Graham, Ruth, What Will the New Pope Do About the Latin Mass? The New York Times (May 5,2025)

Today we find a new article on both the Traditional Mass and one of the most egregious recent examples of the abuse of power by the Roman Catholic Church: the upcoming summary termination of the TLM at 27 ( ? – the article does not make clear the exact number) locations in the Archdiocese of Detroit. The article also discusses how these plans of the new archbishop may be upended by the results of the conclave which will begin shortly. A new pope is likely to be selected before the effective date of the new anti-TLM measures in July. The reporter states that she has spent eight hours in Traditional Masses in preparing for this story. Is this article related to others which, I have heard,  have appeared just in the last day or so in the mainstream English, Italian and French press? For some reason, these media are (finally) criticizing aspects of the rule of Francis and certain of his acolytes – notably, Cardinal Parolin. For the most remarkable thing about Graham’s article is that it appears in The New York Times at all.

Overall, the article is fair. The reporter has spoken directly to the traditionalists – not just academics and administrators of the Catholic establishment. Although despite the eight hours of masses she says she attended, the descriptions of the TLM and the reasons people attend it remain incomplete – but they aren’t a gross caricature either. She lets the reader draw his own conclusions. On the one hand, the stories of the faithful regarding their devotion to the Mass and their parishes. On the other hand, the Archdiocesan spokeswoman presents the whole affair as a bureaucratic exercise, over which no one should get excited. And Archbishop Weisenburger adds more menacing talk: the TLM might have become an issue because of the ”character of the priests who celebrate it.” Obviously,  the reporter doesn’t need to point out that the large scale of the TLM activity in Detroit, the close connection with the policies of Pope Francis and the announcement of the drastic restrictions so early in Weisenburger’s tenure render preposterous a merely “bureaucratic” explanation. 

Graham mentions that several priests who celebrate the TLM have refused to be interviewed for this article (she doesn’t mention if she also presented the same request to Archbishop Weisenberger). Indeed, Graham’s article is especially good at conveying the regime of fear that now prevails in the Detroit archdiocese under “shepherds” like the late Pope Francis or Archbishop Weisenburger. The Catholic Church’s culture of intimidation requires resort to political subtlety,  and often even subterfuge,  to practice the faith. I cannot say this is a good advertisement for the Catholic Church.

Graham’s article is not perfect. At times she falls back on then platitudes one would expect from the NYT, like this internally contradictory passage:

More recently, the traditional Mass has become an unlikely lightning rod for broader theological and ideological disputes, especially in the American church, with its strong strain of theological and liturgical conservatism. Its adherents tend to attend Mass more often and have a vision for the church focused on theological orthodoxy over the openness and modernity of the Francis era.

I would say the TLM, as Graham herself illustrates in this article,  is highly likely to be a lightning rod for broader theological and “ideological” disputes. (“Ideological” is a pejorative term with which theological and political progressives designate their opponents’ views.) The traditionalists may have been encouraged in their views by the conflict, as Graham perceives it, between “theological orthodoxy” and the “openness and modernity of the Francis era.” The Catholic establishment nowadays often prefers to understand Catholic traditionalism as a uniquely American phenomenon attributable to America’s native conservatism.  Historically that is absurd. As for the present, if Ruth Graham operates out of the New York City area, I would refer her for further research to the Manhattan parishes of St. Francis Xavier or St. Paul the Apostle and such universities as Fordham, Sacred Heart and Fairfield.  But let’s not get mired in such arguments – Ruth Graham’s article is a welcome addition to the literature on American Catholic traditionalism. 

On Sunday, January 14, I attended what may well be the last traditional mass of the Saint Gregory Society in New Haven. A large congregation was present in the beautiful Saint Stanislaus church. I saw old timers active in traditionalism or music from all over the state and people I had not seen for many years. But I also noticed newcomers, many families with small children and students(presumably from Yale?). The mood, despite the festive liturgy, was of course somber. But the Society said farewell to the city literally on a high note: the music and the ceremony of this mass could rarely be equaled elsewhere. 1)

We are fortunate to have the short history of the St. Gregory Society written by William Riccio, the inimitable master of ceremonies who has been associated with the Society from the beginning. I myself had regularly attended the masses of the Society up to about 1999.  I will not try to duplicate Bill Riccio’s work – but to supplement it with my own reminiscences and observations. 2)

Actually,  the administration of St. Stanislaus had first announced that January 14th would be the final Latin mass minutes before the Traditional Mass on Sunday, December 31, began. The leaders of the St. Gregory Society state they had no advance notice. 3)  Witnesses have reported that on that day there was talk of a “decree“ from the Archbishop Leonard Blair – later, the explanation was given that the “moderator” of the consolidated New Haven parish (“Blessed McGivney Parish”) and the priest in charge of St. Stanislaus had recommended the action themselves and the archbishop had only endorsed it.  As far as I can determine, no document has ever been issued nor any official mention even been made of this action (in, for example, the bulletin of the consolidated parish, the websites for Blessed McGivney parish that of “New Haven Catholic” etc.) It seems that, other than their mass disappearing from the schedule, traditionalists are not to be accorded even the courtesy or the dignity of a public statement, let alone a coherent explanation, of the actions taken against them. 

The recent history of the Hartford Archdiocese (which includes New Haven) is unfortunate. Since the 1950’s, the old manufacturing economy of the Connecticut mill towns has been in irreversible decline. Yet, on paper,  the number of Catholics has not diminished all that much –  from 766,000 in 1966 to 734,000 in 2021.  I doubt, however, whether even 20% of these nominal Catholics practice their faith. Archbishop John Francis Whealon (1968-1991), a darling of the progressives in his day, left the archdiocese wrecked from end to end. His three successors only succeeded in managing decline.  The fall in the number of priests, religious parishes and schools has been disastrous. 4) Vocations verge on the nonexistent: 2021:2; 2022: 0; 2023:2. 5) At no time has the Church analyzed whether the policies and culture established by the Archdiocese may have played a decisive role in these developments. On the contrary,  the incoming archbishop, Christopher Coyne,  has indicted the laity for the archdiocese’s problems and signaled more down-sizing as the appropriate response to a ( still largely unacknowledged) crisis. 

Blessed McGivney parish is the result of a consolidation, decreed in 2021, of the seven remaining parishes in New Haven ( in 1994 there were still 17!). 6) Added to the seven is the chaplaincy of Yale University which, having its own endowment,  cannot totally participate in the consolidation. However, the leader of the combined parish is the chaplain of Yale University. The chaplaincy’s website makes clear the ideological direction he (and the new combined parish)favors. 7)  There is no friendship for Catholic traditionalists in these quarters. 

Indeed, New Haven seems to be a test case of a “Franciscan” model of the Church: monolithic uniformity, bureaucratic leadership, top-down direction, openness to the theological left (America magazine has reported favorably on developments here),  and rapidly declining numbers of faithful. The parish reports that in 2022 the average Sunday attendance at all the New Haven Catholic churches was approximately 3100 people – down from 3800 in 2016! 8) The combined parish has been named “Blessed McGivney parish” although there is no devotion or cult of Blessed McGivney.  Needless to say, the transparency claimed for this operation has been lacking. The elaborate websites and a consolidated parish bulletin of 20-plus pages do not communicate anything of significance. 

The Society of St. Gregory was founded after the first indult in favor of the traditional Mass in 1984.  From the beginning it was led by laymen, specifically, musicians. Thus, its governance was unique. The Society was permitted to celebrate the traditional mass in the church of Sacred Heart, a moribund New Haven parish.  The time, 2 on Sunday afternoons, was intended to discourage attendance. But the St. Gregory Society was able to turn this disadvantage into a positive factor. The 2 PM mass time allowed many church musicians who had commitments in the morning to participate in the schola. 

