The Problem with Planned Catholic Communities

 There's a big story in the Catholic world.  A group of Catholics have announced their intention to build a new community outside of Tyler, Texas, home of Bishop Strickland.  They are planning to buy a good 600 acres.  The reason this is being done is because these Catholics, impacted by lengthy lockdowns without the sacraments, wish to have a community where that access will always be available, and they want to build a community inspired by the values of John Paul II.

I don't doubt the sincerity of these individuals, or their good faith.  I do however doubt their judgement.  Whether it was a community around Fisher Moore College, Ave Maria in Florida, or St. Mary's in Kansas, the Mother of God community, the track record of these communities isn't very good.  The initial thrill gives way to infighting, ego, and inevitably, the grift.  Those who have the means to pack up and move around the country to a new area will have means that someone can have redirected to their cause.

There is also the question of what a "Catholic community" is.  Is it just a sacrament dispensary?  Liturgical snob I am, I think there's a danger if we reduce a Catholic community to being primarily built around a church we all go to Mass at.  What are some of the other marks of that community.  Would the housing be affordable?  Would business owners in those communities pay their workers a living wage with benefits?  What would be done to help people raise the size of families they want to?  These kind of questions are just as important to the Catholic as "will the Church have Mass?"  Also, what other services will that Church provide?  How will oversight function so that this group stays true to their mission?  What is the source of that mission?  These kind of questions are seldom considered.

There is also a question about the education there.  We are told that some of the education will focus on:

The seven institutes of Veritatis Splendor will encompass a range of issues that concern Catholics in the modern world, including life, education, liberty, human rights, law, media and culture.

Liberty, media, and culture.  What kind of liberty are we talking about?  I'm skeptical we are talking about liberty as Leo XIII defines it in Libertas, in which man is free to pursue a life in Jesus Christ, and anything in society that interferes with that right is dangeorus.  This sounds more like your run of the mill American conservative understanding, where they seek to create an environment where their political values are taught.  I don't want to touch on those values right now, I just wish to point out there will be parts of a real Catholic community that differ from those values substantially.

We should probably also consider where, even if we could overcome these problems, we should actually want to.  Communities grow organically, they are very hard to centrally plan.  Communities that have been planned into existence historically often required vast sums of money and time.  In a certain sense most Catholics in America have to search a little to find a good parish.  Yet to uproot and travel across the country to one?  Even if one has the means, perhaps it could be better spent enhancing your own local community.

There has been some success with monastic communities where small towns/villages have grown around them, but this was not centrally planned.  Clear Creek Abbey was not founded to serve as the nexus of a city of Catholics, quite the opposite.  Would that individuals who have the wealth to engage in these kind of endeavors would focus on building communities around them, in their own neighborhoods, that build and foster a Catholic community.

Now some will object that you cannot have this without the Mass and the sacraments, and you need that community to have that as a building block.  Yet my dear friend, episcopal appointments are conditional upon the pope and Rome.  There will come a time when Strickland will be gone, and be replaced by someone else.  A traditional bishop can be replaced by a modernist, a servant bishop be replaced by a raging narcissist.  At this point, you will have the situation you attempted to flee from, except now you'll be out of money substantially.

Catholics need to focus more on building their local communities.  Veritatis Splendor is launching a 22,000,000 dollar capital campaign for their community.  Let's say someone is donating even a "small" sum like 100,000 dollars.  Imagine if that individual showed up at the local pro-life clinic and informed the individual that 100,000 dollars worth of diapers and formula would be provided to the clinic for expectant mothers.  That could help a mother with her first child for.... a week, but go with it.  I have a friend who is a lawyer who wanted to help setup an organization that helps people get out of the crippling credit card and other forms of usurious debt, but nobody seems very interested in that kind of Catholic community.

If you want access to the Latin Mass (or any Mass), that 100,000 you setup can get you a lot in your home area.  It can help you setup a lay organization that can purchase everything needed for a liturgy readily available.  It can purchase resources to help priests and parishes learn and say the Latin Mass.  One could help subsidize a local business into paying workers better.  Will these things generate a return on your investment, or be as easy to write off in your tax forms?  Probably not!  They probably won't get you noticed by the big and powerful in your community.  You might even get viewed a sucker for throwing away that money.  Yet maybe, just maybe, you will help instill Catholic virtues around you, and become salt of the earth for those right in front of you.

Anonymous Bishops Speaking Their Mind

Over at First Things, Francis X Maier conducted several off the record interviews with over 31 bishops in the United States, where they discussed a broad range of topics.  Most commentary is focused on the fact that apparently a lot of US Bishops are annoyed with Wilton Gregory (and by implication, Blase Cupich.)  That will draw headlines, but it is nothing new.  Annoyance with Gregory has been well known, especially of late.  Part of it is political, but a lot of it also personal:  Gregory is viewed as a gloryhound who is trying to inject himself into conversation for notoriety and influence at the expense of his brother bishops.  (This view is not inaccurate.)

