Will & Grace...and the SSPX

 

I was just starting college when the NBC sitcom Will and Grace premiered in 1998. (Then) U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was quoted as saying that the sitcom "probably did more to educate the American public" on LGBT issues "than almost anything anybody has ever done so far". I was familiar with the show but didn't watch it regularly. It was also around this time one of my best friends in college came out to me as gay. Smithsonian curator Dwight Blocker Bowers stated that the sitcom used "comedy to familiarize a mainstream audience with gay culture" in a way that was "daring and broke ground" in American media. Which was certainly the case for me, as a 19 year old college sophomore. 

The fact was, there wasn't much resistance to the mainstreaming of gay culture, at least in the circles I was in. I had only been a Catholic for a year, and prior to that had no ideological opposition to homosexuality. My parents were pretty gay-accepting in general. I was starting to realize that there were a lot of "good Catholics" in our campus Catholic community who were active in retreats, mission trips, and service projects…and also gay. And I'm sure some of the priests were homosexuals as well. So for whatever reason, I never got the memo that there was anything inherently wrong about being gay, or living the gay lifestyle, as a new Catholic. 

For those not familiar with the show, Will (played by Eric McCormick) is a gay man who is a successful corporate lawyer who studied at Columbia University, where he met Grace (played by Debra Messing) as a freshman; they have been best friends ever since. He is very precise and obsessive when it comes to certain tasks, especially cleaning, dressing, and decorating. However, Will does have a very patient and compassionate nature towards those close to him, often to a fault. Grace--a straight, non-practicing Jewish interior decorator, is somewhat neurotic and relies on Will for moral and emotional support. The two secondary characters to these to primary ones are Karen, a wealthy socialite who serves as a Grace's assistant and has a penchant for food and alcohol; and Jack, a free-spirited and flamboyant gay actor who has been Will's longtime friend. All the characters are very likable, in their own way.

I don't think the mainstreaming of gay culture for the general non-gay public as a result of this pioneering show can be overstated. I have known many gay people like Will--good looking, successful, well-educated, caring, clean, nice, welcoming, non-judgmental, funny. None of those characteristics are antithetical to being a homosexual. In fact, I would argue, many of them are due in part to being someone who came from an underdog "class" (which homosexuals were up until the last half century). And aren't those admirable characteristics in any case?

Like many social minorities, gays had to prove themselves in a way--not that they weren't smart, capable, and able to be loving and compassionate towards others, of course. But it would not surprise me if they felt they had to work twice as hard to be accepted in a society that did not accommodate them, for their accomplishments and as people, and so they got really good and doing just that. They couldn't take anything for granted because they did not have that privilege. In many ways, I wouldn't be surprised if they took a cue from the epistle to Titus, "Your message is to be sound beyond reproach, so that any opponent will be ashamed, because he doesn't have anything bad to say about us" (Titus 2:8).

While I'm on the topic, an ancillary story that relates to this involves Elon Musk's father, Errol Musk, who called his son a “loser” and took the side of the bully who beat him up. “His father made him stand in front of him for two hours, while the father tells him he's a loser, that it was his fault.”  I think those kinds of traumas make an indelible impression on people, especially when they are young, that they spend a lifetime dealing with. There is this hole that achievement, success, recognition, solving the world's problems can never heal--and yet you keep trying, achieving, solving. At the end of the day, you're a billionaire genius that has advanced humanity...while your father still haunts you.

Now I don't want to speak for homosexuals, their psyche or lives, because I am not one and because like all things, there is great diversity among those in that population--it's not all Will and Jack caricatures. But I do have a theory that most gay people you or I know are "so nice!" or "awesome parents!", "more loving" or "less judgmental than most Christians" because they see Judeo-Christian morality as the father berating them for two hours for getting hospitalized by a bully. But in the end, they are going to beat them with their own hand. The wounding runs deep.

Now, I know this is going to be a jolting hard pivot given the subject matter, but the way I see the so-nice, uber-successful, less-judgmental, more-loving former minority of mainstreamed gays that rule the roost and make the rules in society today as having some parallels with the growing popularity of the Society of St. Pius X in the trad Catholic world. 

Most of my readers probably are familiar with the standing of the SSPX in the Church today, but for those who aren't, it can be hard to explain. The long and short of it is, they do not have a canonical status, and their ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries. Rather than get into the weeds on this very historical and complicated matter, I would point you to Cathy Caridi's Canon Law Made Easy blog here here and here to get some background education on the Society as it relates to Canon law (Note, I realize these links are outdated, but many of the information as a primer still stands, with a few exceptions).

The pandemic was probably the best thing that ever happened to the Society. During COVID, many newbie trads and trad-adjacent Catholics saw the SSPX keeping churches open when normie parishes were shuttering their doors left and right. Society priests could be heard speaking out against "the jab," and were bold and unapologetically Catholic in their teaching and their witness. The priests were solid, the liturgies were beautiful, and people were starting to get trad-exposed to not only the FSSP, the ICKSP, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, but the Society as well. Just as you may have trouble telling the difference between a Russian Orthodox or an Eastern Rite (Byzantine) Catholic liturgy (both use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) were you to wander into either, one might also struggle to tell the difference between these various traditionalist groups (and "trad-lite" in the case of the Canons Regular). And, if we're being honest, the SSPX is the O.G. of traditionalism, with Levebvrists predating the ICKSP and FSSP who were formed in response.

So, why wouldn't one just attend a Society chapel (they are not called parishes because they do not have a standing in the Church and are not part of one's local diocese) on Sundays since their priests validly celebrate the Latin Mass, are solid in their teaching, have evangelical zeal, and seem beyond reproach in their witness to the faith? 

Just as many homosexuals are "beyond reproach" in the externals of being "super nice," "extremely welcoming," "non-judgmental," "compassionate," "loving parents to children," etc. and may be better people than your own parents, friends, and family members, there is a problem: the Catholic Church still defines homosexuality as objectively and intrinsically disordered, and She has spoken:

 

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC 2357)

That means you can do all sorts of PR acrobats like Fr. James Martin attempts to contort around this point; but at the end of the day, you can't square it. While most of the world has largely ceded to the gay-affirming culture (which is no longer a "sub" culture), the only holdouts are those religious conservatives who in fact are not taken in by all the ancillary reasons for tactic approval of homosexual acts, homosexual "marriage," or mainstreaming homosexuality as simply a "different' lifestyle choice on par with that of heterosexuality. 

I have found, likewise, that there is this sort of cognitive dissonance in the trad world (that I myself struggle with as well)--a kind of sympathy to the Society that elevates them over the beige normie suburban parish Novus Ordo, all things being equal, while downplaying that their ministers do not exercise legitimate authority within the Church and have no standing. I've written as well about my own reservations over the marriage issue here. SSPX apologists will often point out that the ushering in of the New (Protestantized) Mass justifies an "emergency" situation such that because it puts the faith of Catholics in danger (that is, attendance at the New Mass), that one is under no obligation to attend it even if it is one's only option; ie, they are obligated to avoid it and stay home instead. In the eyes of the Society, the New Mass is objectively wrong. 

SSPX priests, and those who assist at SSPX masses, can of course be good and pious people full of charity and good will, and reverent in their worship. I know some. But to me, the Society as a whole seems like a form and growing sect of neo-Donatism, and because many of their priests and those who live out the Catholic faith under their auspices appear to be beyond reproach in their piety, knowledge of the faith, and devotion, it can be confusing to ordinary Catholics who may prioritize traditional worship over the other more stodgy issues (such as rightful authority to exercise ministry, and obedience and fidelity to the Holy See), even if that traditional worship is illicit.

For this reason, the SSPX is off the table for us, even though everything about them is attractive in a way for me. It's not just a "different" liturgical entity equal among others, but one that--at least at present--has not been reconciled with Rome and thus should, at the very least, been approached mindful of that fact. It's also very hard to articulate for the average Catholic, especially when you have very knowledgeable and passionate pro-SSPX apologists online green-lighting them, and cringey anti-SSPX hyper papalists doing the opposite.  

It's uncomfortable for me to say this, but I'd take the most banal beige and uninspiring Novus Ordo Mass over the most beautiful and inspiring SSPX TLM if it meant maintaining unity with Rome. I judge no one else for choices to the contrary. We will all go before God having to draw account. And no man can go against his conscience. 

More Thoughts On A 'Third Way' of Christian Discipleship

 I will be joining Eric Sammons tomorrow on his Crisis Point podcast to speak a little about my book but also to discuss my post "The Third Way" and the idea behind it. Since I haven't really articulated in note form what I want to talk about in the interview, I figured I would do so here.

