On Traditionis Custodes, Nero and Today's Three Chapters

 I always viewed with skepticism claims that Pope Francis would severely restrict the Latin Mass.  Not out of any great esteem of the Pope, but with a frank understanding that doing this would accomplish little good, introduce a thousand nightmares, and plunge the Church into a new era of nastiness.

It is clear that I was mistaken.  The Pope has decided to do something that would accomplish little good, introduce a thousand nightmares, and plunge the Church into a new era of nastiness.  Some brief and uncensored thoughts:

1.)  There will be two sets of voices traditionalists should ignore.  The first is the voice (almost always an author or podcaster) who will do the self-loathing gimmick:  what happened was our fault, and don't forget to buy my book or subscribe to my podcast where I can tell you these hard truths!  It's 2010 Taylor Marshall all over again, where an individual tries to portray themselves as the bold truth teller telling trads truths they don't wanna hear, even if their audience for the point is 100% not traditionalists.  Saying that they brought it upon themselves seriously overthinks it.

Put bluntly, we could be perfect saints, and what happened today would still happen.  We could be a worse variant of ourselves, and this would still happen.  We should not think ourselves so important as to think what we do or don't do has any influence on anything.  The Latin Mass was restricted because Pope Francis wanted to restrict it.  He did not want to restrict it because of some vague concepts of a divided Church, as the Latin Mass is not the marker of that division.  The Pope has made clear he views traditionalists as barely human, let alone faithful Catholics.  He mocks them in private, engages in frequent diatribes against them in his public homilies, viewing us the source of all ills in the Church, from the increasing polarization to the indigestion he had after breakfast.  Those close to him repeat ideas such as that the Francis pontificate is a failure because he didn't purge us from the start, despite traditionalists.... having zero power in the Church.

It bears repeating:

• It was not Traditionalists who caused the blowups at the two synods on the family
• It was not Traditionalists who encouraged rampant financial corruption, where the Vatican now has its former number two guy indicted for serious financial crimes.
• It was not Traditionalists who protected Theodore McCarrick and tried to obscure knowledge of his career as a sexual predator.
• It was not Traditionalists causing a serious lapse of ecclesial unity in Germany.

Even accepting the premise as true, it involves a rather sick and sadistic pastoral theology that the treasures of the Church should be abolished or restricted from all because people aren't holy enough, rather than realizing the Latin Mass should be a powerful tool to encourage holiness.  Instead of doing the hard work of actually trying to be a halfway competent pastor, the Pope just throws his hands up and says "being a shepherd is hard.  Hopefully this goes away."

We should also ignore those who have taken their eye off the ball, as traditionalists more focused on the latest political speaking gig rather than promoting the renewal of the Church via emphasis on Tradition, most importantly the sacred liturgy in the Latin Mass.  I wish to remind my brethren who do this that as we focused on various debates about vaccines and Donald Trump, the enemy in Rome never slept.  Let this suffering focus the mind, not to "prove to them that we are better", but to remind them that the more we are focused on those things, the worse it will be for them.

2.)  The document, as written, will almost certainly fail in the short to medium term, and eventually be suppressed with far more fanfare than its attempt to restrict the Latin Mass.  It is clear that diocesan bishops were not informed of its contents or when it would be released, it is full of sloppy language, and riddled with ambiguities.  While some will try to say "it was deliberately ambiguous", the totality of the evidence suggests, as with most things of this pontificate, it was a haphazard and incompetent, not the product of serious minds.  Over time, that will be its undoing.

3.) Far from a moment of strength, it is a moment of supreme weakness.  That it was released on a Friday with no advance notice to the Bishops clearly demonstrates they were not doing this on behalf of the Bishops.  As Fr. Reese noted in an otherwise sympathetic view of Francis, finding young Catholics seminarians who are fans of the Pope is like finding a unicorn:  they don't exist.  The Latin Mass is one of the few areas of the Church in the West that has provided growth and stable parishes.

