The following churches will offer Traditional Masses this Monday January 1, the Feast of the Circumcision, the Octave Day of Christmas.

If you know of a Traditional Mass to add to our schedule, please notify us.

Connecticut

St. Mary Church, Norwalk, 9 am.

St. Pius X, Fairfield, 7 pm, in the chapel

Sacred Heart Oratory, Redding, 12 noon, Bishop Frank Caggiano preaching. 

Sts. Cyril and Methodius Oratory, Bridgeport, 8 am Confession; Low Mass 8:30 am; 9:45 Confessions; High Mass 10:15 am.  (On New Year’s Eve Holy Hour and Te Deum at 6 pm)

St. Patrick Oratory, Waterbury, Low Mass 12 noon

New York

Church of the Holy Innocents, New York, NY, 9 am Low Mass; 10:30 am High Mass (n.b. there are no Confessions on New Year’s Day)

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, New York, NY, 10:30 am Missa Cantata

Our Lady of Refuge, Bronx, 1 pm.

St. Josaphat Church, Bayside, Queens, 10:30 am

St. Rocco Church, Glen Cove, Long Island, Missa Cantata, 11:30 am

St. Paul the Apostle, Yonkers, 12 noon.

Immaculate Conception, Sleepy Hollow, 4 pm low Mass

Sacred Heart Church, Esopus, 11:30 am

New Jersey

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, 9 am.

St. John Vianney, Colonia, Missa Cantata at 12AM on January 1st and a Holy Hour just before Mass.

Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, Pequannock, 7 am, 9 am, 11 am, 1:30 pm, 5 pm

St. Anthony of Padua Oratory, West Orange, 9 am Low Mass, 11 am High Mass

Shrine Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, 10 am

St. John the Baptist, Allentown, 11 am

January 6, The Feast of the Epiphany

St. Mary Church, Greenwich Ave, Greenwich, CT, Missa Cantata 8 am in the lower chapel followed by First Saturday devotions. The chapel is accessed through a separate entrance to the left of the church entrance.

Sacred Heart Oratory, Redding, CT, Low Mass, 8:30 am; Solemn Mass 10 am

Church of Holy Innocents, New York, NY, 6 am, 1 pm

Most Holy Redeemer, New York, NY, Solemn Mass, 12 noon.

St. Vincent Ferrer, New York, NY, Solemn High Dominican Rite Mass, 9:30 AM

Annunciation Church, Crestwood, NY, January 5th, blessing of Epiphany water at 7pm, bring empty bottles/vessels, which you will be able to fill from the larger vessels in the Sanctuary after the service. 

St. Mary/St. Andrew, Ellenville, NY, 12:30 pm

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, 11:00 am – blessing of Epiphany water followed by Mass

St. Anthony of Padua Oratory, West Orange, NJ, 9:00 am – low Mass, 11:00 am – High Mass of Epiphany (N.B. Blessing of Epiphany water will occur on Friday, Jan. 5th at 6:00 pm.)

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has launched a spiritual crusade asking God’s help for the Church.

This crusade was announced on Bishop Schneider’s website for the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima. See link.

“In the face of the tremendous crisis now afflicting the Catholic Church, the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima is launching a worldwide spiritual crusade consisting in the daily prayer of the Holy Rosary and practice of the Five First Saturdays, to implore, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, God’s help and intervention, particularly for the Holy See in Rome.

“This spiritual crusade will begin on the first Saturday of January 2024 (January 6) and conclude on the first Saturday of December 2024 (December 7).”

We urge our members and readers to attend First Saturday Mass and devotions beginning on January 6, 2024 as well as reciting the rosary daily for Bishop Schneider’s intention: “to implore, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, God’s help and intervention, particularly for the Holy See in Rome.”

A Missa Cantata is offered every Saturday at St. Mary Church on Greenwich Ave in Greenwich in the downstairs chapel at 8 am, concluding with recitiation of the Rosary. Please consider attending this Mass for the First Saturdays in 2024 or another Mass of your choice.

The Solemnity of Christmas, December 25

Connecticut

St. Mary Church, Norwalk, Solemn Midnight Mass begining with carols at 11:30 pm; 10 am Solemn Mass on Christmas Day.

Sacred Heart Oratory, Redding, Midnight Mass; Christmas Day: 7 am Low Mass and 12 noon.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Bridgeport, Solemn Midnight Mass preceded by carols at 11:30 pm; Christmas Day: Low Mass 8:30 am, Solemn Mass 10:15 am (The church will be open in time for 8 am confessions)

St. Patrick Oratory, Waterbury, Christmas Eve, Dec. 24, 10:30 pm carols, 11 pm Mass at night, reception in the church hall to follow; Christmas Day, 8:30 am Low Mass at Dawn, 10:30 am High Mass at Day.

