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 1 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.
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.
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 1 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.