(Above) St. Brigid (Bridget) school in January 2013. Closed in 2019 and now to be sold.

The Archdiocese and secular media have now disclosed the magnitude of the settlement of sex abuse cases. The question now is how this money is to be obtained. One obvious source is the sale of Catholic schools and parishes. This is particularly so for Manhattan where the real estate values are the highest. This has been a process going on for many years which we have chronicled on this site. But now we may be coming to a climax.

(Above and below) Holy Name of Jesus parish’s former parochial school (with centennial plaque). Photo from 2014.

Media report that at this moment two properties are being actively worked.1) The former school building (and convent) of Holy Name of Jesus parish at 200 W. 97th St. is being sold to the Rockefeller Group and Atlas Capital for $96 million. 2) The former parochial school of Saint Brigid on Tompkins Square is being marketed to luxury housing developers. The school was closed as recently as 2019. 3)

Regarding Holy Name of Jesus parish and its school, I wrote in 2014:

 But you soon notice that the church is just the center of a complex of buildings occupying a full block facing Amsterdam Avenue. …Then there is the impressive school building of 1904, with a former convent attached. A metal plaque commemorates the school’s 100th anniversary in 2005. Holy Name of Jesus School did not survive another ten years; it was closed in 2013. A ”De La Salle Academy” occupying several floors of the school also moved out to Holy Cross parish this year. Given the real estate values in the greater Upper West Side area, I would expect that this fine school building is not long for this world. 

Additional school closures have been announced, freeing up more buildings for sale. The Archdiocesan explanations for school closures are Orwellian: 

The Superintendent of Schools Office for the Archdiocese of New York on Monday provided an update on its ongoing School Renewal Plan process, a faith-filled initiative aimed at sustaining and strengthening Catholic education across the archdiocese….

“Just as Christ calls us to turn toward Him in faith, this season invites us to see God at work in our schools, creating new opportunities for growth and learning, and bringing hope to our students and communities.” Sr. Mary Grace Walsh wrote. The renewal plan follows a school viability study conducted during the 2024-2025 academic year and is part of an ongoing process to ensure Catholic education remains vibrant, accessible, and life-giving for generations to come….As part of the ongoing plan, three schools will close at the end of the 2025–2026 academic year: Incarnation School in Manhattan, Sacred Heart School in Hartsdale, and Most Precious Blood School in Walden.4) 

Cathedral High School, that, in September 2023, had to move out of the Archdiocesan headquarters building when that was sold,  is itself now being shut down. 5)  That frees up a building for sale that I believe was originally the parochial school of St. Francis de Sales parish. Second , Incarnation school in Washington Heights will be closing. 6) And even the successful school of Transfiguration parish (which includes the former parochial school of Saint James where Governor Al Smith received his education) is now being reduced from three buildings to two.7)

Certainly, this is just the beginning. I could think of other parishes with dual “worship spaces,”  or superfluous schools, convents or rectories, that may well be next. St. Michael’s parish with its surrounding complex of buildings next to the Hudson Yards, and currently closed, seems to me an obvious target. Most Holy Redeemer on East 3rd Street is already the subject of animated discussion. Another candidate that comes to mind is Sacred Heart parish in Hell’s Kitchen, merged with St. Malachi’s parish (perhaps including its school building, currently used by the active Blessed Sacrament school?).  I might also mention, among others, the parishes of St. Thomas More and Our Lady of Good Counsel, or Corpus Christi, now combined with Notre Dame.

Then there are the parishes targeted in previous waves of closures that for one reason or another were spared, such as  the above-mentioned St. Thomas More or Holy Innocents.  But really any parish or school is potentially at risk – regardless of how successful it may be. Remember the fight over the Archdiocese’s attempt to close St Thomas More – surely not an impoverished parish! 

And all of these actions are just the developments in the borough of Manhattan! Judging from the reaction so far, other than aggrieved locals, no one in the Catholic community seems to care.

1. Kelly, Keith J.,” Pastors Worry as Archdiocese Pushes $800 Million Sex Abuse Settlement,” ourtownny.com (5/5/2026)
2.  Ibid. See also Saltonstall, Gus and Muha, Laura, Upper West Side Church to sell for $96M  and become Housing,” westsiderag.com (2.2/2026) (As the latter article states, the church and rectory in fact were not sold)
3. Kelly, Keith J., “St. Brigid School in East Village Put on Block by Archdiocese,” ourtownny.com (5/3/2026).
4. Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of New York continue renewal, announce Key Changes, thegoodnewsroom.org ( 3/16/2026).
5. “Cathedral High School to close following the 2025-26 Academic Year,thegoodnewsroom.org (9/19/2025).
6. Kelly, Keith J., “Another Manhattan School to Close: Archdiocese,”  ourtownny.com (3/24/2026) In his informative report,  Kelly points out that the Archdiocesan claims of relocating students to other Catholic schools are unrealistic, given the distances involved.
7.  Ibid. Also,  Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of New York, supra Note 4.

The Wall Street Journal today returns to the theme of young Catholics attending Mass at Saint Joseph’s in the Village and at Saint Patrick’s basilica.

Bhutani, Anvee, “Gen. Z finds a home in Sunday Mass,” Page A3, The Wall Street Journal, (Monday 5/4/2026).

