How Come The Left Never Updated Its Cuba Narrative?

I posted yesterday about how C Wright Mills was deeply involved in creating from the start a Castro "third way" narrative that belatedly tried to create a new revolutionary model that, while totalitarian by nature, wasn't directly tied to Stalinism. This lasted, if it was ever very effective, only until the fall of 1962, when Kennedy, always a hawk in any case, tied Castro directly to Moscow in the Cuban missile crisis. (Although the resolution of the crisis itself has subsequently been portrayed as only a partial win, if that, for Kennedy, it's generally acknowledged that the outcome resulted in Khrushchev's deposition in 1964, so winners and losers are hard to pick.)

The outcome of the missile crisis in popular culture is best illustrated in Hitchcock's 1969 film Topaz. I rewatch both Vertigo and Topaz almost compulsively, in part because I now think, although it's a close case, that Topaz is Hitchcock's greatest. (Both have a peculiar device of a double story arc: in Vertigo, the story seems to be over with the death of "Madeleine", while in Topaz, it seems to be over with the death of Juanita de Cordoba at the hands of the Castro surrogate Rico Parra. In both cases, those deaths only signal the start of a new plot.)

Hitchcock uses what by 1969 was the popular narrative, if not that of the elites, where Castro was always a sinister figure, by 1962 clearly backed by hard-line Stalinists, which Hitchcock underscores using the title sequence of a May Day parade at the Kremlin full of missiles passing in review. In one scene, Michael Nordstrom, the quietly competent CIA agent behind the whole action, is shown in his office with a portrait of Kennedy on the wall behind him.

Hitchcock, never a dummy, relies here on fully established stereotypes, accurate or not, to add depth and credibility to his narrative. Much of the imagery in Vertigo is precious and provincial -- you had to know San Francisco to understand it -- while the imagery in Topaz is visceral throughout.

In the matter of popular imagination, I've also seen the opinion that the stock Hollywood Latin lover, Ramon Novarro, Ricardo Montalban, Desi Arnaz, Anthony Quinn, Pedro Armandariz, faded from popularity with the rise of Castro. The photo at left is Desi Arnaz in 1950. It may as well have come from an ancient Egyptian tomb.

Is it a surprise that, according to Wikipedia, "The film was not particularly well-received or successful at the box-office"? The problem for establishment journalists who by and large write what they're told is that in the elite imagination, the Cuban missile crisis never happened.

There's also the basic incongruity of the left's narrative: it's never been fully able to distance itself from the martyred-Kennedy meme that flooded the media after 1963, with Johnson assuming the Kennedy mantle, not only for civil rights and the war on poverty, but for Viet Nam as well. If Kennedy was right in the missile crisis -- now certainly regarded as his iconic role -- how can anyone question his take on Cuba, its complicity with Stalinism, and its direct threat to our way of life? To change this is a revisionism too far, at least outside faculty lounges.

The answer seems to have been, now for 60 years, for the elites, whenever faced with new stories that don't fit the third way-olive green revolution version of Cuba, to cover their ears and go la-la-la. Thus we have the Babylon Bee: "BLM Changes Name To 'Black And Brown Lives Matter Unless They Are Being Oppressed By Communists'". AOC and Bernie Sanders are forced to contort themselves over the latest developments

For socialists and their fellow travelers everywhere, it’s turning out to be a bummer of a summer. It’s almost bad enough to make you feel sorry for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Almost.

Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their anti-American ilk are stuck defending economic authoritarianism abroad while its victims are pleading for the United States to save them.

. . . It must break their tiny hearts to see Cuban protesters waving American flags and Haitian officials asking the White House for American troops to keep order. Don’t those people know America is a racist, colonial power that feasts on the poor?

C Wright Mills: Cuba As An Idea

The last time I thought much about Cuba was during the 2000 Elián González controversy, when I got the impression that there was a faction of committed leftists who in fact believed, as essentially an article of faith, that Cuba was a workers' paradise, and the boy would be far better off if the US government would return him there. It vaguely occurred to me at the time that Columbia sociologist C Wright Mills had enthusiastically embraced the Cuban revolution not long before his death in 1962.

