• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Barbara King's avatarBarbara King on Ask a Priest
    Ben Kirk's avatarBen Kirk on Ask a Priest
    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Barbara's avatarBarbara on Ask a Priest
    forsamuraimarket's avatarforsamuraimarket on Ask a Priest

The Zygote of Christ – Embryonic Adoption

Glowing Chi Rho symbol with ancient letters and celestial background

The March-April 2026 edition of DEFEND LIFE included an article by Dr. Elizabeth Rex wherein she plugged her book, THE ZYGOTE OF CHRIST.  She argues that “prenatal adoption is a moral option.” However, this is neither the view of the late Pope John Paul II nor the official stance of the Catholic faith.

Dr. Rex argues that prenatal adoption of frozen embryos is a moral option. While elements of this sentiment were shared by my late teacher, Dr. William May, the intervention remains highly problematic. We know that the Church condemns both IVF and the freezing of embryos as contrary to human dignity and the sanctity of human life. The question might change with the development of artificial wombs, especially in cases of premature deliveries. However, we are not there yet. The practice of inseminating multiple eggs from women, implanting a couple and freezing the rest is a heinous practice. Many of the embryos will never survive freezing, and others are outrightly discarded.  I can appreciate the pro-life sentiments and compassion that would lead women to adopt these embryos, but the practice still has the same ethical hurdles as posed to the immediate agents of the process. While advocates for embryonic adoption may be moved by mercy and a desire for pro-life rescue, it is still surrogate motherhood. Ethicists will argue that the intent is different, one wrongly to manufacture a child and the other rightly to save a child from death. However, can such motivations or intentions be so clearly defined? The surrogate mother of a rescued embryo still benefits from having a baby.  Further, just as the freezing process is problematical, so is the thawing. Many will be lost in this process. Defenders will argue that this is the unborn child’s only chance, but the ends never justify the means.  

This “radical act of hospitality” is so much more than a corporal work of mercy. Motherhood brings about a change in the woman’s body. God has deigned that women become mothers through the marital act (vaginal intercourse) between a loving husband and wife.  Catholic moralists have long argued that a third party cannot be introduced into this intimate act of human procreation. Embryonic adoption takes this to the fourth quadrant of intervention: (1) the biological father, (2) the biological mother, (3) the medical technician, and (4) the surrogate.

Surrogacy or even just artificial insemination violates the marital bond. Indeed, it can be an act of adultery if the semen used is not from the spouse.  One wrong is added upon another. (By contrast, it is argued that the donation of unfertilized eggs for placement in the womb might constitute appropriation. If so, then any subsequent fertilization through the marital act, not in the lab, would be permissible.) In any case, returning to the immediate subject, do we really want to violate marriages with surrogacy? Do we want a new class of unwed mothers? I have even heard it suggested that virginal pro-life nuns should donate their wombs to such rescues. Ridiculous! It would be a violation of their state of life.  Motherhood is more than an activity. It touches a woman’s identity on a very basic level.

My position is simple, while we can agree that the creation of embryos outside the marital act and the nuptial covenant is sinful, I would disagree with the article’s positive stance, contending that any form of surrogacy is immoral, even prenatal adoption. The conjugal act is not merely another means of accomplishing what the technician does in the laboratory.  It is the sole means fashioned by God.  Every human being has the right to come into existence through an act of loving self-donation between spouses.  Technology dehumanizes what should be sacred. The unborn child is reduced from a person with value to a commodity.

If the use of semen from a man other than one’s husband is adultery, then what about the product of such semen and another woman’s egg? Wombs are not intended for rental despite the current lucrative industry that prostitutes women. Similarly, they cannot be violated for charity purposes.   

Dignitas Personae (2008) states: “The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature. / It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of ‘prenatal adoption.’ This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. / All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an ‘appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons’” (#18).

Ultimately the most we may be able to do for these frozen embryos is to allow them a natural death and thus avoid exploiting them in any immoral technological procedure. As believers, we might also memorialize them in prayer.

Carlo Maria Viganò – It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World

Cardinal holding a staff on cracked ground surrounded by swirling figures, broken columns, flying papers with words like Schism and Vatican II, a distorted clock, and a stormy sky.

I had thought the man would remain a faithful son of the Church. I was wrong. Many still give him credit for exposing Cardinal McCarrick.  But what happened after that? It is anyone’s guess. I have listed a few items taken from online.  It hurts too much for me to add any personal reflections. It surprises me that the Vatican would elevate a man responsible for unauthorized leaks.  Truth is important, but so is discretion. Many allegations were made against bishops and popes and others— so much of it a false narrative.  He cut his ties to the living Church founded by Christ. Foolish Catholics clamor for his dissent against the Holy See and in placing right-wing politics over the Gospel.  I find it all hurtful to my soul.  I lament the damage that such men have brought to the Church, especially since I saw much hope for healing in his early intervention. But there was much going on behind the scenes that was terminal.  There was a lack of respect— a lack of obedience— and a lack of charity.  God save us!

Viganò spread numerous COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 2020, saying that populists and other conspiracy theorists wanted containment of the pandemic to establish a hate-filled technocratic tyranny and wipe out Christian civilization.

In June 2020 he wrote a letter to President Donald Trump, wherein he made “apocalyptic claims about a looming spiritual battle and a globalist conspiracy pursuing a one-world government.”

In a July 2020 interview, Viganò accused Pope Francis of following the “homosexual agenda of the New World Order.”

He has rejected the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI. In June 2020, Viganò said that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a schism where a false church exists within the Catholic Church alongside what he considers to be the true Church. According to Viganò, the Council aimed to create the doctrinal premises to revolutionize the Catholic Church, making the Catholic Mass much more like Protestantism and trying to secularize Catholicism.

Viganò criticized the inter-religious activities of Pope John Paul II and especially of Pope Francis, seeking to link actions undertaken during their pontificates to what he perceived to be errors or ambiguities in the council.

He repudiated Dignitatis humanae (Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom).

He repudiated Nostra aetate (Vatican II’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions).

In November 2020, he denounced the Mass of Paul VI as a “liturgical rite that seems to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind.” By January 2022 he announced that he was exclusively celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass.

Viganò described Pope Francis as a “false prophet” and a “servant of Satan.”

Viganò has been a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early March 2022, Viganò released a 10,000-word manifesto in which he pushed Russian disinformation. He adopted Putin’s justifications for attacking Ukraine, blamed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine for the conflict, and asserted that the United States and Europe should “form an alliance” with Russia.

He announced plans in December 2023 to establish a “traditionalist” seminary outside of the Church’s jurisdiction.

In 2024, he was charged with schism and, after refusing to appear at a trial, was declared guilty and excommunicated. In April 26 it was announced that he had joined Trump in slamming Pope Leo XIV. 

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

The Bout Between President Trump & Pope Leo XIV

The problem with the president’s recent remarks is that he presents himself either as Christ or within the caricature of a religious warrior. Such borders on blasphemy and great care should be tendered as not to cross the line. Further, Trump largely uses the language of “ad hominem” attacks against persons, instead of focusing wholly upon the debate of ideas or policies. The Pope represents a universal Church, and while he is an American, no successor of Christ could ever subscribe to “America First” politics. He speaks for the children of the Church around the world and across all borders. The Vicar of Christ must advocate peace because he speaks for the Prince of Peace.  He speaks for believers and for the needs of all in the family of man. The Church is sometimes a lone voice in crying out for the rights of the oppressed, the hurting, and the poor. If Jesus could forgive his murderers from the Cross— you and me— then his representative must also argue for mercy and compassion both here at home and on the world stage.  The Church would not deny nations the right to defend themselves, but wholesale aggression and targeting the innocent or threatening genocide, all this is too much.  Might does not make right. The ends does not justify the means. The Church judges such a stance as sinful.

