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 G. Guchet ) 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.

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!

Such is the ordinary life of American Traditionalism today: organizing masses; establishing chapels, parishes and schools; finally, if possible,  participating in conferences, public processions and pilgrimages, both in and outside of the United States. I had written in 2014, however,  that to continue its progress,  American Traditionalism needed to find its own saints and scholars  – just as Europe did in the age of St. Patrick, St. Benedict,  St. Boniface and so many others, when the Church converted both the disintegrating Roman world and the new barbarian nations. 

In 2021 that need is even more dire. The great number of younger people newly introduced to Traditionalism requires liturgical, theological and historical instruction. Further, Traditionalists are compelled to explain and justify (as in the apologias for Christianity in pagan Roman times) their beliefs to an often hostile outside world. Finally,  Traditionalism must develop a deeper understanding of its own origins and of how the Catholic Church got to the position it is in today. What is the intellectual and spiritual life of the Traditionalists – and what leaders have emerged? 

I should start with the active, apostolic fraternities of priests, beginning  with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) founded by Archbishop  Marcel Lefebvre. The FSSPX  initiated the rebirth of the practice of Traditional Catholicism, both internationally and in the United States. The Fraternity has continued its steady progress in the last 8 years. In many respects a modus vivendi has been achieved with the Vatican, so the voices in America who continue to  denounce the alleged schismatics have receded into the background. A grand new seminary was inaugurated five years ago in the state of Virginia to accommodate the growing number of young seminarians. The Fraternity also maintains its own chapels, schools and publications.  On the other hand, the FSSPX has not taken a leading role in the debates on the Church and the world of the present day. Perhaps this more cautious public face is due to yet another recent schism within the Fraternity  – that involving Bishop Williamson, which resulted in the formation within North America of the “SSPX – Marian Corps” (aka the “Resistance” or the “Strict Observance.”). Perhaps it reflects continued fond hopes of obtaining a more regular status from the Vatican. 

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), an offspring of the FSSPX originating in resistance to Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations,  also continues to make steady progress. I am told that their seminary, completed only in 2010, already cannot accommodate all the candidates. The FSSP principally staffs a network of parishes throughout the United States. I have otherwise heard very little from the Fraternity recently – quite a contrast with its prominence among Traditionalists in the decade after the 1988 Indult. 

Recently, however,  the most active of these priestly societies has been the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICRSS or ICKSP). It perhaps has understood best the new opportunities available to Traditionalists under SP. Noteworthy is their outward, evangelical focus and a certain – shall we say –  showmanship? The ICRSS,  for example,  pays close attention to the aesthetic details of the liturgy. It also specializes in taking over and restoring magnificent old churches abandoned by their dioceses because a loss of the congregation or the parish’s “bad neighborhood.” 

Just in the last several years the Institute has made major inroads in Connecticut. In Waterbury (Hartford archdiocese) the ICRSS assumed the administration of the grand church of St. Patrick with  enigmatic Irish-language inscriptions on the stained glass windows. In so doing,  they have built upon and continued the  celebration of the Latin Mass in that city  – a tradition that in one form or another stretches back to 2007 and before. At almost the same time,  the ICRSS took over a second church, Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Bridgeport (Bridgeport Diocese). An old Slovak church, Sts. Cyril and Methodius is situated in the midst of a virtual moonscape emblematic of American industrial and urban decay.  But the church had been lovingly preserved by its long-term pastor who for decades celebrated an Indult Mass there for a small congregation. The Institute, building on these foundations, has awakened the parish to vigorous new life. 

Yet perhaps the most heartening development is the resurgence of Traditionalist contemplative life.   Has not the priority given historically to action over contemplation been a glaring defect not only of American Catholicism but of post-1830 ultramontane Catholicism in general?  We might start our survey with the flourishing Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma (Our Lady of Clear Creek) which has been in existence since 1999 – back then I met on a transatlantic flight two monks returning to France from scouting out the location of the new monastery!   An abbey since 2010, Clear Creek now has 50 monks and is engaged in a major building campaign.  I have heard of families moving to that area in order to regularly attend the abbey’s services 

Also representative are the Carmelite “Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel” of Wyoming.  These are cloistered contemplative monks- not mendicant friars. As to their liturgy, they state:
According to the Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, and the corresponding Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, the Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel have unanimously chosen to permanently retain the Carmelite Rite as the Liturgy of their institute according to the Carmelite liturgical books in use in 1962.

This monastery is also widely known for the brand of coffee it sells to support itself!

Of the female orders, perhaps the best known are the “Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles” in Gower Missouri. In 2018  the monastery was raised to an abbey and a new abbey church was consecrated. The ceremony for the consecration of their abbess, unique up till now in the United States, attracted wide attention.  This monastery is also well known outside of just Catholic circles for its acclaimed, best-selling recordings of chant.  Mention should also be made of a number of communities of Discalced Carmelites.