2/9/24 EDIT: The podcast is live and can be streamed here. It took a little bit of a different direction than what I had prepared for here, but turned out to be a good discussion in a different way.

1) So, what is this "third way" of discipleship and how did you start thinking about this?

I wrote an essay five years ago titled "Tradition and Charity: The Face of Renewal" when we first started attending the Traditional Latin Mass as a family, and I've been thinking about the topic ever since. In that essay I wrote:

I think there is a tendency, in the age of identity politics, to delineate into false dichotomies. Those less traditionally minded--as seen in liberal churches, Catholic or Protestant--may compensate by being more active in parish activities, service, and social justice initiatives, while traditionalists are all about the Mass and not as concerned with those other things. I consider myself and my family more as guests in someone's house at this point when it comes to the Latin Mass community, so I don't feel like I have any right to make such judgments about a community that is not yet our own. But I will say one of the most important things, one of the primary motivators besides an integrity in worship and learning to subject my ego to Almighty God, is that we pass on the faith to our children, and I feel that the TLM community is the best place to try to do this in. 

On the point of charity, and why I think traditionalism combined with charity has the potential to be an unstoppable force for renewal...it wasn't until listening to a conference of Fr. Ripperger's that I realized that the 'love' in 1 Cor 13 is really more accurately translated as charity. I considered that kind invitation to attend a Latin Mass by that friend of a friend as an act of charity. I had until then considered the Latin Mass community to be more or less insular and an island of sorts by choice, not open to outsiders. All it took was an invitation to get us there, a kind of gentle and innocuous evangelization in its ordinariness. Coffee and donuts as a way of connecting with other families and homeschoolers once a month was an added bonus.

Coming from a more left-leaning Catholicism in my early years as a Catholic, serving the poor was an important part of my spiritual practice and faith, one that I have no intention of abandoning. I also do not want to fall into the trap of denigrating or comparing Masses or the people that attend them; though we have made the decision to attend the Latin Mass when we are able (which is most Sundays) because we feel this is where God is leading us as a family, I still attend the NO for daily Mass and have no qualms with it (unless there are serious liturgical abuses). I'm a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" guy at heart, I think, and this applies as much liturgically as it does to charity and service to the poor, evangelization, practicing the Works of Mercy, and loving people.

When it comes to loving, we love because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). The greatest commandment, the "Big Stone First", is to love the Lord God with everything we have. And yet we also see in 1 John that

Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (1 Jn 4:20-21)

So really a "third way" of Catholic Traditionalism is really Catholic Essentialism: taking the best of the best in worship and charity--since on this the two Commandments rest--in a "both/and" spirit (versus a kind of "either/or" false dichotomy). What I am calling "Third Way" Traditionalism is one kind of "complete protein": of prayer and action, worship and praxis, to make sure we are not just Christian believers or those who worship, but true disciples of Jesus Christ. 

 

2) What does this "third way" have to do with the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism?

As I mentioned, I'm really a guest here, and I consider myself more or less trad-adjacent, rather than a true died-in-the-wool traditionalist. Our family attends the TLM exclusively, my son serves, my wife and daughter veil, yadayada but this is relatively recent for us in the past five years and I'm not about to tell trads what they should and shouldn't be doing. Maybe it is because I am an evangelist at heart, that I see this great potential for renewal in the Church with the rise of the TLM as a locus of authentic and reverent worship, a worthy vessel to bring people into the Church and experience the awe and majesty of God and what Catholicism really is. The TLM already does this effectively in a way in-bound marketing does: it draws you in and piques your curiosity, but doesn't pound you with ads or outbound marketing the way, as Shia LaBeouf mentioned in his interview with Bishop Barron, "it's not trying to sell you anything" [the way the Novus Ordo does]. If Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is true (and it is), then we have a great foundation in the traditional Mass for building a faith on a solid rock of worship. But it can't end there. There's also that pesky second commandment our Lord slips in there. 

3) What do you see as the issues in traditional and more status-quo/mainstream Catholic communities today, respectively? Where are the blind spots or opportunities for growth for each?

The issues in your standard, down-the-street suburban Novus Ordo parish are pretty ubiquitous: you have these pockets of sometimes great devotion, prayer and piety among individual parishoners, but it's often in spite of, not because of, the parish environment. I don't want to speak for all people in this situation, but for me that was the case: it always felt like swimming up stream, fighting the parish current, to carve out a solid prayer life and something that went beyond the status-quo cultural norms of the N.O. and the particular parishes we belonged to; we felt like outliers, "extreme" religious, like we couldn't relate to people at the parish. So, I think there's this low-bar in many of these parishes that doesn't push people to grow spiritually outside the prescribed parish programs or proscriptions; these parishes can at the same time be very "active" replete with ministries, service to the needy, activities for seniors and retirees to get involved with and stay busy, and doing good things. 

So, when traditionalists see this stuff, there's kind of this pendulum reaction that anything associated with the Novus Ordo is suspect, and so the good things get thrown out with the bad. Like service to the poor and other acts of corporal charity, which of course is not "only" for your standard Novus Ordo parish and is not necessarily the stuff of SJWs.  The thing is, at least at our parish, we don't have a ton of these lay-led "programs" and I think that's a good thing. We have solid liturgy, good music, and an organic sense of community. But we shouldn't think either we are exempt from the work of discipleship, the works of charity and mercy, both corporal and spiritual. We are quick to signal to others that we are "trads" by what we wear, what we hold, how we pray, etc. But we should be more apt to show that we are Christians by how we love. For that's where converts come from.

4) You mention in some of your writings that you prefer to answer "I am a disciple of Jesus Christ" rather than "I am a Catholic" when asked about your religious faith, even though you are a Catholic. Why is that?

It's strange, isn't it, that we have to qualify everything today. Even though I'm more aligned in every aspect with traditional Catholicism, I'm still hesitant to refer to myself as a "trad" or "traditional Catholic." Because although I have been so thoroughly edified by the patrimony of the Church, which I have only been recently been introduced to and which I feel was withheld from me for 20 years as a Catholic since I came into the Church, I still feel there is this identity-thing, this tribe thing that is such a temptation to hold on to. But referring to oneself as "a Catholic" is a very broad term as well: well, what kind of Catholic are you? Are you a 'born-and-raised K-12 Catholic school but don't really believe any of that stuff' Catholic? Are you a Catholic on account of your cultural heritage (Mexican, Filipino, Irish, etc)? 

All that stuff is kind of ancillary as far as I'm concerned. God calls us not just to belief but to work, because Christ is our Master. And there's a lot of work to be done to rebuild and renew the Church, help save the lost, exercise charity, instruct the ignorant. A disciple is under a Master, and I feel that that is where I want my focus more than being a card-carrying member of a country club, or a member of a certain sect or tribe.   

5) What are some of the benefits for evangelization of the Traditional Latin Mass, and what makes it harder in other ways?

This was actually a struggle for me when I was doing street evangelization back in 2018, and it can really be a mixed-bag if you get someone interested in becoming Catholic, but it's like "where do you send them?" There's so many wacky RCIA programs, so many beige and uninspiring churches--not just the architecture, but the parishoners themselves--that makes you feel reticent to send a baby believer there.  Now, I know grace works anywhere God gives it, but for me that was part of the impetus of wanting to raise my family in a more liturgically stable environment, where you didn't have this anxiety about "what is the priest going to do today?" or "what are we walking into here?" When you love something, you want everyone to know about it, and that's how I feel about the TLM. The Mass is perfect, but we are not, and we need to accept that. But I still think it highlights Catholicism in it's truest expression, but needs to go beyond the liturgy and outside the walls of the church--to make saints. 

6) Do you consider yourself a Traditionalist? If so, why; and if no, why not?

I consider these labels a kind of necessary evil, and don't particular like them but it is what it is. Personally, I consider a true traditionalist someone who has a line in the sand, and I know many people like this who will not attend the Novus Ordo under any circumstances. In that sense, I do not consider myself a traditionalist because I will occasionally go to a daily N.O. Mass on campus on my lunch break, although I have not attended a Sunday N.O. in five years. I will drive 2 hours to find a Latin Mass if we are traveling rather than go to the local N.O. parish ten minutes away, but it's not because I think it's invalid or harmful to my faith. I was saved in the N.O., raised up in the N.O., and experienced grace in the N.O. So God can do what He wants, save whom He wants, use what He wants to accomplish that task. I will take grace wherever I can get it, even if I do personally feel more edified and that the Traditional Latin Mass is objectively "better" in every way than the Novus Ordo Missae. 

