Today the Pope issued his Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes (“TC”) (with an accompanying letter) on the Traditional liturgy. I think I owe you an initial reaction. After all, in 2007 this Society sponsored the first Mass in the New York Archdiocese pursuant to Summorum Pontificum (as opposed to the indult regime). I want to address general principles and leave up to others more qualified the discussion of the legalities (to the extent Canon Law can be said to exist anymore) or even the validity of aspects of this Motu Proprio.

 The Motu Proprio TC abrogates Summorum Pontificum both in its theory and operative provisions.  Insofar as diocesan clergy are concerned, it resurrects a regime similar to the 1984 Indult Quattor Adhinc Annos in its most restrictive interpretation. So, for example, the Traditional Mass is not supposed to be celebrated  (in the future?) in parochial churches;  new Traditionalist groups are not to be authorized and those that exist are to be examined whether they deny the “legitimacy” of the Novus Ordo, etc.

Noteworthy is the uniquely radical style of TC. Entirely absent is the nebulous and effusive verbiage that characterize Francis’s other documents (like Amoris Laetitia) with their endless talk of “accompaniment,” “mercy”  and, of course, “tenderness.” In TC,  the language is succinct, harsh and adversarial. The reasoning is often transparently dishonest. What are we to say,  for example, of the passage in the Motu Proprio quoting St Augustine for the proposition that remaining in the Church “with the heart” is a “condition of salvation” – after the unrestricted ecumenism of the last 60 years? Or of Francis’s insistence on “unity” and “communion” as almost exclusive criteria of Catholicism, when every day the fundamental tenets of Catholic theology and morality are challenged – often with the express or implicit support of the Pope (e.g.,  the prohibitions of divorce, abortion,  homosexual behavior)? 

Clearly, Francis and his episcopal allies want a war in the Church. Considerations of the past  – reintegrating the FSSPX, accommodating the just desires of certain of the faithful –  don’t apply anymore. Traditionalists, as such, are declared to be enemies of the Church, who:

 exploited (the indults and Summorum Pontificum) to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

The ultimate goal is their annihilation:

It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum. ….

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II… 

I could be mistaken, but I know of no recent instance where a whole, worldwide class of Catholics – including by 2021 Cardinals, bishops, priests, laity and religious orders  – has been similarly publicly denounced and anathematized. The specific contempt for Pope Benedict is palpable – his motivation for promulgating  Summorum Pontificum is misleadingly described in a way directly contradicting the previous pontiff’s repeated statements. Is this document in part personal revenge for the derailing of the “Amazonian” synod – and for the “Pope Emeritus“ and his allies acting as a brake for the last nine years?

Why is the Pope doing this? After all, Francis and his allies control the Vatican, the mainstream religious orders, the Catholic press and educational system worldwide and certainly the majority of most hierarchies? How could these nefarious “trads,” whatever they may be advocating, undermine this structure? How, given these disproportionate resources, can Traditionalists  be jeopardizing the “unity” so desired by Francis?

I think the answer has nothing to do with supposed “divisive”  activities and positions.  The real problem is not traditionalism, but the manifest, catastrophic failures of the Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo and the ultramontanist organization of the Catholic Church.  The sin of the Traditionalists is that, by their very existence and even more so by their success, they bear witness to the fact that (a)the current “Conciliar” regime is in discontinuity with its pre-Conciliar predecessor; and (b) this regime is in rapid disintegration.

The response of Francis is not to make the case once more for the Council and the Novus Ordo, but to declare them identical with the will of God. He does not attempt to convince the critics of their errors but uses coercive measures against them. In so doing he carries ultramontanist  centralization to a new extreme: external unity is the absolute value, “groups” (of the laity) need to be supervised and vetted by bishops, priests need, indirectly, permission from the Vatican to celebrate the Traditional Mass…

I think the strong-arm measures of TC will only increase the focus on Traditionalists, while exposing even more the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy the so-called Conciliar Church.  As I have written before, there is, humanly speaking, a great benefit of these experiences: the truth. For I doubt anyone who reads TC and its accompanying letter can deny that a radical crisis has engulfed the Catholic Church.

I am truly sad for the overwhelming majority of Traditionalists – the families who over the years have found a sense of beauty in the liturgy and an environment conducive to raising their families,  handing  down the faith and even evangelizing those outside of the Church.  If the reader examines our posts and our photographs over the last 14 years, he can get a sense of this vast new activity. These people know nothing of the alleged offenses of priests and agitators denounced by the Pope.  It is indeed a great cross for these faithful Catholics to be subject to such reprehensible calumny by the leadership of the Church.

My advice to all Traditionalists would be to carry on as before. Pope Francis may have declared war, but there are many different ways to fight.  After all, did not Archbishop Bergoglio and most of his episcopal colleagues, in their complete disregard of Summorum Pontificum over the last 14 years, give us the best example?  If the Francis and his bishops want to create martyrs, close parishes and even excommunicate – let them take the initiative. At the St Hugh of Cluny Society we intend to continue and even redouble our support of the Traditionalist movement. Maybe it will take different forms – maybe we will have to shift once more to an underground form of organization. But the fight for the whole of Catholic Tradition  – in Liturgy, theology and morality – will go on! 

