Incompetence or Corruption?

 When I think about the case involving Fr. Marko Rupnik, a lot comes to mind.  But one thing that comes to mind more than any was an old speech by the Russian Revolutionary Pavel Milyukov.  In a speech criticizing the Tsar and his ministers, Milyukov asked something along the lines of "are they corrupt or incompetent?"  In other words, are they stupid, or is their malicious intent behind their actions?  Let's consider the facts of the Rupnik case, and go from there.  (The Pillar has published a lengthy explainer and a lengthy interview with one of his victims.  (I believe we can remove alleged as the Jesuits seems to) confirm this, and the Vatican asked this individual to testify during proceedings against Fr. Rupnik.

Fr. Rupnik is a Jesuit and a very famous (albeit terrible) liturgical artist, whose mosaics are prominently featured at some of the most well known churches and Catholic events.  Fr. Rupnik was ordained in 1985, and it appears that he was already engaged in grooming and abusing women.  (Also consuming copious amounts of pornography if Italian blogs are to be believed.)

In 2015, he absolved in the confessional one of his victims for engaging in sexual activity with him: a crime for which someone, if found guilty, is automatically excommunicated.  The Jesuits failed to disclose this when giving public statements about the Rupnik affair, instead only pointing out a 2021 investigation by the DDF where it was concluded that the statute of limitations had expired on one specific case brought before them.  Once this information leaked, the Jesuits admitted that this had indeed happened, but that Fr. Rupnik had repented, and as a result the excommunication was remitted.

This made the Vatican's decision to not pursue a canonical investigation against Fr. Rupnik curious.  If one is facing a canonical process for sexual abuse of some sort, that you were previously excommunicated for actions related to sexual abuse would be highly relevant information, and suggest a certain pathology by the priest as a predator.  In previous cases like this, the Vatican (through first the Congregation but now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) has waived the statute of limitations, under the very sensible principle that the protection of victims trumps an imaginary line that is suited more in this instance for civil penal law.

Even after that excommunication was lifted in 2019, Fr. Rupnik was still placed under restrictions by the Jesuits, albeit secret restrictions.  The exact extent of these restrictions has not been revealed, and did not stop Rupnik from engaging in a very public ministry, including being a guest of Pope Francis in public and presiding over preaching at his request.

The Jesuits

It is clear that the Jesuits were aware for a long time that Fr. Rupnik was a problem.  Victims had attempted to convince them to act against Rupnik for decades, all to no avail.  The mere profession that restrictions exist (even if they really don't) underscores that the Jesuits understand, at least in theory, that Rupnik is a danger to himself and others.  Yet as he continued to live a high profile, they said nothing?  Were they worried that his prestige taking a hit would mean they took a hit?  Were they worried about all the evidence coming out in their complicity in covering things up?  That implies the kind of corruption that requires a full scale cleaning of house.

Are we also to assume that as requests came in for Fr. Rupnik to speak at the Vatican and to continue his public ministry, there were no private protests, no CYA bureaucratic emails or discourse?  No further private interventions with Fr. Rupnik?  Why did they not enforce these supposed restrictions?

Rome

There will be an attempt to divorce Pope Francis from the DDF here, and I don't think that really holds.  This was a collective effort.  When an investigation was finally launched, one of the lead investigations had a clear conflict of interest, being a part of a foundation Rupnik was also a member of.  Given the high profile nature of Fr. Rupnik as a Jesuit, there could be legitimate questions about having a Jesuit head of the DDF responsible for that investigation also as a conflict.  Are there grounds for recusal within these processes?  How are they exercised?    Rome may find these questions uncomfortable, but they must be asked.

One must also ask if they were a bit selective in their prosecution of Rupnik.  Victims from other instances of abuse testified during the proceedings of Rupnik, but so far as we know, the only cases involved are the 2015 instance (which resulted in his excommunication and then repentance) and a case brought forth in 2021 where they had determined the crime was no longer justicable because the statute of limitations had expired.  Even if you are not willing to waive that, surely one could disclose what the crime was that was believed to have occurred?  The worry is that they were bringing cases they knew they could easily dismiss, and ignoring ones that would require a very embarrassing about face on Rupnik.  It would come out in future abuses cases that the DDF had confirmed an excommunication for previous abuse, and that would look like they let him off the hook to abuse again.  What starts as a conspiracy becomes a lot more plausible when one considers they have complete discretion over what cases they try, and that they made no mention of his previous excommunication during the most recent process.

As for Pope Francis, which is worse?  That he knew, but took an attitude of "he repented, lets move on" or that he was completely in the dark, and that he presided over a bureaucracy that knew to keep their mouths shut, lest they jeopardize their careers?  Bureaucrats aren't normally evil amoral people.  They are civil servants, for whom the boring task of governance tends to be supremely important.  It is often the non-bureaucratic people put in positions of governance that ignore this stuff.  I'm willing to bet in the future that the bureaucracy in both the Jesuits and the DDF protested, and it was the higher ups who managed the bureaucracy who chose to look the other way.

Is it really a surprise then that after Rupnik's excommunication was remitted, and he appeared at the Vatican as Pope Francis' behest, that the DDF decided in 2021 that it shouldn't do any new proceedings against Fr. Rupnik, and to just wave it away under "it isn't justiciable?"    The only other explanation is a Pope so clueless and aloof that the incompetence has become systemic.

Incompetence or evil might matter to God, who alone can judge souls.  For us, it makes no difference:  The Pope and his courtiers have visited shame and scandal upon the Catholic Church, and the day is likely coming soon where they will have to account for it.  All we can do is raise our voices about this scandal and shame, and make clear an expectation from our leaders that this is unacceptable.

The Real Story Behind the USCCB Elections

The USCCB gathered this week to decide who would lead the conference for the next few years.  As always, The Pillar has a decent rundown.  One thing that is clear this week:  the media courtiers who style themselves as the Magisterium of Pope Francis are very mad online this week.  For them, the USSCB elections represent a slap in the face of the Pope, as the current crop of picks are not bishops in his image.

This is, of course, a bunch of nonsense.  Yet I submit it is nonsense in ways that normally aren't pondered, and I'd like to do so here.

What is the Point of a Bishops Conference?

