James, I respectfully disagree re: The Tridentine Mass.
With regard to the Tridentine Mass, I would suggest that the least bad solution is to return to what the norms were under Pope St. John Paul II, where the local ordinary essentially makes the call on celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
I think the local ordinary is best positioned to know the lay of the land as far as his flock is concerned.
I initially supported Summorum pontificum when it was promulgated but I don’t think it played out at all the way Pope Benedict XVI intended it to and I think the SSPX essentially hijacked it to spread Lefebvrism (that has been my overwhelming experience with Tridentine Mass parishes. Now I have some very dear friends who are not that way whom I love dearly and prefer the Tridentine Mass for its aesthetics, but my experience with the Tridentine Mass communities has been 90% negative).
So an adjustment had to be made to Summorum pontificum, in my opinion, but I think Traditiones custodes went to the other extreme. JPII’s approach was in between those two approaches and, in my opinion, avoids the extremes of either approach, and if I were Pope, that’s how I would handle the Tridentine Mass. I think it’s the least bad of the options. It’s not perfect but I think it’s the best approach.
Re: St. Joan of Arc parish, if I were advising the Archbishop on how to handle that, I would recommend he either put it under interdict until they get their act together or canonically suppress it.
What do you think of Summorum Pontificorum + a required Oath Against Traditionalism? That seems like a big adjustment that ought to take care of a good amount of the bad stuff going on in TLM communities.
Hmmm, I’ll have to think about it. Would you also require it of theologians in order to receive permission to teach theology at Catholic high schools and universities?
I'd require it (at least to start) of everyone who currently must make a profession of faith under Canon 833: council or synod participants; cardinals; bishops; diocesan administrators and vicars; pastors; rectors; teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; teachers in universities; and religious superiors.
Expanding this list to include high schools isn't a bad idea, but it had not occurred to me.
Yes, I'd require this, although implementing this worldwide would probably take months-to-years. Everyone currently in one of these positions has already made the Professio Fidei under Canon 833, though, so they shouldn't have any problems taking two more oaths that merely offer more specific detail on what the Professio Fidei already says.
(And, if they do, well, those are presumably the people I'm intending to find and gently remove from their posts!)
Regarding the proposed punishments at the end of your article...
Would anyone actually extradite a priest to the Vatican under those conditions? Has the Vatican been legally recognized by most western governments as having criminal jurisdiction over it's own priests, with all priests being 'citizens' of the 'Vatican State' ?
And if not, doesn't that basically just mean that priests are offered a choice between voluntarily complying with the punishment, or else being excommunicated?
My internal picture was that they would report to the Vatican voluntarily for trial, then not be able to leave if they are found guilty.
It is possible this is too optimistic, but, at the very least, a great many of these abuser priests and bishops (and their enablers) go to reckless extremes defending themselves, thinking they are sure to win (and also thinking they don't want to lose their salary/housing/medical benefits/entire retirement).
It is my understand that the Vatican has no extradition treaties, in either direction, with any nation on Earth, so, if a cleric decides to become a fugitive, you are right that the Vatican cannot enlist the world's police forces to apprehend him. Perhaps this makes the whole scheme unenforceable and therefore a bad idea. On the other hand, the current situation, where the best we can muster in the face of abyssal crimes is defrocking, is not a good situation either.
Not quite; I'm certainly not as informed as you, but currently, defrocking appears to be only done when a priest has been found or plead guilty, usually by a secular court, i.e. if there is a relatively high level of evidence already.
With this change as I understand it, an "Invitation to Vatican" can be done with weaker levels of evidence, then a trial is started with the purpose of uncovering further. Most priests would be incentivized to accept it and come, because on one hand there is the certainty of laicization and excommunication, on the other hand, the possibility to defend yourself and be found not guilty (but also the risk of more serious punishment).
A problem, is, of course, that specifically those who have already be found guilty by a secular court would probably not bother coming since they are sure to lose. But even there, some percentage might be willing to try their luck.
Off the top of my head, I think that perhaps Poland and Switzerland might actually extradite under such instances. Catholicism is, iirc, almost an official religion even today in Poland, and the Swiss Guard's relationship with the Vatican seems like the Swiss govt might (possibly) go along with such a request.
One side note on Switzerland is that the Swiss Constitution protects Swiss citizens against extradition without consent. See Art. 25: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en (Disclaimer: since English is not a national language of Switzerland, as the page notes, the provided translation is for informational purposes only, and any of the German, French, Italian or Romansh versions is more definitive.)
Refugees and other residents of Switzerland enjoy some protection, but not an absolute guarantee.
(Disclaimer: not Catholic nor religious so I won't comment on the other parts.) The punishment proposal seems to me incredibly impractical and probably impossible. How would the church get custody of the person? I suspect most people, even clergy, wouldn't obey a command to come to be punished.
Would the church kidnap people, try to negotiate extradition treaties (I doubt countries would jump onto letting the Church criminalize conduct within their borders) or a third option?
I am also pretty sure any version of corporal punishment would be seen as barbaric similarly to the death penalty by a lot of countries, including basically all of Europe. I agree with them, just stick with prison. (Additional reason they wouldn't/(probably couldn't under their constitutions) negotiate extradition treaties.)
Always glad you post, Sathya, even on the Catholic stuff! (Maybe especially? Outside perspective on these inward-facing pieces is probably good for me.)
Re: corporal punishment: aw, c'mon, Europe! Corporal punishment is good, and everyone should bring it back -- primarily as an *alternative* to years-long prison sentences, but also, secondarily, as a supplement to them like I suggested here. 26 countries currently have judicial corporal punishment, at least according to Wikipedia, most prominently Singapore.
But if you're right that this would create diplomatic pressure and (gah) sympathy for the perps, at least on the Euro street, I may in prudence have to demur.