The entire Traditionalist world seems to be waiting with trepidation for whatever Pope Francis will be doing to Summorum Pontificum and the celebration of the Latin Mass worldwide. It’s noteworthy that the entire process has been conducted in secrecy by the Vatican and certain episcopal initiates. That those reported to be in the forefront of the anti-SP effort – such as Cardinal Parolin or, for that matter, the Pope himself – do not necessarily enjoy the best of reputations or authority at this very moment is no hindrance to their ability to initiate global liturgical changes. And on this issue, (as opposed to, let’s say, the German Synodal Path) papal power in the eyes of the European Church establishment is unlimited. Consider the statements of Professor Georg Bier in the online publication of the German Catholic Church :

As a matter of principle it is possible for the Pope to completely abolish again this form of the Mass ( the Traditional Mass -SC). The Pope as supreme legislator can always decree whatever he deems to be most beneficial for the Church... (According to the author, however, for tactical reasons abolition of the Traditional Mass is unlikely -SC). There will be at most moderate restrictions – but as a matter of principle the Pope has all possibilities. 1)

In Bier’s view, both Summorum Pontificum and the document Pope Francis is crafting are governed entirely by material and political considerations and tactical expediency. The passage in Summorum Pontificum which seems to expressly limit the authority of the Church to abolish the Traditional Mass is dismissed by Bier as a “dodge” or “trick” by Benedict to preserve continuity with his predecessor – no theological issue here.

Reading these words today, I was struck once again by the link between centralized ultramontane absolutism and liturgical, moral, and theological experimentation (the latter, of course, taking in 2021 a reactionary, defensive form!). The totally arbitrary and unlimited Papal authority described in the quote above contrasts with the historical role and self-understanding of the Papacy in the “greatest of centuries” (the 13th) or in the Counter-Reformation. In my view, the Catholic Church’s dysfunctional structures and organizational principles continue to exercise a highly negative influence, blocking true reform and spiritual development

Two recent articles, dealing with issues arising in unrelated contexts, have neatly identified this highly problematic situation for the Church. First, Joseph Shaw, the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, has this to say in his review of Una Voce: the History of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce 1964-2003 ( by Leo Darroch):

The first (episode Shaw considered – SC) is the interview and associated correspondence which took place between de Saventham (the head of Una Voce International – SC) and Archbishop (later, Cardinal) Giovanni Benelli, then Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in 1976…. . De Saventham summarised Benelli’s position in a letter to him following the meeting:

Your Excellency has urged us to espouse as a matter of conscience the new forms of the Church’s public cult… Although the character of irreformability only attaches to definitions, promulgated ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals, [you asserted that] the assent due to the acts of the Sovereign Pontiff ought equally to express itself in humble obedience to those of his acts which merely concern the discipline or other nondoctrinal aspects of the government of the Church. For there also, you said, it is the same one and indivisible charisma which guarantees that all these acts cannot but be ordered towards the true and certain good of the Church. Consequently, you could only consider as reckless and irreconcilable with a proper ecclesiology all demands or initiatives which implied that the utility of such and such an act of government duly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff or under his authority could be a subject of discussion or even contestation.

Cardinal Benelli did not dispute the accuracy of this summary. What it amounts to—as Dr de Savanthem goes on to explain at some length, though not in these terms—is an extreme Ultramontanism, the view that imbues the reigning Pope’s prudential decisions with something close to infallibility, and his wishes with a force approaching that of Divine Law. 
The prevalence of such attitudes in a Rome is part of the explanation of why things were so difficult for Una Voce in the 1970s and later.

Second, Bronwen McShea considers a case of excessive Vatican intervention in local artistic issues in the 1920’s but draws broader conclusions ( “When Rome Policed Art,” First Things (August 2021):

(After the Council) [T]he new generation of churchmen, once in power, redirected the Church toward a warm embrace of the modern world. The irony is that in doing so, through the decrees of Vatican II and in the ­Council’s aftermath, they preserved and strengthened centralized mechanisms of ecclesiastical control, not just over doctrine and worship, but also over cultural judgments and sensibilities. Rome and the clerical hierarchy were suddenly airing out a Church that supposedly had been stifling and stale inside for many centuries. Now, “openness” was not optional: ­Dialogue became the order of the day. The modernized engines of ecclesiastical governance were revved up for aggiornamento, which the laity and lower clergy would get, whether they wanted it or not. Even Maritain, late in life in The Peasant of the Garonne, would rue this turnabout.

Much as they had with theology and the liturgical reform, the bishops oversaw a rushed, coordinated aesthetic revolution. Old-fashioned crucifixes, paintings, statues, stained-glass windows, and even sacred vessels were cast aside for modern ones—beautiful, well-crafted, and elegant in some cases, but ugly, kitschy, and blasphemous in countless others. Vatican-­issued and chancery-stamped statements, more revisions of canon law, an­d conferences paved the way. Ordinary Catholics stood by—­bewildered, often—as the styles of art that had been ­forcefully opposed by their mitered shepherds just a few years before were now promoted by them. All manner of Expressionist, Cubist, Fauvist, and Abstract works began to populate cathedrals and small-town ­churches. Sacred spaces were bulldozed, whitewashed, and reconstructed. And a great deal of fine artwork—crafted lovingly and donated by the laity of past eras—disappeared overnight.

….

In view of the complex history of which Servaes (the Belgian artist referenced by McShea’s article – SC) was a part, it is worth considering whether more mature modern approaches to sacred art would have developed organically, in creative dialogue with the wider culture and ancient traditions, had Vatican bureaucrats and their defenders in the early twentieth century behaved more, not less, like their Tridentine-era predecessors. Vatican I and Vatican II both effected highly centralized, Rome-driven reform. They may appear in some respects antithetical, but they ran on the same rails. The centralizing impulse of the age seduced Rome into censoring experimental artists in ways that Tridentine and medieval Church officials had not imagined necessary or even possible. Then, by the mid-twentieth century, mortified by the Church’s cultural marginalization, the hierarchy tried to reverse it with an even heavier hand—f­oisting a sloppy and destructive aesthetic revolution on the Church to accompany the dramatic liturgical and theological reorientations.

1. Bier, Georg (“Professor for Canon Law and the History of Canon Law at the University of Freiburg”) as interviewed by Christoph Hartmann, “How the Pope could limit the celebration of the pre-Conciliar Mass,“ Katholisch.de (07/14/2021) (in German)

…of 60 Democratic Party politicians. By Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. In First Things.

From the “Statement”: We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor, disadvantaged, and the oppressed, protecting the least among us and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country.

