Monday, November 9, 2026

The degradation of trivialization

Mark Lambert @sitsio:

There is a peculiar tragedy unfolding in the Catholic Church and it's one I have been observing & writing about for more than a decade: the Church's authorities sometimes seem more uncomfortable with Catholics who take their faith seriously than with those who openly disregard its teachings.

The latest example comes from the Vatican's Dicastery for Divine Worship, where discussions with the bishops of Panama reportedly raised concerns about “liturgical extremism” in a context that included kneeling for Holy Communion, receiving on the tongue and women wearing mantillas. Just think about that for a moment.

These are not innovations introduced by rebellious Catholics. They are venerable expressions of Catholic devotion and the Church herself permits them. Yet somehow they have become entangled in a discussion about extremism and liturgical division. I would argue that this is symptomatic of something much deeper, a conflict which has been needlessly exacerbated during the pontificate of Francis, particularly through the liturgical policies associated with Cardinal Arthur Roche. For years, Catholics attached to the Church's traditional worship have been treated as though their attachment constitutes a problem requiring management, restriction or correction. Traditionis custodes was the most conspicuous expression of this approach, but the mentality extends well beyond the Traditional Latin Mass. It can be found at diocesan level too, where enthusiastic, orthodox Catholics sometimes discover that their knowledge of the catechism, commitment to traditional doctrine, reverent worship or serious catechesis makes them objects of suspicion rather than welcome. Meanwhile, a kind of practical cafeteria Catholicism, in which difficult teachings are quietly ignored, never provokes anywhere near the same institutional anxiety.

I am not suggesting that every bishop behaves this way, nor that traditional Catholics are incapable of factionalism, arrogance or genuine disobedience. Some undoubtedly are. But those failures should be addressed as failures of charity and obedience, not used to cast suspicion upon fidelity itself. 

It seems glaringly obvious that there is a profound ecclesiological problem here. The Church is not a voluntary association whose teachings can be endlessly renegotiated according to contemporary preferences. She is the guardian of a deposit of faith received from the Apostles. Her bishops are entrusted with preserving and transmitting that inheritance, not treating an unusually serious attachment to it as an embarrassment. Of course, fidelity is not measured by how often one attends the Traditional Latin Mass, whether one kneels for Communion or whether one's wife wears a mantilla. There are holy Catholics who do none of those things, just as there are traditionalists whose behaviour falls painfully short of the faith they profess. But neither should these practices become warning signs of ideological deviance. What particularly troubles me is the entirely unnecessary antagonism this approach creates. Many of the Catholics caught up in these controversies are among those who give generously to their parishes, volunteer, teach the faith, raise their children as Catholics and make extraordinary sacrifices to remain faithful in an increasingly secular society...So why on earth would the Church wish to alienate such people? Why should a young family discovering the beauty of Catholic tradition feel that their enthusiasm is something the diocesan authorities might regard with apprehension? And why, when we are constantly told that the Church must listen, accompany and welcome, does that generosity sometimes appear to evaporate when the people asking to be heard are orthodox Catholics attached to traditional worship?

This is not an argument for giving traditionalists everything they demand. Bishops have a genuine responsibility to govern the liturgy and preserve ecclesial unity. It is an argument for exercising that responsibility with justice, consistency and genuine pastoral charity. The Church should not manufacture enemies out of her most committed children. At a time when Catholic belief and practice are declining across much of the West, it seems extraordinary that we should expend so much energy making life difficult for people who actually believe what the Church teaches.

Perhaps the real question is not why some Catholics take their faith so seriously, but why that seriousness should make anyone in authority uncomfortable.



Sunday, November 8, 2026

Bishop Eleganti: The Vatican is putting on a bad show

The ban on the Latin Mass pilgrimage “borders on hostility toward Catholics loyal to the Pope and orthodox in their faith, and has nothing to do with concern for unity in the Church or with operational difficulties in organizing liturgical celebrations in St. Peter’s Basilica.” 

Bishop Eleganti: The Vatican is putting on a bad show

“So-called synodality has thus shown its true colors. It selects whom or what it includes.”

Editor’s note: The following is a guest commentary by Bishop Marian Eleganti OSB, former auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Chur.