The current tension emerges as a Christian nationalism is taking hold of the administration, even infecting Catholics. But make no mistake about it, from the Catholic perspective, Nationalism is morally wrong and sinful. Nationalism or “my country right or wrong” is an untenable moral stance and is inherently evil. It should not be confused with the virtue of Patriotism (love of one’s homeland) wherein we “support our country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong.”     

Be careful about hero worship.  We belong to the LORD. Americans of any inclination can argue politics and for or against military action, that is one’s own business and right of a lay person and citizen; but the teaching Church also has a right or duty to take sides in the great moral issues of our day. It is not about Trump. Despite what he thinks, the world does not revolve around him. It is about basic human dignity and the rights of all people to live in peace with others without intimidation and fear.  We should not undermine the moral leadership of our shepherds, especially the one Christ made the ROCK of his Church and to whom he gave the keys to the Kingdom. Today, that is Pope Leo XIV. As true believers, we do not pray for blood, but for mercy and peace. Hate compromises the two-fold commandment of Christ.      

The article from Frank Pavone linked below is correct that the Church often espouses moral principles that need to be applied by others. Thus, a secular leader like our president might be compelled to take military action against a clear and present danger from another nation. Such was the argument made by President Bush to invade Iraq, arguing that we had to take out weapons of mass destruction. Pope John Paul II had just previously recently received a delegation from Iraq and argued for peace. But it was admitted that the application of the moral principles rested with the secular leaders who were privy to all the pertinent information. That is where the tension between the Vatican and the White House should have remained over Iran. However, Trump took Pope Leo XIV’s pleas for peace as a personal attack against him and his judgment. Thus, he criticized the Pope as “weak on crime,” “terrible for foreign policy,” and admitted that he was “not a big fan” of the Pope. He falsely accused the Pope of thinking that it was “okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump even took credit for the papal election, saying on Truth Social, “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” Does he really believe this? Would he expect the Pope to become his subservient lackey?

Pope Leo responded that he has “no fear of the Trump administration” and that he would continue to speak out against war and for the Gospel. The Holy Father labeled Trump’s threat to destroy the “whole civilization” of Iran as “truly unacceptable” and as a violation of international law.

Frank Pavone of PRIESTS FOR LIFE has weighed in and there is no denying the grudge he holds against the papacy for approving his removal from the active priesthood. Remember, he was rightly censured for disobedience first to one bishop and then to another, violating his sacred promise. I will never forget his offensive 2016 video where he placed an aborted fetus on a table, purportedly an altar, and offered a rant that mixed the pro-life cause with partisan politics. Despite his intent, such an act devalued a human life as a prop for his campaign and “apparently” desecrated the altar. This act that the bishop judged as sacrilege was also a strike against his practical judgment. Like Trump, today he has no standing in the Church to judge the Pope. There are other reasons that precipitated his laicization, but they are not public and I would refrain from saying anything about them as the man needs to continue in rebuilding his life.  

I would neither look to a lapsed Presbyterian president nor to a disgraced Catholic priest for a rebuttal of the Pope’s moral teachings. Remember, that Pavone has skin in the game as an outspoken supporter of Trump and thus is not a neutral voice in this controversy. He chose a long time ago to place partisan politics over his vocation as a diocesan priest.  Yes, Pavone’s initial advocacy for Trump was because of the president’s strong “pro-life” stand but now the president has flipped and has made himself the great champion for IVF.  Between 1.6 to 1.9 million IVF embryos are created annually in the U.S. Half die in the process. Multiple embryos per patient (often 7–8) are created, some are frozen and about 100,000 babies are allowed to be born annually. The rest are frozen or discarded. Trump fails to understand that this is morally the same as abortion.  Millions of innocent human lives are stolen because people are reduced to commodities! 

Pavone is correct that immigrants should come in legally and that our laws should be enforced. The Church always urges following just laws. However, what he dismisses is the need for compassion about the desperation of many who have known persecution and dire poverty. Instead of rushing to deport all that are here, could we do a better job of helping good people and struggling families to enculturate and to become valued members of American society? Instead, of saying this, Pavone sided with the harsh tactics of ICE against the Pope and bishops, invoking a partisan allegation toward “the DNC-loyal Cardinals on 60 Minutes.” It is wrong to insinuate that any bishop or a Pope, liberal not, is a puppet to one of our reigning political parties. The Gospel is not the exclusive property of either!

Pavone writes: “When the Pope or bishops express an opinion on a prudential judgment made by public officials elected precisely to make those decisions, anyone is free to disagree with that opinion, and such disagreement is fully consistent both with respect for the Church and with being a faithful Catholic.” Did he see the A.I. of Trump as Jesus Christ? Does he believe it is okay to threaten a whole People with extermination? Pete Hegseth, our Secretary for War, prayed to God the following: “Break the teeth of the ungodly. Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things. . .  and grant overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.” While certain Protestants might approve of a prayer reflecting an Old Testament bloodlust, it clashes with the new dispensation. Pope Leo quoted the great prophet of the promised messiah, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15). While ours is a God of justice and mercy, we should be wary of invoking his vengeance.   

Yes, there can be disputes about prudential decisions.  But voices other than the Pope are urging us to be wary about committing war crimes. Pavone denies that Trump and his administration would target innocent people for destruction.  

Pavone accuses the Pope of ambiguity when he says we should not wage war. Pavone suggests we are coming to the defense of the innocent.  Really?  Regime change was looking ever more likely in Iran until we intervened.  Now even those who were looking favorably to the West are siding with the defenders of Iran.  

Strike Number 1 — While Pope Leo XIV called for the safeguarding of human rights and the caring for the needs of the poor in Venezuela, he expressed “deep concern” about the abduction of Nicolás Maduro by U. S. military forces. The Holy Father urged respect for Venezuelan sovereignty, the rule of law, and a peaceful resolution. This criticism upset Trump.  

Strike Number 2 — Pope Leo XIV was saddened and mourned further bloodshed after civilians and parishioners were killed from an Israeli military strike upon the Holy Family Catholic Church compound in Gaza. Like his predecessor, the Pope renewed his plea for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and humanitarian aid. The Gaza is rubble. 75,000 plus people have died. 171,000 people were injured. 2% of Gaza’s child population has been killed, including some 1,009 babies under one year old. 42,000 children have been injured, with over 21,000 suffering permanent disabilities. Thousands are orphans from military action. All this is the response to 250 abductions and the killing of 1,200 Israelis. Is this a proportionate response? Really? Meanwhile, Trump has maintained a policy of strong support for Israel. His administration has provided approximately $12 billion in military sales since taking office and $4 billion in emergency military assistance. We are complicit, there is more blood on our hands. It is starting to look like Zionism and securing Israel’s goals is the whole of American foreign policy. But everyone is afraid that such spoken sentiments would earn charges of antisemitism. In any case, they would upset Trump.

Strike Number 3 — Pope Leo XIV challenged the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military operation in Iran. In the Truth Social post, Trump threatened Iran over the strategic waterway, writing: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran,” and adding, “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!” Trump gave the ultimatum that either the Strait of Hormuz would open, or else, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” He said that “. . . we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island. . .” As of early April 2026, reports indicate that maybe 5,000 plus people have been killed in Iran since the conflict began. Back in Feb. 28, 2026, a Tomahawk missile strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, on the first day of a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation. At least 168 to 175 people were killed, with reports stating that over 100 to 110 of the victims were schoolchildren. But these are not enough, threats of even more death and destruction are held over heads.