Others are also focusing on the fact that these bishops like Pope Francis, but are occasionally annoyed by things he does.  Not only is this well known, it is true of every single pope.  It is the very nature of governance that those at the top will annoy some of those they either govern or govern with.  I'd say this was what was most revealing:

When pressed, none of the bishops I queried could report a single diocesan seminarian inspired to pursue priestly life by the current pope. None took any pleasure in acknowledging this. 

I think this is a sign of a broken system.  Many will read this as "see, that's why this pope sucks, he doesn't inspire anybody to the priesthood."  Thing is, they are probably right.  In this country, for better or worse, men are not flocking to the priesthood over Pope Francis the way they did over John Paul II or, to a lesser extent, Benedict XVI.  These were towering men who dominated the discussion.  The former by his charisma, the latter by his towering intellect.  Francis lack of charisma has its own charm, and while not a fool, he is not primarily a theologian.

This sounds like a criticism, but it isn't.  On the list of responsibilities the Roman Pontiff has, inspiring vocations is extremely low on the list.  That isn't his job.  Unfortunately, we make it his job.  Over the last 50 years, as with so many other things, Catholics have invested in the Roman Pontiff not just final authority in matters of doctrine and a primary of doctrine, but as the Chief Brand Ambassador of Jesus Christ.  It is not enough to say he has the primacy of jurisdiction and the final say on doctrinal matters.  We view the effectiveness of a Pope by how many lives he personally transforms, and by transform, we mean how happy he makes them.  In this process, a lot of the very difficult work of cultivating vocations has been outsourced to Rome, something that even the best cannot sustain, and we are not currently served by the best.

A better question would be to ask how many seminarians view their bishop as someone who inspired them to pursue the priestly life.  The reality is that most seminarians will, when asked about their bishop, would respond "who?"  One might find a few who say their parish priest inspired them, which is all well and good.  Yet I feel we should honestly challenge this with "who cares who inspired them to become a priest?"  The issue isn't so much with inspiring someone at a particular moment in time.  With respect to our Charismatic brethren, a vocation is not about a sentiment you feel in a given moment.  Its hard work that requires a pretty substantial support network that cultivates these vocations towards the seminaries.  They involve friends, parents, support groups, and yes, individual priests overseen by a Bishop who places the formation of these individuals as among his top priorities.  The sad reality is that for the majority of US Bishops (not just Gregory or Cupich), the formation of priests is extremely low on their list of priorities.  It low on a lot of ours as well.  Let the Pope's towering presence handle that.

How has that worked out for us the last 40-50 years, as vocations have continued to plummet? In the interview, the Bishops told on themselves.

The Importance of a Realistic Lent

Quick Note:  I've been giving one form or another of this message for almost a decade now.  Yet I think it is a message worth repeating.

When Lent comes around, I do two things.  First and foremost, I make clear I'm staying on social media to be a contrarian.  Second, I don't mention what I'm "giving up" for Lent.  I avoid this not out of vainglory (not wanting to blow the trumpet), but because I think Catholicism has become obsessed with what we give up for Lent, to the point that isn't healthy.

Yes, I give up something for Lent.  Yes, I've cosplayed as an Eastern Christian before with my Lenten discipline.  Yet what is Lent a season of?  It is a penitential season, yes.  But it is also a season of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.  Fasting without the other two is just a diet, and I had a pretty successful diet a few years ago.

There is a real risk, especially online, of turning Lent into a "how hardcore of a Catholic are you" gimmick, where we take turns one-upping each other on discipline.  These kinds of disciplines are great, provided they serve a proper end.

What end should they serve?  Nothing less than preparing the body and soul to partake in the Resurrection.  This is why traditionally Ash Wednesday focuses on the reality and inevitability of death.  (The modern liturgy, in one of its many inexplicable changes, downplays this understanding significantly.)  Only by accepting this reality can one enter into the Resurrection, which is the victory over death.  Prayer focuses the soul towards God, fasting trains the will towards God, and almsgiving is the culmination of the former two:  to live at the service of others.

We don't talk about almsgiving as much anymore.  Sometimes we rationalize this by saying "I already tithe every Sunday at Church", but that's not necessarily what we are talking about here.  Maybe this Lent you can help keep a food bank stocked.  People really need food during this pandemic.  Many grocery stores have gift cards you can purchase where the goods go to the local food bank, if you cannot drop the food off yourself.  Maybe you see someone hungry and pick him up some goods.

Sometimes it doesn't even need to be money.  Do you have a family member struggling with sickness?  Call them more often.  Someone dealing with depression?  Try to help them realize they matter, and always be available for them.  Make a conscious decision to spend more time with your spouse and children, or other members of your family.  Then make a decision to spend that time profitably.

