Privileged to be the first to comment Dr. K. Great round-up and I think I've read all but the Paid offerings.
As a USMA grad and Army officer I look at many things with a pugilistic lens. Your recap was like a G2 Intelligence update given to a Commander in the TOC.
In many ways it's the interplay between Military Art and Military Science.
The discussion of hyperpapalism reminded me of something you said at the end of your recent Catholic Unscripted interview that really stuck with me. It was regarding enemies of tradition:
"They have no good arguments against our position, against our points. Their only argument has been the fist...the argument of force."
This gave me a small epiphany, as I've started asking myself when I encounter hyperpapalist or related perspectives online, "If I subtract this person's arguments from authority, how strong is their remaining positive argument for their position?"
Turns out, many individuals cannot present a compelling positive case for their perspective. They can only ignore/downplay people's reasonable concerns about tradition, prudence, justice, etc. while asserting that Catholics are obligated to mindlessly trust and agree with the hierarchy. "This prelate has spiritual authority over you, therefore you must submit to his will." It offers a very empty, arbitrary, and irrational vision of the Catholic Church's hierarchy and Tradition--a far cry from the compelling and well-reasoned vision that Tradition's defenders offer.
It's not for nothing that we generally regard people who say "obey--or else!" as borderline psychopaths, and that we generally think those who fall back on "the reason is--because I say so!" are weak leaders. There should be a positive vision, a truth, behind the command, one that can be understood at least at some level as pertaining to the Catholic Faith and my spiritual perfection.
It's so interesting to contrast how Pope St. Pius V talks about why he is promulgating a new edition of the missal and the breviary (in 1570 and 1568 respectively): he gives reason after reason for doing so, to the point that you want to cheer by the time you get to the end of his documents. (Quo Primum & Quod a Nobis)
This is truly mind numbing. How can we believe anything is as we are told it is? I’ve heard of there being bad popes but it has just been confirmed that we actually lived through one, as many of us suspected we were experiencing. Is it any wonder I trust only God?
Thanks for the roundup as always. The images of the Knights of Malta are amazing! The same man in the same room, everyone in much the same posture, captured from the same angle, but yet such a difference between them. I agree that it indicates a significant difference, despite being only externals.
I hate to "fact check" in this way, and hope not to stir up debate on a subject mostly unrelated to this substack, but the peer-reviewed medical study you mention is quite flawed (as many are) and the authors word parts of it in a somewhat deceptive manner. Thankfully, the situation is not as bad as it appears. What the study shows is simply that people who are sensibly suspicious of the vaccine - traditional/conservative Catholics, other "conservative" types - are much the same type of people who are sensibly eager to have large families. Not controlling for this is a significant oversight in the study! The authors hide this by using terms like "successful conception" when they mean "birth", as if to imply the other group is failing to conceive, rather than simply trying to avoid it. Of course, that is not to say that there cannot be any ill effects whatsoever, but just that the rather shocking conclusion of this particular study is overblown.
Funnily enough, there is a good article discussing this study and fertility rates of various groups:
by the very same author who you link to in the bullet above, who wrote the nice piece on the decline of literacy.
Regardless, I agree that the way the Church hierarchy (many bishops and their conferences too, not just the pope!) responded to the whole affair remains a massive scandal.
I think there are some interesting parallels between the phenomenon of people who want the vaccine to be worse than it was, and people who are over-eager to find the absolute worst in anything that comes out of the Vatican. It seems like some *want* Pope Leo to be as bad as Pope Francis! Opposed to the sycophants who bent over backwards to find a way for the pope's words to be orthodox, it seems we also have those who contort themselves to find bad intent in everything now happening, or insist it is all a ruse of "just externals". Thankfully most seem to be cautiously and charitably optimistic.
Thanks very much for clearing up some of the confusion here.
I agree with you that both the papalists and the anti-papalists are grasping at straws. I've been astonished to see how foolish some of the commentary is on Leo XIV, as if he's even had much of a chance yet. He's done many good things and a few bad things. So what? Have these people even studied papal history? Anyway, they tend to be on the sede spectrum, so it's not surprising; they haven't seen a pope they liked since Pius XII (and most of them weren't even alive when he was).
To clarify one point, my main objection to the pushing of the vaccine was that it was untested, strange, unnecessary, and yet linked to employment, travel, social acceptance, etc. in ways that were very sinister. And that the pope would push this, against conscientious objection, was disgusting.