Amnesty International reported: “This harrowing attack on a school, with classrooms full of children, is a sickening illustration of the catastrophic and entirely predictable price civilians are paying during this armed conflict. Schools must be places of safety and learning for children. Instead, this school in Minab became a site of mass killing. The US authorities could, and should, have known it was a school building. Targeting a protected civilian object, such as a school, is strictly prohibited under international humanitarian law,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns.

What has the Pope said? “There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more so a moral issue for the good of the whole, entire population. I would like to invite everyone to truly think in their hearts about the many innocent people, so many children, so many elderly, completely innocent, who would also become victims of this escalation of a war that began from the very first days.”

Pavone concludes by sharing his animus against the bishops and questions their pro-life convictions. He implies that they are hypocrites who vote for pro-abortion Democrats. I guess he does not see the issue of millions of illegals as also being a matter about human dignity and the sanctity of life. As far as he is concerned, the thousands of war dead do not seem to matter either. While I sympathize with his frustration regarding abortion, he fails to see how his rationalizations also make him seem hypocritical, which, if one reflects upon it honestly, is what brought his priesthood to an end.    

Prayers to the LORD or to ARES, the God of War?

People kneeling and praying before a bronze statue of Donald Trump in Spartan armor.
Slaves kneel in prayer before an idol of the pagan war god in Spartan armor.

As a contract priest to the Coast Guard for thirteen years and as a chaplain to the Knights of Columbus for over thirty, I can attest that there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of believers between the virtue of patriotism and the sin of nationalism.  True patriots support their country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong. But nationalism is always unhinged and argues instead, “My country, right or wrong!” The distinction often shows itself in language. We are “Catholics in America,” part of a worldwide family that crosses borders.  This aids us in appreciating the brotherhood of man.  A spirit of nationalism is intimated in the expression, “American Catholics,” as if there is a national church distinct from international believers and even separate from Rome. Given that the current Pope is also an American, there are critics, especially in politics, who are perturbed that he does not subscribe to “America First” in his thinking and preaching.  Despite the jargon of the current populism, Americans may be blessed by God, but they are not morally superior to others. The United States had Catholics involved with its beginnings, but in large part was the product of English values and a Protestant mindset.  The Bible was given place of honor, but the individual was placed over it, not the Church.  Individualism was prized. A desire for separation from the home country and freedom resulted in a revolutionary war.  The conflict over the rights of states versus the federal government, along with making people of dark skin into commodities and not full persons, resulted in still another conflict, the civil war. Catholics found themselves mixed up with all this as well, and yes, sometimes infected with a Protestant over a Catholic perspective about things.  When she could, the universal Church looked the other way; but there were levels of dissent that could not be excused. We seem to have forgotten that many Catholics came to this country as unwanted and reviled immigrants.  Catholic churchmen like Bishop Hughes of New York opposed the public schools because he saw them as efforts to proselytize Catholics. Public schools in the United States, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, frequently employed the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the primary text for reading instruction and moral education. Catholicism was distrusted. Bigots contended that so-called “papists” were conspiring to take over the nation for the Pope.  It was a lie of course, but disinformation existed long before there was an internet.     

It may be that some of our early worries were well founded because increasing numbers of Catholics sound like these Protestants of old in how they rebuke the Pope and dismiss the bishops of the Church. Indeed, I am shocked that some who currently tout themselves as solid Catholics have compromised their faith by embracing the fundamentalist mindset given place of honor in the Trump Administration. This sect views the state of Israel as the fruit of prophecy, thus negating any rights of Palestinians to their homeland. The Evangelical Protestant perspective in vogue here refashions Christianity into a BOOK religion. This is idolatry because we encounter Christ not in the dead words on a page but in the living Word proclaimed. There is nothing of the Church as “the great mystery” because the sacraments are rejected as sources for grace. They focus upon a rigid Old Testament morality as a model for today. The defense of Israel thus becomes paramount. They are quick to excuse atrocities in Gaza and the systematic destruction of Iran.

A wimpish Congress has largely surrendered its role in governance to executive orders, first in the Biden administration and now with Trump. Subordinates that disagree with the supreme leader or who prove ineffective in fulfilling autocratic demands are quickly dismissed or replaced. Here I am thinking of figures like Pam Bondi, General Randy George, and Carrie Prejean Boller. Boller was fired for stating, “I am a Catholic, and Catholics don’t embrace Zionism.” What she says about the faith is true as the New Israel or Kingdom is not the middle eastern political state, but the universal or world-wide Catholic Church. But as I said, the fundamentalist Protestant has no such notion for the Church as essential for salvation. Boller was roundly condemned as antisemitic and eliminated. Those who speak for our pretentious potentate must pander to incur his favor, either that or to fall upon their swords. Note that everything they say, from news briefings to prayer services, begin with heaping blame upon his predecessor and other enemies and next extolling praise and thanks upon him for his accomplishments. They even make up new awards to pamper his enlarged ego. Everything must be “bigger,” “greater,” and “like nothing before.” It is quite literally, too much.

Catholics should rightly be hesitant to embrace the archaic Protestant ethos which traditionally ruled this nation despite the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no mistake about it, these new Protestants like those of old distrust Catholics. (Note that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a Protestant-only Good Friday service at the Pentagon in-house chapel, specifying that there would be no Catholic services (like stations or veneration of the cross). While the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion, this restraint is being severely strained, and I would not be surprised if it is challenged.  What perplexes me is how these fundamentalists will carve a place for Jews in this proposed Christian state given their political mating with diehard Jewish defenders of Israel? A common hate or indifference for the Moslem or Palestinian (which includes Catholics and other Christians) might wear thin.   

The Pope has been the target of “correction” from Karoline Leavitt (a Catholic), Pete Hegseth (a Christian nationalist), and Franklin Graham (a Baptist evangelist). Graham, true to form, cites David in the Old Testament, in defense of what the Pope rejects as prayers for blood. The Pope is concerned that anyone would adopt a diplomacy based upon the threat of military intervention. He is not of the mind that President Donald Trump is specially chosen or elected by God as a new David or even as a son of David, a title that belongs to Jesus Christ.  The Holy Father’s position was the whole point of our opposition against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, Trump gained office by opposing the military malfeasance of the Democrats. Catholics and others also found appealing his defense of religious liberty. Almost the entire pro-life movement applauded his stance against abortion. Many worried about rising crime rates and the danger of open borders. But throughout, the bishops warned us about the mistreatment of immigrants. Many of us wanted justice, but not devoid of compassion and charity. Despite promises that we would not police the planet, the president has ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of a head of state, collaborated over the destruction of Gaza, bombed Iran and killed its leadership, and now threatens Cuba with demands for regime change. Like the man or not, this administration is on the warpath. Islamic extremists pursue Jihad or holy war. Now evangelicals invoke God in favor of the president’s aggressive policies. Indeed, even worse, Paula White speaks of God and then praises Trump as if he is another Jesus Christ. Enough is enough!

The Pope may be an American, but he is also “Peter” and he governs a people for Christ the world over. The foot-washing on Thursday reminded us that he is “the servant of the servants of God.” He represents the Prince of Peace where “an eye for an eye” was replaced by the Lord who forgives his murderers. Why are we surprised that Pope Leo XIV preaches peace? Pope John Paul II did the same when we invaded Iraq.

Catholic morality views biblical laws through the prism of tradition, natural law, and the guidance of the Magisterium. We are not obliged to follow obsolete Levitical ceremonial or civil laws. We also speak about the theory of just war and proportional force. Military action might sometimes be required, but only in desperation and when diplomacy has failed. The American system is based upon checks and balances that seem to be currently bypassed for political expediency. This is dangerous. How long and far should such go on? Americans have been known, at least in our popular mythology, as on the side of “might for right,” not that of “might makes right.” There is an important difference. Gaza has suffered 169,000 injured (many requiring amputations) and 90,000+ dead (of which 20,000 were children). The current action in Iran has resulted in the deaths of 3,531 people, of which 1,607 were civilians and 244 were children. When politicians and aberrational Protestant clergy thank God for military victories and the death of enemies, why is the Pope such a lone voice in the wilderness shouting, no! Catholics who realize their faith with charity and who pray for the dead should cry out as well. Indeed, true believers among Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others need to speak with one voice for PEACE.

