(Continued)

By Brody Hale

Furthermore, in this same pastoral letter, the Cardinal states that the proceeds from the sales of this “unused” property will serve as the source of funds for the creation of “endowments” to fund everything from “Catholic Schools” and “Religious Education,” to “The Sheen Center,” the “Gianna Center for Women’s Health,” and “FOCUS,” an apostolate aimed at university students. The Cardinal should be reminded that in any situation where parishes are merged, the “goods and obligations,” (i.e. buildings, bank accounts, and debts where they exist,) are to be transferred to the parish into which the former parish is merged. Are the parishes of the archdiocese, either individually or collectively going to take on the management of the projects the Cardinal mentioned? I ask this question, in light of the statement from Cardinal Dolan that funds from the sale of “unused” property will be used for all of the above stated purposes. The Archdiocese of New York should not be receiving any funds in excess of whatever parishes may directly owe the archdiocese at the time of their closure, and even in these cases, such deficits do not constitute legitimate reasons in and of themselves for the sale of a former parish church building itself when a concerted effort to preserve the church as a sacred space for at least occasional use exists.
All of the above information can be summarized as follows. Parishes in the New York Archdiocese can be merged to create larger parishes, if that is the course of action the Cardinal wishes to undertake. The church buildings of those former parishes however, some of them being majestic structures of great historic significance, cannot merely be closed and sold at the time the parishes associated with them are extinguished unless a grave reason justifying their permanent closure exists. While there is no guarantee that mass will be regularly celebrated in a church which is no longer the seat of a parish, as long as a church remains “open,” (i.e. no decree has been issued to relegate the church to “profane but not sordid use,”) mass must at least be celebrated in it once a year, on the church’s feast day (according to past pronouncements of the Congregation for the Clergy.) Even without regular mass, such activities as the recitation of the rosary, or private silent prayer can still be held in an open church. Canon 1214 guarantees the faithful continued access to a church which remains open, regardless of the frequency of the mass schedule. Thus, it would be wholly inappropriate for Cardinal Dolan, a parish pastor, or some other official of the Archdiocese of New York, or another entity associated with it, to deny access to a church that is open, and has not been relegated to profane but not sordid use to those who wish to make use of the church for the purpose of religious devotion. The fact that all churches that have not been relegated to profane but not sordid use are considered under canon law to be open is summed up clearly in the church and parish closure guidelines of the Congregation for the Clergy, which state “Consequently, one cannot lawfully permanently close a church without first employing the provisions of Can 1222, Section 2, with the corollary that in the absence of applying the provisions of Can. 1222 Section 2, the church is to remain open.
It seems to have been the practice of the Archdiocese of New York to ignore this rule in the past with regard to those who have legitimately wished to enter a church which has not been relegated to profane but not sordid use, but whose parish has been closed. An example of this has been the denial of access of parishioners of Our Lady Queen of Angels Church to the church for prayer or any other sacred purpose since 2007, the year Edward Cardinal Egan extinguished Our Lady Queen of Angels Parish. Mass has been celebrated since that time in Our Lady Queen of Angels church, proving that the church has not been relegated to profane but not sordid use, yet former Our Lady Queen of Angels parish members have not to my knowledge at the time of this writing had any of their requests for entry into the church granted by the archdiocese

How to go about “preserving” a Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of New York

The financial responsibility of maintaining and preserving a church which is no longer the site of regular masses in order that it may remain a sacred space is without question that of those who wish for its continued existence as a Catholic place of worship. The Congregation for the Clergy has clearly stated that it is not the financial responsibility of the diocese or archdiocese in which a former parish church is located to maintain the church after the parish associated with it no longer exists. In fact, it is quite likely that over time, those churches which have been designated for occasional use will face permanent closure, sale and/or demolition if funding sources of a magnitude sufficient to ensure their continued preservation as Catholic sacred spaces are not developed. That being said, gathering the funds necessary to insure such a church’s preservation as a Catholic sacred space, while labor intensive, is not as complicated a task as it might appear to be at first glance.
It must be remembered that New York is far from the first diocese which has undertaken a reorganization of its parishes. Some dioceses, especially in the middle and western portions of the United States, were forced to close parishes as far back as nearly a century ago. Soon after opening, some parishes were shuttered on account of towns not developing in the locations where it was believed they would take root, or due to the relocation of a railroad line. Even long ago however, parishioners saw the importance of preserving the churches associated with these closed parishes as sacred spaces, available at the very least for the occasional celebration of mass, and as memorials to the faith of those who labored to build them years before. Thus, in parts of the United States today, churches whose parishes closed as early as the 1920s remain preserved as Catholic churches, in which mass is celebrated several times per year. The question that is probably coming to mind at present, is how such a venture can be sustained, given that there is no active congregation on cite to fund the project through their weekly donations? The answer these early groups came up with was one which now more than ever is a beacon for all who desire to preserve long into the future historic if seldom used Catholic Church buildings.
These early groups of parishioners formed preservation societies, organizations specifically established to raise the funds required to maintain the physical structure of the historic Catholic churches they cared for. Just as some preservation societies around the country maintain historic homes or former public buildings (such as historic courthouses,) these Catholic Church preservation societies raise the funds required to keep the church buildings for which they care in a state of good preservation. They cover the costs of utilities, pay the insurance on the church buildings, and raise the funds necessary for the repairs such buildings of advanced age frequently require.
To raise the money required to undertake this type of project, the preservation societies spread the word among former parishioners of these churches and their descendants, including those who live both in the immediate vicinity of the churches, and those who reside in other parts of the country and world. These groups also invite those members of the community who would like to assist in keeping these historic churches alive as Catholic sacred spaces to donate toward the cause. Often, social events which double as fundraisers are also held, to bring together all of those who have great love for and attachment to the church which the group is preserving. These groups do this all with the cooperation of their diocesan bishops, in cooperative arrangements which in some cases stretch back several decades. The dioceses in which these groups are located have recognized the value in preserving historic Catholic churches as sacred spaces, both to insure these sacred spaces remain available for future generations, and to insure that those who hold great attachment to these historic churches are not needlessly injured by being unnecessarily deprived of these church buildings’ continued presence in their lives. As long as the upkeep of these churches isn’t costing the dioceses and parishes in which they are located anything, the powers that be in many dioceses have over the last several decades seen no harm in allowing these churches to continue to stand and remain tangible symbols of the Catholic faith in the world.
Today, there are more than forty Catholic churches, some used as infrequently as once per year for mass, preserved and maintained by Catholic Church preservation societies across the United States, from New York to California.. It should be stressed that when I speak of preservation, none of the groups I am speaking of has converted a church to a secular purpose, i.e. a community center or the like. Cardinal Dolan should be personally aware of the preservation of Catholic church buildings as a sacred space in this way, because three of the groups overseeing the preservation of Catholic churches are located within the boundaries of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, the ecclesiastical territory in which Cardinal Dolan was born, ordained a priest, and consecrated an auxiliary bishop.
Cardinal Dolan also may be aware of the wonderful work carried on by Catholic church preservation groups because of the Friends of St. Ann, in the small community of Sawkill in Ulster County. It is there that one finds St. Ann’s Catholic Church. St. Ann’s parish was established in the late 1860s to serve Irish Catholics who settled in the Sawkill area. The present church, the third constructed during the history of the parish, was built in 1913, the same year the previous church was destroyed by fire. With a decrease in population in the area lying within the boundaries of the parish, St. Ann’s parish was merged into another parish by the archdiocese in 1961, and regular mass ceased to be celebrated at the church a few years later. That might have been the end for St. Ann’s church, and by the mid-1970s, it appeared it very well could be, as the church was showing signs of deterioration thanks to lack of upkeep. Former parishioners however were not content to allow St. Ann’s to fade away. They started an organization, today known as the Friends of St. Ann’s, which over the course of several years repaired the church and which continues to this day to maintain the church in a state of good preservation. Their website can be found here: http://www.saintanns.org/friends_of_st_anns.html Mass is still celebrated at the church several times per year, and the historic church can be toured. The success of the Friends of St. Ann shows that such a project can be carried out in the Archdiocese of New York, and their success should inspire others who would like to see their own church buildings remain sacred spaces, available for the celebration of at least occasional masses.
The guidelines of the Congregation for the Clergy regarding under what circumstances a Catholic church building can be closed have vindicated the efforts of these early Catholic church preservationists, and led to the formation of several new Catholic church preservation groups over the course of the last year. These guidelines, and the work of those who have been preserving historic Catholic churches for the last several decades as sacred spaces, available for the celebration of occasional masses, have provided a template through which those in New York can keep the historic churches of the archdiocese preserved for at least occasional mass, for many decades to come. Through the establishment of a Catholic church preservation group, a funding source capable of supporting the continued maintenance of an individual church will be created that will not drain resources from the Archdiocese of New York, or the new parish in which the former parish church will be located. This guaranteed funding source, supported by those former parishioners of the church and others, both in the local area and outside of it who care about the church’s continued existence, will allow it to remain a Sacred space, available for at least occasional masses, private prayer, the recitation of the rosary, and such other activities as would not defame its sacred character. Such activities could include making the church available for occasional tours, as many of these churches possess unique and irreplaceable architectural elements and masterpieces of religious art. The successful precedents set by Catholic church preservation projects in other parts of the country, combined with the guidelines promulgated by the Congregation for the Clergy that encourage the retention of Catholic church buildings whenever possible, provide a clear illustration of how the formation of multiple church preservation societies could lead to the retention in sacred form of many of New York’s most historic and threatened Catholic churches.
It is unclear to me on what grounds the Archdiocese of New York could object to the implementation of preservation plans such as have been outlined above. It might be the case that objections would be raised at the expending of such large sums of money on preserving “buildings,” either on the grounds that those who wish to expend them should not be permitted to “waste” their money in this manner, or that such funds would be better spent on some project or another of the surviving parishes, or of the archdiocese itself. Aside from reminding anyone who wishes to criticize such a project as has been outlined above on these grounds that it is the right of parishioners who feel inspired to undertake such a venture to do so, it should be further pointed out that there is no guarantee that any of the money which might be devoted to such another project as the Archdiocese might wish it to be directed would in fact be donated to that project. It is generally the case that those who open their wallets to preserve a historic church building are doing so, not out of a general desire to aid the church universal, but to help the universal message of the church be spread through the retention of a tangible aspect of its presence in a particular area, i.e. a historic church building. Thus, it is unrealistic to argue that the preservation of a church building drains resources away from projects where they might otherwise be directed. It would be truly unfortunate were any objections to the undertaking of such church preservation efforts, regardless of the form these objections might take, in truth be put forward based on a desire to reap the monetary benefits that could be gained from selling off church property, some of which might be of great value. It appears this practice may have been one of the central causes behind the Congregation for the Clergy’s decision to issue the instructions on parish and church closure it promulgated in 2013.
Recent rulings by the Congregation for the Clergy would seem to favor our analysis. In the city of Buffalo is located the historic Catholic church of St. Ann, formerly the seat of a German personal parish, built in 1886. St. Ann, a massive church which can seat 1500 people, was targeted for closure by the Diocese of Buffalo several years ago. After staving off closure for a number of years, the church was shuttered in 2012. The Diocese of Buffalo argued that St. Ann’s required millions of dollars in repairs, and that neither it nor the parish into which St. Ann was merged had sufficient resources to undertake the repairs the church would need. The diocese, seemingly in an effort to blunt any opposition to its decision, attempted to engage secular developers to preserve the shell of the church in some future repurposing of the site. Tying the preservation of a church building to its forced secularization angered many St. Ann church parishioners, as it should have! Descendants in many cases of those who built the church, these faithful Catholics and their supporters thought it completely unacceptable for St. Anne’s church to be permanently closed and converted to a secular purpose or demolished (demolition being the other idea for the church’s future put forward by the Diocese of Buffalo,) when such a committed group of people existed to restore and maintain the church. Forming the non-profit “Friends of St. Ann’s,” the parishioners appealed the decree issued by Bishop Richard Malone relegating St. Ann’s church to profane but not sordid use. In January 2014, the Congregation for the Clergy reversed Bishop Malone’s decision, and ordered that St. Ann’s church remain a sacred place of worship. The congregation held that the Friends of St. Ann had the right to restore and maintain the church, and that they had demonstrated they were capable of formulating a plan to undertake those repairs which would be necessary to restore the church over a period of time. While each case the Congregation for the Clergy hears is decided on its own merits, the decision in the Case of St. Ann’s church in Buffalo can be said to show that a well-organized Catholic Church preservation group has the right to take responsibility for the long-term preservation of a Catholic church as a sacred space, available for at least the occasional celebration of mass.
While the preservation of a church building, without the fully active parish once associated with it also being preserved may seem like a worthless gesture on the part of some, several things should be taken into consideration. While the weekly mass, and the community of believers who attend it is obviously important to the parishioners of any particular church, it must be remembered that the sacred character of a church building is what must above all else be protected and preserved. Churches by their very nature, as consecrated spaces, have been elevated to a state of being which far surpasses that of any other structure, as they are set aside for the glorification of God. The least we can do as their parishioners and thus their custodians, is to not abdicate our duty to insure that they continue to exist as God’s houses on earth by walking away from them in their greatest hour of need, regardless of what present limitations may exist concerning their regular usage. It should also be remembered that these churches were the ultimate tangible expressions of piety on the part of those Catholics who constructed them, and in ages past brought the faith to New York, and following its arrival, did all in their power to insure it took root. At the time of their construction, it is doubtful that any of those who gave so generously from what little in the way of resources they had could have conceived of the idea that in an age when the overall Catholic population is in possession of vast amounts of wealth and power, these sacred churches would be cast on to the rubbish pile of history. The continued existence of church buildings, even if they only are sites of regularly scheduled private prayer and occasional masses can be of great comfort to those whose families have attended them for generations. Many people involved in church preservation efforts speak of the great piece they feel from knowing that they are insuring through their hard work the continued existence of a sacred space their ancestors constructed with such reverence. Finally, the situation as it exists in Rome itself should be considered when looking at the Catholic churches of New York. Over the centuries, many hundreds of churches have been constructed within the limits of the eternal city. Some of these churches only host public masses, and are only open to the public on special occasions, such as certain feast days. None the less, these churches are still preserved as sacred spaces. A number of these churches, serving as the titular churches of cardinals, are supported in their continued existence at least in part through funds raised by the cardinals whose care they have been in trusted to. Thus, an example of a city containing historic churches, supported in part through donations of those who do not live in the immediate area surrounding them, is one which has been embraced for some time for the care of churches lying directly in the shadow of the Holy See. Cardinal Dolan himself was assigned such a “titular church” when he was created a cardinal.