(Per Mariam) — This year’s ban on access to St. Peter’s Basilica on October 24, 2026, for the tradition-minded “Ad Petri Sedem” pilgrims borders on hostility toward Catholics loyal to the Pope and orthodox in their faith, and has nothing to do with concern for unity in the Church or with operational difficulties in organizing liturgical celebrations in St. Peter’s Basilica. 


The rites that exist within the Catholic Church demonstrate, through their peaceful coexistence with the Novus Ordo, that this is indeed possible. The Eastern Churches in full communion are even sui iuris (autonomous) particular Churches within the universal Catholic Church. No one views them as a threat to the unity of the Church. No one would deny them an altar or bar them from entering a Catholic church. No one except the Vatican, which denies access to conservative Catholics who are, incidentally, loyal to the Pope. The synodal hypocrisy (inclusivity) has thus been exposed for what it is. The “Ad Petri Sedem” pilgrims are not the FSSPX. 

But we’ve known this for a long time: certain people are only inclusive as long as it serves their own goals. They ruthlessly and cold-bloodedly exclude alternative ways of thinking and different approaches to pastoral care and spirituality. That has been my consistent experience. We recognize the same pattern in politics as well. 

Well, so-called synodality has thus shown its true colors. It selects whom or what it includes. “Todos, todos, todos” does not mean everyone, but only certain people.

We have been familiar with the efforts and postulates of so-called “reform Catholicism” since the 1970s. Its protagonists have come and gone in waves and often changed their attire, without ever abandoning their ever-same goals. The result is today’s synodality, which is not the synodality of yesterday – namely, tradition. It is becoming apparent that, in the end, this is a belated, Protestant-style structural reform and the rejection of Familiaris Consortio (1981) and Veritatis Splendor (1993). It is highly recognizable to converts from the Anglican Church.

More: https://open.substack.com/pub/permariam/p/bishop-eleganti-the-vatican-is-putting?r=2x82t4&utm_medium=ios


Saturday, November 7, 2026

CatholicVote president defends bishops who prayed over Trump: ‘They prayed as priests do’

A video showing a dozen Catholic bishops praying over President Donald Trump in the Oval Office has drawn criticism online and raised questions about political endorsement. One of the bishops has since issued a public apology, stating that the meeting was not an endorsement. Amid the controversy, CatholicVote’s president highlighted that public prayer is a crucial form of evangelization. 


McKenna Snow


 
CatholicVote president defends bishops who prayed over Trump: ‘They prayed as priests do’
Bishops pray with President Donald Trump in Oval Office (CatholicVote / X screengrab)

CatholicVote President and CEO Kelsey Reinhardt spoke out Oct. 25 in support of the bishops who recently prayed over President Donald Trump at the White House, emphasizing the importance of witnessing to the faith in public and praying for elected leaders. 

"The internet is on fire with criticism of the 12 bishops who prayed over President Trump in the Oval Office. Let me remind everyone that bishops are priests and pastors and should not have to apologize for praying over presidents," Reinhardt said in the statement shared on X. "This assault on public prayer is based on a secular vision of life — not the essential evangelization required by the Gospel.”

“Not only should we give them the space to be evaluated outside the secular political lens, they should give that grace to themselves in the face of this unwarranted criticism,” she added.

According to Denver Catholic, the bishops, including Denver Archbishop James Golka, were invited to attend a meeting, organized by the White House Faith Office, with Trump administration officials. The outlet reports that the three-hour Oct. 22 meeting covered topics including immigration issues, school choice, religious freedom, religious worker visas, and the protection of life. The bishops were also invited to briefly meet and pray with Trump in the Oval Office.

More: https://zeale.co/news/articles/catholicvote-president-defends-bishops-who-prayed-over-trump-they-prayed-as-priests-do

When mental illness masquerades as politics

Lauren @RogueLou18:

Someone just posted this. The voting location was a church and this was in rural Idaho. 

Not sure anyone is ready for what’s to come. Republicans are dealing with a violent, mentally ill enemy in the democrats and we aren’t acting accordingly as a nation.





Friday, November 6, 2026

On “Letter to a Young Priest”

Via @pater_mattheus on Twitter we learn of the words of a faithful priest in Poland who offers words of encouragement and counsel for faithful brother priests. He also reacts to the negative pushback these words of advice provoked online.