Archbishop Cordileone: One of the “basic principles” of Catholic belief is rather blunt and simple: Don’t intentionally kill, or collude in enabling others to kill, innocent human life. Catholic principles build systematically on one another. The protection of innocent, defenseless life is first and foundational.

A RESPONSE TO THE “STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES”

I feel I have to respond to two items creating a tempest in the traditionalist teapot. Is it simply fortuitous that as reports circulate of an imminent confrontation between the Vatican and Traditionalists subversive voices 1) are heard?  Self-appointed “conservative” and “Traditionalist” spokesmen of the internet now denounce Traditionalists. And their alleged status as Traditionalists gives their words added credibility. Is it an accident that both articles discussed below appeared or were favorably reviewed in the American Conservative, where Rod Dreher holds court?  Rod Dreher recently has made a specialty of combining cultural criticism with endless denunciations of Donald Trump and his supporters. In other words, the conservative may criticize at length the political and ideological deviations of today’s culture but may not confront – like Trump and his movement do –  the establishment in any meaningful or effective way.

Michael Warren Davis is a cultural commentator who held – briefly – the leading editorial positions of Crisis magazine and of  the US edition of the Catholic Herald. He identifies as “conservative “ or “orthodox.” But he now also claims to have attended the Traditional Mass “on two continents” “almost exclusively since I was received into the Church”  and speaks of “us trads.” Davis was the author of a 2018 article denouncing long-departed Catholic conservative heroes – Joe Sobran and the editors of Triumph Magazine – while pontificating on how relevant some of at least Sobran’s thought may be. 2) The similarity to the Dreher party line is obvious. 

His Prodigal Trads and the Holy Father continues in the same vein. In a nutshell,  Davis  argues that any action the Pope takes against against Traditionalists is justified because of their strident criticism of him. You see, Pope Francis was initially favorably inclined to the Traditional mass but changed his mind after “we Traditionalists” became critics of his policies. Davis’s article is one long diatribe against Traditionalists. 

Both in the text of the article and the published title and headings Davis employs constant anti-Traditionalist innuendos: “prodigal“ trads:  “liturgical dissenters” “defiant,” “bizarre,” “angry,” “defensive,” a “clique.”  Pope Francis is of course quoted at length. And our author builds up to this indictment :

 The fact is that no other “clique” within the Church shares our (sic!) reputation for disobedience and uncharity. …trads are in a league of our own here.

Davis’s judgement in making these assertions is appalling; his errors of fact are monumental. Let me give some examples. For the proposition that Bergoglio began his  papacy as an “eager friend”  of the Latin Mass Davis quotes Michael Matt and Jeffery Tucker – neither of whom, regardless of their other merits, had any knowledge of Argentinian situation – while ignoring authoritative reports from 2013 detailing the new Pontiff’s consistent hostility to the Traditionalist movement. I should add that, entirely apart from this, I myself have spoken with two knowledgeable people who confirmed the actions and style of Francis the Pope are identical to those of Bergoglio the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. This consistency in word and action has been evident from the earliest days of his pontificate ( consider the actions taken against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate) – all of which Davis ignores.

Quoting Bishop Fellay in favor of Francis is a little misleading:  the bishop’s statements very likely were made in the context of negotiations between the FSSPX and the Vatican.  Claiming Cardinal Sarah to be the “world’s most prominent Traditionalist” is simply nonsense; if anything, his adherence is to the “reform of the reform.” His appointment had nothing to do with favoring Sarah’s liturgical ideas but was undoubtedly a specific response to a spat over the role of African bishops in Francis’s synods. Davis doesn’t mention, of course,  how Francis subsequently  consistently undermined Sarah and blocked his (Novus Ordo) liturgical initiatives.

Davis seems to think that the Protestant Reformation only developed as such because Luther raised the level of antipapal rhetoric too high – after all, didn’t he just want to stop the sale of indulgences? At the Council of Nicaea in 325:

The Council then declared Arianism a heresy, and nearly all of Arius’s supporters relented.

Of course in historical fact the response of the Arians was the exact opposite. It’s true that  “for a while, it looked as if the Arians would win control of the Church” but that happened, contrary to what Davis implies,  years after, not before the Council. And it’s a joke to whine now about unique Traditionalist “disobedience” after that vice has been practiced by the entire Catholic left with great success for decades and as the German Church is indulging in now once again (with the Pope’s understanding).

More importantly, though, I don’t get a good idea of what Davis really stands for. He asserts that: 

[S]o many trads over the last few months … are walking away from the Latin Mass.  That’s ( the attacks on the bishops the Pope, Cupich, Martin etc. – SC) not what they signed up for.” 

I’d like to know what they and Davis actually did “sign up for.” Nice vestments and music? For Davis has nothing good to say about them in this article. Even though the things that Davis says the Trads criticize about Francis – which generally are not liturgical questions  – have also been the subject of attack by conservatives and by Davis as well, as a cursory review of the archives of Crisis magazine will demonstrate. He himself says:

As the Francis papacy wore on, and as the controversies piled up—“Who am I to judge?”, Amoris Laetitia, the McCarrick scandal, the Abu Dhabi declaration, the Affair of the Pachamama, etc.—traditionalists began to grow wary of the Holy Father. And I believe that our suspicions are often warranted.

Yet now all is forgiven:

I also believe that most of Francis’s actions can be reconciled with Catholic orthodoxy.

Davis quotes, in support of this assertion, from an essay by a fellow cultural commentator, also unqualified to render judgment in all these areas. And “can be reconciled with Catholic Orthodoxy” is, I might add, a mighty low standard for assessing a Pope’s teaching. 

