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 Tradional mass but changed his mind after “we Traditionalists” became critics of his policies. Davis article is one long diatribe against Traditionalists. 

Both in the text of the article and the published title and headings Davis employs constant anti-Tradionalist 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 Mett 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 Phenix, 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.

In 2019 Herder Korrespondenz published the following “polemical discourse” of which I translate excerpts.1) This interview sent representatives of  German Church into incoherent rage. 

Lucas Wiegelmann is the interviewer. I assume our readers know of  Martin Mosebach. Thomas Sternberg is a politician and quintessential member of the establishment of the German Catholic Church. He is the president of the (lay) Central Committee of German Catholics which is in the forefront of the current “Synodal Path” agitation. I will only comment that at this very moment the Synodal Path proponents are speaking far less favorably of the papacy than in this interview. The Vatican’s recent prohibition of the blessing of homosexual couples has touched off only the latest of a series of clashes with “Rome.”

…

You’re saying that Peter was the first Pope?

Mosebach: Of course!

Sternberg: Excuse me, but I can’t  agree with that. It’s simply nonsense! The papal office developed with the times. There  were bishops relatively early in the Church. A certain theological precedence crystalized around those bishops who had dioceses in the government centers. …..

…

Do you have a favorite pope in history?

Sternberg: I especially admire Paul VI – the greatest reforming pope of recent history.

Mosebach: The most terrible pope of recent history.

Sternberg: Just in his first appearance he sent a signal. He sold his tiara to an American museum and donated the proceeds to the poor. ….He viewed himself as the bishop of Rome, as the first among bishops……It was also fitting that he radically pruned  the court ceremonies of the Vatican….The guards were abolished,  the diverse ranks and special offices, the ostrich feather fans – all that was eliminated.

Mosebach: Paul VI did what a pope has no right to do. With his reform of the of the mass he destroyed the organically developed Catholic liturgy and left us an order of worship 2) that obscures the Eucharistic mystery. Paul VI abused papal authority. You yourself have said that up to the middle ages the early papacy was characterized by deciding controversies. Therein is the area of responsibility of the pope, not the unleashing of religious and political forces. It’s a passive authority. The office of Vicarius Christi would place completely insuperable demands on everyone who would understand it as an active office. This office can only be exercised in a passive manner. It’s an office that Mr. Everyman has to be able to assume. Peter, not Paul, became the first pope. If genius and charisma were essential, this office would be madness. By the way, the old pomp, which Paul VI abolished, accomplished exactly this – it covered up the person of the pope. When the pope entered, one didn’t see the little old man anymore because he was hidden under the mass of brocade. Then,  in the 20^th century this cult of the solitary man in white developed under the influence of the news media – the Pastor Angelicus shining out over the masses.  The pope as charismatic leader, however, contradicts Catholic Tradition. The pope isn’t free, he is subject not just to the gospel but to the entirety of Tradition. Only within this can he act (take the initiative), and in the end that means he cannot act at all. And, indeed, he absolutely shouldn’t!

…

Mosebach: It’s clear: the entitlement to infallibility only exists when the pope speaks in submission to Tradition. When he doesn’t do that, then he is simply not authoritative. He possesses his authority by being a mere submissive mouthpiece of the eternal, that existed before him.

Sternberg: With this formulation you open the door to resistance against the pope. The judgment whether something is accord with Tradition or not depends very much on the historical convictions, knowledge and perceptions of the individual.

Mosebach: You are probably thinking of Cardinal Lehmann, who once reinterpreted the papal directive to exit advising on “pregnancy conflicts”  (abortion) as a directive to remain doing it. He supported this with the infamous words: “I’ve learned how to handle texts.” Especially Jesuits are very much engaged in handling Tradition in this way. I almost have the feeling that Pascal’s cruel caricature of the Jesuits in “Lettres a un Provincial“ has only been vindicated truly and completely in our days. In that book Pascal wrote this beautiful sentence about the Jesuits: “Ecce patres, qui tollunt peccata mundi.”  One would think he is talking about Francis. But these maneuvers, these cunning ideological reinterpretations, collapse after a certain amount of time. What endures is the great block of Tradition by means of  which a believer can take the measure of something. First of all a glance in the gospels suffices. The gospels are radical. Every line of the gospels denounces that cunning that would make Christianity acceptable. But everyone can also take the measure of something using, for example,  a gothic cathedral – if you stand before Notre Dame de Paris and ask if this or that encyclical, this or that papal address stands comparison to this building? And if not, it’s certainly not the fault of the cathedral.

