[Catholic Caucus] Traditionis Custodes: an Autopsy

Ostriches are among the more wondrous curiosities fashioned by the hands of Our Lord—gaunt, buffoonish knaves who barely made the cut as Noah’s Ark closed its proverbial doors, and who, as a result, now roam the earth with divine indifference. Adorned with chaste plumage and necks soaring to Babelic heights, these birds boast the remarkable talent of eluding the world’s terrors by burying their heads in the sand.

That such creatures wander serenely through the ranks of the Church Militant is a fact so well established it scarcely demands proof. Only consider Mike Lewis, author of the article “Will Pope Leo Take on The Traditionalists?,” a futile exercise in pooh-poohing the recent bombshell allegations regarding Traditionis Custodes by the intrepid Vaticanista Diane Montagna. Or contemplate the Kafkaesque handwaving of Matteo Bruni, director of the Holy See Press Office, who downplayed the document leak by dismissing the papers as being a “ ‘very partial and incomplete’ part of the decision-making process.’ ’’[1]

Indeed, as everyone who is familiar with Montagna’s leaks regarding the origins of Traditionis Custodes knows, the current regime in the Vatican has been thoroughly embarrassed. The greater scandal, however, is the enduring presence of a select caste of Catholic commentators whose talent for obfuscation only scarcely outstrips their grasp on reality. It is here my jaundiced eye wearily rests on the aforementioned article by Mr. Lewis.

Consider, for instance, Lewis’ creative reinterpretation of Francis’ straightforward statements regarding the origins of Traditiones Custodes. In his article, Lewis writes, “Yet Pope Francis never stated that his decision was based on the survey results.” He then claims that the pope regarded the survey as only “among the factors that helped lead him to his decision.”

But Mr. Lewis continues to sally forth, insisting upon a highly improbable nuance:

“In his accompanying letter to TC, Francis stated that ‘the results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.’”

What, then, is Mr. Lewis implying? That the Pope’s use of the word “considered” is like a parent’s kind but dismissive reply to a child begging to skip their vegetables at dinner?

Even more astonishing is that Mr. Lewis questions whether the overall assessment—a document intended to synthesize the bishops’ responses—was even written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to begin with. To support this claim, Lewis gestures to a talk by Diane Montagna from October 2021, where she described the CDF’s Plenary Session from January 2020. For readers unfamiliar with the nature of a Plenary Session, Cardinal Ladaria’s own words in his Address of Homage to His Holiness Pope Francis on the Occasion of the Plenary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith make it plain: “Each Plenary Session takes stock of the two-year work spent and offers the programmatic guidelines for future activity.”

After this, he infers that “the members of the CDF. . . clearly did not share the same opinions as whoever wrote the alleged ‘official’ CDF report,” arguing that the following portion of Montagna’s account supports such a notion:

In the end, Mr. Lewis claims these views clash with the tone of the overall assessment and finds it difficult to believe that such a committee would have ever approved its publication.

However, a closer inspection reveals a different story. For example, it is true that Cardinals Parolin, Ouellet, and Versaldi are known to oppose the Traditional Latin Mass (Versaldi, incidentally, is likely the cardinal with a background in canon law and psychology).[4] Archbishop Minnerath, who expelled the FSSP from the Archdiocese of Dijon precisely because of disputes over concelebration, is almost certainly the second cardinal whose remarks were likewise unattributed. Still, even Minnerath allowed for the celebration of the Latin Mass on Sundays—a stance more tolerant than outright opposition. Cardinal Stella, a suit-wearing progressive, is also known to approve of restrictions on the Latin Mass. Archbishop Scicluna, however, is a bit more complex: while he has expressed concerns over same-sex civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples, he has also presided at Masses organized for Drachma, a prominent LGBTQ advocacy group in Malta—though this likely reflects the current vogue of ecclesiastical dialogue and accompaniment rather than endorsement or agreement. That being said, his views on the TLM are pure conjecture.