According to Davis, it’s just a matter of interpreting Francis’s papacy in the best possible light – a mandatory “hermeneutic of putting the best spin” on whatever he says. At this moment, Michael Davis seems to be striving to be neither a Traditionalist nor a conservative but rather a “man of the establishment.”  And that establishment’s real operative rules are obedience and avoidance of criticism of ecclesiastical authority.    I wonder: is Michael Warren Davis seeking employment with Bishop Barron’s organization? 

Steve Skojec has been running a  website, Onepeterfive, that I have found helpful and informative. Recently, however, he seems to have had an altercation with his FSSP pastor in Phoenix, who according to Skojec denied baptism to one child and first communion to another. That resulted in a rambling article “Against Crippled Religion”  in which the author gives vent to many different frustrations with the Church. And he concludes by saying he’s done with that crippled religion:  “Nobody is coming to save us. Not even God.”

Now I sympathize with much of what Skojec says. The author is obviously suffering a crisis of faith. I too have certainly had my difficulties over the years with the “crippled religion” of today’s  Roman Catholic Church and its clergy. A religion that often harshly enforces petty formalities yet condones behavior of those having media, political or economy power. It’s commendable that somebody can summon up the character to react  – however explosively – to these at times insufferable conditions.

More specific to the facts Skojec’s case, I have heard tales of harsh, unpastoral treatment by FSSP priests and, going back quite a few years now, even experienced it directly in a few minor incidents.   So, although it would be unfair to generalize from what little I know to an overall judgement about the order, I am not exactly surprised to hear about this kind of thing in connection with thee FSSP.  In his pre-Traditionalist days, moreover,  Steve was exposed to the Legion of Christ and its practices  – I have only indirect experience of that but I can imagine what it was like. So to a great extent I am sympathetic with Steve Skojec’s predicament.

I am far less sympathetic about other aspects of Skojec’s article. Such as combining a narrative of a personal crisis of faith with petty resentments about the lack of space at the overflowing traditional parish. (It seems they are acquiring an additional church anyway) Skojec seems to ignore the role of his own decisions in certain bad experiences.  He voluntarily went to one of the World Youth Days; he stuck with Legionaries of Christ after he himself began to perceive  problems. In these negative encounters and circumstances, as Skojec himself describes them, an unacknowledged element of his own bad judgment is playing a role.

What I cannot accept at all is for Skojec to proceed from these real issues to a specific all-out attack on traditionalism, e.g.,

 “Traditionalism, in my experience,  often attracts an unrelentingly toxic and negative sort of person.”

“Traditionalism remains akin to that DVD collector or civil war re-enactor: a recreation out of place and time needing to justify its own existence in the present as a nostalgic aberration.”

Instead, (Traditionalism) is an ideological mask more identifiably in the shape of true Catholicism (compared to the post-conciliar Church-SC). 

But it is essentially an affectation; an attempt to reconstruct and live within a historical context that no longer exists.

Thus Skojec himself adopts as his own the litany of lies Traditionalists have heard about themselves for the last 50 years from progressives and the official Church: that they are toxic, rigid, perhaps mentally unbalanced; they are trying to recreate the past; they are ideologues; they are aesthetes… . It is distressing to hear someone say such things who claims he has lived with the traditional liturgy since 2004 and who set himself up as a spokesman. For it indicates to me the author, after all these years,  has no real understanding of why someone is a Traditionalist in the first place.  Does Skojec believe the families he reports as thronging his (former) parish became members of it because any of the things he enumerates? If these caricatures really reflect Skojec’s internet experience, that is an entirely different matter. And I can assure him unpleasant individuals are not confined to Traditionalism – or, for that matter, even the right wing of the religious and political spectrum. 

Again I am sorry for Steve Skojec who has contributed so much of value over the years. He has had the honesty to publicly reveal his pain. But to suddenly radically reject a movement that one had adopted as a mature man,  had practiced and advocated –  ultimately because of an experience, however distressing, with one priest, indicates that perhaps the foundations were not quite right in the first place. As Nicolas Gomez Davila says somewhere:

He who is rejecting the Church is often really rejecting the Sacristan.

1. “Subversive Voices” (Recitative from Bellini’s Norma)
2. My review: Sobranistas without Sobran

( I wanted to present to you as soon as possible a translation of this powerful essay that has just appeared in Paix Liturgique ( Letter 799 of 5/28/2021). It deals with the menacing developments in Rome but is also a brief summary of the history of Traditionalism, especially in France. And that history is reason for much hope. For fortunately, the Church is not just the preserve of the Vatican and the hierarchy but also includes the sensus fidelium of the laity. Please forgive my somewhat limited command of French! – SC)

UPDATE: In the meantime, here is Paix Liturgique’s own translation.

The provisions of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum were measures of peace. Totally atypical from the perspective of liturgical legislation, Summorum Pontificum effectively met a situation which itself was atypical. It created a modus vivendi between the old liturgy and the new liturgy, acknowledged a right of every Latin priest to the ritus antiquior and set forth the rules for its public implementation. It aimed to pacify liturgically a church which was sinking ever more into a crisis.

But this right, finally recognized, appeared intolerable to the gentlemen in power since 2013. Among them, the view is gaining the upper hand that this text must be, if not abrogated, at least dismantled in order to destroy the essence of its meaning. According to them, the pre-Vatican II Mass cannot enjoy anything more than tolerance, appropriately restricted.

Their mental and ideological structure makes them undertake “with a light heart” – to cite the words of Emile Ollivier who thrust France into the war of 1870 with all the consequences we know – the responsibility of a renewal of liturgical hostilities. Because of them, the risk exists that we will find ourselves once again in a situation resembling that of the years after the council but under conditions far worse for the institution of the Church. 

Celebrating the Tridentine Mass: A hard-won Right

One must understand that it was under the pressure of a protest movement that could not be suppressed that the Roman legislator came through a series of stages (in 1984, Quattor Adhinc Annos; in 1988, Ecclesia Dei and, in 2007, Summorum Pontificum) to interpret as non-obligatory the promulgation of the missal of 1969.