For the St. Gregory Society from its inception pursued the union of the traditional mass, celebrated in as complete a form as resources permitted,  and the music which was created specifically for this mass. In other words, the spiritual and aesthetic forces were united. This contrasted starkly with the performance of polyphony as a  concert or as an incongruous insertion in a Novus Ordo liturgy. But it also diverged from the practice of most of the other traditional masses springing up in the  1980s:  low masses, sometimes accompanied by an attempted recreation of the dimly remembered musical performance style of 1962. Thus, the St. Gregory’s Society marked the departure of post 1980s traditionalism from pre-conciliar practices– a “return to the sources” of Catholic liturgy and music. The Society’s musical achievements were memorialized in a series of CDs that received critical acclaim. 

The Society had to deal with the limitations forced upon it. The mass was usually a missa cantata. It was a challenge to find priests willing to celebrate the traditional mass and to train them to do so. The dilapidated church left much to be desired. – for example,  during one mass I attended a stained-glass window collapsed and shattered. A volunteer guard had to be posted outside the church to  watch over the parked cars. 

Yet in spite of the disadvantageous time and place and the disdain of the official Church many people were willing to make the sacrifice to attend this mass. And the St. Gregory Society quickly attracted national attention. Bill Riccio has chronicled its “outreach” –  to use a formerly popular ecclesiastical buzzword  – to all kinds of other churches and  organizations. Over the years, many bishops participated in the Society’s Masses. The St. Gregory Society  became the new gold standard for the celebration of the traditional mass. Many of those involved in the traditional movement today, whether as celebrants, ministers, or musicians,  received their training or inspiration at masses of the St. Gregory Society. Such was the Society’s reputation, that, in 1998 when the first traditional mass in decades was celebrated at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York,  Michael Davies wrote approvingly of the musical contribution of the Society  – although I don’t believe they had much to do with that mass!

Then came the liberating effect of Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps the high point of the Society’s career was a Solemn High Mass celebrated in 2008 in the holy of holies of Catholic New Haven: the Dominican parish of St. Mary’s. 9) In the following year, after Sacred Heart parish was shut down, the  Society had the opportunity to move to a much grander and more richly decorated church,  the Polish Vincentian parish of Saint Stanislaus. The Society celebrated its new home with a splendid liturgy. 10) Both these festive masses were extremely well attended.

Yet as time went on a certain routine set in. In the wake of Summorum Pontificum other communities and other parishes sponsored liturgies that matched or even exceeded those of the Saint Gregory’s Society in the quality of music, the splendor of the vestments, the completeness of ritual and, above all, in the commitment to the fostering of a growing parish life. The 2 PM mass time had never been ideal for families. Indeed, at least in the now remote past, certain associates of the St. Gregory Society – not the leadership or the clergy! 11) – took a dim view of presence of children. That’s an attitude that contradicted the whole purpose of celebrating the Traditional mass in the first place.  I noted, however, at the final mass of January 14 numerous families with young children in attendance. 

Nor did the Society establish a firm bond with clerical institutions.  For whatever reason, the most obvious next step in the development of New Haven traditionalism, to move the Society’s mass to St. Mary’s at an earlier time, never materialized. Attempts over the years to develop a relationship with the FSSP or the ICRSS eventually went nowhere. Bill Riccio tells us that overtures to the leadership of St. Stanislaus parish were firmly rebuffed. Obviously, the events of this year demonstrate that there was no communication channel with the archdiocese or Blessed McGivney parish.

So, the St. Gregory Society continued on its established course.  I hear that the average Sunday attendance, although not insignificant,  may not have differed that much from that of the 1990s. In recent years it undoubtedly became even harder to find celebrants. 

The representative of the New Haven Catholic Church present on the day that the termination of the traditional mass was announced is reported to have attributed this determination to the difficulty of finding priests and the low attendance. But the same comments could have made in 1998! And, in all candor, would the result this year have been any different if the Society had been able to move their masses to, let’s say, 12 noon at Saint Mary’s and build a young and growing congregation?  Has not Cardinal  Gregory in Washington recently stated as the justification for terminating the celebration of the traditional mass the success and expansion it was enjoying in the Washington area? And would an association with one of the Ecclesia Dei communities have helped with an archdiocese comfortable with the departure from New Haven of the eminently establishment orders of the Vincentians and Preachers?

Will January 14, 2024, be the end of the traditional mass in New Haven and of the achievements of the St. Gregory Society in establishing an exemplary celebration of the traditional Latin mass and serving as a role model for so many others? The Society’s bulletin recommends writing letters to express dismay at the “withdrawal of this pastoral solicitude to those devoted to the age-old liturgy.” But hasn’t Pope Francis himself clearly indicated that he not does not care about the impact of his decisions on those he has determined to “leave by the wayside?”  I also hear that the spiritual leadership in Hartford and New Haven does not welcome dialogue on this subject. Aside from letter writing, an article from a shocked observer has appeared in the secular press and a timid demonstration was being organized. The turnout on January 14 demonstrates that a lay constituency in the Hartford archdiocese exists. I would hope that, after further reflection and with some imagination, more effective responses can be devised to continue a legacy of almost 40 years.

1. “The Last Traditional Mass at St. Stanislaus, New Haven” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny.
2. Riccio, William, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country”; The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny.
3. “Traditional Latin Mass in New Haven Canceled by Archdiocese at the Request of Local Pastor,” The St. Gregory Society, 1/5/2024.
4. For the above statistics and data see “Archdiocese of Hartford,” Catholic-hierarchy.org.
5. “Letter to the Faithful on Priestly Vocations,” Isidoreandmaria.org (11/19-20/2022;  see generally archdioceseofhartford.org.
6.  Duffy, Joseph W., Hartford’s Catholic Legacy: Parishes, at 273-307 (Archdiocese of Hartford, Hartford, 1994). The St. Gregory Society is conspicuously absent from the listed organizations at Sacred Heart parish –  in an official publication that was otherwise desperate to show any sign of activity in the New Haven parishes. Some 28 years later, traditionalists were officially invisible in the alleged “SWOT” process leading up to the  merger of the New Haven parishes formalized in 2023.
7.  See, e.g., STM: The Magazine of the Catholic Chapel at Yale University (Fall 2023); STM Spring 2024 Lecture Series, stm.yale.org
8. “New Haven Catholic Implementation Team Documentation-FAQs #10,” newhavencatholic.org.
9.  “Mass at St. Mary’s New Haven,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny (10/28/2008).
10. “The New Home of the St. Gregory Society: St. Stanislaus in New Haven,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny ( 9/13/2009)
11. I was present at a Mass at Sacred Heart when the late Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, speaking from the sanctuary, stopped a family (not mine!) leaving the church becuase of a noisy infant and invited them back!

A forceful article by Jim Zebora about the last Latin Mass in New Haven.

The news struck traditional Catholics in south central Connecticut like a dagger to the heart.

The Latin Mass said every Sunday, and many feast days and holidays, by the Saint Gregory Society of New Haven was being shut down. This Mass had been celebrated for 38 years, through the reigns of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, who had both encouraged its use where there were Catholics who wanted it as their form of Sunday worship.

I frequently attended this Mass when I lived in Meriden (about 20- 30 minutes driving – SC), seeking what I felt was a more reverent and prayerful observance than the new Mass. The Society’s Masses were indeed beautiful and purposeful, giving honor to God and engaging worshipers in the sacred and soul-comforting rituals that live on in the Traditional Latin Mass. These Masses touched me in a way that the new Mass did not, and I felt spiritually richer for attending and receiving Communion at them. I still attended Mass in the vernacular when that was the only thing available, but the sense of reverence was missing.