But two monasteries, located outside the United States but having many American members,  have had perhaps the greatest resonance.  Silverstream Priory in Ireland was founded in 2012 by Americans and erected as an autonomous monastery in 2017. The monks are widely known for their distribution of literature  – some written by themselves.  The monks appear, however, from recent reports to be having a rocky spell with the local ecclesiastical authorities.

The Traditional monastery of San Benedetto in Monte of Norcia, Italy, has acquired world fame.  Their beer, Birra Nursia, has acquired a great reputation on these shores. Then there’s the heroic saga of the monks’ recovery, with the help of international donations, from the earthquake which destroyed their previous monastery. Their campaign to build a new monastery is ongoing. The greatest notoriety was achieved,  however by the publication of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option in 2017. The Norcia monks appear there as a model of a Christian community cultivating the interior life and withdrawing from the world. I don’t know about that – nor do I think Mr. Dreher had any real understanding of the specific liturgical foundation (Catholic Traditionalism) of this monastery’s life. What is clear, however, is that, thanks to the power of Catholic Tradition, a monastery like Norcia can almost immediately assume spiritual leadership – even in the secular world.   

These examples illustrate the disproportionate influence of contemplative communities – among Traditionalists, other Roman Catholics and even the nonreligious. Primarily, of course it is their liturgies, prayers and chant which are transformative.  And it seems that, just as in the days of the Benedictine monks of the “Dark Ages,” a host of secular benefits seem to flow from this spiritual foundation.

Another development, largely dating from 2013 and afterward, is the readiness of distinguished members of the hierarchy to regularly speak at Traditionalist conferences, to preside at ordinations in the Traditional form and to celebrate Traditional liturgies. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Raymond Burke are the most prominent –  fearless defenders not just of the Traditional liturgy but of Catholic morality. Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Zen have also spoken on the tragic situation of the Church in China. We might add to this list the “underground”  statements of Archbishop Vigano on the current state of the Church. It’s an array of public ecclesiastical advocates unimaginable just ten years ago. Of course, of the above, only Cardinal Burke is an American  –  but I could add the names of several supportive bishops in the United States who have offered public support to Traditionalists. 

On the intellectual front, there have been definite gains in focus and understanding in the last eight years. In this realm, however,  most people make little distinction between Conservatives, Traditionalists and, for that matter, others not Christian at all (like the French authors M. Onfray or M. Houellebecq). And isn’t one of the best analyses of the Novus Ordo Mass Work of Human Hands by the late Fr. Anthony Cekada (a sedevacantist)?  Adherents of Traditionalism also regularly read the online publications of the Conservative Catholics that I have previously listed. Specifically Traditionalist sites of general interest  – combining news, commentary,  essays and politics –  that can be added are Rorate Caeli and Onepeterfive.

The distinction between American and foreign authors is also relatively meaningless.   It’s still a fact that American Traditionalism relies heavily on writers from Europe: Martin Mosebach, Roberto de Mattei, Aldo Maria Valli, Fr. Michael Fiedrowicz, Fr. Claude Barthe,  Prof. Luc Perrin –  to name some of the more prominent. Some of these authors’ works have been translated  – much has not. It’s still a great advantage for a Traditionalist to be able to understand a number of foreign languages: French, German, Italian and Spanish,  both in order to read the above-mentioned authors and also to follow numerous informative online publications in those languages (e.g., Le Forum Catholique)   

This is not to say that the American and other English-speaking Traditionalists  have been idle. Let me mention just a few names. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has become a ubiquitous presence both as a speaker and a writer, primarily analyzing liturgical questions. Dr. John Lamont has written on a very scholarly level on theological, moral and philosophical issues of the past but also on the deviations of the contemporary. Church.  Prof. John Rao, of course,  has continued to explore history from a Traditionalist perspective as he has been doing for decades now.  His Lake Garda conference (which will be held on Long Island this year) has served for many years as a forum for Traditionalists. It fulfills on the intellectual level much the same role that that the Chartres pilgrimage has done on the liturgical front. Finally, to this group we must of course add the online apostolate of Fr. John Hunwicke of England. 

Let me give examples of specific topics that have received more careful consideration than had been the case in the past.  New objects of inquiry are the Mass texts themselves: the readings, the orations,  the Holy Week liturgies.  Articles analyzing the Mass texts in detail have appeared on the popular sites New Liturgical Movement and Rorate Caeli. This research makes impossible, without significant further qualification,  the former Traditionalist objective, so glibly asserted years ago, of merely restoring the “Latin Mass.” I should point out that the New Liturgical Movement (“NLM”) is now a venue where real knowledge is thoughtfully presented.  

In  similar vein, in the fields of theology and history, I might mention the growing realization that all was not well prior to 1958, that the foundations for the explosion of the Second Vatican Council were laid well before 1962. Indeed,  the entire era characterized by 19^th century ultramontanism (1846 – 1958) now appears, seen in perpective, in large part a preparation for the collapse of the 1960s.  Some analyses of the roots of the Council go back much further than that.  One again, it is no longer possible, without significant qualifications, to contrast the post-conciliar chaos with a pre-conciliar Eden. 