This sounds like a simple question, but it really isn't.  Episcopal Conferences are not something inherent to the authority of the Church.  Nor do they have any inherent authority in them by their existence.  It is sometimes envisioned that in the Church, there is a hierarchy:

- Laity

- Priest

- Bishop

- Bishops Conference

- Pope

If one looks at the various magisterial texts, of course this view is absent. Vatican II established some norms for these conferences, but if one were looking for the point of an episcopal conference, Christus Dominus in paragraph 37 works as well as anything else:

In these days especially bishops frequently are unable to fulfill their office effectively and fruitfully unless they develop a common effort involving constant growth in harmony and closeness of ties with other bishops. Episcopal conferences already established in many nations-have furnished outstanding proofs of a more fruitful apostolate. Therefore, this sacred synod considers it to be supremely fitting that everywhere bishops belonging to the same nation or region form an association which would meet at fixed times. Thus, when the insights of prudence and experience have been shared and views exchanged, there will emerge a holy union of energies in the service of the common good of the churches.

Episcopal conferences are formed as a way to remind individual Bishops that while they have real sovereignty within their diocese, they are still part of a wider body, and they should work with their neighbor bishops as much as possible.  When someone says "the USCCB should just be disbanded", that's silly talk.  Given the means of modern communication and transportation, a bishop who makes decisions with no understanding of the wider Church surrounding him is bound to do something stupid.

What we do not see is any discussion about if the point of an episcopal conference is to shape a bureaucratic body to the mind and priorities of the Pope.  The only way you arrive at that conclusion is if you believe it is the job of the Bishop to be the visible representative and vicar of the Pope within his diocese.  Christus dominus makes clear they have all the "immediate, proper and ordinary" authority to carry out shepherding the Church of God, in the area entrusted to them.  Bishops are not there as vassals of the pope, but as their own men, entrusted by the Roman Pontiff to govern their flocks.  

Are the US Bishops "Anti-Francis?"

If the US Bishops were really hardcore opponents of Francis, it would probably warm the heart of trads like myself and others.  (Whether my heart being warmed is good policy for the Church is something we are bypassing.)  Yet are they?  Where are the statements of collective resistance to his will?  What is undeniable is that the US Bishops do not wish their leadership to be perceived as flacks of the Pope, men who ask permission from Rome to take a leak.  This was the position of previous USCCB leadership during the McCarrick scandal, where the Bishops pathetically spiked any discussion regarding action taken in the wake of the abuse scandal until Rome gave them instructions on what to do.  The only thing that came was the motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi, which established a process for investigating bishops accused of abuse.  Everything else was promptly ignored.  (Vos estis has had questionable, at best, efficacy.)  It was at this moment the episcopal body lost a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the faithful.

The USSCB wants to achieve a careful balance where they are seen as in communion with the Pope, but not utterly dependent upon him for the basics of Christian governance.  As a result, certain Bishops perceived as "Pope Francis Bishops" probably aren't going to find  everyone running up to them.  This includes men like Joseph Tobin (generally seen as a pragmatist who tries to be the Pope's representative in America but also seen as a friend of all bishops) and Blase Cupich (the insufferable teachers pet who owes his very existence to being liked by the Pope, something he annoys the hell out of everyone by reminding you of every five seconds).  This doesn't mean men like Joseph Strickland (Bishop of Tyler, Texas and one you could genuinely identify as Anti-Francis) are suddenly the face of the Church in America.

How Much Does this Matter?

The answer to this question probably isn't going to be very satisfying to anyone who frequents this type of online discourse.  Yet we should consider it a bit more carefully nonetheless.  Let us assume that one of two things happened.  Either:

- The United States Episcopate became reflexively "Anti-Francis"

- The United States Episcopate became reflexively "Pro-Francis"

How much does the Church change?  I don't think its a given we see dramatic change.  I'd even propose that for the average Catholic in the US, not much would change.  Most of the problems facing the Catholic Church in America would remain.  Every Bishop could follow the dreams of liberal Catholics everywhere and say nobody can be refused communion under any circumstance.  You could bet that many priests would simply say that isn't the Bishops call to make, and correctly point out canon law has far more to say about individual priests governing their parishes that isn't being discussed in such a scenario.  Every TLM could be banned, and not a single problem would be solved.  (While a thousand new problems would then be created.)

For better or worse, individual everyday Catholics do not care what their bishop thinks about the Pope.  They have spiritual needs Bishops need to attend to.  If they are attended to, they will follow their Bishop.  If they are neglected, that Bishop is ignored.  If ecclesial politics and a race to be (or not be) teachers pet in Rome take precedence over those spiritual needs, you get a culture of indifference towards the Bishops.  To the extent we focus on this element of the USSCB elections (and Church relations in general) the Bishops demean not only their authority, but the dignity and legitimacy of the Church as a relevant institution to respond to people's needs and desires.

Clericalist Nonsense

Finally, it looks at the Church in an overly clerical manner.  It assumes that all reform starts, carried out by, and ends with clerics.  Specifically Bishops.  Finally, it says that the most important element of reform is the Roman Pontiff.  Reform is carried out by a variety of individuals within the Church, each within their own sphere, and supporting the spheres of others.  That we continue to talk about which "direction" the Church takes under this or that bishop being a stand in for this or that pope does not serve the Church.

I think these are far more interesting questions:

- Why is the USSCB here?

- Why is the Pope finding it so hard to find bishops who want to be seen as his men?  (This is part of a far larger trend of people passing the receiving of episcopal consecration in record numbers during the era of Francis)

- Why does the constitution of the USSCB leadership have such little relevance on the wider Church in the United States?

- In what way is debating over the election of clerics interacting with the role that everyone else plays in reforming the Church?

That the past week considered none of these questions honestly or openly is a far bigger indictment of the USCCB than if its president/vice president are partisans enough of this or that particular man.

Church Life Journal: Getting The Band Back Together

Since the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes (and its subsequent ignoring), trads have had a lot of field to play on. The likes of WPI and the various liberal organizations have more or less ceded the entire playing field to traditionalists, instead just trying to frame their position as one of raw papal power politics: the pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. To which trads have been able (quite adpetly I might add) to point out that in the eyes of Church law (and Traditionis Custodes itself) it is actually up to the local bishop to determine what is right, proper, and to be obeyed when it comes to most liturgical law. To which liberals have responded: t he pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. Having decisively won the argument (for now), most bishops ignored it, the Pope has backtracked (at least in public) his rationale for TC, and even the Synod on Synodality has been forced to admit its a very unpopular decision with the people of God.