St. Stanislaus Church, New Haven, the Low Mass for the Vigil of Christmas scheduled for 2 pm on Sunday December 24 has been canceled owing to the unavailability of a priest to celebrate; the High Mass for Christmas Day WILL be celebrated on Monday, December 25 at 2:00 pm.

St. Martha Church, Enfield, Midnight Mass; Christmas Day 9 am.

St. Michael Church, Pawcatuck, Christmas Day 11 am

New York

Holy Innocents Church, New York, NY, Solemn Midnight Mass preceded by carols at 11:30 pm and a procession to the manger and blessing of the crib, festive coffee hour following Midnight Mass; Christmas Day, 9 am Low Mass at Dawn, 10:30 am High Mass followed by Benediction. ( n.b. There are no confession on Christmas Day, the church will close shortly after the 12:30 Mass)

St. Vincent Ferrer Church, New York, NY, Dominican Rite Midnight Mass

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, New York, NY, Christmas Eve: 11 pm Confessions, 11:15 Carols, 11:50 Proclamation of the Nativity, 12 am Solemn Midnight Mass; Christmas Day, 10:30 am Missa Cantata

Our Lady of Peace, Brooklyn, 9:30 am

St. Josaphat, Bayside, Queens, Sung Midnight Mass; Carols begin at 11 pm; Christmas Day 9:30 am.

St. Rocco, Glen Cove, Long Island, Midnight Mass; Christmas Day 11:30 am

St. Michael, Farmingville, Midnight Mass; Christmas Day 9 am

St. Paul the Apostle, Yonkers, Christmas Eve 10 pm.

Annunciation Church, Crestwood, 11:30 am

Immaculate Conception, Sleepy Hollow, Christmas Day Mass, Missa Cantata, 2 pm (n.b. on Sunday, Dec. 24, the Mass for the Vigil of Christmas will be at 2 pm)

St. Patrick Church,Newburgh, 3 pm

Holy Trinity Church, Poughkeepsie, 8 am

St. Mary and St. Andrew Church, Ellenville, 11:30 am

Sacred Heart Church, Esopus, 11:30 am

St. Joseph Church, Middletown, 10:15 am High Mass

New Jersey

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, Midnight Mass beginning with carols at 11:30 pm, featuring Mozart’s Spatzenmesse. There is no TLM on the morning of Christmas.

Our Lady of Victories Church, Harrington Park, Christmas Eve 9 pm

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Newark, Midnight Mass

Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, Pequannock, Midnight Mass preceded by carols at 11 pm; Christmas Day 7 am Mass at Dawn, 8 am Mass at Dawn, 11 am Mass of Christmas Day, 1:30 pm Mass of Christmas Day ( no 5 pm Mass)

St. Anthony of Padua Oratory, West Orange, Christmas Eve: 10 pm confessions, 10:30 carols, 11 pm Solemn High Midnight Mass; Christmas Day: 9 am Low Mass, 11 am High Mass

Shrine Chapel of the Blessed Scarament, Raritan, Midnight Mass preceded by carols at 11:30 pm; Christmas Day, Missa Cantata 10 am

Corpus Christi, South River, Midnight Mass

St. John the Baptist, Allentown, Solemn Midnight Mass; Christmas Day, 7:30 am Low Mass

The “Declaration” Fiducia Supplicans authorizes “ordained ministers” to give blessings to couples in “irregular situations” and same-sex couples. By issuing Fiducia Supplicans Pope Francis returns directly to the project of transforming Church teaching on issues touching on sexual morality – a mission set aside temporarily in 2021 in favor of the war against liturgical traditionalism. But over the last two years these questions continued to be agitated, with the Pope’s approval, by the Synodal Path in Germany, hierarchies and individual bishops in Western Europe and finally by the Synod on Synodality worldwide. Fiducia Supplicans (“FS”) rivals Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes as Pope Francis’s most radical act.

The ”Presentation” to FS reveals the fundamental assumptions underlying the document. First, FS confirms Pope Francis as the source of Catholic teaching on morality, in line with the extreme understanding of papal power that had emerged by the time of Pius XII. FS is based on Francis’s “pastoral vision”; his statements are a “decisive element” for the work on this document – the curia is, after all “primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter.” 20 of the 31 footnotes reference documents of Francis. Of the rest, the oldest reference is to the 1985 edition of Pope Paul VI’s “Divine office.” So, the entire history of Catholic tradition and magisterium on these issues is ignored, along with the directly relevant passages of Scripture. 

Second, the Presentation to FS, as well as the text, presents a “modernist” celebration of progress, creativity, spontaneity, evolution, expansion, and development. FS offers a “specific and innovative contribution,”  “permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings.”  FS “implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.” All this, while claiming to remain firm on what it calls the “traditional doctrine” of the Church regarding marriage.  