Conclusion

The permanent loss of one’s church is something from which many never truly recover. It is a pain which is often needlessly inflicted upon those who far too frequently lack the tools to defend themselves from it, on account of their lack of knowledge regarding the rights church buildings enjoy under canon law and of how to undertake their preservation as Catholic sacred spaces. I can say from personal experience that the only thing worse than losing my church has been the loss of several family members during the course of my life. A church is one’s spiritual home. It is the location of the most personal religious moments in our lives and those of our family members. It is the physical place on earth where we find ourselves closest to God. In Boston, the closure of dozens of churches has deprived the Catholics of the city of many spectacular and historic churches, the likes of which will never again be built in this nation. One of the most unfortunate losses in the Boston church closure program was the Church of the Holy Trinity, a German ethnic church constructed in the city’s South End by Patrick Charles Keeley and opened in 1877. Without doubt, there are many examples of churches of the caliber of the Church of the Holy Trinity which are threatened at this moment in New York. If the people of the Archdiocese of New York do not step forward and care for their churches in this their greatest hour of need, the probable sterility of the Catholic architectural landscape in New York City and parts surrounding several years after the implementation of Making All Things New is frightening to consider.

Cardinal Dolan, in discussing Making All Things New, stated that with regard to planning, we should be asking whether something is “just about today,” or “conscious of tomorrow?” It would be truly horrific were we to cast aside the treasures which are New York’s Catholic churches due to the current financial condition of the archdiocese, the pastoral sensibilities of its leaders, and because its Catholic population did not stand up and defend them. That would show a complete lack of concern for the generations who will follow us, who have just as much right as all of us now living to enjoy the historic Catholic churches of New York. Let us pray that together, we can plan for the continued existence of New York’s historic Catholic houses of worship, and prevent their senseless and needless destruction.

Making All Things New, a Call for Catholic Church Preservation

A guest essay by Brody Hale

When one thinks of New York, the first images which come to mind may be those of the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty. These gigantic structures certainly stand as iconic symbols of this cosmopolitan metropolis. When I think of New York, however, my mind immediately turns to a less secular, but no less important set of structures, the multitude of Roman Catholic churches which are such an integral part of the city’s Catholic patrimony. These glorious religious buildings, different in design but singularly representative of the devotion of New York’s early Catholics are irreplaceable religious and cultural treasures, and are without question collectively a constituent component of the city’s majesty. These churches serve for Catholics as a tangible manifestation of so much of what New York is; America’s gateway city, an ethnic and geographic melting pot which has collected people from all corners of the globe, and retained them, to create a dynamic society like no other. The Catholic churches of New York make up a brilliant tapestry, resplendent with the threads of so many different ethnicities, each of whom felt it important to contribute a house of God particular to its cultural sensibilities to the city’s religious landscape. In so doing, the progenitors of New York’s Catholic population have passed down to us a collection of religious edifices, different in construction yet assembled within one city, the existence of which should bring a cheer to the lips of every Catholic New Yorker, including the shepherds of the local church.
Unfortunately, several circumstances have now brought the leadership of the Archdiocese of New York to engage in an exercise entitled, “Making All Things New,” a process designed to realign the boundaries of many of the Archdiocese’s parishes. The specifics of this plan were released last November by the Archdiocese, and it seems another round of decisions will be made early this year. The issues surrounding Making All Things New are currently receiving considerable coverage by the media, the Catholic and secular press alike. I think it is exceedingly important at this time, when parishioners are experiencing so many emotions on account of the content of Making All Things New, to carefully break it down, and discuss what Cardinal Dolan has done and what he has not done. In doing so, a better understanding of the full and true meaning of this plan can emerge and hopefully guide parishioners in their responses to it.

Analysis

I seriously question the archdiocese’s decision to extinguish multiple financially solvent parishes, as these vibrant faith communities are the hallmark of a healthy local church. That being said, when the results of this process are compared to those which were carried out in Boston and other locations in decades past, the decisions arrived at under Making All Things New are on their face less draconian. If in the coming months these decisions are implemented sensibly the years long battles which have been seen in many other American dioceses might be avoided. This essay will focus on implementation at a later point, for the moment, let us look at what Making All Things New has actually done.
While surely no parishioners are happy about having regular mass end at some churches (having experienced this myself, I understand the pain this change brings) it must be understood that Making All Things New DOES NOT in and of itself order the “closure” of any churches within the New York Archdiocese. It is still very possible for any parishioners who are committed to the continued existence of their church as a Catholic sacred space and continued place of at least occasional worship to insure that it will remain so, long into the future. The downgrading of a church to a place of only “occasional” worship is not merely the final step before it goes over the cliff of permanent closure. In many American dioceses in years past, the reduction of a church to the site of occasional masses almost certainly tolled the death knell for that particular place of worship, an act likely to be soon followed by its sale and/or demolition. Things have changed however since the last round of parish consolidation that took place within the Archdiocese of New York in 2007.
Since early 2011, Rome has been more closely monitoring the decisions of bishops to permanently close church buildings at the same time parishes are merged. The Vatican, having noticed that many bishops in the United States and other parts of the world were improperly closing church buildings and subsequently selling them off, made clear its preparedness to enforce the specific rules under Canon Law (the code of laws that govern the administration of the Catholic church,) related to the closure of churches, and reverse such closures when they are inappropriate. Since 2011, the Vatican has reversed the closure of twenty-three church buildings in six dioceses in the United States. In addition, the decision of a bishop in the United Kingdom to close a church has also been overturned. The additional scrutiny being applied to the closure of church buildings gives parishioners of “occasional use” churches in the New York Archdiocese a chance many in other locations would have jumped at in years past to ensure that their beloved spiritual homes may remain available as places of religious devotion to generations as of yet unborn. In order for these churches to survive though, actions must be taken now, to insure that churches will remain standing later. Before I explain what those actions are however, it is essential that anyone reading this essay first step back, and familiarize themselves with the key concepts which underpin all that is being discussed here.

