American Catholic Traditionalism in 2021 – Part 4

A Movement Advancing out of the Coronavirus Crisis

By early summer of 2021,  Catholic Traditionalists had emerged from the grip of the coronavirus panic. They had survived in better shape than anyone perhaps expected.  Throughout the crisis,  Traditionalist priests on the whole had maintained a more generous schedule of Masses and had interpreted the restrictions much more liberally than elsewhere in the Church.  This was not just because of conservative political suspicion of the whole affair. Rather, it reflected the foundational Traditionalist principle that preserving the Mass and the whole of Catholic tradition for the Christian people overrides “following the rules” – both ecclesiastical and secular – otherwise the governing axiom of the Catholic Church. 

We continue to witness the beneficial consequences of SP. The lists of masses reported on this site – and their photographic record  – speaks for itself. Just in one corner of my own diocese some 5 Traditionalist priests are now active where none were found 5 years ago. Remarkable,  above all, is the outward, evangelical focus of Traditionalism today. Young priests, both secular and religious, celebrate the Traditional Mass without regard to the consequences to their own careers. The laity – as always, the dominant supporter of the celebration of the Old Mass – publicizes masses, processions and devotions by word and image. Now, in some corners,  the old fears of publicity and of confrontation with clerical authority remain – I am thinking especially of the Ecclesia Dei communities. But this is now a receding aspect of Traditionalist life!  

American Traditionalism retains its spontaneous, voluntary, even undisciplined character. I certainly admire the ties that exist in France between Catholic Traditionalism and patriotic, monarchist and even Maurrassian currents. This is not a defect, but a strength – no wonder Traditionalism first coalesced as a major movement in France! In the United States, however, virtually no “infrastructure” of this kind exists; no favorable social or cultural milieu supports preserving the Old Mass. And Traditionalism offers no economic or career benefits. As noted above, there is a perception that a cleric or seminarian who espouses Traditionalism has thereby given up any hopes of ecclesiastical preferment. In the United States, people commit to the Traditional Mass because they want to – regardless of the consequences. And, as ever, Traditionalism wins its new adherents only one by one – by offering to  individuals the opportunity of experiencing the Traditional liturgy. Traditionalism continues on its chosen path regardless of whether millions or a handful join its ranks.

I would further note the increasing resilience Traditionalists display today. Inevitably, their rise generates conflicts with the clerical establishment(more on that later!). And even where no “ideological” confrontation exists, just the embedding, in accordance with the principles of  SP,  of Traditionalist communities within the established Church exposes them to all the ills of 21^st century Catholicism. I am familiar, for example, with a parish described some fifteen years ago as a “Molokai”  for clerical “troublemakers” – originally none of them Traditionalists!  This church gradually adopted the celebration of the Traditional mass as its guiding – not exclusive – liturgical feature. That attracted new parishioners, families and apostolates (musical, liturgical, artistic and educational – even an elaborate coffee hour!). What had been an elderly church teetering on the brink of collapse had become a center of Catholic life – dare I even use that Catholic cliché,“vibrant.”?  Within the last few years and for a variety of reasons, however, the original leadership was scattered – two priests now reside outside the diocese, one is deceased, one has been retired and one has assigned the duties of chaplain to a nursing home.  Yet the celebration of the Traditional mass at this parish continues  – after the coronavirus, once more with exemplary music and ceremony. Moreover,  former parishioners of that parish  – also scattered – have helped to found or expand some half dozen Traditional mass communities. The same observation can be made of the young priests who are often reassigned to the fringes of their dioceses –  they then use the opportunity to build up the Traditionalist ministry there.  Traditionalists cannot escape the problems of the Church – yet every reverse they suffer seems to yield an even greater harvest!

An Attack against Traditionalism is being Prepared

Of course, I could not foresee when I started this series of posts just a month ago that a long-feared Vatican move against Traditionalists would begin to take concrete form and indeed may be imminent. As always, I would recommend waiting to see what – if anything  – emerges. People forget, for example,  that in 2011, according to well-founded rumors,  a move was underfoot in the Vatican to undercut SP by issuing restrictive regulations on its implementation. When the actual guidelines emerged, however,  SP had only been reconfirmed. So let us see what actually is published. Moreover, some of the rumored restrictions (such as requiring diocesan priests to obtain permission from their bishop to celebrate the Traditional mass) resemble how SP is in fact administered today in most places  – as a variant of the Ecclesia Dei indult. 