Indeed, in France but also everywhere in the world, pastors had calmly continued to celebrate the traditional mass. During the same time “wild” chapels were organized in many places. The measures taken by certain bishops had no other result than to further incentivize the propagation of these celebrations. They acquired even more cohereence when the young priests formed and ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre began to exercise their priestly ministry both in the independent houses founded in order to receive them and in the places is set up for worship – often of in a summary manner – in the town or in the country.

The suspension a divinis of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 gave his cause even more notoriety. This event was followed by another; the peaceful occupation of the church St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris by Msgr.  Ducaud-Bourget and the faithful. They entered one Sunday, and they are there even today. In the same way, 10 years later, near Versailles, the traditionalist parishioners of St. Louis du Port Marly – who had been chased out of their church and against whom the doors had even been walled up – simply smashed them open and settled down again on the premises. They have never left since.

A historical survey of the IFOP (Institut Français d’Opinion Publique) in 1976 published in Le Progres, a Lyon daily, showed that 48% of regularly practicing Catholics thought that the Church had gone too far in the reforms and that 35% remained favorable to the mass in Latin. Subsequent surveys made until the present day by Paix Liturgique in France and in the rest of the world highlight a decisive trend: the request to celebrate the traditional mass in their parishes by a significant part – even at times the majority – of the practicing faithful.

Subsequently, as a consequence, on the one hand, of the favorable psychological atmosphere created by the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, and, on the other, of the continued growth of the institutes specialized in the traditional liturgy (the FSSPX and the Ecclesia Dei institutes founded after1988) the number of places where the traditional mass was celebrated also continued to grow throughout the world.  Between 2007 and 2017, for example, this number simply doubled.

It’s a paradox noted by sociologists of religion like, in France, Daniele Hervieu-Leger:  the traditionalist movement opposed the Conciliar trends in a manner modern in appearance – a rising up against authority. The traditionalist reaction has certain characteristics which today would be called populist:  challenging the legitimacy of the elites because these adopt novel positions worked out in their elitist bubble. Another paradox: the traditionalist movement from its origin has been based on the actions of laypeople who supported and even “produced” priests by means of the specialized traditionalist institutes. They rejected the instructions of Vatican II, which were supposed to advance the laity. We could even add that while the Roman church ceased after Vatican II to be “Tridentine,” “Tridentinism,” in its essence hierarchical, from that time on was taken over by the people at the base. 

In truth, we could say that theologically and not just sociologically, we have a manifestation, astounding and providential, of the sensus fidelium, of the faithful’s instinct of the faith, which fights tooth and nail for the expression in the lex orandi of the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice, of the real presence, of the hierarchical priesthood, and more globally of the transcendence of the mystery of “do this in memory of me.” 

An Indomitable Capacity for Resistance. 

In the face of the danger which today is taking shape, one can attempt to assess the forces now in action by looking at the French situation (which is certainly not that of the entire Church, but which always gives very good indications in this area) 

The “official” Church is not at all anymore the solid institution that it was in the first decades after the Council.  It has been bled white regarding the number of priests and of religious. The number of seminarians and even of seminaries continues to diminish. The practicing faithful – ever older – are ever more “socially distanced” in the naves of the churches without the need of any anti-Covid measures. Logically enough, all this is accompanied by a catastrophic financial situation in not a few of the dioceses. Added to this are the consequences of what is called the coronavirus crisis which has made approximately 30% of the remaining parishioners vanish. Because of historical habit, which fades away only with difficulty, Catholicism is still considered as an essential component of society. In reality, however, the Church appears now totally exposed: she has practically disappeared from the public sphere.

In contrast, the traditional world represents an exception in the Church especially regarding priestly and religious vocations – resembling the situation before 1965. Many young people who have never experienced the conciliar quarrels turn spontaneously to this movement today. The Sunday congregations are full, and the average age is young.  In the traditionalist matrix, everything takes place – in the liturgical life as well as in the “fecundity” of its vocations – as if Vatican II had never occurred. Catechetical instruction in the old style – very structured – and an important network of schools assure a good transmission of the faith, of the practice and of the habits of Christian life. What is more, the frontiers are porous between Traditionalism and the “official” “conservative” world – the St. Martin community, Emmanuel, etc.  – whose vitality is partly explained by reason of its differences with the official policies, and which is partially inspired, more or less, by the traditionalist resistance.

I acknowledge that this success has its shadows: generational renewal has certainly been assured but, in a world that has been secularized to the ultimate extreme, this was not achieved without losses. In comparison to the militant situation of the immediate post-Conciliar years, the traditionalist world might appear at times more “settled down” than it was before. Yet we can assert that actions and pressures deemed necessary to maintain the hard-won positions and to achieve further growth could be organized without difficulty. The social networks constitute here, as elsewhere, a considerable aid to the development of a non-conformist network.

All things being equal, an explosion of discontent like that of the gilets jaunes (the “Yellow Vests” – a populist protest movement in France) could occur at any moment in the Church.  With the great advantage that, in Catholicism, for the Christian people doctrine and practice are centered on the celebration of Sunday Mass. To celebrate the Mass, it’s sufficient that that a priest says it and that the faithful participate – ultimately nobody can prevent them from doing that.   That’s what happened after 1965 and especially after 1969 – the Tridentine mass continued to be celebrated as if nothing had happened. Threats, opposition and even persecution followed each other – nothing worked.  Priests and the faithful continued to do what the Church had always done, as Archbishop Lefebvre loved to say.

A recent, very instructive, fact is that while the bishops of France and elsewhere stupidly imposed on the Eucharistic celebrations the coronavirus measures laid down by the government (by prohibiting the communion on the tongue), a number of the faithful, respectful of the sacrament, left the “ordinary” churches to go and receive with dignity the Holy Eucharist in Traditionalist celebrations.  So, it was found that, after the coronavirus crisis, the number of those attending traditional masses has notably increased in most places.