A third, more abstruse, even exotic, topic is integralism. I have classified this movement in Part 1 of this essay as  ”Conservative Catholic,” given its “papalist” orientation. From another point of view, however, integralism  intersects with Traditionalism.  For example, in advocating the subordination of the temporal to the spiritual power it directly clashes with the direction taken by the Second Vatican Council as well as with the neoconservative ideology of the “American experiment.” Now and then one even is reminded of Triumph magazine!    The Josias, the movement’s website, features contributions by a number of Traditionalist “greats” covering a wide range of topics from the integralist perspective.

The foregoing presentation is of necessity incomplete.– I hope I will not have offended anyone left out!   To form a complete list today of all monastic communities, Catholic intellectuals and websites would be a task greatly exceeding the scope of a short essay like this.  My intent is,  by giving representative examples known to me,  to demonstrate that Traditionalism in America has progressed far beyond the stage of being content with just celebrating the Old Mass for a circle of initiates. It has become a broader force for general Catholic reform. 

(Continued from Part 1)

In this age of resurgent revolution, liquefying institutions and mounting fears, Traditional Catholicism has not fallen apart,  but has continued to advance. This fact is no longer just an assertion by Traditionalists. The flourishing of Traditionalist life in the years since Summorum Pontificum (“SP”) has been noted with fear and rage  – especially by the official Catholic media and the European clergy. 

The new Traditionalist generation is indeed young and to a great extent includes growing families. And a new young generation of priest leaders has grown up as well. But what is really distinctive of Traditionalism today is that it is lived out in  “stable groups of the faithful”– as mentioned in SP itself.  Specifically in the United States, we have witnessed the emergence of fully formed SP parish life. And in contrast to the Indult regime – and the normal Novus Ordo parish, I should add – these communities now have an outward, not inward,  focus. 

We have seen that  American Traditionalism emerged from the “underground” in the United States after the Indults of 1984/1988. Traditionalism since 1969 ( and really since 1964 ) had until then remained the one group within Catholicism that was officially and relentlessly persecuted.  Its adherents had lived in small groups or in isolation. This is true both for those who frequented FSSPX chapels,  those who attended the Masses of independent priests and those who followed Traditionalism more by reading about it. Of necessity, the Traditionalist community featured a great degree of individuality, not to say at times eccentricity and even dogmatism in questions of the faith and the liturgy. It was also true that the core of the Traditionalists at that time had known the old mass prior to the Council. 

After the Indults, Traditionalists organized and formed groups to support the new Masses they were permitted to celebrate. In their new freedom and visibility they had to face a wide variety of issues they did not have to deal with in their prior existence as an underground resistance. For example,  Traditionalists had to pay much more attention to the aesthetic aspect of their Masses. In some places greater care  – almost unprecedented within the American Catholic Church in the previous decades  – was now taken with music. I am thinking of the (still existing) St. Gregory Society of New Haven.  And as the number of Masses celebrated in the United states increased,  the number of new adherents increased as well , drawn from those who previously had never experienced the Traditional liturgy. A new generation was gradually taking over and transforming Traditionalism.  

This demographic development was evident to me in the membership of the American contingent at the Chartres “Pilgrimage of Christendom”  between the early 1990’s and  2010. On the  first pilgrimage in which I participated  the rather mature age (including my own!)  of most of the American pilgrims was striking compared that of to the scouts who made up the bulk of the French contingents. Yet by 2010 that had changed  – the American pilgrims were, on the whole, of the same average (youthful!) age as their European counterparts.

From 2007 onward,  SP greatly accelerated these tendencies. The drastic restrictions of the Indult regime began to loosen. In many parish churches a Traditionalist community “moved in” as a new neighbor, the subject of continued distancing but also of curiosity. Previously existing independent chapels or venues for solitary indult Masses were absorbed and transformed by the new movement. Traditionalism also no longer meant celebrating just one Sunday Mass but providing all the sacraments in the Traditional form. As the number of Masses expanded,  the congregations grew as well, as did the number of priests who wanted to celebrate the Traditional rite. 

The result, in the most successful Traditionalist apostolates,  was the appearance  of the revived Traditionalist parish.  Such a parish regularly celebrates the Solemn High Mass –  or at least a Missa Cantata –  on Sundays and major feast days.  The community celebrates all the sacraments in the Traditional rite.  A good number of young men to serve at the altar – indeed, as  in the “good old days” scheduling is necessary.  Music achieves an increasingly professional level  – the vestments, decoration of the altar and other artwork compliment the level of the music. I have heard tell that one well known Traditionalist, recently deceased, had finally decided to become a Catholic just because of his new experience of singing chant in a SP parish.   And there is a constant striving for perfection of the liturgy. The celebration of the pre-1955 Holy Week liturgies or the use of the folded chasuble were the province of a liturgical avantgarde ten years ago  – now these practices are widespread and almost  routine. 