Outside of us, the Church under Pope Francis is at war with itself, and with him having mostly lost control of the Church.  This isn't a strong pope issuing a firm decree in an attempt to guide the Church to holiness:  this is Nero blaming Christians for the fire to hide his own incompetence.  The only difference is that in this case, Nero actually started the fire.  The Council's relevance is not called into questions because of traditionalists, but because an obsession with Vatican II is shockingly out of touch with the problems facing the Church today.  The Church is essentially the American political system of the 1850's:  desperately trying to argue over old dead issues rather than deal with what is tearing the country apart.

4.) How should we Catholics act?  So far, in the United States the attitude of the Bishops seems to be "Pope Francis has issued this dec..... I'm sorry, where were we?  Oh, right, yeah, what we did before, keep doing."  How long that will last is anyone's guess.  So if you have the Latin Mass, continue to have the Latin Mass.  Fight for it to be preserved.  Do it with respect, but with a firm will that the Church understands that your pastoral needs are not the playtoy of prelates playing ideal saint simulator, but require serious attention, and that it is the job of Fathers to provide for the needs of the faithful.

If you don't have the Latin Mass, and for whatever reason you cannot attend the Novus Ordo (awful liturgy, a clear understanding people like you are not welcome at that parish), look for an Eastern Rite.  Look for one you can stomach while fighting for the Latin Mass.  I will not say go to the SSPX, but it is clear that they will benefit from this with new attendees.  The Church has avoided saying definitively the status of the SSPX, and what the faithful can and cannot do at their chapels.  This makes that something which will have to be answered, and barring explicit orders not to go there or receive their sacraments, one can hardly fault those who do, as Rome has long understood that attending their Masses is not in and of itself "fomenting schism."

5.)  There is an obscure time in the Church that I think is instructive to today, known as the "Three Chapters" controversy.  One can read the particulars at the link I mentioned, but the blunt reading of it is of an incompetent pope ignorant of the facts bumbling his way into creating a schism, supported by a civil authority who was more concerned with political peace than religious truth.  They then condemned the schism they themselves created through their incompetence and arrogance.  The schism lasted beyond their death, and the approach of the Church and the next several popes was to more or less admit the Pope didn't have a clue what he was doing, what he did was bad, but rather than ignite a lengthy debate over the precedent of condemning a dead pope, they more or less memory holed his pontificate and his rationale behind what started the controversy of the Three Chapters.  (Vigilius was not a bad man, he was just woefully unprepared for the Petrine office, and it showed.)

I think that will more or less be the era of Francis.  Hopefully in his incompetence and arrogance he does not provoke a schism, but future generations will not look upon him kindly.  I think, in what are clearly the final days of his life, he understands this, and that motivated his attempt to "make it right" in a way that will most certainly make it worse.

6.)  Finally, while we cannot read souls, we can judge actions.  This is an action of violence and cruelty, not just on "the rad-trads online", but hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more Catholics around the globe.  They are not "Traditionalists", but they have no problem with the Latin Mas, and even find solace in it.  They will feel attacked and spat upon by the pope, and they have good reason:  he did attack them, and he did spit upon them.  God will remember that.  He will call the Pope to account for the damage he has inflicted upon the Church with this act.  What that means beyond that is not known, nor should we care.  Yet we should pray he repents of this evil, and barring that, take comfort in God's judgement and justice, and pose the question if Rome feels a similar comfort in God's justice, or if their feeling is one of desperation instead.

Mistakes Priests Make Engaging Traditionalists

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

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

Mistake One:  There is no "Traditionalist"

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

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

Mistake Two:  The Traditionalist Cosplayer  

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

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

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

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

Mistake Three:  Thinking You Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

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

Mistake Four:  Looking for an Excuse

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

How to do it Better

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

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

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

The USCCB Vote and the Far More Interesting Story

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

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

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

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

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

- Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago

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

- Cardinal Sean O'Malley of  Boston

- Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, DC

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

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

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

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

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

Vos Estis and The Failure of the Institutional Church

 This week was a big week in the world of justice for victims of abuse in the Church, albeit not in the way many envision.  On Tuesday, Bishop Michael Hoeppner, at the request of the Vatican, resigned as Bishop of the Diocese of Crookston.  While the exact reasons are undisclosed, it is generally understood this resignation came as a result of the Vos Estis investigation into his conduct regarding how abuse was handled in the diocese.  Since it was a voluntary (in the technical sense) resignation, Bishop Hoeppner maintains his status as a bishop in good standing, just a retired one.  