I did a web search and came up with a 2017 article in The Jacobin, C Wright Mills's Cuban Summer, which described Mills's two-week visit to Cuba in August 1960 that formed the basis for his book Listen, Yankee. He spent three days of the visit interviewing Castro, and the photo above is of one such encounter,

I can't remember now when I read Mills's White Collar (1951), but it must have been at an earlier phase of my life, because I was much impressed by Mills's overall sneering tone over US society then. I went to Wikipedia to find a view that Mills was primarily influenced by figures like George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and William James, while others call him a "closet Marxist" To that I would add yesterday's caveat here that if Mills was a Marxist, his understanding of Marxism-Leninism was shallow enough to overlook the fact that bourgeois sociology professors would be among the first to be rounded up in a true revolution.

By 1959, Stalinists had had a bad run in the West. Even leaving McCarthy aside, Whittaker Chambers's Witness was published in 1952; Burgess and MacLean's defection beame public in 1956, the same year as Khrushchev's Secret Speech on Stalin's cult of personality and the Hungarian uprising. The image of Marxism needed refreshing, and Castro represented an "olive green revolution", presumably not a red one.

Mills, never a detached academic, seems to have seized an opportunity. The Jacobin piece says,

For his part, Mills saw the Cuban revolutionaries as Marxists, but hoped they would embrace the ideology’s liberating and humanistic aspects. . . . the young rebels were “bereft of any rigid political dogmatism, and being of the younger political generation, they have no experience with old-left Stalinism. They are a new left.”

This of course was at best faculty-lounge wishful thinking from the start, but Mills's intent seems to have been to leverage his prestige to legitimize this narrative. The Jacobin piece notes that Mills spent only two weeks in Cuba and did not speak Spanish. It continues,

Mills’s interviewees were also apparently preselected. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the Cuban official Raul Roa had arranged his trip; Mills had neither the ability nor the inclination to seek out those who did not share the revolutionary government’s views. Reading through the interview transcripts, anyone who has conducted research in Cuba will have the vaguely familiar impression of being shepherded toward approved spokesmen.

The transcripts also reveal that Mills pulled lines of inquiry from his own theories — for example, the role of intellectuals, broadly defined, as revolutionary agents. At times this could result in somewhat leading questions: “Would you think that . . . a proper way to define the situation would be like the following: That one small branch of intellectuals went into the hills, including Fidel . . . That is, the Revolution was made by young intelligentsia in contact with the poor people?” Mills listened but also occasionally imposed.

. . . Mills’s premature death in 1962 spared him some of the soul-searching that other foreign intellectuals later faced over Cuba. He did not live to see Castro’s endorsement of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor the imprisonment of the Cuban poet Heberto Padilla in 1971. These events largely ended the romance many foreign intellectuals had with the Cuban Revolution. Whether Mills would have reacted similarly is hard to say, but by this point the New Left’s youthful phase was decidedly over.

The “socialism with heart” Mills had hoped for proved too fragile for the Cold War.

The effect of the book on its publication was widespread. The piece says,

By the time Mills died less than two years later, he was receiving nearly ten letters a day from readers all over the world, many asking, “How can you help me get to Cuba so I can help Fidel?”

It's hard to avoid the conoclusioin that Mills at best was deliberately creating a "new left", separate from Stalinism, largely from wishful thinking, dressing it up with a measure of his own academic prestige. Britannica says,

New Left currents first arose in Europe in response to the perceived moral discredit of Soviet communism following Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s “secret speech” in February 1956, which revealed the extent of political repression under Joseph Stalin’s leadership. French and British groups adopted the label New Left to denote their search for a socialist “third way,” distinct both from official communism or orthodox Marxism and from mainstream social democracy. Opposition to nuclear weapons and opposition to Cold War bipolarity (a system of international relations characterized by the existence of two superpowers) were critical rallying points for the disaffected communists, independent socialists, and young radicals who formed the New Left’s constituency. Anticolonialism and the problems of the Third World were increasingly salient, especially after the Cuban revolution of 1959.

Viewed from the post-Soviet perspective, the idea of a countervailing bipolar global axis was in reality a fantasy in itself, with the idea of New Left, "third way" independent revolution equally unrealistic. But I think it's a feature of the current left's intellectual bankruptcy that, in its continuing support of the Cuban regime, it maintains the same hard line it's had since 1960.

What of the Cubans?

