Mistakes Priests Make Engaging Traditionalists

I know this is going to come across a bit harsh.  I don't have that big of an audience anymore (kinda tough when you disappear every 12 months to do other things!), but I still do have quite a few priests who read.  Some of them celebrate the Latin Mass, or they have congregations where several have asked for a more generous offering of the Extraordinary Form.  These priests mean well.  They are trying to do their best to be shepherds with the limited resources they have.

So it is not lightly that I say a lot of their approach should be thrown out the window.  A lot of the present attempts to engage traditionalists are just bad pastoral care, and often rooted in a poor approach.  I am well aware of the need of traditionalists to grow in holiness and spirituality, even if I reject the self-loathing trad hungry for mainstream cred genre of traditionalism currently occupied by the likes of Michael Warren Davis.  We can talk about that later if you want, and we can talk about it for hours.  For now, I'd like to offer a bit of friendly (even if biting) correction to some of our spiritual fathers, with the hopes of helping them to become a better spiritual father.

Mistake One:  There is no "Traditionalist"

By this I don't mean there's not a pretty coherent worldview that those who claim the label traditionalist adhere to.  They certainly do.  They have an attachment to the Latin Mass.  They are generally skeptical of Vatican II and the popes since.  They reciprocate the pope's seething disdain of them.  That might tell you what they believe.  It doesn't tell you anything about who they are.

That's right, I'm writing a column about how to engage traditionalists and my first point is there isn't a "traditionalist approach" to engagement.  (Look, be glad I got it out of the way early!  If you stick with me, I can offer something better, I promise.)  Belief doesn't tell you about their background, their pastoral needs, their struggles, etc.  It offers a sliver of insight into who they are, but it's a very narrow sliver.  

Mistake Two:  The Traditionalist Cosplayer  

When trying to reach out to traditionalists, a priest may say something of the following.

"I love the Latin Mass.  I think it's beautiful.  I wish it were more available."

When you see this kind of talk, show a bit of pity and grace towards this priest.  He has no clue what he's talking about, but he's likely trying in good faith.  As ,mistake one makes clear, I can't speak for all trads.  But I do think many will read this and nod their head in agreement.  

The truth is:  we don't care that you love the Latin Mass and think it's beautiful.  If you aren't offering it, we also don't care you think it should be made more available.  Yes, we think the Latin Mass is beautiful.  That's why we're attending it.  We don't need to be told that.  Instead, whenever we hear those words, we instinctively wait for the "butttttt" that is going to come after it.  If you say this, you aren't a traditionalist.  We know you aren't, and we know that you know that we know.

Mistake Three:  Thinking You Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

There's a difference between saying something exists legally, something is the ideal, and something is reality.  Authority is one of those tricky things where those often given the benefit of the doubt are the ones least likely to think they deserve it, but view that benefit as something to be cultivated and earned.  You are likely an outsider to those people.  Even if you celebrate Mass for them on Sundays.  As a rule, outsiders tend to be less forgiving of mistakes.  When you combine this with the general reputation of the clergy being in the toilet throughout the Church in the West (even among the Ordinary Form/mainstream Catholicism) if you go into a situation expecting the benefit of the doubt, you will not get it.  I wish it were not so, yet it is so.

Mistake Four:  Looking for an Excuse

When the pastor at an Ordinary Form parish deals with an annoying parishioner, is that a sign the Ordinary Form produces rotten Catholics?  (Shut up with the snickering in the corner, trad reader.)  Yet this is the standard the Latin Mass and those who attend it get.  A Catholic doing something stupid is evidence the Latin Mass (or its community) is some poisonous agent that is going to wreck souls.  The truth is simpler:  Traditionalists are just like everyone else, only more so.  We have bad Catholics, just as you do.  We have the same struggles, the same need for spiritual guidance.  Yet often enough that spiritual guidance is lacking because of a lack of trust or relationship.

How to do it Better

There's a retired Bishop. He's a lib.  A well meaning lib, but a lib nonetheless.  Yet when he found out traditionalists were in his community, and celebrated Mass at a church nearby, he figured he would see what all the fuss was about.  He joined us after at a social.  He sat down a round table, introduced himself, and took everyone's names, names of their children/spouses, who he could pray for, etc.  He asked why we were there.  He also said he could give his opinion on the Latin Mass, but that wasn't why we were there, and he wanted to know why we were there.  So he asked for our reasons.  Some gave deep theological answers.  Some talked about beauty.  Others were frank that the Novus Ordo down the street sucked, and they wanted something better.  He asked what we were skeptical about with the Church today.  He admitted he was surprised when nobody at the table mentioned Vatican II.  He then blessed an expectant mother, asked us to pray for him, and then went to the next table, where he did the same thing.  When the Latin Mass was celebrated elsewhere and he was in the area, he did the same thing.  He even learned how to celebrate the Mass himself, and went out and did the work so traditionalists could have access to the Mass and the sacraments.  Nobody cared that his first few efforts were pretty sloppy.

Now this doesn't have some happy ending where the Bishop becomes a trad.  He still did some lib stuff that outraged people.  Yet when he did those things, those he built a relationship understood it was wrong, but even good men make mistakes.  Most importantly, he didn't feign outrage when traditionalists were themselves mad over things he did.  He tried to understand it, but we didn't live rent free in his head.  You could respect that.  That didn't interfere with him still doing pastoral outreach when he could.