Most importantly, make sure your Lent is done in accordance with your station in life.  I suppose you could do a bread and water fast after your wife gives birth to a child for 40 days, but I'm pretty sure you won't be of much use to them.  You could spend hours a day reflecting on one of the spiritual classics, but what good is that if those hours interfere with your job or your obligations as a parent?  One of those great spiritual classics used to make that point often.  In The Spiritual Combat (one of the great classics of Western Spirituality), Lorenzo Scupoli said the following:

For whoever has the courage to conquer his passions, to subdue his appetites, and repulse even the least motions of his own will, performs an action more meritorious in the sight of God than if, without this, he should tear his flesh with the sharpest disciplines, fast with greater austerity than the ancient Fathers of the Desert, or convert multitudes of sinners.

It is true, considering things in themselves, that the conversion of a soul is, without doubt, infinitely more acceptable to the divine Majesty than the mortification of a disorderly affection. Yet every person, in his own particular sphere, should begin with what is immediately required of him.

Large penances and heroic displays of discipline are great.  Yet sometimes we are called to master smaller things, and this is infinitely better.   During these 40 days of Lent, don't ask "what should I give up?"  Ask "what is immediately required of me?"  Do that.  What's blocking you from doing it?  Work on that.  You will often find that you can give something up to help you achieve that goal.  You can also find it might be something pretty small.  Do it quietly, do it joyfully, and you'll find this lent profitable.

The Dangers of Kayfabe Catholicism

 As the twitter handle implies, I love professional wrestling.  Its not a "guilty pleasure" so much as entertainment I unironically love.  "Kevin, how can you watch something that is fake?" This is a question I am asked at least 4 or 5 times a year as I bury my head in the TV on Wednesday nights.  My answer is always the same:  wrestling is not "fake", anymore than a fight scene in a movie is "fake."  It is a series of choreographed maneuvers done that tell a story.  The really good ones aren't just great exhibitions of athleticism, but stories about the nature of the human spirit itself.

"Kevin, what on earth does a bunch of jacked dudes doing punches and flips have to do with being Catholic online?"  WAY MORE THAN YOU WOULD EVER HAVE GUESSED!  You see, professional wrestling isn't just about two people choreographing combat in a ring.  It is a world where everyone involved does their part to promote a match and the company, and they do so through what is known as kayfabe.

But simply, kayfabe is the "fake" world created in professional wrestling, and is used to help build an authentic experience.  In kayfabe, everyone has a character to play.  Some are the brash and arrogant bad guys, the "heels."  Others are the scrappy underdogs standing for truth and justice, the "babyface."  Sometimes you are somewhere in between, and sometimes, you think you are one thing, but the crowd has decided you are another.  In the end, the crowd is who you are performing for, and you use kayfabe to try and manipulate the crowd into reacting a certain way.  Sometimes you even try to get them to act against their intuition  You know that babyface that has "come from behind" to win in every match for the past decade?  Kayfabe builds an environment, outside of that match, where you think he is always the underdog, despite the scorecard telling a clearly different story.

A downside of kayfabe is that if you aren't careful, you can forget the fact its all a charade.  Some of your biggest names in wrestling historically have been utter narcissists who long ago lost the ability to distinguish between the character they play in the world of professional wrestling, and everyday life.  (This understanding briefly reached the mainstream when Hulk Hogan gave testimony in court and he had clearly lost the ability to tell the difference between Hulk Hogan the character and Terry Bolea, the man who played him.)  In the case of wrestling companies, they become so obsessed with the alternative reality they have created, they begin to think that they can control everything in wrestling, including how the crowd will react, something which has been the death of many promotions when taken too far

I think this has a lot to do with the way a lot of Catholic individuals and communities are online.  We've created a kayfabe where not only is every Catholic a theologian who sits around and reads your favorite philosopher, we've become convinced that these are the marks for being a Catholic.  People develop parts of their persona that stand out, whether it being the insufferable nag, the connected journalist, the sophisticated professional theologian, the pugilist who relishes in combat, whatever the heck a "retrograde" is that we develop rules for, etc.  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but its not real.  Its a Fugazi, a world created for the entertainment of the consumer, who is often asked to donate to those individuals putting on the show.  That patreon or substack ain't gonna fund itself with boring prose!

The purpose of this alternative reality is to promote combat.  Nobody is giving a damn about Massimo Faggioli if he's a boring professor writing about boring church movements unless you are a credentialed academic.  Yet people will pay him good money to tell you about the danger of traditionalists, and how at every step of the way, they must be combated.  By him, preferably.  Give him money, buy his book, put him on your show, and everyone can watch him take it to the trads.  If you can't afford someone who knows what they are talking about and have a more low-brow audience, you book Mark Shea.

The problem is a lot of these individuals have lost perspective of the fact that the online experience is one primarily of entertainment, not of substance or growth in holiness.  In the world we live in, settling things like they do in pro wrestling is absolutely bizarre, where brawls happen throughout stadiums because someone looks the wrong way, or says they are better.  (Think of the Trump era in politics on steroids.)  Most of the stuff that happens online isn't about deepening prayer life, increasing mass attendance, increasing what you get out of mass, or of giving Catholics a sense of ownership in being part of the body of Christ.

