Tim Sullivan’s recent piece for the Associated Press on the state of the Church in America has made the rounds in Catholic circles, and it feels like a generally accurate snapshot of where things are and where they’re heading. Sullivan looks at recent developments at St. Maria Goretti parish in Madison, Wisconsin, and Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, arguing that they’re emblematic of a broader shift across the U.S. toward a “new, old” Church: Latin and Gregorian chant in the liturgy, cassocks, and habits on priests and religious, and dogma and doctrine back in the conversation.
My home parish and current parish—both in the more liberal Northeast—have seen the same shift: Latin, ad orientem, and kneelers for Communion have become standard again, while guitars, Eucharistic ministers, and altar girls have become rare. In discussing the AP piece with colleagues, they reported similar trends in the South and Midwest. It’s all anecdotal, but also undeniable: love it or hate it, change is afoot all over the country—sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fits and starts, but all in a similar direction.
And, as Sullivan notes, the change is especially palpable among young people. The young priests and young families who are still showing up in churches are not doing it because it’s expected of them—if anything’s expected of them now, it’s that they will drift away—but because they know they’re lost without it. The Church’s ancient traditions and doctrines are not a suffocating burden but a breath of fresh air—an exciting new discovery of hidden treasure in the muddy and barren fields of relativism.
And as these Gen-Xers and millennials more and more rise up to take the helm of the Church’s institutions, that excitement in our shifting moment will define the Catholicism of the future in this country. In fact, whereas many doomsday voices online have warned of an invasion of indifferentist modernism in the Church, the real internal threat facing the Church in the decades to come may well end up being a radical traditionalist counter-reaction to the Second Vatican Council and all the popes in its wake.
Of course, trying to describe the Catholic Church in broad brushstrokes, even in the narrow confines of one country, is overwhelming; it’s far too big, ancient, and complicated—not to mention paradoxical in its thinking—to be dealt with in any straightforward way. Sullivan thus falls into an old trap: that of superimposing our more familiar political divide onto the Church to sort things out. The words “liberal” and “conservative” appear twenty-five times in the AP piece, and what results are various generalizations about what each of the two “kinds” of Catholics cares about, and the various social and cultural artifacts connected with each—even though Catholic social teaching famously resists the dominant political binary. For Catholicism, theology, not politics, must be primary.
The Associated Press certainly isn’t the first to do take this politicizing approach, and won’t be the last. There are, after all, elements of truth in it: there is indeed a “Catholic right” and “Catholic left,” and that rightness and leftness informs and often warps the way each side approaches the Church; and if order, hierarchy, and tradition define the conservative mind, and openness, equality, and change define the liberal mind, what Sullivan has captured in his piece undeniably overlaps with a surge of order in the Church’s inner life.
But even if we accept this way of framing the matter, the key question is this: Is what we’re seeing a rebalancing back toward a proper emphasis on order, or an unbalancing away from a proper emphasis on openness? In other words: Is the Church recovering from a spiral, or being thrown into one?
Sullivan’s own piece clues us into the answer. After surveying various more extreme factions lumped in under the “conservative Catholic” banner, he makes this observation about the “orthodox movement”: it can seem like “a tangle of forgiveness and rigidity, where insistence on mercy and kindness mingle with warnings of eternity in hell.”
Another Wisconsin priest had this fitting reaction to the line: “Sounds like Jesus to me.” Indeed, no one warns about hell more often or more forcefully in the Bible than Christ himself, just as no one invites mercy more clearly or more definitively. And the forgiveness of God’s love is tied, and again and again, to a rigid obeying of his commands (Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 5:3).
Later in the piece, Sullivan focuses on Fr. Scott Emerson, who was appointed pastor of St. Maria Goretti in Madison in 2021, writing: “There was more incense, more Latin, more talk of sin and confession. Emerson’s sermons are not all fire-and-brimstone. He speaks often about forgiveness and compassion. But his tone shocked many longtime parishioners.” Once again, talk of sin and confession—even fire and brimstone—is no “conservative” talking point, just as forgiveness and compassion is no “liberal” one. Both are simply part and parcel of one Gospel, which begins with a summons to conversion and culminates in a summons to love (Mk 1:13; Jn 13:34).