The consequences are quick to follow. From the ranks of the altar servers come vocations to the priesthood.  The congregation continues to expand because of that unfailing rule:  Catholic Traditionalism grows only by individual exposure to the old Mass. And in these expanded congregations  social events  – coffee hours, receptions, dinners, fundraising affairs –  spontaneously spring up,  linking the members of the community outside of liturgical celebrations. The contrast is astonishing between such a parish and even the most successful pre-2007 Indult groups. 

Naturally I am describing a minority of exemplary communities. For much of American Traditionalism,  life still revolves around a single Sunday Mass  attended by small congregation. And many groups still cannot obtain even a regular Mass on Sunday. In a small, originally Italian parish not too far from where I live,  a Saturday morning Mass has been started by a priest  ordained 6 years ago.  But as often as is humanly possible,  his Saturday Mass is a Missa Cantata,  celebrated with all the propers sung.  That’s more than could be found in most of the well-attended High Masses of the pre-Conciliar days. The overall tendency is clear!

A great “penumbra” of Traditionalist life has also arisen outside of the totally committed Traditionalist communities.   In the SP world, Traditionalists most often share a parish with  other communities and rites. A fruitful interaction can result on this level  – I have seen  amazing combinations of the Traditional Liturgy with the Holy Week processions and other customs of Latin American Catholics.  Some  parishes celebrate a festive Traditional mass only on special occasions and holydays. Many grand churches otherwise not at all involved in the Traditionalist cause have opened their doors to an occasional Traditional liturgy – In New York, for example, St. Patrick’s cathedral( both old and new), St. Vincent Ferrer, Blessed Sacrament. St Jean Baptiste… .  At least in our part of the country, quite a few bishops (and several visiting cardinals) celebrate the Traditional mass. And the reach of Traditionalism is even greater than this. So the Rorate Mass, an Advent liturgy celebrated in the darkness of early dawn, was revived not that long ago by Traditionalists. This custom has now spread to the Novus Ordo as well.

Now what do the Traditionalists believe? Obviously first and foremost is the celebration of the Traditional liturgy that has become the non-negotiable hallmark of Traditionalist Catholicism. But Catholic Traditionalists are in no way some kind of  “papal” Anglo-Catholics. After all, the Traditionalist devotion to the Old Mass had to function for decades without the benefit of the – admittedly highly desirable – aesthetic features so essential to conservative Episcopalians. The celebration of the liturgy for Traditionalists, moreover, has been inseparable from full adherence to the theology and morality as expressed by Catholic tradition. From its very inception in the 1960s the Traditionalist movement made a forceful critique of the policies emerging from the Second Vatican Council: ecumenism, obsessive focus on dialogue, loss or denial of Catholic uniqueness, a conciliatory attitude to communism and leftism and toleration if not downright approval of moral deviations of every kind. 

For the same reason, a Traditionalist community  – even the most institutional, “normalized” examples –  never can be just a Novus Ordo parish with the traditional liturgy, let alone a revival of its  pre-conciliar predecessor. There is an interest and commitment to the intellectual, liturgical and moral questions of the day among the Traditionalists that sets them apart from their fellow Catholics.  Not that traditionalist congregations are dominated by debates about theology, morality or the latest course the Vatican is taking  – quite the contrary. Surveys have indicated, however,  that among Traditionalist Catholics can be found higher level of knowledge of the Catholic faith – and certainly greater adherence to Catholic morality and the precepts of the Church.

It has been rightly pointed out that part of the reason for this American success story is the greater willingness of individual Catholics – both in the priesthood and among the laity– to take the initiative and work together to achieve  objectives. For to this day there is no organization, religious congregation or publication providing centralized  leadership and direction to the American Traditionalists. This does not mean that all Traditionalist Catholics have come to agree among themselves on all points –  far from it. Yet they are mostly – not always – able to surmount those differences to cooperate for a supremely worthwhile cause. 

The current American Traditionalist success story, of course, is also based on the fact that the same sense of pragmatism can be found among much of the American hierarchy.  The average American bishop cannot afford to be as totally indifferent to Mass attendance,  public relations or the morale of the laity in his diocese as are his European counterparts or the bureaucrats of the Vatican. From very early on, if only as a question of pragmatism,  many bishops have shown themselves more or less willing to work with Traditionalists. Some have gone much further than that. We have experienced how bishops in our region repeatedly have intervened directly to remove obstacles to the Traditional liturgy raised by local pastors. They have permitted Traditional liturgies in their own cathedrals and in other major shrines and basilicas. Now and then a favorable mention of Traditionalism even appears in the official diocesan press (mirabile dictu!).  It would be a mistake, therefore, to view the relationship between the hierarchy and Traditionalism as uniformly hostile  –  at least, I should repeat,  in the New York area.