If one wants to get really jaded, you could say we've created this kayfabe because for the most part we have no ownership in our role as part of the body of Christ.  Whatever your partisan leanings, it is a popular refrain that the Church doesn't serve us.  Likewise, pro wrestling is at its best when it taps into the spirit of disillusionment and abandonment.  Hence, Hulk Hogan was the American fighting increasingly bigger and nastier foreign foes during a time when Americans wanted to feel patriotic.  Stone Cold Steve Austin beat up his boss on TV (making said boss a billionaire) during an age where middle class america collectively hated their office jobs.  Daniel Bryan's "YES!" chant entered the pop cultural consciousness in the era where people were tired of hearing they didn't fit the corproprate conception of what success was, and they saw a 5'8 scrawny kid in a world full of giants and identified with him.  Only a Church that has failed its members so completely and abysmally is a world where you see truthtellers, radicals, retrogrades, and grifters (sometimes all of these things!) flourish.  They use that kayfabe to help promote their bottom line.

So how does one stop it?  To do that would probably require a structural shift in the Church that is beyond the scope of this article, or our abilities.  Yet to combat it?

- Remember that what happens online is a very small sample of the wider Church
- Remember that what happens online is often deliberately turned up in intensity with the purpose of selling something.
- Understand that everyone is marketing themselves as something
- When it comes to anything that happens in social media, one of the biggest aims is conflict.
- If someone is soliciting funds, be discerning before you click the donate button.  How are they soliciting funds?  How much of it is original work, something of substance, and how much of it is about seeing them feud with others?

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a good clash!  You can learn a lot through them.  Just remember that clash can only tell a glimpse of reality, it should never be your reality.

Beware "The Narrative"

 Cardinal Cupich had a meeting with the Pope recently.  Everyone wants you to believe it was in relation to the USCCB.  Which maybe it was. If so, allies of Cardinal Cupich would want you to believe he and the Pope were bashing the USCCB, and angling a preparation for Cardinal Cupich to bring them in line with the "progressive vision" of Pope Francis.  Critics of Cardinal Cupich (but friendly to the USCCB) want you to believe this was the Pope reeling Cardinal Cupich in line, telling him to knock off the publicity stunts.  Traditionalists, as is our way, use this as an opportunity to tell you how terrible both Cardinal Cupich and Pope Francis are.  You might even get someone who uses this as an opportunity to knock both of them, and dismiss the USCCB as pointless.  (Okay, that someone is me.)

One of these opinions may be correct.  Yet there's also a simpler explanation:  either the Bishop of Rome or the Cardinal requested the audience to talk about the matter, they talked, and nobody decided anything, because a decision wasn't the point.  There's an overwhelming urge to tie someone into an overarching narrative, that because of this or that issue, this means that they think x or y on every other issue.

The problem is that people don't actually work that way.  Traditionalists, at least in practice, favor some of the most radical decentralization of anyone in the Church.  Despite being progressives who the narrative says aren't in favor of rigid ideology, Cupich and his allies have a deeply authoritarian and centralized vision:  everyone must do what the pope is doing, and we will be the ones who tell you what the pope is really doing.  The Pope, despite owing his papacy to powerful German prelates, has resisted those same prelates in their attempts to form a vision of a radically decentralized Church where everyone else does their thing, and Germany does theirs.  Yet this pope has also talked of the need to decentralize the Church and embrace synodality.

There is a belief, particularly online, that everyone's ideology is rigid, and that this ideology is predictive on everything else.  It makes a certain intuitive sense... if the Church was limited to a manual of theology or a bunch of nerds who read whoever your favorite philosopher is.  This isn't Catholicism.  People are products of their environments.  We are (or at least should be) united in a set of doctrines, but the things we have to conform on are shockingly small and mostly irrelevant to the day to day experience of most Catholics.  There's a certain learned experience, even among those who practice a certain ideology, but are careful on what to emphasize based on what they've learned attracts, and what repels.  There's also a realization that concepts like "populism" or "decentralization" can serve traditional and progressive ends, just as centralization and a preference for elites can serve both ends, and have throughout history.  Conservatives can be radicals or pragmatists in how/what they aim to conserve.

Then there's the reality that people are just flat out inconsistent in their beliefs, and we should probably be grateful they are.  It is why Pope Francis can be an individual who is clearly progressive, but not only act against type, but routinely violate his own standards.  We can complain about that, and sometimes rightly, but any ideology that doesn't account for this reality will find itself unable to comprehend how the Church works.

Be comfortable in your general ideology, but don't look at things through that prism. Instead, focus on the particulars of certain questions, and then think about how that question can be understood through a variety of different experiences.  I'm a traditionalist.  That means that I, as a general rule, look to the timeless, and treat with great skepticism and prejudice the idea that our present age is more enlightened than previous ages (as a general rule), or that certain leaders today, because they live in this age, are able to solve what centuries have not.  Yet this preference has its limits: sometimes a schism really can be solved now when it couldn't before (such as with the SSPX), among other things.