7) What do you mean when you speak of the traditional faith needing charity in order to be a "complete protein"? 

Matthew 22 and Matthew 25 are really the benchmarks for me in my spiritual life. It is there where Jesus distills the Decalogue into the Two Great Commandments--love God, love neighbor; and where he gives us a warning of how we will be judged by Him: on our charity. And that should fill us with fear. We will not be judged on which Mass we attend, or if we veiled, or that we are devoted to our missals. We will be judged on our love. Those who love God must love their brothers (1 Jn 4:20-21). 

What's so great about Catholicism is that it respects the both/and dimension of things: faith and reason, faith and works, scripture and tradition, fasting and feasting, God's divinity and God's humanity in the hypostatic union. Tradition is the best kept secret in the Church today. But it shouldn't be a secret! But it's not an end in itself. To the extent that it forms us in greater love of God and neighbor, it is doing its job. Otherwise, it's just a resounding gong, as St. Paul says. But when we love God and give him the best first fruits of worship, this sets us on a solid rock to build the house of charity. 

Look at saints like St. Leo the Great and St. Charles Borromeo, just to name a couple. They were high ranking dignitaries and prelates, yet were fully devoted to service to the poor. St. Leo said, "Let us now extend to the poor and those afflicted in different ways a more open-handed generosity, so that God may be thanked through many voices and the relief of the needy supported by our fasting. No act of devotion on the part of the faithful gives God more pleasure than that which is lavished on his poor. Where he finds charity with its loving concern, there he recognizes the reflection of his own fatherly care." And St. Charles during the plague fed tends of thousands of the hungry daily and saw the poor as his teacher.

But charity goes beyond just corporal charity--it is charity of heart, love. Love of God is tatamount, but sometimes trads can be a little....insular. Because it is comfortable to love God and uncomfortable to love people. 

I love the story of St. Aloysius when he came under the spiritual care of St. Robert Bellarmine. When he entered the Jesuits at the age of 17, Aloysius was appointed a spiritual director, St. Robert Bellarmine. Level headed and patient, Bellarmine listened to Aloysius describe his extreme schedule of individual religious practice, then ordered him to cease it. He was assigned instead to work at a local hospital tending to the sick and infirmed. Squeamish, he was repulsed by the work, and he disliked people, which is probably why he was initially inclined to his private devotions and mortifications. When the plague hit Rome in January 1591, the sick and dying were everywhere, overwhelming the hospitals, and Aloysius had to dig deep and draw on that Italian stubbornness and bulldog like willpower to stomach the work.

But in time, a transformation happened by God's grace. Though this was never work he would have chosen for himself, Aloysius began to see Christ in them, similar to St. Francis' encounter with the leper. He experienced compassion for the sick and dying, and often carried them from the streets to the hospital on his back. He contracted the plague as a result, and died June 21st, at the age of 23.

8) Do you get pushback from either more normie-mainstream Catholics or Traditionalists, or both?

I get it from all sides, haha. But I don't care too much. I'm too normie for the trads and too trad for the normies. But that's ok. I just want to love all people, and "be who I am, and be that well" as St. Francis de Sales says. I think it's good we push ourselves, and be honest about our blindspots, so God can make us into saints and we can get to work more effectively.

9) Why even make a "thing" of this? Isn't Traditionalism in its current cultural form enough? 

Well, that's a valid point. I see this "Third Way" between insular Traditionalism and status-quo Catholicism not as a program or an apostolate or even a philosophical school, but just as a consideration on how to worship better, love better, and work better in the Lord's vineyard. I want to live the fullness of the faith, and work out my salvation in fear and trembling, and I can't do that without a solid foundation for worship and without loving my neighbor, which is uncomfortable. To the degree that we take risks for the Lord in love and faith and devotion, I think He will honor that and give us the grace to make up for what we lack. But to the degree that we are content in our little camps, and not doing the work we are called to as disciples, I see that as an issue worth addressing. 

10) What do you see is the role of joy and hope today for both traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike?

People need hope to live, and joy is the icing on the cake. Joy attracts, just like the TLM has this strange in-bound pull effect on people, even non-believers. It's not trying to be what it's not; it's being true to what it is, unapologetically. That's attractive, just as joy is attractive and reflects beauty and God's nature. Hope gives us a reason to work, a reason to live, and faith that things will get better even if that happens after our death. Faith, hope, charity--these three. But the greatest of these is charity. 

11) In your blog post "The Third Way" you linked to two vocational videos: 1 for the Discalced Carmelites and 1 for the CFRs, saying "Both are powerful and moving; both inspire devotion and service to Christ. One order is traditional and contemplative; the other, more charismatic and active. Both are authentically Catholic.". What was the point you were trying to get across with doing that?

Listen, the Catholic Church is a big tent. Not everyone is going to love or be drawn to the TLM. That's just a fact. Our strength is in our diversity of charisms, and that has always been the case in the Church. St. Paul said as much, that an eye is not a hand, etc. The CFRs are solid guys, solid friars. Are they more charismatic? Sure. Does that mean they should be held in suspect by trads? Come on. These guys have a heart for Christ and the poor--would that we be more like them. The Discalced Carmelites in the video, as well, have this ethereal existence so devoted to the liturgy and the hidden lives of being contemplatives. We need both. That's the whole point of what I'm talking about in The Third Way--take the best and leave the filler. Love God. Love your Brothers. Love the poor. Build beautiful churches. Spread the Good News. These things are not at odds. Both/And. Both/And. We can't afford to leave grace on the table, or discount this group or that group because of ideological differences. Come on. Let's get to work. 

A Catholic Venn Diagram

 Just having a little fun last night thinking about the relationship between the three "types" of Catholics in the Church today and the curious overlaps between them. Not sure if it works well, since I don't have a mathematical/statistical brain so it was the best I could do.

Comments are open, and I'm happy to engage!

The Third Way

Call me crazy, but I have a vision of the church --a mental portrait of the renewal that will have to take place to recapture the essence of what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. It will require boots on the ground and in the field, lots of hard work, a willingness to take risks, look foolish, and get one's hands dirty, creativity and out of the box thinking, deep lives of prayer and service, a docility to the Spirit, associating with sinners, a thirst for souls, and a willingness to suffer. This is not a program, nor an apostolate or religious order--it is simply people embracing the "both/and" ethos of Catholicism and refusing to settle for anything less than full-throated "lives fully lived" for Christ. I don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic; I want the whole buffet.

But because this is a tall order, I'm taking as a mission statement the adage, "be the change you wish to see in the world." We can only change ourselves and live authentically as God calls us. Since we are called as disciples to put our hands to the plow and not look backwards, there's no way of knowing who is following us when our eyes are forward-looking, focused on Christ. And that's a good thing--movements come and go; but Christ remains. 

Why is this important? St. Paul sought the unification of the Church when dealing with factions, those who say "I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos" (1 Cor 1:12; cf. 1 Cor 3:4). The early Christians were also identified in the public square by their love (Jn 13:35)--not because they wore a chapel veil or had ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday. They were also willing to go to their martyrdoms singing joyfully, knowing their reward was in Heaven. They were not SJWs, but shared what they had cheerfully with the poor and those in need. Many worked miracles by faith, and tended to the sick and dying. In short, they believed and lived out that belief in the pagan streets of Rome and beyond.  

When I see factions in the Church today, I see weakness; a missing the forest for the trees, and a forgetting of one's first love. The potential for a formidable bloc of believers which transforms our fallen world is vetoed in favor of a comfortable country club of card-carrying dues-payers, or a degenerate squabble-fest, fiefdom against fiefdom. We pour into these little projects and kingdoms rather than deferring our wages to the Divine Architect to fund his master piece. 

Tradition is the best kept secret in the Church today. What I see is people being fed and fortified by it in their liturgical lives, having found a vessel worthy to hold their offerings of worship. It may be branded as "Traditional Catholicism" but really it is simply authentic Catholicism believed and lived out. I also see people wary and suspicious of this "brand" and instead of embracing it, hold it at arm's length and not giving it a chance. Or finding their first experience or two were negative ones and so refusing to return. I see caricatures, avatars of "trads" invoked as the rationale for keeping distance from this authentic Catholicism--sometimes valid, other times not.  