In his first public act since that resignation, Bishop Hoeppner..... threw himself a going away party.  I'm not kidding.  He literally had a farewell Mass where he rode into the sunset a hero, a faithful servant of the diocese who reflected on how the past few years brought him joy.  It also brought him grievous neglect of abuse and potential obstruction of justice, but mostly joy.  That joy was mostly shared by the bishop, not the victims of abuse, or not the people he bullied into keeping silent or in whose testimony he coerced them into recanting.  It is easily the most disgraceful action of a US Bishop (maybe even a bishop in the entire Church) of the past decade, and is surpassed only by Theodore McCarrick declaring victory over the abuse scandal while he explicitly drew up procedures that would ensure he could not be investigated over the very abuse he had committed.  (He was later investigated privately by Rome of course.)

To put it bluntly, Bishop Hoeppner is a disgrace.  He concluded his time by stating once he left Minnesota, he would move to a "warmer climate."  The response of the people of God should be unequivocal:  unless you repent, that warmer climate is Hell.  Yet his was not the only disgrace this week.  In Cincinnati, a Bishop who was forced to resign his post (albeit an auxiliary one) due to negligence regarding abuse was.....  appointed pastor of two Churches.  A man whose conduct regarding abuse was so shameful he had to step down will now govern parishes, where questions of abuse may have to be answered.  Yet once again, since it was a resignation, this bishop had all the usual faculties and expectations a bishop would have.

These two genuine scandals are a reminder that for all the hoop-la, Vos Estis was a missed opportunity.  You may be of the school of thought represented by the likes of JD Flynn, who views Vos Estis a significant step forward in the Church as it progresses on a path to accountability.  Now I respect Flynn, whose reporting on a lot of these issues has done a real service to the Church.  If his reporting is first rate on this, his analysis and comprehension of the problem badly misses the mark.  Vos Estis isn't a step forward, it was a gigantic missed opportunity.  The events of the past week have demonstrated this for all to see.

Why was Vos Estis a missed opportunity?  It was a missed opportunity in that it mostly ignored the abuse crisis in the Church, instead trying to focus on one very narrow aspect:  the process by which a bishop can be investigated, and who would conduct that investigation.  This came in the wake of the McCarrick scandal, where (so the narrative goes) the Church was unaware of the acts McCarrick had committed because there was no mechanism in place to trigger an investigation into a bishop.  Vos Estis carried the assumption that everything else regarding how abuse is adjudicated (from accusation to legal sentence if applicable) was otherwise functioning, with maybe a few reforms being needed here or there.

On this account, yes, there has been certain progress.  As a result of Vos Estis, there are now investigations into Bishops that (potentially) would not have happened otherwise.  Yet there are a lot of unanswered questions.  Was the thoroughness of this investigation on account of the one conducting it, or the procedural infrastructure in place Vos Estis provides?  We don't really know because we do not have access to the investigation itself.  There is no report required of such an investigation for public investigation.  Some kind of report was presented to the Holy Father, we presume.  While this is presented as meaningful.... is it?  McCarrick was investigated by Rome as far back as the 1990's, and eventually given private restrictions as a result.  Bishop Hart in North Dakota was investigated by Rome, and given private restrictions as a result of that investigation.  In 2018, Ines San Martin reported that sources showed her 5 such bishops since Benedict's pontificate alone that had been subject of such an investigation.  That such investigations are taking place is not a meaningful improvement.