So yes, think about how things fit into a larger ideological outlook.  But also think about how they don't, and how sometimes an audience is really just that, an audience.

On Praying for the President

 "I pray for the President.  May God Bless Joe Biden."

You have probably heard this.  You have probably said this.  If not, you probably should say it.  Yet what does it actually mean?  

In the annals of American civic religion, it goes something like the following:  we pray that Joe Biden unite this country, bring about an era of friendship, and see America "succeed."  If anyone notices that this is awfully non-descript, well, it is.  The entire point of civic religion in America has been to be as minimalist as possible, so that everyone can ascribe to it.  Praying means whatever you want it to mean, just as the office of the Presidency is a vehicle for your own hopes and ambitions.

Catholics should reject this.  I'd even say we can't "pray" for the President in this manner.  Its an empty prayer that places far too much of a prominence on secular matters.  It also prays for something that in some cases should not even be desired.  There is an obsession with "unity" that implies that everyone should submit to a basic set of principles that the administration outlines.  We see this often in the Catholic Church as well, where Catholics are expected to change how they practice their Catholicism because of who occupies the papal throne.  So we have to act one way when one individual is president, another way with his successor, and so on.

That's not how politics works.  On a certain level one has to agree that the sovereign is, well.... sovereign.  In the United States, sovereignty (for better or worse) flows through a rather complicated patchwork of the President, Congress, and the courts.  That patchwork is further amplified by state vs federal matters.  So when we agree with unity, we agree that those invested with authority should use that authority.  Which begs the question:  how?  In those discussions, there will be debates, often bitter ones.  Far from being bad for a government, this can be healthy.  What is needed to make it work (and what is sorely lacking) is an understanding of fraternity (that those involved are all working from good intentions), and legitimacy.  (That government is serving the ends of the governed.)  Perhaps those are two things worth praying for.

Most importantly, when one prays for the President, one prays for His soul.  I pray that he makes it to heaven.  Most importantly, I pray that he renounces his errors.  The way to heaven is narrow, even for those who do not support evil.  We know of no way outside of God's mercy for those who support evil to obtain heaven, and God has made clear time and time again we should not presume His mercy will save you from those errors.  This is more than just issue such as abortion or gay marriage, though they are two prominent issues.  Often Americans don't want to confront just how united both parties have been in neglecting large swaths of their populace, to often disastrous results.  In many nations, when Republicans and Democrats are united, it means a wedding in their backyard is about to get a drone strike.  

In these instances, one should pray that the President, as well as Congress, is resisted.  Not for some partisan end, but because what they are advocating will be injurious to souls.  We shouldn't expect perfection from our elected leaders, but it has been some time since we have had an executive, from either party, focused on the common good of all citizens, much less on creating an environment that allows them to serve God unhindered.  That's what a Catholic should pray for, and it is a prayer that almost certainly cannot be fulfilled by a political party.

Shiny Happy Traditionalism

 If you're a trad, you've heard this before.  "If you look at the lives of the saints, they radiate with joy.  Meanwhile trads just want to be be bitter.  Traditionalists just need to be more joyful!"  You still see this from time and time.  Indeed, I know I've given that talk myself over the now 2 decades I've been involved with this trad business.  I don't talk like that anymore, and I haven't for some time.  I think it gets just about everything wrong.  It gets the saints wrong. It gets joy wrong.  It misunderstands why there is occasionally a lack of joy among trads.

- It Gets the Saints Wrong

Somewhere, and I'm not sure where, we began viewing the saints less as human beings, and more as avatars of a certain disposition.  Ergo saints were never angry, they were just quiet people who smiled and prayed without ceasing.  That's not what a saint is.  Saints have personalities.  In the Bible, sometimes those saints were angry with God.  Sometimes they argued with God.  Sometimes they argued with each other.  While that was occasionally a problem, God never seemed to be bothered by Habakkuk's questioning him, Paul's rebuke of Peter probably helped Peter (eventually) see the light on the Gentiles.

The reverse is also true. Just as anger can pass, so can feelings of joy and euphoria.  This is why the Charismatic movement ultimately fails:  it places as the height of Catholicism moments of emotion in time, intense euphoria that eventually passes.  The answer isn't to keep seeking out greater moments of euphoria.  That's not Catholicism:  that's spiritual cocaine.  What makes a saint is to not let these moments tell the whole story.  Our existence is not euphoria or crankiness, although both emotions are part of the human experience, and can be healthy!  The Bible doesn't say "don't be angry" it says "be angry but do not sin."

- It Gets Joy Wrong

Joy is not something you can just will into being.  You can't say "I'm going to be more joyful" like you would when you say "I'm going to set my alarm to wake up earlier every day."  Joy comes not from thinking joyful thoughts, but in doing things that give a cause for joy.  Mary is the cause of our joy not because she thought about being joyful, but because she said yes to God, and partook in His plan with a complete and total commitment.