You would think a sacred Mass that draws devout worshippers would be encouraged by Catholic leaders, but it is instead being suppressed. The Society’s final approved TLM in New Haven was celebrated Jan. 14 after the priest administrator of St. Stanislaus Church and the pastor of the Blessed Michael McGivney mega-parish petitioned Hartford Archbishop Leonard P. Blair to let them shut it down. No matter how it was positioned as a bottom-up request, the forced cessation of the Latin Mass in New Haven was a direct result of the pope’s hostility.

The last celebration was a Solemn High Mass with three priests (actually two – SC), a full complement of altar servers, and the highly regarded Schola Cantorum offering Gregorian chants.

In 2021, when Pope Francis reversed Pope Benedict’s policy of allowing the Latin Mass whenever and wherever it was requested, eminent Catholic writer and apologist George Weigel called Francis out on marginalizing traditional Catholics and their preferred mode of worship.

Weigel said the pope’s decree suppressing the Latin Mass, ironically named Traditionis Custodes, meaning “guardians of tradition,” “was theologically incoherent, pastorally divisive, unnecessary, cruel.”

Today, the actions of the Archdiocese in suppressing the Latin Mass and Saint Gregory Society are indeed the same.  

Zebora, Jim, “End of the Latin Mass in New Haven a Direct Result of the Pope’s Hostility,” Greenwich Time, 1/25/2024

By William Riccio

“A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

Mark 6: 4-6

This quotation struck this writer immediately on December 31. On New Year’s Eve, just two minutes before Mass was to begin for the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas, the parish priest of St. Stanislaus Church, New Haven, CT, announced the Traditional Mass that had been celebrated since 1986, and weekly since 1990, was to be ended. The final date for celebrations was set for this weekend, January 14, 2024.

For 38 years, the St. Gregory Society of New Haven had sponsored the Masses, first at Sacred Heart Church, closed in 2009, and then at St. Stanislaus. The reason the above quotation struck me was the fact that while the work of the St. Gregory Society was known throughout the Northeastern United States, and, indeed, throughout the world through recordings and blog posts, the Archdiocese of Hartford forgot who we were, never acknowledged several attempts to invite its dignitaries to celebrations, and decided to consign our people to St. Patrick’s Church or some other place where the Traditional Mass was central.

While this writer might be seen as biased in his analysis, it is without a doubt a true statement that much of the growth of the Traditional Mass in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and elsewhere began with SGS.

Founded in 1984 by Nicholas Renouf and Britt Wheeler (both choir directors) to petition for the Mass under St. John Paul II’s indult, Quattuor Abhinc Annos, the St. Gregory Society had its first Mass at Sacred Heart Church in New Haven, a Missa Cantata for the Feast of the Holy Family. At that time, Archbishop John F. Whealon allowed three Masses in the archdiocese, one in Hartford’s Our Lady of Sorrows Church, then the LaSallette Mother Church (turned over to the archdiocese only three weeks ago), New Haven, and Waterbury, each on the first, second and third Sundays of the month.

Preparing for our Mass, which was the second to begin after Our Lady of Sorrows, servers were trained, a choir was assembled, using professional singers from the many churches in  New Haven. By the second anniversary, Auxiliary Bishop John Hackett presided at the Mass, and thanked the society for bringing back this rite of worship.

Two years later, Archbishop Whealon himself presided at a solemn Mass and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. This brought out more than 1000 people to Sacred Heart, and was a catalyst in the archbishop allowing weekly celebrations later that year.

Whealon became a friend of the Society, and gifted it his own Canon Pontificalis before he died. It has been used several times, all over the country.

That Mass was the springboard for many, who hoped to bring the Traditional Rite to their dioceses. Over the next two years the St. Gregory Society aided several groups asking for the Mass, including New York City and Boston, both of which had permission within a year.

The St. Gregory Society became known for its choir as the Schola Cantorum sang the major Renaissance masters, and its interpretation of chant was considered top notch. Over the next several years six CDs of various Masses were issued, and given critical acclaim in the secular press. 

Michael Davies, author and future head of Una Voce became a friend of the Society, andtraveled to New Haven three times to speak at its anniversary celebrations, and to encourage the faithful in the goodness of the work. He was instrumental in having the Society’s recording of the Missa O Magnum Mysterium by Palestrina used as the Christmas meditation music on BBC broadcasts.

The Society aided in the training of priests and servers in New York City and Boston and alumni of the schola were instrumental in getting choirs assembled there. This writer did an all-day tutorial for priests at St. Agnes, NYC, teaching the clergy the finer points of the liturgy.

On February 22, 1992, the Society aided the visit of Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler to St. Agnes in New York City for what was a watershed moment in the traditional movement. Cardinal Stickler celebrated the first pontifical Mass in New York since 1969.

That same year the schola and servers were asked to assist the inauguration of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s parish in St. Peter’s Cathedral, Scranton, Pennsylvania, in the presence of Bishop James Timlin.

This began a long relationship with the FSSP while it was headquartered in Scranton, with several FSSP clergy celebrating Mass in New Haven.

The schola was invited to Paterson, New Jersey to sing the Confirmation Mass of the FSSP parish there in the cathedral church, with Bishop Frank J. Rodimer celebrating.

Closer to home, priests of various dioceses, including Bridgeport, were trained by the Society and celebrated in New Haven. Twice, Auxiliary Bishop Peter Rosazza celebrated Mass at the Faldstool, bringing large crowds to Sacred Heart.

Alumni choristers were hired in various churches and brought there the music and style of the Society. 

The Society continued its aid of other locales, helping in Springfield, Massachusetts, when it began a weekly celebration.

Just prior to the publication of Summorum Pontificum, the Society aided a Mass in Holy Rosary Church, Portland, Oregon, with Auxiliary Bishop Kenneth Steiner celebrating.

With the publication of Summorum Pontificum, the society helped train servers at St. Mary’s, Norwalk, Connecticut, while an alumni chorister, David Hughes, was the choir director.

Over the next several years, the traditional rites spread, more and more priests were trained by society members, both in singing and the rites.

Sacred Heart parish was closed in 2009, and the Society was invited by the Vincentian Fathers of St. Stanislaus Church to headquarter there.

In 2011 the 25th anniversary of the first Mass, Bishop Timlin celebrated Pontifical Mass. It was the last time a prelate visited the Society. 

Attempts were made to have the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest come into New Haven, but the archdiocese rebuffed the attempt, only to do it years later in Waterbury.

With the change of archbishops, chancery personnel and time, the work of the Society was forgotten until Traditiones Custodes was promulgated. Then the paperwork that had to be done brought the forgotten group back into focus. Unaware of the group’s history, and at the request of the two pastors, the letter suppressing the Mass at St. Stanislaus came about.

What the future holds for the St. Gregory Society is unknown, but with Sunday’s Mass, a Votive of St. Gregory the Great, members alumni, and faithful aided by the work of the last 38 years will celebrate the contributions made to mainstream the Traditional Mass to the Universal Church. In that regard, the Society can consider itself a success.

We are reliably informed that two minutes before today’s Traditional Mass a decree of Archbishop Leonard Blair of Hartford was read suppressing the Latin Mass in New Haven as of January 14. There had been no previous communication with the congregation. They have been referred to St. Patrick’s, the church of the Institute of Christ the King, in Waterbury!

This is the tentative end of the apostolate of the St. Gregory Society which will mark its 37th anniversary soon. The St. Gregory Society has played a historic role in the rediscovery of the celebration of the Traditional Mass with complete music and ceremony. The Society’s influence has been felt all over the East Coast of the United States and beyond. You can find many references to their work over the years by searching this blog.