…

Francis wants precisely that, going forward, Rome doesn’t have to decide everything. In Evangelii Gaudium he writes: “I also don’t believe that one should expect from the papal magisterium a final or complete  answer  to all questions concerning the Church and the world.”

Mosebach: Pope Francis is trying here in a somewhat unclear manner to address a mistaken development. The First Vatican Council in the document Pastor Aeternus confirmed, in the midst of a political crisis, the infallibility of the pope in questions of faith and morals. It thereby launched  through in part dramatic formulations an exaggeration of the papal office that didn’t correspond to Catholic Tradition.  Especially in the post-conciliar papal theology the papal office was exalted to an extent that doesn’t survive a comparison to Tradition. This omnipotent papacy, which seems to have imitated the absolutist fantasies of Joseph de Maistre,  has revealed its full danger really only now, when suddenly everything is supposed to depend on this one very special personality Bergoglio. Perhaps Catholics should be thankful for this situation, because it makes more urgent the correction of such exaggerations. Leading the papacy back to its old constraints would be fortunate for the Church. The Pope as supreme judge, who decides controversies in submission to Tradition – that suffices.

…

Sternberg: …The papacy has acquired a totally new coloration with Francis….…I really very much admire Francis’s opening to the perception of other people. The way he treats disabled people, the way he really lifts people out of their wheelchairs and always goes first to them instead of to officials. …

Mosebach: But you must certainly know, Herr Sternberg, that that’s part of the ritual of modern dictators: kissing children, soothing the sick, visiting field hospitals and so forth. Since publicity has existed, since we have had propaganda,  rulers have displayed themselves in this manner. It was old fashioned, almost touching in its rootedness in the past when the papal court still had its ostrich feather fans. The strong men of the modern age – a Hitler or Stalin – have used far different stylistic means to exhibit themselves in the best light. It’s the same with the current pope. A football stadium, where tens of thousands zero in on a solitary white form in the middle – that’s a far more totalitarian language than the ponderous, old-fashioned  court etiquette of the past!  Then there’s the utilization of the sick in their wheelchairs! Lined up a row,  they are now used to demonstrate our charity and mercy towards them! A shiver runs through me when the reigning Holy Father always speaks of the “tenderness of God.” I’d just like to roll up and die! The tenderness of God – that, in the face of the hard language of scripture! It’s a reprehensible downplaying, a deception, to deprive the faithful of the Rex Tremendae Majestatis from the regrettably abolished Dies Irae. Permit me too here to call attention to the close connection between kitsch and heterodoxy.  

Sternberg: I really have to object strongly here, because I have experienced it differently….

1. „Käme es auf Genie an, wäre dies Amt ein Irrsinn“ Herder Korrespondenz Spezial 1/2019
2. Gottesdienstordnung: The German word here refers to the regulations governing worship services (agenda) of the German Protestant (Lutheran) church.

By Peter Seewald

(Droemer Verlag, Munich 2020)

(This review is of the German original. All quotations are my own translations. Ignatius Press has published in 2020 the first volume of an English translation – SC)

We are fortunate that Pope Benedict XVI is with us still. Indeed, even though by now he has been “Pope Emeritus”  longer than “Pope” we have heard much from him on several fronts just in the last year or so:  his journey to the side of his dying brother in Germany, his dramatic book written with Cardinal Sarah. Last year appeared Benedict XVI: a Life, a quasi-authorized biography by Peter Seewald including new interviews with Benedict. How premature then was the title given to the English language edition of Peter Seewald’s last (2016) book of interviews with the Pope Emeritus: Last Testament!