As one who regularly seeks to discern spirits, there was something intensely unsettling about a recent prayer service in Washington orchestrated by Paula White. Might there be something demonic taking place that threatens to spill over to the rest of the country and to infect our churches? Silence as much as wrongful praise might compromise us. I am no YES man, even to lawful authority. While I feel that obedience is the most crucial and most difficult promise a priest makes, my personality or character cringes against blind obedience. It is not in my makeup to join the lines of doting sycophants to any man, no matter how charismatic or popular. Over the years I have periodically gotten into trouble for speaking my mind and failing to toe the line. The most painful incident was when I argued with Cardinal McCarrick over his silence or even praising certain politicians opposed to the sanctity of life. He refused to change about this, saying that we might need them on other issues. I was later disciplined for being outspoken. It wounds me still because I love the Church. We belong to Christ, even when men in the Church fail and disappoint us. We belong to Christ and should not suffer bondage to any party or mere mortal. Too many fail to understand the lesson of the coin, as there can be no divided loyalty. Caesar may have his likeness on a coin, but Christ’s likeness alone must be inscribed upon human hearts. Yes, even Caesar belongs to God. There is no comparison. We must be careful of idolatry in all its devious forms.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prayed at a recent Christian worship service for the military:

“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

This might make a good pagan prayer to the false god Ares or Mars, but it is no prayer to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Father is under attack for his corrective response:

“God rejects the prayers of warmongers. . . This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them. ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Isaiah 1:15).”

Tradition teaches that Pilate constantly washed his hands, particularly after the death of Christ. He lamented, will I ever get my hands clean? That should again be the question, today.

Do the SSPX & Vatican Hear & Understand Each Other?

While I am only a dabbler when it comes to pondering significant questions in religion, I must wonder if the multitude of clergy in the SSPX are any better. Most priests who minister in the trenches, no matter whether juridically licit or not, are more comfortable with settled definitions and basic catechesis than with professional theological wrangling. Dialogue with divergent groups, even among the few learned on both sides, can be difficult for numerous reasons. The millennium long schism with the Eastern churches is a case in point where politics, language and basic philosophical concepts were at odds. The communities grew apart regarding preparation of the Eucharistic species, the inner life of the Trinity, the background to Mary’s sinlessness, the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church, etc. While we acknowledge the sacraments in Orthodoxy as valid, disagreements persist and reunion evades us. Similarly, behind mutual anathemas, the break with Protestantism was not only because of abuses and outright heresies but because of character clashing egos and a failure to understand each other. Mutual condemnations were often directed against straw-men arguments and not the actual ideas in contention. As evidence for this, I would point to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) wherein a consensus was achieved between Lutherans and Catholics. It is proof that dialogue can resolve doctrinal confusion between faith communities. While Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, it was conceded that we are saved by “grace alone” and not strictly by “faith alone.” “Good works” constitute a vital result of genuine faith (that takes precedence). Both sides had been arguing for centuries at cross-purposes. Scholarship, honesty and goodwill were able to heal old wounds. But can we find these elements in the current stalemate between the SSPX and the Vatican? Where there is arrogance, windows are closed to the Holy Spirit and doors are locked to men of goodwill.   

Bishop Robert Barron has observed that spokesmen for the SSPX not only reject Vatican II but do so while repeatedly mischaracterizing its genuine teachings. Further, their attacks upon the Novus Ordo liturgy focus upon aberrant abuses and fail to give a proper assessment of its potential to enrich believers even as it seeks to worship almighty God. Too much weight is given to innuendo and sensational gossip while little to no attention is given to what is “actually” taught by the Council and post-conciliar popes. I have argued that the Holy Father should continue a discussion about the liturgy and Vatican II, even if the SSPX should decide not to be a part of it. The Lefebvrites may have become too comfortable with their autonomy to want to surrender anything to Rome. Note that Pope Leo XIV, at this writing, is using weekly audiences to speak about Vatican II.  If he should resolve the doctrinal reservations held by the SSPX and others, then he would reveal their dissent as just empty posturing. But do not expect his critics to give him a fair hearing or to honestly assess his views.

Just as Protestant-Catholic dialogue often suffers from a confusion in terminology and language, the hermeneutical shift in Catholic theology likely has apologists for the old and the reformed at odds to understand each other. Of course, there are exceptions and Protestants frequently have their own problems in speaking to other non-Catholic Christians. Fundamentalist Bible Christians are literalists and treat the Bible as a science book and morality manual. There is a huge gulf between churches of the Word and those of the Table. Those with an intellectual bent had previously embraced the historical-critical method and as with Catholic modernism, struggled with atheism. Many of the Evangelicals focus upon the existential experience. Increasingly Protestants are gravitating from the objective to the subjective, moving from facts to how God’s revelation engages and transforms the believer. Considering all this, are we to treat the dialogue between traditionalists and post-Vatican II Catholics as in-house dialogue or as ecumenical debate?   

The Catholic hermeneutical shift in theology signifies a transition from static doctrinal propositions to an increasingly dynamic, contextual, and historical perspective. Certain teachings are infallible, but their formulations are not immutable. Other teachings are not understood as settled and we should avoid creeping infallibility. As an example, many authorities taught, even prior to Vatican II and the universal catechism, that the “limbo of the innocents” was a scholastic theory and not settled doctrine. A study of the fathers was always disconcerting in this regard because St. Augustine posited unbaptized infants who died as in hell and not in any abode where they might be ignorant of God but naturally happy. What is the truth? The most honest will admit that we are not sure, but we are optimistic given our Lord’s love for the innocent children. Pope Benedict XVI subscribed not to a hermeneutic of “rupture” but one of “continuity” or reform.

Faith is not ancient dictums locked away in dusty old texts but is a living tradition that engages modernity. We know both adaptation and development. There is movement from the theoretical or abstraction to the pastoral and realized. There is a renewed interest in Christian anthropology, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation, and appreciating our place within creation. However, not lost is the chief concern of soteriology as the Church is defined as the great sacrament or mystery of salvation through which we encounter Christ.   

The reformed Protestant Karl Barth labeled Catholicism as the Church “of the great AND.” What he meant was that where historic Protestantism argued for only the Bible, Catholicism would add, “and sacred tradition.” Protestants asserted that we were saved by Jesus alone, and Catholics would add, “and within his holy Church.” Mention the mediation of Christ and Catholics inserted, “and with the intercession of Mary and the saints.” Protestants would echo Luther in saying that we are saved by faith, and Catholics would insist, “and by works.” Catholicism insured that classical Christianity would never allow crucial elements of faith to be forgotten or eclipsed. The Word is vital, but so is sacrament. Knowing the truth is crucial, but no less was the gift of charity. The Church would seek to reconcile all the dualities and not repudiate or leave them hanging.  Similarly, today the SSPX must find a way to reconcile what they interpret as rupture or ambiguity between the historic faith and the Church in the modern world.  It is the same Church, not two. The face we show the world may have changed but “the faith” remains the ancient faith.      