This action is entirely consistent with the pattern of contemptuous treatment of the faithful (and of priests) by Archbishop Blair displayed, for example, in his recent drastic restructuring of the Catholic parishes of New Haven. And the incoming coadjutor archbishop has been frank in his disdain for the laity. It is one facet of the tragic decline of an Archdiocese once so glorious.

George Weigel actually providing support for the Traditionalist consensus on Pope Francis.

Yet the present pontificate has diverged from the Council’s teaching in several ways.

The Vatican’s current China policy contradicts the Council’s teaching that no rights or privileges are to be given governments in the appointment of bishops—a teaching now legally embodied in Canon 337.5. The Holy See’s adherence to the 2019 Abu Dhabi Declaration and its claim that the plurality of religions is an expression of God’s will does not sit easily with the Council’s proclamation of Jesus Christ as the one, unique redeemer of humanity: the Lord who is the center of history and the cosmos. One of Vatican II’s signal accomplishments was its strong affirmation of the authority to govern conferred by sacramental ordination to the episcopate; recent reforms of the Roman Curia, the deposition of bishops without due process, and curial diktats about the proper celebration of Mass (and even the content of parish bulletins!) undercut that authority. And the pontificate’s exceptionally narrow interpretation of the Council’s teaching on the liturgy has made the implementation of Vatican II even more contentious.

Weigel, George, “Three Pontificates and Vatican II,” First Things, (11/9/2022)

The “three pontificates” are apparently those of John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (or John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis?). As in some of Weigel’s other recent writing (1), the pontificate of Paul VI disappears into the background – he is even claimed to have only begun to “authoritatively interpret” Vatican II in 1975!

In the 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (Announcing the Gospel), Pope Paul VI began the process of giving the Council-without-keys an authoritative interpretation.

1. Papal without a Pope

As the nature of the policies of Pope Francis became clear, American conservative Catholicism quickly found itself in a grave dilemma. No other tendency within the Church had placed so much weight on loyalty to the papacy as the ultimate criterion of Catholicity. Yet the new pope, while insisting on absolute loyalty to his person, systematically rejected or reduced to a nebulous ideal everything for which the conservatives had fought: ”life issues” (especially opposition to abortion), alliances with evangelical Christianity, their opposition to socialism, liturgical abuses, “LGBT” and the entire progressive Catholic agenda. The pope regularly coarsely denounces revered conservative champions. (EWTN, for example, is claimed to be “doing the work of the devil”). And in the greatest humiliation of all for the conservatives, a hail of disparaging remarks and insinuations continued to shower down from Francis’s entourage on the Catholic Church in America and on the United States in general. All this commenced, of course, years before Francis launched his war on traditionalist Catholics. But even amid this campaign, in word and deed, Francis and his sycophants continue to make clear that all adversaries of the Left are also their targets. 

The conservative movement has been searching for a response. To their credit, few were able to follow the example of clerical institutions like Opus Dei and celebrate the steps the pope is taking against them. Instead, some conservatives simply withdrew into silence. Others surreptitiously shifted into a quiet alignment with the positions of the traditionalists, their erstwhile adversaries. Still others denounced the ever-increasing number of outrages in the Church while avoiding mentioning the Pope’s role in them.  I myself considered that, in view of this, conservative Catholicism had reached the end of the road, that from now on the landscape of the Catholic right would be dominated by traditionalism.

Indeed, the drift to traditionalism – or at least the openness to traditionalist thought – among conservatives has continued to progress. But I was a bit hasty in my expectations regarding the demise of the entire movement. After more than nine years of the reign of Francis, conservative advocates have returned to the secular media – as conservatives, but without the pope. They champion conservative Catholic issues – sometimes now even including the right to attend the Traditional Mass. But they are forced to argue without the benefit of reliance on authority. Let us look at some of their recent products.

Michael Warren Davis speaks of “us trads.” 1) He writes of the beauty of the Latin Mass. But what is exactly his position?  Although Davis claims to be a “trad,” his positions resemble much more closely those of a Catholic conservative. According to Davis:

As many of you know, there is a powerful clique of Catholic bishops who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass. ….Last year, Pope Francis published his apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes. It gave those anti-TLM bishops the excuse they needed to beginshutting down their Latin Mass parishes in their dioceses. 

That is the last reference to Pope Francis in Davis’s article. I don’t think many people would characterize the relationship between Traditionis Custodes  and the subsequent actions of the bishops in this manner.  The bishops’ enforcement actions are clearly the intended result of Traditionis Custodes and indeed reflect some coordination with the Vatican.  Of course, Davis earlier had propagated the utterly erroneous notion that Pope Francis had once been indifferent or even favorable to the Traditional Mass.

Naturally, Davis thinks whatever is happening now is largely the fault of the traditionalists themselves:

No doubt they (the anti-Traditional Mass bishops – SC) would cite the army of bloggers, vloggers, and Twitter trolls who devote themselves to castigating the hierarchy. And it’s true: some of these traditionalists say things about the pope that would make Martin Luther blush. So, if your only exposure to traditionalist Catholics came via the internet, you might agree that TLM is a bad influence.

Look: I’m the first to admit that there are problems in the Latin Mass community… I’ve bent over backwards to give our bishops the benefit of the doubt. 

I even have a soft spot for Cardinal Gregory…I have to believe that he truly loves Jesus Christ and His holy Church.

Why does Davis “have to” believe that?  Is he Gregory’s confessor? As he has done in the past,  Davis is denouncing those he is claiming to defend – and whose rights have been violated – while “bending over backwards” to excuse the establishment. 

So why does Archbishop Gregory do what he does?

There’s only one answer that makes any sense. Cardinal Gregory doesn’t understand the desire for beauty in worship.

So, you see, Gregory is just aesthetically challenged. Davis has a profound misunderstanding of Catholicism if he thinks all these people who sacrifice so much to attend Traditional Masses do so primarily because of the aesthetic experience. 

George Weigel, the grand old man of Catholic conservatism, argues in The Wall Street Journal for the “necessary” Vatican Council 2) However, he also signals his dissent from the views of the circle of the bishop of Rome:

Contrary to the claims of those votaries of Pope Francis who claim the Council instituted a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s self-understanding, John XXIII did not convoke Vatican II to reinvent Catholicism.

Pope Francis’s views on the subject are not explored further in this article.  But Weigel devotes paragraph after paragraph to the claimed original vision of John XXIII.  But how then did the problems of today’s Church arise? Weigel does, after all, frankly acknowledge the current catastrophic situation. According to Weigel, this is the fault of those (unnamed) individuals who abandoned John XXIII’s original intent to embrace secular modernity uncritically. In fact, much of Weigel’s article is a covert critique of the interpretations and policies emanating from the Vatican today. In this regard, it’s remarkable that Weigel does not mention the name of Paul VI. 

The traditionalists are, nevertheless, still utterly mistaken:

The more radical Catholic Traditionalists of our day seem to imagine that the Catholic bastion of the mid-20^thcentury could have sustained itself indefinitely. Thoughtful assessments of Vatican II and its legacy must acknowledge that the pre-conciliar Catholic past was more brittle and frailer after two world wars . and more vulnerable to the cultural tsunami of the 1960’s than some nostalgic traditionalist imagine. 

Weigel’s “thoughtful assessment” is just the usual list of calumnies against “radical” and “nostalgic” traditionalists as well as gratuitous assertions about the past.  I don’t think anyone on the traditionalist side today imagines that the pre-Conciliar Church was perfect.  But to make the claim – as George Weigel does – that the problems after the Council are (at least in large part) attributable to the debility of an already feeble structure seems to contradict empirical studies (such as those of Guillaume Cuchet ) and, in the case of some of us, the evidence of our own eyes. George Weigel seeks to disassociate himself from the “votaries“ of Francis yet his rhetoric here is virtually indistinguishable from theirs.