As in the case of the Epstein saga,  this report continues the trend of the mainstream news publications  –  and specifically the WSJ  – of simply commenting on news previously reported in online sources. 1)

The reporter describes a 6:00 PM Sunday Mass – certainly a welcome time for college students! And it seems that a number of them have come to this Mass after a pizza dinner an hour earlier. The reporter is struck by the fact that all the pews were filled, folded chairs had to be provided, the balconies were utilized and even then, some had to stand for the 90-minute service. The reporter, who seems unfamiliar with the Catholic Church, could not know that prior to Vatican II that seating situation was routine at the main Sunday Masses in ordinary parish churches. And also, that Our Lady of Pompeii,  a much larger Catholic church,  is located a little way down the Avenue and seems to be, relatively speaking, empty.

The reporter also makes the point that socializing seems to be a main benefit and even objective for those who attend Mass here. From the pulpit,  the priest says that he has heard that some attend Mass at St. Joseph’s not only to worship God:

“There is great excitement about falling in love with a pretty girl.” 

Now in today’s society that’s perhaps a sentiment to be commended!  But isn’t the evident interest in socializing expressed by the members of the congregation interviewed for this article more characteristic of a Protestant denomination?

Yet otherwise, all is not healthy in the Archdiocese of New York. Last week we learned from the secular media of the proposed amount of the settlement of sex abuse claims: $800 million. On May 1st, Archbishop Hicks issued a “message” in which he stated that he is “cautiously optimistic” the settlement will materialize. For Archbishop Hicks makes clear what the alternative is:

If a truly global settlement can be achieved, compensation will become available to victim survivors in the fastest, most comprehensive manner possible, without the need for lengthy painful litigation for victim-survivors or bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese.2)

UPDATE:

A reader of this blog familiar with St. Jiseph’s shares some observations:

Hello Mr. Chessman, I’m a native New Yorker who has for the past few years regularly read your essays, book reviews, and blog posts on the Society’s website. While I don’t consider myself a capital-T traditionalist Catholic and I have not always agreed with the website’s perspective, I have my sympathies and I like to take in different points of view. It also helps that your website is among the few that regularly covers Catholicism in New York City besides the official archdiocesan channels. 

I’ve noticed that you’ve mentioned in quite a few recent posts the church I attend, St. Joseph’s in Greenwich Village, understandably so considering the media attention it has gotten this past year, coverage that shows no signs of letting up; a camera crew from PBS was over at the parish this past Sunday. I thought that you may be interested in a somewhat different perspective than what has been covered in most of the news articles.

For one thing, I attend the 11:30 A.M. Mass and have never attended the 6:00 P.M. Mass, which has gotten almost all of the news coverage. While the 6:00 Mass does have the highest attendance, the 11:30 Mass has been at or near full attendance as well. While attendees are still predominantly young adults, there are quite a few young families and even some older parishioners, including those who have been around since before the Dominicans took over. That mass has a choir that chants the propers and features polyphony from the likes of Byrd, Vivaldi, Lasso, etc. That same choir covers most of the Masses for non-Sunday solemnities, including the Triduum. I don’t have the finest ear so I can’t say if it’s better or worse than what I’ve heard at St. Vincent Ferrer or St. Josaphat’s, but I believe it’s quite beautiful and enriching to the solemnity of the Mass. 

I cannot comment on the feelings and inner convictions of every parishioner and I have been disappointed by some of the unnecessary comments made about traditionalist Catholics, but that’s thankfully not a sentiment I have personally witnessed and it’s not something I would tolerate nor something I believe the friars would encourage. I’ve met quite a few parishioners, including the guys I serve with, who are very sympathetic to tradition. 

I’m also aware that there may be some people who attend the 6:00 P.M. as an “event”, for lack of a better term. I would say that that kind is exceeded by those who are genuinely seeking to learn and grow in the faith. The Eucharistic devotion among the parishioners here is especially breathtaking. To give one example, the past couple of years the parish has hosted quarterly “NightFire” events, where the church is open all night to the public for Eucharistic adoration. The parish has produced at least two vocations to the priesthood and there are currently two former parishioners in formation for the Province of St. Joseph, alongside a couple of vocations to female religious life and several more parishioners presently discerning religious life.

It must also be said that the friars are truly exemplary and I think that the way they’ve been quoted by some of the secular media outlets have done them a disservice. They’re among the best preachers, confessors, and celebrants of the liturgy I’ve known, and the pastor Fr. Boniface deserves a lot of credit and has been very explicit in wanting to make St. Joseph’s a center of Catholic culture, as can be seen in its hosting of ArtHouse2B, the School of Sacred Music, and the Thomistic Institute, among other initiatives. 

Of course, it’s not like everything is perfect. I recognize the limitations that derive from the dominant liturgical/pastoral paradigm; as much as I believe eating pizza dinner before Mass is inappropriate, it’s likely those people are not violating the one hour fast before communion. Similar comments could be made regarding the contemporary music featured at the 6:00 P.M. Mass. But things are much improved from how they were two years ago, and are even more greatly improved than before the pandemic. I understand that there are aspects of the parish which will not be satisfying to traditionalists but I do believe that despite the hype, St. Joseph’s is a truly blessed place that I have been fortunate to participate in. That’s my two cents, anyway.