I confess that I have never been a fan of Peter Seewald’s work. For starters, his style is excessively colloquial, even coarse at times, and studded with English borrowings  and outlandish  formulations:  (“the psychedelic sound of Gregorian chant”; Spindoktor (sic – referring to Ratzinger’s role vis-à-vis Cardinal Frings!)). Seewald easily falls into hyperbole:

“There are moments of world history in which time positively stands still. The (rotation of the) earth around its axis stops.” (referring to the day of Pope Benedict’s resignation)

In other passages, however, he serves up undigested academic or theological jargon. And everywhere he bombards the reader with an endless series of facts. It seems nothing can be mentioned without an explanatory parenthetical, clause or sentence. The longer digressions can be massive, covering every conceivable subject connected, however remotely, with Joseph Ratzinger. I could easily see this book abridged by at least 25% without doing any harm to the narrative.

But more problematic than his style is the inadequate historical context for Ratzinger’s life. Peter Seewald seems to derive most of his historical knowledge from German magazines and newspapers – nowadays a decidedly myopic perspective. As a result, the author’s endless historical digressions generally offer just platitudes and commonplaces, not real insights. As an example of Seewald’s historical judgment, again and again the significance of an author or his book is demonstrated to his satisfaction by the number of copies sold.

 But that’s not the only media-related problem in this book. Seewald’s declared purpose is to defend Joseph Ratzinger against a negative image of him created by the media (“prejudices, underhandedness and even outright disinformation”). Seewald takes up the cause of the Roman Catholic Church as well. Yet, by assuming the role of defense attorney, isn’t Seewald allowing these same media enemies of Ratzinger and the Church to lay down the “rules of the game”? For example, in the poisonous German media culture it may be a laudable undertaking to demonstrate that Benedict – and the Catholic Church – are not Nazis.  I submit that structuring an apologia around demolishing such absurd claims contributes little to our understanding of the role of either Pope Benedict or the Church.

All too numerous are the errors of fact and questionable assertions. Did rock n’ roll fascinate Germans five years after the end of World War II (before it even was invented in the US)? Does Nono el mondo mean “grandfather of the world” in Italian? At the ordination of Ratzinger did Cardinal Faulhaber process into the church to the motet Exicocaelibus magnus? During the war, when Joseph Ratzinger served as a Luftwaffe auxiliary, did he and his unit directly operate a Freya radar (“developed by Konrad Zuse”?)? Did Bishop Richard Williamson’s father die in the concentration camp Sonnenburg in 1944, after helping Jews escape from the Nazis (just like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s father did)? “In the two thousand years of Christianity no really ruling successor of St. Peter had had the courage to take this step.” (referring to Benedict’s resignation) Such things do not inspire confidence in an author.

Yet Seewald’s lengthy narrative does keep moving – often with the aid of (sometimes artificial) cliffhangers. Seewald may be deficient in judgment, but here and there Benedict XVI: A Life does offer startling anecdotes and revealing comments. And if his overall tone is adulatory, Seewald doesn’t avoid some of the more problematic aspects of Benedict’s career. Seewald obviously can’t follow all of his hero’s opinions – even those restated in this book (such as Benedict’s still rosy assessment of the Second Vatican Council). And Seewald can be informative even when he goes off track. For example, he reminds us of John Allen’s initial hostile account of Cardinal Ratzinger – and how it changed when the cardinal became pope. The descriptions of towns, schools and landscapes connected to Joseph Ratzinger’s early life can be evocative. Seewald’s detailed account of the coordinated media campaign against Pope Benedict is important reading,  describing a trial run of the tactics employed by the civil establishment in the subsequent, infinitely more massive assault on President Trump.

Finally, what alternatives to Seewald does Benedict really have for a German-language biographer/dialogue partner/ publicist? Certainly the overwhelming majority of “serious” writers on religion in the German press and academia are either inveterate enemies of Benedict or unreadable – and very often both. But so much for our author – what of the story of Pope Benedict that he tells? In an account spanning some 90 years, I can only pick out a few topics that hopefully would interest the readers of a Traditionalist blog.

Ratzinger’s childhood inspires some of the best pages in the book. Born early on Holy Saturday, (as Seewald notes, at that time the Holy Saturday liturgy took place in the morning) the young child would seems destined to a spiritual career. The first residence of the Ratzinger family, as described by Seewald, seems like a fairy tale of faith and traditional German Catholic culture despite (or partially because of?) the economic constraints of that time. The young Joseph Ratzinger was introduced at an early age to prayer – but also beautiful music, splendid liturgies and glorious nature. It seems that Joseph Ratzinger’s simple, severe and devout policeman father was the greatest influence on him. – “his teacher, his spiritual master, his literary mentor.” 