Parish vs. Church

In the documents related to Making All Things New, there are many references to “parishes” and “churches.” It is thus important that we understand what the definitions of “parish” and “church” are in Canon Law, as these definitions are key to understanding the different rights under Canon Law each of these entities possesses. While we often interchange the words “parish” and “church” when referring to a Catholic place of worship, these two terms have entirely different and very specific definitions. The definitions of each of these terms are found within the Code of Canon Law, conveniently posted on the website of the Vatican. When one examines the canons, one finds the definition of a parish in canon 515 §1. “A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.” In layman’s terms, a parish is a community of Catholics who happen to worship at a particular church, and who are cared for by the pastor of that church. The “parish” is not however the church building itself. There are several different types of parishes. Canon 518 states, “As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.” This separates parishes into two distinct types, territorial parishes and personal parishes. A territorial parish has boundaries that are drawn on a map, just as the boundaries of a town, city or state are drawn on a map. All of the Catholic faithful living within the lines drawn on the map to constitute the parish boundaries are within the borders of the territorial parish. A “personal parish,” is a different kind of parish. As Canon 518 states, this type of parish is not based on territorial lines drawn on a map, but is instead based on some common characteristic that a particular subset of the Catholic population shares. It could be that a parish is established for all of the Catholic faithful in a community or part of a community who speak Polish or French, or for all of the faithful who have an affinity for the celebration of the Tridentine (Latin) mass. Regardless of the reason for a parish’s foundation, all parishes are established in the same way under canon law.
While it is true that all parishes have at their center the parish church, it is an entirely different canon which defines the church building, and yet another which governs the circumstances in which it can be closed. A standard response to the question “what is the church” is the body of believers which constitute the people of God. While this might be an accurate description of the church universal, such an answer does not accurately define a church building itself. In order to understand what a church building truly is, and the importance of its sacred character, we must turn to Canon 1214, which states “By the term church is understood a sacred building designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.” In this short definition, one finds an enormous amount to dissect and understand. We see first that a church isn’t just any building, but a “sacred building.” The sacred character of a church thus tangibly separates it from the other buildings which might be frequently visited by Catholics, i.e. one’s personal residence, place of work, and centers of recreation regardless of type. While mass can be and has been celebrated in such places as Yankee Stadium, it is the church building in which the holy sacrifice of the mass and other sacramental actions of the church are to be ordinarily celebrated, owing to the sacred character of the space. This point is further illustrated by Canon 1214’s admonition that a church is “designated for divine worship.” We also learn from Canon 1214, that the faithful have “the right of entry” to a church. The importance of this piece of the canon will be discussed later, but this fact, combined with the canon’s statement that this right of entry exists for the exercise of divine worship, are key points to understanding what a church building is and how it is to be used.

Closing Parishes vs. Closing Churches

Just as a careful reading of the applicable canons clearly shows the difference between a parish (regardless of the type of parish,) and a church building, so too is it the case that different canons must be applied to close a church building than must be applied to eliminate a parish. It is for these reasons that when it is said that a parish is being “merged,” or “closed,” (parishes should almost never be “closed,” as “suppression” of a parish is almost never appropriate,) it must be understood that the automatic closure of the church building(s) associated with that parish are NOT necessarily to follow. This is on account of the fact that the reasons which justify the permanent closure of a church building differ in type and level of required seriousness from those which would allow for the combination of parishes. In years past, it was the case that in some dioceses, “ordinaries” (the official title for the bishop or archbishop of a diocese or archdiocese,) simply closed and sold church buildings at the same time the parishes associated with those church buildings were eliminated, seemingly ignoring the particular parts of Canon Law that applied to the closure of church buildings. The canonical problems associated with the taking of such actions led the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, the Vatican department responsible for handling matters associated with the closure of parishes and churches, to issue a set of guidelines to the bishops of the world with regard to the closure of parishes and churches, in order that any confusion associated with these undertakings as to what can be closed and when might be eliminated. It is good to see that the Making All Things New process follows the guidelines that the Congregation for the Clergy promulgated.
This document, entitled “Procedural Guidelines for the Modification of Parishes, the Closure or Relegation of Churches to Profane but not Sordid Use, and the Alienation of the Same,” was issued by the Congregation for the Clergy on April 30, 2013, and signed by the Congregation’s prefect at the time, Mauro Cardinal Piacenza. While this document addressed several points, its main purpose was to explain in careful detail the difference between the closure of a parish and the closure of a church, and the circumstances under which each action can be taken by a diocesan bishop. The guidelines show that while it is Canon 515, Section 2 that governs under what circumstances a parish can be extinguished; it is Canon 1222, Sections 1 and 2 that controls in situations when the question of permanently closing a church building arises. Just as different canons apply to these different questions, different reasons, and gradations of reasoning are required to effect either course of action. A bishop can only close a parish, (i.e. combine its territory with that of another parish, or in the case of an ethnic parish, cause it no longer to exist,) when a “just cause” is present. The term “just cause” here is key. A just cause for the purposes of combining parishes could embody a range of meanings, and the conditions that precipitate the combination of parishes do not have to exist solely within those parishes being combined. Examples of just causes would be a shortage of priests, the inability of the parish to financially sustain itself, or any number of other circumstances which could logically lead a bishop to determine that it would be in the best interest of the faithful in his diocese to combine certain parishes. Such reasoning might not be shared by those whose parishes are being combined, but it has historically been the case that Rome has allowed bishops a wide latitude in determining under what circumstances parishes in their dioceses should be combined.
Rome has however in recent years treated the closure of church buildings themselves in a far different manner than it has dealt with the extinguishing of parishes. In its guidelines of 2013, the Congregation for the Clergy restates that “in law and tradition,” there is a “clear disposition” that a sacred edifice should retain its “sacred character, if at all possible,” and that only a “grave reason” can justify the relegation of a church building to “profane but not sordid use.” To put this in layman’s terms, without the presence of a “grave reason” justifying its closure, a church building is not supposed to ever be closed, regardless of whether or not the parish with which it was originally associated has been or will be closed, or how frequently mass is celebrated within it. A “grave reason” is not merely any reason that a diocesan ordinary might wish to employ to justify the permanent closure of a church building. Based upon the text of Canon 1222 and the guidelines the Congregation for the Clergy issued in 2013, there are generally two causes of sufficient gravity which justify outright the permanent closure of a church building. These are that the church itself has been damaged to such an extent that it is completely beyond the point of repair, and that no sources of financial support of any kind are present that would allow the church building to continue to be maintained. A bishop who wishes to use a claim of insufficient financial support to justify the closure of a church building must show that no other “reasonable sources of funding or assistance,” including “private” funds, are present that could maintain the church building. Thus, even if a parish itself is unable to support the continued existence of a church building, another source of financing which could insure the church would be maintained and preserved as a Catholic sacred space has the right to step in and do so.
While it is true that other reasons which in and of themselves are not of sufficient gravity that they would justify the permanent closure of a church building on their own can in combination serve as justification for the taking of such an action, it seems likely that a group of persons dedicated to a church’s preservation as a sacred space, available for at least occasional religious use could overcome attempts to employ such reasoning. In attempting to convey the point that a church building, regardless of how occasionally mass may be celebrated within it, should not simply be automatically closed at the time parishes are combined, the Congregation for the Clergy lists a number of reasons which in and of themselves DO NOT constitute reasons of sufficient gravity to justify the permanent closure of a church building, including “I, a general plan of the diocese to reduce the number of churches, II, the church is no longer needed, III, the parish has been suppressed, IV, the number of parishioners has decreased, V, closure will not harm the good of souls, VI, a desire to promote the unity of the parish,” and “ VII, some potential future cause which has not happened yet.” The fact that the Congregation for the Clergy takes such pains to set forth in its guidelines that these reasons should not be sited by themselves as justification for permanently closing a church building reinforces the point that the closure of a church building is supposed to be avoided whenever possible, making it an altogether different action than the mere combination of parishes. The inherently sacred nature of a church building means that it enjoys a far greater degree of protection under canon law than does a parish, and Rome is making it clear that this sacred character of churches should be preserved if at all possible, and that it is willing to intervene if necessary to protect the sacred character of church buildings.

Examining “Making All Things New” Through a Canonical Lens

At this point, many readers may be asking how all of this relates to the current effort of the Archdiocese of New York, through its Making All Things New process, to reshape itself? While I am not a canon lawyer, I would say the following, based on 10 years of observations of the processes dioceses and archdioceses have employed to combine parishes and close churches, and my analysis of the decisions handed down over the past 10 years by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy and Apostolic Signatura in cases of parish and church closures. Given the Vatican’s recent pronouncements on how it is interpreting Canon Law with regard to the closure of parishes and churches, Cardinal Dolan will likely prevail in any action brought to challenge his decisions to combine several parishes into one new parish. In some situations, where individual parishes have shown they are unable over the long term to pay their expenses, this may make sense. While I would personally question the wisdom of merging parishes which are financially solvent, it is likely that in either case the Cardinal’s decisions will be upheld on appeal. The same is not automatically true however for decisions which might be made in the future to permanently close church buildings themselves.
If one looks at the decisions released in November, one will find that churches whose parishes were being eliminated were grouped into two categories. There are those churches which will serve as fully functioning worship sites, with regularly scheduled masses. The second category contains churches at which “masses and the sacraments” will no longer “be celebrated on a weekly basis,” but which remain churches and can still be used for “special occasions.” It is thus spelled out clearly, in the Archdiocese of New York’s own announcement of the results of the Making All Things New Process that no church buildings are being ordered to close at this time. This is a major point, and it is essential that parishioners of churches affected by the Making All Things New process understand it. If anyone who wishes for their church building to remain a Catholic church in the long term takes the steps necessary to make that a reality, the Archdiocese of New York is, at least on paper, giving them the opportunity to do so.
While the results of the Making All Things New process, on paper at least, look to be an improvement over some past diocesan reorganization projects, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Having followed the evolution of the Making All Things New process since its inception, I remain concerned by a few points. In past pronouncements related to Making All Things New, Cardinal Dolan has appeared to employ the word “parish” in its nontechnical sense, or at the very least not to have clarified the context in which he is using the word. In his address to the clergy and religious of the Archdiocese of New York, delivered on June 6, 2013 at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, Cardinal Dolan stated, among other things, that there are “too many parishes!” (Emphasis original,) that “we no longer need 385 parishes!” (Emphasis original,) and that a “lopsided amount of money” is dedicated to maintaining “parishes and buildings we no longer need.” Is his eminence referring to their being too many “parishes,” or does his eminence object to the number of church buildings which exist within his archdiocese? While it is accurate that the Archdiocese of New York cannot be forced to spend money to maintain occasionally used churches in the long run, is His Eminence prepared to follow the Congregation for the Clergy’s guidelines and allow parishioners to organize groups dedicated to caring for these churches, as is their right, should they wish to do so? Time will tell.
Another point of concern to me regarding Cardinal Dolan’s willingness to cooperate with any parishioners who desire to preserve their occasionally used churches as sacred spaces in the long term stems from a statement he made in his pastoral letter “Pastoral Letter on Making All Things New,” issued on October 3, 2013. In this letter, Cardinal Dolan states that it is “likely” that the “pastoral planning process” will produce “unused properties, that could eventually be sold.” While Canon 1222 does not prevent a bishop from selling parish buildings that are not churches, does Cardinal Dolan intend to try and prevent church preservation efforts, should they arise, in order to justify selling church buildings themselves? I don’t know, and I will not predict the future here by speculating on what Cardinal Dolan will do. The way the Making All Things New process is implemented in the coming weeks and months, and the actions the Archdiocese of New York takes in the years to come will answer many of these questions.