A Useful Reminder

The phrase of St. Jerome is well known, who said in the 4^th century: “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.”  While the hierarchy had largely gone over to the heresy, nevertheless, numerous faithful remained attached to the Christological doctrine of Nicaea. Have we not seen; do we not see a similar situation repeating itself today? But this  capability for resistance, rooted in practical experience and of its nature uncontrollable, does not exclude demonstrations and powerful actions, which are already being seriously contemplated in many places in the world.

A Bernini marble sculpture of a skull rediscovered in Dresden – as described in Art News:

Eerily life-like marble skull—hidden in plain sight in a German castle—was made by Bernini for the Pope.

The artistic sensitivity of the baroque world was extraordinary! The marble skull was made for Pope Alexander VII around 1655. If you visit Dresden the skull can be viewed in an exhibition that has just opened. The gallery’s full description is here:

Bernini, the Pope and Death

“In the seventeenth century, sudden and often violent death was omnipresent, which is why people were intensely preoccupied with mortality. A constant threat was posed not only by wars and assaults, but above all by diseases. In 1656 there was an outbreak of plague in Rome, and it is remarkable how closely the measures Alexander VII used to fight the epidemic (quarantine, masks, and the extensive shutting down of public life) resemble those that determine our everyday life in the face of the coronavirus today. Death, too, is again more prominent in people’s consciousness due to the current situation, and Bernini’s death’s head thus proves to be a memento mori of extraordinary topical relevance.“

(From the gallery’s description)

Actually, people “were intensely preoccupied with mortality” in almost all ages and cultures up to the dawn of Western Modernity, which has made a deliberate effort to suppress and marginalize the subject. A topic already incomparably set forth by Edgar Allen Poe in The Masque of the Red Death.

Integralism: a Manual of Political Philososphy

by Thomas Cream and Alan Fimister

(Eurospan, Editiones Scholasticae, Neunkirchen-Seelscheid, 2020)

Politics and the Sacred – an eternal theme. A whole series of thinkers on the right have denounced the “original sin” of the modern democratic state, whether liberal on authoritarian: the severance of the political from the sacred order. Among the Catholics, we could mention, for instance,  the fundamental editorial positions of Triumph magazine from its very first issue in 1966.  Thomas Molnar  – who early on had also been associated with Triumph – wrote often and eloquently on this topic, e.g., Twin Powers: Politics and the Sacred(1988), Moi, Symmaque (1999). This line of thought contrasts, however,  with the current position of the Catholic Church, which had embraced the “sound laicity” (Ratzinger). of the modern Western states. Indeed, the Church establishment has often gone further and claimed the modem political world to be the inevitable product of Christianity. Thus, the non-Christian polity of today paradoxically receives divine sanction  – a weird second-coming of Christendom!

Challenging the latter views is integralism, a movement, mainly among academics, which in essence aims to recover the principles and positions of Catholic political philosophy as it existed prior to the last Council or even prior to 1789. Integralism (2020) by Thomas Cream and Alan Fimister is a “manual of political philosophy” summarizing the positions of the movement. It is a remarkable survey of all aspects of political philosophy: the philosophical foundations, the forms of political organization, the relation of state and Church, economics, warfare etc. The authors distinguish the political relationships in Christendom from those that exist outside of it (such as in the world of today). As sources the authors cite primarily Neo-scholastic philosophy and theology, the ancient philosophers, papal declarations and decrees from many eras and thinkers ranging from Thomas Aquinas to Robert Bellarmine and Alasdair MacIntyre. 

Integralism summarizes for us the many political positions taken by the Church both in the age of Christendom and later  – including those that the Church today would like to forget – such as those on religious toleration, just war, slavery, the death penalty, etc. Cream’s and Fimister’s “manual” is succinct and clear. To be sure, I was startled now and then by certain expressions and turns of phrase. For example, “[T]he entity (the C of E – SC) created by Henry VIII and his natural daughter is notoriously founded upon attempted divorce.” On the whole I thought the authors did a good job of presenting this vast subject matter.  I might of course question the basis for one or other of their claims,- such as that English Common Law parallels the Roman Jus Gentium.

My fundamental criticism  though, regards what I perceive to be a lack of historical context inherent in the integralists’ philosophical/theological/legalistic approach.  For politics, after all, deals with the real – as it is encountered in the present day but also in history. Yes,  political action should be informed by theological and philosophical principles – but it cannot simply be deduced from them. 

This historical gap can be illustrated the authors’ discussion of the scope of papal authority in temporal affairs. The authors seem to regard as exemplary the period of the papacy that, historically speaking,  existed  in “Christendom” between 1050 and 1300  – and then really only fully in a small subset of that era: from around 1200 to 1230. The authors rely on Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam as a source – yet even when that was written (1302)  it no longer accurately described reality.  At the same time,  the authors describe a constitution of the Church as it was perfected after 1870. But this structure in large part only became possible in the regime of post-Christendom liberalism. I was also unconvinced when the authors seek to establish the continuity of their description of papal authority with the practices of the Church prior to 1050 or, even more so, with the positions set forth in Vatican II documents and encyclicals and statements of recent  popes. 

We might add that the “rulers” and “temporal authority” discussed in this book have also changed radically over the ages: from Roman emperors to anointed medieval rulers to the modern state to the current postmodern despotism of “civil society.” A complete Catholic manual of political philosophy would have to devote much more space to these specific facts. The authors are of course aware of the differences among these forms of polity.  I was intrigued by their very interesting discussion of “shadow politics” – where the official possessors of power are not those who exercise it in reality (such as a plutocracy).  Or by their use of the Platonic term “theatrocracy” – “where poets corrupted the judgments of citizens by vicious music” to describe “a state of affairs where men are ruled by those who possess the means of mass communication.” 