Faced with this problem, Notre Dame's Church Life Journal is attempting to meet critics of Traditionis Custodes head on. In doing so, they are attempting to revive the old conservative consensus of the days of John Paul II. I think their attempt to do so is a bit instructive, and suggests a growing problem a lot of the anti-traditionalist polemics have: it demands conformity to a world which no longer exists.

To set the table, let us briefly recap the "conservative consensus". I covered this a lot more in my narrative history surrounding Traditionis Custodes, which I encourage you to read. If the conservative consensus could be defined as anything, it is the following marks:

- Doctrinal Orthodoxy

- A fierce devotion to the pontificate of John Paul II

- A fierce defense of the necessity and robust success of the Second Vatican Council

- A tension (and often outright hostility) towards traditionalists, whom you would think they have much in common with.

The consensus established during the JPII era (sometimes not necessarily what JPII had in mind) was not people attempting to change church teaching. They were people trying to uphold Church teaching, but also uphold the pastoral approach of Vatican II, which included the hostility the Church had towards traditionalists. They were sons of the Church: they just changed their disposition with whatever they perceived to be the popular disposition of the parental figures at the time.

One sees this outlook permeated through the words of the essay in Church Life Journal. Whatever you may say about this or that author, Thomas Weinandy is not a liberal. In just about every other context, a lot of the defenders of Pope Francis would be (and have) branded him as a dissident reactionary for his pointed criticisms of the Pope's (failed) attempt to change John Paul II's teaching regarding divorce and communion. While their argument is more or less the argument of the left on the Latin Mass, it doesn't root the argument in the mind of Pope Francis, but in the mind of the Council Fathers and the teaching authority of John Paul II and the numerous dicasteries that treated this question.

To this the traditionalist has one retort: you have listed a lot of facts which are true. Yes, the Council Fathers didn't envision a world in which the liturgy before 1965 survived. John Paul II didn't envision a world in which people would still cling to the Latin Mass. One could even add to this by noting that Pope Benedict didn't envision a world in which the Latin Mass became the domain of the young. His own accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum said people shouldn't worry about this, because it would be mostly old people who would make use of it, something to which Benedict was 100% wrong about.

There is a lot of talk in the article about "spirit anointed liturgical reform" (whatever that means), and how sensible and uniform the approach to the Latin Mass was. So what? The reality is that even as far back as the 1970's, it was understood that the Catholic Churches attempt to suppress the Latin Mass was not just a crime, it was a mistake. It was realized (rather quickly) that the original intent of Paul VI (an immediate suppression of every Latin Mass) was not going to work, so a carve out was made for "aged and infirmed priests" to say the Mass in private. This was then expanded on in 1971 with the "Agatha Christie Indult" which allowed the Latin Mass to be celebrated in Britain/Wales with the permission of the local bishop for any priest, not just aged and infirm. By 1980, there was a growing realization: the Latin Mass wasn't going to die. Therefore, the matter was sent to the Congregation of Divine Worship to study. This was ultimately decided by John Paul II in 1984 with Quattuor Abhinc Annos, which erected a formal legal regime by which the Latin Mass could be celebrated anywhere within the Latin Church, subject to certain conditions.  It was also during this time that John Paul II wanted to get a better understanding of his options here:  what was the status of the Old Missal?  Was it abrogated?  Suppressed? Could it be?  He asked a commission of cardinals to study the matter.  They reported their findings to the Pope:  The Old Rite was never abrogated, and a priest did not need permission to celebrate the Old Rite, at least privately.  Given the role of the local Bishop in liturgical affairs, the existing legal situation had a clear tension between a bishops rights and the rights of the priest, to say nothing of the desires/obligations/rights of individual lay Catholics.  This was sent to the Holy Father who.... did nothing, for various reasons, understandable and inexplicable.

In the meantime, the Latin Mass continued to grow, and the position of the Church became more incoherent.  A can of gasoline was thrown on this fire with the illicit episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve of four priests, meant as a way to perpetuate the survival of the Latin Mass.  In announcing that the bishop had incurred canonical penalties, John Paul II nonetheless admitted that the Church's approach to the Latin Mass played a part in creating the schism.  He commanded the worlds bishops to be more generous in allowing the Latin Mass, and over time even erected infrastructure in the Church (such as the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the creation of new religious orders for the Old Rite) to facilitate the growth of the Old Rite under the auspices of the Church.

All of this happened before Pope Benedict ascended the throne.  As he ascended the throne, the question was not if the Latin Mass would be further liberalized, but rather the terms under which it would take place.  Would it be a "universal indult", where the Pope simply granted the authority for every priest?  Or would the entire Indult die and be replaced by something new, trying to learn the lessons of the last 35 years?  This is what our friends in Church Life Journal completely ignore.  The path to Summorum Pontificum was slow, but it was organic, and rooted first and foremost in pastoral reality:  even if it was a reality the Church had to be dragged to, sometimes kicking and screaming.  Summorum Pontificum didn't change the Church.  It was simply an acknowledgement of how much things had changed.

The authors don't grapple with this problem.  It isn't fair to say they ignore it.  It is probably better to say they aren't even aware of its existence.  Why?  Because they are still operating as if its the 1980's, when most of the conservative polemics against the TLM came into fruition.  Its apologetics are rooted in the 1990s, when there was a considerable following within orthodox circles that attacked the Latin Mass, and viewed itself (under the guise of John Paul II) as true custodians of the revolution of Vatican II, protecting the revolution from both the Jacobins and the monarchists.  If this world doesn't make sense to the reader of today, tell that to the authors.  

All these things happened.   You cannot wish them away.  It makes no sense responding to the past 40 years by talking about legislation promulgated in 1974 that tells a bishops conference how to act in 1974.  Subsequent legislation revoked that old legislation.  That legislation in itself rested not on raw force of will by the legislator, but a reality on the ground that legislation was trying to properly channel, not impose.  The rest of the article is full of the same anachronisms regarding liturigcal debates:  they make sense in the era of the liturgy wars from 1980-2007.  They have zero relevance in todays world.