While nothing is denied, there has been a hermeneutical shift away from reducing faith to a series of dogmatic, liturgical and moral propositions as found in the Catechism of Trent and in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Catholic faith is, at its heart, not a philosophy text or a morality book, but a relationship of faith with Christ lived out in loving obedience. Many Protestants as Bible Christians make a similar mistake by reducing the new dispensation to a book religion. The saving faith or Gospel is not simply words written upon paper but a sacred encounter that penetrates minds and hearts. The law is still important, but the emphasis is how revealed truths bring us into a saving covenant with Jesus and his Church. Note that SSPX seminaries resort to reprinting centuries old religious manuals for the memorization of settled definitions. Many modern texts and even Vatican II documents are treated as Forbidden Books. By comparison, priests formed in schools sympathetic to Vatican II study the primary sources and seek to make fluid connections to the lived faith. Each does this according to his intelligence and gifts.

Revelation comes to us from both Scripture and Tradition, but we should be wary of any strict duality. An Analogy is sometimes made of God’s Word that is transmitted to us against the backdrop or parchment of Sacred Tradition. One always requires the other. The professional theologian, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is at the service of the Magisterium. It is not an adversarial relationship. When it comes to teachings, infallible or mutable, they are affirmed and passed down by the Pope and those bishops in union with him. Exacting dogmas wherein God reveals himself and the terms of salvation demand absolute assent as true. Teachings that belong to papal opinion or practical necessity are respected because of his office and require obedience. However, popes may disagree about the latter and change direction. For instance, instead of extending an amnesty that was typical, Pope Sixtus V ordered the execution of highway bandits in the Papal States. This is in an entirely different ballpark from Pope John Paul II who discouraged capital punishment and Pope Francis who rejected judicial homicide altogether. The authority of the Pope is respected throughout. There is a concurrence in faith. A distinction is made about those things that are always true and those that are maintained for practical expediency for the good governance of the Church. An example of this distinction is the doctrinal prohibition for women priests as compared to the discipline for celibate priests— the former is absolute— the latter is not. Reason, nature and experience constitute the prism for theological understanding and formulations about Christian doctrine. This horizontal movement must be complemented and affirmed by the teaching authority of the Church which is gifted by Christ with the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. More than just the use of the Latin language is at stake. Indeed, while theologians are well-versed in Latin, Greek, French, German and other languages, the SSPX and the Vatican— are still at odds and seem to be speaking different theological languages.  The manner itself is problematic. Where there should be mutual respect and dialogue there is distrust and enmity. You cannot expect much good fruit from that. Traditionalists tend to expand what they feel should be infallible. That is why some resist any change to the liturgical calendar, expansion of the readings or even the revised Easter Vigil from Pope Pius XII.  Vatican II application of Catholic teachings or principles to intersect modernity are frowned upon or deemed as errors.  While religious liberty as practiced in the United States allowed the infant Catholic Church to grow and flourish, the principle is rejected as heretical. It makes no difference that had it been practiced in England— More, Fisher and generations of Jesuits would not have been martyred. The ideal state is still regarded as wholly Catholic and monarchial, with the practice of other denominations either outlawed or restricted to private homes. It makes no difference to them that historic Catholic states would do much to persecute the Church and that Western democracies, Asian Communist dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are all that is left. The traditionalists in the SSPX camp would thus necessarily dismiss notions about freedom of conscience and Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the inherent dignity of the human “person.” They are resolute in the assertion that error has no rights and that the unregenerated person lacks genuine dignity. The post-Vatican II apologist interprets this as a recipe for oppression. While not denying the heightened value given by sanctifying grace to the baptized man or woman, Pope John Paul II also championed natural human dignity and rights from conception to natural death. His theology of the body expanded our appreciation of universal human rights, contending that human dignity is derived from our Creator God. The SSPX do not accept this expansion of the Gospel of Life.
 

The Society of St. Pius X Does Not Play Fair

The SSPX postures a “gravitas” and dignity, not against the best that the rest of the Catholic Church has to offer, but the worse. It defines itself through criticism of the aberrational, not the normative. The Masses it deplores are not well conducted Novus Ordo liturgies but clown Masses, liturgies with puppets, dancers and priests making fools of themselves.  Every fumble a bishop and even the Pope makes is paraded for all to scorn and laugh.

The liturgies advertised by the SSPX are high Masses, celebrated according to strict rubrics with Latin masterfully articulated from the altar for all to hear. Chant and schola choirs sing with solemn beauty and professionalism. However, this is not how I remembered the old Mass from when I was a boy. The Masses were largely inaudible for congregations as microphones were forbidden on the altar. Altar boys mumbled half-remembered words, and the music was either absent or poorly done. Pope Benedict XVI said that the Latin high Mass was one of the most beautiful forms of worship ever fashioned; but he also lamented that low Mass (which was what most people experienced) was stylistically as bad as it gets.  Yes, the supernatural reality was all present— sacrament and the risen Jesus— but artistically it was poor and not very moving. My old pastor had an early working man’s Latin Mass that was rattled off in about 13 minutes each workday morning. The words came out at machine gun speed.  Sunday Mass might be 40 minutes. But without the choir, it was not much better. We came to church, said the rosary, took communion at the rail, and went home. Those with missal books followed the Mass as best as they could, essentially reading the Mass while the priest performed his deep mystery. Many who exalt the old Mass and criticize the new, do not remember or were not born when it was the only liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. (By the way, in truth there is no new Mass, just a Mass with reformed elements.) 

Fidelity to the Pope is Essential

There seems to be no breaking of the deadlock between the SSPX and the Vatican over the pending illicit episcopal consecrations. The Society and its defenders are quick to shift blame from themselves to the Vatican. Indeed, faithful Catholics who urge practical fidelity to the Holy See are accused of ultramontane excesses. No one is saying that popes can do no wrong, only that we should not sever juridical ties with the Vicar of Christ. However, those who regularly charge the Pope and other bishops with the heresy of modernism will likely delight in severing any residual ties with Rome. The SSPX says that it acknowledges Pope Leo XIV as the visible head of the Church, but their dissent and autonomy speak of a gravitation toward the sedevacantist stance.

Just as under Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Pope Leo XIV would allow the consecration of a bishop during the time of dialogue. However, such would demand a proper profession of faith and an end to derision against Vatican II. Disobedience to the Holy See and the repudiation of an ecumenical council strips the groundwork to any such concession. The SSPX already acknowledges the validity of the reformed liturgy, although they must be wary of questioning its spiritual effects or labeling it as evil.

While the Pope functions as an absolute monarch regarding temporal matters in the Vatican and many practical elements of Church governance, he is always the servant of the Word and not its master.  He is the chief ecclesial lawgiver on earth. Regarding what constitutes the Roman rite, historically it was regarded as how the Pope celebrated the Mass and other sacraments. Lesser churchmen imitated him. It is in this sense that he is the Roman rite.

While foolishness and ambiguities in the Church, even from Rome, have been inflicted upon believers in recent years; we must not lose confidence in Christ’s Church. True reform must take place within and not outside the Church. It is not enough for a representative of the SSPX to talk with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández. The two remaining bishops and the Superior General of the SSPX should request an audience with Pope Leo XIV. He is the one they need to trust if we are to move forward as a unified Church. 

An Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Continuity

Both sides protest too much about one form of liturgical worship over another instead of fostering a mutual respect that would grant freedom for rituals old and new. Technically there is no “new” Mass, only a Mass with various liturgical forms. Liturgy contains elements both essential and immutable as well as accidentals open to revision. When it comes to doctrinal issues, Vatican II must always be viewed through the prism of tradition. The dogmatic teachings derived from Trent remain true. The teachings of Vatican II are meant to advance and not to renounce what came before. There remains one Church throughout, not one with loyalties to Trent that is usurped by a post-Vatican II Church. I am at odds to understand why a consensus on this truth, despite dissenters, would not suffice to heal a schism with traditionalists.  

The charge given the Pope is both to preserve and transmit the deposit of faith as well as to sustain the legacy and identity of the Church from age to age. Development is necessary as faith is a living thing, but never at the cost of continuity.  It is this avoidance of doctrinal rupture that distinguishes Catholicism from confessions like Anglicanism where the fads and fashions of the times sever the lifelines to perennial truths.  The Pope points the way to the future while sustaining the Church in the present and always grounded upon a historical magisterium and the legacy of the saints.  

