The Big Boo-Hoo

Heavy-duty Catholic George Weigel thje other day described Traditionis Custodes as

“theologically incoherent, pastorally divisive, unnecessary” and “cruel.”

Msgr Charles Pope issued a cri de coeur, which seems subsqently to have been edited to "cry from the heart":

I must say that I am grieved and stunned by this document and the letter to the bishops that accompanied it. I think not so much of my own potential loss but of the many Catholics I have served who love the extraordinary form. For so long and in so many places they have often been treated harshly and have been marginalized for their love for the form of the liturgy that most of the saints knew.

The Remnant editorialized:

Francis is also obsessed with crushing the tiny remnant of believers left in a world of universal apostasy because he is a globalist tool. He has locked down Summorum Pontificum because like a crucifix to a vampire, the old Catholic liturgy threatens the diabolical New World Order to which Francis has signed on.

This level of over-the-top indignation from priests and Catholic laity hasn't been seen, frankly, since the Viet Nam war. Meanwhile, the US bishops and the UK Latin Mass society have said the result of Traditionis will likely end up as a series of relatively minor adjustments. From the latter:

Pope Francis’ new decree restricting the traditional Latin Mass can be interpreted in such a way that it is “perfectly reasonable” for bishops to allow existing arrangements for celebration of the older form of the Roman rite to continue in their dioceses, and for lay faithful to continue attending such Masses.

. . . The principal feature of Francis’ apostolic letter is to reassign to bishops the power to restrict celebration of the older Mass, giving an ordinary “the exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese.”

But in its guidance, the Latin Mass Society notes that in insisting on the role of the bishop as the “moderator of the liturgy” in his diocese, the decree “is not making any innovation or investing bishops with special authority” but merely reiterating “the existing legal situation.”

So why are even normally responsible Catholic spokesmen getting so weepy about Traditiones? Especially since, as in our novus ordo parish, Francis's move went unnoticed. The big issue, if any, was that we had to wear masks again last Sunday, and frankly, I think that was far more important. For our parish, what happened with Latin mass was about as relevant as whether the new street cleaning schedule affected parking in Hackensack.

I've had a hard time finding good numbers on how many Latin mass Catholics there are. The closest I've come is this piece from several years ago:

[C]ompare the 489 Latin Mass parishes to the 17,000 total. While the 489 are not all contained within the 17,000 number (the SSPX parishes are not, for example), if they were, they would make up less than 0.003% of the total. An estimated 100,000 faithful attend the Latin Mass every week, traditionalists have much larger families than pro-contraceptive N.O. families (at least that’s what the data suggest), and the youth do seem to have a much higher preference for tradition than previous generations, but 100,000 is not a large population when you consider that 556,418 Confirmations took place in the previous year.

The reasoning is vague, and it makes unjustified assumptions. It refers, for instance, to "pro-contraceptive N.O. families". This seems to imply that novus ordo Catholics, or at least those in families, are all pro-contraceptive. But our novus ordo parish makes it plain that it will not marry a couple in the Church unless they complete a course in natural family planning. This is the sort of knee-jerk assumption, from a group that's far from a majority even among faithful Catholics, that I find offensive.

The question I have is why the leaders of the boo-hoo contingent completely ignore the passage in the letter accompanying Traditionis:

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”

What's disturbing is that the more fervent Latin mass apologists, like a couple of those above, simply make Francis's point for him by calling hjim a "globalist tool" and doubling down on the attitude he criticizes. But another problem is that Catholics who ought to be more responsible are twisting their tissues and dabbing their eyes on cue. My guess is that the journalists who contacted them somehow goaded them into making statements that I think are extreme. It would be more disturbing if people like Weigel and Msgr Pope made them on their own initiative.

My guess is that if I went to any of our priests, outlined my concerns, and asked what I should do, among their recommendations (which would include to pray about it and listen), would be to continue to speak out and act where appropriate. This I will likely do.

I'm told, for instance, that I had a great deal of influence in the old blog on the North Anmerican ordinariate's policy on certain priests. Maybe I should take on Fr Hunwicke. Frankly, I think his ordination was a grave error. The North American ordinariate had the good sense to correct some such errors and modify its stance toward other such priests. I find that if I put my mind to it, I can make a difference now and then. I do think something needs to be done in some of these areas.