The key consequence, however, will be a change in the political atmosphere.  Any such document issued by the pope, whatever its operative provisions, will confirm once more the status of Traditionalists as an alien enemy within of the Catholic Church.  It will send a clear message to bishops and religious orders that they now can take any restrictive actions against Traditionalists they deem appropriate without fearing any correction from Rome. Every clerical careerist will understand that protecting Traditionalists will be detrimental to his further rise in the organization. 

Already we see evidence of such effects – what the Germans call “preemptive obedience.”  In France,  a long-established FSSP apostolate in Dijon was summarily terminated without explanation or discussion with any of the affected parties. Here in Connecticut a Traditional mass in the local Cathedral has been terminated without any reason being given. I would expect such examples to multiply.

The Ideological Basis of a Crisis 

Traditionalists should not be surprised. For at the root of it all is a profoundly ideological disagreement  with the “Second Vatican Council” – by which I mean the totality of changes introduced between 1962 and 1970. I would best summarize these developments as a process of conformity to the world of modernity. The leadership of the Catholic Church expected thereby to bridge over the gulf that existed between the modern world and the Church, to dissolve an alleged Catholic ghetto. 

From its very inception, Vatican II failed in its mission of securing a safe home for Catholicism in modernity. On basic issues touching in one way or another every human family – divorce, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia – modernity continually offered new developments ever more irreconcilable with the principles of Christianity  – and even those of rationality itself.  In turn, the Catholic Church came to resemble more and more one of the many monotonous bureaucracies of secular modernity: a business corporation, a government ministry or an educational institution. Given the institutional Church’s growing resemblance in style and substance to the secular establishment, certainly in the developed world,  laity, clergy and religious saw no further need to remain in it.  The result of Vatican II was an institutionalized, unresolvable crisis for the Church: declining Catholic resources coupled with unremitting pressure from the secular world, exercised in a hundred ways,  for further conformity to its agenda. 

Traditionalists are those who acknowledge no obligation  to conform to modernity, who dispute the modern world’s claim to embody a final revelation. They emphatically deny to the modern age any semi-divine nature – indeed, for them “the world”  has negative associations. Following the words of their Founder, Catholic Traditionalists understand conflict with this world to be a normal aspect of life for the Church – not a regrettable tragedy.  The concrete  expression of these principles is the celebration of the Traditional Mass – a form of worship that arose entirely outside of the culture, politics and ideology of modernity. 

Accordingly, regardless of what they might be saying about these broad spiritual topics, just by celebrating of the old Mass, Traditionalists constitute a reproach to the ideology of the establishment in a way, let us say, that pro-abortion Catholics do not. The indictment is all the stronger in that the Traditionalists are growing, not declining. Their flourishing holds up an unflattering mirror to the failure of the grand dreams of the Council. From the beginning hostility was inevitable, since the institutional Church, like its secular equivalents,  is incapable of self-reflection or of reexamining its principles.  No “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” could resolve this “clash of cultures.”

Actions such as those Pope Francis is contemplating are proof of the establishment’s weakness, not its strength. The need to stoop to strongarm tactics only demonstrates how little authority Vatican II actually has. We might say the same about Bishop Barron’s claim that the documents of the Council need to be better explained. But hasn’t the Church been doing that for 60 years? Are we not admitting that the verbose documents of the Council are themselves the greatest barrier to understanding?

Nor do I think the political context is right for this kind of thing. Any measures taken against Traditionalists will be juxtaposed with the ongoing synodal path in Germany – which Francis himself is fostering. Nor will comparisons be lacking with Francis’s efforts to derail consideration of the abortion issue in the US Church.  Potential restrictive measures against Traditionalists of course constitute a clear change of course from SP,  issued just 14 years ago – a sense of bad faith on the part of the hierarchy is all too perceptible.  Observers will also be struck by the contrast between the Pope’s treatment of a more youthful, growing segment of  the Church compared to the favor shown to groups in decline:  the mainstream religious orders, much of the educational system, the European episcopates etc. The consequence of these reflections will be a further massive loss of credibility for the Catholic Church. 