Indeed,  in this choice of words, can we not detect a distancing from the doctrine and discipline of marriage with their “fixed nature,” which FS claims to preserve intact? Is there not a sense that the “informal” “non-liturgical blessings” it introduces may be superior to merely liturgical provisions? For do not informal blessings “inhabit a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom” compared to the “impoverishment” produced by “ritualization?” This is entirely in line with the previous statements of Pope Francis, and for that matter the philosophy of the post-conciliar liturgy, with its love of freedom from “rigid” rules and spontaneity. 

FS claims to do all this by invoking the magic word “pastoral.”  By qualifying its provisions as pastoral,  FS claims to be able to avoid any discussion of the traditional understanding of marriage or of the liturgy. “The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to ‘a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.’” But isn’t this radical distinction between the pastoral, on the one hand, and doctrine or discipline, on the other, unsustainable? Because the “praxis” – the “doing” – and doctrine and Church law must be in harmony. Didn’t Christ call the divergence of practice from the precepts of God’s law “hypocrisy?“

For, in substance, the praxis advocated by FS directly contradicts the consistent prior teaching of the Church. Regarding same sex-couples,  did not the immediate predecessor to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, the author of FS, explicitly reject the possibility of such blessings as recently as 2021? Does not the giving of blessings to couples as couples endorse their relationship as free from moral censure? Certainly, a reading of FS using the ordinary sense of the words would lead one to think so.  Picking up an argument from Amoris Laetitia, FS quotes:  “Pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.” Thus, in the situation of the “irregular relationships” treated by FS there really is no “objectively immoral” situations that can be discerned the ordained minister. Moreover, “Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything.” Thus, the couples in irregular relationships do not have to repent, let alone change their lifestyle. 

Similarly, FS emphasizes the ”non-liturgical” nature of the blessings it introduces as a key to distinguish such blessing from the sacrament of matrimony. According to FS, a non-liturgical blessing – aside from its other claimed advantages cited above – is free from any association with the liturgical blessings associated with matrimony. But this reasoning is totally specious. For FS in fact spells out a set of ritual or “semi-liturgical” rules of its own. The “spontaneous” blessings in FS are public acts with the participation of an “ordained minister.” 

“This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite, unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him.”

 “These non-ritualized blessings (should) never cease being simple gestures.”

“In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.”

“Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage.”

FS further states it would be wrong to “expect the same moral conditions for receiving a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments,” yet Pope Francis himself insisted in Amoris Laetitia that the Sacrament of the Eucharist could indeed be received in spite of the recipient’s lack of “perfection.”  Thus, the Pope himself has blurred this allegedly significant distinction between “simple” blessings and sacraments. 

By reiterating the need to avoid “scandal,” FS itself confirms that it will inevitably be the occasion of such scandals. For FS was issued in a specific historical context. Regarding same-sex marriages, for years massive agitation for the rights within the Church of same-sex couples has been taking place in the secular media. And the overwhelming majority of Catholics – including, I understand, of the bishops as well  – get their information on the Church from the secular media.  The whole world knows by now that the German Synodal Path has been fighting for same sex marriages or blessings. Various bishops and bishops’ conferences in Europe have implemented rituals for such blessings. So, almost everyone, within and outside of the Church, understands that FS as a total reversal of the Church’s position in response to these pressures. I understand that President Biden, for example, has welcomed FS.

What will be the consequences of FS? In Europe the forces advocating for the relaxation or the abolition of the church’s rules on sexual morality are celebrating. They will now move on to the next issue: married priests, women priests and deacons, lay participation in the election of bishops, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc. As to the rituals for same sex marriages they already have in place,  FS will undoubtedly incentivize the European bishops not only to retain them but to expand their use. Regardless of FS’s supposed restrictions on “rituals” similar to marriage, why should they back down now after such a great triumph?

The reaction of other bishops’ conferences (like that of the US) has been much more restrained, even cold – they have seized on the language in FS to assert that nothing has happened and thus avoid the issue. Of course, that was the intent of the casuistry of FS in the first place! The big news is that several episcopal conferences outside of Western Europe and the United States have publicly distanced themselves from FS. Thus, we may be seeing the beginning of an “Anglican” situation developing in the Catholic Church, where the believers on the outskirts of the Church adhere to the principles they have been taught( or nurtured under persecution), while the unbelieving leadership of the Church in Western Europe, the United States and much of Latin America pursues further accommodation with the world.

