El original en español puede encontrarse aquí.
I must admit that the manner in which the Church’s ongoing crisis has been addressed has been a frequent subject of my reflections. Perhaps this concern has sharpened in recent times for various reasons. While there are some signs of recovery—exaggerated by some and misjudged by others—new errors continue to surface, raising questions about the integrity of what is, at best, a very timid recovery. I would like to center the reflections I somewhat clumsily attempt to articulate on this particular issue.
The Second Vatican Council, as has been amply demonstrated, was a historical event that resulted in painful consequences. The pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI sought to temper the revolution initiated directly by the most radical modernists, who planted the seeds of discord within the conciliar texts, resulting in the confusion that now overwhelms what little remains of authentic doctrine. Meanwhile, resistance to modernism became highly fragmented. In France, under the leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre, a robust traditionalism took shape, contending with an ecclesiastical hierarchy that had taken a markedly revolutionary stance. In the Hispanic world, the resistance was unfortunately fragmented by events such as the clericalism that prevailed on the Iberian Peninsula and the emergence of recently founded groups that adopted a traditionalist façade while exhibiting sectarian behaviors. A third sector, seemingly more fertile and in need of its own explanation, was that of the United States.
At present, the United States is often presented as a model for traditionalist apostolic action, though this is not an entirely new phenomenon; as early as January 1899, Pope Leo XIII addressed the Testem Benevolentiae to Cardinal James Gibbons, warning against the Americanist temptation. However, the supposed gringo traditionalist revival appears not only to be tainted by this political and theological error but also to be driven by the primacy of efficiency—an idolatry quintessentially American—which aims to export this model to the broader Catholic traditionalist movement.
Given these circumstances, contemporary Catholic traditionalist groups exhibit a range of characteristics that demand both analysis and refutation. Foremost among these is the political dimension of Americanism. Political neutrality seems to be held up as the key to traditionalist success, as it places the most fundamental principles of Catholic political doctrine under the idol of «unity». In this way, traditionalism is conceived as a «common house» for an unfortunate heterogeneity, which ranges from libertarianism to Nazism, passing through the wide spectrum of conservatisms and their various mutations or fragmentations. The so-called «action» of traditional Catholics, therefore, finds itself besieged by two extremes that stifle it like a vise: the fragmentation into groups that are fundamentally alien to one another, mistaking unity for mere coexistence, and—very much in line with Americanism—their nullification within a common framework.
Furthermore, the justification for political Americanism is even more harmful, as it is underpinned by theological Americanism. In this framework, the action of grace becomes subordinated to the efficiency of human action, and the natural and supernatural orders are conflated in a form of naturalism that permeates the entire line of reasoning. We are told that traditional Catholics must overlook these disputes in order to remain united in «what is essential». In doing so, Americanists impose a secular reading on the sacred, particularly in regard to participation in the liturgy, which is essential for sanctification. To clarify: Christians attend the temple to seek the grace that heals their imperfections and enables them to grow in holiness; through the visible society of the Church, we participate in the sacraments, which, according to our dispositions, impart divine grace.
However, when interpreted through Americanist lenses, unity in the temple takes on a different meaning. The absence of a strict political community—or rather, its mere survival, rectius its subsistence—within the American schema leads to the conception of «community» as a substitute. Americans, therefore, come together in their religious «communities» as a replacement for natural sociability, as the relationship with the latter is parasitized by adherence to the state’s legal order through the frameworks of tolerance and union with the state as a common reference point (which also explains the devotion to the flag or the national anthem within gringo culture). «Traditionalist» Americanism adheres to this model, attempting to transform its chapels and families into a subproduct that conceals the absence of a genuine political community. To be clear: the chapel or church is a sacred space of worship and sanctification, not a precursor to social clubs or leisurely outings.
It is, of course, logical that communal worship can foster personal friendships, as is the case with any activity carried out in community. However, to assert that identifying as a «traditionalist» naturally leads to belonging to a «community» from which friendships, courtships, and hobbies arise is a naturalistic and Americanist interpretation of the salvific action of grace. The «unity» present in such groups differs little from the hermetic discipline so foreign to any natural community.
Hispanic traditionalism, in contrast, has symbolized a rejection of this charismatic and Americanist conception of traditionalism. The conviction behind the political apostolate and the strength of traditionalism of this nature—particularly Carlism within the Hispanic world—have served as an antidote to these foreign interpretations. The political apostolate reminds us of the duty of the laity to engage «in the world», as the etymology of the term suggests. Sanctifying grace supports us in this battle, for which we will be held accountable, and which cannot be obscured by attempts to transform laypeople into clerics solely preoccupied with matters that are not their concern. Therefore, let us give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, remembering always that Caesar himself belongs to God, not to «Uncle Sam».
Miguel Quesada, Círculo Cultural Francisco Elías de Tejada
Translated by the Gremio San Jerónimo
Deje el primer comentario