Maybe you can't celebrate the Latin Mass.  Maybe we annoy you.  (I annoy me sometimes.)  Yet you can still be a shepherd, even if that work is occasionally messy and dirty.  Don't look at it as you doing others a favor.  Look at it as a chance to answer your calling to be a shepherd to lost sheep.  Is that going to solve everything?  Certainly not.  But I am a firm believer this approach will give you the tools, credibility, and growth to solve something, and we desperately need solutions for something in the Church today.

The USCCB Vote and the Far More Interesting Story

 If you had been paying attention (especially to the media narrative) over the past week, you were expecting an extremely contentious vote today on whether or not the USCCB, as a body, should put forth a document on "Eucharistic Coherence", which is academic jargon for "should those habitually flouting defined dogmas of the Church be denied Communion?"  On Thursday, Archbishop Wilton Gregory gave an impassioned speech about how divided the body was, and how it had never been so divided as it was over this issue.  Before the meeting, a group of 60+ bishops dramatically begged Archbishop Gomez to suspend any discussion on the matter, lest it provoke a bitterly divided episcopate.

Today, that vote was held and..... it wasn't particularly close.  You need a 2/3 majority to do anything as a body.  The vote had nearly 75% voting in favor, with 5 abstentions.  While it's a secret ballot, several major cardinals and heads of major dioceses in America have gone on record against even allowing this discussion, much less doing something about it.  The document will be written, and it will likely include some form of statement on Eucharistic coherence and at least some nod to the fact Bishops should deny communion to those obstinately rejecting the faith.  (Let's not expect too much.)

There is a lot of talk over what this means about Biden and others.  That's certainly an interesting discussion, but its mostly academic.  Biden's Bishop (Wilton Gregory) has all but said Biden could perform an abortion himself while presiding over a gay marriage, and he wouldn't deny him communion.  His stated position is that any time a Bishop were to tell a high profile Catholic not to receive, that is "politicizing the sacraments."  So Biden is still going to receive communion.  As will most pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

There's also a lot of talk about "well what about those who support the death penalty" but that's a moot point as well.  The validity of the death penalty in modern circumstances is not a dogma of the Church in the reality of personhood for every conceived life is.  Even the Pope's clear disdain for the death penalty hasn't changed that reality, and he has not attempted to change that reality.  The only magisterial statement comes from the CDF, and it notes the difference between the two.  (Attempts to retroactively say Joseph Ratzinger didn't actually mean it mean nothing unless they state officially that there is no difference between abortion and the death penalty, which they will not do.)  So while a lot of people talk about this, it is also not very interesting or relevant.

So what is interesting or relevant?  Its clear that the ringleaders of this (at least at one point) were:

- Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago

- Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York (though he asked his name later be removed when his activity became public knowledge)

- Cardinal Sean O'Malley of  Boston

- Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, DC

What do they have in common?  Three of them are Cardinals, with one of them likely to become one in the near future.  All are from major dioceses, and all are considered relatively close allies of Pope Francis.  All are also senior leadership in the United States.  Archbishop Gregory was right, but not in the way he thought:  The Church in the US IS divided.  The division isn't between "liberals" and "conservatives."  There is a division between senior clerics.  The rest of the Bishops are actually pretty united on this.  This is going to make the drafting of such a document troublesome, as a lot of the leadership participating in the document will be those who worked endlessly to forbid it from even being discussed.

Another interesting aspect is this is a sign that once again the powerful have lost the ability to craft their preferred narrative of choice.  They are some of the most powerful prelates in America, but also some of the most powerless in terms of forging consensus with their brethren.  Blase Cupich walks the halls of Rome and has media appointments on a regular basis.  It doesn't change the fact he's clearly held in contempt by his brother bishops in the US, who seem to take the opposite of whatever opinion he comes up with.  In 2018 Sean O'Malley's stock was never higher in the US Church.  Now he speaks, and nobody cares.  Timothy Dolan clearly loves being on TV and hearing the sound of his own voice.  He seems to be the only one enamored with it.

In a healthy and functioning body, this would essentially be a vote of no confidence in some of the most powerful men in the American Church. Most Bishops want to move forward on this, and its clear there is at least a very loud minority of American Catholics who want their bishops to take these matters seriously, and they outnumber their opponents.    I fully expect these same senior individuals to try and convince the Pope (who relies upon them to govern more than people appreciate) to intervene and squash or severely restrict the discussion.  Yet at 75%, this really might be one of those cases where even if he were inclined, he is not that inclined.  (For what its worth, I do not think he wants any involvement in this whatsoever, and will do whatever he can to keep Rome from getting involved.)

Alas, we do not have a healthy and functioning system of governance in the American Church.  The USCCB doesn't really have a point.  What this will do in the long term is place increasing pressure upon these individuals who tried to block this discussion.  They are going to have to go on record saying the USCCB's decisions have no bearing or authority, and should be ignored.  That's not something a senior prelate wants to do in his own backyard. Furthermore, if he tells everyone to ignore the USCCB, many dioceses will do precisely that, and then they will have to say why they are outliers from an increasing majority of dioceses who are trying to act with one accord.

The functional immediate importance of this document is non-existent.  Yet it does suggest a very medium term for a lot of senior bishops in the United States.