Cultural Faultlines, the Church after the Second Vatican Council, and the SSPX 2012

In a discussion on the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the SSPX, the topic turned to organizational culture.

One forum member wrote:

Well at least now we know--with a little insight from organizational psychology--that Vatican II and its immediate aftermath did not represent a drastic cultural change in the Roman Catholic Church.

To which I replied:

A very interesting point and I hadn't considered it from that point of view in much detail. 
However, it doesn't allow the conclusion that you've reached.
There are three reactions possible in a cultural change:

• Fight
• Flight
• Surrender

First, the desertion of Priests, religious (female and male) who were exiled by the new culture do represent a major change in culture. The culture of the Church changed to such a degree that indoctrination of the new culture was implemented.
Second, a number of Cardinals etc did put up a fight, however, in the end the vast majority surrendered under the 'obedience' mantra. A very strong cultural assumption that still exists within the Church. 
Third, it also provides an indication of state of the Church culture since a large number of religious 'accepted' the changes without flinching. In other words the neo-modernist 'culture' was strongly embedded within the Church and just needed a leader to 'model' this culture and voila - culture change begins.

To which another forum member replied with the observation that the same cultural shift could used to explain what was happening in the SSPX over this past summer.

This is the interesting point:

Why did the Priests, Nuns etc abandon ship after V2 and furthermore what is the link to the dramatic decimation in vocations?

and ...

How does this apply to the situation in the SSPX?

Post V2
Two phenomena surfaced:

1. Desertion by Priests and Religious
2. Drop in vocations 

Concerning point #1, I can see two reasons why people would leave.  

First they no longer felt constrained to be there, similar to when a marriage hits a rough spot, when it got rough - they divorced.

Second, the trauma of what was happening in the Church.  I have heard of the difficulties of a number of priests who wanted to 'keep the old ways' that were suddenly out of fashion.

The drop in vocations is a more enduring indicator of culture and this change has been dramatic and consistent since the post-conciliar era.  

The most telling aspect is that, according to a recent CARA study, those religious congregations (as opposed to secular) that  have a strong identity, live in community, observe their rule etc, are growing. Those in the mode of the 70's are not.

More interesting yet, I did a back of the enveloppe calculation and found that the Traditional congregations (particularly SSPX, FSSP) appear to have ordinand to 'people served' ratios approaching if not exceeding those experienced in the USA prior to the Council.  This is a telling stat and I'll have to review it in more detail in the future.

SSPX 2012
Now what happened in the SSPX in 2012?

Obviously, there was a fair (subjective) amount of turmoil.  At least, in the online forums.  In reality, in my centre things were calm.  A number of priests left, a greater number stayed.

Mr Wansbutter brought up the following four points:

1. John McFarland has already attested to the cultural shift via what he calls "de-Williamsonizing", at least in the U.S. District. And certainly, if this forum and personal experience is any guide, a not-insignificant number of SSPX lay faithful have left Society chapels already.
2. 3/4 SSPX bishops "did put up a fight" (cf. their letter to Bp. Fellay from a few months ago) however, in the end two of the three appear to have "surrendered under the 'obedience' mantra"
3. It seems that a "large number" of the SSPX clergy are "accepting the change without flinching". See item #1, a process which according to Mr. McFarland's observations took nearly a decade (at least in the U.S.).
4. It seems to me that under your analogy, the post Vatican II days match quite well with what is going on now. Give it a few years and I believe the parallells may be even more obvious (I'd argue that we're still in the late 60s, possibly early 70s, analogy-wise, right now).

Point number 1 unfortunately does not provide any reliable information concerning cultural changes within the SSPX. If Bishop Williamson was forming priests with values that are not actually the values of the SSPX, then it naturally follows that a realignment would occur.

Point number 2 is interesting but, on third reading, I noticed that Mr. Wansbutter makes an assumption that the other two Bishops 'surrendered under the obedience mantra'. I have seen nothing to indicate this, in fact it appears that when presented with all the information they have been convinced of the situation that Bishop Fellay faced. At the General Chapter, there appears to have been a true collaboration on how to apply Catholic principles to the evolving situation.

Points number 3 and 4 actually hinge on the most important point. The question is whether or not the SSPX has actually made a fundamental change in its principles, not as a person would wish them to be, but as they actually are in reality.

The reason why I stress 'fundamental ... principles' is that an organization needs to adapt to its environment all the time.  Changing tactics does not normally require a change in strategy.  The strategic goal is still the same: contributing to the end of the crisis.  The tactics (canonically ir-regular or regular) depend on the whether or not a breach in fundamental (founding) principles is required (summa).

At this point, I have seen nothing the lead me to believe a fundamental breach has occurred and further Archbishop De Noia appears to be in agreement with my assessment:

What is more, a review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged. With magisterial authority, the Holy See has consistently maintained that the documents of the Council must be interpreted in the light of Tradition and the Magisterium and not vice versa, while the Fraternity has insisted that certain teachings of the Council are erroneous and are thus not susceptible to an interpretation in line with the Tradition and the Magisterium. Over the years, this stalemate has remained more or less in place. The three years of doctrinal dialogues just concluded, though permitting a fruitful airing of views on specific issues, did not fundamentally alter this situation.

Letter to SSPX

Now, there is one change that does appear to have been made, it is to avoid the 'holocaust' controversy because it is seen as a trap. This is something that I've come to realize recently as a possible reason for Bishop Williamson's attempts to oust Bishop Fellay and to curry favour with like minded individuals.

Based on his latest (as of this writing) EC, he seems to see the holocaust as:

... as the secular religion of the New World Order (Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers replace the Cross of Our Lord, and the Six Million play the part of the Redeemer)...

This may be the fundamental point.

The SSPX basically sees the Shoah (Holocaust) of the Second World War as a historical event and that there is no basis for denying the numerous witnesses etc the support the assertion that the Germans utilized 'Gas chambers' to execute a large number of Jewish prisoners.

Bishop Williamson and some others, see it in a different light:

... the SSPX has, for political reasons and to further its worldly ambitions, imposed on itself a silence with regard to the (now inimical) role of the Jews in salvation history. The leadership of the Society has gone so far as to assert that the matter of the Jews is an historical one and not a theological one and can therefore be ignored.  (Ignis Ardens)

Cognitive Dissonance
Thinking about these changes from the lower cultural level (I believe that Cog. Dissonance is part of the underlying phenomenon that occurs when a cultural assumption is challenged), I think that in all cases the person's belief was

Now if Bishop Williamson believed that the Shoah is central to the crisis in the Church, and a part of the fundamentals of the SSPX, then it makes sense why he took the actions that he did.  

He was unwilling to change his belief (admit that it was not fundamental to the mission of the SSPX), he could not change the actions of Bishop Fellay, therefore he changed the perception of the action: Sell-out.

Conclusion

Based on the information that I have read, the SSPX remains as it was in fundamentals.  It may be that it was never what some people thought it was.