But in Weigel’s view what are the points of light of post-conciliar Catholicism? Where has John XXIII’s vision been realized sufficiently to support Weigel’s claims that the Council has been, at least in some places, a success? Weigel cites the progress of the African Church. But Africanization and the growth of the Church on that continent had been underway well before the Council – didn’t a certain traditionalist Archbishop have a key role in that? And under Francis hasn’t the African Church been regularly portrayed as an “adversary” of the Conciliar establishment? Then, Weigel speaks of the movements within the Soviet bloc and the emergence of John Paul II in Poland as fruits of the Council and specifically, of  the Declaration on Human Freedom. But Poland under Cardinal Wyszynski was viewed in the Cold War years as one of the most retrograde Churches, not as an exemplar of implementation of the Council.  John Paul II was after all the product Poland’s conservative, nationalist, even clerical Catholic culture. And when Weigel writes of the “self-liberation” of the Eastern bloc from communism I think that is more than a little exaggerated. Overall, Weigel can only assemble a highly selective and factually questionable historical summary to back up his narrative. 

We have covered in an earlier post a third example of conservative journalism: the announcement of the new Institute of Human Ecology at Catholic University – also published in The Wall Street Journal. 3) The  author, Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, however, focusses not on conflicts within the Church but on the Church’s potential role on politics and the secular world ( a subcategory of Catholic conservative thought).  In this article, too, the current pontiff and the hierarchy (except for Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles) are noticeable by their absence. Apparently the “dazzling intellectual tradition of the Church,” supposedly offering so much potential benefit to our world, is not necessarily best represented by the Church’s current leadership. 

Finally, Ross Douthat has written the most interesting of the pieces we are considering – dealing with the anniversary of Vatican II. 4) Douthat expressly claims for himself the title of “conservative.” His contribution, however, compared to those of his peers shows the greatest understanding of reality and departs farthest from prior conservative orthodoxy. He freely concedes that the Council has been, on its own terms, a failure. He acknowledges the problematic nature of the reign of Francis. Indeed, the very existence of  Pope Francis illustrates the failure of the conservative Catholics’ attempts over the years to contain the Council to a restricted and fixed set of provisions. Yet, like Weigel,  he declares that  the Council was “necessary.” Furthermore, it is “ irreversible.” I believe, though, that Douthat has na understanding of that word very much more nuanced than the Vatican’s. (Historical events, of course, can never be “undone.”) Nevertheless, these two terms serve to remove the Council from all rational inquiry. It is transformed into a scientific fact or even an article of Faith – much like Pope Francis’s statement in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes that to doubt the Council is to doubt the Holy Spirit. Thus, whatever Douthat’s reservations about the current state of the Church and its leadership may be, at the end of the day he defers to the irrational authority of the Council – even in the face of its failure. There is no way out.

This brief review shows that conservative Catholicism lives on even if deprived of what once was its most essential feature: reverence for papal authority. These conservatives of today acknowledge, to a greater or lesser extent, the post-conciliar disasters and losses. They can regret the persecution of traditionalists. Whether openly or not, they diverge in many respects from the current party line of the Vatican and do not rely on (current) papal authority. And at least in the case of Ross Douthat, they can even admit the failure of the Council itself. Yet despite all these insights,  the Traditionalists remain adversaries for them. Instead of seeking further reconciliation with the defenders of Tradition, these conservative authors inevitably take refuge in dogmatic assumptions which allow a return to the principle of institutional authority, at least in some attenuated form: Davis’s bishops acting in good faith, Weigel’s necessary Council as defined in the era of Pope John XXIII; the “dazzling Catholic intellectual tradition” of Picciotti-Bayer; and finally, Douthat’s necessary and irreversible, even if failed, Council.  Regardless of the continuing rapprochement between the two parties under the relentless pressure of Pope Francis’s regime, the divergence between traditionalists and Catholic conservatives regrettably remains intact.

1. Davis, Michael Warren, “Politics of Reason and Beauty,” The American Conservative (Sept. 29. 2022)
2. Weigel, George, “What Vatican II Accomplished,”  The Wall Street Journal (Oct 1-2, 2022)
3.  Picciotti-Bayer, Andrea,  “Counterfeit Catholicism, Left and Right,” The Wall Street Journal, ( 9/23/2022). My review is at “The Dazzling Catholic Intellectual Tradition” – the Institute for Human Ecology at Catholic University.”
4. Douthat, Ross, “How Catholics became Prisoners of Vatican II,” The New York Times (October 12, 2022)

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer has just published a piece in the Wall Street Journal announcing the new Institute for Human Ecology (IHE) at Catholic University. She is a lawyer and the new institute’s director of strategy. The institute’s initial foray into major media was aggressive and confrontational: “Counterfeit Catholicism, Left and Right,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/23/2022.

Picciotti-Bayer adopts a pose beloved over the decades by the Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic administrative establishment and conservative Catholics in general: they declare themselves the golden mean between extremes of the left and right. On the one hand “prominent Catholic politicians” like Biden and Pelosi have “unequivocally abandoned the church is teaching on the dignity of human life.” On the right “a group of Catholic hardliners in the Academy and media have written off American institutions as hopelessly compromised.” She is referring to the integralists. According to Picciotti-Bayer, neither “offering” is distinctly Catholic. She asks: what are so-called “ordinary Catholics” to do? We need, she says, a framework for faith in public life that rejects both “secularism and sectarianism.” 

This all sounds like a revival the First Things/ National Review/ Richard Neuhaus school of conservative Catholicism going back to the 1970s. More specifically it is a subgenre of conservative Catholicism which proposes to “solve the problems” of the world in politics, economics and culture by utilizing Catholic principles. This brand of “apologetics,” of course, dates back to well before Vatican II – one thinks of distributism. Of interest is the IHE linking to a publication The Lamp which (at least initially) was also an advocate of a conservative, centrist Catholicism.

How can we even begin to respond to all this?  My basic observation is that Picciotti-Bayer’s enterprise is founded on ignoring reality. The two “extremes” within which the IHE seeks to locate itself are in no way equal. First, the adversaries on the left have controlling positions in government, the economy, the academy, the media and all other secular institutions in the United States. The enemy on the right is just a handful of intellectuals. Second, these same progressive tendencies also dominate the Catholic institutions. For have not Pope Francis and the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington gone out of their way to demonstrate their friendship with the aforementioned Pelosi and Biden?  The integralists enjoy no such positions of power in the Church. The author refers favorably to Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles, but hasn’t he been given – repeatedly – the cold shoulder by Pope Francis? Third, as a matter of principle I would not equate advocating or even imposing a regime of abortion – and all the other associated anti-Christian social policies of the West today – with the integralists’ visions of papal supremacy that exist only in some alternative universe.

There is talk in this article of “non-negotiable” positions. These seem to be not the Catholic faith as such, but the statements of Dignitatis Humanae on human freedom and various political objectives like strengthening the family. The author criticizes integralists for contending that contemporary American culture is actively corrosive to Catholic teaching, practice and virtue but is that not exactly what she herself says (quoting Archbishop Gomez) about “progressive ideologies” that are “profoundly atheistic”? And is not their (and her) assertion obviously correct? I have major differences of my own with the integralists’ proposed course of action, but not so much with their factual starting point. And I don’t think such issues of principle can be resolved by making dogmatic assertions about the values of American society. The adversarial relationship between Christianity and current American culture been not been eliminated by great victories within the existing system such the repeal of Roe v. Wade. I believe that event had a rather cool reception in the governing American establishment and in some quarters of the Church (such as the Vatican) as well.

The author writes that we must:

[R}efamiliarize ourselves with the works and voices that have helped form our nation. That includes such deep thinkers as Augustine and Aquinas. But it also includes profound Catholic witnesses who worked in healthcare…social services… and education...”