It would be difficult for even a casual reader of Scripture and Tradition not to see in these descriptions of a resurgent “conservatism” a description of basic Christian tensions. Thus, reading between the lines, we find the startling implication: the striking thing about this movement toward orthodoxy is not that such things are being talked about one-sidedly, but that they are being talked about at all. The “conservative” themes—law, confession, sin, hell—have for a long time been not so much secondary as nonexistent. The Church, having identified too intimately with the culture, has been wallowing in more “liberal” talk of forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and love, but without a corresponding, and indeed primary, emphasis on truth.
In short, a distortion of the Gospel is not looming over the Church ahead; it’s spurring her on from behind. And the Church’s shepherds and pastors, preachers and teachers, Brothers and Sisters, and mothers and fathers are striving to correct it. This is what we see in the best of the “new, old” Church: an attempt to recapture what was lost without losing what was gained, bringing out both what is new and what is old (Mt 13:52). The danger of an overcorrection in the other direction will loom—it always has, and always will—but such is her life on the razor’s edge of the Way toward Christ.
Toward the end of the piece, Sullivan quotes Fr. Emerson—himself quoting the existential Thomist Étienne Gilson—on the exaggerated rumors of the Church’s demise: “The Church,” he said, “has buried every one of her undertakers.” If the AP piece is any indication, she also continues to evade every one of her politicizers, while aspiring to the union of all things in Christ.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We hear so much gloom forecasting that it’s refreshing to hear a refreshing outlook. Indeed, it’s uplifting to feel uplifted. Etienne Gilson’s great line the Church has buried her undertakers is one of those assuring outlooks that uplifts from by all appearances the dark chasm we’re sliding into.
Matt Becklo does justice to the theological virtue of hope by encouraging us with good news of a return to former sanity, although wearing cassocks isn’t a sure fire indicator of where the occupant beneath the soutane head is as learned in Rome. Although knowledgeable of His Holiness’ contempt for them, and Gregorian chant it sounds like a blessed reactionary movement, an American Vendée uprising. Will such a movement grow we can only hope, and that it includes those of us who love chant but prefer the ordinary Roman collar black shirt and trousers. That the new old Church will not be an exclusive club mimicking SSPX. The SS of Catholicism. Otherwise it sounds encouraging.
We do know what scripture says, that in end times the Church will falter, the great apostasy is forecast. Things appear heading in that direction. Hopefully it will instead be one more instance of the Church burying its undertakers. As such we shouldn’t be excessively giddy and lose our focus on the careening effect of doctrinal subversion. Although Bishop Barron is a good motivator for the right direction.
“That the new old Church will not be an exclusive club mimicking SSPX. The SS of Catholicism.”
LOL!
Yes… comparing fellow Catholics to the worst of the Nazis… hilarious.
Amanda. Excerpt from a previous comment in CWR:
“Benedict XVI removed the penalty of excommunication in 2009 of the four bishops ordained by LeFebvre. Archbishop LeFebvre died 1991:
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them. Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc”.
If SSPX representatives treated Benedict XVI with arrogance and presumptuousness when he acted with kindness for their salvation, how might these our fellow Catholics react to you and I?
Fr. Peter,
Benedict’s letter to the Bishops intended to exhort their generosity of charity and forgiveness toward the SSPX as a means of drawing the SSPX community back to full canonical status. Benedict explained that as the reason for his remit of excommunication. However, following the remit, many bishops reacted vehemently against the remit and against Benedict for having offered it, particularly since news concurrently broke on the internet that one SSPX bishop had apparently voiced anti-semitical views about which Benedict claimed not to have known.
Therein followed Benedict’s letter to his fellow bishops, an exhortation, calling them to generosity and to forgiveness. I wonder why the CWR commenter stopped at the sentence which ending: “ONE-SIDED positions, etc.” [EMPHASIS ADDED.]