On the other hand, these same local ordinaries by no stretch of the imagination foster or encourage the spread of Traditionalism. Rather, in actual practice an arbitrarily enforced, restrictive policy of control prevails (especially as to the clergy). In some respects very little has changed from the Indult regime. As a matter of routine, Traditionalist priests are still summarily transferred from parishes and “exiled” to less attractive – and certainly far less visible – positions. For the local Traditionalist community that can mean termination of their liturgies if no like-minded successor is provided. The increasing number of young priests who choose traditionalism make an especially great sacrifice.  As one Traditionalist priest recently said, there is no surer way of destroying your ecclesiastical career than declaring yourself in favor of the Old Mass. Other diocesan employees are similarly fearful of advertising Traditionalist sympathies.

This bias is also reflected in the allocation of diocesan resources. Traditionalists were entranced in 2020, for example,  by a festive liturgy and conference that took place at St Vincent Ferrer church in New York City. And that was organized and funded by Traditionalists without direct support of the Archdiocese. Yet, on that very same weekend, the Archdiocese of New York sponsored a three day extravaganza with Communion and Liberation (the Italian “movement” originally aimed at students) featuring speakers, prelates and performers from all over the country.   I think it is fair to say that Communion and Liberation has only a tiny fraction of the resonance that the Traditionalist movement enjoys either in the Archdiocese of New York or nationwide.

It’s eight years into the pontificate of Pope Francis.   I’d like to take stock once again of where American Catholic Traditionalism stands. But before dealing with Traditionalism,  I need to set the stage by outlining the historical situation in which we find ourselves. Because the Catholic Traditionalist movement does not exist in a vacuum. It is situated  – especially after Summorum Pontificum – in the greater Catholic Church, both of the United States and of the world. And that Catholic Church finds itself in a specific historical context.

Speaking of the larger society,  the United States-led Western world has undeniably reached a crossroads. The turmoil of the last few years has scarred the country: the coronavirus shock, the political agitation and violence on the streets and five years of virtual civil war between President Donald Trump and the American establishment.  Within the United States, the forces of the establishment  – the so-called deep state, civil society or  “power elite”  –  have shifted easily into an overtly totalitarian mode of operation. In the wake of the coronavirus, the government assumed the right to regulate the most intimate details of the life of its citizens even within the walls of their own homes. Throughout the educational system and business enterprises those who merely refrained from endorsing – let alone challenged or questioned – the emerging orthodoxies  were blacklisted and suspended or fired from their positions. And all too often the victims then confessed their culpability themselves, very much in the style of the Moscow show trials. Censorship of social media has become virtually official practice, Finally, we witnessed the Reichstag Fire of January’s events on Capitol Hill.

During all of this,  Americans  – or rather a large percentage of them – were gripped by a rising tide of fear and hysteria, fostered by the news media. People are afraid of many things;  the coronavirus,  domestic violence and disorders,  economic disaster. One sees this in the fearful actions of those hiding because of the risk of contagion or who grow confrontational regarding preserving social distance or wearing a mask. The Biden presidency was in part sold on the deceptive promise of a return to normalcy. We are already seeing how unlikely that’s going to be – just on the international front, fresh crises are already forming. The American establishment has prevailed so far, yet its triumphs already seem like a pyrrhic victory.  

The American Catholic has become in many respects the proverbial man without a country.  The United States, where his parents and grandparents were so happy to “fit in,”  now describes itself as “systemically racist.”  The institutions that this Catholic “man in the street” had been taught to revere, rightly or wrongly – like the great universities, the military, the major corporations, the police –  are all now completely indifferent if not downright hostile to him. Moreover, is he not told frequently that his Christian faith itself is a problem? – witness the fate of previously revered monuments to Catholic heroes or the ongoing campaign to purge every reference to Christianity from the public discourse. The governing progressive powers remain militantly opposed to all the social and moral doctrines that the Church had previously encouraged the laity to advocate ”in the public square.” But, marginalized by secular society, the Catholic finds his home in his own Church crumbling as well.   In the Coronavirus panic, the Catholic laity have been restricted or prohibited from attending Mass, receiving the sacraments and even stopping into church for prayer. Indeed, the laity had been largely dispensed from any requirements associated with these practices anyway.

This exclusion of Catholics from the new American mainstream of course also applies to the institutional Church as well. The Catholic Church has performed abysmally in these trying times. The bishops have accepted without protest the closing of their churches and schools,  the suspension of the sacraments, the reduction of Catholic life to a primarily “virtual” affair.  The bishops and clergy have even at times exceeded the requirements of the state. At no time in the past have the bishops imposed rules regarding the liturgy as stringent  – and drastically enforced  – as the lockdown regulations they universally enacted. In the face of the rise in political violence,  the bishops sought to straddle the fence, cautiously endorsing  protesters who overthrew statues of Catholic heroes of yore like Columbus or Junipero Serra.  