In the grand scheme of things, Vos Estis has changed nothing.  Nothing has to happen because of an investigation launched under Vos Estis beyond it must be concluded by a certain time and information presented to the Holy Father.  There is nothing that clearly defines when an investigation is finished, nor what happens next as a result of that investigation.  In this regard, it is just like the Church before Vos Estis.  Vos Estis did not mandate that if the investigation uncovered anything deemed credible, that you were automatically subject to a formal canonical process.  It said nothing about your status during this investigation, what you could or could not do.  Some bishops have stepped aside entirely, whereas others have simply said they will not handle any abuse cases.  If you are resigned/and or deposed as a result of that investigation, there is no indication of what your status or expectations will be going forward as a bishop.  Instead we get a mostly ad-hoc private system of arrangements, where you are convinced to fall on your sword for the good of the institution.  How is this any different from before?

I submit this is what individuals like Flynn fail to grasp, often because of their background.  Flynn has a background in working for the bureaucracy of the Church.  He is an institutionalist, and I do not mean that as an insult.  He has an understanding of how the bureaucracy of the Church functions in a way most of us never could, and he has insight into how it plays into the mission of the Church overall the outsider is simply incapable of possessing.  Yet this can come with some blinders, or at least some trade offs.  Things that the institutionalist finds self evident often are not.  These assumptions can often find its way into legislation and policy, and I think that is what has happened here.  Vos Estis assumed that the Church is for the most part credible in dealing with accusations of abuse, and the motu proprio was a document meant to buttress that credibility, to improve the process.

I don't think that understanding matches reality.  The reality is the Church has zero credibility on adjudicating abuse, and the hierarchy, from the Pope on down, simply isn't trusted by the laity or even many of the clergy themselves on these matters.  That is different from adopting a sort of total depravity where every cleric is rotten or corrupt.  Several are no doubt trying to do good.  Yet the problem is that they are not trusted by the wider Church, nor does the Church give a reason to place such trust in them.  That's a hard thing for someone who has worked in the bureaucracy for years to grasp.

The problem with the way the Church handles abuse is that it does not do so in an intelligible, rational, or thorough way.  Vos Estis was mostly a reactive action to stop the bleeding in the wake of the McCarrick scandal, not an attempt to honestly grapple with why the institutional Church had failed so spectacularly with McCarrick.  That would have determined the failure owed to a system of mostly ad-hoc processes made arbitrarily by a small group of individuals (often just the Pope) with zero transparency or zero layers of accountability.  With everything so centralized, everything from the investigation to the sentence could be filtered through various lenses of optics and politics, and someone who was a master manipulator could game that system to either stay out of trouble, or minimize the trouble he was in.  Theodore McCarrick was precisely such a master manipulator, who exposed a system whose problems had always been there.  Vos Estis mostly left this system untouched, as all real power is still centralized, and there are precious little parts of transparency or accountability involved.  The only way one even knows such an investigation takes place is if a journalist convinces a source to leak its existence!

Vos Estis didn't fix anything because it didn't take a serious look at the problem, and that was by design.  The individuals who implemented Vos Estis think that outside of a few problems here or there, the system mostly works.  What I'm trying to say is don't listen to what the Institutionalists will tell you:  until we see a more holistic reform, you will have more Bishop Hoeppners.

Finding Easter Joy in a Joyless Age

 Last night, individuals of all walks of life assented to all that the Catholic Church teaches, and accepted baptism and/or confirmation, being welcomed into the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I love reading about these moments of great joy, and I am always taken back to the moment I returned to the faith, some 21 years ago as a 17 year old lost kid ravaged by a family divorce.

I was emotionally exhausted after my first Mass, but also had a feeling of euphoria.  If Twitter was around, I would have been tweeting about how great it was to be Catholic.  (You still wouldn't get photos, because some things never change.)  After that Mass, I stayed in the pew for an extra 15-20 minutes.  I'd like to say it was some moment of deep holiness in prayer, but that wore off after two or three minutes.  I was exhausted, and I needed to recuperate.  At this point, the priest, in his standard black clerical attire, came and sat down in the pew, looked at me and said:

"Relax Kevin.  From here on out it only gets worse."

Naturally, I looked with a bit of surprise, maybe even a bit of annoyance.  Here I am, in an emotional euphoria, and you're telling me how things are going to get worse?  Is this really the time and the place?  Sensing this, the priest responded something along these lines (look, it was two decades ago):

"I know that doesn't make any sense.  You're feeling a lot of things right now.  Yet being Catholic is not about those sentiments.  They will come and go.  Being Catholic is hard.  It is a decision to follow Christ.  You will be tried, you will find pain.  But in that pain you will also find opportunities to grow closer to God   In that tribulation you will find Christ's peace."