As for the clergy, I fear that what is set out in FS as a possibility will soon be compulsory. In Western Europe, episcopal conferences and individual diocese have already issued rituals for the marriages of same sex couples. There have already been statements of European bishops  that no priest can refuse to give the blessings authorized by FS. The conflict of conscience for those who cannot accept FS will be immediate and drastic. In the US, however, I anticipate the following scenario developing very shortly. Couples in “irregular” situations or same-sex couples will seek out priests who they know would be reluctant to give such blessings –  for example, at parishes that still celebrate the traditional mass, priests of the Ecclesia Dei institutes or of Opus Dei etc. – and present themselves for a blessing. If this is refused they will immediately turn to the New York Times, the Vatican or the just the local bishop. In both Europe and the United States, assuming Francis remains in office, a new persecution similar to that of the traditionalists under Traditionis Custodes but even broader in scope may arise. 

For the laity the long-term results will be disastrous. Just like the progressives, they will assume that in the case of restrictions on actual conduct imposed by the Church, every conflict between the Church and the secular world will ultimately be resolved by capitulation by the Church.  This will affect not just contributions but every aspect of Catholic life. The level of compliance with Church’s moral teachings will sink yet further. And how could a man commit to the diocesan priesthood in the knowledge that, based on the evidence of FS, he not only will have to follow its rules, but the priesthood itself might well be radically changed? Thus, depending on how long Francis lives (and the nature of his successor) a truly horrific scenario of conflict will materialize. This possibility alone should motivate the bishops to take a more forceful stance.

This is the schedule for the Traditional Latin Masses to be celebrated at Our Lady of Sorrows.

Sunday, December 24, 2023, 4^th Sunday of Advent. Mass at 9 AM

Sunday, December 24, 2023, Midnight Mass – Choral Service at 11:30 PM followed by the Missa Cantata

There is no TLM the morning of Christmas, 12/25/2023.

Sunday, December 31, 2023, Sunday within the Octave of Christmas, Mass at 9 AM

Monday, January 1, 2024, Feast of the Circumcision, Mass at 9 AM

Our Lady of Sorrows is located at 75 Claremont St., Jersey City

Parking lot is across the street from the church.

Father Richard Cipolla celebrated a Rorate Mass at 6 am this morning at St. Pius X Church in Fairfield, CT.

By now, the increasingly erratic and despotic acts and pronouncements of Pope Francis and his entourage are attracting greater and greater attention among Catholics. Even such stalwarts of the progressive Catholic establishment such as Robert Mickens, Massimo Faggioli, and media outlets such as katholisch.de and La Croix are now acknowledging these issues. 1) At the same time, there is a perception that we are in the last stages or the “endgame” of the Bergoglian papacy.  It’s appropriate to revisit a topic we had addressed a year and a half ago – in its broadest sense, the constitution and culture of the Roman Catholic Church. This consists of two elements.  First, ultramontanism: the centralized power,  teaching authority and jurisdiction of the Pope. Second, Vatican II’s call to openness (really deference) to the world and renewal (really, revolution) within the Church.

In recent attempts to come to grips with the phenomenon Francis, critical commentators turn to terms such as Peronism or dictatorship. These concepts are inadequate:  they represent an unacknowledged attempt to divorce the phenomenon of Francis from the culture of the Church as a whole, reducing it to a personal quirk of the current incumbent of the see of Saint Peter. Francis did not elect himself Pope. He rose to power based on support centered in Western Europe. Furthermore, these comparisons are politically inaccurate.  In no way, for example, is Francis a figure like Mussolini, the early Hitler or, of course, Juan Peron: a charismatic mob leader rising to power on the strength of a popular movement. The Francis phenomenon is totally different.

Similarly, it is misleading to focus on Francis’s “Argentinian” culture. Undeniably, the personal heritage of each Pope directly influences his style of government: Paul VI was an Italian curial functionary;  John Paul II shared the thespian gifts of his countrymen; and Pope Benedict always remained a German academic bureaucrat. But these native influences hardly offer a complete interpretive key to their reigns. 

Let review the main features of Catholic institutional culture today to better understand this. I hope the reader accepts these critical remarks as earlier generations regarded Antonio Rosmini’s On the Five Wounds of the Church or even the much more forceful diatribes of the medieval writers on the defects of the clergy.

Centralized and Unlimited Papal Authority. The Church is centralized in all respects. Pope Francis makes decisions without consultation with anyone beyond his close associates and without giving notice. He directly intervenes at any level from the College of Cardinals to the ordinary parish. He has assumed the direct leadership of numerous functions, like the Diocese of Rome or the Dicastery for Evangelization. The rule of Francis is detached from any institutions within the Church. All Vatican functions have been remade into mouthpieces for Francis.  Even the College of Cardinals no longer serves any real advisory role for Francis, but functions only as a means for rewarding friends and stacking the vote the vote at the next conclave.  Recently the Pope has made the claim that the temporal power is of divine origin – a claim last asserted before Vatican I. 