Wow, his Holiness James I would certainly be busy on becoming Pope!
Re: oaths. The multi-paragraph anti-Modernist Oath of St Pius X is much longer than the spoken oaths we are more familiar with, whether a witness oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding or an oath of office. I hope that it, (and your proposed anti-traditionalist Oath) are either drastically shortened or else taken in writing.
Re: Traditionalism. As a convert who stumbled into a TLM Low Mass exactly once in my life, I pretty much agree with your view on the 2 rites, but also that Traditionalists were definitely persecuted by Pope Francis's overreaction. And I see you are familiar with Fr Zuhlsdorf's website! That used to be one of my primary Catholic websites, but between Fr Z's boosterism of Trump and his toleration of the sedevacantist-adjacent SSPX, I'm soured on him. (I once argued on his site with one of his followers over who really won in 2020).
Re: the death penalty. I pretty much have the same position you do, that current Church teaching is best expressed by St John Paul the Great in "Evangelium Vitae", echoed and strenghened (but not doctrinally modified) by Pope Francis in various speeches and in "Fratelli Tutti". I don't see the Church easing up on the death penalty, but perhaps someday we will have a doctrine that reconciles past Church practice with abolition in the modern world, something looking like St Augustine's "Just War" doctrine.
Re: Vernacular vs Latin. What about St. John XXIII's Encyclical "Veterum Sapientia" or the Vatican II documents that say Latin should be retained?
And my first experience with the TLM was the complete opposite of yours. I also went to a low Mass and I was deeply moved by it. My confirmation saint was at Mass and when told enemies were coming for him and he refused to leave early, resulting in his martyrdom. I never intuitively grasped why he refused to leave, a bunch of guys coming to murder you is clearly an acceptable reason to duck out early, but on that day I finally understood why.
And finally since you brought up the complete joke of the hour long fast before Communion but didn't mention changing it, why not bring back the 3 hour fast to replace it in canon law? It wouldn't be too hard a burden pastorally but it would actually be meaningful too.
"Re: Vernacular vs Latin. What about St. John XXIII's Encyclical "Veterum Sapientia" or the Vatican II documents that say Latin should be retained?"
Not only do I agree 100% with Veterum Sapientia as a matter of good sense, but I also personally adore Latin. (That's why, every since months or so, this blog produces an original Latin translation of some Church document I couldn't find in English.)
I'll reach this later in the series, but I'm in favor of a decisive shift back toward Latin (rather than Italian+English) as *the* language of the Vatican, for all the good reasons J23 suggested. I also think Sacrosanctum Concilum's disciplinary decision on this was wise, and I like that, even after all the further disciplinary decisions of the papacy, the Mass retains some Latin chant (generally simple stuff even the non-Latinists can be taught very easily). Latin should certainly still be regarded as the Church's mother tongue. All vernacular translations should be from the Latin editio typica (not the English or Italian).
In places where there isn't a predominant vernacular (like, oh, I don't know, St. Peter's Square), Latin should be the language of the liturgy -- and, to a great extent, the language of everything else, too.
Re: the fast: I didn't mention the fast I would impose because I was saving "disciplinary measures" for the next installment in the series, but, spoiler alert: yes, more fasting. I think the three-hour fast is still weaksauce. The Eastern Orthodox, who put us to shame on a lot of disciplinary practices, seem to follow a rule (their praxis does not seem to be entirely consistent) of "fast from midnight forward, or for at least six hours, whichever is less." I like this. Midnight-forward rules effectively blocked afternoon Masses, and I wouldn't want to eradicate those. Again, though, more on this in later installments!
Re: the TLM: I am sincerely delighted that you had such a powerful experience. Many do! I've heard enough such stories that I cannot write off such experiences as anomalous or mere enthusiasms. There's clearly something real in the TLM that a certain kind of person responds to very powerfully. The TLM is therefore worth preserving and extending, so that it is accessible to all such persons -- not at the expense of the ordinary form, but as a tremendous complement to it.
Various things I might've said are stated by others, so I'll just respond to this point (as it seems is often the case, my comments revolve entirely around some minor point in a footnote):
"When Pachamama first went into the Tiber, it felt like a kind of revolt by the anonymous majority. (I remain open to, but unpersuaded by, arguments that there was really nothing wrong with the Pachamama idol.)"
The arguments--at least the ones I find persuasive--are not that there was "nothing wrong with the Pachamama idol"... but rather that there appears to have been no Pachamala idol to begin with, just some figurines that a bunch of people claimed, with a lack of proof, to be such. For all the claims against the figurines, I've noticed lack of real evidence they were ever a "Pachamama idol".
I suppose someone might not care for the tone of it, but its points seem rather valid--though it doesn't mention one important point your link did, namely the fact that those in attendance were Catholics, further putting the pagan idolatry into question. Almost all of the arguments I've seen in regards to the claim that it was a "Pachamama idol" appear rebutted by the arguments in the link.
Granted, the Vatican did a fairly poor job handling it on a public relations basis, which made the controversy far worse. And I have some sympathy for the idea that maybe figurines of naked women wasn't a great thing to have featured. But the evidence of these being "Pachamala idols" or ever being worshiped seems to be very weak to me.
This is why I've had to keep an open mind on the whole contretemps. There were so many conflicting claims, including, as you note, that this statute was not an idol, or that Pachamama has never been idolized. Then there were counter-claims, and counter-counter-claims, and I never had the time (nor, frankly, adequate motivation) to sort them all out. For example, Giunta says there's no evidence that Pachamama was *ever* worshipped as an idol, but what am I to make of this video, from a year before the controversy, where a neo-pagan is explicitly selling Pachamama idols? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFPcJfKthA
I honestly don't know! Giunta says he's read a ton of source material that I ain't gonna, so I can't rule him out, but, in a degraded information environment like the Pachamama one, I can't take his word for it, either. The fact that I tend to trust places like OnePeterFive more than places like WherePeterIs led me to my conclusion: it seems likely that there was something wrong with the whole thing, but I'm not confident enough about the facts to say what. The response I vibed strongest with was Ed Peters': the whole affair, from the placement of the figurines in the church to their removal, reeks of a Church deep in the grip of a rule-of-law crisis: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/22/whatever-that-was-it-wasnt-a-stunt/
However, it sounds to me like you've read into this a lot more closely than I have, and you're a source of information I generally trust, so the very fact that you're weighing in on the "no, this whole thing was a misunderstanding" side is recalibrating my view in that direction.
