Today, Magister reports on an intriguing document from the Spanish bishops.

The document is in the form of a “pastoral instruction,” and is entitled “Theology and secularization in Spain, forty years after the end of Vatican Council II.” It is the outcome of three years of work, and was prepared by the commission for the doctrine of the faith of the Spanish bishops’ conference. But then it was examined by all of the bishops, who in two voting sessions, in November and then in March of this year, approved it by a margin of over two thirds. The bishops most active in promoting the document included the two most “Ratzingerian” cardinals of Spain, Antonio Cañizares Lovera, of Toledo, and Antonio María Rouco Varela, of Madrid, together with one of the latter’s auxiliary bishops, Eugenio Romero Pose, president of the doctrinal commission.

From the instruction:

5. The main question that the Church in Spain must face is the secularization inside itself. At the origin of this secularization is the loss of faith and of knowledge of the faith. An important role is undoubtedly played in this by some insufficiently grounded theological propositions in regard to the confession of Christological faith. These are reductive interpretations that do not accommodate the fullness of the mystery that has been revealed. The aspects of the crisis can be summarized in four points: a rationalist conception of the faith and of revelation; an immanentist humanism applied to Jesus Christ; a merely sociological interpretation of the Church; and secularized subjectivism-relativism in Catholic morality. What unites all of this insufficiently grounded arguments is the abandonment of and failure to acknowledge the distinct essence of Christianity, and in a special way the definitive and universal value of Christ in his revelation, in his status as Son of the living God, in his real presence in the Church, and in the offering and promise of his life as the paradigm of moral conduct. The present pastoral instruction develops around these four points, singling out, beginning with Peter’s confession of faith, some teachings that put in danger the profession of faith and ecclesial communion, cause confusion among the faithful, and are an obstacle to the development of evangelization.

Magister reproduces much of document, although not all. What he reprints follows on that excerpt – taking on theological trends of the past few decades. I’m all for that. What I don’t see (and might be there – he’s got a link to the full document, but I don’t, obviously, read that level of Spanish) is the next step of the critique, which is a hard look on how this ends up working itself into the ministry of the Church on the ground. There’s also a section on the ‘cure’ – which Magister doesn’t reproduce.

Along that same line, Bishop Braxton of Belleville (controversial in the past because of his purportedly high-handed ways in both Lake Charles and his present diocese, as well as the reaction of local priests in Belleville to his appointment) has issued a pastoral letter on the state of the Church in his diocese. It was issued in June, but I just now noticed it.

It’s a long, comprehensive text – sort of "here’s where we are after a year." Bishop Braxton seized upon the concept of "Common Meaning" as his central trope, describing this as the common sense of Catholic and Christian identity that was understood before the Council and at the very least, under stress, or at worst, lost today. He goes through the major aspects of Catholic life and describes the various viewpoints and perspectives, the tensions and so on. He’s incomplete at times – his section on the liturgy is basically: there are a) those who are happy with things as they are; b) those who want to go back to the Tridentine liturgy and c)those who want the "progress" to keep progressing even further. I think it’s a little more complex than that. (I think Bishop Braxton ended the Indult Tridentine Mass in Lake Charles, by the way).

I think the tone ultimately comes down to "let’s all get along." But I’m not sure, honestly. It’s sort of painfully comprehensive and borderline self-serving, so it’s hard to see how he comes out at the end – but even with all the controversy dogging him, props to another bishop for airing some of the tensions within his diocese.