Thank you and God bless,

A Reader of the Society’s Website

1. See our previous report: “Looking for the ‘Catholic Revival.’” (5/26/2026) (summarizing earlier articles)
2.  “A Message from Archbishop Hicks,” thegoodnewsroom.org, (5/1/2026) . On the proposed settlement, see, e.g., DeGregory, Priscilla; Senzamici, Peter: and Troutman, Matt, “NY Archdiocese pitches $800M to settle child sex abuse claims — warns of bankruptcy if offer is rejected,” The New York Post (5/1/2026)

Bishop Steven Lopes, Deacon and subdeacon ( represented by priests?) and concelebrating clergy at a solemn ordinariate Mass. (7/2022)

Peter Kwasniewski at Rorate Coeli has reported that instructions have been given in the Anglican ordinariates that priests may not assume the role of deacon and subdeacon at a Solemn Mass. If priests other than the celebrant wish to participate at such a mass, they must concelebrate. 1) Other statements, both official and unofficial, indicate the substance of this report is correct. The intent of such a change in liturgical practice  – for such it is – is obvious:  in many, even most cases, the celebration of Solemn Masses in the ordinariate “use of the Roman Rite” would be de facto impossible.  

Now at this time it remains unclear what the exact directive is, where this determination was discussed or decided upon and who initiated the discussion. Neither Cardinal Roche nor Bishop Steven Lopes of the United States ordinariate ( the two gentlemen reportedly involved ) has, to the best of my knowledge, said anything on the subject. Such a process is completely consistent with Catholic administrative practice: opaque, secretive and exhibiting a total lack of candor.

This change in liturgy fits in well with Roche’s petty legal harassment of traditionalist activity that the Vatican was otherwise unable to stop, like the pilgrimage to Chartres. But it also coincides with the campaign, accompanying the persecution of traditionalists,  to also extirpate the vestiges of prior liturgical practice from the Novus Ordo. In Chicago, Charlotte, and even (partially)in places like New York we have seen prohibitions of ad orientem Masses, receiving communion while kneeling, altar rails, kneelers and even the wearing of veils by women. This is regardless of the existing rubrics, current liturgical directives or just common decency.

As I understand it,  the Anglo-Catholic liturgical heritage of the Anglican/Episcopal Church was mixed. Some of their parishes use the prayer book, some use the traditional Roman Rite, and some use the Novus Ordo with Anglican accretions. The new missal crafted for the American ordinariate seems to me to be a conservative, ad orientem, Novus Ordo Mass with the addition of various prayers from the Anglican services and using much more formal English texts.(see the above photograph) Previously, if a Solemn Mass were celebrated, the deacon and subdeacon could be priests – as can be seen in online reports and which has also been the custom in more traditional celebrations of the Novus Ordo since at least the 1980s.2)

What will be the consequences – assuming this decision is enforced?

For the ordinariate itself, I am not sure.   If enforced, it will make life difficult for those who have organized festive solemn liturgies in that rite or “use.” But I think the liturgical problems of the ordinariate pale in comparison with the ecumenical messages recently emanating from Pope Francis and now from Pope Leo  – especially the powerful visual signals from the new Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit. These indicate to me that the Pope and the Vatican don’t necessarily agree with the positions of the ordinariate clergy and laity.

Second, this action  – both its substance and the procedure involved – offers the strongest possible support for the FSSPX to pursue its ordinations this year.

Third,  it clarifies that the ordinariate use will not be a “conservative” alternative to the Novus Ordo or the TLM.

Finally, for those who have supported the idea of a traditionalist ordinariate,  I can only repost what I wrote on 2/8/2026: 

In this time of uncertainty, it is not surprising that voices in the traditionalist camp have proposed (to themselves?) an “ordinariate” for traditionalists. This would involve the assignment of one or more bishops to exercise authority over a segregated community of traditionalists. I find this initiative utterly misguided. First, the proposal is unsound tactically. It would be worth addressing if the Vatican were offering it as a compromise. For traditionalists to suggest it themselves appears like begging for a favor. Second, any commitment to such a structure on the part of the Vatican would be worthless. A review of past Vatican negotiations with Una Voce and the FSSPX shows how utterly untrustworthy and underhanded the Vatican can be.  Third, the FSSPX have been requesting the ordination and recognition of bishops – in a sense, constituting themselves as an “ordinariate,” for many years. As of today, they have achieved nothing since the lifting of excommunications on bishops under Pope Benedict. Fourth, the experiences of the currently existing “ordinariate” of the ex-Anglicans or of the personal prelature of Opus Dei are not at all favorable precedents for the success of a traditionalist ordinariate. I would anticipate that, if such a structure were ever adopted,  endless discussions would ensue regarding the form of the liturgy, the status of individual priests and parishes,  the relationships with the local bishops, the ownership of property, etc. I very much doubt, for example, any traditionalist ordinariate would be permitted to function in Chicago, Detroit or Charlotte! All this would distract the Traditionalists from their main task: restoring and promoting the fulness of Catholic faith. (emphasis added) 3)