“In recent days, a portion of Catholic circles with a more liberal sensibility, as well as some groups with a distinctly charismatic character, have begun criticizing Fr. Prof. Jerzy Szymik for his column ‘Letter to a Young Priest,’ published in *Gość Niedzielny*.


“In connection with this polemic, I propose a small intellectual exercise. Instead of focusing on emotions, the style of the statement, or interpreting the author’s intentions, let’s try to take a closer look at what he actually wrote.


“I have listed the most important things to which Fr. Jerzy Szymik encourages young priests:


➡️”To total dedication of one’s life to God and people, without greedily holding it back for oneself.


➡️”To conscientious preparation of Sunday homilies, treating the proclamation of God’s word as one of the priest’s most important tasks.


➡️”To renouncing ready-made internet sermons and proclaiming from personal faith, conviction, and experience.


➡️”To authenticity and growth in the priesthood through personal engagement, even despite one’s own imperfections.


➡️”To fidelity to the gift of self once offered and to not withdrawing what has been given to God.


➡️”To maintaining freedom in relation to money and avoiding the danger of turning it into an idol.


➡️”To avoiding the temptation to replace the priestly vocation with other paths of professional self-realization.


➡️”To rejecting cynicism as an attitude that destroys spiritual and pastoral life.


➡️”To not succumbing to frustration and bitterness, and to not transferring them onto the faithful and confreres.


➡️”To accepting suffering in the spirit of pastoral love, according to the principle: “Suffering is for You, love for the sheep.”


➡️”To imitating Christ in His sacrificial love, even when it requires renunciation and personal sacrifice.


➡️”To maintaining distance from liberal theology, in which the author sees a threat to the integrity of faith.


➡️”To a realistic view of one’s own sexuality and acknowledging the difficulties associated with living celibacy.


➡️”To discovering the supernatural meaning of celibacy as a special gift and witness to a life totally dedicated to God.


➡️”To not seeking apparent substitutes for married life, which the author terms “sublimation” and “prostheses.”


➡️”To bearing witness that a person can lead a happy and fulfilled life without marriage, if God is their highest good.


➡️”To recognizing that neither marriage nor priesthood is the ultimate goal of human life, because it is God Himself.


➡️”To not placing ultimate hope in psychotherapy, science, or the work-life balance model, which cannot resolve the deepest contradictions of human existence on their own.


➡️”To living by God’s grace and free cooperation with it as the foundation for overcoming difficulties.


➡️”To nurturing a deep bond with Christ as the foundation of one’s priestly identity.


➡️”To building priestly life on three pillars: Crux, Virgo, Hostia—Cross, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Eucharist.


➡️”To persevering spiritual struggle, in the image of the biblical Jacob, who does not release God until he receives a blessing.


➡️”To radical entrustment to Christ and preserving the mystical dimension of the priesthood, even at the cost of misunderstanding and personal loss.


➡️”To discovering the truth that God alone suffices, and without Him, even the greatest human achievements cannot ensure ultimate fulfillment.


➡️”To unwavering fidelity to the vocation until the end, expressed in the words of Zbigniew Herbert: “Be faithful, go.”


“And now I have a completely serious question for those criticizing this column.


“Which of the listed demands is contrary to Catholic priestly spirituality? Which stands in real contradiction to the Church’s official teaching regarding the identity of the presbyter, his spiritual formation, inner life, and pastoral ministry?”

Cynical Publius: “ I get tired of Democrats claiming to be on the “right side of history” when both their past and their present are so utterly sordid and destructive.”

@CynicalPublius:

I get tired of Democrats claiming to be on the “right side of history” when both their past and their present are so utterly sordid and destructive. So, if you are a Democrat, let me tell you about MY side of history and YOUR side of history.

My side of history is Cato the Elder, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Irving Babbitt and William F. Buckley.  Your side of history is Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Mao’s Little Red Book and Noam Chomsky.

My side of history is George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.  Your side of history is Tories who fled to Canada, Jefferson Davis, Woodrow Wilson, Bull Connor, George Wallace and Nancy Pelosi.

My side of history is freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and spirited debate.  Your side of history is ThoughtCrime, Speech Codes, religious persecution and Cancel Culture.