If we want to promote joy, we need to promote a more active traditionalism.  We need more parishes celebrating more masses and more events.  We need more traditional devotions, a better family life, etc etc.  None of that involves thinking happy thoughts, and its often frustrating and annoying.  Yet it provides joy.

- It Gets Traditionalism Wrong

Traditionalism can be a lot of things to many people, but fundamentally, it is about being a means to an end.  This is opposed to a certain train of thought (big among converts and media companies promoting traditionalism) that treat traditionalism as the be all end all of the faith.  It is our exodus from the awfulness that is contemporary Catholicism.  Let's give them a point:  contemporary Catholicism is awful.  If you've already found traditionalism, which is the be all end all, why are you still so angry?  We've got it made!

That's not Catholicism, and its not traditionalism.  The Latin Mass and our rich heritage is a gift given to us from God, for the purpose of honoring Him, and in doing that, we find our own purpose.  Compared to contemporary Catholicism, it provides a better framework.  Yet in honoring God, we're going to become aware of injustice, of wrongdoing, of the effects of sin.  That is going to anger us.  It is going to cause us to occasionally become cranky.  We should not look down on this for one very big reason

- People will just be cranky somewhere else, somewhere darker

There was once a pretty well known priest blogger who said that traditionalists need to throw the cranks out, to show to the wider Church that "this is not who we are."  Heeding this priests advice, several parishoners went to their parish priest and asked him to expel a certain bitter Catholic who espoused a lot of things.  Things which, while not heretical, were still a bit ridiculous.  They told the priest he was a crank, and everyone knew he attended Mass there, and it was damaging their reputation.

The parish priest, a man who spoke with a deep firmness in his voice (a firmness that would occasionally unnerve people) responded  "cranks need the sacraments as well, though not as much as you clearly do."  He understood something fundamentally true about human nature:  humans will always be cranky.  You can't eliminate cranky anymore than you can eliminate gravity.  What you can do is provide an environment that channels those feelings into something better.

We don't do a very good of that.  As a result, Catholics turn to your Taylor Marshalls.  They get deep into American politics.  They surround themselves with people who understand its okay to be cranky, because there's plenty to be cranky about.  Yet they are often caught in a circle of crankiness, and they become increasingly bitter and cranky.  There's no channeling that crankiness into something more productive, because in many ways they are isolated from that which is more productive.  Most cranky traditionalists don't have a nearby parish they can go to.  The local parish might offer a diocesan Latin Mass, which is great.  Yet they don't view that person as part of the community, as part of the family.  At best, they are an honored guest.  At worst, a nuisance to be tolerated.  It is incumbent upon the Church to give them something to do, or they will find something to do.  When I say the Church, I mean all of us.  

Want to reduce the influence of Taylor Marshall, or of those for whom they feast on urine and vinegar?  In addition to making the Latin Mass more widely available, just grab a bottle of scotch, sit them down, and talk about how we live our faith.  Have a barbecue.  Go visit another parish and have drinks/food with people there.  Come up with ideas for service.  See if you can talk with leaders at other parishes about why the Latin Mass is great.  Ask other Catholics if they'd like to pray a rosary together.   Go help an overburdened parent with their kids.  None of these things are going to get rid of people being cranky.  But they will help them manage that better, and give them something to do beyond imbibing nonsense that just makes them even angrier.

But first, give me all the shiny trads, and the happy trads, and let me know who to avoid, because that isn't real.  Its kayfabe, and not very good kayfabe.

EWTN's King of Ashes

 As Christopher White details, there is a storm going on at EWTN, a civil war brewing.  Or maybe not.  I think that is something people should at least consider.  For all the talk of what this entails for the purposes of the narrative, there's little actual journalism detailing what is going on within the company.  Even for those who work in the various parts of the EWTN empire, there's a lot of speculation of what these moves could mean, but very little speculation on what it does mean.

This should be a big red flag for anyone involved that you might be getting a narrative, and a narrative that benefits certain individuals who, much to ones surprise, are those talking about what these various moves could mean.  The first thing you should always remember when dealing with Catholic organizations, especially those that involve donations, is that they are a business.  The first thing to remember when dealing with Catholic writers is that they are showmen, and everything they are doing should be viewed through the lens of self-promotion.  Even the praiseworthy stuff has an angle.  So when you hear that Gloria Purvis was sidelined for this or that reason, always be aware of the levers of benefit and influence that would flow from this or that narrative, and that involves not just Purvis but her critics.

As interesting as this might be to some people (and they will try to convince you its even more interesting), its worth understanding just how very online this is, and how little it matters about the overall state of the Catholic Church.  The state of the EWTN empire matters greatly to everyone involved, because by influencing that empire, they influence themselves.  Yet how much does that matter in the overall grand scheme of things?

