The Ratzinger Foundation, a Vatican based institution named after the former pontiff and presumably meant to further his theological legacy, has awarded the Ratzinger Prize to John Cavadini, the chair of the Theology Department at Notre Dame University, and a member of the International Theological Commission in the Vatican. Cavadini is a specialist in patristics and St. Augustine of Hippo, and was appointed to the ITC by Joseph Ratzinger himself. The award is given annually “to scholars who have distinguished themselves through outstanding achievements in publication and scientific research” including non-Catholics.
As the Info Vaticana article linked above notes, Cavadini, who is not a liturgical scholar, waded into the subject of the liturgy in 2022, co-authoring a series of essays in the Notre Dame Life Journal attacking the traditionalist movement for promoting the old rite and undermining the reformed liturgy, which he claimed was both excellently done and a great success. More to the point, those articles, which he and his collaborators later turned into a book, accused Ratzinger of undermining the “hermeneutic of continuity” by liberalizing the availability of the old mass. Those essays were published just a year after the Vatican issued Traditionis Custodes, effectively announcing its intention to get rid of the old mass, though it was careful not to say that too clearly.
Cavadini is a “conservative” theologian, raised to prominence because of Ratzinger himself. He is not a progressive or a flame throwing liberal theologian. I once heard him speak to a group of former students and Notre Dame alumni in Kansas City on the topic of the Holy Spirit and the Church. I don’t remember anything about the talk but he seemed like an earnest and thoughtful person. Years ago, for some reason he followed me on X though we have never interacted that I can remember.
I read part of the first essay in his series on the liturgy but never bothered to finish it. Nor did I read any of the following installments. Sufficed to say, Cavadini repeats pretty much every cliche and polemical soundbite uttered by the liturgical establishment for the past sixty plus years: the reforms merely implement what the Council called for, they were brilliantly done, they have been a great success, the people who don’t agree are just disobedient, etc. Many other people responded to these arguments better than I can, some of which you can read in this collection put together by Os Justi Press.
But the details of these types of argument aren’t the key issue. The people seeking to extirpate the old liturgy and evict trads from parishes don’t care about liturgy any more than they care about the “hermeneutic of continuity” (which they don’t believe in) or canon law (which they only care about insofar as they can use it against their ecclesial enemies). No, the key issue is whether or not you can use the Council and the reform of the liturgy to push for more radical changes than progressives were able to get away with in the 1960s and 70s. The celebration of the old mass is a reminder of what the Church believes and how the Church has practiced its faith historically, and is therefore an impediment to getting Catholics to accept changes in moral theology (i.e., sex) and ecclesiology (i.e., universalism). The old mass is a stark reminder the Church has never believed the things progressives want it to believe (it cannot believe them, since they are opposed to the faith) and is targeted for that reason, as are the people who adhere to it.
Even if his defense of the reformed liturgy wasn’t the main reason the foundation decided to award this prize to Professor Cavadini, they would never have done so if he had not made clear his willingness to defend Traditionis Custodes. That’s the price of having influence in the Church under its current leadership: those who signal they are fine with further changes to the Church’s beliefs are rewarded, those who object to further changes are punished. Compare the treatment of Cavadini with that of the three seminary professors in Detroit who were sacked last year, largely without explanation but obviously because they had been critical of Pope Francis, specifically his erroneous teaching about allowing divorced and remarried couples to receive communion in Amoris Laetitia. Or in fact the treatment of Fr. Thomas Weinandy, one of Cavadini’s co-authors in his dubious foray into the liturgy. Weinandy also criticized Pope Francis for the ambiguity of his moral teaching and resigned his position with the US bishops conference in 2017 as a result. I imagine co-authoring those essays was an act of penance on his part for having (rightly) criticized the pope. The contrast is clear: preserving doctrines or practices that predate the council gets you in trouble but seeking their abolition or alteration is rewarded (or at least tolerated).
When Pope Francis removed Cardinal Burke from his position on Apostolica Signatura, I recall reading an article about it that quoted a progressive Cardinal who (anonymously) voiced respect for Burke, saying he appeared to believe the things he said in public (or words to that effect). Admirable, no doubt; but in the Church today it is those who trim their sails to winds of the age that get the prize, while everyone else is left stranded on a desert island, or simply left to drown.