I blew the words off that day honestly.  I nodded, thanked the priest, but otherwise ignored it.  I didn't view it an insult, I understood what he was trying to do, or so I told myself.  Keep me grounded.  Which is nice, but I don't have to worry about that now, I have so many things I want to learn, so many battles to wage, so much joy to experience.

Then the abuse scandals exploded.  First it was just Boston, and then diocese after diocese throughout 2002-2004 was uncovered as being the equivalent of an organized crime family, who built elaborate structures to protect abusers.  The scandal made me question a lot of other things I was taught upon coming into the Church.  I also saw a lot of people angry that others were asking the same questions I was.  They viewed it a distraction when we connected the horrid environment of abuse to so many other problems in the Church and asked "what exactly did we convert to?"  I watched a lot of good people fall to the way side because of those questions, and I watched a lot of seemingly important people ridicule those who fell.

Though I found the Latin Mass and the joy it brought me, I also saw the struggles of so many parishioners, dealing with an institutional neglect spanning decades, and when attempting to process how such neglect impacted their spirituality, being told by their betters to suck it up, at least they weren't undergoing the very real martyrdom of other Catholics in the world.  I watched so many trads who came to the Latin Mass with joy wind up sedevacantists, or bitter and withdrawn.  All they wanted was someone to hear them when they talked about how messed up things were, and how they wanted a shepherd.

I watched friends who reacted to the election of Pope Francis with joy, ecstatic that someone finally understood them and their needs.  They loved me, but come on Kevin, nobody feels the love of Christ in traditionalism, but Pope Francis radiates it!  That ecstasy turned to disappointment when Francis was not the revolutionary they were promised, or that he initially advertised himself as.  I watched as so many conservatives, who used to enjoy keeping their boot on the necks of traditionalists, now feeling abandoned as we were by this Pope.  They didn't find an escape in sedevacantism, but in secular politics.

Then came Francis abuse scandal.  He attacked victims of abuse in Chile.  McCarrick occurred, and it was blatantly obvious he knew and participated in a coverup.  They watched a whistleblower demonized, until that whistleblower became the persona the Pope wanted him to become.  Yet that came at a cost, and it turned a lot of Catholics away.  They saw the Pope as moving heaven and earth to protect pedophiles, and unleash the full might of the Vatican at silencing a whistleblower, while abusers and heretics receive nothing.  At this point even a lot of grizzled veterans started feeling the weariness.

Then came COVID.  Then came lockdowns.  Then came the episcopate, seemingly worldwide, abandoning their flocks, justifying it with "we offer virtual masses!"  Francis actually performed pretty admirably here, giving a lot of Catholics hope when he scolded shepherds for abandoning the flock, and gave the famous benediction ceremony in an empty St. Peter's, drenched in rain. Yet this didn't really change the trajectory.  Many dioceses wanted to bring people back to Church, seemingly not so much for their spiritual care, as out of fear they would lose money.  At this point you started to see a slow falling away among Catholics of all stripes.  Maybe they will come back with the vaccine, but maybe not.  Some are even so distrusting of Church authority, they doubt the efficacy of the vaccines, despite the overwhelming consensus of moral theologians, the CDF, and the argument from sound traditional moral theology.

