It's OK to admit failure. Sometimes it's a necessity.

And now for something completely-different:
 

It was only sixteen months ago--but it seems like a lifetime, doesn't it?

Remember the newsworthy joint declaration from the pontiff and the Sunni head of the Al Azhar University in Cairo? That bit about the Almighty willing religious diversity the same way He willed us to be male and female?

In defending that heretofore-unrevealed spin on Catholic teaching, the pontiff was adamant: "From the Catholic point of view, the document does not pull away one millimeter from Vatican II."

Interpreting what Vatican II said or what the footnotes supposedly help it say is an exercise reminiscent of late-stage scholasticism: a lot of ink spilled over puzzling/ambiguous minutiae to no benefit at all. Except for the publishing prospects or feuds of a ring of clerics or clericalized-laity who have the parchment license to use the cant of the initiated.

No, for the purposes here, the important thing is that, once again, Vatican II is invoked. In my snarkier moments I call it "Vatican Too," because like "too," the council is inserted into an embarrassing number of church contexts.

No ecumenical council insists upon itself quite like the 21st.

But why do we let our thinking be dominated by a failed enterprise?

FAILED ENTERPRISE?!

How can you say any such thing about an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church?

Well, why don't we do a couple of things before we flee to our fainting couches? First, let's consider the stated intent of that council.

Back in 1963 Pope Paul VI identified the goals of the Second Vatican Council as follows:

  

"You know the purpose of this council, which has more participants than any other: As it was expressed by our illustrious predecessor [Pope John XXIII], the Church must appear in its perennial vigor, the instrument of salvation for all; to her Our Lord Jesus Christ has entrusted the deposit of the Faith, to be guarded faithfully and in an apt and convenient way. This energetic vigor of the Church, which illuminates, attracts, moves souls, can take new strength from the council, which meets at the tomb of St. Peter.”

And how has that worked out for us, three generations later? The Church is dead in Western Europe, moribund in Latin America, withering or barely holding its own in Asia and well on the way to irrelevance in North America.

Only sub-Saharan Africa is a place of consistent growth, but that can hardly be taken for granted.

Thus, according the stated goals as set forth by Paul VI, one of the presiding popes of that council, Vatican II has failed. 

Some of you are mentally recoiling in horror right now (or haven't stopped)--but why? 

The second thing you have to remember is that the long history of the Church tells you you should not be freaked out. A searching look back across the centuries demonstrates that a failed ecumenical council is Just One of Those Things. 

Councils have failed before and will fail in the future. Is anyone still talking about the Spirit of Vienne, or asking about Lateran IV?

I hear the sputtering "Butbutbut--it's *you* who aren't taking the long view. Everyone knows it takes a century for a council to take effect!!!”

And where is that written? That’s just one of the popular apologetics slogans, right alongside the no True Scotsman-y "hasn't been implemented properly," "it's not in the actual documents" and "bad translation." It's spin--pure ahistorical, corporate spin.

And it’s especially laughable if you peruse Church history. Lateran V closed in 1517, but by 1545 it had been justly forgotten after half of Europe had become Protestant. Certainly, there was no one in the Catholic world dumb enough to suggest that Lateran V just needed some more time to leaven the dough of faith, or some similar happy metaphor defending the downward trajectory.

Unfortunately for our time, the one thing that unites the entire leadership of the Church, regardless of label, is that Vatican II Was Just Fine, no matter what the statistics say about the disintegration of Catholic observance across three continents.

So instead of accepting the fact that VToo was, by virtue of its pastoral mindset and focus on the moment, reaching out to the world of the 1960s, it had a built-in sell-by date...it is turned into a platonic Form. It is a super-council, "a language event" unconstrained by time or place, a totally unique episode in the Church untethered from her past.

While the “hermeneutic of continuity” scholastics would argue against the last clause, it really has been treated like that, even by the 'conservative' popes. Both of whom unswervingly took the Council as the unalterable touchstone and functional super-event in one way or another. And they agreed that, of course, “these things take time.”

The only difference with the current pontiff is that he takes the gestalt of the council to its logical end. He’s a true believer in singing a new church and has not the slightest qualms. Forward, forward, always forward! The only problems he sees in the Church are with those who object—rigidly, of course—to another half-century of giddy autodemolition praised as a fruit of the spirit.

When you consider the undeniable ambiguity of the conciliar documents, the wholesale re-constitution of the liturgy which followed and the declarations of independence from the magisterium which were only occasionally and half-heartedly reined in, the much-derided “spirit of the council” is usually the council itself on laughing gas.