Do I need to add that these rumored actions are an incredible insult to the author of SP, Pope Benedict, who, after all, is still alive? That they are further evidence of how correct was the course of the FSSPX  in rejecting various offers of reconciliation by the Vatican  – the last such formal occasion being in 2012?

“Stay the Course!”

Given the above facts,  I would advise calm. Traditionalism is strong. Traditionalists should continue as before and let their opponents make the first moves.  Certainly our Society of St Hugh of Cluny is developing several major projects for the second half of this year – and we are assuming that they will be realized.  Sharing of information among Traditionalists will be, however, critical.  Over the years, we have often remarked on the lamentable communications gaps that exist right here in the New York area, let alone nationwide. Fortunately,  attempts to address this deficiency are already underway. 

What if significant restrictions are imposed? Could the experience of adversity even be beneficial to American traditionalism? The French website Paix Liturgique, in an important essay, reviewed the French experience leading up to the indults and SP. It highlighted an important  fact – often overlooked by American Traditionalists – that the gradual recovery of the right to the Traditional Mass was not a disinterested gift of the Vatican, of Popes John Paul II and Benedict. Rather it was also a right fought for and won by the efforts of many among the clergy and laity  – principally, of course, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. Starting as early as the 1960’s, their activity created public pressure that eventually induced the Vatican to progressively lift restrictions on the Traditional Mass.

The American experience was different.  Here, prior to the indults,  the work of the FSSPX and of the independent priests was more marginal. The permission for the Traditional Mass in the 1980’s was, in the American perspective,  a gratefully received gift from above. Will Americans fight to defend these rights, apparently so easily obtained? 

I am confident the answer to that question is yes.  For since the 1980’s Traditionalists here have had more experience of working together.  Moreover, they have on occasion stood their ground against authority when challenged. For example, when in 2014 the New York Archdiocese proposed closing Holy Innocents church – one of three Manhattan parishes that regularly celebrated the Traditional Mass –  parishioners organized a massive action involving extensive publicity in secular media. And the key argument of the defense was preserving the Traditional Mass in New York – its celebration at Holy Innocents was illustrated by a beautiful video. Ultimately the archdiocese backed down and to the present day Holy Innocents remains an active parish with an ever-growing congregation.  Not all actions challenging the targeted closing of Traditionalist parishes have been as successful. But Traditionalists can learn from these campaigns – if the need presents itself. 

The only real danger I see is that Traditionalists would succumb to the temptation to conform to the establishment,  to water down the message of Traditionalism in order to reach an accommodation with the ruling ecclesiastical powers. We have experienced in the not-too-distant past Traditionalists engaging in self-censorship in an attempt to win the favor of the clerical masters of this or that parish, diocese or order.  And at the present moment, we see the related phenomenon on the internet of alleged Traditionalists such as Steve Skojec and Michael Warren Davis launching attacks against Traditionalists – employing  rhetoric similar to that employed by Pope Francis, Bishop Barron, the French episcopate, etc.

Such tactics, assuming they are meant honestly in the first place, are extremely short-sighted. Do these people imagine that the “powers that be” of the Church will for one moment agree to any kind of durable compromise on such matters?  Their actions and statements are only welcome to them as a tool for discrediting Traditionalists. 

For the strength of Traditionalism is its nature as a spiritual and religious movement  – in contrast to the ideology of today’s Catholic establishment. Beyond all discussions of tactics, Traditionalism’s aim always remains the greater glory of God, not arranging an accommodation with worldly powers or achieving secular economic or social goals.  Catholic Traditionalism will remain vital as long as it adheres to these principles, however “rigid” and “unyielding” they may be. 

To the present-day Traditionalists have kept this faith. And some sixty years of experience have shown that people will continue to respond to this message.

 “Never ask if meaning it, wanting it, warned of it – men go.” (Gerard Manly Hopkins) 

The saga of American Catholic Traditionalism will undoubtedly offer many more surprising and glorious chapters!