1. Kwasniewski, Peter, “Anglican Ordinariate priests ordered to concelebrate Mass instead of taking other ministerial roles,” Rorate Caeli (4/23/2026)
2. For the ordinariate see, e.g., Heatherington, Kimberly, “Ordinariate Solemn Mass honors Newman’s legacy at national shrine in Washington,” OSV News(8/8/2023)
3.  “Catholic Traditionalism in 2026:Part 2,”The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, (2/8/2026)

After Newman: A Eulogy for Anglo-Catholics 1845-1965

by Aidan Nichols, OP

Gracewing, Leominster 2025

255 pages

Fr. Aiden Nichols, OP offers us a “eulogy” for Anglo-Catholics. I would note, first, that Fr. A. Nichols, “OP” is obviously once more a Dominican –  his move to the Premonstratensian order having gone nowhere. Second, he calls this book a eulogy: a speech of praise but one commonly given for a deceased person. And since Nichols’s narrative ends in the early 1960s, we may conclude that Anglo-Catholicism ended sometime between those years and now. 

Father Nichols’s stated purpose, however, is to celebrate the achievements of the Anglo-Catholics over some 120 years. It is the story of those involved in the Tractarian movement who, after Newman and others joined the Roman Catholic Church, stayed in the Church of England and sought to transform it, to make it Catholic, but English. 

I must admit this book presents some challenges to the reader. After Newman is very dense – names, movements and institutions follow each other in rapid succession. It is arranged thematically, even although these themes follow a quasi-chronological order. This at times makes it difficult to follow for someone not already somewhat familiar with the issues and people involved. Nevertheless, a close reading begins to uncover all kinds of gems. Fr. Nichols often exhibits a very English, quirky sense of humor. 

“(Jones)the rector of Batsford with Moreton-in-Marsh in Gloucestershire’s Evenlode Valley(could any location be more quintessentially English?) (p.135)

One of the bishops whom Gregory Dix called “Edwardian’: Edward VI in theology, Edward VII in mental equipment and Edward VIII in attitude to marriage. (p.124)

Fr. Nichols also frequently draws on his own experiences and those of the Church today in elucidating the past. I should point out that Fr. Nichols has endured travails in the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Francis that recall those of the Anglo-Catholics of the 19^th century.

For Anglo-Catholicism in the formative years – what Fr. Nichols calls the time of the “Oxford Fathers” – was hardly an elegant, effete affair of “sherry in the rectory.”  Pusey, Keeble, Neale and their disciples routinely faced anti-Catholic, anti-“Puseyite” riots. And for a while ritualists were actually prosecuted by the state. It may surprise those unfamiliar with English history to read of the extent of the direct control by the crown and parliament of all aspects of life of the “established” Church of England at that time – and to a lesser extent up to the present day. The only countervailing forces came from the financial  and political support of secular patrons (which later included prime minister Gladstone.) This assured the Anglo-Catholics of access to parishes and benefices where they could implement their ideas. But at least through the 1930s the fortunes of the Anglo-Catholics were often driven by political changes in parliament.

Liturgically there seems to have been a wide variety of practice among the Anglo-Catholics. So-called ritualism took a while to get underway. At first the Anglo-Catholics advocated for more regular even daily communion services, for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, and, most famously, the use of more elaborate vestments. But a time went on a great variety of liturgical practice unfolded. Some held to the Prayer Book. Others explored reviving some or all of the Sarum use. Then there were the so-called Anglo-Papists who adopted directly the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. All these forms coexisted with each other.

The Anglo-Catholics revived for the first time since the Reformation monasteries and communities of men and women in the Church of England. Numerous sisterhoods arose – these often undertook missions in the worst slums of the cities to help and live among the poor, outcasts and prostitutes. This was 70 years or more before the Catholic Worker came along in the United States. Fr. Nichols points out that some of these sisters followed a rule of prayer that was much more intellectually and spiritually demanding than that which similar active female religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church tended to use at that time. Later, contemplative monasteries were established. Communities of men also were created. Their model was more the medieval orders rather than the clerks regular typical of the Catholic counter-reformation (like the Jesuits); they emphasized communal prayer.

Now Fr. Nichols points out with pride the artistic achievements of the Anglo-Catholics. We might start with the great gothic revival churches in the second half of the 19th century. And these grand edifices were often associated with missions to the working-class areas of the cities – another focus of Anglo-Catholic activity.  As Fr. Nichols points out, these Neo-Gothic shrines reflected the principles of Pugin  (who had become a Roman Catholic) more faithfully than what was built in the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglo-Catholics resurrected and brought to a rare perfection such crafts as ecclesiastical needlework or stained glass. The Anglo-Catholic legacy in hymn writing (Neale!) was influential: do we not know “All Glory, Laud and Honour” and even “Onward Christian Soldiers”? 

Anglo-Catholicism produced notable theologians. In the social area, they produced doctrines of a “Catholic Sociology.”  They also developed a critique of modern society and advanced as an alternative  “Christendom” – like Catholic traditionalists today. And, as indicated above, their social engagement was not all just theoretical.

