in GS and other documents.
I have read a number of books and articles by George Weigel. I liked some of them, but I can’t help getting the feeling that he is not really in touch with the typical Catholic in the pew. His circle of friends are probably highly educated academics.
When He says, “This recovery of biblical and patristic Christocentricity is one of the reasons why the living parts of the world Church today are evangelically fruitful:” I have to wonder where he is talking about. Africa maybe?
I saw a discussion on EWTN last week with Robert Royal. They were discussing the Synod on Synodality, and the various grievances listed – married priesthood, women deacons, LGBT etc. He said that the typical Catholics in the pew that he was acquainted with were just concerned with keeping their family in the Church. I can relate to that.
Giving a Catholic who is barely clinging to his faith a copy of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is not going to accomplish much (in my opinion). The pastor and the parish have to address faith and morality in our present age.
Agreed. If anything, the novelties that are exemplified by V2, just give license to the current gaggle of modernists to pursue other nefarious novelties. Modernists advance novelty that, in turn, create the confused and the discontent, which is justification for more novelty . . . “hey, it’s new so it must be good”. It’s no wonder the average church-goer in the pews has become part of the crowd suffering identity crisis, which gives rise to unbelief, which gives rise to discontent, which gives rise to more and more abandonment from the church and/or the absurd notion of the need for “eucharistic revival”. Not enough Catholics have studied the machinations of the architects of the Protestant Revolution to appreciate the parallels to that exist between the PR and V2. Scales literally fall from your eyes when you compare both these modernist movements and contrast these against the Latin Mass and the fullness of Catholic Identity. My fellow Catholics, I cannot stress it enough – seek out the Latin Mass. Attend. It IS the church and the inescapable future of the church.
“typical Catholics … concerned with keeping their family in the Church”. In my role as an anglo-catholic, my “keeping” or allowing has been in uncertainty of my belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of my role as an anglo-catholic and my identity in a consecrated male female marriage vowed to God then after the death of my wife in a consecrated celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ. My role and my identity keep each other within my family, not my family within the Church.
No one should think that Vatican Council II will be allowed to get in the way of the Woke Mob running the Vatican and pursuing its Sinod agenda. I can hear them saying now, “Vatican II be damned.”
It is also interesting to note that Jesus uses the terms ‘synod’ and ‘synodality’ zero times; in regard to Jesus leading His Church on earth through His Gospel which He left with us.
John 6:63 The Words of Eternal Life
“…It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
Some interesting food for thought:
Even though they arrive at a similar conclusion from different premises and historical perspectives on the Church post-Vatican II, George Weigel’s assessment of a troubling “self-referentiality” afflicting the Pope and other members of the hierarchy agrees in substantive part with controversial Archbishop Carlo Vigano’s same assessment in his October 26, 2022 letter published as “REPETITA JUVANT: How with its own self-referentiality the ‘conciliar church’ places itself outside of the path of the Tradition of the Church of Christ.”
I wonder. Between Weigel’s assessment and Vigano’s assessment, which one presents the greater insights and analysis of the problems afflicting the current state of the Church?
Thank you, George, for a very helpful, though also very distressing, analysis.
The Vatican spurs its Christocentric mission and purpose for this synodality nonsense. As I said, very distressing. The institutional Church which had been blessed with the pontificates of JP II and Benedict has descended to this kind of meaningless blather.
I like this article by Weigel. I haven’t followed the synod that much, but one person alerted me to a summary found on the CCCB web site. I did enjoy that, I have to say. It was evident from that document that the complaints around the world seem to be the same complaints that many of the faithful in our parish have regarding our new pastor: he treats this parish as if it is his own little fiefdom, he is condescending, he is only concerned about the sanctuary, he no longer says Mass for the nursing homes nor does he visit the schools, and he spends lots of money on himself and on new vestments and on things we don’t need, and his preaching is as deep as a mud puddle. He’s a very insecure man who redirects our attention towards him, all the time.
When I read that so many around the world have similar experiences, I thought “Good, they’re listening”. But are they really? It seems all they know how to do is have meetings, more meetings, meals, expensive meals, dinners, lunches, meetings, talks, etc. The problem is on the parish level. I’m beginning to believe we need to open things up to married clergy, like they have in the eastern rite. The seminaries seem to be attracting the weirdest candidates, those who wouldn’t be married even if they were not priests, and so these young priests have real issues. They think it’s all about them. Pathetic. We need some good, solid, emotionally healthy men, and the only clergy who fit this description are the Deacons, it seems.