I enjoyed reading your article but I am confused about your “Happy 4th of July” greeting. The American Revolution was anti-Catholic and later in your article you point out, “
This whole process confirms what many suspected about the Francis Pontificate: that he was implementing the “synodality” of Cardinal Martini and the St. Gallen Mafia, which amounted to what Pentin called The Rigging of a Vatican Synod. It’s what the Liberals did in 1776 in America, 1789 in France, and everywhere else besides. It’s what the Communists did in 1870 in Paris, in 1917 in Mexico and then in Russia. The trick is so obvious that it’s sad that so many still fall for it. Here’s how it works:
Form an elite conspiracy of power hungry heretics
Find an emotional grievance that many people have
Whip up the mob using emotional rhetoric about this grievance
Tell everyone that this mob represents “the people”
Impose your minority will on the majority “in the name of the people”
This “Happy 4th of July” seem wrong for Catholics …what I propose is a sub stack article on the Truth of the American Revolution, along with the Truth behind the Alamo and the Revolutions that followed in France etc. Long live Christ The King! Or “Dieu de Roi” as the Vendéans would say. Pamelann
I would distinguish between the theory of the American Revolution and Republic, and the actual daily life and customs of America. These are two different spheres, and they often exhibit a "fortunate inconsistency," to borrow a phrase from Leo XIII speaking about the French situation in "Au Milieu des Sollicitudes."
No one is more opposed to Enlightenment rationalism and political thought than I am; but conversely, I have learned to relax and be friendly about the celebrations that punctuate the year with family get-togethers, music, games, and even, in best-case scenarios, the experience of leisure and worship. For instance, we had a large turnout this morning at our FSSP parish, and the priest preached about what's good and bad in America, and how we should be patriotic for our land and people, without approving what is false or ugly.
One of the best articles I've ever read about all these tensions appeared today at El Antiguo and I highly, highly recommend it:
Thank you. I will look into that. I did attend my parish in South Saint Paul this morning and Father Echert gave a great homily as usual. I am just learning a lot of this stuff as I was just on the Paris-Chartres Pilgrimage with the US chapter and to-day I am spending the day reading “For Altar and Throne” by Michael Davies…it’s just the beginning of my understanding of this time period and it has stirred many questions about the Revolution and the 4th of July etc. Thank you for commenting. Pamelann
An example: "The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene."
So the allegation, to be clear, is that this is one of Bergoglio's lies. And yet... why should we believe that the statement is anything but the truth?
It is a lie *in connection with* the other statements he made in the same document that (falsely) attribute to the bishops the desire to overturn Summorum Pontificum and to limit the TLM for the sake of "unity." I think you need to read a little more carefully!
On Ed Feser's comment: Is it really just laughable to suppose that somehow going to Latin mass might have led some Catholics to have a relatively sound grasp of Catholic faith and morals, which is what might have grounded their criticisms of Bergoglio's aberrations? I guess he must find that whole "lex orandi, etc." thing laughable too?
Feser, who attends the TLM, obviously would not disagree with you.
The point is, one barely needs to be catechized at all to see that many things Bergoglio said were patently contrary to the faith.
He is trying to explain why even people who lack a sound "lex orandi" were still calling out his errors. It was like hitting the side of a barn with a basketball -- anyone could do it.
"The point is, one barely needs to be catechized at all to see that many things Bergoglio said were patently contrary to the faith."
Well as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And I think there are way too many obviously confounding counter-examples for that claim to be really plausible.
"If they are Catholics, they will be tempted to find their rock of certainty, à la Descartes, in the person and will of the pope. He will the one and only source of truth; nothing else can be relied upon."
With due respect, this is a really outlandish misrepresentation of the intellectual patrimony of M. Descartes.
I wrote my Masters thesis on Descartes and have read him closely and carefully.
Obviously this is an analogy drawn between Descartes' search for a principle that would found (or re-found) the whole of knowledge, and the hyperpapalist's search for a principle that would found the whole of Catholicism. Clearly, there is a parallel, and it's only nit-picking not to see it.
Peter, I wrote my Master's thesis on Heidegger. I know very well that that doesn't make me a true expert on Heidegger. In any case, given that you are somewhat familiar with Descartes and with the literature on Descartes, you should know that it is enormous and controversial and rife with absurd straw man attacks on poor old Rene -- like your hyperpapalist analogy here.
Privileged to be the first to comment Dr. K. Great round-up and I think I've read all but the Paid offerings.
As a USMA grad and Army officer I look at many things with a pugilistic lens. Your recap was like a G2 Intelligence update given to a Commander in the TOC.
