Review: Struggle, Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray's Journey toward Vatican II | National Catholic Reporter

Review: Struggle, Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray's Journey toward Vatican II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I am combining both parts of the review in one commentary.

I

Hudock's 1933 Murray quote is an excellent example of the drive by the Church toward religious power under the guise of religious liberty.  I can't see how that has changed in the modern Church, Vatican II or no Vatican II - although St. John Paul and his sycophants in the clergy can take on most of the blame for that. This is not conservatism, which is libertarian on such matters - it is Traditionalism.  The fact that this doctrine, that there is no truth in error, is medieval in origin only shows how much there is to be done - especially in the governance of the Church (forget the state for a bit).   Worse, before the bishops were medieval lordings, the tradition of the Church was cooperation with the Empire - based in Constantinople - (and gasp, let us remember from other sources that the Church was democratic).

As you can guess, resistence ensued from the Church establishment.  See the book for details.  Lets just say it was nasty and make make me get a copy to read about it. Montitini liked Murray too and was friendly to his efforts on behalf of the emerging Catholic citizenry in the United States.  Revenge followed, but as we all know, did not last forever.

II

Enter St. John XXIII and Vatican II.  The Holy Office's monopoly on doctrine was ended even earlier.  While Murray was excluded from the first session, he was invited to the second to write about religious liberty.  In the end, after much up and down, Pope Paul VI forced this to a happy end.  Hudock informs us of quite an adventure - not quite the Dan Brown variety, but it has the advantage of being real and the stakes are just as high.

Critics fault Hudock for not fleshing out the argument of the other side, which was more traditional.  Nor do I see the name Karol Woijtila among the loud critics, though he was there.  Murray wrote about negative liberty, which MSW seems to disagree with.  There is an alternative in combining Rousseau and Aquinas, the general will's need of unanimity and the freedom of the individual will, but that is too advanced for most.  Also, Vatican II predates the cultural theory of Douglass and Wildavsky, but perhaps Elaine Paigels, who is familiar with their methods, will take this up. Sadly, negative freedom as it is now seen does not stand up to USCCB efforts to reassert Religous Power.  Luckily, Francis and time will weed the USCCB of its old boars who stand up for that tired view of the Church.

There will be more.  Not necessarily on Murray but on Religous Power v. Religious Freedom.