Interview by Christoph Schmidt for the KNA (“Catholic News Agency”).

The author Martin Mosebach is one of the best-known conservative Catholic intellectuals in the German-speaking world. He emphatically greeted the restoration in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI of the old rite of the mass. The author, who currently is living in Rome under a grant, reveals in an interview with the Catholic News Agency (“KNA”) what he thinks about the new style of Pope Francis.

KNA: Mr. Mosebach, Pope Francis appears to be striving for changes in the structure and in the pastoral practice of the Church. What does a conservative Catholic think in the midst of so much euphoric rhetoric?

Mosebach: Up till now no one can say what Francis really wants precisely. Public opinion tries to insinuate that he has intentions that fit in with the spirit of our age. It is possible that he wants to accomplish great reforms. It is also possible that he is being misjudged, and that he not so very interested in change. The people cheer him, but I do not know if they know whom they are exactly cheering. As approachable and warm as Francis appears he is also just as reserved. He doesn’t give anyone a peek into his hand of cards.

KNA: Francis himself has stoked these expectations.

Mosebach: …and that even among people who have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. They assess him as a new president who is proposing a new legislative package. Traditionally a pope does not act in this way. His office consists in continuity not in change. He does not have the mission to reinvent the church. From the very first second, however, Francis has chosen a symbolic language that serves the media public and is supposed to convey this: I will do everything differently. That was not very loyal towards his predecessor. From his “buona sera” instead of the priestly greeting “Praised be Jesus Christ,” to his rejection of papal garments to his move into the Vatican guesthouse. My feeling is that these externals have acquired an inappropriate importance.

KNA: You lack sympathy for the papal humility?

Mosebach: Ultimately that to me is not humility but a dimming down to a style of life coinciding with today’s secular power. Today billionaires wear T-shirts and sit in comfortable sofas instead of on hard Baroque furniture. Heavy brocaded vestments that represent the glory of the Christ who is to come again are very uncomfortable. The Bergoglio style should not be confused with asceticism. And even if Francis were an ascetic, I would not like at all to hear about it from the mass media. Asceticism has value above all when it is hidden.

KNA: Many conservative Catholics fear an attack on the doctrines of the church under Francis. The initiatives of the synod on the family in October for a new method of dealing with remarried divorced people and homosexuals were after all far reaching.

Mosebach: If the intense management of the synod originated with Francis, he at least received pushback. The interim report could not be successfully pushed through. The tempo disturbed me in all this. The church was always slow but that was good. Endless discussions reflected the spiritual development until at some point the papal decision was taken. In the end always that which had been proven was successful. That is the meaning of the image of the pilgrim Church throughout history. This path should be, as much as possible, without losses in substance. But as I have said, up to now it is totally unclear what Francis really thinks. We only know that he places great value on a merciful Church that stands on the side of the poor – which from the very beginning has been always natural for the Church.

KNA: Do you hope for anything then from Francis?

Mosebach: I hope from every pope that he strengthens Catholics in their faith and that, through him, the Church gains spiritual force so that she can maintain her faith against the spirit of the times. But this takes time. Scenes of cheering around the popemobile are not a standard for that. Only in a couple of years will one be able to see if the seminaries and the religious orders once again have more candidates and conversions increase; if there is therefore anything to Francis beyond that he’s nice and is able to communicate with the masses.

KNA: At the end of November, for example, the pope appealed before the EU Parliament in Strasbourg to Europe’s Christian identity. Did that impress you?

Mosebach: On the one hand it was good to remind secular politicians of that which they absolutely do not want to hear. Namely that everything which calls itself European is attributable to Christianity. Even the anti-Christian tendencies since the Enlightenment could never sever themselves from the debate with religion.

KNA: But on the other hand?

Mosebach: Such appearances are for me in the end just pious utterances, which go in one ear of the politicians and out the other. Really, these papal appeals don’t interest me at all. I would rather have a pope who never gives any speeches. I would like a pope who imposes his hands on the people, who blesses them, who absolves them from their sins and says the mass for them. A priest-pope, not a politician-pope.

KNA: That sounds to be sure a little unworldly and would deprive the Catholic Church of much of her effectiveness. What do you have against charismatic leaders on the papal throne?

Mosebach: I have nothing against charisma in the Church – quite the opposite. But from the beginning, the Church separated institution and charisma. It wasn’t Paul the charismatic theologian who became the first pope but Peter the fisherman, a priestly, blessing figure. St. Francis also did not become pope even though he filled the people of his time with the greatest enthusiasm. He didn’t even want to be a priest. The Church breathes with two lungs – with the institutional offices culminating in the papacy and with the enthusiasm for the faith of her charismatic individuals. Both should be kept separated. I consider it to be an error to canonize popes. They should be above all the guardians of continuity and of the sacraments.

KNA: Which, since the new regulation of Benedict XVI can be celebrated once more according to the old missal. At that time you were among its greatest supporters. Pope Francis appears to have less interest in this.

Mosebach: I think that he probably has no great interest either in the old or in the new rite – or in liturgy at all – which I myself take to be the heart of the Church. In this he is completely a Jesuit. In 2007, however, as the first archbishop of the world, he put a church at the service of the celebration of the old rite of mass in Buenos Aires. Obviously he has nothing against it. The celebration of the old rite had expanded worldwide under Benedict. In almost every larger German city you can celebrate it. Its presence is even stronger in France and strongest of all in the USA. With this action Benedict XVI reacted to a widespread need. For me that was his greatest achievement as pope.

KNA: But the discussions with the FSSPX are still stalled. How do you judge the prospects for an agreement between the Church and the traditionalists?

Mosebach: I have no prognosis in this regard but such an agreement would be very desirable. In the first place, the crucial thing is that the discussions are continuing at all – and they are. After Benedict’s resignation many said that the door has been finally slammed shut for the Fraternity of Pius X. But Francis has had basically even fewer problems with them than had his predecessor because he is interested far less in detailed questions of theology.

KNA: Do you miss Benedict XVI?

Mosebach: I regretted his resignation very much. He felt that he could no longer physically meet the demands of the office and felt that his remaining time in office was too short to allow it to be followed by a long phase of agony like that of John Paul II. One has to accept that. The shape of the new institution of the “pope emeritus” is for me still insufficiently clear. I hope that a new age of popes that have resigned does not lie before us. In any case Benedict XVI was a great pope but no ruler. In contrast Francis is a ruler and an autocrat. Whether he is also a great pope still has to be seen.

(By kind permission of Martin Mosebach. Translator: Stuart Chessman)

 

 

Winter in Wien – or at least late autumn in Vienna – a somber time of gray skies, chill winds and frequent drizzle. The dismal weather and the falling leaves prompt thoughts of death, of the end of things – so different from the frequent brilliantly clear, joyous days of Fall in the Northeast United States leading up to Thanksgiving. Yet the lights that begin to appear in early November at the Christmas markets scattered all over Vienna make all the stronger impression contrasted with the increasing gloom. You can get a real sense  here why Christmas took on such extraordinary importance in the German lands.

 

Winter in Wien is the title of the last book written by Reinhold Schneider, a leader of the “Catholic Literary Renaissance “ in Germany. Written in 1957-58, it is a diary of a lengthy stay by the author in Vienna, at a time when the raw memories of the catastrophe of World War II and the fears of potential apocalypse of atomic war were very much alive. Winter in Wien is a dark, even despairing work, deeply pessimistic about the future of Man. Vienna, a place where the great course of European history seemed to have come to a final end, naturally lent itself to reflections on the last times. And Reinhold Schneider – like most authors of the Catholic literary Renaissance – was naturally a man fascinated by the extremes of human behavior– sacrificial resistance, heroic stances, dramatic conversions. He had written a memorable novella on Bishop Bartolome de las Casas; he had published underground essays of theological consolation during the National Socialist regime. In the bleak pages of Winter in Wien Schneider meditated on the end of civilizations and of history.

 

Yet, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, the most profound insight of this book lay elsewhere. Schneider was visiting a shop when a ridiculous toy – something like a jack-in-the box – caught his attention. And this cheap object suddenly was an epiphany for him. Yes, Schneider now knew that he indeed was in apocalyptic times. But our author had been entirely mistaken about the nature of the threat to the West. It was not Nazi or communist persecution or annihilation in an atomic holocaust. Rather, it was  modern consumer culture with its the ludicrous products like that silly toy that were burying Western civilization. A burial ritual that reached its consummation in the “opening of the windows” to “modernity” by the Catholic Church only a few years afterwards. As another, perhaps more insightful author had written decades earlier:

 

“This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.”