P.S. You never need to explain archived links with me! I've been blogging long enough to see the scourge of link rot devastate my old articles, and I routinely use archived links today even if the website is still up, because I don't trust it to stay up and/or I don't trust the content to remain stable.
Giunta's article was a big factor in pushing me towards the "this wasn't Pachamama and it wasn't idolatry" idea, both because of his arguments and also because as he explicitly says, he thinks Francis is a terrible pope so it is not someone who has reason to defend him. The other factor is the fact I haven't seen any of his points be refuted, at least not any of the important ones. There was a recent article I happened to read by someone trying to argue against deniers that it was totally idolatry and that anyone who claimed otherwise was just being stupid, but every argument they made was, in my view, either irrelevant or had been strongly refuted by the points raised by Giunta or others (e.g. the whole "Francis called it Pachamama" argument which ignores the clarification that came soon afterwards).
In regards to this point you bring up, though:
"For example, Giunta says there's no evidence that Pachamama was *ever* worshipped as an idol, but what am I to make of this video, from a year before the controversy, where a neo-pagan is explicitly selling Pachamama idols? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFPcJfKthA"
The fact one can find representations of Pachamama does not mean they are actual targets of worship. People in the present day will make depictions of the Greek or Norse gods with no goal of them being used for worship, for example. The video is rather vague about the origin for those figurines (it merely claims they were made in Peru without further specification). Who made them? Was it native worshipers of Pachamama? Neo-pagans whose actions don't necessarily reflect those of native worshipers? Just a sculptor who wanted to make them to sell? At https://archidiacre.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/querida-amazonia-les-faits/ (French site), it says towards the end, the following being an automated translation:
"+ The “statues” of the pachamama do not exist
Some argue that the Amazonians do indeed represent the pachamama with statues, citing "monuments to the pachamama." The problem is that all these statues are recent and were not made by Amazonians, nor even Latin American pagans, but by artists who wanted to represent the earth in a symbolic and metaphorical way: None of them are examples of "idols" dedicated to the worship of a goddess.
For example:
– There is a “Monumento a la pachamama” in San Francisco: but it was made by an artist in 2009 and financed by an environmental NGO. It is not an idol at all, just a work of art.
– Another comes from the artist Miguel Pablo, in 1944, who erected it in homage to his foundation, not for any pagan worship.
– Another showing a pregnant woman in Argentina, in Santa Maria, Catamarca, was made by the artist Raúl Guzmán in 2001. If there is an Andean identity/cultural group that organized some kind of veneration festival around her, it was neither an Amazonian custom, these people not being Amazonians, nor the initial intention of this statue. In fact, ethnologist Maïté Boullosa-Joly's "Tourism, Heritage and Politics" describes that the locals did not appreciate this representation because it did not correspond to their tradition, the celebration around it being above all folklore and a political message. None of these statues were made by Amazonian pagans, nor even for a cult purpose, and none of them are visually the same as the statue we are talking about in the video. https://journals.openedition.org/cal/651"
Unfortunately, this doesn't give us a clear citation for these other than the last one (which is backed up by the source). And this is talking about statues rather than figurines. But the fact one can find depictions of Pachamama doesn't mean they are a specific target for worship, particularly by the actual native populations. Maybe neo-pagans do, but in my experience neo-pagan beliefs and practices are far more based on common conceptions of paganism than what the actual pagans did or believed--and even the person who made that video, if one looks at their description of them on the site (https://www.sagegoddess.com/product/pachamama-statues/) I see no suggestion of actual direct worship, as it suggests "Set one of these statues on your altar, desk, or nightstand, allowing its essence to infuse your sacred spaces with a deep sense of wholeness and balance." They're called "Healing and Harmony Statues" and the big thing seems to be they're made out of Chrysocolla, which she sells a bunch of other things made out of it because Chrysocolla supposedly has special powers. So it's just the regular healing crystals carved into what she says is Pachamama. Someone could worship them I suppose, but that doesn't seem to be specifically what's being advocated for with them.
So there are a lot of questions I still have on whether these figurines that were being sold actually demonstrate actual worship of Pachamama via idols by natives, or by anyone. However, even if we accept that these were made and used for direct worship, it doesn't change the fact they look nothing like the figurines that were at the Vatican (unless "figurine of a woman" is enough to claim resemblance), it doesn't offer any evidence that the Amazonians--at least the ones who were at the Vatican--ever worshiped Pachamama (who was an Andean, not Amazonian, deity!), let alone via idols, nor does it address the various other points brought up.
In regards to "places like WherePeterIs" versus "places like OnePeterFive" (I'm not sure why you picked that one, though, was it because you wanted another one with "Peter" in it?), I would actually take the opposite opinion and say I'd take WherePeterIs over OnePeterFive or similar places. The unfortunate fact about so many strongly traditionalist news outlets is they're very prone to exaggerations and trying to make things out to be The Worst Thing Ever, precisely because that gets them clicks. And since the other similar outlets are doing the same thing, they have to one-up each other in order to get better outrage clicks than the other ones do. Sometimes I think the best way to dissuade someone from Catholicism isn't to show them arguments against Catholicism, but just to have them read some stuff on the radically traditionalist news sites. WherePeterIs has its problems (those who accuse of it being "ultramontane" are uncharitable but not totally wrong), and it will play down actual issues... but I'd say I find them more reliable and to have given some pretty good explanations for a lot of things that people incorrectly freak out about.
