It sounds like the set-up to a bad barroom joke: What do Communist China, the State of Israel, and the traditionalist Catholic Society of St. Pius X (popularly known as the “Lefebvrites”) have in common?
Actually, it sounds like the beginning of a bad article. Honestly, other than some Italian journalists and, now, the senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter (popularly known as the "Heresists"), we have never heard anyone in a popular setting call those in any way related to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) "Lefebvrites". It is true that, in some Francophone areas and media, it is common to hear them (and all other traditional-minded Catholics) disdainfully called "intégristes" - but "popularly" means literally commonly said by the people; and it is simply not used in common conversation by almost anyone anywhere.
John Allen Jr. has also been recently trying to "popularize" an expression coined by Allen himself that would cover anyone who is Catholic and believes at least in the Nicene Creed - he calls them "Evangelical Catholics", but we would rather not help "popularize" the expression, because its true aim is to insist, by contrast, that this group and the others (perhaps the "Anti-Evangelical Catholics", those who are against the Gospel...) can peacefully live together inside one big tent.
We have never been fooled by Allen - as our first readers may remember from pre-Summorum days (see here and here), when, at first, he dismissed reports of the coming motu proprio as a myth: he is the most problematic kind of media-writer, one that pretends to be a "neutral journalist" and an "insightful analyst", but is in fact desperately trying to influence events. Which, of course, is exactly what he is trying to do now, by recycling old, irrelevant, and unverifiable information, behind the usual "nice" façade. We would just like to give our readers a heads-up: no one writes for the National Catholic Reporter by chance.
We have never been fooled by Allen - as our first readers may remember from pre-Summorum days (see here and here), when, at first, he dismissed reports of the coming motu proprio as a myth: he is the most problematic kind of media-writer, one that pretends to be a "neutral journalist" and an "insightful analyst", but is in fact desperately trying to influence events. Which, of course, is exactly what he is trying to do now, by recycling old, irrelevant, and unverifiable information, behind the usual "nice" façade. We would just like to give our readers a heads-up: no one writes for the National Catholic Reporter by chance.