The very next sentence (Paragraph 8) of Benedict’s letter continues:
“Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
May God bless Pope Emeritus Benedict and May God bless us too.
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Realize that you can hold to the truths of Christ to the extreme of exclusivity from all others who hold the same truths, excluding yourself by your pride from the very Mystical Body you pretend to worship. Lucifer’s sin was a parallel rebellion realized in the prideful conviction that his virtue was greater than all others and comparable to God, thereby excluding himself from God.
That SSPX/SS comment was utterly uncalled for, as they only are seeking to preserve what was lost. Yes, they have some whackadoodles in their numbers, and even their founder had a less than stellar rep during WWII, but the majority of members are people simply trying to regain what was lost. And, no, I am not a member. They certainly are doing a better job than the one of which I AM a member. FSSP, too, as for those doing a better job. I would far rather worship with either than the cafeteria catholics who own my area.
Amen, brother. Lots of babies covered in bath water lying around.
About the isolated and special case called the Vendée uprising:
While the poorly-armed men of the Vendée were in the battlefield, the Revolutionaries also shifted into the undefended civilian parts of the region, contributing in this brutal way to the deaths of 300,000 men, women and children. Some “paradigm-shift”, that flanking movement: https://www.homeofthemother.org/en/magazine/selected-articles/saints/9860-martyrs-of-the-vend%C3%A9e
“It is now in the heart of every family, of every Christian, of every man of goodwill that an interior Vendée must arise! Every Christian is, spiritually, a Vendéen! Let us not allow generous and gratuitous giving to be stifled within us. Let us learn, as the martyrs of the Vendée, to draw this gift from its source: in the Heart of Jesus. Let us pray that a powerful and joyful interior Vendée may arise in the Church and in the world! Amen!” – in the link, attributed to Cardinal Robert Sarah
Guinean Cardinal Sarah is from the same continental Africa that has resisted Fiducia Supplicans and then been isolated as simply a “special case.”
“SSPX. The SS of Catholicism.” Untrue, uneducated, and uncharitable.
I agree entirely. Uncharitable in every way, shape, form. STUPID in the same way, shape, form. and LACKING IN KNOWLEDGE OR ANY HINT OF WISDOM.
We are CATHOLICS, are we not?
That is uncharitable and not true.
The schismatic SSPX should not be used as gauge to measure the state of Catholicism. The SSPX is outside the full communion of the Church. All the more the SSPX should not be put up as model for the ideal Church.
Dom:
Are you arguing from your “authority” Dom, or is that a misunderstanding (for instance, your first name might actually be “Deacon” like the actor Deacon Jones)?
Deacon Dom,
The SSPX as I understand it are not in schism but they do have an irregular status of some sort. I’m sure there are readers who can explain that more fully.
Deacon Dom,
Why do you persist in accusing them of being schismatic when both recent popes have stated otherwise?
You are not any more Catholic than them. No I am not an SSPX member.
Thanks for your continued service to widows and orphans!
Ave Maria!
Chris; mrcracker; Joseph:
Read and understand these following full quotations from the concerned authorities.
1. Pope Paul VI’s letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975:
” … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority – although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.
” Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”
Source: PAUL VI, “Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre,” 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Pope St. John Paul II on SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
” In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009::
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis’ letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, specifically mentioning SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II’s letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here’s the link to Pope JPII letter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
It was a fairly balanced report for the AP. And pointing out that the young increasingly attend the TLM, with large families and so on, when no one is forcing anything – well, the contrast is deep. The “reform” of the liturgy was an entirely top down revolution that no one in the pews had asked for, and many were surprised by (not to mention alarmed or even disgusted). The restoration is almost entirely spontaneous from the pews and embraced by young people who weren’t even born when the TLM was all there was. It’s quite the miracle, if you ask me.
It’s truth and charity and prayer that prevent Catholics from overreacting, by keeping us pointed toward God. Scripture and Magisterium and Tradition.
Even those with no interest in attending the Tridentine Mass ought to read the propers of the Mass, because this is one of the sources of Tradition, one of the ways the Faith has been handed on from the Apostles.