“Formless Despotism.” 2 ) The  culture of the Church of Francis is lawless and amorphous. Only the will of Francis counts.  Francis expresses his will in forms ranging from offhand remarks to an endless series of  interviews with the media to formal legislative decrees. He endorses decisions made by the Vatican offices reporting to him, and then disregards or rejects them himself. In areas like foreign policy or media relations the Pope works both through the official Vatican institutions having responsibility for these matters but also on the side through his trusted associates. Under Francis, tradition, canon law, custom, and even the words of the scriptures themselves have only relative value. Francis generally does not repudiate these authorities, but simply disregards them or renders them irrelevant. Legal procedures are either rendered meaningless or become totally chaotic (like the current Vatican trials of the perpetrators of failed financial investments). Most recently,  in the area of theology, Francis has even formalized these characteristics (Ad Theologiam Promovendam). 3)

Bureaucracy.  The bishops, priests and lay employees of the Church have been assimilated into one bureaucracy. The Church had been reduced to this bureaucracy well before Francis, but the status of each member of the bureaucracy now potentially depends on his personal relationship with Francis, not on any official position or title. Loyalty to Francis is the defining criterion of a good cleric or even a good Catholic. Bishops  – there have been several very recent examples –  are installed or removed in a completely arbitrary manner without any explanation or legal procedure. Moreover, a whole population of bishops exists who serve only at the discretion of the Pope: some have handed in their resignation and are waiting a papal decision on it; many others have surpassed the official age limits.

A Papal Cult of Personality.  A clique of sycophants – and a vast publicity apparatus –  praise the Pope’s every act and word. Francis is described as a reformer, a champion of the poor, a humble man, even as an existential philosopher. An already endless list of books by Francis or those lauding Francis continues to grow: Francis is now working on his autobiography. And the books are joined by cartoons, films, videos, and television programs. Francis is the center of gigantic Catholic events like World Youth Day. This campaign is not confined to the Vatican or to the official Catholic media. The Pope’s portrait is found in most churches – sometimes, as in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, provided with a fake halo. In many parish bulletins we encounter the face of Francis or a weekly message from Francis; his thought is constantly cited in Catholic academia and local diocesan events.  Indeed, the Vatican media have expressed the wish that Francis and his message should be brought into the private home of every Catholic. 

A Climate of Fear.  Especially among those in the clerical ranks a climate of fear has taken hold.  In Rome and at the Vatican, courtiers dread attracting the attention of Francis or his watchdogs either because their opposition to him would be discovered or, paradoxically, that they might attract his favorable attention. For the favor of Francis tends to be fleeting! But the climate of fear is not limited to the pope’s immediate entourage. The entire Church is ever more strongly divided into friends and enemies of Francis. The latter are mocked, disciplined and excluded from Church life. In the traditionalist world, for example, institutions, individuals, and parishes do not want reports written or photographs published lest they attract the notice of the local nuncio or the Vatican itself. Catholic traditionalists who have seen their masses abolished or transferred to gymnasiums can testify to the reach of Francis and his nuncios. 

Systemic Dishonesty.  Dishonesty dominates the discourse of the Catholic Church in all areas and at all levels. We saw this in the papal manipulation of synods ln preparation of Amoris Laetitia and in the management of the (never disclosed) survey supposedly supporting Traditionis Custodes.  We see this today in the manipulated synodal discussions up to and including the ongoing “Synod on Synodality” where the real objectives remain disguised and the main problems facing the Catholic Church are studiously avoided. The Pope himself sets a personal example, routinely saying one thing and doing another – such as in his financial reform initiatives,  his policies against clerical sexual abuse, his war on “clericalism,” his advocacy of “synodal” governance – the list is endless. Once again, the culture of dishonesty is by no means limited to the highest levels of leadership in the Church – throughout the world the official Catholic media are its leading practitioners and purveyors. In any given diocese anyone can verify this by comparing the public record of closed or merged school and parishes, declining ordinations, dissolving and declining religious orders and never-ending financial and sexual scandals with the optimistic narrative to be found in the local Catholic media. 

Ideology.  This entire system, however, is not the mere underpinning of a personal dictatorship but serves an ideology – that of Vatican II, reduced to a few basic beliefs. This ideology’s principles are clear, however crudely Francis expresses them:  Vatican II and the accompanying liturgical changes are the will of the Holy Spirit, so those who oppose or even question them are opposing God. One cannot go back but must go go forward. All are welcome in the Church “as they are.” Indeed, Aldo Maria Valli and Aurelio Porfiri have written an entire book on the platitudes of the Pope and the Catholic Church:

Dialogue

Pastoral

Synodality

Bridges

Autoreferential

Fragility

Mercy

Ecumenism

Discernment

Peripheries 

Often this double speak has a meaning totally different from its normal sense in the language. 4)

Remoteness from Reality. The Church leadership inhabits a world distant from the lives of ordinary lay Catholics (and of much of the lower clergy as well). Just as in the case of the current “Synod on Synodality,” the papacy, episcopacy and Church bureaucracy seem to lack any contact with historical, political, or sociological reality.  This isolation is evident in recent news reports of the views of cardinals allegedly “papabile”  in the next conclave. Moreover, a pervasive lack of accountably applies within the Church. Only where the mainstream secular media become involved – such as in issues involving sexual abuse – do the higher clergy face any consequences for their bad judgment of even criminality.  