As for the others, the conservative Cardinal Ricard[5] once compared connoisseurs of the TLM to an eccentric cousin of the family clan,[6] though he nonetheless was amenable to its integration into the life of the Church when Summorum Pontificum appeared in 2007, provided it was carried out in an appropriate and orderly manner. And Archbishop Fisichella, known for his dry wit and forthright rebukes of heresy,[7] is most well known as the mastermind behind the lovable anime character Luce—that scourge of Traditionalists—as well as being the editor of the revised edition of the 1993 Theological Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contained Pope Francis’ novel teachings regarding the death penalty. In an interview concerning the revised commentary, Archbishop Fisichella characterized Pope Francis’ teaching as “true dogmatic progress.” And yet, despite all this, his precise views on the Latin Mass remain unknown. He’s been at them, we know that. And while questionable on certain points, no one could seriously accuse him of being a flaming liberal, given his staunch orthodoxy on most others. After all, isn’t this just the sort of thing typical of a Balthasarian such as himself?

And then we have Cardinal O’Malley, who evidenced no discernable desire to enforce Traditionis Custodes in Boston,[8] a fact that strains credulity if he were truly opposed to the Latin Mass. Similarly, Cardinal Wuerl, who was amenable to Summorum Pontificum, shared to a journalist the precise attendance figures for the Latin Mass within his archdiocese—hardly the conduct of a prelate determined to suppress it.[9]

Therefore, of the ten ecclesiastics mentioned, only four (Parolin, Ouellet, Versaldi, and Stella) exhibit clear opposition to the TLM. One (Minnerath) appears more irritated by concelebration issues than with the TLM itself. Archbishop Scicluna’s stance is frankly uncertain. And if I were a betting man, I’d wager Archbishop Fisichella would not only prefer to let sleeping dogs lie—he’d probably tuck them in with a blanket as well. The remaining three (Ricard, O’Malley, Wuerl) are demonstrably amenable to the peaceful existence of the Latin Mass.

Now, what of Cardinal Ladaria, then Prefect of the CDF, and Archbishop Morandi, the Congregation’s secretary? Well, both Ladaria and Morandi signed (and likely oversaw) the 2020 CDF decree permitting new Eucharistic prefaces and optional commemorations of newer saints in the Extraordinary Form. One must ask: if their intent was to suppress the TLM, why expend effort on liturgical provisions destined for imminent suppression?[10]

Given this, Lewis’ incredulity that such a group could have allowed the overall assessment to pass is rather unconvincing. On the contrary, the composition of the assembly makes its publication entirely plausible.

The Autopsy

It is here, therefore, that we arrive at the heart of the entire matter: Mr. Lewis’ claim that Pope Francis regarded the overall assessment as little more than a piece of traditionalist propaganda rather than a genuine synthesis of the bishops’ responses. This is the crucial issue because it touches on the question we are all asking: did the Holy Father engage in any actual deception?

First, some might wish to dismiss Mr. Lewis’ theory as highly improbable, not only because of the composition of the CDF committee, but also due to the psychological implausibility of such behavior. For if Francis considered the survey results to be effectively useless wouldn’t he have simply avoided mentioning them altogether in his accompanying letter to Traditiones Custodes?

However, this theory regarding psychological implausibility, though attractive, fails to grasp the true complexity of the situation. For anyone advancing this view would then need to explain why Francis would simply go about presenting the survey’s findings as reflective of both the episcopate’s wishes and the CDF’s judgment. Does that not strike one as a bit too brazen of a lie?

Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that two separate reports were instigated by the CDF: one in May 2020 and another in November 2020.[11] It’s generally acknowledged that the second report served as a secondary opinion. No one knows exactly what was in that second report, though it may very well have contradicted the first. Regardless, we do know it was partial and incomplete as it had to be submitted by Christmas,[12] giving the officials in charge of it only about two months to sort through an enormous volume of material, much of it also submitted in various different languages.[13] In contrast, when we look at the main report (which, for all intents and purposes, could also be called the “first report”), its superior protocol becomes obvious. Though the deadline for submitting responses to the survey was in October, the Vatican was still collecting responses for the first report as late as January of the following year,[14] and only issued the first report in February 2021.[15]

This information becomes particularly interesting when we compare the timing of the two reports with Cardinal Ladaria’s audience with the Holy Father. In other words, which report was it that Pope Francis reportedly snatched from Ladaria’s hands?[16] Could pinpointing the exact date of their meeting help answer this question? Now, it is worth noting Montagna believes that Ladaria handed Pope Francis the main report, although she isn’t sure if he read it (for myself, I can’t imagine him not doing so since he was evidently curious about its contents).[17] However, since some genuinely question whether he ever actually received it—arguing that this affects the honesty of his later statements about Traditionis Custodes (“perhaps,” they suggest, “he never saw the favorable main report, but was handed a different one”)—let’s entertain this line of speculation.