Now it is very helpful to be aware of such influences and contributions, but I think it would be a stretch to claim that the Catholic thinkers and “voices” the author lists “helped form our nation.” For in fact, for better or for worse, the United States was formed by other forces which although they may have had a remote Catholic ancestry, were, in the best case, merely indifferent to the Church. 

Continuing these reflections, we note that the author does not cite the current pronouncements and actions of the Church, except for Dignitatis Humanae and Archbishop Gomez. There is a good reason for that:  the actual practice of the Catholic Church in the last several decades has been an unending series of scandals, abuse of power, dishonesty, administrative incompetence, institutional decline and even outright criminality. All these ills have of course reached a high point under Pope Francis whose regime actively contradicts Picciotti-Bayer’s “non-negotiable” principles. The author, for example, mentions subsidiarity yet Francis has been the greatest violator of that principle. The author quotes approvingly “the Second Vatican Council’s mighty declaration on religious liberty,” that “man is obliged to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God.” Yet Pope Francis has launched a worldwide persecution of traditional Catholics (with very concrete consequences in the immediate vicinity of Catholic University). 

Thus, the current state of the “really existing’ (as they say in German) Catholic Church in no way is a “role model” for secular society.  Indeed, repeated interventions of the secular media and government (however corrupt they may be) have been necessary to straighten out the affairs of the Catholic Church – not the other way around.  Any project to educate Catholics in America about their role in public life must start from this reality and acknowledge that, in both theory and practice, the institutional Church – and the majority of the remaining Catholic faithful as well – do not agree with the IHE’s principles.

On a more profound level, I see the IHE sharing with both the integralists and the progressives – both so forecefully criticized by Picciotti-Bayer – the same fundamental defect. All are primarily advocating courses of political and legal action, seeking to arrange the affairs of the world in the manner that appears best to them.  But seems to me what the Catholic Church (and of the United States) needs is the rediscovery of the faith by the Catholic clergy and faithful. Once the faith is reborn, a political role and influence of the Church will naturally arise, because the Catholic faith is incarnational and social and necessarily has a political dimension.  That rebirth comes about not through political action, but through prayer, reawakened spirituality, and above all the liturgy. And the first steps of such a spiritual renewal must be the purification of the Church, not secular society. You cannot advocate Catholic social policy to the world if there is no Catholic faith.  Otherwise, I fear the IHE will become just one more establishment academic forum for conferences, colloquia and addresses, at peace with the World and the Church establishment but remote from the life of the faithful or of society.

On July 16 Pope Francis started a war.  Regardless of the specific provisions of his motu proprio, all Catholic Traditionalists, as such,  have been declared enemies of the Church. They are deprived of all liturgical rights and are to be segregated from the body of Catholics. The bishops of the Catholic Church are, in practice,  empowered to tolerate or absolutely prohibit the Traditional Mass  –  in their arbitrary discretion. The ultimate objective is the total disappearance of the Traditionalists. At the Vatican further measures accompanying Traditionis Custodes (“TC” – by this term I also include the Pope’s cover letter) are reported to be in the course of preparation: restrictions to be imposed on the Ecclesia Dei orders, and even more restrictive regulations implementing TC. 

It is a war not just against “groups” (the contemptuous terminology of TC) but families, young children, diocesan and religious priests, seminarians, established parishes and dedicated congregations. It is a struggle against a movement that is spread, to a greater or lesser extent,  over the entire world.  This conflict will also be played out in religious communities,  schools and even individual families. It will even spill over into the “conservative” Novus Ordo realm, given the close ties of every kind that exist between the adherents of that tendency in the Church and the Traditionalists.  

Everywhere there’s a sense that a boundary has been crossed, that the Church has moved into new and uncharted waters. War does have the advantage of clarifying issues and power relationships,  of advancing from mystification to reality. However,  the “fortunes of war” are inherently unpredictable. A nation, like France in 1870,  may enter into war, as its prime minister at that time,  Émile Ollivier, said, “with a light heart.” So did all Europe in 1914,  Germany in Russia in 1941, Japan at Pearl Harbor later that same year, and the United States subsequently in Vietnam, Iraq  and Afghanistan. In all these cases, the confrontation that emerged was unimaginably different from the assumptions governing at the beginning. The Roman Catholic Church will shortly be experiencing the same.  

Moreover, Pope Francis has declared his intent to conduct that most difficult of martial undertakings, an aggressive war of annihilation. As Martin van Creveld points out, such a war, by leaving the enemy only two outcomes: victory or extinction, dramatically solidifies his will to resist regardless of what his previous political or military weakness may have been.  In this respect, TC is the “Operation Barbarossa” of the Church. 

So far, the Traditionalists have stood fast. With a few exceptions, the laity have not yielded to anger, panic or despair. Nor have they surrendered to the establishment, even though confronted by a hostile papal will. Quite rightly, they have “stayed the course,” letting the hierarchy take the first steps. Public prayers and recitations of the rosary have multiplied. According to my observations  – as well as those of several other informed observers – attendance at local Traditional masses has actually increased. And this jump in attendance in the “off-season” of Summer is not just due to the revived piety of the Traditionalist communities! For one consequence of TC and the resulting uproar is that, among those Catholics who actually practice their faith,  many more people have now heard of “Traditionalism” and wish to experience what all the fuss is about. From what I know,  the clergy who celebrate the Old Mass  – in the New York area overwhelmingly diocesan priests – have also calmly, collectively and with dignity defended their adherence to Catholic Tradition. 

The hierarchy are the designated enforcers of TC. So far,  the bishops fall roughly into two camps. In those dioceses where there is a significant Traditionalist presence the policy so far generally has been to preserve the  status quo. Perhaps this is because such bishops have had the opportunity over the years of working with Traditionalists and thus cannot share the indictment set forth in TC. More cynically, these bishops realize that they would be the real point men of Pope Francis’ war and foresee the adverse  personnel, finance and media consequences that an all-out attack on a substantial Catholic community might entail.  For example, in one diocese in the New York area with which I am familiar more than 10% of the diocesan priests celebrate the Traditional Mass. if we counted only active priests that percentage would be greater.  I should add that in some prominent dioceses neither the bishop nor the Catholic media has made any mention of TC at all up till now – testimony to its explosive nature. However, it is also true that  major and minor incidents of harassment have occurred in certain of the “status quo“ dioceses – like the cancellation of a Pontifical Mass in Washington DC.

In the other camp are those dioceses where Traditionalist Catholics are few or where the bishop is more fanatically ideological.  Here drastic restrictions or even prohibitions on the Traditionalist Mass have been immediately and summarily  imposed. Fortunately for most Americans, such dioceses are more frequently found outside the United States and especially in the Latin world. Some of the harshest anti-Traditionalist measures,  moreover,  have been taken in regions, such as the Czech Republic or Central America, where the Catholic Faith is in complete collapse.  Is it not strange?  For a Catholic bishop to prohibit masses, expel religious orders, prevent pilgrimages and shut down parishes – as did the communists and anticlericals of yore – is now a badge of loyalty to the Pope!

I have been heartened by the amazing outpouring of commentary on TC – mostly sympathetic to Traditionalism and from a broad spectrum of Catholics (and non-Catholics).  It is hard to single out individual contributions in such a bountiful harvest. But are we really surprised that one of the earliest and at the same time most “theological” analyses came from the hand of Michel Onfray, a French atheist? If someone had told me in 2005 that the quintessential “conservatives” Amy Welborn and George Weigel one day would be writing in defense of Traditionalists I would have considered him mad – yet both now have given us perceptive contributions. In the context of their names I might also cite Rod Dreher (now Orthodox). The “traditional”  experienced advocates of the Old Rite or at least of Catholic Tradition have of course been outspoken. I might mention, among many others, Cardinals Burke, Zen and Sarah; Martin Mosebach; Fr. Hunwicke; Bishop Athanasius Schneider; and Peter Kwasniewski. Even certain major progressive Catholic media such as katholisch.de, the house organ of the ultraliberal German Catholic Church,  have been decidedly ambivalent on TC,  with articles criticizing the Motu Proprio appearing in these forums. Perhaps one reason for their reserve (and that of certain progressive clerics)  is that TC  took most of them completely by surprise too.  