In regards to your citation of Ed Peters, I have some sympathy for his point... when he actually gets to it. The first half of the article, and even the article's headline, is quibbling about whether throwing the figurines qualified as a stunt. Not only do I not see why anyone should care, his whole argument basically amounts to him making up a definition of the term and then saying it didn't qualify for that, which seems circular reasoning. He claims that "A “stunt” is a gesture that calls attention to a problem but does not itself solve the problem." I don't know where this idea comes from; the relevant definition in my dictionary says "something unusual done to attract attention." Other dictionaries I consulted gave similar definitions; none said it had anything to do with calling attention but not solving a problem. So he spends half of the post on this pointless question which he wins by essentially making up a definition. Someone might say my objection is pedantic, but his whole argument in regards to this is far more pedantic, and he again spends about half of the article on it.
Once he dispenses with this odd argument, he comes to a more valid point, which is to say that even if it was just a random figurine with no idolatrous connections whatsoever, it shouldn't have been brought into and used in the church and seems to go against canon law. This is more reasonable. I again think that the usage of a figurine of a naked woman seems a questionable choice for that, and have considerable sympathy for criticism on that front. Nevertheless, there is a world of difference between "inappropriate" and "idol" even if they do start with the same letter.
Since I am unwilling to do further research, and I consider you a credible source, and because the questions you raise about the absence of compelling evidence seem persuasive, I’m prepared to put my faith in you on this. I am now on Team Pachamama Probably Wasn’t A Thing At All To Begin With.
As a mere aside:
I picked OnePeterFive because I believe WherePeterIs was started up as a direct response to the success of OnePeterFive! It was supposed to be a counterpoint, is my impression (hence WPI putting “Peter” in the name). I have therefore always mentally considered them a pair.
Reasoning from first principles, I understand your reasons for thinking that WPI might be predictably more credible than 1P5. However, I vest more credibility in 1P5 than its direct competitor in WPI because, years ago, I read some 1P5 stuff that was clearly correct and some WPI stuff to counter it that clearly wasn’t. There’s no abstract principle driving me here, just direct experience.
I couldn’t even tell you today what that stuff was, but it was pre-covid, pre-Skojec’s loss of faith, pre-TC, and so was landing in a very different media ecosystem. It may be that I have not sufficiently updated my credulity for how things have changed since. Since I now believe, on the strength of your research, that WPI got Pachamama right and 1P5 got it wrong, that’s a significant win for WPI that will cause me to update! (I also have had a Mike Lewis column sitting in my Future Worthy Reads folder for months now.)
As an ex-Catholic turned traditional Stoic, I'm curious what your Oath on Sexuality would look like! I understand the Church's teaching on sexuality to a large degree, but the oath format seems to clarify things, especially at the margins.
For example, "that faith is a blind sentiment of the subconscious rather than an intellectual assent to truth" as a heresy. Bishop Barron's telling is that faith is suprarational, but I've never quite understood what is supposed to fill the gap between the merely rational and the suprarational. That line of the oath seems to suggest that gap is filled by intellect rather than sentiment. Still somewhat confusing to me, but at least a little bit more precise.
When people like Bishop Barron talk about faith as supra-rational, I *tend* to think that what they are putting in the gap is relational.
For example, I cannot prove from first principles that my wife loves me. I can provide substantial evidence of this, but not proof. A skeptic could construct a plausible-sounding case for why each piece of evidence is wrong. However, I am in a relationship of trust and affection with her. The relationship started with evidence leading up to courtship, but, since then, there is this extra layer of love that is not easily reducible to entirely rational premises and conclusions. (Perhaps Bishop Barron does not think it is reducible to rational conclusions at all. If so, I disagree with him.) Thus, it is (in a sense) supra-rational. This is how I understand Bishop Barron's understanding of faith.
With that being said, I don't really like this model anyway. Like all explanatory models, it has both strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think its strengths and weaknesses are well-suited to our moment. I made my own explanation of faith in two posts from 2023:
Tangential but interesting, thanks for the recommendations.
I'm a long-time reader since before the Substack days and actually read most of what you write, but so far have skipped your Letters. (Since I left the Church, your usual law and politics—even about the Church—have been of higher interest/relevance to me than understanding the spiritual aspects of Christianity.) This is a good nudge to add them to my engagement-with-Christianity reading list!
Coincidentally, currently I’m reading De Civitate Dei for the first time because I’m looking for (non-superficial) Christian critiques of Stoicism. Iron sharpens iron, and all. So far I've quite enjoyed Augistine's practically-mocking critique of astrology—and still relevant.
You've been reading all this time and I didn't realize it! That's called being a poor host!
I really SHOULD read Augustine's De Civ. I've always been annoyed at him for having the title idea before me. (I didn't realize until months after I'd started.) But, like, not his fault, ya know?
James, I respectfully disagree re: The Tridentine Mass.
With regard to the Tridentine Mass, I would suggest that the least bad solution is to return to what the norms were under Pope St. John Paul II, where the local ordinary essentially makes the call on celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
I think the local ordinary is best positioned to know the lay of the land as far as his flock is concerned.
I initially supported Summorum pontificum when it was promulgated but I don’t think it played out at all the way Pope Benedict XVI intended it to and I think the SSPX essentially hijacked it to spread Lefebvrism (that has been my overwhelming experience with Tridentine Mass parishes. Now I have some very dear friends who are not that way whom I love dearly and prefer the Tridentine Mass for its aesthetics, but my experience with the Tridentine Mass communities has been 90% negative).