Indeed,  it is this aspect of integralism  – the authors’ unambiguous assertion of papal rights in temporal affairs  – that has stirred up the greatest resistance. To be fair, at least as presented in this “manual,” the topic of the pope’s temporal authority is just one of many. Yet it does illustrate well the authors’ relative lack of concern with either historical reality or the actual expertise of the papacy in temporal affairs. For even in the 13^th century – the golden age of papal rule –  the political decisions of the popes were highly controversial and often laid the foundations for subsequent conflicts. The same is true of the political decisions taken by the post-1870 popes – from the ralliement to the French republic to the condemnation of Action Francaise to the concordat with the Third Reich.

And what of the Church of today? How could anyone seriously consider entrusting political authority to an institution like the Vatican? From the pontificate of Paul VI to the present day we have witnessed an unending series of financial,  political and sexual scandals. Works like Gone with the Wind in the Vatican ( Via col Vento in Vaticano(1999)) reveal the Vatican to be an abyss of corruption, dishonesty, incompetence, careerism and exploitation of subordinates. And what are we to think about the ruling style of the current pontiff: despotic, arbitrary, having profound disregard for all laws and customs – yet at the same time totally subservient to the forces of the secular “power elite.”  It seems incredible to appear to argue that this man and this institution in its current form are capable of assuming any role in temporal affairs. For let us remember that in the great era of medieval papal power the Church and the curia offered men real secular advantages over the feudal powers of that day:  a better judicial system, a better organized and more efficient bureaucracy, the beginnings of an informed patronage of the arts.

So I applaud the initiative of the integralists – even if I cannot endorse all aspects of their program. The disconnect, created by modern secularism, between politics and the sacred is something that for the sake of human society must be healed. How that will happen, though, is something I do not know. One thing seems clear – the foundation of such a restored political order presupposes the conversion to Christianity of the people who make it up. And achieving  that conversion should be the focus of all our efforts. 

By Stefano Chiappalone

A society that is incapable of lyricism can only build edifices that are ascetic.  But a letter written by the author of The Little Prince offers a starting point to reawaken that lost spiritual sense from which sprang abbeys and cathedrals in the light of the nexus between music and architecture.

I was eight or nine years old when I had an experience that could be described in that surreal tone of some of the stories written by Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936). In a small square-shaped room of ascetic whiteness, furnished only with two dark armchairs placed in an ordered way, a gentleman wearing a full cape-like garment was making gestures and movements that indicated solemnity on a small table covered with a tablecloth.  These movements and gestures and this gentleman were actually the only recognizable things in that strange place that, with the stubbornness typical of a child, I refused to acknowledge had anything to do with “church.”   In fact, I refused to link what I saw with “church.” That was my first and “primordial” encounter with the modern manner of building houses of worship.  That clinical frigidity was light years away from the three little angels of stucco who watched over me in the village where I was born, peeking through the clouds of incense on the high altar of that beautiful church. From those days as a little boy, I have never changed my basic ideas about beauty.

From that time—hopefully with greater awareness– I have never stopped asking myself why some churches of recent construction seem incapable of being described as “churches.”  Is it a simple passage from one style to another, as has happened in the past?  But Romanesque, Gothic and  Baroque–including that country Baroque of the small churches in towns and villages—are styles that are diverse, but all share in a sacrality that does not seem to be shared by the  “grey new style.”  And if we want to trot out the categories of “beautiful” and “ugly,” excluding all of the spins of words with which the commissioners praise “the magnificent and progressive future” of the new style of religious buildings, is it not possible to at least say that these buildings do not respond adequately to that thirst for the sacred, to that desire for that “elsewhere” that allows even the soul of a secular person to step across the threshold of a world that is “other” than the world of the every-day?

In asking this question that will never have a final answer, I found an inspired starting point, a pointer and a beginning of reflection on this question in a letter, dating to July 1943, from the French writer and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900-1944), the author of The Little Prince, who was prematurely lost in a tragic aviation incident.  This letter is so important in that it is a sort of testament—a reflection on the present time.  Speaking about the hollowness of a generation in which “every lyricism sounds ridiculous and men refuse to be awakened to any sort of a spiritual life,”  the author writes 1):  “General, there is only one problem in this world. One alone.  To restore to men spiritual meaning amidst a time when spiritual yearnings seem to be absent. To shower down on them something that resembles Gregorian chant.  If I had faith,” continues Saint-Exupéry, “it is absolutely certain that, after this epoch of ‘work that is necessary and unrewarding,’ I would do nothing else than to let everyone know about Solesmes.” His reference here is to the famous French abbey that in the 19^th century became the heart of the rebirth of Gregorian chant.

The wish of Saint-Exupéry and his mention of Solesmes makes me call to mind that deep connection through which “…architecture and music are heralds, intimately connected with each other, of the spiritual expression of their times,” as affirmed by the German thinker Hans Graf Huyn (1930-2011).  Huyn then offers a little florilegium on this point, among which is a letter written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) in which the latter says:  “I found a page among my papers….in which I define architecture as frozen music.”

If architecture arises from spiritual foundations, although these foundations are ultimately invisible, one can understand something about them also in the “soundtrack” of a society.  The “white mantle of churches” that was interwoven over medieval Europe was germinated thanks to the showers of Gregorian chant.

In contrast to this, a society that is incapable of lyricism “…is capable of raising large industrial buildings but not of building either a palace or a temple,”  a quote from the Colombian aphorist Nicolás Gómez Dávila (1913-1994).  And it is improbable that something comparable to vaults and cupolas would arise when sounds of nature and liturgical hymns (that is to say, that which contributes to the contemplative dimension of a society) are suffocated by the drumbeats of artificial noise and the rhythms of a world where reality is defined by staring at images on an electronic screen. It just so happens that this “crisis” of modern buildings meant for worship goes hand in hand with the abandonment in practice of great sacred music.  During liturgical celebrations there rarely “showers down” on men “something that resembles Gregorian chant” or polyphony or what in general allows something of heaven to shine forth.  What predominates are tunes from a wide diversity of sources, little ditties often strummed, pale imitations of pop music—all this that a professional musician like Riccardo Muti does not hesitate to call “strumming along in church.”