But Tradition is not the end goal, our raison-d'etre. It is a formidable means to an end to fortify us, but not the end itself. For in the New Covenant there are not one, but two Great Commandments: “'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. ' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ' There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31). While the ornate chasubles rustle and the sun reflects off golden candlesticks on the altar, the more muted orders of charity sit outside the sanctuary door waiting to be filled: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and prisoners, bury the dead. The doubtful await counseling, sinners need admonishing, our enemies demand forgiveness, the ignorant live in darkness. While traditional Catholics are busy griping about liturgical abuses and turning down their nose at the Novus Ordo ad nauseum, their counterparts in their local suburban parishes are carrying out these works of mercy day in and day out in anticipation of their judgment: "I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink (Mt. 25: 35-40). 

Take as way of example these two vocation trailers: the first for the Discalced Carmelites, the second for the CFRs. Both are powerful and moving; both inspire devotion and service to Christ. One order is traditional and contemplative; the other, more charismatic and active. Both are authentically Catholic.

And so, like a naive babe or a misguided fool, I see these two seemingly disparate blocs of Catholics and think to myself, "Why not both/and?" If lex orandi lex credendi is a proven law (and it is), and if we will be judged on our charity, why are we shutting down one lung in the body of Christ to breathe with the other? Is a joyful, evangelical traditionalism that is committed to being the hands and feet of Christ in the world a contradiction in terms--or is it a third way forward that leaves nothing on the table and no room to doubt that we are, in fact, Catholic Christians through and through, known by our love?

Yes, I see a Third Way of living out my life as a Christian...but not as much around me. This is the change I want to see in the church and in the world. I am not interested in movements or factions or joining a tribe; I am a laborer, and I want the whole package. If I'm alone, I'm content to be alone. But if there are others, I would welcome the company. Call me crazy...but call me hopeful as well. 

The Great Divides

It's no secret that I write a lot on this blog about the Latin Mass, Traditionalism (the good, the bad, and the ugly), and ancillary topics as they relate to the aforementioned. I'm no expert on these things, just a guy writing from the pew, and that pew where we sit now as a family has changed over the years. As I've written about here, I'm an Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) by rite, but came under the wing of Charismatic monastics early in my year as a Catholic. We spent periods in beige suburban parishes where we felt like fish out of water, but in the last five years have found a home and laid roots in a diocesan Latin Mass community, attending the Latin Mass every Sunday exclusively. 

I'm no stranger to the rich spiritual and liturgical heritage of the East, and am probably more cognizant than your average Catholic that the Church herself is big and diverse, encompassing 5 other rites (besides the Latin rite) and 25 particular churches unified under the Pope in Rome. Neophytes to the TLM can sometimes suffer from "Latin (tunnel) vision" and don't realize something so fundamental about the Church and the liturgy that I think it's worth mentioning.

When we were first discovering the Latin Mass, I wrote a post titled Tradition and Charity: The Face Of Renewal to try to reconcile (for myself) this newfound love of the traditional liturgy with the nagging feeling that the life of a Christian disciple must nonetheless go beyond the walls of the church where we find such safety (in the rubrics of the TLM) and comfort (being among like-minded believers); that we are meant to be a light to the world, and take serious the command (not suggestion) to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt 18:19-20). I spent time early in my conversion devoted to serving the poor, the drug addicted, and refugees in the inner city trying to "pray the black, do the red." I wanted to follow the Holy Spirit, the "wild goose" and go wherever he led me, even when it took me to crazy places. I hit the streets doing public evangelization and made a fool of myself in many ways--a fool for Christ. In all of this, God has been faithful, wasting nothing in the process.

But that nagging feeling has persisted--yes we have found a solid community of like-minded believers; yes, the Latin Mass is more edifying than the Novus Ordo and objectively speaking, is more fitting for Catholic worship. Yes, we have lost many of the powerful prayers and rites that have been excised in the post-conciliar church, and the reclaiming of our patrimony is a good thing. The temptation for all good things, however, is to pitch a tent and set up camp, as Peter proposed on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration and say "Lord, it is good that we are here" (Mt 17:4). 

So, when my friend Kevin texted this afternoon because he was taking a course through Encounter Ministries and was getting impatient to "do something" (going "out there" to make disciples and heal the sick, spread the Good News, and proclaim Christ to the world), it was a bit of a crisis of conscience for me. Hadn't Dr. Mary Healey (who is the Encounter School Curriculum Advisor) written critically of the Latin Mass and the renewed interest in the TLM in Church Life Journal? And hadn't Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (whom has been a supporter of many of my pieces, and for whom I had written a review of one of his many books) skewered her and her colleagues in response in the edited work Illusions of Reform? And hasn't Fr. Ripperger mentioned in a number of his conferences about his wariness of Charismatics in general? This is all insider-baseball in the Catholic liturgical and traditionalism world where I write from the peripheries, stuff my friend Kevin most likely isn't aware of or if he is, could care less about. All he knows is a fire has been lit inside of him, and he is seeing with eyes that see that the Catholic faith and the power of the Holy Spirit are the best kept secret that simply can't be hidden any longer. It has to get out there. 

I remember watching the Fearless documentary when it came out a few years ago, probably not long after I got back from attending a St. Paul Street Evangelization conference after listening to Fr. Mathias Thelen, Ralph Martin, Janet Smith, and Mary Healey speak, and experiencing the sessions of healing that took place there, thinking to myself "Yes, yes." And then also having a similar (though more subdued) reaction after watching the Mass of the Ages documentary (though that was after having attended to the Latin Mass exclusively for three or four years already)--"yes, yes." It didn't take me long to realize, though, that these kinds of Catholic enclaves--the Charismatics and the Traditionalists--were as far apart from one another as the Irish and black ghettos were in New York City in the early 20th century. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

One thing I admire about Elon Musk is his unwillingness to play by the way things are supposed to be done. People said you can't disrupt the automotive industry--it's too hard, too entrenched--and he took it as a challenge and Tesla was born. People said you can't have a private company that does space exploration, and he responded in the same way. Whereas NASA's model was "Failure is not an option" and had stalled for decades as a result of their unwillingness to take risks and think outside the box, Musk assured his SpaceX team "It's ok to fail." Because nothing great ever happens without risk.

I sometimes wonder if Peter and Andrew had hesitated when Christ called them to leave their home, their family, and their jobs and come follow him. But scripture makes clear they dropped their nets "at once" (Mt 4:20) at those three words. When we get comfortable in our tribes and risk-averse, we tend to keep our radios tuned into the same stations. I know faithful Catholics who won't even attend a Latin Mass--either out of principal or based on second-hand information--just as I know many traditionalists who hold Charismatics and things like healing ministries in suspicion. 

Because my friend Kevin is looking to me to help him "go out there and do something" for Christ I don't want to let him down. He wants to go straight into the warzone of Kensington (one of the largest open air drug markets in the country, just a half hour from my house) and pray over the tranq-addicts, arming ourselves with Narcan just in case we accidentally brush up against some fentanyl in the process. And I would, but I told him this evening "let's start local and work up to that" with a smile. 

The thing is, I must have a little bit of that Elon Musk thinking in me because I'm thinking to myself "Well, why can't we? Why can't we have our cake and eat it too?" Just because I assist at the Latin Mass doesn't mean I can't pray over people in need of healing and the Holy Spirit on the street? Or just because I'm open to such things and believe in faith that God can move mountains, heal instantly, move mountains...that means I'm resigned to worship in a way that is less fitting, less reverent, less traditional just "because trads are 'mean, rigid, etc'"?

While people on the traditionalist side are angsting over the Strickland hammer drop and writing articles and worrying about everything coming out of Rome, and people on the Charismatic side of the spectrum would never consider giving the TLM a chance, I'm here in the middle thinking to myself "I want it all. I want the traditional liturgy. I want the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't want to choose" in this binary manner. And I look at the enthusiasm with which my friend Kevin has, his amusing impatience, and his pure intentions and I think to myself "Well, why not? What do we have to lose? We have the Truth. We have the assurance of faith. We have everything we need by grace. Why can't we do big things for Christ?"

Like Tex-Mex and Asian Fusion, maybe there's a place for traditionally minded Catholics like myself to stretch and push ourselves uncomfortably out from the safe space of the parish walls and follow the Holy Spirit where he leads--whether that's on the streets, witnessing at a gay pride parade, starting a conversation with a complete stranger, or simply being willing to look like a fool for Christ. And maybe there's a place for charismatic Catholics to be open to worship that isn't extemporaneous or untethered, but disciplined and structured and efficacious. If you say "no, you can't do that," I would simply ask "Well...why not?"  

You can't pick grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-2)

You can't heal today (Mk 3:1-6)

You can't talk to that woman (Jn 4:9)

You can't cut through that region (Jn 4:4)

You can't feed all these people (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9.7-9)

It's interesting that the only place where Jesus "couldn't do any miracles" (Mk 6:5) was because of the lack of faith of those in his hometown, and this lack of faith "amazed him" (Mk 6:6). But to those who possess faith, what does he say?

“Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done."

These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 

Do not be unbelieving, but believing" (Mt 21:21; Mk 16:17-18; Jn 20:27)

As the Church descends into more and more factions and camps, those who side with this or that prelate, who worship in this or that manner....maybe there is a place for others who aren't content to accept the boundaries we establish, the walls we erect to keep ourselves in and others at arms length, or the stunting of faith with regards to what is possible for true renewal in the Church and in the world. "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 18:3) For the kingdom of God belongs to the child-like... and little children have not learned these artificial divides--the actual from the imaginary, the possible from the impossible, the real from the ideal. They dream big and they believe the words of those they trust and love, even when they don't have the head knowledge or life experience or bitter disappointments to tell them otherwise. Maybe it's time we humble ourselves and follow the example of these little ones, so that we too can begin to get to work and not be put off by the divides we see that are, for all intents and purposes, largely illusory.  

What Cast Iron Cookware Can Teach Us About Faith And Life

A couple years ago I wrote a post on why we use cast iron to cook with. This was kind of a strange post for this blog, given the home-maker nature of the topic (I also wrote one about linen towels). But I'm going to double down and extol the virtues of this time-tested cookware once again, but scratch a little deeper beneath the surface of the kitchen into the foundation of the house. 

First things first--I'm the primary cook in our home. I hate cleaning (which my wife doesn't mind, thank goodness because I make a mess of things), but I don't mind making meals, so it's just where the chips fell in our marriage. Being that this is my primary domain for the majority of meals, I get to choose what I want to use. And I've used everything in terms of cookware--stainless steel, aluminum, Teflon. I don't know how I got turned on to trying out cast iron (it may have been when I purchased a stand-alone induction burner), but I'm glad I did because I've grown to love it.

The thing about tradition and traditional things is they are time-tested. They're not always flashy or sexy or nuevo, but they get the job done. Sometimes there are better ways of doing things which technology can benefit--I like having fuel injectors in my car rather than carburetors; I appreciate laptops versus desktops or typewriters. But let's be honest here--the time of craftsmanship has gone away. If you've ever watched new construction homes being built, they are slapped up with pine 2x4's and OSB, clad in cheap vinyl, with no thought to anything but maximizing profit and minimizing cost. Homes over one hundred years old were built much more solid. Churches, no contest. And, yes, planned obsolescence is a real thing. So, I'm not a curmudgeon, but I think there's something to be said for the lost-arts when people built things to last and took pride in their craft.

I think cast-iron falls into this category, which is why I considered it "Trad-approved." But there are some parallels to traditional cookware and a traditional faith and life. I'm not interested in virtue signaling or needing to trad-flex for Instagram. I'm tend to be pretty pragmatic when it comes to these things. Does a more traditional faith or Mass help to ensure the transmission of our religion to our children? Then count me in. Does it foster reverence, piety, a fear of God? That works for me. 

But enough with the philosophizing. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty with the random topic at hand: what cast iron cookware can teach us about faith and life.

Built on rock, not sand

In scripture, our Lord says the one who hears Christ's words and heeds them is like a man who built his house on rock, rather than sand (Mt 7:24-27; cf Lk 6:48)). He names Cephas Peter, "Rock." David refers to the Lord as his "rock, his deliver" (Ps 18:31). Rocks are solid, unbreakable, built to last. 

You can beat the hell out of cast iron and it can take the abuse. Heck, you can beat hell out of someone with cast iron, and do some real cranial damage. It doesn't scratch. It doesn't bend or break. If you drop it on your tile floor, you'll probably need to replace some tiles. 

It's doesn't waste heat, but is resourceful like the woman of worth

In Proverbs 31, we see a woman, a wife, of noble character and great worth. She works hard and is resourceful. "Charm is deceptive, and beauty fleeting," says the King, "but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (Prov 31:30). In other words, she brings benefit to her husband and family--she gives and creates and multiplies, rather than taking and squandering. 

What's neat about cast iron is it holds heat incredibly well. And that heat that is held is used for its purpose--to cook food. When I cook rice, I turn the stove on (yes, I have an electric stove, and no, I don't worry about the government turning it off remotely on me) for about five or ten minutes, and then turn it off. The rice continues to cook for a good half hour unsupervised. It doesn't scald. It radiates nice and evenly--almost like a crock post or a radiator. Which brings me to my next point.

Patience

Cooking with cast iron takes an adjustment of our expectations. Cooks in 5-star restaurants need to run over meals quickly, but in the home we have more time (usually) and can enjoy the process. Because it is so heavy, cast iron heats up slowly and holds heat. This can mean sometimes longer cook times, if you want to fry a quick egg or boil water (unless you are using induction). Is that such a bad thing? Cooking can be a chore, but it can also be a way to be together, enjoy doing simple and fundamental things, and take our time. 

It's like Mass. We can "git r done," or we can enter into the experience as part of life, not something we "have to do," but something we get to do. If a solemn high mass with a schola takes an extra half hour of our time, is this time we are robbed of? Of course not. 

You have to care for it

Cast iron is not without some drawbacks. If you soak it for a while or leave it outside, it will develop rust. It's non-stick properties can rival Teflon, but you have to heat it in the oven or stove-top, and season it periodically with vegetable oil. 

Like our faith, which we need to nurture and work at. Daily mental prayer, adoration, exercise of charity, rooting out hidden faults, reception of the sacraments, examination of conscience are all part of living our faith. It takes extra work, just as you prune and fertilize a tree to maximize fruit production. 

It's overlooked and cleans up well

Cast iron pots can be found at thrift stores for ten dollars and last a lifetime. Sometimes they are rusty, but the "bones" are good, and the rust is easily cleaned off with vinegar or lemon juice. 

In scripture, we see the man who finds a pearl of great price and runs home to sell everything he has in order to buy it. He knows it's worth. He also sees its potential. God, too, does not see our rust and neglect and trauma, but our heart. He pulls us out of the miry pit and sets us on a firm foundation (Ps 40:2). He washes us of our sin with his own blood, makes our garments white as snow (Is 1:18). And once it's cleaned up and set aright, it has the potential to prepare hundred of thousands of meals for the rest of it's life. It will never wear out, never run dry (Jn 4:1-26). 

It eschews the disposable mindset

Like I said, you will rarely see cast iron on an As Seen On Tv ad. It's not meant to be thrown out, but passed down through generations. When we are young, poor and unsettled it's tempting to buy the cheapest non-stick cookware at Walmart, the way you buy Ikea furniture. But in the end, the things that last come out cheaper in the long run. Even just having one or two nice pots or knives is better (in my opinion) than having an arsenal of low-grade equipment.  

Additionally, the Faith is not meant to peter out after it becomes passe or unfashionable, but to endure from generation to generation (Ecc 1:4). That means it needs to be true to its nature, focused on it's eternal worth, and not prone to whims or trends. Even if it does find itself neglected or abused, a wipe down with an acid and a sheen of oil will restore it to its former glory--just like the worst sinner is only one confession away from a restored friendship with his creator.

I hope you enjoyed this random post. The next time you go to Goodwill, check the shelves for a rusty old cast iron pot or skillet and see for yourself what I mean. As the Lord says, "Test me in this." (Mal 3:10). 

When To Be A Legalist, And When Not To Be

I was listening to Paul's letter to the Galatians this morning on the way to work. It's a great, short epistle with a lot of meat on the bones.

In Chapter 2, Paul recounts his "calling out" Peter at Antioch over Peter's inconsistency and hypocrisy in not eating with the uncircumcised brethren for fear of being judged by the circumcised. One may recall Peter's initial strong faith in walking to Jesus on the water (Mt 14:29) but which lead to a kind of second-guessing and which causes him to start to sink (14:30). Peter of course recognizes the radical saving power of grace through Christ's passion, death, and resurrection, and yet I think there is perhaps a part of him that still finds it hard to let go of his identity as a member of the Jewish faithful and adherence to the Law. I would wager there is an element of that here in Acts 2: Peter "second-guessing" that he is truly no longer under the Law, but grace. 

Paul, ironically, has no issues preaching the radical grace of Christ and his resurrection. Of course, Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5) and a Pharisee, no stranger to the Law and a stringent adherent to it. Just as much as Saul is knocked from his horse and immediately does a one-eighty from persecuting Christians to becoming one, with no second guessing whatsoever (radical obedience), he also immediately and unabashedly throws off the yoke of the Torah (taking on the yoke of the Torah was the mark of a true Pharisee) and takes on the yoke of Christ. For he recognizes that one can not be subject to the one while claiming the other, for "a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ...because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Gal 2:16).