Meanwhile, the crisis generated by the sexual abuse scandals – with its adverse press coverage, financial damage and diocesan bankruptcies –  continues to fester with no end in sight. The same is true for the endless series of closings of parishes, schools and seminaries. The Church continues to be unable to recruit sufficient priests, brother and sisters to maintain its institutional presence. The impact of the Catholic Church on public policy, thought and culture is nonexistent – unless, of course, like Pope Francis, it is endorsing the agenda of the secular establishment

The culmination of all these trends is the coronation by the media of President Joe Biden as a “devout” Catholic  – seemingly because he has so explicitly rejected non-negotiable moral positions of the Catholic Church. While President Biden continues to implement his stated commitment in support of abortion, the American bishops have not yet been able to formulate any response. The Vatican and the Pope’s most obsequious followers among the American bishops are actively working to block or delay any attempt to draw consequences from the conflict between Biden’s agenda and the principles the bishops had previously advocated(at least, in the case of most of them, on paper). This futility in dealing with such a prominent issue only confirms once again the lack of leadership, conformism and pusillanimity of establishment Catholicism in the United States. 

The result of all this is most likely an accelerating disassociation of the laity from the institutional Church. Estimates indicate that, once the coronavirus restrictions end, a substantial part of the laity may never return to the public practice of the faith.  That threatens to be life-threatening for the American Church,  given that the continued vitality – and funding – of American Catholicism rests largely on habits of conformity inherited ultimately from the pre-Conciliar era,  

In contrast to prior decades there is no possibility of turning to Rome. For the pope is as committed to the secular agenda of the Western establishment as the most radical American Catholic progressives. He has assumed – at least in appearance – an attitude of indifference to “life issues” and has expressed disdain for “culture warriors.“  But Francis’s own situation is not good. A cult of personality around Francis continues to be fostered without generating any real support in popular sentiment. Continued scandals in the Vatican, aggressive progressive agitation (especially in Germany), and ever-increasing financial difficulties foretell a dire future for the central administration of the Church. Meanwhile,  the unending steam of actions and statements of the pope in areas such as marriage, homosexuality, environmentalism and secular politics will, in the long term, undoubtedly undermine the credibility of the Catholic Church as a spiritual force. 

Does it not seem like an eerie return of the political and ecclesiastical chaos of the 1960s?  The immediate practical effects on the life of the American Church, however, could not be more different. In many respects, Francis has simply ratified existing practices or abuses, not broken new ground. At least in the New York area, only the growing official recognition of the LGBT movement by the New York archdiocese represents a new, post-Francis development. Unlike his predecessor 55 years ago,  Francis has not set off a revolutionary destructive wave within parishes, religious orders and educational institutions. To some extent, of course, this is because those institutions have by now been largely destroyed or secularized. We could also say that the earlier reverence for the centralized authority of the Church among the laity has also largely dissipated. In fact, those forces that Francis scorns – the pro-life movement, the Catholic Conservatives 1) and of course the Traditionalists  – have largely continued on their accustomed path regardless of either what the Pope says or what is happening in secular politics. 

For Catholic Conservatism the era of Francis  – now merging with the age of Biden – has been particularly traumatic. For the Catholic hierarchy has all but officially adopted the seamless garment ideology crafted by the Catholic progressives years ago and so disputed by the conservatives. The progressive forces themselves now go much further and border on expressly advocating the complete abandonment of the pro-life cause. 

No faction within Catholicism set as much store on the papacy as did the Catholic Conservatives. And now this same papacy has explicitly rejected everything the Catholic Conservatives stood for: the political alliance with Evangelicals, abortion as a paramount issue, the defense of capitalism and the support of American intervention throughout the world. Furthermore it is very clear that attempts to cooperate with the hierarchy in revitalizing Catholicism in seminaries and parishes are making little or no progress. The favored organizational form of Conservative Catholic apostolates – an unstructured “movement“ dominated by a charismatic authoritarian figure  – has also led again and again to embarrassment and failure.

Yet the reaction of the Catholic Conservatives, except in some rare cases,  has not been to go over to the camp of the enemy. They may have been abandoned by the Pope and disappointed by the lukewarmness of the Catholic hierarchy but they will not, just because of this, abandon their pro-life positions or their other historic causes.  The pro-life movement, for example,  remains active and continues its political advocacy,  most often working with political leaders aligned with the Trump, populist wing of the Republican party. 

Many of the most outspoken representatives of conservative Catholicism were unable to repudiate their principles and jump on the Francis bandwagon. They  have developed into outspoken critics of the one or other aspect of the Catholic Church today. This resilience in the face of papal and hierarchical indifference or hostility is largely due to the greatly expanded network of Catholic media  – especially social media. There is a vast array of sources – mostly online – available for those who wish to inform themselves about the Church today better. We could mention, among others, the Catholic News Agency, the National Catholic Register, LifeSiteNews, the new Pillar.com, Crisis, Catholic Culture aa well as a whole army of blogs. Finally, going beyond reporting and commenting on daily events,  there is the revitalized First Things which has moved away from its original neoconservative ideology. All of this makes available to the Catholic who wants it a mass of information and articulate, critical commentary. We can understand the fury of the advocates of Francis confronted by this new reality and their constant talk about regulating or censoring the Catholic online presence.

