Is the Catholic Church sliding towards civil war?

Damian Thompson on the bitter feud between the new young defenders of the recently reinstated Latin Mass, and Britain’s ‘magic circle’ of liberal bishops


While Church of England bishops recoil from the prospect of gay ‘weddings’ with no precedent in Christian history, their Catholic counterparts are wringing their hands at the growing popularity of services that are too traditional for their tastes.

On Saturday 14 June Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, one of the most senior figures in the Roman Curia and an ally of the Holy Father, celebrated a Pontifical High Mass at Westminster Cathedral. The bishop of the diocese, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, did not attend; nor did any of his four auxiliary bishops. Pope Benedict is rumoured to be furious at this display of bad manners.

What can explain such a breach of protocol? The answer lies in the content and style of the liturgy being celebrated. Cardinal Castrillón processed into the cathedral wearing the cappa magna, a scarlet cape with a 20ft train of watered silk. It is many years since this vestment has been seen in the cathedral — for, although it was never abolished, it is associated with the Tridentine Mass, the ancient Latin rite in which the celebrant faces east, reciting its main prayer in a voice so low that the church falls silent. And that was the Mass that His Eminence celebrated on 14 June, becoming the first cardinal to do so in Westminster Cathedral for 40 years.

Last summer — to the horror of the liberal English bishops — Pope Benedict issued an apostolic letter, Summorum Pontificum, that granted universal permission for the old Mass, which had been effectively banned from normal parish life after the Second Vatican Council. England’s Latin Mass Society seized its chance. It invited Cardinal Castrillón, head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which is responsible for the old liturgy worldwide, to celebrate the society’s annual traditional Mass at Westminster Cathedral, normally a low-key affair regarded with amused condescension by diocesan liberals.



He accepted, leaving liberal bishops with only one course of action: pleading pressing engagements elsewhere. Hence the absence of Westminster bishops at the Pontifical Mass, though diocesan spies were spotted craning their necks to see if any local clergy had sneaked in (thereby scuppering their chances of promotion). Walking down the nave, I was greeted by a young priest sitting at the back dressed as a layman. ‘I can’t really afford to be seen here, but I couldn’t resist,’ he whispered.

Many Mass-goers are unaware of the fact, but the Catholic Church in England and Wales is sliding towards civil war. A mixture of anticipation and panic is in the air. For worshippers used to the low-calorie ceremonial of Westminster Cathedral, the sight of a curial cardinal presiding over the cruelly complex rubrics of the old Missal must have been thrilling or distasteful, depending on their point of view.

But the evidence of traditionalist revival is not confined to church services: it is scattered over Facebook, of all places, where there are dozens of groups pressing for the return of the ancient liturgy or mocking the caterwauling pseudo folk music favoured by trendy clergy. The internet allows traditionalists in different countries to burst out of the ghetto to which they had been banished by ‘the spirit of Vatican II’. Conservatives hunt down video clips of ‘Sandalistas’ performing arthritic liturgical dances and upload them to YouTube, where they become comic classics. Bloggers share photographs of Corpus Christi processions, and publish private letters in which ‘progressive’ bishops reveal the depth of their hostility to Pope Benedict’s liturgical reforms. These blogs are widely read in the Vatican, where the andante tempo of the day leaves plenty of time for internet surfing.



It was thanks to the internet that Westminster Cathedral was completely full for Cardinal Castrillón’s Mass. (The cathedral, needless to say, had done nothing to promote the event.) Significantly, the average age of worshippers was lower than that for ordinary Masses. ‘And they were so normal, too,’ commented one journalist.

That wouldn’t have been the case 20 years ago. In the 1980s, many adherents of the Tridentine Mass were so bitter and paranoid that one could hardly blame the bishops for giving them a wide berth. In contrast, the young people at the cathedral have grown up with the vernacular Mass; they are happy to attend it, when it is reverently celebrated, but they are also delighted that Pope Benedict has given them the choice of attending an older, more numinous liturgy — and indignant that their own bishops seem to want to restrict this choice.

The authorities’ effective boycott of Cardinal Castrillón’s visit will have done nothing to ease their frustration. In the words of one visitor to a traditionalist website, ‘This situation is comparable to the chief of staff of the army coming down to the 101st Airborne Division as the guest of honour at a division-level parade, and the division commander — and his brigade commanders — does not show up for the parade. Instead, he sends a terse welcoming note to be read by a battalion commander.’

The use of military imagery is significant. In many parts of the world, the response of liberal bishops to the Pope’s plans to revive the traditional Mass has verged on the mutinous. And the sense of impending conflict is particularly strong in England and Wales, which is unique among Western Churches in that not one of its 33 serving bishops is identified with the Benedictine reforms. Indeed, until the last conclave, ‘Ratzinger’ was a swear word in the left-wing circles from which the bishops have been chosen.