It seems to me that over the past year or so, there have been two types of demonstration, the Black Lives Matter type, and the populist type. I think Black Lives Matter and the related Critical Race Theory are mislabeled as Marxist (I haven't seen the term Marxist-Leninist used at all, but that would be more accurate if it were correctly applied). BLM is an alliance between bourgeois elites and the Lumpenproletariat. Bourgeois are the traditionial Marxist enemy, while the lumpenproles, street rabble and petty criminals, are unreliable as allies of workers. Nothing could be less Marxist in principle.

The Leninist component of Marxism-Leninism, something the bourgeois Edmund Wilson nevertheless recognized in To The Finland Station, added the extreme ruthlessness necessary to accomplish a revolutionary agenda, without which no such activity can move beyond idle theorizing and play-acting. The problem with both BLM and CRT is that neither recognizes the need for ruthlessness, including the need to pick the right allies and the need to liquidate disloyal elements, which unfortunatrely include both the bourgeois elites and the lumpenproles. (Solzhenitsyn saw the lumpenproles as useful primarily to victimize and torment the bourgeois in the gulag.)

Among other things, this reading suggests that the current bourgeois elites who run the media and the blue states and cities are neither serious nor ruthless enough to maintain hold on power, but at best, Marxist-Leninists have been able to do this for only several generations in any particular country.

This brings us to the other kind of demonstration, the populist. Their demonstrations arise from more spontaneous grievances and tend to be opportunistic. Over the past year, there have been fairly minor demonstrations against lockdown measures in the US, and it's worth noting that these have primarily involved workers and lower-level bourgeois forced out of their jobs or businesses, whose interests opposed the elites, whose income continued throughout the lockdowns. In the US, this spirit culminated in the January 6 incursion into the US Capitol, which the elites have hysterically claimed was worse than 9/11, or now even the Confederacy.

This is a reflection of legitimate class interests, as opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement, which depends on an alliance between out-of-touch elites and a rabble that's willing to play the game for only as long as it suits them.

But this brings us to Cuba. They remind me to some extent of the 1989 popular demonstrations that brought down communist rule in the Warsaw Pact, something I suspect the current Cuban regime recognizes. It clearly fears the influence of social media:

“As if pandemic outbreaks had not existed all over the world, the Cuban-American mafia, paying very well on social networks to influencers and YouTubers, has created a whole campaign … and has called for demonstrations across the country,” President Díaz-Canel said during a nationally televised appearance on July 12 “in which his entire Cabinet was present,” according to the AP. “Mafia” is a common Communist Party term for the Cuban-American exile community, comprised almost entirely of victims of the violent Party’s 62-year rule.

“We’ve seen how the campaign against Cuba was growing on social media in the past few weeks,” he added. “That’s the way it’s done: Try to create inconformity, dissatisfaction by manipulating emotions and feelings.”

As a result it's been shutting down internet access for short periods, but this hasn't been especially successful. I think the outcome in Cuba will depend on how ruthless the regime is prepared to be, along with how many of its hard-core retainers in the state organs it can rely on to carry out its continuing requirements for ruthlessness.

Past a certain point, even the secret police tire of the effort.

John Kennedy in 1960 And The US Bishops In 2021

While compiling the timeline in yesterday's post, I ran into the intriguing data item that Episcopalian Bishop of California James Pike had publicly opposed John F Kennedy's candidacy in the 1960 presidential election due to his Catholic faith. I was 12 years old at the time, and while I was vaguely following the election, I didn't notice this then, although I was aware of some concerns that if Kennedy were Catholic, he would somehow be under an obligation to do whatever the pope told him to do.

A churchgoing Presbyterian at the time, I had only the sketchiest notion of Catholic teaching. I probably knew Catholics were even more opposed to divorce than Protestants as of 1960, but that was about it, and I was innocent of the other details. In any case, the media at the time covered the issue as a question of whether the pope, as part of a nefarious plan for world domination, could order Kennedy as president to attack, say, Paraguay.

Returning to the issue over 60 years later, it's now much clearer what Pike, a member of the Anglo-Liberal faction of Episcopalians, had in mind. He definitely wasn't talking about, say, Paraguay. Pike, a randy guy, was thinking ahead: what if Kennedy, as a Catholic, were encouraged by the likes of Cardinal Cushing or Bishop Sheen to foster public policies that were friendly to Catholic teachings on marriage and the family?