The Conservative Catholics have redoubled their commitment to creating new practical apostolates  – which, after all,  has always been the thing they do best. The actions of FOCUS and certain other Catholic campus ministries are one of the few bright spots in today’s Church – an amazing contrast to the dreadful situation prevailing on the campus in the 1970’s – 1980’s. A new Catholic residential community is organizing in Texas, resembling Ave Maria village in Florida – even if its structure features a superabundance of apostolic organizations in relation to its size.  Surprisingly, even in secular academia advocates for Catholicism are standing up. We have the intellectual movement of integralism dealing with Catholic concepts of Church/state relations – led by, among others, a professor at Harvard. More recently,  a society dedicated to reexamining and recovering Catholic philosophy is forming at Princeton University. An organization has been launched seeking to develop authors to revitalize Catholic literature. Once again, after several false starts, another  attempt is being made to create a national Catholic magazine: The Lamp. The initiatives on the musical front are too numerous to describe here.  Finally,  just in my immediate neighborhood,  three major new “conservative“ Catholic (using that term somewhat loosely) schools are in the process of formation (joining one already existing independent Catholic classical school). This is in the diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, where just 16 years ago no school of this kind existed at all.

Now I might very well have critical comments on aspects of these initiatives. As always among Conservative Catholics, moreover, not all these groups are aligned. To some extent, the temptation remains of substituting apostolic activity for spiritual development  – or of utilizing it to avoid facing reality. Yet the continued vitality of the “orthodox” wing of Catholicism  – largely supported by the laity on a voluntary basis – cannot be denied. And we are also happy to note that some – certainly not all – of these initiatives are open to cooperation with Traditionalists.  The self-understanding of Conservative Catholicism as the “Uniate” alternative to Traditionalism is in a steadily eroding. 

Continue to Part 2

1. For a discussion of the term  “Catholic Conservatism”  – as opposed to the clerical establishment on the one hand and Traditionalism on the other  – see Catholic Traditionalism in the United States, Notes for a History; Part 2

Since the start of 2021 overt attacks on Traditionalism have multiplied. Recall the entirely negative “Summary” of the French bishops’ reports on Summorum Pontificum, Bishop Robert Barron’s diatribe against “fierce” Traditionalists and most recently the attacks by Thomas Reese SJ suggesting that the use of the Traditional Mass be banned outright. What is noteworthy is that all these assaults were launched by prominent members of the Catholic administrative or media establishment. Furthermore, these critics of Catholic Traditionalism enjoy other significant connections. Thomas Reese’s contribution, for example was first published in Religious News Service (RNS) a secular platform for officially approved views to be disseminated by the mainstream media. And Reese made his remarks on the old mass in the context of other recommendations very much aligned with the objectives of the Synodal Path in Germany (such as female clergy).  

Now some on the right chose to ignore these statements or questioned their legal significance. I think this is very short sighted. Catholic bishops and especially Jesuit priests hardly ever make statements out of a disinterested love of truth. These comments would never have been made if the authors had not been sure of an at least benevolent reception on the part of both their colleagues and in Rome. I might be missing something, but I don’t recall reading any statements in support of Summorum Pontificum or Traditionalism from similarly situated sources in the hierarchy or Catholic media. 

Let’s look at these comments and try to synthesize them. In so doing I hope I am not being unfair: the liturgical ideas of Thomas Reese and those of Bishop Barron are not exactly the same. I do not intend to focus on the contradictions and preposterous assertions of the three “indictments ” – which are evident of the face of these documents. Rather,  I would like to consider not so much what they authors are saying about Catholic Traditionalism but what they are saying about themselves. What do we learn about the features of the Catholic Church in 2021 from these various “position papers” ?

First, this Church is authoritarian. Bishop Barron is concerned about opposition to the Council and to the Pope. No attempt is made to make the case for either, or to convince opponents  – the immunity of Council and Pope from criticism is presupposed. Similarly, the French bishops’ Summary takes the existing liturgical establishment in France as a given not needing any further defense or explication.  Unquestioning loyalty to the existing “system” and to the ecclesiastical authorities is expected. 

Second, in the understanding of especially Reese the liturgy is a created thing, an administrative product. It is something that can be altered or abolished at the will of the clergy. This understanding is in stark contrast to Joseph Ratzinger’s initial horror over the Novus Ordo introduction in 1969 which he saw as destroying the notion of the liturgy as something pre-existing for us, not created by us. Of course, Summorum Pontificum, reflecting these insights,  defined the old liturgy as something that could not be abolished. Certainly the understanding of the Eastern Orthodox is very similar. 

Third, unity is posited as an absolute value. The Summary of the French bishops obsessively emphasizes the danger of disunity: the horrors of different liturgical calendars, different liturgies,  different ecclesial understandings etc. Bishop Barron sees himself as part of a great center set off against “beige Catholics” on the one hand and Traditionalists on the other. 

