Jesse Russell at Catholic World Report has provided a review of Yves Chiron’s Between Rome and Rebellion: A History of Catholic Traditionalism with Special Attention to France ( Angelico Press, Brooklyn, 2024 (John Pepino, translator)):
Russell, Jesse, “French historian delves into the tumultuous history of traditionalism,” Catholic World Report ( 8/20/2025)
Now in reviewing a book it is always a great temptation to substitute the reviewer’s ideas for those of the book being reviewed. But rarely have I seen such an example so extreme as Russell’s review. I think it’s fair to say a reader of his review would hardly have any idea of the tone and contents of Chiron’s book. Indeed, in most respects it is the exact opposite of Russell’s description. 1)
Let’s start with this review’s title: a “tumultuous history” – compared to what? Has Russell considered, for example, the vicissitudes of the career of Fr. Fessio, the founder of the organization that publishes Catholic World Report? And the issues within traditionalism pale in comparison with the conflicts that have bedeviled the establishment Church since 1962. This, however, was an issue I also had with Chiron’s history, in that it dealt with traditionalism in isolation. The reader would have little idea of the chaos afflicting the “institutional church” through most of the period covered by Chiron’s history. Events in traditionalism were often a reaction to developments in the broader Church.
Next, Russell adds significant new material of his own. Notably, there is an account of the history of “conservatives” and “traditionalists” in the United States which is entirely absent from Chiron’s book which deals with America only tangentially. And what Russell does say about this history is debatable – to put it mildly. First, he describes the Catholic Church in the United States in 1993 as caught between two pillars or forces. First, was the Catholic laity who “pursued the faith of their immigrant ancestors, attending mass, joining the Knights of Columbus, wearing Saint Anthony medals and sending their kids to parochial schools.” Is this an accurate depiction of the life of the Catholic laity in 1993? I don’t think anyone with memories of that period would agree. Please also note the thinly disguised contempt for the laity that one so often encounters in Catholic establishment (or would-be establishment) publications.
The second major force in the American Catholicism of that era Russell calls “old liberal” Catholicism. Russell seems to be only mildly critical of the so-called old liberals. Nowhere does he indicate that there’s a fundamental institutional and sociological difference between them and the first mentioned group. The “old liberals” were dominant in the institutional church, the Catholic media, the schools, the religious orders etc. of the Church. So, it was not at all a contest between equal forces.
Russell then describes the conservative Catholics and their institutions with some accuracy and correctly notes that as of 1993 they were still a minority. According to Russell, John Paul II’s visit to the United States in 1993 propelled the conservative Catholics to a dominant position within American Catholicism. That is exceedingly dubious, because between 1993 and the death of John Paul II conservative Catholics suffered travails and major reversals. They still remained on the fringes of the Church establishment, even though some of their works, like those of George Weigel, were starting to receive favorable commentary in Rome. Their liturgical ideas (like reform of the reform) had been summarily rejected in the United States( e.g., the controversy over the proper posture for receiving communion). John Paul II was in no way following a consistent policy of appointing “Wojtylian” bishops to consolidate conservative positions. Ominously, the ever-increasing pressure of sexual abuse scandals during this entire period was undermining the conservatives’ defense of the hierarchy and the Vatican. And contrary to what Russell writes, by the 1990’s the traditionalist movement, if still small and facing its own difficulties, was no longer so “marginal.” It had become a real competitor for the conservatives – a thing they had believed to be impossible. The conservatives’ anxieties at that time prompted increased polemics against traditionalists – hardly a symptom of a triumphant movement.