The race to see who claims the EWTN empire I do think is instructive in another way: the perils of what happens when Catholicism and self-promotion mix.  This is nothing new to EWTN.  Mother Angelica started EWTN to give people a venue for Catholic spirituality, but from the very beginning she was crafting a brand for EWTN:  that of a fearless advocate of Catholicism when so many otherwise Catholic institutions (universities, bishops, etc) were quite fearful advocates of Catholicism, to the point of timidity or worse.  There is always going to be a tension between promotion of yourself as a witness for Christ and the Gospel you are meant to be a witness to.  St. Paul struggled with precisely this in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.

I'm not sure where, but I think EWTN over time lost that balance. Slowly over time, they became less about fostering Catholic spirituality, and instead fostering a specific type of spirituality.  No, this isn't the culture war battle you think it is.  In a time of unparalleled collapse for global Catholicism (its retreat from Europe, its auto-demolition in Latin America in a single generation, the era of the abuse scandal in the US), EWTN was selling a narrative that not only were things not bad.....   things were GREAT.   It really was a New Springtime.  To sell this new springtime, EWTN brought in a lot of new Catholic personalities, many of them converts, to sell their own conversion story, and to give others the hope they had that not only were we in a New Springtime, but that they were the vanguard of renewal.  Whether it was John Corapi, Mark Shea, Robert Sungenis, Greg Popcak, Dawn Eden, for a span of roughly 20 years (from the mid 90's to around 2015 or so), people from all across the ideological spectrum all had one thing in common:  they were EWTN celebrities or heavily touted being featured on EWTN.

Very few questions were ever asked about if this was a sustainable model of Catholicism, or of the inherent dangers of having a "model" of Catholicism to follow.  Outside of one or two exceptions, nobody is looking at the various media personalities on EWTN over the years and thinking "these are the people I want to model my life after."  Deep down, that includes their biggest fans.  Devotion to kayfabe is the only reason they say otherwise.

Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, a lot of this crap simply doesn't matter.  When Dawn Eden and Mark Shea demanded that their previous shows be removed from EWTN's library, everyone's reaction was "oh yeah, 10 years ago they did something of value" that was otherwise forgotten.  Most people watching EWTN aren't watching because they are or aren't promoting racial identity politics:  they are watching to view Daily Mass or get a chaplet in.  Sure, The World Over is lucrative business, but most people outside the online bubble still know EWTN as that station that was ran by a nun or that had religious stuff on it.  

This discussion is useful mostly as a reflection of the US Church, a Church that is becoming increasingly insular, polarized, and very online.  It is a race between various factions to wear the crown of ashes, to shape a once glorious Church and company now a shell of its former self.  They just hope they are the ones getting paid as it implodes.

Have nothing to do with it.

Bishops Crossing the Line

 In a recent statement, Five Bishops (most notably conservative luminaries such as Joseph Strickland and Athanasius Schneider) wrote an open letter to the Church calling upon the faithful to reject any COVID-19 vaccine that had any relationship, however implicit, with cells from aborted fetuses.  In doing so, these Bishops have crossed a line that should not be crossed:  they are openly siding against the Magisterium, and telling the faithful that the Magisterium is not to be trusted as a safe or reliable guide for Catholics.

First things first, let's give a brief understanding of what's going on here.  It is sometimes assumed that vaccines are reliant upon a steady stream of aborted children for testing and experimentation purposes.  This is not what's really going on.  Fr. Arnaud Selegny, FSSPX offers a pretty good explanation.  Now for those of you raising an eyebrow at citing the SSPX in regards to Church authority, the irony is noted for the record, yet the arguments presented are unassailable. If one is looking for a guide that explains to the lay Catholic what the controversy is, and what moral principles guide this controversy, there is none better.

Human Embryonic Lines
Among the latter, there are currently at least three lines that originated from an abortion: the HEK-293 line, from a fetus aborted in 1972 in the Netherlands; the MRC-5 line, from a fetus aborted in 1966 in England, and the line Per.C6, from an aborted fetus in the Netherlands in 1985.

 

The use of cells from aborted fetuses to produce vaccines has therefore been going on since the 1960s, and has already led to the development of various vaccines, such as those that prevent rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A and shingles.

This has led to a difficulty for Catholics.  Abortion is an evil in society so grave it has no other comparison.  Catholics should oppose abortion as much as humanly possible.  Does that mean we must then reject these vaccines because they had a tangential link to an abortion several decades ago?

The Magisterium has waded in on this issue twice.  While "The Magisterium" is often misused, The Pontifical Academy for Life and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both responding to official inquiries on this question, these statements clearly have more authority than your average press release or homily.  I'm just going to give brief quotes from both documents.  Both are serious attempts to grapple with a real problem, and their position is by no means unqualified.  There are conditions under which these vaccines can be administered, but those conditions are real.  The Pontifical Academy for Life said the following

As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was even more explicit:

Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.

The Bishops Open Letter makes note of these sources, but does not quote them.  If they quoted them, they would not be able to state the following:

However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from foetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry.

The Vatican has indeed said that this principle can be applied to vaccines.  They did not say it must be applied to vaccines, only that it can by the faithful, who are called to discern the issue properly.  Now I am not a moral theologian, so I will not wade too deeply into discussions about material cooperation with evil.  The SSPX document and the two documents above discuss the issue.  