But Peter was almost a bystander in this instance, for Titus (a Gentile), Paul's traveling companion was the one whom "false brothers" (2:4) were trying to convince must be circumcised according to the Law. These Jewish Christians and their false gospel (Gal 1:6) were working counter to Paul's message of radical grace, and Paul has no problem confronting Peter and holding him up as an example of how not to conduct oneself as a Jewish Christian towards the Gentile Christians. 

It may help also to have some background on the Pharisees themselves. The Pharisees were so concerned with not violating the Commandments (a noble sentiment) that they enacted 613 prohibitions drawn from the Mosaic law, and 1,500 additional "fence laws" which served as a kind of outer protective hedge around the aforementioned 613. They were extremely religious, to say the least--again, a noble sentiment--praying the Shemoneh ‘esreh, the eighteen prescribed prayers prayed three times a day. But it was also distinct from the Sadducee sect, as it was geared more towards the faith of ordinary (versus priestly) Jews. The word Pharisee means "set apart, separated." As a Temple-sect of Judaism, after the destruction of the Temple the interpretation of the Law began to crowd out and take on almost more significance than the Law itself. This is why Jesus took such issue with the Pharisees and their crushingly burdensome yoke of interpretation.

It's fashionable to speak of Traditional Catholics today as "Pharisees." But to be honest, all stereotypes have a degree of truth. Nuevo-traditionalists (as opposed to those who with the whole Church simply practiced the traditional faith prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council) do often see themselves as "set apart, separated" (from "normie" Catholics and those who attend the Novus Ordo). Some can be suspicious of any kind of expressive or ejaculatory prayer, but are devoted to their missals for reciting prescribed prayers. Many on the extreme end in their religiosity see the New Mass as a kind of defilement, the way the circumcised would not eat with the uncircumcised as we see at Antioch in Gal 2:11-14. 

What does Paul say to Peter there? "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Peter's pretense ("hypocrisy") is a kind of play-acting in which he claims the radical grace of God while acting as if he were still under the Law. A kind of "fence law" around grace which prevents one from accepting it without reserve. Ironic, since it was Paul who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, and yet who (rightfully) has thrown himself unabashedly on the law of justification by faith (Gal 2:16) and held nothing back. 

There is also a temptation towards creating our own Catholic "fence laws" around the core of faith, lay interpretations that get weighted disproportionately and zealously defended (and sometimes with a fair amount of rancor). What do I mean? I spoke about this a little in my post Extra-Catholica, but it also comes up over things like praying the Luminous Mysteries, the necessity of veiling at Mass or dress length, and neo-Jansenist tendencies. The self-appointed interpreters of the Law (of the Church) have moved into pride-of-place in certain Catholic circles so much so that "ordinary Catholics" (just like ordinary Jews in the time of the Pharisees) look to them before they look to the heart of the Church.

However, it is not hypocritical for a faithful Catholic to hold fervently as well to legal proscriptions when they fundamentally matter. This may be related to making sure one fasts for at least one hour (if not more) before receiving Holy Communion and should refrain from reception if they have failed to keep this fast. One must also sacramentally confess at least once a year as well (CCC 1457). The Church in her rightful authority requires, for instance, that the species used in the consecration be unleavened (bread) and (wine) free from impurities. If not, a valid consecration did not take place. If one were to not say the name of the individual, and not use the Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and use a substance other than water, the baptism is likewise not valid. These things do matter. In this sense, legalism is a good for the protection of the integrity of the particular sacraments. No Catholic should feel "bad" for insisting on an assurance of such integrity. 

Jesus admonished the Pharisees not because they were religious, but because their "fences" and interpretations became the focus of their piety; they became as religious pagans washing the outside of the cup while neglecting the inside (Mt 23:25), as the scripture says, "they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). 

Just as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27), so too should our hearts be the core, infused with grace and pulsing with faith, while the fences of our piety and our holy religion stand as a bulwark against all that would threaten it. A fence must be solid and thoroughly secured to serve its function. But to the degree we find ourselves overly-busy with sanding, painting, heightening, adorning, barbed-wiring, and leaning on it while our heart languishes within its confines, it may be worth questioning whether one's piety has found its rightful home.  

The Shifting Axis

 Eric Sammons had a great podcast a couple weeks ago titled The Death of Catholic Apologetics? He says "the apologetics movement is losing steam...and their impact has been greatly neutered" and points to three main reasons why: 

1. An increased apathy towards religion 

    -If you don't care--aka apathy--about religion, you're not going to spend any time trying to determine what is true.

2. The Church has lost her witness

    -People may have hated the Catholic Church a hundred years ago--but people respected it. You knew what you got with it. She is now weak, with a scandalous pope that makes things that much more difficult for apologists. 

3. The fracturing of Catholicism 

    -What Catholicism do you represent? "Just Catholic" doesn't exist anymore. 

I wrote to Eric and commended him for the podcast, and also sent him my post The Time For Preaching and Teaching Are Over that I wrote three years ago, essentially saying the same thing (he declined to publish it for Crisis, although he said he enjoyed it, since it would have been too much overlap given his recent podcast on the topic). 

It's interesting times we are living in. While a spark to the powder keg of civil unrest has France burning, I'm reminded of another perceptive insight from Marine Le Pen (who lost the French presidential race to Emmanuel Macron, who was re-elected in 2022):

“There is no more left and right. The real cleavage is between the patriots and the globalists.” Macron makes the same claim: “The new political split is between those who are afraid of globalisation and those who see globalisation as an opportunity.” 

And on U.S. soil, Trump, for all his flaws, perceived this changing landscape as a political dark horse: “The future does not belong to the globalists. The future belongs to the patriots,” he told the U.N.

 

If you're a Weigelian neo-conservative still acting like it's 2003, and we're duking it out for souls with Protestants or inquiring Atheists in the internet comboxes, I'm sorry to say that ship has left the harbor. Traditionalists are the 'new kid on the block' (though, arguably, the longest-standing), the "patriots" of the Church who are willing to fight for their patrimony. They still compromise a small but growing percentage of those in the pews, but that doesn't mean they are inconsequential. They want the Faith--the TRUE Faith, not some watered-down version of it--and they live by it, the way a patriotic American would still hold to the ideals of the Constitution and believe that America is still a great country founded on noble (and proven) ideals. They need to be taken into account in the shifting landscape of the Catholic world, because they are not going away (as much as people like Michael Lofton would like them to)

Meanwhile, it would be a misnomer to tag any Pope as a "globalist," since this political nomenclature doesn't overlay on the Church very well--the Church is, by nature, global in scope and reach; she has a global dimension and mission. But it does seem that Pope Francis has more sympathies with the mindset of those in the globalist camp. 

In the aforementioned blog post, I wrote:

"What did this religious mean, "the time for preaching and teaching is over?" My first reaction when my friend mentioned it was YES. But then, why? 

Haven't the Word on Fire videos brought many spiritually curious people to intellectual assent of the faith? Haven't we been learning to make "intentional disciples" in parishes and through workshops and conferences and retreats? Haven't we been DOING something to address the "failure of catechesis"by LEARNING more about what the Church professes, TEACHING more about the truths of the Faith, EVANGELIZING by having discussions on social media with non-believers? Haven't we been preaching the good news to the poor, the imprisoned, as a kind of spiritual product to be considered to improve one's life, gain eternal life, attain peace?

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm in a bit of a stripped down state of being right now. The words my friend shared by the erudite religious--the time of preaching and teaching is over--point to a harsh and unsettling reality we are faced with as followers of Christ in war.

In fighting off demons of despair shooting arrows in my back, another wise friend also sent me a scripture that made me exclaim, once again, "Wow":

"And the places that have been desolate for ages shall be built in thee: thou shalt raise up the foundations of generation and generation: and thou shalt be called the repairer of the fences, turning the paths into rest" (Is 58:12).

But we are not in this state yet either, I suspect. We are in an in between. The well-produced teaching and catechetical materials, the preaching to a pagan culture--I have lived through these endeavors and been a part of them myself. I don't know how effective they are, or if they are making wrong assumptions about things. I do have a friend who makes rosaries and plants them for people with instructions on how to pray it; he does is clandestinely. Someone he knew even picked one up and considered it a sign to come back to the faith. So you never know. 