Kennedy, who must certainy have been aware of such concerns and a randy guy himself, nevertheless seems to have responded more on the basis that no, he wouldn't let the pope or any other prelate order an attack on Paraguay. On September 12, 1960, he addressed Protestant clergy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to relieve them and other Protestants of their concerns. He said in part,

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

. . . Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

I think this is opportnistic and disingenuous, and it misstates the issue. Abraham Lincoln, without any formal religious instruction, nevertheless settled on views recognizably similar to Christian rationalism that drove his public statements and later policies on abolition. Winston Churchill relied heavily on their mutual Anglicanism to draw Franklin Roosevelt into close alignment with the British in 1940 and 1941. Harry Truman recognized and supported Israel due largely to his friendship with Edward Jacobson. In practice, religious views can't be separated from government policy.

In addition, Kennedy could not seriously have believed there should be "no Catholic vote". He relied on it in a very close election. But Kennedy isn't a Catholic authority. In 1960, the US Supreme Court hadn't begun to rule on religious issues, and there was a broad national acceptance, outside avant-garde circles, of a de facto agreement to look the other way on issues like pornography, birth control, and abortion. In effect, Kennedy was promising not to rock the boat. (Pike was not brought over, though.)

Beyond that, Lumen Gentium, which gave Catholics generally and bishops in particular the responsibility of evangelizing, hadn't been promulgated. The problem was that over the next 60 years, the courts and legislatures began formalizing the informal arrangements that looked the other way over problems that had been fairly limited at the start of the period, setting definite public policies that exacerbated the social problems resulting from widespread divorce, birth control, and abortion.

Meanwhile, Catholic politicians were continuing to rely on a "Catholic vote" that Kennedy had made clear was to stay away from public policy decisions. I would guess that figues like Cardinals Cushing and Bernardin felt this was a legitimate tradeoff as long as Catholics could enter more widely into public life. The difficulty continued to be, after 1964, Lumen Gentium.

I've seen a few Catholic commentators who've recognized that the move this year for the US bishops to draft a teaching document on Catholic politicians who've lived quite well on the tacit agreement to stay out of Catholic pollcy issues is, in fact, a move to bring things into alignment with Lumen Gentium, at this stage well overdue.

Do pre-Conciliarists want a return to 1960, when the tacit policy that Catholic politicians could hitchhike on the Catholic brand without actually being good Lumen Gentium Catholics was established?

Did The Second Vatican Council Ruin Everything?

There's an amorphous faction in the Catholic Church that's often called "traditionalist" that often embraces themes like more comprehensive restoration of the Latin mass, as well as less common and more extreme beliefs like sedevacantism, the view that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Pius XII. Even if many traditionalists aren't formal sedevacantists, there's a more widespread view that Pope Francis is a heretic.

In most cases, although there doesn't seem to be a single, unifying traditionalist manifesto, the view seems to be that Vatican II represented a preemptive surrender to modernism, and a return to a single mass rite in Latin, including the Roman Canon, is the cure. (If anyone can refer me to something that might effectively summarize this set of beliefs, I'll be delighted to hear of it and pass it on.)

My impression is that many traditionalists are too young to have lived throuh the 1960s, when the Second Council took place, and haven't looked closely at the 1950s, where many of the trends that dominated the 1960s became visible.

I put together the following timeline that suggests the Second Council took place, first, in a context where Christian figures recognized cultural trends and worked to counter them well before the Council; second, that the Council was also a major response to those trends; third, that key events that define the current era took place before and during the Council; and especially fourth, that the implementation of the novus ordo mass took place only after most of the relevant events had actually occurred.

At minimum, the Council can't have caused any of the problems that traditionalsts attribute to it, as they manifested themselves either well before or during the Council.