In many ways it's the interplay between Military Art and Military Science.
Well, I missed ... second comment
The other comment was not worthy to remain and was deleted.
Thank you for your kind words!
The discussion of hyperpapalism reminded me of something you said at the end of your recent Catholic Unscripted interview that really stuck with me. It was regarding enemies of tradition:
"They have no good arguments against our position, against our points. Their only argument has been the fist...the argument of force."
This gave me a small epiphany, as I've started asking myself when I encounter hyperpapalist or related perspectives online, "If I subtract this person's arguments from authority, how strong is their remaining positive argument for their position?"
Turns out, many individuals cannot present a compelling positive case for their perspective. They can only ignore/downplay people's reasonable concerns about tradition, prudence, justice, etc. while asserting that Catholics are obligated to mindlessly trust and agree with the hierarchy. "This prelate has spiritual authority over you, therefore you must submit to his will." It offers a very empty, arbitrary, and irrational vision of the Catholic Church's hierarchy and Tradition--a far cry from the compelling and well-reasoned vision that Tradition's defenders offer.
Well said.
It's not for nothing that we generally regard people who say "obey--or else!" as borderline psychopaths, and that we generally think those who fall back on "the reason is--because I say so!" are weak leaders. There should be a positive vision, a truth, behind the command, one that can be understood at least at some level as pertaining to the Catholic Faith and my spiritual perfection.
It's so interesting to contrast how Pope St. Pius V talks about why he is promulgating a new edition of the missal and the breviary (in 1570 and 1568 respectively): he gives reason after reason for doing so, to the point that you want to cheer by the time you get to the end of his documents. (Quo Primum & Quod a Nobis)
This is truly mind numbing. How can we believe anything is as we are told it is? I’ve heard of there being bad popes but it has just been confirmed that we actually lived through one, as many of us suspected we were experiencing. Is it any wonder I trust only God?
Thanks for the roundup as always. The images of the Knights of Malta are amazing! The same man in the same room, everyone in much the same posture, captured from the same angle, but yet such a difference between them. I agree that it indicates a significant difference, despite being only externals.
I hate to "fact check" in this way, and hope not to stir up debate on a subject mostly unrelated to this substack, but the peer-reviewed medical study you mention is quite flawed (as many are) and the authors word parts of it in a somewhat deceptive manner. Thankfully, the situation is not as bad as it appears. What the study shows is simply that people who are sensibly suspicious of the vaccine - traditional/conservative Catholics, other "conservative" types - are much the same type of people who are sensibly eager to have large families. Not controlling for this is a significant oversight in the study! The authors hide this by using terms like "successful conception" when they mean "birth", as if to imply the other group is failing to conceive, rather than simply trying to avoid it. Of course, that is not to say that there cannot be any ill effects whatsoever, but just that the rather shocking conclusion of this particular study is overblown.
Funnily enough, there is a good article discussing this study and fertility rates of various groups:
https://kittenbeloved.substack.com/p/people-want-the-covid-vaccine-to
by the very same author who you link to in the bullet above, who wrote the nice piece on the decline of literacy.
Regardless, I agree that the way the Church hierarchy (many bishops and their conferences too, not just the pope!) responded to the whole affair remains a massive scandal.
I think there are some interesting parallels between the phenomenon of people who want the vaccine to be worse than it was, and people who are over-eager to find the absolute worst in anything that comes out of the Vatican. It seems like some *want* Pope Leo to be as bad as Pope Francis! Opposed to the sycophants who bent over backwards to find a way for the pope's words to be orthodox, it seems we also have those who contort themselves to find bad intent in everything now happening, or insist it is all a ruse of "just externals". Thankfully most seem to be cautiously and charitably optimistic.
Thanks very much for clearing up some of the confusion here.
I agree with you that both the papalists and the anti-papalists are grasping at straws. I've been astonished to see how foolish some of the commentary is on Leo XIV, as if he's even had much of a chance yet. He's done many good things and a few bad things. So what? Have these people even studied papal history? Anyway, they tend to be on the sede spectrum, so it's not surprising; they haven't seen a pope they liked since Pius XII (and most of them weren't even alive when he was).
To clarify one point, my main objection to the pushing of the vaccine was that it was untested, strange, unnecessary, and yet linked to employment, travel, social acceptance, etc. in ways that were very sinister. And that the pope would push this, against conscientious objection, was disgusting.