But we are not saving masses here, we are pulling stray bodies on the ark who, I'm sure, are ultimately grateful to be there. Like writing a book these days, it is, I'm afraid, ultimately futile. Not to those who have been saved, who would consider it anything but. And there is it's place--of course, we need to preach and teach when called for, one on one. But we are not going to convert the world by well-produced series on the history of Catholicism, or using any of the tools of the modern age. Those going to the front lines are getting mowed down by the culture because they are ultimately going alone with no shepherds to have their back, no critical mass to support them long term. The Steubenville degree and Thomistic defenses of Natural Law in a disordered society, I'm afraid, may not hold their weight against the breaches." 

The left-right paradigm is falling away. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same corrupt coin. Liberal Catholicism is a sterile ecclesialastical vasectomy of course, but even Neocons are becoming increasingly irrelevant post JP2. Traditional Catholics may have more in common with Orthodox Jews and fired up Muslim parents in the culture war than with lukewarm CINO's. 

The 18th century American "experiment" worked because people believed in the ideals and fought for them. But it wasn't a guarantee, as we are seeing that an immoral society divorced from virtue has no claim to its fruit. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker and historian, traveled to America in 1831 on behalf of the French government to examine the penal system and report back on what he learned. Tocqueville marveled at the flourishing American democracy at that time, recognizing that the uniqueness of such a system depended on a liberty "which cannot be established without morality, nor without faith." 

I used to think globalism was a made-up thing, until the World Economic Forum basically laid it all out in the open: You will own nothing and be happy. In other words, the Great Reset is not some Orwellian fiction: IT'S RIGHT THERE (HERE). Read them. If these ideals seem at odd with the freedom of the Christian and fill you with dread, you may not be a globalist in your heart of hearts. And if you oppose the ideals of globalism or if you think to yourself "this doesn't seem right," prepare to be humiliated, the way LGBT activists will humiliate those who oppose their ideology, the way Communist governments seek to humiliate those who oppose it. Prepare to be called a "far-right nationalist" or something similar. The incisive words of Theodore Dalrymple should then sear into your subconscious to draw on when the gaslighting gets especially bad and you start to second-guess yourself:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

 Just as those who truly believe in the tenants of the Faith of our fathers, Tradition, the depositum fidei, and live by it will be the future rebuilding of the Church from the ashes, as prophesied by Cardinal Ratzinger. It betrays the contempt those within the Church who are lukewarm or who do not believe as to why they hate traditionalists. The axis has shifted...as it has throughout history, and I'm not sure how long this center can hold both in the nation and in the Church herself before the Antichrist comes. 

Tell The World About The TLM. But Let's Keep Homeschooling Our Little Secret

 

I've always considered myself a more-or-less "evangelical Catholic." I was radically saved by grace, and I'm always quick to want to show other beggars where the bread is. Because I'm grateful. When you love something, you want others to know about it. We don't hide Christ under a bushel basket (Mt 5:15)

This has extended to my liturgical leanings with regards to Catholic Tradition and how the Latin Mass has buyoued our faith and the expression of it in worship. I tell people about it, I encourage people to explore it, I invite people to Mass with us the same way a family did for us years ago. As I see it, Tradition and Charity are a force for renewal in the Church. I know there are probably factions that want to keep it the best kept secret in the Church, but I don't think that's the way forward. This is a good thing that people need to know about, and then make their own choices about. From 1998 to just five years ago, I didn't even know it existed. I think that's starting to change.

Attending the Latin Mass and homeschooling have always seemed to me like two sides of the same coin. But I am not so evangelistic about homeschooling. It has been a huge blessing to us, and I feel blessed we were led to educate our children from home. They are well adjusted, VERY well socialized, and learning what they need to learn in an efficient manner that leaves plenty of room for play. I didn't always feel this way, and was pretty resistant to the idea at first. But the fruits have been apparent. 

I do not feel the need, however, to tell everyone about how great homeschooling is. If anything, I want to keep it on the DL. This is mostly because the more it gets on the government's radar, the more I worry about government interference. Just leave us alone and give us the liberty to educate our children. Many pioneer homeschoolers worked hard to ensure that laws were amenable to homeschooling when it was just a blip on the societal screen. Now that it is becoming more common and mainstream, I worry that the government will ruin it like all good things with over-regulation or controlling what we can and can't do as parents. 

I pay my school tax bill (which is substantial) and don't use any of the public school services. That's fine, whatever, just leave us alone and let us file our initial affidavit and yearly evaluation and stay out of our business. Our children are doing fine, great even. I can't imagine sending them to a government school at this point, and the meager fruits of Catholic education make that a non-starter for our family as well. 

I'll continue to advocate for the Latin Mass and Catholic Tradition, because it bears good fruit and should be normative, not some scorned leper within the "synodal" Church. But homeschooling? It is literally the best kept secret that I feel no need to shout from the rooftops about. I'm glad more people are discovering it, but just maybe be discerning in who you tell about it, huh? I'm sure the government and school districts have noticed by now, but no need to poke sleeping giants.

You're Not A Trad

 

This post may be a bit of a stretch, but I'm going to write it anyway because it's been on my mind and because I have a habit of taking two or more seemingly incongruent topics and tying them together somehow so you're left saying, "Hm. Well that's one way to look at it." Ha. Bear with me, though, because there will be a few random floating observations and things floating around in the beginning.

Point 1

After spending five days on retreat in blissful silence at a proverbial trad "band camp" last week, I ended up experiencing some symptoms of liturgical indigestion when I attended a local men's conference I was invited to and gifted a free ticket for the day after I returned home. I arrived at the retreat center around sunrise to start the day with Adoration (which was a good start); there was a sizable crowd of men as well. Ok, so far so good.

After an hour of adoration, it was time for Mass. The celebrant was I guess some kind of well-known rockstar priest who had a penchant for being "hardcore" about some things. It was still early in the morning, and I was a little thrown off by his antics on the altar, which included a loud homily about "people who assume the posture of holiness really aren't," and how he feels that people who "act holy" are "hiding something." During the Our Father, he also abruptly stopped and chastised the men for "saying it too fast." He forced us through a slowed-down, deliberate way of saying it. I guess it bothered him, and he wasn't afraid to show it. Whatever, I guess?

This is not the first time I've experienced a 'showman' priest; in college, we had a (probably gay) priest from the local abbey who would get theatrical and make himself the center of attention. Another priest after college at the church I attended would use the Mass as a "teaching opportunity," which was well intentioned but felt disruptive. In both these instances, and at this men's conference, I felt like the versus populum orientation of the New Mass feeds into this kind of priestly narcissism. I also feel like because of the deficiencies of the New Mass vs. the Vetus Ordo, the priests celebrating the Novus Ordo can overcompensate with loud homilies and liturgical ad-libs because, well, they can. What I have grown to love about the traditional Mass is that the priest simply disappears. 

The Mass concluded with some truly awful OCP hymns; it struck me that the N.O is by nature much more feminized, even when there were no women present; it brought back memories of the strange embarrassment I felt when it came to the hymns especially while at Mass. Now granted, there were a lot of Boomer generation men there, so it's probably what they're used to.

All this to say, for the rest of the day when I got home, I felt a kind of 'spiritual indigestion' from what was just par for the course each Sunday in your standard suburban parish.  The Latin Mass has officially ruined me.

Point 2

When my wife and I were making every last effort to avoid yet another miscarriage after the birth of our third, we were referred to a fairly well-known Catholic pro-life doctor who was said to be able to help with fertility issues. The reality is that at this time my wife was already in her mid-forties and the chance of conceiving and bringing a pregnancy to term were slim (though not altogether impossible). This doctor immediately prescribed a no caffeine, no dairy, no meat, etc etc. diet, which I thought, "ok, this is a little quacky but whatever"). 

Years ago I had a bad experience with a Facebook acquaintance who was just trying to be helpful when it came to fertility issues, saying "avoid this, use this, don't do this..." Mind you, she had no medical credentials whatsoever, just struggled with infertility herself so I think it was personal for her. My wife was already in a kind of sensitive state, and though I suggested some of these things for her, I immediately regretted it--because then it becomes if you have another miscarriage, it's because you didn't do x, y, and z.. My wife doesn't deserve that kind of psychological sabotaging...it's hard enough losing a baby even without second-guessing yourself as to why. For the same reason I resented this doctor's insistence on some unfounded diet--95% of the issue, I think, was that my dear wife was simply in her mid forties and the chance of pregnancy (especially taking to full term) was slim. She kind of did the diet, the progesterone pills, etc for a few months and then because it sucked, just reintroduced all the no-no's and got back to our life.