By listening what they mean is pooling our ignorance and this produces ignorance to the second power. I avoided Bible studies for years because they usually amounted to little more than a pooling of ignorance or personal opinions. How do you discover truth that way? I may be old, but I don’t think I’m a complete fool. 😂
“typical Catholics … concerned with keeping their family in the Church”. In my role as an anglo-catholic, my “keeping” or allowing has been in uncertainty of my belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of my role as an anglo-catholic and my identity in a consecrated male female marriage vowed to God then after the death of my wife in a consecrated celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ. My role and my identity keep each other within my family, not my family within the Church.
‘This concept of a “bastion Church” over-against the world did not lack missionary energy [ ! ], as the evangelization of the Americas and parts of Africa and Asia demonstrate. But the “perfect society” model suggested that we meet the Lord through the Church — by “becoming a Catholic” — rather than meeting Christ, and through that encounter being incorporated into the Church.’
Is Dr. Weigel really suggesting that the missionary activity of the Church is now MORE successful after Vatican II than it was before? The only place in the world where convert numbers are up is in Africa, and even there the RATE of conversions has fallen off (compared to population) after Vatican II and the “renewal” in evangelization which followed.
Meeting Christ and becoming a member of the Church he founded (which IS a perfect society, the Catholic Church) may be distinguished logically but in reality they are two sides of one coin. “We cannot have Jesus without the reality he created and in which he communicates himself. Between the Son of God-made-flesh and his Church there is a profound, unbreakable and mysterious continuity by which Christ is present today in his people” (Benedict XVI, 2006). As Pius XII explains very clearly and with great balance in “Mystici corporis”, the juridical and spiritual elements in the Church cannot be separated; still less can we licitly indulge in a manner of speaking which would tend to separate them. Sadly Dr. Weigel seems to fall into this tendency, at least in his manner of speaking.
[Please disregard previous version of this comment, which said “separate” where I meant “oppose”]
‘This concept of a “bastion Church” over-against the world did not lack missionary energy [ ! ], as the evangelization of the Americas and parts of Africa and Asia demonstrate. But the “perfect society” model suggested that we meet the Lord through the Church — by “becoming a Catholic” — rather than meeting Christ, and through that encounter being incorporated into the Church.’
Is Dr. Weigel really suggesting that the missionary activity of the Church is now MORE successful after Vatican II than it was before? The only place in the world where convert numbers are up is in Africa, and even there the RATE of conversions has fallen off (compared to population) after Vatican II and the “renewal” in evangelization which followed.
Meeting Christ and becoming a member of the Church he founded (which IS a perfect society, the Catholic Church) may be distinguished logically but in reality they are two sides of one coin. “We cannot have Jesus without the reality he created and in which he communicates himself. Between the Son of God-made-flesh and his Church there is a profound, unbreakable and mysterious continuity by which Christ is present today in his people” (Benedict XVI, 2006). As Pius XII explains very clearly and with great balance in “Mystici corporis”, the juridical and spiritual elements in the Church cannot be separated; still less can we licitly indulge in a manner of speaking which would tend to oppose them. Sadly Dr. Weigel seems to fall into this tendency, at least in his manner of speaking.
The eventual reversal of Vatican II seems inevitable, considering its narrow targeting of specific generations like the Silent Generation and particularly the Baby Boomers. In contrast, it has faced rejection from the Greatest Generation and, during their time, the Lost Generation and even earlier ones. Currently, Millennials, Generation Z, and even Generation Alpha are distancing themselves from it. The resurgence of interest in the Latin Mass among younger Millennials and Generation Z indicates a deep yearning in these generations. It’s as though the shepherd has neglected his flock, allowing them to wander while giving undue attention to outsiders. This is evident in how Vatican II’s strongest advocates, like Catholic charities, often prioritize non-Catholics over their own community, hiring Baptists and other Protestants and focusing their aid outside the Catholic fold. This approach has led to a dilution of Catholic identity and an exodus from the church.
An incident at a Catholic Charities where non-Catholic staff openly disparaged Catholic beliefs exemplifies this issue. It underscores the need for the Church to refocus on its core community and make it more accessible for people to join, without losing sight of its existing members. The mass exodus from traditional mass post-Vatican II shouldn’t be surprising. It’s ironic to see some Baby Boomer women, who visit the Latin Mass, criticize the traditions embraced by younger attendees, like wearing veils. This reflects a broader disconnect within the Catholic Church.