That is what I think is ultimately behind the failed attempt to impose Traditionis Custodes, and more generally why the conservative consensus collapsed during the years of Francis.  Whatever one thinks of that world:  it no longer exists.  The infrastructure for it is crumbled.  The will to implement it isn't there.  Far more pressing problems have taken its place.  The arguments of Professors Wienandy, Healy and Cavadini aren't just wrong:  they are alien to people who live outside of academic towers and practice their faith in the real world.  It is a crusty self-referential consensus that shouldn't just be returned to its cage, it should (and will) be put out of its misery.

The Spirit of Vatican II: Prolonging the Inevitable

In commemorating the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the Vatican's office for the Synod said it was the job of the Synod on Synodality to "to prolong, in the life and mission of the Church, the spirit of the Second Vatican Council." Today, Christopher Lamb proclaimed that the "Vatican II team" was a "once brilliant team low on confidence" (a polite euphemism for the team is old and sucks) that was revitalized by Francis, who pulled the Church back from the nadir of its fortunes.  That nadir wasn't the abuse crisis or the collapse in Church membership, but Summorum Pontificum.

What are we to make of all of this?  

First is to remind everyone that, naturally, we trads had it right all along.

During the 1960's-1980's, when the left was ascendant in the Church (especially the 1970's Jacobinism as Paul VI retreated into solitude), we were told that the revolution launched at Vatican II would renew the Church.  From the 1980's-2000's, we were told to forget all that talk about the renewal of that era:  we were entering a "New Springtime" because now, under John Paul II, Vatican II would finally be properly implemented.  During the 2000's-2010, we were told now that John Paul II properly implemented Vatican II, true renewal would come under Benedict's guidance as he closed the books on Vatican II.  Now, from 2018 onwards (after 4 rather lackluster years of Francis) we are told that, for real this time guys, true renewal is on the way after implementing Vatican II.

The response of traditionalists has been pretty consistent:  there was no renewal of Vatican II.  Its a meme, not a reality.  Now its something we say more as an addict with a fix:  I just need one more bump, and I'll be good.  Once more, with feeling:  Vatican II was great, and the great renewal will finally happen now that my ideas are guiding it.

For far too long, we trads were told that we were refusing to notice this or that positive indicator, and were excessively pollyanish, a prophet of doom, whatever.  Now, since 2018, Francis has taken the position that not only were we traditionalists prophets of doom correct (there was no Vatican II renewal), but the few hundred thousand trads worldwide are why a communion of a billion believers never got the renewal!

This time, we will get the great renewal by the classic meme of Catholicism:  "The Spirit of Vatican II."  You see, when the Council was originally promulgated, it was believed the documents themselves were a blueprint for renewal.  "Liberals" believed this, as did "conservatives" like Ratzinger.  It was only upon the anarchy of the 1960's that everyone needed a more satisfying answer for why this self-evident blueprint for renewal didn't work.  Enter the "Spirit" of the text.

When you are trying to understand a council document, it is not enough to read the text and understand the basic context that went into its framing.  You need to understand that everything in the document has to be read through a certain ideological prism.  Sometimes the spirit is referenced as being betrayed by Paul VI when he reiterated traditional Catholic doctrine on contraception.  (For individuals like ex Where Peter Is writer Brian Lafferty, this is when the great revolution of 1793 was replaced by the bad revolution of Thermidor.)  Another instance of the Spirit is when Pope Francis insists that the Spirit of Vatican II is what drove him to initiate a ban of the Latin Mass, despite the fact that the Concilliar Bishops (and especially the liturgical committee which led the liturgical reform) voiced overwhelming opposition to ending Latin in the liturgy.  To something American readers will understand, there are emanations and penumbras in the Concilliar text.

Our response should remain the same:  laughter, now mixed with a bit of pity.  The Spirit of Vatican II is a lot like cryptocurrency:  once someone pulls the curtain, one sees how there's really nothing behind it.  This is then followed by collapse.  If, after 60 years, it becomes necessary to "prolong" the "Spirit of Vatican II", one thing should be evident:  its not in very good shape, and is likely to die off sooner rather than later.  Like the old man afraid of death (many of those in our highest leadership of the Church), so the spirit of the council fears its coming end, and begins to reflect on what was, and most importantly, what wasn't.  It sees that, contrary to their wishes, life goes on once they are gone, and the Church is already preparing themselves for that eventuality.   Everyone has all but given up on this pontificate, while preparing for the next conclave.  The synod that was meant to prolong the spirit of Vatican II faces not opposition and hostility but indifference and apathy.... from those who are sympathetic.  I'm here to say to that spirit:  just take a deep breath and let go.  The current generation will take it from here.

Professional Catholicism and the Sons of Noah

 "You should write more on this."

"Are you ever going to start writing again?  Here's our submissions address."

"You have a unique voice in today's landscape.  You should use it more."

As we enter this time of extended darkness in the Church, I am told these things.  I always think its a great idea, and yet when I try to write.... I got nothing.  That's not entirely true.  I have a lot of words I put down, and some of those words even leave me nodding, and I know they would resonate with an audience.  Yet I never save and publish.

Do this long enough and you will inevitably get something along the lines of the following:

"Are you okay?"

"Is there a crisis of faith?"  (Few ask this directly, but its clear what they are getting at.)

I've found myself more and more thinking about this question.  Not "why am I not writing more" but what that lack of writing says.  Have the issues of salience dropped? Certainly not.  If anything, they've intensified.   We're reaching a point of darkness that is rivaled only by how pathetic the entire spectacle of Church leadership is becoming.  In many ways, the Church is beginning to resemble her ailing and sickly pontiff:  immobile, bitter, complaining about how nothing has worked, and looking for somebody to blame.  One could see that with the release of the Pope's latest instruction on the liturgy, which seems to place the entire failure of the Post Vatican II liturgical reform (of which modern man is now incapable of perceiving) on the fact the TLM distracted Catholics from directing their energies towards living out the true reality the Council calls us to.  In 2013 this would cause outrage.  In 2022, I sincerely believe this should cause pity on a dying man who ended up being not up to the task placed before him, by God, and by those who installed him on the throne.