John Paul II was not interested in England and, for the most part, allowed the Bishops’ Conference to nominate its own members. Benedict, in contrast, is interested in this country. He has to find a successor to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and is not inclined to appoint one of the ‘magic circle’ of Tablet-approved bishops opposed to the reintroduction of the older form of Mass.

On the other hand, he knows that the appointment of a traditionalist outsider carries huge risks. The Archbishop of Westminster has negligible jurisdiction over other sees; even if the national Bishops’ Conference secretariat were disbanded, liberals would still control the bureaucracy of individual dioceses, with far-reaching implications for worship. Paul Inwood, a leading composer of banal Catholic ditties, has used his position as Portsmouth’s ‘director of liturgy’ to try to ban congregations even from asking for the older form of Mass. And, depressingly, similar situations exist all around the world.

Speaking at a press conference in Westminster before the big Mass, Cardinal Castrillón said that the Holy Father wanted to introduce the traditional liturgy into every parish, not just those that ask for it. But, he added, such a process would take a long time and would have to be handled carefully in order not to cause division. The problem is that the only man with the gifts to carry through such a revolution is an 81-year-old Bavarian who — as Catholic liberals are fond of pointing out — suffered a small stroke a few years ago. The traditional greeting to a Pope on his birthday is ‘ad multos annos!’ He’s going to need them.

Damian Thompson is editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald.


***********Constantines comment:

From the article:

Walking down the nave, I was greeted by a young priest sitting at the back dressed as a layman. ‘I can’t really afford to be seen here, but I couldn’t resist,’ he whispered.

This shows how much the liberal Bishops have used Vatican II to further their revolution against the Church. Can one imagine 50 years ago hearing about a priest who cannot afford to be seen at the traditional mass! Under the fog of 'tolerance' the modernists have supressed the traditionalists wherever they can.

But the evidence of traditionalist revival is not confined to church services: it is scattered over Facebook, of all places, where there are dozens of groups pressing for the return of the ancient liturgy or mocking the caterwauling pseudo folk music favoured by trendy clergy. The internet allows traditionalists in different countries to burst out of the ghetto to which they had been banished by ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.

Yes. Which leads one to ask how the Catholic Church could allow the outright suppression of the Mass in favor of a ‘Liturgy’ that includes folk songs, dancers and clowns? The problem is that people outside of the Church do not understand that John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were outright liberals and either aided in or looked the other way as Modernists attacked the Church from within using the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’.

It was thanks to the internet that Westminster Cathedral was completely full for Cardinal Castrillón’s Mass. (The cathedral, needless to say, had done nothing to promote the event.) Significantly, the average age of worshippers was lower than that for ordinary Masses. ‘And they were so normal, too,’ commented one journalist.

This is the case everywhere that the Traditional Mass is offered. As hippy dippy churches are having vocational crisis, low attendance and needs for ‘outreach’ the Traditional Chapels are bursting at the seams. I am told that the SSPX seminaries are full as are their chapels. When one attends mass at one of their Chapels they see lots of young families with lots of children. This is true where I attend the Traditional Mass as well. Which is why the Traditionalists will win in the long run. We are reproducing while the modernists are dying off as the Vatican II generation dies off.

John Paul II was not interested in England and, for the most part, allowed the Bishops’ Conference to nominate its own members.

Yes indeed. John Paul II was not interested in many things outside of ecumenism and apologizing to everyone he saw. He let the foxes guard the hen houses and by the end of his pontificate there was a crisis of liturgy, faith and most importantly a mishandling of the sex abuse scandal. Benedict XVI unfortunately has to spend a great deal of his pontificate cleaning up JPIIs messes. May God grant him many more years.

Internet Debate and Thought Control

I recently have had an interesting series of debates online with an Orthodox Jew who has been known to scream anti-Semite when he is losing debates and knows that he is defending the indefensible.

He applies an interesting series of tactics in his debates. Here they are:

Attack the source. If it is a non-Jewish source it is either ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘biased’ or doesn’t give the Jewish side properly. If it is a Jewish source that proves that he is wrong they will be attacked for being ‘too liberal’ or in the case of Reformed Jews commenting on the Talmud they ‘don’t really understand it’. (Haaretz and the Forward are evidently anti-Semitic to this gentleman). When I posted an article by The Chicago Tribune about the USS Liberty attack he stated that it is a 'biased source just looking to sell papers' but the Jewish Encyclopedias article on it is an unbiased source that gives a fair shake to all.

Up is down down is up.