So an adjustment had to be made to Summorum pontificum, in my opinion, but I think Traditiones custodes went to the other extreme. JPII’s approach was in between those two approaches and, in my opinion, avoids the extremes of either approach, and if I were Pope, that’s how I would handle the Tridentine Mass. I think it’s the least bad of the options. It’s not perfect but I think it’s the best approach.
Re: St. Joan of Arc parish, if I were advising the Archbishop on how to handle that, I would recommend he either put it under interdict until they get their act together or canonically suppress it.
What do you think of Summorum Pontificorum + a required Oath Against Traditionalism? That seems like a big adjustment that ought to take care of a good amount of the bad stuff going on in TLM communities.
Hmmm, I’ll have to think about it. Would you also require it of theologians in order to receive permission to teach theology at Catholic high schools and universities?
I'd require it (at least to start) of everyone who currently must make a profession of faith under Canon 833: council or synod participants; cardinals; bishops; diocesan administrators and vicars; pastors; rectors; teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; teachers in universities; and religious superiors.
Expanding this list to include high schools isn't a bad idea, but it had not occurred to me.
Is that retroactive? do people already in those positions need to swear the oath in order to retain their positions going forward?
Yes, I'd require this, although implementing this worldwide would probably take months-to-years. Everyone currently in one of these positions has already made the Professio Fidei under Canon 833, though, so they shouldn't have any problems taking two more oaths that merely offer more specific detail on what the Professio Fidei already says.
(And, if they do, well, those are presumably the people I'm intending to find and gently remove from their posts!)
What would happen to an order if an order's superior did not take the oaths?
The superior would be removed. The order would replace the superior according to the order's own rules.
Regarding the proposed punishments at the end of your article...
Would anyone actually extradite a priest to the Vatican under those conditions? Has the Vatican been legally recognized by most western governments as having criminal jurisdiction over it's own priests, with all priests being 'citizens' of the 'Vatican State' ?
And if not, doesn't that basically just mean that priests are offered a choice between voluntarily complying with the punishment, or else being excommunicated?
My internal picture was that they would report to the Vatican voluntarily for trial, then not be able to leave if they are found guilty.
It is possible this is too optimistic, but, at the very least, a great many of these abuser priests and bishops (and their enablers) go to reckless extremes defending themselves, thinking they are sure to win (and also thinking they don't want to lose their salary/housing/medical benefits/entire retirement).
It is my understand that the Vatican has no extradition treaties, in either direction, with any nation on Earth, so, if a cleric decides to become a fugitive, you are right that the Vatican cannot enlist the world's police forces to apprehend him. Perhaps this makes the whole scheme unenforceable and therefore a bad idea. On the other hand, the current situation, where the best we can muster in the face of abyssal crimes is defrocking, is not a good situation either.
If they refuse to report to the Vatican, presumably they are refusing Papal obedience and could then be defrocked and excommunicated?
For sure! But then we're more or less back where we started.
Not quite; I'm certainly not as informed as you, but currently, defrocking appears to be only done when a priest has been found or plead guilty, usually by a secular court, i.e. if there is a relatively high level of evidence already.
With this change as I understand it, an "Invitation to Vatican" can be done with weaker levels of evidence, then a trial is started with the purpose of uncovering further. Most priests would be incentivized to accept it and come, because on one hand there is the certainty of laicization and excommunication, on the other hand, the possibility to defend yourself and be found not guilty (but also the risk of more serious punishment).
A problem, is, of course, that specifically those who have already be found guilty by a secular court would probably not bother coming since they are sure to lose. But even there, some percentage might be willing to try their luck.
That's a very good point!
Off the top of my head, I think that perhaps Poland and Switzerland might actually extradite under such instances. Catholicism is, iirc, almost an official religion even today in Poland, and the Swiss Guard's relationship with the Vatican seems like the Swiss govt might (possibly) go along with such a request.
This is a good point. One doesn't need an extradition *treaty* to put in an extradition *request*. If refused, well, that's on the secular power.
One side note on Switzerland is that the Swiss Constitution protects Swiss citizens against extradition without consent. See Art. 25: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en (Disclaimer: since English is not a national language of Switzerland, as the page notes, the provided translation is for informational purposes only, and any of the German, French, Italian or Romansh versions is more definitive.)
Refugees and other residents of Switzerland enjoy some protection, but not an absolute guarantee.
(Disclaimer: not Catholic nor religious so I won't comment on the other parts.) The punishment proposal seems to me incredibly impractical and probably impossible. How would the church get custody of the person? I suspect most people, even clergy, wouldn't obey a command to come to be punished.
Would the church kidnap people, try to negotiate extradition treaties (I doubt countries would jump onto letting the Church criminalize conduct within their borders) or a third option?
I am also pretty sure any version of corporal punishment would be seen as barbaric similarly to the death penalty by a lot of countries, including basically all of Europe. I agree with them, just stick with prison. (Additional reason they wouldn't/(probably couldn't under their constitutions) negotiate extradition treaties.)
Always glad you post, Sathya, even on the Catholic stuff! (Maybe especially? Outside perspective on these inward-facing pieces is probably good for me.)
Re: custody: I think my comment here answers your question, although perhaps not satisfactorily: https://decivitate.jamesjheaney.com/p/if-theyd-made-me-pope-three-and-a/comment/152405682
Re: corporal punishment: aw, c'mon, Europe! Corporal punishment is good, and everyone should bring it back -- primarily as an *alternative* to years-long prison sentences, but also, secondarily, as a supplement to them like I suggested here. 26 countries currently have judicial corporal punishment, at least according to Wikipedia, most prominently Singapore.
But if you're right that this would create diplomatic pressure and (gah) sympathy for the perps, at least on the Euro street, I may in prudence have to demur.
Wow, his Holiness James I would certainly be busy on becoming Pope!
