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.