- Feb 5, 2002
- 183,839
- 67,010
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Catholic World Report has done a great service to readers today, by dipping into the magazine’s archives and posting an article by the late, great James Hitchcock, Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results. Originally published in the May 1995 issue (when I was serving as editor), the article explores a phenomenon that still puzzles many faithful Catholics. Why is it that so many good bishops—bishops who have the enthusiastic support of Catholics loyal to the perennial traditions of the Church—fail to bring about any discernible changes in the actual working of their dioceses?
Although Jim Hitchcock died only two months ago, a long struggle with Parkinson’s disease had silenced him for years, and younger readers may not be familiar with his work. For them, this article from Catholic World Report is a must. He was an extremely perceptive observer of Church history, who thought and wrote with unusual clarity. His analysis offers cogent answers to the questions that many Catholics are still asking.
The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are always somewhat misleading when applied to Catholic controversies. But in the absence of more accurate alternatives (which would require a fair amount of explanation), they provide a simple way to summarize the tensions that have beset that Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II. By 1995, when the Hitchcock essay appeared, the “conservative” Catholics—those devoted to the defense of Church doctrines and disciplines—had suffered through three decades of tumultuous change, while the “liberals”—those pressing for more dramatic change—were pressing their advantage.
The destabilization of the Catholic world—and with it, the precipitous decline in the number of people actively practicing the faith—was most evident during the 1970s. The election of Pope John Paul II gave the “conservatives” a burst of hope, a belief that the chaos might be over, sanity and good order restored, and what another historian, Paul Johnson, described as the Catholic Restoration might be underway.
Continued below.
www.catholicculture.org
Although Jim Hitchcock died only two months ago, a long struggle with Parkinson’s disease had silenced him for years, and younger readers may not be familiar with his work. For them, this article from Catholic World Report is a must. He was an extremely perceptive observer of Church history, who thought and wrote with unusual clarity. His analysis offers cogent answers to the questions that many Catholics are still asking.
The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are always somewhat misleading when applied to Catholic controversies. But in the absence of more accurate alternatives (which would require a fair amount of explanation), they provide a simple way to summarize the tensions that have beset that Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II. By 1995, when the Hitchcock essay appeared, the “conservative” Catholics—those devoted to the defense of Church doctrines and disciplines—had suffered through three decades of tumultuous change, while the “liberals”—those pressing for more dramatic change—were pressing their advantage.
The destabilization of the Catholic world—and with it, the precipitous decline in the number of people actively practicing the faith—was most evident during the 1970s. The election of Pope John Paul II gave the “conservatives” a burst of hope, a belief that the chaos might be over, sanity and good order restored, and what another historian, Paul Johnson, described as the Catholic Restoration might be underway.
Continued below.
Why the ‘good bishops’ keep disappointing the faithful
“With very few exceptions,” Hitchcock explains, “’conservative’ bishops do not go beyond what is strictly mandated by official Church teaching or policy.”
www.catholicculture.org