Popes generally speak the mind of the Church and are careful about their personal ideas or speculation. The former is infallible and while the latter is not, there is a measure of religious assent given that it arises from the Successor of Peter. The latter is open to review as was Peter’s stance at the Council of Jerusalem about the reception of Gentiles. However, after the apostle Paul made his challenge, Peter as the one with the “keys” from Jesus ultimately agreed and the matter was resolved. It should be noted that no shepherd, not even the Holy Father, can force compliance to error or to sin.  Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has largely protected the Church’s teaching office, ensuring the indefectibility of the Church promised by Christ.

Wayward traditionalists often make much about nothing. They are quick to enumerate on papal scandal or ambiguity and slow to acknowledge orthodox wisdom.  What are some of these malicious gossip points that take us afield?

The Kissing of the Koran – Critics harp about this event as if this made Pope John Paul II an Islamist. Nonsense! The gesture took place in 1999 when a delegation from Iraq visited the Vatican. It included the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, the Shi’ite leader of the Khadum Mosque, and the Sunni president of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. Gifted with the ornate book, the Pope bowed and kissed it as a sign of respect to his guests. Given that war was looming, the act was a symbolic gesture for peace and a sign of respect for the suffering people of Iraq. The act signified human respect and in no sense was a profession of faith. Nevertheless, pope bashers labeled it as syncretism and a denial of Christ’s divinity. It was an effort to show respect to “a people,” not to a religion. Admittedly, it was a gesture that backfired and should have been avoided because of possible scandal. But it should remain obvious that the Holy Father placed no faith in the Islamic book.

Conferences in Assisi – Despite traditionalist accusations, the various gatherings in Assisi with world religious leaders signified no syncretistic compromise of the faith but rather constituted efforts at fostering peace. There was no merging or blending of religion but rather, a coming together for dialogue and petitions for peace and harmony. The rejection of ecumenism is manifested by rigid traditionalists on every front. They still speak the language of indictment and curse. Instead of dialogue, there is anathema. Protestants are labeled as heretics, non-Christians as pagans, the oriental believers as demonic idol worshipers, and Jews as the murderers of Christ.

Natural religions may point to the Creator God, much as did the philosophy of the ancients, but Catholic Christianity is the true faith and the supernatural religion that reveals and worships the Almighty. All religions are not paths to God, especially those that disavow a deity or that worship demons. But elements of truth can be found mingled with the errors of other religions. Past statements must always be properly understood and clarified. A failure to do so is symptomatic of deliberate bias and absurdity.   

The Pachamama at the Amazonian Synod – This was a definite misstep and debacle that came largely from ignorance of symbolism and a loss of control over events. But note that there was no effort to codify idolatry. Indeed, many voices within the Church rendered proper rebuke and commentary as it was happening.

Status of Those in Irregular Unions – While there has been much discussion about accompaniment and outreach to those in irregular unions, particularly the divorced and remarried, nothing about Catholic moral teaching has changed. Believers are still urged to receive Holy Communion in a state of grace and without mortal sin. Leadership should not be faulted for compassion regarding the alienated. This should especially be the case of the SSPX given their tenuous situation in the Church.  

The Death Penalty – Too much is made about capital punishment, almost as if traditionalists suffer a bloodlust for revenge if not for justice. Pope John Paul II argued that leaders within a culture of death forfeit any right to take human life, even for those that are guilty of high crimes. Given the effectiveness of penal reform, what stake do we have in this fight? Compared to the numbers of lives lost through abortion and wars, we are talking about a very small number. Why should it grieve Christians that a few might live to repent? Can it not become a witness to God’s sovereignty over life as the Creator? Would the SSPX really refuse to rejoin the ranks of juridically approved movements in the Church over this issue?

Blessing Those with Same-Sex Attraction – While there are efforts within Western culture to welcome and walk with those suffering from same-sex attraction, it is true that we cannot bless immorality; however, we can pray that God’s healing and mercy will embrace these brothers and sisters. The African bishops forced clarification about this from the Holy See.  Here again we find the power of correction within the Church as opposed to those who seek to do so from outside. 

Need for Mutual Goodwill & Respect

While the motives of the Society might demand scrutiny, no one should doubt that most SSPX priests are acting from conviction and good faith. They are intensely concerned about the care of souls. Hopefully they appreciate that priests on the other side of the liturgical divide are also dedicated to their flocks. This is often a cause of great pain when SSPX chapels are set up near parishes and Catholics are told that they should never attend a Novus Ordo Mass for fear of spiritual detriment. Not only is this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the juridical alienation of flocks from their appointed shepherds. Where there should be collaboration, there is rivalry. Pastors should function as shepherds, not as wolves or thieves of the sheep. This was a problem in the past, even with priestly societies recognized by the Church, like the Legionaries of Christ. They would frequently offer home Masses and spiritual programs for groups like homeschoolers without the permission of dioceses or even the okay of local pastors.  While their enthusiasm was to be applauded, they overstepped their bounds by acting autonomously.   

The true issue here is a lack of trust in the Pope and the universal Church. Admittedly draconian efforts to eradicate the traditional Latin Mass and to supplant it with the reformed liturgy have understandably strained confidence. Further, while the SSPX has faced various censures, often the worst of liberal dissenters were not only tolerated but pampered. I suspect this situation reflects no apostasy from Rome but rather an appreciation that most traditionalists will obey and take sanctions seriously while liberal dissenters will not. Tactics with the right are different than those used with the left, to forestall further fracturing of the Church. However, it may be high time to acknowledge what has and has not worked.      

The minimal expectations of the SSPX by the Holy See, the continued ministry and expansion of the Fraternity of St. Peter (as a similar organization), and the availability of bishops in good standing to ordain priests according to the old form— all this undermines the argument of the SSPX that the episcopal consecrations reflect an emergency arising from pastoral necessity. Is there any reticence about apostolic succession and holy orders among the clergy outside the SSPX? They say, no, but one must wonder.

Arguably, the overture of the SSPX to the Holy See is less a “respectful request” for consent to the episcopal consecrations as it is an “arrogant demand” about their intent. The situation is one of intimidation or coercion, not benevolent or suppliant discretion. The SSPX wants the revocation of Vatican II and the comprehensive return of the traditional Latin Mass. The Society is angry that the universal Church with her Pope and 5,430 bishops in union with him will not acquiesce to the demands of the Society’s two remaining bishops, who were themselves, ordained illicitly.

Is there an Emergency Situation from Necessity?

The perpetuation of Latin Masses by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), as well as by various monastic communities and diocesan priests, is evidence that the SSPX need not fear the extinction of the old liturgy. Indeed, there are several bishops authorized to ordain clergy who celebrate exclusively the traditional Latin Mass. Further, there is no danger that those affiliated with the SSPX would spiritually starve should the pending episcopal consecrations not take place. As a preference, the traditional Latin Mass will not disappear, and the Novus Ordo is available most everywhere to make present the oblation of Calvary and Christ’s precious body and blood. I suspect the issue is less of a concern about the flock, which has been largely purloined from other shepherds, as it is to retain what they have built.  There is a reluctance to trust the Holy See.  They desire to keep authority and power for themselves.  This places them on a course like that of the reformational Protestant churches.  No good will come from this mentality.  