Remarkably, Russell does concede that the alleged dominance of conservative Catholicism has now ended. He admits that today traditionalism is the greater force in the American Catholic Church. How did this come about? Russell attributes the current situation primarily to the development of an “internet conspiracy culture.” Really? Wasn’t there a papal document called Summorum Pontificum in the meantime ? Weren’t the Ecclesia Dei communities expanding their presence? And then if we turn our attention to the Church as a whole, wasn’t there the pontificate of Pope Francis? That pope specifically rejected the liturgical, political and economic positions of the conservative Catholics and unleashed a tidal wave of abuse – in all senses of the term – which motivated more and more Catholics to turn to traditionalism instead of conservative Catholicism. I should add that some of the earliest and most prominent internet personalities were not traditionalist at all but conservative Catholic: Mark Shea, Amy Welborn …
To the extent Russell deals with Chiron’s book it is only to take isolated passages out of context to support the positions Russell himself is advocating. His review is a long diatribe against traditionalists, who are painted in the darkest of colors. Russell concedes repeatedly that Chiron’s book is sympathetic to traditionalism. However, he then claims it debunks “myths” of the traditionalists and contains “shocking” revelations about them and their leaders. They subsist on conspiracy theories and exhibit “pathological” behavior. Russell seeks to fit Chiron into a conservative Catholic framework of analysis, in which obedience to a presumably impeccable authority is the supreme, even exclusive virtue. Those who do not obey have only themseves to blame for whatever actions Church authorities take against them. Chiron does seem to favor irenic policies and recoils from the hard decisions men like Archbishop Lefebvre felt they had to take. But in no way does he advocate blind obedience to authority and throughout the book criticizes the actions of Church authorities in France and elsewhere.
To cite one example of his method, Russell singles out a supposed vision of Archbishop Lefebvre regarding founding a seminary, subsequently confirmed in a visit to French visionary Marthe Robin, as demonstrating the alleged reliance of traditionalists on private revelations disfavored by the Church. This topic is only the matter of a few sentences on one page in Chiron’s book, but Russell develops it into a major indictment. But does he know who Marthe Robin was? She’s much more strongly associated with the French clerical establishment and especially various officially recognized charismatic groups rather than with traditionalism. In recent years many of these groups have been rocked by major scandals. Of course, Russell insinuates that sexual abuse scandals are significant within traditionalism. There have indeed been such scandals, that is clear, but they are as nothing compared to the (ongoing) situation in the “establishment” Catholic Church.
Russell seems to end his review of Chiron’s book by discussing events in the mid 1970s. I wonder if he stopped reading at that point. I would have expected, for example, that someone with his biases would have something to say about the concluding chapter of Chiron’s book dealing with Pope Francis.
Russell’s review of Chiron’s history says very little about that book but much about one subset of conservative Catholic culture in the United States. Conservative Catholicism is a movement currently lacking a head (at least until we find out more about the positions of Pope Leo). Once again, their liturgical ideas have been directly attacked – this time by the bishops of Detroit and Charlotte, both acolytes of the late Pope Francis. And they seem to be up in the air regarding their attitude to Trump. It is a major dilemma for a movement posing as an omniscient “party of the establishment.”
As we have chronicled it in the past, the response to this situation by many conservative Catholics has either been to fall silent entirely or to resume advocating their favorite issues but avoid commenting on the role of the papacy. But for a minority, the reaction to this period of uncertainty has been to renew savage attacks on traditionalists. 2) And these conservative Catholics, such as Russell, show a remarkably understanding attitude to the progressives. That’s very strange, because, after all, it was the conflict with the Catholic progressive “forces” (Russell’s word) which gave birth to conservative Catholicism in the first place. Is this all just a tactical move to curry favor with the hierarchy? Perhaps – although in the light of the experience of recent decades it is a fond hope. And I doubt the rediscovered belligerent demeanor towards traditionalists will stir up support for the conservative Catholic cause among the steadily diminishing ranks of the laity. For it doesn’t suffice to repeat, as Jesse Russell does, conservative Catholic and establisment Catholic platitudes like:
(Catholics should) seek to be, first and foremost, simply Catholic and a follower of Jesus Christ.
For the point is that there is no longer a “simply Catholic” position but antagonistic theological and political forces which exist within the Church. This struggle involves not theoretical debates at some remote level but fundamental issues which confront the life of the believer: the basics of the faith, the nature of the liturgy, divorce, marriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia. It is becuse of these issues that the traditionalist movement exists – and why it will not go away.
- In 2022, I wrote a review – favorable but not uncritical – of the French original, which has the less grandiose but more accurate title Histoire des Traditionalistes: Chessman, Stuart, “Histoire des Traditionalistes,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny ( 5/27/2022). I believe John Pepino did not translate one significant section of this book.
- See Chessman, Stuart, “Apologetics Director,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny (8/18/2025)
Related Articles
No user responded in this post