One day at a time: https://extraordinaryform.org/propersprint.html
Given the AP’s history of extreme leftist propaganda, it’s hard for me to understand why any Catholic would pay much attention to anything that comes from AP but, most especially, anything whose content refers to the lived experience of the Catholic faith. We ought to be very careful in this age of the perverse marriage between “news” sources and our woke government which treads daily on the constitutional rights of its citizens. Caveat emptor.
I don’t think I said anything that actually relies on the AP piece. The swinging of the pendulum is pretty ubiquitous in both large societies and small groups, although the specifics of how it swings are a bit unpredictable.
I should have just agreed with you rather than write my own bit below.
Amen!
My “Amen” (above) was in reply to Deacon Edward’s comment on the AP in general and it’s views of the Church in particular.
Amen, Deacon, Amen!
Jesus Christ is Lord.
John Regan above – “The ‘reform’ of the liturgy was an entirely top down revolution that no one in the pews had asked for, and many were surprised by (not to mention alarmed or even disgusted).”
Old enough here to say that is exactly right. I only wish my faithful but bewildered parents could be around to see the restoration.
Concerning Latin prayers in the Mass….VatII said they should be preserved…right? And exorcists tell us the demons hate Latin prayer. So I recite the Pater Noster quietly but audibly during the Our Father and I do not recite the Protestant postscript. Sometimes I think the Beloved One of God, while He was with us in the Flesh, may have heard His prayer recited by Romans in their native tongue. It seems fitting to echo a prayer from ages of ages at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As an altar boy we recited the Latin prayers in a meaningless staccato, kinda like Michael Voris and others who spout it out like a weapon of intellectual pride, but as an old geezer, frequent recitation of the Pater Noster I find that the English words are completely displaced eventually by the Latin substance. It seems unifying with ages of ages.
About Luther’s postscript to the Our Father…while it is now added, it is also deliberately separated from the Lord’s Prayer itself by the intermediate commentary voiced by the priest. Thank God for such small blessings.
Good analysis, though one wonders why he’s so caught up in distancing himself from aligning orthodoxy with a general Catholic conservatism. It didn’t bother Newman, and the fact is conserving and preserving the Gospel is a primary obligation all Catholics share.
Interesting AP article, but stereotypical in the sense that it uses political, cultural, sociological, and social justice jargon. How can an article about the United States Catholic Church not mention the centrality of God, Jesus, and the Eucharist? The AP writer does not appear to have a religious understanding of his topic.
The Church has never been in static state. The “barque of Peter”is always listing from starboard to port. It’s an ever swinging pendulum, always seeking to right itself. There’s always an opposite attraction which keeps it in orbit. We should be neither surprised or concerned, it’s just the way things were, are and always will be.
Or, is a “pendulum” metaphor more equivalent to other pagan idols?
As the late and obscure intellectual, the orthodox Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddhin, has proposed: “Right is right, and Left is wrong.”
In the grand tapestry of faith, each thread is woven with the intent of crafting a picture of that will bring us in greater communion and unity with Jesus the Christ. The Second Vatican Council, much like a farmer’s diligent threshing, sought to separate the wheat from the chaff, to modernize without losing the essence of tradition. It aimed to nourish the Body of Christ, to offer spiritual sustenance in forms both ancient and new. Yet, the very act of threshing, necessary though it may be, can lead to unintended division, scattering far too many servants and members to the wind.
A pope who embraces Liturgical Tradition understands that the Body requires varied methods of nourishment; the spiritual Panis of the past can still satiate the hunger of the present. I do not understand Pope Francis’ desire to stamp out the TLM when it has been and continues to a great source of comfort to so many.
As an aside, the mention of Gregorian change mentioned above made me think of Hollow, a app I use for my holy hour every morning and every evening before I sleep. It allows me to say the rosary while accompanied with Gregorian chant, it enriches the soul and assist in guiding me on faithful along paths of truth. There were two main things that drew me to the Church – the spiritual power I found in the Rosary and the Latin Mass, which impressed me with its their profound solemnity and mystery drawing me into deeper waters, revealing the depth of faith’s heritage.
