Defining "Divisive"

Within the worlds of Church and state, accusations of "divisiveness" are routinely tossed back and forth with the aim of undercutting the opposing side. To be sure, there are unwelcome forms of divisiveness. There are some mischievous individuals who like to spawn rifts among people through gossip and/or lies, simply for the sake of fomenting discord. Another type of divisiveness, usually made manifest on a larger scale, is married to contemporary liberalism. This stripe of divisiveness surfaces as a result of the intention on the part of some, guided by ideology and not reason, to uproot time-honored traditions, customs and universal morality and replace them with newfangled trends, all in the name of "progress" and "tolerance." Hence, the culture wars of today.

But there is also a good brand of divisiveness, one that is totally necessary in the fight against the onslaught of relativism. This "divisiveness" means adhering to the truth. It means refusing to bend to the demands of political correctness. It means taking a stand and fighting for the good. It is not the intention of those of us who engage in this battle to be "divisive" per se, it is simply the only option available to us. To be non-divisive in these battles, as modernists define the term, would be tantamount to accommodation and acquiescence, a morally unacceptable alternative. But in a world where lies and deception roam free, why are we surprised when truth itself is branded as "divisive." Do we have the truth to thank for the existence of divisiveness or, rather, is it the obstinacy of those who refuse to accept the truth in their hearts that is to blame?

Simply put, attempts are made, by means of loaded accusations of being "divisive," to marginalize those siding with the truth.

In response to the motu proprio issued by Pope Benedict XVI entitled Summorum Pontificum, a set of instructions to priests regarding the celebration of the extraordinary form of the liturgy was recently circulated in an archdiocese. Here is how the archbishop's "guidelines" read (particular attention to the second "guideline"):

• The request for celebrations in the extraordinary form arises from a stable group who have adhered to this usage over time. The use of the extraordinary form is not used with groups that reject the validity of the ordinary form. The extra-ordinary form is not to be used only at the discretion or personal preference of the pastor/priest without a request from the people.

• The use of the extraordinary form is not to be used if it will create a divisive or elitist spirit in the parish. Prior catechesis for the whole parish, not just to those who are making the request, is required. The extraordinary form is not to be used as a “novelty” or “teaching tool.” (Emphasis Added)

• Since the norms require that the priest celebrating in the extraordinary form be qualified to do so, there needs to be an assessment of readiness for such celebrations. Priests who were not trained in the 1962 Missal, or who have lost touch with the rituals therein, are to demonstrate their qualifications prior to such a celebration. The priests of the Institute of Christ the King (St. Stanislaus Parish) will be delegated to make such assessments and provide assistance as needed.

Now, up to a point, I can understand the concern about "elitism." I attended a traditional Catholic college and it is true that shreds of elitism can at times surface with certain types of people associated with the extraordinary form. This, however, took place at a rather small and provincial college, quite a different milieu than what one can expect to find in a large archdiocese with close to a million Catholics. Is the chance of elitism or divisiveness the fault of the extraordinary form or rather that of the immaturity and narrowness of the believer? Why exclude a definite good simply because the possibility exists that a tangential negative may accompany it. The concern I have is that this "guideline" permits a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. It's no secret, though some may choose to deny it, that many priests are fiercely opposed to the old mass and are happy that for so long it has fallen by the wayside. Couldn't a pastor opposed to the motu proprio use the perceived possibility of a "divisive or elitist spirit" resulting from the old mass to block the inauguration of the extraordinary form at his parish? Who is to define just what constitutes "divisive or elitist?"

Further, how are those requesting the extraordinary form supposed to catechise those parishoners who are not at all interested in it? What if there is resistance by some, even a majority, of the parishoners? Will the pastor defend the request of those, even if only a beleaguered minority, seeking the extraordinary form? Or will this conflict itself be perceived as "divisive" and therefore, ixnay on the Latin mass? The second "guideline" seems rather porous since it leaves the "yea" or "nay" of whether a parish will usher in the old mass entirely in the hands of the pastor. If that is the case, then what was the point of the motu proprio? As I understand it, if there is a demand for the extraordinary form among the parishioners, the pastor must provide it.