Bishop Defends the Pope

This open letter from His Excellency Most Rev. Kurt Koch, Bishop of Basel, Switzerland, is terrific. (Borrowed from Fr. Z. You can read the good Father's excellent comments by following the title link above.) It expresses succinctly what so many of us in the Church feel about the way Vatican II has been implemented over the decades.

His Holiness is in the midst of talks with the Society of St. Pius X; ultimately it looks like these talks will result in some new teaching that is going to clarify the true meaning and proper attitude toward the Council, and I think this is going to result in a firestorm of criticism against the Pope that will make all previous criticism look friendly by comparison.

Benedict XVI is a brave and holy man, truly the Servant of the Servants of God. His heart beats for the unity of Christ's Church. We should be vigilent in praying for him-- I have the feeling he's really going to need it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His Excellency's letter :

What moves me?

More honesty please!

In the last few weeks a lot of journalists, and also some clergy, have been expressing their opinions of Pope Benedict. In these opinions were also contained many half-truths, untruths, and slanders.The worst accusation asserts that the Pope wishes to go back to before the Second Vatican Council. This accusation is the worst because it implies that the very person who possesses the teaching authority of the universal Church would work to undermine the authority of the council. This verdict, however, would be completely mistaken. As a young theologian, in fact, Benedict XVI contributed very much to the council. Anyone who seeks to understand the Pope now—not just from the media—but also by reading what he writes, would come to the conclusion that he has oriented his entire magisterium on the council. How should we then understand the accusation being made?

Many people have signed a petition for the unqualified acceptance of the council. Right from the start, the expression "unqualified acceptance" irritates me because I don’t know anyone—myself included—to whom it would apply. A few arbitrarily chosen examples will suffice:

– The council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. On the contrary, it emphasized that in the Roman Rite, apart from exceptional cases, the use of the Latin language must be maintained. Who among the vocal defenders of the council wishes "unqualified acceptance" of that?

– The council declared that the Church regards Gregorian Chant as the "music proper to the Roman Rite", and that it must therefore "be given primary place." In how many parishes is this implemented "without qualification?"

– The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time. Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that?

– The council described the fundamental nature of the liturgy as the celebration the pascal mystery and the eucharistic sacrifice as "the completion of the work of our salvation." How can that be reconciled with my experience, made in many different parishes, that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?" In what way can one justify this profound change by reference to the council?

– No office of the Church was given more significance by the council that that of bishop. [One might actually argue that way too much significance.] How can we then understand the widespread diminishment in Switzerland of this office of the Church, which is justified by reference to the council? When, for example, Hans Kung denies completely the teaching authority of the bishops, allowing them only the office of pastoral leadership ?

It would not be difficult to lengthen this litany. Even so, it should be obvious why I demand more honesty in the current debate about the council. Instead of accusing others, and even the Pope, of wishing to go back to before the council, everyone would be well advised to look over their own books and reassess their own personal position on the council. Because not everything that was said and done after the council, was therefore done in accordance with the council—and that applies also to the diocese of Basel. In any case, the last few weeks have illustrated to me that a primary problem in the current situation has been a very poor, and in part very one-sided understanding and acceptance of the council, even by Catholics that defend the council "without qualification." In this regard we all—once more including myself—have a lot of ground to make up. Therefore I again repeat my urgent request: More honesty please!

+ Kurt Koch
Bishop of Basel


To which I respond with a resounding HOO-AH.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My trip to Houston went very well. The campus of St. Mary's Seminary is lovely, including the church; all the staff I met were friendly and inviting. I was interviewed by the rector, the Very Rev. Brendan Cahill (what a great Irish name, huh ?), and two of the other priests on staff, and everything came out fine. I am now officially accepted to the Seminary !

Only one final hurdle remains : the application to the University of St. Thomas, where I would do my philosophy. They may not like my transcripts, which are pretty weak; if not, then I will have to attend the University of Houston for probably the first year.