From my own experiences I could sympathize with Joseph Ratzinger when he later entered a Catholic “high school”  (we would say) where, as seems universal in such Catholic institutions, sports were heavily emphasized. Like me, Ratzinger was totally incapable in this field, but he was able to manage his way through it all more sucessfully than I.

After the war, Joseph Ratzinger entered the seminary with his brother, and later attended the university in Munich. According to Seewald, the nascent West German state represented  the very essence of Catholic social doctrine. Yet despite this purported early influence, the Church soon encountered problems in the postwar world the origin of which Seewald does not explain. Increasingly, members of the theological faculty have problems with “Rome.”  The local population, even in supposedly Catholic Bavaria, was not necessarily receptive to Christianity. At this early stage Ratzinger began to gravitate towards the liberal wing of the church. Curiously, however, he at first rejected the liturgical movement – but later grew comfortable with it. 

Early on Ratzinger had also settled on becoming an academic. He had, however, an almost career-ending conflict with a certain Professor Schmaus when the latter rejected his Habilitation book (in Germany a necessary step to obtain a teaching position at a university). Naturally Seewald calls Schmaus a “bigwig,” vain, easily taking offense – and, of course, previously friendly to Nazis. This incident also features prominently in Seewald/Ratzinger’s Last Conversations(aka Last Testament), but here we learn that Schmaus’s  opposition to Ratzinger was far more fundamental and militant than I had supposed from that account – Schmaus held the young theologian to be a nebulous modernist. Through skillful tactics Ratzinger worked around this obstacle and in 1958 he received his first professorship. 

From this beginning Ratzinger steadily rose to prominence among German theologians – and he was reckoned to the progressive wing. In an early essay,, he speculated on the salvation of all kind and helpful people, and, according to Seewald at least, by 1959 he sported a “black suit and a black tie.”   Commenting on this era,  Ratzinger makes the claim – startling in view of his later experiences – that “I always was very much interested in politics.”  

Ratzinger of course eventually became one of the main spokesmen and leaders of the progressives at the Second Vatican Council. Yet I still don’t get a good sense from reading this book what his specific objectives actually were.  He is quoted as endorsing such such vague but sweeping propositions as repudiating the “armor” of scholastic theology and advocating that the Faith must find “a new language and a new openness.”

Seewald can’t help but label the Conciliar enthusiasm of the early 60’s as “naïve,” specifically referring to Ratzinger’s liturgical expectations of that time. Indeed, Seewald cites sources – including, I may add, many of my own favorites – who profoundly dissented, if for different reasons, from the Conciliar euphoria, men like Alfred Lorenzer and Hubert Jedin. Pope Benedict himself is untroubled by any second thoughts about the Council. Going forward, defending what he viewed as the true legacy of the Council against the post-Conciliar “Council of the media” became his mission. Almost immediately, therefore, the Second Vatican Council – the opening to the World, the saving reconciliation with modernity – had become just one more non-intuitive set of dogmas that required endless further defense and interpretation (or hermeneutics)

As the Council ended, Ratzinger took up a new position at the University of Tübingen. There he taught side-by-side with Hans Küng – which is likely why he transferred there in the first place. It seems that gradually Ratzinger’s views began diverging more and more from the those of majority of the intellectual leadership of the German Church. As described by Ratzinger,  this was the natural development of his growing understanding of his colleagues’ theology and objectives. Why Ratzinger did not discern these problems with Küng, Rahner etc. earlier is not addressed in this book. The relationship with Küng eventually deteriorated into outright enmity – at least on Küng’s part. Throughout the rest of Seewald’s book, Küng has the role of a recurring demonic figure and hostile commentator on Ratzinger’s career.

In 1968 Ratzinger moved again from Tübingen, dominated by Küng, to the more congenial surroundings of the University of Regensburg in his homeland of Bavaria. By this time the deficiencies of the Conciliar regime were manifest. As Seewald reports, only two years after the conclusion of the Council the percentage of Catholics regularly attending Mass in Germany was plummeting.  Conversely, by 1970 the number of those exiting the Church in Germany had skyrocketed. At this time Ratzinger began to be considered the “theological savior” of Germany by the conservative remnants of the Church.

