Boomers or Bust? On Vatican II and Generational Arguments

I'm not at all surprised that VII fanboy Weigel responded. Like many boomers, he has invested his entire life in the failed 'New Springtime' of Vatican II.

From Catholic World Report

By Adam Lucas, MTheol

Some clarifications on my thoughts about Boomers, Millennials, and the most recent ecumenical council.

I recently penned a Crisis online article, titled “OK Boomer: It’s time to move on from Vatican II,” which (unbelievably to me) received responses from George Weigel and Dr. Larry Chapp.

I respect the work of both men very much, and I am beyond grateful for the replies.

But before more of my heroes destroy me on the internet, I feel it’s time to clarify a few things.

It seems Mr. Weigel and Dr. Chapp took my words as some sort of anti-boomer traditionalist manifesto. In fact, I do not self-identify as a traditionalist, and I adopted the intergenerational anger for the sake of satire. In a testament to their fine characters (and my poor writing) both Mr. Weigel and Dr. Chapp seemed to take me seriously in a way I never thought they would; actually, I never hoped they would read me. I wasn’t sure anyone would, and certainly not anyone whom I would want to read. Perhaps I was careless with my words; but such is the risk of jest. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “the internet is no place for jokes.”

Still, every satire has an underlying message, and mine is no exception. My intended point, however, was limited. Dr. Chapp was right when he said “a more contentless essay would be hard to imagine.” For the essay was saying less about theology than sociology; and a more contentless -ology would be hard to imagine, indeed.

My singular claim was that we, as members of the Church, are stuck in an endless spin-cycle over Vatican II—its meaning, interpretation, implementation, legacy, et cetera, et cetera.

And this is not productive—it’s counterproductive.

I didn’t mean that we should reject Vatican II, especially not its doctrines. Nor did I mean that those doctrines themselves are now irrelevant.

I certainly don’t mean that we all should just go back to the Latin Mass; or that no one should read Mr. Weigel’s excellent book, To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II.

What I did ask was that we treat Vatican II like we treat any other ecumenical council. Which is to say—to stop using it as the starting and ending point for any and all Catholic thought.

And here, I think, I am proved by the very fact of a response from such giants as Dr. Chapp and Mr. Weigel, self-identifying as baby-boomers in their replies. We can’t stop fighting the same old ecclesial battles, even as the old ecclesia is crumbling before us. Continued litigation over Vatican II is reheating chewed food.

If this is generational at all, the irony is rich. If many young people feel the way I do, it’s because they’ve already been convinced of what the Council means by the likes of Mr. Weigel and Dr. Chapp. We learned the authentic interpretation of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI because these men taught it well.

I’m sure both would respond that not everyone is convinced by them, nor by such fine popes. But I don’t believe anything more can be said to convince. Cycling through the same story again and again is not only tiring, but at this point unhelpful.

The encyclicals and catechisms are already there; and, as Mr. Weigel and Dr. Chapp have reminded us, we have only to read them.

(Editor’s note: A longer and more detailed response by Mr. Lucas, along with a reply by Dr. Chapp, can be read on the GaudiumEtSpes22 website.)