And the fact that 'conservatives' and 'liberals' alike insist on using "*the* council" as *the* polestar in the face of disintegration….well, that makes Vatican II the wordiest suicide note in history.

Vatican II spoke to the 'New Frontier' era, albeit dishonestly in spots (e.g., no mention of communism). And for that, it probably did a decent-enough job. But the problem is that the New Frontier Man died in 1968, both his children are divorced, none of his grandchildren go to church and the lot of them are happy with the straitjacket of bourgeois Western leftism so long as their streaming services and WiFi are up.

Fast forward from 1963 to 2020: The perennial vigor of the Church has almost entirely dissipated. The deposit of the Faith, far from being faithfully guarded, is presented as a grab-bag of implicit novelties, the latest of which now includes God willing other religions. Far from illuminating and attracting souls, the Church’s tired, debilitated voice suggests that people are just as well off looking elsewhere for their own truths. 

If that’s not failure, I'd hate to see what actual failure looks like.

It is past time to move on. Honesty requires no less.

Ponder this one for a bit.

Then get very, very angry.

It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.

Secretary of State Clinton has said the responsibility was hers. But there has been no assertion that the State Department overruled the Pentagon out of concern about the sovereignty of Libyan air space. Instead, it appears passive groupthink prevailed, with the assumption being that a spontaneous mob would quickly run out of steam.

Firefights, however, wax and wane from dusk to dawn. You cannot predict ahead of time when they will stop. Therefore a combat commander will take immediate action, presuming reinforcements will be needed.

The administration wrongly blamed a mob for the attack. Yet ironically, Mr. Obama’s chances of reelection would have plummeted were it not for the human decency of a mob that took the ambassador to the hospital before the terrorists returned.

If the terrorists had taken his body and, with no Special Operations Forces hot on their trail, taunted America the next day — claiming the ambassador was still alive — the Benghazi tragedy would have escalated into an international disaster. The U.S. military sent no aid. Why?

It's the Artists!

Some are describing this as "vandalism" or even "violence":

A truck driver from Montana who is accused of destroying a controversial piece of artwork at a public art gallery in Loveland was scheduled to appear before a judge through a video link on Thursday afternoon.

Kathleen Folden allegedly screamed "How can you desecrate my lord?" on Wednesday at Loveland Museum and Art Gallery just before breaking some plexiglass surrounding the print of "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals" with a crowbar. She then allegedly tore the print and sat on the floor until police arrived.

"Romantic Cannibals" was a 12-panel lithograph that depicted Jesus involved involved a sex act and it also included comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes. It was part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists that opened in mid-September and was scheduled to run through late last month.

"Criminal mischief." Feh! How narrowly bourgeois. How typically philistine.

Nay! Miss Folden is an artist herself! Mischief? Nonsense! She was engaged in a transgressive dialogue with Prof. Chagoya, expressing her interpretive viewpoint via sound, motion, blank verse, creative impact and metaphoric exploration. Clearly Chagoya is suffering from a cramped, narrowly conventional viewpoint which needs to be shaken up by bold new approaches and vistas. Open your mind, Chagoya! Shatter the mental shackles of your quaintly upper middle class academic lifestyle, and interact with the real working class, as exemplified by daring avant-gardists like Folden! If you dare.

Okay. Sarcasm off. If only Chagoya could take off the clown nose for five seconds:

Chagoya told CBS4 by phone he was upset to learn the news that his art had been attacked. He says his work is a critique of corruption in religious institutions, not people's beliefs.

"I don't expect people to agree with me but let's have a civil discussion, you know. I've been getting a lot of hate mail that doesn't have any logical discussion behind it," Chagoya said.

Yeaaaah. He was not trying to attack beliefs by portraying Jesus in a sex act, but rather attacking institutions. That might work on Anne Rice, but if you are getting more oxygen, it's bullshit.

Let's try it this way: I want to dialogue with Chagoya about his Mexican clown pr0n, using his approach. I'll have to open the "civil discussion" with "Hello, Professor. I understand your mother was the town bike before she died of syphilis and your dad was an energetic molester of dairy cattle. What were you thinking when you barfed up that crap you miscall 'art'?"

Let's make sure the low blows aim for witty.

Yeah, I'm one to talk.

Nevertheless, GKC has a good point. I'm far from her biggest fan, but recycling the DB insult is not the tone I want to set. Less crude, more funny, please.

Something more along the lines of "If Worf had settled down with Angela Davis, she'd be their daughter"--that's more like it.

Oh, and as regards "policing" the blog on my behalf: I hereby deputize you to make citizens' arrests. As you can tell, I tend to be a haphazard moderator at the best of times.