In 1977, Ratzinger was appointed to the prestigious see of Munich. Aside from a very brief curacy in the early 1950’s, it was his first pastoral experience. In this role Ratzinger does not seem to have distinguished himself from the rest of his bureaucratic and/or progressive colleagues in the “German Catholic Church.”  We read, for example, how he facilitated a typical progressive stunt of setting up a child speaker to publicly challenge John Paul II on a papal visit to Germany. And then there was Ratzinger’s patronage of the controversial lay “movement” Katholische Integrierte Gemeinde. To some extent Ratzinger retained his connection to this group even after he had become Pope. By 2019 the KIG had collapsed in scandal.

 In 1981 Ratzinger was named prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. For the next 24 years Ratzinger exercised this office. He assumed the role of the “bad cop” for John Paul II and earned the opprobrium of much of the world media as a result. He was a loyal subordinate even when he disagreed with the Pope’s actions. Ratzinger did express reservations, for example, regarding the mammoth spectacles John Paul II loved. And he at first refused to participate in the ecumenical Assisi event. But nothing came of this – and Ratzinger of course later attended later Assisi meetings himself.

There are also early indications of Ratzinger’s limitations as a leader. Seewald reports that he really never developed effective relationships or networks within the Vatican bureaucracy – despite all the years he served there. A specific incident illustrates some of Ratzinger’s difficulties – the one event described in this book which I personally witnessed. The Vatican had issued in 1986 a letter on “The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,”  essentially reiterating Catholic doctrine. Shortly thereafter, Cardinal Ratzinger gave an address in the Lutheran church of St. Peter in New York. Seewald describes how a crowd of homosexuals in the audience attempted to shout down Ratzinger. What Seewald doesn’t mention, however, was that Ratzinger’s presentation was entirely devoted to questions of Biblical exegesis, in connection with a closed-door conference on this subject he was holding shortly thereafter.  Even though the homosexual issue was dominating the media, Ratzinger apparently hoped to just ignore it in his address. His uninspiring appearance and delivery only stirred up the demonstrators all the more. And the “40 policemen” that Seewald mentions only deigned to intervene after the address had been thoroughly disrupted. 

And of course in 2005 Joseph Ratzinger ascended the papal throne as Benedict XVI. For the next 8 years he was to lead the Church through crises caused by all the things which had been swept under the rug in previous papacies. Seewald (and Benedict XVI?), however, seem to regard the main challenge of  Benedict’s papacy as maintaining a good relationship with the press – primarily that of Germany. The subject is nearly obsessive. Seewald even attributes to the media attacks over Bishop Williamson the beginning of the end of Ratzinger’s’ pontificate.  But obviously much more than inadequate public relations work was at fault in Benedict’s papacy. The man who could set a new liturgical course with Summorum Pontificum and at least start to sanction some of the worst, previously untouchable,  abusers was otherwise incapable of transforming his ideas into practice. That would have required well-planned, detailed implementation,  finding and promoting competent and loyal supporters, confronting opposition directly, and ceaseless personal advocacy. 

Seewald recites revealing examples of Benedict’s problematic style as ruler. Pope Benedict arranged for Archbishop Vigano to be sent as nuncio to the U.S – a step down in status –  after the Archbishop had clashed with Cardinal Bertone. Of course that wasn’t a punishment, the Pope Emeritus assures us, for Vigano’s zealous activity in attempting into bring order into Vatican’s  financial affairs. “Although Vigano certainly was right in many things be created a climate of general suspicion of all against all, so he couldn’t stay.” – so Benedict.  Ettore Gatti Tedeschi, another would-be financial reformer, met an even worse fate: summary dismissal amid uncorroborated accusations – once again, after running afoul of  Bertone. A year afterwards, in a characteristic gesture, Pope Benedict declared his continued trust in Tedeschi –  but refused to reinstate him. We have subsequently seen the effects of this laxity in the oversight of the Vatican finances,

Then, there was the strange business of Ingrid Stampa, a former  housekeeper of Ratzinger who had inserted herself in the papal  palace. She obtained the keys to the papal apartments and often showed up unannounced in his office. As described by Seewald, she was adept at manipulating Pope Benedict, when necessary with hysterical displays and fits of rage. She assumed more and more authority,  blocked the advancement of rivals in the curia and even had a favorite of hers made Cardinal. Apparently she had to hand back her keys to the papal apartment only after the explosion of the “Vatileaks” affair.