If my two decades in the faith could be described with a phrase, it would be that of managed decline.  Gone were the feelings of joy and euphoria, and in were the feelings of anger, rage, hopelessness and abandonment.  It was at this time I remember the words of that priest.  He was a clear liberal, influenced by a lot of bad ideas.  Yet for that one moment, he spoke as Alter Christus.  In that moment, he spoke as Christ, providing care for a sheep in his flock, a sheep that had no concept of its wisdom.  In all those moments of decline and failure, I learned not to place too much trust in those human leaders.  The personality cult and papal worship of John Paul II and Francis never impacted me.  I was grateful to Benedict for freeing traditionalists from the parish ghettos, for repealing the Insult of the Indult, but I always understood he was but a man, and a man whose failures were just as visible as his successes.  (All the same, I still miss him as Pope, and think his wisdom will be appreciated more in his successor abandoning it.)  Even Francis, miserable Pope I may view him, he's miserable in a lot of ways I'm miserable, so I see how the good Lord even uses the miserable in His ways.  So I feel a certain closeness and admiration of him absent in many of my traditionalist friends, and I now view a lot of sympathy as the vultures swarm around him, and he is left with no allies, mostly of his own accord.

In all of this time, I found the Latin Mass, but most importantly, I found a purpose with God.  The Latin Mass helped me understand how to build my life (at least in theory!) around honoring God, and that honoring taught me a sense of gratitude.  In my learning, I plunged deep into the theologians and the philosophers, and honestly found most of it worthless.  But the joy when I found that one paragraph, or even one sentence that was overflowing with Christ's light!  In my time of doubt and desperation, I was introduced to The Spiritual Combat, and the lessons Dom Scupoli imparted saved me from many pitfalls, chief among them, the importance of keeping your soul at peace.  On finding peace in the fact that Christ desires your salvation more than the devil desires your damnation, and how that fact changes ever aspect of your life.

Once you learn that fact, and I pray you do newcomers, that institutional failure won't go away.  Indeed, its likely to get worse.  Yet it will have no sway over you.  It will be placed by the security that is Christ's love, and that security will have profound implications for the Church, a Church which God viewed it essential that you be called into in this place and time.

When to Reinstate the Sunday Obligation?

As we head into what looks to be the merciful final stretch of the COVID-19 pandemic, Catholics around the country are beginning to ask the question "when do we return to normal at Mass?"  Bishops are also starting to answer this question.  For example, in my somewhat backyard, the Archdiocese of Detroit announced that the Sunday Obligation would be reinstated on March 13, albeit with 8 individual dispensations from Mass attendance.  My diocese of Lansing has given a tentative date of May 21st, but has shown a willingness to be flexible on that date.  Others are still pretty open ended.

My view on this is probably a minority position among those who air their opinions publicly, but I believe every diocese should reinstate the Sunday obligation on the concept of "Valve Time."  Valve Time is a somewhat endearing mocking of the Software Company Valve, whose deadlines for release are absolutely mere suggestions, as products are released "when they are ready."  This often leads to a level of polish and functionality that beats out their competition, but has led to some products just being delayed indefinitely or canceled outright without much hesitation.  For better and worse, evidence on the ground guides their conclusions, not fixed deadlines.  

The decision to reinstate the Sunday Obligation should follow similar guidelines.  In a lot of areas, it could probably be argued the dispensation never needed anything beyond a brief relaxation during the occasional surge.  Whereas in other localities there can be a legitimate question as to if the obligation should ever have been reinstated if it was.  These are not easy questions, as the spiritual health of the congregation must also be weighed as part of the "evidence" alongside public health.

Yet let's say we are reinstating the Sunday Obligation.  I think there's a bad way of doing it, and a lot of people are committing it.  It is often argued that the dispensation was granted out of those "legitimately afraid of contracting the virus."  Indeed, the Archdiocese of Detroit continues this dispensation from the obligation.  While fear of the virus is one thing, that is not even the main reason the dispensation was given.  The dispensation was given because of the high prevalence of community spread because of mass gatherings, and the risk that people may become infected at mass and infect the vulnerable, including those who were already staying away from Mass.  The only sense it was a concession to the individual was that the individual was dispensed from the sin of not attending Mass.

Likewise, people saying "if you are good enough to go to a bar, you are good enough to go to Mass" also miss the point of the original dispensation.  Our health wasn't necessarily the reason the dispensation was introduced, but rather, the health of others.  It was true, and remains true, that if you contract COVID, the overwhelming odds are you will be fine after 10-14 days.  Yet even a small percentage of significant suffering and death can inflict an immeasurable toll on families and societies, so to avoid that situation, a dispensation was given.