The regime I have described above is no mere autocracy or dictatorship. It is a genuine form of totalitarianism, a culture which informs the entire body of the Church. The most obvious comparison in the recent past was the Soviet Union. The constant repetition of meaningless official cliches, the systemic dishonesty and a certain element of fear are indeed reminiscent of the last decades of the life of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

Even though that specific regime has disappeared, a more recent secular role model has emerged: the United States, Western Europe and their dependencies in their current “woke” phase. Here, in the last 15 years or so, a unity among news media, government, think tanks, universities,  businesses and even the internal security forces has consolidated its power under the banner of the woke ideology. The Roman Catholic Church of the last decades has been assimilating more and more closely to the secular world about it. Indeed, in many respects the Roman Catholic Church resembles the subordinate educational institutions of the secular establishment, like universities and school districts. Here too we find the same mix of exploding bureaucracy, restricted speech and thought, ideological conformity, fear, and, similar to the Catholic Church,  an ongoing and increasing failure to achieve the stated purposes of the institution. (Such secular educational “fiefdoms” typically lack, however,  a “pope” – an omnipotent leader exercising centralized charismatic rule)

The Sources

What are the origins of the current system? We have previously treated the ultramontane doctrines of Vatican I,  relentlessly expanded over subsequent decades.5) But equally important is Vatican II. For it was Vatican II that introduced into the Church a fierce ideological element. For the first time the Church bureaucracy, up to the 1960’s overwhelmingly the clergy and religious, were inspired to repudiate Catholic tradition in liturgy, theology, and morality in favor of, in the best case, a somewhat uncertain core of Catholicism. Vatican II gave the ultramontane system a purpose and direction beyond that of merely defending the institution against adversaries and maintaining tight clerical control.

The best evidence of the importance of both Councils is the role of the Jesuit order. Jesuits were of decisive importance in the birth of ultramontanism in the years leading up leading up to 1870 (e.g., the editors of Civilta Cattolica, Joseph Kleutgen,  SJ). The Jesuit order, of course, also advanced the most aggressive interpretations of Vatican II from the very beginning of that council. Pope Francis is a product of this order. Today, he relies on the Society of Jesus and publicly favors it and its institutions. He has appointed many of his confreres to leading positions in the Church. In turn, Jesuits play a key role as advocates of the agenda of Francis. 

Yet two other influences within the Church need to be considered. First, the transformation of the Church into a bureaucracy after 1870 would have far-reaching effects on the faith. The attitude of a bureaucrat, especially a government bureaucrat, is decisively different from that of an apostle. As the church approximated more and more to a secular bureaucracy its leaders, consciously or not adopted attitudes and limitations resembling those of functionaries in the various governmental, academic, and economic bureaucracies of the modern age. Indeed, the basic division in the Church is no longer between clergy and laity, but between the Church bureaucracy (including, bishops, clergy religious, and lay employees, both men and women) – and everyone else. This bureaucracy has supported the progressive agenda with remarkable unanimity since the 1960’s. It is currently spearheading the “Synodal Path” in Germany (where it is strongest and best financed ) and, more generally,  the “Synod on Synodality” throughout the  Catholic world. 

Second, the novel Catholic institution of the “movement” emerged, starting even before the Second World war. Despite their bewildering diversity in membership requirements, organization  and objectives (compare two early examples: Opus Dei and the Catholic Worker!), the movements all rested on similar foundations: irrational loyalty and absolute obedience to a “visionary” founder, a degree of separation from mainstream Catholic life, formulas for addressing alleged economic and spiritual failures of the Church and, usually,  a blurring of the traditional roles of clergy and laity. Often the movement would establish a direct relationship with the Vatican.

What had been a fringe phenomenon before Vatican II subsequently acquired a growing influence over the Church, especially under Pope John Paul II.  The number of movements grew even though their absolute membership remained small. They departed from, or even challenged,  the ordinary Catholic life of the clergy and laity, yet reinforced both the centralized absolute  papacy and Vatican II( e.g., devotion and obedience to a charismatic leader having absolute authority,  an emotional and irrational culture and, often,  arbitrary liturgical and devotional practices). Pope Francis generally has not shared Pope John Paul II’s enthusiasm for the movements – except for certain communities aligned with his objectives, like Sant’ Egidio or, at least until recently, the Neocatechumenal Way.  But the Pope’s leadership style with its accompanying cult of personality is very much like that of a movement founder.  