 

Today, decades of EU prosperity have transformed Vienna into one of the minor outposts of the New World Order. The slovenly, casual dress of almost everyone is striking; you get the sense that 1970’s American fashion has been elevated into a uniform here. One evening, one of the main TV channels shows a film on the great poet Trakl, graphically depicting an improbable love affair with his sister; there followed a movie on the saga of an aging prostitute (a transvestite? – I didn’t watch long enough to find out.). A Volksoper production of Puccini’s Turandot has all the singers dressed as insects.

(Above) The baroque Mariahilf church reflected on one of the stores of Vienna’s main shopping street.

 

It’s all a strange contrast with ball dresses on display in the windows.  They testify to the continuance (for tourism’s sake?) of social rituals whose purpose disappeared ages ago. Indeed, almost everything of interest here belongs to the past; the magnificent Habsburg art collections, the oversized buildings on the Ringstrasse, the many magnificent baroque churches, the musical life in the opera houses, churches and concert halls. Western Europe as whole is living off the legacy of an earlier age but nowhere can this be sensed as strongly as in Vienna. The Austrian Republic and the European Union have created nothing here.

(Above) The University – and the Jesuits’ – church, with the new and old altars.

Neither has the Conciliar Church, whose ravages are nowhere greater than in Austria. 50 years ago 90% of the population of Vienna – even if never a hotbed of the faith in recent generations – still identified themselves as Catholic. Today it is 40%. Religious practice is far less than what that percentage implies. In a magnificent baroque church one encounters only one or two visitors at any one time – half of them tourists. Sunday masses of the churches of the center of town are frequented mainly for the music. Again, one encounters the trappings of the past –the magnificent architecture, the masses of Mozart, Haydn and Bruckner, the splendid vestments – in a new environment entirely foreign to the culture that created them.

 

(Above and Below) the Votivkirche.

Perhaps the grandiose “Votivkirche” (Votive Church) on the Ringstrasse is more illustrative of the current spiritual situation of Austria than the perfectly maintained baroque churches of the older part of town. This grand neo-Gothic church was built in the second half of the nineteenth century in thanksgiving for Franz Josef escaping an assassination attempt.  It had dedications from the Imperial family and from the nations that made up the Austrian Empire. Even at the time of its creation, however, there was criticism from “liberals” (in the original sense of the term) for whom the Votivkirche was a relic – if magnificent- of a faith that had vanished:

 

Already before me did a poet call you, the newest of cathedrals, “the Church without God.”

And truly so:

Perhaps, since you could be seen in your much-praised beauty,

Has hardly one heart throbbed within you in true faith,

Has hardly one knee bent in true devotion.

And so you tower,

Even if filled each day with the sound of organ and with clouds of incense,

With your flying buttresses

And your openwork spires,

Like a stone anachronism

Upwards out of the faithless present…

 

(Ferdinand von Saar)

 

The Votivkirche also had important connections with the Austrian military. All around the church are commemorative plaques and monuments – the legacy of two terrible world wars. And after World War II, the republic of Austria smeared its partisan political messages on the windows and walls of this church.

(Above) This plaque commemorates not soldiers in one of the two world wars but militiamen fighting a leftist uprising in 1934 – and perhaps others who died fighting a National Socialist coup attempt.

(Above) In the Votivkirche. (Below) The magnificent old main altar.

(Above) The renaissance grave (moved from a destroyed church in Vienna) of Count Nicholas von Salm, the heroic commander during the first siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1529.

 

But the post-war years have not been kind to the Votivkirche. In contrast to the baroque churches of Austria, nineteenth century neo-gothic architecture was held in contempt. Signs of neglect are everywhere, and the scaffolding outside the church serves as a welcome billboard leased out by the Archdiocese of Vienna. The congregation of this church, still sizable in 1950, has also dwindled away.  Now it is the seat of an apostolate to foreigners in Vienna, led by “Father Joe” (naturally not an Austrian).

(above) An “evening for women” on “the question of offices in the Catholic Church” while the men discuss God and the world.

(above) “Father Joe”; (below) “The Cistercian monks of Heiligenkreuz monastery and Timna Brauer sing together to the One God.”

 

Truly, it seems that European culture has reached its end here! And yet, despite it all, there are still people kneeling and candles constantly lit before the images at the entrance to St. Stephen’s cathedral. The Christmas and Advent markets found everywhere are (still) called just that – not “holiday” or “seasonal” markets. One finds here and there signs of devotion to Blessed Karl of Austria. And in some less touristy, more out of the way cafes we find pictures of Emperor Franz Josef and Dr. Karl Lueger….

 

Finally, on our recent visit we experienced the wonderful solemn mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke. The magnificent Karlskirche of Fischer von Erlach was standing room only during the entire lengthy service. Several gentlemen stood about in uniforms reminiscent of the Empire. Families with sometimes noisy children attended without being greeted by angry glares or scolding (as is usual in the German-speaking world). Perhaps the Catholic culture of Austria is not totally a thing of the past, perhaps that which was confidently declared dead even in Franz Josef’s time can spring miraculously back to life. And the only place to start is a return to the fullness – in theology, morality and ritual – of the faith that made this culture possible in the first place

 

(Above)Solemn pontifical Mass with Cardinal Burke.

(Above) “Immaculate Virgin, intercede for Austria!” This shrine from 1936 in an ancient church is qualified as a relic of a prior time by a modern explanatory plaque.

It has been four years since the death of Joseph Sobran.  Scott P. Richert has written a moving tribute at the Chronicles magazine website.

“For many Catholics of a certain age, Joseph Sobran will forever be remembered as one of the greatest literary defenders of the Catholic Church’s teaching on life over the past 40 years. From contraception to abortion, from euthanasia to just-war doctrine, Joe was an eloquent voice in the popular press for the teachings of the Catholic Church, and, in fighting for the truth, he wore himself out a few decades too early, dying at 3 P.M. on Thursday, September 30, 2010, at the age of 64.”

“Much of Joe’s best writing on life issues appeared in Human Life Review. Indeed, one might say that, for almost two decades, Joe Sobran was Human Life Review. As J.P. McFadden, the founding editor of HLR, wrote in his Introduction to Single Issues, a 1983 collection of Joe’s best essays from the Review, “we never dreamed how much he would have to say, or that he would become our most faithful contributor: his sharply-honed essays would have appeared in every issue over the past eight years [from the Review’s founding in 1975 until 1982, when McFadden was writing], but for a few missed deadlines.”

Yet after Bill Buckley fired Joe Sobran from National Review in 1991 he was also dismissed from Human Life Review (both publcations emanated from the same offices). When HLR subsequently celebrated a major anniversary – I believe it was their 25th – Sobran’s name was not mentioned. Indeed, when Sobran came out in opposition to the Republican party and its Iraq war, Human Life Review ran a hit piece written by James Hitchcock directed primarily against him:

“Sobran’s way of dealing with the life issues can then be seen as the conservative counterpart to the liberals’ “seamless garment”—an attempt to persuade pro-lifers to transcend their “narrow” outlook and support a wider agenda. …
(F)or some on the Catholic part of “the Right,” the life issues are no longer paramount, if they ever were.”

Sobran’s prior role at HLR was of course not mentioned in this shameless screed. It had become clear that supporting the agenda of the Republican party and of the neocons – especially as it related to the Mideast – had taken precedence over all other concerns at the publication that Joe Sobran had put on the map. It was also a particularly outrageous insinuation, for, as Richert writes, regarding life issues “Joe, better than any other Catholic conservative, argued forcefully for a truly consistent ethic of life, regarding the Church quite properly as Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher).”

We must concede, however, that in this question of authority Bill Buckley may have been somewhat more perspicacious than Joe: Mater si, Magistra no! Death spared Sobran the spectacle of a Bishop of Rome lecturing Catholics not to “obsess” about abortion, gays and contraception; of a new archbishop of Chicago who had discouraged pro-life vigils at his former diocese – this action being touted as one of his key qualifications – and, just the other day, of a Spanish Opus Dei priest raging against “fundamentalists” because “the stubborn defense of the right to life is plain and simple ideology.”

Sobran had to bear an extraordinarily amount of suffering in his last years. But his writings witness a true Christian acceptance of the various personal and health trials the Lord had sent him. I hope a younger generation rediscovers the man and his work. Scott Richert’s article is a good place too start.

Dear Fellow Parishioners and Friends of Holy Innocents,

It’s the interrelationships between Patrick Charles Keely, his churches, and the Traditional Latin Mass that is significant in the story of Keely’s Church of the Holy Innocents in New York City, built in 1870.

Because the story is not only that Holy Innocents was built by America’s foremost Catholic architect of the 19th century. But also that Holy Innocents is Keely’s only remaining church anywhere that celebrates daily the Traditional Latin Mass, which was the spiritual and liturgical foundation of all of his churches.

In the parish-planning program, Making All Things New, the Archdiocese of New York will announce its decision in November whether or not The Church of the Holy Innocents will remain open and retain her Traditional Latin Mass.

One of the primary criteria set by the Archdiocese for determining which churches will remain open and which ones will be closed is that the church is an “active, vibrant community of faith.” That means that in addition to a church’s active liturgical, spiritual, and social outreach programs, it must sustain itself financially, and it must be structurally sound.

Holy Innocents is exemplary in all those areas, as well as in its attendance at the Traditional Latin Mass, which continues to grow, day by day, with worshippers of all ages.

It is also significant to remember that Holy Innocents is unique.

Of the estimated 600 churches in the United States and Canada, designed and built by Keely, it is the only one offering the Traditional Latin Mass daily, seven days a week, “its unique distinction,” according to Edward H. (Ted) Furey, Founder of the Keely Society and the foremost authority on Keely’s life and architecture.

When Keely built his churches, the Traditional Latin Mass was the only Mass celebrated–so it was celebrated in every single one of them. Since Vatican II, however, all that has changed. Ted Furey says, “That’s why Holy Innocents’ continuation is so important, especially due to the fact that it is in a city that is a model of resilience to the world–and a beacon of Hope!”

The remarkable fact, which invites reflection, is that Keely’s churches exist because of the Traditional Latin Mass.

As a devout Catholic, the foundation of Keely’s Faith was, as it is for all Catholics, the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Mass. Every one of his churches is a shrine he built to that foundation of his Faith, which even affected the plan of his churches.