But perhaps best known to Roman Catholics are the writers associated with Anglo-Catholicism: Dorothy Sayers and her translation of Dante, the poetry of T.S. Eliot, the novels of Charles Williams –  among others. Fr. Nichols doesn’t mention C.S. Lewis, but he could certainly be said to have had a Catholic spirituality – like that of the early Oxford Fathers but certainly unlike that of the more extreme ritualists or the Anglo-Papists. As an aside,  some of these figures remain targets to the present day of anti-Anglo-Catholic rage. A recent article in the Church Times (once an Anglo-Catholic foundation!) indicted Anglo-Catholic “lay luminaries” Arthur Machen, Evelyn Underhill and Charles Williams (the latter two favorably mentioned by Fr. Nichols) for dabbling in the occult. 1) 

Now after the battles of the 19th century and as the 20th century advanced the Anglo-Catholic movement seemed to be gaining traction and, at least in certain respects, even dominance within the Church of England. Between the wars,  Anglo-Catholic conferences became grand, well-attended affairs. Fr. Nichols writes of an Anglican moment after 1945.  In 1961 Arthur Michael Ramsey, of Anglo-Catholic background, actually became the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Despite this new influence, however,  the movement eventually lost ground. Fr. Nichols does not describe for us much of what happened after 1960. Perhaps Anglo-Catholicism became a victim of its own success. For a potential root cause analysis, Fr. Nichols quotes William Davage: 

By accepting a tolerated place within a comprehensive economy, falling into an establishment embrace, the Anglo-Catholic missionary edge to recover the whole of the Church of England to its right mind was blunted; its aims were watered down, practices and disciplines became increasingly compromised.(p. 146) 

In addition, Fr. Nichols writes of a rupture among the Anglo-Catholics over “quite other issues“( than the disputes over ritual and Catholic practices of the past; Nichols probably here means such things as the ordination of women). These issues:

[B]y the end of the 20th century would divide Catholic Anglicans into two camps: ‘affirming’ Catholics who accepted the agenda of progressive Roman Catholicism, fed as it is, in matters of anthropology, by secular liberalism and the ‘classical Anglo-Catholics’ of whom After Newman is a eulogy.(p.60)

Archbishop Ramsey (and his successors) seems to have let progressives do whatever they wanted. Recently we’ve seen a recurrent exodus from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church, as the “CofE” departs ever more radically from the tenets of even traditional Christianity.  This, despite the fact that the highest leadership of the “RCC” seems quite enamored of Church of England establishment the last few years…., 

Fr. Nichols notes that, perhaps strangely, contact between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics has been limited. That is unfortunate!  Over the years each Catholic “denomination” has been glad to borrow literature, music and rituals from the other. And a Catholic traditionalist, reading the early struggles of the Anglo-Catholics, is forcefully reminded of his own situation. For in the Catholic Church today traditionalists are also fighting for the complete Catholic heritage in liturgy, theology, philosophy and art. Their struggle is also against a persecuting, hostile-to-indifferent clerical establishment often allied with secular forces,  But the challenge for the Anglo-Catholics was in a sense greater. The “opponent” (really, the state and society of Great Britain) was, unlike today’s Roman Catholic Church, expanding, seemingly invincible and at the height of its power. Furthermore, the coercive power of the state and of the violence of mobs could be (and were) brought to bear against them. But the Anglo-Catholics persevered over the decades – it is an example to be admired. 

In a final eulogy or even epitaph for the Oxford movement, Fr. Nichols justly writes that:

its influences sowed seeds in all the areas scanned in this short book and the seeds sprouted and the fruit – herein described – is undeniable. In consequence, Roman Catholics, who, historically, were not their friends, was must now out of justice as well as by generosity of spirit, become their admirers. And more than admirers, their allies.(p. 204)

1. Yoder, Richard,  “On the Wings of the Dawn: the Lure of the Occult,” Church Times (12/14/2018). This is very similar to the preposterous campaigns in the Roman Catholic Church against Cristina Campo and, more recently against Sebastian Morello both accused of “hermeticism.”

An interview with Abbot Jeremias Schröder OSB.

Interviewer: What role does the liturgy play (in the Benedictine order) ? Is there a trend to the old liturgy in the Benedictine monasteries? Is there a conflict there between traditionalists and moderns?

“I don’t see a conflict. Among us Benedictines the traditional liturgy and today’s liturgy coexist, very reconciled. We have in the whole order around ten Abbeys which celebrate in the old rite, mostly in France.”

Schröder mentions Fontgombault and its affiliated group, Le Barroux and Norcia.

“We all show each other respect. As the Abbot Primate I am also the Abbot Primate for these (traditionalist) communities, although I can only celebrate with the new missal. That’s what I did when I was invited to the conventual mass at Fontgombault and that was of course accepted.”

Interviewer: Could the Benedictines be here a model for the whole Church?

“In a certain fashion yes, because we already practice this peaceful coexistence. I am keenly looking forward to how Pope Leo addresses the problem. We have fellow brothers and also sisters who have based their religious life on this form of praying and celebrating the Mass. After Pope Benedict opened doors here, one can no longer completely exclude the old form. In the meantime(the traditional form) has also acquired a right of residence in the Church, and should be admitted, at least in certain areas.”

SOURCE: https://katholisch.de/artikel/68361-abtprimas-alte-messe-laesst-sich-nicht-mehr-ganz-hinausdraengen

The Disastrous Pontificate: Pope Francis’ Rupture from the Magisterium 

by Dominic J. Grigio

Os Justi Press(Lincoln, NE, 2025)

845 pages.