Re: oaths. The multi-paragraph anti-Modernist Oath of St Pius X is much longer than the spoken oaths we are more familiar with, whether a witness oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding or an oath of office. I hope that it, (and your proposed anti-traditionalist Oath) are either drastically shortened or else taken in writing.
Re: Traditionalism. As a convert who stumbled into a TLM Low Mass exactly once in my life, I pretty much agree with your view on the 2 rites, but also that Traditionalists were definitely persecuted by Pope Francis's overreaction. And I see you are familiar with Fr Zuhlsdorf's website! That used to be one of my primary Catholic websites, but between Fr Z's boosterism of Trump and his toleration of the sedevacantist-adjacent SSPX, I'm soured on him. (I once argued on his site with one of his followers over who really won in 2020).
Re: the death penalty. I pretty much have the same position you do, that current Church teaching is best expressed by St John Paul the Great in "Evangelium Vitae", echoed and strenghened (but not doctrinally modified) by Pope Francis in various speeches and in "Fratelli Tutti". I don't see the Church easing up on the death penalty, but perhaps someday we will have a doctrine that reconciles past Church practice with abolition in the modern world, something looking like St Augustine's "Just War" doctrine.
Re: Vernacular vs Latin. What about St. John XXIII's Encyclical "Veterum Sapientia" or the Vatican II documents that say Latin should be retained?
And my first experience with the TLM was the complete opposite of yours. I also went to a low Mass and I was deeply moved by it. My confirmation saint was at Mass and when told enemies were coming for him and he refused to leave early, resulting in his martyrdom. I never intuitively grasped why he refused to leave, a bunch of guys coming to murder you is clearly an acceptable reason to duck out early, but on that day I finally understood why.
And finally since you brought up the complete joke of the hour long fast before Communion but didn't mention changing it, why not bring back the 3 hour fast to replace it in canon law? It wouldn't be too hard a burden pastorally but it would actually be meaningful too.
"Re: Vernacular vs Latin. What about St. John XXIII's Encyclical "Veterum Sapientia" or the Vatican II documents that say Latin should be retained?"
Not only do I agree 100% with Veterum Sapientia as a matter of good sense, but I also personally adore Latin. (That's why, every since months or so, this blog produces an original Latin translation of some Church document I couldn't find in English.)
I'll reach this later in the series, but I'm in favor of a decisive shift back toward Latin (rather than Italian+English) as *the* language of the Vatican, for all the good reasons J23 suggested. I also think Sacrosanctum Concilum's disciplinary decision on this was wise, and I like that, even after all the further disciplinary decisions of the papacy, the Mass retains some Latin chant (generally simple stuff even the non-Latinists can be taught very easily). Latin should certainly still be regarded as the Church's mother tongue. All vernacular translations should be from the Latin editio typica (not the English or Italian).
In places where there isn't a predominant vernacular (like, oh, I don't know, St. Peter's Square), Latin should be the language of the liturgy -- and, to a great extent, the language of everything else, too.
Re: the fast: I didn't mention the fast I would impose because I was saving "disciplinary measures" for the next installment in the series, but, spoiler alert: yes, more fasting. I think the three-hour fast is still weaksauce. The Eastern Orthodox, who put us to shame on a lot of disciplinary practices, seem to follow a rule (their praxis does not seem to be entirely consistent) of "fast from midnight forward, or for at least six hours, whichever is less." I like this. Midnight-forward rules effectively blocked afternoon Masses, and I wouldn't want to eradicate those. Again, though, more on this in later installments!
Re: the TLM: I am sincerely delighted that you had such a powerful experience. Many do! I've heard enough such stories that I cannot write off such experiences as anomalous or mere enthusiasms. There's clearly something real in the TLM that a certain kind of person responds to very powerfully. The TLM is therefore worth preserving and extending, so that it is accessible to all such persons -- not at the expense of the ordinary form, but as a tremendous complement to it.
re: TLM. Benedict XVI's vision in Summorum Pontificum of "mutual enrichment" between the Novus Ordo and the TLM is still worth pursing.
Various things I might've said are stated by others, so I'll just respond to this point (as it seems is often the case, my comments revolve entirely around some minor point in a footnote):
"When Pachamama first went into the Tiber, it felt like a kind of revolt by the anonymous majority. (I remain open to, but unpersuaded by, arguments that there was really nothing wrong with the Pachamama idol.)"
The arguments--at least the ones I find persuasive--are not that there was "nothing wrong with the Pachamama idol"... but rather that there appears to have been no Pachamala idol to begin with, just some figurines that a bunch of people claimed, with a lack of proof, to be such. For all the claims against the figurines, I've noticed lack of real evidence they were ever a "Pachamama idol".
You link to a page you say you were unpersuaded by, but honestly there were better ones even on that specific site (such as https://wherepeteris.com/it-was-clearly-idolatry/). Still, what I found to be one of the better summaries on the issue--which is actually linked to from the preceding link--is at https://web.archive.org/web/20210708022937/https://ericsgiunta.wordpress.com/2019/11/07/my-last-word-on-the-fake-vatican-pachamama-idols-controversy/ (the blog it was on is no longer available, hence the archive)
I suppose someone might not care for the tone of it, but its points seem rather valid--though it doesn't mention one important point your link did, namely the fact that those in attendance were Catholics, further putting the pagan idolatry into question. Almost all of the arguments I've seen in regards to the claim that it was a "Pachamama idol" appear rebutted by the arguments in the link.
Granted, the Vatican did a fairly poor job handling it on a public relations basis, which made the controversy far worse. And I have some sympathy for the idea that maybe figurines of naked women wasn't a great thing to have featured. But the evidence of these being "Pachamala idols" or ever being worshiped seems to be very weak to me.