So why not write more about it?  Why not amplify ones voice, especially as we get deeper into this darkness, and the response of the Church becomes even more feeble and pathetic?  I think here we run into a tension (not a problem per se) with calls for reform in the Church:  at what point does one became Ham, the son of Noah, pointing out the nakedness of our father for spectacle to other Catholics?

When I took classes on public speaking and debate as a student, the one lesson always hammered home was to make the point and move on.  If you stick with a point too long, you begin to look like a fanatic, and, more importantly, you are signaling to your audience your previous attempts to make the point weren't terribly compelling.  This rule should be elevated even more when talking about the defects and faults of others.  Once you've made the point you want to make about someone's failing, move on.  If you stay there too long, in addition to the things I mentioned above, you might end up being seen as cruel and vindictive.  You yourself may begin to become cruel and vindictive.

Seeing the humanity in someone can be a tough business, especially when, in the case of Francis, he has spent the last 18 months making sure that when people see me, they don't see my humanity, only my perceived threat to power, and as a scapegoat for a variety of sins in the Church.  Yet Noah had dignity, even in his drunken state of excess and frailty. 

I also don't want to be one of the various Catholic personalities.  I do not want to be Mark Shea, a man who has so consumed himself with rage, he is unable to see the Cross as anything other than an instrument of said rage.  I do not want to be Dawn Eden, someone who hasn't written anything influential or important in a decade, but now, stuck in a feedback loop that her livelihood depends on, tailors whatever things she does write to pop the influential.  (A fate that befalls a lot of academics of any persuasion, Catholicism being no exception.)  I don't want to be Steve Skojec or one of the countless trads who didn't move on from the established point, and got consumed in a deadly cocktail of rage and monetization.  I also don't want to be the EWTN/Crisis crowd, who have mostly abandoned the cross in favor of a political crusade.  And let's be real, do I really need to belabor why I don't want to be the guys at Where Peter Is?

So what will I be?  The guy who mostly pokes fun at those trying, and failing, at finding a balance between being a good writer and a good Catholic?  (Well besides that.  Sorry, most of you earned it the jeers.)  I don't have an easy answer to that.  The obvious is that I'll continue being a husband and a father.  I'll continue being someone who reads good Catholic commentary.  Just because I can't figure out how to maintain that balance doesn't mean you can't. Yet I would only ask of you who do write:  have compassion on the passing of an age.  There are many people who meant well in trying to carry out something that was doomed to failure.  There are also those whose heart is black as coal now who were not always that way.  As they meet the end of their cause, have mercy on them.  For that mercy might enkindle within their heart the fire of the Spirit that has long been dormant.

Finally, when you do write, try to write beyond the controversy.  A million writers can write about why this or that thing is an outrage.  They are easily replaceable, and after a few years of burning themselves out, they are replaceable.  It takes someone special to see the struggles in light of a larger picture.  I firmly believe that larger picture is one of a dying age, and we must make sense of what comes after that age's death.  The moment we trads have hoped for (the death of the post-concilliar revolution and its "spirit") is upon us.  It dominates the horizon, and anyone who looks up (something actively discouraged) see it.  We have been told for 50 years that there is no storm, or that if there is one, it is a lot further away.  Now, we are blamed for the storm!  Focusing on discourse about the coming storm makes little sense when it is now here, and how beyond it, we can see the end of that storm as well.  Don't ignore the suffering of those in the Church at the hands of bishops and Rome, yet read the signs of their impending doom.  If we want something better to replace them, we must think about that more.

This isn't me shutting down.  I'll still write from time to time.  It's just a realization that as the old ways fade, so does the way we talk about those old ways.

Stories of Motor City Traditionalism

Thanks be to God, I was able to attend the Easter Vigil according to the Traditional Latin Mass last night.  It was a bittersweet experience, as it will be my last in the state of Michigan. Next month I'm moving to Ohio, or at least the Michigan suburb that is Toledo.  As I sat during the (very long!) chanting of the lessons, my mind drifts, as it does even when it is proclaimed in English. 21 years ago I had been in this position, albeit in dramatically different circumstances.

In 2001, there was no "approved" Triduum services in the Archdiocese of Detroit so far as I can remember.  If you wanted that experience, you had to drive an hour north to Flint, something I eagerly did. I was a 19 year old traditionalist, only recently finding the Latin Mass.  I experienced the Triduum services the only way one could in our diocese at the time: illegally at the small SSPX chapel. I didn't have any opinions on the doctrinal controversies, I just wanted to experience what the Triduum was like.

In 2022, a year after Francis made it his intention to eventually ban the Latin Mass, four months after the head of the CDW hinted at his intent to suppress Triduum services in the TLM, I know of at least 5 different Churches in the greater metro area that had at least one of the Triduum services, and that's not counting the SSPX, who are now in a far larger parish in a far better neighborhood.  All of these likely had at least 100 individuals, two of them likely 200+.  Traditionis Custodes and subsequent legislation have made life as a trad difficult in some areas.  In Detroit, nothing has changed, and that's a story worth talking about.

I want to make clear this is a story about Traditionalism in the Motor City, not the story.  I'm in no position to give the authoritative story.  I'm not sure anyone is for reasons that will become clear.  So this it the Kevin Tierney version.  This version has the advantage of being involved in this scene since 2001 and having conversations on both the side of the individuals intimately involved with its explosive growth, and some of those on the diocesan side.  It also has the benefit of a bit of distance.  I wasn't some leader of trads here, but I am one of the individuals most "leaders" know or have spoken with.  I didn't build things here, but I gave a few bricks.

While the story of the Latin Mass in the Metro Detroit predates Summorum Pontificum (whether it be the SSPX in Redford, or All Saints in Flint), it is with Summorum Pontificum that I have my first story about traditionalism here I think is worth telling.  (I have many stories of the Indult days, but none germane to the story I want to tell here.)  On Holy Thursday, I had a long gap between the time I finished lunch with a friend, and the time Mass started.  Rather than drive 30 minutes home to the suburbs, I stayed downtown and just went to pray in the empty Church.  During that prayer, a woman came up to me, informing me that several things needed to be done to help prepare for the liturgy, and someone was needed for the canopy.  "Do you mind?"  It was a statement she is sorry if that inconvenienced me, but I was going to help her.  During the time of setting up (this was about 2 hours before Mass), she got my story and why I was there, and I got the chance to quiz her about what her views were for organizing the Latin Mass there.  It was during this time I learned she had an intense disdain for the chattering class of traditionalism (not knowing at the time I was a blogger with a respectable audience) for all their talk on what needs to be done differently, rather than actually doing something.  She and her husband (a traditionalist who has far outgrown his importance to just Detroit) did all this work helping parishes flourish, while "those people" just whined and complained and a few other words I won't write in a family friendly organization.