• 1948 Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
• 1949 Billy Graham Los Angeles crusades make him a national figure
• 1951 JD Salionger publishes The Catcher in the Rye
• 1952 Fulton Sheen begins Life is Worth Living television series
• 1952 Christine Jorgenson undergoes gender reassignment surgery in Denmark
• 1953 Hugh Hefner publishes First issue of Playboy
• 1957 Jack Kerouac publshes On the Road
• 1958 Death of Pius XII
• 1959 Fidel Castro overthrows Batista regime in Cuba
• 1960 birth control pill first approved by US FDA
• 1960 Episcopal Bishop James Pike publicly opposes John Kennedy's election as US president due to his Catholic beliefs
• September 1960 Kennedy insists no politician should request or accept instruction on public policy from the pope
• 1961 Joseph Heller publishes Catch-22
• 1962 US Supreme Court in Engel v Vitale rules compulsory school prayer unconstitutional
• 1962 Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest published
• 1962 John XXIII opens Second Vatican Council
• 1962 Hugh Hefner begins serailizing the Playboy Philosophy
• 1963 Timothy Leary fired by Harvard for LSD experiments
• November 1963 assassination of John F Kennedy
• 1963 Sacrosanctum Concilium, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
• 1964 Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
• 1964 Dr Strangelove film released
• 1965 Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
• 1965 Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
• 1965 US Supreme Court outlaws government restrictions on birth control in Griswold v Connecticut
• 1966 avant-garde comic Lenny Bruce (no relation) dies of heroin overdose
• 1967 The Graduate film released
• April 1968 Martin Lutrher King assassinated
• May 1968 Jesuits Daniel and Philip Berrigan, with other Catholic activists, use homemade napalm to destroy draft records in Catonsville, MD
• June 1968 Robert Kennedy Assassinated
• July 1968 Paul VI promulgates Humanae Vitae
• 1969 Paul VI promulgates Missale Romanum, beginning process of implementing vernacular mass and other revisions
• 1970 Kent State shootings
• 1973 US Supreme Court issues Roe v Wade, protecting a woman's right to abortion
• 1974 Richard Nixon resigns as US president

What About Fr Z?

Bishop of Madison, WI Donald Hying appears to be moderate-to-conservative based on his public record, which includes public denunciation of rioters who desecrated religious statues during the 2020 riots, as well as leading opposition to discriminatory COVID limits on church attendance by Madison civil authorities. The photo above is from a post at The Hermeneutic of Continuity congratulatiing Bp Hying on his appointment as Bishop of Madison and noting that "Fr Zuhlsdorf is upbeat and positive about this news."

As was widely published,

A popular traditionalist priest who performed live-streamed exorcisms falsely alleging widespread election fraud will no longer serve in ministry in the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin.

A statement sent to the priests of the diocese on Jan. 14 said Fr. John Zuhlsdorf will relocate to "pursue other opportunities" and noted it was a mutual decision reached between Zuhlsdorf and Madison's Bishop Donald Hying.

. . . Although Zuhlsdorf initially defended himself saying he received permission from the bishop, the bishop publicly corrected him, issuing a statement to clarify that his permission for the exorcism rite was "for the intention of alleviation from the scourge of the coronavirus pandemic" and not for "partisan political activity."

. . . Without having priestly faculties in the Madison Diocese, according to the church's Code of Canon Law, he will now need to receive the permission of another bishop to continue his work elsewhere.

As far as I can determine, this hasn't taken place, and although Fr Z continues his blog -- when I checked yesterday, his activity appears to have increased markedly -- he hasn't received faculties from another bishop. It may not be coincidental that in a post yesterday, ASK FATHER: “Do you know a time with blessed bishops?”

Consider that the very first collegial act of the entire Body of Bishops was to abandon the Lord. There were only Twelve, but they all abandoned Him. . . . One 12th of all the Bishops in the world (at the time) sold the Lord for 30 pieces of silver.

That’s not a great foundation and history has shown time and again that bishops can be and often are rotten to the core. It has ever been so, it is now, and shall be until the Lord returns.

Fr Z is not high on bishops at the moment. On the other hand, I'm not ready to revert to my Calvinist roots. Instead, I come back to Lumen Gentium:

For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.

Lumen Gentium ephasizes the need for unity among the bishops. I think this is something Abp Gómez has been publicly working for as head of the USCCB, and as I've said elsewhere, the bishops are steadily working to reclaim the public narrative they'd lost in the 1960s.

But one factor is the question, which the pope has also raised, of freelance internet priests. Thus I saw another recent disciplinary action by another Wisconsin bishop:

Fr. James Altman has been removed from ministry after Bishop William Callahan of La Crosse sought privately to correct the priest for his inflammatory, though in some circles popular, commentary on social media.

“The obligation of a bishop is to ensure that all who serve the faithful are able to do so while unifying and building the Body of Christ,” the La Crosse diocese said July 9. “Bishop William Patrick Callahan, in accordance with the norms of canon law, has issued a decree for the removal of Fr. James Altman as pastor of St. James the Less Parish.”

. . . Fr. Altman stirred controversy for numerous public statements he made in 2020 and 2021 on politics, racism, feminism, and the coronavirus pandemic. In viral video that was posted online Aug. 20, 2020, Fr. Altman said that no Catholic can be a Democrat, because of the party leadership’s support for abortion.