The Limits of Totalitarian Ultramontanism.

We have labeled the current culture of the Catholic Church as totalitarian. Yet the limits to ecclesiastical totalitarianism are great indeed. These divergences from the secular model mean that the Roman Catholic Church is totalitarian only in an analogous, or qualified, sense. It is a “soft totalitarianism.”

Above all, Pope Francis depends on the goodwill of the secular world and its media.  This is the key to his entire regime. It was a series of conflicts with the media that motivated forces within the Church to work for Pope Benedict’s departure and replacement with someone more accommodating to the world. Now, in the person of Pope Francis, the media obtained a Pope who has worked to implement within the Church their vision of the world. And the media have here succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. For Francis has in large part transformed the Catholic Church from an obstacle or even an adversary to the secular agenda, to an active cooperator with the Western establishment. At each stage of his papacy, Francis has enjoyed the support of the media, either by their adulation of the reformer, the humble man, the visionary, – or by suppression of adverse news. Let’s not forget that the overwhelming majority of the laity – and of the clergy as well – derive their knowledge of Church affairs from the mainstream secular media. The media’s (both secular and Catholic) attitude has been described for us with remarkable frankness by John Allen. He has written previously of the role of the media in building up “progressive” heroes (referring specifically to Cardinal McCarrick) and, more recently, has pointed out that many journalists today see Francis “as a moral hero, a champion of the underdog.” 6)

Now this relationship has not been necessarily untroubled  – at times Francis has strayed from the party line. Witness his initial reluctance to attack Russia in the Ukrainian crisis, or to express unqualified support for Israel, or his clumsy attempt to rehabilitate Fr. Marko Rupnik, SJ. In these cases, Francis and the Vatican either capitulated or “clarified “ their language quickly after the media called them on the carpet. 

Francis’s dependence on the clerical bureaucracy is equally strong.  By 2023 the “clerical” bureaucracy in chanceries, schools, and universities, of course, consists mainly of lay employees. They tend to be imbued with the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s. Their loyalty is thus not primarily to Francis personally,  but to the progressive values they share with him. Francis has been very careful to avoid a confrontation with these forces  – his handling of the German synodal path is evidence of that. At times he has felt the need to restrain them. But the Germans are by no means willing to defer to Francis and “go slow” with their agenda.  This is particularly so because the warnings of the Pope and various Vatican functionaries are obviously only tactical in nature. 

There is also the resistance of those bishops who are not at all active participants in the Francis regime. This is not because of any deep ideological convictions, but because they dread being forced into confrontations with organizations, such as those of the traditionalists, or more generally with their own laity.  It’s clear that, because of this silent resistance, the major policy initiatives of Francis, such as divorce, LGBT acceptance in the Church, and the war on traditionalism, have only been imperfectly transformed into action. Going beyond the mere dragging of feet, there has undoubtedly been more active, behind the scenes opposition to France’s policies.

Finally, outside of this entire clerical, bureaucratic structure is the realm of  the laity – those of the laity not in the employ of the Church, that is. Theologically speaking, of course, they form part of the Church, indeed,  overwhelmingly the largest part. In most places the majority has ceased practicing the faith;  those that remain are largely silent. The laity  provides continuing financial support for the Church – paying taxes in Germany, making donations in the United States. They serve as extras at Church functions and events (like World Youth Days or Eucharistic conferences).  Yet they have no role in the governance of the Church. They may see their parishes and schools summarily closed or merged without warning.  In the case of the Traditionalists, they even will be banished from churches and publicly denounced by the Pope and the bishops. Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, for example, recently denied to the laity the capacity of coming to any informed opinion about the liturgy. 7) Incoming Archbishop Coyne of Hartford,  Connecticut, placed the blame for the decline of Catholic life in the Archdiocese squarely on the laity. 8)

To summarize,  many bishops,  an even greater percentage of the lower clergy and a percentage of the laity greater still, while by no stretch of the imagination being active opponents of the Bergoglian regime, are also not actively advancing it. Francis thus by no means has obtained that total freedom from any control, including that of his own party and ideology, that was achieved by Stalin or Hitler. This reflects the declining influence of the papacy. Pope Francis may assert the boldest ultramontane claims, but in fact he no longer can draw on the absolute obedience and indeed the willingness to go beyond the letter of the law that characterized the implementation of the “spirit of Vatican II”  by Paul VI the 1960s.