The pro-Traditionalist reaction has not been confined to the Catholic media: articles defending Traditionalism have appeared on the pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times!  Cardinal Sarah’s powerful essay appeared in Le Figaro in France and Michel Onfray’s in Figaro.fr.  I look forward to a publication of an anthology of these contributions, each of which illuminates the issue from a different perspective and the whole representing a veritable encyclopedia of Traditionalist belief.  It will be an invaluable reference  for Catholic Traditionalists – or for the curious outsider who wants to discover what motivates these people.

We ask ourselves: what has prompted TC? I do not believe for a minute that it was occasioned by the Traditionalists’ “rejection” either of Vatican II or of the validity of the Novus Ordo.  In most Traditionalist communities and events I hear little or nothing on these subjects. Rather,  99.99% of the recent criticism of the Church has related not to Vatican II, but to the actions and initiatives of Pope Francis over the last eight years: his management of the Vatican with its unending series of scandals, Amoris Laetitia, his treatment of the Church in China, the “Amazonian” synod and Pachamama, the mishandling of the ongoing sexual abuse crisis, the pope’s ambiguous response to the Synodal Path in Germany, his intervention in the abortion debate in the United States – to list only some of the “highlights” of his papacy. The overall tendency can be summarized as a return to progressive radicalism in theology, morality and politics –  to an understanding of Vatican II and its liturgy as a clean break with the Church’s past. 

Opponents of all these developments soon made themselves heard. Traditionalists represented only a minority of these critics. But it is true that, consciously or not, those who object to one or all of these policies start to gravitate to the Traditionalist movement – even if they do not at first become committed Traditionalists. This is because Traditionalism represents not only liturgical, but also moral and theological continuity with the Church of all time.  As a result of these controversies, initiated by Pope Francis, Traditionalism paradoxically received a new impetus.  

But the expansion of Traditionalism is not just because of conflicts over fundamental issues at the highest level of the Church.  A  growing number of families found Traditionalism the best practical way to live the faith, to raise their children as Christians and to experience stability, beauty and community in the Church.  The same can be said of the growing number of young priests who celebrate the Old Mass for they have discovered in Catholic Tradition a fuller priestly life.  These younger clergy are found not only in the Ecclesia Dei orders and Traditionalist monasteries – which, at least in the United States, have to turn away aspiring seminarians for lack of space. They include graduates of the diocesan seminaries and members of the “establishment” religious orders, who have discovered Traditionalism  – often in the face of bitter hostility from their superiors and bishops. In most cases,  these priests have had no objections in principle in celebrating the Novus Ordo when that is appropriate.  In the case of this younger rising generation of priests and the laity, moreover, Catholic Traditionalism has not been a legacy from the past, but an entirely spontaneous and freely chosen expression of the Faith.

This vitality contrasts with the irreversible decline of the official Church and its institutions. Only 20-30% of Catholics regularly practice the faith in the United States  – and these statistics are excellent compared to Germany or France. In more recent years  “non-practicing Catholics” turn more and more frequently into outright nonbelievers.  In addition,  in the United States, and to much greater extent in most of Latin America, there is steady hemorrhaging  to fundamentalist Protestantism. The establishment has discovered no answer to the crisis of vocations. Nor has it been able to put its finances on a sound footing or end the relentless pressure of lawyers and prosecutors on the sex abuse front. 

The contrast, at least in the developed world,  between the progress of the Traditionalist movement – despite its limited absolute numbers – and the ineffectiveness of the official Church  was growing ever greater. For just the very existence of the Traditionalists is eloquent commentary on the failures of the institutional Church. The youth and spontaneity of the Traditionalists contrasted more and more strongly with the centralization, bureaucracy and ever-growing average age of the clergy, religious and laity in most of the establishment Church. And the celebration of the Old Mass was spreading from the nations where it had been “traditionally” strong (like the United States) into new territory (like Italy).  Moreover, as we have seen, Traditionalism serves as a focus for those deeply disturbed by the dire non-liturgical problems in the Church. For all these reasons, the leadership of the Catholic Church, instead of addressing the causes of its underlying problems, has now launched a campaign with the ultimate aim of eliminating the Traditionalist movement entirely.

Now  the Church does not exist in a vacuum but always is situated in a concrete historical context. It is, after all, no coincidence that Vatican II took place in the same decade as did the student revolts (of 1968 in Europe, earlier in the United States)  and even the Chinese “Cultural Revolution.” These were all movements of massive change emanating not from the grassroots or the revolutionary masses but instigated and led by institutional leadership or a privileged elite.  Similarly, the secular background of TC is the rising totalitarian tide in the United States and Western Europe evident, at the latest, since the 2016 United States presidential elections. It involves the consolidation of all the institutions of Western civil society (government, law , education, business etc.) into a unified bloc with a defined ideology  (ecology, anti-covid, movements of social revolution summarized  as ”woke”). Enemies,  dissenters or those who simply remain silent are demonized in the media, censored, subjected to punitive consequences regarding their business or employment, compelled to confess their “guilt” or undergo reeducation and, in some situations,  physically threatened. Even more so than in the 1960’s,  it is a “revolution from above” of the rich and the powerful. 

These tendencies of course influence the Vatican, especially given its eagerness to please the secular media and economic powers of the West. Indeed, the Vatican has been in direct contact with the secular leaders of some of these specific initiatives  which the Church has endorsed or at least benevolently tolerated. So in a sense TC can be seen as the transposition into the Catholic Church of the West’s current “totalitarian moment,” sharing its insistence on external unity as an absolute value and its demand for unquestioning adherence to the ruling establishment. Some of the confrontational rhetoric of the letter accompanying  TC and of the motu proprio’s defenders is even identical to that of the secular establishment:  the need to combat with punitive measures “divisive,” “ideological,” “aggressive” extremists who “endanger unity” and “expose (the Church) to the peril of division.” 

In a sense,  TC should encourage Traditionalists, for the Pope has singled out them and the Traditional Mass as the one true alternative to the current regime and its ideology. This time of purgation may also be helpful for us, because despite its successes, all was not well in the movement. The real problems were not the anti-institutional zealots active on the internet or elsewhere. On the contrary,  the real difficulties resulted from the ever-greater integration of the Traditionalists into the structures of the establishment with all its associated defects.  Traditionalism, for example,  has not at all been immune from instances of clerical sexual abuse. The celebration of the Old Mass, if it occurred in a parish, remained very much contingent on the attitude of the pastor – a change in leadership often brought drastic consequences for the community given the different theological “universes” that the clergy often inhabit today. 

Certain Traditionalist orders and organizations gradually slipped into a fantasy world regarding the benevolence of the institutional Church,  their influence on it and their insight into its doings. Others, imitating the practices of groups like Opus Dei,  tried to resurrect the pristine, intact, pre-Conciliar world by a highly selective reading of Vatican actions and documents (e.g., by emphasizing Pope Francis’s 2021 “Year of St. Joseph”). Then, there were those who tried to tone down Traditionalism, to censor sermons and conference speakers, and to control public perceptions of reality – all in the fond hope of obtaining the favor of bishops and mainstream religious orders. I don’t know about Traditionalists’ alleged hostility to “the Council,”  but I can certainly testify to the animosity that could crop up in dealings among the Traditionalists and pseudo-Traditionalists themselves in the two years prior to TC.  I would hope that the new hot war can at least alleviate these grudges and make the Traditionalists refocus on their foundational principles.  For we will all now be forced to work together for the sake of a cause much greater than ourselves and need to put aside the petty grievances of the past.  