This is why I've had to keep an open mind on the whole contretemps. There were so many conflicting claims, including, as you note, that this statute was not an idol, or that Pachamama has never been idolized. Then there were counter-claims, and counter-counter-claims, and I never had the time (nor, frankly, adequate motivation) to sort them all out. For example, Giunta says there's no evidence that Pachamama was *ever* worshipped as an idol, but what am I to make of this video, from a year before the controversy, where a neo-pagan is explicitly selling Pachamama idols? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFPcJfKthA
I honestly don't know! Giunta says he's read a ton of source material that I ain't gonna, so I can't rule him out, but, in a degraded information environment like the Pachamama one, I can't take his word for it, either. The fact that I tend to trust places like OnePeterFive more than places like WherePeterIs led me to my conclusion: it seems likely that there was something wrong with the whole thing, but I'm not confident enough about the facts to say what. The response I vibed strongest with was Ed Peters': the whole affair, from the placement of the figurines in the church to their removal, reeks of a Church deep in the grip of a rule-of-law crisis: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/22/whatever-that-was-it-wasnt-a-stunt/
However, it sounds to me like you've read into this a lot more closely than I have, and you're a source of information I generally trust, so the very fact that you're weighing in on the "no, this whole thing was a misunderstanding" side is recalibrating my view in that direction.
P.S. You never need to explain archived links with me! I've been blogging long enough to see the scourge of link rot devastate my old articles, and I routinely use archived links today even if the website is still up, because I don't trust it to stay up and/or I don't trust the content to remain stable.
Giunta's article was a big factor in pushing me towards the "this wasn't Pachamama and it wasn't idolatry" idea, both because of his arguments and also because as he explicitly says, he thinks Francis is a terrible pope so it is not someone who has reason to defend him. The other factor is the fact I haven't seen any of his points be refuted, at least not any of the important ones. There was a recent article I happened to read by someone trying to argue against deniers that it was totally idolatry and that anyone who claimed otherwise was just being stupid, but every argument they made was, in my view, either irrelevant or had been strongly refuted by the points raised by Giunta or others (e.g. the whole "Francis called it Pachamama" argument which ignores the clarification that came soon afterwards).
In regards to this point you bring up, though:
"For example, Giunta says there's no evidence that Pachamama was *ever* worshipped as an idol, but what am I to make of this video, from a year before the controversy, where a neo-pagan is explicitly selling Pachamama idols? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFPcJfKthA"
The fact one can find representations of Pachamama does not mean they are actual targets of worship. People in the present day will make depictions of the Greek or Norse gods with no goal of them being used for worship, for example. The video is rather vague about the origin for those figurines (it merely claims they were made in Peru without further specification). Who made them? Was it native worshipers of Pachamama? Neo-pagans whose actions don't necessarily reflect those of native worshipers? Just a sculptor who wanted to make them to sell? At https://archidiacre.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/querida-amazonia-les-faits/ (French site), it says towards the end, the following being an automated translation:
"+ The “statues” of the pachamama do not exist
Some argue that the Amazonians do indeed represent the pachamama with statues, citing "monuments to the pachamama." The problem is that all these statues are recent and were not made by Amazonians, nor even Latin American pagans, but by artists who wanted to represent the earth in a symbolic and metaphorical way: None of them are examples of "idols" dedicated to the worship of a goddess.
For example:
– There is a “Monumento a la pachamama” in San Francisco: but it was made by an artist in 2009 and financed by an environmental NGO. It is not an idol at all, just a work of art.
– Another comes from the artist Miguel Pablo, in 1944, who erected it in homage to his foundation, not for any pagan worship.
– Another showing a pregnant woman in Argentina, in Santa Maria, Catamarca, was made by the artist Raúl Guzmán in 2001. If there is an Andean identity/cultural group that organized some kind of veneration festival around her, it was neither an Amazonian custom, these people not being Amazonians, nor the initial intention of this statue. In fact, ethnologist Maïté Boullosa-Joly's "Tourism, Heritage and Politics" describes that the locals did not appreciate this representation because it did not correspond to their tradition, the celebration around it being above all folklore and a political message. None of these statues were made by Amazonian pagans, nor even for a cult purpose, and none of them are visually the same as the statue we are talking about in the video. https://journals.openedition.org/cal/651"
Unfortunately, this doesn't give us a clear citation for these other than the last one (which is backed up by the source). And this is talking about statues rather than figurines. But the fact one can find depictions of Pachamama doesn't mean they are a specific target for worship, particularly by the actual native populations. Maybe neo-pagans do, but in my experience neo-pagan beliefs and practices are far more based on common conceptions of paganism than what the actual pagans did or believed--and even the person who made that video, if one looks at their description of them on the site (https://www.sagegoddess.com/product/pachamama-statues/) I see no suggestion of actual direct worship, as it suggests "Set one of these statues on your altar, desk, or nightstand, allowing its essence to infuse your sacred spaces with a deep sense of wholeness and balance." They're called "Healing and Harmony Statues" and the big thing seems to be they're made out of Chrysocolla, which she sells a bunch of other things made out of it because Chrysocolla supposedly has special powers. So it's just the regular healing crystals carved into what she says is Pachamama. Someone could worship them I suppose, but that doesn't seem to be specifically what's being advocated for with them.
So there are a lot of questions I still have on whether these figurines that were being sold actually demonstrate actual worship of Pachamama via idols by natives, or by anyone. However, even if we accept that these were made and used for direct worship, it doesn't change the fact they look nothing like the figurines that were at the Vatican (unless "figurine of a woman" is enough to claim resemblance), it doesn't offer any evidence that the Amazonians--at least the ones who were at the Vatican--ever worshiped Pachamama (who was an Andean, not Amazonian, deity!), let alone via idols, nor does it address the various other points brought up.