I liked this essay. Of course, seeing a photo of one of the parishes where I have been attending Mass helped.
To answer a question posed: Is it an unbalancing or a rebalancing? I am optimistic that at least for now it is a rebalancing. It could go too far, of course, after which we’ll need another rebalancing– but that defines the life of the Church.
The Consecration, in order to be valid, must be done as Our Blessed Mother requested.
Sorry, what? I don’t know what private revelation you’re referring to, but none of them can alter the Catholic faith. In fact, if an alleged apparition claimed to change our sacramental theology, that would be a proof of its falsity.
https://fatima.org/the-consecration-of-russia/
How could fulfilling Our Blessed Mother’s request alter The Catholic Faith?
“Behold, your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross.
It is so unfortunate that our church has been caught up in the political turmoil of our day. And I can only see the divisiveness in both the AP article and Mr. Becklo’s article.
I have noticed the ‘Trad’ tendency starting in the local parishes. It breaks my heart, especially in my home parish. There is never a line for Reconciliation. The intolerance is for ‘others’ is palpable, if not openly stated.
All we can do is pray for our Holy Mother Church.
Right, because progressives in the church are so tolerant 🙄.
Right. And Trads drive away penitents. Or something.
A “progressive “ Catholic is an oxymoron. Progressives, because they desire to change The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Has Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, are neither in The Church or Of The Church, because they deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
Thank you, Athanasius.Good point.
They probably lined up for Confession, explaining the empty reconciliation line, maybe at the confessional rather than at the reconciliation room.
I’ve often wondered if lots of improprieties would have been avoided if we had maintained the privacy, safety and separation of the traditional confession boxes. Sure do miss them since my priest is not supposed to be my therapist.
I’m sorry Judy if your local parishes don’t have that option. I think every parish in our area has both options for Confession available. Maybe our diocese is an exception but I’ve never even seen a Confessional without a screen.
People who assist THE Eucharist Minister at Mass (i.e., the priest) are “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.”
The AP sees only politics, signed on early for Francis as someone who is in line with their liberal libertine politics, and generally has been hostile and dismissive of any Christians of any affiliation whose beliefs conflict with AP politics, and at best damns them with faint praise, such as this article.
I don’t need the AP agreeing with me to validate my beliefs, and the AP, as with most media, does not staff religious folk out of prejudice, and so does not know what they are talking about when they cover religion.
The same could be said of media covering any subject at all, past media covering media…only writer hacks spilling lots of ink for income.
Folk hoping for favorable media coverage are early Christians hoping for a favorable word from Caesar, where then people might LIKE us and call off the nasty persecution. Wanting to be LIKED is what got the Church in the mess it is in today.
Bob, you’ve knocked it out of the park with your comment here. Well done!
I am a skilled pianist/competent organist who converted to Catholicism (along with my late husband) from Evangelical Protestantism in 2004. We came to Catholicism in a Catholic Church that would curl the toes of many Catholic traditionalists!–a clamshell, Life Teen Masses, contemporary and traditional hymns accompanied by organ and at times, piano, a contemporary Mass with drums and tambourines, pastors who did not wear cassocks, a congregation that wore jeans and even–gasp!–shorts to Mass, no Latin, no incense except on rare occasions (Easter vigil), no veiling, very few large families, Bible studies via video taught by Catholics who are converts from Evangelical Protestantism–and our RCIA teachers were converts who came from the same Baptist church that I grew up in! At least we had a 24/7 prayer chapel in which Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament could be adored!
We loved it! Even though I moved away from that city after my husband died, I still love that parish and whenever I go home for a visit, I am welcomed by many friends–and it’s just as “contemporary” as ever, although a bit of Latin (Sanctus and the Agnus Dei) is used in some of the 6 weekend Masses–but that was happening when we were still there. A few women wear veils, but most do not. And as far as I know, the men don’t stand around outside after Mass smoking cigars (which is apparently another part of “Catholic traditionalism,” one that I find disgusting and stupid, as cigars are a cause of lip and tongue cancer).