For example, the altar is the site of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is why all elements in a Keely church are oriented to its altar. The architectural lines, as well as the symbolism and decoration, lead the worshipper to the altar. It’s why Keely commissioned Constantino Brumidi, Americas leading 19th century muralist, to create the mural of the Crucifixion of Christ over Holy Innocents’ main altar, the site of the un-bloody Sacrifice of Calvary.

The fact that since Vatican II, many of the altars in Keely’s churches (as well as the altars in many other Catholic churches) have been replaced, disfigured, or destroyed in keeping with the novelty that has prevailed over the past 50 years, emphasizes the unique role of the altar in the Traditional Latin Mass, which continues to be celebrated daily at Holy Innocents.

Because Keely was best known for his churches in the Gothic Revival style, he was called “The American Pugin,” after A.W.N. Pugin, the foremost Gothic Revival architect of the 19th century, for whom “The beliefs and manners of all people are embedded in the edifices they raise.”

It is Nancy’s and my hope and prayer that those who guide the parish-planning program, Making All Things New, will preserve Holy Innocents, our unique edifice in which is “embedded” the Mass and the Sacred Liturgy that sustained Patrick Charles Keely and the parishioners of his time and that continues to sustain those who worship here now.

Sincerely,
Don
Donald M. Reynolds

September 28, 2014

cc: Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York

Bishop John O’Hara
Making All Things New

Living on Fire: The Life of L. Brent Bozell Jr.
By Daniel Kelly,
ISI Books, Wilmington, 2014

I have already written on this blog some notes on the history of Traditional Catholicism in this country. In that saga, no individual is of greater significance than Brent Bozell, the founding editor of Triumph magazine. For, from 1966 till its demise in 1975, Triumph was the voice of Catholic conservative opposition to the leftward avalanche in the Church and the country. Now the late Daniel Kelly has provided us with a new biography of this critical figure of the post-conciliar Church in the United States.

This is a much-needed work. Kelly, for the first time, gives us a coherent narrative of Bozell’s life. It is an amazing story. He worked with Bill Buckley (his brother in law) to found National Review for which he wrote extensively. He was the ghostwriter for Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative – the single biggest success story in conservative publishing of that era -which helped launch Goldwater’s national political career. Later, he authored a respectable work on the Warren court.

Yet Brent Bozell was becoming disenchanted with the proto-“libertarian” doctrine of “mainstream” American Conservatism (although in that day the received opinion considered Buckley and his cohorts denizens of the far right). A period of residence in Spain in the early 1960’s had opened Bozell’s eyes to the still extant beauties of a Traditional Catholic society and culture. By 1966 he had split from the National Review circle, and had founded his own magazine – giving it a title deliberately calculated to enrage Catholic progressives, then and now: Triumph. After extraordinary vicissitudes the magazine collapsed in 1975 and Bozell descended into madness and alcoholism. Later, he partially recovered and ended his days in spiritual peace.

Kelly does a good job of “connecting the dots” of Bozell’s life, digging up a host of fascinating details and putting it all into a readable narrative. I could claim to be somewhat familiar with broad outline of this story yet I found many new and important facts. For example, I knew there had been a connection between some of the Triumph stalwarts and Christendom College, I didn’t know that that institution sprang directly from a Triumph summer program. Throughout the book, Kelly sets forth succinctly and clearly what Bozell, Buckley, etc. thought and wrote over the period covered by the biography – critical for what is primarily the history of an intellectual.

It is truly said de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Yet I have to report that, in my opinion, Living on Fire exhibits serious defects that prevent it from being more than a first essay on the subject. First, Kelly provides inadequate historical and intellectual context for the life and opinions of his protagonist. Living on Fire seems to presume familiarity with American history of the 1950’s through the 70’s as well as the details of the development American conservative movement. That can no longer be presumed of younger but interested readers. Moreover, failure to provide historical context tends to diminish the significance of Bozell’s Triumph years. For 1966-75 were years of the greatest social and intellectual change in America. It was a radical, public shift to the left in politics, culture and morality – opposed only in an incomplete way by the counterattack of Nixon and the “silent majority.” In the Church, there was the parallel conciliar revolution. Seen in this context, Bozell’s shift from the conservative focus on anti-communism and the defense of capitalism to the criticism and reform of culture looks remarkably prescient – even more so if historical developments since the 70s are also taken into account. The positions of Bozell, which in this book often appear as a series of strident ideological assertions, take on an entirely different and more favorable aspect in the historical setting of the craziness of the 1960’s in Church and society, .

Second, Kelly does not consistently provide critical evaluation of the positions of Bozell. Now Bozell was an intellectual – despite Kelly’s assertions, repeated several times in this book, that he could have attained high electoral office, Bozell’s vocation was that of a writer and editor in the fields of religion and politics. Essential to assessing such a man is judging whether the opinions he voiced were in fact correct. Kelly shares his opinions only here and there. Some are perceptive, others obtuse, such as his repeating uncritically contemporary descriptions of Bozell as “Anti-American.” However, from the author’s tone of detached irony – and his extremely favorable portrayal of William F. Buckley throughout this work – one gets the sense that, for Kelly, Triumph and all that it stands for was an aberration, a unfortunate departure from Bozell’s promising conservative career – perhaps motivated by rivalry with Buckley and even incipient mental problems.

Third, I am not totally persuaded by Kelly’s’ attempts to flesh out the personalities of Bozell (and of others covered in this book) and to provide psychological motivations for their opinions and actions. His narrative is too summary and disjointed to be totally convincing in this respect. For example, Bozell in 1962 suddenly moves his family to Spain. We are then informed for the first time that Trish, his wife, is an alcoholic – and that Bozell suffers from some kind of drinking problem as well. The book quotes letters written by Bozell on this tragic subject that are moving and eloquent in their language which stands out startlingly from Kelly’s surrounding gray prose. Then, upon the Bozell family’s return to America, the subject of alcoholism is dropped – only to be taken up again 14 years later when Brent Bozell succumbs to mental disorders. Was this something that afflicted both Brent and Trish only in moments of extreme stress? We do not know from this book. In another example, Thomas Molnar is depicted as a “voice of reason” in contrast of the “radicalism” of Bozell. That’s a very strange role for someone whose “anti-Americanism” exceeded anything Bozell put to paper. One longs to see the original interview notes of Kelly. (Molnar also is revealed to be a significant player at the foundation of Triumph yet then disappears – without explanation.)

What is to be said about Triumph? The apparently disdainful judgment of Kelly – and of American conservatism – is refuted by the very content and tenor of this book. Triumph offered the first critical reviews of the new mass and of the “liturgical renewal.” It forcefully advocated what were later called “pro-life “ positions years before Roe v. Wade. Above all it understood the unbridgeable and ever widening gap between the American establishment and the Catholic faith. It discerned very early on the processes that were gradually turning the United States in to a quasi-totalitarian progressive state. Bozell accomplished all this by gathering a team of gifted writers – a team that has never been duplicated since. And we should not underestimate the courage it took to criticize the Church establishment and the implementation of the Council. As one enraged reader wrote to the magazine:

“I hope your magazine will either never appear or very soon be forbidden to appear. How can grown-up intelligent Catholics be such an obstacle to the workings of the Holy Ghost?”

(The writer was Baroness Maria von Trapp of Sound of Music fame)

Yet the grand venture of Triumph failed. Living with Fire helps us identify some of the reasons. Especially after 1970, the editorial stance of the magazine became consistently more critical of the “American way of life.” That in my view was entirely appropriate. But at the same time Triumph increasingly opposed to American society a vision of Catholicism that verged on fantasy. The magazine that had been one of the most perceptive critics of the liturgical revolution became more and more an apologist of the papacy of Paul VI. The core of the Triumph staff had emerged from the conservative political movement; they would have needed need more liturgists, theologians and historians of the Church to understand what was going on. For the same destructive forces at work in the United States and that Triumph so eloquently denounced were also active in the Church. Bozell and his colleagues could never totally understand that. Instead, they engaged in an increasingly Quixotic effort to present the conflicted, crumbling Catholic Church of the 1970’s as the panacea for the social evils of the United States. Indeed, despite the talk of “Radicalism” and “Anti-Americanism” there was something eminently American in Triumph’s effort to make “the Catholic thing” a political program and to quickly create a ”Catholic culture” on these shores – something that had taken a thousand or more years in Europe.

Yet despite the limitations, Triumph was a great adventure and a great accomplishment. Kelly’s book – despite the reservations of its own author – makes that clear. For the issues that Buckley and Bozell addressed at National Review in the 1950’s and early 1960’s belong to another world and to an America that has ceased to exist. The issues addressed by Triumph are with us to this very day. Kelly’s book is good introduction to the subject – but I would refer all interested readers to the original texts of Triumph.

5. The Era of Pope Francis and an Epilogue; 2013 -?

One again the Traditionalist scene in the United States was rocked by an event from across the seas. Pope Benedict, who had done so much for the cause of Catholic Tradition – without fully embracing it himself – abdicated. It was clear from the start that his successor, Francis, would be a man of entirely different character – had he not been pushed as the main alternative to Benedict in 2005? But what few – aside from a key group of initiates – realized was that Francis was a genuine progressive in the line of cardinals Bernardin or Martini. What had been inconceivable in 1978 or 2005 had taken place: the left wing of the Church had captured its highest position.

If we consider the situation only in America, this development, while unexpected, was not at all totally surprising. For the Church’s progressive wing had not been idle in the years we have followed the twists and turns of Traditionalism. They remained in total control of most religious orders and Catholic institutions of higher education. The Catholic press and the Church bureaucracy were in their hand. And they retained vocal supporters among the hierarchy: Mahoney, Bernardin or Weakland.

Beyond maintaining their position in the ecclesiastical sphere, the Catholic left forged powerful links with the forces of civil society. They developed valuable ties with secular educational establishment. The liberal media (that is, almost all the media) turned to their agitators for “authoritative” commentary on things Catholic; the Catholic hierarchy (including the Vatican) also turned to the National Catholic Reporter as a preferred media outlet. And a new field of activity for the progressives was the overt alliance with the Democratic Party and specifically the Obama administration, counteracting “pro-life” initiatives in and outside of the Church. American Catholic progressivism was a movement that John Paul II and Benedict might attempt to restrain but could hardly discipline, let alone dislodge.