Now, of course, it appears that the US bishops are in fact moving toward a unified statement on Catholic politicians who support abortion, and I would guess that both Bps Hying and Callahan would be among the large majority currently in support of it. The problem is that internet priests like Frs Zuhsdorf and Altman are getting out in front of the bishops, and especially when they make extreme or blatantly political statements, they make unity harder to achieve.

I started reading the Vatican II constitutions on Bp Barron's recommendation. I've found them extremely helpful in understanding what's going on right now, and I recommend them highly. At the moment, I'm in the middle of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Who Is Fr John Hunwicke? -- III

Yesterday, I looked at Fr Hunwicke's account of his formation as an Anglo-Papalist in this interview and concluded that he's effectively been the same sort of fringe Anglican for much of his life, and he's brought those views into his Catholic conversion without much insight and, it would seem, without much change. He especially seems to see the Catholic Church fron the high-church Anglican perspective, whereby a select group has "correct" opinions that are constantly threatened by the less correct and, in Anglicanism, is always defeated by them.

Frederick Kinsman understood that this is a shell game that was always part of the Tudor design as Elizabeth worked it out. I think Hunwicke's difficulty is that he's always believed Anglicanism and Catholicism are functionally equivalent. Anglo-Papalists see themselves as "real" Catholics, when actual Catholic authorities would gently explain the options available for them to take actually to become Catholic. A difficulty now is that Hunwicke and the small number of others like him have taken Anglicanorum coetibus to be a tacit acknowledgement by the Church that Anglicanism and Catholicism are equivalent, and indeed, Anglicans have better ideas.

Thus, without much reflection, tney bring the high church lost-cause mindset with them and think it makes them the best kind of Catholic. This seems to be what's behind remarks like this in Hunwicke's interview:

My blog started out as a place where ‘Liturgical notes’ were published, as opposed to the blog of Father Z, who provides a sort of liturgical service to the faithful. And yet, little by little, it became natural to support and explain the restoration that Benedict XVI had made possible.

Later on, when the crisis of the current pontificate became obvious, it seemed natural to explain what is going wrong in the Church and to support Catholics puzzled and distressed by what Cardinal Brandmüller has rightly called the Apostasy made manifest under the current pontificate.

. . . Curiously (from the Bergoglians’ point of view), the ‘traditionalist movements’ belong to the least sclerotic sections of the Church. As a matter of fact, clericalism, as something evil and oppressive, appears under its cruelest light in the areas of the Church where Bergoglian ‘apparatchiks’ dominate. Therefore laymen must show the way, especially when the clergy are too afraid.

So the Catholic Church has gone wrong, but the high church Anglicans have arrived, like Colonel Custer and the cavalry, to reinforce the body of faithful led by Fr Zuhlsdorf. (It would seem that Bp Hying, who eased Fr Z out of his diocesan territory, has revealed his true nature as a Bergoglian heretic.)

It seems to me that Fr Hunwicke, formed by the high-church lost cause paradigm, has brought this model with him into the Church. But the Second Council simply posits a different model, and Lumen Gentium, as authoritative a Church document as you can find, provides this outline:

2. The eternal Father, by a free and hidden plan of His own wisdom and goodness, created the whole world. His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature". All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and pre- destined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren". He planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ. Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant. In the present era of time the Church was constituted and, by the outpouring of the Spirit, was made manifest. At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and "from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect," will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church.

I can only think Hunwicke had Lumen Gentium in mind when he said in the interview,

I don’t believe that Vatican has taught formal error, but it was based on, and relied (as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out) on, an excessive and dangerous optimism.

As far as I can see, Hunwicke never quite gets around to making clear what he seems to keep implying: the Second Council was in error. Certainly as I began reading the Vatican II documents, I couldn't help but note how many of Pope Francis's statements simply echo Lumen Gentium. This would normally make him a faithful pope, but if you think Lumen Gentium is in error, he must certainly be a heretic. I think Fr Hunwicke has at least the minimal good sense never quite to say this straight out. And not only that, he says,

Fortunately my Ordinary has always been favourable to me.

This might be the most disturbing thing Fr Hunwicke has said. What's encouraging is how much Msgr Newton's flock, with Fr Hunwicke its most visible member, has shrunk.