I personally prefer Mass and hymns in my own dear heart language which happens to be American English (Midwestern dialect). I have a very difficult time understanding the appeal of hearing prayers or songs in a foreign language in church. I need to thoroughly understand what is being said or sung in church. As a musician, I appreciate songs in languages other than English in a CONCERT setting, but not in church where I am trying to learn more about Jesus and how I can best serve Him and be His witness in a dark and non-Christian world.
As an experienced (since childhood!) church pianist/organist who has been involved accompanying or leading children’s choirs in Protestant and Catholic churches, I find the very idea of most current Catholics singing Gregorian chant, either in a choir setting or in the pews, absolutely hilarious and fantastical, considering that Catholics don’t sing even the simple hymns, and don’t even open a hymnal to follow along with the words!, and they don’t encourage their children to sing or learn to play piano, let alone organ! When we were Protestant, I would find out in advance what the hymns would be at the worship service and teach them to my children at home–and they were required by me to stand and sing those hymns–and they STILL love to sing hymns while they are at church (both converted to Catholicism). And both of my children took piano lessons (and violin and guitar lessons), and sang in school choirs taught by college professors, and both STILL sing today (one is actually a theater professional).
Catholics also don’t attend concerts in large Catholic churches when classical or traditional music is done, but they’ll sing along with the country or rock bands featured in their parish fundraisers! I can’t even imagine them singing chant of any kind, but especially Gregorian chant. As for sacred polyphony–no way! That stuff is DIFFICULT!
Also, in my current large city, many of the Catholic music directors (choir masters/mistresses, organists, etc.) in the large city parishes are not Catholic, or if they are, they disagree with many Catholic teachings, and many are extremely liberal in their religion, their politics, and their “sexuality”, although to keep their positions (and salary), they don’t make all this public in the parishes that they are hired to provide music for.
Shocked? Well, what do you expect when Catholic parents are choosing sports or robotics or astronaut camps for their children rather than music lessons and involvement with children’s choirs?! In my parish, not one child takes piano lessons, and when I try to get a children’s choir together, I’m lucky to have a half dozen children show up–and only a few boys!! I just don’t believe that in the near future, we will see a huge change in childrearing practices in most Catholic churches, and I doubt we will see many children take up piano/organ/choir when these things cost so much I(the cheapest lessons I’ve seen are $20/half hour lesson)–remember, the nuns used to teach the children how to play the piano, and they didn’t charge for lessons–is this likely to happen in the near future? I hope so, but…
I am not criticizing parents for their choices, as they obviously love their children AND love their current Catholic churches and are loyal in their attendance and financial support. And frankly, I don’t see any problem with this kind of Catholicism, although I do wish more Catholics would sing out during Mass and get their kids involved with piano/organ lessons so that I don’t have to keep playing until I’m too old to see the music and the keys!
But there is a lot to be said for keeping children involved with sports–it’s fun for the whole family (listening to a child play scales and arpeggios for a half hour is NOT fun for the whole family!), and it keeps children in good physical shape.
I just don’t believe we will see widespread use of Latin, chant of any kind, incense, veiling, large families, cigars, etc. becoming the norm in American Catholic churches–I just don’t see it happening in my neck of the woods. And that’s OK with me, as long as the truths that the Catholic Church teaches continue to be taught and the Eucharist continues to be offered to Catholics. I became Catholic because the Church teaches the Way, the Truth, and the Life that Jesus offered to the world. But once again–I do wish Catholics would sing out! I occasionally attend a Protestant church (or play piano/organ at one) just to hear the joyful and strong singing!
As a musician, a ‘rest’ is something you surely understand and appreciate. When I attend Latin Mass, I appreciate the hour rest from the constant blather, psychobabble, pop nonsense, complaint, endless noise and perpetual horridness of uncharitable and unjust speech. Latin Mass balms and heals my soul.
Traditional Catholicism with men smoking cigars? I suppose in Miami or Cuba? Not in the Northeast, not West Coast, not to my knowledge. No one I know smokes anything except perhaps that GenZer who mixes reality with dope.