Further reflections

Throughout the last ten years the level of practice and knowledge of the faith among the laity, the number of vocations , and the number of Catholic institutions (schools, parishes et.)  have dramatically declined. The Catholic laity is a “resource” that steadily diminishes each year. In that regard, the submission of the Church to the COVID restrictions were utterly disastrous in accelerating this decline in the active presence of the lay faithful in the Church. The Church establishment regards these facts with indifference. If we consider that the main objectives of the currently ruling Catholic establishment are the retention of power over the Church and conformity to the world’s ideology of progress and change this is understandable – whether anything remains in the Church other than the rulers themselves is irrelevant to them.  

But this, viewed in purely secular terms, is the Achilles heel of the institutional Church. The entire continued existence of the Catholic Church depends on the freely chosen faith of the laity. Without it there are no more congregations, no vocations  – and no money. Nowhere in the Catholic Church, not even in Poland, can major secular benefits be obtained by practicing the Catholic faith. There are no significant positions or benefices available to those seeking a professional career in the Church. Thus, the steady diminution in the practice of the faith among the laity inevitably will lead to a crisis of the institution. 

What of the conservatives? Bergoglio’s war ultimately is directed not just against liturgical traditionalists but the entirety of Catholic tradition in liturgy, theology, philosophy and morality. The only exception is what can be tolerated as folklore, like certain Marian cults. In the past, the conservative Catholics were the most vocal defenders of papal authority  – now they find themselves with a Pope not only not a leader but a real adversary. Generally speaking,  these forces tend to fall silent on the subject of the papacy.  

Some conservative institutions such as the IHE at Catholic University or its counterpart at Notre Dame, continue to talk of the intellectual heritage of Catholicism and how it can save the world. According to them,  Catholicism has given rise to ideas and insights that, if implemented, would make possible a healthier secular society. The same can be said for the integralist movement (which is otherwise viewed as an adversary by most of the conservatives).  But the best evidence of Catholicism is not what was written or preached in the past about distributism, subsidiarity, or justice. It is not past philosophical reflection on the relationship of church and state. It is the actual practice of Catholicism at this moment, the culture of the Catholic Church that is lived every day.  And the governing culture of the Catholic Church today – which I have sought to outline above – in no way can serve as a model for the secular world.

Let’s remember that it was under the medieval papacy that the whole concept of the rule of law was resurrected in the West.  That universities were established,  that natural science experienced its beginnings. In the Middle Ages, parliamentary or representative government and the nation state had their origins. The current state of the Catholic Church forms a terrible contrast with those prior ages.

Catholics in the United States, when confronted with dire problems, always ask what can be done.  Examining the perfection of the ultramontane system, an impartial observer’s frank reaction would be nothing. A Catholic should not be so pessimistic.  But he should be prepared to admit the need to revise the definitions of papal power to clarify that it always must be exercised within the tradition of the Church. This would return the papacy to its role as the defender of the tradition and doctrine of the Catholic faith, not as their creator. That would also allow authentic dialogue with the Orthodox, the form of ecumenism that really makes sense. The Orthodox have retained elements of tradition – such as their liturgy, art and the priority accorded contemplative spirituality – which should be of critical importance to a recovery of the Western Church.

Is this possible? Indeed it is – but only with the aid of some event or situation that would shake up the current regime of the Catholic Church and redirect the attentions of the clergy from worldly goals to the defense and propagation of their own faith. Before that occurs,  prayer and the dedication to the totality of Catholic tradition – in liturgy, theology and morality – are required of each individual Catholic.  At the time of Vatican II did not various thinkers speculate about an apocalyptic collapse of the institutional Church that would lead to the rebirth of some kind of smaller, purer institution? 9) Can it be that this will in fact occur  – but it in a way that those progressives could not have imagined? For are not the “purer” forces, alive and active in the Church today, the traditionalists and the conservatives?

1. E.g., Juchem, Roland,  Papst Franziskus: Die Unruhe im Auge des Sturms, katholisch.de 12/12/2023
2. A concept of Oswald Spengler.
3. See the essay by John Lamont, The Significance of Pope Francis for the Church, The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, 3/21/2023.
4. Valli, Aldo Maria and Porfiri, Aurelio, Decadenza: Le Parole d’ordine della Chiesa Postconciliare, (Chorabooks, Hong Kong 2020)
5. See Ultramontanism: Its life and Death Part I, The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, 12/20/2021.
6. Allen, John L., Pope Francis and the Sharron Angle Strategy of Media relations, Crux 11/5/2023.
7. For a discussion see Cardinal Gregory Explains, The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, 12/10/2023.
8. Payne, Daniel, Connecticut archbishop calls for female deacons, moving Vatican out of Rome, Catholic News Agency, 11/22/2023
9. See, e.g., “Is it really a Phoenix?” Ida Görres and the Collapse of German Catholicism Part II, The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, 3/30/2020