Fourth, the Church of Reese,  Barron and the French bishops’ Summary is lawless. Thomas Reese feels empowered by the Council to disregard not just Summorum Pontificum but also Ecclesia Dei and much other legislation authorizing the traditional rite. And what precedent is there for a rule excluding persons below a certain age from attending a rite of the Church?  The French bishops’ Summary does the same: “The FSSP, by celebrating exclusively in the extraordinary form, poses a problem for diocesan life and this practice is contrary to the sense of the Motu Proprio.”(without citing any authority for this assertion) Do not these authors, however, have the best of authority in the practices of Pope Francis, who has systematically disregarded customs, canon law and liturgical rules from the beginning of his pontificate? Only in the last few months, for example,  we have seen Francis impose restrictions on the celebration of the Mass, including the Traditional Mass, in Saint Peter’s in Rome,  disregarding all procedural and substantive church law. 

Fifth, Reese, Barron and the French bishops are  contemptuous of those who may deviate from the “party line”  and of their motivations. Reese: “The church needs to be clear that it wants the unreformed liturgy to disappear and will only allow it out of pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change.” The French ”Summary”: “For many of the faithful worshipping in  the extraordinary form the Christian life consists of Sunday attendance without any other spiritual or theological formation. We are far from the Pope Francis’ conception of a missionary disciple.” Barron:  “These arch-traditionalist Catholics have become nostalgic for the Church of the pre-conciliar period.” There is no possibility of dialogue here. No attempt is made to actually “engage” with these problematic Traditionalists to understand what they’re thinking,  let alone reach an accommodation with them. The pre-SP indults were promulgated based on the alleged concern of the Church for those “attached to” the Traditional Mass – such considerations doesn’t seem to play a role anymore.

None of this is new. The understanding of the liturgy (and its artistic and cultural appurtenances) as an arbitrary clerical creation, the authoritarianism, the brusque disregard of legal formalities and of the rights of all those holding other views,  the goal of a quasi-totalitarian unity, the aggressive and hostile attitude towards conservative ”dissidents”-  have dominated from the very beginning of the Conciliar era. To illustrate, I recall that at Georgetown University around 1973 the Jesuit liturgists were insisting on a radical reconstruction of the university chapel – which they of course eventually  achieved. But initially, substantial opposition was led, I recall, by a member of the arts faculty. The Jesuit leading the charge for “reform” informed those assembled at a “town meeting” that, after all,  he didn’t care how many opposed his plans or why – it was the liturgical thing to do and he would force it through. Need I mention that it was an aesthetic disaster and that it all had to redone within a few years?

Our authors’ contributions reveal to us a Church that is fossilized. The same clichés are repeated over and over just as they were in the 1960s: that Traditionalists are old nostalgic people (Reese); that the establishment stands in the center between extremes (Barron); that we need more and more Eucharistic prayers (Reese again) (In the 1970’s didn’t the Catholic chaplaincy at Cornell University offer a book with 50 or so (unauthorized) canons?) Obviously the “Council” means a set of assumptions and rules – an ideology  – that has become fixed and unchangeable. 

Martin Mosebach, in an interview in 2019, enraged the “German Church” when he compared the public appearances of Pope Francis with those of Stalin or Hitler. Yet recently I’ve been reading that the late Hans Küng seems to have repeatedly compared the Catholic Church with the Soviet Union. I think Küng was far more prescient then he ever realized. Because the Church establishment – in its fanatical, uncompromising insistence on  immutable positions which can never be controverted by any appeal to the facts –  is entirely in line with the modus operandi of the Soviet party bureaucracy in its last decades. 

What will be the result of these efforts against Traditionalism? I do not know!  Pope Francis, of course,  could very well impose restrictions of some kind on the celebration of the Traditional Mass and thereby score some easy points with the Church establishment – especially the European hierarchies and the major religious orders everywhere. It would, however, seem odd for the Pope to move on this front eight years into his pontificate – especially with Pope Benedict still alive. And given the developments in Traditionalism since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, I do not know how many Traditionalists would follow him at this stage. And, after all, there is a minority tendency among progressives that tolerates the Traditional Mass (think of  Bernardin!).  

Moreover,  I think our enemies are talking from a position of weakness, not strength. Pope Francis recently has been forced to adopt an ambiguous position on several issues – married priests, women deacons, “synodality”  – because of the German Synodal Path (which he himself, of course, helped to launch) and opposition, both overt and behind the scenes, elsewhere in the Church. Those who would wish to restrict or even outlaw the Traditional Mass may see this as their last chance in this pontificate before Francis dies or some new destabilizing scandal in the Church or the Vatican erupts. And,  before the ever-accelerating decline of Mass attendance, vocations and monetary support by the laity reaches catastrophic proportions. The rediscovered rage against Traditionalists may be only the establishment’s last gasp of despair.