The New Republic has an article on the “Trad Catholics” ripping apart Catholic institutions like Benedictine College. It’s of a piece with the AP article on American Catholicism from a couple of weeks ago.
People Like Harrison Butker Are Taking Over Catholicism: The rise of Trad Catholicism is sowing discord at religious institutions—including Benedictine College, where the NFL kicker made his controversial remarks.
- Headline does not match the article in a couple of ways. First, it only speaks of Benedictine not at the other institutions where this discord is apparently being sown.
Secondly, the only “discord” at Benedictine it speaks of is the letter from the sisters who have not been directly involved in the college for a long time. There may be “discord” happening, but this is certainly not strong evidence.
- Evidence of the supah-scary “takeover” is centered, first on the TLM at Benedictine.
Folks, the TLM has only started being celebrated regularly on the Benedictine campus in very recent years. My most recent direct experience of the college was 2020, when the small group of interested students had to travel to St. Joseph, MO or KC to attend the TLM. I have no idea how many actually attend the 8am Sunday TLM there now. An actual reporter would spend the day there on a Sunday and see how many students are attending a TLM, the regular monastic liturgy and the later more LifeTeenish Sunday night Mass. And talk to the students and suss out the discord they’re claiming.
Too much work? Probably. But for sure more interesting.
No, it doesn’t take much looking below the surface to see that the “conservative” Catholic and “traditionalist” Catholic circles are not conterminal on the Catholic Venn diagram. Steubenville, probably the most influential college in the “conservative” Catholic world in terms of exported programming, has historically and famously been unfriendly to the TLM. And if you understand the history (charismatic foundation) of the school, you understand that, and you also find the very slow confluence of some of these streams quite interesting.
I mean, when I first moved here fifteen years ago, it was not uncommon to find people who dabbled in the charismatic movement, participated in a local Communion and Liberation group and had their babies baptized in the Traditional Rite. The same people.
So yes, there are tensions and divergences, but the article doesn’t make the case or look in the right places to figure it out.
- More evidence? Wait for it. Wait. For. It:
“Under Minnis’s leadership, the college’s Religious Studies program was replaced by the much less pluralist Catholic Theology program. He also has promoted devotion to the Virgin Mary, which has become a hallmark of public piety among traditionalists…”
This, along with the writer’s citing the possibility of mentioning artificial contraception in a philosophy class, as well as the general tone of the piece, points to the lazy and ridiculous categorization of anything with a “pre-Vatican II” scent as TRAD.
Of course, this is nonsensical and absolutely non-reflective of the reality of Catholic life on the ground.
However, it also points to the limitations and problems of the vague use of such terms, not only by pundits by church leaders themselves, including Pope Francis, who, in his recent 60 Minutes interview characterized “conservatives” as bad guys closed to everything, basically.
What does that mean? What is a “conservative” in a Catholic context?
Basically, “old stuff that I don’t like” in contrast to the “old stuff I do like?”
But…but…
“Pre-Vatican II” includes everyone from the Hildegard of Bingen to Teresa of Avila to Edith Stein. Heck, it includes most of Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton’s writings. “Pre-Vatican II” includes the life, witness and prayers of St. Francis of Assisi. “Pre-Vatican II” includes, well, every single Catholic thing that emerged before 1962, I guess. “The past” includes everything before a minute ago. A second.
How in the world is “conservative” or even “Trad Catholic” useful in that landscape? Especially when terms are so fluidly defined or not defined at all?
I am not saying, of course, that these varied streams of Catholicism aren’t resulting in tensions. I’m saying that a big part of the tension is the attachment to bad definitions and ideological terminology and an unwillingness to actually speak on a level of content and more disciplined theological language.
Of course, all of this is a long time coming, and not surprising, really. I’ve shared examples before, but here’s another:
About twenty years ago, an acquisitions editor at a Catholic publisher forwarded the text of a new book to a diocese for an imprimatur and nihil obstat. The book was a simple book for parents on introducing toddlers to the faith. How does on do this? As with anything with toddlers, through tactile, concrete means. The focus of the book was on taking little ones to church at letting them encounter the statues, candles, holy water and so on.
You won’t believe what happened next.
The religious sister who was then the head of religious education for the diocese sent the book back, refusing to forward the book forward to the proper diocesan office for approval. Why?
“That’s all pre-Vatican II stuff. We don’t do that anymore.”
Flash forward twenty years, see where even normie Catholic catechesis is, and once again, perhaps you can understand their puzzlement at how this is not the new church they thought they were singing into being – at all.
So, what to do?
Label, scorn, refuse to dialogue, cling to vague definitions and refuse to actually, you know, think?
Sounds like a great plan. That’s sure to alleviate…what is it?