If architecture is “frozen music,” one cannot forget that the marble and stone of the splendid times in the past were kneaded with many Kyries, Glorias and antiphons that resonated in those places.  But, looking at our own time, what cathedral can ever rise on the notes of the infamously well-known “Alleluia of the light bulbs”? 2)

A translation by Fr. Richard Cipolla of Su quali note sorgono le chiese moderne? By Stefano Chiappalone in Alleanza Cattolica 04/21/2021 (3)

1. In a letter addressed to a General “X.” 
2.  Alleluia delle Lampadine
3. SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York, Boston, Philadelphia and … Bardstown? Furthermore, what could be the connection between this not-very-well-known Kentucky town and Naples, Italy? And what are its remote links not just with one, but two Catholic chivalric orders?

Bardstown, KY today is a quaint town  – population 13,000 – with numerous buildings from the 1770’s onwards. It resembles Litchfield or Farmington, CT, Deerfield or Salem, MA – all localities once important in preindustrial America but subsequently bypassed by economic progress and therefore fortunately preserved. Bardstown, however, has unique Catholic significance. For it was to this region that Catholic settlers came to establish a new community west of the Alleghenies.  These first Catholics, moreover, were in large part descendants of the original English Catholic population of Maryland. 1)

It was perhaps in recognition of these connections with Maryland that Bardstown became  – along with three other cities even then much more prominent – one of the first four new dioceses of the United States, carved in 1808 out of the original diocese of Baltimore.  And this status was probably also thanks to the efforts of its indomitable first bishop, Mgr. Benedict Joseph Flaget of France. The diocesan territory was unimaginably vast. Yet already between 1816 and 1823 Bishop Flaget built a new cathedral. It seems that both Catholics and Protestants contributed to its construction. St. Joseph’s stands, essentially unchanged, to this very day. 

Now this cathedral was designed by an American architect (John Rogers) in a quintessentially American style, very much like contemporary Protestant churches and secular buildings. It features “Catholic” statues on its façade and “Protestant” inscriptions of the Ten Commandments on the exterior walls of the nave. 

The columned façade is most impressive. We note there a plaque dedicated by the “Order of the Alhambra,” a kind of Catholic Shriners (they sport a white fez). Inside, the white columned interior is severe but festive. We read that the columns were originally great trees from the immediate vicinity cut down for this church. Photographs show us that up to the 1950’s the sanctuary was a pretty neo-Gothic affair undoubtedly dating to Victorian times. What is present there now, unfortunately, is a typical post-Conciliar “renovation.”

Around New York City, starting circa 1939, proto-Conciliar Catholics waxed enthusiastic about using imitations of the “enlightened” style of the American “meetinghouse” for Catholic churches (like Corpus Christi or, later, the Elizabeth Seton shrine).  In Bardstown, before 1820, Catholics were already building their churches in a bright neoclassical idiom – but as part of the original architectural movement!

But here the resemblance with the 20th century “Americanist” architecture ceases. Because Bishop Flaget by no means wanted just an austere, unadorned interior but sought to embellish it in a Catholic manner despite the limited resources at his disposal. And the main element of decoration would be framed paintings. A Belgian priest, working for the diocese, acquired a number of artworks in Europe. But outside assistance would also be necessary – and many more items indeed came as gifts. For at that time the “American Catholic Church” was still dependant on the aid of Catholics – especially the reigning princes and their officials – of Europe and Latin America. 

The pope himself contributed a number of paintings. The exact role of the future king Louis Philippe of France in providing support to Bardstown cathedral is disputed. But there seems to be a record of a gift from him of vestments, furnishings for the sanctuary, sacramental vessels and paintings from around 1823. The then Duke of Orleans had become acquainted with bishop Flaget during the time both were exiles from revolutionary France. The wife of Louis Philippe was a princess of the Neapolitan Bourbons. And a major donation of paintings from Francis I, king of the two Sicilies, (reigned 1825-1830) is obvious – numerous gold frames around the church record a dedication from him. The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George – so visibly active in the Traditionalist cause around New York – should be overjoyed.  For the Bourbon kings of Sicily were the heads and patrons of that order. 

Much of this early donated art remains on display high on the walls of the cathedral. Regrettably, the paintings are indifferently lit and seem to be in need of restoration – so it is, in general, hard to form a judgment of their artistic merit. Subject to further research, for example,  I am not sure that the cathedral’s claim to possess works by “van Dyke, Rubens and van Eyck” is sustainable.  The attribution of one dramatic and powerful painting is, however, secure: a Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew by Mattia Preti (1613-1699) – one of the gifts of King Francis I. Preti continued the style of Caravaggio to the end of the 17th century. He joined the Order of St. John – the knights of Malta –  and worked for many years on the island of Malta itself. What a contrast between this dark, dramatic work and the surrounding neoclassical serenity of this church’s interior! This painting was restored carefully by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 2002 and is in fine condition.

Bardstown’s ecclesiastical glory was short-lived. In 1841 Bishop Flaget moved his cathedral to the upcoming city of Louisville, taking with him some of the paintings. And Louisville itself was even then being far surpassed by other more recently founded Catholic dioceses west of the Alleghenies: Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago and many more. St. Joseph’s of Bardstown become an ordinary parish church. It briefly came to national attention again in the 1950’s when some of the paintings were stolen and quickly recovered. Nowadays Bardstown is known, if at all, mainly to those touring the many local bourbon distilleries.  But the church of St. Joseph of Bardstown still stands as a remarkable, relatively intact monument to the earliest days of Catholicism in the United States and to the distinguished artistic taste of that far-off time. 

1. Also near Bardstown is the famous Trappist abbey of Gethsemani.