Point 3

Every time we go to a Catholic gathering, somebody is bringing Gluten Free this-or-that. I don't know why. They are not in the 1% of people who have Celiac disease, but rather the 33% of Americans who are trying to eliminate gluten from their diet (for whatever reason). I think there is this belief that gluten is "bad" and that it contributes to either behavior or other health-related issues, but that doesn't really have any scientific evidence for. I have no idea. All I know is I love gluten and like most people, have no aversion to it. But GF is to the 2020s what the lowfat Snackwells craze was to the 90's.

I imagine people who truly do have a gluten allergy like celiac disease are happy people are bringing gluten intolerance into the public consciousness and making every restaurant chef hate his life, because now they have more choice, more options when they go out to eat or to the grocery store. 

Synthesizing Points 1, 2, and 3.

Ok, here's the thing: True Traditionalists are the liturgical Celiac sufferers; myself and most people I know who attend the TLM are like the 33% of the population who claim to need to be Gluten Free because somewhere we heard on the internet gluten=bad. 

A true Traditionalist will walk out of a Mass if they find out it is the Novus Ordo, or just not attend a funeral Mass or wedding Mass (or not receive communion), and will never attend the New Mass, ever. Call it a liturgical allergy or whatever--I'm not judging it, just observing. At least they are consistent.

The rest of us have a strong preference for the TLM, but if push came to shove we wouldn't stay home and pray our rosary if the Novus Ordo was the only option while traveling or whatever. We might have to suppress a groan-reflex while there, but we're not breaking out in hives or rupturing the lining of our stomachs, either. We wouldn't even have that option were it not those one-percenter trads that paved the way for what we enjoy on the menu now.  

I have at least been consistent in never claiming to be a Traditionalist, despite being 'traditional' or 'trad-sympathetic' or 'trad-leaning' or whatever you want to call it. I'm fine with that, and honest about it. I also find it annoying when people have some kind of axe to grind with Traditionalists, or are trying to make a name for themselves in the Catholic, Inc world by making strawmen arguments against tradition.

Because for a true Trad, I think there is a line in the sand you simply won't step over, and that is the line between the novus ordo and the vetus ordo. Although I find the novus ordo gives me liturgical indigestion, I'm not allergic. If you're starving on a desert island, your "gluten free" claims and preferences may quickly go the wayside if all you find is bread. Likewise, as I've written, the Novus Ordo may one day save your life. My attitude? I'm in desperate need of grace, and I'll take it wherever I can get it. And there is grace wherever the Lord is present. And He is indeed present in the New Mass.  If you'd "rather die" than attend the New Mass...well, that's on you I suppose. 

Why I Don't Force My Daughter To Veil

 

We have been attending the Traditional Latin Mass for about five years now, and my son has been serving Low Mass for the past year or so. We have a great, pretty main-stream community, which includes both those who attend the English Mass, and of course the TLM crowd. 

When we first started attending, my daughter had just turned five, I think. Wanting to fit in with the crowd, I began wearing a blazer and tie, and we bought some lace from Walmart for veils for the girls--black for my wife, white for my daughter. She looked adorable, a little cherub.

But as a dad who knows his daughter, I can tell she isn't especially "religious" in the pious sense. She is a good, sweet, innocent girl, but now that she is a little older she doesn't feel the need to 'play the part.' She prays the family rosary with us, goes to Confession when we go as a family, but part of this is a little bit of 'going through the motions.' She may be 'religious' in her own way, but she is private and introverted, so it's not on display if she is. 

A few years ago she conveniently lost her veil. Initially, I would get a little perturbed, and insist she find it and wear it. But it was clear she wasn't especially wedded to it. She also has extremely long legs, and her dresses were always a little on the shorter side (at the knee). Eventually, I stopped making a point of it, feeling like I was forcing something that had the potential to turn her off completely from the trappings of religion (that are not bad things, mind you).

The family that invited us to our first Latin Mass at our current parish five years ago are special to us. They have a large, beautiful family; the husband is a lawyer, super pleasant and also a little brusk at the same time. When we were at dinner, while we still attended Mass a different (non-TLM) parish, he asked me as soon as we sat down, I think: "So, why do you attend the Novus Ordo?" He said it with a sincere smile, so even though the question was direct it wasn't meant to be mean-spirited. The honest truth is I didn't really have a reason why--I stammered something about having started an apostolate at that parish, that it's near my parents, yadda yadda. The fact is, I didn't really know there was an alternative to what we were doing. 

So, a few months later, they took us out to lunch, and invited us to attend their parish (where we currently attend). The wife is as sweet and gentle as can be. As I learned later, she had grown up in a very strict, very end-times focused traditional family, and had a bit of trauma I suspect from that. Her husband, for his part, had some very negative experiences with the Novus Ordo and a particular religious order. None of this was enough to drive them from the Church. But I will say if I had to describe them, they are very joyful, beautiful, balanced, common-sense people who are doing a wonderful job of raising faithful, happy, beautiful kids.

I mention this because I think of them a lot when it comes to the temptation to 'force' religion with regards to my own children. My son has a beautifully sensitive conscience, without being scrupulous. He knows what it means to be contrite, is affectionate, knows right from wrong. My daughter, too, has an innocent faith that she keeps private. My five year old will go to the butter knife drawer when he gets angry at his siblings and attempt to exact retribution on them with silverware, but we will deal with him when the time comes to meet with his probation officer, haha (I jest).  

I've had conversation with our friend (the wife) about a fear-based religious upbringing, and my impression is that she is raising her kids intentionally antithetical to that. The emphasis is on love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness. It shows in the light that shines from within them. Her two girls now veil, but I think there was a time when she and her girls did not. I suspect they didn't feel they had anything to prove. They were a large, faithful, homeschooling Catholic family whose children all held the faith. They certainly didn't have to act more pious than anyone else, because they were confident in their identity as Catholics. 

Like our friends, my wife and I have nothing to prove, nothing to show-off; we are secure in our identity in Christ. We love God, love the Church...we're not perfect, but we do have faith. My dad, for all his faults, raised me to not care what people think (as he does not care what people think of him). 

I've kind of resigned to the fact that my daughter at this point in her life simply doesn't want to veil for whatever reason. No one in our parish is shaming her, especially not her father (me). We do not have the "veils of shame" basket in our particular parish, and no one ever says anything to any woman who doesn't. I am very averse to any whiff of cultish behavior, and I can confidently say as a more mainstream diocesan TLM parish, that's not really an issue. If it was, we might not be there. 

St. Antony the Great had a saying, "I no longer fear God...but I love him." I have that icon of him with those words at my prayer station. I think that is the spirit of our friends, as well. Fear, shaming, coercing...these are the things that tend to have the opposite effect when it comes to religion: it pushes people away rather than than draws them in. What does draw people in is gentleness, charity, not judging (all qualities St. Paul admonishes believers in Christ to exhibit). 

I can appreciate objectively the desire for women to veil, as long as it comes from a willing, modest, sincere spirit. My wife has taken to the habit, of her own, though it took a little while to get to that point. Why does she veil? I couldn't tell you. Part of it seems religious-cultural. Yes, the Apostle talks about it as well in scripture, that women should cover their heads. Yes, it is a matter of modesty. But it's also a bit of an "extra-catholica" issue, ancillary in my mind. 

So, I have decided I will respect my daughter's decision not to veil at Mass, because I respect my daughter and want her to choose this for herself out of devotion at the proper time (which doesn't seem to be now). She is a beautiful girl, inside and out, and I don't want to subject her to any degree of religious trauma, however remote. I want my kids to love God and love each other, and know that God loves them as well. The basics, the essentials. As we catechize them, we do so gently, encouragingly, making clear it is okay to ask questions. 

There is a tale in Aesop's fables that might illustrate my position here better than I can:

"The North Wind and the Sun had a quarrel about which of them was the stronger. While they were disputing with much heat and bluster, a Traveler passed along the road wrapped in a cloak.

"Let us agree," said the Sun, "that he is the stronger who can strip that Traveler of his cloak."

"Very well," growled the North Wind, and at once sent a cold, howling blast against the Traveler.

With the first gust of wind the ends of the cloak whipped about the Traveler's body. But he immediately wrapped it closely around him, and the harder the Wind blew, the tighter he held it to him. The North Wind tore angrily at the cloak, but all his efforts were in vain.

Then the Sun began to shine. At first his beams were gentle, and in the pleasant warmth after the bitter cold of the North Wind, the Traveler unfastened his cloak and let it hang loosely from his shoulders. The Sun's rays grew warmer and warmer. The man took off his cap and mopped his brow. At last he became so heated that he pulled off his cloak, and, to escape the blazing sunshine, threw himself down in the welcome shade of a tree by the roadside."