Pope Francis immediately launched a systematic campaign both of accommodation with Western secular civil society and of outreach to the Catholic left. Certainly in rhetoric it is a return to the 1960s, covered in the first installment of this essay. Instead of increasingly respectful treatment Traditionalists now heard themselves denounced by Pope Francis in coarse and contemptuous language. More concretely, at Francis’s direction, the Vatican launched a campaign of annihilation against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – a bi-ritual order with a growing Traditionalist commitment. One of the main initial penalties imposed was the de facto abolition of Summorum Pontifcium for these friars. But these actions had little resonance in the United States, given the friars’ limited presence here.

The forces of the American “Conservative Catholics” had very little time to rejoice, however. For Francis and his acolytes immediately moved, in word and deed, even more forcefully against the holiest principles of the conservatives. Francis and his team denounced capitalist economic principles. They called into question or mocked pro-life activity of all kinds. And as one of his most significant new ecclesiastical initiatives, Pope Francis launched a “discussion” clearly aiming at changing the rules of the Church regarding divorce. This last move struck the weakest link in the conservatives’ stance on life issues. For divorce is an unambiguous conflict between the teaching of the Church and one of the nonnegotiable principles of American civil society.

What was the impact of these dramatic developments? We have seen that in the 1960’s the reforms of the Council had been virtually unopposed. The reaction to the current attempted restoration of the 1960’s has been far more complex. True, among the clergy open rebellion is nonexistent. Yet by 2014 a lively Catholic samizdat – the Internet – had arisen. News was rapidly disseminated and critical commentary offered. The Traditionalist Catholic of 2014 had an infinitely better idea of what was going on in the Church – both in and outside of the United States – than his predecessor of fifty years ago. And his experience of 50 years of working around the structures of the “official Church” had immunized him against the progressive revival.

There is above all this remarkable fact: in the first year of Francis the Traditionalist cause in America has actually strengthened. True, certain masses sponsored by “fair-weather friends” have been canceled. But other masses and apostolates have taken their places. Certain prelates have taken the opportunity to settle scores with a movement they always disdained. But others have maintained and even expanded the Traditionalist presence. Traditional masses are still spreading to new locations with full official support. The successful modus vivendi of traditional Catholicism with the Church establishment, inaugurated by Summorum Pontificum, has largely continued. For Traditionalists. the loss of papal support has not produced an existential crisis or a rush to “preemptive obedience” (as the Germans call it).

The situation of the conservative Catholics is much more critical. For Pope Francis has radically challenged their core beliefs on the nature of the papacy, on “life issues” and on the economy. Only a minority (of which George Weigel is representative) attempts to uphold the ultramontane cause in its purity, seeking to prove that Francis is no different than Benedict, John Paul II or Paul VI. Other leading spokesmen have lapsed into silence or have vehemently criticized the utterances of the pope’s inner circle (but not those of Francis himself). Predictably, those who have most directly criticized Francis himself have done so for his statements on capitalism and Israel. We do observe, however, that the pro-life movement is continuing in its accustomed course unconcerned about whether they are “obsessing” or not.

We do not know what the future will bring. We do not know what will happen if Francis extends in some way the actions he has taken against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to the whole Church. We also have to consider the long-term effect of the endless stream of statements from the Vatican and of potential episcopal appointments as well. My personal view is that Francis’s actions on other fronts (such as on divorce) are likely to precipitate such a crisis in the Church that the relationship with Traditionalists will remain in the background. It would be just as plausible, however, that a Vatican that suffers a reverse on these other issues would respond by retaliating against ”enemies” – of which Traditionalists would be the easiest and safest targets.

Epilogue

So a movement that first arose out of the religious chaos of the post-conciliar years finds itself established as a fixed, if mostly marginal part of the United States Catholic scene. In a way, Pope Francis should be happy with the Traditionalists; their only method of survival and of evangelization has been by means of example. Without the institutional support of the hierarchy, the Catholic educational system or the religious orders, the Traditionalists built a network for themselves. It is growing not receding. In many, if not most places, a working relationship has been established with the institutional Church. And leadership has been handed over to a new generation of clergy, religious and laity. It is a success envied by Traditionalists in most other parts of the world.

Yet there is also a palpable feeling of dissatisfaction. Traditionalists remain the one group of the Roman Catholic Church that can be officially persecuted. The Vatican has assumed once again a position of open hostility. It seems after so many years and so much effort Traditionalists remain on the outside.

Part of the discontent is the pain of honestly facing the reality of the “Conciliar Church”; the dire predictions of the Traditionalists have only been proved so terribly true. This is a Church where the knowledge of religion among the mass of Catholics borders on the nonexistent; where the practice of the overwhelming majority in key areas of morality is hardly distinct from that of the surrounding population. A Church whose hierarchy seems “obsessed” only with material, secular issues and with arranging their comfortable accommodation with the world. A Church where the pope, the Vatican and the bulk of the hierarchy are able to isolate themselves in a fantasy world free both from the obligation of dealing with reality and from accountability for their actions. A Church that expressly rejects the rational and the beautiful, patronizing instead cretinous “movements.” A Church that is on the path to extinction in the developed world.

The unavoidable issue is that, in view of such facts and given its principles, Traditionalism cannot remain the province of a nostalgic few, of a “remnant” or of an elite following a “counsel of perfection.” Traditionalism can be nothing else than how it was described in the subtitle of Latin Mass magazine: a “movement for Catholic reform.” Not a call back to some past which never existed but a rediscovery and reliving, in all its neglected richness and completeness, of the Tradition of the Church. Living completely the liturgical life of the church is necessarily inseparable from adhering to Christian morality and accepting Christian theology.

There is more than enough to do in rebuilding the Church, but isn’t it also clear that Catholic Traditionalism also has important consequences for the life of the Catholic in the world and in this country? Certainly our secular adversaries think so – that is why Pope Benedict faced opposition not just from within the Church but from sovereign states and from Western civil society in general. It is very important to powerful secular forces in the Western world that the progress of the Traditionalist cause be stopped – the Latin mass is a political issue!

What is the next step for the Traditionalists confronted by both the great promise of their movement and the catastrophic situation of the Church today? There have been many heroic laymen and priests in the American Traditionalist movement; there have been many intrepid writers, journalists and, today, bloggers. And there has been an ever-increasing focus on the liturgy in all its perfection. But I believe to get to the next step, to move to being a genuine reform for the whole Church, the Traditionalist movement needs to acquire what ancient Ireland is reputed to have had when it set out to re-evangelize the West: saints and scholars. Let us take that in reverse order.

Scholars are easiest to develop and train. They need to acquire the tools of scholarship in their various fields without becoming a part of the secular academic establishment, which is lethal. Scholars can preserve and present to clergy and laity the riches of Catholic history, philosophy and theology. They can deal squarely with the unpleasant truths of the past and the present, which Catholics make a habit of ignoring. They will counter the normal Catholic response when confronted by difficulties of all kinds: the flight to the irrational, the blind submission to the world or ecclesiastical authorities.

Saints – that is another matter. The crisis of the Church and 16th-century was result in large part through a new generation of Saints. When, in the 1520s, things were at their bleakest, a soldier, Ignatius Loyola, was reading a book of saints while recovering from a war wound. A little while later John Fisher and Thomas More stood virtually alone against the conformism of the hierarchy of an entire kingdom. Later there were many more: like the mystics Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, the great Archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo or the apostle of Rome Saint Philip Neri. But saints cannot be “produced” – they can only be given to us.

Is my vision – scholarship and sanctity added to liturgical perfection – not unlike the Benedictine reform of the 6th century onwards? Does not American Traditionalism need more focus on contemplation as opposed to action? I do believe so! But I would also expect that the Traditionalist movement, which has overcome so many difficulties and challenges to reach where it stands today, will enjoy the necessary divine support to continue and perfect its mission – if we only ask and pray for it.

The rose window of Holy Innocents is very likely the original from 1870 mentioned by John Gilmary Shea.

Yes, there is a unique quality, difficult to capture, that the sensitive visitor experiences in the silent old churches of New York or Brooklyn. A feeling of remoteness from the surrounding city, a somewhat musty atmosphere of a past that here somehow has not disappeared and a mysterious sense of solidarity with the tens, even hundreds, of thousands who have passed through these doors. This is especially so in the old Victorian churches of New York. The few neoclassical buildings, like St. Peter’s, are stark witnesses to us of an earlier age that has vanished. The later magnificent structures of the golden age of the Archdiocese, like Blessed Sacrament or St. Vincent Ferrer, are too artistically complete, too carefully thought out. I find myself constantly returning the structures of the earlier High Victorian age – St Stephen’s especially, but also Holy Innocents, Most Holy Redeemer or the former St. Ann’s. These churches, once grand centers of Catholicism and even of the city itself, now lie off the beaten track, sustained by small devoted congregations. They show all too clearly the ravages of time: water damage, indifferent paint and plaster work, shrines and altars that have been abandoned. Their decor ranges from magnificent windows and altars to kitschy devotions – with every age feeling entitled to add its own new devotion or shrine. Some, like St. Stephen’s are splendid architectural achievements, other like Holy Innocents represent the average parish church of the time. Best of all, by reason of their poverty, they mostly – not entirely – escaped the full ravages of the liturgical renewal.

(Above) Candles (real) are always burning at Holy Innocents, here before an image of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. (Below) A Lourdes grotto is furnished with a fountain that has gone dry long ago.

(Above) St. Lucy is of course among the seemingly innumerable statues of Holy Innocents. (Below) Joyce Kilmer also stood before this crucifix many times before his conversion.

What does the threatened loss of a church like Holy Innocents mean to us? First,of course, the loss of a place of secluded refuge, of prayerful spirituality and even, here and there, of real beauty – all set in the midst of one of the most arid wastelands created by a barbarous capitalism.

This window is one of set of 20 from Munich installed as part of a grand refurbishing of the church starting in 1894 which included the new high altar. Other elements of that once magnificent decoration, like the side altars and communion rail, have disappeared.