If the meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Pope Francis took place in December 2020, it is plausible that Ladaria handed over the second report as December was the month it was due. But if the meeting took place before November 2020, then it couldn’t have been the second report—it must have been the first, since the second report would not have been initiated yet.

The problem is that, based on publicly available information, we cannot determine which of Ladaria’s multiple meetings with the Pope was the one in which he handed over the report. As far as we know, Ladaria met with Pope Francis fourteen times during the year 2020, often twice a month, with no audiences recorded in February, March, July, or August.[18] Without more information, it is therefore impossible to determine which of these meetings was the one when Ladaria handed Francis the report.

This leaves us with two possibilities concerning whether Pope Francis was deliberately engaging in ecclesiastical hoodwinking. Let’s assume, to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn’t. For this hypothetical scenario to be true, Francis would have had to never see the hard copy of the first report. Then, when Ladaria handed Francis the second report, the cardinal (or anyone else) would not only have had to completely avoid discussing the contents of the first report in the preceding months, but also keep secret the fact that the second report was even a second report in the first place (because in such a situation, Francis would likely ask why a secondary report was necessary—thus forcing the cardinal to explain the first report). This is, of course, quite difficult to believe, since Ladaria would almost certainly have told Francis it was a secondary report, given his personal opposition to restricting the Latin Mass. Therefore, in this hypothetical scenario, Francis would still have been aware of both reports, even if he only had verbal knowledge of the first report’s contents.

The second hypothesis is that Cardinal Ladaria handed him the first report in that meeting, which, for all intents and purposes, could have occurred any time after May 2020 and before February 2021. Indeed, the weight of the evidence suggests this is more likely than not, especially since Montagna herself states that it was the main report given to Pope Francis.[19] In that case, then Francis would have seen the first report for himself. Given the contents, he certainly wouldn’t have been pleased with the results, which makes me think he would have wanted to compare it with the second report when it arrived in December. In this hypothetical scenario, therefore, Francis would have also known the contents of both reports—but this time, with his own two eyes.

And this brings us to the real point: however one slices it, Pope Francis knew about both reports. Now that we know this, we can confront the question of whether he was intentionally deceptive. Unfortunately, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that some level of deception took place. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that when Francis said he consulted the bishops and the opinion of the CDF, he was referring to the second report. Given the problems associated with the second report, such as its clear failure to represent the true opinion of the CDF committee, and well as its slapdash protocol requiring an absurdly short timeframe for its composition, appealing to such a document is not only methodologically flawed—it is duplicitous.

But perhaps this could explain why Francis spoke of his “consultation” and listening to everyone’s “requests” in the first place. I find it unlikely he would have done so if he had been aware only of the first report—it seems far too brazen. But since he might have been presented with a second, possibly contradictory report, I can see how this could have both reinforced his bias and led to a kind of tunnel vision. Against the clear promptings of reason regarding the second report’s deficiencies, perhaps the second report led him to exclude all other opposing voices. After all, all of us are capable of self-deception in moments we believe to be of great consequence—and while such behavior is certainly inexcusable, it is at least comprehensible, in its own way.

All of this, rather circuitously, leads us back to Matteo Bruni, who was tasked with the unenviable role of serving as the Vatican’s official mouthpiece to explain the leak. At a press briefing regarding the new “Mass for the Care of Creation,” Catholic News Agency Vatican correspondent Hannah Brockhaus posed a pointed question about the authenticity of Montagna’s leaks.[20] With that elephant in the room glaring down on him, tusks and all, it’s hardly surprising that Bruni solemnly assured the public that “other documentation” had “presumably” influenced the Pope’s decision to restrict the Latin Mass.[21]

Now, to barrow Diane Montagna’s words, such tut-tutting “raises more questions than it answers.” Indeed, she called Bruni’s bluff in full, writing a devastating reply in response, the full reading of which earns a plenary indulgence, no doubt:

And yet, I can’t help but wonder—maybe the additional documents Matteo Bruni referenced were documents from the second report. One can certainly imagine Francis choosing not to delve into the complexities of the situation in his accompanying letter to Traditionis Custodes—after all, if the average layperson became aware that there were two reports, it might raise uncomfortable questions. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, perhaps he simply ignored the evidence of the first report, chose to rely on the second one, and then, for the sake of convenience, simply conflated the second report with the opinions of the CDF and the episcopate. However disingenuous this may be, it aligns perfectly with an attitude marked by a cultivated taste for verbal imprecision—a public posture we have learned to expect as the rule rather than the exception over the past decade.

Postmortem Report

And so we find ourselves once again where it all began—contemplating ostriches and their various foibles, and wondering why—why, after twelve years of absolute chaos (a span surely long enough to put an end to any benefit of the doubt)—people in the Church still persist in popesplaining and selective ultramontanism. For the situation before us is not one of transparency, but of selective disclosure—and, moreover, many people seem to actually enjoy keeping the wool over their eyes.

And yet there is hope. The gilded profession of popesplaining might just be fading into its own inevitable irrelevance, precisely because there is already far less to left explain under the current pontificate. Pope Leo XIV has already granted an exemption from TLM restrictions to the St. Margaret of Scotland Parish in the Diocese of San Angelo, Texas.[22] He has also honored Cardinal Burke’s service to the Church, writing him a congratulatory letter—in Latin, no less. The following is a pertinent excerpt, presented in translation:

Now, what treasures might Pope Leo be referring to? It certainly doesn’t take an imagination as precocious as Lewis’ to discern the meaning implied in the text: the treasure Cardinal Burke has consistently recounted to the faithful is the Latin Mass.

Yet there still persist bishops in the Church who seem to forget that the shepherd’s crook exists, preferring instead to beat the sheep with the rod alone. How else could one describe Bishop Martin of Charlotte or Archbishop Weisenburger of Detroit?[24] How else could one regard such men except as prime examples of churchmen who embrace synodality only when convenient, or, in the case of the latter, “accompany” individuals only insofar as it permits a person to linger a while longer in sin?[25]

Ultimately, the path ahead remains long and arduous. Events like the handwaving surrounding Traditiones Custodes only serve to highlight what happens when absurdity is no longer merely tolerated, but institutionally enshrined (amid frescoes of Rupnik’s “art,” no doubt). And when we gaze into that infinite abyss commonly labeled “cope” by certain fellow Catholics, we would discern that Dante might just need to add yet another circle to his own personal conception of Hell. In the end, rather than tolerate the gaslighting surrounding Traditiones Custodes, we should call out this bovine postprandial dispatch for what it truly is—an exotic menagerie of Jesuitical wordsalad, obfuscation, and mental gymnastics that render their executants neither strong nor spry.

[1] Diane Montagna states, “[Bruni] said he would not confirm the sections’ authenticity, that they ‘presumably’ were only a ‘very partial and incomplete’ part of the decision-making process that led to Pope Francis issuing Traditionis Custodes, and that other documents and ‘confidential reports’ went into the Pope’s decision, something that the Vatican had not revealed until now.” Her Substack from July 10 may be accessed here.

[4] Information regarding the views of the three cardinals on the TLM can be found in Cardinal Ouellet’s profile at the College of Cardinals Report website. Cardinal Versaldi’s expertise in canon law and psychology is likewise confirmed in his profile on the same website.

[5] Cf. Cardinal Ricard’s profile on the College of Cardinals Report website for a clearer sense of his sympathies.

[6] Cardinal Ricard remarked, “Just because you have in a family a cousin who is a bit different, whom you tolerate and accept, doesn’t mean that the whole family adopts his positions or his way of life.” For further reading, the full CBS News article is available here.

[7] “If the stories in the press about Blair’s thinking are true, I think he should examine his conscience carefully,” Archbishop Fisichella stated.

[8] “When Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, a statement from the Boston archdiocese indicated that Cardinal O’Malley would be ‘making no changes to the current practice’ at that time due to ‘pending consultations.’ ” Cf. his profile on the College of Cardinals Report website.