SSPX & Vatican Dialogue: No Need for Talking Parrots

The SSPX prefer unchanging liturgy and stagnant cut-and dry definitions. And yet, at this crucial time in history, we neither need nor want talking parrots without the basic tools for the give-and-take required in theological reflection and discourse with intellectual giants like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

We must be wary of those who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Certain progressives would supplant an oblation to the divine with a fellowship supper and prefer a revolutionary break with past teachings and values. Anachronistic traditionalists would embrace an unchanging liturgy and dogmas reduced to staid definitions that are either disconnected from modernity or attack it head on. Instead of ecumenical outreach the Society is often locked in attack mode and employs old and aggressive proof text apologetics. This will not get us very far. Both the SSPX and the Vatican must take care about who speaks for them in any dialogue. Many of their priests would do poorly with their ingrained resistance. This is not a debate that one must win at all costs. The starting point must be obedience to the Holy See, affirmation of the various liturgies approved, and the acceptance of Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council. This does not mean that the door is closed to clarifying teachings and reconciling them with previous formulations. When it comes to the brightest minds in favor of the traditional Latin Mass, and who are aware of the other issues, we must turn to learned laymen like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. Taylor Marshall. While we might sometimes disagree with them, they would legitimately seek to maintain communion with the living Magisterium. Resolution about the status of liturgy and reconciling Trent with Vatican II would be good for the Church overall, even if the SSPX and other groups should still go into formal schism or their bishops face excommunication.

The Human Person: Finite or Infinite Dignity?

Every time Pope Leo XIV agrees with Pope Francis on something, the critics go crazy! Here there is opposition to the argument from Pope Francis in DIGNITAS INFINITA that human dignity is an “infinite” value. The concern is that it seems to deify the human creature when only almighty God is truly infinite. It is argued that this compromises Catholic teaching on original sin.

I think a grievous misreading has been made. I may be wrong but I discern shades of Pope John Paul II’s thinking in this, too. Yes, we are are finite creatures. We do not self-exist and we cannot save ourselves. However, there is an ancient notion that elements like the good, the true and the beautiful are perfections of God in which we participate or share in some small measure. Whatever we share can be traced back to God the Creator who has infinite value. Human dignity is viewed on two levels, first that of human creatures born of women into the human family, and second, as regenerated sons and daughters of the Father reborn at the womb of the baptismal font. The latter (spiritual dignity) builds upon the first (ontological dignity). Indeed, sanctifying grace divinizes the person with a share in Christ’s life. While all human life is incommensurate as God’s gift to us; the dignity of the human person is further enhanced by the sacraments. While we are finite, that which God shares of himself is not— basic existence and on top of that eternal life in Christ.

The late Pope Francis taught that the human person possessed an immeasurable or incommensurate worth. This was a major contention of the late Dr. Germain Grisez (1929–2018). He contended for the incommensurability of basic human goods.

Reflexive Goods: Self-integration, Practical Reasonableness, Justice and Friendship, and Religion.

Substantive Goods: Life and Health, Knowledge of Truth, Appreciation of Beauty, and Excellence in Work and Play.

(The basic goods delineated by John Finnis were similar.)

Grisez claimed they are equally good in themselves and cannot be rationally compared. He argued that the basic goods are equally ranked and thus there can be no proportionalism in their regard— you cannot act against one to promote another— there is no lesser evil for a greater good. This becomes foundational for his moral theology on behalf of the sanctity of life and the indissolubility of marriage. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia are entirely removed from the drawing board! Everyone is thus viewed as precious and irreplaceable. Every person has immeasurable worth, even the convict on death row.

Pope Francis broke down dignity in terms of anthropology: The first is “ontological.” Every moment God is keeping us in existence. If he were to forget us for an instant we would cease to exist and be annihilated. Such would be against the divine economy. This value is incommensurate. The second is “moral” and here dignity can be lost through evil acts and sin. This is where original sin and concupiscence come into the picture. The third is “social” and dignity can be violated by oppression and poverty. However, worth remains the same. The fourth is “existential” which refers to a person’s subjective experience of life.

The SSPX is Racing Away from the True Church

Father Etienne Ginoux’s rebuttal to Cardinal Sarah is more of the same disheartening SSPX apologetics, not only for the illicit episcopal consecrations but also for the Society’s widening departure from Catholic unity.  But it is nonsensical to imagine that the SSPX can preserve doctrinal integrity when it pits itself against the living Magisterium of the one true Church instituted by Christ and protected by his grace and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.  The Pope and other churchmen are not impeccable and certainly there is no guarantee that every loose opinion or practical judgment will be infallible. However, despite the presence of weak men, and even the intrusion of ambiguity, the charism of truth remains with the Catholic Church.  Sacred Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian revelation that are handed down to us through the teaching authority appointed by our Lord— through the ordinary and extraordinary teaching authority of the successors of Peter (the Popes) and the bishops in union with him. Our doctrines are preserved and develop through their transmission by the Holy Father and through the many ecumenical councils where bishops gathered to formulate truth and to establish discipline for the Holy Church.  Vatican II was one of these councils. While it may sound cynical, I suspect that SSPX intransigence is largely due to its origins of rebellion and over a half century of stubborn juridical autonomy from the Holy See. The Lefebvrites are reluctant to hand over what they have built, especially to a larger Church in which they no longer have supernatural faith and to a leadership they mistrust. Despite what the SSPX would have us believe, the Church today may face many afflictions, but she is not ready for hospice and is certainly not dead. Indeed, the emergency crisis of faith does not require the poison of illicit consecrations but rather the medicine of obedience and fidelity.

Schismatic groups represent a lesser share of the overall Latin Mass community than they would make out. The SSPX has 103 chapels in the U.S., compared to the some 500 non-SSPX parishes that offer the TLM. Before the 2021 restrictions took effect, more than 800 parishes offered the TLM. The crisis in the Church does not demand what the SSPX plans to do. We must not catch the disease of atheistic or secular humanism from the left nor an inflexible legal dogmatism on the right. Both the schismatic anachronists and the heretical progressives suffer from a profound wariness, a deficiency of trust and faith in the Pope and the living magisterium. They are opposite sides of the same coin and that coin is the price of departure from Catholic unity.

Of course, as with the “churches” of the Eastern schism and the “ecclesial communities” of the Protestant reformation, once union is broken, time only cements the separation. An individual here or there or a few lesser groups might return to Catholic unity, but generally the fracture persists and there is a continuing divergence in teaching or beliefs.  Reconciliation may yet be possible, but it is unlikely. While the SSPX level the charge of doctrinal “rupture” upon the leadership of the Catholic Church, the real estrangement or even schism rests upon them.          

Cardinal Sarah writes: “How many souls are at risk of being lost because of this new division?” Father Etienne Ginoux of the SSPX returns, “One might rightly ask whether it is truly the souls of the faithful who attend the chapels of the Society that are in danger, or whether we should fear more for the salvation of those who follow the ‘prelates who renounce teaching the deposit of faith’ or the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ — denunciations that come from the cardinal himself.” This is his rationale for the excommunications and disobedience to the Pope should the pending consecrations take place. While currently lacking juridical standing, what is left unspoken is that should the SSPX sever its ties with the Vatican, the bishops involved will be excommunicated and schism will be threatened. You cannot save the Church by leaving the Church. Fundamental to all the other amassing errors of the SSPX is their divergent ecclesiology.  

I am reminded of the Protestants, particularly those that followed Martin Luther. The errant Augustinian friar never intended to establish a new church, but like the SSPX, sought to reform the Catholic Church. He also did not trust the Pope.  It is ironic that the SSPX which so thoroughly spurns the “heretics” should mimic their disobedience and rebellion. The fealty that SSPX past generations gave the Pope will likely dissolve altogether in the next. There can be little to nothing of allegiance with the loss of respect.     

Seeking to rationalize disobedience and rebellion, Father Ginoux offers a litany of complaints against the Holy See. His argument is that a Church that has compromised itself cannot demand compliance. No reconciliation on these matters will make any difference because they are “excuses” for an autonomy that has become habitual.  Nevertheless, what are some of these matters?