In regards to "places like WherePeterIs" versus "places like OnePeterFive" (I'm not sure why you picked that one, though, was it because you wanted another one with "Peter" in it?), I would actually take the opposite opinion and say I'd take WherePeterIs over OnePeterFive or similar places. The unfortunate fact about so many strongly traditionalist news outlets is they're very prone to exaggerations and trying to make things out to be The Worst Thing Ever, precisely because that gets them clicks. And since the other similar outlets are doing the same thing, they have to one-up each other in order to get better outrage clicks than the other ones do. Sometimes I think the best way to dissuade someone from Catholicism isn't to show them arguments against Catholicism, but just to have them read some stuff on the radically traditionalist news sites. WherePeterIs has its problems (those who accuse of it being "ultramontane" are uncharitable but not totally wrong), and it will play down actual issues... but I'd say I find them more reliable and to have given some pretty good explanations for a lot of things that people incorrectly freak out about.
In regards to your citation of Ed Peters, I have some sympathy for his point... when he actually gets to it. The first half of the article, and even the article's headline, is quibbling about whether throwing the figurines qualified as a stunt. Not only do I not see why anyone should care, his whole argument basically amounts to him making up a definition of the term and then saying it didn't qualify for that, which seems circular reasoning. He claims that "A “stunt” is a gesture that calls attention to a problem but does not itself solve the problem." I don't know where this idea comes from; the relevant definition in my dictionary says "something unusual done to attract attention." Other dictionaries I consulted gave similar definitions; none said it had anything to do with calling attention but not solving a problem. So he spends half of the post on this pointless question which he wins by essentially making up a definition. Someone might say my objection is pedantic, but his whole argument in regards to this is far more pedantic, and he again spends about half of the article on it.
Once he dispenses with this odd argument, he comes to a more valid point, which is to say that even if it was just a random figurine with no idolatrous connections whatsoever, it shouldn't have been brought into and used in the church and seems to go against canon law. This is more reasonable. I again think that the usage of a figurine of a naked woman seems a questionable choice for that, and have considerable sympathy for criticism on that front. Nevertheless, there is a world of difference between "inappropriate" and "idol" even if they do start with the same letter.
Since I am unwilling to do further research, and I consider you a credible source, and because the questions you raise about the absence of compelling evidence seem persuasive, I’m prepared to put my faith in you on this. I am now on Team Pachamama Probably Wasn’t A Thing At All To Begin With.
As a mere aside:
I picked OnePeterFive because I believe WherePeterIs was started up as a direct response to the success of OnePeterFive! It was supposed to be a counterpoint, is my impression (hence WPI putting “Peter” in the name). I have therefore always mentally considered them a pair.
Reasoning from first principles, I understand your reasons for thinking that WPI might be predictably more credible than 1P5. However, I vest more credibility in 1P5 than its direct competitor in WPI because, years ago, I read some 1P5 stuff that was clearly correct and some WPI stuff to counter it that clearly wasn’t. There’s no abstract principle driving me here, just direct experience.
I couldn’t even tell you today what that stuff was, but it was pre-covid, pre-Skojec’s loss of faith, pre-TC, and so was landing in a very different media ecosystem. It may be that I have not sufficiently updated my credulity for how things have changed since. Since I now believe, on the strength of your research, that WPI got Pachamama right and 1P5 got it wrong, that’s a significant win for WPI that will cause me to update! (I also have had a Mike Lewis column sitting in my Future Worthy Reads folder for months now.)
As an ex-Catholic turned traditional Stoic, I'm curious what your Oath on Sexuality would look like! I understand the Church's teaching on sexuality to a large degree, but the oath format seems to clarify things, especially at the margins.
For example, "that faith is a blind sentiment of the subconscious rather than an intellectual assent to truth" as a heresy. Bishop Barron's telling is that faith is suprarational, but I've never quite understood what is supposed to fill the gap between the merely rational and the suprarational. That line of the oath seems to suggest that gap is filled by intellect rather than sentiment. Still somewhat confusing to me, but at least a little bit more precise.
When people like Bishop Barron talk about faith as supra-rational, I *tend* to think that what they are putting in the gap is relational.
For example, I cannot prove from first principles that my wife loves me. I can provide substantial evidence of this, but not proof. A skeptic could construct a plausible-sounding case for why each piece of evidence is wrong. However, I am in a relationship of trust and affection with her. The relationship started with evidence leading up to courtship, but, since then, there is this extra layer of love that is not easily reducible to entirely rational premises and conclusions. (Perhaps Bishop Barron does not think it is reducible to rational conclusions at all. If so, I disagree with him.) Thus, it is (in a sense) supra-rational. This is how I understand Bishop Barron's understanding of faith.
With that being said, I don't really like this model anyway. Like all explanatory models, it has both strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think its strengths and weaknesses are well-suited to our moment. I made my own explanation of faith in two posts from 2023:
https://decivitate.jamesjheaney.com/p/faith-is-firstly-reasonable
https://decivitate.jamesjheaney.com/p/the-leap-of-faith-is-not-to-jump
On second thought, that reply was pretty tangential to what you actually said, wasn't it? Sorry.
An Oath on Sexuality would be a fun exercise to write sometime.
Tangential but interesting, thanks for the recommendations.
I'm a long-time reader since before the Substack days and actually read most of what you write, but so far have skipped your Letters. (Since I left the Church, your usual law and politics—even about the Church—have been of higher interest/relevance to me than understanding the spiritual aspects of Christianity.) This is a good nudge to add them to my engagement-with-Christianity reading list!
Coincidentally, currently I’m reading De Civitate Dei for the first time because I’m looking for (non-superficial) Christian critiques of Stoicism. Iron sharpens iron, and all. So far I've quite enjoyed Augistine's practically-mocking critique of astrology—and still relevant.
You've been reading all this time and I didn't realize it! That's called being a poor host!
I really SHOULD read Augustine's De Civ. I've always been annoyed at him for having the title idea before me. (I didn't realize until months after I'd started.) But, like, not his fault, ya know?