Sharon, if you’re ever in Seattle, you should check out the Capella Romana or the Tallis Scholars who periodically perform in St. James Cathedral. Ukrainian Wedding will be performed in mid-May. Maybe they have a recording on Spotify? Worth a try?
What does a Mass said in the Midwestern dialect sound like?😁
Learning chant is not hard. It’s a huge part of our heritage. Simple chant is as easy as then insipid mimicry of Protestantism that Vatican Ii forced upon us. Sacred music must have a semblance of the numinous or I’ll stay home and listen to The Beatles. I don’t go to mass to feel good about myself, but to sense the mysterious tremendum that is worship.
Sharon, I respect your views on the matters you refer to in your statement. I have only one comment to make about Catholic churches and the Mass.
I recoil at the thought of using our churches as concert halls. They are not. If a parish wants to host a concert, let them find a suitable venue set up for that purpose. Secondly, Catholics believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme act of worship of God. It should never be misconstrued as a performance of any kind. Because it is the supreme act of worship of God, it must always be done with that in mind, must always aspire to be beautiful as befitting God, and must always have God as the sole focus. Too many liturgies in the past have been about man slapping his fellow man on their back for a job well done. We haven’t.
You speak with the mind of the church, Deacon.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/music/twenty-four-questions-on-sacred-music.html#:~:text=As%20Pope%20John%20Paul%20II%20said%2C%20quoting%20Pope,the%20less%20worthy%20it%20is%20of%20the%
Fr. Fessio also writes about sacred music in the sacred liturgy as a form of the ‘active participation’ called for in VCII’s Sacrosanctum Conc. and as Pius X called for in his motu propio Tra Le Sollecitudini Instruction on Sacred Music.
adoremus.org/1995/11/active-participation-in-the-churchs-liturgy/
You bring up too much to deal with, but made some good points….but, first, cigars?! Most Catholic churches I have attended had VERY few smokers at all, and those few skulking off to sides away from main traffic. You paint with too broad a brush on that one, and especially conflating it with traditional worship elements.
A larger Catholic older church with good acoustics and good choir in back generally has excellent congregation participation.
The ones with poor participation generally have poor music and poor acoustics.
I agree most churches not up to Gregorian, much less, polyphany…Gregorian generally butchered by local singers blaring as if in a local musical, where nobody has ever apparently listened to monks or nuns nuancing it the way it was intended to be done.
Worship is not about fun or community, and instead is about placing one’s self in loving humility in the presence of the Living God the entire time, and for most churches I have attended, that best done with no distracting music at all. Rarely is local music good enough to actually enhance the worship, and it instead greatly detracts.
Music at Mass must be sacred, i.e. “set apart.” Not sacro-pop, not “praise and worship,” not religious words and themes set to jazzy secular melodies. Those styles were not meant for worship during Liturgy, which is why most people are distracted by it. They are devotional songs meant for prayer services, retreats and such. And most self-respecting Catholics won’t sing hoaky tunes with effeminate lyrics, no matter how much the “song leader” waves their arms around. Especially men.
Mrs. Sharon Whitlock above is spot on in her assessment of kids and their parents’ choices today.
It is urban legend that chant is difficult; short antiphonal refrains similar to the responsorial can be sung in English. There must be a few things in place, however: a knowledgable music director, a faithful orthodox pastor to support said director, and a humble willingness of the congregation to learn and accept the Liturgical requirements for music during Mass, which is not optional, it’s integral to the Liturgy. And it colors the whole Mass. Bad music cheapens worship. Good music elevates the Word.
As for Latin, Pope Paul VI in 1974 requested all the bishops to implement a “minimum repertoire of plain chant” in their dioceses to be learned by the the faithful and preserved and passed on. Basics ordinaries like the “Sanctus.” Even the most musically bankrupt parishes can flex their brain muscle to at least do this. But we don’t just sing Latin for Latin’s sake, we sing it to pray the Mass. Anyone who regularly attends Mass needn’t be clueless about what the words mean.