Then, there is the loss of the devotions that made up so much of the life of old Catholic piety. Our Lady, the Infant of Prague, Christ the King, the great crucifix for an indulgenced prayer before leaving the church – all these and many others are found here. In recent years Holy Innocents also acquired a special new devotional role: as a shrine to its own patron saints in the face of a new massacre – that of abortion. Presumably this devotion is no longer seen as necessary or urgent.

There is also the loss of solidarity with the many who come here daily to pray, to light candles, to attend the masses and devotions. They are generally workers, the poor, even the eccentric and annoying. Those who frequent parishes in the suburbs or off Park Avenue do not come here. It is these ones with little means who are most adversely impacted by the looming changes. But so are they who are deprived of their example of sacrifice.

Above all, of course, Holy Innocents has served since 2007 as a center of the daily celebration of the Traditional mass. How many magnicent liturgies have taken place here in recent years! Moreover, this mass has added significance now that that the Traditional mass at Our Saviour’s across town has been suppressed. All this liturgical progress is the result of grass root initiatives – just like the hundreds of thousands of dollars this parish recently raised to refurbish the grand Brumidi fresco. I would have thought that the Church would want to encourage such initiatives from below. That is, if I didn’t know already through long experience how unlikely that would be! But the cessation of the celebration of the Traditional Mass would be the gravest loss of all. Let us pray – through the intercession of the Holy Innocents – that this fate can somehow be averted.

(Above and below) Mass for Ascension Thursday celebrated by Fr. George Rutler.

5. The Era of Summorum Pontificum 2007-2013

On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. For traditionalists it was a vindication and emancipation that would have been scarcely imaginable a few short years before. For now the Traditional liturgy was acknowledged to be a constituent element of the Catholic faith that had not and could not be abrogated. The Traditional liturgy was declared a right of the faithful. They, not the hierarchy and the clergy, were empowered to request and obtain its celebration. Finally, an avenue of appeal to Rome was provided in the (all too likely) case of conflicts with the local hierarchy.

Less obviously revolutionary but perhaps even more significant in the long term was Pope Benedict’s December 22, 2005 discourse on the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity.” By emphasizing the need to understand the “Council” (there seems to be only one in the Church of today) in the light of the entreaty of the tradition and doctrine of the Church Pope Benedict was (undoubtedly unwittingly) calling the whole Conciliar project into question. For isn’t the driving concept of “Vatican II” the imposition on a suppossedly moribund and retrograde Church of the new truths and vitality proceeding from the modern world?

What was the impact of these momentous developments in the United States? Compared to the spirit and even the letter of the new law it was of course limited. If traditionalists expected the hierarchy to take the initiative to make the traditional liturgy broadly available they would be sorely disappointed. In most cases the bishop no longer “got in the way” of local traditionalist initiatives. In the New York area, for example, it was only a few parishes that immediately and fully “implemented” Summorum Pontificum (“SP”). In most cases episcopal monitoring and authorization continued. As one wag put it, under SP the hierarchy finally discovered the Indult. So Charles Chaput, the newly installed archbishop of Philadelphia, made a parish available to traditionalists – while describing SP in exactly the language of the Indult.

Yet even this minimum was of course a dramatic transformation. The traditional mass now reappeared all over the Catholic landscape, resurfacing in locations previously unimaginable: Jesuit universities, any number of cathedrals, campus chapels, churches of religious orders and even in the parishes of the well-to-do. The mainstream Catholic press now actually began to report traditionalist liturgies and events now and did so in a neutral, even respectful tone. Even the institutions of “conservative Catholicism” which only yesterday had been conducting a war of words with traditionalists now opened their doors – at least partially – to the old mass: e.g., Thomas Aquinas College, Ave Maria university.

But it was the change in the quality of the liturgies that was even more significant than the growth in their number. The traditionalists of 2007 did not aim at recreating some past they had never known but wanted to restore the rites of the Catholic Church in all their splendor. The solemn high mass – prior to the Council a rarity and in the Indult era almost nonexistent – now was celebrated often – in a few places even every Sunday. Solemn pontifical masses became al least in the greater New York area almost an annual event. Vespers, which had disappeared from the American scene – at least on the parish level – even before the Council, here and there now sprang back to life. There was, in all these liturgical efforts, a new insistence on perfection and completeness of the ceremonial, the music, the vestments and the very furnishing and arrangeements of the churches.

There was a significant shift in leadership as well. Spearheading the era of SP was a generation of young priests – in contrast with the predominantly lay leadership of all previous phases of the American traditionalist movement and despite the emphasis of SP on the imitative of lay communities. These priests, born years after the Vatican Council, had no knowledge of pre-conciliar times. In many cases they lacked extensive experience of even the Indult era. They were joined by older priests “young at heart” – ordained well after the Council but unacquainted with anything prior to it. Together, it was a generation that had observed for itself what was going on (mostly wrongly) withe Church and had rediscovered tradition through the example of others, through reading or through – let us acknowledge it- the workings of Divine Providence. They now joyfully responded to Pope Benedict’s invitation. An ever-growing number of seminarians also became interested in the traditional mass. Finally, even the mainstream religious orders – a territory which, except for isolated individuals, had remained off limits to conservatism, let alone traditionalism – now participated at least to some extent in the traditionalist revival. Certain of these orders (like the Dominicans) had their own rites which were now celebrated for the first time in decades.

Not that the “traditionalist tradition” of lay leadership had entirely come to an end. On the contrary: SP saw a new generation of Catholic lay organizations arise. Moreover, the stability of these groupings was far greater than that of their “conservative Catholic” counterparts (and traditionalist predecessors) because of their devotion to the objective liturgical tradition of the Church and their strong links with the existing structures of the Church.

The result was a much greater integration of the traditionalist movement in to the day-to-day life of the “American Catholic church.” There was a new willingness to compromise and to work out a modus vivendi of the various liturgical directions within the church. More and more parishes became in effect “bi-ritual” without awakening the divisive ideological debates of the past. Despite much nonsense written at the beginning, it soon became clear that the old and new rites, the old and new calendars could very well coexist. Recourse to Ecclesia Dei was – in number of respects fortunately – not a constant feature of post-SP life in the United States.

The “fruits of Summorum Pontificum” were not long in coming. For example, Saint Mary’s parish in Norwalk, Connecticut offered both the ordinary and the extraordinary forms. But it was the traditional mass around which the life of the parish soon oriented. Terhe soon followed greater involvement of the laity in the life of the parish, its music, its devotions and its liturgies; more frequent reception of the sacrament of confession; and that ultimate criterion of Catholic success, increased amounts in the collection basket. Vocations of course also appeared. The traditional liturgy, far from being a source of division, became a source of unification of a parish otherwise divided into number of isolated communities: Hispanics, Indians, old-time Italian and Irish parishioners etc. A unique and moving measure of success with two recent deathbed testimonies in favor of the traditional liturgy – including the request for a requiem mass – by two prominent parishioners who had had no previous connection with traditionalism until the era of SP. But perhaps the greatest testimony to the success of St. Mary’s under SP is that of all those most directly involved with the work of the parish – the clergy, the ministers, the musicians, the lay volunteers. – only two or so had any experience with the pre-conciliar Church or even any long – term experience of the Indult.

A further benefit of the new regime was the cooling off in the cold war waged by conservative Catholics against the traditionalist movement. Indeed, some prominent publicists of ”Conservative Catholicism” and “Reform of the Reform” increasingly became supporters of the new course. Others, who could not disguise their disagreement with SP, retreated into silence: in keeping with their principles how could they dispute any action taken by the pope?

It will be noted that the era of SP was once more primarily liturgical: the invitation of Pope Benedict to reflect upon the relationship the council to the whole course of Catholic Tradition was not immediately taken up in the United States. Since the fall of Triumph there was no publication or organization exercising intellectual leadership on these shores. The intellectual component of Traditionalism was still overwhelmingly provided by foreign sources – German, French, English and increasingly Italian. But one positive development in all this was the blossoming of the traditionalist Internet scene. Through sites and blogs traditionalists obtained unprecedented access to news of the Church and the intellectual developments abroad. Moreover, in the post SP “era of good feeling” certain key players of the “conservative catholic “ Internet now joined in publicizing traditionalist developments.

Yet all was not sweetness and light. There were disturbing shadows of the past, and, in hindsight, somber forebodings of the future. The implementation of SP was very uneven – the attitude towards the traditional liturgy in many dioceses remained resolutely hostile. Seminarians and members of religious orders regularly faced sanctions for participating in traditional liturgies. It still remained common for such clerics and aspiring clerics to request anonymity if they showed up in the sanctuary. In 2010, a magnificent pontifical liturgy was scheduled at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. The Archbishop of Washington prevented the participation by the scheduled celebrant, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. The next year, Archbishop Wuerl forced the cancellation of the scheduled Pontifical liturgy altogether at the last minute. It has not reappeared since. Moreover, towards the end of this period, ti seems that underground the forces opposed to SP were regrouping. For example, the current worldwide crisis in the Franciscan Friars of the immaculate was launched with the key participation of certain US members with the encouragement of certain “conservative Catholic” elements.

That there were also issues with the traditionalist movement itself cannot be denied. A certain lassitude seems to have overtaken many of the traditionalists. Instead of redoubling their efforts and eagerly seizing the incredible opportunities now made available to them to both celebrate the Traditional liturgy and evangelize others, many sat back and let the clergy take over the running of the traditionalist show. This spread of this passive, inwardly focused attitude so typical of mainstream American Catholicism, could only be disastrous for a still marginalized movement like traditionalism. For as subsequent events would show official favor can be a very fleeting thing. It is a sad fact that many promising traditionalist liturgical initiatives had to be abandoned because of lack of participation.

Do we also need to mention that some of the negative organizational features of the Indult era continued? That no publication of a high level existed that would serve to focus traditional Catholics and inform them of developments? That traditionalists continued to be divided into many different groupings under dominating leaders – either lay or clerical? That it was nearly impossible to get these groups to even inform each other of what they’re doing, let alone collaborate and cooperate? These long-standing difficulties remained – yet it was reasonable to hope that they would be worked out in the course of time.

In summary, Traditionalists had indeed accomplished something tremendous. A cause that had been written off as dead and been subjected to the almost universal opposition of the church establishment had been resurrected. And, most importantly, 50 years after the close of the Vatican Council, the traditionalist movement had been handed over to a new generation – one untainted by the complexes and compromises of the past.