Perhaps we should say something here about the topic of this book that should be of the greatest interest to Traditionalists. Amazingly, Seewald writes very little about Ratzinger’s liturgical principles, the Traditional Mass and Summorum Pontificum. That’s because our author has no sympathy for the subject  – he calls Archbishop Lefebvre an “apostate” (abtrünnig). I have mentioned, however,  the late adherence of Ratzinger to the liturgical movement. As a professor in Regensburg,  Ratzinger was horrified by the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Such a thing had never been done in the entire history of the Church! – lamented Ratzinger. “It did us extraordinary damage. For now the impression formed that the liturgy was not preexisting and given, but something ‘made.’ ”

Of course, years later, as Pope, Ratzinger did do something about it by issuing Summorum Pontificum. Seewald comments in his inimitable style that: “no measurable changes in the liturgical framework of the Church were produced by Summorum Pontificum – much less developing into a mass movement. Benedict’s readmittance (to the Church) of the ‘Old Mass’ basically corresponded to the trend to rely on ‘Classico” and “Traditionale” after adulterated wine, poisonous foodstuffs and the fast food madness.”

But others felt and continue to feel differently. As Seewald himself writes: “Cardinal Koch even considers (Summorum Pontificum) the most important decision of all of this pontificate. With it, something enduring had been created, which the 80-year old pope had pushed through against all resistance. And he did this simply because for decades he had held this rectification for right and necessary.” Indeed, it was Benedict’s one success in legislating, implementing and defending a major change in the life of the Church. A change that, contrary to Seewald’s perspective, has indeed generated its own movement throughout the world. 

But then Pope Benedict resigned. Of cause the reasons for this  incredible step are not explicitly articulated in this book. The following extraordinary “reign” of Benedict as  “pope emeritus” – which by now exceeds the time of his own papacy – also receives, perhaps unsurprisingly, scant coverage.  Pope Benedict, ever the man of the establishment, is quoted as supporting and admiring his successor (as he has already stated in previous books).  I don’t think many people are convinced by that.

So, in 2019 when Bergoglio had set off another crisis – the threatened introduction of married priests, female deacons and even female priests, Cardinal Sarah and Ratzinger collaborated on a book defending Catholic Tradition in these issues. I am sure that this – combined with other, behind-the-scenes activity – helped put the brakes on the drive for change to the priesthood. Yet, in a typical foolish spectacle, after the anger of the Bergoglian faction exploded, Pope Benedict withdrew his name from the book (as co-author)  – even though he did not withdraw his contribution. It is quintessential Benedict, as described again and again in this book – the inability to confront opposition resulting, at least in appearance, in an apologetic compromise. 

So Seewald leaves us with the impression of a man of intelligence, spiritual insight, scholarly attainments, artistic sensitivity and having the best of wishes for the Church. But reverence for the institution and the lack of leadership skills often negated his gifts and virtues, ultimately leading to a disastrous decision that plunged the Church once again into the very moral and institutional chaos from which Benedict had striven to rescue her.  

But of course, as Seewald himself argues elsewhere on other issues,  Benedict’s character was not the main cause of his papacy’s difficulties. I have already alluded to some of some of these objective underlying problems of strategy and tactics.  But the fundamental issue with the Church between 1977 and 2013  – the period when Joseph Ratzinger was Archbishop, Cardinal, and Pope –  was the inherently contradictory nature of both the legacy of the Vatican Council and the Church’s clerical culture. Apocalyptic hopes and conformism; yearning for a leader in the format of the secular figures of the last century yet anxiously avoiding conflict (and the appearance of conflict) within the Church and with the world; dreams of great transformations combined with bureaucratic complacency – really, I don’t think anyone could have pulled it off. 