The traditionalist scene has its intellectuals here.  Yet it is far more interested in lay faithful doing their part to make it work.  Contrary to the assumptions of many in Rome, the Latin Mass in Detroit is not the plaything of priests:  it is something demanded by the laity.  Several groups have sprung up to help support the laity in getting access to what they want.  I think of organizations like the local chapter of Juventutum (disclosure:  I used to pay dues even if you could never really call me a "member"), which would go to a parish in the suburbs without a traditionalist audience, and ask the priest if he'd be okay with allowing a Latin Mass there, giving everyone a chance to see that people in their community would show up if it was offered.  The head of that chapter had the crazy idea of just walking into a parish and asking.  It worked!

This brings me to a second story about Traditionalism in the Motor City.  In the days right after Summorum Pontificum, where I went on a tour of the Archdiocesan office with a Catholic author and his friends within the diocesan bureaucracy.  (You haven't lived until you see Papal Action Figures Wrestling in the headquarters of an archdiocese.)  Several of these individuals were involved in securing the Indult in Detroit, and favored Summorum Pontificum.  Yet they spoke with alarm at the trend of new parishes being approached asking them to celebrate Latin Masses.  Their idea was to keep things neat and controlled, wanting traditionalists to be filtered into one or two parishes.  This served two purposes:  it provided a powerful image of everyone crowding into one (or two) parishes, but it also allowed people to keep better tabs on what was happening.  We had to watch out for the "rad trads" my author friend told me.

Anyone who knows anything about the Latin Mass in Detroit knows that the exact opposite approach was taken instead.  The laity got several parishes to allow the Latin Mass with varying frequency, and from those small communities they were nourished into thriving communities over time.  Now there are 6-7 Latin Mass communities, all over 100 parishioners in the Metro Detroit area.  This decentralized nature makes it pretty hard to control, so the Archdiocese did the next best thing:  it tried to support it and nurture it. Has it been perfect?  Of course not. Has it meant trads never criticize the diocese?  When they deserve it, they get it.  Yet for the most part, its criticism done within the reservation.  The decentralized nature of things makes this arrangement possible.  I also think it is why Traditionis Custodes didn't touch anything here.  Trying to limit all activity within one or two parishes for an entire archdiocese works when there are only a few parishes.  When you have 6-7 different weekly masses, and 10-15 of lesser frequency a month across a 70 mile radius?  You're ripping people from their communities, tearing them from the pastoral bonds they've formed.  To suppress the Latin Mass within the Detroit area would require the coordination, alignment and cooperation of at least 4 bishops (in two different countries), intending to suppress the Latin Mass.  It is doubtful those Bishops would have been inclined to act, but I'm sure those logistical difficulties in such a suppression would make even the most committed of ideologues choose coexistence.

I'm sure there are those in the diocese who can offer you a better story with juicier details.  They might be more willing to cover some of the controversial stories, a few which even include this author!  In the end, I don't think they offer any meaningful insight as to how the Latin Mass communities of Detroit have flourished in the past two decades, and will almost certainly continue to flourish.

The Obedience Vibe

 I've been a traditionalist for over two decades now.  I have learned a lot in that time.  Yet I have had one particular difficulty I want to confront today:  that regarding obedience, or rather the vibe of obedience.

Obedience is something precious to the Catholic conscience.  Christ praises the obedience of the centurion, who understands the importance (and responsibility) of command.  The scriptures praise the obedience of children, want us to do likewise, and promise damnation for those who would abuse that power.  For the Catholic, the ultimate virtue (in popular discourse) is to be like Christ, obedient unto death to His Fathers command.

Given the importance of obedience, it is not surprising that a lot of debate occurs on its extent, especially for those of us in the more traditionalist orbit of things.  I remember vividly a discussion with a writer at the liberal Catholic blog Where Peter Is who went on a rather paranoid rant about how I, Kevin Tierney, and my brethren were very effective at leading a widespread rebellion against the pope and the Bishop in the Detroit area, since the Detroit area is a place where traditionalism flourishes. We traditionalists in Detroit (even though I have been out of that game for years since I moved to Livingston County) were apparently leading a massive disobedience to legitimate authority.  

My response (outside of laughter and yes, a bit of demeaning and mockery of the individual) was that he clearly lives in a world detached from reality, as the Detroit traditionalist scene was the perfect example of a scene that was traditionalism that operated within episcopal oversight.  There are few places w  Yet what matters to that writer (as everyone at WPI) was not truth, but the cause.  The cause requires them to believe that traditionalists are bad, ergo just look for something to tar them with.  What better charge than that of "disobedience?"

Yet in light of Traditionis Custodes, "obedience" is all the rage again.  Those who are critical of it need to act with "humble obedience to the Pope."  What does that humble obedience entail?  Nobody ever says, just that you have to be obedient.  We Catholics know that in order for something to be obeyed, it has to meet certain criteria, and I'd like to unpack them.

• A lawful command
• Issued by a lawful superior
• Within the domain of that superior.

A Lawful Command

This seems simple, the command has to be something that isn't inherently sinful.  A superior, even if he's a pope, can't command someone to sin.  While that is pretty universally understood, the less understood part is the whole command part.  Simply put, one does not obey vibes, sentiments or feelings.  Furthermore, when it comes to commands, obedience is always understood in a narrow sense, not in the broadest sense possible.  That's not religion, that's a cult.