Until truly sacred music becomes a priority we will continue to be subjected to quasi-rock music with church diva lead singers and garage band drummers at Mass.
Yes, such an odd myth. It’s a bit like saying all country music, or all pop music, is hard and can only be sung by professionals. Chant is a genre, there are very easy pieces, and very hard pieces. You can do the entire Mass, for the whole year, with just easy pieces, because medievals didn’t necessarily have singers with the skill for the hard pieces either.
Here’s a video where you can learn a simple Easter chant alongside a little kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElNfiLCLb7g
On Chant:
Amanda and Porter girl are 100% correct, and as Amanda’s link indicates, little kids can learn chant and then teach adults to sing it.
In 1963, when I was 7, Sister Maria Thomas taught our choir to sing Gregorian Chant, and we sang it at Mass, especially on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. I will never forget, as a boy, chanting Psalm 140 (she had us chant it in English, which was very fitting), I believe it was on the eve of Good Friday:
“Deliver me O Lord from evil men, preserve me from violent men, from those who devise evil in their hearts, and stir up wars every day….”
It was profoundly beautiful, sung by children…
Simple chant is just that: simple. Goodness you didn’t even have to be literate to sing chant long ago. Today many TLM’s have a schola & at our local TLM the all male schola chants the whole thing-congregation participation not required.
There are all sorts of liturgical & Christian music traditions. It’s ok to prefer one over the other. Catholic means universal after all.
What a great incite of today’s regeneration of the Church especially the Sacraments. As a Benedictine Alum from the late 1970’s and today as a Benedictine Oblate I still appreciate my Benedictine education. I refuse to get into discussion’s over Vacitian II and the traditions of the Latin Mass. Most of those discussions are political. I grew up with the Latin Mass and lived the conversion to today’s Liturgy. I also grew up as a teenager with contemporary liturgical music that was beautiful and inspirational. Many of the hymns were written by St. Louis Jesuits like Dan Schutte, John Foley and John Kavanaugh and yes, we played them on guitars. I also grew to love the Gregorian chants from the Benedictine Abbey and all the symbolism of the Latin Mass.
I always believe that the Church is always moving forward but there are times we don’t see that movement especially right now, it is not the fault of the Church or errors in Vacitian II but our own personal wants for the Catholic Church today many which I choose to call cafeteria Catholics where we personally choose to believe instead the true church teachings which have never changed and never will.
Two of the greatest events that have happened at Benedictine College over the past years it to dedicate the college to Our Mother Mary and also to Change the Culture in America through the truths of the Church. There is no room for the so called to discriminate one as a radical traditionalist or as Second Vatican Council liberalist. Both of these are discriminatory terms at best but at Benedictine we will look at these terms and other flawed linguists as to what the truth is in according with the Churches teachings.
Becklo’s overview is not directed at SSPX as such but there are (so far) 26 references in the Comments to SSPX. I would like to pick up on that since it appears that SSPX is close to the hearts of Americans and that would be so for good reasons almost as a certainty. What pertains to them should not be left hanging in the way it has gone.
I’ll be brief which means it will sound blunt. The excommunication on Lefebvre should be lifted posthumously, in all righteousness; and the SSPX should be restored to its founder.
There is a certain justice about getting this done through Pope Francis. It was supposed to happen before he died as a matter of routine reconciliation in view of attending circumstances but was prevented by the pernicious questioning and contradiction going on among hierarchy concerning things un-befitting both to the Church and to themselves. And among them was Bergoglio who knew where were knots that should have been challenged and exposed to the respective Pontiff in fraternity yet remained silent. With Lefebvre’s death he thought he would now have a better mastery of things under a presumed extinguishment of the man’s cause. Because it “didn’t matter” as much anymore he could be seen to avoid it and its contents “judiciously”.
Meanwhile it was always wrong of everyone else and of him to have been entertaining any and every such idea and feeling in his breast at Mass and otherwise – self-serving self-dramatizing false and vain hopes cherished in place of Holy Mother Church.