The following is a translation of a review by Veronica Rasponi that appeared on Corrispondenza Romana of Professor Roberto de Mattei’s just published book (in Italian)  called “On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccine”. As many Catholics who know and love the Catholic Tradition and the Traditional Mass know, Professor de Mattei is one of the most important leaders of the Traditional Movement not only in Italy but throughout Europe.  His conclusions are very important for those who are weighing a decision whether to receive one of the Covid-19 vaccines.  He concludes, after a rigorous discussion using the methodology of some of the greatest moral theologians of the Church, that the vaccine is morally licit.  In that conclusion he is in agreement with the recent statements of the Pontifical Academy for Life and of the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith. The review below offers highlights of what Professor de Mattei writes in his book. All the quotes are from de Mattei himself unless noted.

Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

The anti-Covid vaccination is today at the center of a debate that is both political and medical, but often also in the sphere of morality. This debate is taking place in an atmosphere that is often emotional, thus distorting the terms of the question. It is timely, therefore, that Professor Roberto de Mattei has made a contribution to this debate with a study called On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccine. This study is being presented as “a clear and thorough answer to those who consider the vaccine against Covid-19 illicit in itself.”

The problem in short is this: “from the view of both Catholic and natural morality, is it licit or not to be vaccinated against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, given that the vaccines now available use cell lines originating from aborted fetuses”? In receiving these vaccines, or, if I am a medical doctor, in injecting these vaccines, am I making myself complicit with abortion, thereby committing a grave sin?

Professor de Mattei first of all distinguishes between the scientific and the moral problem.  To examine this crucial point, he calls to mind the principles on which moral theology is based, discussing the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori and of the most trusted moral theologians of the nineteenth century, down to the Magisterium of John Paul II, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. On the basis of these premises,  one must study the problem of cooperation with evil, applying this to the concrete case of the current vaccines using fetal cell lines.

There are basically two theses that deny the liceity of the anti-Covid vaccines.  The first thesis considers the vaccine illicit in terms of its relationship to the abortion industry; the second considers it illicit because it may be  a threat to one’s physical health.  Professor de Mattei confronts thoroughly both theses.  He also confronts other objections, reminding everyone of  his own sense of responsibility.

The position that Professor de Mattei takes is not that different from that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith as expressed on September 8, 2008 and December 21 2020, but he distances himself from statements made by some prelates on December 12, 2020.  At the same time he distances himself forcefully from many positions that are diffused on the internet that have no basis either in science or in theology or in morality.

Quoting the author:

“The Church is not a liquid society, but an institution that issues juridical and moral norms, to which one needs to adhere, as long as they do not enter into contradiction with the continuing Magisterium of the Church, with the teaching of the Popes, and with the doctrine of the Gospels.  A position that is proposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is not in itself infallible, but should be considered at the very least probable, or the most probable among other possibilities.  The Church has condemned whoever affirms that “it is not licit to follow a probable opinion or the most probable among those that are probable.” This is the case with respect to the liceity of the vaccine against the Coronavirus. We are experiencing a sad chapter in contemporary history whose weight we must bear, but we must do so with a deep trust in Wisdom and divine Goodness that never allows us to find ourselves confronted with a moral situation that is unsolvable.”

This deep study by Professor de Mattei has gathered much support in the international community. Among these supporters are Professor Giorgia Brambilla, considered one of the most respected voices in Catholic bioethics in Italy, and Doctor Thomas Ward, president of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family, one of the most strenuous opposers of abortion in Great Britain.  Professor Brambilla writes:  “Confronted with the timely question of the liceity of the vaccine against the Coronavirus, the consciences of many are crushed and weakened by certain approaches that, on the basis of a false heroism, spread views that are unnecessarily rigid and at odds with Morality. This compendium, in coherence with the Magisterium of the Church, analyzes in a clear and complete way this difficult moral question, responding in an efficacious manner to the various theses that are involved.  There was a real need for this study.”

Doctor Ward affirms in turn: “I am profoundly grateful to Professor Roberto de Mattei for his lucid and authoritative clarification of the liceity of using or administering Covid vaccines during this pandemic.  Dissipating courageously the confusion caused by the promotion of personal opinions in opposition to the coherent, proven and true moral doctrine of the Church, he has defended the consciences of doctors and Catholic health workers who are pro-life, and he has protected the consciences, the health and life of old people and of Catholics with pre-existing conditions who through fear of gravely offending God  would have been led to think that they did not have the moral option to use the vaccine.”