If that does not work, he will change the subject. If you point out that a Jewish Rabbi wrote a book about the supremacy of Jews to Gentiles he will attack the Catholic Church (no kidding….really). Next thing you know you will be wondering how you got from discussing the topic you posted about and ended up hearing about the suffering of Jews under the Spanish Inquisition. He will then inform you that the Gospels are anti-Semitic and all of the Church Fathers were anti-Semites. But you had better not comment on anything found in the Talmud or comment that there are people who hold supremest views in the Jewish community because that would make you an anti-Semite. George Orwell could not have created a character as delightfully dishonest and hypocritical.

If you refuse to allow him to change the subject he will attack you personally. If you respond to his attacks on your faith in kind he will type ‘anti-Semite’ until his fingers ache. He is allowed to attack Christianity at will but you must not post articles by Rabbis discussing if you should wash after touching a ‘goy’. That’s anti-Semitic.

He will then lie about your beliefs to make you feel the need to defend them. He even made the pathetic claim that Christians believe that God manifested himself physically to produce a child (Jesus) and that Christians believe that ‘God made a mistake’ and thus Christ was needed. That is so absurd and so heretical that I actually asked where on Earth he got his information from. I asked for a single theologian who stated this. He of course had none but fell back to saying that is how Jews see it. So lying about Christian teachings is okay but pointing out that some rabbis teach that Gentiles have animalistic souls is anti-Semitic…..okay.

If that does not work he turns everything you say about him into an attack on Jews. So if you joke that he enjoys sex with farm animals, he says that you are attacking Jews as being deviants. He then screams ‘anti-Semite’. It's interesting, I had never heard that about Jews. You learn something new by interacting with extremists of all shades.

Recently, he spun and spun acting as if Jews did not play a significant role in the Bolshevik slaughter of Russians during the Stalinist nightmare. He even went so far as to claim that Synagogues were not blown up as the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was in Moscow because they were too hard to get to.

He said:

As for why Jewish clergy did not suffer to the same extent- simple geographics. The Jews had been forced into ghettoes for centuries, seperated from the general population.

And:

Yep- you got it. The Paleof settlement was isolated, Jewish communities were poor and not associated with the ruling classes and they simply did not attract the ire of the bolsheviks. You want to try and create something more sinister- hey, thats your issue and one that is not supported by any historical facts.

This is something so asinine that it is hard to imagine how one can actually state it. Notice that there is a personal attack because he knows that what he is stating is idiotic. If he can make things personal he can then get his opponent censored or banned, which he does regularly on this particular forum due to the fact that he has intimidated the moderators there. The sad fact is that the fury unleashed upon the Orthodox Church is pretty shocking. Nothing like it happened to Jews by the Bolsheviks. Gladly I was able to point out later in the discussion Moscows Choral Synagogue operated throughout the Soviet period, however, at least twice (1923, 1960) authorities annexed parts of original building for secular purposes.. That kind of ended his non-sense that all religion was persecuted equally in the USSR. He then admitted that Jews did not pose a threat to the Soviet regime.

When I pointed out that YNet (an Israeli publication) stated that In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin.

He again relies on personal attacks by stating:

As I said, you will create whatever fantasies you wish. Go ahead, nobody can stop you fantasising and creating facts with no historical basis.

And there it is. Ignore facts you don’t like and attack people who present them.

I then asked if when it became clear that the Soviet Regime was slaughtering people by the millions was there a move by the synagogues to help the people being targeted. He then responded

What would you expect them to do? They had no power, religious Jews were barely tolerated (and in fact were heavily oppressed and discriminated aginst after WWII) and they were doing their best not to go the way of everyone else. Stalin's Rssia was a place of fear where people did their best to survive and not end up on the wrong end of an accusation which led to death or exile to one of the gulags. Keeping their heads down didn't help the Jews much though- millions ended up in the gulags anyway!

So the Jews were actually victims of the Bolsheviks after all and they were powerless to help the people who were being slaughtered by the regime. Fair enough. However, that’s an interesting position to take especially for a guy who has attacked the Catholic Church for not speaking out enough against the Nazis during their regime. As usual, one standard for he and his group and another for the rest of humanity. The sad thing is that he is so filled with bigotry and anger that he does not see it. Daniel Goldhagen would be proud.

One of the sad things about our modern world is that there is extreme thought control and suppression of ideas. When cowards are intellectually bankrupt and unable to defend their positions they have key words that they can scream in order to shut down discussion. In this persons case it is 'anti-Semite' but it could also be 'homophobe' or 'racist'. If you can convince people that the person stating things that you don't like is a bigot then their ideas do not have to be taken seriously. 'Victim' groups no longer have to engage in rational discussions. They can just scream [insert PC whine title here] and they no longer have to discuss the issue. Don't like the fact that the US Government is heavily influenced by AIPAC, a group that represents another countries national interests? You're an anti-Semite. Don't think we should allow millions of illegal aliens into the country? You're a racist. Don't think we should re-define marriage against the will of the people? You're a homophobe. And so it goes.

It is time to end this non-sense.