In the situation of Traditionis Custodes, there is precious little that the laity must be "obedient" to.  Priests do have to obey their bishop regarding the celebration of the Latin Mass.  They had to obey their Bishop even in Summorum Pontificum.  Yet the laity are under no such obedience.  To the extent they have to obey anyone here, it is not Rome's desires, but that of the local bishop.  So if one wants to say to the Bishop that TC is a really bad idea that damages the unity of the Church, and for those reasons it shouldn't be implemented?  That's something well within their rights, and the Bishop's discretion.  This was precisely the approach traditionalists took, and a good majority of the bishops heeded.  The end result was the Pope begging people to please implement his decree now that outright suppression of the TLM has been explicitly abandoned.

The Pope clearly wanted to suppress the Latin Mass.  Yet he didn't actually do it, thinking that his desire would be sufficient.  It's not.  That's not disobedience, that's spirited participation in the life of the Church.

Issued by a Lawful Superior Within His Domain

This also seems simple.  The Pope is the lawful superior of every Catholic on earth.  Yet is it that simple?  And does that extend to those in his inner circle?  This is not an academic exercise.  The Congregation for Divine Worship, in a response to questions about Traditionis Custodes, put forth rules that, if taken seriously, would have forbidden Catholics from gathering in parish halls after Mass where a Latin Mass was celebrated, and the Prefect reserved to himself alone the authority to tell individual churches what Mass times they were allowed to print in their parish bulletin.

Is Arthur Roche a lawful superior of these individuals?  Certainly not.   He certainly has authority on complex matters of liturgical law, and the doctrinal questions that surround the Eucharistic sacrifice.  Yet on the question of what to put in parish bulletins, or when Catholics are allowed to gather for coffee, he has zero authority.  That would be the authority of the local Bishop.  Not surprisingly, there have been few if any instances of local Bishops barring the advertising of the Latin Mass, or of regulating parish socials for those who worship at the Latin Mass.  So even if a command is otherwise lawful, one need not heed it if the individual ordering it has clearly overstepped his authority.

Why Obedience When it Doesn't Apply

This one is a bit more speculative, but I think its something we should talk about.  When we think of saints, we overwhelmingly think of priests, bishops, and religious.  When we read the great Spiritual works such as The Imitation of Christ, we read the book of a religious, written for religious.  In that world, obedience to superiors is more than just an academic exercise.  They are part of a hierarchal command structure, where questions of obedience are a frequent if not daily occurrence.  Yet since these are the great classics, it is assumed that this is not only something every Catholic can learn from (true enough), but that their circumstances must also be ours.

The laity are not that.  When one reads books specifically written for the laity (such as Introduction to the Devout Life & The Spiritual Combat), one finds mention of obedience only very briefly, and it involves less esoteric aligning yourself with Rome's idea of what would be nice, and more of trying to follow your confessor or spiritual director even when it is tough and disagreeable, so long as it is possible.  That doesn't make what the former said "wrong", just that one needs to consider the audience, and understand that while one can learn from them, there is a risk in misinterpreting their scope.

The hard fact is that obedience rarely plays a substantial role in the life of most Catholics.  Are you going to Mass somewhere that satisfies a Sunday obligation?  Are you sincere in your desire to be united to the Catholic Church?  Do you make a good faith effort to understand bad decisions by leaders in the best light possible, even if that light is still pretty dark?  Congratulations, you are practicing obedience.  If not, then yes, we should have a sincere talk about obedience, but for what it is, what it is not.  Let those who continue to talk about obedience as a vibe continue to talk, and be ignored just like the idiot blogger I ignored.

Pope Francis' Strategic WIthdrawl on the 1962 Liturgical Books

In a decree on February 11th (released today), Pope Francis said the following:

The Holy Father Francis, grants to each and every member of the Society of Apostolic Life “Fraternity of Saint Peter”, founded on July 18, 1988 and declared of “Pontifical Right” by the Holy See, the faculty to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, and to carry out the sacraments and other sacred rites, as well as to fulfill the Divine Office, according to the typical editions of the liturgical books, namely the Missal, the Ritual, the Pontifical and the Roman Breviary, in force in the year 1962.

They may use this faculty in their own churches or oratories; otherwise it may only be used with the consent of the Ordinary of the place, except for the celebration of private Masses.

Without prejudice to what has been said above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well.

Given in Rome, near St. Peter’s, on February 11, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year 2022, the ninth year of my Pontificate.

A few simple sentences, but a lot to unpack. I think what we are seeing here is the beginning of a strategic withdrawal regarding Traditonis Custodes. Nobody is dumb enough to think that the Pope is going to abandon his decree less than one year after issuing it. Yet I do think he can read the room. The text left unclear the future of the FSSP, but CDW prefect Roche made clear that while he had no authority over the FSSP, the "principle has been established that ordinations in the Latin Church are conferred as directed by the Rite approved by Apostolic Constitution in 1968".  (Interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register.)  How do you reconcile this decree with Roche's statement?  You can't.  So either the Pope disagreed publicly with the head of the CDW (unlikely), or they've had to adjust their approach.

For me, I think the final sentence, seemingly out of nowhere, is the tell:

Without prejudice to what has been said above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well.

That the Holy Father has to make this suggestion is evidence that, as a matter of general practice, the provisions of Traditionis Custodes are not being taken into consideration. Nor are the hateful and bigoted decrees of the CDW dubia.  There isn't "resistance" to TC and the Dubia, there's indifference and apathy.  The Pope is hoping that by showing that he is no longer seeking to eradicate the TLM, Bishops will be more likely to apply the restrictions.

At this point traditionalists will talk about how the Pope is "playing the long game" and thinking strategically.  That he will come around later to attempt to do the full scale ban.  I think this gives them credit as shrewd and tactful agents that they absolutely do not deserve.  I have no doubt they envision themselves as political geniuses.  Yet they are not.  Their machinations at the various synods ended in failure, and far from showing a better command of the Church, everyone is in agreement that there will be no "Pope Francis Catholics" after he dies, especially among the young.  His promises of grand reform have all mostly gone to the wayside, being hopelessly bogged down in a million small battles along the way.

Whether or not the Pope thinks he will get another shot, I think the upshot here is he will not get another shot.  There may be some attempts to further discriminate against and persecute people in the diocesan world who wish to offer the TLM, but the implementation of those decrees is left to the local ordinary, the very same individuals who have mostly reacted to TC/CDW dubia by finding something else to do.  Everyone was waiting for new decrees from bishops after the Dubia.  Outside of two or three, (and some of them an insistence they would not allow an infringement upon their authority) most Bishops simply did nothing.