My side of history is Brown v. Board of Ed., Loving v. VA, Gitlow v. NY, and Heller v. DC.  Your side of history is Dred Scott, Korematsu and Roe v. Wade.

My side of history is Jackie Robinson.  Your side of history is Colin Kaepernick.

My side of history is head held high, standing straight, hand over heart.  Your side of history is sullen glances at the ground, kneeling.

My side of history is the family as the foundation of society.  Your side of history is mutilating confused children.

My side of history is the rockets’ red glare.  Your side of history is imagine no religion.

My side of history is firefighters going up the stairs into the Twin Towers.  Your side of history is 28-year-old men playing Call of Duty in their mothers’ basements.

My side of history is smoked brisket.  Your side of history is a no-foam, no-sugar, soy latte.

My side of history is Lincoln freeing the slaves and General Patton liberating Buchenwald.  Your side of history is Fort Sumter, the Gulag and Pol Pot’s killing fields.

My side of history is Mel Brooks.  Your side of history is Amy Schumer.

My side of history is all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  Your side of history is critical theory and only some lives matter.

My side of history is 20-year-olds storming Omaha Beach. Your side of history is 20-year-olds in their safe spaces with adult coloring books.

My side of history is American men and women disabled by an IED.  Your side of history is American men and women disabled by anxiety.

My side of history is the Kentucky Rifle, the Springfield 1861, the M1911, the M1 Garand, the M14 and the AR15.  Your side of history is whimpering submission.

My side of history is Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Apollo 11 and Jonas Salk.  Your side of history is “global warming,” 100+ genders and porous cloth masks stopping viruses.

My side is of history is laughing babies.  Your side of history is selling aborted baby parts on the open market.

My side of history is the Sistine Chapel and Monet’s water lilies.  Your side of history is an inverted crucifix in a bottle of urine.

My side of history is construction.  Your side of history is deconstruction.

My side of history is civilization.  Your side of history is nihilism.

And, MOST OF ALL:

My side of history is liberty.  Your side of history is tyranny.

*finis*

Thursday, November 5, 2026

The vibrant Church in Scandinavia



Bishop Erik Varden  


Mark Lambert @sitsio:

You can't deny that it is interesting that this is happening in one of Europe's most secularised regions. 

Catholic leaders in Scandinavia are reporting growing interest in conversion to the Faith. I didn't have the Nordic countries becoming a hopeful story for Catholic evangelisation in my predictions for 2026!

According to OSV News, Catholic communities in Norway and Denmark are seeing increased interest from adults seeking to enter the Church. Immigration accounts for much of the wider growth in Catholic numbers, so we should resist declaring a great religious revival just yet. Nevertheless, there is something fascinating about people discovering Catholicism in societies which have spent generations treating Christianity as an increasingly irrelevant historical inheritance. Perhaps secularisation has not eliminated the fundamental human questions about truth, meaning, morality and our ultimate purpose. It has simply left many people without convincing answers.

Interestingly, some Catholic leaders have cautioned that younger converts may initially be attracted by the Church's opposition to prevailing cultural trends. That may be a starting point, but it cannot be the destination. Catholicism is not simply a conservative alternative to progressive secularism. It is a claim about reality, founded upon the person of Jesus Christ.

People may first encounter the Church through traditional liturgy, beauty, moral clarity or the intellectual coherence of Catholic theology. But genuine conversion ultimately requires an encounter with Christ and a willingness to be transformed by Him.

I wonder whether there is a lesson here for the wider Church. We spend enormous energy discussing how to make Catholicism more accessible to modern society, sometimes appearing embarrassed by precisely those teachings which make it distinctive. Yet perhaps some people are seeking the Church because she offers something fundamentally different from the culture around them. If people are rediscovering Catholicism in societies which have largely forgotten it, surely our responsibility is not to dilute what they are discovering, but to help them encounter its fullness.

The Nordic experience does not yet prove that secularisation is reversing, but it certainly challenges the assumption that Europe's religious future has already been decided.


Thank you for visiting.

Followers

Kamsahamnida, Dziekuje, Terima kasih, Doh je, Grazie, Tesekur, Gracias, Dank u, Shukran

free counters