Fortunately, you do not need a degree in moral theology to grasp this issue.  The Church has said these vaccines may be used.  That usage is not unconditional, we must do what we can to use vaccines that are not derived from the cells of aborted fetuses.  As there are 24 different vaccines (and growing!) at various stages of development, the development of these vaccines without these moral quandaries will be easier over time.  Given the nature of the pandemic currently, this seems like a pretty open and shut case of "temporary" usage described.  Following these principles of moral theology and guidelines from Rome, various conferences have approved these vaccines.

What do these Bishops have to say in their open letter of Rome's approval, and the bishops adopting in good faith Rome's approval?

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology.

Some have said this is akin to what liberals did with contraception, casting aside the Magisterium for "pastoral" reasons.  I think that takes it too far.  Contraception is something for which there is always a moral evil involved when one intends to disrupt fertility and prevent a pregnancy through artificial means.  One can never use contraception for such a purpose.  Whereas the Church does not say one must be vaccinated with vaccines developed from embryonic lines stemming from abortion.  However it is wrong in the sense that these Bishops are stating that the pronouncements of the Church are not sufficiently pastoral.  In this they are setting up "pastoral" and "theological" on differing poles.

We have seen this line of argumentation do grave damage to the Church over the past few decades, especially during the pontificate of Francis.  It is bad enough when lay faithful adopt this mentality.  It is even worse when Bishops adopt it.  When speaking in their role as a bishop, bishops should be mindful that Joseph Strickland does not speak as himself.  He speaks as a successor to the Apostles, and shepherd of souls in union with the Roman Pontiff.  You certainly aren't required to like him or even think very highly of him, but he is the head of the Church, as were his predecessors whose memory God has charged him to uphold.  Bishops have an even greater duty to make sure everything they do upholds that which the Magisterium has presented.

These Bishops should immediately be asked if one sins by taking a vaccine that came from these circumstances, and if so, how that squares with the judgement of the Magisterium.  Given the choice, always choose the Magisterium, even if these bishops do praiseworthy things elsewhere.

The Sword of Damocles over the Vatican Clears the Mind

In wake of the PA Grand Jury report detailing extensive sexual abuse and coverup by Church authorities, Catholics everywhere asked what the bishops would do about it.  Crux's Charles Collins had what I think was the best take on the matter:  it doesn't matter what the Bishops are going to do.  We've reached a point where the bishops no longer have the power or legitimacy to enact reform, and now the state will do it for them.  

We're likely to learn the extent of those reforms in 2021/2022 when a lot of those investigations conclude.  Yet its a smart point.  The Old Testament is full of instances where God, frustrated by Israel's refusal to listen and repent, forces the change he desires through other means, namely the armies of Assyria and then Babylon and finally Rome.  Church state relations throughout history have been invariably complex, but there's several situations like that Otto the Great found himself in, to where he felt the need to carry out much needed Church reforms Rome was either unwilling or incapable of carrying out on their own.

I'm reminded of this today in light of the latest round of reforms Pope Francis has launched to try and clean up the financial filth that has existed for some time in Rome, and which has basically had a field day the entirety of his pontificate.  In addition to these reforms, he has unveiled sweeping transparency reforms, as well as effectively abandoning the reform of the Roman Curia that gave the Secretariat of State unrivaled power in the modern Church, after said office had defended and protected a lot of corrupt individuals.  Almost all of these reforms were reforms he rejected earlier, sometimes forcefully, and almost always accusing those advocating precisely these reforms as acting in bad faith.  What changed?

Maybe the Pope has had a change of heart, and has seen the error of his ways.  Or, more likely, he has taken the threats of the global financial community seriously.  Numerous international institutions have threatened to effectively blacklist the Vatican from engaging in international banking because of their practices.  Being cutoff from that banking also means being cut off from the various mechanisms of servicing debt, paying off loans, and being able to get money where its needed throughout the world with ease.  As the article points out, Moneyval has made clear the time for voluntary change has passed.  Rome can change.... or else.

Arguing over the soundness of this approach is besides the point.  Yes, there is a lot of inherent potential for abuse in a system where the Church and Pope is bullied, often against their will, into making reforms.  The time for avoiding that situation was in 2013 when Francis first ascended to the throne, and had a chance at being a real reformer.  He was instead focused on being a media darling and igniting a civil war at the Synod on the Family.  The media charm offensive of tickling the ears of secular people everywhere that 'this pope is different' hasn't really produced anything of long term value, and the two synods on the family were abysmal catastrophes with regard to Church unity and papal authority.  Meanwhile, we lost a crucial chance to carry out much needed reforms.

These reforms will now be carried out under force.  It will be a great irony if Francis ends up doing down as a reforming pope who set the Church on sound footing, doing the right thing after exhausting every single opportunity to do otherwise.  Yet its an irony we should hope for nonetheless.