[9] “[Then Archbishop Wuerl] noted that the Tridentine Mass already is celebrated weekly at three locations in the archdiocese, attended by about 500 people altogether.”

[10] Montagna cites Ladaria’s sympathy towards the Latin Mass, writing, “I should say that it is widely thought that Cardinal Ladaria was ‘reluctant’ to publish Traditionis Custodes.” At the same time, she also writes, “He is said to be a good man, is extremely discreet, but will not ultimately go against the Holy Father’s wishes.” The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3. As for Morandi, he was rumored to be “unhappy with the move by Pope Francis to suppress the traditional Latin Mass.” The full article discussing both this and his opposition here.

[11] Diane Montagna writes in The Remnant: “Reliable sources have confirmed that while the main report was being prepared, CDF superiors commissioned a second report in order to be sure that the main report reflected the feedback of the bishops. . . The questionnaire (the basis for the first report) was sent out the following May. . . What is certain is that the second parallel report, which to my knowledge was commissioned around November 2020, was handed in before Christmas.” (ellipses added) The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3.

[13] Montagna writes, “the second report was surely incomplete, and also likely superficial, given how quickly it was completed, the volume of material to be analyzed, and the fact that material was being received in four or five languages.” The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3.

[14] Diane Montagna writes, “The plenary session referred to above was held in January 2020. The questionnaire was sent out the following May. The bishops were given until October 2020 to respond, but as with things Roman, responses continued to come in until January 2021 and all of them were received, reviewed, and considered for the main report.” The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3.

[15] Diane Montagna states, “I am reliably informed that the 224-page final report, dated February 2021, is comprised of two main parts.” The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3.

[16] From Diane Montagna: “Was Pope Francis given the main report? Sources say that during an audience with CDF Prefect Cardinal Ladaria, Pope Francis literally snatched the working copy of the report from his hands, saying he wanted it immediately because he was curious about it. Whether Pope Francis actually read the main report is unknown.” The full article is available via the link provided in footnote 3.

[18] If one searches the Vatican Bulletin Archive selects for the year 2020, and searches for “Ladaria,” a full list of his audiences with Pope Francis will appear. Based on this search, Cardinal Ladaria had audiences with the Holy Father on the following dates: 1/10, 1/23, 4/24, 5/16, 5/28, 6/8, 6/25, 9/10, 10/8, 10/22, 11/6, 11/19, 12/3, and 12/17. Possibly relevant meetings of ancillary interest occurred on 4/24 and 5/16, when Cardinal Ouellet, also a member of the CDF committee, was present. Additionally, it is notable (but not relevant to our discussion) that on 10/22, the same day Cardinal Ladaria had an audience with Pope Francis, the Holy Father also received His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

[20] “. . . Matteo Bruni said July 3 that he is not confirming whether a recent alleged Vatican questionnaire report about the Latin Mass is genuine. . . Catholic News Agency Vatican correspondent Hannah Brockhaus asked Bruni for official confirmation of the authenticity of the texts during a July 3 press conference. . .”The full article is available here.

[21] The full article describing the July 3 press conference can be accessed here.

[24] Here’s a description of the situation in Detroit. Likewise, specific details regarding the Charlotte TLM crackdown may be found at the Register.

[25] To see Archbishop Weisenburger’s disastrous policies, visit Lepanto Institute. He also recently sacked Dr. Ralph Martin, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, and Dr. Edward Peters from the Sacred Heart Seminary.

To: Al Hitan; Fedora; irishjuggler; Jaded; kalee; markomalley; miele man; Mrs. Don-o; ...

Ping

2 posted on 08/18/2025 4:09:23 PM PDT by ebb tide (The Synodal "church" is not the Catholic Church.)

For an autopsy, wouldn’t it have to be dead first? Sadly, it isn’t yet.

3 posted on 08/18/2025 4:12:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway

The bottom line are why are “the powers that be” so threatened by traditionalism? There aren’t even enough traditionalists out there that they should even care about it. So, they must believe it has a powerful message?

4 posted on 08/18/2025 4:15:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[Catholic Caucus] Traditionis Custodes: an Autopsy

The Corpse

The Autopsy

Postmortem Report