Whatever the long term intentions of the Holy Father, this is a de-escalation, and should be welcomed as such.  Yet more is needed. This is not likely to be taken as a token of good faith and good will, because the Pope was mostly powerless to accomplish what he desired.  What will get a genuine thaw in relationships is for the Pope to genuinely change his mind on something, which is unlikely.

So for now before TC, tensions were at a 1.  Then they were at a 10.  Now?  A 7.  People are less likely to do something stupid at a 7 compared to a 10, but the situation hasn't cooled entirely, and probably won't for the short time Francis is left on the throne.  Still, that we are not spending his final hours in trench warfare is something we should be grateful for.

Was Sheen Wrong?

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

Attributed to Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, one could say that this quote not only captures the essence of the modern apologetics movement in the Church, but the Second Vatican Council as well.  I thought about this quote today because someone did something with this quote I had never seen: they mocked it.

Fulton Sheen is one of the biggest influences on my faith.  Thanks to organizations like Keep the Faith, I had his entire audio library.  Over a hundred hours of Sheen talking about this or that subject.  Not all of it was insightful, but much of it was entertaining.  Sheen was, without a doubt, the greatest Catholic orator of the 20th century, and in a century of oratory giants in America, he ranked up near the top of that as well.  He would appear on TV with a smile and gentle face, and it would quickly turn to a stern demeanor as his speeches reached their fever pitch.

Sheen used his considerable oratory talent to change how Americans perceived the Church.  He was the rock star of Catholicism in his age.  This quote was a bit of a mission statement.  Most of the objections to Catholicism came out of bias, bias Sheen was going to use the unique avenue of modern communications to smash.

In the eyes of the reformers at the Second Vatican Council (not entirely without merit), the Catholic Church was a moribund lifeless institution that lacked relevance in the eyes of the faithful: her rules and regulations stifling the creativity of pastors in reaching the people.  If the Church only embarked upon a bold process of reform, then those erroneous perceptions could be obliterated, and then the truth would win out, because there are no good reasons someone wouldn't be Catholic.  The last 50 years have been a gigantic PR offensive by the Catholic Church, following Sheen's path by saying "we're not actually like that.  Let me help you understand what we really are."

This narrative isn't entirely false, especially in 1950's and 1960's America. While you won't hear a lot of talk about it in history books (outside of the occasional reference to the Know Nothings and JFK's candidacy), Anti-Catholicism really was as American as Apple Pie.  Even the great social reform movements of the day had a distinctly anti-catholic (as well as anti-immigrant) vibe to them. Hence the need to ban alcohol, something that was consumed largely by those Irish, those Catholics.  We need to give women the right to vote, because god-fearing protestant wives need to be a counter against the foul immigrant Catholic, who won't let his wife vote anyways.  Laws that restricted funds to religious schools were meant explicitly as a way to curb the power of Catholics to educate children.  From that perspective, a lot of crazy things are said about Catholics, and it was a reasonable thought that if we dampened a lot of that crazy stuff, then we could reach people better.

That's not really what happened though.  While you still have a bit of Anti-Catholicism (especially amongst the political left, but also in certain portions of the right who would prefer Catholics stop caring about issue x or y so much) within American society, most of the paranoia and wild biases are gone.  Most people do not in fact view Catholicism as a cult anymore.  Catholics are not viewed as being stalking horses for a papal theocracy.  Yet is the Catholic Church really a stronger institution in 2022 than it was then?  

I'm not terribly interested in the "the Church at this or that time" was better argument, as its mostly fruitless.  We live in the here and now.  Yet I do think if we put too much stock in this line of thinking (that most of the obstacles to Catholicism will go away once we show people what Catholicism really is), we end up becoming a lot like what the Church is today:  insular and a hostage to forces greater than it, while we tell ourselves the fairy tales this is a sign of a stronger Church, a "creative minority" if you will.

The thing about this line of thinking is it only works with those on the island, so to speak.  To those who aren't Catholic, knowing Catholics aren't intent on founding a theocracy in America is a good thing, but does that really matter much to the thousand other (entirely legitimate) questions they have about Mariology, the sacraments, worship, and our hierarchal structure?

This also infantilizes non-Catholics:  reduces them to bumbling rubes whose objections are rooted more in the Black Legend than anything real or concrete.  Catholicism is not self-evident or self-authenticating.  It is rather a religion crafted throughout the centuries carefully, and through much debate (sometimes violence!) , with the goal of upholding the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.  That we have the promise of infallibility and indefectibility from the Holy Spirit does not make that journey inherently smooth.  Indeed, such promises exist as a reassurance to Catholics that amidst all the chaos, things will eventually work themselves out, not that they already have.  In the right setting that is comforting.  To someone struggling in their faith, or not practicing?  Probably less so.

Finally, to say this in 2022, post sex abuse, post-McCarrick and 50 years of crisis?  That's just daft.  A lot of people think they hate the Catholic Church because her bishops helped erect a criminal enterprise shielding abuser priests from justice, while Rome was indifferent at best, and complicit at worst.  They think this because...... her bishops helped erect a criminal enterprise shielding abuser priests from justice, while Rome was indifferent at best, and complicit at worst.  To the struggling or the non-catholic, they do not care about the ideological struggles of if John Paul II, Benedict, or Francis were better on abuse.

Removing the biases of individuals only goes so far.  If one really wants to succeed in giving a reasoned explanation of our hope, it requires admitting the obvious:  there are a lot of reasons to hate the Catholic Church, and some of them, especially actions by her members (including and sometimes especially the hierarchy) are good reasons, reasons Catholics should join in on.

Will this make people more likely to convert, knowing that a lot of their objections have at least some merit?  Probably not!  Yet I do think it will go a long way in establishing your credibility in dealing with non-catholics, and so much of that later conversion stems upon that credibility.  I prefer to give the Spirit a chance to act, rather than confidently asserting that everything will be good if only I set the person straight.

Fulton Sheen remains a tremendous influence on my faith.  Yet like all influences, sometimes you have to remember their flaws (which make their successes so beautiful), and admit that some things in your hero shouldn't be emulated.