I also think the rush to end the dispensation doesn't understand the nature of the problem we are facing.  People by and large are not staying home from Mass due to the suspending of the dispensation.  They are staying home from Mass because there is a pandemic.  We found the same with the economic impact of the virus.  For a long time in 2020 there was a debate over whether or not lockdowns of various businesses was harming or hurting the economy, and our response to the pandemic.  The consulting giant McKinsey put their best minds to the subject and found that everyone was more or less wrong about something.  The lockdowns had far less to do with economic pain than the conditions on the ground.  Italy and France had some of the strictest lockdowns, and the biggest economic contraction.  Yet Sweden had some of the least restrictive conditions, and their economy performed almost identically to their Norwegian neighbor, and was less robust than South Korea, who also had a pretty stringent lockdown regimen.

There is quite frankly no reason to suggest that reinstating the Sunday obligation would do much to change the calculus of people.  Those who want to go to Mass are going to Mass, when they are able.  Cards on the table, I've attended Mass about 90% of the time since public masses resumed in my diocese.  My criteria for going is based on case loads and how likely my individual parish is to be packed.  Even if the obligation were in place, I would still largely operate by those guidelines, and I'd be acting entirely consistent with canon law in doing so, as the obligation is not an invitation to illness or risking others in vulnerable states.  The obligation exists to support the obligation man has to keep the Sabbath holy, and for us Catholics, there is no better way to do that than assisting at Mass on that day, for our own soul, or that of the local and global church, as well as society around us.  Yet these obligations are made to assist man, not entrap him.

If Churches want to mitigate this, they need to come up with strategies to accommodate those attending Mass.  "Extra cleaning and sanitizing" doesn't help much, it is "Hygiene Theater" as Derek Thompson describes it.  Even the required six feet of social distancing is mostly guesswork, and in many other areas of society, the insistence on it as opposed to other measures made matters worse.  What seems to work best?  Wearing a face mask tends to mitigate a little bit.  Wearing an N-95 mask mitigates it even more.  Limiting mass gatherings of relatively close proximity indoors is still the best bet.  We need more masses with fewer people in them.  Yet there are very good reasons that canon law generally limits the amount of masses a priest can say over a weekend.

Until we have something approaching herd immunity, Mass attendance isn't going to rise, no matter what we do with the obligation.  What we should be doing is being realistic in ensuring that the Masses we currently offer are safe for those who wish to attend, and finding ways to bring others afraid to attend without bringing risk to an unacceptable level.  Parishes also need to offer a more authentic experience of Catholicism, so as to make their parishes a welcoming and valuable experience.  (This is way beyond having more reverent liturgies and is a separate discussion.)  There is a real fear that people will not come back to Mass once the obligation is reinstated.  Yet that fear has nothing to do with the obligation, and everything to do with how badly the Catholic Church has managed to screw things up throughout the various crises that existed before the pandemic.  The abuse scandal, culminated in the disgrace of Theodore McCarrick did more to destroy confidence in the Church than anything regarding the obligation.  The Church losing her social voice (whether it be on matters of abortion, economics, race, there's plenty of failure to pass around) and mostly shrugging as politics became the sacred institution of American Catholics isn't going to be fixed because the bishops who have zero moral legitimacy now say "hey everyone, get your butts back to Mass!"

Emphasize safety, do your best to promote vaccination, make your Catholicism something tangible.  If you were doing these things, your parish is probably okay right now.  Hurting, but okay.  Once things return to a semblance of normal, you will probably be okay, hurting, but okay.  Others will not be so lucky.  The pandemic forced people around the world to reassess what is important:  it is up to us to make sure they determine Catholicism still is.  Otherwise, all the obligations in the world won't help.

Pope's Solution to the Spiritual Decay in the Church: Fewer Masses

 This comes via way of Fr. Z, among various other places.  This morning the Vatican released an unsigned decree banning private masses at St. Peter's Basillica.  If you want to celebrate Mass there, it has to be concelebrated, has to have singing, etc.  There isn't really a rationale given for this kind of change, which we will get to.  To mitigate the impending pastoral disaster (as the Extraordinary Form and pilgrim/tourist groups celebrate loads of these masses every week) they are funneling all of these into one room, with no explanation for how that works logistically.