Already we have the first history of the pontificate of Pope Francis: The Disastrous Pontificate gives us an early summary of the Francis years. This substantial book is divided into three parts.  The first is a systematic exposition of the theological errors of Pope Francis. The second is a collection of statements and events in the reign of Francis, arranged chronologically month-by-month. The third section is a set of source materials supporting the author’s critique of Francis’s positions. 

Given my own interests, I focused  on the second part which forms a short history of Francis’s  papacy. It quotes Francis himself throughout the years of his pontificate. Some of “Francis’s“ statements are actually those of his supporters in and outside of the Vatican. In addition to the voice of Francis and friends, Grigio provides a running critical commentary on the Pope’s statements from contemporary sources. (A third voice which is largely missing, however, is that of the sycophantic official Catholic and secular media. )

Now much of the material in the second  part of the book is taken from LifeSiteNews, although Grigio also draws extensively on other sources in the secular and the official Catholic media. I confess I do not read LifesiteNews regularly, but I was nevertheless aware of almost all the matters discussed. There were, however,  one or two surprises. Such as where Pope Francis said he had read and liked Frederic Martel’s Inside the Closet of the Vatican, a pro-homosexual, pro-Bergoglio book which describes rampant homosexuality in the church and the Vatican  –  and also disparages Pope Benedict, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Ganswein… (p. 300, May 10, 2019)

This strictly chronological format does have the disadvantage of being a list of statements and actions by Francis without explanation or analysis of the context in which they occur. Thus,  I think it may be difficult for one who was not already familiar with the events of Francis’s papacy to fully follow what is described here. But this format also has an advantage –  we see each of the statements and actions of Francis as of the date they took place. As a matter of style, I did find tedious the author’s repetitive application of epithets to people and institutions (“the heterodox Tablet”) like in Homer or Old Germanic poetry.

Taken as a papal history, The Disastrous Pontificate is a tedious experience. It is the greatest possible contrast to the sometimes startling but often fascinating biographies of the Renaissance and baroque popes written by Ludwig von Pastor. Francis leaves us no such record of interesting words and deeds,  holy or not.  The voice of Pope Francis and his claque, as set forth in this book, is one long, monotonous rant, devoid of intelligence, insight and especially of humor.  Francis breaks the Conciliar ideology down into a set of slogans or buzzwords that he endlessly hammers home: going to the peripheries, mercy, tenderness, dialogue, the “outgoing Church,” “there’s no going back,” etc.  This is accompanied by the constant, coarse disparagement of adversaries. Ideological friends, however, are effusively praised and rewarded. Underlying everything is a manic cult of personality. ( The Disastrous Pontificate doesn’t mention the enormous number of books written by or about Bergoglio). As for Bergoglio’s administrative policies, they combine tyranny with incompetence ( e.g., the unending financial and managerial scandals in the Vatican). 

It’s unclear what  Pope Francis himself believed. If we read the numerous interviews with Eugenio Scalfari (never repudiated by the pope) one would have to say: very little. Francis did, however, revive the Conciliar movement of the 1960’s in its most radical form. He spoke of a ”cultural Revolution,”  a “paradigm shift” of living through a “change of epoch.” This experience of the allegedly changed world of today would now determine the theology of the Church. (pp. 474-75, November 1, 2023). What Pope Benedict called the “hermeneutic of rupture” could hardly be expressed more drastically.

Should I add that the achievements of Francis’s papacy outside of the strictly ecclesiastical sphere are virtually nonexistent? In terms of secular politics, Francis’s most notorious achievement was his accommodation with the government of China. Unless, that is, we count as “secular politics”  the wholesale adoption by Francis as his own of the program of the European and American establishment: migrants, social programs, etc.  And he looked the other way when this same establishment – notably, President Biden -aggressively advocated practices like abortion or homosexual marriage.

Similarly, artistic achievements of the Bergoglio papacy are utterly lacking. There is the “art “ of Fr. Marko Rupnik,  omnipresent in the Church – at least until the other aspects of his career were exposed. There are “ideological” (Socialist Realism style) statues of migrants and the homeless. And there is “Luce,” the mascot of the 2025 jubilee year. The papacy today can no longer provide any impetus to artistic creativity.

Now when this book describes the Bergoglio pontificate as disastrous, I think the author means in the first instance the ideological destruction and the denial of Catholic principles in theology and morality. But I also think of the background of these events . The ongoing decline in the numbers of priests, seminarians and religious. The closing of churches and monasteries. The never-ending series of sexual abuse scandals and the resulting bankruptcies in the United States. And above all, the continuing decline of the practice of the Catholic faith among those still claiming to be Catholic.  Bergoglio himself did not understand or care about any of this:

Five places:  Belgium, Holland, Spain, Ireland and Quebec filled the world with missionaries. Today these five places have no vocations. it is a mystery: and in less than 100 years. How do we explain this to each other? I see no explanation….  I’m not concerned in the sense that we are merging, it is a sign of the times that indicates worldliness, that indicates a level of development that puts value elsewhere. (p 435: January 13, 2023)

The Pope’s indifference to this and other afflictions of today’s Church is amazing.