Dear Dr K:
I enjoyed reading your article but I am confused about your “Happy 4th of July” greeting. The American Revolution was anti-Catholic and later in your article you point out, “
This whole process confirms what many suspected about the Francis Pontificate: that he was implementing the “synodality” of Cardinal Martini and the St. Gallen Mafia, which amounted to what Pentin called The Rigging of a Vatican Synod. It’s what the Liberals did in 1776 in America, 1789 in France, and everywhere else besides. It’s what the Communists did in 1870 in Paris, in 1917 in Mexico and then in Russia. The trick is so obvious that it’s sad that so many still fall for it. Here’s how it works:
Form an elite conspiracy of power hungry heretics
Find an emotional grievance that many people have
Whip up the mob using emotional rhetoric about this grievance
Tell everyone that this mob represents “the people”
Impose your minority will on the majority “in the name of the people”
This “Happy 4th of July” seem wrong for Catholics …what I propose is a sub stack article on the Truth of the American Revolution, along with the Truth behind the Alamo and the Revolutions that followed in France etc. Long live Christ The King! Or “Dieu de Roi” as the Vendéans would say. Pamelann
I would distinguish between the theory of the American Revolution and Republic, and the actual daily life and customs of America. These are two different spheres, and they often exhibit a "fortunate inconsistency," to borrow a phrase from Leo XIII speaking about the French situation in "Au Milieu des Sollicitudes."
No one is more opposed to Enlightenment rationalism and political thought than I am; but conversely, I have learned to relax and be friendly about the celebrations that punctuate the year with family get-togethers, music, games, and even, in best-case scenarios, the experience of leisure and worship. For instance, we had a large turnout this morning at our FSSP parish, and the priest preached about what's good and bad in America, and how we should be patriotic for our land and people, without approving what is false or ugly.
One of the best articles I've ever read about all these tensions appeared today at El Antiguo and I highly, highly recommend it:
https://elantiguo.substack.com/p/a-declaration-of-dependence
Thank you. I will look into that. I did attend my parish in South Saint Paul this morning and Father Echert gave a great homily as usual. I am just learning a lot of this stuff as I was just on the Paris-Chartres Pilgrimage with the US chapter and to-day I am spending the day reading “For Altar and Throne” by Michael Davies…it’s just the beginning of my understanding of this time period and it has stirred many questions about the Revolution and the 4th of July etc. Thank you for commenting. Pamelann
An example: "The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene."
So the allegation, to be clear, is that this is one of Bergoglio's lies. And yet... why should we believe that the statement is anything but the truth?
It is a lie *in connection with* the other statements he made in the same document that (falsely) attribute to the bishops the desire to overturn Summorum Pontificum and to limit the TLM for the sake of "unity." I think you need to read a little more carefully!
Can you quote me an actual statement, in connection with which the statement I quoted must be a lie??
On Ed Feser's comment: Is it really just laughable to suppose that somehow going to Latin mass might have led some Catholics to have a relatively sound grasp of Catholic faith and morals, which is what might have grounded their criticisms of Bergoglio's aberrations? I guess he must find that whole "lex orandi, etc." thing laughable too?
Feser, who attends the TLM, obviously would not disagree with you.
The point is, one barely needs to be catechized at all to see that many things Bergoglio said were patently contrary to the faith.
He is trying to explain why even people who lack a sound "lex orandi" were still calling out his errors. It was like hitting the side of a barn with a basketball -- anyone could do it.
"The point is, one barely needs to be catechized at all to see that many things Bergoglio said were patently contrary to the faith."
Well as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And I think there are way too many obviously confounding counter-examples for that claim to be really plausible.
"If they are Catholics, they will be tempted to find their rock of certainty, à la Descartes, in the person and will of the pope. He will the one and only source of truth; nothing else can be relied upon."
With due respect, this is a really outlandish misrepresentation of the intellectual patrimony of M. Descartes.
I wrote my Masters thesis on Descartes and have read him closely and carefully.
Obviously this is an analogy drawn between Descartes' search for a principle that would found (or re-found) the whole of knowledge, and the hyperpapalist's search for a principle that would found the whole of Catholicism. Clearly, there is a parallel, and it's only nit-picking not to see it.
Peter, I wrote my Master's thesis on Heidegger. I know very well that that doesn't make me a true expert on Heidegger. In any case, given that you are somewhat familiar with Descartes and with the literature on Descartes, you should know that it is enormous and controversial and rife with absurd straw man attacks on poor old Rene -- like your hyperpapalist analogy here.