He first mentions the opening of Eucharistic communion to remarried divorcees and yet what has changed in general practice? While we do not interrogate communicants or violate the seal of confession, there is no encouragement for those in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist (this includes adulterers, fornicators, and active homosexuals).  Despite talk and speculation, nothing has changed. All are still urged to be in a state of grace to receive the sacrament. Those who are not Catholic or spiritually prepared are asked to make a good act of contrition and pray for spiritual communion. Divorced Catholics desiring to regularize their situations may explore the possibility of an annulment and con-validation. We do not interrogate believers or risk breaking the seal of confession for would-be communicants. We do not lock out those in bad marriages from attending Mass. We do not refuse to baptize children from questionable or compromised unions. Despite speculation and questionable statements from certain churchmen, where is the codification of change on this matter? It is nowhere to be found. 

While there is a certain ambiguity over the possibility of blessing same-sex couples, these irregular unions are not directly blessed or affirmed, rather individuals are blessed and we prayerfully ask that they might know contrition, repentance and healing. The Church does not bless sin. The Holy See has directed that the so-called blessings cannot be directed toward any validation or solemnization of unions. Fr. James Martin, SJ, might be given a certain deference for his work as a priest to an alienated population, but he is not the Pope.  Indeed, Pope Leo XIV recently met with and praised those who continue the COURAGE ministry that urges celibate love, charitable service and prayer from those with the same-sex disorientation. This is where we find the mind of the Church.    

God does not directly will religious pluralism as such would constitute the sin of indifferentism.  Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church as the true faith, and we should work and pray for the day that all might be one. While other churches or faiths might have elements of the truth mixed with error, we have an obligation as missionary disciples to bring others to the truth and Catholic unity.

The titles of Mary are not so much questioned as there is a concern about misunderstanding. The sole Mediator of Christianity is Jesus Christ.  But Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces always directs her children to Jesus. As some of the fathers have speculated, she functions as the neck of the Mystical Body with Christ as the head and the rest of us as the body.  All graces pass through the neck to the body!  Mary is also called Co-Redemptrix. But this must be properly defined. She cooperates with the saving work of her Son.  Jesus is the redeemer who buys us back from the devil at the price of his bruised flesh and saving blood.  As the first disciple of her Son, Mary cooperates with his saving work.  She is there at the nativity and at the cross and after the resurrection. Jesus gives himself to the Father. At the nativity God comes down from heaven and she holds him in her arms. At Calvary, the dead body of her Son is placed in her arms and taking a priestly stance, she offers him back to the Father. She joins her suffering to the Lord’s passion. The terms may or may not be employed, but nothing changes in terms of Marian agency. 

The so-called emergency in the Church is real, but if the SSPX goes ahead with illicit episcopal consecrations, it will prove itself as not part of the solution but of the problem. I suspect the future will find them as a breakaway church and one that disavows ecumenical dialogue and collaboration. They will become a spiritual ghetto outside the Catholic Church.

The SSPX Waves Goodbye to Rome!

What are we to make of the (February 18, 2026) response from Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Rooted in pessimism, the SSPX is demonstrably negative by questioning Rome’s intentions and yet urging continuing discussions that are deemed futile. The SSPX has lost sight of the fact that the current standoff is untenable for them and detrimental to the universal Church. One cannot simultaneously claim fidelity and then further treacherous nonconformity.  The Pope is the visible head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ.  Repudiation of that authority ultimately leads to one of two scenarios: either one will defect from the true Church or else, ecclesial authority has been assumed by an anti-pope and the chair of Peter is vacant.    

Father Pagliarani spills the beans for rejecting the Vatican’s goals for dialogue by saying he “cannot accept the perspective and objectives” offered by the Dicastery. He writes: “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” He contends that this stems from “a rupture with the Tradition of the Church,” positing the culpability with the Pope and most of the Church’s bishops or Magisterium. Blame would also be assigned the majority of the Church’s laity who went along with the changes. It is unclear how he would reconcile his dissent with the solidarity of the Pope, episcopacy and the sense of the faithful as such functions providentially under divine grace as verification to Christian doctrine.    

He stamps as abhorrent the Vatican insistence that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.” Consequently, he is blunt in spurning any dialogue that will foster a sincere reunion, present or future tense. However, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the cross-pollination of the liturgies, furthering a more organic reform upon the old and new. Apparently the SSPX does not buy the distinction between the questionable “spirit” of Vatican II and the actual orthodox texts or teachings. The Church is not going to permit any overt renunciation of an ecumenical council, but that does not mean that Vatican II is the last word. Indeed, the council’s directives about social communication are now largely obsolete. He is saying that Rome treats Vatican II with the same intransigence with which he does Trent.  This simply is not the case.

While many of us would argue for correctives in Pope Francis’ “Evangelii Gaudium” (November 2013), “Amoris Laetitia” (March 2016) and “Traditionis Custodes” (July 2021), it is worth noting that Father Pagliarani also dissents and regards as problematic, Pope John Paul II’s “Redemptor Hominis” (March 1979) and “Ut Unum Sint” (May 1995). The SSPX wrongly critiques “Redemptor Hominis” as revoking the Church’s teaching about original sin and the plight of fallen man. The late Pope merely advances the implications of incarnation and redemption regarding all humanity. Arguing the sanctity of life and dignity of “persons” from the mystery of the God-Man and his saving work speaks to both the natural man as made in “the image of God” and the even greater high calling of the new “spiritual” man remade in “the likeness of Christ” by supernatural grace.  Christ’s redemptive work is his gift to us but “fallen men” who would be saved must accept the gift by faith in Christ and membership in his Church.   The SSPX is similarly over-reaching in its caricature of “Ut Unum Sint” as entitling Protestants to all the spiritual benefits that come with membership in the Catholic Church.  The rigid voices of condemnation would insist that we cannot pray with heretics and that whatever faith they have is of no value or merit. The SSPX makes no acknowledgment of shared elements of faith or a common love for Jesus.  They are infuriated that any might speak of “an invisible church” where certain Protestants and Catholics are together closer to the truth than many within their respective confessions.  But while not denying that the Mystical Body is most appropriately identified with the Catholic Church, we should not underestimate the ties of genuine baptism and the evidence that an appreciable number of non-Catholics are intellectually closer to the truth than many fellow Catholics who dissent from Church teachings. Further many deeply believe and practice their faith, as with the Coptic martyrs who in witness to Christ had their throats cut by the ISIS Islamic terrorists. A third of the Catholic clergy in England began as Anglican prelates.  What Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged draws believers to Catholic unity.        

The prospect of schism and/or excommunication is posited as threats by Rome and yet it is the Society that has forced Rome’s hand. Father Pagliarani dictates to the Magisterium what is magisterial.  This is an absurdity. The Society is still smarting from previous dialogue. He mentions this in his letter: “Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, ‘the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church,’ explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.”

A shared recognition that we cannot concur about doctrine but only about “charity toward souls” is akin to our relationship with Orthodox or maybe even the Protestant sects— but it falls far short of the ecclesial union demanded under the Pope. While the Society cites against schism its traditional theology and constancy in Church teaching, such is not the Holy See’s assessment. Charity alone will not keep them in good standing. The divergence is clear, the Lefebvrites view themselves as Catholics opposed to a Protestant Rome.  Any affiliation with the Holy See is simply an anachronistic nostalgia for a Rome that was. Does this attitude from the SSPX not convey schismatic intent? I believe so. The Society deems regularization as “impracticable due to doctrinal divergences.” Closing the letter, as a final twist of the knife, he signs off—”His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.” I suspect that the mystery of Mary’s cooperation with her Son’s saving work is a new item added to the Society’s list of objections.