And what of Leo? Robert Prevost came to the Vatican to be an efficient implementor of Pope Francis’s policies. Thus: 

‘”On the 9th of September 2023, Pope Francis met with Archbishop Robert Prevost OSA , head of the dicastery for bishops and Archbishop Christophe Pierre Apostolic nuncio to the United States to discuss the Apostolic visitation of bishop Strickland. “

The recommendation put to Bergoglio was to request Strickland’s resignation. (p.450, September 9, 2023)

The rhetoric and style of Pope Leo is clearly very different from that set forth in this book. Leo has tended to avoid the confrontational rhetoric and name calling of his predecessor. He has introduced a calmer and more orderly style of governance. He has reached out to some  parties within the Church who had been slighted – or worse – by his predecessor. So, for example, he authorized a statement to the French bishops issued by Cardinal Parolin which had some kind words to say about traditionalists. This would have been unthinkable under Francis. Similarly, he’s made limited policy adjustments in personnel and policy at the level of the curia to assuage certain aggrieved parties and consolidate his more orderly and less mercurial style.

On the other hand, Pope Leo has not yet touched the substantive policies of his predecessor. He has emphasized his own continuity with Pope Francis.  That resemblance extends to some of Francis’s habits (extended interviews given on airplanes; the cultivation of preferred relationships with reporters) The new Pope has been extremely solicitous of other members of the Francis team.  In most cases he has retained the same personnel in the same positions. And these people have continued to take actions and issue statements entirely in line with the policies of Pope Francis – and have asserted that Pope Leo also will be doing the same.  It seems likely though, that Leo, by using a different tone and rhetoric, wants to defuse some of the confrontations stoked by Pope Francis while keeping his predecessor’s documents (and people) in place. I’ve expressed my fear that this approach may be inadequate in the light of what is happening in Germany, with the FSSPX, with the Vatican finances, with the homosexual movement  – the list is endless. 

Refecting on this book. I think the saddest part of all is this:  I have a great fear that Pope Leo and most of those the Vatican, upon reading this book, would find little wrong.  And there are further indicia of the Church’s crisis.  The author’s name, Dominic J. Grigio, is the pseudonym of a member of the clergy  “who cannot reveal his identity for fear of reprisals against himself and his diocese.” (Rorate Caeli). And some desperate “conservatives,” considering how a pope can make statements like the ones set out in this book,  have recourse to strange theories splitting the pope into “two bodies”  – a heretical pope and an orthodox pope. (p.44). Thus, the intolerable strain on the culture of the Church created by the Bergoglio pontificate persists. But to do anything about it,  we must first understand this situation:  The Disastrous Pontificate is a major source book for that.

( You can obtain The Disastrous Pontificate: Pope Francis’ Rupture from the Magisterium from:

https://osjustipress.com/products/disastrous-pontificate)

La Trahison des pères : Emprise et abus des fondateurs de communautés nouvelles

By Céline Hoyeau 

Bayard Editions, 2021

352 pages

The Betrayal of the Fathers confronts a crisis that has been simmering within the Church for decades – namely, the new spiritual “movements” and their all too frequent  deviation into spiritual and sexual abuse. Celine Hoyeau,  who works for the semiofficial La Croix in France, gives us a systematic review of the subject. It is a phenomenon that is especially  important in France. There, new religious communities were viewed as a potential savior from the decline and disintegration of the official Church that was already evident by the early 1970s. And although Hoyeau doesn’t say this,  their “conservative”  spirituality was at the same time distinct from and opposed to that of the mortal enemy of the establishment, the Catholic traditionalists. Therefore, the movements enjoyed from the beginning varying degrees of patronage from the official Church. And after 1978, Pope John Paul II adopted the movement concept as a preferred form of apostolate.

Hoyeau describes the sad story how movement after movement experienced disaster because of the exploitative activities of their spiritual leaders – in fact, the problem of abuse has infected the great majority of them.  The ensuing disclosures have shaken the Church in France. It is not that sexual abuse only occurred in the movements – on the contrary, there was probably more of it in the mainstream religious orders and in the diocesan clergy. But what was particularly distressing was the discovery of it in the new communities, inflicted at the hands of founders who often were revered as living saints. I should add that this book was published in 2021 – since that time much additional data has emerged supporting the conclusions of Hoyeau.

 In some cases, the French movements date back to the 1940s or even earlier. However, the big impetus for the nontraditional movements came in the 1970s with the influence of the charismatic renewal coming from American Protestantism.  The new movements had varying organizational structures and apostolates. Many originated in a specific charitable initiative. One, the “Office Culturel de Cluny” (OCC) had as its mission to restore Christendom through art and beauty! (pp.24-25) 1) They often feature hybrid liturgies and dress (e.g., combining Western and Byzantine traditions)  But nearly all of them have an absolute, charismatic founder enjoying a near divine aura based on direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who obtains total domination over the members of the community. These in turn find it impossible to break from the psychological hold exercised by the founder and, willingly or not, become participants in his (or in some cases her) crimes.