I’ll conclude these reflections with one more historical thought.  William Lind has observed  that just when the established order deems everything to be fixed,  settled and secure and the future looks predictable, history goes off in a wildly different direction. So it was in Europe in August 1914. We see the same phenomenon unfolding in Kabul in these very days. Lind,  drawing on an obscure book by a minor British novelist of the 1930’s,  calls this God’s Fifth Column. His  message Is that the structures of Church and state that we assume to be so solid as to stand forever can collapse with amazing speed. 1)

We do not know what the future may bring for the Church and for Traditionalism.  And neither does the Vatican. What we do know are the very great graces we and our families have received by adhering to the fullness of Catholic Tradition. We also know that Someone else is at work whose active will is usually left out of our calculations. Therefore I would recommend prayer and patience and trust that God, who does not lead anyone who trusts in Him astray,  will take care of things in ways now unforeseeable by us.

1. Lind, William, “God’s Fifth Column,” The American Conservative (July 17, 2021). Of course, in hindsight, everyone claims the eventual historical outcome to be obvious!

I was fascinated to read the recently published Report in Paix Liturgique on the “epic” of Traditionalism in the United States. And not just because of the complementary reference therein to my own series on the history of  Catholic Traditionalism! It’s always useful to get an outsider’s view of one’s own world – even though one may not agree with all his conclusions. The French believe, for example, that The Trouble with Harry is Alfred Hitchcock’s greatest film. It isn’t, but by understanding their logic one learns a lot about Hitchcock and his movies. On the other hand, Michel Houellebecq’s short book on H.P. Lovecraft is the best criticism of that American author published so far anywhere. 

The Paix Liturgique Report, in eight installments, is attributed to the late Daniel Hamiche and is largely structured as an interview between him and the publication. It deals primarily with the present and benefits from “field work”: surveys on the current views of American Catholics. In certain areas the Report provides unique information – such as the installment on the sedevacantists and the independent priests. Given its French audience, the Report of necessity needs to set its discussion of Traditionalism in the wider framework of American Catholicism, both past and present. The Report accordingly starts with a brief historical review of American Catholicism from the 16^thcentury to Vatican II.  Actually, I have more critical comments on certain factual statements and judgments in this installment  as opposed to the content of later chapters dealing with Traditionalism itself.

For example, we read that “only two colonies, Maryland… and Rhode Island (which practiced a “blind welcome” that is, without religious exclusion) had a Catholic population….” Rhode Island was actually militantly anti-Catholic.  Perhaps the author really means Pennsylvania,  the second British colony with a significant Catholic population, which just before the American Revolution was far more tolerant of Catholics than the original Catholic home of Maryland.  Katherine Drexel was not a convert. Elizabeth Seton founded the Sisters of Charity in the United States, not just those of New York  (that designation relates to a split later in the 19th century). 

As one might expect, the Report describes with justifiable pride the major contribution of French Bishops in the early years of the US : some dioceses – New Orleans, Bardstown/Louisville, Vincennes/Indianapolis  – were largely or totally  in their hand, while Boston, New York and Baltimore each had at least one French prelate. However, although I haven’t attempted to make a complete tally,  I am not totally sure that French bishops were a “majority” of the U.S. episcopate in the first half of the 19^th century.

Of more substance are some nuances that I don’t think the author got exactly right. The domination of Irish Catholicism from 1830 onward is not attributable to the sudden appearance of the Irish:  they always had been a strong component of  American Catholicism from the founding of the United States. Rather, it was the radically increased number of the Irish (and also the German ) immigrants in the decades preceding the Civil War that by 1860 transformed the Catholic Church in America from an exotic fringe to a significant presence at least in most urban areas. The author also seems to think that the status of Catholics as a “closed society” prior to the Second Vatican Council is attributable to the multiplication of ethnic parishes. That was hardly the case –  the alleged Catholic  pre-Conciliar “ghetto” was typified by the mainstream “American-Irish” parishes, not Italian or Polish national churches. 

Finally we note with some humor  (and perplexity) our author’s assertion that:

“One hears now and then that American Catholics are more pious  and practicing (compared to those of Western Europe) …  . It’s hardly astonishing that 25% of baptized Catholics attend Mass every Sunday and of the remaining 75% a good proportion attends Protestant services, depending on the region.”

Perhaps this level of religious practice is acceptable, even admirable,  compared to France or Germany – it is absolutely catastrophic, however,  for the Catholic Church in America and for its finances. And the author attributes even these statistics  primarily to the social pressure of an allegedly Protestant society. Now, as indicated  in the very quote above,  the Report is well aware of the “regional” differences in the United States. I am not sure though, that the author fully appreciates how radical those differences can be. For example, whatever the situation in “Trump country” may be, NO conformist pressure supporting religious practice exists in any of the places that control the secular power in the United States: New York City, Los Angeles, Washington D.C, Chicago, Silicon Valley/San Francisco, the suburbs of all these places,  almost all of higher education – to name only the most prominent examples. Indeed, in this stratum of American society the public hostility to Christianity of any kind is strong and growing ever stronger.  Like many European Traditionalists, Paix Liturgique is perhaps a bit too enthusiastic about the American scene.

The chapter of the Report on independent priests and sedevacantism  is a unique contribution and fills a gap in my own essay.  I would, however,  wish to see the support for  the author‘s estimate of  the number of independent priests: it seems extraordinarily high to me. At least today in and around New York they  are (perhaps with one exception) hardly found at all. The significant  presence of various sedevacantist sects(as well as other FSSPX offshoots) is duly noted, as is the fact that such movements seem more numerous in America than elsewhere. But, if we consider sedevacantism to be the flip side of extreme ultramontanism, does not the Irish, papalist heritage of the “American Catholic Church” explain this phenomenon?

I would also highlight the installments of the Report on Traditionalism in the religious life,  particularly that of the female religious. He also deals with the Society of St John Cantius at some length. Yet in his enumeration of “Traditional priests,” he considers the FSSPX, the FSSP and the ICRSS –  who celebrate the Traditional Mass  exclusively –  to be the sole “traditionalist” clergy of the United States.  I have noticed this attitude in other European publications. 

Now I have attended celebrations of the Traditional Mass since 1988. Except in the very last year,  almost all my experiences were with diocesan priests or members of “mainstream” religious orders who celebrated both the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo.  Thus this essay very much underestimates the actual scale of Traditionalist activity. Of course the author is aware that there are a great many celebrations of the Traditional Mass in addition to  those of the above orders and dedicated Traditionalist “chapels” (his term) and that many diocesan priests are involved. The author rightly points out the remarkable number of diocesan priests that have received training in the Traditional rite.  He seems to think, however, that the activities of the diocesan priests are a kind of underground. That has not been the case for many years – Traditionalism in many places has become a normal aspect of American Catholic life. 

Indeed, our author is heartened by his surveys that indicate that 72,7% of practicing Catholics find the simultaneous practice of both the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass  pursuant to Summorum Pontificum “normal”  and that 41.5% of these Catholics could well see themselves attending the Traditional Mass if it were offered at their parish. That’s impressive testimony to how, in the United States at least, the Traditional Mass has joined the mainstream of the Church as a significant and beneficial force. It is precisely for this reason, of course,  that Pope Francis has now determined to destroy Catholic Traditionalism.  What will be the result of his campaign in the United States? The facts set forth in this essay, demonstrating the growing strength and acceptance of Traditionalism among the laity, priests and religious,  give me some confidence that it will survive the trials that are to come.