Criticism

He said to his friend, "all that dark ages stuff, like kneeling for communion and receiving on the tongue, that's just an archaic and unenlightened superstition". Later in the same conversation, his friend commented that he thought, "The Vatican II Council might not have been done as well as it could have been".

Now, the question is, which one of them was resisting the Church? He was speaking of something centuries ago, experienced by people who are not even alive any more. His friend was speaking of something decades ago, which is being experienced by every Catholic today--in one sense or another. Is chronology the important issue? No.

One of them was resisting the Church, and the other was seeking to be humble in acknowledging that he was struggling with something that the Church has done. It should be clear that the one who insulted (I am using a mild word) our forefathers in the faith was blatantly resisting something that the Church declared to be good and godly. Somehow the first man had no problem speaking against those who handed the faith down to us.

Yet, that is what many Catholics think today: it is ok to criticize and even attack things that were before our lifetime, but that no one should ever criticize what is occurring in his own day and age. In fact, it seems in many circles that Catholics are encouraged to criticize anything (and everything) that happened before 1965 (and maybe even deny it outrightly).

At the same time, if someone even expresses a cautious doubt (notice my words above: "might not have been") about Vatican II's effectiveness and he is branded a heretic and attacked as though he was an enemy of the Church akin to Nero Caesar. Whenever a person is fanatically defensive of something, you know that their position is usually without merit.

How did we get here? Mary, untier of knots, please get us out of this one!