Of course, the  same phenomenon and the same problems have emerged again and again outside of France. In Germany we have seen the KIA(Katholische Integrierte Gemeinde),  once patronized by Cardinal Ratzinger and which later had to be dissolved. Controversy has been swirling for years around Fr. Joseph Kentenich, the founder of the Schoenstatt movement – disciplinary actions which the Vatican took against him in the 1940s were only recently discovered.  I could of course also cite Fr. Maciel and the Legionaries,  Gino Burresi and the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary….

And what of the United States? Previously I have made a comparison between the European movements and the American “Conservative Catholics.”  2) But what in Europe is the predominant mode of alternative ecclesiastical organization is less common here. On the whole, the new spiritual movements, although present for many years, have remained a subordinate phenomenon in the United States.  The Catholic Worker of Dorothy Day in the 1930s already had features of the later movements(e.g., an oracular, charismatic founder ). Yet the regimented centralized control and devotion to the leader found elsewhere seems never to have been effectively established. And this example shows that, in the American context, the focus early on tended to be on political activity. Much more precisely resembling the developments chronicled by Hoyeau, however,  is the story of Fr. Bruce Ritter and Covenant House in the 1980s.

 Considering branches of communities originating outside the United States, Opus Dei has developed a certain presence in the United States since the 1950’s.(although I am not sure Opus Dei views itself as a “movement”!) Much later,  the Legion of Christ and its affiliate Regnum Christi were gaining traction prior to the reign of Pope Benedict XIV. The Neocatechumenal Way seems today to enjoy more official ecclesiastical  patronage than any of the others. 

But in conservative Catholicism,  leadership and a sense of community  have been provided primarily not by the new spiritual movements, but by supportive (mainstream) parishes,by authors, TV programs, publications and political organizations, especially those involved in pro-life activity. Charismatic renewal also has had less influence  with conservative Catholicism compared to its role in the European movements. Perhaps that is attributable to the omnipresent Protestant atmosphere in much of this country. “Charismatic” activity would be naturally associated with this milieu, not with a Catholic culture the conservatives were striving to restore.

Hoyeau seeks to identify the root causes of the problem. She notes how after World War II many Christians converted their faith into a political hope of reconstructing the world. Between 1958 and 1980 the level of religious practice in France fell from 35% to 10%. Vatican II was supposed to stem the estrangement from the Church but it only accelerated after 1965. The Council’s emphasis on religious liberty indeed appeared to many as an official authorization to make one’s own judgments in matters of belief. (pp.57-58) Welcome observations from a writer at La Croix!

Hoyeau devotes considerable space to the psychological aspects of abuse in the new foundations. She details the circumstances – affecting both founders and their followers – which enable the founders to gain total control over their subordinates. Yet I don’t think this crisis  arose primarily from the psychological defects of those who create such communities and those who are attracted to them. Rather, as Hoyeau herself shows us, these “formless” communities are the product of a time of flux. Even before World War II, I would assert, the traditional  Catholic paradigm of clergy and laity, of active and contemplative religious orders, had started to grow “brittle,” and mixed groupings of clergy and laity, usually active in the world,  sprang up.  This became the norm for the new foundations after the Council. Interestingly,  Hoyeau guardedly hints something deeper may be involved in some of these new movements – that in certain of them a non-Christian (quasi-Satanic?) cult may have taken root over the decades. And we have since encountered in the books of “Tucho” Fernandez or in the reported doings of Fr. Rupnik things startlingly similar to what Hoyeau reveals of the practices of the French founders. Thus, the abuses Hoyeau sets forth have an objective theological, ecclesiological  and historical foundation. 

I cannot follow other aspects of the author’s reasoning, especially in the latter half of this book. In keeping with the bureaucratic nature of the Church, she looks to “experts” in various disciplines to show us a path out of the disaster. Some of these experts offer analyses that contradict what Hoyeau herself has written earlier in the book. For example,  as you might expect from La Croix,  one pundit even attributes the failures of the founders to the repressive sexual regime before the Council. Thus, even the failings of the post-conciliar creations are only attributable to the pre-conciliar Church! I also think Hoyeau does not adequately spell out the dangers of the concept of “spiritual abuse”  – an overly broad category which itself fosters the abuse of authority. But all at all,  Celine Hoyeau has done us a great service in clearly and comprehensively analyzing an ongoing problem and tragedy for the Church.

1. Like the Society of St. Hugh of Cluny?!
2. See The Society of St. Hugh Cluny, “The Culture of Totalitarian Ultramontanism”(December 15, 2023); “Catholic Traditionalism in the United States: Notes for a History Part 2” (March 23, 2014)

We read that the Archdiocese of New York convened an “emergency” meeting of the clergy, outlining to them the dire financial condition of the archdiocese confronted by sexual abuse claims. Parishes and schools will have to contribute to the settlement fund – or else the archdiocese willl have to file for bankruptcy.

Kelly, Keith J., “Archdiocese to Pastors: Raise Millions for Sexual Abuse Victims or Go Bankrupt,” ourtownny.com (4/25/2026).

Is it not characteristic of the Church that the archdiocese’s new awareness emerges only after a change in leadership? And that the new archbishop of New York was reportedly not in attendance at this meeting?

This article points out the real or potential impact of the financial crisis on the fate of historic churches in Manhattan. We have covered them in this blog : St. Columba, St. Michael, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Most Holy Redeemer… I fear that the archdiocese will put more and more properties on the market to stave off disaster.