 |
| (Photo: Nick Hagen, for The New York Times) |
Traditionis custodes is back in the news. Following DDW Prefect Arthur Cardinal Roche’s interview with The Catholic Herald, even non-traditionalist commentators are wondering: does Traditionis custodes have a future? (One of the individuals interviewed was RC contributor Joseph Shaw; and RC contributor Peter Kwasniewski's article on Andrea Grillo was linked.) In considering this question, I would like to take a slightly different approach, and also directly answer one of the stated justifications for it in the article.
The Zone is Flooded
One of the biggest threats to the survival of Traditionis has been the ability of traditionalists to dominate the discourse surrounding the Latin Mass. As Cardinal Roche himself admitted in the interview:
One of the things that has been very interesting to me is observing this situation worldwide. The numbers devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass are, in reality, quite small, but some of the groups are quite clamorous. They are more noticeable because they make their voices heard…
While the defender of TC will say this is a case of trolls being the loudest, an alternative reading is possible: our voices are heard because voices defending TC are few and far between. This makes sense intuitively: all things being equal, those who stand to lose something will be more vocal about it than those defending the decision to make those individuals lose something. For the defender, it is a theoretical argument. Austin Ivereigh and Professor Grillo choose to isolate themselves in their echo chamber, as far away from any enjoyer of the Latin Mass that they can. In choosing that life of isolation, they are not only blinding themselves to those who lost, they are preventing their voices from being heard in defending the Vatican decree. More traditionalists who were at risk of losing the Latin Mass have spoken to Bishops than Austen has written about this matter. Even someone as ideologically committed against the Latin Mass as Professor Grillo cannot hope to match the dedication and energy of communities who protest losing that Mass.
Apathy is Death
A consequence of this imbalance can be in how Bishops have responded to the decree. In the interview, Austen Iverreigh stated that a reason TC will survive is because it is clearly what the Bishops wanted:
“First, it was a collegial act by Francis in response to a widespread call by bishops above all in the U.S. and France, where traditionalist groups, though tiny in number, constitute a movement,”
If the leaked correspondence of the French Bishops are any indication, that is questionable. It is also questionable because the Vatican has never released what Bishops have said. As a result, we are left with their actions in implementing TC. The first attempt to achieve compliance failed so badly that Roche and Pope Francis changed church law, as Bishops were far too freely granting permission for their priests to continue saying the Latin Mass. Four years into the decree and not a single diocese in the world has outlined any sort of timetable for the eventual abolition of the Latin Mass in their dioceses that the decree calls for. After the rule change, Rome put on a full court diplomatic press, pressuring Bishops to reduce the number of Latin Masses (including frequent pressure from the US nuncio), and most of the Latin Mass remain. By even the most generous accounting towards TC being implemented, we’ve seen maybe a 25-33% drop in Latin Masses since TC was issued. In order to achieve greater compliance, far more coercive measures will be necessary, measures that Roche appears to show some skepticism towards carrying out, if the interview was any indication.
It is this reason TC is likely to not have a future. It depends on bishops doing someting they have little desire to do. If a Bishop wanted to tightly regulate a diocesean TLM under Summorum Pontificum, he could. (While he could not stop priests from saying it privately, he arguably had far more power regulating public celebration of the TLM.) They chose not to. Why? Their hearts aren’t in it. This does not seem to be about any ideological affinity towards traditionalists, but rather a general apathy towards the kind of measures required to suppress a liturgy. If it is not popular in their diocese, they would prefer not putting a target on their back by raising awareness. If it is popular in their diocese, they are less inclined to provoke a backlash from the faithful and from a bishop's priests. As time goes on, you aren’t likely to get a generation of hierarchy more ideologically committed to the suppression of the TLM. As time continues, people are less wed to the idea that 1969 is a wall demarcating Church history.
None of this is to say that the decree is dead the second there is a new pope. Yet future popes will need to think long and hard about why TC has failed to catch on in the wider Church, and why sympathy remains with traditionalists, even among those who attend the Novus Ordo. They may indeed just find that, as Fr. Ruff made clear, that the “situation in some sectors of the Church is rather difficult”, and the Church may be better served by following the example of Gamaliel, and leaving well enough alone.