The decree is almost certainly real, but left unsigned so it can be withdrawn once it either generates significant opposition or flops.  The truth is the liturgical reformers have always hated private masses.  While some of your more high minded critics (often in bad faith) will point out that these are nearly non-existent in most Eastern Catholic settings, the reality is that private masses are a fact of life in the Latin Rite, even today in the Novus Ordo, where celebrations occur on side altars in cathedrals or in small group settings in major basilicas.  

The objection to this practice is not new.  The liturgical reform tried to eliminate it entirely originally, but faced pushback from the likes of Cardinal Ottaviani.  The liturgical reformers did not reject the Mass being about the worship of God, they just placed a far higher priority on the primary purpose of Mass being the instruction and edification of the faithful.  The original definition, changed because it was certainly heretical, said as follows about the Mass:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"

As noted, this definition was struck, and in its place Paul VI promulgated a definition of the Mass that explicitly referenced the Mass being the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross, made present to us in an unbloody matter. Yet its ethos lived on in the spirit of the liturgical reformers, who Ottaviani described as such in his now famous Intervention:

1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.

To the reformer, Mass without a congregation is pointless.  If the Mass is about feeding the congregation, why have a Mass?  A Mass limited to a small group only would be an abomination, as the primary purpose of the Mass for them is "feeding the flock" via the Eucharist and the proclamation of the Word.  Outside of Benedict XVI, this has been the attitude of every pope who has presided over the liturgical reform since the Council.  Pope Francis is no different.  He has repeatedly said both that the liturgical reform was a smashing success in the Church, and yet that its work remains unfinished.  While he may not put liturgical matters front and center, he still very clearly believes more of the reform needs to be carried out.  The suppression of private Masses should be read in that light.

If such a decision sounds absurd..... it is.  The solution to spiritual decay is not fewer Masses.  It is more Masses, better Masses, and a faithful more engaged in Masses.  This is even more the case in Rome, where tourists, visiting St. Peters, had a chance to hear the Mass in their own language.  If one wants to say every Catholic should be proficient in the Mass in Latin, welcome to traditionalism, beer is in the fridge.  Yet we are not there now, nor will we be in 40-50 years.  This kind of move is rotten theology, and even worse pastoral application.

The icing on the cake is the obvious contempt this decree has for the Extraordinary Form.  Now, contra some others, I don't think this was a deliberate snubbing and spiting of traditionalists by the Pope.  I think he's genuinely understood spending the first few years trolling and edgelording .1% of the Church for kicks and favorable media headlines was a really bad strategy, and its one he has mostly abandoned the past few years.  I'm just guessing he really wanted to ban private masses because he can't comprehend why anyone would like them.  When it was pointed out this would functionally ban the Latin Mass in St. Peters, he decided to give them a Mass in a crypt, because that's a pastoral thing to do, and he is a pastoral pope. So he repeats a thousand times.

Yet it is pretty clear traditionalists would not take being relegated to a private crypt at restricted times of day, by "authorized priests", in only 3 times before 9am, in a space they now have to fight for with tourist groups, as a "win."  There's also the whole institutional memory of forcing traditionalists into small crypts via the Indult so their liturgical tradition would not trouble the Church at large.  Yet this is honestly par for the course in this pontificate with his "pastoral" initiatives, they are "pastoral" in the sense that people who craft headlines say they are pastoral, and because people tell the pope he's being pastoral, not because he's actually meeting any spiritual need of the faithful with his decisions.

In the grand scheme of things, is this among the worst things he's done?  Probably not.  (That would go to attacking abuse victims as needy and greedy,  also covering for McCarrick.)  Yet it is instructive of a mindset this Pope has, which people will try to tell you he doesn't:  he is a son of the Revolution in the Church, and it is the goal of the sons of the revolution to make perpetual war upon the traditions and identity of the Catholic Church.  That he might go years without such attacks, and that he does good things elsewhere, does not mean he has changed his ways.

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.